GNSO Working Group. 21 June 2008 (pm session) Paris, France >>AVRI DORIA: Hello. Welcome back. It's now 2:30. The next item on the agenda from 2:30 to 3:30 -- okay? Did everybody have lunch? Everybody's talked out? Okay. The item that we have on the agenda from 2:30 to 3:30 is the GNSO improvements top-level plan that the planning group put together and we did an overview of the report at the last -- at our last meeting. The next step for it is at Wednesday, assuming that we're ready, is wanted to take a vote on accepting the top-level plan and initiating it. Now, there's two parts with doing that. There's today, going through that plan and seeing if there's anything that we need to change, if we're all fine with it, if it's understood. And then the other thing that we had been asking people to do this week is, assuming that this plan is essentially acceptable and noticing that these committees have membership, to start thinking about, you know, the representatives from the various constituencies. So was not necessarily going to do much of a talk through the plan. We've got it up. We'll be able to edit it. The thing we've got -- first of all, I guess I want to know if there's any questions before we start on anything to do with this plan or understanding it or what have you. I don't know, do I need to do a quick overview again? Hopefully everyone has the overview from the council. We still are missing a lot of the council at the moment, but I'm assuming they'll be here soon. So I don't know how far, but basically we tried in this report, as was mentioned, to stay away from anything that was in the still-controversial pile or not. So basically, we focused on the things having to do with -- and I should actually have a copy up, so I can move through it myself -- basically on the things having to do with working groups and PDPs. Those were one of the main requirements we had is -- let me get my screen back here, so I know what I'm looking at. Okay. So basically, what we put together was a presentation of -- starting off with two basic standing committees, and we described a -- what a standing committee would do, and we basically took from the board a recommendation that we look into that as a way of organizing some of our work, and the standing committees recommended in this initial process included two of them with focused roles. Now, the notion was not that the standing committees would do all the work, but that the standing committees would be responsible for organizing the work and for seeing to it that it was done. So if you look down on, like, page -- I guess it's 6 -- at around Line 14, you see the two standing committees that are proposed. One of them is the process standing committee, which would oversee overall efforts to enhance the policy development process, including serving as the coordinating body for separate teams -- possibly separate teams tasked with developing a proposal for a new working group model and a new policy development process. These teams will be responsible for making recommendations concerning processes and methods involved in the transition to a GNSO working group model. This standing committee will also consider the revision of the policy development process, which is closely tied to the working group model. So, in other words, the idea was that working groups, as described in the yet-to-be-approved board improvements plan, were to be the fundamental building block in coming up with consensus policy; that a working group would be formed, that working group would be where all the deliberations went on, and then their recommendations would come to the council and that that would be a part of a revised policy development process because now the policy development process, while we can twist it to where we use a committee-of-the-whole model and then when we're in the committee-of-the-whole, the committee-of-the-whole decides to create a working group as a method of doing the work, it's not really geared towards that. And then we have, as opposed to that, the task force which is the model that, by and large, we seem to want to move away from, which is that one or more representatives from the constituencies decide to do all the work and then it comes forward that way. So -- but -- and it's not to say that there's any notion of what comes out of the PDP process. The task force may still remain one of the options, at the end of all this, but that's what this standing committee is to do. Now, the notion with a standing committee is that the standing committee is composed of representatives of the constituencies, but they are responsible for, as I say, coordinating the work and not necessarily doing it themselves. And so one of the recommendations to the first standing committee, though it's not included as any, you know, mandate to them "they must do this," was that they would then create two groups that would work on -- one of them work on working group processes and what it means to be a working group and how a working group within GNSO should work, and then one of them to work on looking at the policy development processes and the standing committee would be responsible for making sure that these two coordinated and were together. The other group was the operation -- oh, good, Chuck's here -- the operations standing committee, which is basically oversee efforts focused on recommendations concerning GNSO structure, constituency enhancements, and communications. Notice that it's leaving out any of the discussion of any reorganization of constituencies and stakeholder groups that may or may not happen, because that falls into that. This is just basically, "We have constituencies. What can be done to enhance them, to enhance communications and such?" This committee should also task special focus groups to develop proposals to implement recommendations related to these areas, and would operate in an inclusive and transparent manner. Membership in the standing committee and the work teams would be drawn from both existing and emerging constituencies, building on the notion that new constituencies may come in. They would -- once at a sufficient level of formation, they could be included in the standing committee. Various discussions in this document on membership, how many in a standing committee, who can be in a standing committee, standing committee work teams, what they would be like, transparency for standing committees and their teams, and a start date, wanting hopefully to start no later than the end of this meeting, assuming we can come to agreement on this method of starting. Then the document goes into basically discussing the -- each of the teams, talking about the work items that would fall under them, so the process standing committee starts on Page 10 on, goes through, has two initial work items, establishing new rules for the PDP, and establishing procedures and guidelines for the policy working groups, and that's 28 through 32 there. Working methods basically discusses a possible working method of creating process working teams, basically, and then discusses membership, where it would contain either a GNSO chair and/or vice chair and a representative from each constituency, and then one NomCom appointee. One of the things we talked about -- Is that the beginning of a question or a yawn? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Both. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, both, okay. I wasn't sure. So one of the things we've discussed with NomCom appointees is that -- and this is something speaking from my personal experience as a NomCom appointee -- I kind of felt that, well, I had to try and be in as many committees and working groups as possible because I was a team of one and decided that we should really start looking as the group of NomCom appointees as a group who work together who share load, who sometimes one is in one and another is in another, and not that they're making decisions like constituencies. They still remain individuals, obviously, in terms of their votes and their decisions, but we don't have to have all three. And also, at times when we're limiting something to one per constituency, it seems sort of unreasonable to then have all three NomCom appointees in, also. So finding a balance on that. Yeah. You had a question. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. Pass the mic. Sorry. I'm trying to get a mic. >>AVRI DORIA: And remember, give name and speak into the mic and... So, Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Hi. I'm Jeff Neuman, and a question is: Can you give me some examples of what's noncontentious in the operations standing committee? Because the way I see it, even -- I thought I heard you say one example is maybe addition of new constituencies. >>AVRI DORIA: No. >>JEFF NEUMAN: That wasn't one, okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, wait a second. First of all, at the moment even, new constituencies -- anybody can put together a proposal for a constituency, take it to the board, and if the board approves it, there's a new constituency. So even under today's rule, if somebody made it through the board and was a -- you know, and the board said, "Yep, go ahead and form a constituency," at some point that would be a new constituency. Now, within the new improvements group, there may be ways to form new constituencies, but -- but that wasn't one I was including as noncontentious, though I could argue that there's even a way in which it's noncontentious. >>CHUCK GOMES: I was trying to cut you off. >>AVRI DORIA: And you did a good job. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me share several, Jeff. It's Chuck Gomes, okay? The -- how about the PDP rules themselves? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Right. But that's in the other committee. I'm talking about the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, you're just restricting it to this? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. Because I think there's certain elements of the PDP that wouldn't be contentious but even at the PDP, which is, what is a consensus policy and how is that defined. That's pretty contentious, I would say. >>AVRI DORIA: That may be contentious, but it's not a contentious part of the board's improvement plan that they say that -- You know, because we've been asking for a long time for the ability to talk about the PDP structure, and they've basically said, "Go away and talk about the PDP structure and bring us back a proposal." >>JEFF NEUMAN: Right. But my question was really focused on the operations one. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Okay. On the operations, for example, if you look at the -- first of all, one of the things we were careful about, it's -- and this is on Page 13, GNSO operations: Develop any changes needed to the council structure role in response to the board-approved GNSO structure. So that's sort of saying that nothing happens there until the board has gone through and made its decision. So in that first one, the operations committee, it's not going to do any of that until there's a board decision. Which we may even get this week. Or next week. Coming week. Then, two, constituency operations: Enhancing constituencies by making processes more outcome-oriented, transparent, accountable, accessible, redoubling outreach efforts to encourage broader participation, in current constituencies, and self-forming of new ones. So I would think that there would be several things in that that weren't contentious. For example, helping people do broader outreach. I -- it -- you know, whether -- okay. I don't know whether outcome orientation might be contentious. Transparency and accountability might be contentious. Accessibility might be contentious. But I would hope that for the most part they wouldn't be terribly contentious. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Now, do they become -- if the board makes a decision, then do they no longer become contentious, I mean, or -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>JEFF NEUMAN: So assuming -- [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: My assumption is, what we stayed away from was anything that was contentious, until such time as the board had made its decisions. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Right. >>AVRI DORIA: Once the board has made its decisions, I don't know what ability we have to contend them but we sort of do have the board's decision and have to sort of follow through with it. >>JEFF NEUMAN: So if the board decided this week -- and I don't know if they will or won't -- that the structure is as they proposed in their latest report, that then the council would take that mandate and act on that, no matter how contentious it was prior to the board vote. It would have to be accepted and moved forward? >>AVRI DORIA: That would be my understanding of my responsibility. That, yeah, once -- once the board has made its decision, you know, we -- we've had input, we've argued various positions, but I believe that in the council, as the council now stands, implementing that would be the next step. >>JEFF NEUMAN: So would it be fair to say that the council should probably suggest to the board that they do something this week; that the sooner the better? Because really most of the work is going to -- or a lot of the work is going to be held off until the board actually decides these important issues which have been outstanding for quite some time now. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, yes, certainly. And I know I've been encouraging the board in their decision-making for a while. But I still think there's a lot of the work here. You know, for example, if you look at Point 3 here, communications, improving communications and coordination with other structures. So even if the board doesn't make a decision this week, there's work -- there's certainly work in the first standing committee, the one on process, that needs to be done. We're putting together more and more working groups now. We're sort of working through our process on what it means to be a working group. We -- we're working with a PDP structure that may or may not work all the time because we're twisting it to try and make it work to new realities, but... And then you look at the second one. Certainly I think some of those things -- first of all, the organizing of the committee and some of those improved communications, you know, are not terrible econ ten infectious. I mean, I'm sure we can find items that are contentious within each of them in terms of how we implement, how we deploy. But that's a different meaning of "contentious." >>JEFF NEUMAN: Right. Just a last follow-up. Sorry. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>JEFF NEUMAN: It's just that the registry constituency, at least what we've been discussing is that we really should try to avoid, where possible, a piecemeal approach to all of this, and that, you know, where possible we should really take the overall and look at every piece of reform together and not in little silos, so that's the only caution, and I don't know if -- >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And we're going to discuss that again this week, and I don't know if that will change, but... >>AVRI DORIA: And hopefully people will discuss it in light of the proposal we've got here. I've got Chuck, then I've got Kristina, and I've got Liz. Who else do I want to put on this list while I'm building a list? That's it for the moment? Okay. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: It's important to keep in mind that this plan, even though it -- we're focusing on the contentious or noncontentious issues right now, the plan is a long-term plan for working on this. Whatever we decide is contentious, as we begin to implement the plan, we can put that aside. So we don't really have to decide what all those are. The plan is to -- is designed to be something that can be used all the way down the line on this. Once the contention is removed, then we can implement and so forth. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was just hoping I could get some clarification. There are some statements in the summary of the most recent board meeting in which some board members indicated their awareness as to what the council was doing in terms of working hard on the implementation plan, et cetera, keen to make a decision. Has -- is it -- have either of you made clear to them that what we've been working on is kind of the noncontentious part of this? Because that's not really clear from that. >>AVRI DORIA: I believe that's clear. I don't know if anyone from the board -- I guess we only have one -- would like to respond and see whether they're aware of that. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Yes, I believe it's clear at the board level that what's going on here is a structure for implementation, once decisions are made. I think -- I don't think there's any question about that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Liz? >>LIZ GASSTER: I was just going to enumerate a couple of other examples of -- you know, there's really a long, long list of recommendations that would be encompassed in this operations standing committee. So some other examples would be a toolkit of services for the constituencies, standardizing services like conference call support, document support for the constituencies is one example. A GNSO directory. Developing a directory of all GNSO participants is another example. A uniform document handling and Document management system is another example. Improvements to the Web site, so that -- and policy related, so you can find things more easily with more explanatory text, those kinds of things. So there's really a whole laundry list of things that, you know, I would certainly put in the noncontentious bucket, although certainly there could be contentious aspects that really just take a lot of time to do and to think through properly. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. And I mean, one of the things that we -- we're trying to do is because part of the board decision that did come through was, "Get started on the planning, get started on the noncontentious work" so that's what we've been attempting to do. So yes, Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: So Liz, I think you mentioned some good examples of noncontentious. I think some other examples were raised. I think it would help if the council, before the working groups are formed, if they could try to define what some of those are, so that the first meeting of the working group, everyone's not looking at each other going, "Okay, what do we think is contentious and not contentious," and then getting into arguments about that. And so to the extent guidance could be provided, that might help. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, I think that's one of the things that we're thinking that the standing committees, which are composed of members of the constituencies, are the ones that create the charters for those working groups. At the moment, in terms of this, we're not creating charters other than for the standing committees that are then basically responsible for following through with the work and reporting to the council. But the work is not actually being done in the council, but these standing committees are becoming the place where that work is being organized. They're the ones that have to deal with -- you know, because there will be a member from each constituency on those committees. It doesn't need to be the council member. It's another one of those steps of spreading the work beyond the council members, so there will be a constituency representative. Could be a council member, could not be a council member, that then basically if there's a group of six people there, or all six constituencies are represented, and they can't agree that something is not contentious u that's not something they're going to work on. Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: And that will come back to the council. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And then that would come back to the council. Yes, sorry. >>TIM RUIZ: Were there others in the queue before me? >>AVRI DORIA: not at the moment, no. >>TIM RUIZ: Oh, okay. So what is left for the -- for the board to decide? Is it primarily just the structure? I mean, that was my understanding, it was basically the structure, which it seemed like they were close, probably, to making some decision or maybe Susan can comment on that. And then if -- given that, I'm just wondering if, are we at a point where because we're getting close, that maybe this plan doesn't start to be implemented until all the decisions are made? >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly the notion was not that we would wait for all the decisions to be made, but we're hoping all the decisions will be made. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Yeah. This is Susan again. The board has not yet adopted the working group's report coming up from the Board Governance Committee, so it's that moment that has to happen, the adoption of the report or I suppose the rejection of the report, and I would hope -- my hope would be that the report would be accepted in whole. I was a member of the BGC working group, so that's my -- my hope for this plan. But that may not happen at the board level, so I just want everybody to be clear what's going on, that that report has not yet been accepted as a whole by the board. >>AVRI DORIA: My comment, though: The resolution of 2008-215 basically, while it directed the staff to open a public comment forum for 30 days on the improvements report, draft a detailed implementation plan with the GNSO -- which this is -- and then begin implementation of noncontentious recommendations and return to the board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. So while the board hasn't approved the whole plan and they didn't define what was noncontentious or not -- so I guess they kind of left us to decide what was contentious or not -- and so if we can agree that it's not contentious, it's not contentious. If we can't agree that it's noncontentious, then it's contentious. I mean, it seems to be fairly, you know, binary in that. That we were, though, asked by the board to get started on anything we could agree was not contentious. Yes, J. Scott. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: This is J. Scott. I guess I think we're getting lost a little in semantics here, because they way I understand it, the board has accepted the report, they just haven't accepted the conclusions of the report. I mean, the report has been delivered, it has been reported to the board, the board has taken it under advisement, and has given direction with regards to noncontentious issues to the GNSO. With regards to the contentious portions, which are conclusions of the report, I think that's the question that remains open. Not has the report, quote-unquote, been accepted by the board, because they've already had it reported to them and now it's under discussion. >>AVRI DORIA: Anyhow, I -- the short of it, without semantics, is: I do believe we're in a position where there are things we should start implementing, and we have to work among ourselves. As I say, if we come up with something that is -- we decide falls into a contentious bucket before they've made a decision, fine. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Right. >>AVRI DORIA: But otherwise -- and so the working group model, for example, looking at the PDP, for example, and some of the things that were mentioned under operations. So in terms of the structure itself, I was wondering, or the document itself, because basically the motion that I'm planning to put in is basically that we accept and initiate this process as defined in this document. And that's pretty much what's going to be on the table for Thursday. So I'd like to make sure that there's not anything in this document that people find problematic. Language that they find problematic. The document's been out for -- well, since 22 May, and it took a fair amount of time in the planning team, which had a fairly good composition of people from almost all of the constituencies. One constituency wasn't represented, but certainly all were invited and many did participate. So were there any questions, issues, parts of this specific plan that are problematic and need to be discussed before we vote on putting it into play? I'm assuming -- okay. Yes, thank you, Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. The only reason I bring it up is the whole contentious/noncontentious is a number of the things described on Page 14, I think it is -- at least in the version I'm looking at -- there where you say some of the issues they might want to work on are those, the bullet list. And looking through that bullet list in team 1, I think almost all of them are contentious. Maybe not. Maybe -- maybe some of them aren't. But a good number of them are, would fall, I believe, in the contentious category. >>AVRI DORIA: All right. And in which case, if that's the case in the standing committee that those are contentious and the board hasn't made its decision this week, then they wouldn't start working on those. That they would start working on those where they could decide that -- where that standing committee thought that there wasn't an issue. >>JEFF NEUMAN: So I think it just needs to be reflected in this -- or in the motion that really you're just -- it's in the preamble. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, I think that wording is really very much in the beginning of the document. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I agree it's in the beginning, kind of in the preamble, but things get lost when you get down to the standing committee and working groups level, and since you have set forth issues that they could consider, you don't want that to be interpreted as these issues are noncontentious. In fact, the way I look at it, really mostly team 2 that might -- or -- yeah, team no. 2 and team 3, that might have noncontentious items, but team 1 is -- well, most of team 1 is pretty contentious. So I mean, the examples are good things for things that they're going to work on, but if this is adopted this week by the council and the board hasn't ruled on some of those contentious issues, there's kind of a little conflict there. >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't understand. What's the conflict? It's just a plan that we will implement, and the order in which we do things will be determined by us when we decide on whether or not it's contentious. >>TIM RUIZ: I think -- I might be wrong, but what I'm getting from it is that this seems to imply that there are already noncontentious issues before we've discussed them, and so by adopting this, are we then agreeing that these things are noncontentious, or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: No. All we're doing is adopting a plan to implement whatever recommendations are approved by the board. If we decide that they're all contentious, we won't do anything until such time that they're all approved. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I just want to point out a couple things about this section that Jeff is referring to. The first one is that it talks about developing a proposal for council consideration. The purpose of these groups isn't to go off and implement something, it is to develop proposals on each of these specific things for the council to review and decide on. And in some cases, it's also for the board to review and decide on because there are a few things in the board governance report that specifically require going back to the board once the plan is developed. If you look at the first bullet under Team 1 and the last bullet under Team 1 which is -- really refers to the new council and constituency structures, they both contain clauses that are really just placeholders for once the board has decided. So I think you're right that we tried to identify some things that maybe could be implemented, in a sense, independently, like statements of interest. I'm just looking at the middle bullets, if you will, the curriculum, for example, bylaws, draft changes on term limits which has already been approved by the council. Those are enumerated to convey that there are some specific things that we think probably could get done independent from restructuring, but the others are intended to be a placeholder once the board makes a decision. >>TIM RUIZ: By agreeing to this we are not disagreeing to any of that. Agreeing to a framework, nothing specific about what would be pursued and is non-contentious. >>AVRI DORIA: In fact, the list is just mentioned as these are, work items that may be included, that could be identified. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: I have one comment to your comment. You said there are bullet points and viewed it would go to the working group and come back to the council for a decision. But if you remember if the restructuring proposal is adopted wholesale -- correct -- as I understand the process of the GNSO Council at that point, they no longer vote or make any decisions. That is then -- all they do is make sure the working group has followed the normal protocols and -- that's how I read the board's proposal. >>AVRI DORIA: That -- Okay. I might actually agree with you and others would disagree when we're talking about consensus policy and policy development. But when we're talking about process, in fact, I mean, I would argue the GNSO improvements makes the GNSO Council process kings and queens. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Okay. Clarification taken. >>AVRI DORIA: And this is all process. Within -- now, there are people that would argue that I'm exaggerating when I say how much control we would have in policy, but... >>JEFF NEUMAN: This reminds me back in 2001, 2002, maybe even earlier, when we talked about the differences between policy and process and no one could define the difference. I don't want -- that was six, seven years ago. I don't want to get back into that whole messy debate. But putting that aside, my engineers have taught me well, and when you put words into a document, you may -- you, Avri and Chuck, may understand the document in one sort of way but other people will read it other ways. And when that governs their framework, I just think that -- >>AVRI DORIA: Are you recommending what you said this morning? Are you recommending some particular words? The document is open for that now. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm still trying to figure out exactly what everyone agrees on is the framework. Once that -- I think there is some work that needs to be done on this to reflect some of the comments that you've made, if that's the direction everyone wants to go in because I don't think the report says the context you've been giving. Unfortunately, you guys -- you two can't be in every standing committee or working group meeting. So people are going to have to know by reading the document itself exactly what their job and their mandate is. >>AVRI DORIA: I actually do think it says it but I have to find the paragraphs. Kristina, yes? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Given it appears that we are heading in the direction of finalizing a document that will be operational as a roadmap or at least intended that way, what I would like to do at some point -- and I can work with staff as to where -- but the IPC has never supported wholeheartedly, 100% in all circumstances the working group model. We believe it is a good model. We think it has value, but we think that there is also value in preserving to the council the flexibility that in some cases, you would want something other than a working group. And to the extent this is intended, as I'm understanding it, to reflect kind of the unanimous view, I would just like to make sure that's -- >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, I think by having a separate group that talks about the PDP separate from the working group model, that there is a working group model that has to be defined, that there is a PDP revision that has to be done. Nothing is said about what that PDP revision is at the moment. There is certainly is the board recommendations that will come down that says the working group model is the primary. And I believe it says the "primary," not the only. Nothing in this actually states that there are only working groups. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: We just want it in the text to reflect that the IPC's position stands that we endorse the working group model and we think that it has great value but that it should not be the only method available. We want that in the text. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And I think you said the problem is [inaudible] non-contentious. Jeff, I agree with you. It may not happen a lot lately, but I do. I think maybe -- I think that's my concern because the use of non-contentious really implies, at least when I read it, to mean that everything else other than kind of the key structure issue has been agreed on and kind of implicitly endorsed by the constituencies. At least for the IPC that's not 100% true. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: We're not rejecting it. We're just saying we don't think it should be the only method available to the council. >>AVRI DORIA: I had Jeff, Susan. Chuck. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Maybe this is a question for Susan, too. J. Scott got me thinking about the loop that could be created. If you start working on these recommendations and you populate these standing committees and working groups with members of each constituency, what happens when the board decides, or if they decide, okay, now there is really only three constituencies, business, non-commercial and registries, registrars or whatever they decide? Do we just repopulate the working groups, standing committees since those constituencies technically don't exist anymore? >>AVRI DORIA: There would be a transition but yes. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Just to be very clear about what's going on here, the board, in a sense, has created this problem for the council by not acting swiftly to not only accept the report from the board governance working group but also adopt it. It is adoption that hasn't happened yet. Avri and Chuck and this planning group, to which I am a liaison, are attempting to set up a framework. It is like a vessel that will be filled once the board acts on these recommendations. And it is just like a ship that will allow us to move forward once those recommendations are adopted. So I think that all of the worries about what's contentious and what's not, should, once the board acts, be resolved so we can all move forward together. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I just think the problem with the vessel you are creating, you don't know if it will be on land, on sea or on train tracks. They are building a vessel without knowing what it is going to be riding on. That's kind of the analogy I'm thinking of. It is tough to build a vessel for something that you don't know what it's going on. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Actually, just to go to the detail about the question you just raised, Jeff, I don't think there is any suggestion in the Board Governance Committee working groups report that existing constituencies would be wiped out. The suggestion is that there might be stakeholder groups that would be folding in constituencies. So I don't think the concern you've raised is actually realistic. There will still be constituencies in the world. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, the constituency number would remain the same or grow. It is the stakeholder groups that they've been talking about reorganizing. >>CHUCK GOMES: As with any policy, there is an implementation period that -- Avri referred to that as transition. These changes, if there are changes made, will have an implementation period. The council's not going to change. The structure is not going to change automatically when the board takes action on this. There is going to be an implementation period, and it is the responsibility of this group and the working groups and the standing committees that are formed to develop that implementation plan and to work on implementation and to decide at what point the change happens. So the whole circular thing is crazy. Now, I'm generally pretty patient on these kinds of things, but we're being ridiculous right now. And this is why people laugh at us because we can't get anything done. As Susan just said, this is a framework. We can change the framework, if we need to. Don't make more out of this document than it is. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I've got Philip and then Tom -- I mean, then Tony, then Tim. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you. Just to pick up on Susan's analogy of the ship of GNSO reform moving towards the iceberg of contention -- [ Laughter ] -- I do share that we have been having a slightly philosophical conversation here. And I'm also one that does believe that "contention" is a fairly binary thing that if somebody disagrees, it sounds like it may be contentious. And, indeed, with the greatest respect to the board, even when they do take a decision, it doesn't actually necessarily change the nature of opinion in this body as to whether or not that decision was contentious and all that will flow from it will be contentious. I don't think that particular route in the discussion helps us unduly. I aired, on this group when we were drafting this paper, some of the issues we've been talking about just now. I think all of which is saying whatever we put in this document should not presuppose outcomes that we haven't yet fully discussed. So just a suggestion, perhaps the lawyers in the room have better wording than me, but we could have in a 18-point bold statement at the top of this document saying, "Nothing in this document implies any ex ante acceptance of the reforms that may come out of this structure we're proposing" or something of that nature. That might help clarify where most of us are on this, which is in a -- on a ship of uncertainty. >>AVRI DORIA: Seems a reasonable possibility. Tony? >>TONY HOLMES: I was going to go to the same point as Philip but from a slightly different perspective. It is true what Susan says is part of the reason we're in this situation is a decision hasn't been taken but at the same time, if that was the case, we're just faced with another set of problems, a totally set of problems. I don't think it makes it any easier at all. So I don't see that as a resolution. But I do think what's happened with this document that's being prepared is that it's a way of taking things forward and listening to some of the concerns around here and supporting the view that we do need to work on some of these issues. Another way to do this is rather than write something on the top of the document, we could actually have a motion that maybe recognizes the background with which this study would go forward. Within that motion you could actually list the IPC concerns that it doesn't, for instance, accept everything that's in here. But we're going to move it forward and work on the basis of trying to make some positive steps forward. >> [inaudible] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So one thing I need to understand is -- okay. So it would be the IPC's issue, reservations in terms of working groups. Would there be other things that would need to be listed in terms of this constituency doesn't, this constituency doesn't and list of those? Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: You might just need to check the record on this. But if you remember, I helped draft a GNSO Council paper on reform issues where we tried to list, basically, the things going forward there. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: And I think the GNSO itself with certain caveats are a working group model because we are uncertain what the model looks like. So I don't think the IPC is unique. I think actually Council itself had caveats on how the working group model would work. >>AVRI DORIA: No, I was just asking whether there would need to be other issues included in the list of reservations. Okay. I've got Tim and then I've got Jeff. >>TIM RUIZ: Just reading that first paragraph on page 5, I mean, basically, it says this is the framework that's going to be used for the contentious and the non-contentious. Why do we get into that at all? Maybe one solution might be that this is just a framework to implement the improvements plan and we get rid of this discussion about what's contentious and non-contentious. >>AVRI DORIA: You are talking about lines 7 through 11 there? >>TIM RUIZ: Right, right. >>AVRI DORIA: And you're proposing that we change it how? That you, basically, just change the first -- just use the first sentence to propose a work structure for implementing the operating -- the operational changes recommended by the Board Governance Committee and get rid of the second sentence. It might right some other changes through the document we're talking about contentious and non-contentious. >>AVRI DORIA: Wait a second. Why would we get rid of the second sentence? >>TIM RUIZ: Because it's just -- it's kind of redundant there in a way because you're saying we are going to use this framework for the contentious but we are also going to use this framework for the non-contentious. What you are saying is this is the framework to implement the recommendations of the board. Why don't we just say that and, you know, we can leave the contentious issues and what we're going to actually pursue first for a different discussion. And then just kind of scale this down to just the framework and try to address the issue. Maybe even when we are talking about the operational group to address some of the concerns that the BCs had, we just say the PDP process and we don't mention working group or whatever but just stick to the PDP process which will include that and maybe something else. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I've got Jeff and then Tony. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think your question of what other constituencies might feel they would want text in, I think probably should wait until after Tuesday. And I hate to do that because Wednesday is the council meeting day, but I think the constituencies would probably appreciate a time to discuss that. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm actually wondering whether something in what Philip said, since we did do -- now, I don't remember whether the IPC issue about working groups was in the document that Philip put together at this point but somehow perhaps in the motion just referring to that document is reasonable. As I say, I remember the document but I don't remember -- oops, sorry -- I don't remember whether that particular IPC issue was brought out. We would have to check Philip or someone who has that document handy might be able to say. So, therefore, in the motion we would, basically, accept this as change there but make note of the fact that there are still many outstanding or several -- so several outstanding GNSO concerns that are addressed in document, whatever that document happens to be. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: That's fine. Philip, if you could repost that. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think all the constituencies or a bunch of the constituencies had papers like that. >>AVRI DORIA: But we had one that was rolled up of -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: Like I know the registries had made some comments on voting and emphasis and all that stuff which may be applicable when you talk about the PDP process. We'd have to -- I would have to go back and look. I think there were some comments probably by most of the constituencies. I also have another question as to why we're including these statements so J. Scott says the IPC never said the working group model is the way to go but J. Scott if the board comes down and says the working group is the model to go, are you still saying that's contentious and this committee shouldn't work on it or are you saying, okay, now we'll go with it and we'll move forward. The reason I'm asking is because I plan on volunteering some of my time to help with this because I want to see it go forward, despite the sounds of some of my questions, I do want to see it go forward. I've served on a number of committees and just want it to be clear what's going to happen. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: What I'm saying is I think that the proposal that Tim made about taking out any kind of differentiation about how it's going to be used because reality is whether it is contentious or not contentious, this is a framework that we are going to use to do the process. So that answers our concern. And what we were most concerned with is as you start framing things with contentious and non-contentious and we are going to vote for this, we want it had clear by voting for that, that couldn't be said you are voting for this so, therefore -- >>AVRI DORIA: In other words, if that phrase is taken out and the second sentence is taken out, you don't need something specific in the motion mentioning working groups. So you probably want to strike that sentence, too, if that gets us to a solution on it. Yes, I had Tony, next. >>TONY HOLMES: Do we not need to be careful here? Because maybe it is my memory because, I think, by taking that out we're now going way beyond whatever was agreed in council. We only ever agreed to do it on that basis was my understanding. >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, we would have to change it -- I think he's right. We would have to change it because that first sentence says "recommended" and then the second sentence talked about "adopted." So we'd have to change that sentence from "recommended" to "adopted." Once it is adopted, that's when it gets beyond the contentious versus the non-contentious. It gets to the -- yes, Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: If you are going to used "adopted," then it is not the Board Governance Committee, it is the board as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. That's why we needed the two sentences. You have to have that one sentence -- actually, probably only the second sentence we needed. The last sentence that was deleted might be the only sentence we needed. "This structure will be used to implement all recommended" -- "all recommendations as appropriate, once the full plan has been adopted by the board." Is that really the one sentence that we need? >>BRUCE TONKIN: [inaudible] >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I understand. So the structure will be used to implement all recommendations as appropriate once the full report has been adopted by the board. Is that a reasonable -- I got rob. Okay, Susan. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: To answer the IPC's concerns, it may not be that this full report is adopted. I think they would prefer if we said something like once -- no, not a plan but "a set of recommendations for GNSO improvement are adopted by the board." How about that? >> Yep, that sounds better. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Rob. >>ROB HOGGARTH: This is Rob Hoggarth. Are we editing the right part of the document? This is for the role of the planning team. Is this where you want to be making these changes or do you want to reflect them somewhere else? >>AVRI DORIA: It certainly is one place where it is reasonable because what the planning team was creating this process and that's when the process would be used. If there is another instance where we talk about that in the document, then we might have to update that also. But it seems appropriate to -- because while this is under the planning team -- >>TIM RUIZ: This is the only place it came up. >>AVRI DORIA: It is really talking about what the plan is about. "The structure will be used to implement all recommendations as appropriate once the" -- what was the phrase -- "once the GNSO improvements recommendations have been" -- and perhaps even "the" goes away since it's "once GNSO improvement recommendations have been adopted by the board." >>J. SCOTT EVANS: You can get rid of the first sentence. >>AVRI DORIA: The first sentence is more what the planning team was doing. It was proposing a work structure. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: And the second sentence says "the structure will be used" when. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: I think you kind of need both of them. Now, does this occur -- is there any other instance of this. >>JEFF NEUMAN: There is a couple places where it talks about non-contentious. >>AVRI DORIA: Please point them out. Obviously, we can do a search on "non-contentious" to make sure we hit them all, but this is good. This is kind of hoping what we would do. >>TIM RUIZ: Page 13, line 18. >>AVRI DORIA: Page 13, line 18. Let's see that one. It is under the Team 1 stuff. Is that 13? >>TIM RUIZ: 19, I guess. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, it's 19. Operational changes, yes, so just delete that there. I mean, there is one occurrence in quoting the board resolution which, of course, we can't change. And then I think we've hit both of the non-contentious at this point. So is there anything else, though, in this same framework that you believe needs to be touched before this is something that can be ready for voting? And so if I understand correctly, a simple proposal that says, you know, council accepting this proposal and following through with it would be sufficient without any special exclusions or anything at this point. And I'll get that written up tonight so it's available. Any other places of question that should be discussed? Is everyone, basically, comfortable with this document as amended at this point? And we'll bring that up for a vote on Thursday. >>CHUCK GOMES: And distribute maybe a red-line of the changes that were made to constituencies before Tuesday so that we have an accurate record of what's happened. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. One other change I would recommend obviously is in the status of the document in that it will no longer be the first draft but it will be a draft that has been discussed -- and amended. >>CHUCK GOMES: Are there a couple of people who want to do a quick review to make sure we get them all at once. >>AVRI DORIA: I was assuming that everybody read it and came in here with their issues ready to be discuss. Of course, everybody nodded. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: contentious assumption? >>AVRI DORIA: Only if you disagree. >>JEFF NEUMAN: We were just discussing this is the year of using the word "non-contentious" in almost every staff or any report. That word is used a lot. I think the last place I read it this morning was in the ccNSO Fast Flux -- not the Fast Flux, the fast track. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, and we'll talk about that tomorrow. They've got an interesting definition of the word "contentious." >>JEFF NEUMAN: We should boycott the word "non-contentious." >>AVRI DORIA: "contentious" has a scope, and tomorrow we can talk about the scope of the word "contentious." >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: What time? >>AVRI DORIA: You can't wait, can you? [ Laughter ] Okay. In which case, I think that we're ready to sort of move on to the next agenda item. We allotted an hour for it. We got four minutes to go on this one. Thank you for the discussion on this. Okay. Next item on the agenda -- where's the agenda? There's the agenda. So we've done five, GNSO improvements. What's even better than a next agenda item is that we're up to a coffee break. Now, this is a 15-minute coffee break, not a half-hour coffee break. We're leaving four minutes early so it's a 19-minute coffee break but I'm going to try and start at 3:45, pretty closely, because then we're going to talk about front-running and then we've got our exercise on Blue Sky. So thank you. (Break) >>AVRI DORIA: Hello, everybody! It is now 15:46. We're a minute late. We're late, we're late! So the next item on the agenda is frontrunning. Frontrunning. You guys, there -- have it either or, you know, come and join this conversation. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Basically, we have a pending issue, frontrunning, basically based upon sort of board minutes and an ALAC letter. It was a discussion of basically there was a proposal -- just to remind everybody of how we got here, there was a proposal that the chair determined that emergency action is not required, but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development, if necessary, but not an emergency action. There was a discussion from Steve Crocker, and there's a note that referred to it about frontrunning and where it stood. We basically decided that we would set up a drafting team to come up with a proposal of how we wanted to handle it. We set up a small team -- is Liz here? Liz has the small team. We don't have our staff. But anyhow, a small team was set up. I don't remember who's on it. That was what I was going to ask Liz. And the list has been started, but I don't think has actually ever done anything yet. That is correct? You're on the list. Thank you. So we're at a point now where we could check the public archives and they'd be empty, so we're at a point now where we still have something on our table. We still have an obligation to respond to the question that was sent by the board in terms of do we want to provide additional information, is policy development necessary, do we have a response. Now, what the drafting team was supposed to do was basically talk about it and decide whether -- you know, perhaps draft the response or perhaps draft work that could be done in, you know, policy development work that could be done, if necessary. And that hasn't started yet, and I'm sort of at odds to know where we go from here. Is it just that that team needs more time? Is it that events have passed us by and with the changes in -- you know, in the -- I'm losing my words. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: add-grace period. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. In the changes in add-grace period and all that that's waiting on budget approval and budget approval and the board will maybe act on those this week, next week, whenever they act, has that obviated the need. Has -- I mean, and I guess there's a hypothesis that sort of says you get rid of the add-grace period, frontrunning goes away. I've also heard things saying, "Are you sure?" And so I don't know where we're at on it at the moment and I put it on the agenda so that we could figure out: Do we send back a note saying, "We think add-grace period is going to take care of it?" Do we ask the design team to look into it? Do we need more information? Where do we go from here? Because at the moment, it feels like we stalled on it, and we need to un-stall. Yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Alan, if I could impose, given that the request originated from the ALAC, can you give us a sense as to whether it's limited solely to the tasting component or not? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'll use an answer that Paul Twomey used yesterday. No. [Laughter] >>ALAN GREENBERG: No. I can't answer that -- >>AVRI DORIA: You could not answer, right? >>ALAN GREENBERG: No. She said, "Can you tell us?" And I said, "No." But Paul did use it with the word "yes" yesterday, so... It's something I need to discuss with a few people today or tomorrow or sometime soon, so I don't know. I -- my gut feeling is that the incidents which have been talked about did use the AGP. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Whether that's a definitive answer, "Therefore, we don't care anymore," I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I suspect the answer is, "Let's see what happens at this point," but I don't know for sure. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I've got Chuck and then J. Scott. >>CHUCK GOMES: So if they -- if frontrunning is done 10% of the time, it's okay? >> Come on, Chuck. Chuck, come on. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'll take off my non-constituency hat and put on a personal one. If registrars have to be selective enough to decide which one they frontrun and which ones they don't, it probably will be done on a process that's acceptable like asking people do they want to do it or not. If they only -- if they only pick the interest-sounding names we still have a problem. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have J. Scott and then Tim. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: To answer Avri's questions, I think we need to wait till the end of this meeting to see where it's resolved and what resolutions have taken place, and then I think you need to give direction to this group based on what occurs. And that might be, given what's happened at the Paris meeting, do you feel it needs to go forward or" -- but I think that's the answer to your question is, I think it has stalled. I think question is, the reason it's stalled is there's so much unresolved at the board level, they don't know where to go, so I think they need to see what happens at this meeting and then do a reevaluation. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have Tim and then I have Mike and then Alan, then Liz. >>TIM RUIZ: So just to add to that a little bit, I think to also include feedback from the ALAC that Alan -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. And just the comment about the 10%. Keep in mind that registrars, especially those that are -- that the ALAC was concerned about, you know, they have other deletes that they have to deal with during that five-day grace period, so that 10% is likely to just cover them on what they would normally need to do and really limit anybody's ability to do the cart hold type of thing. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Tim, then I had Alan. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think you had me. Avri, I thought you had me next. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, yes, I did. I'm sorry. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Just really quick, I just want to make this suggestion, that we also -- perhaps staff can ask SSAC for an update of where they're at on this, because I know one or two meetings ago, they were considering whether or not they were continue -- going to continue to consider this issue, because their initial research didn't turn up any hard evidence of cases, but there was still quite a few people in the community saying, "These things are happening" and urging them to continue their work. So I'd just -- we haven't heard from them in a while and it would just be good to know where they're at. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. I had Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I just wanted to close the loop on something that I posted to the council. When the report from the staff first came out on the 29th of May, Avri asked a question about what we had in mind when we were recommending a study, whether a study would be done -- you know, what group would do the study. Is that a SSAC thing or what? And it took me a while to get kind of clarification internally on what was really being recommended, and the operations group is looking at conducting a study or having a third party conduct a study on this. So that is something that is -- the details of it aren't defined, but the plan is for the operations group to do a study to determine whether frontrunning is happening by contracted parties. >>AVRI DORIA: So a question and I'm jumping in. That would also seem another thing that would need to be understood before we got to a policy development question. Is that -- I see nods. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: If you don't, you're going to end up with the same thing you did in the WHOIS debate where people say you have uninformed decisions, so I think that's correct: If we're going to have something that will inform the debate, you know, the study will inform the debate, I think that's essential. >>AVRI DORIA: J. Scott, tainting something by calling it like WHOIS is an unkind move. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I've got Alan and then I've got Jeff. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I support the last couple of things that have been said. We're dealing with a situation where some people said frontrunning was going to go away completely with the 20-cent budget type fee. There are other people who say domain tasting is going to go on rampantly despite the AGP -- the recommendation we made to the board, which they will hopefully accept on the 10% limit on AGP deletes. There's a wide range of feelings on this. I think we have a little bit more solid ground before we try to launch a PDP, so... >>AVRI DORIA: Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And I would say we need some solid ground before we even do a study and have ICANN spend a lot of money on a third party to look at contracted parties. I mean, we got to prove that it's an actual issue. I think the way it gets handled is more on a contract compliance. If there's a red -- if someone's got a specific complaint about a registrar engaging in that activity, then maybe ICANN staff, compliance staff, looks into it, tries to figure out the problem. But to have a study done by, I don't know, some economic expert or whoever that would do it, it just seems like a -- you know, it's 60 million now, 62 million, whatever we're at. I mean, this is just crazy with the ICANN budget. Let's stop the studies and figure out if there's really a problem first, and it's not going to be an economist that tells me that there's a problem. That's one. Number two is with the AGP. You know, look, we implemented that in dot biz starting June 1, which was only about -- just a little over two months after the board approved the motion, and the only reason we waited that long is because we had to give the registrars 30 days' notice. So we could have done it -- despite what the paper says that just came out, that says that all registries will need three to six months, yeah, there may be some registries that need longer, but despite what the paper says that that's just not reality with all registries. But I will say for dot biz, with the exception of a couple registrars that, oops, forgot that the rule went into effect June 1st and did some tasting the first few days of June until we called them up, that the amount of deletes during the add-grace period has dropped significantly to where we can say that putting aside those first -- those first couple registrars that messed up, that there's no tasting going on. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I had -- [Applause] >>AVRI DORIA: I had J. Scott and then Kristina. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: My comment with that is I agree with Jeff on fiscal prudence, but if we decide in order to do anything because we decide it's not a problem because of however we go about doing that, I just think that the important thing, and where we lose it a lot, is we don't message that back to the community well enough, and we need to be very cognizant of the fact that if we decide it's not a problem, that needs to be clearly communicated, because this has really been in the press a great deal and we need to make sure that we clearly communicate the rationale for that, and we can back it up. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And I agree completely with that, and what I would say is, unless we -- unless someone shows us that it's a problem, we shouldn't be out there venturing -- you know, someone demonstrates with some evidence that it's a problem, then we shouldn't be looking for work to find a problem. So I agree with J. Scott. We should communicate it, and if someone can actually point to hard evidence that this is going on and it's a problem, then, yeah, maybe we should take it up. But until that happens, it's just a lot of money and resources. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I had Kristina on. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, it just made me realize I was wondering whether we were going to have an opportunity today or tomorrow to talk a little bit about the draft implementation paper that has come out on tasting. Whether we -- we had made room for that. >>AVRI DORIA: I don't think so. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Could we? [Laughter] >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Or I could just corner Rob and grill him. >>JEFF NEUMAN: We could just end this frontrunning -- >>AVRI DORIA: Actually -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: We could end the frontrunning early because how much time was allowed? >>AVRI DORIA: Right. We certainly -- we have -- what did I have in the schedule here? Let me go back. We could certainly -- if he was ready to jump into it -- >>JON NEVETT: You have another half hour. >>AVRI DORIA: That's right. We were going to start at 16:30 so we have another half hour that if basically people are happy with -- we have a list of, you know, that we understand that it's -- that the drafting team is stalled until we get direction based on board and feedback from ALAC and find out what is happening with SSAC and look at what the operational group is doing, and until we have more information we basically ask that -- I mean, they can talk about it. There is a list. People are on it. If they want to talk about it from the theoretical point of view, there's a list. They could talk about it. But until then, we'll just table the idea. Is that an acceptable notion? And if so, then perhaps, Rob, if -- if you're willing, we could spend the next half hour as Kristina has recommended. Okay. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Just -- let's just make sure we communicate with those who volunteered to be on that working group what's happening. >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly. We have at least one here, but we have Liz also, and certainly that would make sense. To anyone that's on that working group -- and I know there's at least one here -- does that approach make sense? >>JON NEVETT: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: You're on that, and huh? [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: But will you be frustrated by doing nothing harder? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: No. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. That's good. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Avri, was it clear who the leadership was on that group? I mean was there a chairman? Was staff leading? >>AVRI DORIA: It was being coordinated by staff. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Being coordinated by staff, okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. And basically, I think most of those drafting teams have been coordinated with staff, with it up to the groups themselves if they want to pick a leader. But the drafting teams are very small ad hoc things. They're not like working groups where we're picking a leader. At least that's how we've been doing them, you know, up till now. I don't think anybody has risen to say, "Yes, I want to lead this thing" nor has the group pointed at someone saying -- yes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I think one of the problems on this particular -- in this particular case was that -- and we can learn from it -- is that we as a council, when we initiate something like this, need to make sure that we send out reminders to ourselves, as constituencies, to make sure we get members in that group. What happened was, is that it was assumed that everybody would submit somebody if they had anybody interested, and that didn't happen, so we're two weeks into it and all of a sudden we realize, hey, this thing has a due date in about a week. So just procedurally, we can probably handle that better in the future. >>AVRI DORIA: Something for our process standing committees to concern themselves with. Which, I mean, I say facetiously, but not totally. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. In that case, if that understanding is fine for now and move along with that, Rob, would you like the -- is there anything you want to show or just talk? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Yeah, this wasn't on the agenda but I'm delighted to talk about it. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, it wasn't and I appreciate T. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Sure. Just to put it in context for everybody, from a staff perspective, one of Denise's future philosophies and real strategies is to help improve the implementation process post-policy development process. It's essentially to move implementation as far up in the process as possible. To have within the discussion of changing policies an active discussion, an active consideration of what some of the implementation challenges may be. The implementation advisory -- not a draft document, but essentially the implementation advisory on domain tasting was an effort to do that. The document, put together in collaboration with a number of staff members, was designed to essentially begin to put some of the issues out on the table this we're thinking about, noting that it's very important to move as quickly as possible, once the board approves, as we expect they will, the GNSO recommendation. So that document was, for use of a better term, a real thought piece to try to identify and flag a lot of the implementation issues that we're looking at, and it was shared specifically with the GNSO to create an atmosphere for some feedback and comments. The ultimate goal is, after board approval, that there will be an implementation consensus policy drafted that there will be full opportunity for the industry to comment on and give input and feedback, but that's essentially the context in which that document was prepared. And, well, yeah, I'm happy to, you know, field any comments or questions here, and in the future. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I've got one -- I've got one hand up, Jeff. I've got Kristina. Good start. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I think the paper was good in pointing out some issues. I think one of the issues I have with the paper is that it seemed to create the impression that the board proposal for the fee would create a lot less work for the registries and registrars than would the GNSO consensus policy process, and I'm not sure that that's the case. I think there's -- there's going to be work with either one. You know, there's reporting that it seems to require with the board's recommendation, and that reporting is similar to the reporting that we would do -- that we already do for biz, now that we've implemented the process. So it seems to create a lot larger gap than I think what actually exists, and so one of the things I would recommend -- you know, I think it's great you guys did an implementation paper, but maybe when you do these implementation papers, if you wanted help from registries and registrars to actually give our input into it, that that might be more beneficial before it goes out to the community, because I would have -- it is true that when we were initially asked back in March, I guess, how long it would take us to implement it, we did say it could take up to three months, and maybe Afilias said three to six months, but it turned out that the implementation, because it got passed the way we wanted it to, it turned out that it only took us two months and one month was only so we could give notice to the registrars. I can't speak for VeriSign and dot com and -- you know, they have a much larger system. I will say that it probably doesn't make sense for anyone to hard-code these changes, especially in their billing, because the assumption is -- most of us do it manually. I know we do, and I think Afilias is doing it manually as well, the billing. Because the assumption is that once this rule goes into effect, there really won't be registrars that are going to be above the 10%, and there may be a couple but it's not enough to actually do hard-coding in the registry's software that would actually cost a lot more money than anything you would ever collect. So again, I think Chuck needs to check with VeriSign because they're really the most complicated one, being the largest and would have the most significant changes. So VeriSign's input on that would be extremely helpful, but for a registry our size, and probably even Afilias' size, it really is not as bad as it makes it sound. And I would also proffer that the reports that ICANN is asking the registries to give for their budget proposal is just as onerous to us as the policy itself. So I don't view it as the big gap that this paper makes it sound like there is. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. No, I thought it was helpful. I just had a couple -- two clarifying -- well, actually three. One thing that I'm not clear on, from this paper, is: What exactly triggers the notice from ICANN that starts the implementation clock? Is it the board resolution? I mean, if the board passes -- approves our motion -- I mean, approves our policy recommendation on Thursday, does that clock start as soon as that's written up and sent out, or does the clock start when whatever implementation guidelines staff decides to prepare are finalized and ready to go? And if it's the latter, it would be helpful to me to have an understanding as to why. >>ROB HOGGARTH: That's an excellent question that I don't have an answer for you, but I -- in conversations with some of our services -- >>AVRI DORIA: Bruce, were you raising your hand to answer that or do you have a question you want to add. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. I'll answer that, if you like. Generally, Kristina, the way the policy -- talking about a consensus policy, it's formal when it's actually on the ICANN Web site under something like ICANN.org/consensus policy, and normally there's a gap but sometimes it's as long as 12 months, I must say from past experiences, between when the board approves the policy and when the staff specifies that, you know, the legal form of its implementation. But in your answer as to when does it start to -- you know, when it actually implements? When it's posted there. Does that answer your question? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well -- well, that then raises the question of: Does it get posted as soon as it's approved or does it have to wait until the actual implementation -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. Yes, the latter. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: The latter dong tong the latter, yeah. So the basically approves the policy and then the staff basically create the implementation of that, which is, you know, effectively the legalese, if you like -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: -- on how it's implemented. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: But I thought that the reason that you're going with this model of doing this at this point is to shorten that gap, so the discussion is happening earlier in the process rather than there being a separate discussion, there's sort of a tandem discussion going on, in hopes of compressing that time down. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Absolutely, yeah. But Kristina's question was what actually happens. Evans etches okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: You're just talking, J. Scott, about how long that should take, so hopefully not very long, but the actual process of it is the board approves it, then the staff implements it, then posts the implementation. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Then my next question -- and I have a couple more -- is: In light of that, because if I'm understanding Bruce correctly, it has to go up on the ICANN Web site and comply with the formal notice provisions that are in the contracts but it can't go up on the Web site until it has the implementation step, what kind of date are you all working from? >>ROB HOGGARTH: As soon as we can. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: All right. Okay. Then another question I have is on Page 5. In the discussion of subsection (b), the availability of exemptions, what I'm not clear on is that the language itself says on its face that the acceptance of the exemption is at the sole and reasonable discretion of the registry operator. And I wasn't quite sure, then, how you saw that fitting in with the possibility that guidelines are going to be drafted as to what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. I was hoping you could get -- just clarify that a little. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Yeah. My recollection of that is that there were comments during the consideration and the debate of this where individuals pointed out that there appeared to be some lack of clarity, and from a staff perspective, some of our discussions, we thought it would be appropriate to provide some guidelines, to have a more consistent process, and that's what we're thinking about right now, pending, you know, other input or feedback that we get from folks. We just thought that that was going to be better for the community as a whole to have that -- some level of consistency. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. And then I have one more. The last one is: In the discussion of whether or not the information surrounding the application for and granting, or whatever the word you want to use, for those extraordinary circumstances, whether that will be made public. I read this as saying that at this point, that will be viewed as confidential. And maybe I misread it, but in that case, that would be great to clarify. But I guess the one thing that I was wondering about is that to a certain extent, you should, in theory, be able to figure out, once we've got full implementation and then you have kind of the three months and everything is made public, so that, you know, I could conceivably at that date look at, for example, the VeriSign report and say, "Okay, here are the 20 registrars that based on my math are, you know, above the cap," and so that they either had to pay for it or they got an extraordinary circumstances exemption. Do you anticipate changing that very specific reporting requirement as to deletes add-grace? Do you see changes in that? >>ROB HOGGARTH: We raised it as something for discussion. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>ROB HOGGARTH: It's not -- we don't have any forgone conclusions with respect to that at all at this point. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: I have Chuck, then Jeff, then Alan. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I thought I'd respond a little bit to what Jeff said about the complication with regard to the VeriSign system, and as I was reviewing this -- and by the way, I have not talked about this with our business or technical people and will do that shortly. But the one area that I saw could be challenging is the exception process, to make sure it's properly logged, you've got good records and stuff like that. So if there's one area that I -- being a nontechnical, nonproduct person, raised a flag in my mind was that exception procedure to make sure -- and because of our volume, chances are we'll get quite a few of those, so I'm just communicating that's something that I flagged that probably could be a little more complicated than just the basic policy implementation. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. So the first comment is on -- I think that guidelines would be helpful for exceptions but I don't think that that needs to be in place before this gets launched. I think that's part of the review process because I'm not anticipating that many applications for exemptions and I think that's something that, you know -- I don't remember if it's six months or whatever it is. That's probably a good topic to take up at that point, to see if -- you know, because we could theorize all the possible exemptions that might be asked for, but I think that's kind of a waste of time. And I think, you know, I would recommend waiting for the first review period to do that, so it doesn't delay implementation. The second thing is kind of the distinction between -- or my question that hasn't ever been answered by anyone, really, definitively, is -- or maybe it's a point. If the registry grants an exemption -- let's say it's based on fraud or whatever it is -- why is that not reflected in the ICANN budget proposal? In other words, if there is a fraud and if the registry grants an exemption, then the theory is that that exemption should apply -- they shouldn't have to pay ICANN fees if that exemption is granted. If the board's goal is to stop tasting, then it shouldn't have any interest in collecting that fee and I see it as more of a punishment. Now, if the registry is not doing its job and grants willy-nilly exceptions then again that's something that could be addressed in the review period, but I have yet -- I've made the comment at least four or five times to ICANN staff and board members over the last couple months since the first proposal came out. It really needs to be reflected in there and if it's reflected in there, then the budget proposal is no different than the consensus policy proposal and then there's no -- it should be on the same time line, whatever that is. >>TIM RUIZ: Avri? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>JEFF NEUMAN: It's not in the budget. If you look at the paper, the only thing in the budget if it's over 10%, there's a charge, period, and that's how they get around saying, "Well, we don't have to deal with those complications of exemptions. Therefore, we can implement the budget tomorrow." Or whatever. You know, July 1st. So I -- I don't know if there's some other motive there or -- because nobody's answered the question. I guess that's what I'm waiting for, someone to definitively answer that question. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. I've got Alan, Chuck and then Tim. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Actually, Jeff just raised both of my issues that on the special -- on the exemptions, since the policy says "sole discretion," the recommendation list, the suggestion list on what recommendations are don't have to be there day one. And whether it is six months or simply six months later because you have haven't gotten it done, there is no reason to delay implementation for that. Again, similar to what Jeff said, if the two fees for AGP -- excessive AGP deletes are brought exactly in line with each other which the board almost did on the budget but not quite, that's going to lesson the cost for everyone to implement and decrease the implementation time. And from my perspective, decreasing the implementation time, getting this on the books and working is the clear priority at this point. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay, Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: I have a couple comments and couple questions, I think, Rob, keeping in mind I did this with on my trip here so maybe I missed something. So, first of all, there was quite a bit of discussion about the policy and monitoring it and keeping records and evaluating the effectiveness. I didn't see the same thing for the 20-cent fee implementation I think you wanted on both. And then a comment -- a comment related to that is that we need to have a good picture of what's happening now and then what happens once the 20-cent fee is happening and then, again, a comparison of what's going on once the policy is implemented. Because if you don't get all three of those pictures, you're not going to know the impact of the other. So that's just a suggestion of maybe a little bit more in that regard. And then I had a couple -- couple questions. One of the things said there was, "A registry should expect the same level of confidentiality that they are currently accorded but the staff should investigate additional opportunities to generate aggregate data reports that can be of immediate use to the broader ICANN community." I think that's going in the right direction, the aggregate part and so forth -- I guess this is more of a comment than a question, that we need to just be careful there because we, in our relationships with registrars, have confidentiality agreements that we need to deal with. And I think you're aware of that. So that really turns more into a comment. Now -- and then as far as timing -- And this particular note is in Section 3 on ICANN billing software changes. It seems to me both registrants and resellers, in addition to registrars, are going to need notice on this thing. So I don't know what that is. That's something we can decide. But I believe that would be necessary to give some notice to them, certainly a reasonable, I think, customer service expectation. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Just kind of a minor -- well, an important one, though, in 4 where it talks about the reporting requirement to ICANN. Of course, the intent was that reporting to ICANN and it becoming public were two different things, not necessarily the same thing. And I just made the comment that the registry constituency opposed that. And I won't say the registrar constituency because we haven't taken a position but a number of registrars also oppose that. So the registry is not alone entirely in that feeling. Opposed to public disclosure as an automatic thing is what I am talking about. >>AVRI DORIA: Do we have any other comments on this at the moment? >>JEFF NEUMAN: My question is -- I guess my question is sill open there, and I would like at some point for the staff or the board to come back with an answer to that as to why there is a difference between the two proposals and whether they would entertain making them exactly the same. So, I mean, the comments are good, but we're in a room all by ourselves here and I have no assurance that staff or board will -- I mean, Bruce is here, but other than that, it would be nice to get a response back prior to Tuesday. >>TIM RUIZ: I have a question on that. >>AVRI DORIA: Sure. >>TIM RUIZ: If I may. Could it be that the staff is considering that it will be automatically dealt with in the reporting from the registries on the transactions or -- could that be the case or is that not -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: If all they ask for is the percentage of deletes or the number of deletes above the 10% or 50 threshold, then no because technically the answer is there could have been 12% deletes but 2 of the percent or even 7% of the deletes were waived because, you know, there was fraud or whatever it was. So it depends on how ICANN asks the question. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. So the answer could be potentially that they only intend to apply it on the net -- the deletes net of exceptions? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I would like that explicitly stated. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay, yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Yeah, just a quick one in the same vain. I guess I'd request that ICANN staff, as best possible, think out of the box on how to get this in place moderately quickly and not serialize everything. In other words, Jeff made a come on notifying registrars. You don't only have to notify registrars after the code is all done. As soon as the board makes the decision, registrars can be notified it is coming down the line with perhaps some variation in the date. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Any other comments at this point? >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Just one. I would like to thank Denise and the staff to take this proactive step to move this along quickly. >>AVRI DORIA: Good, thanks. Okay. So that then brings us a few minutes early to our next item and I've had several people ask me what was it all about. And, basically, there's -- right, he is going to tell us but I'm going to tell us first and then he is going to correct me. But, basically, there has been some discussion of doing some long range planning and just starting to think about -- because we certainly do a lot of policy work but it is almost all in reaction. It is emergency process. It's oops, there is a problem; oops, there is an issue. And are there policy issues that should be worked on that sort of fall through the cracks because they never make it to emergency status? Are there things that we should be working on? So that's what prompted the question. The last thing I'm going to say is what's going to come out of today, the next step with it will be -- it will be reported on on Wednesday. In other words, I will ask Olof or someone to get up there and sort of give a list of these were the items so that in the open comment period, people can have further comments to make about it. Now, I'm not sure. Did you arrange for somebody to take notes of all these while you were facilitating? Because I didn't assume you could both facilitate and note what we're saying. >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, basically, I assumed I could. >>AVRI DORIA: Of course, we have the transcription also. >>OLOF NORDLING: We'll see. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And it's yours, thank you. >>OLOF NORDLING: Could I just get the connection? >>AVRI DORIA: You certainly most can. >>OLOF NORDLING: Thank you, Avri. Well, in all honesty, I'm thrilled to be appointed facilitator but I have absolutely no idea how and why, but I'll do my best. And I trust that both Chuck and Avri and all of you will facilitate might job as a facilitator. And, well, Avri's introduction, I think, says it all. The purpose of the exercise is to think a little bit around the corner, perhaps Blue Sky would illustrate -- think away today's clouds, of which we have a few, and see if we find some new ones ahead or perhaps some sunshine; I don't know. And then try to see if that is something with which we as a GNSO should address one way or another as appropriate for dealing with as policy or perhaps to produce as a consensus policy or perhaps advise upon. And it's also pretty clear that this is supposed to be the starting -- perhaps meager start of what will become a revolving document that we can have use of in our planning exercises and trying to develop it further as we go along. So a living document will be the outcome hopefully. And, well, to start with, okay, there are a few ways, of course, we can address a session like this. And I suppose that the best thing to do is really to -- well, if not completely clear our minds but at least try to forget what we're doing right now and try to look ahead with a cooperative effort. And I suggest we do that in two steps. So starting with, well, brainstorming rules, any suggestion is okay. And then we can in the second half of the session perhaps look back on what have we come up with and is there something we should weed out or something that leads to a corollary thought that we should add as a very first thought. And while you're thinking about it, I also -- in case we don't come up with anything, I thought of something. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: So you are going to tell us something first. Oh, wow, he is digging into a bag. >>OLOF NORDLING: When it comes looking into the future, I brought a very traditional old user interface for such purposes, notably a crystal ball. [ Laughter ] So whenever the need comes... Oh, what was that? You don't want to know that, it was sort of about petroleum prices. [ Laughter ] So why don't we start and perhaps also have a little -- something to write upon. Let's see if I can get it. >>AVRI DORIA: Should I do the tracking of the names or would you like to do that. >>OLOF NORDLING: If you can do the tracking of the names and I will try to track the contributions. >>AVRI DORIA: You track the ideas. I missed a bunch. J. Scott was the first one that I saw. Kristina has the first and then I saw Mike and then I see Tim. And who else did I see to start? Okay. Go ahead, Kristina. >>OLOF NORDLING: Could I just interject well, now, since it is supposed to be a Blue Sky, I produced a blue board; and instead of having it black, I used a sunshine yellow. [ Laughter ] And by coincidence, it happens to be the colors of the Swedish flag, so end of Swedish culture imperialism with that. [ Laughter ] >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Can I go? Okay. I think we should think about whether or not -- well, actually, I think we should start thinking about developing baseline guidelines for accreditation of new UDRP providers because if we are going into a world of 50 to 60 new gTLDs, none of which are required to have Rights Protection Mechanisms prelaunched, you're going to have a lot more UDRP disputes and there's no way that the current providers are going to be able to handle them. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have Mike, Tim and then myself. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I have a little list here. >>AVRI DORIA: A list? >>J. SCOTT EVANS: He's our futurist. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Most of these things relate to the registration agreement, essentially, registrar accreditation agreement, I should say. Proxy services obviously with WHOIS. I think that that issue could be separated out from the overall WHOIS morass in certain ways possibly and we might want to look at those. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [inaudible] >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: We may want to look at that as a distinct issue within the broader WHOIS problem. And then the RAA amendments that have been recirculated, the proposal that was negotiated between the staff and the registrar's constituency has now just been sent to all of us, that's, obviously, something we all need to look at. And so not only proxies under that but also warehousing of domain names by registrars is clearly a longstanding issue that there is a provision in the RAA now that says, basically, registrars will adopt any policies that are ever adopted and none ever have been but several people, Susan Crawford and many others have suggested that's an issue that needs to be looked at that I certainly agree. And then, finally, abusive domain name suspension of some sort. I mean, there is all sorts of bad things that are happening with domains that are clear violations of acceptable use policy of registrars that are contained within the RAA and within the registration agreements with registrants. And we simply don't have effective means of taking action in a lot -- a lot of those cases, I won't say vast majority, but that's my impression. So that's, I think, it for now. Those are very broad Blue Sky topics, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: Tim was next. >>TIM RUIZ: Mine's -- it's a little different. Perhaps you can tell me if it is not quite for this forum. You know, in the GNSO improvements it talks about better communications between the GNSO and the other parts of ICANN. And one of the concerns that I have in particular is with the ccNSO in that it seems to me that going forward, we're going to see more frequent situations where the policy work that we do can affect them or the policy work that they do has serious impact on the gTLD space. And so right now the improvements recommendations talk about better coordination of activities, keeping each other informed of views through meetings or conference calls, but I wonder if we shouldn't consider proposing something more formal in situations where we feel that there needs to be a cross-policy development effort between the two SOs and one that comes to my mind obviously is the fast track and the whole ccIDN idea. But I think that's just one instance, and I think we are going to see potentially many others as time goes forward. So that's something I would like to throw out there, something more formal that would allow us to request or at least an opportunity to have reviewed an opportunity for a cross-SO development policy -- policy development effort. >>AVRI DORIA: That's also something we should get up on Thursday not to get out of this blue board thing. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think it is perfectly okay to introduce. We can talk about policy, advice but process proposals as this one, most certainly right now. We are just adding to the list. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, I've got me. Then I've got Jeff. Then I've got Mike and Alan and Chuck. Any other names I should put on the list while I am writing names on a list? The one that I wanted to throw out for the list has to do also with the UDRP and that's to ask whether there is a time -- a reason or chance to review it in that it is sometimes a very difficult process for the mom and pop or me, owner of a domain name, to deal with the massive legal onslaught of a corporation or whatever. That the process is incredibly difficult for the individual. So there is a chance to look into the UDRP to see whether there is any way to lessen the pain for the individual that has to respond to one of these processes. And next I had Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Mine's kind of -- you took part of mine, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: Sorry. >>JEFF NEUMAN: That's good. We are on the same path. Because I know a lot of individuals have been asking for review of that. I think it should be reviewed to develop common standards. I see different dispute providers have different rulings based on different factors and I would like to see that kind of standardized. I would like to see some sort of predictability, and I think there should be some sort of mechanism to take the last ten years, almost, of cases and see if we could come up with some general rules to modify it so that there is consistency. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thanks. Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Registry failover in the world of 1,000 TLDs, I imagine a few of them are going to fail. I know there's been efforts by staff. I don't think that we've really been involved in those efforts in any way yet, at least not in my tenure on the council. And I think it is something that we probably ought to have a chance to look at. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Correct me just on that issue, they are going to put it out for public comment so I don't know if the council needs to do a formal -- something on that. But certainly I've seen the plan, and we've been participating in it and it's something that we would like public feedback on. I'm not sure a PDP on that. But I think you're right, that it should be subject to comment. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: The item on warehousing slightly covers this, but I think someone needs to do something and I think it may be in our domain on what I'll call back running, which is the use of domain names as they expire. Now, we're covering part of it in the new rules which will bring resellers into it to make sure that the resellers send out the notices that they are obliged to send out. Right now they often don't. But the use of those names, which is very close to frontrunning, except at the other end, certainly the single item that we get most feedback from users on that "I had this domain name and suddenly one day it was monitized." >>AVRI DORIA: Now I had Alan. Now I have Chuck and then I have Mike again. Hi, Ute. >>CHUCK GOMES: I mentioned mine this morning on our most popular subject, WHOIS. Am I missing something here? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Olof didn't put the item on back running up on the notes. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yes, I did but I put it together, use of back running included with the warehousing. >>ALAN GREENBERG: My apologies. >>OLOF NORDLING: It's there but you didn't get your own line. Sorry for that. >>CHUCK GOMES: This really isn't related to the WHOIS policy issues, at least not directly. That is the WHOIS protocol. It is severely outdated. The SSAC has come forward with a paper in that regard and one of the big needs, even if we never change WHOIS policy, one of the big needs where a change in protocol that would be helpful is in regard to IDN names. WHOIS as hopefully most of you know won't display IDNs well. So you're going to see XN-- and it is going to be fairly confusing. It is a fairly important need that we begin to look at that. I won't say it is non-controversial but it's controversial in a different way than our WHOIS policy issues because there will be an impact on registries and registrars, a financial impact in terms of changing that protocol. So that will be a big issue and it is not a trivial one, I don't think, for registries and registrars. But I think that's a very important thing for us to focus on. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Can I a question? Chuck, what are the policy GNSO issues -- yeah, yeah, please. >>AVRI DORIA: Basically, whenever -- this is something I actually talk about in another context. The software is very often hardened policy. When you are writing the protocol requirements, when you are putting together, "we need a protocol that does X, Y, and Z," many of the decisions about X, Y, and Z that you need are policy decisions. Most often they are made simply on a bunch of people Blue Skying around an engineering table, saying it could be cool if it collected this, this and this. But in a WHOIS type of process, even what you -- what you decide to collect at a certain point has a policy overtone. So the requirements for such a protocol could well have policy implementations. Most code is hardened policy at a certain point. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I understand that. It doesn't mean that it is GNSO policy. I can describe a lot of things as "policy" but there are certain things that the technical community may come back on and then up for public comment. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yes, yes, I'm out. We're brainstorming, no questioning. >>JEFF NEUMAN: You're right. >>AVRI DORIA: It was a good question. I got to say something. It was a good question. [ Laughter ] >>OLOF NORDLING: While I actually got the floor, I think it's -- well, one of the easy catches really when trying to look around a corner, seeing the recent trend that whatever [inaudible] tends to end up on the GNSO table has been the case with domain tasting, has been the case with frontrunning, it is the case with Fast Flux. Indeed among the studies ongoing with the SSAC right now is the WHOIS protocol or the directory services and crisp, I thought that was something you got with a beer in England. Usually called a chip otherwise. There were a few others which I think may be worthwhile to add to what they're doing right now, looking at DNSsec, investigating industry readiness on that and they are looking at phishing attacks and registrar in-person nation. Sounds creepy. So I would just like to add them for the time being and we can delete them if we don't like them. Okay, I had Mike next. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Subdomain registrars are becoming a very large problem with phishing and other abusive conduct and simply don't have anywhere near the sort of regulatory steps that you have with accredited registrars because often the subdomain registrars will have a lot of legitimate content. Some of their registrants will have legitimate sites but, yet, they'll also have rampant abuse and they don't do anything about it. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Can you define subdomaining? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Like org.come. There are a bunch of subdomain registrars these days. >>JEFF NEUMAN: They're registrants. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Correct. They're offering for sale registration of subdomains on their second-level domain. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Just to be clear, you're, basically, talking about not subdomain registrars, you're talking about subdomains off of registrations? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I don't know what to call them. All I know is the APWG did a study that just came out and 18% of all of the phishing attacks they found last year were on those sorts of subdomains. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thomas and then I put myself back in again. >> I guess my question in a similar way as Jeff was. We are talking of registrants here who give certain parts of URL space that they have registered to third-parties. Is that what you want to do or want the GNSO to look at? >>OLOF NORDLING: That's the next question. >> Interesting. >>OLOF NORDLING: Come on, that's the second part again. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I want to add a meta-item to this, which is, I understand that three-plus years ago the GNSO went through a previous one of these exercises and actually did a prioritization. So I would say at some point in this exercise, we should go back and look at this list and make sure there wasn't some piece of it left dangling that we didn't think of now. And also to be curious just as a historical piece to see how a previous one of these exercises got reflected in the following three years' reality. So it is a meta-entry, such as check the previous exercise to see that there isn't something that was on that that would be curious to find something on that one that is on this one that hasn't been touched in three years? >>OLOF NORDLING: When exactly was that? Bruce will know. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think we did two exercises and Philip Sheppard probably, you can assist here as well. At one point we did an exercise about policies in generally and try to rank them in terms of what we thought was important. That was probably about four years ago or so. We also did a specific one on WHOIS itself because WHOIS had about ten subtopics let's say and we did prioritize those ten subtopics at the time. We have done it a couple of times but it is worth doing. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. And still taking -- because we're still in the open Blue Sky, right? >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: All right. So Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: All right. So one issue that's been bothering me but it's not a -- it's -- well, sure it is a policy. I would like a policy process on minimum qualifications for registrars as far as what goes into ICANN -- in helping define ICANN's process for accrediting registrars. Right now it's a complete black hole as to what they do. I think there should be minimum qualifications. And I see their accreditation agreement describes a couple of things, but I think that is a policy process. I think it also should be studied as to what goes into allowing a registrar to transfer an accreditation to another party and I'll tell you from a registry perspective, that gives us heartburn because even though we technically certify the first registrar, you know, ICANN's got in its process that it allows assignment to another registrar, and even though ICANN says now in the accreditation agreement it will be do due diligence, I got to tell you it's an operational headache from a registry perspective because we have to retest them and half the time they're clueless on the technical aspects. So there's registrars that have basically registrar accreditations for sale, and I think that's something that needs to be looked at and so I'd like -- I'd like that added. >>OLOF NORDLING: How -- could you put that in a short format? Three words? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think it's basically accreditation process of registrars and transfers of accreditation. >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay. Actually, Bruce is -- it's accredit ace criteria. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I might add warehousing of accreditations as well. [Laughter] >>OLOF NORDLING: All right. >> I would actually like to add the same thing for the registries so I would like to see -- >>JON NEVETT: Who said we get along? [Laughter] >> There is. >>AVRI DORIA: I think you sound like you're in complete agreement. >>JEFF NEUMAN: There actually is a process. When we submit a bit. ICANN does a formal evaluation on our technical capabilities and they have to certify it and I do agree that before new gTLDs are selected they should do the same thing, that they should certify that a registry operator meets those qualifications. I'm absolutely a hundred percent on board with that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other suggestions of what belongs on a long-term list un-prioritized after of yet. Okay. You got the crystal ball there? >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. I think I should add one obvious aspect because what we do already -- >>AVRI DORIA: Not you but the fates. >>OLOF NORDLING: Huh. >>AVRI DORIA: Not you but the fates from the crystal ball. >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, yes, yes, yes. But I'll get to the crystal ball in a bit. This is just thinking about what we usually do and should do and that is to check out the implementation of existing policies and we're busy doing so, we've been busy doing so for WHOIS, we're busy doing so for transfers big time. There are a couple out there which are obvious candidates, I would say, and one has been touched upon in a certain sense and that's new gTLDs. Policies there. And once it gets launched, that was also an agreement for -- within the GNSO that it should be checked out for -- quickly, and that has to be timed properly to when it's actually launched and so that we can draw the conclusions for the subsequent run. So that's one. And the other one is the RCEP procedure, which is out there and we do have some experience from, as of recently. So I would certainly put in those two as candidates for review, if they're doing -- or will do exactly what was intended. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, that gave four people a chance to get their hands up. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: So we've got Kristina, Mike, Jon, and Jeff. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: This may be slightly covered by what Alan was referring to, but I'm offering it up in case it wasn't, and that is, I think we need to take a look at the implementation of the redemption grace period. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: This is shorter-term, but just wanted to make sure it got on our list. The meetings and travel policy. There's more -- proposals out for comment, and I'm wondering whether the council wants to deliberate those and possibly respond as a council. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, that's a much -- much shorter term. Like if we don't do that in the next couple weeks, we've -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Missed boat. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, missed the boat, speaking of boats. Jon? >>JON BING: Thank you. I notice that Mike mentioned the RAA review. To me, it would have been very satisfactory to have a critical look at the whole contractual structure, which so much of ICANN's power really relies but which is unclear to me on which principles are formed. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think I was going to just add, you know, we're kind of thinking of these Blue Sky items as to what -- you know, what we can do for registries, registrars, or what we can look at. But I think it kind of needs to be turned on ICANN as well. We need to look at things of how ICANN is conducting its business. I think there should be formal statements or GNSO should review basically how ICANN does staff papers and how it presents things and so kind of a GNSO Council review of ICANN's relationship or dealings with policies or recommendations that we put forward to the board. >>AVRI DORIA: Part of that might actually fall into some of the improvements, and as the improvements is not only what we do, but then if we're defining a PDP process, what comes out of it. Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just one comment and I'll probably wear a number of hats when I'm making this comment, but... One of the hats I wear is I'm an observer on the ICANN board Finance Committee as well as being on the ICANN board, but my observation of the current sort of planning process is, there's a lot of fairly generic goals. And examples of that would be to say, you know, we're going to spend $2.5 million on improving IANA and I think we're going to spend $5.8 million on broadening participation, but there's no measures that go with that. So there's broadening -- I could spend $5.8 million and I've got one new person in the room. That's broadening participation, but is that good value for $5.8 million? So one of the things I think the GNSO should start thinking about, I guess, in terms of direction to ICANN as the organization is, in some of the areas that are relevant to the GNSO, what are the performance pressures? How do you know whether ICANN's doing a good job? What would you say the performance measures are, firstly? And then second, what should the value of that performance measure be? And so, you know, picking up something Kristina was saying, we might say as the GNSO that a performance measure is that the policy should be implemented within three months of it being approved by the board. Or, sorry, that a performance measure is how long does it take to implement a policy as a performance measure? And you might say your expectation is that it should be three months. And then people can report on that, and you can say, "Yeah, the staff is doing a good or bad job." But we don't have any of that right now. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>BRUCE TONKIN: Read the operating plan. I didn't see any performance measures. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other suggestions for things that should go on Olof's blue board of policy work we might consider in the future. Nope? Nothing missing? We've covered everything? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Just one comment. I'm not going to add to the list, but just I want to reserve the right to add to the list later. [Laughter] >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: You know? NI don't want anyone to get the impression that this is -- we're going to be developing this sort of plan. We have always have to retain flexibility to take on new issues, of course. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, yes. No, I don't think that ever occurred to anyone that this list would be, "No, sorry, you know, this new thing isn't on the list and that is it." Yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I just wanted to ask Mike a clarifying question, and Alan, because I want to make sure that some things I've been thinking about are covered. Alan, can you give me -- can you talk a little bit more about what you mean when you say "backrunning"? What that covers? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I guess essentially it covers a domain owned by a domain owner which suddenly, from their perspective, is now monetized or taken over by someone else, either when it has truly expired, with notice, conscious -- they consciously decided not to continue it. Is there -- does the registrar have a right to take it over at that point? And the more insidious one of registrars or resellers not giving notice and taking it over at the expiry date. I mean, all -- the great -- you mentioned the redemption grace period. Those are all, as I understand it, essentially optional, that they -- that the registrar may offer them or it's the registry offers the -- gives the registrar the ability to offer them, but they're not required. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>ALAN GREENBERG: My understanding is that they're required that the registry give the registrar the option, but the registrar does not need to pass that on under the current rules, I believe, to the registrant. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, I think it's -- well, for certain with the renewal grace period, that's certainly true. With the redemption grace period, once the name is deleted, it goes through the redemption grace period at the registry because the registry is required to implement it. >>ALAN GREENBERG: It's the renewal one that I -- the expiry one that I was talking about, yeah. >>TIM RUIZ: Right. Yeah. It's the 45 days that the registry gives the registrar, and then the registrar is free to use that however best they feel fits their model. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And in general, in many cases the registrar uses that to monetize the domain and see if it's worth anything at that point. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: All right. Then in that case, then I think we could probably group what I had in mind when I was talking about reviewing the implementation of the redemption grace period with what Alan is suggesting. And, Mike, as to the proxy services, were you thinking that we would cover -- what is it, 3778, what constitutes reasonable evidence of actionable harm? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes, that would be part of it. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Also, you know -- yeah. Whether registrars have been complying with their obligations, too. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think -- >>JON NEVETT: [Speaker is off microphone] [Laughter] >>JON NEVETT: [Speaker is off microphone]. >>OLOF NORDLING: We're supposed to be fun, come on. I think we've sort of gradually, by consensus, drifted into the second half of this session right now, so why don't we have a look at what we've written, and see whether it makes any sense. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I just want to comment on the renewal grace period. Keep in mind that that was not part of any consensus policy. That was just incorporated into agreements as a particular need that was observed early on, so that's why you see the situation. It's not as if registrars aren't required to comply with the consensus policy. That was not a consensus policy, but, rather, a contractual issue that was put in there. >>OLOF NORDLING: Anyway, could we just take it sequentially and see if -- well, is there anything we should just plainly delete? >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Alan wanted to comment on something. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I just wanted to comment on what Chuck said. You're correct, but the way most people read the rules is they think this is a registrant right, and it's not that at all. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Back to Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: Right. Back to where we all started, and this is Kristina's first proposal, and I've now made it into caps, at long last. It was difficult, but... Guidelines for new UDRP providers. Well, any -- is that sensible? Something -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: Should we group like -- >>OLOF NORDLING: Can we group it? >>JEFF NEUMAN: -- like just the UDRP, and have a bullet under that for baseline guidelines and then the one that's down below the UDRP, review to seek common standards or UDRP to -- >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. Good idea. To have a bit of -- put similar things together. I'm not really quick in this little... >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Like minimum accreditation standards. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Yeah, I think we need to sort of reword one. It's not really guidelines. It's like minimum standards that providers have to meet. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Right. Like minimum accreditation criteria. >>OLOF NORDLING: Right, right, right. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. >>OLOF NORDLING: That's -- I think we'll -- we need to -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: So I'm sure WIPO would love it if we had a standard that says you can't be involved in lobbying activities for IP owners and be a provider. It's a joke. >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, I'll try to lunch them together eventually, but it's too hard and this little thingy, I need a proper mouse, actually, to do that. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think you could just call it UDRP review and then just have the sub-bullets below. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. Which is -- well, multiple subtopics on that, which are rather different because the UDRP review, that's a far cry from minimum accreditation criteria for providers, I think. It's rather different. But all right. They're both about UDRP. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just call it UDRP. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: And for now, if you don't want to move them all around, just put 1 in front of anything that has to do with UDRP and it's -- >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. So it turns out to be more difficult than I thought. Okay. Then we had proxy services, which is, well, part of WHOIS, of course, but is a separate issue. How to deal with that. That was Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yes. And -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I don't think we should delete it. >>OLOF NORDLING: No? [Laughter] >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay. You want to expand on it? I mean, to the degree that I understand what you actually mean? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think really, I think we need to look at the practice of proxy registration services. I think it -- in many, many cases, it violates the RAA, the use of these things, in my opinion, the opinion of plenty of other people. The fact that we have a rule that says you have to provide accurate WHOIS information and that you have to be able to contact that individual and the fact is, with most of the proxy services, that's simply not possible. >>JON NEVETT: So we don't need a new policy if it's already in the RAA? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: That remains to be seen. Maybe it's just that the RAA is not being enforced. I mean, I think it's a discussion that needs to be had. >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, that one survived, I take it. Review of the registration -- registrar accreditation agreement. >>LIZ GASSTER: Before you go to that. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: There's just one point I want to add. I actually think it would be helpful to add to proxy registration so at least it's clear what you mean, violations of the RAA. I mean, I think Jon makes a good point about whether a PDP is necessary for that, but one of the things I think that would be really helpful in this Blue Sky process is to try to define more of than an issue or a topic. Like proxy services is a topic. It's not clear what the -- whether there's a problem, what the problem is you're, you know, wanting to look at, and what the nature of a PDP associated with that topic is. So to the degree that we can just get more specific or granular about what exactly is it that we're talking about here that we would want to engage in a PDP because after this is over, we're going to need to go back and kind of make sense of all of this. >>OLOF NORDLING: Of course it's good to be very, very ambitious but we have to start somewhere, but I'd agree, if we can dig a little bit deeper on each one -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Well, Olof, just to follow on the suggestion, and maybe the issues are compliance, user benefits, and public disbenefits. Under that. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: What? Can you say that again? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Huh? Well, where -- I mean, are there user benefits to have proxy registration services. I presume the registrars would argue yes, there are. Benefits to certain users. Are there public interest disbenefits, costs, other concerns that result from that. And almost -- and then the following issue becomes are there interested simple compliance issues under the existing -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, I mean, partly but I've been told by compliance that on 3778, that, you know, that's not compliance because they don't know -- they don't have any guidance, so it goes beyond that. >> TIM RUIZ: To me, it's a higher-level issue, in that -- defining proxy service. I mean, you know, there are so many different ways in which domains per proxied. You know, are we talking about something specific? You know, lawyers proxy names for their clients. Hosting companies proxy names for their customers. We have the proxy services that you're probably more referring to. But, I mean, defining what we're talking about I think is important, to begin with. What is a proxy service? Same issue kind of that we were talking about with the WHOIS studies and just defining the terms so that we know what we're referring to. >>TOM KELLER: Just a question -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Which that would apply to most of them. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah. Well, I brought it up and I thought that's at least one way of defining a little more what we're looking for here. Public interest disbenefits? What's that? The English word? >>THOMAS ROESSLER: Cost/benefit analysis [inaudible]. [Speaker is off microphone] >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, now, this -- I think what we're looking for are some -- well, not the cost benefit as such, but actually when there is unintended use and harm to somebody, and what to do about it. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I abdicated my role of taking names for a bit, but I'm going to start again because we're losing track of it. So I had a Thomas, I had Wendy, I had a Kristina. >>TOM KELLER: Thomas is me? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. There are many Thomases. >>TOM KELLER: Well, I want some clarification from Philip what exactly he means with public interest disbenefits. That's something -- it's totally not clear to my mind and seriously up to a definition by whoever is making that definition. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: We don't need to start creating an issues report at this stage for each of our topics Department of Corrections we. >>AVRI DORIA: No, no, no. This is just getting topics. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think we're just -- if you don't like disbenefits, then just have public harm. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes, Wendy. >>WENDY SELTZER: So I'm puzzled to see this on the agenda as something that needs to be discussed. It seems to be an item that can be offered as a business choice by registrars or independent third parties, and getting into either the varying public reasons why registrants would choose them or businesses would offer them seems to be wildly beyond the scope of council. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. But that may or may not turn out to be the case, once an issues report is done and someone goes and looks at it. At this point, it's a Blue Sky exercise to see what might be a worthwhile topic for somebody to look into. If it turns out to be beyond the scope, then obviously it wouldn't go further. >>OLOF NORDLING: May I -- may I add that it may be so, even not sort of within scope for policy development, it may be something that is of interest to a majority of the -- of the council and that they want to express an opinion and advice upon, which I think they're fully free to do. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have Kristina and then -- >>JON NEVETT: Just could I ask a quick question. Is this list going to be published anywhere. [Laughter] >>JON NEVETT: Because if so, it should be balanced. If you just say -- if you say "harm to public interest" I think you have to make it balanced, because there are certain benefits to the public interest as well, so if you want to characterize it one way or the other, do it either in neutral terms or do both. >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, well -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. First of all, it is being transcribed and the notion was that we were going to present some notion of this list as part of our -- as part of, you know, our report to the open meeting, unless there's a decision not to, but at the moment, yeah. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yep. Could we, with that, advance to Item 3, review of the registrar accreditation agreement? What's wrong with it? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Well, just at a basic level, I mean, we've got all of these proposed amendments. I think there's really no doubt that the council needs to look at those, and -- [Speaker is off microphone] >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah, the RAA amendments that have been proposed. >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, sorry. Oh, RAA. Registrar accreditation agreement. Isn't that interesting. But Mike, you're talking about what's happening right now or should there be sort of an independent review -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Well, yeah. No, I think this is definitely a short-term issue for us. It's on the table now, but we have not started talking about it as a council. I also think it's going to open up a lot of these other issues once we do start discussing it -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, because a lot of those issues seem like they would fall under that category. >>OLOF NORDLING: So that's a nearby cloud rather than a Blue Sky, in a sense. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'd say, it's an approaching hurricane. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina. Forgot one? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I forgot one and -- well, actually two. One, I'm wondering whether it may be helpful to what we're doing to perhaps reach out to the compliance folks and see if there are any areas that have come across their desks in which they need policy guidance that we may not have thought of. >>JON NEVETT: [Speaker is off microphone] >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, I'm just saying if we're going to do this, we might as well be comprehensive. I mean, you know -- >>JON NEVETT: Right. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And the other thing that I personally would like to see on here is registrar ownership of registries. >>OLOF NORDLING: Could you repeat what you said last? The registrars and registries? What? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Registrar ownership of registries. >>OLOF NORDLING: Oh, yeah, okay. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. Then cross-ownership generally. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I think that needs to be addressed at this meeting or before new gTLDs are launched. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [Speaker is off microphone] >>JEFF NEUMAN: So I mean, it's Blue Sky but I think that's -- I've been pushing on ICANN to decide that issue for -- >>TIM RUIZ: I mean, there's already an economic study being done but I don't think it's completed yet or they've completed partly of it, and then there was questions and then it got sent back. So I don't see that getting done by end of this meeting and if it's not, I don't see them making a decision. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Well, they -- without getting into a debate, they need to because companies -- well, I mean, Go Daddy, you're working on new registries. It's not a secret. eNOM is working on it. You know, everyone's -- [Laughter] [Speakers are overlapping] >>JON NEVETT: It wasn't until two seconds ago. [Laughter] >>JEFF NEUMAN: There's no secrets out there. So I do think that that's something we need to decide today. >>TIM RUIZ: We might make a decision on it today, or I don't -- I don't see how we can make a decision on it today. I'm not even confident we can -- we can discuss it this time. I don't see how we can come to any kind of an agreement by the end of this meeting. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Oh, yeah, I agree with that. >>TIM RUIZ: And ICANN definitely isn't going to come to any -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: If ICANN decides, at the time the RFP is announced, that all of a sudden registrars can't own, directly or indirectly, any registries, I think you guys would be kind of annoyed at all that business development you guys have been doing over the past few years. And I'm not picking on Go Daddy. It's a lot of -- >>TIM RUIZ: I'm going to have -- I'm going to have to get a little closer to you, Jeff, because you know a lot more about what's going on at Go Daddy than I do, but -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Tim -- >>TIM RUIZ: But I understand your point and I agree. I just think -- but you had said, you know, by the end of this meeting or the end of -- that's a little -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: But with respect to that report, Kurt did say that -- I know it got sent away again but do we know where that's at at all? >>JEFF NEUMAN: No. >>JON NEVETT: -- >>TIM RUIZ: I think they're still contacting -- >>JON NEVETT: Yeah, they're investigating so they're interviewing folks and preparing the economic report. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Is there an ETA? I know when I ask consultants to do work for me, I usually ask -- give them a decline. >>TIM RUIZ: I think we've asked several times. Since the last meeting in -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can anyone from ICANN speak to that? >>AVRI DORIA: Can somebody track that down? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Excuse me. I'm not exactly sure what the title of the report is. But it was into the competition between registries and registrars, and there was a study performed, and when we had the GNSO Council meeting in L.A. to discuss the implementation issues, Kurt said that it was due that day. Apparently it did come in serendipitously, I believe, was the word he used. It did come in and then was sent out again for further questions or more study or something, but that was quite some time ago now, and, you know, I'm -- I'm with Jeff Neuman on this. I think that we need to get some resolution on this fairly quickly, because there's a helluva lot people doing a lot of business development that would like to get some visibility on the answer. Bruce? >>AVRI DORIA: Bruce, yes. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I want to answer the question, but I will say is that it is a reasonable question to ask Paul Twomey in his report on Monday. He is giving the CEO's report. Ask him as head of the organization when that report is due in. But as far as I know, it is not yet complete. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: How do we find out when, Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just told you, you ask Paul Twomey on Monday. >>JON NEVETT: Ask Twomey when gets here. >>AVRI DORIA: In the meantime, someone from the staff can let Twomey know the question is coming so he maybe can answer it without even having to be asked. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think we're trying very, very near to the current date actually, so it's not the far future. We're talking about the coming days here. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>OLOF NORDLING: But so, I think, what we're doing now -- I don't think we will be able to finally weed out things that we perhaps cannot address -- >>AVRI DORIA: And I just wanted to mention -- >>OLOF NORDLING: We can make up some sort of wish list. >>AVRI DORIA: And I think what I'll do, because I think this is going to be a little too raw to put the whole list up in the public meeting -- obviously the whole list will be up on the recording and in the transcript. I will probably work with Olof after we finish to sort of do an abstraction of policy issues in various areas that would need to be looked at but try and not in the open meeting necessarily go to necessarily the full depth that's in there but we can deal with that. I don't know. That's what I was thinking because I know there were some concerns about making sure that everything is nicely balanced in terms of what we present and not make it a promise and sort of say these are open issues. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: You could just entitle it the highly contentious issue and be done with it? But we haven't had tomorrow's discussion about the scope of contentiousness. Until we have the discussion of contentiousness yes want to go there. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think it is an aggregated list from Santa Claus. >>AVRI DORIA: It is, basically, if we go around the room, which we did, it is the list of policy issues that at least one person believes, if not more, believes need to be investigated, not necessarily issued report, not necessarily PDP but investigated is what I'd say, discussed. Right, we need to understand whether there is more we want to do on them. >>OLOF NORDLING: Right now I would like to proceed, if we can manage to go through all of them and see that we really understand at sort of a second level what we are talking about in all cases. Warehousing of domain names compared to the provisions in the registrar accreditation agreement and provisions adding there, and use of back running. I am not sure I entirely sure what back running is. Is it a well-known term? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I just made it up. >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay, good. [ Laughter ] >>TIM RUIZ: If we are going to make this public, that's the kind of thing I would like to see defined a little bit. Backrunning implies something bad and we haven't necessarily decided what that is, right? >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, yeah. >>TIM RUIZ: [inaudible] >>ALAN GREENBERG: My creative process was frontrunning was the use of a domain name before it is registered. This is making use of the domain name at the end of the registration. >>OLOF NORDLING: Sounds like recycling. That's pretty popular in many circles. Sounds like recycling in a certain sense, which is pretty popular in other circles, in a green environment and such. >>TIM RUIZ: Let's call it domain name recycling. >> Go green. >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay. Hopefully we do understand that a bit. What about abusive domain name suspensions I've written. I don't know why and I think it is Mike again. What do I mean with writing that? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: What do I mean by saying that? So, basically, we're talking about where domain names are used in a way that clearly violates registration agreements acceptable use policy. Currently today there is no way to take care of that other than filing an UDRP or suing somebody. Some registrars will act, many will not. >>OLOF NORDLING: So ways to suspend abusively used domain names. Is that something? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Mike, I think that's a little bit broad. I think what the anti-phishing working group is really specific with phishing, pharming, malware, bots, that kind of thing as opposed to anything that is somewhat defined as abusive. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Obviously I think that is a good first step, but I'm not -- I wouldn't say that I would be willing to narrow it to that at this point. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think also in the spirit of Blue Sky thinking, I think what we are trying to suggest here whereas phishing, whatever, may be a reason for concern you would want to do something about, this is looking at the end point which could be the end point of a whole number of things. And what would then be the process of terms of suspension once you've made a judgment because of some issue down the line. So it is trying to look at it from a slightly broader perspective. >>OLOF NORDLING: All right. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I do not think pharming belongs there. Pharming is not the scope of this issue. >>TIM RUIZ: [inaudible] >>AVRI DORIA: Microphones, please. >>OLOF NORDLING: Acceptable use but it is not only policy. >>JON NEVETT: There is no consensus policy on acceptable use policies for registrars, so I'm not sure how we could enact a policy that says you have to enforce some kind of AGP that is not required on you. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Well perhaps we need to have an uniform acceptable use policy as a first step. >>JON NEVETT: Sure. Bring it on. [ Laughter ] >>OLOF NORDLING: Is that what we want to call it? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I would like to have a standard acceptable use policy for e-mail companies, please. Can we add that to the list? I'm just saying, guys, we need to understand there are other issues that are beyond the scope and there should be some market condition and -- yeah, never mind, it is a Blue Sky. >>OLOF NORDLING: Do we actually, seriously, want to call it uniform acceptable use policy? Is that such a useful term? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I certainly think you can develop a uniform acceptable use policy with some minimum standards. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I would like to add getting ISPs under contract with ICANN. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, Robin. Robin had a comment. I'm trying to let Robin get in here. >>ROBIN GROSS: I'm just concerned about this suspending domain names. I'm particularly concerned about due process rights. How are we just going to decide you are a bad actor and I'm going to take away your domain name outside of an UDRP action, outside of a court of law? So I just want to flag this as a concern on that issue. >>OLOF NORDLING: Robin, is it better like that, "uniform acceptable use policy"? Not? >>ROBIN GROSS: How about something like "while respecting due process of law." >>OLOF NORDLING: Hmmm. >>JON NEVETT: Is there some morality of public order we could add in there? [Laughter] >>OLOF NORDLING: We can have an objection process for that. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Wendy. >>OLOF NORDLING: This is a popular topic, eh? >>WENDY SELTZER: Perhaps in counterpoint to that, uniform guaranteed availability policy for the registrant who might be concerned his or her domain name might be suspended arbitrarily under supposed compliance with such a policy. >>JEFF NEUMAN: All at 6 bucks a domain name. [ Laughter ] >>THOMAS KELLER: And going up. [ Laughter ] >>ROBIN GROSS: I didn't say the word "more formal," I said "due process of law." So that's what the board should say. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm sorry, contracts -- private contracts do not have to have due process of law. I would -- >>ROBIN GROSS: I don't see "due process" up there anywhere. >>OLOF NORDLING: You want to have "due process" into 7 somewhere or replacing that? This is becoming complicated. >>AVRI DORIA: It's becoming complicated and almost silly. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think we will lead to the next one. >>AVRI DORIA: Because we're not making policy now. We're just picking topics, and that's just a topic. >>ROBIN GROSS: Due process of law could be a very good topic. >>JEFF NEUMAN: That would be great if we are regulated by a government. These are private parties to a contract. There is no -- it should be registrants -- maybe what you're talking about is a registrant rights or what the term that individuals -- Registrant Bill of Rights, maybe that kind of fits that. But due process of law is not really -- I don't even think that should be in there. >>ROBIN GROSS: Everyone else's issues got in there. [ Laughter ] >>OLOF NORDLING: I think we covered everything in seven. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm sorry, I don't mean due process shouldn't be in there. I'm just saying due process of law, if this document goes out for public review, I think governments and others might have a harsh reaction to that. >>OLOF NORDLING: Do not fear, Jeff. I do not think it will, not what it looks like right now at least, as long as I'm alive. So I think -- let's address. We've got five more minutes. Eight, communications with other parts of ICANN, especially ccNSO, more formal structures to that. Can we argue about that? Apparently not, good. >>TIM RUIZ: More specifically what I really foresee or would like to foresee is the ability for the GNSO to formally be able to call for a joint policy effort when it makes sense between the ccNSO and the GNSO. If that's kind of encompassed in what's being said up there, great. I'm not sure it is. I just want to be specific. >>AVRI DORIA: What do you mean "formally call for"? >>TIM RUIZ: It's not just let's write in the e-mail and we'll set up some meetings and we'll discuss things. If they let us participate, great. And we can send a letter to the board and that kind of gets things all stirred up. I think what there needs to be, perhaps it is a change in the bylaws with ICANN. We need to be able to say, look, this is not -- we are asserting that this is not strictly a ccNSO issue or it may not be strictly a GNSO issue, that this is a cross-issue and so this calls for a cross-policy development process. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: How about established joint procedure. >>AVRI DORIA: That could be called on by either NSO. >>OLOF NORDLING: All right. More formal ability to cooperate to call for cooperative efforts. We understand that. >>AVRI DORIA: What about people didn't have to hire big-time lawyers to write thousands of pages of paper for them. >>OLOF NORDLING: It is there somewhere. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: [inaudible] >>AVRI DORIA: It was there and it got lost. >>OLOF NORDLING: No, no. Did it get lost? I'm sorry. >>AVRI DORIA: I don't know. I mean, I've just received enough reports of people complaining to me about the difficulty for individuals that get hit by one of these, you have 30 days to respond and the response, unless you know a lawyer who's willing to do it for you, is an impossible thing. >>OLOF NORDLING: Did I have it there before. >>AVRI DORIA: You did you but I think it disappeared. >>OLOF NORDLING: Okay, sorry. >>AVRI DORIA: Do them all pro bono, right. I mean, I have a friend that does them pro bono. >>OLOF NORDLING: Well, something like that UDRP review from an individual strand's perspective. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Perhaps an UDRP public defender? >> Now we're talking. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Paid for by ICANN. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, right. >>OLOF NORDLING: I will write that as well. Or ombudsman. We skipped the 9. No, we didn't. Seek common standard to increase consistency and predictability, I think that was Jeff that mentioned that. Is it captured like that? Number 10 -- no, 9? >>JEFF NEUMAN: If other people understand it. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah, well. I'm not sure. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Predictability of decision-making by providers. >>OLOF NORDLING: Jeff, did you want to add that to that, by "by providers"? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Maybe "UDRP decisions should be." >>OLOF NORDLING: UDRP decision review. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Decisions. >>OLOF NORDLING: 10 was to Avri's liking, hopefully? And 11, registry failover in a new gTLD environment which we have plenty of in our top-level domains. We're not very specific about that, but here we go, we've got plenty of others. >>AVRI DORIA: And it's 5:30. I don't know. >>OLOF NORDLING: We's reached our time limit. What do we do? We had at least one more, Number 12. >>AVRI DORIA: I would just number them through. As I say, I'm not going to -- I'm going to introduce this topic at the meeting. I will do an abstraction. As usual I will send out my slides as I do them so if there is anything in those slides that people are very uncomfortable with -- but I will, basically, do an abstraction of the themes in which there may be policy activities and open it up to discussion. >>ROBIN GROSS: We haven't had a chance to discuss any of this with our kin. We didn't know there would be an opportunity to do this so we would like to do that during constituency day. Can we then amend this list Tuesday, Wednesday? >>AVRI DORIA: I think, yes. I think this list is just a first stab in the dark that, you know -- as Olof said at the beginning, eventually we may build a rolling document, but it is a rolling list, as it were. So I think it is going to get amended and amended and amended. And eventually I think the process of going to constituencies and finding a prioritization of what's important and what's not, I think fleshing these things out with more words, I think combining -- I think there is a lot that's going to happen. This was really just a first stab at getting some words down that then -- so, yeah. >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah. All I'm saying, this is something our constituency will want to talk about this week so we would want to make amendments this week. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I don't -- we're not going to actually do much more on this other than open it up to the floor on Wednesday, and I think it will be later in time that we actually do more work on it. >>CHUCK GOMES: When you say opening it up to the floor, this list? >>AVRI DORIA: As I said, I'm going to take an abstracted list of the topics under which -- I'll try to abstract it. I'll try to abstract it neutrally. As I say, I will send out to council my slide before I put them up there. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Again, this is nothing more than a brainstorming exercise. It is no commitment to anyone that we would do any of this, that we would do anything. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: It's trying to transform us from reactive to proactive and in order to do that, you have to have this kind of session. >>AVRI DORIA: Even though it is painful but amusing. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Painfully amusing. >>AVRI DORIA: Just before I close today, I want to thank you for the day. It was a long day. However, we started at 9:00 this morning. Tomorrow we have a breakfast starting at 8:15 with the meeting starting at 8:45 so the people have time -- obviously, you get there at 8:30 for your breakfast. You get there at 8:15, you grab a dish -- 8:45, you grab a dish and come to the room. Basically, 8:45 we actually start the joint session with ALAC, but the breakfast starts at 8:15. >> [inaudible] >>AVRI DORIA: Rodin is the breakfast room and the meeting room is there, too. And then we'll come back down here at 10:30. >>CHUCK GOMES: Before people take off, those who -- since I was tasked with leading the WHOIS motion drafting for our Wednesday meeting, those that want to work on that, at least stay for a few minutes so we can decide how we are going to do that. And, Liz, if you can do that, too, I would appreciate that. >>OLOF NORDLING: And to all of you, thank you for creative input to the Blue Sky. We have 22 interesting lines at least. >>AVRI DORIA: Yep. And the other thing is our Wednesday meeting, just in case people thought 8:15 was too early to start, it gets progressively worse. Our Wednesday meeting starts at 8:00 and that's post-breakfast or without breakfast as the case may be. [ Laughter ] So anyhow, thank you for today. It only gets worse.