GNSO Council meeting.
 June 25, 2008.
 Paris, France.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Good morning.  I believe -- I've been told that we're all set, so we have the scribes can hear us, correct?
 Okay.  And we have the telephone connectivity, correct?  Could somebody confirm that we have the remote connectivity?
 >>OPERATOR:  Correct.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  It's been confirmed.  I saw a hand sign.  Okay.  I'd like to start this meeting.  Good morning to the people that are here.  We'll start the meeting by going around the table and introduce ourselves and talking about our constituencies, et cetera.  Chuck, would you like to start that?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Chuck -- if I can get it out.  Chuck Gomes from the registry constituency.
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Jordi Iparraguirre, gTLD constituency.
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Edmon Chung, gTLD registry constituency.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Carlos Afonso, NCUC constituency.
 >>JON BING:  Jon Bing, NomCom appointee.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Kristina Rosette, IPC.
 >>UTE DECKER:  Ute Decker, IPC.
 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Alan Greenberg, liaison for the ALAC.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Robin Gross, NCUC constituency.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Tim Ruiz, registrars constituency.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Adrian Kinderis, registrars constituency.  And there's some spare seats down the front here, folks if you want.  Don't stand in the doorway.  Come down to the front.  Thank you.
 >>TOM KELLER:  Tom Keller, registrar constituency.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Tony Holmes, ISPCP.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Philip Sheppard with the BC.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Mike Rodenbaugh, business constituency.
 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Olga Cavalli, NomCom appointee.
 >>GREG RUTH:  Greg Ruth, ISPCP.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Avri Doria, NomCom appointee.  Also, I'd like to ask, do we have anyone on the phone?  Yes, I'm having trouble hearing also.  We're hearing echo and it's very fuzzy, but is anybody on the phone?  Pray.
 >>OPERATOR:  There are no other parties on the call.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I see several other hands.  Okay.  No one on the phone.  We're having trouble hearing on the phone.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Avri, just for the record, Tim Ruiz with the registrars constituency.  I think we have two Greg Ruths.  There we go.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  That's funny.  I still didn't understand what you said.
 [Laughter]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  The next thing, yes, I guess we'll have to read the screen if we have trouble hearing.
 Having gone through the roll call, and at some point I'll need to know the count of votes we have, and what majorities and supermajority count is.
 Updated statements of interest.  Does anyone have an updated statement of interest that they need to make?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes, I've sent mine through.  I tried to send it through Sunday morning.  I show it sent then, but apparently nobody got it so I've just sent it through again.  The gist of it really is to just change the fact that I'm not really retained by Yahoo to advise them with respect to ICANN matters, but I am advising a for-profit entity in a venture to apply for a new gTLD when the space opens next year.  I'm also engaged in a second project personally along those lines.  Thanks.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  Quickly, just to -- anyone else have -- before moving on quickly, anyone else have a statement of interest that needs to be updated?
 If -- yes, Chuck.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  In case we have any discussion on single-character names, VeriSign has submitted a registry service proposal in that regard.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, Chuck, and good luck with your voice.
 Okay.  Going through the -- the next thing is the agenda.  We have a fairly full one, so I'll go through it very quickly.
 The first two items have to do with inter-registrar transfer policy PDPs.  There's one on denial definitions, and one on inter-registrar transfer and we'll be calling it Part A and we'll talk a little bit more about what's in Part A.
 You'll notice that on the agenda, basically each of the agenda items, there will be a quick overview, mostly by a member of the policy staff who has been working with us, and maybe a review of the motions that we have in front, and then there will be a certain amount of time at the microphone.
 Some of the times may seem short.  If we have more people at the microphone than the time allows for, we'll go longer.  We were just guessing on how many people would have a particular comment to say, and the best we could do was guess.
 Item 4 is WHOIS study proposals.  There will be an overview.  There is a motion that's being put on the table.  Then we'll have discussion.  Notice we left a lot of time for the discussion on WHOIS.  We haven't had it on our public agenda for a while now.
 Then we have actually scheduled a break.  Hopefully we'll be able to take the break.  If we find that we're running over a lot, then we may not.
 GNSO improvements next steps, we'll have an overview, then a discussion of the next steps, though we haven't had a decision on the improvements yet but we'll move on from there.
 We have initiated a working group -- a PDP working group for Fast Flux and we'll be basically talking about that a little, and electing a chair and appointing a liaison.  We have a motion on that.
 We'll talk somewhat about new issues and then we'll have a fairly long general open discussion period and we may have some things under any other business, and that's about it.
 Is there any comment on the agenda?  Anything need to be changed or added?
 Okay.  I should note that in the agenda -- in the overall agenda, there was another hour scheduled after lunch for GNSO improvements.  I do not believe we'll be using that hour today.  Certainly if everything goes way over, we could see if we needed to use that hour, but I am really hoping that we don't.  We will, though, be breaking at noon whether we've finished or not.  If we have to break at noon unfinished, we do have the ability to come back.  I would prefer not to.
 Okay.  So if there's no problem on the agenda, I'd like to start with the first item, which is inter registrar transfer policy PDP on denial -- denial definitions and -- yes, please.  Olof will give a brief overview on that.  Olof will your overview include the motion that's there or should I go through that after your overview?
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  I think -- I wonder does this work?  Yes.  Thank you, Avri.
 I do not have it included in the slides, so I think it would be better if you --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So I'll do it after.
 Yeah.  They need to switch the slides over from my screen to the podium.  Right.  Can someone switch from...
 Thank you.
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  All right.  Thank you very much.  Well, the ITRP, that's the inter-registrar transfer policy and not -- if anybody believes so -- a new generic top-level domain.  And we have a number of activities going on, and this is the first one, the clarification of denial reasons and a drafting group outcome.  
 A very brief background.  This is an ongoing PDP on clarification of four reasons for denial -- no. 5, 7, 8, and 9 -- in the ITRP.  And the PDP itself has reached the deliberation stage, following a final report produced on the 9th of April, 2008.  And on the 17th of April the council decided that, well, the way to proceed in the first instance would be to launch a drafting group with a specific mandate to draft new clarifying texts for these provisions and to report back to the council in early June.
 The drafting group -- just briefly about it -- started with an e-mail list.  It soon went over to a wiki, which turned out to be a very good instrument, held four conference calls, and of course e-mail exchanges.
 Mike O'Connor, here present, was our eminent chair and made us produce a lot in a very short time.  There were 17 subscribers to the mailing list, plus staff, and five, six, sometimes seven participants, on each call.
 The group did reach agreement on proposed texts for two of the provisions, and let's put it like this:  They suggested ways forward for the two other provisions, although not reaching agreement on the texts.
 And I'll briefly go through them.
 In denial reason 8, starting with the easy ones that we reached agreement on the text, we've got a new wording clarifying what's meant really by the initial registration period.  That it's a matter of the creation date as shown in the registry WHOIS record.  We think that clarifies that one quite a bit.
 On denial reason 9, the quintessential question was rather what's meant by "transferred," and we added a paragraph of that:  "Transferred shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the registrar of record" -- there's a little glitch here; that wording has been corrected -- "has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy."
 So it's not a matter of any other changing of ownership, so...
 So we think that one clarifies it pretty well.
 Denial reason 5, on the other hand, there seemed to be quite a good deal of agreement on what that should accomplish, but it's connected to other provisions in the inter-registrar transfer policy, and it would be advisable from the drafting group's point of view to take a broader view on this and basically to connect it -- to graft it into one of the other proposed PDPs which are underway.
 Alternatively, of course, extend the charter time line and so on to the working group in the current PDP.
 Denial reason 7, rather similar.  That this was -- as well, has close connections to other provisions.  Notably one counts to the lock status of a registrar.  Lock status.  So that one as well, from the drafting group's perspective, a preferred option would be to graft it onto the PDP C as it's called, especially since that addresses registrar lock status from other perspectives.  Or conversely, extend the charter and the scope for this work within the current PDP to the working group.
 In conclusion, we had a dividing line, or rather, the main other option is that we -- council could either decide to finalize the PDP on -- by posting 8 and 9 for public comments or proceed in any other particular way with these two, and include no. 5 and 7 for further consideration in PDP C, which is the preferred option suggested by the drafting group, or pursue the work in the current PDP with the working group on 5 and 7 and then deal with all the 4 denial reasons, once clarified, within this particular PDP.
 So with that introduction, I'll leave it back to you, chair.  Thank you very much for your attention.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, Olof.  Could I have the screen switched again, please?  Could I have the screen switched again, please?
 So at its meeting on the weekend, the council discussed this and a motion was put together, though I don't have a person listed as making this motion yet, or seconding it.  However, the motion that was put in play -- and I'll read that -- is, "Whereas, the inter-registrar transfer policy is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, the PDP regarding clarification of reasons for denial has reached the deliberation stage, following the issue of its final report dated 9 April 2008, and a drafting group was launched by the council on 17 April 2008 to a new -- new provision texts for the four denial reasons addressed, nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 in the IRTP.
 The drafting group delivered a final report dated 4 June 2008 proposing new texts for denial reasons no. 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within the proposed PDP for issue set C as per the council resolution of 8 May 2008, in order to assure consistency with related aspects to be covered by that PDP.  The proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 are drafted as follows.  This was given by Olof.  
 "Denial reason 8, the transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the registry WHOIS record for the domain name.  Denial reason 9, a domain name is within 60 days or a lesser period to be determined after being transferred, apart from being transferred back to the original registrar in cases where both registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs.  Transferred shall only mean that an inter-registrar transfer, meaning transfer to the registrar of record, has occurred in accordance with the procedures of this policy.  The GNSO Council resolves to consider denial reasons 5 and 7 within the context of the foreseen PDP for issue set C, while withdrawing them from the current PDP on clarification of reasons for denial.  To request that ICANN staff Web post the proposed new texts for denial reasons 8 and 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to council with a summary of the comments received, for the council's consideration and decisions as to recommending a change of these IRTP provisions in line with the proposed texts."
 So at this point, I'd like to open up the microphone, both to the floor and to the members of the council for discussion, with an intent to taking a vote on this motion, if I have people who move and second this motion.  And I guess since I don't see anybody at the microphone yet, do I have someone that wishes to -- okay.  Chuck, you move it?  Thank you.  I'll try to speak for you whenever I can.  Thank you for the nod.
 And do I have a second?  Tim seconds.  Thank you.
 So do I have anybody that wishes to comment on this before we make a decision?  Okay.  I've been told to slow down.  Thank you.
 Do we have anybody that would like to speak on this motion before the council takes a vote on it?
 I see no one.
 Do I have anyone in the council that would like to comment on this further before we take a vote on it?
 Okay.  I don't believe that this requires a roll call vote.  Does anybody in the council feel that this should be by roll call vote?
 In which case, I'd like to ask for a voice vote.  All those in favor please say aye.
 [Affirmative responses]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  All those opposed, please say nay.
 [No response]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Here no nays.
 Does anyone abstain from this?
 [No response]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  In which case -- and we still don't have anyone on the phone, correct?  That is correct?
 Okay.  Thank you.  So this passes unanimously by a voice vote.
 Okay.  Thank you.  We'll move on to the second item on the agenda, which is the inter-registrar transfer policy PDP -- sorry.  Inter-registrar transfer policy issues report on Part A, decision on PDP.  Olof?  Thank you.  Do you need the screen or --
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  Please switch.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  Please switch to the podium.
 Thank you.  Well, this is one of the five issue sets that has been considered for PDPs by the GNSO Council, and the first one named issue set A or new ITRP issues was the one that was selected for a request for an issues report from staff, and it covers three aspects, which then should registrant e-mail address data be available made available between registrars.  And I'll give you the background about it in a bit.
 Is there a need for other options than currently available for electronic authentication, and should provisions for partial bulk transfers be introduced.
 Staff delivered an issues report on this set A on the 23rd of May, and in short, confirms -- which is one of the roles of an issues report -- confirms that a GNSO PDP on these issues would be in scope, and also recommends that such a PDP be launched.
 Briefly about the particular issues, first availability of registrant e-mail address data between registrars, why is that useful or would be useful?
 Well, the background is, of course, as many of you are well aware, that a registrant approval, as well as admin contact approval are both recognized as valid grounds for transfer, but the registrant can overrule the admin contact if there are differing views or different messages sent to the registrar.
 Now, this -- the registrant e-mail address, however, is not a required field in WHOIS, in contrast to the admin contact.  So there's currently no way of really automating a transfer approval by the registrant and this complicates the approval process for the registrant.
 Now, there would -- of course could be considered a change of the WHOIS requirements, but that -- from the sheer perspective of addressing the inter-registrar transfer policy would be out of scope, so that has the availability of registrant e-mail addresses between registrars would have to be considered through other means of keeping that information, as well as maintaining and certainly exchanging such information.
 But other means also mean that procedural and administrative and security aspects would need attention.
 Options for electronic authentication, then, what's that all about.  You have for a transfer, the gaining registrar should obtain a form of FOA, as it's called, form of authorization, from the registrant or the admin contact, and the question that was brought up by the transfer working group at the time was is a security token for that form of authorization needed to prevent spoofing?
 This was, in fact, considered a bit by the original transfers task force that produced the drafting that eventually materialized as the inter-registrar transfer policy, and they mentioned in their report electronic signatures.  First instance in line with the U.S. e-sign act.  And current views of it didn't become a requirement in the transfer policy, and the current uses digital signatures for transfers is -- well, basically it's unknown.  We don't have any statistics on it.
 It should be mentioned as well that the SSAC in their hijacking report from 2005, they recommended in General strengthening of identity verification for electronic communications.
 Now, it has to be mentioned, also, that potentially a mitigating factor is that EPP has been widely deployed since that time by most, so they -- there is this authinfo code which may have had an impact on the security concerns that this issue reflects.  Now, we looked a bit on the ccTLD side, there are, indeed, some ccTLDs that do use electronic authentication for transfers.  There are probably more than Nominet.UK and IIS.SC, which have a PDP -- pretty good privacy -- approach or SE with a certificate-based interface.  There are probably more than that, but at least we know that there are examples out there on how to solve it.
 Thirdly, partial bulk transfers.  There are provisions already for total bulk transfers in the transfers policy, meaning transfer of all domain names held by one registrar to another, and this is a rather special case.  It doesn't happen very often in practice, but it does happen, and there are provisions for that, but partial bulk transfers, just a subset of one registrar's domain names or held by one registrar to another, is not covered, and there may be multiple reasons or rationales for doing such partial bulk transfers.
 For example, agreements between individual registrars, one perhaps discontinuing acting as a registrar for one particular registry.  Well, that would be a partial bulk transfer.  Or registrant merger and acquisition activity.  One registrant with a big portfolio being taken over by another registrant that would rather like to move his portfolio to the same registrar that is using -- has been used so far.
 Well, there are no provisions today for partial bulk transfers in the policy.  From the registrant initiated bulk transfer or mass transfers, the registrants may accept, on sort of a voluntary basis, faxed lists and such of domains to transfer, but the formal requirements, they remain per individual domain, so there is, in any case, a swath of e-mails for verification that are being sent.
 There are also registrant approval aspects that should be considered.  In particular, when you have a total bulk transfer -- well, for example, when a registrar goes out of business, well, there's not very much of a choice.  It has to be taken care of.  One way or another.
 But when it comes to partial bulk transfer, there is also the question that arises would there be a need for a registrant approval in such cases.
 Also here, a quick look to the ccTLD world, it shows that Nominet.UK registry, they have provisions for both mass transfers between -- or from -- at a registrant level and PDP signed bulk transfer at a registrar level.
 As said initially, a PDP on these issues from the bylaws perspective is clearly within the scope of the GNSO and ICANN and the PDP, and it is also recommended.
 As I've touched upon, there are clearly some areas where additional information could be useful.  For example, regarding current use in practice of voluntary solutions to address these three issues, and also the approaches used by ccTLDs which have just been touched upon briefly.
 So suggested topics for your discussion and consideration, dear councillors, is to what extent is additional information deemed essential, and if so, should it be collected as a separate step or within the PDP to be launched.  And of course whether to launch the PDP at all.
 Thank you for your attention.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, Olof.
 Can I have the screen switched again, please?
 The next thing that I'll do is read the motions that are being put on the table on this at the moment.  You switched it back to where it was.  Could you please switch the screens?  You don't have a signal from me at the moment?
 Okay.  While I'm dealing with getting that up on the screen, I will read it.  And this was a motion that I have written and put myself down in the -- making the motion.  It still needs a second.  "Whereas, the inter-registrar transfer policy is an existing consensus policy" -- no, this -- yes.  And there's three motions here.
 "Whereas, the inter-registrar transfer policy is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, the GNSO transfers working group identified a number of issues in its review of the current policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A through E, as per the council's resolution of 8 May 2008.  An issues report, GNSO issues report inter-registrar transfer policy:  Set A, new IRTP issues, was issued on 23rd May 2008.
 The issues report recommends that the GNSO Council -- the issue reports recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the general counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.  Resolved:  The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in inter-registrar transfer policy issues report on Part A."  This motion would take a one-third threshold to be approved.
 Then after that, there's two contingent motions.  One, "whereas, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a PDP on inter-registrar transfer policy issues report-PA, resolved, that a task force be created according to the bylaws rules for commencement of the PDP."  As the bylaws recommend vote -- require voting on a task force, yes or no, following the establishment of a PDP.
 And then Motion C, contingent on Motion B failing, should it fail and we not form a task force, "Whereas, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a PDP on inter-registrar transfer policy issues and whereas, the council has decided against initiating a task force as defined by the bylaws, the GNSO Council resolves to form a working group of interested stakeholders and constituency representatives to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to develop potential policy options to address the -- these issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work.  The working group will also be open to invited experts and to members of the ICANN advisory committee, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.  That a charter will be drafted for this working group in 14 days and that this charter will contain the required work items, milestones -- especially those related to bylaws mandated constituency reviews and public comment periods -- and guidelines for working group procedures.  This charter will be discussed and decided upon at the next GNSO Council meeting following the release of the charter."
 So there's several steps that we have to go through there.
 At this point, I'd like to open the floor and to -- and -- to the council comments on this while I try to get my laptop back connected.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  It's Mike Rodenbaugh.  I just would urge us to consider going with A and C, rather than the task force, so that we maintain a little more flexibility with the working group model that we're all striving to develop.  Thanks.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Do I have any other comments?  At this point, does anyone wish to comment from the floor on establishing this PDP or -- also, do I have -- I have listed myself as the person making the motion.  Do I have a second on this motion?
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Second.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Jordi.
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  I second that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you, Jordi.  So do I have any other comments before we take a vote on this?
 Okay.  If I don't, I'll need to do a roll call vote on this, since this is a bylaws mandated vote.  We need to be able to record the number of votes.  Could I also know how many votes do we have and what the one-third level is, please?
 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  We have 25 votes, Avri, and the one-third level is 9.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  9.  Okay.  Thank you.
 Could you do the roll call on this, please?
 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Certainly.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Yes.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes.
 >>BILAL BEIRAM:  Support.
 >>UTE DECKER:  Yes.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yes.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Yes.
 >>TONY HARRIS:  Yes.
 >>GREG RUTH:  Yes.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Yes.
 >>CARLOS AFONSO:  Yes.
 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Norbert Klein is absent, with excuse, so is Cyril Chua from the APC.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yes.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yes.
 >>TOM KELLER:  Yes.
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Yes.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Yes.
 >>JON BING:  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.
 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yes.
 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  25 votes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  And it's not nice to laugh at people that are having voice problems.  Thank you very much.  So that one -- the PDP has been established.  Motion B, which I'm making -- and it still needs a second, even if no one is really in favor of the motion, so do I have a second for the establishing of a task force as a required motion that we need to take a vote on?  Thank you, Chuck.  And I won't ask you to speak.
 So does anyone wish to discuss Motion B before we take a vote on establishing a bylaws mandated task force?
 No.  And unfortunately, I need to ask for a roll call vote on this one again by the bylaws.  This one is a majority vote.  Yes?
 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Majority.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Go ahead, Jordi.
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  We would propose to reject the task force in order to have a more open working group.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Would anyone else like to speak before we take a vote?  Okay.  Please do a roll-call vote again, thank you.
 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:  Philip Sheppard?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  No.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  No.
 >>BILAL BEIRAM:  No.
 >>UTE DECKER:  No.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  No.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  No.
 >>TONY HARRIS:  No.
 >>GREG RUTH:  No.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  No.
 >>CARLOS DeSOUZA:  No.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  No.
 >>THOMAS KELLER:  No.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  No.
 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  No.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  (No verbal response.)
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Chuck Gomes says no.
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  No.
 >>JON BING:  No.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  No.
 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  No.
 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:  25 no, 25 against, 25 votes against.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  The next motion is one that is not required.  It means that by default we've gone -- the previous vote means that by default we have gone into committee of the whole.  As committee of the whole, how do we handle this?  And the motion on the table is that we establish a PDP working group as set out in this motion with a charter to follow.  
 I've made the motion.  Does anybody second this motion?  Okay, thank you, Tim seconds the motion.
 Is there any discussion on this motion at the moment from the floor?  From the council?
 Seeing no discussion, I'll ask for a voice vote on this one unless there is some objection to a voice vote and someone would like to do another roll-call.  No?  I see no one asking for a roll-call.  So I'll call for a voice vote.
 All those in favor of Motion C on establishing a PDP working group for inter-registrar policies issues report part A, please say aye.
 [Chorus of Ayes.]
 All those opposed please say nay.
 [No verbal response.]
 Are there any abstentions?  In which case, thank you, we will form that.  I will be working on putting together a charter.  Anyone who's interested in working on that charter with me please let me know and we'll work together on putting together that charter and I'll have it done within the next two weeks.  Thank you.  Okay.  Moving on to the next item on the agenda, which I expect will have a little bit more conversation.  WHOIS study proposals.  So, Liz, thank you.  And could you switch the screens again, please.  Could you please switch the screens again, thank you.
 Thank you.
 >>LIZ GASSTER:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Liz Gasster.  I'm going to do a quick overview of recent work on WHOIS studies.  
 And trying to get my computer working again.  There we go.
 Back in October of last year, the council decided that an objective and factual analysis of key facts about WHOIS would benefit future public policy development work and initiated steps to determine what studies should be done.  We invited the public to comment and received in February about 25 different study suggestions.  These study suggestions were analyzed by the staff and categorized into groups, and I've listed the groups there on the screen.
 There are seven logical categories that these different studies fell into:  WHOIS misuse, compliance with data protection laws and the registrar accreditation agreement, the availability of privacy services, the demand and motivation for use of privacy services, the impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse, proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests, and WHOIS data accuracy.
 On the 27th of March, the council decided to form a small group to take a look at what studies from these recommendations ought to be conducted, if any.  About 16 individuals participated in that -- developing that recommendation.  During the time that effort was going on, we received a very detailed recommendation also from the Government Advisory Committee back on the 16th of April.
 And those study recommendations were integrated into the previous summary and analysis that staff had done, and those GAC recommendations were also categorized into the seven different categories, actually ended up being eight with a couple of additional studies that the GAC recommended.
 Basically, this group discussed at length what study -- whether studies should be conducted at all and, if so, what studies.  And while the group did agree that studies should only be performed if the resulting information advanced public policy goals but really disagreed about whether, in fact, studies should be conducted at this time.  So if you have read or looked at the report of the study group that was produced on the 22nd of May, you'll see these two perspectives articulated as viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 2.  So the council, basically, today is responding to that report.  And in the last two slide, what I would like to do is just quickly run through the positions in viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 2.
 First of all, in viewpoint 1, there was a substantial number of participants in the study group that felt that no studies should be done at this time and their reasoning was essentially there was no consensus on the majority of issues related to WHOIS; that there was no consensus that privacy must be protected as a fundamental right; and even well-engineered studies with very strong conclusions would not break the existing logjam that exists in terms of proceeding on WHOIS policy.
 But if the GNSO Council did conclude that further studies were worthwhile, then those studies should be kept quite narrow, completed within a reasonable time frame and scoped for overall feasibility and practicality.
 Viewpoint 2 really took an opposite approach and did very much support WHOIS studies based on input from the Government Advisory Committee and the study suggestions that had been submitted.  They recommended that initial studies be conducted in three categories or three of those areas.  The first being the availability of privacy services, the second being the demand and motivation for use of those privacy services and also one particular study related to misuse of WHOIS and Port 43 access.
 This group emphasized that the GAC placed a lot of emphasis on proxy or privacy services in the recommendations that the GAC put forward and, basically, supported the notion that knowing more facts about the availability and takeup and operation of these services would aid future policy development.  So I'll conclude there.  
 Avri, I did not prepare anything specific on the resolutions so I will turn it over to you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 >>LIZ GASSTER:  Just real quick, this is a list of the study group participants just for the record.  Thanks.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Could you switch screens again?  Thank you.
 Okay, so we have a motion.  The motion was made or, I guess, put together by a group working with Chuck.  I don't assume Chuck wants to read it.  I don't know if there was anyone else, though, that was in the group with Chuck that would like to take the responsibility for reading it as opposed to my reading all the motions.  No?  In which case, I guess, I'll read it before I open the floor.  Really, it is nice to have people that work on motions to read them, not just me all the time, especially since sometimes I read too fast.
 Whereas, on 27 March -- let me read it from the paper.
 On 27 March, 2007 the council resolved to form a group of volunteers to review and discuss the report on public suggestions on further studies of WHOIS; develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the council and deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale no later than 24 April, 2008.
 On 16 April, the Government Advisory Committee submitted to the ICANN board recommendations for future studies of WHOIS.  On 22 May, the group of volunteers submitted a report to the council offering two opposing viewpoints on whether studies of WHOIS should be conducted.
 There was not agreement in the WHOIS studies volunteer group regarding whether or not any studies should be conducted.
 Before finalizing a decision regarding whether any studies should be conducted, it should be useful to, one, understand the full set of hypotheses to be tested; two, determine which of these hypotheses, if tested, might provide useful direction with regard to WHOIS policy, and, three, to -- three, to ensure -- sorry -- to ensure that the collection of hypotheses adequately cover alternative viewpoints with regard to WHOIS policy.
 Resolved:  To reconvene another group of volunteers which may include members of the earlier group and/or new volunteers to, two, one review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and by the GAC and prepare a concise list of hypotheses to be tested, derived from the study recommendations and suggested benefits; two, deliver a report containing the above with any supporting rationale to the council by a date yet to be established, three, the council may then decide whether any potential studied should be further considered and, if so, identify the hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing.
 At this point, I'd like to open the floor and the council microphones to this, and also anyone that is in favor of this motion should also recommend dates that would replace the XX-YY.  Thank you.  Remember, at the microphone to start by saying your name.  Amadeu.
 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  My name, Amadeu Abril i Abril, Internet user, I guess, and someone cannot follow by medical prescription WHOIS discussions for a long time now.
 I hope you know how ridiculous you are looking to the wall by discussing this study.  You know, when I was in Brussels, one of the funny things when you're -- each year and half was that DG6 agricultural director general was organizing a symposium on what was a farmer.  It was both important and ridiculous.  
 It was important because as the world is changing you need to know whether full-time farmers or part-time, or they have agricultural tourism in their farms.  This is still a part of the [inaudible] or whatever.
 The ridiculous part is this was only a way of spending money having some experts, having some nice meals and, most especially, avoiding the real question of what subsidies should be paid to what and why.
 So why don't you include what's the internet?  What's the user?  What is an Internet user?  And what is the average length of a the admin contact e-mail address and the level of accuracy of the postal code of the billing address?  That will be exactly as relevant as any of the other questions.  It is important.  We should know how WHOIS users are evolving.  We should know what are the problems.
 But we know the real question, the real question is the WHOIS is not what it was and it is used in many other ways.  There are some legitimate interests in both having access and having personal data published.
 So things will change no matter what you do.  Why don't you declare that there is a structural draw and engineer its failure in any task force or working group you start and you either send the ball to the board saying this or you organize a dueling campaign with swords or Windows laptops or whatever between any of you.  The result will be probably the same.
 Don't pretend that this has any use except maintaining the fiction that we are doing something with WHOIS.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I actually have a question for Amadeu, if I could.  And, I guess, here's my question for you.  Given your view, how would you recommend that the council respond or address or acknowledge the requests from the GAC to the board?
 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:  My suggestion is that we -- we decide that Carnival was over three months ago, and we decide what are the questions we want to decide here.  I mean, this is a request for keeping the ball rolling.  I guess discussing the important things, I repeat, it is both important and ridiculous.  It is important because we need to know the questions we should be asking.  It is ridiculous because these questions have nothing to do with the real problem; that the GNSO Council should be dealing with is, can we find a solution for access and probably excessive publication to the wall of some personal data which are the two issues.  All the rest -- finding a more sexy name for Port 43 would also be useful, right?  
 But these are the real questions.  They say, "We have the study" but, on the other hand, we have some pressing issues.
 Or unless you should answer saying, "That is very useful, but in the meantime, we have complete access to completely false data" because nobody in his mind would give -- not me.  If you want, all my domains have false telephone data.  I won't give my personal telephone just because the FBI wants to find one phisher one day.  It is legitimate, but I won't publish my personal telephone number.  That's all.
 These are the things you should address.  All the rest is okay.  Your obligation is finding a policy solution.  If you cannot declare it, we can find a solution.  There is a structural draw, full stop.  Don't pretend this is part of the solution.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Tim.  I had Tim first.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  I'm willing to switch with Adrian.  I think he had a question for Amadeu.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Amadeu, thank you for your response.  I don't think you answered the question.  I think it is very easy to throw fruit, sometimes rotten, at the council.  You're given an opportunity to provide your opinion as to directing us and I'm not sure we got it.  We got a long-winded response.  If someone else would like to step up to the microphone and ask what would you have us do -- and answer what would you have us do, I think we would appreciate it.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Tim, did you want to comment?
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Two things.  First, just the question about -- from Kristina about the GAC, I think we all heard clearly the other day that it sounds like regardless of what the council is going to do, the GAC intends to go direct to the board with their request for reports.
 The other thing I want to make clear -- and if I'm wrong, please correct me, but that voting in favor of this particular motion does not indicate any support for further studies being done, only that a final piece of the work to do in order to make that decision by the council, correct?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Two things.  Not only is the GAC request to the board, it has always been to the board and they did ask the courtesy of sending it to us as well.  But the request has always been to the board.
 In terms of as I understand this, and hopefully the people that worked on the resolution, it was to propose studies so that we wouldn't end up necessarily with a viewpoint that said no studies.  It was to do our best at crafting studies and then the council could indeed vote no studies having seen the best effort at defining "studies."  Do I understand it correctly?
 In other words, we understand that there's many people that think we shouldn't.  But even in the opinion of those that said we shouldn't, there was "but if we do them, then we should do them in a balanced and whatever way."  So, basically, this takes it back and what might assumption would be that we would receive would be a set of studies and one of the options could be not to do any of the proposed studies.  And then if that won, that would be over.  Or we would approve one of the going forward with more detailed proposals on how to do that study.  That's my understanding of this motion.
 I see Chuck wanting to speak.  I see Mike wanting to speak.  Would you like to wait, Chuck, and hopefully someone else will sort of say it is what you would have wanted to say.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I think I will speak for Chuck on this one.  Chuck, Tim, myself and Liz Gasster prepared this motion.  And that essentially was our intent, not to bind the council in any way but to essentially give the three constituency groups a second chance to go back and do, at least what I thought we asked them to do last time, which was tell us what studies you would have not whether we should do studies or not.  I feel like we argued and debated that before and decided we were going to do some studies -- or we were going to at least look at studies to be done.  That's where we're at now.  Unfortunately there's been, you know, yet another month, two, three -- I'm not sure what it is now -- of delay because that was ignored.
 But we're willing to give, you know, a second chance to go back and now I'm pretty sure I am not speaking just for Chuck actually, I've gone a little beyond where we agreed.  That was the intent of the motion was not to bind council but, in fact, to have balanced hypotheses to be costed out.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I'd like to go back to the microphone.
 >>STEVE DelBIANCO:  Thanks, Avri.  It is Steve Delbianco with NetChoice coalition.  I am a member of the business constituency and have been a member of the last two working groups on WHOIS, including this one and was the one who authored four of the studies that were actually submitted using the format -- the rigorous format that you guys prescribed.
 Amadeu was speaking of looking foolish or ridiculous.  I believe we would just be -- just as foolish and ridiculous if we pretended that the whole world stands still while it waits for ICANN to develop policy because that's not what happened.
 With his own example, there are people that just lie about their identity, violation of the terms of use of a domain name.  And there is plenty of compliance auditing going on for that.
 But, secondarily, a large chunk of the world has learned it can protect its privacy if it avails themselves of proxy registration or privacy services when it registers a domain name.  That is exactly the part of the study that viewpoint Number 2 is trying to emphasize, is to closely examine the use and abuses of proxy registration.  It is happening right now and today because that will have implications -- serious, concrete implications for policy we would develop.
 And that would include an examination of whether the proxy services are revealing the underlying registrant's information when they're presented with evidence of actionable harm on that Web site property.  And that is a requirement under the RAA today.  It has not been audited.  It has not been tested in any way.  We have a high degree of confidence that it's not being honored by proxy services.
 With respect to the GAC's standing, Kristina is right.  The GAC has strongly worded their letter and I believe worked on a communique yesterday indicating that it wants the board to closely examine these questions.  Think about this, there were 11 points in the GAC's letter to the board about further studies of WHOIS.  Six of the 11 are all about proxy registration and the notion that bad actors can actually shield themselves through the use of a proxy service that was developed.
 Now, I am in favor of proxy services and talked about that in Los Angeles at the meeting where we decided not to proceed with OPoC but to do further studies.  I do believe it is a market response to a genuine desire by individuals to legitimately shield their identity.  But that is only up to the point where someone shows evidence that their Web site is the origin of actionable harm.  That's when the proxy has to reveal the true identity of the registrant.
 As to the motion in front of you, Avri, you explained your interpretation was one of the options was that this new working group could still come back and say there is an option to do none.  There is an option to do none.
 And I think Mike tried to clarify that wasn't how they had drafted the motion because we don't want to allow this motion -- this working group to turn into another that's blocked.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  If I can clarify, I was not saying that the working group -- or the team could come back saying none; it was that the council could, on looking at the list of proposed studies, at that point the council is not forced to pick a study.  The council could -- and I know that would not be a popular opinion with many people, but the council could still vote against doing studies at that point, not that the working group will suggest not doing them.  The working group, as I understand it, will do its best to craft a study that is balanced and covers the -- both sides of the chasm in terms of hypotheses, so that the hypothesis will cover everything but the council has not bound itself to say, "Yes, we will go forward with that study."  It will consider that study and it could still vote against it.
 >>STEVE DelBIANCO:  I appreciate that clarification.  And, yet, with those terms of reference being handed to this all-volunteer Army, this working group that would be enlisted, I still don't have confidence that it will actually draw out the preferences of those who had said no studies, no studies, no studies.  Have been fairly strident about that through all the working groups that have been on WHOIS.
 Earlier in the working group, there were some preferences indicated by members of the working group, Tim included.  And then those preferences were pulled back when it became clear that it was okay for our working group to either say no studies or some studies.  Maybe those preferences will come back to the surface in the new working group.  I hope that's the case.  And it was generally a pretty good spirit of working together at least in the first several meetings of the working groups.
 I will just close by saying I am not anxious to serve on the working group, but I will do so if my members volunteer me.  I actually would suggest an alternative motion.  I can't make it, I am not on council.  I would prefer you just adopt viewpoint 2 and get on with it because viewpoint 2 is about the studies that we would proceed with.  If we must do another working group, then we'll answer the call.  Thank you.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Avri, I'd like to --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So Tim.  So Chuck, you're in the list still, though.  Okay.  So Tim -- okay.  So I have Tim, I have Philip, I have Kristina.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Just to clarify, yes, I was in the working group.  I never at any time supported doing further studies.  And so we're back to trying to clarify this motion, if we're at that point and can I present --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Certainly.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Because it seems like a number of different ideas have been thrown around and I want to make sure before I vote.  First, there's no intention on my part of this -- that this would result in nothing coming back to the council.  That was not my intent at all.  I don't think that's the intent of our constituency.
 But I want to clarify that what it's asking for is for this group to understand the hypotheses, determine which -- if tested -- might provide useful direction, and to ensure that they adequately cover alternative viewpoints.
 So again, in my understanding, there's no indication that anyone voting in favor of this motion is saying studies should be done or that there will be necessarily a finding, hypotheses that should be tested.  That is obviously the assumption.  But I think it's important to understand that, going into this vote, so that we don't, you know, misunderstand that there's some pre-assumption that studies will be done and this is the first step for that to occur.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  I think that's what the third bullet there does say.
 Philip?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Let's be clear on this, if I can use a metaphor for a moment.
 On certain policy issues, the GNSO Council is condemned to Hades, and in this particular instance, I think, the boulder that we are condemned to continue our lives rolling uphill is the boulder that is named WHOIS.  Sometimes it inches its way uphill slowly.  Most of the time it rolls back down and crushes one or two of us in its relentless path.
 [Speaker is off microphone]
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Exactly.  We, I think, are about halfway up the hill again.  Some are pushing desperately.  Some are crushed and screaming.  We heard Avri screaming.  Avri.  We heard Amadeu screaming earlier.  We've heard the GAC screaming to say they're rather fed up of being in this particular part of Greek mythology and they're trying to do something different and fly over the top, which strikes me as quite a positive move, and it was very interesting to hear their degree of passion and their degree of irritation with council's inability to take a decision here.
 The motion before us is another few inches up the hill.  Without it, I don't think council's going to do much.  I think it's a pretty rotten motion.  I think it doesn't help terribly much.  It delays things.  But the alternative to me, strikes us as going further downhill.  This allows us to continue inching slightly further up, which means that I will probably be voting in favor of it, but I think that's probably where we are.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  And when you refer to me screaming, it was the silent scream that you were seeing.
 [Laughter]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Kristina?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I have a number of concerns here.  The first is that you had a group of volunteers who worked very hard, and at this point, given that it appears that the council will be moving to a working group model for all of its policy development, I have some significant concerns about the message that we're sending to people who may be interested in participating in those groups if they spend the time and energy and the time being unpaid of course to do so, only to come -- have council say, "Do it again."
 And I think we need to make absolutely sure that we are crystal clear in the direction that we are providing to that group, because we cannot do this again.  We cannot come back -- if this motion is passed and if this volunteer group comes back and have to do it again.  Because at this point, I think we really would be condemning ourselves to a future of policy development where we've made it clear that we ourselves are incapable of implementing the model, and that, I find very troubling.
 As to this very specific motion, I have a couple of questions, and I think for the drafters because I want to make sure that I understand, and to see whether we may need some additional tinkering here to provide greater clarity.
 The first of which is that I believe we need to make very clear in the actual motion, in the resolution portion, that coming back to us and saying, "Well, we looked at your second point about determining which of these hypotheses if tested might provide useful direction with regard to WHOIS policy and frankly we don't think any of them are useful so we don't think there's ever going to be any progress so we didn't do it," that should not be an option.
 Second, as I think was pointed out on Saturday during our discussion by someone, the GAC's study recommendations didn't follow our model.  We had no reason to expect them to.  But the problem that I am concerned about is that if we are focusing the future work on the development of hypotheses, where we have an excellent head start in doing so from the study recommendations that were submitted to us through the public comment period, I think it would be helpful for me to understand from the drafters' perspective how they expect to do that with regard to the GAC recommendations because I also don't want to have the group come back and say, "Well, we couldn't really figure out what the hypothesis should be so we're just going to ignore it."
 I personally believe that notwithstanding the fact -- and perhaps consistent with the fact -- that it was a communication to the board, it is the Governmental Advisory Committee to the board.  Not to the GNSO Council.
 That doesn't mean that we can ignore them, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't act on it, and it was very clear to me, at least, in the GAC board meeting yesterday that the board is waiting to see what we will do before moving ahead on any studies, with the hope -- at least it was implied, my interpretation -- that the final study recommendations, the final study activity coming out of this council would cover perhaps a great majority of the GAC recommendations and then there would only be some few additional studies that would need to be done independently.
 So I want to make absolutely sure that we are setting ourselves up for success here, and not failure, and I do have some concern about that with regard to the GAC recommendations.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I've got Tony, Alan, Mike and then Tim.  Okay.  And I have Chuck also.  Chuck for Chuck's self, and Robin.  Go ahead, Tony.
 >>TONY HARRIS:  As a long-standing veteran of the WHOIS wars -- I think we can call them that -- since 2001, I just want to express my admiration for this GAC Document.  I think it's brilliant.  And I'd sure like to be the consulting company that gets this contract.  Because there's an awful lot of work to be done there.  And I think really, if you ponder it a little, it contains probably the history of what all the discussions on WHOIS that ever went on in ICANN, and outside of ICANN.  It's really a big challenge.  But a very good document.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Alan?
 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Just quickly, I strongly support everything Philip said, and I think as per Amadeu's intervention, we are doing a very good job at starting to look awful silly and we need to get going and do something and do something quick.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Mike?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Okay.  And just in response to Kristina's concerns, it's very valid.  You know, we did commission this working group.  We asked them to do something.  Half of them did it, half of them didn't, and the half that did fortunately is not going to have to redo the work that it did before, so rest assured that that at least is the case.  We're really just looking for the people who refused -- essentially refused the request to go ahead and please fulfill the request this time.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  The way I read this motion, it doesn't leave open that -- the possibility.  I mean, okay, I have Tim, Chuck and Robin.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  I believe, you know, now and even after the reforms that are being contemplated for the GNSO, that the intent is that this still remains a bottom-up consensus-building process, so the fact that half -- as it's been characterized -- refused to fulfill the request in the last working group I think is -- it's kind of an unfortunate characterization, because their views are important.  Those half that didn't feel studies should be done, those views should be considered with the same weight as the views of those who considered that there should.
 So given the expressions of understanding about this particular motion, perhaps this motion should only be directed towards those who feel studies should be done.  If this isn't just we're going to put together the hypotheses, we're going to look at those that may be able to deliver data that could be of some use in this discussion, and if we're going to do that with the pre-assumption that there definitely are hypotheses that could produce useful data, then I think it's only those who are in favor of new studies should be involved in it.
 But my other question is:  Then if we have all those pre-assumptions, what do we need a working team for anyway?
 But it's disappointing that whether we have any consensus or not on a topic, we're going to figure out a way and we're going to find a channel to push it through anyhow so that something comes out of the GNSO, and I don't think that's what is intended.  I don't think that's why we were put together in the bylaws of ICANN.  I don't think that's what the community expects.  And hopefully, the reforms that we're contemplating coming up here will help to straighten some of that out.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I will try.  First of all, I think that we're reading more into this motion than it says.  All it asks is for this group to just go a little step further and make a very concise, clear list of the hypotheses to be tested.
 When I looked at this list, in some cases it's very clear what hypotheses would be tested.  It makes it very easy to make a decision on that, to see if it has value.
 In other cases, because I actually made an attempt at this exercise, I sent it to the council list, and they were one-liners in every case.  In some cases, it was much more difficult to state the hypothesis than in others.  All this motion is asking this group to do -- and I personally think it's a very short group, maybe one meeting, maybe two meetings -- to make sure we're clear on all the hypotheses without any value judgment on the hypotheses.
 This motion does not ask this group to come back with recommendations or priorities.  It asks them simply to have a clear list of what hypotheses are being -- would be tested if we decide to move forward, so that the council then has this list and the council determines which ones would have value, and the council then decides whether to proceed and which ones to ask for cost estimates.  That's all it is asking this group to do.
 Again, maybe it's my problem, but I've found in some cases the hypotheses were not clear, and so if I'm going to make a decision on which ones can add value, I need to make sure -- and I think that's better done by a small group and I disagree with Tim in this regard.  I do believe that it needs to involve both people from both sides, or more sides if there are more, so that we make sure that we've properly defined, in very brief and clear form, what we would be testing.  Then the council takes it from there.
 Again, let's not make more out of it than it is.  It should be very brief, and we should be able to do this by our next council meeting.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I wanted to ask for one clarification before I continue, Robin.  You're the first person that answered one of the questions -- or almost one of the questions I had asked -- which is what we would substitute by XX-YY with.
 Now, when I first heard you talking I was saying "within six weeks."  Now then at the very end, you shortened it by "our next meeting" which could also mean within -- they'd have to produce it within two weeks.  We haven't scheduled our next meeting yet, but it could be three -- maximum four -- weeks away.
 So were you suggesting -- and it would have to be done at least a week before the meeting.  So were you suggesting within two weeks, or could I, while we're talking here, change this to "within six weeks"?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I would prefer that it's not six weeks.  I forgot about the fact that we may have a very quick meeting.  Avri, I think it really depends on how quickly we can get the people together.  
 Let me throw this out as one thing to facilitate this happening quickly and obviously it's dependent on council support.  I'm willing myself to lead this group and, you know, other than -- you know, I can't do much this week or next, but after that I could -- I'd be glad to try and arrange a group, as long as we're clear that all we're doing is making sure we've captured the hypotheses.
 Now, Kristina made a very good point.  In some cases, I could not determine a hypothesis for the GAC -- some of the GAC things, so it probably would be helpful to go back to them, and if we can get a quick response, maybe they can help us define a hypothesis, but outside six weeks, I'd really like to do it sooner, if we can.  In other words, get the people together.  The GAC issue makes it a little bit more difficult in timing because we'll need -- we'll be dependent on a response.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  I would recommend -- and I have Robin next, but I just wanted to get something in here.
 In the for the moment, I've put six weeks but at least now we have a target we can talk about.
 So I have Robin, Tim and Ute.  And then I'll have microphone.  Okay.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Thank you.  NCUC supported viewpoint 1 on this.  We want more than studies with respect to WHOIS reform.  The Internet community deserves action to protect the privacy rights of Internet users and the status quo is simply unacceptable.  ICANN cannot continue to flout international law, and expect to be considered a legitimate global policy-making body.
 Delay on action to conform with legal privacy protections and due process rights has gone on long enough and it is NCUC's position that action should not wait for the outcome of any studies.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Tim.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  If -- I appreciate Chuck's clarification, and if that is the case and the understanding, that was what my original understanding was as well, and supporting this motion would be much easier.  But I -- it just seems that there -- I'm not sure that there's agreement that what Chuck explained is understood by everyone here on the council.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Ute?
 >>UTE DECKER:  Like Kristina, I have a problem supporting the motion as drafted.  I take it from the discussion that we have listened to that it was actually the intention to move forward and to move forward quite quickly, but I think we have to make some drafting changes to the resolutions section of the motion in order to clarify that.  Because it has to reflect -- I don't know whether we are able to do that now or today.  One way forward, for example, would be to simply change the third section of the resolutions section, and to turn "whether" into "which," in the first line, and to delete "and if so" in the second line.
 Then I think there was a drafting problem with the very end of this third bullet.  Or maybe that is just because I am not a native speaker but I don't understand how the direction to staff is connecting to this.
 Anyway, I think that will be one easy way of making it clearer that we are moving towards the next stage of actually commissioning the studies.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I am not sure everyone would agree with those changes, but I go to the microphone now and then I'll come back to Chuck.
 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Good morning.  This is Steve Metalitz from the intellectual property constituency and I was a member of this study group.  I'm not sure that the point that Kristina raised has really been engaged yet and I'm not sure that Tim -- Tim's response was really responsive to it.
 This is not a situation where we have people starting a policy and some agree and some disagree or a direction and some agree and some disagree.  I think it's worth looking back to I think it was on Liz's first slide.  I'm looking actually at the report that the group prepared and submitted on the 22nd of May and it says, "Subsequently, when the GNSO Council rejected the OPoC proposal on 31 October 2007, it also decided that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts.  Before defining the details of these studies..." and then it goes on from there to describe the next steps.
 So it seems clear that this council gave direction to the group, and told it to come back with these details about the studies, and I think it's accurate to say half the group did that and half the group didn't.  And so this is not a situation where some people agreed and some people disagreed on the merits.  It's that some people did what the council asked and some said they didn't want to do what the council asked.  And I think that does raise questions --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'd like to counter for a second.  I think the partly of the motion that you did not read also included the phrase "if any," and that phrase "if any" was specifically put in there so that those people were not going against the motion.  They were going in the spirit of one of the clauses of the motion.
 So I just -- I just wanted to interject that, because there's been sort of a "they did good, they did bad" situation, and I don't think anybody on this working group did wrongly.  It's there were several possibilities there, and so I just wanted to take out some of the accusatory aspect of this to say that it included the phrase "if any.
 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Okay.  Well, Avri, I didn't mean to be accusatory and I'm not saying anybody did wrong.  I think they -- I think they have a legitimate viewpoint, too, and one, by the way, for which I have a great deal of sympathy, and I think at the time that the council voted in the end of October, I certainly had a lot of reservations about whether further studies was a good way to go, but I certainly interpreted -- and I think it's reflected in this report, which was approved by all the members of the working group -- that the direction was flesh out for us what these studies should be and then the council ultimately would decide.
 So I think Chuck's clarification of what this motion is intended to do is useful, but I just simply wanted to support Kristina's point that I don't think what we've been through really bodes well for putting all our eggs in the basket of the working group method, because I don't think -- I think this one's off to a rough start.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Chuck.  Sorry.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  It would help me if we could go through Ute's suggested changes one at a time.  I wasn't able to keep up.  And discuss each change one at a time.  Again, maybe it's just me but I didn't keep up with them.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I believe I marked them.  Ute can let me know if I didn't in front of you.
 In the third bullet, basically it was a substitution of "which" for "whether" and a removal of the phrase "if so," which basically meant -- would say, "The council will then decide which" -- I guess we'd have to get rid of "any."  Also.  The council will then decide which potential studies would be further considered and identify hypotheses that it would like the staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology and estimated time frames for testing.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So basically, it does bind the council to then pick a study.  If I understand the intent correctly.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  And that is not, in my opinion, a friendly amendment to this, even though I personally am for doing more studies.  At this stage, I think it's important that we don't make that decision yet, until we see the full list of hypotheses.
 So this was worded very carefully, that the first step, let's identify which hypotheses would be good to be tested, regardless of whether you're for studies or not, which ones would add value if we got data from it, and then we're going to -- so -- excuse me.  I'm going backwards, aren't I.
 So we do need to make the decision, and maybe -- maybe the order is the problem here, Ute.  We can talk about that.
 Maybe what we really should be asking for is for the council then to decide which hypotheses have value, if we got the answers, and then decide whether to do studies in that regard.
 I think if we do your change, we're going to disenfranchise certain people right now and maybe it will still come out okay, but I don't -- others should speak up on that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I'll take a list, but in a second.
 So I understand that it was not accepted as a friendly amendment.  Therefore, it could be proposed as a voted amendment, if they desire, but I also understood that maybe you had some wording changes of your own that you're reflecting on, or did I misunderstand?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  No, I think you -- I think you understood.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I understood.  Okay.  Thank you.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  But it may be just more clarification with Ute, so that we make sure that we capture it there.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Ute, could you maybe describe what you're trying to accomplish in that change?
 >>UTE DECKER:  I think I was trying to take forward -- I was going forward along the lines that Kristina started on, to say, "Look, we already had a working group that did the work.  We cannot step back.  We want to go forward."
 And this motion -- the resolutions part of this motion should give very clear guidance on how to go forward, and not backward.
 So now you said would it make sense to talk first about the hypotheses, and then about the study.
 I think that it seems to me sensible because we are starting from the hypotheses and then get to the study.
 So I think we can contemplate that and say, "Well, that's the general idea."  Can we draft this on the fly?  I'm not sure.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  That's helpful.  And I think we're kind of on the same page.
 My concern with the way you changed it is it's essentially, I think, forcing a decision today on whether we do studies or not before we've done that, and that's the part that I thought was a problem today.
 I'd really like to see a clarification of the hypotheses before we take it to that point in making that decision.
 Part of that reason is because with my own constituency, I want to be able to be really clear in terms of the decisions we're making.  And another problem I had -- and I compliment the work that the group did, and I know they worked hard, and I know they had a lot of friction.  But in grouping them the way we did, I frankly was never clear what are we approving when we prioritize them?  The whole group or individual hypotheses?
 And I think we need to be a little more granular on that, so that it's clear, so that's why I had a problem.
 I don't think we should change this so that it forces a decision today on whether we do studies or not.  Let's get a clear picture, and then let's make that decision.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I have Mike and then Robin.  Mike?  Oh, do I -- you're -- okay.  So can I take the microphone and then get to you?  Okay.  So... I'm sorry, I missed you because you were sitting at the mic as opposed to standing so.
 >>STEVE DelBIANCO:  Thank you.  Steve Delbianco one last time because I sense the dilemma we're facing here.  Part of it is going to be structural and part of it is substantive, in this case. Kristina brought up this notion of we need to pay attention to what the GAC has said.  And you acknowledged correctly that the GAC, well, didn't feel like submitting it in the survey format, the rigorous format that council had asked for.  I brought that to the attention of some members of the GAC and they thanked me for bringing it to their attention.  But it was clear they had no intention at all of conforming.
 I want you to know that this working group with all the efforts of Liz Gasster and staff, we did what the GAC didn't do.  We took the GAC's letter of recommendations and tried to infer which hypotheses they were based on.  We actually mapped them to the categories that we came up with and all this was in an attempt to simplify, dream line so we could move toward consensus.  Perhaps we've made a mistake in conveying to you such a simple five-page report because you'd have to sort of look at the appendices where we categorized them because each of the categories include the hypotheses, the hypotheses of the studies that were part of that group.  There certainly needs to be further work that staff would do at condensing those hypotheses into those simple one sentences that could be forwarded.
 I don't want you to think that the GAC was left out of this at all.  We all worked hard to bring them in.
 The final point I would like to make is as we move ahead with working groups, we are never going to get -- we are not always going to have consensus with working groups.  We will frequently have split working groups or a minority report that will come out.  I don't think our response can always be the council just simply starts another working group and says, "This time we really want you to get consensus and ask you to make assumptions that force consensus."  I don't think that's really where you want to go.  
 You have before you a lot of work summarized in a five-page report.  It may well be that viewpoint Number 2 includes the studies that Tim and Robin -- I don't know, but if Tim and Robin were to look at viewpoint Number 2 and say, If I held your hand behind your back, would these be the studies you would accept under duress, then we might actually be a lot closer to having exactly what we need to proceed.  We can't always assume that consensus can be forced out of a working group.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'm going to turn over on a process thing on working groups.  I think one thing we will be able to always do is if there is a split decision, to go back to the working group and ask them to try a little harder and focus in on a particular point.  In other words, very often a working group will reach a block.  Maybe the council can then do something like the hypothesis asking that helps break a logjam.  It may work, it may not.
 But I don't think it is illegitimate for the council to get a split decision and then try to do a little bit more work at the working group level to try and get past that logjam.  So to say when the council receives a split decision it just says, "Oh, okay, split decision, let's vote," it is "Split decision, okay, is there any way we can motivate things to move a little further?"
 >>STEVE DelBIANCO:  I appreciate that.  It might be more -- it may be more specific to say that if the constituencies that wanted no further studies were to say that viewpoint Number 2 is close to what they would support, if we had to do studies, we may already have this work done.  And I would ask that question.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  So I have Mike and Robin.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Ute, with respect to your proposed amendments, I would support them.  If you wish to make a motion to essentially incorporate those amendments into this motion, I would second it and I would support it.
 However, I don't think it's necessary at this point.  I think we'll get there in ideally a few weeks, ideally by our next meeting because I do agree with Chuck, there ought not be a lot of work with respect to this motion.
 I think it's clear what we're asking for.  I think it can be done easily and quickly and then we have a vote on which studies to request more information about, if any.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I have Robin and then Kristina.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Thanks.  I also wanted to support what Chuck had to say on the proposed amendment.  This issue of the use of the word "whether" or use of the word "which" is exactly the distinction between viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 2.  So to make this kind of change and decide we will go ahead with studies now really does disenfranchise the half of the council who supported viewpoint 1 and that mandates studies will be done.
 So we would not support that change.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Question of clarification?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, just a clarification that it was not a council that was on this working group.  It was members of constituencies and others.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Kristina?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I have a proposed friendly amendment to the first bullet point within the resolution that would, if accepted, make it something that I could probably live with.  And I'll just read the entire proposed revised -- I have written it down, the whole revised amendment, and then I will do the specific changes.
 "Review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC; and based on those recommendations and that request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses capable of being tested."
 And what I've done there is to make clear that what the GAC did was not recommend studies but to request them, and I've also changed the language in terms of -- oh, and now it's gone so small I can't see it.  Hold on.  Okay.
 To make clear at least by preparing -- by getting rid of the language of "hypotheses to be tested," I'm hoping to eliminate any ambiguity whether or not we are asking the group to make a determination as to whether or not any should be and to just say, "Is there a hypothesis that's being capable of tested?  What is it"?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Make it a little smaller.  So, Chuck, did you need to see that written?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I already did.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Oh, okay, so it was sent on e-mail?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  By the way, I find that to be a friendly amendment, but I would just like to make sure that the other three drafters of the motion concur with that.  I think it accomplishes -- it still says what our intent was.  And so if Tim and Mike and Liz have any comments -- I guess Liz it is a little harder for.  But if the other two on the council could respond to that, that would be helpful.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Was this sent in e-mail to you?
 If you walk over and hand it, then I could type it in.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  In the first bullet keep "review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period," and -- and instead of -- before that insert "the studies requested."  "Requested by the."
 You know what?  I will bring it over, I think it's easier.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Chuck, if you want to pay attention to people continuing to talk while I'm typing --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I will.  Okay.
 Tim and Mike, do you need to see it full?  Yeah, okay, I suspected that.  I was just confirming that.  Adrian?
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Just while we're waiting, I just wanted the council to be conscious of the fact that should we ever solve the WHOIS problem, that we'll be destroying a massive industry that has been built around this with all the lawyers and all -- not only the industry but the time it has taken.  
 I want you to be conscious that maybe we need to continue to solve this problem over some period of time so the calls we have monthly continue to go for two hours and we can still spend so much time up here discussing this topic.  So please be conscious if we do solve this problem, we will be affecting a lot of people.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I would like to suggest that I don't think it's the right time to be discussing our positions in terms of whether we should solve this problem or not solve it or what the implications are.  I think that will detract from our task at hand.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Can I retort?  Noted, Chuck.  I was merely filling some time while we were getting some things done.  It was and neck dote and not meant to be taken too seriously.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So it was comic relief?  Thank you.
 So I've got it there.  So was this -- is this accepted as a friendly amendment by all those that put together and can I delete the second version of the bullet here?  Is there any of those that worked on this -- so this is accepted as a friendly amendment.
 >>LIZ GASSTER:  Avri, I think it's right, too, just on the record.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay then.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Can I reserve for just a few more minutes of thought?
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Would you like me to tell a joke in the meantime?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  No, thank you.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I have one issue with it, Kristina, and that's "capable of being tested."  I think that is subjective judgment that this group is not able to decide frankly.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  I think what happens here -- and I'm sure it is not Kristina's intent, I think what would happen here it could result in the very thing that everyone voting on this doesn't want to have happen.  And that is that there will be some split about whether there is any of these hypotheses capable of being tested or not.
 I think more appropriately what -- for my opinion, what this group should be doing is putting together the hypotheses that these studies intend to test, trying to clarify that so it is clear as we look at each one.  We understand what it is the study was trying to accomplish and what the result -- the intended result is.
 Not making a decision about whether that hypotheses is actually capable of being completed in that manner or whether it's worthy, but just what are these hypotheses.  Let's be clear and concise so when the council does consider them individually, we can make an informed decision.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Can I ask, would it be okay to just drop the "capable of being tested" and just prepare a concise list of hypotheses?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  How about "hypotheses they believe should be tested"?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Well, that would ask a lot of the group again to make judgments.  Here we're asking the group to do a sort of journeyman job of collecting all the hypotheses and getting them -- yes, Tony.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  I think you could change it just to say "hypotheses that could be tested" and that probably gets us off that hook.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I'm afraid they will be debating "you can't test that."
 >>TONY HOLMES:  I think the reality is -- I'm sorry to say this -- that's going to be exactly the case.  People are already saying that.  They're going to contest -- some people are going to contest this right the way through.  And it is pretty disappointing.  That's the way it is.
 I'm just sorry that those board members that keep telling me working groups are the answer to everything and voting doesn't count aren't in the audience today.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  So I guess we had two possibilities.  One is the one that I suggested just of cutting out the "capable of being tested" and produce the concise list of hypotheses.  And the other one is to change it to "prepare a concise list of hypotheses that could be tested."
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I don't think that's any different than we have now.  "Could be tested" and "capable of being tested" are the same thing.  So list of hypotheses that they want to be tested seems to me to be correct.
 But I would be fine with "list of hypotheses," period.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  You're part of the group that put together -- would the rest of those that own this be willing to just drop that last phrase?  Chuck, you're saying --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I'm okay with that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Kristina, you offered the amendment?
 >>TIM RUIZ:  So it would end at "hypotheses"?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  That's fine.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So is that accepted as the friendly amendment, Mike?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  It is.  I just hope it doesn't descend into complete ridiculousness on the working group.  I can think of all sorts of hypotheses that have nothing to do with WHOIS, but that's okay.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  They're supposed to come out of the recommendations and such.
 Okay.  So I will delete the previous version of the bullet.  Are we at a point now where we can take a vote on this?  Should this be -- is there anyone that objects to doing a voice vote on this?  Should we do a polling vote?  Does anyone object to a voice vote?  I don't see any objection to a voice vote.
 So I'd like to ask all those that support this motion as amended, please say aye.
 [Chorus of Ayes.]
 Anyone opposed to this motion, please say nay.
 [No verbal response.]
 Is there anyone that is abstaining from this motion?
 [No verbal response.]
 Okay.  I thank you.  This motion has passed by unanimous voice vote, and I believe that brings us to --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Avri, before we go on, to make sure that this happens in a timely manner, I would suggest -- and we can do this after the break, if you want -- that we actually get very quick responses in who wants to participate.  Like I said, I'll throw my name in the hat to lead the group if the team is supportive of that so we can get moving.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I think actually asking people to do that during the break, just those who want to work with Chuck on this.  I'm assuming that we can ask the previous working group to stay on and hopefully they will.  And is there anyone that objects to Chuck taking this on?  I see no objection to you taking this on, so I'd say during the coffee break and beyond, gather your group.  You've got six weeks.  Have fun.
 And it is coffee break until 10:15.
 (Break)
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, I'm assuming that the rest of the council members will come in as we start.  The council has seen this overview already, so I'm hoping that them not being in their seats yet and still getting their coffee will not leave them confused.
 So I'd like to ask Liz to start on the overview on the GNSO improvements top-level plan.
 Chuck, you're going to talk?
 >>LIZ GASSTER:  I am going to run the slides.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I see, okay.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I found if I get started, I seem to be okay.  I'm sure my voice is really thrilling to hear, probably never is anyway.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  If you have a problem, I suppose I could take over halfway through, but...
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  This was a presentation that was given to the council when we first reviewed the plan that was proposed.  So go ahead and jump to the next slide.  I won't read the names, we'll leave it there for a second.  I want to thank all the people that participated in this group to develop the plan.  Go ahead.
 There were also -- it continues here.  You can see we had excellent staff participation on this.
 Now, very briefly -- in fact, let's just go past this slide because we're past the point of the role of the team.  Here are the recommendations.  And let me qualify it a little bit.  I guess all this plan that we are going to present today and that the council is going to take action on is a framework that can be used to implement whatever GNSO improvement recommendations are approved by the board.
 There is absolutely no assumption on any particular recommendations -- and let me just call out one, like GNSO structure.  We're not assuming any particular structure.  This is simply a framework for working on the changes that are ultimately approved.  Now, the framework could be used before final approval of recommendations if there's agreement on the council that they're non-contentious and I'm not going down that route about how you define that.  We did that on Saturday.
 So it's just a framework.  The framework could be changed if we decide that final recommendations fit it at all.  We think that it covers any eventualities that might happen, but you never know.  So that's all it is, is a framework.
 So here's what we're recommending and what the motion will be recommending that the council approve:  To form two standing committees.  One would be a GNSO process standing committee.  The other one would be an operations standing committee.  Those standing committees would be focused on processes and practices, not on gTLD policy.  This is not where policy development would happen, or in this case development of an implementation details would actually happen.
 Milestones would be set by the standing committees and approved by the council.  Charters would be approved of the working teams that you'll see, would be initially approved by the council and reviewed by the council annually for the two standing committees.
 The council could terminate these standing committees at any time.  The recommended start date is essentially this week.  And we have asked -- we have asked constituencies to be prepared, hopefully even today, to tell us, to communicate who they would like to have represent us on the standing committee.  Does not have to be a councillor.
 Go ahead.  Now, membership council will approve.  We're trying to keep each standing committee to a limit of 12.  Keep in mind, this is not where the work's going to be done.  This is a coordinating body because as I'll explain more later.
 It may be mostly councillors but it is not restricted to councillors.  That will be decided by the constituencies in terms of who they want as their representative.  Now, eventually because these standing committees could go on even beyond the actual implementation stage, if we continue to see value there, it could include representatives from emerging constituencies.  We're fully aware that what that means will have to be worked as we go.  We don't believe right now that there are -- is enough evidence that there are -- that emerging constituencies are formed enough to actually be able to have someone on there.  But that could be an option six months down the road.
 The role of the standing committees is to create implementation work teams, to coordinate efforts of work teams, to oversee development of implementation plans, to make recommendations concerning processes and methods involved in the transition of the GNSO.  Those recommendations, by the way, would probably flow up from the working teams.  And they would serve as ongoing GNSO process review body.
 So what we're recommending is, obviously, the first role is really to work on implementation of the their recommendations.  But these standing committees, if they prove to be effective, could serve an ongoing role of process review and improvement indefinitely into the future if it's effective.
 Now, let's talk about the process standing committee, first of all.  It would be responsible for recommending and reviewing any processes used within the GNSO and the council and for developing policy recommendations.  And maybe I didn't word that too well in the sense that, again, the development of the policy recommendations with regard to processes would flow up from the working teams and then the standing committee would bless that and pass it on to the council.
 Immediate goal would be to initiate the process for developing recommendations for all process changes needed to meet the requirements of the Board Governance Committee working group report and final board recommendations.
 Once the first set of changes has been implemented, they would be responsible for reviewing those processes and all processes of the GNSO and council and recommending further changes.
 So specific work items for the process standing committee would be to establish new rules for the policy development process.
 I think everyone that's been involved in the GNSO at all would agree that there's pretty much unanimous agreement that the PDP as defined in the bylaws needs to be reworked.
 Number two would be to establish procedures and guidelines for the functioning of the policy working groups.  So this is the development of the working group model that's recommended in the working group recommendations.
 Now, what we're suggesting is establishment -- that the standing committee consider and it will be up to the standing committee to decide this, establish two work teams and the standing committee would coordinate and assist the two work teams.  And you can see what the work teams are going to be by the previous information.  One on PDP revision, one on development of the working group model.  Obviously those things interrelate.  So it will be important that there's coordination there.
 The proposed membership of the process standing committee, GNSO Council chair and/or vice chair, as of right now that's Avri and I.  Over time that could be change.
 One representative from each constituency, again that doesn't have to be a councillor.  One NomCom appointee.  We have three.  One of those.
 A liaison or appointed representative from the ALAC and GAC if they would like to put one forward.  Our GNSO secretariat we put on everything.  She supports us all very well.  And it's not that she's actively involved in the policy development and so forth but we would have a hard time getting by without her.
 And then last of all, I'm not sure  we wouldn't include her in the 12.  
 And then one ICANN policy staff representative on each of the committees.
 The process standing committees, with regard to that, it will be the task of the committee, once it is established -- and possibly the teams it creates -- to establish team charters.  Now, we've developed charters, draft charters, for the standing committees.  It will be up to the standing committees to develop charters for each of the working teams that they establish.  Some work's been done on that, just to help facilitate the process.  Nothing final on that.
 And one -- back up one, please, Liz.  Thanks.
 And then to facilitate that task -- and I guess I did cover that one, didn't I -- there is some documentation on the wiki site for this area of GNSO improvements that have ideas for charters for the working teams.  And they are just ideas for the committee to consider.
 Now to the operations standing committee.
 They're responsible for coordinating and recommending and reviewing changes to certain operational activities of the GNSO and its constituencies.  Their immediate goal would be to develop recommendations to implement the noncontentious operational changes recommended in the report.  Let's not make too much of this.  If we decide -- if we so decide that everything is contentious, then we'll just wait before we start implementation.  Keep in mind that the board recommended that we get started as soon as possible on items that are noncontentious.  Some of us believe there are some things that fit in that category.  Others believe everything is contentious.  So we'll deal with that.
 They're responsible for implementing whatever structuring plan, if any, is ultimately approved by the board.  Again, that responsibility is an oversight responsibility, with the real work happening at the working group level.  I'm sorry if I repeat that a lot but it's really important that that point get across.
 These standing committees are really not where the work is going to happen.
 And then last of all, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of changes made, once we do them, for ongoing continuous improvement type responsibility.
 Membership is very similar to the other standing committee, with a chair and/or vice chair, a representative from each constituency, one NomCom appointee, one representative from any constituencies formerly involved in the process of formation.  Notice the parenthetical there, "once the process for forming a new constituency has been established."
 So it would be very difficult right now to include someone like that, but the opportunity of doing that going forward was thought to be useful.
 And then a liaison or appointed representative from the ALAC and the GAC, as they so desire.  Again, Glen's help, and one ICANN policy staff representative.
 Okay.  Now, a possible approach that is being recommended here is that the SC, the standing committee, can create separate teams to take on the work of distinct operational areas.  The teams, the specific work teams that are contemplated and for the standing committee to consider, one for GNSO operations, which would be to develop a proposal for council consideration on GNSO operations-related recommendations.
 So -- and the reason the "if needed" there, although I'm one of those that believe this group -- this possible team could have things to do regardless of structural changes or lack of changes, the -- this is where the structure of the council would fit in.
 So if there is structural change that's recommended, then this team, if the standing committee forms this team, would be responsible for that particular area.
 The enhanced constituencies or constituency operational working team would be focused on the recommendations that are in the working group report with regard to constituency openness and transparency and so forth.  I won't go over the recommendations of the working group.  You can all see that for yourselves.  So that's a constituency operations focus.
 The third would be to improve coordination with other ICANN structures.  The ccNSO, the GAC, the ALAC, et cetera.
 And then we also have put in there the possibility of the operations standing committee forming special focus teams that would work on fairly narrow efforts that require special expertise.  Some examples are given there.  For example, Web site redesign.  We might enlist support of experts within the GNSO to work with staff on Web site redesign, which is one of the recommendations for improvements.  Project management tools, document management tools, things like that are fairly narrow focus.  We think it might be a good idea in some cases to form a little special focus team to work with staff on those issues.
 Going on from there, then, it will be the task of the committee, the standing committee, once it is established -- and again, possibly involving the teams it creates -- to establish the charters for the work teams, and to facilitate that task -- again, some of us on the planning committee did some work on that so that they've got kind of got something to start with to consider, in doing that, and those can be seen.
 Now, I debated whether this should be first or last.  I think I could argue either way.
 Here's a concise picture of what's being proposed as a framework for implementing any changes that are recommended.  You can see that the planning committee is on the side there with no connection, and it doesn't have an ongoing connection.  It's probably fulfilled its responsibility, although we could decide to use it otherwise, I suppose, going forward.  And so there's no line connecting that, but the GNSO Council will be the oversight body of this whole effort.  You see the two standing committees there, and you see the working teams that are initially proposed.  It would be up to the standing committees to actually decide if those working teams should be formed, develop the charters, and get membership.
 Now, in commenting on this, I'm going to again repeat something I've probably said three or four times already.  It's anticipated that the real work of developing implementation plans and implementation and so forth would go on at that bottom level, at the working team level, and it's hoped -- at least by many of us -- that that's where there would be broad participation, with hopefully different people from constituencies in the various work teams, so that the workload is spread out and we don't have a lot of trouble scheduling things because of excessive conflicts.
 And I think that covers it, doesn't it?  Is there anything -- oh, okay.  Next steps.
 We already have the initial discussion on the council, and we've -- there's been --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah, they --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  -- minimal list discussion on it.  And the opportunity for informal community review has happened.  More formal review today.
 So we discussed this, so Item 4 was also done.  We discussed this on Saturday in the working session.  And the action item for today is to decide whether to approve this plan, and then we would like to immediately go into initiating the standing committees, and the first step in that is to form the membership in that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  So...
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So as opposed to going into Q&A, can we have a switch on the -- we'll go into open mic in a second but I'd like to show the motion.  So if we can switch, please.
 Okay.  So the motion -- and I'm listed as the person moving it.  It still needs a second.
 "Whereas, the ICANN board in resolution 2008.02.15.03 directed the ICANN staff to draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, and that such a plan was developed by the planning team composed of staff and GNSO members working jointly and in cooperation, resolved:  The GNSO approves the framework defined in GNSO improvements-top level plan of 21 June 2008 prepared by the GNSO improvements planning team as documented in GNSO Improvements _top-level-plan_ update-080521.pdf and request that constituencies and NomCom appointees begin the task of naming representatives to serve in the two standing committees as defined in the top level plan by 27 June."
 Now, I need to point out one thing.  That is, indeed, the name of the file, and it refers to a file that was amended on 21 June 2008, so it should have -- the file name should have had a 60 in it instead of a 05 in it.  That is my error but that is the name of this file.  If you look at the top there, "GNSO Improvements _top-level-plan_ update-080521.pdf," just so that it -- and it's the plan as was updated by the council in its discussions over the weekend.
 So at this point, I'd like to open the floor, the microphones, and the council to discussion.  Start with the microphone.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm speaking as an individual member of the broader business community.
 I'd like to try to segregate my comments about this document from any other position that I may have about GNSO restructuring because I'd like you to understand the perspective I bring to this as being really an effort to look at the strengthening of the GNSO supporting organization.  I am specifically speaking about the supporting organization, and not about the policy council.
 When we created ICANN, we created a number of supporting organizations, and we thought of them as having the requirement or the obligation, the responsibility, of providing a place of engagement and participation, and through policy development, a place for representation in the development of policy.  But the SO has a broader responsibility and set of activities that it should perform than just policy development.
 Now, the reality is, we created constituencies that do not report to the GNSO Council.  The constituencies are self-governing.  Most of them have their own administrative processes.  They have a chair, a vice chair, et cetera.  They all have officers who think their job is to work with their constituencies about not only policy development, but most of them -- but all of them then have policy -- they all have councillors who are elected to perform a different function.
 The thing -- problem I have with the construction of this particular approach is it treats the council as though it is in charge of developing the governance of the SO, and I don't support that and I really wonder if, when you think about it, you will either.
 I would much prefer to see an environment which draws together the chairs of the various constituencies, whatever they end up being, or an elected representative that each constituency chooses, to deal with the administration and operational aspects.  It makes no sense to me to think the policy councillors and a policy chair are going to spend their time worrying about administrative functions when you clearly have the biggest workload.  Your workload is even bigger than the board's.  Are there any board members in here?
 Anyway...
 So the point I want you to think about is:  Your present working proposal, which I was a bit concerned when I saw this, mixes the work between the two committees that are proposed and takes work that is about improving the policy council and the policy development process and spreads it across both committees.  I would really like to think that we could have an operation management standing group, which is drawn from the SOs, the constituencies directly, that deals with those functions, and the policy council functions and the policy representation are driven from the expertise that policy councillors bring.
 Now, there will be a little bit of overlap, but that ought to be manageable.
 The other advantage to the approach I'm suggesting you think about is you really will distribute the work.  I heard my colleague, Chuck Gomes, say that you will hopefully get different people.  I'm just going to say something about that.
 As long as you act -- even if innocently -- in a top-down manner of deciding what the constituencies are going to do, people are going to sit and wait for you to do it.  Think about asking the constituencies to give -- to provide one person each, whether it's their chair or someone they elect, to play the role that you right now are taking for yourselves as policy councillors.
 In a naive, innocent way, it is actually more top-down than you think it is.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Can I -- can I ask you a question?
 In the operations standing committee, which is, I guess, the one you're specifically referring to, it does not -- okay, it includes one of the chair or the vice chair, but beyond that, the constituency members did not need to be council members.  It was up to each of the constituencies.  So if each of the constituencies wanted to put their chair in that standing committee, would it not be what you were looking for, or do I not understand?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Apparently I need to say this again.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  No, I didn't understand.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  No, no, no.  The policy council was not established to govern the SO.  The policy council was established to manage the policy process.
 So Avri, really I don't think it's even legitimate, other than perhaps to have a liaison from the policy council.  The policy council could decide that's the chair or the vice chair, but I don't even think it's legitimate to have the policy chair in a directional role on a group who should be about --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  What do you mean by "directional role"?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Well, you know, a directional role is a voting role, it could be a chairing role.  That's a directional role.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  There was no assumption that the chair was chair or the vice chair was chair.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  You can't tell that.  That's a level of detail that you can't tell from the report.
 Look at the -- when you look at the way you've allocated work, just as an example -- because sometimes that helps -- you've given that group a mix of work that cuts across improvements in the policy work and also strengthening and broadening and deepening the constituencies.
 That's not policy work.  And it shouldn't be the policy councillors' job.  That's my point.
 It is the constituencies' job, and the constituencies, most of them have a dedicated administrative executive team.  The registrars do, the registries do.  There's obviously enough work in the constituencies that they think it's important to have a different functional set of activities and then they have a policy -- set of policy councillors and policy work.
 So it really confused me when I see behaviorally that the constituencies are acting in one way and the council, when they got together, decided to -- and by the way, I believe you were encouraged to do this by the board working group.  That's why I want to be very careful that I am not talking about restructuring of the council.  That is not my point at all.
 I'm on the President's Strategy Committee.  We spend a lot of time talking about the importance of broadening and deepening participation in ICANN.  Not just about because people want to be involved in policy, but because in order to be legitimate, we've got to broaden and deepen ICANN.  I believe that lots of people will want to participate and be engaged in the constituencies.  They won't necessarily want to be heavily engaged in policy.
 So the advantage of an SO that has broad and deep participation is that it will strengthen ICANN, and some of the people who come into the SO will be heavily engaged in policy.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Okay.  So I've got -- and I didn't know who was first, sorry, so I've got -- I saw Tony first and then Mike.  And Chuck.  Okay.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Marilyn, I want to be quite clear I understand what you're saying, and I think the major problem you have is if you look at the organizational chart that's being put forward, it's the linkage back to council, as much as anything, that's the problem.
 What you're not saying is that if whatever comes out -- and we've yet to see what comes out on in terms of decisions taken by the board, but whatever comes out in terms of GNSO reorganization, if the constituencies within a support organization, whatever form it takes, want to come together and do some of the very good things that need to happen I think Chuck referred to, that's fine.  The main issue you have -- well, that would be under their jurisdiction.  But the main problem you have is this linkage back to GNSO Council.  Is that correct?
 >>MARILYN CADE:  You know, I have a different vision than is shown on this.  I have a vision that there is a GNSO supporting organization, and one of the functions it provides is policy development, and another set of functions it provides is building and strengthening constituencies in order to provide engagement and representation.
 I, for instance, don't think that the policy council should be chartering new constituencies.  I think that that needs to come up in an organic fashion.  You know, I'm not trying to make this work complicated.  I'm just trying to make it more -- less dependent on what could be a single point of failure.
 People who are elected to do policy are going to be consumed by the policy process, and a working committee of officers or representatives from each of the constituencies could admirably, and I think more effectively and appropriately, fulfill the oversight of the administrative functions.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  I have Mike, Chuck, and then I have Jon.  So --
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I'd just like to respectfully disagree.  I just don't think that we need another body that's composed of members of the various constituencies, more elections, more administrative hassle, et cetera, et cetera.
 I think we've got, over time, the council has taken on these roles just as we do in our constituency, the business constituency.  Councillors are also administrative officers of the constituency.  Things work just fine.  Things work just fine with the council, in my opinion.  So I think if anything, ICANN should be providing more resources to deal with the sorts of things that you'd like to push into an executive committee.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  But that council does just a fine job managing that today, thanks.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Awful of re, can I just respond?  Let's be clear --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'd like to ask Chuck -- I mean, because you've been at the mic for a while.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Fine.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Excuse me.  Once my voice gets going, it will be okay, I think.
 It's very important, when we look at this proposal, that we understand that it's a proposal for implementing the recommendations that are put forward, including the recommendations for constituency operations.
 It is not a proposal for managing policy development.
 So -- nor is it a proposal for the council to manage constituency operations.  But the board already has -- the board working group has made recommendations with regard to constituency operations.  We as a council are presumably going to be tasked with making sure that those recommendations are implemented.
 Now, how that happens is yet to be determined.  We have suggested it may be useful to form a constituency operations working team, and we believe -- we talked about this in the planning committee.  We believe that that's going to be heavily populated by constituency members.
 Now, how that happens -- I mean, feasibly, each constituency could come up with ideas of their own and feed them up into that group.  That's all to be determined.
 So it's wrong to assume that we're suggesting that the council is going to be managing constituencies.  This is only about implementing the specific recommendations that are ultimately approved by the board.
 Now, secondly you made a comment about my comment on different people.  It's going to be up to constituencies and individuals as to who participates in those bottom-line working groups, but I can tell you in my experience -- and I know it's in yours as well -- often time when you get the same people in all the working groups, it's -- that's fine if they've got the time to do that.  Usually they don't.  And it creates huge conflicts in terms of scheduling.  The more you can spread out the workload, the better, and that's all I was suggesting.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  So I'm going to quickly respond if I might.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  I'd really like to give other people a chance at the mic.  I do notice that it hasn't been called or renamed the GNSO policy council.  It's the GNSO Council.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yeah, yeah.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  But please, I do want to give other people a chance at the microphone.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  Avri, I'm just going to respond quickly to clarify something that I think Mike may have misunderstood.
 I am not suggesting that work -- I do strongly support the idea that more staff support needs to be provided to support administrative functions.  So I wanted to clarify that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Jon?
 >>JON NEVETT:  First, a quick question.  Jon Nevett, registrar constituency.
 Do you plan on voting on this today?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I was hoping to.
 >>JON NEVETT:  Okay.  I would urge you not to for a couple of reasons.
 One, not every constituency was represented on that panel, and that may be due to no fault of the leadership of that working group or drafting group, but --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  They were invited frequently.
 >>JON NEVETT:  Well, no one invited --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Through the council and --
 >>JON NEVETT:  That may be or maybe not.  I don't know.  I was never involved, nor was I asked.
 Secondly, if ICANN ever thought about doing some kind of restructuring like this, without an open, accountable, transparent, public policy, public comment period, we would be going -- we would be very unhappy, so I would suggest to council that it not vote, put it up for some kind of public comment, take some ideas that maybe Marilyn and others have that, you know, may be worth discussing, and wait.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Tony and Philip.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Thanks, Avri.  I've spent some time looking at this and been involved in the dialogue that's taken place here within the GNSO, and every time we have this discussion, I listen to Chuck, in particular, who's been very engaged in this, and I learn more and more of the thinking behind it.
 Some things that he says, I have a lot of empathy with.  Some things raise questions.  And the more dialogue we have on this, I think the better, because it's becoming clearer for me.
 But the point that Jon made I think is very relevant because there is a certain lack of clarity here, and some of the questions that come to my mind will be totally dependent upon the decision the board takes at the end of this week because out of that, we will know, as -- just speaking for the ISP constituency -- what we need to do moving forward.
 Now, it's very hard to determine, without knowing that decision, how you view that, and what the aspects will be, and it's likely we may have to work a lot closer with other parts of the community.  How we do that is an open issue, and I think that the point that Jon made, asking for some comment period in this before a decision is taken by council is exactly the right way to go.  So I would support that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Philip?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I think it's very interesting we've had these two questions of concern raised from the floor.
 We had the same discussion in our constituency meeting yesterday.  And I know we had spent some time as council in our working group over the weekend making a few changes in this report.
 I do feel, also, that it is potentially premature to be voting on it now.  I think there are two reasons for that.  Maybe three.
 Firstly, when we started work on this, there was an aspiration that we would actually complete some sort of implementing structure for certain types of change that were not contested many weeks ago, and that has not happened.  And we're now talking about this on the eve of a potentially significant board decision tomorrow.
 Secondly, we've seen there have been some particular structural concerns raised in relation to this and arguably if we go back to that organogram, that structural chart, we may be reconsidering things like the operating standing committee as constructed, I mean, in terms of the basic structure there is right.  I mean maybe that should be reporting directly to the board rather than via GNSO Council.  So I think sort of issues like that are probably worth giving some further thought to.
 So I still think there is perhaps a little more thinking we need, a little more community input in terms of the text of this proposal, so I would like to support Jon's suggestion and move formally that we delay our vote on this until at least the next meeting of council by which time we will have heard, indeed, the outcome of the board vote tomorrow, which may be highly influential.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Kristina?  And then Chuck.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I am generally philosophically in agreement with both Philip and Jon, but historically this council has utterly failed to act on public comment, in my view.
 If we are, in fact, going to put this out for public comment, we have an obligation to make clear to the community what exactly we will do with that comment.
 Because if we will, as we have done in the past -- much to my dismay -- ignore it, then I don't see the point.
 If, however, we are going to act on it, I think we do ourselves a great benefit by making clear exactly how we may act on it and if there are particular areas that we believe we could benefit from public comment on.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Could the diagram be put back up, please. Could the chart be put back up on the screen?
 Let's understand what approving this really means.  First of all, we're not approving anything at that bottom level.  It was put there to show that's what the standing committees could decide to do.  And the idea was to facilitate, to give some ideas for consideration.  What we're approving is a structure where we would form two standing committees in two broad areas that cover essentially all of the recommendations, whatever they turn out to be.
 Now, Tony, you said you have questions.  I still don't know what your questions are and I would love to hear them.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thanks.  At this point, what's normally been a practice within the council is if there was a sufficient number of council members and constituency members that felt we needed to delay a vote to a future meeting, then we generally did.  So I'm not sure whether we need to take a vote on that, if anyone calls for a vote on delaying it, we certainly can take a vote.
 We had put this out a month ago and I thought we had put it out for comment, but in going back and looking at the GNSO announcements, it doesn't look like we did it formally.  We did certainly request through the council representatives of the registrars constituency that there be registrar participants, but it is true we did not go to the executive of the registrars committee and make that request.  So I think that at this point, unless anyone objects and wants to call for some kind of vote on taking a vote, we do need to delay.  Now, whether we want to decide at this point to put this out for a formal comment period and make sure that everyone knows it is a formal comment period, perhaps that's a decision that we should make at the moment.
 I guess I don't quite accept that we ignore comments.  Certainly within the last year we have discussed comments whenever we've received them.  We've received reports from staff that summarized comments.  Perhaps we have not often changed things because of comments, but we certainly have looked at and discussed them and, I think, if we go back through many of our transcripts and many of our calls we'll find out they were summarized and they were reported on and they were discussed to the extent that the council members discussed them.  I think I'd also find that we didn't change things very often because of that.  But I don't think that it's never, but...
 But anyway.  Yes, Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I am going to make the motion that we vote on this motion.  I, frankly, am really disappointed that a month ago in our council meeting we specifically said -- we went over this.  We discussed it.  We encouraged discussion on the list and getting word out to the constituencies.  And, frankly, that was totally ignored.  There has been no discussion on the list.  We find out today that people have questions.  Why weren't those surfaced before?  Why weren't -- this information put out to constituencies so they could talk about it.  That's just unacceptable to me.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Mike.  I appreciate that, Chuck.  I just wanted to say from our perspective.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  We did circulate it through our constituency, but we have not had a chance to come to consensus on it one way or another at this point.  It has only been a month.  Again, given that the vote is tomorrow and could certainly change people's thinking on things, we would simply like to wait until our next meeting.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  That has been our standard practice that when we had a large call -- yes, J. Scott and then Tony.
 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  J. Scott Evans, Yahoo IPC.  I am speaking on my personal behalf.  
 Chuck, not all of us have the luxury of being paid to do what you do for a living.  A lot of us are volunteers.  And so when calls like these come out and there are issues like GNSO governance reform that are taking up a lot of time to develop positions and persuade and reach out to members of the community, we have other issues to deal with and there just isn't enough time in the day.  
 I wish we all could have full-time ICANN positions or someone with our constituency that that's what they did for a living so that when things are put out shortly before a meeting along with, I would say, 45 other papers you have to read, that we could have someone that could do that and recommend positions for our constituencies, but that's just the world we live in.  
 I'm sorry you have put so much work into this and you feel like it was ignored.  It is not ignored.  It is just that there is a lot of things that we have to consider and sometimes things get lost in the shuffle.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Your implication is wrong.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I have Tony and then Tim.
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Just in response to Chuck, I think often it's through a broader dialogue that you actually get to the real gritty questions that you have.  And the dialogue that's taken place here, which Chuck has facilitated to some degree -- and he's familiar.  He put quite a bit of meat on the bones that wasn't in the document.  Some aspects that I hadn't even thought about, and I think that that's been good.  It has also led to discussion within constituencies and there has been a fair bit of dialogue around this.
 And I think that's healthy.  It's helpful to the process.  So to try and now push this through in a way that doesn't enable some of those issues to be clarified, to be given a little more thought around I think is the wrong way to go.
 And I do very much respect the effort that's gone into this, but it's been very helpful across these past few days learning more about this to a much greater degree.  And we need the time now to sit back and look at what that really means.  I also go back to the point that to vote on this now when we really don't know what the decision of the board is, is the wrong way to go.  And those two things together, I think, create a compelling case to say just hang on, maybe, to the next GNSO call.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Tim?
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah, Chuck, you know, I apologize.  I'm not sure exactly where the communications broke down between the councillors and in our constituency or if there is just some misunderstanding about what was really -- what this was really about.  But, regardless -- I mean, that's something we'll have to look at and take responsibility for.
 But, regardless, I think from the comments that have been made so far from the mike, it's clear that there's not a clear understanding of what this document is really about, what it's proposing to do and it's clear that that's not -- that's definitely the case within our constituency.  So, unfortunately, I think we'd have to support not moving forward at this time but giving it some time.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, Chuck and then I'm going to go to Steve.  Did you want to respond to -- Steve?
 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Thank you.  Steve Metalitz, intellectual property constituency.  I feel a lot of sympathy with Chuck's position here, but I think we're in a unique situation.  In fact, I disagree with some of those who have said, "Well, in general, we need more time and we should have had public comment."  I don't know whether we should or not.  But I think we are in a unique situation with a vote that the board is supposed to take, or the discussion the board is supposed to have tomorrow.
 And I think that was reflected in our constituency's meeting yesterday which discussed GNSO restructuring very extensively.  And it became clear from that discussion that this is an existential question for our constituency.  And I certainly could not support any implication that the constituency will send representatives to this process when the existence of our constituency and the future role of it is very much in doubt at this point.
 So I would certainly hope that we could wait until we see what the board does on Thursday, not because we always need more time to things but I think that the vote -- or the discussion that's coming up at the board on Thursday is simply that consequential.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I will withdraw the motion.  I think I have made my point.  And I really, sincerely believe that we need to do a better job.  This isn't an isolated issue.  We often do things in our council meetings, and it's clear that action needs to be taken and we don't take it back to our constituencies right away.  And that's one of the reasons why we take so long to get things done.
 I personally think we're making a lot more out of this than it is, but I respect people's feeling that they need more time so I will withdraw the motion.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  You were at the microphone.
 >>CHERYL PRESTON:  I'm Cheryl Preston.  I represent CP80 corporation -- or organization, and I am a member of the noncommercial users constituency.  As a member of that constituency, I think that the GNSO changes need to be put off for another meeting.  We only discussed it as a constituency just yesterday.  And I think there are members of constituencies who, like myself, feel that their particular interests aren't accounted for very well by the elected majority in their constituencies.
 And, therefore, there needs to be time for public comment.  There needs to be time for individual members of constituencies who have trouble with the positions taken by the elected officers in their constituencies to consider, respond and give feedback on something as important as the renovation of the GNSO and the way that it represents the interests of noncommercial users.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Can I respond to that just real briefly?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sure.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  There is nothing in this motion or in this plan that assumes any changes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Ken?
 >>KEN STUBBS:  Good morning.  My name is Ken Stubbs and I'm here as an individual.  I have a couple of requests and then a comment.
 First of all, I apologize if I missed something here but I think that it might be a good idea to clarify exactly what the actions are that the board can take tomorrow because it's my understanding the proposal before the board is the proposal that was prepared by the governance committee and that the board has the ability to vote on that proposal.  But if there are any amendments or modifications to that proposal, that the board would then have to put those out for public comment for a period of 21 days.
 So if the council is aware of that or if I am incorrect, I would very much like clarification to that.
 Two more points.  Point number one in response to the comment that Kristina made, I'm very concerned about the fact that the council might selectively decide that from now on they're going to decide what action they'll take for specific public comment.  In other words, if you're going to do what you want to do, Kristina, then you need to remember that you would be binding yourself in the future to actions on public comments.  There have been very substantial public comments in the past about term limits for councillors and stuff that have been totally ignored.
 So if you want to go ahead with that, that's something you should consider.
 And then there is a comment about volunteers.  I'm sorry, I have been a part of this process since 1997.  The overwhelming majority of the people that are participating and creating the process -- maybe not the overwhelming majority, but a significant number of these people are being compensated by the companies that they represent with specific job descriptions that include participation in the ICANN process.  It offends me to see people commenting on the fact that they're here in a volunteer capacity.
 You're here because the people you work for want you here, and I know this to be the case.  You know as well as I do that in the cases in the past where there were discussion about term limits, some of the people who responded most vociferously were here at the request of their companies.  We have professional lobbyists people who participate in a day-to-day basis.  Please don't try to convince me you are here out of --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I'm not sure that's necessary, 100% volunteer.
 So, anyhow, I think we are at a point now where we are not going to take a vote on this.  What I would like to ask is for a quick voice vote on sending this out to public comment, full normal public comment as we do with a PDP at this point.  And then we can talk in council later, if that's okay, Kristina, on how we handle the comments as opposed to doing something prior on how we'll handle comments.  But we'll talk about it in council, if that's okay.
 So I would like -- is there any objection to sending this out to full public comment at this point?  It would be the normal -- what -- 21-day policy.  And I know there's been requests for longer.  But since it has already been out for a month, if we follow the normal policy, 21-day public comment period on this, is there any objection to asking staff to do that?  Do I need to take a vote on that one?  No.  Seeing no objection -- so we'll ask staff to send this out.  Then we will discuss the comments and look at it in light of the board's decision.  I will put it on our agenda for our next meeting, assuming our meeting comes after the 21-day comment period.
 And I would like to move on to the next agenda item since we are already a little over.  The next agenda item is to approve the chair and liaisons for the fast flux working group which was already approved in council, so we've already approved the group.  But what we had -- let me read the motion.
 Whereas, the PDP working group has been formed on fast flux, and
 The fast flux PDP charter requires the election of chair or co-chairs and the appointment of a council liaison, and
 Mike O'Connor has been suggested by a joint meeting of the ICANN council and the fast flux working group -- I have to insert that -- and Mike Rodenbaugh volunteered to serve as council liaison to the working group.  
 Resolved:  Mike O'Connor is elected as chair of the PDP working group on fast flux and Mike Rodenbaugh is appointed GNSO Council liaison to the PDP working group on fast flux.
 Is there any discussion?  Would anybody like to comment on that?  I would point out that I did receive one comment yesterday of someone who is offering to help Mike.  But at this point, we discussed the chair.  Should we want to come back later and put in a co-chair because of the work, assuming we elect Mike now, then we can do that.  But for this point, since this was discussed on the weekend, I've decided to leave the proposal as it stands.
 Is there any discussion on this from the council or from the floor?  Yes, Kristina.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Can I just suggest a teeny-tiny adjustment, is to insert "working group"?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I can't hear you.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Is to insert the phrase "working group"?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, like I read it but I didn't say it.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yeah.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Let me do that before I ask people to vote.  And I'll keep it small for the moment.
 Okay.  I have made that change.  So, yes, Tim.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Hopefully this isn't a dumb question.  I'm just wondering, it says, "Mike was suggested by a joint meeting of the ICANN council and the fast flux."
 >>AVRI DORIA:  "Working group."  As I just inserted "working group."
 >>TIM RUIZ:  I am just wondering what we mean when we say "ICANN council."
 >>AVRI DORIA:  GNSO Council.  Go back into edit.  Thank you very much.  Writing motions at 1:00 in the morning is probably not the wisest thing to do, but I wasn't drunk.  Even if it looks like it.
 Any other changes while I'm in edit mode here?  Okay, thank you.  
 So is a voice vote okay?  Is there any objection to taking a voice vote on this one?  Okay.  Hearing no objection to a voice vote, let me get the motion back in front of us.
 All those in favor of this motion, please say aye.
 [Chorus of Ayes.]
 Any opposed to this motion please say nay.
 [No verbal response.]
 Anyone wish to abstain from this motion?
 [No verbal response.]
 Okay.  It has been passed by unanimous voice vote.  I am no longer the interim chair.  Thank you, Mike.
 Okay, now, it's time for the open mike but I was -- we did have one other item of business, I was wondering if it was okay to deal with that before moving to the open mike.  And that was on frontrunning.  We hadn't had it initially on this agenda but, basically, a motion that was put together out of the discussions that we had over the weekend:  Whereas, on 17 March, 2008, the ICANN board referred a question about frontrunning to the GNSO Council, and
 On 8 May, 2008 created a drafting team -- this is GNSO created a drafting team to define a preissues research effort and asked the staff to prepare a report.  
 On 29 May, ICANN staff prepared a response to the question asked during the 8 May council meeting, and, whereas, this report recommended that more information was needed to proceed, and information is needed to determine whether the changes recommended for the AGP will affect frontrunning.  Resolved:  The council puts the drafting team effort on hold until such time as current research efforts are completed.
 I will open this up for editing to fix the things that need to be fixed.  In the meantime, would anybody like to comment?  And, Chuck, could you manage the comments that might be while I'm in editing, please?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.  Alan.
 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  This endeavor was initiated because of an ALAC request to the board, and I have checked back with ALAC and they support the motion.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Anyone else?
 I guess we need to wait for the editing work before we actually have a motion and second.
 Mike?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I would just add I did hear Steve Crocker, the chair of the SSAC, say that they are going to continue studying this specifically so.  We can rest assure that's going to happen fairly soon.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Would anyone like to recommend any other changes to this to make it a rational motion?  And it also needs a second.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I'll second.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Seconded, thank you.
 Does it need any other changes? before we ask for a vote?  In which case, do we need to take -- is there any objection to taking a voice vote on this motion?  Is there any comment from the floor on this motion?  No?  Okay.  All those in favor of this motion, please say aye.
 [Chorus of Ayes.]
 Any opposed to this motion, please say nay.
 [No verbal response.]
 Any abstentions?
 [No verbal response.]
 Okay, thank you.
 At this point, the microphone -- yes, Robin.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  I'm not sure if this is the right time for a statement, but we wanted to make a statement on the GNSO restructuring of constituencies.  And I wasn't sure if this was the right time in the agenda for that.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I suppose, yeah.  Yes, Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Before we get to things like that, are we still going to get to the any other business item?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Well, okay, this one had been in any other business?  Did you have other business?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes, I do.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, I guess then we have two items of any other business.  And we can do them before the mike, though we're running into the half-hour -- we did have an extra hour set for another meeting this afternoon that we could run into on any other business or for further open mike time, should we need it.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Mine may be brief.  I at least want to bring it up so we can discuss it further in the future -- in the near future.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So let's do the any other business.  We'll open the mike.  If we need more open mike time, we'll come back after lunch in the hour that has been reserved for the council because I want to make sure that we have enough open mike time for everything.
 So, Robin, you can do yours first -- any other business first and then Chuck.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Thank you.  NCUC disagrees with the proposal to eliminate voting on the council and replace it with a system of "declared consensus."  While we certainly agree that we must work together to reach agreement on policy issues, we also have to recognize that voting is sometimes required to make tough policy decisions.  The proposed declare consensus model fails to address those policy decisions in which differences of principle exist and principle decisions must be made.
 NCUC supports the proposal of the joint users constituency that includes ALAC to create three equal constituencies, whereby individuals can join either the noncommercial stakeholder group or the commercial stakeholder group within the GNSO.  Equal participation of noncommercial public interest-oriented and individual users is key to ICANN's legitimacy.
 What is needed is parity between the constituencies, whereby each is valued equally and the perspective of each is given equal weight within the GNSO.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 Chuck?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Just a quick correction, my understanding is that there is no recommendation to eliminate voting on the council.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Chuck, your item?
 I think we're at a point with regard to introduction of new TLDs and the introduction of -- including IDN gTLDs and the IDNC, the ccTLD fast-track for IDNs, that the council needs to seriously consider the possibility of exploring a temporary reservation requirement for well-defined IDN versions of countries and territories.
 Now, I'm fully aware of the complexity of that.  At the same time, I think -- by the way, I'm not talking about geo names, I'm talking just about country territory names as the IDNC is trying to carefully define and connect to some very specific documents like the U.N. documents and so forth.
 So I think it does have to be -- more work needs to be done to clearly define that.  But I think we're setting ourselves up for some confusion and conflict until the full ccPDP is done if we don't do that.  And I'm talking about a temporary reservation requirement.  Ideally, it would be nice if a list could be done.  Some people think that's possible.  I have tended to think not, but I think it is an issue we need to in the next couple meetings explore more fully because, I think, there is a real need there.
 And if we frame it tightly, I think it would avoid confusion and avoid conflicts with governments.  And I think it is the right thing to do.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I'm going to open now the microphone and both council and the floor to this and other issues.  And I have Adrian.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Thanks.  I just wanted to respond to Chuck.
 Chuck, is that instead of or in conjunction with the -- this is with reference to your last point -- the objection process?  Is that what you mean?  So that these names would be reserved and held aside so that new TLDs could go ahead sooner, rather than being held up potentially by the IDN ccTLD project?  Is that your objective here?  To clear the way?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.  Well, first of all, I understand we've got an objection process and I supported that.  But why set up a situation where people have to object when we know there's going to be conflicts, to start with, and in particular, frankly I think it's just not very practical to ask governments to file an objection and pay fees for something that we know, right up front, is going to be a conflict.
 And I'm talking about a temporary situation until such time as the cc PDP is finished.  I just think it's a lot cleaner way to go.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Chuck, I would just note that the same thinking could easily apply to famous trademarks and other things and, you know, we had this discussion during the new TLD process, and came to the conclusion that we did about the objection process, so I'm not sure that revisiting it now is the wisest course.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yeah.  And we may, you know, end up getting also an issues report request from outside that would ask us to reconsider the project -- the process and that type thing and then we'd have to consider whether we went forward.  One thing -- okay.  One point, I do want to open the mic, but -- yes?  Edmon.
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Sorry.  I just wanted -- on this particular topic, in terms of the IDNC, there is a discussion to have an RFI to be put out, so perhaps that particular list of reserved names we're talking about could be derived from there as well.  As governments say they -- you know, express their interest to have an IDN ccTLD through the RFI, they would also say, you know, which string they want and then we can probably make use of that and work it in.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  And I think that's good, but keep in mind that will only include the fast track IDN ccTLDs and there will be others, you know, a couple years down the road.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Adrian?
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Chuck, with -- I think it's a good idea to start thinking about it anyways.
 Would that impact a government from getting a new TLD, if they wanted one?  Meaning that if the names are reserved and they wanted another name that was their country that wasn't an IDN ccTLD --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  You mean applying as a gTLD for that.
 I suppose it could, and so you raise a good point.  Again, I don't think we're there yet where we could actually put this in a box.  It's going to take some work, but good -- those are the kind of things we need to deal with.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  I'm going to open the open mic period of this now.  And we have more time for discussion on this.  I think you're putting an issue on the table.  We also have the meeting with the ccNSO tomorrow afternoon where this could be, you know, partially related to a topic.
 What I wanted to point out in terms of the open mic, since there's a half hour now and I wanted to leave at least 45 minutes or more, is that as I have to cut the meeting at noon sharply, if there is still a line of people that wishes to speak when we hit noon, we did have a session reserved -- I've got it highlighted there in blue -- in this room from 1:00 to 2:00, where we were going to go further into the GNSO improvements implementation, which is, of course, something we're not going to do at the moment, though we certainly could talk about it from the mic at the moment, so that time will be available for open mic, but we'll make that decision at noon if there are still people in the line.
 If there's nobody in the line, then we will cancel that session.  So please.  Remember to give your name and affiliation.
 >>CHERYL PRESTON:  Cheryl Preston, CP80 Foundation, noncommercial users.
 I just wanted to briefly note as illustration of my earlier comment that the statement read by Robin was never voted on by the members of the NCUC, and if the emphasis and philosophy is on the power to vote.  The lack of representation in selecting statements representing our constituency is an illustration of the extent to which the council needs to take input from the public.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Hi.  Jeff Neuman.  Just a question to Avri.  You say -- just about the 1:00 session.  I think there were a number of people that were going to come just for that, so I would advise not canceling that session.  I think people thought it was a whole separate workshop or item.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Item?  Oh, no, it was never planned as a workshop and it's -- at least not that we knew of.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  I do know that people were planning that thought that was a separate item, so regardless whether there's people on the mic here or not, I thought I had heard people talking about coming to that session, so...
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  And perhaps there's enough comments on that whole issue that people may want to come and just speak.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  The only concern I would have about that, Avri -- again, I know there are going to be a lot of comments on that topic -- is that I'm assuming -- and if I'm wrong on this, somebody on staff can correct me -- that in the public forum, there will be opportunity for public comments on that, and so we could have an awful lot of duplication if we do that.
 Again, if I'm wrong on that, let me know.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  But probably it never hurts to let people say their piece as many times as they may wish to say their piece.
 Do we have anybody at the mic now?  Are you there, Milton?
 >>MILTON MUELLER:  Yeah.  I'm more or less there.
 A quick response to one of our members.
 We did circulate the statement on our list, and nobody commented, but we have decided in our charter long ago that we don't vote on every position taken by our councillors.  We elect our councillors and delegate to them the ability to take positions in council meetings and we have discovered that you cannot, you know, vote basically to take a month and you can't really do that every time somebody utters an announcement in a GNSO Council meeting.
 Now, I would like to speak in support of what Robin said.  In fact, I'd like to go a bit -- a little bit farther, and just speaking as a member of the noncommercial constituency but more importantly as somebody who was there at the inception of the GNSO and saw its design and its function over a 10-year period, I would like to say that I hope that this structural reform goes through and that it is going to take a form that will be balanced.
 I think you all don't look very happy up there today, and if I do a checklist of what you've accomplished in the last two hours, you seem to have voted down two proposals that you spent several months working on, and not much else.  And you have created a working group to discuss the failure of another working group to come to an agreement.
 So you -- you have a bit of a problem, in terms of getting things done.  We do not vote constantly with the business and commercial users, but we have come to an agreement on a structural reform that we think would be more balanced, and would make the GNSO perhaps a bit more functional.  We are very concerned about proposals to give on the new council the commercial users five votes and the noncommercial users three votes.  We hope that the business users don't even support that anymore.  We think that would be kind of a slap in the face, and as both the business users and the noncommercial users are telling you now, you don't get more people involved by sort of grinding their face in the dirt and saying, you know, "You get less votes than everybody else" and you can spend lots of time to do things and form policy proposals that will be blocked the minute they get up against a brick wall of a council that's dominated by specific interest groups.
 So we hope that the reform goes forward.  We hope that the joint users proposal is accepted.  And I would urge you all to understand the significance of the reform process for the future of the GNSO because I think you guys could be an endangered species if that doesn't happen.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Yes, Robin.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Thank you.  I just need to make some clarifications and correct the record that's been said here.
 First of all, the joint users proposal that NCUC supported was sent to the NCUC list on April 23rd, to which there was no objection from any member of the constituency.  So now to hear someone take the floor and announce that this hasn't been discussed and there's been no vote is pretty telling.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  At the microphone?  At the desk?  Yes.  You're almost there.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Almost there.  Thanks.  Sorry.  Jeff Neuman again.
 You know, I've heard a little bit of discussion.  I guess this might continue at 1:00.  On special interest groups or balanced voting and it's funny because if you ask different members what "balanced voting" means you're going to get a different answer.
 I think "balanced voting" between the contracted and non-contracting parties, that's true balance.  And in fact, I want to draw everyone's attention -- and a lot of them in this room may not have received it because it was just sent on the council list and some of the constituencies have sent it to their members, but if you look at the pattern of voting, which I think is very important to look at, there seems to be some perception that the contracted parties always vote together.  If you actually look, the registries have a record of voting more in line with the noncommercial users than with any other constituency.
 That is the highest correlation that's on there except for the IPC, business constituency and the intellectual property constituency, who have voted together 85% of the time in that sample that was taken.  Granted, it's not a statistical kind of study and it was just put out there, but I strongly encourage everyone to read it because when everyone here says "balanced voting" let's really understand what it means and let's not create some sort of perception out there that the contracted parties vote always together, because it's completely untrue, and in fact, in recent years, we've voted more against each other than we have in accordance with each other, so I'd like that discussed as well and get rid of this perception that the special interest or contracted parties all work together.
 We do work together; we don't vote together.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Mike, you wanted to respond?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes, I do, just briefly.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  On the statistics that were put out this morning, I certainly appreciate the work.  I know hard work with staff, many, many hours of it probably, over the last couple of days, and yet I would like them to do a little bit further work because I think it's a little misleading.  I think that those statistics should back out -- for example, today I think we had four or five motions that were completely unanimous.  I don't think that those benefit the statistics at all.  I think we should only be looking at the votes that were contended and then see what those numbers look like.
 Or at least compare them to the numbers that we already got today, but I think that would be very useful and I'm -- I am respectfully requesting that that be done as well.  Thanks.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I had two people and then I'll get to Tim.
 >>CHERYL PRESTON:  I just -- Cheryl Preston.  I just want to say something in favor of what Milton has argued in terms of vote representative for noncommercial interests.
 I think it would be a shame if the revisions in structure in the GNSO reduced the vote of the noncommercial interests.  Historically, the noncommercial interests have voted with singularity on a particular issue -- recycling the same people in office -- and have not been very balanced in representation of what we know are the noncommercial users of the Internet that include families, children, religious groups, consumers, victims of cybercrime, and people whose interests are not singularly unfettered free speech and privacy.
 Having said that, I think it's also important that the noncommercial users element of ICANN be broadened and outreached to those groups, and even the sense that ICANN -- the questions about ICANN's legitimacy be discussed, and so there's more willing participation of a broader range of what we all know are the acting users of the Internet who are the primary users whose interests are noncommercial and whose interests in other values should clearly be heard here.
 So in conclusion, I don't think we ought to reduce the votes of the noncommercial interests.  I think that ought to be not only balanced -- maybe we ought to take into account the extent to which those stakeholders -- you know, the world of stakeholders is dominated by noncommercial users, but that there ought to be efforts to balance and broaden the representation of those viewpoints and ICANN structures.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Elliot, were you in line or -- no, you've left the line.
 >>ELLIOT NOSS:  I'm deferring to wiser comments.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So I assume you were going to make some clarifying comment, Olof, and then I'll get to Tim.
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  We'll see about that.  Olof Nordling, ICANN staff.  And just to respond to Mike's request to make the statistics on the contested votes, rather than anything else.
 Now, what has been selected out of all of the votes since the beginning of 2005 were those that were not taken unanimously, which of course implies is that --
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I apologize, Olof.  I had it wrong.  I'm sorry.  I was trying to multitask and apparently Adrian's humor was distracting me while I was reading it or something.  I apologize.  Thanks.
 >>OLOF NORDLING:  Okay.  Fine.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  So, in other words, to clarify, it's the statistics that show up there are on nonunanimous votes.
 Tim?  And then Philip.
 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah.  I just want to say, just a comment about, you know, all this concern over votes and voting and all the lobbying that's really been taking place here recently over trying to make it this way or that way.
 I just hope that however it comes out, when all is said and done, that as much effort and attention is paid to the improvement process itself and what was originally envisioned, I believe, by the Board Governance Committee, and that is that the council is not a legislative body, that it's a management body, and that the policy work is done at the working group level.
 So that's all I ask, is when this is all fleshed out and it's all said and done, that as much attention is paid to that effort as has been paid to getting as many votes as you can.
 [Applause]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Philip?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Thank you.  I just wanted to make a little clarification in terms of what we heard about the -- well, the statistical voting analysis we've seen here and some of the earlier concerns that we had expressed as a constituency and, indeed, were part of the rationale behind the joint users proposal for reform.
 When we said that we were concerned about certain proposals being blocked, stopped, or delayed by the contract parties, it didn't necessarily suggest that those contract parties, the registries and registrars, were always working in concert.  Our main concern was the fact that those parties had been given double the votes of anybody else and thus, were able to leverage for their own particular issue at any one time the ability maybe to delay or completely stop certain proposals that we'd made.  And our main concern was that in particular, we saw a number of issues which have the broader objective of consumer fraud-related issues seem to have been stopped by the exercise of weighted voting, and that was where one of our concerns existed.
 Now, it may be issue to issue.  That exercise is differently placed.  Indeed, had our concern been so much that it was collusion between the R and Rs, I think you would not have seen the joint proposal that proposed putting all under one lovely umbrella.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So since I have a microphone -- and I'll get to you in a second -- I wanted to take the opportunity to take a comment personally as a NomCom appointee, in that I'm very pleased at looking at the statistics to see them bear out one comment that I've made on -- frequently on my sort of anecdotal personal opinion is that we seem to vote with each of the constituencies pretty much equally -- 46, 54, kind of like 50 -- and one of the comments that had been made is of the NomCom's ability to sort of be a balancing in the various ways, and especially in the 4-x-4-plus-3 which basically recognizes the role of NomCom appointees in terms of providing a balancing effect.  I am actually happy to see that the historical seems to point that out and now I'll go back to the microphone.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks.  Actually, I want to start with a point that Avri is making, and I do think that the nominating committee appointees have been very valuable these last several years, and I think that I just want to join onto that, and I think that that role of the nominating committee members should not be reduced or taken away at all.  I think it has added a lot of benefit to the process, and not just balance in terms of voting but different perspectives that may not be presented otherwise through the existing constituencies, so I do want to acknowledge that and I think everyone in this room should acknowledge that.  I think the benefits have been excellent.
 And on the point of Philip, you know, I keep hearing in the abstract all about, you know, there were issues that could have benefitted the broader community that the weighted voting somehow played a role in stopping, and I want to bring up an example and I'll probably bring it up again later.  You know, with the domain tasting motion.  I brought this up in a comment I made on the list, but if you look at what happened prior to New Delhi, with domain tasting, there was a motion that was submitted by some members of the council that I was told, quote, had the votes to pass which was never fully vetted, and in my opinion had never fully considered certain documents and evidence that was presented by some of the contracted parties.
 The proposal before New Delhi which seemed to have popularity amongst a number that didn't understand necessarily or weren't given the facts to eliminate the add-grace period completely, just to wipe it out.  The registrars, in response, presented some statistical and documented evidence of the legitimate use of the add-grace period.  The response to that documented evidence was certain constituency members, council members, and others in the community saying, "You know, my gut tells me that that's just not right."  There was no evidence presented on the other side.  It was a "gut."
 In fact, at that time NeuStar and Afilias had presented a proposal which was eventually adopted and now is up for the -- to the -- for a board vote tomorrow to be a consensus policy that had a 10% number of allowance of deletes during the add-grace period.
 There were a number of council members, even at the time that said, "You know what?  10% just seems like a really high number.  My gut tells me that that's too high and that's not going to achieve the goal of eliminating tasting."  Registries and registrars presented evidence of why we thought the 10% number would.  Again, all we heard back was, "Well, my gut just tells me that's not the case.  We just need to get rid of the add-grace period."
 If there wasn't balanced voting as there is today, if there wasn't balanced voting as is what's presented in the proposal by Mr. Sheppard and the, quote, joint users proposal, the add-grace period would be gone.  Now, some of the community may say, "Well, that's a good thing."
 Well, dot biz, NeuStar, adopted the 10% proposal, went through the registry services process, implemented it starting June 1, and I'm happy to say that in dot biz, domain tasting is virtually gone.
 There were a couple registrars, for the first three days of June, that forgot the rule went into effect, so June will not be a perfect month.  After we called those registrars, June 3rd, that all stopped.  So there may be a couple over 10%, but other than those couple that stopped after June 3rd, there will -- there is no tasting in dot biz.  The proposal has worked so far.  It's just the first month.  And again, the month isn't over, so maybe something, in theory, could happen the next couple of days, but I doubt it.
 The net deletes during the add-grace period has gone from a percentage of about -- between 30 and 40% to under 6%.
 So I think what has happened -- what wouldn't have happened, had there not been weighted voting, we would have gotten rid of the add-grace period, we would have been left with a lot of problems due to legitimate deletes, registrars going to registries seeking refunds, a lot of reporting problems, a lot of other consumer customer support problems, but that was all avoided.  Why?  Because those that wanted to get rid of the add-grace period were forced to deal with the contracted parties, and I'm here to say thank God they did because now we got the best of both worlds and I hope to see that result reflected in the rest of the TLDs.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  At this point, not seeing anyone at the mic, not seeing any hands up... okay.  One last comment and then I'm going to adjourn it till after lunch.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  No.  I would actually like to officially request the opportunity to see all of this evidence that I know was shared at the registrar and registry constituency meetings.  And Jeff I agree.  You know, I have been the person saying, "I don't know.  You need tasting -- you need the AGP to fight fraud."  Well, you know, Apple with iTunes seems to have figured out how to deal with fraud in a similarly instantaneous use-it-right-now transaction.  We've never seen any of that information, and I would very much like the opportunity to see it, and I very well may, once I see it, say, "Okay, maybe I was wrong."  But I -- I'm not real thrilled with the representation that you've just made that we have, in fact, all seen it, because we haven't.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I believe -- and maybe Tim might want to speak to this, but there was evidence and there were slides and there were other presentations by the registrars to that group that presented that.  So I just want to clear up the record.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  I want to now, as was mentioned before, another session -- another session was scheduled for 1:00 to 2:00, where the specific topic was GNSO improvements, which I think includes both the category of discussing what we think the board should or should not do tomorrow, and also is open to any comments on the plan that we're sending out to public opinion, so there will be -- and we did not fulfill our full 45 minutes of open mic so we will adjourn now and be back at 1:00 to have a prompt start until 2:00, and at 2:00 we will adjourn again.  Or we will end.
 Thank you.  Have a good lunch, if you can find one.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Just a quick announcement.  For those who may not know where the quickest lunch is in the hotel, but my understanding on Level A, there is a buffet that's fairly quick.
 [Break]