GNSO Council Meeting
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
ICANN Meeting
Seoul, Korea

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Good morning.  I'd like to start the meeting. 
Before starting with the agenda, I want to announce that this is the
new restructured bicameral council.  As time goes --

[Applause]

>>AVRI DORIA:  So we'll be getting into that.  You'll see, over
time, that some of the rules and procedures have changed.  I'd also
like to announce that I am serving as a nonmember chair of this
council until such time as the council elects its new chair or the
end of the week, whichever comes first.

So with that, I'd like to start the meeting and I'd like to start
the meeting with a roll call of the council members.  Could you do
that, please?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Contracted parties house.  The gTLD registry
stakeholder group.  Edmon Chung.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Here.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Present.

>>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Here.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  The registrar stakeholder group house --
shareholder group.  Adrian Kinderis.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Here.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Here.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Here.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  And the Nominating Committee appointee to the
contracted party house, Terry Davis.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Here.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  The noncontracted party house, the commercial
stakeholder group, Zahid Jamil.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Here.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Present.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Here.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  David Taylor is absent and will not be
participating remotely, although we have remote participation.

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Present.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jaime Wagner.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Not yet seen.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Not here?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  He is in Seoul.

[Laughter]

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Not here yet.  The noncommercial stakeholder
group.  Rafik Dammak.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Here.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Here.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Here.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Here in an observational capacity.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Here.

>>MARY WONG:  Present.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  And the Nominating Committee appointee to the
noncommercial stakeholder group, Olga Cavalli.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Present.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  And the noncontracted party house, there is a
Nominating Committee appointee who is nonvoting.  Andrei Kolesnikov.

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  Good morning.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Thank you.  Alan Greenberg, the ALAC liaison.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Here.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Han Chuan Lee, the ccNSO observer.

>>HAN CHUAN LEE:  Present.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Before moving on to the
next one, Mary Wong, you had wanted to make a statement, quickly.

>>MARY WONG:  Yes, thank you, Avri.

I just wanted to say on behalf of the noncommercial stakeholder
group that we are very fortunate and we welcome the arrival on
council of our three new councillors.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  At this point, we move
on to update any statements of interest, and we have a fair number of
them.  Basically anyone who had been on the previous council who
updated it, and any of the new members, I'd like to ask you to
briefly, you know, give us an update.  

Yes, Mike.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Actually, not a change to my statement of
interest, but I just had a question.  One of the people on the stage
mentioned that they're here in an observational capacity.  Just
curious to clarify that, please.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Would you care to clarify that?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Thanks.  I was informed that bylaws provision,
Paragraph 6, Section 4, would prevent me from serving simultaneously
on council and as at-large liaison to the board, although that's a
nonvoting position.  Since that term doesn't end until the board
meeting on Friday afternoon, I won't be taking my seat on council
formally until Friday.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  Basically, if I can just see those
who -- of the new -- and perhaps we could just go down the aisle and
ask all of the new members to the council to speak a couple words to
their updated statement of interest, so that it's on the record.  

I'd like to also note that Jaime has now shown up and can be marked
as in attendance.  

And Andrei, can I start with you in terms of a few words about your
statement of interest?

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  Okay.  To be very simple, I'm running the
organization, basically, in Russia, ccTLD dot ru, and I'm CEO of this
company, and I don't have any commercial or other kind of interest in
gaining by being a member of GNSO.  

And my background is straightforward.  I'm 20 years in Internet
business and nonprofit activities, basically all in Russia, and I'm
very happy to be here, and --

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: -- as a council member.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Jaime?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  My name is Jaime Wagner.  I'm with CGI Brazil, the
steering committee of Internet in Brazil.  I represent there the
ISPs.  I also own a company that is a hosting company, and recently
we have merged with UOL.  UOL is the largest ISP provider in Brazil,
and it also has registrar -- is a registrar, both for the Brazilian
ccTLD and gTLDs.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Wolf-Ulrich, please.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  My name is Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.  I'm with
Deutsche Telekom, a German telecommunications networks provider, and
Deutsche Telekom also has, under its brand of T-Online, a registrar
function, but personally I'm not related in this company to that part
of the company.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you. I'm skipping over all the current
members, but of course if you have a statement that you want to
update, please let us know.  

Rosemary, please.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Thanks, Avri.  Rosemary Sinclair from INTUG
and the Australian Telecommunications Users Group.  We're also
members of the consumers group in Australia and I'm here, really, as
a new councillor to take a special interest in consumer users of the
Internet.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you very much.  

Rafik.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Rafik Dammak from Tunisia.  I am appointed by the
board for the noncommercial stakeholder groups.  I'm also a research
student in the University of Tokyo and a member of the NCUC.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Welcome.  

Wendy.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Wendy Seltzer.  I'm here -- or will be here on
Friday as a newly elected member from the noncommercial users
constituency.  I'm a law professor and fellow of the Silicon
Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Boulder, and Harvard's
Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Debra?

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Good morning.  Thank you, Avri.  

My name is Debra Hughes.  I'm senior counsel at the American Red
Cross, which is one of the one hundred and -- one of the national
societies of the member nations.  There's 186 member nations of the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Cross and
societies, and I'm here to advocate on behalf of nonprofit and
philanthropic organizations.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  I understand there are
no other statements of interest to be updated at this time.  I'd like
to remind everyone on the council that if circumstances change,
please modify and update your statement of interest, and then notify
the council at the next council meeting with a brief update, just as
was done now.

Okay.  Moving on, then, to the review and amend agenda, let me find
that.

Okay.  Basically I have added two things to the agenda since it was
last published.  One is Theresa Swinehart wanted to come and speak
briefly on the strategic agenda later in the meeting, and then I had
neglected to put in an "any other business," and under "any other
business" at the moment is the question of requesting an extension be
on the issues report on vertical separation.

Any other questions or issues on the agenda before I move on to the
first item?

Oh, also, yes, one of the things that wasn't on is on the -- Item 6,
need to add there will -- there has been a motion that was created
and worked on in the last couple days, and that there will be a vote
on that.  I will substitute the word "plan" with the -- with the
phrase "vote on motion" and will update that.

Any other changes or issues related to the agenda?

No?

Okay.  Hearing none, we can move on to the first item.

First substantive item, which is the vote on the revised council
operating procedures.  Those procedures were defined in the document
listed there, and were put out by the chair of the OSC and the
council operations after a vote in the council for public comment. 
The public comments were brought into the council, were discussed,
and there is a motion on the table.  At this point, though, is it --
yes, it's Ray.  Okay.  I'd like to invite Ray Fassett, the chair of
the council operations work team, to give us a presentation on the
council operating procedures and what will be voted on.  Okay.  Let
me give you the...

And apologies for mispronouncing your name.  Ray Fassett.

>>RAY FASSETT:  Okay.  Everybody can hear me?  Good morning,
everybody.  Ray Fassett.

Today's a good day.  I have the new bicameral seating taking place,
and the first action of the council -- I believe the first vote of
the council -- is going to be the operating procedures.  Is that
correct?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.

>>RAY FASSETT:  The first vote?

Okay.  So hopefully longer be-term, this is going to be a footnote,
but today it has some significance.

So I've been asked just to give an update of how these procedures
came into being, the ones that are in front of you today that you'll
be voting on, and hopefully provide a confidence level of the work
that went into this, and the quality of the work and the competency
of the people that were involved.  And there's a list up on the
screen that you can see.

So, you know, the work team had a team.  We were called "The GNSO
Council Operations Work Team" or another acronym for ICANN GCOT, and
this work team came out of the Board Governance Committee working
group on GNSO improvements, and the primary task for this -- for this
work team was to determine steps that are need to do establish the
role of the council as a strategic manager of the policy process.  So
that was the high-level directive.

From there, we had to prioritize our work, which involved improving
our work team charter, updating what you will be voting on today,
which is the council rules of procedure, which in many ways had not
been updated since the days of the DNSO, which predated the GNSO.  So
it became rather critical, under this new structure, to get that
document, the rules of procedure, updated.  And then it also became
very time-sensitive, because we had the goal, as a community, to have
the council seated for this meeting in Seoul.

So that was an item that we wanted to work on right away.

And then another item that we felt was important was develop
statement of interests and declaration of interest forms, so that was
how we prioritized our work.

So our schedule.  We were formed as part of the Mexico meeting in
February.  We've held approximately 17 meetings over 30 weeks, mostly
by teleconference.  All of these meetings are MP3 recorded, including
with transcript, and are archived on the Wiki page for anyone to
review.

We originally established a biweekly meeting schedule but it became
a weekly meeting schedule for the six weeks beginning in August
through September because we were hitting, you know, close to the
deadline here for Seoul.

Now, we had some challenges here, some pretty significant challenges.

Primarily, understand that the bylaws were being updated at the same
time as we were looking to update the rules of procedure, and there
was some cross-interaction going on between the two documents and we,
of course, had to be careful that whatever we updated the rules of
procedures with was consistent with the bylaws.

So we paid quite a bit of attention to that.  A lot of support from
ICANN staff on this particular point, and as a work team, we wanted
to make sure we were staying efficient, not going off on areas or
perhaps working on things only to find out later we were superseded
by the bylaws.

So this became very tricky, but we worked through it.

And then as a work team, again, being formed in February, getting up
to speed on the entire bicameral structure, what this meant, how the -
- the different groups would be categorized, the stakeholder groups
from constituencies that we've come to know, and then flowing this
through the new rules of procedure.

So the primary work team deliverables to date is, of course, the
council rules of procedure that were submitted to the GNSO Council --
well, first to the OSC and then to the GNSO Council on 9/17 for a
vote to public comment.  It went out to a 21-day public comment
period, and -- which was completed in time for this meeting in Seoul.

And in addition, we also have delivered for ICANN council review
statements of interest and declaration of interest documents, so
those are our primarily deliverables since Mexico.

Okay.  So on this -- the rules of procedures that you will be
looking at today and voting on, understand that there's been a lot of
discussion on how to handle abstentions in the voting process.  We
recognize that.  We know that.  There's wording in there now that --
which you will be voting on today.  But I want to assure that the
work team is doubling back, immediately after Seoul, to review the
question of how to count abstentions in the voting process.  We've
actually reached out to some people here that have ideas of what this
wording could be, and they will be providing that to our work teams,
and we have a target date of on or about 11/25 to get this new
language in front of you.

So there will also be ongoing work by this work team.  We've been
chartered to continue our work through the next ICANN meeting, I
believe in March 2010.  Some of the things we'll be looking at is, as
you will see, reexamining limitations to absentee voting.  You'll --
during the review process, it just happened to be noted by somebody
who was looking over the rules of procedure, that there wasn't
anything in case of the instance of removing a chair, for whatever
reason, or what conditions those could possibly be.

So they're basically silent right now so we're going to double back
to that and look at basically industry-standard language to include
and improve.

There were other things that the BGC had put under the umbrella of
this work team that we have not gotten to at all.  Those are the
longer-term items that you see there.

Okay.  So that's pretty much the -- the depth of my presentation. 
Now, I do want to stress, though, that this work team has open
enrollment.  Anybody can join.  And we encourage anyone to join.

So if you're interested, please contact Julie Hedlund at that e-mail
address that you see up there.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  What I'm going to do now, I'll take --
I'll take that back.  I want to read the motion that's on the table,
and then I'll be opening for discussion.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Sorry, Avri.  You asked me to read the motion?

>>AVRI DORIA:  If you'd like to, although I must have you -- first
of all, I did take what you sent, but I did reword it slightly and so
you may need to read what's on the -- have you read what I wrote? 
Okay.  So if you would like to read it, that would be great, as
opposed to me reading it.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Okay.  Just briefly, I'm happy to do so.

The motion as it is right now is:

Whereas, the OSC and its operations work team produced an updated
version of the GNSO Council operating procedure that were in line
with the board update of the bylaws related to the structure of the
GNSO and the update was submitted to a period of public comment
extending from 25th of September 2009 until 16th October, 2009, and
the comments have been analyzed and discussed by the GNSO Council.

Resolved, the GNSO Council operating procedures defined in XYZ are
accepted with the following proviso:  Paragraph 4.2, dealing with the
subject of counting of abstentions is approved only as an interim
solution.  The GNSO Council operations work team (GCOT) is requested
to review this item and recommend a further solution by November 25th
in 2009.

These updated council procedures will be in force once approved and
will be forwarded to the ICANN board of directors for review.

That's the motion.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  And that motion was made by you
and it was seconded by Chuck, as I have it recorded.

I'd therefore, at this point, like to open up the discussion both to
the members of the council and open up to Q&A and any discussion from
the participants in the rest of the house.  Although I guess I need
to worry about the word "house" now, as that's taken on an overloaded
meaning.  However, I mean in the house in the theatrical sense, as
opposed to the stage.

So I'd like to open the comments, if there are any comments at this
time.  Yes.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I'd just -- I think we owe many thanks to Ray
for chairing the group and to the members of the team for producing
some good work.  So thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anyone else have a question,
clarification, any other discussion on the rules?  Yes, Mary.

>>MARY WONG:  Well, first, I'd like to echo Mike's thanks to Ray and
his team.  

This is more a point of clarification.  The motion as currently
proposed, in relation to Paragraph 4.2, there's explicit language
that says "dealing with the subject of the counting of abstentions." 
That could be interpreted to mean only that part of 4.2 or interim
4.2 that speaks explicitly of abstentions, as opposed to the whole
Paragraph 4.2.  Is the whole Paragraph 4.2 meant to be an interim
solution?

>>AVRI DORIA:  I'd like to ask, I guess, Wolf-Ulrich or Chuck, who
presented the motion, to respond to that particular question.  Or
anyone else that participated in the discussions that has a response.
Yes, Wolf.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.  Mary, sorry, I didn't catch it really
quite, but if I understand it correctly, so you were asking whether
this formulation only refers to the -- to the abstention question or
is -- could there be more behind the paragraph 4.2.1.

So my answer to that is, if I understand that correctly, it's just
referring to the abstention voting.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mary, was that --

>>MARY WONG:  Yeah.  I'm just trying to confirm then I'm actually
reading the right version.  So if the council and everyone in the
room will bear with me, so 4.2 has three sentences so I guess my
question is:  Does the motion pertain only to the last sentence, the
first sentence, or all three sentences?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.  It's my understanding that it -- that it's an
add-on, so it applies to the full paragraph.

And the reason that's being done is there's still some discussion
about that issue.  The OSC members had some discussion in that regard
as well, and I think several members of the council thought that it
would be between to ask the work team to focus on this a little bit
more, and we wanted to make it clear, and I think Kristina was one of
the ones that suggested this, make it clear that this is going to be
considered a little bit further, but for the sake of moving forward
today -- and we need this in place today -- to go ahead and accept
it, and with the understanding that it's going to be examined further.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, Wolf.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Well, Mary, I just was looking to the text as
well, and it seems to me I can clarify.

Because still in the text, two paragraphs or two separate paragraphs
under 4.3.  The one is referring to the original language in the
original operations work team, and there's one part which we
discussed to substitute that language.  But just forget the second
part.  So what we are talking about right now is to approve the first
part as it was, as it used to be in the council operation -- in the
council procedures of operations, and to approve that as an interim
solution.

So the second part is going to be deleted for that time.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  You know, it was my understanding that it referred
primarily just -- or just to the issue of abstentions.  And that
where the changes that might be agreed to to deal with the concerns
about abstentions, where that might affect other aspects of that
paragraph, that those -- that that may change, but that the goal
would be that the intention of those first two sentences would be
maintained to the extent possible, other than what needs to change to
deal with whatever solution is -- that we come up with in regards to
abstentions.

That's my understanding.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Mary, I see you're nodding your
head.  Is...

>>MARY WONG:  Yeah.  That was my understanding as well, so I -- I
raised this as a point of clarification because I think that the --
the motion as proposed by someone without that understanding could --
someone could conceivably read the motion to mean only that the --
it's the third sentence specifically that's an interim solution, but
that the first two sentences are adopted.  I don't want to over-
lawyer this, but, you know, I understand --

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Are you proposing a friendly amendment to the
motion or are you willing to -- to leave it as it is?

>>MARY WONG:  I'm not going to belabor the point.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Any further discussion on this? 
Yes, Terry.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Yeah.  Just a comment on Section 3.7, seating and
visibility.

As the committee works on that, I would like to see that enhanced
slightly, so that the council members were identified, much like
this, with a label at their seat, and also so that the chair also --
chair and vice chairs had visibility of the other meeting
participants at an open mic.  That's just a future request got
steering committee.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Yes.  Thank you.  And that's one of the
reasons I'm sitting on the edge here this time, because it's the only
way I could possibly see you all.

And I can see the -- but thank you.  Indeed, it's a good point.

Anyone else have a comment at this time?

No?  If there are no other comments, then I'll ask for the vote. 
This will be a polled vote, and I will ask Glen to start from this
end and poll down the table as you go.  Would you like to perhaps
stand up there to do it, so you can see them easily?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Yes.

>>AVRI DORIA:  There is an awkwardness in this room with seeing
people, so...

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yes.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Yes.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Yes.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Yes.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yes.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yes.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Yes.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes.

>>MARY WONG:  Yes.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Yes.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Yes.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Yes.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Yes.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yes.

>>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  I should have reminded people
beforehand that this vote required 50% of each house.  As it was
unanimous of those voting, I think we achieved that level, but it
really is important, as chair, that one announce the necessary
thresholds before a vote so that people understand because as you'll
see with this charter and those that have read the new bylaws and
that, there are many different voting levels.

I'd like to congratulate you on having approved your new operating
procedures, and move on to the next item in the agenda.

Let me get the agenda back up.  The next item in the agenda is the
election of a council chair.  The first will be to vote on a -- on
motions, if any, on holding the election by means of a secret ballot.
Then there will be a public statement by each of the two candidates. 
Each of the houses has nominated a candidate from a set of nominees
that had been made by the council in toto.  Then an open question and
answer both to the members of the council and the members of the
greater house.  Then there will be a first round voting, activation
of an absentee ballot.  In this case, the member who is absent is,
basically, unfortunately, visiting with his mother in a hospital and
does not have Internet access.  So a first round vote was already
obtained from him beforehand by the council's explicit permission. 
And then, if there is a need for a second round vote, then that will
be called, depending on the first round vote.  

Just to remind anyone who hasn't recently read and memorized the
bylaws, to elect a new chair, the candidate must get 60% of each of
the houses, which, if I am correct, is five votes in contracted party
and eight votes in noncontracted party.  And those are the two
thresholds that one must reach.  There are many other rules in this
process.  For example, what happens if they tie?  The election is
restarted in two weeks.  

What happens if none of the above wins 60% in each of the houses? 
The election is halted and is restarted again -- the whole process is
restarted again in two weeks.

What happens if nobody gets 60% in each house?  Then you add the
percentages reached by each of the candidates in each of the houses. 
And the one who has the greater total percentage then is a sole
candidate against "not the above" in the second round.  If "not the
above' gets 60% of both houses, then the election is punted for
another two weeks.  Otherwise, that person, having reached 60% in
each of the houses, is the elected chair.

The other point being made is, during this vote -- I don't know if
he's here yet.  Yes, he is.  I have asked Kieren McCarthy to do the
counting of the ballots.  He will then announce the results.  On any
of the rounds -- on the first round we don't have to worry about an
absentee ballot because we already have it in hand.  If we go to a
second round, after looking at the ballot without announcing the
results, Kieren will let us know whether we need that absentee ballot
in order to complete the vote.

If we need that absentee ballot to complete the vote, then there
will be a 24-hour absentee ballot collection, because we weren't able
to collect an absentee ballot in advance on that particular issue.

I hope I got it right.  And there won't be a quiz on this.  And,
therefore, I'd like now to move to the possibility of motions.  There
had been a discussion -- hold on a second.  Yes, let me first get to
the motions.  And then I will -- okay.  The motion for a secret
ballot had been put on the Wiki for possible motions by me because
there had been discussion.  It has, however, not been made or
seconded yet.  So I'd like to open the floor to the members of the
council for discussion for motion of a secret ballot on this issue. 
Would anyone like to speak to that issue?  Okay.  I see Mike, and I
see Kristina.  

Go ahead, Mike.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I would make the motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I think as a matter of principle, obviously,
that this is a good thing that we have the option to vote in secret
for, essentially, personal matters, administrative matters, clearly,
not policy matters.

Given just the inherent sensitive nature of having to choose one
person over another and then relying on that person to treat you
fairly for your entire term, if people feel uncomfortable with that,
then I feel they should be allowed to cast a secret ballot.  That
said, I don't intend to do so today.  But, if folks have that -- if
folks -- folks should have that option.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  

Kristina, you had your hand up.  Okay.  

Do I have a second on that motion?  Yes, Terry?

 >>TERRY DAVIS:  I'll second the motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Terry has seconded the motion.  

Having the motion having been made and seconded, I'd like to open
the discussion to those who would like to comment on it before I call
a vote on it.  This will be a roll call vote.  This time starting
from Chuck.  But in the meantime I'd like -- okay.  Yes, Jordi.

 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: Hello. Well, if I'm able to resume what was
said in our stakeholder group, the idea is that we have to deal a
little bit better with these kind of personal issues in terms of
voting.  Our understanding is that, because of transparency and
accountability, the vote should be open.  We do understand the issues
that could drive to that position.  But we think that that's maybe
not the best solution.  Because somehow we are, if that's the right
understanding, if there were some pressures in the audience in the
past meeting that are driving to that proposal, we think we should
deal with the diversions of that not allowing free speech of GNSO
Councillors and not close ourself and cut somehow our freedom of
speech.  So the point is that we'd prefer that to be open and that we
have to set up a way in which these things have to be solved.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Any other comments?  

Yes, Bill?

 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I'll simply reiterate here what I've been saying
on the list, which is that, to me, this is not just a mere
administrative matter.  I think it's a very important decision.  I
think that, as a matter of principle, the council should do
everything it can in an open and transparent manner.  It's not a
reflection on personalities how people vote.  It's just business. 
Everybody understands this.  And it strikes me as particularly bad
optics at this point in the larger political environment and in
ICANN's evolution that we should be making such important decisions
via secret ballots.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Any other comments.  

Yes, Wolf-Ulrich?

 >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  We had also discussion within our
constituency about that.  And we have a firm view that the vote
should be secret.  I have just an organizational issue with that. 
So, as I understand, ballots are going to be done as a roll call
here, and if that is the way also to elect the chair, then, from an
organizational point of view, I would say people who are at the end
of the list which are called, they have a better chance to influence
the result because they know what the others have been voting on. 
And that's an issue that I would like to raise.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Zahid, and then I have Stéphane,
and I have --

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:  Thank you.  First of all, I think certain words we
use in discussion today about politics, transparency, and elections,
my understanding -- and I'm maybe going outside the ICANN world -- is
that in politics, when there are elections, in order to be
transparent and fair, they have secret because it allows people to
exercise their right without duress or pressure from those who are
watching to be able to freely exercise a vote that they're going to
cast.  And sometimes, where people have actually explained who
they're voting for, because some people who may be sitting in the
audience or anywhere else saying who are you voting for, show me who
you stamp that ballot form for, I think that's sort of reverse.  It's
actually quenching or detracting from freedom of speech.  It's just a
point I wanted to make.

[Applause]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  

I have Stéphane, Kristina, Adrian, Bill.

 >>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  I want to go back to what other people said
about the rights or wrongs of having an open or closed vote.  But I
would, for simplicity's sake, urge that this vote be open.  If it is
closed, as we haven't prepared for it, I think we might have some
issues with making sure that the vote goes in a smooth manner.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Actually, knowing the possibility that there might
be a secret ballot request, the staff has prepared us for a secret
ballot because we didn't wish for that to be the determining factor.

 >>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  Could you explain how it would work?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, I can.  We have two colored ballots that have --
for the first we have, I believe, yellow ballots for the
noncontracted.  We have green ballots for the contracted.  They've
got the name of the two candidates with a box.  They've also got a
box that says "none of the above" with the instructions -- yes, you
can show them.  Unfortunately, they can't show them on the screen. 
But, basically, they have the three possibilities.  And that -- and
we've asked Kieren to be able -- so you check, you chose, you -- and,
you know, we can take a break.  And people can walk off to secret
corners, if they wish to, for checking.  

And then for the second ballot, we have already written that one
that, basically, has name of prevailing candidate from first ballot. 
There's only one name. So we didn't need to know it to create the
ballot.  We just have that variable standing in, plus "not the
above."  Same thing. Yellow and green, so that we're certain that we
keep the percentage of houses clear.  She's only shown the yellow. 
The green looks exactly the same.  And, again, we have Kieren to
count that.  As was discussed in the council, we did -- not "we."  

But Glen did speak to David Taylor and got his vote on the first
ballot.  We did not ask him for his vote on the second ballot to just
blindly vote for prevailing candidate from the first ballot.

 >>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  So, for simplicity's sake, even though I
commend and thank staff, yourself, and Kieren for all that effort, I
do urge that we choose a simple solution.  And this is, obviously --
I mean, obviously, an open vote at this stage would be slightly
simpler.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  

Next I had Kristina.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  It's really no secret, for those of you who
read the council list, that I was the person who raised this issue,
not only because -- out of concern about, as we start a new bicameral
structure, that there be trust across the council and out of a
concern that, given the high threshold that will, in fact, required
to elect a council chair, that, because we are actually voting for a
person as opposed to a policy, that notwithstanding best intentions
to the contrary, that, frankly, there can sometimes be residual
issues that follow on from that.  

I will also say, quite candidly, that a large part of my motivation
for requesting a secret ballot was that the environment in this
particular meeting, in past several meetings, has not been
particularly civil.  And it seemed to me that a good way to short
circuit that issue was to have a secret ballot.  I understand the
concerns that have been raised regarding transparency and
accountability.  But, in my view, I am accountable to my constituency
and my stakeholder group.  And, if they do not have sufficient trust
in me to, A, vote as they've requested and, B, to report to them how
I have voted, then, frankly, I have no business being their
representative.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Adrian?

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Is this on?  Hello?  Good.  So --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  But you have to speak into it.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Two quick points.  First one is with respect to
-- this is a GNSO Council vote.  This is not the election for freedom
of a country.  So let's put it in perspective here.  Let's not talk
about the rights and obligations of -- (off mic)

And, secondly, I appreciate Kristina's point -- should I just yell? 
Is this on now?

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Hard enough to understand in the best of times.
Sorry, scribes.  I assume you got all that rhetoric earlier.  

The next point is, with all due respect, these aren't -- our
stakeholder groups aren't locked boxes either.  And, you know, I
think we've just spent the last 20 minutes talking about this.  And,
effectively, I don't think any vote is ever going to be silent or
closed.  Someone's going to know somewhere along the line.  We do
report to folks, as you said, our stakeholder groups.  So, you know,
I'd just be an advocate of moving this along.  And one way or the
other, it's really somewhat inconsequential, I figure.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  It's consequential because we have a
motion on the table.  But -- Bill?

 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I just wanted to emphasize that I think
reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this, and it's not an
uncivil thing to discuss it for a few minutes.  My point is simply, I
think, that we're not engaged in -- as private individuals voting our
conscience.  We're here as representatives of groups.  And I think
people have a right to know where those groups stand on important
matters like this.  It's a quasi-legislative function.  And so, for
me, transparency is not so problematic.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Mike?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I would just point out, in response to Bill,
that some of us on the stage are not appointed -- are not
representing constituencies but are appointed by the Nominating
Committee or otherwise.  So you're not entirely accurate there.  

And, moreover, at least under the business constituencies matter,
decisions like this are left to the discretion of the councillors
rather than the constituency.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Yes, Andrei.

 >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  I'm a nonvoting member, but I should express
my opinion on this.  I think the vote should be really open.  This is
the 21st century.  What's the problem?  

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you very much.  Did I see any other hands?  
Yes, Terry.

 >>TERRY DAVIS:  Just kind of restate the point I made on the list.  

I've been working on the public land use commission for 20 years. 
We've done open and closed ballots both ways.  I have to agree with
Kristina.  I've seen problems come from it, and it does affect how
people vote.  That was my point in seconding it.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much.  Is there further discussion? 
Can I ask for the vote on this?  This will be an open vote on the
secret ballot.  If so, if there are no more questions, I would like
to ask Glen to call the roll.  As I say, this time, please start from
Chuck.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  No.

 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE: No.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:  No.

 >>JAIME WAGNER:  Yes.

 >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:  Yes.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes.

 >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  No.

 >>WILLIAM DRAKE:  No.

 >>MARY WONG:  No.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  No.

 >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Against.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Against.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  No.

 >>RAFIK DAMMAK:  No.

 >>TERRY DAVIS:  Yes.

 >>DEBRA HUGHES:  No.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA: This was a vote that required majority of both
houses.  Again, I should have announced that beforehand, but it's in
the operating procedures.  So, while Glen is tallying those votes --

 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Can I have Mike Rodenbaugh's again?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes.

 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Learning to count votes in this new bicameral is
still a complicating exercise.  Okay.  

In the contracted house we have six "no" and one "yes."  In the
noncontracted parties house, we have six "no" and five "yes."  So the
motion does not carry.  This will be an open vote.

Okay.  And we do have someone who has a spreadsheet that's also
tallying what we need.  In each of the cases, for example, the ballot
will be a 60%.  And, as we said, that's a different threshold than
this one which was a four and seven as opposed to a five and eight.  

But -- yes, Jordi?

 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Thank you, Avri.  After the vote, I think we
should stress the importance of what Kristina said and what Kristina
experienced.  So, regardless of the result of that, I think it's
really, really important for all of us as councillors and for the
rest as public to really take into account that we are here to
cooperate and to work for the benefit of the community.  So, whatever
attitude that goes against the free speech and the free way of
working of, not what ourself decides, but what our constituencies
decide has to be supported.  So, if ever we face again one of those
cases, we should all react against that and not allow them to cut our
right to work with that sense.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Mike, did I see your hand?  It went up
quickly -- okay, yes, I did see it.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Just real quick, I would note that we're --
were the councillor who is not present present, I think that motion
would have carried.

 >>AVRI DORIA: One of the houses was overwhelmingly -- for both
houses to be a majority, we would have needed a lot of votes to
change direction.  I guess we need to get this clear.  50% in each --
it had to have a majority in both houses to pass.  And one house had --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  65.

 >>AVRI DORIA: It was all but one against.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Ah, okay.

Sorry, sorry.  Little early this morning.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  No problem.  But the new voting is a challenge.  But
I'm sure, within a couple months it will be, you know -- anyway, to
move on to the next part of the selection was, basically -- okay.

I'd like to ask each of the two candidates to make a brief
statement.  And then we'll open up discussion on -- Q&A more than
discussion to both those in the greater house and those on the stage.
So thank you, Chuck. Would you go first?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.  Thanks, Avri.  First thing I'd like to do is
to thank the registries stakeholder group and the registrar
stakeholder group for nominating me.  I can tell you that there was a
lot of deliberation on that, and a lot of thought went into it.  Some
of you may think it was trivial.  It was not.  But I do appreciate
their support there.

I also want to thank Olga for all the work she contributes to the
GNSO and her willingness to stand for this position knowing how much
work it is.  So I appreciate that, Olga.

If I am elected, I will be wearing at least two hats, because I am
sitting here on the council as a representative of the registry
stakeholder group.  So I still have that responsibility to represent
them.  As chair, though, I would have a responsibility to act
neutrally in terms of leading council meetings and leading council
activities.  So it's going to be very important that I keep those
hats separately and make very clear when I'm wearing the registry
representative hat versus acting as chair.

I'd also like you to note that my role on the council, whether chair
or not, is not to represent myself or to represent VeriSign, my
employer.

Our -- the registry stakeholder group charter simply doesn't allow
that.  I am here right now representing the registry stakeholder group.

And, as chair, I will be serving the council, not the registry
stakeholder group.  So it's very important to understand that.  

I understand the workload that's in front of us.  In fact, it's on
our plates already.  And I understand the time commitment that is
involved in fulfilling the chair responsibilities.  In fact, I'm
almost too aware of that.  The -- but I can tell you that my
management has given me permission to commit the time needed to
perform this leadership role.

We have -- we have at least three really big projects on the council
-- the new TLDs -- and I'm going to name it separately, although it's
a subset of that -- and that's IDN TLDs.  And then, of course, we
have the ongoing GNSO improvements that are all very significant for
the GNSO.  And then, on top of that, we have a lot of other things
going on.  I think -- I personally have two goals in that regard. 
Number one is for us to organize and prioritize our work as best we
can.  And number two is to continue to enlist new participants in
GNSO working groups and working teams and so forth so we can spread
the workload around so that none of us becomes too overloaded in the
task that we have before us.  Regardless of how this vote goes, I can
assure you that I will do my best to continue to be a constructive
and active participant in the council as we face the challenges of
this next year.  Thank you.  

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  

And, Olga, if you could make a statement, please.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Avri.  Thanks, thank you, Chuck for
your kind words.  You know I appreciate working with you a lot.  

I will be very brief.  First, let me thank the noncontracted parties
house for choosing me as chair and interim vice chair.  Since I was
appointed by the NomCom to the GNSO in 2007, I have tried to be as
much active as possible in my role of council member in order to
understand dynamics among the different constituencies in the GNSO
and also the interaction between the council and other ICANN
organizations and committees as well as the whole community.

I volunteered and got involved in the restructuring process in
several working groups, working teams, liaisons, drafting teams,
where my contribution and work could add value.  If I'm elected GNSO
chair, I will do my best to accomplish my mission as NomCom appointee
to the GNSO from a neutral perspective, placing the broad public
interest ahead of any particular interest.

Finally, let me tell you that I feel very privileged to be part of
this council and to be part of the ICANN community.  I also want to
thank all retiring councillors and tell them that I have enjoyed
working with you all and learning from you, especially my deepest
appreciation to Avri in the role of chair and friend.  And to the new
council and its brand-new structure, I'm very much looking forward to
working with you all.  Thank you very much.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.

[Applause]

I would like to open both the microphones in the greater house and
the microphones in the two houses for questions, if there are any, of
the two candidates.  Yes, Tim?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I'd like to ask both candidates how they intend to use
the vice chairs.  We, up until now, had a single vice chair.  And now
we have a vice chair from each house.  I'm curious if they've given
that any thought.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Tim, for the question.  Thank you,
Chuck.  I think having two vice chairs brings more -- that's a lot of
work in GNSO.  And having two vice chairs from two different houses
will help the chair in a very complex role.  I think it will be more
help to the chair and two different views together to help the work
of the chair and to help the dynamic of the group.  I think it will
be better.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Chuck?

 >>CHUCK GOMES: I'd like to follow Avri's role in that regard.  She
kept me very busy as a vice chair, because she involved me in almost
all the decisions she made as chair.  I would intend to do the same
thing with the two vice chairs and involve them as much as practical
in all the decisions that the chair needs to make, so that we really
have three heads rather than one and even rather than two, like Avri
and I working together, going forward.  I think that makes for a lot
better leadership.  At the same time you still have a chair that can
make a decision, if there's not consensus among the three.  But I
personally really like working as a leadership team.  And that's how
I would view the chair and vice chair roles.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Yes, Stéphane?

 >>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  Thank you, Avri.  I'd just like to ask
Olga, during your statement you said that you're interim vice chair
at the moment for your house.  Can you explain how that works
exactly?  Sorry, did I say Avri?  I meant Olga.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  You said Avri.  Perhaps somebody else in the house
could help me.  There was a meeting on Saturday morning.  And I was
elected by the noncontracted house as chair candidate and as interim
vice chair.  Perhaps I'm not the one who explain which is the
situation.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  In fairness to Olga, it would be much better, like
she suggested, that someone from the house explain the rationale there.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  The rationale or the actual practice?  Because
if what was actually decided, I could probably explain.  Rationale, I
would need to ask someone in the house to volunteer.  Basically --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  The practice is fine.

>>AVRI DORIA:  The actuality was that if she were to be elected as
chair, then -- in any case, they will hold a new election for a vice
chair but especially sooner if she were to be elected as chair.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thanks, Avri.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Did anyone from the house want to add to that in
answer to the question before I moved on?  Okay.  I still see no one
in the greater house at the microphones.  

Yes, Mike.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Just a quick reasoning on that, we wanted to
wait until the outcome of the chair election before we decided on our
candidate -- or our choice for the vice chair.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Any more questions for the candidates? 
If not, we will start the vote.  I would, however, like to ask Rob,
if he's here, to explain something about the percentages and number
of votes necessary for both rounds.  

So, Rob?

>>ROB HOGGARTH:  Thank you, Avri.  Everything is unique in this
situation, including the vote.  The additional unique aspect of this
election is that, as Wendy pointed out, she is not voting in the non-
contract party house.  Typically the result of the election would be
60% of the vote in each house.  The calculation would be based on the
number of seats in each house.

But since Wendy's not voting and not eligible to vote at this point,
the calculation in the non-contract party house would be 60% of 12
votes, not 60% of 13 votes.

The good news is that regardless of the percentage, the numbers
remain the same.  And as you did before the previous vote, Avri, the
60% threshold in the non-contract party house is eight votes.  And
the 60% threshold in the contract party house is five votes.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Yes, Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I don't know that we'll ever get this situation
again, but I'm trying to understand why it changes the denominator.

>>ROB HOGGARTH:  The general counsel advises it is the number of
votes not the number of seats as the procedure is written for the
transition.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Mary, you had a question on that?

>>MARY WONG:  No.  It wasn't a question.  Just a quick point, that
particular situation explained by Rob has been explained to and
accepted by the stakeholder group whom Wendy will represent on
council as of Friday.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  At this point, I'd like to ask
Glen to call the roll -- not call the roll but to go across the
table, starting with Kristina this time.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yes.  I'm sorry.  I'm not trying to be
difficult.  I'm just trying to figure out how we're doing this
because we started off with taking attendance by house and going --

>>AVRI DORIA:  We have been basically going random across. 
Basically -- and this was a discussion among the staff that there's a
degree in randomization in terms of how you picked to sit so that it
isn't the voting predictable in block that you've got.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Except at the next meeting we will all be
fighting to sit in the middle.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Oh, that will be fun to watch.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Okay, no.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Perhaps a different method of randomizing, but,
basically, because of the stakeholder house nature of things, for
example, in phone calls, what was discussed was using the order in
which people got onto the phone call.  Maybe people will get there
early, late, I don't know.

Otherwise, there needed to be some way to randomize the order given
the block nature of voting.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Maybe you could pass on your lottery number
algorithm to the new chair so that we aren't all fighting to sit in
the middle next time.

>>AVRI DORIA:  It is an RFC and it is available.  And, believe it or
not, we did discuss using it.

Okay.  So if there are no more comments, and on that happy note, I'd
like to start the vote.  Yes, the two candidates that you are
choosing between are the two that just made statements.  There's
Chuck Gomes, and there's Olga Cavalli.  And the threshold 60% in each
house needs to be achieved.  You have also the option of voting "none
of the above" should you wish to.

At that, I think I have covered everything that needs to be covered.
Yes, Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  I would have no problem if you wanted to start in the
middle and work your way back.

>>AVRI DORIA:  That would be complexity for -- do we need to take a
vote on where we start?

[Laughter]

Okay.  Thank you.  But it is a good start.  We could pick a random
start for each one.

Okay.  Actually, that is very good and then shift left and shift
right.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Chuck Gomes.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Chuck Gomes.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Olga Cavalli.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Chuck Gomes.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Olga Cavalli.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Olga Cavalli.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Chuck Gomes.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Chuck Gomes.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Chuck Gomes.

>>MARY WONG:  Olga Cavalli.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Olga Cavalli.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Olga Cavalli.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Chuck Gomes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Zahid Jamil, you have already voted.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Chuck Gomes.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Chuck Gomes.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Chuck Gomes.

>>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Chuck Gomes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  On behalf of the registry stakeholder group, Chuck
Gomes.

[Laughter]

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  One moment while we tally.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Avri?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  I obtained the vote from David Taylor, the
IPC councillor who is unfortunately not able to be here, with the
consent of the IPC constituency.  And David votes for Chuck Gomes.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Take a minute break while we count.

[Pause]

Okay.  This is lots of fun, even with spreadsheets, it's lots of
fun.  So, basically, in one house it was 100% and zero.  That one was
fairly easy to count.  But we had to make sure we had the count in
the other.

So in the other house, it was, basically, even at six and six out of
12 votes.  It was even at six and six.  So that means we did not hit
the 60% threshold in each of the two houses and, therefore, a second
ballot is required.  

The second ballot is between the prevailing candidate and not the
prevailing candidate.  So the second ballot, which we will call
immediately and give questions, would be between Chuck and not Chuck.

[Laughter]

Yes, Mike?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Given the circumstances, perhaps we could take a
15-minute break for coffee?

>>AVRI DORIA:  For a consultation?  Certainly.  If there's no
objection to a 15-minute -- but a real 15-minute, please.  No, there
is objection?  There is objection to taking a break.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I guess I'm informed the circumstances don't
require that, so let's move on.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Sorry, okay, that's been taken back, in which case we
can start the vote again.  We can start in the middle this time as
was suggested by Tim.  So we'll start with Tim and move left because
I always like groups to move left.

[Laughter]

So you'll start with Tim and go to Stéphane.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Chuck.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Tim Ruiz?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Chuck.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Chuck or no Chuck?

[Laughter]

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  What was that choice again?

[Laughter]

Chuck.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I'd love a Chuck, please.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Chuck.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  No Chuck.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Chuck.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Chuck.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Chuck.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Chuck.

[Laughter]

>>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  Chuck.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Chuck.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Chuck.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Chuck.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Chuck.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Chuck.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Chuck.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  With pleasure, Chuck.

>>MARY WONG:  And this has nothing to do with the lack of a
candidate statement from "not Chuck," but with great pleasure, I vote
for Chuck.

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you.  Let's get the tally.

[Applause]

We do not have the count but it is Chuck.  As the agenda says, if a
new chair is elected, the provisional chair will now step down and
the newly elected chair will chair the rest of the meeting.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  As the chair, though, would you remain just at least
one moment?  Indulge me for one moment, please.

[Applause]

[Standing ovation]

>>AVRI DORIA:  We've also had a request from --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Glen, do we have something there?  Before Avri steps
down, again, I think another round of applause would be very much in
order and hopefully we will have another opportunity for this later. 
But she has put in incredible hours these past two years and we owe
her a great deal of gratitude.  So thank you very much, Avri.

[Applause]

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

[Standing ovation]

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, all.  I must say it has been a whole lot
of fun, and I wish you the greatest of luck.

[Laughter]

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Chuck?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Chuck, will you be moving left now?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Oh, please, Chuck, move to the left!

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Over this way --

(laughter) -- off the stage?  Okay, Adrian.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I also wanted to take the opportunity to thank
ICANN staff, in particular Rob Hoggarth, who I have been able to
approach and ask questions about this process.  And I know that Avri
has as well as we all have.  So an appreciation to them, I think,
should be shown as well for helping out with this process and their
support.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Adrian.  Anyone else want to comment?

I would like before we do take a break -- and I think Mike's
suggestion is a good one, unless anybody objects -- thank you for the
vote of support.  I already warned the two vice chairs that I was
going to involve them a lot.  I should also publicly warn staff that
I will rely on them a lot.  I think they already know that.

And I want to tell you -- this will not come as a surprise to
anybody, but I'm definitely not perfect.  I will do some things
wrong, and I want you to feel free to let me know when I do that. 
Please come to me.  I'm very open about that, and I will guarantee
you that I will make mistakes.

My challenge to the council and the GNSO community as a whole is
let's make this next year a positive one for change for the GNSO. 
We've got a lot of work in front of us.  And I'm really encouraged by
what has gone on in the GNSO improvement work teams.  I'm really
excited to see the results of the new PDP work team and the working
group work teams and the other work that's going on in the OSC side
of that process.

And if we all work together constructively, we can really make a big
difference so that when I leave this position a year from now we'll
be on solid footing.  And I know that that's the objectives of the
Structural Improvements Committee and all the work that went on by
the board on this.  

And I see Roberto back there.  He has worked very hard, and I think
nothing could please him more and the board as a whole to see the
progress that we will have made working together.  It's not me, it's
not the vice chairs and me; it is all of us on the council and all of
us in the GNSO.

One last request -- and we won't take care of the logistics of this,
but I would definitely like to try and find time today for a meeting
with the vice chairs and staff so that we can -- and if Avri's
willing to participate with us, I would certainly welcome her, too,
because I know she has put some thought into this -- to plan our
follow-up meeting which will occur tomorrow afternoon.  Thank you.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Can I just ask -- I don't know if anyone
from the non-contracted parties house can tell us this, but when are
they electing their definitive vice chair?  It would be nice to get
this whole process done as soon as possible, I'm sure.  Has that been
decided yet?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  We agreed only to do it as soon as possible
after the chair election.  That could happen today.  That could
happen in the next week.  That really depends on whether we have
consensus.  So we can't answer that question precisely at the moment.
But we will get back, I would say, at least within a week or ten days
if we can.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  But in terms of my request for a meeting today, it
would be Olga, right?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Of course.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  If there are no objections, we'll take -- are we
corresponding to the arranged break?  What's the timing on that,
Glen?  Is it okay to take a break right now?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Yes, it would be all right.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I don't see on the agenda a time for the break.  Is
15 minutes enough or -- 15-minute break?  Okay.  Thank you.  We're
dismissed for a break.

[Break]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I would like to ask the councillors to please
return so that we can resume our meeting.  Thank you.

Okay.  We are going to resume the council meeting.  If we can have
the agenda put back up, please.

While people are getting seated here, it's -- a couple suggestions
were made on the break, one of them that I should request a recount. 
I think probably there's some validity in that.  The second one was
that there be a concession speech from "not Chuck."

[Laughter]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So thanks for those suggestions.

Okay.  The next item on our agenda is the IANA business excellence
initiative.  Leo Vegoda, are you ready to go?  Welcome to the council
meeting.  It's all yours.

>>LEO VEGODA:  Thank you very much.  Thank you, everyone, for
inviting me.  I'm very glad to be talking about this work which we
began just a few months ago.

As I think everyone can expect, the workload for the IANA functions
is expected to increase significantly over the next year or so, and
we've started this work because we want to make sure that we're going
to be able to provide the service that really needs to be provided
for those functions.

Now, this is one of the strategic priorities that came out of the
strategic plan:  Strive for excellence and cooperations.  We
obviously want to make sure that we're providing an excellent service.

So this is a multiyear activity.  It's not something that's just
going to happen once and then we've done it.  We are going to move
asymptotically towards excellence, hopefully.  The activity was
started by Barbara Roseman, who is the IANA general operations
manager and Doug Brent, and it involves the whole of the IANA team. 
In fact, it's actually a little bit broader than that, because it
involves other parts of ICANN as well.  It involves the I.T.
department and finance and human resources and so on.

And the process is intended to be systematic and sustainable, and
it's systematic because we'll be going through a process of
identifying improvements, carrying out activities, and reviewing, to
make sure that those improvements have worked, and then identifying
more improvements.

This slide here shows the fundamental concepts of excellence that we
are working on.

Now, this comes from the EFQM model of business excellence.  There
are other models available.  There's the JQA from Japan, and the
Baldridge model which is popular in the U.S.  We selected the EFQM
model because it's popular across a large part of the world and ICANN
is an international organization so it's important that we select
models that are in use across a large part of the world.

EFQM is obviously popular in Europe because it's a European model,
but it's also popular in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

The concepts there are pretty obvious when you think about them. 
They're very difficult to argue with.

You know, results focus, and customer focus, and management by
processes and facts.

These are all things that I think are difficult to argue with.

And I won't go through them in any great detail now, but we have an
hour-long session on this topic on Thursday afternoon, so if anyone
wants more details on this, then on Thursday afternoon we can talk
about it in more detail.

The time line we're working on is we're currently putting together a
baseline measurement document which should be ready by the middle of
December.

By the middle of January, we'll have reviewed that document as a
bunch of internal reviewers, and we'll do our internal self-
assessment, and as an outcome from that self-assessment, we'll be
identifying some strategic priorities which will become projects that
we will work on.

Now, those projects that we'll work on to improve some of the areas
of the way we deliver the IANA functions, they'll be identified at
the same time as we begin the financial planning for the next
financial year.

So we're putting together the planning for how we're going to be
doing the work and the planning for how the work is going to be paid
for, so that we shouldn't have any -- a mismatch which causes problems.

Now, as I mentioned, this is something that is meant to be a
multiyear piece of work, and the idea is that at the end of the next
year when we've gone -- conducted those projects for areas of
improvement where we need to make improvements, we'll then review to
make sure that we achieved what we needed to achieve and will
identify additional areas for improvement and will start work on
those again.

Part of the work that we'd be doing is making sure that we're
communicating clearly on the work with our key stakeholders, so the
GNSO clearly a very key stakeholder for ICANN, and the IANA
functions, so we want to communicate with the GNSO on a regular basis.

Partly through meetings like this and giving brief updates on the
work that we're doing.  We'll also be providing written communication
through our blog, and we're always happy to sit down with people,
have a chat, and continue talking about what we're doing and getting
feedback from people on areas where they'd like improvement on a
regular basis.

That's all from me, so if I hand back to you, Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Leo.  If you'll say there just for a
moment, please.

Any questions or comments from anyone on the council or anyone in
the room?  

Okay.  Thank you very much.  We look forward to seeing that.  It
looks like a very thorough, ongoing process of continuous
improvement.  That's great.

>>LEO VEGODA:  Great.  Thank you very much.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Our next agenda item is a very popular
one over the years:  WHOIS.

And Liz Gasster is going to come and give a status in terms of where
we're at in terms of WHOIS studies and what's going on there.

And so everybody will hopefully have an up-to-date picture in terms
of where we're at.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Good morning, everyone.  I'm Liz Gasster from the
policy staff.  Thanks for attending this morning.

I'm going to be just giving a quick overview of WHOIS, providing a
little background on why the council is considering studies, and then
talking a little bit more in detail about the studies themselves. 
And I'm really the first part of a two-part presentation here on
WHOIS.  My presentation will be followed by a presentation from my
colleague, Dave Piscitello, who will go into more detail about one
particular study area that he's begun working on.

So what I thought I'd start with is just a brief definition of
"WHOIS."

WHOIS provides public access to contact information for registered
name holders.  Those requirements are spelled out in the agreements
that we have with registrars and registries.  By the way, I don't
plan on going through all the detail on these slides.  They are
posted, and don't want to take up the full time here, but -- so if I
skip some things, that's why.

I wanted to provide a sample WHOIS record, to give folks who may not
be familiar with WHOIS data, an idea of how this data appears
typically when you perform a WHOIS query.

Sometimes the queries use different formats.  This particular
registration is for ICANN, and it just gives you an idea of the kind
of contact information that's provided in WHOIS.

So why are WHOIS studies important?

You know, WHOIS policy has been debated for many years.  There are
many competing interests with very valid viewpoints concerning WHOIS.
Many of you who have followed this debate for a long time are
familiar with this, but, you know, we have law enforcement,
intellectual property owners, and others who are concerned and want
easy access to accurate contact information.

We have individuals quite concerned about privacy and privacy
advocates as well concerned about privacy protection and data that is
publicly available in WHOIS today, and the potential for that public
data to be abused.

We have concerns from governments who want to make sure that their
legal regimes, which do differ by country, are followed.  And we have
concerns from service providers who may be reluctant to absorb new
costs and registrars who earn revenue from various privacy services
today.

So we have quite a diverse set of interests concerned about WHOIS,
and while the debate about WHOIS policy has continued for so long,
there's really been very few changes to consensus policy over time. 
Two that I can mention are the prohibition against use of WHOIS data
for marketing, bulk access to WHOIS for marketing, and the conflicts
procedure which grew out of concerns that there could be conflicts
potentially with the privacy laws of various nations.

But bottom line is, there's been overall very little policy change
to WHOIS over the years.

So in terms of the goals of the WHOIS studies that the council has
really had in mind, I want to just clarify that there is no policy
development process underway right now or working group effort right
now.

The council is hoping that study data from WHOIS will help provide a
kind of objective, factual foundation for further policy work, and
the specific areas that the council has targeted to look at reflect
the specific concerns of those various stakeholder groups that I just
described.

The suggested studies also explore or hope to explore technical
considerations, particularly generated by the increase in
internationalized registrations.

So the GNSO Council has identified several broad WHOIS studies that
they've asked staff to take a look at in terms of determining costs
and feasibility to conduct these studies.  The first four that are
listed on this screen are our re-categorization of studies that were
requested from the council in March of this year, at the Mexico
meeting, and I'll describe these in a little more detail in just a
moment.

And then the fifth study area noted on this slide was a later
request from the council that came to the staff in May of this year. 
And this is the one in particular that Dave will be presenting on
shortly.

So I'd like to first describe a little bit about the misuse studies
that were proposed and how we are addressing that.

We are -- basically what the misuse studies would do is study the
extent of misuse of public WHOIS data to generate spam or for other
illegal or undesirable activities.  And the study proposals envision,
really, two different approaches, really two different studies under
the broader category of misuse.

The first is a descriptive study that would survey registrants who
have purportedly been subject to incidents where WHOIS data was mined
and the result was a harm that could be attributed to the data mining
of the WHOIS.  And the idea would be to survey those registrants and
understand that better, as well as to survey registrars about how
WHOIS can be queried.  And survey others about reported incidents of
abuse of public WHOIS data that resulted in harmful acts.  And these
others might include law enforcement, they might include cybercrime
mention and deterrence personnel and research and others who have
looked at this question.

There's also an experimental study that we are considering that
would kind of take an opposite approach and that is to measure a
variety of harmful acts by classifying messages sent to test domains,
registered by a representative sample of registrars, and compare
harmful acts associated with public versus nonpublic WHOIS data and
examine the impact of public WHOIS and anti-harvesting members.

I should note that we've had several discussions here in Seoul about
these studies, a lengthy discussion on Saturday and then some
subsequent discussions with the constituencies, and several of you
have offered comments and insights that I've made note of and that
we'll incorporate into our further planning on WHOIS.

So those of you who have spoken out and provided me with your
thoughts, they will be incorporated into our further thinking.

This particular area, this misuse area, ICANN is posting an RFP to
solicit the costs and feasibility.  It was the staff's belief that it
would be extremely difficult for us independently to come up with
costs and feasibility that we felt the community could rely on for
making decisions about whether to conduct the studies, so we've opted
to initiate this RFP approach.  And there is, in fact, a request for
proposal on the ICANN Web site to solicit responses from independent
researchers.  We posted it on the 27th of September, and responses
will be due in 60 days, so any of you who think you might have the
ability to respond and help us on that, we welcome your response to
that RFP.

We were also asked to look at the feasibility.  It's one of the
question -- of each of these study areas.  It's one of the questions
that we're asking in detail of respondents to the RFPs, but because
we really spent some time developing the terms of reference for the
RFPs, we've also begun to think about some of the considerations,
challenges, that might be present with studies, and so this list is
just staff's initial observations about what some limitations might be.

For example, we think that we really can't measure the percentage of
all queries that lead to misuse.  The proposal to look at this was
very clear, just to say, "Look at whether there's a material number
of cases," and that will be useful information but it won't actually
provide a percentage of all queries.

It may also be difficult to track harmful acts, and the linkage
between public WHOIS data and those harmful acts.  Was it the
procurement of data from public WHOIS that actually led to the
occurrence of that harmful act or was the data procured elsewhere?

It may also be difficult to reliably assess anti-harvesting measures
and so one of the things we want to make sure of is that we're -- to
the degree that registrars offer different types of anti-harvesting
or if there are registrars that don't employ anti-harvesting
techniques, that we would have a representative sample of those in
the study that's actually conducted.

And then lastly, it may be difficult to actually trigger or measure
harmful acts in experiments related to test domains.

So those are just initial observations from the staff on the area of
misuse.  I think we're hoping to get more insights from respondents
to these RFPs.  So, again, I encourage any of you that think you may
have ability to provide us with that, to respond to that RFP.

I next want to describe the second area of study that we are
embarking on, and it's -- we're calling it a registrant
identification study.

Those of you who have followed this for a while may have heard me
previously refer to this study as a misrepresentation study.  I've
actually renamed it "Registrant Identification" because although
there is an aspect of this study that will definitely look at
misrepresentation, the actual overall study is broader than that and
will look at the extent to which -- it looks at how registrants are
identified in WHOIS, and the extent to which domains used by legal
persons or persons for commercial purposes are not clearly identified
as such in WHOIS, and then try to correlate that to the use of
privacy and proxy services.

So, again, we're also using an RFP approach here.  Our RFP was
posted on the 23rd of October.  Responses will be due the 22nd of
December, and you can find the information, the terms of reference
and the details for how to respond to these studies, on the
announcements page of the ICANN homepage.

This slide just provides more detail on the registrant
identification study which I'm going to skip over right now.  It's
probably too much detail for today.

But what I do want to do is just spend a moment or two on our
initial observations about both challenges related to registrant
identification.

First of all, a study can only provide empirical data about how
registrants are identified.  There will still be debate about what
uses are impermissible.  For example, there's a debate in the
community about whether proxy services should be allowed to be used
by legal persons.  That's not something that we're going to generate
results or conclusions about.  We'll provide some baseline
information and it will be up to the council and further policy work
to consider the policy aspects of that.

It will also be difficult to identify licensees of domains
registered, in particular, by proxy services.  And in the event that
large numbers of ambiguous owners -- in other words, where it's
difficult to determine if a registrant is a legal or natural person,
and if we find large numbers of those ambiguously identified
registrations -- there's the potential that that could skew the
results of this particular study.

And in addition, there's some disagreement in the community about
would constitutes commercial use.

So those are just some, again, initial observations of the policy
staff that we want to share as we delve deeper into the work of these
studies, but we are holding off on any kind of conclusive view about
feasibility until we get this important information back from the
independent researchers.

The third area of study that we'll be looking at has to do with
specific questions related to proxy and privacy services.

The study that we'll be looking at -- and we'll be using this same
RFP approach to address this study area -- is the extent to which
proxy and privacy services are abused to either obscure the source of
illegal or harmful communication or activity, and also the extent to
which it may delay source identification.

We do plan to pursue similar RFP approach.  We have not begun
drafting the terms of reference for this study.  It's actually quite
a complicated study, and we started with the other two.

We're targeting to have the RFP posted by the end of the year.  It
might be a little ambitious, but that's what we're hoping.

There is a fourth area of study proposed that the council asked us
to look into, again, in March, and this has to do with the display of
non-ASCII character sets.

The specific proposal recommended examination of various client-side
software to assess the implications of internationalized registration
data, contact information, on the accuracy and readability of WHOIS
data.

Staff is suggesting at this point that that be something that a new
group that's just being formed at the request of the board in Sydney,
a joint SSAC/GNSO technical working group on internationalized
registration data, which has been charged with considering display
specifications for internationalized registration data.  We've
essentially, as staff, suggested that that group consider this
proposal on the display of non-ASCII character sets to determine
whether that should be included in the work that they're doing or
whether the work that they're doing might ultimately supplant the
need for that study.  That's an open question right now, but it's our
recommendation that that group look at that and that request has been
incorporated into the charter that's been approved for that working
group.

The last area that the council has asked us to look at -- and,
again, this was a subsequent request in May of this year -- was to
collect and organize a comprehensive set of WHOIS service
requirements based both on what the current requirements are for
registrars and registries in the contracts for WHOIS display and also
to consider all of the policy discussions that have occurred over the
last many years, and the various proposals that have been put forward
by members of the community, recognizing that they are just
proposals, they've not been adopted by the community but that they
may be important in identifying potential future requirements for
either a replacement to WHOIS or enhancements to WHOIS.

Dave Piscitello is going to be talking more about that, because that
particular study, rather than going the RFP route we've decided to
conduct in-house, and Dave and another colleague, a recent member who
has joined the policy staff who is not with us in Korea today, Steve
Sheng, are working on developing that compendium, and that will be,
again, considered further and you'll hear more detail about that from
Dave's presentation.

So next steps and ways to get involved.

I do particularly want to mention that there is an internationalized
registration data workshop today at 3:00 p.m., and I'd really
encourage those of you who have an interest in that to participate. 
And there will be an open mic, with a moderator, really looking for
community insights.  It's probably one of the most important things
we hope to accomplish from this workshop is to generate thoughts and
ideas from the community about how this working group might employee
to examine this issue of specifications.

So I really welcome those of you who have viewpoints and experience
in that area to attend the workshop.

I also would encourage particularly those with a technical
background to consider contributing to that SSAC/GNSO/IRD --
internationalized registration data -- working group which is just
being convened.

And you should -- if you are interested in doing that, please
contact any of the policy staff -- Julie Hedlund or Glen de Saint
Gery -- in particular just to let them -- either of them know of your
interest in participating.

So staff will be releasing the results of the work that we're doing
on the RFPs as that information becomes available.

We think that's going to happen serially, and so we are planning to
share information with the community as it becomes available to us.

But that's likely to take several months.

And then once we have that information, it will be up to the GNSO
Council and the staff to consider which studies to conduct, if any.

So I've got some additional information.  These slides are posted. 
These are the key links that would be helpful in fleshing out the
background on this information, and I want to stop here and thank you
very much and I'm happy to answer any questions about these areas,
recognizing that Dave will have more detail on the fifth area, so it
also may make sense to have Dave proceed with his presentation and
have the -- all the WHOIS questions at the end, but Chuck, I'll leave
that to you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Liz.

We'll go ahead and have Dave come up and give his presentation and
then we'll open it up for questions and comments on both
presentations.  So please stay close.  Welcome, Dave.

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  Hi.  Thank you for having me.  Let's see.  

If we're lucky, we have my presentation here.  Maybe we're not lucky.

How do we get the next one up?  Excellent.  I'm Dave Piscitello, I'm
the senior security technologist at ICANN.  I divide my time among
the ICANN security team, the security and stability advisory
committee, and the policy group.  So each of my managers has 50% of
my time.

I'd like to begin by talking a little bit about the background, I
think Liz set the framework for this particular study fairly well.  I
just wanted to point to the council resolution and mention that what
we are doing is collecting and organizing a comprehensive set of
requirements for the WHOIS service policy.  And what we are trying to
do is gather sufficient information from the accumulated work that's
been going on over, you know, nearly a decade in WHOIS to understand
and shape a strawman proposal for some potential changes to WHOIS or
expansion to WHOIS to possibly accommodate the community needs today.
And I'll talk a little bit about each of those in detail.

The goals here are rather simple.  One of the purposes is to not
only look at the current features that have been criticized in some
communities as not being sufficient in many different aspects, but
also to look at past policy proposals that have been considered by
the council and by the community and, further, to look at features
that have been recommended over the past three or four years by some
of the ICANN service organizations, the advisory committees, such as
the SSAC and the community at large.

Many of the things that we -- we're looking at are recent
considerations, especially as we had more and more involvement by the
anti-crime and anti-phishing and other communities.  And so you'll
see that some of the things that have been talked about in the new
gTLD space and some of the things that we talked about in terms of
malicious conduct and dealing with that particular and pernicious
problem will be present in the strawman proposal.

S far as the current service requirements, we are simply attempting
to begin by compiling the current status, the requirements that we
have today -- for example, public query-based access and an up-to-
date WHOIS model, the use of Port 43 as a service interface, the use
of a Web interface, and the third party bulk WHOIS access.  

We want to, also, go back through, you know, through the way-back
machines, so to speak. And, fortunately, we don't have to go through
archive.org.  But we're able to pull up a fair number of these things
from some of the archives that we have in SSAC and various committees
and take a look at what people have talked about in the past, what
people have recommended in the past, and see if there's -you know,
new relevance to some of those -- you know, some of those proposals.

In addition to that, as I mentioned, we're going to consider some of
the proposals that have been more recent.  So I'm not going to labor
on this.  But, just to point out that, in addition to the traditional
service organizations and advisory committees and the community at
large, we're also going to consider whether there is any elements in
the -- you know, in the Affirmation of Commitments or whether there
are any commitments resulting from new gTLD consultations that we
should factor into this strawman proposal.  Some of the sample areas
that we're going to consider -- I'll go through each of these briefly
-- are the quality of domain name registration data, WHOIS service
uniformity, registration data completeness, and internationalizing
WHOIS.

By "quality registration data" I'm actually working with Steve Sheng
in putting on a technologist hat and trying to take a look at what we
collect in a very, very harsh light and understand whether the data
are accurate, whether the data accurately identify the registrant. 
We also are trying to do something that's a little bit soft or
intangible by understanding applicability of the data.  Are we
collecting the right data?  Do we have all the data that we need to
collect that makes sense?  That also plays into completeness.  And
then one of the other things that we want to pay attention to is a
traditional database issue of maintaining not only accuracy but
currency of data.  Is the data that we have something that accurately
reflects the domain registration?  For example, is the contact
someone who was the contact and that's never been changed for seven
years; or is that contact a relevant contact because it's still
someone who works at an organization?

One issue that I think is very important for us to consider is WHOIS
service uniformity.  As many people who are familiar with WHOIS know,
the protocol itself is a relatively lightweight protocol.  I believe
it's the shortest length RFC in the history of RFCs.  It's about a
page and a half.  And it, essentially, says you open up a port, you
send ASCII text, and you send a carriage return and line feed.  I
imagine there are lots of people who don't even know what a carriage
return and line feed are at this point in the evolution of the Web. 
One problem with that is queries and responses are very service
provider or application dependent.  Another problem is there's no
syntactic, semantic, or content differences that you can easily parse
when you're trying to automate.  So that lack of uniformity really
does impede a fair number of applications that can be used in not
only, you know, law enforcement or pursuit of malicious conduct, but
also in, you know, business applications where utilizing WHOIS would
be particularly valuable.  As an example, one of the things that you
could do that's a business application is monitor WHOIS to see if
somebody has maliciously altered it.  That would be something that a
large enterprise or a brand defender might do.

Registration data completeness, I think that this is -- you know,
this is something I've already mentioned.  Do we have all the
information that we actually need to build useful applications that
employ WHOIS as a service?

As an aspect of this, one of the things that Steve and I are toying
with is the notion of constructing a data schema that would be
extensible, protocol-agnostic, and accommodates automation.  I don't
think I need to belabor this.  We're going to be talking about this
this afternoon.  It's very, very important for us to consider that
the Web, and almost every other application on the Internet today, is
gradually migrating to accommodate the ability for users to employ
their character sets for their local languages when they use
applications.  And WHOIS is an application.  So, therefore, we really
are incumbent to try to make some effort to make WHOIS more of an
internationalized application.

Our methodology is relatively straightforward.  We're going to be
gathering service requirements from these varieties of bodies of
works.  And the most important thing I want to emphasize here is that
Steve and I have no interest in gathering policy requirements.  We
are technologists.  We're looking at this primarily from a
perspective of creating or enabling a platform for any policy that
the council or the community would develop through a consensus policy
process.

Some of the sources for the inventory of requirements that we are
currently looking at are a number of the SSAC reports that have come
out since 2005.  We're going to look at data confidentiality and
integrity.  The data schema -- we're going to sort of take an
analysis and a hard look at satisfying a security framework that
includes authentication, authorization, auditing, and accuracy. 
We're also going to consider, you know, whether or not there were any
aspects relevant to the new gTLD application guidebook for a thick
WHOIS.  There are some proposals that have been put on the table by
the community, in particular, VeriSign, for a WHOWAS service, and
services similar to that that we'll consider.  VeriSign has also put
an RSEP proposal up for a multi-factor authentication.  So that's
something we'll consider as part of that quad-A security framework. 
SSAC has come out strongly in terms of having abuse point of contact
information.  This has managed to find its way into the malicious
conduct report or explanatory memo.  And so these are some of the
things that we'll be considering as we collect and gather this
inventory.

We have a relatively, in my mind, ambitious timeline.  We have
November to try to conduct a review and compile the current
requirements and recommended policy proposals and analyze them. 
We've got December to actually put together the strawman proposal. 
In January we'll conduct as many consultations as is feasible with
the service organizations and advisory committees and incorporate
their input.  And then either I or Steve Sheng hope to be with you in
Kenya in February to present a draft report.  Thank you very much.

>> CHUCK GOMES:   Thank you, Dave.  Now I'm going to open it up for
questions regarding either presentation and from the council or from
anyone in the room.  So, if you have a question, please indicate so. 
Anyone have a question or comment?  Okay.  Let me get my pen out and -
- I'm -- oh, it's Rafik, right?  I'm having trouble seeing past --
okay.  And Wendy.  Okay.  And, okay.  Debbie.  Anyone else want to be
in the queue?  All right.  Rafik, please.  Oh, you didn't raise your
hand for yourself.  Okay.  Sorry about that.  Wendy?

 >>WENDY SELTZER:  I thank Rafik for helping draw attention to the
black-clad hand over here.  I have a question or clarification to
make regarding the WHOIS requirements.  And I think it's important
that we distinguish between requirements and desiderata.  There are
lots of things people want to get out of the WHOIS data set.  And I
just -- we need -- we request a clarification for how we're using the
term "requirements" here.

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  The term "requirements" was passed to me.  So
however the council intended the term" requirements" to be
interpreted, then that is the interpretation.  For my interpretation,
we're simply collecting ideas.  We're collecting -- and that's why I
call it a "strawman."  We're collecting the kinds of things that one
might consider appropriate and applicable to a WHOIS service. 
Whether or not any of those are actually disclosed to any anonymous
person or incorporated into the set are actually issues for the
council and for the community to decide.  We're simply building a
data set and saying is this a relevant set?  Is there something
absent?  Is there something that is here that is probably
inappropriate?  Those decisions are not ours.  Those decisions are
the community's.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Very well said, Dave.  We need to be very careful to
separate policy work from this information gathering and analysis
work that's going on that would feed in to the policy work.  So this
effort should not be viewed as policy development.  It's not a PDP. 
And it's important that we -- that we distinguish that.  And that's
true of all of these studies.  The whole idea was to hopefully get
some objective data that then can facilitate our work with
possibility of any WHOIS policies that we might consider in the
future.  But don't presume that any of that is pre-directed.  Okay. 
Debbie?

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  My question is for Liz.  Have we gotten any
responses yet for that WHOIS RFP?  No?  Okay.  Thanks.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  For those who couldn't see in the back, she was
shaking her head "no" thanks.  

Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   I just -- you know.  It's kind of awkward, but
I just wanted to raise a point order.  I wasn't sure if Wendy is a
member of the council as of today or not.  I'm just trying to figure
it out. Because, if she's not, I don't want to -- I just think,
particularly, as we head into some issues that I think are going to
be contentious, that we just need to have some clarity.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.  She's not participating in a voting capacity
today.  She is not a member of the council today, as they said.  I
personally think that the question was okay.  It probably helps all
of us keep this in the right perspective.  Is that okay?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Sure.

>>CHUCK GOMES: Okay.  Terry?

>>TERRY DAVIS:  More of a comment than anything.  I would assume at
some point this does turn into a PDP specifically as to what
information out of WHOIS we release to who.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  It's really up to us.  And, depending on timing,
whether it will depend on the existing PDP or the new one that will
be implemented sometime in the next few months, hopefully, whether or
not a -- this leads to a PDP or not.  I'm not sure I addressed your
question, though, Terry.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  I just have some concern that the data be
disseminated reasonably.  I don't think everybody needs access to
everything.  And I think there will have to be some rules put in
place there.

>>CHUCK GOMES: They -- again, though, I think you're getting into
the policy rather than the work of this group.  Would you like to
comment, Dave?

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  You actually are answering pretty much what I
would say.  As a data structure, in the data schema, there would be
an accommodation for creating, you know, creating some form of access
control.  What that access control looks like is a policy decision. 
So, if you're thinking in terms of users and groups and communities
and the like, it's not our role to say how they're composed.  It's
our role to say here's the data schema that would accommodate such
policy, if you choose to have it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And it's very much like the IRIS protocol.  It has
capability for all kinds of things.  But, whether or not those
capabilities would be used, would probably be determined by any
policy development work that resulted in a consensus policy.  Edmon?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Thank you.  In sort of response to Kristina's
question, I think I apologize for -- maybe I missed the call for
volunteers on -- for the IRT working group.  I wonder if there's
opportunity or is it appropriate for -- to volunteer to participate
in it?

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  I'll just stay up here.  Absolutely.  We're
starting, really, this afternoon at 3:00.  And I would absolutely
welcome almost -- certainly encourage anyone here to come to that
meeting.  I think this is a very important issue.  And I -- despite
the fact that the board mentioned that this was an SSAC and GNSO
joint activity, that the real intent is to have participation from
the GAC, from ccTLD operators, from the ccNSO, and ALAC as well. 
Because this is an issue that does affect just about every community
that ICANN touches.  And, in particular, my opinion is that, without
the participation of the ccTLD community and the ccNSO, we won't be
able to get an accurate picture of just how to do this.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I really appreciate you bringing that up, Edmon. 
Because I don't know how many groups have actually identified members
who would participate in this group.  I know of at least one, because
it happens to be from my company.  But it's open.  And I would
encourage each of the constituencies and stakeholder groups -- ALAC,
GAC, anyone who has someone interested in this, put that name
forward.  And, Glen, if I'm correct, you sent out a request in this
regard.  Is that the case?  For the internationalized data working
group?

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes, I did.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Let me request that that be sent out to the council
list again, and then I would hope that each of you would distribute
it to your constituencies and stakeholder groups so that people can
get involved.  And the time of that is 3:00, right, this afternoon?

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  Yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Dave.  Any other questions or comments? 
Thanks to both Liz and Dave and for the good questions.

Going on then in the agenda, the next item for us has to do with the
letter from the board to the GNSO Council regarding two of the IRT
proposals.  And we're going to have a brief presentation about that. 
We're not going to read the whole letter.  If you have access to the
agenda online, you can find that letter there.  Margie Milam is going
to give just, like, four slides to talk about that and set the
background.  We will have open discussion.  And there will be --
there is a motion that's on the table in that regard.  Margie, please.

>>MARGIE MILAM:  Thank you, Chuck.  Hi, I'm Margie Milam.  I'll just
give a brief overview of the letter that was sent from the board to
the GNSO Council regarding the trademark protection issues.

So the draft applicant guidebook version 3 included some of the --
some proposals from ICANN staff related to certain IRT
recommendations.  And these were specifically the Trademark
Clearinghouse, which is a database of authenticated trademark rights
in a standard format for use in sunrise protection mechanisms or
trademark claims service.  That's one of the areas that we posted
specific documents.  The other issue is the Uniform Rapid Suspension
procedure, which is a procedure for an expedited takedown in the
event of blatant trademark infringement.  And these two documents
have been posted for public comment and there will be several
sessions over the week on these topics.

At the request of the ICANN board, the GNSO has been asked to review
these proposals in more detail to determine whether they are
consistent with the GNSO's existing policy and to determine whether
they are an appropriate and effective option for achieving the GNSO's
principles.  As you guys may recall, the GNSO Council had adopted a
policy that stated that strings should not infringe on the existing
legal rights that are recognized and enforceable under generally
accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.

So this letter was sent to the council.  And it's asking the council
to determine whether it can reach a consensus on each to approve the
ICANN staff model or to propose an alternative that is equivalent or
more effective and implementable.  And, if the GNSO Council does not
reach the consensus by December 14th, the board will go ahead and --
with consideration of the Trademark Clearinghouse models and the
other rights and protection mechanisms, with attempts to balance the
proposals and review public comment.

The letter actually goes into very specific questions on one of the
proposals, the Trademark Clearinghouse.  And it asks a series of
questions that the GNSO Council will be asked to provide its opinion
on.  And I've listed some of the questions on this slide.  I don't
want to go through all of them right now, but the questions are there
for your information.  And some of them deal with whether the
Trademark Clearinghouse model should be optional or mandatory,
whether there's a chilling effect on registrants, and a number of
various issues related to the Trademark Clearinghouse.

It has approximately 10 questions, and I've listed them here.

And so where we are at this stage is to have the GNSO Council
determine how they intend to conduct this work.  And I believe Adrian
is going to go over the proposed motion on how to staff and develop
the review team to conduct this analysis requested by the board.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Margie.  What I'd like to do now is --
and we will have some discussion on this.  Before we do that, I think
it would be helpful to -- for Adrian to read the motion that's on the
table.  It's been moved and seconded already.  And, if it's possible
to put that motion up on the screen, I would appreciate that.  The --
Adrian, please.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Whereas, the ICANN board has requested that the
GNSO evaluate certain ICANN staff implementations proposals for the
protection of trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the
recommendations from the IRT, public comments and additional analysis
undertaken by ICANN staff as described in the letter dated 12 of
October 2009.  

Whereas, the ICANN board letter requests the GNSO's view by December
14, 2009, on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second
level strings recommended by ICANN staff based on public input are
consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of new
gTLDs and are the appropriate and effective options for achieving the
GNSO's stated principles and objectives.  

Whereas, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN board letter and desires to
approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation.

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the GNSO adopts the following
process to conduct the evaluation requested by the board:  

1.  A GNSO review team will be comprised of representatives
designated as follows:  The registrar and registry stakeholder groups
with two (2) representatives each, the commercial stakeholder groups
and the noncommercial stakeholder groups with four (4)
representatives each, and at-large with two (2) representatives and
one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees.

2.  Each of the stakeholder groups will solicit from their members
their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised
by the ICANN board letter and the ICANN staff proposed models for the
implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
Suspension model and will deliver their initial position statements
on November 4 and with final position statements to be delivered by
November 6, 2009.  Such position statements will be summarized by
ICANN staff and distributed to the GNSO review team to evaluate
whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN staff implementation
models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the new
gTLD program.

And, 4.  The GNSO review team will conduct its analysis, identify
those areas where consensus has already been reached -- that should
say "and seek" -- to develop consensus on those issues for which
consensus could not be determined.  Assist members of the IRT in
answering questions -- I believe this is -- I'll skip that.  Thank
you, yeah.  That's one of the friendly amendments, Chuck. Sorry about
that.  

5:  The GNSO review team will provide a final report to the GNSO on
or before the GNSO's council meeting in late November, 2009.  Thank
you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Adrian.  Now, the background of this --
Margie gave us, basically, the background in her presentation.  And
it's a request that the board's asking a response on in very short
order, especially considering what day it is today.  So a team -- a
drafting team met on Saturday afternoon and, basically, came up with
this plan.  

And so what I'm going to do now is open it up for discussion.  Let's
start with the council.  And, if anyone would like to queue up at the
mics, you may do that as well.  

Kristina, and then Wolf.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I had posed one friendly amendment to the list
which I would like to actually modify and also suggest two additional
ones.  The friendly amendment that I had proposed to the list was
that we modify the fourth paragraph -- and I believe -- can the
people doing the screen scroll up so I can see Number 4?  There we go.

Okay.  The language that's in parentheses in paragraph Number 4;
namely, "the assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions
about the IP clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension system
recommendations may be useful to this work.  The GNSO Council
requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations
be available to answer any such questions that may arise and
encourages the GNSO review team to avail itself of this resource."

What I would like to do is actually amend my own friendly amendment
to essentially delete the portion that starts with the comma, so that
we would delete "and encourages the GNSO review team to avail itself
of this resource."

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Now, for logistical purposes, Marika, can you
connect up and actually show the changes?  Is that possible?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think so.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay, thank you.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Sorry, go ahead.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Go ahead.  Did you have something else?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I did.  Two other friendly amendments.  I don't
know if you want to take them one at a time.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Let's take them one at a time, please.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I would consider that amendment friendly.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Excuse me?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I would consider that amendment friendly.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  And, Tim, you're okay with that?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So that's a friendly amendment.  Any discussion on
that amendment?  And we'll talk -- we'll take each one one at a time.
Okay.

Go ahead, Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  The second would be that in paragraph 1 we
reduce the number of at-large representatives to one to not only
reflect their -- the participation on the council but also to reflect
the fact that the board letter is actually technically directed to
the GNSO Council which will, of course, be working with the broader
GNSO and that the at-large is actually not, in fact, part of the GNSO
and that it is my hope that the board will put whatever work product
the council comes up with out for public comment before acting on it,
at which point there would be a perfect opportunity for the at-large
to provide any view above and beyond what their one representative
would provide.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Is that considered a friendly amendment?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  That is considered a friendly amendment, thank
you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes as well.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Okay, Kristina, you have another one?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I do.  This is really just more of a
clarification point in that I think throughout the motion where we
are referring to the GNSO we may actually instead be more accurately
referring to the GNSO Council by virtue of how the board actually
worded the letter.  Whether we agree with that or not, the letter is
actually directed to the GNSO Council as opposed to just the GNSO.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So, again, let's make sure I'm clear.  So your third
amendment is what, again?  Could you --

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Oh, sure.  For example, to be more specific, in
the first "Whereas" clause, "Whereas, the ICANN board has requested
that the GNSO Council evaluate," and throughout I think there are
several instances where we omit "council."  And, again, whether or
not we agree that it should have been addressed to just the council
or not is not particularly relevant given that we're referring
specifically to a letter in which the board did, in fact, limit
itself to the council.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So is that a friendly amendment, Adrian and Tim?

While they're --

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  We're back.  Yes, that is a friendly amendment.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes, I agree.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  I would like to point out it is the
council's practice -- the council, even though the board's letter did
say "the council," it's the council's practice, and I think the
stakeholder groups' practice that are representatives that
participate on these things, involve -- obtain input from the whole
GNSO community.  

So I wouldn't like to leave the impression that by adding "council"
in there that we're making this restrictive to those on the table in
front of us.

I don't think anybody intended that.  Correct me if I'm wrong in
that interpretation.

So we have three friendly amendments.  And, now, let's take one of
those at a time but let's have -- let's open it up for discussion on
any of the three right now just for time's sake, if that's okay.

Any comments or questions on these amendments?  Alan?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  I guess I have to say I'm rather disappointed
with the one on at-large.  In the three years I have been on council,
I think it's been taken as a very good sign that the ALAC liaison at-
large has been considered effectively a constituency, if not a
capital C one.  We were included in the board committee last July to
look at options for how the council would work which resulted in the
bicameral council.  And this is a departure.  And as one of the first
actions of the new council, I'm rather disappointed.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Alan.  Anybody else?  Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  We're not eliminating the at-large from
participating at all.  They will still have a representative and,
frankly, I think that's fair given that we're also restricting the
participation of the Nominating Committee appointees.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Mary?

>>MARY WONG:  I seem to be making many points of clarification
today.  This is not so much to take issue with Alan's statement.  I
agree that the ALAC liaison to the council has, for all intents and
purposes, been treated as and has operated as an equal member of the
council except for voting and a few other procedures.  

I think the point under discussion here, as suggested by Kristina
and the friendly amendment, is a structural one, that there is one
liaison to the council, for example.

So it was not meant to imply any reduction in the role of at-large
or the role of the liaison to the council.  That was my
understanding.  And it does not at the same time imply that at-large
is the same as the constituency in the GNSO.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I also think the point of the review team should
be noted here.  It was our intention in that meeting where we came up
with this idea that the review team would simply look to grab all the
content to the questions from each of the stakeholders.  And then
it's going to go to council for a vote and then to the board.  

So there's a number of processes here, and hopefully, as Kristina
said, plenty of opportunity potentially after it is at the board for
public comment.

I believe the board gave us very short timelines on this.  And for
that reason, we need to keep our work very succinct and as sharp as
we can.  So I think it's worth remembering that.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Anyone else on any three of the
amendments?  Anyone from the audience?

Okay.  Then were we able to get -- here we go, look at this.  Okay,
so...

Have the amendments been made in these documents?  Could you
highlight them so that they stand out?  Just whatever way is easiest
there.  I don't know if that works easy in the Wiki.  Oh, there we
can.  Okay.

So the first amendment -- let's go to the first amendment, which
there was no discussion on, so I'm assuming that there may not be any
opposition.  The first one was to recommend that the -- it was the
one that was in parentheses.  Is that there now?  Can you highlight
that one?  There we go.  Thank you, Hopefully everybody can see that.

Is there any objection -- is there any objection to a voice vote on
that particular amendment, the one basically recommending that the
review team consider consulting with some IRT members as needed
there?  Again, any objections to a voice vote on that?  

Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Sorry, Chuck.  This isn't an objection.  Can I
suggest one more amendment?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure, go ahead.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Sorry.  I think we -- at least there has been
some suggestion and some discussion about getting a silent observer
from the GAC into this group.  And I'd certainly see that as a
productive amendment and would certainly like to see their inclusion.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And my understanding -- thank you for catching that
because I had forgotten that one in an e-mail earlier this morning,
that the GAC is interested in providing a representative there.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Can I just clarify, my amendment is as a silent
observer, GAC representative as a silent observer.  That's my
amendment.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  A silent observer.  Can you explain to me why you're
doing that?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Well, okay, just observer then.  Thanks.  The
generally accepted understanding of "observer."

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  So I'm not following you totally.  So are you
suggesting that observer status like we usually use observer status? 
That's not usually silent.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Chuck, do you want me to translate Australian?

[Laughter]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I would very much appreciate that, Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  That's just what's been suggested, that we
have a GAC observer.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And so that's different than what I understood you
to say as a silent observer?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  That was just a slip of the tongue.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  That was Australian that I didn't understand, okay.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  My shins are bleeding.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  So I have a fourth amendment now.  Any
discussion on that one?  

Yes, Alan.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Not on that one.  I would like a clarification
for those groups that only have one member on the group, are we
allowed an alternate who presumably would be a silent observer when
they are not the prime person?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Comment on that?  Zahid?

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  I think that would be useful.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Kristina, that would probably be a little bit
different version of your amendment.  Are you okay --

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  No, that is perfectly fine.  And, in fact, that
was something that we did, in fact, do with the IRT registrar and
registry representatives, were provided an alternate who could
participate when they were unable to do so.  So I think I'm perfectly
fine with a similar arrangement here, obviously.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks.  And, Marika, if there is any tweaking to
that one that needs to be done, if you could do that, please, to make
sure that there is a possibility of an alternate in observer status.

All right.  Any other amendments before we go -- consider each of
them?  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  More of a point of order, I guess.  Do we typically
vote on friendly amendments or do we get right to the motion itself? 

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Good catch, no we don't.  So since they are, that
will make it a lot easier.  I appreciate that.  So we have four
amendments.  Again, if we can have those highlighted as soon as
they're done there.  Just be patient.  Just a moment here.

Now, while that's being finished in terms of editing the amendment,
is there any objection to -- yeah, I see him.  I was going to finish
my sentence.  Is there any objection to a voice vote on this motion
with the amendments -- with the friendly amendments?

Adrian, go ahead and comment while people are thinking about that.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Sorry, Chuck, once again, not an objection, but
I just for the record should accept Alan's addition of one observer. 
I should accept that as a friendly amendment, and I do.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

>>TIM RUIZ:  And so do I.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So everything's friendly.  See how much progress
we're making on the council?  Everything's friendly here.

All right.  So we have four, maybe four and half amendments that
have all been accepted as friendly amendments.  So we have a motion
with those changes.

Any more discussion before we vote on this motion?  Is there any
opposition to a voice vote on this motion with its amendments?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I'm just wondering what everyone's thoughts are
-- well, I don't know if they have given any thought to the idea of
whether or not this should go out for public comment after the work
product -- after the council finishes its work product and delivers
it to the board but before the board acts on it.  

It is my understanding that that discussion has not happened at the
board level.  I don't know if anyone here has a view on it and, if
so, whether maybe it is something we want to add as, you know, a
recommendation.  But I leave it to everyone.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  We actually talked about this.  And I will let you
jump in on this, Adrian, because you were there.  We talked about
this on Saturday when we were meeting on this.  And one of our
concerns was the time frame, for us to deliver something.  You are
talking about after we deliver our product?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I'm talking about after December 14 -- yeah,
14th.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Thanks, Kristina.  I think that's something we
can leave the board to decide.  I really don't think we need to be
making any inferences.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I would also say that it's the board's standard
procedure to go out for public comment before they make a decision. 
So my expectation would be -- and we talked about this on Saturday,
is that there will be a public comment period.  But if we try to fit
one into our tight schedule -- and you are not suggesting that, I
understand that -- that we just recognize that there is no way we can
deliver if we do that.

So somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the board's standard
practice -- and staff always posts things before the board makes a
decision, so I think that should be expected.

Okay.  I didn't see any opposition -- okay.  Denise, please?

>>DENISE MICHEL:  Just a point of clarification, I think what we
likely would do is as soon as you send any results or recommendation
to the board, we'd likely also post that in the public comment forum
for information and any comment people would have, in addition, of
course, to any additional iterations of the draft applicant guidebook
that will be published for public comment.  So I think there are two
opportunities for additional public comment.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Now, for procedural reasons, excuse me, I want to
point out that this motion was submitted under our general practice
of seven days.  But there was pretty much agreement as far as I could
tell on the council that that's the only way we could meet the
board's deadline.  And I haven't heard any objections to that -- to
making an exception to that practice that we have.  So am I correct
in assuming that there's no objections in that regard?  If there is,
please speak up now.

Okay.  Now, there were no objections to a voice vote.  So all in
favor of this motion as amended please say aye.

[Chorus of Ayes.]

Any opposed?

[No verbal response.]

Any abstentions?

[No verbal response.]

So it passes unanimously understanding that we have one member who's
not able to vote right now and is not with us.  Thank you very much.

Okay.  And, by the way, it's very important to note that there will
be a meeting of this new review group that is going to meet at 5:00
tomorrow -- Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Sorry.  Chuck, did you want each stakeholder
group to name their participants?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah, I'm going to --

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Sorry.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  That's okay.  You were thinking the same way.  I was
going to cover it next.  Maybe I should have covered it first.

So they are meeting at 5:00 tomorrow.  

And what I would like to request, each of us were tasked as
stakeholder groups and the ALAC with identifying members in our
meetings yesterday.  So it would be helpful if we could -- if that
happened or if it didn't happen, please communicate that -- if we
could do that right now so we make sure that's done or if there are
action items still needed, that we can take care of that.

So the easiest thing to do, I think, is maybe just to go by
stakeholder group around the table and including the ALAC.  And I'll
ask Edmon if he would identify the registry stakeholder group's.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Sure.  You mean for the appointment --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  For the review working group, the STI review working
group.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  I believe we are nominating David Maher and Jeff
Neuman.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  I think we have the ISPs -- excuse me,
it should be a stakeholder group decision.  There are four members
for the commercial stakeholder group.  Okay, Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  The IPC will be represented by Paul McGrady and
Mark Partridge.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  You're just -- now, there are four
representatives for the stakeholder group.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Right.  That was, as I understand it, the
arrangement that has been worked out within our stakeholder group.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Mike?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yeah.  From the BC it will be Zahid Jamil.  And
I understand from the ISPs, it will be Tony Harris.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.  So we have four
representatives there.

For the registrars?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Jeff Eckhaus and Jon Nevett.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  And for the noncommercial stakeholder
group?

>>MARY WONG:  It will be Kathy Kleiman, Konstantinos Komaitis, Wendy
Seltzer and Robin Gross.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

Alan, for the ALAC?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  The two people will be myself and Olivier Crepin-
LeBlond.  Given the recent change, we have yet to determine which is
which.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  It is important -- Glen, if you could
send a message to the GAC chair, and maybe the vice chairs, too, just
if they could identify who their observer will be on that group and
as soon as possible letting them know that we do have a meeting
scheduled for tomorrow, a kick-off meeting tomorrow with the details
of that meeting.

And am I correct that the meeting -- I think the meeting details
were forwarded to the council list.  Did anyone not receive that? 
Okay.  I'm assuming it was the case.  Speak up if that's not the
case.  That takes care of Agenda Item 6.

We now go to subitem there on the strategic plan with Theresa
Swinehart.  Is Theresa here?  Okay.

Well, if she makes it before we end our meeting, we'll give her
another chance.

At this point -- is there any other business before we go to an open
mic?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I just wanted to note with our excellent and
efficient chair, we're a half-hour early.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Well, that will allow the vice chairs and I and
staff to do some preparation because we couldn't find another time. 
So I hope -- I hope you're right, Bill.

Okay, Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  It is my understanding that there has been a
request from staff that we extend the date for delivery of the issues
report on vertical integration from November 9 to November 23.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Are there any problems with that?  Anybody have any
comments or concerns with regard to that extension?

[No verbal response.]

Okay.  Any other business?  Yes, Mike.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I would just like to -- maybe we put this off
until tomorrow, but I think it's very important that immediately we
begin -- if we have extra time today with the community here, perhaps
it is a good idea, we really need to be prioritizing quickly what all
of the various efforts that are going on right now.  And it comes
acutely today because the PDP work team, the chair has requested
along with staff that there be a face-to-face meeting of that group. 
And I'm sure it's at least some of our opinion on the council that
there are other long-standing, ongoing, bigger priorities for face-to-
face meeting, if resources are going to be devoted to that.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Mike.  And as you heard me say earlier,
that's one of the things that I think we need to work on very early. 
I'm going to suggest we not do it today for a couple reasons.  One of
them is that Denise informed me that staff is preparing some
information that will facilitate that exercise.  And I think that
would make it go a lot easier if we had that in front of us before we
start that.

I would like to start considering that tomorrow, whether we actually
start the exercise or not, but consider it in our follow-up meeting
tomorrow afternoon.  Is that okay?

Any other business?  

Okay.  It's a practice for us to open up the mics at this time.  I
would encourage you to be brief and to the point, and it's not
restricted on topic, although we certainly would appreciate it being
related to the GNSO.  

Jeff?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Good morning.  As is tradition, I guess I'm usually
the first one up to start some conversation from the open mic.  So
what I wanted to actually talk about today was a set of e-mails that
went through the council list over the weekend that I was highly
disappointed in.  And those e-mails relate to the activities that
occur by the GNSO community on the weekend before the meetings.

There was one councillor who decided to chastise the community for
participating in the discussions that occur on the weekend that are
supposed to be GNSO working sessions.

If the working sessions are restricted only to activities that
relate directly to the council, there may be an argument to change
the level of participation or to restructure it.

However, there are certain discussions that happen during the
weekend which I believe and others believe that are not directly
related to council activities.  One of those discussions being the
new gTLDs and discussion with staff on questions on the guidebook or
anything else.

I will note for the record that almost all of the questions raised
by council during that meeting were in relation to individual
questions that they had either because of their own interests in
applying for new TLDs or advising clients on new TLDs or advising
communities on protections in new TLDs.  It did not directly relate
to the council report -- the consensus policy that was passed by the
council back in, whenever that was years ago, forgetting the timeline.

So in that case, that was an example of a session that should not
have restricted participation or rules.  So my point is that the GNSO
Council, as in accordance with the Board Governance Committee, is not
to view itself as a legislature but as a policy manager.  

And if it wants to use the weekend prior to the ICANN meeting to
strictly manage timelines and processes and have internal discussions
related to those, then that is fine and you can set specific rules.

But if it wants to use it as a working session, which has worked
well in the past, then please on behalf of the community do not
restrict the participation of community members in any fashion.

[Applause]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Jeff.  Philip, is that on the same topic?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  It is.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Please go ahead.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  It is Philip Sheppard speaking as an ever-so-
humble member of the ICANN community.  It was my sincere hope that I
would get through this council meeting without having to go to the
microphone.  However, Jeffrey has just stopped that.

It is my understanding of the e-mail that Jeff was referring to was
nothing to do with gagging discussion.  It was nothing to do with
stopping participation of the ICANN community and council's working
groups, but it was everything to do with efficiency and effectiveness
of those working groups.

It had been the experience of myself as a council member and others
that we typically had a room set up with sufficient seating for
members of council and other seating for members of the community.

It has been normal practice in most ICANN meetings there was a
certain order in terms of the way that we conduct our debate in an
effective and intelligent fashion.  And that usually meant that you
allow those for who have the working session to sit around the table
and interact, therefore, as that group that we have elected and put
in that position.  And you would allow others speaking time on open
mic as we are doing now in an ordered fashion.

For some reason, this sort of slightly informal nature of those
working sessions over the last few had sort of merged into a "Well,
whoever hits the room first gets a slot at the table, plugs their
computer in and if you are a council member arriving ten minutes
late, it is tough luck, you just arrive and had to sit somewhere
else" and that was just not terribly effective as a working method.

I was delighted to see that in reaction to that e-mail the next
session was immediately so organized.  

Council sat at the table.  Everybody else in the community sat on
the adequate number of chairs in the room and discussion was very
civilized.  And it is my understanding that is precisely the intent
of that e-mail and precisely the intent of this council.

If it is any different, please tell us.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Philip.  Yeah, Adrian and then Steve,
you're next.  He had had his hand up there.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I find myself in the somewhat awkward position
of agreeing with Philip.  And now that he's not on the council, it's
going to be a lot easier.

But, yeah, I am 100% behind that.  I think it's exactly about
efficiency and it's actually about -- the GNSO Council is often
criticized about moving slowly.

And a lot of the times it's because, you know, we're not efficient
in our processes.  And I think that if -- you know, when we had the
discussion about it, if making -- creating an environment that allows
us to act efficiently but doesn't block participation, then that
should be promoted, and I think that we did that effectively and I
was impressed with the setup, at least, and I still think it allowed
for participation, and I'd certainly like to hear from Jeff
specifically what his issues were about that session.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Well, rather than just hearing from Jeff, if I can
interject a little action here, how many here were in the new gTLD
discussion that we held on Sunday?

[Show of hands]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And of those of you that were there, Philip is
correct that we did adjust the format a little -- "format" is the
wrong word.

We adjusted the organization of the room in the sense of making sure
that all councillors, including new councillors, were able to sit at
the table and then we had other people in the room queue up at the
mic and there was -- I happened to be chairing that, so -- because
Avri was in a different meeting, and we didn't -- I didn't give any
preference to councillors or other participants in the room.

Was that session good for input for those of you that were there? 
Was that good?  Just raise your hand if you thought that that worked
with pretty well.

[Show of hands]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Does anybody think that that did not work very well.

[Show of hands]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  You're going to get a chance to talk in just
a minute.  So we have -- you think it didn't work very well, Terry? 
Is that what you're -- oh, you want to comment.  I have you on the
list.  Okay.

All right.  Steve, it's your turn.

>>STEVE METALITZ:  Thank you.  Steve Metalitz.  I'd like to
associate myself with Jeff Neuman's remarks, and I think in response
to what Philip said, Philip, if Mike Rodenbaugh's posting -- and this
is all on the GNSO Council list so people can see it for themselves. 
If his posting had just been about who gets to sit at the table, we
obviously wouldn't be having this discussion here, but it was not. 
It was a wholesale assault on the ability of anyone other than a
councillor to participate fully in these weekend sessions.

In other words, that the session should be like this, where we sit
and watch until the very end and if we aren't elected councillors, we
would have a very limited role.

I don't think that would be a wise -- it's obviously the council's
decision.  I don't think that would be a very wise step to take, as
someone who has been active and involved in affairs of the GNSO since
there's been a GNSO, and active and involved in the affairs of the
DNSO prior to that, and having never been an elected councillor, I do
think that that -- I personally don't think that would be a wise
decision.  I also think that Jeff's other point should be carefully
noted and people can look at the transcript themselves.  That
discussion on Sunday.  There's no policy development matter in front
of the GNSO having to do with the new gTLD matter.  And let me point
that out.

We've completed that policy development process.  Now we have this
letter from the board and that deals with a certain topic, but 90% of
what was discussed on the new gTLD program on Sunday did not have to
do with that topic.

So there's nothing before the GNSO Council.  This wasn't the council
exercising its policy management role.  It was an opportunity for
members of the council, on behalf of themselves, their businesses,
their clients, and others in which -- with which they have an
interest, to ask questions and get privileged access to the ICANN
staff on some of these questions.

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that, but I don't think it
makes the council look very responsible to dress this up in the -- in
the GARB of GNSO Council efficiency.  Read the transcript, look at
the questions that were asked.  It was not necessary to exclude or to
minimize the role of non-councillors in that discussion.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Steve.  And before we go to the next --

[Applause]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  -- person, it's been called to my attention that
there may be some videotaping of this session going on.  I would like
to request that you not do that, unless you have the permission of
the people in the room, and I'm presuming you do not.

Thank you.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I have next in the queue Edmon.  Did you want
to --

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Can we respond to that?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Well, let's keep on the queue right now, mainly
because I think everybody's talking about the same thing right now,
okay?  So Edmon.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yeah.  I wanted to respond to, I guess -- I wanted
to agree to Jeff and Steve on the issue of maintaining the openness
and transparency of the process.  I think that's very important.  I
do think that it is -- it is reasonable that council members do have
an appropriate chance to participate but excluding other participants
in the, I guess, weekend pre-meetings I don't think -- may not be the
most efficient way to conduct business.  But I do want to make one
point.  I -- about Jeff's -- and disagree with Jeff on one point.

It seems like Jeff did mention that some of the councillors were
advancing their own interests.  I can't speak for other councillors,
but you -- you know, for myself, I would disagree with that.  Yes, I
did use some of the examples of the organization that I am with as
examples, but they are consistent with the policies -- the GNSO
policies and the discrepancies that I see between the applicant
guidebook and the policies set forth by the GNSO that I'm responding
to.  Namely, on IDN issues and the length of the TLD, the variant
issues, and geographic names.

So whereas I did use my own organization, dot Asia, as an example, I
don't think that was necessarily just advancing what our organization
personally thinks, but that of -- which is consistent with the GNSO
policy recommendations.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Edmon.  Stéphane?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thank you, Chuck.  I keep on hearing the
word "exclusion" or "excluding" or "excluding people that aren't on
the council."  I didn't get the feeling at all during that session,
Jeff, that people were excluded.  I think it was -- I mean, we've
discussed this with Mike, so I know what he was thinking when he sent
that e-mail, and actually he discussed it during the weekend
sessions, and they were open sessions and I think he was looking at
efficiency and not trying to exclude anybody.

But I certainly don't get the feeling that anyone was excluded --
i.e. stopped from speaking -- during that session.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  So if I could just address --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Just a second, just a second.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  He's asking a question.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Unless somebody is not talking about the same
subject, let's keep the queue in order because so far what I'm seeing
is we're all talking about the same thing.  There's no need, I don't
think, to jump in.

So if you'd just keep track of your thoughts there.

Terry.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Yeah.  One of the things I noted this morning in the
meeting and then I spoke to Ray during the break, one of the things
the weekend meetings have consistently had is an area that is really
too small to accommodate the number of folks that are interested.  I
was very impressed with the way the registrar community sets up their
meetings, which would very easily allow the council and participation
with adequate MICS in the room, and I'll be suggesting that in the
rules change.

Something so that we can get a better structure, so that more
participation can occur.  I felt quite honestly like a couple of the
rooms we've had those Saturday/Sunday meetings in are not much bigger
and broom closet.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Terry.  That's a very good observation,
that just the logistics can really go a long ways to dealing with
this issue.  Appreciate that and I had Adrian and I think I have --
Milton, are you still in the queue?  So Adrian and then Milt you know
and then Jeff.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I want to talk about a different subject to if
Jeff wants to jump in front of me to continue this spat, I'll let him
do that.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Adrian and then Jeff.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  So if my understanding about what the meeting is
-- and I think that's what we're asking here, is it a fundamental --
because if I was to believe Jeff -- well, first of all, I think
Jeff's just a little upset because he doesn't get to sit with us, and
he has to sit at the back and it's a long way for him to the
microphone, but --

[Laughter]

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  He's got little legs.

So --

[Laughter]

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  But, you know, from what I understand, it's for
Jeff to get what he wants, it would move from a GNSO Council
discussion to an open discussion on topics that are to be discussed
within the realm of the GNSO.

So it's not a council discussion whatsoever.

It's just merely a -- you know, a topical -- so you're not going to
discuss ccTLDs, for example, you're going to just discuss "G" topics
and if that's the case, then maybe the seating we have here, where
you're in a row -- I don't know what the actual formal way that you
call this seating -- with potentially reserved seats for councillors
up at the front so that they know that they can get a spot in the
room, but, you know, there's no preference given to anybody, is that
more palatable to you?  You want to get rid of the -- you know, the
circle of privilege?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Go ahead and respond.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks.  I think with topics that relate to policy
management, I think the structure of the meetings that you all have
proposed on that -- that closed meeting was fine.  I think for topics
like new gTLDs and others that do not directly relate to council
activities, I think an open -- a more open meeting with access to
staff and others, with a larger room, with better microphones is --
is the better way to conduct those weekend meetings.  I think there's
far too little time during the current meetings we have during the
week to talk about the important topics that are relevant in the GNSO
community.  For example, there's a trademark meeting that's at 12:30
to 2:00, it's an hour and a half.  That's nowhere near the amount of
time.

What my comment was on, really, was on -- in this -- I'm going to
quote this e-mail, which is really the part that was appalling.  It
says, "Therefore, beginning with the new TLD session today, I request
that observers be disallowed equal access to the council table and
microphones just as they are disallowed such access at our larger
public meetings and in our conference calls.  The material presented
by staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a
public session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for
anyone to ask their questions or make their points directly to the
staff without wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face
council/staff time.  As we have seen, too many people are abusing the
privilege of open access to raise points that they then raise again
and again at every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting and/or to
communicate their particular nonrepresentative interests.  They are
abusing a privilege that they should not have in the first place
because it is not fair."

That's what the e-mail said.  That's the attitude that I'm making a
comment on.  I appreciate that the efforts that you took during the
new TLD session after that e-mail was sent was good, except I will
note for the record that there were several people that did not speak
because of the e-mails that were sent around and discussions that
took place in the hallways about that.

So there was a sort of chilling effect of a few people -- not
myself, because I talk whenever and y'all know that -- but there was
a chilling effect of certain people that did not raise questions
during that meeting and there was also obviously a cutoff due to time
for everyone that could not raise their points.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Now, what I'm going to do here, I have the
following people in queue on this topic:  I have Tim, Mike, and
Stéphane.  I'm going to cut that off -- excuse me.  Cut that off on
this topic, so that we can go to Milton's topic.  Otherwise, we could
keep going all day.  We won't necessarily solve this issue today, but
I think we're getting good feedback and we will let that continue for
the next three.  Tim.

>>TIM RUIZ:  I just want to point out that, you know, that was one e-
mail that went to the council list.  We -- that topic was brought up
among the councillors.  We discussed it.  We didn't go that far, but
we did recognize the need for perhaps to be better organized, to be
more productive, and some suggestions were made.  Some of those I
believe were implemented at that new gTLD session which I wasn't able
to be at.  So, you know, there's no intention to close the meetings. 
I don't think we ever considered that seriously.

And if there's constructive advice about how we can continue to
improve, yet still get the council work done and be productive, then
let's offer constructive advice.  And I appreciate, Terry, what you
had to say, and Jeff, your last remarks were constructive as well and
I think we'd welcome any other constructive suggestions.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Tim.  Mike?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Stéphane, would you like to go first and maybe
I'll have the last word, since I've had the first?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Go ahead, Mike.  Let's stay -- let's keep order.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Okay.  Where to begin.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Go, go.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Where to begin.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Mine was actually really quick.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Go ahead, Stéphane.  Let me gather my thoughts
one more moment.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  I just wanted to -- Jeff, you said "closed
meeting."  That meeting was not closed.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  The meeting certainly was not closed.  Nobody
was excluded.  If you read my entire e-mail, I began the e-mail with
my commitment to open meetings.  In fact, taking them even farther
than we have today:  Opening our conference calls, for example, to
allow public access to those conference calls as they are occurring.

Obviously without speaking privileges.

I've served on many, many boards -- or not -- I'm sorry, not many
boards but many committees, a couple of councils, and a couple of
boards, and none of them -- and I'm not aware of any in the world
that allows open access to observers to comment whenever they feel
like during sessions of that council.

It has become a privilege that, in my opinion, has been abused and
has caused detriment to the council's ability to function effectively.

I certainly, however, did not intend to chastise anybody for their
participation.  So I -- I noted your word there, Jeff.  I know you
choose your words carefully.  If you felt that way, I apologize.  If
anybody felt that way, I apologize.  That was not my intention.  My
intention is simply to have the council function better as a council,
without folks who -- some of whom have been councillors, some of whom
are chairs of their constituencies, some of whom are just very
active.  They come to every meeting.  I respect that they do that.  I
respect their dedication to the organization.  There's frankly not
that many people at this point that do it, but it's a growing number,
and, you know, I'm elected to represent people who don't come to
these meetings also.  In addition to the ones that do.

And obviously most of my constituents do not come to these meetings.
They rely on me to be able to raise their issues at council.  They
don't rely on unelected people to do that.

So I'm simply trying to make it easier for councillors to do the
jobs that they've been elected to do, without interference and
disruption during our deliberations.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Mike.  And I'll close that particular
topic with a personal comment from the chair.

My opinion -- this is my opinion, not my -- necessarily my
stakeholder group's, and certainly not in the chair capacity right
now, but it's my opinion that if we're going to ERR, we should ERR on
the side of openness but we should do that in an orderly manner, and
I think that's what I'm hearing a lot of people say.

Milton, you can now change the topic.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

I just wanted to relate to the vote you took about the
representation on this committee and the role of the NomCom
appointees and the at-large.

I think I just want to clarify the structural issues here because I
think this needs to be laid out clearly.

So the at-large is an advisory committee that extends across the
entire gamut of ICANN issues, and the GNSO is specifically focused
upon only domain name issues.

Now, I want to make sure that you all understand that there is an
enormous amount of overlap between membership in the noncommercial
stakeholders group and the at-large structures, and the same is true -
- although to a lesser extent -- with the commercial stakeholders
group.  That is, somebody from at-large can be, for example, a
consultant and can be basically on the commercial side and can
participate in ALAC in that capacity.

Now, nothing stops those people from entering the GNSO through one
of the stakeholder groups so what I'm trying to call your attention
to here is that it is a completely misunderstanding of this structure
to view the at-large or the At-Large Advisory Committee specifically
as a constituency within the GNSO.

The ALAC has a liaison on the council for coordinative purposes, and
the NomCom appointees are meant to be constituency-less by design. 
To be these sort of free-floating, independent-minded people that are
perceived to be good in their own right.

So to begin to think of these entities as constituencies that need
formal representation comparable to another stakeholder group is
simply a misunderstanding of how the GNSO and ICANN as a whole is
supposed to function.

So I hope you keep that in mind.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Milton.  Are there any other comments
during the open mic period?  Comments or questions?  Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Just in relation to -- I forget who made the
point now about public participation at our meetings and representing
those that aren't there.  I'll certainly be giving it a good test in
Nairobi because I won't there, and for me to be silent for a little
while will be tough, so I hope ICANN staff are prepared to have the
facilitates and mechanisms by which I can do my normal whining,
complaining, and jocularity.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

>>DONGBUM LEE: Hello.  I'm Dongbum Lee.  I'm the CEO of a small
business in the south here.

I'm sorry.  

I have domain names, but it's not -- on the -- my site is in Korean,
but my domain URL on the Internet is not.  So I'm looking for -- I'm
looking forward that my clients to -- searching for my site, I'm
looking forward to -- I'm sorry.  I'm looking forward to searching
for my clients -- searching my site without English.  Uh-huh.

And more I want my potential client using the other languages.  For
example, Japanese or Chinese as well.  Please don't forget dot com
when discussing the international domain names.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.

[Applause]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And I encourage you to please submit comments in the
appropriate fora with that regard.

The GNSO consistently over the -- I don't know how long, last year
or two -- has taken a position that gTLD IDNs should be introduced at
the same time as ccTLD IDNs, or at least minimize the gap, so that
those who have generic top level domains can experience a full IDN
experience.  And the GNSO has, I think, pretty much been unanimous in
our support for that, but one thing that's very helpful is for that
message to come from people like yourself, and not just from us. 
Thank you very much.  Very important comment.

Edmon?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yeah.  Just adding to that comment, I think it's
very important.  I think -- I forgot whether it was Mike -- mentioned
-- somebody mentioned about priorities about the council's work.  I
think we -- I think it's -- it's '-- you know, the time is ripe for
us to spend a little bit more time on IDNs and IDN gTLDs.  I'm not
saying that in the past, we have not.  I'm just saying that there is -
- with the -- with the public relations that ICANN has done on the
IDN ccTLD fast track, I have in the last couple of days actually
received an abundant amount of e-mails asking about IDN gTLDs, and
there is a certain expectation from the community that when IDN
ccTLDs are there, IDN gTLDs should be there as well.

So I think there's -- there's room for work.  There's room for
potential work here, you know, such that we could see that happen as
soon as possible.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Seeing nobody else wanting to comment, Paul
we have one more agenda item, so keep it as brief as possible and
we'll move on to the next agenda item.

>>PAUL FOODY:  Okay.  Well, Chuck, it's -- frats on being elected
chairman this morning.  It's kind of appropriate because
"Chuckhamnida" means congratulations in Korean, so -- just for the
record.

So I've been here this week.  I only got here on Monday.  I didn't
come on the weekend.  But so far as I'm concerned, the biggest news
that I've heard is that Thomas -- Natzer [sic], was it? -- I think is
his name from -- the guy who produced the scalability report -- he
went on record, albeit only his personal opinion, saying that there
would only be a hundred TLDs -- new TLDs per year for the foreseeable
future.

Now, on the basis that ICANN has, you know, been reported on CNN,
amongst others, as having approved IDNs, I would suggest that a
hundred new TLDs per annum would mean that we can't possibly
contemplate new gTLDs for about five or 10 years.

Is it -- is the hundred TLDs per year, is that accurate?  Because if
it is, you've got a completely review your time lines.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thomas Narten is the individual you're talking about
--

>>PAUL FOODY:  Yeah.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And Thomas, I think, made it very clear in his
comments that that was his estimate, his best guess, that it could
handle that.  He qualified that very carefully.

I don't think any final decision has been made in terms of the rate,
but he raised an issue based on the scalability report that has
recently been published.

So I think what you're -- what you're talking about is -- are some
issues that are going to be dealt with in the coming months as we
proceed on the new gTLD process, and I saw a couple hands over here. 
Do I still have those or -- okay.  Okay.  Yes, Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I just had a slight clarification because I
think just to go a little farther, it was not, as I understood it,
that he was saying we would only have a hundred a year.  It was in
terms of his personal estimate as to the potential stability issues
that, you know, adding a hundred a year would be okay.  He wasn't
saying that's how many there were.

On the other hand, adding 10,000 a year would probably create some
issues, and that 500 was in the middle.

So in no way was he making any kind of prediction or statement as to
how many would be introduced.  He was really talking about the
numerical range in the context of the stability issues.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Kristina.  And, yes, Wolf?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.  Just I think this question is really an
important one, because it's still a little bit ambiguous, so -- and
so we have to understand what's going on with that, so what does he
mean really.  So I would like also to refer you to the session
tomorrow afternoon about root scale -- root scalability.  There's
another one.  And then we can put a specific question on that.

>>PAUL FOODY:  I think the scalability session is today, assistant
and it conflicts with the IRT, so, you know, that -- if there was any
way of moving those two, it would be great.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  It's probably not possible to move them.  The
schedule gets very complex, as you can guess, but they're all being
transcribed and recorded and so forth, so -- so certainly -- and some
of the -- many of those topics are still open for public comment as
well.

>>PAUL FOODY:  Okay.  But given -- given the fact that we are
looking at somebody who knows -- you know, Thomas is, you know, on
the inside.  He is far more of an expert than -- I think even Kurt
Pritz said that he didn't know, and for someone like that to say that
only a hundred per annum, it really means that there has got to be a
complete review.  And, for example, Edmon is lucky enough to run dot
Asia.  Now, apart from the fact that I don't think that would be
assignable, given GAC's point of view on geographical names, were it
to be released tomorrow, but it does mean that the -- to give away a
slice of the pie before we know how big the pie is going to be is --
it really is unwise.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Bruce?

>>PAUL FOODY:  I'm sorry about the video, but it's almost impossible
to see the screen there without some sort of visual aid.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I can't see it at all.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Just wanted to clarify, actually, for Mr. Foody,
that the difference between foreseeable future.  And there's a
difference between capacity and potential capacity and rate of
change.  So what Thomas was saying, that in terms of rate of change,
he was saying, "Let's start with a relatively low rate of change to
allow the system time to adapt."  That's not the same as saying
"foreseeable future."  I mean we know the DNS can actually handle
substantial capacity because we have zones operating with, you know,
80 million names, so technically we know there is capacity.

But in terms of the system's ability to absorb change, that's a
different thing.  So if you have a set of computers that, let's say,
people are running a Web site and you said, "Wait, we've got --
you've just put some very interesting content on your Web site, you
now have, you know, 10,000 times the number of users accessing that
Web site," it would take you time to actually add the capacity to
handle that load.

So that's really the -- the point is, it takes time to add capacity.
We need to be careful with the rate of change.  But a hundred names
is not a rate of change.  Rate of change is normally when you're
referring to things like percentage change and how much you're
changing the system by.

So I just want to caution the term "foreseeable future."  Thomas is
just saying it may be a rate of change had of a hundred names, say,
next year that would be a reasonable thing, just to say we're not
going to add 10,000 names or a million names next year, we're going
to sort of add it cautiously.  But that's not to say that in 20
years' time, you couldn't have 1 million names.  You know, we know
the system has capacity.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I'm going to stop the open mic session right
now, because I don't want us to get into a discussion -- there are
many issues involved here, and we could spend the rest of the day on
those.  Because we have another very important action item on our
agenda.  And I would like to ask the following people to please come
up here and join me on stage here:  Tony Harris, Philip Sheppard --
and I hope some of these are here.  I see Philip.  Come on up,
Philip.  I don't think Greg Ruth is here, but we want to recognize
him as well.  Tony Holmes, Avri Doria. Ute Decker I don't believe is
here.  Carlos Souza and Maggie Mansourkia.  So, if all of you -- any
of those that are here, if you'd come up, I would appreciate that
very much.  And I want to let Glen -- she's going to bring some
things up here.  

But these people here are all people who have served us on the GNSO
Council, some of them for many, many years, and made huge
contributions to our efforts.  And so we want to end our meeting
today by giving them a special thanks and maybe even giving them a
chance to say a word, if they'd like.  

And we'll just start in the order that they are.  We'll start off
with Philip.  A lot of you may not know that Philip was chair of the
DNSO and may have even been GNSO -- I don't know -- you overlapped
them, didn't you?  And he's been a major contributor on the council
for many years.  And not only the GNSO, but the DNSO.  

In fact, I can remember a time, Philip, when the first time I served
on the council, I only served for about an hour.  It was in Melbourne
IT.  And you were chair at that time.  And that's probably the
shortest council term that anybody served.  And, if you want to know
about that, I can talk to you about that in private.  Philip, thank
you very, very much for your service.  And would you like to say
anything?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Chuck, it's been a very, very interesting time. 
I was horrified to realize, when looking at the figures, my first
time as councillor was 1999.  So we're talking about 10 years, which
it did surprise me strongly.  And now I'm leaving, I think, possibly
with homage to the part of the world that we're in currently, albeit
perhaps through the spectacle of Hollywood.  

I am reminded of the 1966 film with the actor Christopher Lee called
"The Bride Of Fu Manchu." And some of you who know the film well will
recall the immortal words of Fu Manchu when he's thwarted by Scotland
Yard and is sinking deep into the mire, utters the immortal words,
"The world shall hear from me again."  Thank you very much.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  And you can tell from that why we're going to miss
Philip.  One of the reasons.  There are a lot of reasons, actually. 
He's made a lot of contributions.  

Carlos, thank you for your service on the council representing the
NCUC.

>>CARLOS SOUZA:  Thank you, Chuck.  I've been on the council two
years serving my first mandate in which I think I could experience
pretty much of the high-profile very technical, but certainly very
deeply rewarding for me discussions on Internet governance.  And I
feel very happy now to leave the council in the stage when I believe
the noncommercial interests are pretty much well-represented.  And
I'm pretty much optimistic in this new stage, new stage of the GNSO. 
Thank you so much.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Now we have another old timer here.  Am I on? 
There we go.  We have another old timer here.  And I mean that in a
very kind way.  I have to, because I'm an old timer too, not
necessarily on the council like Tony for so long.  But he has been a
consistent contributor for many years.  I'll let him talk about that.
But thank you very much, Tony.

 >>TONY HARRIS:  Thank you, Chuck, and for your kind introduction. 
It's been a long time.  And it's been an interesting journey.  I've
learned a lot.  And I think we've learned a lot how to operate as a
council.  And I think a lot of those lessons have fed through into
the new council, who I wish all the very best.  And it's an exciting
time of change.  I wish them all well.  I think we've come a long
way, and I think these guys will take us a lot further.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.  Now we already spent a little
time acknowledging Avri.  But she's been on the council more than
just the last two years.  But it's been as councillor.  She has, I
think, spent about half of her life donated to our work.  And, being
vice chair during that time, I probably saw it more than anybody
else.  But I'll say it again.

You know, we owe her a great deal of gratitude for all that she
committed.  And I know she's not going away.  And I'm happy she's not
going away.  But, Avri, you have a few words?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  First of all, I have to apologize for
not speaking as pretty as Philip speaks.  I've always envied his
ability to really speak nice.

Wish I could do it.

Yeah.  You wish I could do it, too?

[Laughter]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  But I'm a native language speaker.  I'm supposed to
be able to -- 

Anyhow, I've truly appreciated being on the council.  It is a lot of
fun.  I like the way the council is all these people who have these
really strong opinions figuring out how to work together with a
council that's always just on the edge of chaos, but not falling into
it.  And I wish you all the best of luck.  And thank you.

[Applause]

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Avri.  

Now, Maggie's had a short stint that's ending right now.  But she's
actually been involved in the GNSO for quite a while.  Thank you,
Maggie, for your support.

>>MAGGIE MANSOURKIA:   I'm actually a little embarrassed to be
standing here with these individuals.  I think Avri probably did more
work in a few hours on any given day than I did in a few months I was
on council.  Truly, I always knew how much work was involved in GNSO
Council, but it was an eye-opening experience the amount of work that
these folks did and all these folks do.  And I think the whole
community owes anybody who is willing to commit that time to GNSO or
ccNSO or the board or other organizations. It's incredibly mind-
boggling.  So thank you for allowing me to be on long enough to learn
a little bit of that before I jump off.

 >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Maggie.

[Applause]

Now, some of you heard me earlier in the week talk about Roberto
Gaetano.  And, when he and I first met and became friends in 1998 in
Buenos Aires in part of the IFWP meetings, he's been contributing
ever since then.  There's another guy that's been contributing ever
since then, too.  In fact, he hosted, his company hosted those
meetings in Buenos Aires.  Tony, thank you for all those years of
service to the GNSO.  It's much appreciated.

 >>TONY HARRIS:  Thank you, Chuck.  That's exaggerated, obviously. 
The council has been tolerant having me around so long, quite
frankly.  And thank you for your patience.  I do wish you all the
best in this new exciting time that's coming along.

And I think it's a fitting tribute that, coming from a soccer
country such as Argentina, my replacement is no less than from
Brazil.  Jaime over here.  So you can look forward to some more
soccer-inspired support from our constituency anyhow.  And thanks
very much to everybody.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  And, as you walk off the stage, Glen has a token of
appreciation for you.  Let's give them all a hand.

[Applause]

 >>CHUCK GOMES:  As they're walking off, I want to take this
opportunity to encourage all of us to get more involved.  You don't
have to be on the council to participate.  As we move forward,
working groups are going to become increasingly important.  In fact,
we've been evolving to that model for a long time.  Find an interest
area and contribute on a working group.  That's really where the work
is going to happen going forward as we develop policy.  So I
encourage more and more new participation, and that will spread the
workload around.  And we'll be able to accomplish the many tasks we
have ahead of us.  Any comments from the council before I adjourn the
meeting?  Okay.  Thank you very much, everybody.  The meeting is
adjourned.

[Applause]

>> Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make an announcement. 
This afternoon at 5:30 in Crystal B, which is the other side of the
ballroom, there's going to be a meeting called "Affirmation of
Commitments Consultation," in case any of you were interested in
attending.  Thank you.