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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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

GNSO Registry Services PDP Meeting

Wednesday, 3 March 2004

8:00 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.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'D JUST LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THIS WORKSHOP ON THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR LOOKING AT CHANGES TO REGISTRY AGREEMENTS.

JUST TO PROVIDE A BIT OF BACKGROUND, THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THIS TASK FORCE OR COMMITTEE, BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO -- AND IF YOU HAVE A LOOK ON THE SCREEN, IT MAY BE A LITTLE HARD TO SEE WITH THE FONT SIZE OVER ON THE LEFT, BUT THIS IS AVAILABLE ON THE GNSO WEB SITE FOR THOSE THAT HAVE PCS OR ARE ONLINE.

BUT, BASICALLY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PROCEDURE FOR USE BY THE ICANN STAFF IN CONSIDERING REQUESTS FOR CONSENT OR CONTRACTUAL AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW CHANGES IN THE ARCHITECTURE OR OPERATION OF A GTLD REGISTRY.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENTS IS THAT ICANN DESIGNATES THE OPERATOR OF A TLD TO OPERATE THAT TLD, AND IN RETURN, THAT OPERATOR AGREES TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS.

AND SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CHANGES, THEY NEED TO SEEK APPROVAL.
NOW, IN THE PAST, THERE HASN'T BEEN A DEFINED PROCESS FOR HOW ICANN PROCESSES THOSE REQUESTS.
THERE HASN'T BEEN CLEAR CRITERIA, THERE HASN'T BEEN A CLEAR TIME LINE, A CLEAR SET OF STEPS. AND THIS HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR REGISTRY OPERATORS TO PROCEED WITH THEIR BUSINESSES, AND CERTAINLY FOR REGISTRARS AS WELL THAT ARE ON THE RECEIVING END, OFTEN, OF THESE CHANGES, AND, OF COURSE, THE ICANN COMMUNITY GENERALLY.

PERHAPS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF CHANGES RELATES TO REGISTRY SERVICES.
AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED A DEFINITION FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.
AND PART OF THE DIFFICULTY IS, THE DEFINITION VARIES DEPENDING ON THE GTLD AGREEMENT.

WHAT I WILL DO IS JUST DISPLAY A COUPLE OF THOSE DEFINITIONS FOR COMPARISON, AGAIN, UP ON THE LEFT SCREEN THERE.
THE DEFINITION OF A REGISTRY SERVICE WITHIN THE DOT-COM AND DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT STATES THAT REGISTRY SERVICE IS A SERVICE PROVIDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE REGISTRY TLD, INCLUDING THE SUBDOMAINS OF THAT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

AND THEN IT USES THE WORDS "THESE SERVICES INCLUDE RECEIPT OF DATA CONCERNING REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES AND NAME SERVERS, PROVISION OF STATUS INFORMATION, MANAGEMENT OF THE ZONE FILES, AND DISSEMINATION OF CONTENT INFORMATION."

AND THEN OTHER SERVICES AS REQUIRED BY ICANN THROUGH CONSENSUS POLICY.
SO THAT'S A FAIRLY SHORT DEFINITION.
I GUESS THE CRITICAL PART OF THAT DEFINITION IS PROBABLY THE FIRST SENTENCE, WHICH IS "SERVICES PROVIDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE REGISTRY."

IF WE THEN LOOK AT A DEFINITION THAT OCCURRED LATER, WHEN THE NEW TLDS WERE ESTABLISHED, THIS DEFINITION GOES INTO MORE DETAIL.
THE FIRST SENTENCE IS THE SAME, BUT THE NEXT SENTENCE IS PERHAPS THE MORE CRITICAL, WHICH SAYS, "IN DETERMINING WHETHER A SERVICE IS INTEGRAL TO THE OPERATION OF THE TLD, CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE REGISTRY OPERATOR HAS BEEN MATERIALLY ADVANTAGED IN PROVIDING THE SERVICE BY ITS DESIGNATION UNDER THAT AGREEMENT."

IT THEN STATES -- THIS IS ANOTHER SENTENCE THAT'S NEW -- "THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE SYSTEMS, FINANCIAL STRENGTH, SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AN ADVANTAGE ARISING FROM THE DESIGNATION."
AND THEN IT CONTINUES WITH THE SAME TEXT AS THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION, GIVING SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT REGISTRY SERVICES INCLUDE.

SO THOSE, BASICALLY, TWO DEFINITIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONTRACTS, AND I HAVE JUST EXTRACTED THOSE TO PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH SOME CONTEXT OF WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS.
SO IF WE COME BACK TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, CERTAINLY THE -- WHERE MOST OF THE FOCUS AND TIME THAT HAS BEEN SPENT BY ICANN IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS GENERALLY BEEN CHANGES PARTICULARLY FOR THE COM AND NET REGISTRY THAT, CERTAINLY ICANN HAS CONSIDERED TO BE REGISTRY SERVICES, BUT VERISIGN HAS CONSIDERED THEM NOT TO BE REGISTRY SERVICES.

SO RATHER THAN GET INTO A DEBATE ON THAT TOPIC, WE ARE PROCEEDING ON THE POLICY PROCESS, ASSUMING THAT ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE A DECISION IS BEING MADE AS TO WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT BEING COVERED BY THE CONTRACT; AND IF IT IS COVERED BY THE CONTRACT, WE ARE THEN WORKING ON A PROCESS FOR HOW THAT APPROVAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
SO TO TRY AND CONSTRAIN THE WORK OF THIS GROUP, WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE AGREEMENT OR THE CURRENT CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS BETWEEN ICANN AND ITS REGISTRY OPERATORS, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

SO THAT'S OUT OF SCOPE.
THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT ARE IN SCOPE ARE CONSIDERING WHETHER SOME CHANGES MAY BE QUITE SIMPLE AND HAVE QUITE CLEARLY NO IMPACT ON INTERNET USERS.
AND SO A RELATIVELY FAST PROCESS WOULD BE USEFUL TO MAKE THOSE -- TO GIVE THOSE APPROVALS.
AND SOME CHANGES MAY WELL, CERTAINLY AMONGST THE COMMUNITY, IT COULD BE THE SENSE THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL IMPACT FROM THE SERVICE, AND THEREFORE A MORE EXTENSIVE REVIEW WOULD BE REQUIRED.

SO THAT'S A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND WHAT I MIGHT DO NOW IS JUST BRIEFLY INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO COMMITTEE THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS PROCESS.

SO FIRST, ONCE AGAIN, MYSELF, MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN.
I AM CHAIR OF THE GNSO, AND I'M ALSO CHAIRING A COMMITTEE OF THE GNSO THAT IS LOOKING AT THIS APPROVAL PROCESS.
AND WE'LL PERHAPS JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE AND LET EACH PERSON INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND THE CONSTITUENCY THEY REPRESENT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M PHILIP SHEPPARD, WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M MARILYN CADE WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>ROSS RADER: I'M ROSS RADER WITH THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: THOMAS ROESSLER, LIAISON FOR THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>ALICK WILSON: I'M ALICK WILSON, A NON-COM APPOINTEE FROM NEW ZEALAND.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I AM AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL.
I AM SQUATTING HERE BECAUSE I AM NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE, IN FACT.
(LAUGHTER.)

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: GOOD MORNING.
KIYOSHI TSURU.
(NO AUDIO.)
KIYOSHI TSURU FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES FROM THE PCP.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: GRANT FORSYTH FROM BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THOMAS KELLER FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

NOW, IN TERMS OF THE -- I GUESS THE AGENDA OR THE PROCESS THAT I WISH TO FOLLOW FOR THIS SESSION IS, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH CONSTITUENCY TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT, NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES, ON THE MAIN, I GUESS, VIEWS THAT THE CONSTITUENCY HAD ON THIS APPROVAL PROCESS.

PART OF OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS THAT WE SEEK INPUT FROM EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY, AND THERE HAVE BEEN FORMAL CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON THE GNSO WEB SITE.

BUT JUST TO FRAME THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION, I WILL GIVE EACH CONSTITUENCY FIVE MINUTES EACH TO TOUCH THE MAIN POINTS OF THEIR POSITIONS.
THEN I WILL INVITE INPUT FROM THE FLOOR, FROM ANYONE IN THIS ROOM, ON ANY VIEWS THEY HAVE ON THE TOPIC, WHICH WE'LL ACCEPT AS PUBLIC INPUT, AND CERTAINLY ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT PROCESS THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND THEN I'LL PROCEED TO ACTUALLY USE SOME DIAGRAMS TO DERIVE SOME DISCUSSION WITHIN THE COMMITTEE AND TRY AND WORK OUT WHERE WE HAVE AGREEMENT AND WHERE CONSENSUS IS AND WORK OUT WHAT AREAS WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENT AND NEED TO DO FURTHER WORK.

SO FIRST, STARTING WITH THE CONSTITUENCIES, AND JUST ONE PERSON FROM EACH CONSTITUENCY WOULD BE PREFERABLE.
SO FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, WHO'D LIKE TO GIVE A FIVE-MINUTE OVERVIEW OF THE -- GRANT?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

FIRST, LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY WELCOMES THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS POLICY.

WE DO SEE THAT IT IS DESIRABLE TO HAVE A TRANSPARENT AND DETERMINED AND DETERMINISTIC PROCESS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF CHANGES TO A GTLD REGISTRY'S OPERATION.

AND WE NOTED IN OUR SUBMISSION THE FACT THAT FROM A BUSINESS COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE, THE PEOPLE, AS IT WERE, THAT ARE RIGHT ON THE FRINGE OF THE INTERNET, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE CORE OF THE INTERNET -- AND ONE OF THOSE CORES, I GUESS, IS THE REGISTRY SERVICE -- THAT THAT CORE, THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THAT CORE BE MAINTAINED.
AND SO WHERE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THAT CORE, SUCH CHANGES NEED TO BE INTRODUCED ONLY AFTER APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION.

AND THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, WE KNOW, ARE NOT JUST TECHNICAL, BUT ALSO THE IMPACT OF THOSE CHANGES ON THE MARKET FROM A COMPETITION POINT OF VIEW, AND, OBVIOUSLY, FROM A SERVICE POINT OF VIEW, AND HOW THOSE CHANGES MAY WELL AFFECT THE USERS AND THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES, AS I NOTE ON THE FRINGE OF THE INTERNET.
WE ALSO MAKE A POINT THAT WHILE THERE IS THE NEED ALWAYS TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER PROCESS IS INTRODUCED, THAT PROCESS IS NOT CONSTRAINING TO THE -- TO, I GUESS, THE NATURAL INTRODUCTION OF INNOVATIVE SERVICES TO THE INTERNET, WE WOULD NOTE THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE INTRODUCTION OF INNOVATIVE SERVICES IN THE INTERNET HAPPENS AT THE EDGE, NOT AT THE CORE.

AND OFTEN NEED NOT HAPPEN AT THE CORE, WHILE THAT MAY BE AN OPTION THAT'S USUALLY NOT THE PREFERRED OPTION.
SO THOSE OPENING COMMENTS ARE TO SET THE RATIONALE, AS IT WERE, AS TO WHY THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY IS KEEN TO WORK TO DEVELOP A CLEAR PROCESS.

LET ME THEN JUST GO TO THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S PROPOSAL.
AND WE HAVE MADE A SUBMISSION WHICH HAS ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED BY THE INITIAL STAFF REPORT AND WHICH MOST OTHER CONSTITUENCIES HAVE SIMILARLY DONE.
BUT IF I JUST WALK VERY QUICKLY THROUGH THAT.

AND FOR THOSE OF US ON THE COUNCIL HERE, I'VE DONE UP A BEAUTIFULLY HIEROGLYPHIC CHART, WHICH IS, I THINK, QUITE APPROPRIATE SEEING WE'RE IN ANCIENT ROME, SO I'LL NEED TO INTERPRET IT FOR YOU FOR SURE.
FIRSTLY, THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY CONSIDERS THAT ALL SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE REGISTRY SERVICE NEED TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL ACQUIESCENCE BY ICANN, THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THE NATURAL MONOPOLY NATURE OF A REGISTRY, THAT A PROPOSED CHANGE IS PROVIDED WITH SOME OVERSIGHT. AND WE'LL GET TO THE DEGREE OF THAT OVERSIGHT.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST POINT I WOULD NOTE, IS THAT ALL CHANGES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO -- ALL PROPOSED CHANGES SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO ICANN FOR REVIEW.

THE TYPE OF REVIEW, THE DEGREE OF REVIEW, OBVIOUSLY DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
AND IN OUR PROPOSAL, WE HAVE SUGGESTED TWO VARIANTS OF A QUICK REVIEW, DEPENDING UPON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CHANGE AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THAT CHANGE FITS CONTRACTS, ET CETERA.
AND WE'VE SUGGESTED THAT THOSE PROCESSES BE TIME-BOUND.

WE THINK IT'S DESIRABLE TO HAVE TIME-BOUND PROCESSES, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WILL BE OCCASIONS WHEN DEFINED TIME LIMITS CAN'T BE MET, AND WHERE THEY CANNOT BE MET, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THEY NEED TO BE EXPLICITLY -- THE REASONS FOR EXCEEDING A TIME PROCESS NEEDS TO BE EXPLICITLY REPORTED.
SO WE HAVE THREE REVIEW PROCESSES, TWO QUICK AND ONE LONGER POLICY CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS THE ONE, I GUESS, WE HERE ON THE COUNCIL ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH, WHERE A CHANGE WOULD COME TO COUNCIL AND GO THROUGH A COMMUNITY POLICY REVIEW PROCESS.

THE OUTCOME OF THAT -- OF ANY OF THOSE THREE DIFFERENT REVIEW PATHS, IF YOU WILL, IS, OBVIOUSLY, A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED CHANGE SHOULD PROCEED.
THE FIRST TWO ESSENTIALLY BEING IN THE HANDS OF THE ICANN STAFF AND ENGAGED EXPERTS.
AND WE MAKE THAT POINT QUITE STRONGLY.

IF, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT CONSIDERATION, THE DECISION IS THAT, YES, THE PROPOSED CHANGE SHOULD GO AHEAD, THEN THE REGISTRY IS GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT, SO TO SPEAK, BUT THE COMMUNITY IS ALSO GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO, AS IT WERE, APPEAL THAT DECISION.
AND I SAY "APPEAL."
THAT'S -- I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY TO CONSIDER THAT DECISION.

IF THE DECISION IS NO, THAT THE REGISTRY SERVICE AS PROPOSED SHOULD NOT GO AHEAD, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT AT THAT STAGE, A REPORT BE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRY RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED SERVICE SUCH THAT THE PROPOSED SERVICE COULD BE IMPLEMENTED, COULD GO AHEAD, AND THE REGISTRY WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPTION OF IMPLEMENTING THOSE CHANGES, AND HENCE GOING AHEAD WITH ITS PROPOSED CHANGE, OR IT, TOO, THE REGISTRY, WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR APPEAL.

AND IN THE CASE OF A QUICK CHECK, THERE'S REALLY TWO APPEAL PROCESSES AS WE SUGGEST, ONE BEING, AS IT WERE, AN EXPERT APPEAL PROCESS; THE OTHER BEING TO PUT THE PROPOSED CHANGE INTO THE ICANN COMMUNITY REVIEW PROCESS.
I THINK THAT REALLY IS ALL I NEED SAY ON OUR PROPOSAL AT THIS STAGE.
WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL.
WE THINK IT'S PRETTY DEFINITIVE IN ITS OBJECTIVES.
AND IN THE DETAIL WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR CLEAR REPORTING BACK.
AND ALSO WE TALK AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AT CERTAIN STAGES IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DECISION AND THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER A REGISTRY SERVICE IS GIVEN THE OKAY, THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE QUITE TRANSPARENT TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, GRANT.

PERHAPS IF THE ISPCS, TONY, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE GIVING A RESPONSE.

>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU, BRUCE, YES, I'LL GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF, AS TO WHERE THE ISPS SIT IN THIS.
I THINK THE OVERRIDING ISSUE FOR US AS ISPS IS THAT WE CLEARLY REALIZE THAT NO ENTITY FUNCTIONS ALONE IN THE DNS.
AND THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK FOR US IN THIS PROCESS.
WE ALSO FEEL THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANY PARTY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT A NEW SERVICE IS COMPLIANT.
AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FORM OF TRANSPARENT CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES.

WE DO SUPPORT THE QUICK-LOOK PROCESS AND CERTAINLY FEEL THAT ALL APPLICATIONS SHOULD GO THROUGH THAT.
SO WE'RE NOT A MILLION MILES AWAY FROM THE FLOWCHART THAT GRANT JUST REFERRED TO.
HOWEVER, WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH -- OF DATA WITH THAT PROPOSAL AND DON'T BELIEVE AT THE MOMENT THAT THERE'S ANY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT PART OF THE PROCESS ACTUALLY MEANS.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE STILL NEED TO WORK ON AS A TASK FORCE.

HAVING PUT THAT IN PLACE, THE ISSUE OF APPEALS IS ONE THAT WE ALSO SUPPORT, WHERE ANY PARTY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS.
SO I THINK, IN SUMMARY, THE STEPS THAT WE SEE TAKING PLACE ARE PROBABLY THE STEPS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IN THE FLOWCHART.

AND IT'S THE LEVEL OF DETAIL NOW RATHER THAN THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE SOME MEASURE OF CONCERN OVER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I NEED TO ADD AT THIS STAGE.
THANKS, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY.

FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, NIKLAS, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

WELL, THE IPC WAS VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT WE SAW IN THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF MANAGER'S REPORT IN NOVEMBER, WHICH, BASICALLY, EMPHASIZED WHAT SEEMED TO BE A NEED TO AVOID INCONSISTENT DECISIONS AND SOMETIMES -- OR SOMETIMES INEFFICIENT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DECISIONS TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY.
WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN OUR STATEMENT WAS BASICALLY TO OUTLINE WHAT A FORMALIZED PROCEDURE MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
AND MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE STATED IN OUR STATEMENT IS, OF COURSE, NOT NEW.

IT OFTEN REFLECTS CURRENT PRACTICES.
BUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THAT THE KEY THING IS, BASICALLY, TO GUARANTY EFFICIENCY, OPENNESS, AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WHICH IS NEEDED BY THE REGISTRY COMMUNITY IS IN PLACE.

SO THE SUGGESTIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE IPC REFLECT A THREE-TIERED PROCEDURE WHEREBY A REQUEST FROM A REGISTRY OPERATOR WOULD GO THROUGH AN INITIAL REVIEW FIRST.
THE IDEA IS HERE THAT THE -- THIS -- AN INITIAL REVIEW REPORT WOULD LOOK AT WHETHER THE REGISTRY REQUEST SHOULD GO AHEAD OR IF IT SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS.

AND TO MAKE THIS ASSESSMENT, WE THINK THE ISSUE REPORT SHOULD LOOK AT THREE BASIC QUESTIONS.
FIRST, THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE CURRENT REGISTRY CONTRACT; SECONDLY, THE NEED FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT; AND, THIRD, THE NEED FOR ICANN APPROVAL.
AND IF A "YES" WAS GIVEN TO QUESTION TWO OR THREE, THEN THE PROCEDURE WOULD IMMEDIATELY GO TO STAGE TWO.
AND THIS SECOND TIER, THE QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS, WOULD BASICALLY LOOK AT THREE QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, DOES THE CHANGE IMPLIED BY THE REQUEST HARM LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THIRD PARTIES.

TWO, WOULD THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE DNS SYSTEM BE THREATENED?

AND, THREE, WOULD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REQUEST VIOLATE AN EXISTING ICANN POLICY?

AND IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS WAS YES, THEN WE WOULD MOVE TO THE THIRD TIER, THE EVALUATION, WHAT WE REFERRED TO THE EVALUATION/CONSULTATION STAGE.

AND IN THIS THIRD STAGE, A FINAL EVALUATION REPORT WOULD DRAW UP A LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS, DETAIL THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR EXTERNAL EXPERT ADVICE, AND CALL FOR THE CREATION OF A TASK FORCE.
AND THEN THE REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE WOULD BE SENT TO THE ICANN PRESIDENT AND ULTIMATELY END UP FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ICANN BOARD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARC, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: I COULD DO THAT, BRUCE.

THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY HAS NOT YET GIVEN ITS TIME TO DEVELOPING FLOWCHARTS AND OUTLINING A PRECISE PROCESS. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE ELEMENTS ON A MORE PRINCIPLE LEVEL THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US.
ONE THING IS THAT WE WANT A PROCESS THAT WILL NOT EASILY TURN INTO SOMETHING VERY BUREAUCRATIC. ANOTHER ASPECT IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE CLEAR GUIDELINES TO DETERMINE EASILY WHETHER A NEW SERVICE OR A SERVICE CHANGE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH A MORE DETAILED PROCESS THAT MIGHT ALSO INVOLVE THE GNSO OR WHETHER IT CAN ACTUALLY BE DEALT WITH BY ICANN STAFF ONLY.

I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT ASPECT OF THIS WHOLE PDP, TO GET THIS VERY CLEAR.
ANOTHER TOPIC THAT'S THE FINAL THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY NOW IS THAT WE ASK THE QUESTION; WE DON'T HAVE THE SOLUTION, BUT WE ASK THE QUESTION WHETHER BY GOING INTO THESE -- BY GOING INTO THIS PROCESS, BY SETTING UP THESE RULES, WHETHER ICANN IS NOT AT LAST ALSO GOING INTO CONSUMER PROTECTION.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS WHOLE PDP WAS INITIATED BECAUSE OF THE SITE FINDER PROBLEM, WHICH WAS ALSO SOMETHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH USER PROTECTION.
THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARC. REGISTRARS, IF ROSS RADER COULD PRESENT.

>>ROSS RADER: I DON'T THINK I WILL GO INTO THE COMPLETE STATEMENT THAT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY HAS PUT FORWARD IN TERMS OF A FLOW CHART OR ANYTHING, EITHER.

WE DO HAVE A PRETTY WELL-THOUGHT-OUT PROPOSAL, I BELIEVE, THAT YOU COULD BOIL DOWN TO A FLOW CHART; WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE SO YET.

REALLY, WE'RE SPEAKING IN TERMS OF, I GUESS, CORE VALUES, RIGHT AT THE HEART OF OUR PROPOSAL. AND RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH AND READING THROUGH THE ENTIRE STATEMENT, I WILL HIGHLIGHT THESE THREE CORE VALUES.

WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR A PROCESS THAT ACCOMPLISHES TWO THINGS. "A," THAT GIVES US SOME CONSISTENCY OF DEFINITION, AND "B," THAT IMPLEMENTS A PREDICTABLE AND STABLE PROCESS.

THE THREE CORE VALUES THAT WE EXTRACT FROM THE BYLAWS OF ICANN, THAT SUPPORT THIS, ARE, NUMBER ONE, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE OPERATIONAL STABILITY, RELIABILITY, SECURITY, AND GLOBAL INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET. CORE VALUE NUMBER FIVE, WHERE FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE, DEPENDING ON THE MARKET MECHANISMS, TO PROMOTE AND SUSTAIN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. AND CORE VALUE NUMBER SIX, INTRODUCING AND PROMOTING COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES WHERE PRACTICABLE AND BENEFICIAL IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

WHEN WE SPEAK OF OPERATIONAL STABILITY, WE'RE REALLY DESCRIBING THREE GENERAL AREAS THERE. THAT WOULD BE THE PROVISIONING OF DOMAIN NAMES, THE ALLOCATION OF DNS RESOURCES, AND THE MANAGEMENT OF APPLICABLE DIRECTORY SERVICES, LIKE THE WHOIS DATABASE.

WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGES TO THESE IMPORTANT SERVICES, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR THREE BROAD CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED. BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING SERVICES, STABLE TRANSITION TO THE NEW SERVICES, AND SUFFICIENT NOTICE THAT THESE SERVICES WILL BE CHANGED.

IN TERMS OF INTEROPERABILITY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR LOW-LEVEL STANDARDS WHEREVER APPROPRIATE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR BROWSER PLUG-INS, FOR INSTANCE.
AND I THINK ANYTHING THAT GETS US TOWARDS A MORE PREDICTABLE AND STABLE PROCESS, THE APPLICATION OF VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, IS I THINK A DEFINITE IMPROVEMENT OVER THE AD HOC APPROACH WE'RE TAKING NOW.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK WE'VE HAD A STATEMENT FROM EACH CONSTITUENCY EXCEPT THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY. THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY IS OF COURSE, A MEMBER OF THE GNSO AND IS, BY DEFAULT, A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, BUT WE HAVE YET TO FORMALLY HAVE A RESPONSE FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THIS STAGE, THEN, IS TO HAND OVER TO THE FLOOR AND INVITE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. AND CERTAINLY IF THERE'S ANY REGISTRY IN THE ROOM, THEY'RE WELCOME TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AMONGST THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY YESTERDAY.

AH, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE SOME REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS IN THE ROOM NOW. SO IF EITHER KEN OR CARY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT.

>>KEN STUBBS: GOOD MORNING, FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE. THE -- A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WHO WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN COORDINATING ALL OF THIS, AND IT WAS THE (INAUDIBLE) CONSTITUENCY, TO HANDLE OUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF, REGISTRY PRO WAS RECENTLY SOLD TO A NEW COMPANY, AND THIS PERSON WAS, AT THE LAST MINUTE, UNABLE TO MAKE IT AND WEREN'T AWARE OF THE SESSION ON MONDAY.

WE HAVE A CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT THAT HAS BEEN WORKED ON OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS. I'M SURE YOU CAN ALL UNDERSTAND, GIVEN THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENCY AND THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENCY ARE, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, INVOLVED IN ISSUES WITH ICANN THAT RELATE TO BOTH PROVISION OF THE SERVICES AS CONSIDERED UNDER THIS PDP, WE'VE HAD TO WORK FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME TO TRY TO DEVELOP A POSITION THAT REFLECTED ALL THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE CONSTITUENCY.

THIS WAS COMPLETED YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ IT TO YOU. I CAN ASSURE YOU WE'LL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE IT E-MAILED OUT TO THE COUNCIL AND THROUGH THE GNSO SECRETARIAT.
THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT RELATES TO GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON A PROCEDURE FOR USE BY ICANN. IN CONSIDERING A REQUEST MADE BY REGISTRY OPERATORS OR SPONSORS FOR CONSENTS OR RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE -- TO THE AGREEMENTS THAT THESE ENTITIES HAVE WITH ICANN.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 70 OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, ICANN INITIATED A PGP -- A PDP TO DEVELOP A PREDICTABLE PROCEDURE TO HANDLE SUCH REQUESTS.

THE COUNCIL VOTED TO INITIATE THE PROCESS, BOTH CHANGES TO THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ICANN AND THE REGISTRY/SPONSORS UNDER THE AGREEMENTS AND NONCONTRACTUAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE REGISTRIES AND ICANN ARE EXPLICITLY OUT OF SCOPE. WE CONSIDER THESE TO BE OUT OF SCOPE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.

THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF CONSENSUS POLICIES.
EACH CONSTITUENCY IS APPOINTED A REPENTEUR TO SOLICIT THE VIEWS AND REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY POSITION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL.

THIS DOCUMENT PROVIDES A JOINT POSITION BY THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY INCLUDING OPERATORS OF BOTH THE SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED TLDS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROCEDURE. IT IS INTENDED FOR SUBMISSION BY OUR CONSTITUENCY AS THE DEFINITIVE POSITION OF THE ENTIRE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

AS A CONSTITUENCY, WE WELCOME THE APPROPRIATE STEPS BY ICANN AND THE GNSO COUNCIL TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF A FAIR AND PREDICTABLE AND TIMELY PROCEDURE FOR ICANN TO HANDLE REQUESTS FOR AUTHORIZATIONS, APPROVALS AND CONSENTS, REQUIRED BY OUR CONTRACTS OR RELATED CONTRACTUAL AMENDMENTS IN WHICH WE ARE INTERESTED.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A FAIR AND TIMELY PROCEDURE BY ICANN TO HANDLE SUCH REQUESTS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CONSTITUENCY. SUCH A PROCEDURE WOULD REDUCE THE UNCERTAINTY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE THE TIME AND EFFORT REQUIRED FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES, AND ENCOURAGE BOTH UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES AND THE COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THESE -- BY THE SPONSORED REGISTRIES TO IMPROVE THE GTLDS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO BE, KEN? JUST TRY TO GET THE MAIN POINTS.

>>KEN STUBBS: IT'S BASICALLY FOUR PAGES. LET ME WORK MY WAY DOWN, THEN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE THE MAIN POINTS AND THEN YOU CAN FORMALLY SUBMIT THE STATEMENT AFTERWARDS.

>>KEN STUBBS: ALL RIGHTY, FINE. LET ME GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS, THE MAIN POINTS.

FIRST OF ALL, WE FEEL THAT THE PROCESS SHOULD BE SIMPLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE BY ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. WE ALSO ARE CONCERNED THAT THE PROCESS BE DESIGNED TO MAKE IT COST EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY.

WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCEDURE TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TLD IN WHICH THE REQUEST IS BEING MADE. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL IN THIS INSTANCE. AND THE SAME CHANGE IN ONE TLD MAY HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IMPACT AS A CHANGE IN ANOTHER.

THE PROCEDURE MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE AND THE SIZE OF A TLD WHEN MEASURING THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE AS WELL.
MANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WE WILL BE MAKING HERE HAVE FOOTNOTES TO THEM BECAUSE, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, SOME OF THE CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE CONSENSUS POSITION OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS STATEMENT, YOU ALSO REVIEW THE FOOTNOTES TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT SPECIFIC POSITIONS BY SOME OF THE REGISTRIES ARE THAT MAY NOT BE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BROADER ITEMS IN OUR STATEMENT.

ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONCERNS IS THAT WE ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE THAT DOES NOT IMPEDE DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION. IF THE PREVIOUS CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED, THEN PROCEDURES DEVELOPED WILL BE SIMPLE ENOUGH SO THAT IT WILL PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY CONFIRMATION OF NEW PROCESSES FOR EACH TLD. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE TLDS WILL BE CONSIDERED DURING THE EARLY STEPS OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AND DECISIONS WILL ENABLE THE REGISTRIES TO DEVELOP AND OFFER NEW SERVICES DESIRED BY INTERNET COMMUNITY QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.

ALSO, WITH RESPECT -- AND I MAY ASK CARY TO ELABORATE ON SECTION NUMBER 5, MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO, CARY, ON SECTION 5 IS TO LET YOU DISCUSS IT AS IT APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO SPONSORED TLDS, AND THAT IS THE PROCEDURE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE SPONSOR REPRESENTS THE VIEWS OF THE SPONSORED COMMUNITY. SO I THINK IF YOU --

>>CARY KARP: I'M CONFRONTING A RECALCITRANT COMPUTER HERE SO I DON'T HAVE THE TEXT IN FRONT OF ME.

>>KEN STUBBS: I'LL GO AHEAD AND REFER BACK TO THAT LATER ON.

OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PROCEDURE NOT DIMINISH THE ABILITY OF REGISTRY OPERATORS TO OPERATE RELIABLE, SECURE, AND STABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. OPERATION OF THE DNS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE INTERNET, AND MANY INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES, REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE, RELY ON THE OPERATION FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, REGISTRY OPERATORS MUST BE ABLE TO ACT QUICKLY AND AT THEIR DISCRETION TO ALLOW CONTINUITY OF THE SERVICE WHILE MAKING REASONABLE AND TIMELY EFFORT TO KEEP ICANN INFORMED.

THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE THAT OCCUR WHERE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO ACT REASONABLY AND TIMELY AS FAR AS INFORMING THE COMMUNITY. I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IS A SITUATION -- AND I WON'T USE THE PAST BUT RATHER I'M LOOKING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE -- WHERE THERE MAY BE A NECESSITY TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE ICANN STAFF, AND THERE COULD BE SITUATIONS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, I CAN'T ENVISION ANY AT THE IMMEDIATE MOMENT, BUT I THINK THE FLEXIBILITY NEEDS TO BE THERE, WHERE THE ICANN COMMUNITY MAY HAVE TO -- THERE MAY BE A PARALLEL TRACK IN WORKING WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY ON INFORMING THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE AND THE SCOPE AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHETHER OR NOT THE SERVICE INVOLVES THE FACILITATION BY OUTSIDE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE REGISTRY OPERATOR.

IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD SAY THAT THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY FAVORS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLE POLICY, A SIMPLE PROCEDURE. I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED TO TRY TO CREATE A PROCESS THAT MAKES IT EASY FOR THE STAFF TO MANAGE THIS PROCESS IN THE FUTURE. I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE REGISTRIES HAVE IS THAT MANY OF THESE ISSUES DRAG OUT FOR AN INORDINATE PERIOD OF TIME, AND WE DON'T EXIST IN ENVIRONMENTS WHERE YOU CAN TAKE TWO AND THREE YEARS TO MOVE SOME OF THESE THROUGH. I'VE SEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I THINK BRUCE ALLUDED TO THEM YESTERDAY IN THE BREAKFAST MEETING, WHERE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED THAT HAVE -- THAT ARE STILL EXECUTORY A YEAR FROM NOW, AND IN MANY CASES THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ARE STILL IN MID AIR.

I THINK, CARY, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME -- EVEN IF THEY'RE OFF THE RECORD COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCERNS THAT THE STLDS HAVE. I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO SPEAK UP ON THAT.

>>CARY KARP: I'VE MANAGED TO GET THE TEXT THAT YOU'RE CITING UP IN FRONT OF ME. BUT WITHOUT COMMENTING IMMEDIATELY ON IT, THERE WAS A NOTION OF SPONSORSHIP FORGED DURING THE COURSE OF THE DELIBERATIONS IN 2000, INCORPORATED IN DOT AERO, DOT COOP AND DOT MUSEUM, THAT WOULD NOT SCALE INTO A DOMAIN THAT WOULD APPLY FOR SPONSORSHIP STATUS IS NOT DOING SO WITH THE SAME APPEARANCE AS THE INITIAL THREE HAD, AND WE FEEL IT QUITE IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, SINCE THE CURRENT ROUND FOR PROPOSALS APPLIES TO STLDS, THAT THERE IS AT THE HEART, THE DEFINITIVE ESSENCE OF SPONSORSHIP IS THAT THERE IS A BOUNDED COMMUNITY THAT HAS SOME COHERENT SET OF INTERESTS THAT EQUATE TO A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AND THAT WILL BE SERVED BY THAT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT IT IS FROM WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY THAT ANY REGULATORY INSTRUMENT THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT DOMAIN MUST ORIGINATE.

SO IT IS ICANN'S TASK TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY, THE REPRESENTATIVE VOICE OF THAT COMMUNITY, AND THEN TO CONFER UPON THAT SPONSORING ORGANIZATION THE BROADEST POSSIBLE AUTONOMY TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT RELATE TO COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS.

AS THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET MIGHT IMPEDE -- IMPINGE ON THIS PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NO LONGER A CONCERN OF THAT COMMUNITY AND ONLY OF THAT COMMUNITY. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IN THIS IS THAT AS SPONSORSHIP IS CONSIDERED, IT IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT IT IS THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THAT DOMAIN HAS BEEN DELEGATED, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ABLE, WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER, TO ADDRESS THE -- TO RECOGNIZE THE NEEDS OF ITSELF AND TO SERVE THOSE NEEDS AS SUCH IS DONE IN A TLD OPERATION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, CARY. AND WE'RE CERTAINLY PLEASED TO SEE THE REGISTRIES INVOLVED AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROCESS.

I'D NOW LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE FLOOR FOR ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES OR THEIR COMPANY.

JEFF AND ANYONE ELSE.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: HI. IS THIS ON? OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JEFF NEUMAN. THE STATEMENT I'M ABOUT TO MAKE IS ON BEHALF OF NEULEVEL AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, ALTHOUGH THIS MORNING I GOT WORD FROM THE REGISTRY AFILIAS THAT THEY ALSO JOIN ON TO THIS STATEMENT.

A FEW WEEKS AGO, I SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF NEULEVEL A FLOW DIAGRAM, A FLOW CHART, TO THE COUNCIL -- OR ACTUALLY IT WAS TO THE TASK FORCE -- TO THE LIST, TO THE MAILING LIST, ON A PROPOSED PROCESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES.

THE DIAGRAM THAT I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU HAVE NOW IS -- IT'S AN OBJECTIVE DIAGRAM THAT TRIES TO TAKE OUT MOST OF THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THIS VERY, IN MANY RESPECTS, CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC.

THE GOAL OF THE STATEMENT AND THE GOAL OF THE FLOWCHART WAS TO PROVIDE A PREDICTABLE, SIMPLE -- RELATIVELY SIMPLE PROCESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES WHILE PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR INPUT INTO THE INTRODUCTION OF THOSE SERVICES.

LIKE MANY OF YOU HAVE MENTIONED, IT DOES INVOLVE A QUICK-LOOK PROCESS, AND IT ALSO INVOLVES A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS. WHAT THE STATEMENT DOES NOT DO IS IT DOES NOT GO INTO THE CRITERIA AS TO HOW ONE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER IF GOES TO A QUICK LOOK OR IT GOES TO THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE; RATHER, IT ASSUMES IF IT IS A QUICK-LOOK PROCESS IT SETS OUT ONE DIRECTION AS TO WHAT THE PROCESS SHOULD BE. IF IT IS DETERMINED, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW, THEN THE FLOWCHART SETS OUT HOW NEULEVEL BELIEVES THAT THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANT TO STRESS IS THAT IT IS REALLY MEANT AS A BENCHMARK. IT IS NOT NEULEVEL'S FINAL POSITION AS TO WHAT THE STATEMENT OR THE PROCESS HAS TO BE. RATHER, IT IS A PLACE TO START.

MANY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES I THINK HAVE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB IN PROVIDING GENERAL STATEMENTS AS TO THE OVERRIDING POLICIES THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO A PROCESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SUBMITTED OUR STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE AT THE TIME THAT HAD SUBMITTED AN ACTUAL PROCESS.

I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CONSTITUENCIES THAT HAVE PROVIDED THEIR OWN TYPES OF FLOWCHARTS, BUT AT THE TIME THAT WE SUBMITTED OUR STATEMENT, THERE HAD BEEN NO SUCH DOCUMENT.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO -- WHEN YOU GO BACK AND DRAW UP A PROCESS, THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT THIS PROCESS, THE FLOWCHART THAT WE SUBMITTED AND THAT AFILIAS JOINS ON TO, IS ONE THAT IS DEVISED BY A REGISTRY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF REGISTRY SERVICES. AND ONE OF THE VERY IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF CONSENSUS POLICIES IS TO HAVE -- IS TO PAY GREAT ATTENTION TO ANY PROCEDURE THAT IS PUT FORTH BY A REGISTRY. IT IS A SHOWING THAT WE, AT NEULEVEL AND AFILIAS, WOULD FOLLOW THIS AND WORK WITHIN THE PROCESS.

AGAIN, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW -- OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S PROBABLY NOT THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE DIAGRAM. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OPEN ITEMS THROUGH IT. BUT IT IS ONE THAT I HOPE THAT COUNCIL TAKES UP MY OFFER TO EXPLAIN TO YOU EXACTLY HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JEFF. AND CERTAINLY I'M SURE THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN TALK TO YOU OVER THE NEXT DAY OR SO, TOO IF THEY HAVE ANY QUERIES ON YOUR SUBMISSION.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? GO AHEAD, ALAN.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: THANK YOU. ELLIOTT NOSS FROM TUCOWS, AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP MY COMMENTS TODAY RELATIVELY BRIEF.

I WOULD LIKE TO INJECT WHAT, FOR ME AND FOR TUCOWS FROM A BUSINESS IMPACT PERSPECTIVE, IS, I THINK, A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT THAT NEED BE EXPLICIT IN THIS DISCUSSION AND IN THIS PDP PROCESS. THAT'S A BIT REDUNDANT.
TO US, IT SEEMS AS IF THE APPROACH, THE VARIOUS APPROACHES THAT ARE BEING SUGGESTED, TEND TO LOOK, WHEN DETERMINING THE DEPTH OF THE PROCESS, HORIZONTALLY AROUND COMPLEXITY OF SERVICE, IN TERMS OF DETERMINING WHAT SORT OF VIEW OR APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN TO LOOKING AT THE SERVICE.

AND AS A REGISTRAR WHO HAS TO INTERFACE WITH NUMEROUS REGISTRIES -- I THINK CURRENTLY WE'RE INTERFACING WITH ABOUT A DOZEN DIFFERENT REGISTRIES -- IT HAS CERTAINLY BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE SIZE OF THE REGISTRY IS A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT DETERMINANT OF THE IMPACT OF A REGISTRY SERVICE THAN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SERVICES.

WE THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE WHOLE ICANN COMMUNITY CONTINUALLY RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT WHERE PRESENTED WITH CHOICES, ICANN NEEDS TO BE LIGHTWEIGHT, AND ICANN NEEDS TO BE AS THIN AS POSSIBLE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE MARKET HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE MONITOR AND PROTECTOR AROUND THE INTRODUCTION OF REGISTRY SERVICES. IN A COUPLE SPECIFIC INSTANCES THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO US VERY CLEARLY, AND WE THINK THERE OF THE DOT BIZ INTRODUCTION THAT WAS PUSHED BACK ON VERY QUICKLY AND WE THINK OF THE E-MAIL FORWARDING THAT CAME OUT OF DOT NAME WHERE THE E-MAIL SPOKE LOUDLY AND MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN ANY PDP COULD POSSIBLY HOPE TO.

WE ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT GENERALLY, THERE IS, BROADLY, COMPETITION AMONGST REGISTRIES NOW. AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DOT COM, IF WE WERE TO TAKE DOT COM OUT OF THE MARKET, WE BELIEVE WHAT WE WOULD HAVE CURRENTLY IS A NEARLY FLAT COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE.

I THINK WE DON'T TALK OFTEN ENOUGH ABOUT THE FACT THAT DOT NET IS ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE NOW AS DOT DE OR DOT UK. I BELIEVE ONE IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, ONE IS A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. THAT'S COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRY SPACE. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO THIS PROCESS.

THERE IS CERTAINLY AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF MARKET POWER THAT STILL EXISTS IN DOT COM, AND WE WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DOT COM, THAT THE PROCESS APPLIED TO REGISTRY SERVICES OF ANY TYPE BE EXTREMELY LIGHTWEIGHT, AND THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THIS PROCESS TO TRY AND DETERMINE -- AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THIS MORNING, THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE THIS MORNING, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THIS PROCESS TO COME UP WITH A SET OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AROUND WHICH IT COULD BE DETERMINED THAT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF MARKET POWER EXISTS. I THINK WE WOULD ALL CONCEDE THAT THAT'S THE CASE WITH COM TODAY, AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW, AS AN ICANN COMMUNITY, AND THAT THE REGISTRY OPERATOR KNOW WHEN AND HOW THAT SITUATION WOULD CONTINUE TO EXIST.

SO WE HOPE AS WE GO FORWARD AND AS THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD WE CAN MAKE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS THE SPECIFIC PIVOT POINTS AROUND CRITERIA ARE EVOLVED. BUT AGAIN, WE WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE THINK THAT THE SIZE OF THE REGISTRY HAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY OPERATING THE BUSINESS THAN DOES THE COMPLEXITY OF THE REGISTRY SERVICE.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ELLIOTT. YEAH, GO AHEAD, AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HOPE I AM ALLOWED TO SPEAK FROM HERE, EVEN IF I CONSIDER MYSELF THE FLOOR, BECAUSE I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.

JUST TAKING THE ONE LAST THING ELLIOT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TAKING SOME ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS.
ONE THING THAT BOTH OF THEM HAVE REMARKED THAT I THINK IT'S CLEAR IS THAT WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CANDID ABOUT OUR, YOU KNOW, EXPECTATIONS HERE.

INDEED, TREATING UNEQUALLY WHAT'S EQUAL IS A CLEAR DISCRIMINATION.
BUT TREATING EQUALLY WHAT'S CLEARLY DIFFERENT, IT'S ALSO DISCRIMINATION.
WHAT I MEAN IS, THE USERS OF WILD CARDS WITHIN DOT MUSEUM AND DOT-COM ARE PROBABLY DIFFERENT THINGS REGARDING GOALS, LIKE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.

AND WE MIGHT HAVE FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE IDEAS ABOUT USE OF WILD CARDS, BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME, THE USE OF THE SAME SERVICE IN DIFFERENT PARTS.
WHERE I TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT ELLIOT WAS SAYING IS THAT WELL, HERE WE ARE MAINLY THE SUPPLY SIDE OF THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION MARKET.

IN THE SUPPLY SIDE, WE SEE COMPETITION.
FROM THE DEMAND SIDE, THERE IS NO COMPETITION AT ALL, OR VERY LITTLE.
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO ARE THE PROVIDERS OF THE SERVICES THEY WANT.
THERE IS COMPETITION, INDEED, AMONG DOMAIN NAME STRINGS.
PEOPLE WOULD PREFER DOT DE TO DOT NET OR DOT INFO TO DOT ES OR WHATEVER.
BECAUSE THEY ATTACH SOME VALUE TO THE IDENTIFICATION THE DOMAIN NAME STRINGS PROVIDE.

THEY DON'T BUY SERVICES OF AFILIAS OR NOMINET OR (INAUDIBLE) OR VERISIGN OR WHATEVER -- DOMAIN NAMES, PERHAPS THE DIFFERENCE FOR THIS VERY SMALL COMMUNITY-CENTERED AND COMMUNITY EMERGENT, IF YOU WANT, REGISTRIES, BECAUSE THEY ARE TALKING TO THEIR OWN COMMUNITY, THEY ARE PART OF THAT GROUP FROM, YOU KNOW, THE VERY BEGINNING, EVEN FROM BEFORE THE DOMAIN EXISTED.
BUT FOR THE REST, PEOPLE ARE NOT DECIDING AMONG COMPETING SERVICES, BUT IS DECIDING AMONG COMPETING NAMES.
AND THAT'S ALL THEY CARE.

SO THE EXTENT OF COMPETITION OF THAT SIDE, I'M SORRY, IT'S VERY LIMITED TO NONEXISTENT FROM THE DEMAND SIDE.
AND DEMAND-SIDE COMPETITION IS THE MAIN METRIC FOR THAT.
IT'S NOT THE SUPPLY SIDE OF IT.
ANYWAY, EVEN IF WE HAVE MORE OR LESS EVEN-SIZE REGISTRIES TAKING UP PART OF COM, WHAT'S CLEAR IS, FOR EACH DOMAIN NAME, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE REALLY REGISTERED, THE REGISTRIES ARE SOMETHING LIKE A NATURAL MONOPOLY.
IF THEY ARE A MONOPOLY, I MEAN, ONLY VERISIGN PROVIDES ME WITH DOT-COM SERVICES IF I AM A DOT-COM REGISTRANTS.
ONLY DOT MUSEUM PROVIDES ME WITH DOT MUSEUM SERVICES IF I AM ALREADY PART OF THAT COMMUNITY.
AND I CANNOT DECIDE THAT I DON'T LIKE CARY AND I GO TO (INAUDIBLE) FOR HANDLING MY DOT MUSEUM.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE NATURE OF THE REGISTRY SERVICE ITSELF.
WE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT AT LEAST WE WANT THE MONOPOLIES WE WANT.
YES, MARKET EXISTS, YES, MARKET IS GREAT.

BUT THE FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE MARKETS IS LETTING THEM EXIST, THAT IS, CONTROLLING MONOPOLIES, AND I REPEAT HERE, FOR EACH SINGLE TLD, WE HAVE SINGLE NATURAL MONOPOLIES.
LET'S MAKE IT THE MOST BENEVOLENT MONOPOLY WE CAN AFFORD.
REGISTRY GATEWAY, ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, WHOIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE REGISTRY HAS TO DO.
NAME SERVERS, WELL, THEY CAN DO THAT, WE COULD EXTERNALIZE IT.
ZONE FILE PUBLISHING, WE COULD DISCUSS ONE DAY WHETHER THE REGISTRIES SHOULD DO THAT OR NOT.
BECAUSE WE HAD SOME ACCIDENTS IN THE PAST, AND WE COULD IMAGINE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM.
NOW, IF THEY WANT TO GIVE CHOCOLATES TO THE REGISTRANTS, NOTHING TO SAY.
THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE DNS.

BUT REGARDING THINGS THAT AFFECT THE DNS, I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD -- I MEAN, THE CLEAR IDEA IS THAT THE COMMUNITY, THROUGH ICANN NOW, THROUGH OTHER INSTANCES BEFORE, HAVE DELEGATED TO THEM THE MANAGING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF A RESOURCE.
THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT FREE TO ADD ANYTHING.

AND SOMETHING THAT I AM MISSING HERE IS A DISTINCTION OF THE SERVICES THAT AFFECT THEIR CURRENT CUSTOMERS AND THINGS THAT AFFECT EVERYBODY.
FOR INSTANCE, CARY WAS SAYING, WELL, WE WANT TO ENJOY THE TRUST OF THE REAL DELEGATION OF THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS FOR DOT MUSEUM.
THAT'S OKAY.

BUT, FOR INSTANCE, IF DOT MUSEUM HAD TO DECIDE THE DOMAINS THERE HAVE SOMETHING OF LIFELONG RESOLUTION DISPUTES, YOU WILL NEVER LOSE YOUR DOMAIN, EVEN IF YOU DON'T PAY, WELL, THIS ONLY AFFECTS THE CURRENT USERS OF THEIR DOMAIN, AND PERHAPS SOME PROSPECTIVE USERS.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE REST OF THE DNS APPLICATIONS AND USERS.

IF THEY WERE TO DECIDE THE USE OF WILD CARDS OR SOMETHING LIKE SITE FINDER OR WHATEVER, THIS AFFECTS BOTH THEIR CURRENT USERS AND HOW WE ALL HAVE BEEN PART OF THE MUSEUM OR NOT USE THE INTERNET.
AND PERHAPS THIS IS THEREFORE EVEN A DISTINCTION WE SHOULD DRAW IN THIS CASE EVEN FOR POLICY DELEGATION SITUATIONS.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, MY MAIN POINT IS THAT PDP ALL VERY NICE, BUT THE THING I REALLY WANT IS THE REGISTRIES CONVINCING THE COMMUNITY THAT THESE NEW SERVICES ADD VALUE AND NOT ONLY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS;
IT'S NOT ICANN OR WE THAT SHOULD CONVINCE THEM THAT THESE SERVICES ARE NOT NEEDED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, AMADEU.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT?
OR PUT ANYTHING INTO THE PROCESS?
OKAY.

I GUESS, TO SUMMARIZE THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS WE'VE HAD SO FAR, THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, A COMBINATION OF ALL OF THE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS, BECAUSE EACH OF THEM HAS ACTUALLY GOT SEPARATE ELEMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE.
AND THERE ISN'T REALLY, ACTUALLY, MUCH CONFLICT BETWEEN ANY OF THE STATEMENTS, I BELIEVE.
IN FACT, I THINK MOST OF THEM ARE BROADLY CONSISTENT.

IF WE LOOK AT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INPUT, A LOT OF THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING A PREDICTABLE PROCESS.
BUT ALSO, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I GUESS IT'S TRANSPARENT, BECAUSE AT EACH STEP IN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SUBMISSION, THERE IS A PROCESS OF PUBLISHING A DOCUMENT WHICH IS IN DRAFT FORM, AND THEN THERE'S A PUBLIC SHORT -- SOMETIMES QUITE SHORT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AND THEN A FINAL DOCUMENT.
AND THAT FINAL DOCUMENT WILL MAKE A DECISION. AND THAT DECISION MIGHT BE, YES, THIS SERVICE DOESN'T EVEN NEED APPROVAL FROM US, GO AHEAD.

OR A FINAL DECISION MIGHT BE, THIS PROCESS NEEDS A QUICK LOOK.
OR THE FINAL DECISION MIGHT BE, WE NEED TO TAKE A MORE DETAILED LOOK.
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF DECISION POINTS IN THEIR SUBMISSION.
AND I THINK THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY GIVES A PRETTY GOOD FEEL FOR WHERE THE DECISION POINTS ARE.
IF WE THEN LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING FROM SOME OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, IT'S MORE SAYING WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES?

WE HEAR FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL THAT GENERALLY WE SHOULDN'T BE EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF ICANN.
WE SHOULDN'T BE GOING INTO ISSUES OF GENERAL, YOU KNOW, SOLVING CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES OTHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE ICANN MISSION.
SO WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT THERE.

THE REGISTRARS HAVE PICKED THREE PARTICULAR AREAS FROM THE ICANN MISSION, ONE RELATING TO TECHNICAL STABILITY, AND THE OTHER RELATED TO COMPETITION AND ITS IMPACT FOR REGISTRARS.

THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND THE ISP CONSTITUENCY HAVE AGAIN IDENTIFIED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR SOME OVERSIGHT AND THAT THEREFORE THEY FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THE ABILITY FOR A -- FOR THE ICANN STAFF AND IN SOME CASES THE WIDER COMMUNITY, TO PROVIDE INPUT, PARTICULARLY WHEN A SERVICE IS RELATED TO CHANGING THE CORE OPERATION OF THE DNS ITSELF.

AND I THINK THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT THINGS THAT CHANGE THE -- IF YOU LIKE, THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS OR THE CORE OPERATION ARE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A FAIR DEGREE OF COMMUNITY INPUT.
WE'VE HEARD FROM THE FLOOR, FROM ELLIOT AND OTHERS, THAT IN REGARDS TO COMPETITION, COMPETITION IS LESS RELATED TO THE COMPLEXITY OF A SERVICE BUT MORE RELATED TO THE MARKET POWER AND IMPACT PARTICULARLY OF THAT SPECIFIC TLD.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF, AND IF I HEAR THAT IT WAS ONE OF THE SMALL TLDS THAT STARTED YESTERDAY, AND THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH IMPACT, BUT WE'VE ALSO GOT TO TAKE A LONG-TERM VIEW AND IF THAT SMALL TLD WAS INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL IN THE NEXT FIVE OR TEN YEARS, WHAT, THEN, WOULD ITS IMPACT BE AND ARE WE ESTABLISHING PRECEDENCE FOR A SMALL VERSUS A LARGE ORGANIZATION?

IT WOULD SEEM UNFAIR THAT IF A SMALL TLD WAS ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING THAT A LARGE TLD WAS NOT.
SO WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER NOT JUST WHERE THE MARKET IS TODAY, BUT WHERE THE MARKET COULD BE IN FUTURE.
THE WAY I SUGGEST WE PROCEED TO LOOK AT THIS PROCESS IS, LET'S FIRST IDENTIFY WHERE THE DECISION POINTS ARE, THEN IDENTIFY WHAT THE CRITERIA SHOULD BE FOR MAKING THOSE DECISIONS, AND THEN, THIRDLY, REACH CONSENSUS ON WHAT IS THE TIME LINE REQUIRED FOR THAT PROCESS.

IF WE JUST -- AND I HAVE BEEN JUST DRAFTING, I GUESS, A SET OF DECISION POINTS, STARTING FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL, AND THERE'S ALSO, CLEARLY, AN ASPECT OF APPEAL IN THESE PROCESSES, IN THE NULEVEL PUBLIC SUBMISSION CERTAINLY INCLUDED A GREAT DEAL OF DETAIL ON HOW TO HANDLE APPEALS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE PROCESSES.
AND WHEN WE COME TO THE END, IF YOU LIKE, OF THE CORE PROCESS, WE THEN NEED TO LOOK AT WHATEVER THE AVENUES FOR APPEAL FOR EITHER REGISTRIES OR OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES.

IF WE START WITH SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY, I GUESS, THAT WAS IN THE NULEVEL PUBLIC SUBMISSION -- AND WE'LL JUST PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN HERE NOW, BUT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS IS THAT A REGISTRY OPERATOR WILL INTERNALLY DEVELOP A CONCEPT; THEY WILL PROBABLY TALK TO THEIR CUSTOMERS; THEY WILL PROBABLY DO SOME MARKET RESEARCH; THEY WILL LOOK AT THE BUSINESS ASPECTS OF THEIR PROPOSAL; THEY CLEARLY, INTERNALLY, WILL HAVE THEIR OWN TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR CONTRACTS AND THEIR TECHNICAL STANDARDS.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: SORRY.
JUST A PROCESS QUESTION HERE.

ARE YOU GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING OR DO YOU WANT QUESTIONS AS YOU GO STEP THROUGH IT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL -- I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING.
I'M JUST GOING TO SORT OF GO THROUGH WHAT ARE THE DECISION POINTS.
AND, YES, CERTAINLY, INVITE INPUT AT THAT STAGE, YEAH.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: SO YOU'D LIKE INPUT NOW OR WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF YOU WISH TO GIVE INPUT NOW, YES, GO AHEAD.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: WELL, THE FIRST THING, IF I MAY GO TO YOUR VERY FIRST CONCEPT THERE, WHICH IS, QUOTE, "DEVELOP NEW SERVICE CONCEPT."

IF WE LOOK AT THE TITLE, THE LONG TITLE, FOR THE PDP, IT IS, QUOTE, "THE NEED FOR A PREDICTABLE PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING CHANGES IN GTLD REGISTRY OPERATIONS."
NOWHERE IN THAT TITLE FOR THE PDP IS THE WORLD "SERVICES."
AND WHILE I THINK WE ALL USE THE SHORTHAND, THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, I THINK FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE, YOU KNOW, READ THE STAFF REPORT, I THINK THE LONGER TITLE ACTUALLY IS PERHAPS MORE HELPFUL AND GETS OVER SOME OF THOSE THORNY ISSUES AS TO, QUOTE, WHAT IS A SERVICE, WHAT IS NOT A SERVICE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, THANK YOU.
I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TRYING TO USE ABBREVIATED FORM FOR THE PURPOSES OF A FLOWCHART.
BUT I THINK IF I FOLLOW A FORMAT THAT JEFF NEUMAN DEVELOPED, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A FLOWCHART AND THEN A TABLE THAT GOES WITH THAT, WHICH WOULD SPELL OUT IN DETAIL WHAT THE STEPS ARE.
AND WE CAN PUT THE FULL WORDING IN THERE AT THAT STAGE.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THOUGH, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, IF YOU CHANGE THAT FIRST BOX TO A CHANGE, SIMPLE, "THE REGISTRY IS SEEKING TO MAKE A CHANGE," YOU THEN GO TO YOUR DECISION THERE, WHICH IS, QUOTE, "IS THIS CHANGE UNDER ICANN JURISDICTION."

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A SERVICE NOW; I'M TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE.
AND I THINK I WOULDN'T SEE THAT TWO EXISTING AT ALL.
I THINK WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION THAT THE ISPS AND IPS HAVE THE VIEW THAT ALL CHANGES NEED TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL REVIEW, WHETHER THAT'S A PERFUNCTORY REVIEW OR DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE CHANGE, AND AS ELLIOT HAS SAID AND OTHERS HAVE SAID, THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THAT CHANGE, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE DOMAIN, ET CETERA, THEN THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT PROCESSES TO DEAL WITH THAT CHANGE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
CAN YOU SEE THE SCREEN NOW?
IS THAT ROUGHLY CAPTURING WHAT YOU HAVE JUST STATED?
REGISTRY SEEKING --

>>GRANT FORSYTH: NO.
IT'S NOT CAPTURED WHAT THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND I'LL LET OTHERS SPEAK, I DON'T CONSIDER THAT DECISION BOX 2 TO EXIST.
OUR VIEW IS THAT ALL CHANGE NEEDS TO BE GIVEN AN EXTERNAL REVIEW.

>>KEN STUBBS: WOULD YOU DEFINE AN EXTERNAL REVIEW?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: SURE.
OUR SUBMISSION, KEN, SUGGESTS THAT THE EXTERNAL REVIEW BE UNDER ICANN'S JURISDICTION.
IT MAY JUST BE SIMPLY A STAFF REVIEW.

WE SUGGEST THAT THE STAFF OR THE -- ICANN ENGAGE EXTERNAL EXPERTS, BE THEY TECHNICAL EXPERTS AND/OR COMPUTATIONAL LEGAL EXPERTS, AND WE NOTE THAT A CHANGE MAY BE PRETTY TRIVIAL, IN WHICH CASE A GREEN LIGHT, AS IT WERE, CAN BE GIVEN VERY QUICKLY, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE CHANGE AND THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THAT CHANGE IS LIKELY TO HAVE AN IMPACT.
AT THE OTHER END OF THE SCALE, SUCH A CHANGE WOULD NEED TO GO -- UNDERGO A COMMUNITY REVIEW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I JUST CLARIFY, ONE OF THE ISSUES HERE IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE AGREEMENTS.
AND UNDER THE AGREEMENTS, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL, SOME THINGS ARE REALLY JUST GIVING NOTICE, AND SOME THINGS ARE NOT COVERED.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A REGISTRY DECIDES TO OPEN A NEW OFFICE OVERSEAS, ALL RIGHT?
THAT'S A CHANGE IN THEIR OPERATION.
THEY CHOOSE TO APPOINT A NEW TECHNOLOGY OFFICER; THEY NEED TO APPOINT A NEW SECRETARY.
I MEAN, ALL THOSE ARE CHANGES.

SO THIS DECISION POINT HERE IS SAYING REGISTRY'S GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, AS A BUSINESS, OKAY, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT?

AND YOU LOOK AT THE CONTRACT AND SAY, OKAY, SO THIS IS WHAT THIS DECISION POINT IS ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE.
IT'S NOT SAYING THAT A CHANGE TO A REGISTRY SERVICE, BECAUSE, BY DEFINITION IN THE CONTRACT, IF IT IS A CHANGE TO A REGISTRY SERVICE, IT NEEDS APPROVAL.

SO THE -- I DON'T THINK -- I THINK WE NEED THIS DECISION POINT IN THERE, AND IT'S JUST BASICALLY SAYING IS THIS CHANGE THAT -- THE WORDING MAY NEED TO BE IMPROVED, BUT, BASICALLY, IS THE CHANGE REQUIRING APPROVAL AS PART OF THE CONTRACT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET AT THERE IN THAT DECISION POINT.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: OKAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I THINK THAT'S A USEFUL DECISION POINT.
I WAS JUST, I GUESS -- I WOULD JUST, I GUESS, REMOVE THE WORD "JURISDICTION."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: I WOULD REMOVE THE WORD JURISDICTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IS THIS CHANGE REQUIRED UNDER THE AGREEMENTS?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: NO.
I WOULD SAY DOES THE CHANGE REQUIRE REVIEW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO.
IT'S -- THE REGISTRY'S GOVERNED BY AN AGREEMENT WITH ICANN. AND THAT AGREEMENT GOVERNS THE RELATIONSHIP.
AND THIS IS -- THIS DECISION POINT IS BASICALLY, DOES THIS CHANGE REQUIRE APPROVAL UNDER THAT AGREEMENT?
AND AS I'VE STATED, A CHANGE IN APPOINTING A NEW SECRETARY OR OPENING A NEW OFFICE DOES NOT REQUIRE -- SO I'M SAYING IS -- DOES THE CHANGE REQUIRE APPROVAL UNDER THE AGREEMENT?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DOMINATE THIS CONVERSATION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M JUST TRYING TO GET, BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT -- BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT WE MEAN BY CHANGE AND WHEN DOES IT REQUIRE APPROVAL.
AND I'M TYING IT TO AGREEMENT AT THIS DECISION POINT.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: FAIR ENOUGH.
AND I AM NOT.
EXPLICITLY, I AM NOT.

IF I WANT TO GO TO YOUR TRIVIAL EXAMPLE OF I'M GOING TO APPOINT A NEW SECRETARY, YEAH, IF YOU WANT TO PUT A DECISION POINT THERE THAT SAYS SHOULD SUCH A CHANGE WITHIN THE REGISTRY'S OPERATION, I.E., THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW SECRETARY, BE SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES ICANN'S REVIEW, I WOULD SAY NO.

IF YOU WANT TO PUT A DECISION POINT IN THE PROCESS FOR THAT, BY ALL MEANS.
BUT I DON'T TIE THAT CONSIDERATION TO A CONTRACT.
I SHOULD SAY "I," WE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I CLARIFY, WHAT TEXT DO YOU WANT THERE?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: GIVEN, I THINK, THE MODEL YOU ARE EXPLAINING AND USING, I WOULD JUST SAY, IS THE -- DOES THE CHANGE OR IS -- DOES THE CHANGE REQUIRE REVIEW?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: NOW, THE POINT -- THIS IS THE REGISTRY IS DOING THAT.
AND THEN WE'RE SAYING, YES, IT DOES.
AND THE REGISTRY PREPARES A STATEMENT FOR ICANN.
AND THE POINT THAT WAS ADDED HERE BY THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH IS PROBABLY A GOOD ONE, IS THAT AT THIS POINT, IT BECOMES TRANSPARENT IN SOME WAY, AND THERE'S SOME PUBLIC NOTICE THAT A REQUEST IS BEING MADE.

SO, OKAY, WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE.
WE'VE GOT MARILYN AND KEN STUBBS STUBS AND JEFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
HE'S BEEN -- HE CAME IN THE LAST -- FIVE MINUTES AGO WHEN THIS STARTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL GO FIRST WITH KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: I'D LIKE TO DEFER MY COMMENT AND LET JEFF MAKE THE COMMENT.
THEN I'LL PUT MYSELF BACK IN THE QUEUE AFTER HE'S HAD A CHANCE TO COMMENT.
THIS IS A PUBLIC DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SO --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: OKAY.
THANKS.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE AND JUST KIND OF TYING ON WHAT BRUCE SAID.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE USE AN ORACLE DATABASE RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S IN OUR CONTRACT.
IF WE WANTED TO GO TO VERSANT, NOBODY SEES IT, DOESN'T AFFECT ANYONE.
IT'S A TRANSITION WE WOULD DO INTERNALLY, FOR WHATEVER BUSINESS REASON, COST, BETTER SERVICE, WHATEVER THE REASON IS.

SO I THINK WHEN I DRAFTED THAT WORD, IS IT UNDER ICANN JURISDICTION, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT.
AND I KNOW -- SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS WITHIN REGISTRIES ALL THE TIME.

WE HAVE SOME APPENDICES THAT ARE VERY DETAILED AND PROBABLY MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT NOR SHOULD YOU EVER WANT TO READ IT, BUT THEY ARE VERY DETAILED AND THERE ARE MANY, QUOTE, CHANGES TO OUR OPERATIONS THAT YOU -- I THINK MOST OF WOULD YOU AGREE WOULD NOT NEED TO GO UNDER THIS TYPE OF PROCESS.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHY I USED THOSE WORDS.

AND I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF BACKGROUND.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK WE -- THANK YOU, JEFF.
THAT WAS A USEFUL EXAMPLE.

I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT ON THAT AND THEN GO ON TO THE COMMENT I INTENDED TO MAKE.
IF, HOWEVER, YOU WERE MAKING A CHANGE THAT REQUIRED YOU TO BE OUT OF OPERATION FOR 24 HOURS OR 48 HOURS BECAUSE YOU WERE MOVING OFFICES AND YOU WERE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY -- THE REGISTRY SERVICE WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE FOR THAT PERIOD, THAT REGISTRY SERVICE WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE FOR THAT PERIOD, I WOULD ASSUME YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO NOTIFY ICANN?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT, MARILYN.

SERVICE OUTAGES I COVERED IN SERVICE-LEVEL AGREEMENTS ALREADY IN THE CONTRACT.

>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.
SO I JUST -- I WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE.
BECAUSE THINGS CAN LOOK VERY SIMPLE, AND THEY TURN OUT TO BE VERY COMPLEX.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH.

WE ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS SUCH A BRIGHT LINE THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASSUME THAT IT IS ACTUALLY CONTRACT-AFFECTING AND IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION.
WHATEVER OUR PHRASE IS THAT WE USE HERE, HERE'S MY CONCERN: LET'S SAY THAT THE REGISTRY MAKES AN ASSESSMENT THAT NO REVIEW AT ALL IS NEEDED.

THEY INTRODUCE A SERVICE.
IT IMPACTS THE DNS.
THEY MADE THE DECISION BECAUSE WE LEFT A DECISION POINT IN AT THE BEGINNING THAT LEFT THE ENTIRE DECISION UP TO THEM.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T ENCOUNTER THAT SITUATION AGAIN?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY COMMENT ON THAT, BRIEFLY, WOULD BE THAT WHENEVER YOU HAVE A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE A SET OF TERMS IN THAT CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT AND YOU ARE ALWAYS MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE CONTRACT OR NOT IN WHAT YOU DO.
NOW, IF YOU DO MAKE A DECISION AND YOU'RE WRONG, THEN THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR, THEN, DEALING WITH THAT.
AND MAYBE WE NEED TO EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS.

>>MARILYN CADE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I ACTUALLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT THE MECHANISMS ARE TO DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE LOOKING BACKWARD TO THE WILD CARD INTRODUCTION, I GUESS I DIDN'T SEE A MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH IT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN, GO AHEAD.

>>KEN STUBBS: I GUESS THAT AS A BUSINESSMAN, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT FORCED EVERY BASIC BUSINESS DECISION THAT A COMPANY MAKES INTO AN OPEN, PUBLIC POLICY FORUM.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF BUSINESS DECISIONS THAT ARE EITHER COVERED SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE ICANN AGREEMENT, AND I WOULD SAY THIS MUCH, THAT JEFF'S -- JEFF'S POINT, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SPENDING A LONG, LINGERING AFTERNOON LOOKING AT THE 400-PAGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ICANN AND AFILIAS THAT SPECIFIES NOT ONLY SERVICE LEVELS, BUT REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC LEVELS OF REDUNDANCY AND SO FORTH, I THINK IF -- I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN, BUT LET'S ASSUME FOR THE HECK OF IT THAT AFILIAS DECIDED THEY WANTED TO SWITCH FROM IBM SERVERS TO SUN SERVERS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PUBLIC-POLICY DECISION NECESSARILY.
AND IF THE SUN SERVER SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ICANN AGREEMENT, I DON'T THINK THAT AFILIAS SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO ICANN TO REQUEST A CHANGE IN EQUIPMENT IF THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE AGREEMENT.
CONVERSELY, IF AFILIAS WANTS TO GO OUT AND ADD MORE OFFICES OR ADD ADDITIONAL STAFF, I THINK THAT'S MICROMANAGEMENT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE ICANN AGREEMENT AND THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN AFILIAS AND ICANN EVER IMPLIED A MICROMANAGEMENT SITUATION.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY ISSUES WHERE THERE MAY BE AN IMPACT OF A DECISION THAT A REGISTRY MAKES THAT REQUIRES THE COMMUNITY TO AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, AND ADEQUATE NOTICE AND SO FORTH.
BUT I THINK IF YOU MAKE THIS THING SO CONSTRICTIVE THAT EVERY TIME A REGISTRY OR ANY BUSINESS THAT HAS A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN LIKE THIS AS -- YOU COULD DEFINE CHANGES TO THE POINT WHERE IF THEY WANT TO GIVE SOMEBODY A PAY RAISE, THEY HAVE TO VETTE IT WITH THE COMMUNITY.

I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES AFILIAS TO DO THIS.
THERE ARE, BY THE WAY, FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT ALL OF THE REGISTRIES HAVE WITH ICANN AS WELL.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE ICANN ISN'T GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE OPERATIONS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT REGISTRIES HAVE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL GO WITH THOMAS, THEN PHILIP.
WHO ELSE WAS IN THE QUEUE?
AND GRANT.

JUST BEAR IN MIND THAT WE MAY HAVE TO COME BACK TO SOME OF THESE POINTS AFTER WE THINK ABOUT THEM FURTHER.
SO WE SHOULDN'T SPEND AN HOUR DEBATING THIS ONE, WHICH I THINK IS NOT A SERIOUS ISSUE.
PERHAPS I WILL MAKE JUST A VERY QUICK REFERRAL TO WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT AND WHAT DOES REQUIRE CHANGE CONTRACTUALLY.

WITHIN THE AGREEMENTS, APPROVAL IS NEEDED FOR ICANN TO CHANGE THE REPORTS PROVIDED TO ICANN, CHANGE THE SCHEDULE CONTENT AND FORMAT PROCEDURES FOR DATA ESCROW, CHANGES TO THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF DATA OR CHANGES TO QUERY-BASED ACCESS OR BULK ACCESS, CHANGES TO THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT, MATERIAL CHANGES AND ADDITION IN THE FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.

CHANGES IN THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.
CHANGES TO THE ZONE FILE ACCESS AGREEMENT.
CHANGES IN THE MAXIMUM PRICE FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.
CHANGES IN THE REGISTRY OPERATOR'S CODE OF CONDUCT.
CHANGES IN THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES FOR REGISTRY OPERATOR'S OWN USE.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE IN THE UNSPONSORED REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
AND THEY'RE PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE.

SO I THINK PRETTY MUCH WE'RE SAYING THAT ANYTHING THAT'S IN THAT CATEGORY DOES REQUIRE REVIEW.
BUT IT'S NOT SAYING IT'S COMPLETELY OPEN TO SAY THAT ANY CHANGE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, REQUIRES REVIEW THAT'S NOT IN THE CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT'S VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT CHANGES DO REQUIRE REVIEW.
AND MY PERSONAL READING OF THE CONTRACT IS THAT SOME OF THESE RECENT THINGS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH, IT WAS NOT CORRECT, THAT THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE CONTRACT.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT.
YOU CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING.
YOU CAN ONLY ENFORCE WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE CONTRACT.

SO, WITH THOSE COMMENTS, I'LL GO TO THOMAS AND THEN PHILIP.
GO AHEAD, THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: JUST A SHORT COMMENT ON THE SECOND BOX THAT MAY BE HELPFUL TO SEE WHEN -- WHEN DISCUSSING THESE POINTS, TO THINK WHETHER IT IS A NORMATIVE OR A DESCRIPTIVE POINT IN THE FLOWCHART.
AND ITEM 2 IS A DESCRIPTIVE POINT.

THE REGISTRY HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO ICANN.
THE REGISTRY HAS THE OPTION TO BREAK ITS CONTRACT IF IT WANTS TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
THIS DECISION POINT IS SOMETHING WE CAN'T TAKE OUT THERE.
THERE IS JUST NO POSSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
THE REGISTRY CAN'T FIRE ITS ENTIRE TECHNICAL STAFF.
THEY CAN TEAR DOWN THEIR BUILDINGS.
THEY CAN MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
AND THE DECISION POINT THERE IS DESCRIPTIVE AND NOT NORMATIVE IN MY READING.

SO I WOULD KEEP IT IN THERE, MAYBE MARK IT AS A DESCRIPTIVE DECISION POINT, COLOR-CODE THEM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK WE WILL HAVE SOME SIMILAR POINTS IN LATER PLACES IN THE FLOWCHART, TOO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, THOMAS. PHIL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, BRUCE. I THINK WE PROBABLY ALL ARE ALMOST ON THE SAME PAGE IN THAT WE DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE UNDULY BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS ON REGISTRIES OR INDEED ON ICANN STAFF IN TERMS OF MAKING ASSESSMENT, BUT WE DO WANT TO FIND A WAY IN WHICH THOSE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE AN EXTERNAL IMPACT, BE IT COMPETITIVE, SECURITY, STABILITY, OR WHATEVER, ARE GOING TO BE CAPTURED, AND WE WANT TO ALSO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION OF PERHAPS THE POSSIBILITY OF BAD FAITH SO THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT CAN ALLOW FOR THAT AS WELL AS AN ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH, WHICH MAY BE THE WAY THAT THAT BOX IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUED.

I THINK THE OTHER SUBTLETY THAT WE NEED TO CAPTURE OR I SUGGEST IN A MOMENT THAT WE NOTE THE POINT AND MOVE ON BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS, IS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW SERVICES AND CHANGES, WE MAY BE MOVING INTO AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT OBVIOUSLY ENVISAGED IN PREVIOUS CONTRACTS. AND THEREFORE, THE SUBTLETY IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THAT CHANGE IS DIFFICULT TO PIN DOWN TO ANY OF THE 400 PAGES. SO MAYBE A PHRASING TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THE EXTERNAL IMPACT IS GOING TO GET US AROUND THIS POINT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AGAIN, I THINK THOMAS HAS REALLY GOT THE IMPORTANT MESSAGE THAT IT'S A DECISION POINT THAT'S THERE REGARDLESS. AN ENTITY ALWAYS HAS A CHOICE TO EITHER PLAY BY THE RULES OR NOT, AND BASICALLY THAT'S SAYING THIS IS A DECISION POINT AND IS THE CHANGE REQUIRED UNDER THE CONTRACT IN THEIR BELIEF, YES OR NO. AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THAT, BUT IT'S IDENTIFYING WHERE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS.
JUST TAKE A COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR. OKAY.

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: OKAY. TO A CERTAIN EXTENT PHILIP HAS STATED THE POINT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEARER.
THE ISSUE WAS RAISED WHETHER A BUSINESS DECISION HAS TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC SCRUTINY, AND I THINK THAT THE LINE IS BETWEEN WHAT AFFECTS THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION. IF IT AFFECTS THE SERVICE, IT SHOULD GO THROUGH A PUBLIC SCRUTINY. IF IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE SERVICE, THE WAY THE USERS PERCEIVE THE SERVICE, THEN IT SHOULDN'T.

SO IS A CHANGE FROM IBM TO SUN HAS TO GO TO A PUBLIC PROCESS? WELL, IF IT AFFECTS THE SERVICE, YES. IF IT DOESN'T, AND I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULDN'T, THEN IT DOES NOT.
SORRY, ROBERTO GAETANO AT-LARGE.

SO THAT'S THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE USERS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ROBERTO. AND THAT IS, IN FACT, IN THE CONTRACT ALREADY, THAT IF IT AFFECTS THE PERFORMANCE, SPECIFICATIONS FUNCTIONS OR SPECIFICATION OF SERVICE IT DOES EFFECT THE AGREEMENT SO IT IS AGREEMENT.

>>KEN STUBBS: I'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT ONE STEP FURTHER IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION THERE, IN TERMS OF AFFECTING SERVICE. LET ME USE AN EXAMPLE. SUPPOSE THE REGISTRY CURRENTLY IS PERFORMING CUSTOMER SERVICE FUNCTIONS FROM A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL POINT. LET'S SAY CANADA OR MEXICO, AND THEY DECIDE THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A MORE EFFICIENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AT WHAT MAY VERY WELL BE FOR THEM A MUCH MORE ADVANTAGEOUS COST, THEY MOVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CUSTOMER SERVICE FUNCTION TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD, SUCH AS ASIA, I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL THAT THE DECISION TO MOVE THE CUSTOMER SERVICE FUNCTION FROM ONE PART OF THE WORLD TO THE OTHER PART OF THE WORLD IS A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE INSIDE THE ICANN PROCESS AS LONG AS THE REGISTRY IS ABLE TO PERFORM THE SERVICE AT THE LEVELS THAT IT'S ORIGINALLY CONTRACTED FOR.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON A REGISTRY NECESSARILY TO REQUEST A (INAUDIBLE) ADVANCE TO MOVE A CUSTOMER SERVICE FUNCTION TO MOVE FROM ONE PART OF THE WORLD TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD. THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS IN THE CONTRACT AND OBLIGATIONS A REGISTRY HAS UNDER THE CONTRACT TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE. I DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE REGISTRY TO GET COMMUNITY INPUT ON HOW THEY ELECT TO PROPOSE TO PERFORM THE SERVICE AT THAT LEVEL.

IF I'M DOING A GOOD JOB AND I'M GETTING THE WORK DONE, THEN THERE'S NO REASON I SHOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I WOULD SAY IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A -- AND I'LL USE THE TELCO AS AN EXAMPLE. IF YOU DECIDE TO CHANGE VENDORS FOR SPECIFIC ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, IF THE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'RE BUYING FROM SIEMENS YOU NOW DECIDE TO BUY FROM ERICSSON, IF THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE SAME AS THE SPECIFICATIONS IN PROVIDING YOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO A REGULATORY AGENCY TO GET THEM TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN VENDORS. I THINK IT'S THE SAME HERE. AS LONG AS THE LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE CONSISTENT, A DECISION BY A REGISTRY TO MOVE A SERVICE FUNCTION FROM ONE PART OF THE WORLD TO ANOTHER PART OF THE WORLD -- AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TECHNICAL INTEROPERABILITY HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CUSTOMER-SERVICE FUNCTION, WHEN THEY PICK UP THE PHONE AND TALK TO A HUMAN BEING.

SO I FRANKLY DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: BRUCE, MY COMMENT IS SIMPLY THIS. I DON'T NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH MOST OF WHAT KEN SAID I DO AGREE WITH. I DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION IN MY VIEW TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROCESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROCESS HERE, AND I'M NOT WISHING -- AND I THINK NOW IS AN INAPPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE STORIES AND PUT FORWARD ANALOGIES AND WHAT HAVE YOU TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE QUANTUM OF WHEN A DECISION WILL BE MADE.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS DECISION POINT -- PERHAPS I'M GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING AS THOMAS, IS WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION IS THE FIRST THING WOULD I SAY.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHEN THERE SEEMS TO BE AN OBJECTION AS TO WHETHER A -- AN ACTION SHOULD BE REVIEWED, THE REFERENCE IS ALWAYS MADE TO, QUOTE, A PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW.

AND I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT IN ALL THE SUBMISSIONS THAT I'VE SEEN MADE AROUND THIS TABLE, THERE HAVE BEEN A VARIETY OF PROCESSES FOR REVIEW, FROM SOME VERY PERFUNCTORY, INTERNAL EXPERT REVIEW RIGHT THROUGH TO AN ICANN COMMUNITY PUBLIC REVIEW.

SO LET'S NOT JUST FOCUS ON THE ICANN PUBLIC REVIEW AS BEING, QUOTE, THE ONLY REVIEW THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK ANY OF US ARE SUGGESTING. THERE ARE DEGREES OF REVIEW, AND SO LET'S JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'VE RUN OUT OF TIME. THE WORKSHOP SESSION HAS BEEN USEFUL TO GET SOME GREAT INPUT FROM THE FLOOR. WE WELCOME PARTICIPATION FROM NEULEVEL, TUCOWS, AND ALSO THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THEIR COMMENTS, AND THIS COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE AND WILL BE EFFECTIVELY WORKING ON A FLOWCHART AND WE HOPE TO REACH AN INITIAL REPORT HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE MONTH THAT WILL TRY TO HAVE A SKETCHED OUTFLOW CHART. AND THEN WE'LL BE SEEKING FORMAL PUBLIC INPUT ON THAT.

SO I THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR TIME AND ATTENDING, AND THE NEXT WORKSHOP IS DUE TO START.
JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT FOR PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME NETWORK DIFFICULTIES, SO IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY ACCESSING THE INTERNET OR THE WEB, THE TECHNICIANS ARE SORT OF WORKING ON THAT.
WE ARE NOW ABOUT TO START THE FIRST OF THE WHOIS WORKSHOPS, AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE 1 ON WHOIS TO COME OUT IN FRONT, AND WE'LL PROCEED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST WHILE WE'RE DOING A CHANGEOVER AND GETTING ORGANIZED FOR THE THREE WHOIS WORKSHOPS, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND AS TO WHY WE HAVE THREE WHOIS WORKSHOPS, AND WHAT THE TOPIC HERE IS FOR EACH OF THOSE WHOIS AREAS ARE.

THE ISSUE OF WHOIS HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME AT ICANN, FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THOSE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DEBATED CAN REALLY BE DIVIDED INTO THREE MAIN AREAS.

THE FIRST AREA IS THE ISSUE WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE AS ACCESS CONTROL. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO YOU CONTROL ACCESS TO THE WHOIS INFORMATION? HOW DO YOU STOP PEOPLE COLLECTING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND USING IT FOR MARKETING PURPOSES?

RIGHT NOW, TODAY, WE HAVE NO ACCESS CONTROL, AND SO YOU CAN DOWNLOAD ALL OF THE WHOIS INFORMATION AT NO COST AND YOU CAN USE IT FOR MARKETING AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

SO THE FIRST TASK FORCE IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF HOW DO WE CONTROL ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THAT IS SITTING IN A DATABASE.

THE SECOND BIG ISSUE THAT'S DISCUSSED IS, IS THE INFORMATION WE COLLECT IN THE FIRST PLACE APPROPRIATE, ARE WE COLLECTING TOO MUCH. AND SECONDLY, OF THAT INFORMATION THAT WE COLLECT, SHOULD WE BE ONLY SUPPLYING A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THAT INFORMATION TO OTHER PARTIES.

AND SO THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THE SECOND WHOIS TASK FORCE, WHICH IS LOOKING AT WHAT DATA SHOULD WE COLLECT. AND OF THAT DATA, WHAT DATA SHOULD WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO OTHER PARTIES.

THE THIRD MAIN AREA OF WHOIS THAT IS BEING DEBATED IS THAT OF THE DATA THAT WE COLLECT, WHAT DO WE DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DATA IS ACCURATE. BASICALLY, THERE'S NO POINT IN COLLECTING DATA IF THE DATA IS WRONG.

AND THEN THE ISSUE OF DATA ACCURACY ITSELF IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SEPARATE PROBLEMS. THE FIRST PROBLEM IS, IS THE DATA CORRECT AT THE TIME THAT YOU COLLECT IT, AND HOW DO YOU UPDATE THE DATA OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME, BEARING IN MIND THAT SOME DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS ARE FOR PERIODS UP TO TEN YEARS, AND CERTAINLY IN MY EXPERIENCE RUNNING A REGISTRAR BUSINESS IS THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE A (INAUDIBLE) TIME OF SIX TO TEN YEARS BEFORE MANY OF THE PEOPLE CHANGE SOME OF THE DETAILS THEY ORIGINALLY SUPPLIED. SO WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE DATA OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER IT WAS COLLECTED.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE BROAD AREAS: ACCESS CONTROL, WHAT DATA SHOULD BE COLLECTED AND DISPLAYED, AND HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THAT DATA IS, IN FACT, ACCURATE.

NOW, THERE ARE SOME LINKAGES, CLEARLY, BETWEEN SOME OF THOSE THREE AREAS, BUT WE'VE DECIDED TO USE THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES, USE THE BENEFIT OF A LARGER VOLUNTEER GROUP TO LOOK AT THOSE THREE ISSUES, BUT ULTIMATELY ALL OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THOSE THREE AREAS.

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers