Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in Rome

ICANN Public Forum, Part 2

Thursday, 5 March 2004

9:00 AM

The following is the un-edited raw output of the real-time captioning taken during the meeting identified above. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS AFTER 9:00.
I HAVE DELAYED FOR A WHILE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE AND WAKE UP.
I'D LIKE TO START IN JUST ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO GO OUTSIDE AND NOTICE PEOPLE ARE STILL OUT THERE, YOU MIGHT TELL THEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO START IN JUST ONE MINUTE.
(PAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS AND CEASE CONVERSATION.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM TO ORDER.
THE FIRST REPORT THIS MORNING COMES FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND IT WILL BE PRESENTED BY SHARIL TARMIZI, WHO IS THERE, SITTING OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO, SHARIL, WOULD YOU KINDLY MAKE YOUR REPORT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT.

BUON GIORNO, GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

THIS IS A REPORT FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF A COMMUNIQUE.
THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS MET IN ROME 29 FEBRUARY TO THE 3RD OF MARCH 2004.

THE PARTICIPATING GAC MEMBERS COMPRISE REPRESENTATIVES FROM 44 MEMBERS AND EIGHT OBSERVERS.

THE GAC RECOGNIZES THAT ITS GROWING MEMBERSHIP AND NEW REPRESENTATIVES EXPECT THAT OUR WORK ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A STRUCTURED, MANAGED, TIMELY, PREDICTABLE, AND TRANSPARENT ENVIRONMENT.

IT IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR THE GAC THAT MEMBERS STRENGTHEN THEIR RESOURCES AND WORKING METHODS TO FULFILL ITS PUBLIC-POLICY ROLE WITH RESPECT TO ICANN.
THE GAC WELCOMED THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL NEW OBSERVERS PARTICIPATING FOR THE FIRST TIME, NAMELY CAMAROON -- (LISTING COUNTRIES) AND PALESTINE.

THE GAC ALSO WELCOMED THE MEMBERSHIP OF ESTONIA, SENEGAL, AND (INAUDIBLE), WHO JOINED THE GAC SINCE THE CARTHAGE MEETING.
THE GAC EXPRESSED WARM THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY AND THE ORGANIZERS FOR HOSTING THE MEETING IN ROME.

THE GAC ALSO NOTED THAT ICANN HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ITS WEB SITE AND WELCOMES THE INITIATIVE BY ICANN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION IN SEVERAL LANGUAGES.
THE GAC ENCOURAGES CONTINUED EFFORT BY ICANN IN THIS RESPECT.

SOME OF THE MATTERS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WERE IN RELATION TO ICANN AND GAC WORK PROGRAM FOR THE 2004/2005.
THE GAC HAS TAKEN GOOD NOTE OF THE ISSUES CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND BY THE BOARD AND WELCOMES THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD TO PRIORITIZE AND SCHEDULE THE PRINCIPLE ACTIONS.

ON THE CCNSO, THE GAC WELCOMES THE FORMATION OF THE CCNSO AND LOOKS FORWARD TO THE NEW ORGANIZATION CONTINUING TO EVOLVE AS A BODY THAT REPRESENTS THE GLOBAL CCTLD COMMUNITY.

ON THE GAC PRINCIPLES FOR DELEGATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CCTLDS, THE GAC NOTED THE WORK DONE AND PROGRESS MADE ON UPDATING ITS CCTLD PRINCIPLES.
THE GAC WILL ENGAGE IN FULL DISCUSSION AT KUALA LUMPUR, AFTER WHICH THE DOCUMENT WILL BE PUT FORWARD FOR CONSULTATION WITH ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS.

ON THE WIPO 2 PROCESS, THE GAC NOTES THE INTENTION OF THE WIPO WORKING GROUP TO PRESENT AN INTERIM REPORT TO THE ICANN BOARD BEFORE THE END OF MARCH 2004.
THE GAC URGES THE WORKING GROUP TO TURN ITS ATTENTION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND TO PRESENT THE BOARD WITH OPTIONS FOR ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION, IF POSSIBLE, BY THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING.

ON GNSO ACTIVITIES, THE GAC WAS BRIEFED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL AND GIVEN AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE STATUS OF THE WHOIS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
IN RECOGNITION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE GNSO, THE GAC FORMED A NEW WORKING GROUP TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE GNSO ISSUES.
THE GAC WILL ENDEAVOR TO MEET THE AMBITIOUS SCHEDULE PRESENTED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL.

ON IPV6, THE GAC ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE TOWARDS READINESS FOR AND MIGRATION TO IPV6 AND RECOGNIZES THAT IS MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THE GAC LOOKS FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE WITH THE CONSTITUENCIES CONCERNED.
THE GAC ASKS THE BOARD TO KEEP DUE ATTENTION TO IPV6.

ON REGIONAL OUTREACH, THE GAC CONFIRMED THE PRIORITY OF COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY WITH COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT PRESENTLY GAC MEMBERS.

THE GAC NOTED THAT THE ROME REGIONAL FORUM HAD GIVEN RISE TO SIGNIFICANT PARTICIPATION AND HAD GENERATED SUBSTANTIAL RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT WILL BE MADE GENERALLY AVAILABLE.
THE GAC THANKED ALL THOSE FROM THE INTERNET COMMUNITY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE PREPARATION AND REALIZATION OF THE REGIONAL FORUM.

ON DNS SECURITY AND ROOT SERVER SYSTEM, THE GAC MET WITH SEVERAL OF THE ROOT SERVER MANAGERS.
A DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ROOT SERVERS, WHICH GAVE GAC MEMBERS A BETTER INSIGHT INTO THE DIVERSITY, ROBUSTNESS, AND RELIABILITY ASPECTS OF ROOT SERVER OPERATIONS, INCLUDING THE DEPLOYMENT OF ROOT SERVER MIRROR SITES BY ANYCAST.

THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET IS A MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, AND THE GAC WELCOMED THE PRESENTATION FROM THE CHAIR OF THE SSAC OR SSAC, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE.

ON THE ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRS, I AM PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE REELECTION OF LINA (INAUDIBLE) FROM SWEDEN AS VICE CHAIR WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED, AND THE GAC ALSO THANKED THE TWO OUTGOING CHAIRS.

LASTLY, THE GAC WARMLY THANKS ALL THOSE IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC IN ROME.
THE NEXT GAC MEETING WILL BE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ICANN KUALA LUMPUR MEETING, FROM 19TH TO THE 23RD OF JULY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THAT ENDS MY REPORT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

WE WILL CONTINUE ON WITH REPORTS, AND I WILL CALL FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR AFTER WE FINISH MOST OF THE OTHERS.
THANK YOU, SHARIL.

I'D LIKE TO CALL NOW ON THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SUZANNE WOOLF TO PRESENT THE REPORT.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: OKAY.

I HAVE A MINOR DIFFICULTY.
THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
GOOD MORNING TO THE BOARD.

I AM SUZANNE WOOLF, I AM HERE TO PRESENT FOR THE ROOT-SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, RSSAC IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL ICANN ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
WE ADVISE THE BOARD ON THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT.
THE COMMITTEE CONSISTS OF ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATORS AND OTHER LIAISONS AND OBSERVERS.
WE USUALLY MEET AT IETF.

WE MET THIS WEEK, DISTRIBUTED BY PHONE BRIDGE AND E-MAIL AND SO ON, BETWEEN ICANN, THIS MEETING, AND THE IETF IN SEOUL.
THAT WAS A NEW THING FOR US.
TYPICALLY, WE'RE ALL AT ONE PLACE ONLY AT IETFS.
BUT HAVING BOTH MEETINGS AT THE SAME TIME MEANT WE HAD TO SORT OF DISTRIBUTE A BIT.

ANYCAST CONTINUES TO BE A MAJOR TOPIC FOR US.
WE REVIEWED PROGRESS.
THERE ARE MORE ROOT NAME SERVERS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES THAN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, THANKS TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF MIRRORS, WHICH REPRESENTS A BIG IMPROVEMENT, WE THINK, FOR MANY USERS OF THE INTERNET THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

A KEY FEATURE OF THE ANYCAST DEPLOYMENT IS THAT WE ARE SEEING VARYING TECHNICAL AND COST RECOVERY MODELS.
THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT POINT, BECAUSE WE SOMETIMES SOUND UNHELPFUL WHEN PEOPLE ASK US HOW IS SOMETHING HANDLED OR HOW IS SOMETHING IMPLEMENTED.
AND THE ANSWER IS, IT VARIES, DEPENDING ON THE OPERATOR AND WHO WE'RE WORKING WITH.

WE REGARD THIS DIVERSITY AS A GREAT STRENGTH, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THAT THAT'S CONTINUING TO BE THE CASE.

WE REVIEWED OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND FIND THAT THE DEPLOYMENT OF MIRRORS IS CONTINUING TO SHOW NO NEW OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS.
IT'S VERY STABLE AND HAS BEEN WORKING VERY WELL.

WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT THE SAME TECHNOLOGIES WE'RE USING ARE IN USE BY A NUMBER OF THE TLDS ALSO.
SO WE THINK THIS REPRESENTS AN ADVANCE FOR THE DNS OVERALL.

THE OTHER MAJOR WORK ITEM FOR THE RSSAC, WE HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR -- TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE DEPLOYMENT OF IPV6 REFERRALS FOR THE ROOT.
WE WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON ANY OPERATIONAL OR TECHNICAL ISSUES AROUND THIS.

A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE DEPLOYMENT OF QUAD A RECORDS IN THE ROOT WAS SENT TO THE ICANN BOARD IN DECEMBER FROM THE COMMITTEE.

WE RECOMMEND THAT IANA PROCEED WITH ADDING QUAD A RECORDS TO THE ROOT FOR DELEGATIONS OF TLDS THAT REQUEST IT, AND WE DID FEEL THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS NEEDED ON DEPLOYMENT OF QUAD AS FOR ROOT SERVERS.NET FOR GLUE FOR THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES. AND THERE'S SOME FURTHER ANALYSIS PROCEEDING ON HOW TO DO THAT.

THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALSO REVIEWED THAT RECOMMENDATION, AND I BELIEVE IT'S NOW WITH THE BOARD.
I HAD ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT IANA HAS BEGUN TO LOOK AT ANY POLICY OR MANAGEMENT ISSUES FOR IANA AS FAR AS PROCEEDING WITH QUAD A DELEGATIONS.

A COUPLE OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.

THE RENUMBERING OF B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET IS UNDERWAY.
THE NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN -- HAS GONE LIVE AND IS IN USE.

THIS WAS REVIEWED BY THE IANA, BY THE RSSAC, BY, YOU KNOW, THE APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDERS.
AND RENUMBERING A ROOT SOUNDS LIKE A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE THAN IT IS.
IT HAS BEEN DONE PERIODICALLY THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE DNS.
AND IN THIS CASE, IN GENERAL, MOST USERS WILL PICK UP THE NEW INFORMATION RELATIVELY QUICKLY, BUT BECAUSE IT -- THERE'S A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE, THERE'S A LEGACY ISSUE, IT IS A MATTER OF POLICY THAT THE OLD ADDRESSES WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO ANSWER QUERIES.

SO THERE SHOULD BE NO VISIBLE CHANGE FOR MOST USERS OF THE NET.

THE OTHER MAJOR WORK WE DID AT THIS MEETING IS LIAISON WITH OTHER GROUPS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE GAC.
WE MET -- SEVERAL OF US MET WITH THE IPV6 WORKING GROUP OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND AS SHARIL DESCRIBED, SEVERAL OF US ALSO MET WITH THE GAC PLENARY.
AND THERE WAS AN RSSAC PRESENTER, BILL MANNING SPOKE AT THE WSIS WORKSHOP YESTERDAY.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING FOR US IN TERMS OF OUTREACH WITH OTHER GROUPS.

AND JUST BRIEFLY, THE NEXT RSSAC MEETING WILL PROBABLY RESUME THE IETF-BASED SCHEDULE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S SAN DIEGO IN JULY.
AND WE MAINTAIN SEVERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT WILL APPEAR IN THE RECORD.

ROOT-SERVERS.ORG IS MAINTAINED BY THE OPERATORS, AND ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/DNS-ROOT IS THE OFFICIAL RSSAC SITE.
SO....

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S IT?

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THAT WOULD BE IT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO THE JULY MEETING OF IETF, I HOPE THAT WE HAVE NO OVERLAP WITH REGARD TO OUR MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR.
WE'RE SEEKING TO AVOID ANY SUCH FUTURE COLLISION.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NOT A COLLISION.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE DATES, BUT I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH CONSTERNATION OVER HAVING A COLLISION THIS TIME THAT I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

>>VINT CERF: I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT.
VENI, AT SOME POINT, WOULD YOU VERIFY THAT?

SECOND QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QUAD A ADDRESSES IN THE ROOT.

IT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, FOR IPV6 DEPLOYMENT THAT EVERY ROOT SERVER BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO A QUERY IN IPV6.
IS IT THE CASE THAT ALL ROOT SERVERS ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO A QUERY USING IPV6?

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: ALL OF THEM HAVE UPGRADED AND TESTED, AND TESTED SOME MORE, THEY ALL HAVE THE SOFTWARE CAPABILITY TO ANSWER THOSE QUERIES.
NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE IPV6 TRANSPORT IN PLACE FOR RECEIVING THOSE QUERIES.
BUT EVERYONE HAS PLANS, AND THAT'S THE NEXT STEP THAT'S UNDERWAY NOW.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US THAT YOU NEED TRANSPORT THAT ROOTS IPV6 PACKETS IN NATIVE MODE IN ADDITION TO RESPONDING TO THE QUERY.

VENI.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THE NEXT IETF MEETING IS AUGUST 1ST TO 6TH.

>>VINT CERF: IF THE NEXT IETF MEETING IS AUGUST 1ST TO 6TH, THEN, SUZANNE, YOUR COMMENT THAT THE NEXT MEETING IS IN JULY IN SAN DIEGO IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

>> VERY LATE JULY.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THANK YOU, STEVE.
THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY LATE JULY.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: MY MISTAKE.

>>VINT CERF: AS IN AUGUST.
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: MY MISTAKE.
I WILL CORRECT THAT IN -- BEFORE I SHIP THE SLIDES FOR THE RECORD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: VINT, MOUHAMET HAD A QUESTION.

>>VINT CERF: YES, MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, SUZANNE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE WAY OF IPV6.

JUST FOR MYSELF, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE NOW ON THE DNS IMPLEMENTATION.
DID YOU HAVE ANY STATISTICS ON HOW MANY SOFTWARE DNS RIGHT NOW HAVE -- ALL AROUND, IF THERE'S ANY WORK GOING AROUND FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF IPV6/DNS COMPLEMENT.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THE QUESTION.
HOW MANY OF --

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: OKAY.
MAYBE I CAN ASK THE QUESTION ANOTHER WAY.
IF THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION IN THE DNS THAT IS -- FOR EXAMPLE, I TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF A SERVER ON WHICH WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED BY ANY VERSION AND WE TRY TO ADD, FOR EXAMPLE, IPV6 DECLARATION AS A TRIPLE -- QUAD A DECLARATION.

IS THERE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW MANY SOFTWARE ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THIS TYPE OF DECLARATION AROUND THE WORLD?

OR IS IT SOMETHING COMING OR --

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: ARE YOU ASKING HOW MUCH OF THE SOFTWARE DEPLOYED HAS THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE IPV6 DNS RECORDS?

IT'S HARD TO HAVE FIGURES.
BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY BY 8 DOES, BY 9 DOES.
I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST WIDELY DEPLOYED CLIENT SOFTWARE FROM, YOU KNOW, THE MOST COMMON VENDORS ALSO DOES.
SO I WOULD EXPECT THAT MOST OF THE DNS CAN UNDERSTAND.
YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYONE HAS V6 TRANSPORT.
NO EVERYONE CAN USE THOSE RECORDS.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE MODERN DNS, FOR THE MOST PART, --

>>VINT CERF: I THINK AN OFFER OF HELP IS COMING HERE.
PLEASE USE THE MICROPHONE.

>>JAAP AKKERHUIS: YEAH, FROM ITDN.
AND ALSO, AN (INAUDIBLE) IN THE NETHERLANDS IS NOW DOING STATISTICS ON THE QUERIES WHICH ARRIVE AT THE ROOT SERVER, AND WHICH ARE AT LEAST EDS SEAL COMPATIBLE.

AND THE LATEST FIGURES I HAVE IS THAT THE QUERIES WHICH COME TO THE NL DATA SERVERS, AT LEAST 80% ARE EDS SEAL, WILL BE ABLE TO DO IPV6.

AND AT THE ROOT SERVERS, IF YOU SEE THE QUERIES, THE FIGURE IS HIGHER.
I DON'T HAVE THE FIGURES COMPLETE.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ASPECTS TO WHETHER ANY INDIVIDUAL DNS MANAGER OR SITE IS READY FOR -- YOU KNOW, IS ABLE TO MAKE FULL USE OF IPV6.
SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL, YOU KNOW, TECHNICAL DETAILS I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS FURTHER WITH YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I THINK THAT'S IT.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I AM ENCOURAGED TO SEE SOME MOTION IN THE DIRECTION OF IPV6.

BUT I AM NOW INCREASINGLY SENSITIVE TO HOW MUCH WORK IS AHEAD OF US AND HOW MUCH MEASUREMENT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO TAKE UP MOUHAMET'S POINT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW WELL WE ARE DOING, HOW MUCH OF DNS HAS IPV6 CAPABILITY, HOW MUCH OF DNS HAS IPV6 TRANSPORT, AND HOW MUCH OF DNS HAS IPV6 RECORDS IN IT.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE A -- SOME WORK AHEAD OF US IN THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST AT ICANN, TO BEGIN TO GATHER STATISTICS ON A REGULAR BASIS TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE ARE DOING WITH IPV6 DEPLOYMENT.

I'D LIKE TO CALL ON STEVE CROCKER NOW TO GIVE A REPORT FROM THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

STEVE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT.
SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS UP HERE IN A SECOND.
SOMETHING'S HAPPENING.
THERE WE GO.

YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WORK NECESSARY TO ROLL OUT IPV6 IS RELEVANT, AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FORMAL PRESENTED ON THE SLIDES.

BUT THERE'S A SORT OF NATURAL TIE-IN TO WHAT I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT.
AND I MUST SAY THAT WE FIND OURSELVES COORDINATING IN A BOTH INFORMAL AND FORMAL SENSE WITH THE ROOT SERVER COMMITTEE.
AND IT'S A PLEASURE TO DO SO.
IT'S A VERY NICE SET OF INTERACTIONS.

I'M STEVE CROCKER.
I CHAIR THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A RELATIVELY SHORT REPORT.
A SMALL PIECE OF BUSINESS.

WE HAVE DISCOVERED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CHANGE OUR ACRONYM.
SO WE ARE NOW SSAC.
AND I'LL JUST SKIP PAST ALL OF THAT.
THIS IS THE -- YEAH.
THIS IS THE CURRENT MAKEUP OF THE COMMITTEE.
AND IT'S A VERY DISTINGUISHED SET OF PEOPLE.

IT'S COMPOSED OF PEOPLE DRAWN FROM, BROADLY, THE DIFFERENT TECHNICAL AREAS IN THE COMMUNITY, ROOT SERVER OPERATORS, VARIOUS TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN OPERATORS, REGISTRARS, ADDRESS REGISTRIES, TECHNICAL EXPERTS IN SECURITY, AND SO FORTH.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TAKE GREAT COMFORT IN AND AM PLEASED TO ALWAYS MENTION IS THAT THIS IS A TECHNICALLY GROUNDED GROUP AS OPPOSED TO POLICY-ORIENTED OR BUREAUCRATS OR ATTORNEYS.
AND, FURTHER, WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE.
EVERYBODY HAS GOT A FULL-TIME JOB DOING SOMETHING USEFUL, SO TO SPEAK.

I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU FOUR TOPICS, WHICH AS I SAY, I'LL COVER VERY BRIEFLY. WILDCARD, QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE PRESSURE WOULD BE ON THE SYSTEM IF THERE WERE RAPID, SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF TLDS. WORK ON DOMAIN NAME SECURITY, AND THEN EVOLUTION IN THE MAKEUP OF THE COMMITTEE.

THE WILDCARD SITUATION, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY IS WELL AWARE OF, IS THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER, VERISIGN USED THE WILDCARD FEATURE OF DNS TO REDIRECT QUERIES FOR WHAT ARE TECHNICALLY CALLED UNINSTANTIATED NAMES. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY NAMES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN REGISTERED, ALTHOUGH THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION IN THAT DEFINITION.

THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AND DISSENSION ABOUT IT. MANY, MANY PARTIES WERE INVOLVED. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE HELD SOME OPEN MEETINGS, GATHERED INFORMATION.

WITH SOME EMBARRASSMENT, I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR REPORT IS OVERDUE. I'M COMMITTED TO HAVE A DRAFT OF OUR REPORT CIRCULATED WITHIN THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN COMING OUT SOMETIME AFTER THAT.

IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO TELL YOU WHAT THE REPORT IS GOING TO SAY UNTIL IT ACTUALLY SAYS IT, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE ANY BIG SURPRISES IN THERE. MOST OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE SAID HAVE BEEN SAID MULTIPLE TIMES. AND SO IT SHOULD BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ANTICIPATE. WE'LL TRY TO GET SOME OF THE NUANCES, AND I'M SURE THAT WILL NOT BE THE END OF THINGS.

THIS HAS ALL BECOME A BIT MORE COMPLICATED BY VERISIGN'S SUIT THAT'S FILED AGAINST ICANN, BECAUSE THAT TIGHTENS UP, RESTRICTS THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNICATION. AND SO THINGS WILL ACTUALLY BE QUIETER FOR A WHILE.

NEW TLDS. THE QUESTION ARISES, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S A DECISION TO ADD A LOT OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WHAT PRESSURE DOES THAT PUT ON THE OPERATION? ARE THERE STABILITY ISSUES?

AND FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CAN THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM SERVE UP MORE -- YOU KNOW, HANDLE MORE, THE ANSWER IS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A BIG DEAL. THERE ARE SOME DUE DILIGENCE THINGS TO CHECK, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BIGGEST ISSUE.

THERE ARE SOME LESS VISIBLE ASPECTS, THOUGH, THAT ARE WORTH HAVING SOME CONSIDERATION ABOUT. AS PAUL TWOMEY AND DOUG BARTON ARE QUICK TO POINT OUT, ANY CHANGES IN THE ENTRIES IN THE ROOT FOR A PARTICULAR DOMAIN INVOLVE A LITTLE BIT OF MECHANICS AND AN AWFUL LOT OF TRUST. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE REQUEST, EVEN FOR THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD KIND OF CHANGE OF RELOCATION OF A NAME SERVER OR A CHANGE OF A TECHNICAL CONTACT, BE AUTHENTICATED. AND SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS THEY SEEM.

SO THERE IS A HUMAN WORKLOAD AND SORT OF PROPER AMOUNT OF CARE NEEDED. AND AS THE ROOT IS SCALED UP, OR AS THE NUMBER OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IS EXPANDED, THAT WORKLOAD GOES UP.

SO I WOULD THINK THAT THERE -- IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT AND BE PREPARED.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING A HANDFUL OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, SAY, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF NEW GTLDS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A TERRIBLY LARGE ISSUE BECAUSE THAT SITS IN THE CONTEXT OF A COUPLE HUNDRED CCTLDS.

BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OR TENS OF THOUSANDS, DEPENDING UPON WHAT SCENARIOS YOU LIKE, THEN THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE, ONE THAT OUR COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD GIVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ATTENTION, IS THAT SOME DOMAINS ARE LIKELY TO FAIL, JUST AS A STATISTICAL PROBABILITY. AND IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THEN THE REGISTRANTS ARE AFFECTED IN AN IMMEDIATE AND FAIRLY CATASTROPHIC WAY. ANY BUSINESS THAT DEPENDS UPON BEING CONNECTED TO THE NETWORK SUDDENLY BECOMES DISCONNECTED, AND EFFECTIVELY IS OUT OF BUSINESS.

AND WORSE YET, EVEN IF WE TRY TO WORRY ABOUT THAT IN ADVANCE AND TAKE PREPARATIONS, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO. THERE'S NO ALTERNATE SUPPLIER OF DOMAIN NAME SERVICE FOR A SPECIFIC TOP-LEVEL -- SPECIFIC DOMAIN NAME. SO IF YOU ARE FU.ORG, AND I PICK DOT ORG BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO SIT ON THE BOARD OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY, AND SO THEY'RE SORT OF A FAVORITE CHILD, NOT BECAUSE I THINK ANY OF THEIRS ARE LIKELY TO FAIL, BUT LET'S SUPPOSE THAT FU.ORG FAILED, THEN THAT BUSINESS -- I MEAN THAT ORG FAILED, THEN EVERY BUSINESS UNDER IT IS GOING TO FAIL, AND THAT WOULD BE A VERY BIG DEAL, INDEED.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT? THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES. ONE COULD PUT THE DATA IN ESCROW, ONE COULD ARRANGE OTHER OPERATORS, ONE COULD HAVE OTHER KINDS OF PREPARATIONS. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT NOT TO OVERSPECIFY THE SITUATION. AND FROM OUR COMMITTEE'S POINT OF VIEW, SIMPLY HAVING RAISED THE FLAG AND SAY, "PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND IN THE PLANNING" IS THE END OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO DO IN THAT AREA.

GOOD.

DNSSEC IS A SECURITY PROTOCOL FOR DNS. IT ADDS CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY STRONG SIGNATURES FOR ASSURING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE INFORMATION.

THIS IS A PROTOCOL WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND IT PROVIDES SOME STRONG ASSURANCE -- IT DOESN'T SOLVE ALL POSSIBLE SECURITY ISSUES RELATED TO DNS OR TO THE INTERNET IN GENERAL, BUT IT IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT, AND, AS I SAY, BEEN ON THE PLANNING BOARDS FOR A LONG TIME.

"LONG TIME" IN THIS CASE IS TEN YEARS, EVEN A BIT MORE. THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOW FINISHING THEIR THIRD MAJOR ITERATION, AND ONE HOPES THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH A FOURTH MAJOR ITERATION.

TRIALS AND EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT, BUT THERE'S NOT YET BEEN ANY FULL-SCALE DEPLOYMENT IN ANY AREAS. AND IT'S GOING TO BE A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM HERE TILL THE TIME THAT IT IS BROADLY AVAILABLE. HERE'S SOME OF THE STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY. AND WE'RE SORT OF PARTWAY THROUGH THE EARLY STEPS. THE SPECS, AS I SAY, ARE PRETTY COMPLETE. THERE'S BEEN SOME DESIGN, SOME IMPLEMENTATION, THERE WILL BE SOME SOFTWARE THAT APPEARS RELATIVELY RAPIDLY, WE HOPE. BUT THAT'S SOME DISTANCE FROM THE END. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EDUCATION, AND A LOT OF DEPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO BE GAINED ABOUT THAT.

SO WE'VE BEEN SPENDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TRYING TO SEE HOW ALL THESE PIECES FIT TOGETHER, AND I THINK, FRANKLY, WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THIS IS SORT OF BIGGER THAN WE CAN TACKLE WITHIN THE COMMITTEE, PER SE, AND A BROADER EFFORT HAS TO BE SPUN OUT AND INVOLVE MANY MORE PARTIES.

AND TO BE FAIR, MANY GROUPS ARE WORKING ON VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THIS, AND THE CONCERN THAT I'VE HAD IS WHETHER OR NOT ALL THESE ELEMENTS FIT TOGETHER. AND IF THEY DO, THAT'S GREAT, ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE ARE SOME HOLES THAT CAN BE FILLED IN. SO OVER TIME, WE'LL BE WATCHING THAT AND TRYING TO FACILITATE THAT.

THERE'S ALSO A FEW SPECIFIC AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN WORKED OUT IN FINE DETAIL. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ROOT KEY, HOW THAT'S CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME, SO-CALLED ROLLOVER. HOW THAT'S DISTRIBUTED TO END USERS.

AT THE OTHER END OF THE CHAIN, SO TO SPEAK, WHAT DO END SYSTEMS DO IF THEY MAKE A DNS QUERY AND INSTEAD OF GETTING BACK A SIGNED QUERY, THEY GET AN UNSIGNED -- I'M SORRY, A SIGNED RESPONSE, THEY GET BACK AN UNSIGNED RESPONSE? SHOULD THEY IGNORE THAT RESPONSE AS UNAUTHORITATIVE OR SHOULD THEY ACCEPT THAT AS, WELL, NOT ALL THE RESPONSES ARE SIGNED?

IN THE EARLY DAYS, IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE NECESSARY TO TREAT THOSE AS REGULAR EXPECTED RESPONSES, AND THEN SOME TIME LATER WHEN IT'S FAIR TO EXPECT MOST RESPONSIBILITIES ARE SIGNED, THEN THAT RAISES A QUESTION. SO THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL SET OF TRANSITIONAL ISSUES.
AS I SAY, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SEE HOW ALL THOSE PIECES HANG TOGETHER AND RAISE FLAGS WHEN THEY'RE NOT.

THE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT WE'VE GIVEN SOME THOUGHT TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOW EFFECTIVELY TWO YEARS OLD. WE WERE FORMED SORT OF ALL AT ONCE WITH A SELECTION OF THE STAFF -- I MEAN A SELECTION OF THE COMMITTEE BY STAFF MEMBERS. BY THE TIME I THAT WAS INVITED TO CHAIR THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE WAS BASICALLY FULLY FORMED. I WAS EXTREMELY IMPRESSED WITH THE SELECTION PROCESS. IT WAS FAR BETTER, I THOUGHT, THAN IF I HAD BEEN THROWN INTO IT AND SET A TASK WITH GOING AND GATHERING A SET OF PEOPLE.

THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW CHANGES IN THE TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN OPERATING. WE BROUGHT ON TWO PEOPLE. TWO PEOPLE HAVE DEPARTED, ONE OF WHICH WAS DOUG BARTON WHO BECAME THE IANA GENERAL MANAGER AND RESIGNED AS A RESULT OF KEEPING PROPER DISTANCE, SORT OF PRO FORMA. AND STILL IS INVOLVED IN OUR PROCESSES.

IT'S CLEAR THAT WE NEED SOME MECHANISM FOR REPLACING PEOPLE, FOR RELIEVING THE CURRENT MEMBERS WHO WANT TO GET OFF AND WISHING THEM WELL, AND FOR BRINGING NEW PEOPLE ON.

WE HAVE SORT OF AN INHERENT PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUENCY THAT WE CAN DRAW FROM. THERE'S NO -- WE CAN'T SEND OUT A NOTICE SAYING, "PLEASE SEND US TWO OF YOUR BEST PEOPLE," AND YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO DO THAT.

AND I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT HAVE NAME SLOTS THAT SAYS SO-AND-SO ORGANIZATION OR GROUP OWNS PARTICULAR SLOTS. WE TRY FOR A BALANCE IN OUR REPRESENTATION, BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CONTROLLING ITEM. THE CONTROLLING ISSUE IS COMPETENCE, INDEPENDENCE OF VIEW, AND THE TIME AND ENERGY TO PLUNGE IN, AND WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO STRUCTURE SOME FORM OF SELECTION PROCESS. I SORT OF BLANCH A LITTLE BIT AT THE IDEA OF A NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK SOME FORM OF THAT, PROBABLY NOT AS HEAVYWEIGHT AS THE KIND OF NONCOM THAT'S USED FOR THE BOARD POSITIONS BUT ONE THAT HAS BALANCE IN ACCOUNTABILITY AND SOME DISTANCE FROM THE CURRENT MEMBERSHIP.

AND THEN HAVE SOME RESULTS TO REPORT TO YOU BY THE NEXT ICANN MEETING.

THAT'S THE MATERIAL THAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU. I'D BE HAPPY TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION OR INTERACTION.

OH, I'M SORRY. I DID WANT TO MENTION, WITH RESPECT TO IPV6, THE PICTURE THAT I PAINTED ABOUT DNSSEC AND THE PICTURE VINT PAINTED ABOUT IPV6 ARE SIMILAR IN THEIR NATURE IN THAT IT IS TECHNICALLY DEMANDING, THERE'S A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS -- IT'S JUST THE FIRST PART OF THE PROCESS. AND MOREOVER, THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT ONLY SIMILAR IN THEIR STRUCTURE AND OPERATE IN PARALLEL BUT THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF INTERACTION. SO ONE OF THE COMPLICATIONS IS WHAT DOES DNS LOOK LIKE UNDER IPV6 AND WHAT DOES DNS SECURITY LOOK LIKE UNDER IPV6.

SO ALTHOUGH I HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT IN MY -- IN WHAT I CHOSE TO PRESENT HERE, IT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE'VE SPENT SOME TIME ON, ALTHOUGH NOT YET AT MUCH TIME AS WE'VE BEEN SPENDING ON DNSSEC ITSELF.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE. MIKE HAS A QUESTION.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

STEVE, I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE THAT THE CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AT A TLD LEVEL IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO THIS ORGANIZATION AND I THINK ALL INTERNET STAKEHOLDERS. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE CURRENT AGREEMENTS, FOR INSTANCE IN THE UNSPONSORED, IT'S APPENDIX "S" AND I BELIEVE IN THE UNSPONSORED IT'S ATTACHMENT 19, THAT CURRENTLY PROVIDES FOR ESCROW SERVICES, AND IN THE CASE OF FAILURE ALLOWS ICANN TO STEP IN AND SORT OF HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA.

SO I KNOW THAT'S SORT OF PART ONE, AND WHAT YOUR COMMITTEE WILL BE DOING TO POTENTIALLY ENHANCE OTHER MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE FOR THAT CONTINUITY OF SERVICE.

A SECOND POINT I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP, I THINK IN LOOKING AT THIS CONTINUITY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT THIS FROM NEW TLDS OR NEW ENTRANTS INTO THE MARKETPLACES, BUT ALSO CURRENT REGISTRY OPERATORS. ALTHOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE ANY LAWYERS ON YOUR COMMITTEE, THE LAWYER IN ME LIKES TO TREAT SIMILARLY SITUATED PEOPLE SIMILARLY.

SO I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT ONLY IN PLACE FOR FUTURE REGISTRANTS AND NEW TLDS BUT ALSO ARE AVAILABLE TO CURRENT REGISTRANTS AND EXISTING TLDS.

THE FINAL POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS I'M VERY ENCOURAGED THAT THE COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT MECHANISMS TO ALLOW FOR OTHER QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO SERVE ON THIS IMPORTANT COMMITTEE.

SO THANK YOU.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANKS VERY MUCH, MIKE.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK MIKE'S POINT IS DEVELOP TAKEN, THAT ONE WANTS TO HAVE MECHANISMS FOR RECOVERY OF ALL KINDS OF FAILURE REGARDING WHICH TLD HAPPENS TO BE INVOLVED.

STEVE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE. WITH REGARD TO DNSSEC, FIRST OF ALL, I TAKE YOUR ANALOGY THAT IT'S NOT UNLIKE HAVING TO RUN A MIXED ENVIRONMENT WITH IPV4 AND IPV6. HAVE WE HAD ANY TEST ENVIRONMENTS WHERE OPERATORS ARE ALSO ABLE TO ENGAGE -- IN OTHER WORDS, SOMEBODY MIGHT BE RUNNING A DNS SERVICE, BUT MIGHT ALSO WANT TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY IN VERIFYING THAT THEIR SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS ARE ABLE TO OPERATE WITH DNSSEC, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, ABLE TO OPERATE WITH A MIXTURE OF IPV4 AND IPV6.

IT'S PROBABLY A NAIVE QUESTION, BUT IT HAD NOT OCCURRED TO ME UNTIL NOW. WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A CONVENIENT TESTING ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE OPERATING COMMUNITY TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF ITS OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, THERE ARE TEST BEDS AND METHODS. THERE IS SOME DELICACY INVOLVED, AND PARTICULARLY IF ONE NARROWS THAT QUESTION TO WHAT KIND OF TESTING CAN ONE DO WITH RESPECT TO THE ROOT, ONE OF THE -- WITH SOME HESITATION ABOUT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ROOT OPERATORS, BECAUSE WE HAVE EXCELLENT REPRESENTATION, HERE, ONE OF THE STRONG MESSAGES THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT ABOUT IS COHERENCE ABOUT RESPONSES FROM THE ROOT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT WOULD NOT BE A VERY GOOD IDEA IF ONE OF THE 13 ROOT OPERATIONS STARTED GIVING ONE KIND OF RESPONSE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS.

SO THERE IS SOME VERY CAREFUL STEPS-DOWN PROCESS THERE. BUT EXCEPT FOR THAT KIND OF CARE, THERE ARE TEST BEDS IN OPERATION, THERE ARE -- THERE HAVE BEEN INTEROPERABILITY TESTS, AND THERE WILL BE MORE. AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACCESSIBLE AND CAN BE USED NOT ONLY TO TEST OUT ON THE SERVER SIDE BUT ON THE RESPONSE SIDE IS EXACTLY WHAT LAYS IN FRONT OF US IN TERMS OF HAVING A PROPER SEQUENCE AND A ROLL-OUT PLAN.

>>VINT CERF: I'M THINKING JUST GENERALLY ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF V6, V4, DNSSEC AND SO ON. THE DNS BEING A VERY HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM ULTIMATELY LEADS DOWN TO END POINTS WHERE USERS, IN EFFECT, ARE OPERATING COMPANIES THAT RUN THEIR OWN DOMAIN NAME SERVERS. IT OCCURS TO ME WE MIGHT GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO HOW THOSE ORGANIZATIONS COULD GET ACCESS TO TEST ENVIRONMENTS SO THAT THEY COULD VERIFY THEIR OWN EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATIONS BEFORE THEY PUT THEM INTO LIVE OPERATION. AND I SEE BARBARA HAS -- I'M SORRY, SUZANNE HAS A COMMENT TO MAKE, SO SUZANNE, PLEASE.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: YEAH, JUST BRIEFLY. WITH MY ROOT SERVER OPERATOR HAT ON AND SPEAKING FOR F-ROOT AND FOR ISC AS AN IMPLEMENTER OF DNS SOFTWARE, WE REGARD IT AS VERY, VERY PROMISING THAT THE SPECS HAVE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE TO PUBLICLY RELEASE CODE IMPLEMENTING THOSE SPECS.

UNTIL RECENTLY, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION, NSD FROM NL-NET LABS THAT HAS ALSO GOTTEN PUBLICLY RELEASED CODE IMPLEMENTING THE DNSSEC. UNTIL RECENTLY, THAT WAS A THING IMPLEMENTERS PREFERRED NOT TO DO WHICH LIMITED THE ABILITY TO PUT TOGETHER WIDE TEST BEDS AND MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE IN A POSITION TO DO THAT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT IT CHANGING UNDER US.

SO THAT'S BEEN A RECENT DEVELOPMENT WE'VE REGARDED AS VERY ENCOURAGING FOR THE ISSUE OF GETTING TEST BEDS OUT THERE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE. NOT TO PROLONG THIS TOO MUCH MORE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ISPS THAT ARE EITHER HERE WITH US OR LISTENING OR WHO ARE OUT THERE MIGHT GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO HOW TO ASSIST HERE IN ASSURING THAT WE DO HAVE SAFE TEST ENVIRONMENTS TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO MATURE BEFORE THEY ENTER INTO FULL OPERATION.

I'LL TAKE THAT AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STEVE?

LATER WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR ON ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT I WANT TO COMPLETE THE ALAC REPORT BEFORE WE DO THAT.

SO, STEVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU ALL.

>>VINT CERF: I'LL CALL ON VITTORIO BERTOLA TO GIVE THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: SO THANK YOU. I GUESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS DOING IS WIDELY KNOWN IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY, SO I WILL NOT BE EXPLAINING AGAIN WHAT WE ARE AND WHAT WE ARE DOING.

I AM TRYING TO GIVE YOU A QUICK REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE LAST MONTHS OR SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN TUNIS.

SO THIS IS A BRIEF SUMMARIZATION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, ACTUALLY. ONE MAIN PART OF OUR ACTIVITIES IS CONDUCTING THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZING PROCESS FOR WHICH WE DO OUTREACH AND WE TRY TO REACH OUT TO INTERNET USER ORGANIZATIONS ALL AROUND THE WORLD, AND WE ALSO HAVE A FINALIZED THE PROCESS FOR ACCREDITING THEM. SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY STARTED TO HAVE ORGANIZATIONS ENTER THE MECHANISM AND I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER.

AND WE HAVE ALSO ORGANIZED TWO REGIONAL WORKSHOPS HERE IN EUROPE, ONE ABOUT EUROPE AND ONE ABOUT ASIA-PACIFIC.

THEN WE ALSO ARE ACTIVE IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FIELD, SO WE PARTICIPATE IN A NUMBER OF TASK FORCES; NAMELY, THE THREE WHOIS TASK FORCES, WHICH ARE, I THINK, TAKING UP A GOOD AMOUNT OF OUR TIME. AND WE'VE ALSO BEEN RELEASING A STATEMENT ON THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES ISSUE. WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE WIPO 2 GROUP AND WE HAD A PUBLIC MEETING HERE IN ROME TO DISCUSS ABOUT THESE PUBLIC ISSUES.

AND FINALLY THERE IS ONE LAST POINT WHICH I THINK WE HAVE BEEN QUITE ACTIVE SO I WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT.

SO THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENED IN TERMS OF PROCESS. SINCE TUNIS, WE HAVE EVENTUALLY FINALIZED THE PROCESS FOR VOTING AND FINALIZING AT LARGE STRUCTURES. SO WE HAVE THIS KIND OF VOTE BECAUSE THE ICANN BYLAWS REQUIRE US TO HAVE A VOTE TO ADMIT INTO THE AT-LARGE MECHANISM. WE HAD ONE IN DECEMBER, WE HAD A SECOND ROUND IN FEBRUARY AND PLAN TO HAVE ANOTHER IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. ALMOST ALL THE APPLICATIONS ARE INELIGIBLE AND WE APPROVED THEM SO WE HAVE SUCCEEDED IN THAT.

WE HAVE CREATED A MAILING LIST, IT'S NOT FULLY OPERATIONAL YET SO WE WILL TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN, BUT AT LEAST NOW WE HAVE THE TOOL, SO THERE'S STARTING TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ON HOW WE CAN ACTIVELY INTERACT WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS WE BRING INTO THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

ALSO, WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING EIGHT MORE APPLICATIONS TO BECOME AT-LARGE STRUCTURES, SO CURRENTLY THE SITUATION IS NOW WE HAVE TEN ACCREDITED ORGANIZATIONS AND SIX OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT ARE UNDERGOING DUE DILIGENCE. AND AS A COMPARISON, I PUT THE NUMBERS IN TUNIS WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACCREDITED ORGANIZATIONS YET BECAUSE WE HADN'T FINALIZED THE PROCESS, AND WE HAD EIGHT APPLICATIONS PENDING. SO THINGS ARE STARTING TO MOVE.

SO THIS IS THE CURRENT LIST OF THE ACCREDITED STRUCTURES. WE HAVE, OF COURSE, THE FIRST ONE WE ACCREDITED IS SOCIETA INTERNET, BUT IT'S ALSO CHEATING BECAUSE IT'S MY ORGANIZATION. BUT ANYWAY, WE'VE NOW GOT QUITE A GOOD NUMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD. I ALSO WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE FOLLOWING LIST, WHICH IS THE LIST OF THE ORGANIZATIONS STILL WAITING FOR US TO EXAMINE THEIR APPLICATION AND TELL THEM YES OR NO. AND ALSO, THIS IS INTERESTING, WEED WE HAVE A GOOD NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS PENDING FROM ASIA-PACIFIC AND ALSO CATALONIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS IN LATIN AMERICA.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE A QUICK LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, ALSO BECAUSE WE TRIED TO BE VERY DECENTRALIZED IN THIS. SO THE COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED BY 15 PEOPLE, OF WHICH THE 15 MEMBERS ARE DIVIDED INTO THE FIVE REGIONS. SO WE HAVE THREE MEMBERS FOR REGION AND WE TRIED REALLY TO HAVE EACH MEMBER IN EACH REGION TO MANAGE THE OUTREACH PROCESS THERE.

SO IN AFRICA, WE HAVE ACTUALLY OUR AFRICAN MEMBERS ACTUALLY HAVE SET UP A CONTACT GROUP AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SET UP A SECRETARIAT BASED IN ACCRA. SO THERE IS SOME OUTREACH GOING THERE. THEY HAVE CONTACTED ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEY PLAN TO USE THE CAPETOWN MEETING, WHICH WILL BE THEIR HOME MEETING, HOME CONTINENT, AT LEAST, TO MAKE THINGS START.

SO WE DON'T KNOW YET WHETHER IT WILL ACTUALLY BE THE START OF THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATION OR THE START OF THE PROCESS TO GO TO THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS BUT WE DEFINITELY PLAN TO HAVE SOME INTERESTING AFRICAN MEETING THERE.

WITH REGARD TO ASIA-PACIFIC, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MAINLY OFF-LINE AT LARGE MEETINGS, SO OUR MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING, TRAVELING TO OTHER IP RELATED NETWORK MEETINGS.

NOW WE HAVE FOUR APPLICATIONS PENDING, SO WE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE DUE DILIGENCE PHASE, AND WE WOULD POSSIBLY START APPROVING THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

AND ALSO, HERE IN THIS CASE WE PLAN TO USE THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING TO MOVE THINGS IN THE REGION AND RAISE SOME EXPOSURES, SOME INTEREST AND DISCUSS THE POSSIBLE START OF THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATION.

THEN WE HAVE EUROPE. IN EUROPE, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED FROM THE LIST, IS THE REGION IN WHICH WE GOT MORE ACCREDITED STRUCTURES AND APPLICATIONS UP TO NOW. SO ACTUALLY IT IS THE FIRST REGION WHERE WE ARE NOW -- WE HAVE ALREADY MET, IN FACT, THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS POSED BY THE BYLAWS TO ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY START THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATION. BUT EVEN LIKE THAT, WE'VE BEEN HAVING SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEED TO BROADEN THE SCOPE. SO WE DON'T WANT TO REALLY START IN A RUSH. WE PREFER TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO THE OUTREACH PROCESS, TO BRING MORE ORGANIZATIONS IN SO WE CAN ACTUALLY COVER MORE COUNTRIES AND MORE DIFFERENT CULTURES, LANGUAGES AND WHATEVER.

SO THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SOMEWHAT REVISED THE SCHEDULE. WE WERE IMAGINING TO START THE REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HERE BUT WE REALLY THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE MORE OUTREACH. ALSO TRY TO BROADEN THE SCOPE, BECAUSE, I MEAN, MOST OF THE ORGANIZATIONS WE HAVE NOW IN EUROPE ARE ISO CHAPTERS WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE POSSIBLY THOSE WERE ALREADY INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF PROBLEMS SO THEY ARE THE QUICKEST TO REACT. BUT WE REALLY WANT TO BRING OTHER TYPES OF USERS AND OTHER TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS TO THE TABLE. AND SO THIS WILL TAKE, OF COURSE, A LITTLE MORE TIME BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BRING AWARENESS TO PEOPLE. BUT I THINK THAT IN THE END, IN THE LONG TERM, THIS WILL BE OF REAL VALUE. SINCE WE HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS SUSTAINABLE AND WORKING IN THE LONG TERM, WE HAVE TO BE SURE IT IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CAN WORK AND HAS ADEQUATE INTEREST TO IT.

SO WE, OF COURSE, CONTINUE MAILING TO NONTECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE START A FOUNDING GROUP TO DISCUSS THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATION.

SO FINALLY, THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING, LATIN AMERICA AND NORTH AMERICA, I'VE BEEN COLLAPSING THEM BECAUSE IT'S A SIMILAR PROCESS. WE'RE STILL IN THE OUTREACH PHASE, TRYING TO OUTREACH TO PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES, TO CONSUMER GROUPS, AND TO A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN ICANN.

THEN I'M SHIFTING THE MATTER TO POLICY ACTIVITIES. WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE WILL BE MAKING CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS. SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF AN OFFICIAL POSITION FROM THE COMMITTEE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THIS. BUT WE HAVE A STATEMENT ON THE NEW TLD REGISTRY SERVICES WHICH WAS RELEASED IN JANUARY. AND I REALLY WANTED TO TELL YOU WHAT WE WROTE ON THAT. BASICALLY OUR PRINCIPLE ON THIS IS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE SOMEONE NEW, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE PROVES IT IS HARMFUL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST. AND I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT. BUT STILL, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE CASES WHERE MARKET COMPETITION CANNOT WORK. SO IF IT IS NOT A MARKET UNDERLYING THE NEW SERVICE, SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE A LOOK TO ASSURE THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS GOING ACTUALLY IN THE GENERAL INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE FACT THAT THE DNS IS PROTOCOL NEUTRAL, SO YOU SHOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION OR PROTOCOLS. AND YOU SHOULD ESPECIALLY BE CAREFUL ON A NUMBER OF SCENARIOS. SO WE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF THEM. ONE IS THE SCENARIO WHEN REGISTRIES INTRODUCE A CHANGE THAT INCREASES THEIR REVENUES BUT DUMPS THE COST OF SUCH INCREASE TO THE USERS. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY ACCEPTABLE. AT LEAST IF THIS HAS TO HAPPEN, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED IN ADVANCE BY THE USERS, AND TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMUNITY.

AND ALSO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, REGISTRIES SHOULD NOT TRY TO EXPLOIT THEIR MARKET DOMINANCE IN THAT FIELD TO ENTER INTO OTHER FIELDS. IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN SEEING EVEN OUTSIDE OF ICANN IN OTHER ITC FIELDS AND IT HAS ALWAYS PROVEN TO HAVE VERY BAD RESULTS.

SO, AND FINALLY, YOU SHOULD TRY NOT TO HAVE MONOPOLIES. YOU SHOULD TRY TO USE MARKET COMPETITION AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE, BUT IF IT IS POSSIBLE, YOU SHOULD TRY TO ESTABLISH NEW SERVICES IN A COMPETITIVE WAY.

ANYWAY, JUST TO SUM UP, I THINK IT'S CLEAR TO US THAT THERE IS SOME EXTENT OF REGULATION TO BE DONE, AND THIS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND IN THE END, WE DON'T KNOW OF ANY BETTER PEOPLE THAN ICANN AND THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO DO THIS.

SO....

AND FINALLY, JUST A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING ABOUT WSIS. WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING SOMEWHAT INFORMALLY. EVEN IF I STARTED TO RECEIVE INVITATION AS CHAIRMAN OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO THERE'S ALSO SOME MORE AWARENESS OF THE FACT THAT ICANN IS MOVING IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL SOCIETY REPRESENTATION AND THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF AWARENESS TO KNOW WHAT ICANN IS DOING IN THIS FIELD BECAUSE IT COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE A MODEL FOR WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT YEARS.

SO WE'VE BEEN ACTIVE IN THE FIELD. WE'VE BEEN CO-ORGANIZING THE WORKSHOP HERE IN ROME, IN THE WORKSHOP WE HAD YESTERDAY MORNING. AND WE DO THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATES IN THIS. SO IN TUNIS, I WROTE A SIMILAR SLIDE THAT WE WANTED TO BRING INFORMATION, AND THAT'S STILL TRUE. YOU SHOULD BE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS. BUT NOW I THINK THERE'S A SHIFT TO BE DONE.

SO NOW THE COMMUNITY IS READY TO START MOBILIZING ITSELF AND START TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP. OR TO TRY TO INFLUENCE IT, AT LEAST.

SO WE HAVE RELEASED A STATEMENT WHICH I WANT TO READ AGAIN BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY WEREN'T HERE YESTERDAY.

AND IT WAS ALSO DISTRIBUTED.

BASICALLY SPEAKING, WE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF ICANN, ITS MISSION, AND ITS MODEL BASED ON PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

WE JUST POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS THAT I THINK STILL NEED TO BE FIXED IN THE WAY ICANN WORKS.
IT NEEDS STRUCTURE.

ONE IS INTERNATIONALIZATION AND MULTI-LINGUALISM AND BECOMING MORE INTERNALLY DIVERSE.

ANOTHER ONE IS THE ACTUAL ROLE AND WEIGHT OF THE USERS, SO THE INTEREST OF THE USERS AND THE PROVIDERS OF SERVICES ARE ACTUALLY BALANCED.

AND, FINALLY, WE HAVE EXPRESSED OUR WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE UPCOMING WORKING GROUP OF THE UNITED NATIONS, BECAUSE WE THINK WE CAN PROVIDE A VERY INSIGHTFUL EXPERIENCE ON HOW USERS, INDIVIDUAL USERS AND THEIR CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS CAN PARTICIPATE IN THIS KIND OF POLICY-MAKING PROCESSES.

SO IN THE END, I THINK ICANN IS STILL AN EXPERIMENT THAT'S STARTING TO PROVE THAT IT WORKS, ACTUALLY.
AND SO WE HAVE TO EXPLOIT THIS AND PERHAPS EVEN TO PROPOSE THIS AS A MODEL FOR THE REGULATION OF OTHER ISSUES.

THANK YOU.

MAYBE I COULD CONCLUDE BY THANKING THE LOCAL ORGANIZERS AND SHOWING MY ABILITY TO SPEAK IN THE LOCAL LANGUAGE.

BUT IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR, I THINK.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.

I HAVE A QUESTION FROM MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: VITTORIO, CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR RECENT PROGRESS.

I BELIEVE THE ALAC IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT TOWARDS ICANN'S LONG-TERM VIABILITY.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE TO YOU IS, WHAT IS IT THAT ICANN CAN DO FOR TO YOU HELP MAKE YOUR EFFORTS MORE PRODUCTIVE?
I KNOW IN YOUR LAST COMMENTS THERE, YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO MULTI-LINGUAL SUPPORT.

WEARING MY HAT THAT I SIT ON ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, IF YOU COULD POSSIBLY JUST ELABORATE ON WHAT YOU MIGHT NEED FOR US TO HELP MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER IN ACHIEVING YOUR IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, OF COURSE, WE DIDN'T SHOW YOU THE BILL YET.
BUT IT WILL COME TO YOU, WE WILL COME TO YOU POSSIBLY WITH A REQUEST FOR MORE FUNDS.
BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING WELL, BUT IT'S STILL A GROUP OF 15 PEOPLE WHO ARE VOLUNTEERS.
SO WE ARE USING OUR SPARE TIME AND MONEY TO DO THIS.
AND I THINK THAT -- THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE.

ONE, PERHAPS, IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SUPPORT TO THE COMMITTEE.
SO WE ARE VERY HAPPY OF THE FACT THAT ICANN IS ESTABLISHING REGIONAL OFFICES, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY TO GO, BUT BECAUSE IT COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE A GOOD HELP TO US TO CONDUCT THE OUTREACH IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS.

SO WE REALLY FEEL THE NECESSITY TO HAVE PEOPLE POSSIBLY -- EVEN NOT FULL TIME, BUT PART-TIME PAID PEOPLE IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS TO DO OUTREACH AND KEEP TOUCH NOT JUST WITH THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS COMMUNITIES IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, BUT ALSO THE USER COMMUNITY IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS.
AND ALSO HAVING A BASE OFFICE IN EACH REGION HELPS VERY MUCH.
I MEAN, JUST IN PRACTICAL THINGS.

SO JUST -- I MEAN, TIME ZONES, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE AN ISSUE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY.
SO IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICE THERE, YOU COULD POSSIBLY GET MORE SUPPORT AND THINGS DONE MORE EASILY.

BUT APART FROM THESE, I THINK THAT IT'S ALSO A MATTER OF GENERAL APPROACH.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT TRANSLATIONS, TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT JUST A PROBLEM OF OUR COMMITTEE.
SO I THINK THAT ICANN SHOULD REALLY THINK OF THAT AND POSSIBLY IMAGINE TO HAVE A SPECIAL FUND, FOR EXAMPLE, DEVOTED TO TRANSLATIONS AND TO HAVE PERHAPS NOT STAFF, BUT EXTERNAL FIRMS ASSOCIATED, BUT, ANYWAY, TO HAVE A WAY TO PROVIDE EASY TRANSLATION SERVICES TO ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES AND GROUPS THAT HAVE TO USE IT.
OF COURSE, THIS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE PRESENT BUDGET, WHICH IS NOT UNLIMITED.

BUT STILL I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME TIMES IN TERMS OF INTERNAL ORGANIZATION THAT COULD HELP NOT JUST US, BUT ALL THE COMMUNITIES TO BECOME MORE DIVERSE AND WELL-ORGANIZED.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE A QUESTION FROM VENI MARKOVSKI.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I SEE THAT YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS FROM THE INTERNET SOCIETY CHAPTERS.
IS THIS KIND OF A POLICY THAT ALAC IS DOING?
OR IT'S --

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: NO.
ACTUALLY, I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO DO THE OPPOSITE POLICY.
SO WE WILL STOP PUSHING ISO CHAPTERS TO JOIN.
WE ARE VERY HAPPY IF THEY JOIN.
AND, OF COURSE, WE WELCOME THEM TO SEND THE APPLICATIONS.
BUT WE REALLY THINK THAT -- I MEAN, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A DUPLICATION OF ISOC.
THERE'S NO REASON BUILDING ISOC AGAIN.

SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE BRING OTHER TYPES OF USERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ICANN SINCE THE BEGINNING.
SO THERE ARE MANY, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS OR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES THAT ARE STARTING TO BECOME AWARE OF THE PROBLEM.

AND ALSO IN THESE TERMS, THE WSIS PROCESS HAS BEEN VERY USEFUL, BECAUSE BY GOING THERE, WE GET IN TOUCH WITH HUNDREDS OF NGOS THAT THEY NEVER KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT INTERNET GOVERNANCE, JUST GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM WHEN IT BECAME HIGH ON THE LIST OF SUBJECTS IN SUMMIT.

SO WE DO OUTREACH WITH THEM, WE EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS REALLY ABOUT.
AND, OF COURSE, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW IT.
SO THEY HAVE VERY NAIVE IDEAS SOMETIMES OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS AND WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS.
AND THEN WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT, IN TIME, WE CAN ACTUALLY EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY THEY SHOULD PARTICIPATE.

OF COURSE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT TAKES TIME AND IS VERY DIFFICULT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PRESENT BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, ALSO NGOS ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE DONATIONS ARE GONE DOWN, SO THEY HAVE LESS RESOURCES, THEY HAVE TO FOCUS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES.
IT'S NOT EASY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO SPEND THEIR TIME ON ICANN. AND BY THE WAY, STILL IT IS DIFFICULT TO PARTICIPATE IN ICANN.

IT IS A VERY COMPLEX STRUCTURE, AND YOU HAVE TO KNOW ENGLISH, AND YOU HAVE TO PERHAPS EVEN BE AVAILABLE TO FLY DIFFERENT PLACES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

SO.... BUT WE REALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BROADER THAN JUST A SET OF ISOC CHAPTERS.

>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, I ALSO HAVE AN INSTANT MESSAGE FROM ALEJANDRO PISANTY, WHO IS UP VERY LATE IN MEXICO CITY, TO PARTICIPATE.

HE SAYS YOU LOOK PRETTY GOOD ON THE TELEVISION CAMERA.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: AND ALSO SAID TO PLEASE TELL YOU THAT HE IS VERY ENCOURAGED BY ALAC'S PROGRESS, AND HE EXPECTS TO SUPPORT IT.

BUT HE'S INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW YOU SEE ALAC'S ROLE WITH REGARD TO THE WSIS DISCUSSIONS.
HE MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD BE TRYING OR THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP WOULD BE TRYING TO PARTICIPATE.

SO HE'S INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW YOU SEE THAT WORKING.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, IT'S A HARD QUESTION.
I WILL PERHAPS MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE AS IT SERVES AND THE ROLE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMITTEE.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMITTEE ITSELF TO PARTICIPATE IN WSIS, I THINK SO, ANYWAY.
I THINK THAT ICANN HAS TO ACTUALLY SHOW THAT IT'S MORE THAN JUST A SET OF BUSINESS PEOPLE FLYING HERE AND DIFFERENT PLACES, MAINLY FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

IT'S NOT TRUE ANYMORE.

THIS STILL HAS TO GET BETTER, BUT IT'S STARTING NOT TO BE TRUE.
IF YOU HAVE A LOOK AT ALSO THE GAC, THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THERE IS CONSTANTLY INCREASING.
AND SO I THINK, ANYWAY, THE COMMITTEE HAS TO PARTICIPATE.
AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHY WE ARE SAYING WE WANT TO PARTICIPATE.
WE WOULD LOVE TO GET THE KIND OF RECOGNITION.

NOBODY KNOWS THIS U.N. WORKING GROUP HOW IT WILL BE COMPOSED AND WHETHER IT WILL JUST BE RESERVED TO GOVERNMENTS OR WHETHER IT WILL ALSO ALLOW, AS WE THINK AND ALSO AS THE DECLARATION SAYS, IT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND FROM CIVIL SOCIETY.

IF THERE WILL BE PEOPLE FROM THE CIVIL SOCIETY, WE REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO BE THERE.
BUT APART FROM THAT, WE ALSO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS INDIVIDUALS.

SO EVEN IF, IN THE END, ICANN WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING FORMALLY IN THE PROCESS, WHICH IS STILL TO BE DECIDED, I THINK THAT AS INDIVIDUALS, WE HAVE TO PARTICIPATE.
WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE REAL REASONS AND THE REAL VALUES WHY WE ARE HERE ARE BROUGHT AND AT LEAST TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

SO POSSIBLY IT WILL NOT BE UP TO US TO HAVE A FINAL WORD ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE PROCESS, BUT THAT I THINK AT LEAST WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS SOME VALUE HERE AND IT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE CONSIDERED AND BE USED TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE SOLUTION OF OTHER PROBLEMS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.

I THINK YOU CAN STAND DOWN NOW.
I HAVE THREE MORE SUPPORT ORGANIZATION REPORTS COMING.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
BUT, MARK, YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE SETTING UP FOR THE ASO REPORT WHILE I MAKE THESE.

FOR EACH PRESENTER WHO HAS USED POWERPOINT SLIDES, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF YOU WOULD FORWARD THOSE SLIDES TO ROME@ICANN.ORG AS E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS.
THAT WAY WE CAN GET THEM ONLINE AND ACCESSIBLE, AND, IN PARTICULAR, ALEJANDRO, WHO IS EAGER TO SEE THEM, WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM BEFORE TOMORROW'S BOARD MEETING.

THE SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE, THE PARTY THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IT ABOUT JUST WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM.

BUT WHEN SHE COMES BACK, LET'S SURPRISE HER, ASSUMING SHE DOES COME BACK SOON.
IT'S PARRY AFTAB'S BIRTHDAY TODAY.
AND SHE JUST RAN OFF TO GET A CUP OF COFFEE.
I KNOW THAT YOU WERE ALL EXPECTING A BREAK SOON.

I AM GOING TO CALL FOR ONE AFTER WE FINISH THESE OTHER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION REPORTS.
SO IF SOMEBODY HAPPENS TO CATCH PERRY COMING BACK IN, WAVE TO ME AND WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF PAUSE TO WISH HER A HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
MARK, I'D LIKE TO CALL ON YOU TO OFFER THE ASO REPORT.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: WELL, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND.

>>VINT CERF: SORRY.
THERE SHE IS.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, PERRY.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WE'RE NOT GOING TO SING TO YOU.

>> PERRY: HOPEFULLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ASK HOW OLD I AM, EITHER.
BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT ALEJANDRO SAYS ABOUT HOW I LOOK ON TELEVISION.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF HE SAYS ANYTHING.
PRIVATELY.

>> PERRY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: IF IT'S GOOD, I'LL BE GLAD TO MAKE IT A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> PERRY: OKAY. AND IF IT'S NOT, SPARE ME.
THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: YOU'RE WELCOME.
ANOTHER YEAR.
MARK.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: THANKS.
WONDER IF I COULD BEG ON SOME TECHNICAL SUPPORT HERE.
HI.

MY NAME'S MARK MCFADDEN.
THANK YOU, VINT.

THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, SOMEONE REMINDED ME AT BREAKFAST, IS THE OLDEST OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE LEAST REFORMED.

BUT THAT WILL POTENTIALLY SOON CHANGE, AND I EXPECT YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT.
TO SORT OF GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND, THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS A TECHNICAL COMMUNITY WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PROVIDE THE ICANN BOARD WITH TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON ISSUES RELATING TO ADDRESSING AND NUMERIC IDENTIFIER POLICY.

THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS SUPPORTED ITSELF BY AN ADDRESS COUNCIL THAT'S MADE UP OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM FOUR REGIONS.
THESE ARE THE REGIONS IN WHICH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES WORK.
THOSE INCLUDE APNIC IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION; RIPE IN THE EUROPEAN REGION; LACNIC IN THE LATIN AMERICAN COMMUNITY, AND THEN ARIN FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE ON THE SCREEN OVER THERE.
I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM.

BUT WE -- AND THOSE ARE THE THREE COMMUNITIES.
THIS GROUP MEETS REGULARLY BY TELECONFERENCE.
THIS IS NOT A GROUP THAT MEETS AS OFTEN AS IT WOULD LIKE IN PERSON.
IT MEETS ABOUT TWO TIMES A YEAR IN PERSON, ONCE IN A WORKSHOP, USUALLY EARLY IN THE YEAR.
AND THEN ANOTHER TIME IN A GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS, AS A SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION GOES, THEY ARE PART OF ICANN.
AND SO AS A RESULT, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE RIRS DIRECTLY.
I MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE THREE REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH OF THE RIRS.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THAT IS THAT THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES.
IT'S AN ORGANIZATION WHERE ITS MEMBERS DON'T NEED TO COME FROM THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES AT ALL.
THE FINAL BULLET ON THIS SCREEN IS THE MOST IMPORTANT.
AND AS I SORT OF KIDDED BEFORE ABOUT, THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS THE -- OR, I'M SORRY, THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS THE OLDEST OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND, TRULY, THE ONE THAT IS THE LEAST REFORMED YET.
THAT'S CHANGING.
THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THROUGH AN MOU THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING NEGOTIATED BETWEEN ICANN AND THE RIRS.

AND THERE HAS BEEN -- THE PROGRESS ON THAT HAS BEEN COMING THROUGH THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND I'M SURE WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT.
THE SECRETARIAT, THE WAY THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL WORKS IS, THROUGH ITS 12 MEMBERS AND A SUPPORTING SECRETARIAT, THE SUPPORTING SECRETARIATS ROTATE AMONG THE REGIONAL ADDRESS REGISTRIES.
AND THE CURRENT SECRETARIAT IS RIPE.
WE ALSO HAVE TWO NEW MEMBERS ON THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.
THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT REFRESHES ITS MEMBERSHIP VIA ELECTIONS.
THE TERMS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE ADDRESS COUNCIL TURN OVER ONCE A YEAR.

SO WE HAVE A COUPLE NEW MEMBERS, LOUIS LEE AND JOON KWON.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DOES IS ELECT TWO ICANN BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERS.
I WON'T SINGLE THEM OUT BY NAME HERE.
BUT ONE OF THEM IS UP FOR ELECTION, AS YOU CAN SEE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- A VERY IMPORTANT TASK HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.

WHAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DOES AS A RESULT OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ICANN AND THE RIRS, THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, IS TO HAVE A GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN WHICH EVERYONE IS INVITED TO TALK ABOUT ADDRESSING ISSUES OF ANY KIND.

THAT TAKES PLACE ONCE A YEAR, USUALLY IN COORDINATION WITH A REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT'S QUITE CLEAR.
THAT'S WHEN THAT COMMUNITY GETS TOGETHER.
THIS YEAR, THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE FIRST WEEK OF MAY IN AMSTERDAM.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT WWW.ASO.ICANN.ORG FOR DETAILS.
THAT IS ON THE 5TH OF MAY, I THINK.
AND ON THAT AGENDA ARE BOTH THE ELECTIONS AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTION IS A -- SOMETHING THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS TO TAKE VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

THAT PROCESS IS IN PLACE.
LAST YEAR, IT WAS DOCUMENTED, SO THE FOLKS WHO WORRY ABOUT PROCESS ISSUES WERE TAKEN CARE OF.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE PLACE WHERE WE STAND IS WE'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWING NOMINATIONS FOR THE ICANN BOARD OF DIRECTORS SLOT THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING TO BE OPEN IN MAY.
THOSE NOMINATIONS CLOSE ON THE 20TH OF APRIL.

AND BETWEEN THE 20TH OF APRIL AND THE 5TH OF MAY, THERE IS A REVIEW PROCESS, A REVIEW AND VETTING PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE.
AND THEN THE ELECTION ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE ON THE 6TH OF MAY.

THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS ALSO VERY, VERY HAPPY TO SEE PROGRESS BEING MADE ON BUILDING A NEW RIR IN THE AFRICAN REGION.

THIS IS -- THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE COLLABORATIVELY AND COOPERATIVELY WORKING TOGETHER, WORKING VERY, VERY HARD, AND THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS ALSO VERY ENCOURAGED TO TELL YOU THAT THE EXISTING FOUR RIRS ARE VERY, VERY COOPERATIVE IN THIS WORK.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY SHARING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND ALSO HUMAN CAPACITY TO HELP THE AFRICAN COMMUNITY BUILD THEIR OWN REGIONAL REGISTRY.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN DOING SOME OTHER WORK, AS I MENTIONED LAST -- IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE DONE IS ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A STANDARDIZED BOARD OF DIRECTORS SELECTION PROCESS.

THAT WAS NOT IN PLACE PREVIOUSLY.
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS UP TO THIS YEAR, THERE IS A ROADMAP FOR ITS WORK ON THE ASO'S WEB SITE.

AND I INVITE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
WE'VE COMPLETED A LOOK AT AN OLD RFC THAT ACTUALLY WAS THE VEHICLE FOR DOING ADDRESSING IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, RFC 2050.

THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO REPLACE IT WITH A SERIES OF DOCUMENTS.
AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IS, THERE IS A POLICY COMPARISON DOCUMENT OR WHAT'S CALLED THE POLICY COMPARISON MATRIX THAT'S BEEN CREATED, THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT USED TO BE IN RFC 2050 AND THE STATE OF PLAY IN INTERNET ADDRESSING TODAY.

THERE'S ALSO VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION OF GLOBAL ADDRESS POLICY WITHIN THE ADDRESS COUNCIL COMMUNITY.
ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF WORK IS BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THAT WORK RIGHTLY GOES ON WITHIN THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES THEMSELVES.

BUT WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES OF GLOBAL COORDINATION THAT THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES AREN'T TAKING ON, THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS A PLACE WHERE THAT CAN TAKE PLACE.
PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS TO BRING YOU IS THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL AND THE ASO IS ACTUALLY BEING ANNOUNCED HERE.

THERE ARE LOTS OF ACRONYMS ON THIS SLIDE.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR AND THAT WAS REPORTED NOW TUNISIA, IS THAT THE RIRS HAVE FORMED A NEW ORGANIZATION CALLED THE NUMBERS RESOURCE ORGANIZATION.
THAT'S BASICALLY AN UMBRELLA GROUP FOR THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES.
THAT ORGANIZATION IS ACTUALLY A SORT OF GLOBAL COORDINATION BODY FOR BOTH POLICY AND TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR ALL OF THE RIRS.

THE ADDRESS COUNCIL THINKS IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THE AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELATIONSHIPS ARE BETWEEN THE ASO, WHICH IS RIGHTLY A PART OF ICANN, AND THE NRO, WHICH IS AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION FOR THE RIRS.

WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE HERE IN SHORT ORDER, AND PERHAPS YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT LATER, IS A -- IS SOME MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ICANN AND THE REGIONAL REGISTRIES.

THE EXISTING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATES FROM THE 1920S AND IS VERY, VERY OLD.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS -- YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE.

>>VINT CERF: 1920S?

>>MARK MCFADDEN: YES.

THANKS.

THERE WERE TWO OF US, THEN, LISTENING TO THAT.
IN FACT, I MUST HAVE MISSPOKE.
IT -- THE ORIGINAL MOU DOES NOT DATE FROM THE 1920S.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>MARK MCFADDEN: THAT WAS MY ERROR.
BUT THAT MOU IS VERY, VERY OLD.
AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION THE OLDEST OF THEM.

THAT MOU IS COMING UNDER RENEGOTIATION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE RIRS, AND I THINK THE ADDRESS COUNCIL WILL BE VERY HAPPY WHEN THAT WORK IS COMPLETED.
BECAUSE AS THE LAST BULLET SAYS HERE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS UNTIL THAT PIECE OF WORK IS ACTUALLY DONE.
AND THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARK.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS -- YES, MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON THE NEW REGISTRATION OF AFRINIC.

AND I WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK ALL REGISTRIES THAT HAVE DONE A LOT OF JOBS TECHNICALLY AND FINANCIALLY TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF AFRINIC.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A PLACE TO MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENT ON WHAT SIDE EFFECTS THE DELAY OF PUTTING IN PLACE AFRINIC WOULD HAVE IN THE ENVIRONMENT WE ARE LIVING NOW.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A CYNIC.

BUT IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT STEP FOR ALL THE REGISTRIES TO BRING THAT SUPPORT TECHNICALLY AND FINANCIALLY TO ENABLE AFRINIC TO BE IN PLACE IN A VERY SHORT TIME.

THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MOUHAMET.
LET ME CALL ON BRUCE TONKIN NOW TO MAKE HIS REPORT FOR THE GNSO.

AND LET ME ALSO SUGGEST THAT -- I GUESS THERE AREN'T -- IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER REPORTS THAT ARE COMING, I SEE CHRIS DISSPAIN IS APPROACHING, YOU MIGHT WANT TO FORWARD YOUR REPORTS NOW TO ROME@ICANN.ORG IN CASE THERE'S A PROBLEM GETTING THIS PROJECTION UNIT TO WORK, WE CAN PROJECT FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

OH, MEMORY STICK.
THAT'S EVEN BETTER.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, BRUCE.
GO AHEAD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
JUST REFRESHING EVERYONE'S MEMORY, THE PURPOSE OF THE GNSO IS, IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDING TO THE ICANN BOARD SUBSTANTIVE POLICIES RELATING TO GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND THOSE IN EXISTENCE TODAY OR HOPEFULLY WILL SOON BE IN EXISTENCE IN THE CASE OF DOT PRO, ARE SHOWN THERE.
THE THEME OF THE GNSO'S REPORT TODAY IS ABOUT BETTER DECISION-MAKING.

WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHY THERE IS SO MUCH LITIGATION, BECAUSE LITIGATION IS MERELY USING ANOTHER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
AND IT MEANS THAT THIS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AT ICANN HAS FAILED IF WE ARE SEEKING AND INVOLVED IN LITIGATION.

WE SHOULD ALSO THINK WHILE WE'RE HERE ABOUT WHY THE ROMAN EMPIRE FELL, WATCH SOME MOVIES.
EACH OF THESE MOVIES I SELECTED HERE, "GLADIATOR," "STAR WARS," AND THE "MATRIX," ALL HAD SOME FORM OF BOARD OR COUNCIL.
AND MANY OF THEM IN THE CASE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE SPENT A LOT OF TIME FIGHTING BARBARIANS BUT NOT FOCUSING WHAT WAS GOING ON ON THE HOME FRONT AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT WORKED.

IN THE CASE OF STAR WARS, THE JEDI COUNCIL WAS ANNIHILATE IN THE MOST RECENT MOVIE.
LET'S HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN HERE.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT PROCESS AND GIVE MY REPORT WITH RESPECT TO OUR CURRENT WORK IN EACH OF THESE AREAS.

WE ARE WORKING -- WE HAVE A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.
WE HAVE A POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS PROCESS.
WE COME TO A DECISION.

THERE IS USUALLY SOME FORM OF APPEAL OF THAT DECISION.
WE ALMOST GUARANTY WITH OUR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THAT WE HAVE AN APPEAL.
AND THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT A GOOD THING.
THEN WE LOOK AT IMPLEMENTATION.
THIS IS FAIRLY RARE.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH OF THAT IN ICANN.
COMPLIANCE.

THE FURTHER WE GET DOWN THIS PATH, THE LESS EXPERIENCE WE HAVE.
AND THEN, FINALLY, WE NEED TO REVIEW THE OUTCOMES.
THE FIRST PART OF OUR PROCESS REQUIRES PUBLIC INPUT.
BUT PUBLIC INPUT IS NOT JUST PUBLIC SPEAKING; IT IS ACTUALLY GETTING CLEAR AND PRECISE DATA, AND THAT THAT DATA CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED.

I REFLECTED ON THE SESSIONS YESTERDAY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM AND THOUGHT THAT ICANN HAS ESSENTIALLY BECOME A PUBLIC-SPEAKING FORUM.
AND IF I COMPARE SOME AWARDS YESTERDAY, I FELT THAT THE REGISTRARS IN PARTICULAR WON THE BEST ACTORS AND BEST SUPPORTING ACTORS FOR THE ICANN EVENT YESTERDAY.
IN SOME OF THE WORKSHOPS, WE'VE HAD WORKSHOPS ON WHOIS OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, AND ALSO EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND, AGAIN, IT'S MOSTLY AN EXERCISE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING.
VERY LITTLE REAL DATA TO SUPPORT ANYONE'S ARGUMENT.

I'VE BEEN REMINDED IN RECENT TIMES THAT THE FIRST TIME I BOUGHT A CAR, I BOUGHT A CAR THAT WAS A USED CAR FROM A USED CAR SALESMAN.
AND I LEARNED MY LESSON THERE.
LET'S TRY NOT TO BE LIKE THOSE PEOPLE.
WHOIS IS ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AND THE WHOIS WORKSHOPS, WHOIS TASK FORCES ARE NOW, RATHER THAN TAKING A PUBLIC SPEAKING APPROACH THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING FOR THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO MOVE TO DATA COLLECTION.

AND THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT NO ONE IS FILLING OUT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE.
ARE WE AFRAID OF PROVIDING REAL DATA?
CAN WE NOT SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS WITH USEFUL INFORMATION?
SO STRUCTURED QUESTIONS ARE A GOOD START.
AND WE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS.

THERE IS, IN FACT, A POSITION IN ICANN DEFINED AS THE ICANN MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
WHAT ARE WE SEEKING HERE?
ARE WE SEEKING SOMEONE FROM THE ACADEMY AWARDS TO COMPARE A CEREMONY AND INVITE MORE ACTORS TO COME ALONG?
OR WOULD WE RATHER HAVE A FORENSIC SCIENTIST GO THROUGH ALL THE ARGUMENTS AND THE DATA THAT ARE PRESENTED.

AND THINK ABOUT A LEGAL CASE.
HOW DOES THE LEGAL PROCESS WORK?

THERE IS VERY THOROUGH EVIDENCE COLLECTION.
IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL LAW, THERE ARE FORENSIC SCIENTISTS.
IN THE CASE OF LITIGATION, YOU TRY TO COLLECT AS MUCH INFORMATION AND DATA AS POSSIBLE.
WHY DON'T WE DO THAT?
WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER PROCESS OUTSIDE ICANN TO DO THAT FOR US?
SO, PLEASE HELP.
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING IN REGARD TO WHOIS.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS.
IT'S NOT ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING AT ALL.

THE REASON WHY I'M DRESSED LIKE THIS TODAY, AS THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN ME IN EARLIER EVENTS, I'M NORMALLY NOT DRESSED LIKE THIS.
BUT I REALIZE THAT THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO DO, BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC-SPEAKING FORUM.
WE NEED MORE ANALYSIS.

THE GNSO COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON AN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR CHANGES IN GTLD SERVICES.
WE NEED STAFF SUPPORT FOR THIS, WITH STRONG ANALYTICAL AND WRITING SKILLS.
THINK ABOUT ANOTHER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
THIS ABOUT THE COURTS.

WE SEEK LAWYERS WITH STRONG ANALYTICAL AND WRITING SKILLS TO DEVELOP OUR LEGAL CASES FOR US.
WHY AREN'T WE DOING THAT HERE?
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THAT ANALYSIS AND CAREFUL THOUGHT IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS?
SO WE HAVE A CHOICE.

WE EITHER SPEND MONEY NOW, PROPERLY RESOURCE THE ANALYSIS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT, OR WE SPEND MONEY LATER, AND WE SPEND IT IN ANOTHER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, WHICH IS THE COURTS.

I'D LIKE TO SEEK THE RETURN OF THE JEDI TO ICANN.
THERE ARE MANY JEDI MASTERS ON THIS COUNCIL.
WE HAVE VINT CERF, WE HAVE STEVE CROCKER, WE HAVE JOHN KLENSIN.

THERE ARE OTHERS OF YOU WHO I KNOW LESS WELL THAT MAY WELL ALSO BE JEDI MASTERS.
WHAT ARE JEDI MASTERS?
THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE VERY STRONG ANALYSIS SKILLS.
WHAT DO WE SEE MOSTLY IN THE ICANN PROCESS?
PEOPLE WITH VERY STRONG PUBLIC SPEAKING SKILLS.
NOT THAT I THINK THAT'S A BAD THING.
BUT WE ALSO NEED THOSE WITH ANALYSIS SKILLS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RETURN OF THE JEDI TO ICANN, THE RETURN OF PEOPLE WITH ENGINEERING AND OTHER BACKGROUNDS THAT ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ANALYSIS THAT WE NEED.

DECISIONS.

WE NEED CLEAR CRITERIA FOR MAKING DECISIONS.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IF THE DECISION WAS RIGHT.
WE NEED A MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE.
WE HAVE HAD SOME DECISIONS IN RELATION TO TOPICS LIKE TRANSFERS IN THE GNSO AREA AND WHOIS AND DELETES.
BUT AT NO TIME HAVE WE ACTUALLY DEFINED HOW WE WOULD MEASURE WHETHER WE WERE SUCCESSFUL.
HOW DO WE KNOW WHETHER THE TRANSFERS POLICY WORKS?
WE HAVE NO MEASURES DEFINED UP-FRONT TO DO THAT.

SO WE NEED TO CLEARLY DOCUMENT THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISIONS AS WELL SO THAT THEY CAN STAND UP TO A SEPARATE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OUTSIDE OF ICANN.
WE NEED TO SET UP THE MECHANISMS NOW SO THAT WE CAN MEASURE SUCCESS LATER.

LET'S HAVE A LOOK AT WAIT LIST DECISION AS A CASE IN POINT 2001, THE ISSUES WERE FIRST DISCUSSED IN SEPTEMBER.
IN APRIL OF 2002, THE GENERAL COUNSEL PRESENTED AN ANALYSIS.
FINALLY ENOUGH, THE GNSO, AT THE TIME CALLED THE NAMES COUNCIL, DECIDED THE TRANSFER PEOPLE WERE THE BEST PEOPLE TO ANALYZE THIS.

THE BOARD THEN REQUESTED THE NAMES COUNCIL TO FORMALLY RESPOND IN JUNE.
IN JULY, THE NAMES COUNCIL PRESENTED ITS REPORT THAT THE REQUEST TO INTRODUCE THE SERVICE BE REJECTED, AND THAT IF APPROVED, VARIOUS CONDITIONS BE INCORPORATED.

BUT THERE WAS NOT REALLY A CLEAR OBJECTIVE SET OF CRITERIA AT THAT TIME AVAILABLE.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS TODAY IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR REGISTRY CHANGES, IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR SET OF CRITERIA THAT WE CAN USE IN THE FUTURE AND TRY TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR PROCESS SO THAT ALL PARTIES KNOW WHAT'S INVOLVED.

NOTE THAT IN AUGUST OF 2002, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED STAFF TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS. IT IS NOW MARCH OF 2004, AND WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM CALLED WLS NEGOTIATIONS.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE WE ARE IN THAT PROCESS, ACTUALLY. ARE WE AT THE STAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION? OR ARE WE IN THE APPEAL PROCESS? IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME.

THIS BRINGS US ON TO APPEALS. APPEALS SHOULD BE LESS ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING. IT SHOULD BE MORE ABOUT WAS THE CORRECT PROCESS FOLLOWED OR NOT. AND LET'S FIX THE PROCESS.

IMPLEMENTATION. FOR SOME REASON, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AN EXERCISE IN THE AREA OF TRANSFERS WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR, AND AGAIN WE ARE GOING THROUGH ANOTHER PUBLIC SPEAKING EXERCISE DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE FOR SOME REASON.

BUT I WILL REMIND PEOPLE THAT IMPLEMENTATION IS NOT AN EXTENDED APPEALS PROCESS. IT'S A PROCESS WHERE WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT THE DECISION THAT HAS BEEN MADE.
THERE'S LITTLE EXPERIENCE OF THIS ISSUE IN ICANN. MOSTLY, THE POLICY OUTCOMES FROM THE GNSO HAVE NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED. THE ONLY ONES THAT I KNOW OF, NEW GTLDS WERE IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD WAS IMPLEMENTED.

WE NEED MORE PEOPLE THAT IMPLEMENT AND LIST POLICY DEVELOPERS INVOLVED IN THE STAGE OF IMPLEMENTATION. WE NEED REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING INTO OUR IMPLEMENTATIONS, AND WE NEED TO RESOURCE THIS PROPERLY; OTHERWISE, IT'S POINTLESS DEVELOPING POLICY.

COMPLIANCE. I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE WORTH TRYING. AN IMPORTANT PART OF CIVILIZATION IS THAT THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH LAWS AND PROCEDURES. WE NEED TO CONSIDER COMPLIANCE AT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT STAGE. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CLEARLY MEASURE WHETHER A PARTY IS COMPLYING. WE NEED TO TRY AND BUILD AN INDUSTRY REPUTATION. WE DON'T WANT TO BE THE USED CAR SALES INDUSTRY.

WE NEED TO REVIEW OUTCOMES. AGAIN, LESS ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING, MORE ABOUT PLANNING THE REVIEW DURING THE INITIAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT. DEFINING THE MEASURES OF SUCCESS. ESTABLISHING MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS, AND REVIEW THE DATA AT THE END OF THAT REVIEW PROCESS.

WE'RE SEEING THIS NOW WITH THE NEW GTLDS, ONE OF THE FEW THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND WE'RE TRYING TO REVIEW THAT. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EASIER EXERCISE IF WE HAD THOUGHT MORE ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DO REVIEW AT THE TIME THAT WE MADE THOSE DECISIONS.

SO IN CONCLUSION, I'D LIKE TO SEE AN IMPROVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING. WE NEED TO RESOURCE THE ENTIRE PROCESS FROM PUBLIC IMPORT THROUGH TO IMPLEMENTATION UP FRONT INSTEAD OF SPENDING ON LITIGATION LATER. WE SHOULD RECONSIDER OUR FUNDING MODELS AND MAKE SURE WE CAN ADEQUATELY RESOURCE ICANN. WE NEED TO ESTABLISH OVERALL MEASURES FOR ICANN'S SUCCESS.

AND I HOPE THAT ICANN WILL, IN FACT, LIVE ON, AND WILL NOT FALL TO THE FATE OF SOME OF THE EMPIRES IN THE PAST.

I HAVE ONE MORE IMPORTANT SLIDE; THAT IS TO RECOGNIZE ONE OF THE JEDI WHICH IS ELISABETH PORTENEUVE, WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE NAMES COUNCIL AND THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR SOME TIME, MOST RECENTLY AS THE CCTLD LIAISON. SHE IS ONE OF THOSE WITH ANALYTICAL SKILLS WHO HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT. THE GNSO THANKS HER FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND WISHES HER WELL IN HER FUTURE ROLES.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: MICHAEL PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: HI, BRUCE, I'M NOT GOING TO JOKE ANYONE, I'M NOT A JEDI MASTER, I CARRY A PURPLE LIGHT SABER SO I CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OTHER JEDI MASTERS. ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE GAINED A GREATER APPRECIATION OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS IS IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE TECHNICAL JEDI MASTERS WE HAVE, WE ALSO HAVE I THINK A NEW COMPONENT WHICH IS THE BUSINESS JEDI MASTER, AND IN PARTICULAR SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE GAINED A LOT OF APPRECIATION FOR IS HAGEN HULTZSCH, THOMAS NILES, AND TRICIA DRAKES. THESE ARE SOME, IF YOU WILL, OF THE BUSINESS JEDI MASTERS THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO SORT OF NOTE FOR FUTURE RECOGNITION.

AND AGAIN, NOT TO DO DISSERVICE TO ANY OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, EVERYONE THAT I AM SERVING WITH, I'M HONORED TO SERVE WITH.

GETTING BACK TO THE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT, COMING FROM THE GNSO OR THE OLD DNSO, I UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF RESOURCES AND, AGAIN, WITHIN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WE ARE STRUGGLING VERY HARD TO LOOK AT ALTERNATE FUNDING MECHANISMS, MODELS, TO MAKE SURE THAT ICANN HAS ENOUGH, IF YOU WILL, GAS TO ACHIEVE THE MECHANISM SO THAT YOUR USED CAR FROM THE USED CAR SALESMAN DOESN'T BREAK DOWN.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT, AND AGAIN -- AND THIS IS SORT OF WHERE THE BUSINESS ELEMENT OF THE BOARD COMES IN. THIS ORGANIZATION DOES HAVE CONTRACTS, AND ALTHOUGH THERE'S ALWAYS A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THERE'S ALSO SORT OF, IF YOU WILL, A LEGAL ANALYSIS. AND THAT IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE STRUGGLE WITH, I THINK, AS AN ORGANIZATION.

SO AGAIN, I 100% APPLAUD THE POINTS THAT YOU RAISED. I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT. AND AGAIN, HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK IN FINDING WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT ONLY GNSO BUT THE ALAC, ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS HAVE ENOUGH, IF YOU WILL, THE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE THE JOB TO ENSURE THIS ORGANIZATION'S LONG TERM VIABILITY.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE, FOR TAKING TIME TO PRODUCE A VERY THOUGHT-PROVOKING REPORT.

I HAVE TO SAY, I'M KIND OF WONDERING ABOUT THE GOTHS THE VISIGOTHS THAT ADVOCATE. AND TO TAKE YOUR JEDI ANALOGY, I'M WONDERING IF I'M GOING TO END UP LOOKING LIKE YODA. YOU REMEMBER THE SCENE IN I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST OF THE STAR WARS EPISODES WHERE LUKE SKYWALKER IS BEING TRAINED ON THIS PRETTY HORRIBLE PLANET, AND AT SOME POINT HE BOASTFULLY SAYS, "I'M NOT AFRAID." AND YODA LOOKS AT HIM AND HE SAYS, "YOU WILL BE! YOU WILL BE!" SO THANKS A WHOLE LOT FOR PUTTING THAT BACK INTO MEMORY, BRUCE.

CHRIS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR

(APPLAUSE.)

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FIRST, I DON'T DO IMPRESSIONS, SO....

(LAUGHTER.)

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GIVEN BRUCE'S SAGE ADVICE ABOUT PUBLIC SPEAKING I'LL KEEP THIS AS SHORT AS I POSSIBLY CAN. I'M CHRIS DISSPAIN, AND I'M THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP, AND I ALSO CHAIRED THE CCNSO MEETING A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, WHICH IS WHY I'M STANDING HERE DELIVERING THIS REPORT.

ON THE FIRST OF MARCH, 2004, THE CCNSO LAUNCH GROUP NOTIFIED ICANN THAT THERE ARE NOW ENROLLED IN THE CCNSO OVER 30 CCTLD MANAGERS WITH AT LEAST FOUR IN EACH GEOGRAPHIC REGION. AND, THEREFORE, THE CCNSO IS FORMALLY CONSTITUTED.

THIS MEANS THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, INSTEAD OF PRESENTING A REPORT ON BEHALF OF THE LAUNCHING GROUP I'M ABLE TO BRING A REPORT THE FIRST REPORT FROM THE COUNTRY CODE NAME ORGANIZATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: YEAH, I HAD BRACKETS, "PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE."
THE CCNSO CURRENTLY COMPRISES 12 MEMBERS FROM THE LATIN AMERICAN REGION, 11 FROM AFRICA, EIGHT FROM THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION AND FOUR FROM EACH OF NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE.

THE WORK OF THE LAUNCHING GROUP IS NOT QUITE COMPLETED. UNDER OUR MANDATE FROM ICANN, IT REMAINS FOR THE LAUNCHING GROUP TO COORDINATE THE ELECTIONS OF THE FIRST COUNCIL OF THE CCNSO. ON THE THIRD OF MARCH HERE IN ROME, THE CCNSO HELD ITS FIRST MEMBERS MEETING. BEST PRACTICES FOR SECURITY FOR CCTLDS WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR MORNING SESSIONS, AND WE LISTENED TO A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT AND INFORMATIVE PRESENTATIONS.

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS THAT REGULAR BEST PRACTICE SESSIONS SUCH AS THIS WILL FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MEETINGS OF THE CCNSO.

IN THE AFTERNOON, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH PAUL TWOMEY AND PAUL VERHOEF ABOUT CCTLD RELATIONSHIPS WITH IANA, A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH THE ICANN GENERAL COUNSEL JOHN JEFFREY ABOUT SOME PROPOSED TWEAKS TO THE ICANN BYLAWS. AND CRUCIALLY, THE LAUNCHING GROUP PRESENTED A SERIES OF PROPOSALS TO MEMBERS REGARDING THE ELECTION OF THE CCNSO COUNCIL.

WE HAVE MORE CONSULTATION TO UNDERTAKE ON THIS, AND WILL, IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, PUBLIC AN ELECTION PAPER FOR COMMENT.
IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN FOLLOWING THE PROPOSED TIME LINE, THEN THE CCNSO COUNCIL WILL BE ELECTED JUST BEFORE THE ICANN MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR, AND SO OUR MEETING IN KL WILL COMPRISE BOTH A MEMBERS MEETING AND THE FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING OF THE CCNSO COUNCIL.

FINALLY, THE MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO ARE DELIGHTED THAT IT'S NOW OFFICIALLY CONSTITUTED AND LOOK FORWARD TO WELCOMING OTHER CCTLD MANAGERS AS MEMBERS OVER THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHRIS?
OKAY. SO NOW WE HAVE -- I THINK YOU MAY BE SEATED, CHRIS.

WE HAVE ONE OTHER THING TO DO. I'D LIKE TO CALL PARRY AFTAB BACK UP NOT FOR HER BIRTHDAY BUT TO CELEBRATE SOMETHING ELSE. SO THANK YOU, PARRY.

>>PARRY AFTAB: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT. AS SOME OF YOU KNOW I RUN A VERY LARGE INTERNET SAFETY ORGANIZATION AROUND THE WORLD --

>>VINT CERF: PARRY, I'M SORRY, YOU CAN USE THE PODIUM THERE. IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE TO LOOK AT THE PEOPLE YOU'D LIKE TO TALK TO.

>>PARRY AFTAB: THANK YOU, VINT, VERY MUCH. AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW I RUN ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS, IT'S CALLED WIRED SAFETY. WE USED TO BE CALLED CYBERANGELS. I HAVE 10,000 UNPAID VOLUNTEERS IN 76 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND WE'RE ENGAGED IN INTERNET SAFETY, INFORMATION HELP AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS.

I'M HERE TO GIVE A VERY SPECIAL AWARD TO REGISTER.IT, AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE HAS ACTUALLY WALKED INTO THE ROOM AND CAN -- CLAUDIA, PLEASE COME UP, AND -- PLEASE. CHIARA. REGISTER.IT, IN ADDITION TO PUTTING THE FACILITIES TOGETHER AND HELPING THE CONFERENCE HAPPEN HAS BEEN VERY SERIOUSLY ENGAGED IN INTERNET SAFETY AND AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS.

PLEASE COME UP.

STARTING TWO YEARS AGO WITH THEIR DOMAIN NAME DAY, THEY INVITED WORLD LEADERS ON INTERNET SAFETY TO SIT AND WORK WITH THOSE OF US HERE IN ITALY ON CREATING INTERNET SAFETY AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS. IT'S AN UNUSUAL TASK FOR A REGISTRY TO BE INVOLVED IN EMPOWERING THEIR PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY AND CITIZENS AND I WANTED TO GIVE THEM OUR VERY SPECIAL AWARD, IT'S CALLED THE WIRED KIDS EXCELLENCE IN INTERNET AWARENESS AND EDUCATION AWARD. IT'S BEING GIVEN AROUND THE WORLD TO VERY LEADING GROUPS AND THIS IS THE ONLY REGISTRY THAT'S DONE ANY WORK IN THIS AREA. AND I HOPE THAT THEY'LL BE SEEN AS A LEAD TO THE WORLD. THE OTHER REGISTRIES OUT THERE CAN LOOK TO THEM TO SEE HOW WE CAN EMPOWER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET TO HELP KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE AND TEACH EACH OTHER HOW TO USE THE INTERNET FOR THE BEST WAY, GETTING OUR CHILDREN ONLINE AND MAKING SURE THEY'RE SAFE WHILE THEY'RE THERE.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>PARRY AFTAB: AND I KNOW ALL OF YOU ARE GRATEFUL FOR THEM HAVING DONE THIS AND ALLOWING THEM TO SPEAK IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN AND THE HARD WORK THAT EVERYONE FROM REGISTER.IT HAS DONE AND MAKING SURE WE'RE COMFORTABLE HERE AND HAVE WATER AND COFFEE TO DRINK, AND I'M GOING TO LET YOU GO OFF TO THE COFFEE BREAK IN JUST A MOMENT BUT I WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR ALL OF US.

THANK YOU, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PARRY.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE HERE. WE'RE A BIT LATE FOR OUR COFFEE BREAK; HOWEVER, THERE ARE ALSO OPPORTUNITIES FOR QUESTIONS TO THE PRESENTERS OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS.

MY GUESS IS THAT YOU'D REALLY LIKE TO TAKE A BREAK, SO LET ME ASK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REPORTS TO PLEASE RETURN AFTER COFFEE BREAK IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

WE'LL RECONVENE IN 15 MINUTES.

(BREAK).


>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS A TWO-MINUTE WARNING. RECONVENING IN TWO MINUTES, AND I WILL TRY TO GO OUT AND CHASE THE REST OF THE CROWD IN.


>>VINT CERF: OKAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'D LIKE TO RECONVENE THE MEETING NOW.
BEFORE WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE AND SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ALLOW SOME CONSTITUENCY REPORTS THAT HADN'T BEEN PRECISELY SCHEDULED.

THE FIRST ONE, WHICH COMES FROM THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY. SO ELANA, LET ME INVITE YOU TO TAKE THE FLOOR.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS -- YES, IT'S ON.

HI, THANK YOU. I'M ELANA BROITMAN FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY. I CHAIR THE CONSTITUENCY.

UNTIL ABOUT A YEAR AGO, IT WAS THE NORMAL MATTER AT THESE MEETINGS FOR THE CONSTITUENCIES TO PROVIDE REPORTS AT THESE FORA.

FOR THE PAST YEAR OR SO, THAT HASN'T BEEN THE COURSE BECAUSE THERE HAVE JUST BEEN THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REPORTS. HOWEVER, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY ASKED FOR LEAVE TO MAKE SUCH A REPORT AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE WE HAD A PARTICULARLY ACTIVE AND INTERESTING MEETING, AND WE WANTED TO COMMUNICATE OUR REPORT OF OUR MEETING TO THE PUBLIC FORUM AND TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ROME MEETING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INDULGING US WITH THE SHORT TIME FRAME THAT YOU HAVE.

I WILL JUST BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY REPORT, AND I APOLOGIZE; I'M NOT ONLINE NOW BUT I WILL SEND IT ON TO THE APPROPRIATE E-MAIL LATER ON.

THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSTITUENCY MEETING, WHICH WAS AN ALL-DAY MEETING ON TUESDAY, WAS TAKEN UP BY A REVIEW OF THE GNSO ACTIVITIES. FIRST THERE WAS A REPORT BY THE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE WHOIS TASK FORCES FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY. AND AN EXPLANATION THAT AT THE MOMENT, AS BRUCE TONKIN HAD MENTIONED, QUESTIONNAIRES HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND VERY FEW RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THERE WAS A PLEA FOR MORE RESPONSES FROM THE REGISTRARS SINCE REGISTRARS ARE PARTICULARLY INVOLVED IN WHOIS ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTING THE WHOIS.

AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR A CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT FOR EACH OF THE TASK FORCES, BECAUSE THE REGISTRARS ARE, IN PARTICULAR, VERY CONCERNED WITH REGARD TO PRIVACY ISSUES. BUT ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ACCURACY CONCERNS, AND WANT TO WORK WITH THE VARIOUS ICANN COMMUNITIES ON BOTH OF THESE SORT OF SIDES OF THE WHOIS DEBATE.

THERE WAS ALSO A REPORT ON THE REGISTRY SERVICES TASK FORCE, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT MORE LATER IN DESCRIBING THE AGENDA. BUT THE DISCUSSION THAT ENSUED SORT OF TOUCHED ON THE FOLLOWING THEMES. FIRST, EVERYONE AGREED THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS IS HIGHLY INEFFICIENT, AND WE ARE -- THE REGISTRARS IN GENERAL ARE INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH ICANN TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER-DEFINED, MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS.

THEN THERE WAS, OF COURSE, THE GENERAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING REGISTRY SERVICES SHOULD BE ANY MORE EXTENSIVE THAN A SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY SOME. AND AGAIN, THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT MANY OTHER FACTORS OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN ANY REGISTRY SERVICE REVIEW. IT'S NOT JUST A TECHNICAL MATTER; THERE ARE BUSINESS ISSUES, THERE ARE POLICY ISSUES INVOLVED.

THEN THERE WAS A SUGGESTION MADE AND SORT OF A DEBATE ON THE SUGGESTION, AND THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT THE SIZE OF THE TLD, TO WHICH A REGISTRY SERVICE APPLICATION IS ATTACHED, SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN THE LEVEL OF REVIEW, THE TYPE OF REVIEW, HOW EXTENSIVE IT SHOULD BE. SO A LARGER TLD REQUESTING A REGISTRY SERVICE MAY REQUIRE A LONGER OR MORE COMPLICATED PROCESS THAN A SMALLER TLD.

THERE WAS NOT GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THAT. THERE WAS DEFINITELY DEBATE ON THAT TOPIC, AND I SUSPECT THAT YOU WILL HEAR MORE FROM US ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. BECAUSE SOME RAISED THE CONCERN THAT EVEN IF, TODAY, THERE'S A VERY SMALL TLD ASKING FOR A REGISTRY SERVICE, CIRCUMSTANCES MAY CHANGE, AND WE MAY BE SHORTSIGHTED IN SETTING A PRECEDENT WITH ONE SERVICE TODAY THAT CHANGES -- THE IMPACT OF THAT SERVICE CHANGES A COUPLE YEARS FROM NOW.

THERE WAS ALSO A TRANSFERS TASK FORCE REPORT WHERE THE GIST OF IT WAS BASICALLY THAT WE'RE EXPECTING A POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT, OR ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW DOCUMENTS AND POLICIES TO BE IMPLEMENTED. ROUGHLY AROUND THE END OF MARCH.

WE HAD A COUPLE OF INTERESTING JOINT MEETINGS WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES. ONE WAS A MEETING WITH THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY. THERE WERE SEVERAL PRESENTATIONS. GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION CAME IN AND GAVE AN EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION ON EU DATA PROTECTION. THAT HAS NOW BEEN POSTED TO THE REGISTRARS PUBLIC LIST, THE POWERPOINT, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT.

THERE WAS ALSO A PRESENTATION ON THE U.S. PRIVACY AND ACCURACY LAWS, AND A CONCERN RAISED IN PARTICULAR THAT REGISTRARS MAY GET INADVERTENTLY CAUGHT, PARTICULARLY U.S. REGISTRARS, BY U.S. LAWS OR BILLS THAT TRY TO ADDRESS ACCURACY CONCERNS. AND THE REGISTRARS ARE GOING TO UNDERTAKE AN EDUCATION EFFORT WITH U.S. LEGISLATORS IN ORDER TO -- SO THAT THEY MAY UNDERSTAND BETTER THE WAY THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WORKS AND THE PARTICULAR ROLE OF REGISTRARS.

AND WE, OF COURSE, ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, AND THE GENERALLY-SHARED CONCERN OF THE TWO CONSTITUENCIES WITH REGARD TO PRIVACY AND THE PRIVACY GOALS OF CONSUMERS AND THE PRIVACY-RELATED CONCERNS OF REGISTRARS, PARTICULARLY REGISTRARS LOCATED IN EUROPE WHO FEEL LIKE THEY MAY SOMETIMES GET CAUGHT BETWEEN NATIONAL LAWS AND ICANN REQUIREMENTS.

WE ALSO DISCUSSED, JUST INTERNALLY, THE ICANN BUDGET, AND KURT PRITZ WAS KIND OF ENOUGH TO JOIN US AND DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WAY THE BUDGET WILL BE PRESENTED AND SOME OF THE THOUGHTS WITH REGARD TO THE TIMING AND THE NEEDS OF ICANN. BUT NOTHING MORE SPECIFIC WAS DISCUSSED BECAUSE IT HASN'T YET BEEN PUBLICLY ISSUED.

WE THEN WENT TO A JOINT MEETING WITH THE IPC ISP AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCIES. AND THE FOCUS OF THAT DISCUSSION WAS, MUCH OF IT, AGAIN, WAS ICANN BROADLY, ICANN'S PERFORMANCE ON THE GOALS THAT IT HAS SET OUT FOR ITSELF, WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT AS NEEDING TO MAKE THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME. AND GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT, YES, WE'RE ALL VERY SUPPORTIVE OF ICANN, ESPECIALLY IN THE PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED THAT QUESTION WHETHER ANY PART OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE OUGHT TO BE MANAGED BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS.

EVERYBODY WAS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE; AT THE SAME TIME, THERE SEEMS TO BE GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT ICANN NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE ITS PERFORMANCE BETTER THAN IT HAS IN THE PAST, TO HELP THE CASE VIS-A-VIS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. AND THE BUDGET WAS DISCUSSED CERTAINLY IN THAT FRAMEWORK, BUT NOTHING SPECIFIC.

I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT REGISTRY SERVICES IN PARTICULAR WERE DISCUSSED, AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES PROVIDED THEIR STATEMENTS ON THE REGISTRY SERVICES. I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL THERE SINCE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES SHOULD -- MAY WANT TO VOLUNTEER THOSE OR HAVE POSTED THOSE THEMSELVES.

WE WERE ALSO JOINED AT THE MEETING BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE ICANN BOARD AND THE CEO AND OTHER STAFF, AND AGAIN, WE THANK THEM VERY MUCH, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO MAKE TIME FOR ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AT THE ICANN MEETING. AND THERE AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT ICANN'S GOALS AND BUDGET, AND THE -- WHAT'S BEEN BROADLY KNOWN AS THE WSIS PROCESS. AND I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE -- WHAT A NUMBER OF REGISTRARS RAISED WITH OUR VISITORS WAS THE WAIT LISTING SERVICE. THAT'S A VERY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE,BOTH IN ITS SUBSTANCE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE WLS ITSELF WILL BE LAUNCHED AND WHICH CONDITIONS WOULD OR WOULD NOT APPLY, BUT ALSO AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ICANN'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES WORK. AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THE -- THE FACT THAT WLS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ICANN WORKS IS AN ISSUE FOR SORT OF BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE, BOTH OF THE FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE LAUNCHED AND FOLKS WHO DON'T WANT IT TO BE LAUNCHED, EITHER WAY THEY CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT ABOUT EFFICIENCIES AND REPRESENTATION.

SO I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS OF PARTICULAR NOTE. AND AGAIN, IN PARTICULAR, STEMMING FROM THAT DISCUSSION, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION JUST BY THE CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS OF THE WAIT LISTING SERVICE, AND THE UPCOMING WAIT LISTING SERVICE AS AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE UPCOMING BOARD MEETING.

AND WHILE THERE WAS NO TIME TO MAKE A FORMAL CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT, BECAUSE OUR OWN BYLAWS PREVENT US FROM VOTING ON ANY KIND OF FORMAL STATEMENT AT A MEETING, THERE WAS ENOUGH INTEREST IN IT, AND THE DEBATE WAS REALLY QUITE ACTIVE AND TOOK QUITE A BIT OF TIME, THAT WE TOOK A STRAW POLL SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REPORT TO YOU THE GENERAL FEELING OF THE CONSTITUENCY. AND THE STRAW POLL RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, WHICH I WILL READ TO YOU. AND THIS STATEMENT WAS APPROVED BY 19 OF THE REGISTRARS PRESENT WITH THREE ABSTAINING AND SEVEN VOTING AGAINST THE STATEMENT. AND THE STATEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:

ON MARCH 2ND, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE JANUARY 26 LETTER FROM ICANN TO VERISIGN REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVOLUTION OF ICANN POLICY REGARDING DELETIONS, HEREBY OPPOSES THE PROPOSED WAIT LISTING SERVICE AND URGES THE ICANN BOARD TO VOTE AGAINST THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED WAIT LISTING SERVICE.

I'LL AGAIN SEND THAT ON TO THE STAFF, BUT WE THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR THE VARIOUS REGISTRARS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT PRIOR TO YOUR MEETING TOMORROW.

THAT'S MY ENTIRE REPORT. AGAIN, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT FROM MIKE PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: YES, A COMMENT. I THINK YOU MISQUOTED. YOU SAID SIX ABSTAINED -- YOU SAID THREE ABSTAINED, SEVEN VOTED AGAINST. I BELIEVE THERE WERE SEVEN ABSTAINING, THREE VOTING IN FAVOR.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: NO.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: AND NOTING THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE BYLAWS WHICH WE DRAFTED TOGETHER, AND I NOTED THAT OTHER REGISTRARS ASKED STATEMENTS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD WHICH YOU LEFT OUT AGAIN. SO JUST IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING SURE THE DOCUMENTATION WE ARE CONSIDERING IS FULLY ON THE RECORD.

AND THEN I GUESS THE OTHER POINT I WOULD HAVE IS THAT IF ALL THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, AGAIN, TREATING SIMILARLY SITUATED PEOPLE SIMILARLY, IF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF TAKE THE MIKE AND SORT OF APPRISE THE BOARD OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS.

SO....

>>VINT CERF: THERE'S CERTAINLY TIME TO DO THAT IN THE OPEN MICROPHONE PERIOD.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: MAY I JUST MAKE -- THANK YOU, I DID MISSPEAK AND REVERSE THE THREE AND SEVEN; HOWEVER, THE MINORITY STATEMENT WAS ACTUALLY WITHDRAWN BY THE PEOPLE WHO HAD PROFFERED IT.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ELANA. SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, LET ME INVITE ELISABETH PORTENEUVE, WHO IS PREPARED TO MAKE A MINORITY -- I'M SORRY, TO MAKE A CONSTITUENCY REPORT FOR THE CCTLD CONSTITUENCY.

>>ELISABETH PORTENEUVE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY NAME IS ELISABETH PORTENEUVE. I AM WITH -- I'VE BEEN, FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, WITH CCTLD CONSTITUENCY, WITH CCTLD MANAGERS. I'VE BEEN ORGANIZING, ONE OF ORGANIZER OF CCTLD MEETING IN ROME.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT NUMBERS, BUT ICANN ROME MEETING IS THE NUMBER 20TH OF ICANN MEETING, AND IT IS ALSO, WE HAD MORE THAN 20 CCTLD MEETING. THIS ONE IS 24, ACCORDING TO MY LIST.

THE CCTLD COMMUNITY USED TO MEET FOR A LONG WHILE. WE SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS DEDICATED TO CCTLD MATTERS. WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OUR GOING, DRAFTING NOTES, DOCUMENTS, AND BUILDING UP CCTLD COMMUNITY.

HERE IS THE COMMUNIQUE FROM ROME.

REPRESENTATIVES OF 46 CCTLD, 87 ATTENDEES, MET IN ROME ON THE 1ST AND 2ND MARCH, 2004.
TO ALLOW FOR REMOTE PARTICIPATION, THE MEETING HAVE BEEN BROADCAST BY THE ICB UK.

THE REPRESENTATIVES OFFER THEIR THANKS TO THE LOCAL HOSTS FOR THE VERY GOOD MEETING ROOM AND FACILITIES, AND TO THOSE WHO HAD ASSISTED IN SPONSORING THE EVENT, NAMELY NOMINET UK, BASIC FUSION, TWNIC, AND AFILIAS.

THE FIRST DAY, ON THE MORNING OF MARCH, 1ST MARCH, 2004, WAS JOINT SESSION WAS HELD WITH THE GAC WHICH GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES TO SEEK AND GAIN CLARIFICATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE GAC WORKING GROUP ON THE NUMBER OF ISSUE ARISING OUT OF DRAFT REVISION TO THE GAC PRINCIPLES.

THE CCTLD COMMUNITY EXPRESSED ITS THANKS TO THE GAC WORKGROUP FOR TAKING ON BOARD MANY OF THE ISSUES INCLUDED IN CENTR'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT. THE CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES WERE ENCOURAGED BY THE DIRECTION THAT THE DRAFT HAS BEEN TAKING, PARTICULARLY IN THE FORM OF THE FEBRUARY 2004 VERSION, AND HOPE THAT THE GAC WORKGROUP WILL CONTINUE TO CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE REMAINING OPEN ISSUE.

IN THE AFTERNOON, SEVERAL BRIEFINGS WERE HELD ON THE WHOIS, THE PROPOSED FRAUDULENT ONLINE IDENTITY SANCTIONS ACT, FOISA, AND THE UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION'S WORK ON THE POSSIBLE STANDARDIZATION OF ADDRESSES.

THESE PRESENTATIONS ALLOWED A SHARING OF VIEWS AND DEVELOPMENTS WHICH WERE VERY USEFUL AND INTERESTING IN RESPECT OF THE FOISA. THE CCTLD REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT FELT THAT THE DRAFT LEGISLATION RAISED NUMEROUS CONCERNS ON WHICH IT LOOKED FORWARD TO FUTURE CLARIFICATION. ON THE SAME DAY, THE CCTLD GROUP HAD EXCELLENT PRESENTATIONS FROM FIVE MEMBERS, WHICH ADDRESSED ISSUES SUCH AS RIGHT-TO-LEFT SCRIPTS, SCRIPTS OTHER THAN ACCENTED LATIN CHARACTERS, WHETHER THE CONTRACT ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES RELATE TO ASCII, UNICODE OR BOTH, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT WAS NOTED THAT DEVELOPMENT MAY BE INHIBITED BY THE LACK OF APPROPRIATELY UNIFORM INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS.

ON THE FIRST OF MARCH, THE FIVE REGIONAL CCTLD ORGANIZATIONS REPORTED ON THEIR ACTIVITIES. OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASING NUMBER OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS BECOMING FORMALLY INCORPORATED. ACTUALLY, TODAY, THREE OF THEM ARE ALREADY INCORPORATED. THE FOURTH ONE IS GOING TO BE INCORPORATED WITHIN WEEKS. THIS SHOWS AN INTERESTING TREND IN THE REGIONAL IMPORTANCE IN DNS GOVERNANCE.

UPDATES WERE GIVEN FROM SEVEN REGISTRIES DEMONSTRATING THE IMMENSE DIVERSITY IN THE SET UP OF OPERATION OF CCTLD REGISTRIES, BUT ALSO INCREASING INTEREST AND INTERVENTION IN THE DNS FROM SOME GOVERNMENTS.

A DEBATE WAS HELD ABOUT THE IANA FUNCTION AND PERFORMANCE. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CROSS-REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR IANA TO MOVE TO A KEY-BASED ASYMMETRIC ENCRYPTION STRUCTURE, AS SOON AS THE PRACTICAL DETAILS CAN BE SEARCHED OUT. VOLUNTEERS FROM EACH REGION OFFERED TO COORDINATE REGIONAL EFFORTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS.

THE MEETING CONCLUDED WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CCTLD MEETINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CREATION OF THE CCNSO. THE MEETING ASKED THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION TO TAKE A LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZING A SIMILAR MEETING IN JUNE IN KUALA LUMPUR, DISTINCT, FOR NOW, FROM ANY CCNSO MEETING WHICH MIGHT BE HELD THERE. THE MEETING ALSO ASKED CENTR TO ARRANGE FOR THE NOMINATION OF SOME INDIVIDUALS TO CORROBORATE WITH AND SUPPORT ASIA-PACIFIC, LATIN AMERICA, AFRICA, AND NORTH AMERICA IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS MEETING AND ITS AGENDA SO THAT IT WILL COVER THE INTERESTS OF ALL REGIONS.

THE MEETING GAVE SPECIAL THANKS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE WORK OF ELISABETH PORTENEUVE, WHO WAS ATTENDING HER LAST MEETING AFTER FIVE YEARS OF WORK ON THE INTERNATIONAL INTERNET COMMUNITY ON BEHALF OF AFNIC.

I INVITE YOU TO HAVE A LOOK ON DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MEETING, WHICH ARE AT THIS URL. THE CCTLD COMMUNITY, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR FIVE YEARS TO KEEP ON OUR WEB SITE ALL CONTRIBUTIONS WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN DURING MEETINGS. IT HELPS TO SEE THE ISSUE OF INTEREST. IT ALSO HELPS TO LOOK ON DETAILS, AND IT IS VERY, VERY PRECIOUS TO HAVE SUCH INFORMATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ELISABETH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I KNOW THE MOMENT THAT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR, BUT SIT DOWN FOR ONE MORE MINUTE.

THIS IS NOW TIME TO OPEN COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REPORTS AND THE CONSTITUENCY REPORTS, BUT I WANTED TO ACCOMMODATE ALEJANDRO PISANTY'S REMARKS ON THE CCNSO PRESENTATION BECAUSE ALEX IS NOW FAST ASLEEP IN MEXICO CITY AND ASKED ME TO SERVE IN HIS STEAD.

HIS COMMENT READS, "THE CCNSO HAS BEEN AN EXTREME SHOW OF CONSISTENCY OF PURPOSE, LEADERSHIP, AND INTELLIGENCE. HAVING WORKED INTENSELY IN ITS EARLY STAGES, I AM MOST GRATEFUL FOR THE EFFORTS OF THE LAUNCHING GROUP, AND HOPE MANY IN THEIR COMMUNITY WILL ALSO RECOGNIZE THEM AND PROMPTLY JOIN THE ORGANIZATION. THIS IS A KEY MOMENT IN ICANN HISTORY."

WITH THAT READING, LET ME NOW OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE ONE FROM THE FLOOR AND THEN I'LL TAKE PAUL.

>>WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE: MY NAME IS WOLFGANG KLEIUWACHTE.

I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE GAC REPORT AND A COMMENT ON THE ALAC REPORT.

THE QUESTION FOR SHARIL IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T MENTION WSIS IN THE COMMUNIQUE.
DID YOU DISCUSS IT?

AND WHAT IS THE POSITION OF GAC CONCERNING THE FORTHCOMING AT-LARGE WORKING GROUP?
AND THE COMMENT ON THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS TO GIVE YOU FIRST MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION.
I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS THAT SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.

THIS BOARD IS MUCH MORE OPEN TO USER PARTICIPATION THAN THE PREVIOUS BOARD.
AND THIS SYSTEM OF LIAISONS WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO BECOME INVOLVED IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES FROM THE BOTTOM UP OBVIOUSLY WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN EXPECTED.

SO I THINK THIS IS REALLY A GREAT STEP FORWARD.

AND THE -- THIS IS ALSO PROVED BY THE QUESTION MICHAEL PALAGE RAISED IN RESPONSE TO VITTORIO'S REPORT AS HEAD OF THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE, SO THAT HE OFFERED SUPPORT FROM THE BOARD, WHICH IS REALLY A GREAT INDICATION.

AND THIS IS VERY USEFUL, BECAUSE ICANN WILL -- CAN DEMONSTRATE HERE A NEW MODEL, WHICH COULD BE USEFUL FOR THE WSIS DEBATE, AND DEMONSTRATED USER INVOLVEMENT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.

BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S ALSO SOME WATER IN THE WINE.

I THINK THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT YET THE CREDIBILITY IT SHOULD HAVE.
AND, TO BE FRANK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO TO THE DETAILS, THEN THE PICTURE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

TAKE ONLY THE EUROPEAN EXAMPLE, FIVE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE NOW JOINED ALAC.
THE FIVE ORGANIZATIONS ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING IN THE ICANN GROUP, SO THE ISOC ITALY IS VITTORIO'S GROUP -- IF WE ARE ORGANIZED SOMEWHERE IN EUROPE AND MEETING ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WE HAVE EASILY 200 PARTICIPANTS.

THE E.U.-RALO MEETING HERE IN ITALY IN ROME, WHERE WE HAVE ICANN ITALY AS A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE STRUCTURE, HAD 24 PARTICIPANTS, AND HALF OF THEM WERE BOARD MEMBERS OR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO TO THE PUBLIC FORUM, THEN THE CIVIL SOCIETY GOVERNANCE HAS AROUND 40 OR 50 POSTINGS PER MONTH, OR PER WEEK, AND THE PUBLIC FORUM HAS FOUR POSTINGS PER MONTH.
SO THIS HAS NOT YET THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE USERS IN THE WORLD.
AND THE ALAC HAS TO GO A LONG WAY UNTIL IT CAN GET IT, YOU KNOW.
WHY IT'S SO?

I THINK THERE ARE THREE CONTRADICTIONS IN ITSELF, THIS COMMITTEE.

NUMBER ONE, NORMALLY PEOPLE ARE FIRST AND INSTITUTIONS ARE SECOND.
THIS COMMITTEE PUTS INSTITUTIONS FIRST AND INDIVIDUALS SECOND.
IT SHOULD BE BASED ON OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY. THIS COMMITTEE HAS TOO MANY CLOSED MEETINGS.

AND THIRD, CIVIL SOCIETY IS BOTTOM-UP, AND THIS COMMITTEE COMES TOP-DOWN.
WHAT TO DO?

HERE ARE THREE PROPOSALS.

NUMBER ONE IS, ADJUST THE BYLAWS A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR INDIVIDUALS AND MORE SIMPLE TO JOIN THIS AND TO JOIN INSTITUTION, HAS TO GO TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

NUMBER TWO IS, THE COMMITTEE SHOULD MAKE ITS WORK AS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.

AND NUMBER THREE IS, YOU KNOW, ORGANIZE UNDERGROUND EVENTS IN SMALLER GROUPS.

GO AROUND THE DIFFERENT REGIONS AND ORGANIZE WORKSHOPS WITH THE USERS THEMSELVES, AND DO NOT DISCUSS PROCEDURAL ISSUES, ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES.

DISCUSS REAL ISSUES LIKE, YOU KNOW -- NEW SERVICES, LIKE, PRIVACY AND WHOIS, ISSUES WHERE USERS ARE INTERESTED.

AND ONLY IN THIS WAY YOU CAN CREATE THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE ALAC IS THE RIGHT CHANNEL WHERE USERS CAN FIND A WAY TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS, AND ALAC WILL BRING THEM TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITHIN ICANN.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PAUL, YOU HAD A QUESTION OR A COMMENT TO MAKE.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I'VE GOT A QUICK STATEMENT AND A QUESTION OR CLARIFICATION FOR BRUCE TONKIN.

BUT MY FIRST STATEMENT IS, MUCH OF WHAT BRUCE SAID WAS ABSOLUTE MUSIC TO MY EARS AND I'M CERTAIN WILL BE VERY WELL RECEIVED BY PAUL VERHOEF AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ICANN STAFF IN THE THINGS THEY ARE TRYING TO DO TO WORK AND HELP THE COMMUNITY.

I JUST WANTED TO ASK BRUCE IF HE HAD ANY -- WANTED TO SHARE WITH US ANY CLARIFICATION AROUND THE USE OF THE WORD "ICANN" IN HIS PRESENTATION.

BECAUSE "ICANN" SOMETIMES IS A PHRASE USED TO DESCRIBE THE STAFF, SOMETIMES USED TO DESCRIBE THE BOARD, SOMETIMES IT'S A PHRASE TO DESCRIBE THE COMMUNITY.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD CLARIFY MORE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
THANK YOU, PAUL.

I WAS USING ICANN IN THE SENSE OF ICANN, THE COMMUNITY OF THE WHOLE, RATHER THAN ANY PARTICULAR GROUP.

AND ALSO CLARIFY THAT, AS CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL, THE GNSO COUNCIL ITSELF IS PUTTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF EFFORT INTO IMPROVING ITS PROCESSES, AS ARE OTHER ELEMENTS.

SO WE REALLY SEE THAT WE WANT TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF, WHO WE KNOW ARE PUTTING IN A GREAT DEAL OF PERSONAL TIME, IN EXCESS OF WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE EXPECTED OF A STAFF MEMBER.
AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE BOARD, AND THE SAME COMMENT APPLIES.

SO THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: AS CHAIR, I FIND MYSELF REPEATEDLY FAILING TO KEEP THINGS IN PROPER ORDER.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

BEFORE WE GO ON WITH FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO INVITE OUR MALAYSIAN HOSTS TO COME AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING PLANS.

I CALL UPON AHMAD RAZIF TO COME AND TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT'S AHEAD.

AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS.

>>AHMAD RAZIF: THANK YOU FOR THE MICROPHONE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

ALLOW ME TO SPEAK AS A PARTICIPANT FIRST, AND THEN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR ICANN KUALA LUMPUR 2004.

FIRST OF ALL, I WISH TO CONVEY ON BEHALF OF THE MALAYSIAN DELEGATES OUR GRATITUDE TO THE ITALIAN HOST AND THE ICANN SECRETARIAT FOR THE WONDERFUL ARRANGEMENT AND MEMORABLE STAY WHILE IN ROME.

IN THE MALAYSIAN WAY, LET ME SAY TERIMA KASIH, OR THANK YOU, FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.

IT SEEMS TO BE INCREASINGLY CHALLENGING TO ORGANIZE ICANN MEETINGS, AS EXPECTATIONS CONTINUE TO GROW.

BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CHALLENGE.

FINALLY, ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATION, WE'D LIKE TO INVITE ALL HERE AND THE REST OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITIES TO THE ICANN KUALA LUMPUR 2004 MEETING.

AND WISHING YOU WELCOME, OR SELAMAT DATANG KE MALAYSIA, LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I'M -- I IMAGINE THAT A GOOD MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN TO KUALA LUMPUR BEFORE.

I AM ONE OF THEM.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE HOSPITALITY THERE IS EXTRAORDINARY.
SO I AM PERSONALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO A RETURN.
SO IS MY WIFE, WHO LOVES TO GO SHOPPING THERE.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL CONTINUE WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.

IZUMI.

>>IZUMI AIZU: I AM A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM ASIA-PACIFIC.
I AM AN INTERIM MEMBER SELECTED BY THE BOARD.

JUST TO RESPOND TO WHAT WOLFGANG SAID, AND THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, NOT REALLY REPRESENTING THE COMMITTEE AT ALL.

AND I JUST THINK, TO THE SECOND POINT WOLFGANG MADE ABOUT OUR COMMITTEES NOT REALLY DOING MUCH OPEN AND AS TRANSPARENT AS IT SHOULD BE.
AND I PERSONALLY ACCEPT THAT AS A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

AND, ACTUALLY, I WAS TRYING TO PROPOSE, IN A SIMILAR LINE, THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR US TO IMPROVE, INCLUDING THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FORUM MORE, AND ENGAGED DIALOGUE AMONGST THE MEMBERS, THAT -- MORE DIALOGUE OR DISCUSSION SHOULD BE EITHER ARCHIVED PUBLICLY OR OTHER MEANS, THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS WITHIN OURSELVES HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THIS, AND FROM THIS ROME MEETING.

FRANKLY, THERE ARE CONCERNS AND ARE CHALLENGES, OBVIOUSLY.
WE WERE CREATED AS TOP-DOWN, AND MAKING IT BOTTOM-UP PROCESS BY THOSE WHO WERE CHOSEN AS TOP-DOWN IS NOT QUITE EASY AND IT'S PRETTY HARD TO CONVINCE OTHERS, YOU GUYS ARE HAND-PICKED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT, EVEN SO, WE ARE CHARGED TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND INVITE ALL OTHERS.

ALSO, ABOUT INDIVIDUALS, WE NEED TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY BUT SORT OF POSITIVELY HOW WE CAN REALLY ACCOMMODATE MORE INDIVIDUALS TO OUR SORT OF, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY TOGETHER.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, IZUMI.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, REGARDING THE VARIOUS REPORTS THIS MORNING?
PLEASE TAKE THE MICROPHONE.

>> SEBASTIAN RICCIARDI: THANK YOU.
I AM SEBASTIAN RICCIARDI.
I AM ALSO WITH THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ON WOLFGANG'S REMARKS THAT WE APPRECIATE, AND THAT WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR US TO MAKE OUR WORK BETTER.

THAT IT IS PERFECTLY NORMAL THAT SOME OF THE EARLY ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE GETTING ON BOARD ON OUR PROJECTS COME FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES THE ALAC IS FACING RIGHT NOW IS THE AWARENESS AND TO BRING THE REGULAR INTERNET USER TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

SO FOR THAT, YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN A LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS, TO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT RELATED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS RIGHT NOW, HOW THIS WORKS.

SO AT AN EARLY STAGE, IT'S NOT BAD TO HAVE ORGANIZATIONS ON BOARD THAT ARE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING ACTIVE IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN THEIR REGIONS.

SO THAT'S A GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY CERTIFIED HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH SOME OF OUR MEMBERS.

WE HOPE THAT FROM THE MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR OR EVEN IN CAPETOWN, WE HAVE MORE ORGANIZATIONS ON BOARD THAT IS NOT RELATED.

WE HAVE SOME OF THEM NOW, AND FOR SURE WE WILL HAVE SOME MORE.

SO THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M GOING TO TAKE CHAIRMAN'S PRIVILEGE TO MAKE A SMALL OBSERVATION.

STATISTICS WERE USED OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WEEK TO REFER TO THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS AROUND THE WORLD.

AND THOSE NUMBERS RANGED FROM 750 MILLION TO A BILLION.

MY FIRST REACTION IS, THANK GOODNESS MOST OF THEM DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO COME TO ICANN MEETINGS.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO SAY, IF THEY DID, THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY WOULD BE IN GREAT JOY, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE A TRANSFORMING EFFECT ON ANYPLACE THAT WE ARRIVED AT.
BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY INDICATIVE OF THE AVERAGE INTERNET USER THAT THEY MOSTLY WANT IT TO WORK.

THEY WANT THEIR DOMAIN NAMES TO RESOLVE.
THEY WANT THEIR WEB PAGES TO RESPOND.
THEY WANT THEIR TRANSACTIONS TO COMPLETE.
AND MOSTLY, THEY HOPE THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THEY DO AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY THAN THEY DO TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN WILL, IN FACT, UNDERTAKE TO ASSURE THAT IT DOES HAPPEN.

SO THERE'S A FUNNY KIND OF TENSION, I THINK, BETWEEN THAT VIEW AND THE INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE IN GETTING PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON POLICIES THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL USERS.
I THINK THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ALAC ORGANIZATION THAN IT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE.

AND, IN SOME WAYS, THAT ALSO IS PROBABLY A GOOD THINGS, BECAUSE IF WE OVERSTATE ICANN'S ROLE, IT MERELY EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE WSIS ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS TO CONFRONT THE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEHOW ICANN IS IN CONTROL OF EVERY ASPECT OF THE INTERNET, WHICH IT CLEARLY IS NOT.

SO I THINK THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SOME CHALLENGES BECAUSE OF THESE WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE FACTS.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS SO THAT WE DON'T LOSE THAT VOICE IN THE COURSE OF OUR DELIBERATIONS.

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH MY RAMBLING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE SO OR CONSTITUENCY REPORTS?
IF NOT, THEN THE NEXT ITEM ON MY AGENDA IS -- I'M SORRY.

>> I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE ANSWER.

>>VINT CERF: I AM, YOU ARE WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FROM SHARIL?
APPARENTLY -- I'M SORRY.
YOU HAD AN ANSWER.
I APOLOGIZE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: WELL, THANK YOU, VINT.
WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF YOU FORGOT ABOUT IT.
WELL, WOLFGANG, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS THAT THE GAC HAS NO POSITION ON THE ISSUE, GIVEN THE VARIOUS LAYERS OF THE VARIOUS PARTS OF GOVERNMENT ALL OVER THE WORLD.
GOVERNMENTS, IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, ARE PART OF THE WSIS PROCESS.

WHAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT THERE IS INCREASING INTEREST SHOWN BY GOVERNMENTS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GAC, AS EVIDENCED BY THE NUMBERS OF THE GAC MEMBERS NOW, WHICH HAVE INCREASED.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN INDICATION, WHEN I FIRST TOOK OFF EARLIER LAST YEAR, WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 70 GAC MEMBERS.

NOW WE HAVE 91, WITH EIGHT MORE WAITING TO JOIN.
SO THERE IS INCREASING INTEREST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: ROBERTO, YOU ALSO HAD A COMMENT?

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: YES.
I WANTED TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT WOLFGANG HAS PRESENTED.

I THINK WOLFGANG IS MAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH THIS PROCESS IS GOING ON.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION.

HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS EARLY STAGE, WE HAVE MOSTLY ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CLOSE TO US OR THAT ARE SOMEHOW RELATED TO ICANN.

I THINK THIS IS UNDERSTANDABLE, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE A CHOICE IN THE BEGINNING AND SAY, OKAY, DO WE HAVE A BOOTSTRAP LIST THAT IS OBVIOUSLY MADE FROM PEOPLE THAT KNOW ALREADY THE ISSUES AND THAT SHOW AN INTEREST ON THE ISSUES?

OR DO WE WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PHASE AND WE HAVE ALSO ANOTHER SET OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE FRESHLY JOINING?

AND WE TOOK THE FIRST APPROACH, BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT TO HAVE AN INITIAL LIST OF MEMBERS AND TO GET THE PROCESS STARTED WAS GOING TO BE A GOOD THING, BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE GONE TO THE OTHER USER COMMUNITIES WITH SOME KIND OF INITIAL SET.

SO I THINK THAT IT IS A CHOICE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN IN THE BEGINNING, SINCE MONTREAL, IN AN OPEN MEETING, INCIDENTALLY.
AND WE ARE GOING IN THIS WAY.

I TAKE THE CRITICISM FROM WOLFGANG IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE BEEN SLOW, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ESPECIALLY ABOUT EUROPE, BECAUSE WE HAD A GOOD CHANCE HERE IN ROME TO BRING MORE PEOPLE.

THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE IS THAT WE ARE, ALL 15 OF US, WE ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS THAT HAVE A DAY JOB.

AND THEREFORE THE TIME THAT CAN BE ALLOCATED TO THIS IS NOT ONLY LIMITED, BUT DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE SOMETIMES BEYOND OUR CONTROL.
PEAK OF WORK FOR OUR DAILY WORK.

A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE ICANN PROCESS PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR PROFESSIONAL INTEREST MAINLY IN THE PROCESS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, CCTLDS, REGISTRARS, REGISTRIES, THAT THIS IS THEIR DAYTIME JOB.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE, BY DESIGN, FOR THE AT-LARGE.

WE CANNOT EXPECT THE AT-LARGE TO DO, FIRST, GO AT THE SAME SPEED AS THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES AND COMMITTEES IN TERMS OF DOING THEIR WORK.

AND, SECONDLY, WE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE MEANS IN TERMS OF FUNDING, IN TERMS OF SELF-SUSTAINED FUNDING THAT OTHER PARTS OF THIS ORGANIZATION HAVE.

SO, IN MY VIEW OF THE THINGS, THE FACT THAT WE GO WITH A SLOWER PACE IS FAIRLY ACCEPTABLE.

I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE A LONGER LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE JOINED AND A MORE DIVERSE LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS, SINCE I HAVE DONE A LOT OF OUTREACH, MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL SO FAR IN THE SENSE THAT I DON'T HAVE APPLICATIONS FROM OTHER COMPANIES, BUT I HAVE SEVERAL CONTACTS THAT CAN MATURE IN THE NEXT MONTH.

IT WAS, HONESTLY, MY OBJECTIVE TO BRING THOSE ORGANIZATIONS IN ROME.
IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
I CAN TAKE -- I AM WILLING TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR NOT HAVING DONE MORE.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
THE POINT IS HOW WE CAN PROGRESS FURTHER.

I TAKE THE SUGGESTION FROM WOLFGANG TO HAVE SOME FOCUSED MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE BASED ON ISSUES AND NOT BASED ON GENERAL THINGS.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED ALSO IN OUR OPEN DISCUSSION, IN OUR OPEN MEETINGS HERE IN ROME.
AND THIS IS THE WAY TO GO.
I HAVE ALREADY A COUPLE OF DATES ON MY AGENDA.
AND THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE.

I ALSO HAVE TO SAY, I HAVE TO REPEAT HERE WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY.
ONE OF THE BIG OBSTACLES THAT I HAVE FOUND IN DOING OUTREACH IN EUROPE WAS THE FACT THAT I WAS PERCEIVED AS SPEAKING -- FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ICANN PROCESS, I WAS PERCEIVED AS SPEAKING FOR A U.S. CORPORATION.

NOW, THE SITUATION IS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL OFFICE IN EUROPE.
NOW I CAN GO BACK TO THE SAME COMPANIES WITH -- HOPEFULLY, SOON, WITH A MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN EUROPE, WHERE I HOPE THAT ICANN WILL ALLOW US TO ESTABLISH A PHYSICAL MAILBOX WHERE WE CAN ESTABLISH PHYSICAL CONTACTS ALSO WITH ORGANIZATIONS.

AND THAT WILL BE A TREMENDOUS CHANGE.
AND THAT CAN TREMENDOUSLY INCREASE THE SPEED AT WHICH WE DO OUR OWN THINGS.
AND THE LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, COMMENT IS ABOUT THE OPEN, CLOSED MEETINGS.
I THOUGHT WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH.

IT HAS BEEN THE FOCUS OF MANY DEBATES, AT LEAST IN THE FEW YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.
AND MY OPINION IS VERY SIMPLE.
THERE ARE -- WE NEED TO KEEP THE PROCESS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.

BUT TO SAY THAT THE PROCESS IS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT DOESN'T MEAN THAT NECESSARILY EVERY TIME I TALK TO VITTORIO I HAVE TO DO THAT WITH 250 OTHER PEOPLE WATCHING AND LISTENING TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE SECRETS, BUT BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN THINGS THAT GO FASTER IF YOU CAN GO TO A QUICK CLEANUP OF THE THINGS -- OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE PENDING BEFORE YOU THEN OPEN THE DEBATE AND YOU ACCEPT INPUT.

WE HAVE A SAYING IN ITALY, AND THIS IS VERY APPROPRIATE THAT THE MEETING IS IN ROME, THAT THE -- YOU WASH YOUR LAUNDRY IN THE HOUSE.

THIS IS NOT THE U.S. APPROACH, WHERE MY EXPERIENCE WHEN I WAS IN THE U.S. WAS THAT I WAS BRINGING MY LAUNDRY TO THE COIN-OPERATED MACHINES THAT WERE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM MY HOUSE.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU NORMALLY DON'T DO IN ITALY.
SO THERE IS ALSO THIS CULTURAL DIFFERENCE, I WOULD SAY, THAT YOU HAVE TO EXCUSE ME.
SO I THINK THAT THE SITUATION WAS -- APPEARED TO BE WORSE THAN IT REALLY WAS, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT PUBLICITY, NOT SUFFICIENT ANNOUNCEMENT.

SOMEBODY HAS POINTED TO ME THE CALENDAR, THE OFFICIAL CALENDAR OF THE MEETING, IT WAS NOT EXPLICITLY SAYING THAT SOME OF THE -- THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MEETINGS, THE REGIONAL MEETINGS AND THE OPEN FORUM AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS, WERE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

AND, OF COURSE, WE HAD ALSO SOME KIND OF MORE ORGANIZATIONAL THINGS IN WHICH WE WERE DISCUSSING AMONG OURSELVES.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ROBERTO.
I THOUGHT WHERE YOU WERE HEADING WITH THE OBSERVATION ABOUT LAUNDRY WAS THAT, IN EUROPE, YOU WASH YOUR LAUNDRY INSIDE THE HOUSE; AND IN THE UNITED STATES, ALL THE DIRTY LAUNDRY IS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT.

DO WE HAVE OTHER COMMENTS COMING FROM THE FLOOR?
I SEE A GENTLEMAN STANDING HERE.

ARE YOU WAIT- -- SORRY?

YOU'RE POINTING WHERE?
OH. I'M SORRY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
OH, I'M SORRY.
DUH.
SO I NEED AN INJECTION OF COFFEE APPROXIMATELY IN THIS VEIN HERE.
APOLOGIES.

THE NEXT REMARKS COME FROM DOT AERO.
SO WE HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY ENDED OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>ANDREW CHARLTON: WELL, I SUCCESSFULLY MADE THE SCREEN BLANK.
WE HAVE BACKUP TECHNOLOGY, I BELIEVE.
OH, WE HAVE REAL TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S OKAY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO YOU TODAY AND TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING AT DOT AERO.

I'M VERY MINDFUL, MR. CHAIRMAN, OF BRUCE'S VERY, VERY GOOD SPEECH, A VERY WELL-DELIVERED SPEECH ABOUT THE EVIL OF DELIVERING SPEECHES AS WELL.

AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO NOT DELIVER A TERRIFIC SPEECH, OR AT LEAST I'LL DO WHAT I CAN.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>ANDREW CHARLTON: BUT I AM PUT IN MIND OF THE COMPANY CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO STOOD UP AT AN ANNUAL REPORT, AND HE SAID, "LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LAST YEAR, THIS COMPANY STOOD ON THE EDGE OF AN ABYSS.
WE WERE AT THE EDGE OF THE PRECIPICE.
WE'VE NOW TAKEN A BIG STEP FORWARD."

(LAUGHTER.)

>>ANDREW CHARLTON: WE DON'T STAND ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS.
WE ACTUALLY STAND ON THE CUSP.

I JUST COULDN'T THINK OF A JOKE WITH THE CUSP IN IT.
WE STAND ON THE CUSP OF GOING FORWARD TO SOMETHING, I THINK, VERY EXCITING AND VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, DOT AERO IS THE STLD THAT LOOKS TO THE INTERESTS OF THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL BUSINESSES AT THE INTERNET DO COME TO THE ICANN MEETINGS, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY GOING.

AND ONE OF THEM IS TO TRY TO FIND WAYS THAT USE THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT THE INTERNET REPRESENTS TO OUR COMPLETE INSIDE-THE-INDUSTRY ADVANTAGE.
I HAVE PUT UP OUR MISSION STATEMENT JUST FOR YOU TO SEE IT.
AND I WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT ONLY ABOUT WHY I TALK ABOUT USING THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES, BECAUSE THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY IS, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, REALLY QUITE OLD.

CERTAINLY, WHEN COMPARED TO THE INTERNET INDUSTRY.

AND SITA, THE ORGANIZATION WHO IS THE SPONSOR FOR DOT AERO, HAS A VERY LONG AND A VERY PROUD HISTORY OF SERVING THAT COMMUNITY.

SITA WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1949 BY THE INDUSTRY, AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A COOPERATIVE-OWNED AND MANAGED BY THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

IT NOW HAS OVER 750 MEMBERS.

BUT ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS THAT WE DID THAT'S AN INTERESTING HISTORY WITH ALL SORTS OF GLORIOUS ANECDOTES, BUT ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS WE DID IS SITA BUILT ONE OF THE WORLD'S FIRST PROTO INTERNETS.

IT CONTINUES TO RUN, THE WORLD'S LARGEST PROTO INTERNET.
ALL AIR TRANSPORT COMMUNICATIONS RUN ON A TELEX NETWORK.
IT'S THE LARGEST NETWORK IN THE WORLD IN TERMS OF DOTS ON A MAP.
IF THERE'S AN AIRPORT THERE, IF THERE'S AN AIRLINE TICKET OFFICE THERE, WE'RE THERE; WE'RE RUNNING IT.

IT RUNS USING A PREDICTABLE NAMING AND ADDRESSING CODE.
AND YOU KNOW SOME OF IT.
WE ALL KNOW SOME OF IT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THE AIRLINE THEY MOST PREFER TO FLY ON, BA, AF.
THERE MUST BE SOMEONE IN THE WORLD WHO PREFERS TO FLY ON AF.
QF.
SORRY, THREE WORDS FOR AF, (SPEAKING FRENCH).

IF YOU WERE STUCK WHERE I WAS LAST WEEK, YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>ANDREW CHARLTON: BUT I NORMALLY CRITICIZE AIRPORTS, BUT I WAS REMINDED THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS BEING RECORDED, AND SO I THOUGHT I BETTER PUT THE SLIVER INTO THE AIRLINES INSTEAD.

THE TELEX NETWORK, THE PROTO INTERNET THAT SITA HAS BEEN BUILDING AND THAT SITA CONTINUES TO OPERATE THAT IS BEEN EVOLVING AS LIFE GOES ON. AND IT CONTINUES TO BUILD. AND SITA ITSELF CONTINUES TO SERVE IN A LOT OF THOSE AREAS.

ANOTHER THING THAT WE DID, PERHAPS FOR OUR SINS, IS THAT SITA WAS THE CREATOR OF EQANT, ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS YOU LOVE TO HATE.

SITA, WE LAUNCHED OUR APPLICATION IN OCTOBER OF THE YEAR 2000. WE AWARDED ONE OF THE SEVEN STLDS. WE OPENED FOR REGISTRATION IN MARCH OF 2002 SO WE STAND AT THE CUSP OF OUR SECOND BIRTHDAY. WE DID A NUMBER OF THINGS AT THAT TIME TRYING TO BUILD .AERO AS A TOOL FOR THE AIRPORT INDUSTRY AND WE DON'T SEE .AERO AS ONE OF THE WORLD'S GREAT ORGANIZATIONS FOR B 2C, WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS GOING DOWN THAT ROAD. .AERO PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AIR TRANSPORT COMMUNITY TO TAKE ITS PROTO INTERNET, ITS TELEX-BASED INTERNET AND MOVE IT INTO THE REAL LIVE INTERNET. FOR THAT WE NEED TO INVOLVE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE AIR TRANSPORT COMMUNITY. AND IN THE MODEL OF SPONSORED STLDS, WE ARE LIMITED AS TO WHO MAY EVEN JOIN AND GET REGISTERED.

AND SO I'VE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAN JOIN AND GET REGISTERED IN THE .AERO ENVIRONMENT. AIRLINES, AIRPORTS, INSP'S, AEROSPACE COMPANIES, MANY OTHERS.

IT'S AN INTERESTING LIST TO LOOK AT. I GUESS IT'S NOT SELF-EVIDENT IF YOU COME FROM THE INTERNET ENVIRONMENT RATHER THAN THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY BUT BASICALLY MOST OF THESE GROUPS OF PEOPLE ARE NATURAL ENEMIES. AIRLINES AND AIRPORTS HATE EACH OTHER WITH THE SORT OF PASSION NORMALLY RESERVED FOR THE (INAUDIBLE) FOOTBALL TEAM. THAT'S A REFERENCE ONLY AUSTRALIANS WILL GET. AND OF COURSE EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU SHOULDN'T THINK ANY NICE THINGS ABOUT THE CARGO INDUSTRY.

SO IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, HOW DO WE POSSIBLY BRING TOGETHER THOSE DISPARATE ELEMENTS AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IN BUILDING THE .AERO ENVIRONMENT, WE DO IT IN A WAY THAT HAS THE CONSISTENT AND COMPLETE AGREEMENT OF THOSE DISPARATE FORCES. AND THE THING IS WE HAVE A .AERO COUNCIL, WHICH I HAVE THE HONOR TO CHAIR, AND IT IS A HARD WORKING BODY, A REGULARLY MEETING BODY WHICH HAS WORKED, IF I MAY SAY, VERY HARD INDEED, TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE, NOTWITHSTANDING OUR DIFFERENCES, WE HAVE ENORMOUS SIMILARITIES THAT WE NEED TO COME TO TERMS WITH AND FIND A WAY THROUGH.

WE'VE WORKED EXTRAORDINARILY HARD AT POLICY DEVELOPMENT, AT TRYING TO WORK OUT WAYS WE CAN RECONCILE THE INTERESTS OF THE VARIOUS INDUSTRY GROUPS.

TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THE SORT OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE, EVERYBODY KNOWS AT LEAST SOME THREE-LETTER CODES. LHR IS HEATHROW. TAP, TAP IS TAPIOCA. IT IS ALSO, OF COURSE, THE THREE-LETTER CODE FOR A WELL-KNOWN AIRLINE FROM PORTUGAL. SO WE START TO HAVE TERRIBLE CONFLICTS WHEN YOU START TO PUT THOSE THINGS TOGETHER. WE HAVE SOME TERRIBLE OVERLAPS, AND WE HAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH TAPIOCA AIRPORT TO USE ITS NAME AND FOR AIR PORTUGAL TO USE ITS NAME AS WELL. AND IT'S THOSE THINGS THAT UPSET THE CARGO INDUSTRY AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE. IT'S GOOD TO UPSET THE CARGO INDUSTRY, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A HOBBY. BUT WHEN THEY TRY TO DO THEIR REAL-LIFE BUSINESS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THE INTERNET, IF WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT THE AVIATION INDUSTRY OFF THE TELEX, THAT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK. TO PUT THAT ANOTHER WAY, TO NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET B-TO-B COMMUNICATION WORKING IN THE INTERNET SO THAT WE CAN USE THE INTERNET AS A REAL LIVE TOOL.

I'VE ALSO LISTED UP THERE A LIST OF ACRONYMS. I THINK IF YOU PUT IT TOGETHER AND SPELL IT BACKWARDS IT COMES UP WITH A FAIRLY FRIGHTENING MESSAGE.

LET ME MOVE ON, THOUGH, TO A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT ACTUALLY MAKE THIS MAKE SENSE, THAT BRING THIS INTO REAL LIFE FOR YOU.

THE FIRST ONE IS A PILOT -- SORRY, NO PUN INTENDED -- A SERVICE THAT WE'VE STARTED TO OPERATE, AND IF ANYONE WAS AT THE ITU CONFERENCE LAST YEAR, OR INDEED AT THE WSIS, AND THUS USING GENEVA AIRPORT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO CHECK YOUR FLIGHT STATUS BY SIMPLY TYPING THE FLIGHT NUMBER, BA 123 OR LX 123 OR WHATEVER, SIMPLY THE FLIGHT NUMBER .AERO INTO THE BROWSER AND RECEIVING THE STATUS OF THAT FLIGHT FOR THAT DAY, ON TIME, 25 MINUTES DELAY, COMING IN AT GATE 27, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

IT WORKED ON ALL WEB-ENABLED EQUIPMENT.

THAT SOUNDS VERY EASY BUT THERE'S A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT THING IN THAT, THE FIRST BEING WHO OWNS BA 123. IS IT BA OR GENEVA AIRPORT WHICH IS THE LOCATION TO WHICH THE MYTHICAL FLIGHT BA 123 ARRIVES. THAT TOOK A CERTAIN A RECONCILIATION, THAT'S TO SAY IT VERY NICELY.

BUT THE WORK WAS WORTH IT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE DONE IN DOING THAT IS WE'VE STARTED NOW TO ATTACH DOMAIN NAMES TO OBJECTS. AND NOT JUST OBJECTS, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, PERISHABLE OBJECTS. BA 123 IS DEAD AS SOON AS THE AIRCRAFT ARRIVES. IT HAS NO MORE VALUE. BUT THE BA 123 TOMORROW STARTS TO BECOME A VERY INTERESTING SUBJECT.

SO IN DOING THIS, WE'VE MANAGED TO ATTACH THE CODES AND THE ADDRESSING STRUCTURE THAT THE INDUSTRY ALREADY USES, THAT THE INDUSTRY KNOWS AND LOVES AND BRING IT INTO THE INTERNET ENVIRONMENT. THIS ONE, OF COURSE, ALSO HAD A VERY GOOD CONSUMER BENEFIT, WHICH OF ITSELF IS A GOOD THING.

AND INDEED, WE ASKED PEOPLE TO GIVE US THEIR FEEDBACK. WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE PUT A FURTHER BOX ON THE TOP WHICH IS "ARE YOU PERFECTLY SATISFIED" BECAUSE IT JUST RATED OFF THE SCALE.

THE SECOND IS MUCH MORE INSIDE THE AVIATION TENT. WE'VE ALSO MANAGED TO GET A RECOMMENDED PRACTICE, FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN SUCH THINGS, RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1784 ADOPTED BOTH BY IATA AND THE ATA, WHICH IS THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN CARRIERS, WHICH IS TO SAY IT COVERS ALL THE WORLD'S AVIATION, WHICH EFFECTIVELY UPDATES THE AIRLINE CODING SYSTEM AND THE AIRLINE ADDRESSING SYSTEM SO THAT WE CAN PUT IT ONTO INTERNET SPACES. THE AIRLINE CODING SYSTEM, THE THREE LITTLE LOCATOR CODE, TWO LETTER DESIGNATION CODE AND TWO LETTER CARRIER CODE NOW BROUGHT FOR THE FIRST-EVER TIME INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE AIRLINES CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT AIRLINE-SPECIFIC MATTERS AS THEY NEED TO.

IN OTHER WORDS, ALLOWING THE SORT OF PREDICTABILITY THAT THE LOGISTICS INDUSTRY THAT AVIATION IS TO BE ABLE TO DO ITS BUSINESS KNOWING THAT THEY'RE ADDRESSING A PARTICULAR DESK RATHER THAN A PARTICULAR NAMED AND KNOWN INDIVIDUAL AS A PARTICULAR NAMED AND KNOWN E-MAIL ADDRESS. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, JFK URL AT .AERO WOULD BE THE LOST LUGGAGE DESK AT KENNEDY AIRPORT AT UNITED AIRLINES.

WHAT ARE WE AIMING TO DO? WHAT WE'RE AIMING TO DO IS FIND A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN USE .AERO FOR B-TO-C COMMUNICATIONS AS WE SHOULD, AS WE SHOULD TRY TO, BUT EQUALLY TO FIND A WAY TO USE THIS AMAZING TOOL FOR B-TO-B COMMUNICATIONS INSIDE THE HOUSE.

MOST OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT AIRLINES SEND, INCIDENTALLY, LET ME SAY, UNDER THIS AMAZING TELEX SYSTEM ARE WRITTEN IN MARTIAN. NO HUMAN CAN READ THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE HOST-TO-HOST COMMUNICATIONS. AND IN CASE YOU THINK I'M MAKING THIS UP OR HAMMERING A POINT A LITTLE BIT HARD, LET ME TELL YOU THAT YEAR ON YEAR OUR TELEX TRAFFIC CONTINUES TO GROW. THERE IS MORE TELEX COMMUNICATION NOW IN AIR TRANSPORT THAN THERE WAS LAST YEAR, THAN THE YEAR BEFORE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

ALL RESERVATIONS GENERATE A TELEX MESSAGE BETWEEN THE AIRLINES AND BOOKING SYSTEM AND SO FORTH. AND WE NEED TO GET THOSE B-TO-B COMMUNICATIONS OUT OF THE TELEX NETWORK AND ONTO THE INTERNET SO WE CAN PROVIDE A STABLE, SECURE INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AND WHICH PEOPLE FEEL HAPPY TO USE. IN OTHER WORDS WE NEED TO TAKE THE AVIATION INDUSTRY FROM THE PROTO INTERNET IT HAS TO THE REAL LIVE INTERNET. IN OTHER WORDS, WE NEED TO GET INTO THE ZONE FILE NAMES THAT ENHANCE PREDICTABILITY, BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ALLOW US TO DEMONSTRATE USE TO CONTINUE TO BUILD THAT SORT OF TRUST, AND ALSO TO CONTINUE TO BUILD THE AWARENESS OF .AERO AND ITS IMPORTANCE AROUND THESE VERY, VERY DISPARATE PARTS OF THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

WE NEED, IN OTHER WORDS, ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP THE SORT OF SPECIFIC VERY, VERY INTERNAL COMMUNITY USES THAT WILL ACTUALLY THROW THIS RIGHT FORWARD; THAT WILL BRING THIS RIGHT UP TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO.

WE HAVE THE COMPLETE ENDORSEMENT OF THE .AERO COUNCIL ON THIS, BUT THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WOULD ONLY BE PROGRESSING THIS AS AND WHEN WE CAN FIGHT THE BATTLES, REACH THE SORTS OF DECISIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THE SORTS OF CONFLICTS THAT EXIST ON OUR CODING SYSTEMS AND SO FORTH IN A WAY THAT WILL GIVE US EXACTLY THE RIGHT OUTCOME.

LET ME SAY WHY I'M LABORING THIS POINT. IT'S BECAUSE ONCE WE GET AIR TRANSPORT ONTO THE REAL INTERNET, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL OF US IN THE INTERNET INDUSTRY WILL ALSO FIND THAT IT BECOMES BENEFICIAL. THE OPPORTUNITIES WILL THEN GROW FOR EVERYONE.

BUT AT THE MOMENT WE'RE AT A POSITION WHERE USE IS LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT CAN DO IS RATHER LIMITED.

THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE, AS YOU POINT OUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, OF COURSE, IS TO GET EVERY INTERNET USER TO COME TO AN ICANN MEETING, AND OBVIOUSLY HERE, AND ON BEHALF OF THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY, I WOULD ENDORSE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A MARVELOUS THING. BUT ALTERNATIVELY, ALTERNATIVELY WE NEED THE ACTIVATION OF AIRLINE AND AIRPORT CODES, THE THREE LITTLE LOCATOR CODES, TWO LETTER CARRIER CODES INTO THE ZONE FILE SO AS TO START THIS PROCESS GOING. THAT'S WHY I SAID AT THE CHART, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE ARE STANDING TODAY ON THE VERY CUSP OF WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO.

WE STAND HERE NOW SEEKING THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD TO PUT ALL PARTS OF THE AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY ON THE INTERNET. WE WILL BE PUTTING TO YOU MORE FORMALLY A QUESTION TO DO THAT FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING, BUT I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO LET YOU KNOW THE CONTEXT OF THAT.
IN CONCLUSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE ABILITY TO ACTIVATE THESE SORTS OF INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE NAMES WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF DOT AERO TO ITS COMMUNITY AND TO ITS PARTNERS AND TO ITS USERS. IT WILL BENEFIT EVERYBODY, AND IT WILL DEMONSTRATE THE ENORMOUS CAPACITY THAT THE STLDS HAVE GOT TO INNOVATE AS THEY NEED TO TO BRING -- TO TAKE THE INTERNET INTO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AND TO HELP THEIR MEMBERS. AND INDEED, IN MY VIEW, ULTIMATELY INCREASE THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MIKE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ANDREW, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATIVE PRESENTATION, AND I THINK THIS GOES TO SHOW SOME OF THE NEW INNOVATIVE SERVICES THAT REGISTRIES CAN OFFER AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ARE LOOKING FOR IN THE TEST BED PROOF OF CONCEPT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID IN TUNISIA IS I SAT DOWN WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE FROM DOT AERO AND ACTUALLY LOOKED THROUGH THE SERVICE THAT THEY OFFERED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I SAT THROUGH AND I READ THE COMMENTS FROM THE USERS THAT USE THE SERVICE. AND AGAIN, THE USER EXPERIENCE FROM THE USER, WHICH WE ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER IN OUR EVALUATION AND DELIBERATIONS, WAS VERY POSITIVE. SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANTED TO TRY TO MAKE GOES BACK TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT BRUCE TONKIN HAD RAISED EARLIER ABOUT OUR NEED TO CONSIDER ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES. AND THE REASON I RAISE THIS IS UNDER THE CURRENT ICANN FUNDING MODEL, THERE IS, IF YOU WILL, A PER-DOMAIN NAME CHARGE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS OF HOW WE ARE FUNDED. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS DOT AERO INITIATIVE IS YOU NEED TO PUT IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF DOMAIN NAMES. YOU NEED TO BUILD IT IN ORDER FOR THE USERS TO USE IT.

NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, PUTTING ALL OF THOSE ENTRIES IN HAS A POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL COST THAT MAY INHIBIT THE USE. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST RAISING THIS, AND PERHAPS ANDREW COULD ELABORATE ON SORT OF THEIR CONSIDERATIONS UNDER ICANN'S CURRENT MODEL, HOW IT MAY POTENTIALLY IMPEDE. AND AGAIN, GOING BACK TO BRUCE'S COMMENT, WE REALLY, ON BOTH THE BOARD AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT IF -- WE NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AS WE GO FORWARD TO MEET THE MOU OBJECTIVES.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR A MOST INTERESTING PRESENTATION.

YOUR COMMENT ABOUT TELEX, IT REMINDS ME OF A VERY IMPORTANT OBSERVATION. THINGS THAT WORK PERSIST. AND AS LONG AS THINGS WORK, SOMETIMES IT'S VERY HARD TO GO TO AN ALTERNATIVE.

>>ANDREW CHARLTON: THAT'S TRUE, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT YOU OUGHT TO TRY BUYING A BRAND-NEW TELEX PRINTER.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, I HAD TRIED TO BUY SOMETHING CLOSE TO A TELEX PRINTER. THE DEAF COMMUNITY USES FIVE-BIT BAUDOT MODERN DEVICES TO DO DIAL-UP COMMUNICATION OVER THE TELEPHONE NETWORK.

SO LET'S GO ON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE NEXT PRESENTATION IS ON IANA PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF IANA, BUT HE IS AT THE IETF IN SEOUL, KOREA RIGHT NOW, SO, PAUL, I TAKE IT YOU ARE INTENDING TO PRESENT THAT REPORT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE IANA FUNCTION, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IS MANAGED BY DOUG BARTON. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR CIRCUMSTANCES WE'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THIS WEEK THE ENGINEERING TASK FORCE IS MEETING IN SEOUL, AND JUST AS JOHN SPENT THE EARLY PART OF THE WEEK AND CAME HERE, DOUG SPENT THE EARLY PART OF THE WEEK HERE AND WENT TO SEOUL.

SO PERHAPS I'LL SAY A FEW WORDS ON THE IANA FUNCTION, AND I'LL LIMIT THEM TO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WERE RAISED IN SOME OF THE OTHER PRESENTATIONS; PARTICULARLY CC COMMENTS ABOUT ISSUES AROUND ZONE FILE AND DIRECTION.

THE MAIN -- ONE OF THE MAIN AREAS OF WORK AT THE MOMENT, WHICH IS DIRECTED TOWARDS TRYING TO MAKE THE VARIOUS PROCESSES OF THE IANA FUNCTION CLEARER, MORE TRANSPARENT, FASTER, AND I MENTIONED YESTERDAY, PARTS OF THOSE REASONS (INAUDIBLE) INTERVENTION, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN MY RESPONSE THAT THESE THINGS ARE NOT JUST A QUESTION OF E-MAILS AND COMMUNICATIONS BUT ALSO THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THEY ARE RECEIVED. BUT THE THING I'D LIKE TO FOCUS MOST UPON IS EFFORTS BEING DONE, WORK BEING DONE AT THE MOMENT TO TAKE TLD AND PARTICULARLY CCTLD INTERACTION WITH IANA INTO WORK FLOW SOFTWARE.

AND THIS INITIAL DRAFT, INITIAL WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON THAT TO DEVELOP A WEB-BASED INTERFACE, AND THEN TO MOVE TO A BACK-END TICKETING SYSTEM WHICH WE'RE CURRENTLY PURSUING. IT WILL TAKE A FAIR AMOUNT OF THIS YEAR AND TAKE QUITE A LOT OF RESOURCES, TO BE TRUTHFUL.

THE KEY THING I WANTED TO SHARE AS PART OF THIS REPORT, AND IT CAME PARTLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE POINT ELISABETH MADE IN HER PRESENTATION, THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION A LITTLE BIT, I THINK, IN OTHER FORA ABOUT WHAT THE ROLE OF AUTHENTICATION.

AT LEAST IN THIS PART OF THE DIRECTION WITH IANA, THE KEY PART OF IANA IS ACTUALLY -- THIS IS GOING TO SOUND A BIT WEIRD. IT'S ACTUALLY THAT THE HIGHEST VALUE IS NOT -- IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME, ANYWAY, IS NOT ACCURACY. AND I KNOW THAT SOUNDS STRANGE AND YOU'RE GOING TO THINK THAT'S WRONG. THE HIGHEST VALUE IS ACTUALLY AUTHORITATIVENESS. AND THE TWO NEED TO BE -- LET ME KEEP EXPLAINING THIS BECAUSE I'M GETTING THE QUIZZICAL LOOK I EXPECTED. THE TWO SHOULD BE THE SAME; THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT IN THE CHANGING OF THE DATABASE, WHAT THE IANA FUNCTION NEEDS TO BE IS VERY CAUTIOUS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT IT HAS IS AUTHORITATIVE. AND BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS ARENA, WE GET SO MANY FRAUDULENT APPROACHES, WE GET SO MANY HALF-COMPLETED APPROACHES, WE GET COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE NOT CERTAIN, IT IS TO BE AUTHORITATIVE, NOT DOUBLE GUESSING WHAT IS MOST ACCURATE.

SOMEBODY MAY WELL SEND YOU AN E-MAIL AND IT IS THE MOST ACCURATE BUT THE FIRST TEST MUST BE CAN WE CLARIFY IT'S THE AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT THAT'S ACCURATE.

>>VINT CERF: IN SOME SENSE IF IT'S NOT ACCURATE, IT'S HARD TO BE AUTHORITATIVE.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I ACCEPT THE INVERSE, AND IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO WORK AS HARD AS WE CAN ON ACCURACY. SO I DO AGREE, THOUGH.

I SHARED THAT POINT BUT BECAUSE IN THIS WORK WE'VE STARTED, IT'S GONE TO THE NEXT STAGE ABOUT BEING AUTHORITATIVENESS, WHICH IS REALLY A STATEMENT ABOUT RISK; THAT AT LEAST IN THE INTERACTION IN THE CC COMMUNITY AND THE DEGREE OF INTERACTION IANA RECEIVED IN COMMUNICATIONS RELATED AROUND CCTLD INTERACTION WITH THE ZONE FILE, THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNICATIONS WE RECEIVE WHICH ARE FRAUDULENT. THROUGH TO EXAMPLES OF LETTERS WRITTEN LITERALLY BY AMBASSADORS OR ON AMBASSADOR'S LETTERHEAD STATING TO BE FROM A GOVERNMENT SAYING CERTAIN THINGS SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING COMPANY. FROM THAT DEGREE OF ACTIVITY WHICH PROVES NOT TO BE ENDORSED, TO ACTIVITIES WHERE ATTEMPTS ARE TRIED TO TAKE TO HAVE THE SECONDARY NAME SERVERS IN THE PRIMARY SERVER SHIFTED TO SOMEBODY ELSE, MESSAGES GET THROUGH. SO IF YOU RECEIVE A MESSAGE FOR A SECONDARY NAME CHANGE, ANOTHER ONE ON WEDNESDAY, ANOTHER ONE THE NEXT WEEK FOR THE PRIMARY, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A REDELEGATION REQUEST.

WORKING ALL THOSE THINGS THROUGH, AND THE PROCESS HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN HUMAN-BASED. PEOPLE ON TELEPHONE RECOGNIZING OTHER PEOPLE'S VOICES; PEOPLE ON E-MAILS INTERACTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE BUT IT'S BEEN VERY HUMAN BASED.

AS WE LOOK AT MOVING IT TO A SYSTEM BASIS INTERACTION, A COMPUTER-BASED, WEB-BASED SYSTEM, BUILDING IN ALL THE RISK STEPS OF IDENTIFICATION, WHERE IS POTENTIAL RISK HERE, BECOMES MORE COMPLEX. AND SO AS IS THE CASE IN MANY OF THESE SYSTEMS, THE SOFTWARE IS ACTUALLY THE EASY PART. THE BUSINESS RULES IS THE DIFFICULT PART.

SO WE HAVE HEARD THIS REQUEST FROM CCS, PARTICULARLY WELL-ESTABLISHED CCS WHO OPERATE VERY WELL, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE SOME OF THESE SYSTEMS TO WORK INSTANTLY. WHY CAN'T I GET A SECONDARY NAME SERVER CHANGE DONE WITHIN MINUTES AND WHY CAN'T I TRACK THIS AND HAVE A TRACKING SYSTEM. AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE WORLD FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

I HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE IANA FUNCTION IS THAT WE ACTUALLY SEE THE WHOLE WORLD IN MANY RESPECTS. WE CAN HAVE UP TO 90 CC ISSUES AT PLAY IN ANY ONE MONTH. AND A LARGE PORTION OF THOSE DO NOT COME FROM THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CC OPERATORS. AND SO THE ISSUES THAT WE SEE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT, SITTING IN THE HUB, IF YOU LIKE, THAN WHAT PEOPLE SEE SITTING ON THE DIRECTION OF IT. AND PART OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH WITH THE CCS, AND PARTICULARLY CAME IN THE CCNSO FORMATION FOR THIS PURPOSE, IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THE BUSINESS RULES AND RISK ISSUES WE HAVE TO BOOT INTO THAT SOFTWARE.

SO THAT'S TO SHARE WITH YOU PART OF THE CHALLENGE WE WILL HAVE, PART OF THE RESOURCE CHALLENGE WE WILL HAVE, IN WORKING THROUGH HOW TO -- WHAT AT FIRST GLANCE LOOKS LIKE AN OBVIOUS THING TO DO.

IF I CAN LEAVE WITH A FINAL ANALOGY, IT STRIKES ME IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEM OR TRANSFERS SYSTEM BETWEEN BANKS.

THE FIRST PRINCIPLE IS YOU DON'T TRUST ANYBODY, BUT THEN THERE ARE LAYERS OF HOW THE TRUST SYSTEMS WORK WHEN THERE ARE TRANSFERS BETWEEN CERTAIN TYPES OF BANKS. OR TO GIVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE, IF YOU THINK ABOUT TRADE FINANCING, THERE ARE CERTAIN MARKETS IN THE WORLD WHERE IF YOU GO FROM YOUR COUNTRY TO THAT MARKET, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET, YOU KNOW, -- YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RELY ON INVOICING AND THERE MAY BE OTHER MARKETS WHERE YOUR BANK IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LETTER OF CREDIT, OTHER MARKETS WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RISK.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS THE RISK IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR EACH TYPE OF REQUEST WE GET, NOR FROM WHERE WE GET IT.

AND THIS IS GOING TO TAKE SOME WORKING THROUGH.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A COMPLEXITY ISSUE THAT MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR PAUL?

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO ON, THEN, TO THE NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS THE GTLD TRANSFERS POLICY, AND TINA DAM IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOU SOME -- WHAT WOULD I LABEL AS VERY GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSFER POLICY.

BEFORE I GO TO THE DETAILS OF THE TIME LINE FOR IMPLEMENTATIONS, I'LL GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY BEHIND THE POLICY, THE PROCESS IT HAS BEEN THROUGH, AND ALSO SOME OF THE CONTENT.

THE TRANSFER POLICY STARTED BACK IN -- WELL, IT STARTED BEFORE THAT, BUT BACK IN 2001, AND PERHAPS EVEN BEFORE THAT, REGISTRARS AND REGISTRANTS STARTED TO EXPRESS SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT PRACTICES ON THE TRANSFER PROCEDURES. THAT RESULTED IN THE, AT THAT TIME, DNSO TO FORM A TRANSFER TASK FORCE TO ANALYZE THOSE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES AND TO COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE THE TRANSFER POLICIES BETTER.

THE TRANSFER TASK FORCE WORKED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, MAKING SEVERAL REPORTS WHICH HAD PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE WAS AN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY. AND THE FINAL REPORT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY 2003.

NEXT STEP WAS THE ICANN BOARD APPROVING THOSE CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WAS IN THAT FINAL REPORT. THAT HAPPENED IN APRIL 2003.

THE ICANN BOARD ALSO DIRECTED ICANN STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY WITH ASSISTANCE FROM RELEVANT PARTIES IN THE COMMUNITY, AND TO FACILITATE THAT, ICANN STAFF FORMED A TRANSFER ASSISTANCE GROUP.

WE DID THAT WITH THE HELP FROM REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY AND THE ALAC.

THE TRANSFER ASSISTANCE GROUP PRESENTED THEIR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT HOW TO TRANSFER POLICIES SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN EARLY JANUARY THIS YEAR, AND THAT LEADS US UP TO MARCH 2004, AND WE'RE JUST ABOUT TO ANNOUNCE THE FINAL POLICY AND START THE IMPLEMENTATION.

THE POLICY ITSELF CONTAINS SEVERAL DOCUMENTS. THERE IS THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE TRANSFER POLICY. THERE IS A DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY. THERE IS TWO STANDARDIZED FORMS THAT MUST BE USED WHEN YOU REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR A TRANSFER, AND THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES MADE TO THE CURRENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE BETWEEN REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND ICANN.

SO MOVING ON TO THE TRANSFER POLICY, THE GOAL IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY SIMPLE. WE WANT TO FACILITATE INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFERS UPON REQUEST PROVIDED THAT THE TERMS OF THE POLICY HAVE BEEN FULFILLED.

SOME OF THOSE TERMS, AND I MIGHT SAY THAT THIS IS NOT A FULL OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY; THAT THERE'S MANY DETAILS IN IT, BUT SOME OF THE MAIN POINTS IS THAT WHEN A REGISTRAR RECEIVES A REQUEST FOR A TRANSFER, IT IS UP TO THAT REGISTRAR TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. AND THAT AUTHORIZATION HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CORRECT PARTY, WHICH IS THE REGISTRANT OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT.

SUCH AUTHORIZATION MUST BE OBTAINED BY USING STANDARDIZED FORMS, SO REGISTRARS ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO USE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WHEN THEY CONTACT REGISTRANTS OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACTS TO PROVIDE THAT AUTHORIZATION.

THE POLICY HAS MORE SPECIFIC TERMS ON HOW VALID IDENTIFICATION CAN BE OBTAINED.
ALL THE DOCUMENTATION ABOUT AUTHORIZATION AND IDENTIFICATION HAS TO BE STORED AT REGISTRARS, AND IF IT COMES TO A DISPUTE OR ALSO A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES, THAT DOCUMENTATION HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO OTHER PARTIES IF SUCH REQUEST IT.

CAN WE GO ONE SLIDE BACK? YES.

ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS GOING TO BE APPRECIATED MOSTLY OF THE NEW TRANSFER POLICY IS THAT A TRANSFER REQUEST CAN ONLY BE DENIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD IN SPECIFIC CASES. AGAIN SHALL THE POLICIES LIST THOSE SPECIFIC CASES. AND A REGISTRAR OF RECORD MUST ALSO PROVIDE THE GAINING REGISTRAR SPECIFIC REASONS WHY A TRANSFER WAS DENIED, IF THAT WAS THE CASE.

FINALLY, ON THE TRANSFER POLICY, THE REGISTRAR REQUIREMENTS REFER TO A NOTIFICATION TO CNTR AND A REVERSE TRANSFER IF THAT HAD BEEN DECIDED.

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY IS A POLICY THAT'S AVAILABLE AT TWO LEVELS. AT THE FIRST LEVEL, IT'S THE REGISTRY OPERATOR THAT WILL ACCEPT A REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT FROM A REGISTRAR AND IT FEELS THAT A TRANSFER HAS HAPPENED IN A WRONG WAY. THE REGISTRAR MAKES A DECISION. THE DECISION CAN BE APPROVING THE TRANSFER, DENYING THE TRANSFER, OR IT CAN ALSO BE THAT, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE REGISTRY OPERATOR COLLECTED, THAT THERE WAS NO DECISION TO BE MADE.

AN IMPORTANT PART IS THAT THE FEE THAT THE REGISTRY OPERATOR CHARGES FOR THIS SERVICE IS SOMETHING THAT THE LOSING PARTY MUST PAY.
AND THE FEE CANNOT BE PASSED ON TO THE REGISTRANT.
SO IT'S AN ENTIRELY BASED ON ENFORCING REGISTRARS TO FOLLOW THE POLICIES IN THE RIGHT WAY.
IF A REGISTRAR IS UNSATISFIED WITH THE REGISTRY OPERATOR'S DECISION, THE REGISTRAR CAN APPEAL IT TO THE SECOND LEVEL.

THE SECOND LEVEL CAN ONLY EITHER APPROVE OR DENY A TRANSFER.
SO THERE WILL BE A SOLUTION IF THE DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE SECOND LEVEL.
CERTAINLY DECISIONS OF THE SECOND LEVEL CAN BE APPEALED TO COURT OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

THE LAST DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE TRANSFER POLICY IS STANDARDIZED AUTHORIZATION FORMS.
THERE ARE TWO FORMS, ONE THAT MUST BE USED BY THE GAINING REGISTRAR AND ONE THAT MUST BE USED BY THE REGISTRAR OF RECORD.

THEY'RE QUITE SIMPLE.
THEY'RE POSTED ONLINE AND WILL BE POSTED TOGETHER WITH THE FINAL POLICY AS WELL.
REGISTRARS SIMPLY JUST NEED TO USE THAT LANGUAGE THAT IS PROVIDED IN THOSE FORMS WHEN THEY COMMUNICATE TO REGISTRANTS REGARDING TRANSFER OF THE DOMAIN NAMES.

ONE THING THAT WE HAVE MADE SURE IS POSSIBLE IS FOR THOSE FORMS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO OTHER LANGUAGES THAN ENGLISH.
SO THE ONES YOU SEE ONLINE ARE IN ENGLISH.

AND YOU CAN CHOOSE TO TRANSLATE THEM IF NEEDED.
LASTLY, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES TO THE CURRENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ICANN, REGISTRIES, AND REGISTRARS.

THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT WILL INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE POLICIES AND THE FORMS AND THE DISPUTE POLICY.
AND THE TRANSFER POLICY THAT CURRENTLY IS LISTED IN THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT WILL BE REPLACED WITH REFERENCES TO THIS NEW POLICY AS WELL.

AND THAT LEADS ME TO THE FINAL SLIDE, AND I THINK THE INFORMATION MOST OF YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.
THE FINAL POLICY WILL BE POSTED BY THE END OF MARCH.

REGISTRARS AND REGISTRY OPERATORS WILL BE PROVIDED THREE MONTHS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY.
THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT.

THERE IS A TRANSFER-ON-DUE MECHANISM, A FUNCTIONALITY THAT WILL NEED TO BE UTILIZED WHEN THEY DECIDE ON A DISPUTE THAT A TRANSFER MUST BE REVERSED, REGISTRIES WILL HAVE UP TO SIX MONTHS TO IMPLEMENT THAT FUNCTIONALITY.

ALSO, ICANN WILL CALL FOR THE INTEREST OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVIDERS FOR THE SECOND LEVEL.
AND, FINALLY, I THINK ONE IMPORTANT ASPECT IS THAT THE POLICY AND THE WAY THAT IT'S WORKING FOR REGISTRIES, REGISTRAR, AND LEAST, REGISTRANTS, WILL BE EVALUATED IN THREE, SIX, AND 12-MONTH INTERVALS AFTER THE POLICY IS IN EFFECT.

AND I GUESS I'LL SAY BECAUSE BRUCE TONKIN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SOMEHOW CAN DECIDE UPON WHETHER A POLICY WAS SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED OR NOT, THAT I HOPE THAT
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO FACILITATE THAT.
AND THEN I THINK ALL I HAVE LEFT TO SAY IS THAT IF IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO TRANSFER TASK FORCE, THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, THE TRANSFER ASSISTANCE GROUP, AND MANY OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

AND I THINK THAT'S VERY BENEFICIAL.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.
THAT'S CERTAINLY A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD.
WE HAVE OUR TRADITIONAL QUESTION NOW FROM MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: MORE OF A STATEMENT.

WELL, PEOPLE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT BOARD INTERACTION.

SO WE ARE LISTENING.

TINA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN FACILITATING THIS PROCESS.
AS THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, THIS WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BACK IN MARCH 2001 IN MELBOURNE AND WAS FORMALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUENCY IN JUNE 2001 IN STOCKHOLM.

THIS HAS BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE NEED TO EFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE COMPLEX POLICY ISSUES IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN ICANN 2.0 AND, AGAIN, I THINK WAS RAISED BY BRUCE TONKIN IN HIS VERY PERTINENT SPEECH TODAY.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS NEW POLICY WILL BENEFIT REGISTRANTS BY INCREASING CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE.

AND, AGAIN, A COUPLE PEOPLE -- ALTHOUGH YOU VAGUELY MENTIONED A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED.

I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK ROSS RADER FROM TUCOWS WHO DID ALL -- AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF HEAVY LIFTING AT THE EARLY STAGES, AND ALSO, I THINK, MENTION NEEDS TO GO OUT TO JEFF NEUMAN FROM NEUSTAR, AND CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN REGISTRY, WHO FACILITATED AT THE END, IN, IF YOU WILL, HAVING THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE AN INDUSTRY PROBLEM.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MIKE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR TINA?
IS THIS A QUESTION FOR TINA?

ALL RIGHT.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.

I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE, THAT SUPPOSEDLY NEVER ENDING TASK FORCE.
BUT I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STAFF AND JOIN MIKE IN RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM THAT WORKED ON IT.
IT WAS, INDEED, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK.
AND I DO NOTE THAT EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS WAS DONE BY THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE NOW AT A VERY IMPORTANT STAGE, AND THAT IS -- AND YOU'VE NOTED ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE STILL HAVE TO DO.
PEOPLE OFTEN SAY THAT MAKING POLICY IS LIKE MAKING SAUSAGE.
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE.

BUT THE OUTCOME IS GOOD.
IMPLEMENTING POLICY AND ENFORCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY IS NOW THE PHASE THAT WE ARE IN.

I THINK IT WILL BE CLEAR THERE WILL BE SOME LEARNING AND ADJUSTMENT AS PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT THE NEW PROCEDURES AND LEARN TO FOLLOW THEM.
I WOULD MAKE ONLY ONE POINT.

ALTHOUGH THE REGISTRARS WERE IN FACT VERY, VERY CONCERNED, TRANSFERS WERE OF GRAVE CONCERN TO USERS AS WELL.
AS MIKE WILL REMEMBER, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY AND THE USER CONSTITUENCIES REALLY WORKED TOGETHER.

TRANSFERS WORKING EFFECTIVELY ARE ABOUT COMPETITION.
SO, AS THE FORMER CHAIR OF THAT TASK FORCE, I APPLAUD WHERE WE ARE AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING A WELL-IMPLEMENTED POLICY.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARILYN.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TINA?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.

>>TINA DAM: THANKS.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THE LAST REPORT THAT I HAVE ON MY AGENDA COMES FROM BARBARA ROSEMAN AND SPEAKS TO THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION MOU UPDATE.

>>BARBARA ROSEMAN: THANK YOU.
AS MARK MCFADDEN SAID EARLIER IN HIS PRESENTATION, THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IS ONE OF THE SORT OF FOUNDING MOUS OF ICANN.

AND DURING REFORM, WE'VE WORKED HARD TO FIND AN APPROPRIATE MECHANISM FOR REWRITING THE MOU TO REFLECT SOME OF THE NEW CONCERNS WITHIN ICANN AND STILL RETAIN THE QUALITIES THAT MADE THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION FUNCTIONAL.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE, WE'VE POSTED THE NRO LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY WHICH OUTLINED A PROPOSED MOU.

AND SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD SOME VERY PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES AND ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ARE ALREADY SCHEDULED.

SO THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE COMPLETED FAIRLY QUICKLY FROM THIS POINT.
WE'RE GOING TO POST A RESPONSE TO THE 24 FEBRUARY LETTER VERY SOON, WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, WE HOPE.

AND WE ANTICIPATE A CORRESPONDING RESPONSE FROM THE NRO WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME.
AND THAT'S THE UPDATE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BARBARA.

QUESTIONS FOR BARBARA?

ALL RIGHT.
I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR NOW TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
I'M SORRY.
YOU'RE POINTING YOUR FINGER AT --

>>LYMAN CHAPIN: NO QUESTION.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.
OPEN THE FLOOR NOW.

A SMALL REMINDER, WE HAD NOMINALLY INTENDED TO BREAK AT 1:00.
HOWEVER, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, I WILL ALLOW THAT TO GO OVER.
HOWEVER, IF THERE IS A VERY LONG LINE, THEN I WILL PROBABLY ASK TO LIMIT REMARKS TO TWO MINUTES.
SO AMADEU, YOU'RE NOT CONSTRAINED YET.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OH, I WILL IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, PROBABLY.
AND IT WAS REGARDING ESPECIALLY THAT.

I HAVE MANY THINGS TO SAY ABOUT MANY TOPICS, BUT I WON'T, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE.

THE FIRST IS TO EXPRESS MY SENSE OF FRUSTRATION ABOUT HOW THE PUBLIC FORUM WORKS.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S ICANN, WHAT'S ANYTHING AND YOU'RE HAVING AN ANNUAL MEETING OR A MEETING, WHATEVER, THE BEST THING TO DO THAT IS GOING TO SEE THE AGENDA FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

IF I SHOW THE AGENDA OF THIS PUBLIC FORUM TO MY GRANDMOTHER, SHE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHY THE HELL I AM TRAVELING ALL THE TIME AROUND THE WORLD.

BECAUSE MOST OF THE THINGS, IF NOT EVERYTHING, THAT IS IMPORTANT, YOU THINK ABOUT CARTHAGE PUBLIC FORUM OR HERE, IT'S CONSTRAINED.

IMPORTANT, I MEAN EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT.

IN KEEPING THE ORGANIZATION RUNNING, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR DOING SOME MATERIAL THINGS THAT ICANN IS CHARGED TO DO AND NOT THE ABRIL FAMILY, FOR INSTANCE, FOR SOME GOOD REASONS.

IF YOU SEE THE AGENDA REPEAT, AND IDNS OR, YOU KNOW, SITE FINDER WERE NOT IN TUNISIA, NOT HERE, TRANSFERS ARE HERE THIS TIME.
THAT'S GOOD.

AND THE STLD THING, IT'S NOT THAT MUCH HERE, EVEN IF THERE WAS A REPORT YESTERDAY.
AND EVERYTHING IS CONSTRAINED TO THE LAST FIVE MINUTES, WHEN THE FIRST REMARK IS, "PLEASE BE SHORT, BECAUSE WE ARE OUT OF TIME BECAUSE WE ARE HUNGRY."

WELL, I WAS HUNGRY BEFORE COMING HERE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE TRADITIONS IN MY BIOGRAPHY, OKAY?
BUT IT'S QUITE FRUSTRATING DOING THAT, VINT.

AND THE REALITY IS, IT'S NOT ENOUGH THAT YOU TELL ME THAT EVERYBODY CAN COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THEY WANT.
I COULD COME HERE AND READ SHAKESPEARE IF I WANTED.

BECAUSE THE REALITY OF THE PUBLIC FORUM, IT'S NOT ONLY A PUBLIC SPEAKING FORUM, ICANN, IT'S LIKE BRUCE SAID, A SPECIAL KIND OF PUBLIC SPEAKING, IT'S MONOLOGUES.

THE WAY ALL THIS IS ORGANIZED FAVORS LOBBYING AND PENALIZES DIALOGUE.
YOU HAVE HERE LONG QUEUES OF PEOPLE SAYING, I AM IN FAVOR OF WLS BECAUSE I WILL EARN MORE MONEY.

I AM AGAINST WLS BECAUSE I WILL LOSE MONEY. AND THAT'S OKAY.
BUT NOTHING HAPPENS.

I MEAN, THERE IS NO DIALOGUE, NOT A SINGLE ARGUMENT IS FOLLOWED.
AND THIS SOMETIMES IS ALSO IMPORTANT.
I MEAN, WE ALLOW THE TIME TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE NEED TWO OR THREE REPRESENTATIVES IN A CONSTITUENCY OR WHETHER I WILL, YOU KNOW, EARN MORE MONEY OR LESS MONEY WITH WLS.

I REPEAT, THE STRUCTURE FAVORS LOBBYING AND PENALIZES DIALOGUE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
TAKE ONE EXAMPLE.
IDN, WELL, THE ONLY THING WE REALLY DO IS SOMETIMES TRY TO DRAW A CATALOGUE OF THE PROBLEMS.

AND SOMETIMES WE WILL ORGANIZE THE PROBLEMS INTO, YOU KNOW, A WELL-ORGANIZED DIRECTORY, THESE TYPES OF PROBLEMS.

THEN WE HAVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, AND WE NEVER GO TO THE SECOND PART, TRYING TO FIND THE ANSWERS.
FOR INSTANCE, THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THE TEST BED, I HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT SINCE NOVEMBER -- SORRY, CS, NOVEMBER 2000 IT WAS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.
INERTIA HAS SOLVED IT.
I MEAN, ABOUT NOT DOING ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, SOME SITUATIONS HAVE CONSOLIDATED.
WE CANNOT ALLOW INERTIA TO BE THE ONLY WAY.

AND BRUCE WAS RIGHT IN SAYING, WELL, NO, NO, WE ARE NOW DOING MANY THINGS BETTER.
THIS PUBLIC FORUM WAS MUCH BETTER THAN TUNISIA, AND THE PREVIOUS ONES, AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE.

THE THING OF, YOU KNOW, SPLITTING THAT AND ALLOW NOW THE BOARD TO DISCUSS ALSO SOME TIME WITH THE COMMUNITY AFTER ALL THE LOBBYING HAS BEEN DONE IS A VERY GOOD IDEA.
THE WAY THAT THE WORKSHOPS ORGANIZED BY THE GNSO IS A VERY GOOD IDEA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SOME OF THE PRESENTATIONS, YOU KNOW, PAUL TWOMEY'S OR BRUCE OR MANY OTHERS, WERE VERY GOOD.
STILL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS VERY -- THE TAILORED QUESTIONS OF WHOIS NOBODY ANSWERS.
YOU KNOW WHY?
BECAUSE MOST OF THE PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT ANSWERING WILL BE THAT USEFUL, BECAUSE THEN YOU WILL GET SOME DETAILED REPORTS DIGESTED IN MANY DIFFERENT CONSECUTIVE PROCEDURES AND SOMEBODY WILL COME HERE SAYING, PLEASE, BOARD, ACT IN THIS THING IN A RESPONSIBLE AND ORDERLY MANNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT'LL BE, VERY OFTEN, THE CONCLUSION.
BUT ALSO BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE THINK IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM -- PAUL TWOMEY, OR YOU, THEN PUBLICLY EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENS, BECAUSE I REPEAT, IT APPEARS THE DIALOGUE IS NOT REALLY FAVORED.

I WOULD LIKE SOMETIMES TO SEE WHETHER THE BOARD THINKS THAT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS HERE ARE VALID OR NOT AND TO ENGAGE IN SOME DISCUSSIONS NOT ONLY PRIVATE, ALSO IN PUBLIC, IT'S IMPORTANT.
OKAY?

AND NOW, LEAVING THAT, SO, PLEASE, LESS PLACE TO NOISE AND MORE PLACE TO VOICE.
LESS LOBBYING AND MORE PUBLIC DIALOGUE, MORE LEAVING TO THE CONCLUSION HERE, LESS FAIRNESS TO THE SPEAKER FOR TWO OR THREE MINUTES AND MORE WEIGHT TO GIVING A CONCLUSION OF ANY ARGUMENT.

LET'S PICK ONE, IF THAT'S ALL WE CAN AFFORD.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS, MATERIAL THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SAY IS REGARDING WLS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD HERE YESTERDAY PEOPLE IN FAVOR AND AGAINST.

AND IT'S BEEN DRAGGING LIKE THIS FOR YEARS, DISCLAIMER.
I WAS THE BOARD MEMBER VOTING AGAINST THAT IN AUGUST 2002, I THINK.
I STILL HAVE THE SAME FEELINGS.
AND, NO, NONE OF THE REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS I AM PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED WITH HAVE ANY OF THESE SERVICES RUNNING, BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS, TO NO OTHER REASON.

BUT JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING, WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE.
WLS CAME OUT OF A PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM WAS, YOU KNOW, VERISIGN CREATING ONE OF THESE UNSOLICITED MESSAGES BECAUSE OF THE DELETE PROCEDURES.
SO THE UNSOLICITED MESSAGE CREATES AN UNSOLICITED PROBLEM.
AND THEN WLS WAS THE UNSOLICITED ANSWER.
IT WAS A VERY GOOD ANSWER TO A VERY STUPID PROBLEM.
THE STUPID PROBLEM IS NOT THERE ANYMORE.
IT'S NOT THAT BAD ANYMORE.

I MEAN, IT'S MARGINAL.
WE HAVE A DELETES PROCEDURE THAT WORKS.
WE HAVE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD THAT WORKS.
BUT WE STILL HAVE THE ANSWER TO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY'S ASKING ANYMORE.
WE HAVE AN ANSWER THAT WHILE I WANT TO SPEAK FOR (INAUDIBLE) BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY LIKE WLS HOW IT IS NOW WITH ALL THESE CONDITIONS.

I DON'T THINK THEY THINK WLS IS ALL THAT IMPORTANT AFTER REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED WITH ALL THESE CONDITIONS.
THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING?
DOESN'T MATTER, IT'S A MARGINAL THING.
WHY DO YOU CARE.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD CARE BECAUSE WE SHOULD REMEMBER WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE.
THE THING WE ARE DOING HERE IS, YOU KNOW, SEE THE DNS WORKS BETTER.
IS THIS BETTER FOR THE REGISTRY, DNS, SOLVES ANY PROBLEM?
NO.
IT'S MARGINAL.
WHY NOT ACCEPT IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS ASKED?
WELL, FOR SOME REASONS.

ONE OF THE REASONS IS, ASK WHETHER THIS IS A SERVICE THAT CAN BE PERFORMED BY DIFFERENT PLAYERS OR BY ONLY ONE.

THE SERVICE, IN MY VIEW, IS QUITE CORRUPT.
BUT, ANYWAY, THE ONLY THING YOU ARE DOING HERE, MY DEARS, IS JUST TAKING MONEY FROM ONE HAND AND PUTTING THAT IN ANOTHER.

THAT IS, FROM THE REGISTRANTS TO REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, FOR -- AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING -- AND THIS PROBABLY IS NOT VERY GOOD FOR THE DNS ITSELF.

BUT IT'S VERY BAD ALSO THAT WE CENTRALIZE SERVICES AT THE VERY CENTER OF THIS SYSTEM AND PREVENT THE SAME SERVICES FROM EXISTING ON THE EDGE.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT AERO WAS PROPOSING CANNOT BE DONE AT THE EDGE.
SO IF THEY DO, THEY DON'T -- THE AERO -- THEY ARE NOT PREVENTING SOMEBODY FROM DOING ANY SERVICES THAT CANNOT BE PROVIDED, AS IT WERE.
HERE, WITH WLS, WE CAN.

AND THE LAST THING, IF YOU WERE LISTENING YESTERDAY, IS NOT ONLY THAT.
THAT ONE OF OUR GOALS IS PROMOTING COMPETITION; RIGHT?
HERE WE ARE KILLING THE MARKET, NOT ALLOWING THE MARKET TO DECIDE.

AND, SECOND, WE ARE ALSO FAVORING IN THIS REMAINING MARKET SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYERS AGAINST THE ONES THAT WANT TO GROW AGAINST THIS THESE INCOMING PLAYERS.
ONCE AGAIN, DON'T THINK ABOUT THE ETHICS OF THIS, ABOUT WHO YOU LIKE BEST.

BUT THINK ABOUT WHAT ICANN REALLY HAS TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE MARKET TO BENEFIT SOME PLAYERS AND NOT OTHERS, I DON'T THINK SO.
OH, BY THE WAY, I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING STLDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT OTHER PEOPLE WILL DEAL WITH THIS, I THINK.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THINKING ABOUT MY TALKATIVE STATE, IT'S PROBABLY THE FACT THAT I'M, IF YOU WILL, OCCUPYING THE SEAT THAT WAS HELD BY AMADEU FOR OVER FOUR YEARS.

SO I'M JUST CARRYING ON A TRADITION, IF YOU WILL, AMADEU.

I'D LIKE TO SORT OF ADDRESS, IF I COULD, AMADEU'S COMMENTS ABOUT STRUCTURED LOBBYING.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS IMPORTANT IN MAKING THIS PROCESS WORK IS THE NEED TO, IF YOU WILL, DOCUMENT THE POSITIONS NOT ONLY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES, BUT WHERE THE -- THE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS WITHIN THAT CONSTITUENCY STAND.

I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY TONE TO ELANA FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY EARLIER TODAY.

BUT THE REASON I WAS A LITTLE PASSIONATE ABOUT MY STATEMENT TO ELANA WAS, AS THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRARS, IT IS A VERY UNIQUE CONSTITUENCY WHERE EACH MEMBER SORT OF EXISTS TO PUT THE OTHER ONE OUT OF BUSINESS, IF YOU WILL.

SO WE LEARNED TO COME UP WITH BYLAWS THAT WERE VERY CAREFULLY CRAFTED SO THAT WHEN WE CAME UP WITH CONTENTIOUS ISSUES THERE WAS A SPECIFIC NEED TO DOCUMENT IT.

NOW, OVER THE LAST MONTH, I HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE DIALOGUES WITH REGISTRARS REGARDING THE WLS, PROS, CONS, AND ALTHOUGH I HAVE, IF YOU WILL, INSIGHT INTO THE INDIVIDUAL THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS OF THESE REGISTRARS, WHICH, AGAIN, I'LL TRY TO SHARE, THE REASON THE VOTE, THE 9-7-3, THEY WERE JUST NUMBERS.

THEY DIDN'T SHOW COMPANIES; THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU THE MAJORITY, THE MINORITY.

AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO ELANA FOR MY TONE.

BUT THE BYLAWS HAD IN THERE SPECIFIC MECHANISMS SO THAT WHEN A VOICE CAME FROM THE CONSTITUENCY, IT WAS DOCUMENTED AND IT WAS VALID SO THAT IT WOULD WORK WITHIN THE ICANN STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.

SO, AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN FOLLOW UP ON AMADEU'S STATEMENT AND AGAIN SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT WITH ELANA.

SO THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MIKE.

RON ANDRUFF.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD, RON ANDRUFF FROM TRALLIANCE CORPORATION.

HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY YESTERDAY REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF THE STLD RFP PROCESS, WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF THE BUSINESS REALITIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE DECISION TO ESTABLISH A PERIOD OF AS MANY AS 180 DAYS FOR THE SELECTION OF NEW STLDS AND ASK THAT THIS PERIOD BE SHORTENED.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CAN BE DONE AND STILL ACHIEVE THE NECESSARY DUE DILIGENCE WHICH WE EXPECT TO FULFILL WITH REGARD TO DOT TRAVEL.

TO PUT MY COMMENTS IN HERE INTO CONTEXT, TRALLIANCE CORPORATION WILL BE TRANSFERRING THE REQUISITE FILING FEE OF $45,000 THIS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10TH, AND SUBMITTING ITS APPLICATION FOR THE DOT TRAVEL BY MARCH 15TH, BOTH PER THE RFP TIME LINE.

FILING OUR APPLICATION WILL BE THE CULMINATION OF AN EFFORT THAT BEGAN ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN WE STARTED WORKING WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO MOVE THE STLD RFP INITIATIVE FORWARD TO THIS POINT.

THE SIX-MONTH TIME FRAME ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY HAS DRASTIC CONSEQUENCES NOT ONLY FOR DOT TRAVEL, BUT FOR ALL APPLICANTS.

IN OUR CASE, THIS ELONGATED PERIOD WILL FORCE ME, AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF TRALLIANCE TO TAKE ACTIONS TO PUT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR A SUCCESSFUL TLD ESSENTIALLY ON HOLD.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, ONCE WE PAY OUR FEE AND FILE OUR APPLICATION, I WILL BE FORCED TO TELL MY STAFF THAT THEY WILL BE PUT ON A 150-DAY FURLOUGH UNTIL AUGUST 1.

AND THAT RETURN-TO-WORK DATE IS, OF COURSE, CONTINGENT UPON DOT TRAVEL BEING SELECTED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS IN THE AUTUMN.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THIS PROCESS OR THIS MOST -- I'M SORRY.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT PREREQUISITE TO APPLYING FOR AN STLD IS TO GATHER AND DEMONSTRATE CONSTITUENCY SUPPORT.

THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY IS AN INCREDIBLY DIVERSE AND DISTRIBUTED ONE, AND IN ORDER TO MEET ICANN'S REQUIREMENT, WE HAVE EXTENDED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES TO DELIVER WHAT WAS ASKED OF US.

TODAY, THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY STANDS BEHIND THE TRALLIANCE-LED INITIATIVE, YET YESTERDAY WE HEARD THAT THE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY WILL BE FORCED YET AGAIN TO SIT AND WAIT AND SADLY WATCH THE MOMENTUM THAT WE HAVE BUILT FOR THE DOT TRAVEL INITIATIVE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS DISSIPATE IN THE COMING SIX MONTHS.

BUSINESSES NEED CERTAINTY AND PREDICTABILITY.
THEY ALSO DEMAND TIMELINESS.
AFTER SO MUCH INVESTMENT, THE IMPACT ON THE SUCCESSFUL LAUNCH OF THIS NEW AND IMPORTANT REGISTRY AS A RESULT OF THIS UNREASONABLY LONG TIME DELAY TO COMPLETE THE TIME LINE AND THIS SEEMINGLY ENDLESS PROCESS IS, IN A WORD, DISTRESSING.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE REQUISITE EVALUATION PROCESS CAN BE COMPLETED IN WEEKS INSTEAD OF MONTHS, PARTICULARLY AS STAFF TIME REQUIRED FOR THE EVALUATION IS EXTREMELY LIMITED.

HOWEVER, IN NO EVENT DO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PHASE OF THE PROCESS SHOULD GO BEYOND THREE MONTHS FOR COMPLETION.
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF ICANN, WE HAVE ALL WITNESSED MORE DEADLINES MISSED THAN KEPT.

THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD ISSUE A MANDATE THE NEW STLDS BE COMPLETED BEFORE KUALA LUMPUR.

WE ASK THE BOARD TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY OVER THIS MATTER AND THANK YOU FOR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST MADE ON BEHALF OF THE GLOBAL TRAVEL AND TOURISM CONSTITUENCY AND OTHER STLD APPLICANTS THAT MAY APPLY IN THIS ROUND.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RON.

I SUSPECT YOU SPEAK FOR MORE THAN ONE PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN MAKING THIS PROGRESS AS SWIFT AS POSSIBLE.

PAUL, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU, RON.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION AND HEAR IT.
WE SHALL HAVE YOUR DIALOGUE POSTED TO THE STLD QUESTION SITE AND WILL ENSURE THAT THERE IS AN ANSWER DELIVERED IN A FULLY OPEN, PUBLIC WAY.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
IS THERE -- MARILYN, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE --

>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK THERE IS A CLARIFICATION?

>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE A -- ELANA.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: SORRY, NOT TO BELABOR THIS, AND MIKE, I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENT.
THE CONSTITUENCY'S REPORT WAS MEANT TO BE THE ENTIRE REPORT OF THE DAY.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE NUMBERS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW MISSTATED THEM A NUMBER OF TIMES.

IT WAS A COMPLETELY INFORMAL POLL OF THOSE IN THE ROOM, BUT IT WAS 19 IN SUPPORT, 7 ABSTAINING, AND 3 AGAINST THE STATEMENT.
SO I JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ELANA.

I'D LIKE TO JUST SUGGEST FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE SOME CARE WITH ALMOST ANY NUMBERS THAT WE GENERATE ALONG THESE LINES, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE IS HERE TO PARTICIPATE, AND THERE OFTEN ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES WHO AREN'T ACTIVELY ABLE TO ENGAGE IN AN INFORMAL EXCHANGE.

THIS BY NO MEANS SUGGESTS YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE STRAW POLLS AND DISCUSS AND REPORT.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE VARIOUS NUMBERS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THIS BROADER UNDERSTANDING.

MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.
I AM SPEAKING AS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT I AM BOTH GOING TO GIVE A SPEECH AND THAT IT IS BASED ON ANALYSIS.

I AM GOING TO COVER THREE POINTS.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THE BC POSITION, WHICH WE HAVE STATED BEFORE, IN RELATION TO THE SMALL, INTERIM ROUND OF NEW GTLDS.

THE BC MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT OUR SUPPORT WAS BASED ON ENSURING THAT THAT ROUND WOULD BE SPONSORED GTLDS, AND WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THAT CONCERN HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD AND THE PROCEDURE AS IT GOES FORWARD.

WE ALSO, HOWEVER, MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE FELT THAT IT MUST HAPPEN IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THAT IT MUST BE POSSIBLE TO INCORPORATE THE LEARNING FROM THE INTRODUCTORY PROCESS BEFORE WE MOVE INTO ESTABLISHING A BROADER POLICY PROCESS.

WE DO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE TO SHORTEN THAT TIME FRAME.
AND WE URGE YOU TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT HOW BEST TO DO THAT.
LET ME ADDRESS THE POSITION OF THE BC OFTEN SITE FINDER.
AND I OFFER THIS COMMENT BECAUSE WE ARE CONCERNED THAT ACTIONS MAY OCCUR BEFORE WE MEET WITH YOU AGAIN.

WE WERE DEEPLY CONCERNED, AS BUSINESS USERS, ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF WILD CARDS IN DOMINANT ZONES.
WE PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PROCESSES.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE REPORT AS PREPARED BY THE SSAC.
WE WILL STUDY IT CAREFULLY.

WE INTEND TO ASK FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY AND URGE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO FOCUS IMMEDIATELY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT REPORT.
WE BELIEVE NEW SERVICES MUST ALL BE REVIEWED IN SOME WAY BEFORE THEY ARE INTRODUCED.
AND SINCE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS NOW BEING WORKED ON BY THE COUNCIL IS UNLIKELY TO BE COMPLETED, PERHAPS, IN A SHORT ENOUGH TIME FRAME, WE URGE THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND OUR VIEW IS THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH A SERVICE MAY NEED TO BE REVIEWED AS A SEPARATE ITEM BEFORE THE POLICY IS AVAILABLE.

NOW I MUST TURN TO A SHORT PERSONAL COMMENT.
AND I KNOW YOU'LL UNDERSTAND BEFORE I GO ON TO MY THIRD POINT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO MAKE THIS PERSONAL COMMENT.
I LISTENED TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE YESTERDAY ABOUT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS ABOUT WHOIS.

AND I NOTED THAT IT WAS PRESENTED IN PERHAPS A BIT MORE SIMPLISTIC FASHION THAN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH.
BUT BEFORE I MAKE THAT POINT, I MUST OFFER MY PERSONAL COMMENT.

I COULD NOT SLEEP LAST NIGHT.

A CEO OF A CORPORATION CAME TO THE MICROPHONE AND SHARED WITH US TWO SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

HE IS BOTH A RECOVERING MONOPOLIST AND A RECOVERING ATTORNEY.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>MARILYN CADE: COMING FROM, PERHAPS, THE WORLD'S MOST RECOVERED MONOPOLIST, --

(LAUGHTER.)

>>MARILYN CADE: -- I HAVE, AS I BRUSHED MY TEETH THIS MORNING, AN INSIGHT THAT I CAN SHARE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S HELP FOR THAT PROBLEM.
IT'S CALLED ROBUST COMPETITION.

BUT I WENT OUT ON THE WEB THIS MORNING, AND I FIND THERE APPARENTLY IS NO TREATMENT THAT CAN HELP RECOVERING ATTORNEYS.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>MARILYN CADE: NOW TO MY POINT ABOUT WHOIS.

FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S POINT OF VIEW, THERE'S A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS UNDERWAY.
THERE ARE NO BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES HERE.
THEY ARE COMPLEX.

WE ARE STUDYING THEM WITHIN THE TASK FORCES AND THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE THEM UP AND LOOK HARD AT THEM.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IZUMI.

THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: IF I COULD JUMP THE QUEUE, I WOULD LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON ONE THING TIM RUIZ SAID.

HE WAS RESPONDING TO MY STATEMENT FROM YESTERDAY EVENING.
AND IF MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT I SAID IS RIGHT, AND IF I SAID WHAT I WANTED TO SAY, THERE WAS THE ADJECTIVE "IMPLEMENTED" IN THERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELETES POLICY.

>>VINT CERF: I HOPE WE ALL GOT THE CONTEXT OF THAT.

(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: NEXT SPEAKER.
HOW MANY MORE SPEAKERS DO WE NOW HAVE, PLEASE?

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.
OKAY.
WE'LL CUT IT OFF AT FOUR.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>BILL MUSHKIN: MY NAME IS BILL MUSHKIN, I'M WITH SPOT DOMAIN LLC.
WE'RE A SMALL, SMALLER REGISTRAR.

I'M THE HEAD OF SPOT DOMAIN AND ALSO QUITE A FEW OF ITS BODY PARTS.
WE'RE ABOUT SIX PEOPLE TOTAL.

I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DO SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE WLS DEBATE.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE DEFINITELY FOR THE WLS IMPLEMENTATION, AND IN SOME SENSE, IT WOULD MAKE MY BUSINESS EASIER.

WE HAVE ABOUT 45,000 DOMAINS UNDER MANAGEMENT.
AND SO ALTHOUGH WE'RE SMALL, WE'RE GROWING.

THERE'S QUITE A FEW PLAYERS THAT ARE MUCH, MUCH SMALLER THAN US IN THE MARKETPLACE.
AND MY GUESS IS IS THAT WITH THE WLS IMPLEMENTATION, WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF QUITE A FEW OF THOSE PLAYERS.

THEREFORE, IN THAT SENSE, IN MY NICE, ANTICOMPETITIVE SENSE, I AM FOR WLS.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, THOUGH, IS, OF COURSE, IN THE SHORT TERM, THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES PROVIDE US A REASONABLE REVENUE STREAM THAT WE THINK WILL BE LOST.

AS PART OF A PRETTY SMALL REGISTRAR, I HAVE A REAL GOOD FEEL FOR THE CUSTOMERS.
IN FACT, I ANSWER ABOUT ONE OF EVERY FOUR OR FIVE CALLS THAT COME IN.

UNLIKE SOME OF THE LARGER REGISTRARS, WE DO HAVE AN 800 NUMBER, SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GET AHOLD OF US, WHICH I THINK IS INTERESTING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CUSTOMER SERVICE.
SO WHAT DO OUR CUSTOMERS WANT?
IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

I DON'T THINK THE REGISTRAR GAME IS REALLY VERY DIFFICULT AT ALL.
THEY WANT GREAT SERVICE, THEY WANT BETTER PRICING THAN ANYBODY CAN PROVIDE, THEY WANT INNOVATION, AND THEY WANT CHOICE.

THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO SIMILAR THINGS IN MANY DIFFERENT FASHIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT IS WHY THE MONOPOLY WAS LIFTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

NOW, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, AND THEN I'LL TRY AND WRAP UP QUICKLY.
BUT SOME EXAMPLES OF A WLS WORLD, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU PUT IT IN REAL TERMS, IT'S FAIRLY INTERESTING.
SO IMAGINE I TAKE A TAXI EVERY DAY FROM MY HOTEL IN DOWNTOWN ROME HERE.
AND USUALLY WHAT I DO IS I JUST TELL THE PERSON AT THE DESK, "I'D LIKE A TAXI."
THEY GIVE ME A TICKET.
I GO OUT.
THE TAXI ARRIVES.
BUT IN MY IMAGINARY LIFE, I WENT OUT ON THE STREET.
THERE WERE FIVE OF US LOOKING FOR A TAXI.
BEFORE THE WOMAN GOT OUT, I GOT IN.
THE OTHER FOUR PEOPLE KNOCKED ON THE CAR.
THEY DIDN'T GET IN.
HE PUSHED THE BUTTON, THE TAXI DRIVER, AND IT WAS 80 EUROS FOR ME GETTING IN.
NOW, THE TAXI RIDE WAS GOING TO COST $20.
BUT THIS WAS, HE SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN THE ICANN CONFERENCE, THIS IS OUR NEW WLS SERVICE HERE IN ROME.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>BILL MUSHKIN: SO I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THE TRUTH OF IT IS, THOUGH, I NEED TO GET THERE.
SO, FINE, HERE'S MY 100 EUROS.

I ORIGINALLY GOT A HOTEL NEAR THE TERMINAL, THE TERMINAL STATION, WHICH THEY SAY IS KIND OF A SEEDY AREA OF TOWN.
SO I'M KIND OF THINKING, YOU KNOW, IF WLS GETS PASSED, THE TRUTH OF IT IS I'M GOING TO HAVE LESS MONEY AND, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET TO COME TO AS MANY OF THESE CONFERENCES.

SO I WENT TO ONE OF THE REALLY FANCY HOTELS DOWN THE BLOCK, AND, YOU KNOW, I SAID THIS IS GREAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ROOMS?

AND HE SAID, NO, I DON'T, MR. MUSHKIN, BUT I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO PUT YOU ON OUR WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.
CAN I HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD?

SURE, YOU WANT IT JUST IN CASE I GET A ROOM?

NO, SIR, WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE YOU $1600 FOR TOMORROW'S NIGHT STAY IN CASE YOU GET IT.
SO YOU'LL BE CHARGED $1600, BUT, THEN AGAIN, IF 107 DOESN'T EMPTY UP FOR YOU, I'M SORRY, YOU WON'T GET A ROOM.

THESE ARE ABSURD, THEY'RE ODD.

SO I SAID TO MYSELF, WELL, WHAT KIND OF SITUATION WOULD I LIKE, YOU KNOW?
AND I MIGHT SEE MYSELF PAYING THE $1600 AS A LAST FLING.

SO MY WIFE CALLED ME AND SAID, YOU KNOW, BILL, SOMEBODY'S JUST GIVEN US -- SAID WE'LL PAY YOU $2.4 MILLION FOR THE RIGHT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE IN THE NEXT YEAR.

I SAID, "HONEY, MY HOUSE IS ONLY WORTH $600,000."

SHE SAID, "I KNOW, BUT IT'S THE WAY IT WORKS."

SO I THOUGHT, OKAY, I LOVE WLS IN THIS SCENARIO; RIGHT?
BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH ALL THREE OF THESE.

AS ABSURD AS THESE EXAMPLES ARE, THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THEM.

THE PERSON WHO IS RECEIVING THE MONEY IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN THESE THREE EXAMPLES.
IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
WE DON'T DO THIS IN REAL LIFE.
WE DON'T ALLOW IT.
WE HAVE OTHER SYSTEMS THAT WORK.
BUT WE CERTAINLY DON'T DO SOMETHING WHERE WE GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE THE MONEY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

AND I THINK THAT, IN ITSELF, IS A VERY DIFFICULT AND FINAL ISSUE WITH THIS PROBLEM.

SO IN CLOSING, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO BE LIKE THE OTHER GUYS.

YOU KNOW, I URGE COMPETITION, INNOVATION, AND I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD VOTE, REALLY, FOR THE CONSUMERS, BECAUSE THE SPECULATORS ARE GOING TO BE IN THE MARKET EITHER WAY.

THANK YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

NEXT.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CHUCK GOMES FROM VERISIGN.

>>VINT CERF: SORRY.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OR A COMMENT.
PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.

I WONDER IF I CAN MAKE A REQUEST OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE ROOM AT LEAST.
I WOULD APPRECIATE -- WE HEARD YESTERDAY CERTAIN MARKET FIGURES AND DISTRIBUTIONS FROM ONE REGISTRAR, WE'VE HEARD SOME REFERENCE TO IT FROM ANOTHER REGISTRAR TODAY.

I WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING FROM, POTENTIALLY, TIM OR ANOTHER REGISTRAR PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN THE MARKET -- I HAVEN'T FINISHED -- PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE MARKET.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE MARKET THEY PRESENTLY SERVE, WHO THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE, WHAT THEY FEEL THEIR NEEDS ARE, WHAT SORT OF THINGS THEY SERVE.

I HAVE A CAVEAT ON IT.

I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE WHO IS SUING US.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT THAT ON RECORD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
PLEASE GO AHEAD, CHUCK.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY.
IN AUGUST 2001, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, WE TEMPORARILY DELETED -- STOPPED DELETIONS OF DOMAIN NAMES BECAUSE WE COULDN'T PROVIDE EQUIVALENT ACCESS.

SEPTEMBER, THEN, IN MONTEVIDEO, I MADE PRESENTATIONS TO THE THEN-EXISTING BOARD AS WELL AS THE DNSO NAMES COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WITH REGARD TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE ENCOUNTERED.

AND I ALSO -- WE ALSO AT THAT TIME, AS A GROUP, FORMED A DELETIONS -- A DELETED NAMES GROUP.
THAT GROUP WORKED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
IT WAS OUT OF THAT WORK THAT ONE IDEA THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ULTIMATELY WHAT WE CALL THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.

NOW, FROM THE INCEPTION OF THAT CONCEPT, THERE HAVE BEEN STRONGLY DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW.
AS YOU CAN TELL, THAT HASN'T CHANGED TODAY.
BACK THEN, I SAID THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY FIND OUT IS TO LET THE MARKET SHOW US.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TOMORROW ON YOUR AGENDA.
WITH DUE RESPECT TO ALL THE SPEAKERS, AND I DO SINCERELY RESPECT ALL OF THE SPEAKERS YESTERDAY AND TODAY ON THIS ISSUE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW KEY POINTS AND ASK SOME QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME CORRECT WHAT I BELIEVE IS A MISCONCEPTION.
WLS WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO SOLVE THE INADVERTENT NAME DELETION PROBLEM.
RGP WAS.

WLS WAS DESIGNED TO AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME RELIEF TO US GETTING HAMMERED IN A VERY INEFFICIENT WAY ON OUR SYSTEMS FOR PEOPLE GOING AFTER DELETED NAMES.
WE NEVER CLAIMED THAT IT SOLVED THE TOTAL PROBLEM, BUT WE DO BELIEVE IT WOULD HELP.
WE IMPLEMENTED A BATCH POOL IN AUGUST OF 2001.

THAT WAS PUT FORWARD AS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION.
THAT WAS OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
THE BATCH POOL IS NOT ONLY EXPENSIVE, BUT EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT, HAVING DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION RATIOS AS POOR AS 500,000 TRANSACTION PER ONE $6 AD.

SOME KEY QUESTIONS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ASKED HERE.
DOES WLS BENEFIT CONSUMERS?
YOU'VE HEARD VARIOUS PEOPLE ARGUE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.

I THINK THE ONLY WAY WE'LL KNOW IS TO LET THE MARKET TEST IT.
IS THE WLS EFFICACY A BETTER CONSUMER EXPERIENCE THAN CURRENT OFFERINGS, WHERE, BECAUSE OF OUR EXCLUSIVE POSITION, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE WLS SUBSCRIBE GETS THE REGISTRATION IF IT IS DELETED.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN THE OTHER OFFERINGS TODAY.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE REGISTRY TO OFFER A SERVICE LIKE THIS.
CAN THE AVERAGE CONSUMER SUCCESSFULLY COMPETE IN EXPENSIVE AUCTION MODELS?
IS WLS FOR EVERYONE?
I'LL ANSWER THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT IS.
NOT EVERYBODY WANTS IT.
THAT'S OKAY.

DOES WLS FAVOR SOME REGISTRARS OVER OTHERS?

YOU KNOW, IT'S OPEN TO EVERY REGISTRAR, AND WE WILL PROVIDE EQUIVALENT ACCESS, JUST LIKE WE DO IN OUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM, FOR ALL REGISTRARS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE.

WILL WLS ELIMINATE COMPETITION?

I THINK IT PROVIDES COMPETITION AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SELL ANY WLS REGISTRATIONS.
REGISTRARS ARE.

THEY WILL BE COMPETING WITH WHATEVER VALUE THEY WANT TO ADD TO THE WLS OFFERING AT WHATEVER PRICE THEY CHOOSE TO OFFER AND WHATEVER VALUE THEY WANT TO GET FROM THAT SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE.

IS WLS BEING FORCED ON REGISTRARS OR CONSUMERS?

NO.
IT'S A FREE CHOICE.
WILL LARGER REGISTRARS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER SMALLER REGISTRARS.
WE'RE OFFERING IT ON A FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS.
THEY ALL WILL HAVE ACCESS INTO THE SYSTEMS IF THEY ELECT TO PARTICIPATE.

ANOTHER QUESTION WE THINK IS IMPORTANT TO ASK AND MAYBE THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, PAUL, IS WHO ARE THE PRIMARY CUSTOMERS OF THESE CURRENT OFFERINGS WHY IS IT THAT AUCTION PRICES ARE BEING DRIVEN UP TO VERY HIGH PRICES.
I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THAT ONE ON YOUR OWN.

HAS THE LANDSCAPE CHANGED?
YEAH, IT HAS, BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE DELAYS, TWO AND A HALF YEARS' WORTH OF DELAYS.
ARE THE BUSINESSES THAT MAY BE HURT BY WLS BUSINESSES THAT ARE ADDING VALUE TO THE DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY.

AND I THINK THERE'S A MIXED ANSWER THERE.
I DO SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE DOING NOTHING MORE THAN SELLING CONNECTIONS THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR TO PROVIDE, AND THAT'S ALL.
SHOULD VERISIGN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE EXPENSIVE BATCH POOL WITHOUT ADEQUATE MEANS TO RECOVER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF COSTS?

IS WLS MISLEADING TO CONSUMERS?

WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTERFACE WITH THE CONSUMERS.

I WOULD HOPE THAT REGISTRARS WHO ELECT TO OFFER WLS WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT MISLEADING.
WE CERTAINLY WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE UP-FRONT THAT IT'S NOT A GUARANTY; THE NAME MAY NOT BE DELETED; AND SO FORTH.

BUT, CERTAINLY, IT'S IN THE REGISTRAR'S HANDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN HONEST PORTRAYAL OF THE SERVICE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.

NOW, IS VERISIGN TRYING TO TRICK CONSUMERS? ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD.
AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE NO CONSUMER CONTACT ON THIS.

AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT REGISTRARS WHO DO HAVE THE CUSTOMER CONTACT WOULD BE VERY UP-FRONT IN TERMS OF THE WAY THEY MARKET IT AND SELL IT.
IN CONCLUSION, TO BEST ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, LET'S LET THE MARKET ANSWER THEM.

IN THE MEAN TIME, LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO EXPLORE NEW AND BETTER WAYS TO MEET THE DEMANDS FOR EXPIRED DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS.
THIS SOLUTION MAY NOT BE PERFECT.

IN THE COMING MONTHS, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T IMPROVE UPON IT AND ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE INDUSTRY EVEN BETTER THAN THIS SOLUTION DOES.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, CHUCK.

PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: CHUCK, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
CHUCK, CAN YOU JUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO.

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, THE FIRST THING I WAS ASKING WAS THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THESE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: HANG ON A SECOND, BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: IF YOU NEED THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL BEFORE ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONSULT.

>>CHUCK GOMES: COUNSEL IS PROBABLY SLEEPING RIGHT NOW.

BUT, YEAH, THE -- MY UNDERSTANDING, PAUL, IS THAT THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA FOR TOMORROW, AND A DECISION WILL BE MADE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS FRAMED, SO I CAN'T REALLY RESPOND TO THAT.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE POINTS I JUST MADE -- I HOPE THAT THE POINTS I JUST MADE WOULD BE USEFUL IN WHATEVER DECISION IS ON YOUR AGENDA TO MAKE.

>>VINT CERF: YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>JEFF FIELD: MY NAME IS JEFF FIELD, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION BUSINESS SINCE 1995, AND PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST ONES IN THAT BUSINESS.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT WLS.

I'M CURRENTLY OPERATING A REGISTRAR THAT PARTICIPATES IN THE BACK-ORDER MARKET.
BUT MY HISTORY GOES BACK TO 1995.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY THAT I'VE BEEN WITNESS TO.

WHEN I STARTED, DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION WAS FREE, AND THERE WERE NO PAYMENTS OF ANY KIND, NO INVOICES.
WHEN INTERNIC -- INTERNIC WAS ACTUALLY THE ORGANIZATION THAT NETWORK SOLUTIONS BACK-ENDED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS -- WHEN THEY STARTED CHARGING FOR REGISTRATIONS, THEY SENT OUT INVOICES THAT SAID "INTERNIC" ON THEM.

AND OVER THE COURSE OF SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR, POSSIBLY A YEAR LATER AFTER THAT, THEY STARTED PUTTING ON THE "NETWORK SOLUTIONS" LOGO AND BRANDING THEIR OWN COMPANY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE STILL BACK-ENDING THE INTERNIC COMPANY.

I CAN REMEMBER BEING AT A CONFERENCE THAT NETWORK SOLUTIONS HELD IN VIRGINIA FOR INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS WHERE A SPOKESMAN FROM NETWORK SOLUTIONS STOOD UP IN FRONT OF ABOUT 200 PEOPLE AND SAID "NETWORK SOLUTIONS WILL NEVER GET INTO THE REGISTRAR SIDE OF THE BUSINESS.
WE WANT TO BE YOUR PARTNER.
WE'RE NOT YOUR COMPETITOR."

I REMEMBER WHEN NETWORK SOLUTIONS HIJACKED THE INTERNIC WEB SITE.

THE INTERNIC WEB SITE WAS THE SITE THAT EVERYBODY HAD TO GO TO TO REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME AT THAT TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO COMPETITION IN THIS BUSINESS.

AND BY HIJACKED, I MEAN THAT PEOPLE USED TO GO TO THE INTERNIC SITE AND IT SAID "INTERNIC," AND THERE WAS A FORMAT FOR REGISTERING A DOMAIN NAME.

AND ONE DAY, THAT FORMAT CHANGED AND IT REDIRECTED ALL TRAFFIC TO THE NETWORK SOLUTIONS REGISTRAR.
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE JUST STOOD BY AND DID NOTHING.
AND IT WAS -- IT REMAINED THAT WAY FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS, I BELIEVE, UNTIL THE TIME THAT COMPETITION WAS BROUGHT IN BY THE FIRST MAJOR DECISION OF THE ICANN BOARD, IN NOVEMBER OF 1999.

THAT WAS THE LAST TIME I SPOKE AT ANY ONE OF THESE MEETINGS.
I DO NOT LIKE TO DO THIS.
I AM NOT COMFORTABLE DOING THIS.
IT'S NOT THAT I HAVEN'T HAD OPINIONS ALONG THE WAY.
BUT THIS IS NOT MY THING.

ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE DATABASE WAS SPLIT UP THE WAY THAT IT WAS, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT AT THE TIME, WHICH I CONSIDERED TO BE THE INTERNIC DATABASE, WAS THAT THERE WERE THREATS OF NETWORK SOLUTIONS TAKING THAT DATABASE AND MORE OR LESS CREATING THEIR OWN INTERNET, THAT THEY WERE HOLDING THE DOT-COM, DOT NET, DOT ORG DATABASE HOSTAGE, AND THREATS OF LAWSUITS.

AND SO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, ICANN WAS FORMED AND THE FIRST MAJOR DECISION WAS HOW TO SPLIT UP THAT DATABASE.
I WAS THERE WHEN THEY AGREED TO THAT SPLIT, AND I WAS THERE WHEN THEY AGREED TO SPLIT THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR SIDE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE NOVEMBER 1999 MEETING IN L.A. AND I WAS ALSO IN MELBOURNE WHEN THEY SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED TO KEEP BOTH SIDES OF THAT BUSINESS, A BUSINESS THAT, UNDER CONTRACT, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SPLIT UP.

AND I WAS THERE WHEN THEY DESTABILIZED THE ENTIRE INTERNET WITH THE SITE FINDER SERVICE AND DID NOT TAKE IT DOWN UNTIL FORCED TO TAKE IT DOWN THROUGH THREAT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH ICANN, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE KNEW RIGHT AWAY THAT IT WAS CREATING PROBLEMS.

AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I SEE A TREND HERE.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>JEFF FIELD: VERISIGN IS A BULLY IN THE SCHOOL YARD.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.
AND THEY'VE KEPT THIS BOARD, THIS ICANN ORGANIZATION, UNDER ITS THUMB IN A LOT OF WAYS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS BOARD CAN MOVE -- THAT ICANN CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT -- I HATE TO SAY IT -- PUNCHING THE BULLY IN THE NOSE.

IT'S THROUGH THAT THAT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, I THINK, WOULD SHOW THAT BULLIES WOULD THEN GAIN RESPECT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT VERISIGN HAS SHOWN RESPECT FOR ICANN, THE ICANN PROCESS, COMPETITORS.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE A COUPLE OF BACKGROUND FACTS ON WLS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

WLS IS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CURRENT SYSTEMS, THROUGH THE CURRENT RRP SYSTEMS THAT ALL REGISTRARS CURRENTLY CONNECT TO THE REGISTRY WITH.

REGISTRARS WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN WLS SUBSCRIPTIONS THROUGH VERISIGN'S NAME STORE.
REGISTRARS OFFERING WLS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN NEW LEGAL DOCUMENTS WITH THE NAME STORE.

THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE NEW SYSTEMS, AN EPP SYSTEM VERSUS AN RP SYSTEM. AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE NEW FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE NAME STORE, PUT UP MORE MONEY IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT, THE NAME STORE ACCOUNT.

THEY WILL HAVE TO INTEGRATE WITH THE NAME STORE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE AN INVESTMENT OF TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT EQUAL TO -- EQUAL TO THE TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT REQUIRED TO SET UP ORIGINALLY WITH THE RRP SYSTEM.

THE WLS CREATES A TWO-TIER REGISTRAR MODEL IN THAT REGISTRARS THAT PARTICIPATE IN WLS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO TWO POOLS OF REGISTERABLE DOMAINS.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY "REGISTERABLE DOMAIN" IS THAT PRE-WLS, A REGISTERABLE DOMAIN IS ANY NAME THAT IS NOT REGISTERED OR SET ASIDE.

POST-WLS, IT MEANS THAT SAME POOL, BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT REGISTRATIONS CAN ULTIMATELY COME FROM THE POOL OF DOMAINS THAT ARE ALREADY REGISTERED FOR WHICH A SUBSCRIPTION IS TAKEN OUT ON.

THOSE NAMES THAT A SUBSCRIPTION IS TAKEN OUT ON DON'T GO BACK INTO THE UNREGISTERED DOMAINS POOL; THEY GO DIRECTLY FROM THE SUBSCRIPTION POOL BACK INTO BEING A REGISTERED DOMAIN NAME.
AND THEN AVAILABLE AGAIN FOR ANOTHER SUBSCRIPTION. AND THIS PROCESS CAN GO BACK AND FORTH.
AND THOSE NAMES THAT ARE SUBSCRIBED MAY NEVER AGAIN BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE REGISTRANTS WHO DON'T PARTICIPATE IN WLS.

LOWER PRICING OF WLS -- AND THIS IS A FEAR OF ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED, HAS NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED, BUT THE ACTUAL LOWER PRICING OF WLS, IF IT'S BELOW $24, ACTUALLY MAKES THINGS WORSE, BECAUSE IT WILL TRANSLATE INTO A HIGHER NUMBER OF DOMAINS THAT WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE REGISTRARS THAT DON'T PARTICIPATE IN WLS.

IF YOU CAN JUST IMAGINE A PENNY PER SUBSCRIPTION, YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THE ENTIRE 30 MILLION NAMES WOULD PROBABLY BE SUBSCRIBED FOR $300,000.

AND THOSE 30 MILLION NAMES WILL NEVER AGAIN BE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS OF REGISTRARS THAT DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN WLS.

THE POLICY OF EQUAL ACCESS, FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED, IS PRESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE REGISTRARS THAT DO PARTICIPATE IN WLS.
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU CAN'T HAVE ACCESS TO A DOMAIN NAME, THERE IS NO FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED POLICY.

THERE'S A TRADEOFF THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU'RE A MONOPOLY AND IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, CONTRACTUAL SITUATION.
THE TRADEOFF IS THAT IF YOU'RE A MONOPOLY, YOU GET TO CHARGE A PRICE, A COST, AND THEN BUILD IN A PROFIT.

YOU ARE GUARANTEED NOT 100%, BUT VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO BE IN BUSINESS, WHEREAS THE REGISTRARS ARE OUT THERE FIGHTING FACE -- NOT FACE TO FACE, BUT FIGHTING, COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND BATTLING FOR PROFITS.

THE TRADEOFF IS THAT THE REGISTRY DOES NOT GO INTO COMPETITION WITH THE BUSINESS THAT THE REGISTRARS ARE IN.
AND IN RETURN FOR THAT, THEY HAVE THIS COST, PLUS GUARANTEED PROFIT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IS THAT THIS REALLY BOILS DOWN TO A CONTRACTUAL ISSUE, THAT NONE OF THIS STUFF THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE MATTERS, THAT IT'S REALLY A CONTRACTUAL ISSUE, AND THAT THAT'S WHAT THE DECISION WOULD BE BASED ON.

BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE CONTRACTS INVOLVED HERE WHICH I THINK FORM A COMPLETE CONTRACT.
THIS IS NOT ONLY THE REGISTRY/ICANN CONTRACT, BUT THERE'S THE REGISTRY/ICANN CONTRACT, THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR CONTRACT, AND THE ICANN/REGISTRAR CONTRACT.

AND THE COMBINATION OF THOSE THREE CONTRACTS, THE INTENT OF THEM, I BELIEVE, IS TO GUARANTY ALL REGISTRARS FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED EQUAL ACCESS.
AND THIS WAS A BASIC TENET OF JON POSTEL.
AND HE WAS PROBABLY THE GREATEST PROPONENT OF IT.
AND I WOULD JUST IMPLORE THIS BOARD WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT THIS, WHEN YOU GO OFF TO YOUR DELIBERATIONS TODAY, WHEN YOUR HEAD HITS THE PILLOW, TO THINK ABOUT JON POSTEL AND WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS WAS.
AND I THINK IF YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER.

VINT, I KNOW YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT JON POSTEL IN TESTIMONIALS, RFC TESTIMONY -- MEMORIALS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS YOU ALWAYS MENTIONED IN THERE WAS, WHEN YOU COME TO A DECISION -- AND THIS IS A BIG DECISION, IT'S A MULTI-MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DECISION -- WHAT WOULD JON DO?

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT EACH ONE OF YOU WOULD ASK, WHAT WOULD JON DO WHEN YOU COME TO THIS DECISION.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: HOW MANY MORE SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE NOW?

TWO. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER -- I CAN'T TELL THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A QUEUE ANYMORE. IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A CROWD, BUT, PLEASE.

>>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: THANK YOU. I WILL NOT SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT WAITING TOO LONG FOR YOUR SANDWICH, BECAUSE I THINK YOU HEARD ABOUT QUITE A LOT.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT A MEETING WE ARE ORGANIZING IN PARIS THE 1ST OF JULY. IT WILL BE THE THIRD TIME WE ARE ORGANIZING THIS EUROPEAN SUMMIT AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT WE WILL TRY TO ELABORATE.

WE HAVE THE GOAL TO HAVE TWO PLENARY SESSION AND A WORKSHOP WORKING. THE FIRST PLENARY SESSION WILL BE ABOUT THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FROM GENEVA TO TUNIS, AND THE WORKSHOP WILL BE ONE WITH INTERNET GOVERNANCE BUT FOCUSED ON THE EUROPEAN USERS, BOTH INDIVIDUAL USERS AND BUSINESS USERS.

THE SECOND ONE WILL BE ABOUT STATUS QUO INNOVATION, AND YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT TODAY IN TODAY'S FORUM. THE SUBJECT WILL BE IDENTITY AND ELECTRONIC CONFIDENCE, AND THE FOURTH ONE WILL BE ABOUT PEER-TO-PEER, CORPORATION AND CONSUMPTION.

AND THE AFTERNOON WILL BE ABOUT REGULATION, DID WE NEED A REGULATION BY LAW OR ARE THERE OTHER TOOLS TO MAKE REGULATION IN THE INTERNET SPACE; MORE SPECIFICALLY N THE EUROPEAN SPACE. AND THE WORKSHOP WILL BE ABOUT EVOLUTION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE WITH (INAUDIBLE) TLDS, FUTURE TLDS, AND THE FUTURE WAY TO SELECT NEW TLDS AND SOME EVOLUTION IN THIS SPACE.

THE SIXTH WORKSHOP WILL BE ABOUT E-BUSINESS, THE SEVEN ABOUT MOBILITY AND CONVERGENCE AND THE EIGHTH ONE ABOUT BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE.

YOU ARE ALL INVITED AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTION, YOU CAN EITHER ASK KATHERINE OR MYSELF, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

>>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS, REGISTRAR OPERATOR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE REQUESTS THAT STAFF RECEIVES FOR DELEGATIONS AND REDELEGATIONS OF CCTLDS.

I MENTIONED YESTERDAY IN MY LITTLE PROJECT, WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT DOT IQ, WHICH IS ONLINE AND YOU'RE ALL INVITED TO TAKE A LOOK AT, WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT DOT IQ. I INVITE YOU TO SHARE WITH ME THE REQUESTS YOU GET FROM ARBITRARY PARTIES FOR REDELEGATION OF THAT PARTICULAR TLD SO THAT I CAN ADD TO WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT DOT IQ.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS FOR THE QUESTION, AND I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN WHICH YOU ASK IT.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED DOUBLE-DIGIT INQUIRIES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES CONCERNING THE DOT IQ SPACE. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO GIVE YOU DETAILS ABOUT THAT, AND THE -- ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT'S BEEN IMPORTANT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CCTLDS AND PARTICULARLY FOR REDELEGATION REQUESTS, HAS BEEN A PRINCIPLE OF SOME CONFIDENTIALITY FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH US. NOT WHEN THERE'S A DECISION. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN IT'S GONE THROUGH AND THERE'S A DECISION, IT'S PUBLIC PROCESS, BUT THE INITIAL COMMUNICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLIC. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DOUBLE-DIGIT INQUIRIES FROM GROUPS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST ONE.

>>RICK CHAMGERS: MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. PRESIDENT, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS RICK CHAMBERS, I'M A REGISTRAR BASED IN CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, HAS BEEN DOING BUSINESS AS DOMAINS TO BE SEEN FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT MY EMINENTLY MORE QUALIFIED COLLEAGUES HAVE ALREADY SAID, BUT I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY OFFER TWO POINTS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.

WHILE EXPERTS IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY RECOMMENDED AGAINST AND WITH DISREGARD FOR CONSEQUENCES TO THE DNS FROM THIS BOARD, VERISIGN IMPLEMENTED THEIR FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED SITE FINDER SYSTEM ANYWAY. ONLY AFTER THE ICANN MANAGEMENT INSISTED THAT VERISIGN RESTORE THE PREVIOUS 404 ERROR PAGE DID THEY STOP, WHILE INDICATING THAT THE DEIMPLEMENTATION WAS ONLY TEMPORARY.

LASTLY, WHILE WE CURRENTLY HAVE A ROBUST AND DIVERSE DNS IN PLACE WHICH INSPIRES PEOPLE TO CAPTURE DOMAIN NAMES, VERISIGN HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL TO REPLACE THIS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED DNS SYSTEM FROM THE ICANN MANAGEMENT.

WITH THESE TWO POINTS KEPT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER THE NECESSITY FOR ALLOWING VERISIGN TO REPLACE A WORKING WLS SYSTEM WITH THEIR OWN, WHEN YOU MAKE THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DECISION ON SATURDAY.

I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HEARD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DO I SEE ANY OTHER HANDS?

IN THAT CASE, I THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR STAMINA. I HOPE YOU -- IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE GOING ON THIS MUCH OVER TIME, LET ME KNOW AND I'LL TRY TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

WE WILL RECONVENE FOR THE BOARD MEETING TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 IN THIS ROOM.

(2:04 P.M.)

(APPLAUSE.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers