GNSO Wrap-up Meeting ICANN - Sydney 25 June 2009 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We're still eating, people are still coming in. It's one of the reasons why we're being transcribed, and I truly appreciate the transcription folks getting ready so quickly when we had told them later. So it's really very much appreciated. This is the follow-on session that we have been having on Thursdays, and I put together an agenda there yesterday. And just to go through it, start with lunch. I think we have done that. People will continue eating and continue doing lunch, so it doesn't mean we have finished with lunch. Pending issues, I just wanted to briefly go over what we need to do yet with the bylaws approval. Review of feedback received during the Wednesday meeting. Basically, you know, if we want -- people want to bring up issues that were particularly of interest and concern to them. An issue that came up in various conversations over the course of this week is, is there anything that we slash the current constituencies want to do and that the people working in the stakeholder groups want to do in terms of helping the new constituencies sort of figure out how they fit in and truly understanding. And some of the comments that got made, like it not appearing that they understood how they might be able to fit in. Start just talking about our plans for the period between Sydney and Seoul, and make sure that we have some idea of what we're about. Assorted administrative scheduling of meetings, especially the timing of meetings, which has been an often-touched topic. And then at 2:00, in the last 15 minutes, two of the current working group chairs are going to come in and basically -- because these were two that haven't been discussed in the context -- oh, hi -- that haven't been discussed in the context of any of the other meetings that we have had during the week, just to give us an update and give us a chance to ask questions and such. So anything else that needs to be on this agenda that I didn't think of? And obviously this agenda has been out for all of one, two days, but this is not a voting meeting. This is a discussion and planning and catch up and just make sure that we have covered what we need to cover meeting. If not, you know, stuff comes up before the end, please add it. Okay. So on the pending issues concerning bylaw approval, we obviously have the two pending issues that we have talked about many times. I understand from the SIC that they seem to be close on being able to give us a number to the number -- I mean to the transition issue of numbers, and how many and how they get chosen and that that one we should be able to close in time. I still have concerns and worries of having an answer on the seat 13- 14. We have pushed on every button. We have talked to Ken, we have talked to Rob, we have talked to Denise -- and I mean many of us have talked to the various directors saying, listen, you know, you need to make a decision. Even if there's going to be a new plan in the future for how many directors and all that stuff once they finish their review, we have to pick a director in the first quarter of next year. And so the bylaws need to discuss it. And what the bylaws have now, which is based upon voting in a unitary structure with weighted voting, just won't do. So they have the recommendation from the July working group, and so on, and I'm hoping that in their meetings today, you know, they do something about it. Then I guess I'd like to open it up that there was -- Tony had mentioned during the meeting that there were possibly other issues, and so I wanted to find out more about them. We have scheduled a meeting for 2 July, which is two weeks. It's a Thursday two weeks from today. Two weeks from today? One week from today, to try to make this determination, that gives us the end of June. And don't have a time because the time of when we have a meeting is one of those things that has the geographical time element involved in it. So basically, just that stake in the ground saying 2 July; however -- so I just wanted to open up that discussion. Yes, Rob. >>ROB HOGGARTH: If I can expand on something that I mentioned at the second workshop, I guess, Sunday afternoon, and something that you discussed at the public meeting yesterday, Avri, and that is if the board is going to approve new bylaw amendments at their July 30th meeting, they need to have 30 days public comment period on anything that comes out. And I think you mentioned it yesterday, and we had discussed this possibility in the Sunday workshop of it's likely that the board will direct staff to post draft bylaw amendments prior to that July 1st date. And the plan that we discussed on Sunday was what resource would we have to provide the board other than the nature of the work that you produced to date. And as long as we're clear in sharing with the board that that is not a GNSO consensus but the work product of the council to date, the board would likely say, okay, let's put that on public notice. And then there would be some mechanism, I guess, for the council to comment as a whole. Certainly for individual members of the GNSO community to then comment on that draft proposal as it exists in a snapshot as it is today, or whatever that appropriate time is. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Greg. >>GREG RUTH: I'm not sure where the 2 July meeting came from, but I think that's an impossibly close meeting. There are people here beside not only myself who have business, ICANN business, in Sydney till the 30th of June. Other people I'm sure will be traveling and doing different things. I'm not sure what -- What do you want to accomplish the 2nd July meeting? And can it -- I mean, I think that's just too early. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We could possibly push it off one week, one week further if you believe that that -- I think two weeks is the maximum we could try to push it off. We had discussed earlier a 2 July simply because that gave us the ability, hopefully, especially if they came out with their answers tomorrow, to basically have made our decision in time for the full month notice. In other words, so that we could have a council-agreed -- hopefully, a council-agreed set of discussions -- I mean, a set of recommendations in the 30 days. We certainly had this week to talk about it, have had -- If we don't have the answers by the end of this week, then it certainly makes it -- We can move it a week further, but then that really crowds the decision schedule for their end-of-July meeting. So -- Yes. >>TONY HOLMES: I think we have to shift it back, Avri, because we had this discussion before about linkages back into constituencies, and I think some of them are going to have that issue again here. And so the earliest we can do it is a couple of weeks. And I share Greg's concerns. I think there are going to be people who have problems if you make it any earlier. >>AVRI DORIA: So you are saying July 9th? >>TONY HOLMES: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: What do other people -- you know? Yeah, and then.... >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Actually, my question is the one you asked. What are the other issues we need to deal with? We have two main issues that we know are on the table. If there are others there, then perhaps we need to have a better idea about them now so we can try and work out what we need do. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I would support pushing back another week for the reasons expressed. I think most of us find the week following an ICANN meeting tends to be a lull week. It's a catch up on all the other things in our lives meeting. So to have one immediately after I think will suffer, possibly, from poor attendance. It's probably too short anyway for us to see substantive change on the key issues that we want from the board SIC, and after all, all we are trying to do is meet a board deadline. It is not our deadline. It's theirs. And it was a decision of my constituency yesterday, and I think that's common with other constituencies, that if we are presented with a bylaws text that is incompleted in any way, we will vote no on it regardless of our support for individual parts on that. >>AVRI DORIA: Understood. Okay. So does anyone object to moving it back to the 9th? Will that work, schedulewise? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Schedulewise (inaudible). >>AVRI DORIA: We are not in conflict with anything? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: The next board meeting is on the 30th of July. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, right. Because we tend to try to miss -- avoid conflicts with board meetings because then the staff needs to be in two places at the same time. And wonderful as they are, they don't seem to be able to do that. Anyway, what I would like to ask is, if there are other issues that people need resolved and discussed, that they get them to the council as soon as possible, if not sooner, simply because, I mean, we have been talking about this a long time. Most of the text, except for a few things, has been stable now. Certainly since the beginning of this week. And even then, most of what we did this week was go through the very important legal issues, but we haven't had any council, you know, major issues that we have had to resolve over the last couple of weeks. So I would really like to ask that if there are any other issues, please get them on the table almost immediately, if you can, so that we know what we're facing. Certainly by the 2nd of July if there is any recommended language changes so that everybody has had one week to look at anybody's suggested language change and deal with it in their constituency so that we are not constantly in a position of, well, there's something that's a change. I need to bring it back. It is my intention to bring this to a vote on the 9th. I'm truly hoping that we have a complete document so no one needs to do an automatic refusal of the document. But I need to get a vote on it, so I will call the vote on the 9th. Anything else to add to this? Yes, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Are we still working on the document as part - - within the drafting team that was working on it? Or would it be more efficient now to just have the whole council working on it at once? >>AVRI DORIA: The drafting team has sort of been a misnomer. That's why I have tried to call it a drafting team of a whole, because the drafting team has been everybody on council plus some other people. So I don't know if there's really a notion of efficiency. I am willing to move it over to the council list but then that just becomes an exclusionary act of excluding the other people. I want to make it clear that I don't see it as the council is not being informed because it's in drafting team. We have made sure that the whole council is on that drafting team and some other people. So I don't know, does it make a difference that we keep it in that drafting team as opposed to moving it to just council? Because I wouldn't want to exclude those people that have been part of this all the way through. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: No, I didn't mean exclusion. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, no. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I meant is the whole council on it? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, the whole council. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: If that's the case, no problem. >>AVRI DORIA: It's a council-plus list. That's why I always referred to it as a drafting team of the whole, essentially. Mike, sorry. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Question. I'm sorry if I discussed this before I got here, and I apologize for being late. You don't have to answer, tell me later. It is coming to a vote at some point. Do we have to have a simple majority to approve these bylaw changes? Do we have to have a supermajority? Three-quarters? How does that work? >>AVRI DORIA: I believe we have to record a vote and send it to the board. It's obviously, if we don't have a majority, you can't call it a recommendation. I believe we should have a majority. I believe that we should record the vote. I believe that we should record viewpoints, you know, the discussion that's had certainly the abstentions, as always, recording. I think it would be lovely to have unanimity or a supermajority if we can get it, but I believe to say these are recommendations made, made as a majority or whatever, or this is what we discussed and for the following reasons we couldn't even hit majority. If that's the case, then we have to report -- They don't need a recommendation from us. In a bottom-up process, I believe it is appropriate that they have a recommendation from us, but there is nothing in the bylaws that says "bylaw changes for an S.O. need to be initiated by the S.O." It would be a lovely, you know, thing if that was -- I don't think they would approve that. But it doesn't say that. So I think that because it's a bottom-up organization, we can say, hey, you know, here are our recommendations. Take them seriously. But they don't really need us to do that other than for the legitimacy of the action. The bylaws don't require it. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: And so one other question. I presume, it's all or nothing. Kind of like the RAA amendments; right? We can't say, "I want to vote -- I vote yes on everything except paragraph 2b2." >>AVRI DORIA: I think so, except that as in any vote, someone can propose either an amendment and say, you know, strike paragraph 9, we will send it without a recommendation -- and I don't know what's in paragraph 9. I just use that as an example. I suppose anything can be subject to a voted amendment. I don't think a friendly amendment would really work because when a document has been discussed in a drafting team of the whole, who is it that can really accept a friendly amendment? I don't believe I am in the position as the person who makes the motion. I mean, certainly on the motion words, I made the motion, but in terms of the content, I wouldn't feel qualified to say, yes, that's a friendly amendment. So I would ask, then, any amendment be put to a vote. So certainly people can propose amendments and such. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: But we can't really qualify our support. It's either yes or no. It's not yes as to these and no as to these. >>AVRI DORIA: I wouldn't think so. I mean, unless we were voting on each and every one of them, which would be kind of monstrously difficult. Obviously, again, being that the council can make the decisions it wants, someone could certainly suggest separating the vote and suggest that we vote on X, Y and Z in one vote and, you know, A, B and C in another vote, and then we would vote on that before the -- and if anyone wants to suggest that, please get that done by 2nd July. So that's certainly a possibility. We have taken that kind of vote before. We have taken it on the new gTLDs. It didn't in that instance but we did vote on separating the issue. So I suppose if somebody wanted to say we want to vote separately on issue number 9, using 9 -- I don't think there is a 9, so I think I am using it for safety -- if someone wants to separate an issue, then propose a vote on separating the issue. This meeting is going to be totally dedicated to getting this done. No other issues other than updating Statement of Interest, because that's a standard thing. I haven't even put approving minutes on it, the agenda, because it's just a focal point, but it will be an actual meeting of the council. Alan, yes. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I don't disagree with what you are saying but I disagree on the intent. The council is going to pass this on as a recommendation to the board, but this is -- unlike a PDP, the board with micro manage this one and change a wording of three of the clauses but not the rest of them to suit their own needs. So I think it's important that when it goes to the board, if anyone is disagreeing, whether we break it down or they are voting for it or noting that clause 1.6.3, they would -- if it had been separated, they would have voted against, or they vote against it saying we approve everything but. I think the content of that needs to go to the board because they may agree that yes, that's the one we were going to change anyway, and it would be nice to know what level of support they had from council on that. >>AVRI DORIA: I was suggesting that we would record, you know, the viewpoints. In fact, it may be good to have that meeting not only recorded but post-recording transcribed so that there is a full record if the board wants to go to those discussions. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Because unlike the PDP, they can micromanage and will, almost surely. >>AVRI DORIA: It's just a recommendation. They can do with it as they please. >>ALAN GREENBERG: The point I was making it's important that they know which part of council they are satisfying or dissatisfying in that case. >>AVRI DORIA: And as I say, if anybody believes it's important to separate the vote into different pieces to make specific reference or specific point about any piece, I think they should suggest a motion to separate the vote, and then we will vote on that before voting on the proposal or the multiple proposals. But I ask people to please do that by 2nd July so we know what we're walking into, if at all possible. Any other discussion on this? I mean, as I say, I feel personally really driven do make sure we do all what we need do to make sure that the bicameral can be seated by Seoul. It seems to me something that I certainly have to do everything I can to drive it to conclusion. And I intend to try and drive it to conclusion. Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, I think the point Mike raises is a good one, but based on what I heard -- not a good one in that we should break it down item by item, but if there were particular -- if there was agreement for most items, that probably is good information to do it, without doing an item by item. But people could maybe single out where they have opposition, just for communication. But that could be accomplished in what you are saying -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: -- in terms of that. But based on what I heard Philip say, and I don't know if other constituencies will do the same thing, is that they are going to oppose the whole thing if, for example, and I think there's a real possibility that the board will not make a decision on seats 13 and 14. So in that case, you know, I guess we should still detail any comments people have, but it may be somewhat irrelevant. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just for the record, the IPC opposes voting on these unless and until the two issues we have identified previously are resolved. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Anything else on the bylaw issue at this point? Okay. Then I would like to open up the floor to anyone that wants to sort of bring up any specific piece of feedback received during the Wednesday meeting. For example, do we need a policy for doing an e-mail to everybody based on their WHOIS entry to tell them about.... [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: I think it would be good if the GNSO Council got on the -- some Spam black list. >>AVRI DORIA: Seriously, I open up the floor. Does anyone wish to bring up any of the pieces of the -- Because we did get a fair amount of interesting, you know, feedback during the various conversations, in terms of certainly how we operate, how we deal with various issues. So, you know, I figure this is a good time to bring up any pieces that anyone wants to put special emphasis on. Yes, Edmon. Hmm? Oh, sorry. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah, I know we had a pretty long discussion sparked by Jeff's concern about the council putting out statements. I'm just coming to realize that the draft 3 of the IDN ccTLD fast track implementation plan is out and is currently in the comment period. This might be one of the things that we want to talk about, how -- and previously we did put out statements. Do we want do that this time? Or -- and/or how do we do it? >>AVRI DORIA: Good question. Yes, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I don't want to try to attempt to answer your question, but I didn't read Jeff's and other comments about processes as not commenting. I just read them as us, you know, going back to the constituencies and making sure that we get that input before we comment. So I don't think -- I'm very comfortable with us commenting, but it's just maybe we need a little more time to prepare those comments. >>AVRI DORIA: So yeah, my question becomes, then, for the various constituencies -- sorry if I interrupted you -- but how much time? In other words, is this a two-week review? Is this a formal three-week review? What is the interval we should allow between something being, you know, drafting team completed and something? I have Mike and then Kristina. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: You can already guess what the answer is going to be from a lawyer. It depends. [ Laughter ] >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I mean, clearly it, depends. From our constituency, if it is something we all agree on, then it can be a day. If it's something we don't agree on, then it could be a month, or longer. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Well, the normal is three, so -- yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was actually just going to suggest that perhaps it might be helpful for each of the representatives from the various constituencies to go back and kind of at least definitively determine what, in fact, each constituencies process is going to be. In other words, it may be the case, for example, that the B.C. comes back and says it depends. It can range anywhere from X to Y. It could be that the registry constituency is going to come back and say never, unless there is consultation of at least blah. But once we have that information, I think we will be able to at least identify what our options are going to be as opposed to doing it on an ad hoc basis, which seems to be kind of a waste of time. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes. >>SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: Yes, I would like to introduce myself as Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. I am the ALAC IDN liaison. I just dropped in here to look for any wrap-up on IDN related discussions at GNSO. >>AVRI DORIA: By the way, Edmon, had I -- when you asked your question and it went on, had we cut off your discussion? >>EDMON CHUNG: Actually I just wanted to clarify that I -- sorry to confuse it. There were two parts of the question. One was specifically to respond, and the other was the process of which. So -- But, no. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>EDMON CHUNG: I think we got -- >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina, does it seem reasonable, then, to ask the constituencies to go away and come back with an answer on that for our next meeting after the 2nd? And I will put it on the agenda that we will have that topic on that agenda? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. At least people can have asked by that point. Some constituencies may not have a formal process, and they will need to decide. But at least you have gotten the ball rolling. >>AVRI DORIA: Thanks. I would think for safety's sake, the three weeks that is the normal review period might be something we will think about. But, okay, thanks. Any other issues on the review of feedback received yesterday? Yes, Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: On the previous point, perhaps one thing constituencies could consider is a period of time whereby you could make that determination of "depends." So like within a few days you get back with a preliminary response and say, okay, this will take longer or this will, you know, be shorter. >>AVRI DORIA: So in other words, we would have a week of figuring out how long it's going to take you, and then however long it was going to take you? Do I understand correctly? It. >>EDMON CHUNG: Maybe not one week, but maybe, yes. That is sort of my suggestion because then we don't have to go through three weeks for every single thing. And then we have, you know -- >>AVRI DORIA: That seems to be a good answer to bring back when we have that meeting, if that is your constituency. You know, it's a suggestion, but perhaps if a constituency wants it. Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we are kind of thinking of this like whenever an issue comes up, it's the first time it comes up. That won't always be the case. Even with the case in point with regard to the letter to the GAC, there was actually -- I know in our case, there were communications to the registry constituency about this, you know, as soon as something was available to show them and so forth. So it's going to be hard to have a hard-and-fast rule on a time. And assuming -- there will be a lot of cases where there will be some communication within our constituencies before we ever get to that decision point of how much time it will take. And that will be a variable factor, like several people have said as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. So any other of the feedback people want to bring up for further discussion. Sorry, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: I was going to let Mike go ahead of me. There's no rush. But one of the real obvious things that is an important thing that came out in our meeting, not only our meeting on Wednesday but throughout the week, and a critical issue with regard to the policy development process. Tim made a -- raised some really good questions in our council meeting, and I countered with some different issues. And what do we do in the policy development process when we have gone through it, we have completed a process, and now there is significant comment that comes forward, and we have at least two of those areas in front of us right now. Now, I am not suggesting we talk about that right now or try and resolve it, but I think it would be a good idea if we communicated with the chair of the PPSC PDP working team that this is an important issue to be dealt with. Because our have policy process right now doesn't really cover that, and it would really be helpful. It's not an easy answer, like I said yesterday. At the same time, hopefully in our new PDP process, when that happens, it would be very good to have some procedures as to how that happens. And again, I am not suggesting that we necessarily talk about how to do it now. Avri and Tim and I had a nice conversation last night and Avri has got some very good ideas in that regard, but I am not suggesting that we discuss those now. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, I had Mike and then I saw Alan, did I miss any hands while I was out of the room? >>AVRI DORIA: (Speaker off microphone). >>AVRI DORIA: Great. >>ALAN GREENBERG: There's no need to speak to the chair, it's already on our list, we're working on things. Since we're including PDPs at the end, essentially saying did the policy we put in place really work and do a check six months or a year later, that itself says we may need to change the policy just based on the results based on an objection or new information the general concept what do we do and that comes in as one of the things we have to discuss. If you have good ideas, then join the meetings. >>AVRI DORIA: I have ideas, I don't know if they're good. >>CHUCK GOMES: They're quite good. >>AVRI DORIA: Mike and then Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: Quickly, Alan, I would still like Avri's ideas to be expressed, at least the way she expressed them last night. For one reason, like Peter today, when he was asking Rob and I believe he said, you know, do you have examples of where these recommendations conflict or have been discussed, you know, previously in the PDP, I don't want to get into that specifically but I think that's a good question, you know, can we tie back, can we answer a question like that as it comes up and I think we need to be, excuse me, we need to be able to, and that was one of Avri's discussions. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I wasn't suppressing the discussion either here or any other forum, I was just saying the chair already has it on his list. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, any more comments on that one, yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: So what are they. >>AVRI DORIA: What's my suggestion? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Of course, I haven't been drinking wine, so I don't know if I can express it quite as I did last night, but basically I think we needed to do two pieces of it. One is we need to do a better job in recording the -- all the background of the decisions made, what all the options that were looked at and how they were dealt with, what the considerations were and how we ended up eventually deciding on those minute issues that don't show up, necessarily, in the one-liner recommendation, but sort of the history in much more detail, so someone can come back and look and say, you know, we got a comment that says blue should be called purple from now on. Have you considered the notion of calling blue purple from now on, was that discussed? And you can go back and say, yes, on page 53, you know, in this chapter, we -- we have done that. And so that was one piece of it. And being more careful to make sure we've done that. The other piece is to put a piece in the policy process that sort of says how do we respond when the board gets a set of comments and comes back to us and says, okay, the comments have said blue should be called purple from now on. How did you respond to it, that we actually have already created a process method for when we haven't discussed it, for, then, going back into the mode of discussing it and coming out with a recommendation so that was the idea and I had Marika and then -- so that was it. With wine it was a little different. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I wanted to comment about something on the recording, how a decision is made. We're trying to do that at the moment in the working groups, where we do cover the working group deliberations which hopefully show why the group came to the recommendations, and in addition what we've started doing as well, been following out in the new gTLD process, capturing the comments in the public comment period, going through each of those, providing a response from the working group, and linking that through or attaching it, depending on the length of that document, to the final report so those that have made a comment can always go back and see how the working group actually discussed that and -- if it -- you know, some of them have been incorporated, where they were incorporated so we indeed have a record of those that say, oh, but you didn't listen to us, we can say, yeah, we did and this is how it was discussed and you can check back so -- >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I think the idea of what in my real-life is referred to as legislative history is a really good idea. The one concern that I would have is that it wouldn't account for a situation in which the question of is blue purple or should blue be called purple discussed, but for the very reason the very -- you know, that there's a segment of the community that believes that blue should be called purple and didn't have an effective means of input because otherwise you're otherwise kind of validating the outcome of the working group without going back -- or whatever it is -- without going back and saying did we have all the voices that we needed to hear on the issue. >>AVRI DORIA: That makes sense. As I say, this was just really the - - and -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: It's a good idea but (inaudible). >>AVRI DORIA: You're right, add that question to it, yes, Chuck on the same topic. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, I think, in fact, Avri really did do a better job with wine. [ Laughter ] She went a little bit further last night, we were also talking about, okay, it's not for us to tell the board what they should do but it could be written into the PDP what they -- they do have parts of the PDP that describe their responsibilities. And I understood you to suggest or maybe it was just part of our conversation that we could recommend that if there is a change, a possible change in direction from the recommendations of the GNSO Council, a process where the board comes back to us, not just -- and this, I think, gets to your point, Kristina -- not just to say did you cover this? But some sort of a process like we're facing right now where there -- there are two significant changes that I'm aware of in our recommendations, or change areas, and I think that's good to be in there too. Where the -- there's an outline, okay, if there is a change, a suggested change in recommendation, then bring it back to the council and what happens, then, and whether it's something like the IRT or something like that, we don't need to debate that, we know we have different views, but it would be really good for the board to know what happens in those situations, too. And it will remove some of the confusion in terms of how these things happen. And I don't think anybody's suggesting that the process should result in starting all over, but how do you maybe -- how's the council, then, come to reasonably quick resolution of a possible change without starting all over. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, no, and I kind of glossed over that, but, yeah, I meant to kind of include that, yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: See, better with wine? >>AVRI DORIA: Better with wine. I'm more loquacious when I have wine in my hand. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Just one thought. When I was new on council and my first real meeting was the Los Angeles discussion on gTLDs, and a couple of times I brought things up and was told basically we've already discussed it and it's all documented in one of the earlier draft documents. And I must admit I never went back to check, but there was some intent, if my recollection is correct, to try to document what was looked at and if not why the answer was -- was derived, at least the fact that other things were considered. >>AVRI DORIA: I think there was, but I think that we saw with the new gTLD implementation document and response that the staff really did set a new standard in being very complete, explicit, numbered, categorization, perhaps that's what legislative histories are, I -- I don't know that, but, you know, they certainly set a new standard for ICANN, as far as I could tell, in terms of the detail and explicitness with which that was done. We did a lot of it. And, in fact, and I expect people will be going back to some of it now to see indeed how complete it was when they're trying to make the case about whatever case they want to make, I think it's the blue and purple case. And I'm really trying to not give any opinion on any issue but talk about it in a general sense, that, you know, they will be going back to that document. And I think you'll find that there's a lot of general statements and a lot of information, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the job that the new gTLD implementation people have done, which is I think an incredibly useful document because you can go and you can see exactly how it was thought about, how it was handled, and what they're going to do. Yes, Stephane. Still say subject. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Because Mike's got the second mic cue. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Do you want to. >>AVRI DORIA: No, no, no, he's on the next topic. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: That document is a great document but it's a 300-page document. And I'm also worried, I mean, I understand what's being said, I'm worried about being snowed under with the sheer wealth of archived material that we could have. And I think it's very important, as we go into this discussion and the way that we could improve what we're discussing we also must keep in mind that we need to have better information retrieval. I mean, maybe, Kristina, there's a way, you know, you talk about what was it, the term you used? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Legislative history. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Right, I don't even try it. That's, obviously -- there's got to be methods and methodologies to make information retrieval simple because otherwise everything will just get snowed under. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: No, absolute. I didn't mean to suggest, at least how I understood what Avri was suggesting that this would be something that we'd all have to plow our way through. I mean, when I have occasion to have to refer back to legislative history it's usually like two or three bound volumes that are on the library shelf and I go pull them out and figure out what section I need to look at and it's very well indexed which is obviously key. But it's really more of a staff role than -- you know, somebody has already gone and done that, I don't have to go and do it, I just have to read it. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I was definitely thinking of the creation of it and, of course, the tools for doing it, you know, are there so, yeah. Is that -- does that exhaust that particular issue for now? Great. Mike? It's your next issue. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. A little bit -- it might be a little bit off-topic, it doesn't really stem directly from the comments in our forum yesterday but definitely stems from some public comments I heard from other meetings. And it goes to our code of conduct, particularly acting respectfully towards other people which I think has been pretty clearly violated in several instances in meetings that I've attended this week. And so my question is: Does anybody know who enforces that code of conduct? Do we, as a council, perhaps, if it happened in our meeting, these were GNSO meetings that I was in, generally, anyway, some of them, but not council meetings, I mean, working group meetings, et cetera, do we as a council make a request to somebody to go to these individuals and do something? Or how does that work? >>AVRI DORIA: Interesting question. Yes, Rob? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Staff has had occasion to encounter a number of these things over the last many weeks with respect to new constituencies and the rest. The current process is one where the ombudsman gets involved in the process and people go confidentially to the ombudsman and flag those things. A lot of the feedback we're getting is it should be a community-wide reaction when people see something like that akin to, I guess, some comments that take place in public meetings where people jump on it and recognize and call out that sort of behavior. So almost something along the lines of almost a public shaming. But in terms of official process or actions, it's really something that is in the staff's hands particularly with respect to the ombudsman but it is an issue that we're struggling with as to what you -- you know, what do you really do, Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Particularly when it keeps happening. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, I had Philip and Kristina and it was almost a tie between you two in terms of getting your hands up. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you. I have a concrete suggestion. There exists a document in terms of conduct. It was drafted essentially to board behavior. An excerpt from that has now been placed, I presume, into all stakeholder group charters, I presume they weren't singling us out. >>AVRI DORIA: That would be rude of them. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: You never know. [ Laughter ] And it looks like a good addition. What we haven't done perhaps at council level is also either formally adopt the -- that recommendation, that code from board, we may need to adjust things slightly in term -- 'cause some things, like conflict of interest, et cetera, are very much geared to the board. So that might help just in terms of the formal process of saying, yes, we've done that and we agree to it. Okay. Once that's done, then I think also you look at also what does that mean. And what that means is that we make it very clear this exists, we have done so, and if anybody in any of these sessions -- and then it becomes a standing instruction to the chairs of any of these sessions, whoever they may be, that if anything is taking place on the floor that they believe, as the chair, is inappropriate in terms of a question, then it's very simple. You say, "Thank you very much," the microphone is cut, you forfeit your right to question, please sit down, we'll go on to the next one in the queue. And I think that is the discipline you need to impose when you see that. So you do not give the offender the dignity of a right of response to that. They forfeit that. And that has to be the simple sanction that you provide. And anything more than that, okay, it -- and if people want to make a complaint or whatever, then what Rob is saying is write but I think you need an immediate action to take place as well as something more significant if it's repeat offense. >>AVRI DORIA: Is this something that would perhaps be considered as being added to the GNSO rules and procedures that we're going to need to be doing an update on as we go through? Is that something that's being done by one of the OSC -- is -- Chuck, is one of the OSC subteams actually working on the rules and procedure update? So perhaps they can take that as a -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I'll pass that on to Ray who is the chair of the GNSO Council operations committee. It's a good suggestion. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would actually -- I completely agree with the need to have an immediate mechanism. I'm not entirely sure that I would necessarily agree, in all circumstances, that it's kind of dependent on the determination of whoever's chairing the meeting, et cetera. But I would absolutely suggest that we all start really kind of taking a look at how we interact with each other, I mean, to me there's really kind of two categories at play: One is some -- you know, in which a remark or an actual act is kind of offensive and inappropriate. The other is where kind of the general tone of the interaction and the niche of the interaction is frankly sufficiently hostile or uncivil that it's really not conducive to working well together. And I -- there are a number of local Australian lawyers who have come to this meeting, and every single one of them has expressed, frankly, astonishment at the general level of incivility that all categories of participants express towards one another. And they're, frankly, shocked that people voluntarily come to these meetings so that they can be insulted. And, you know, obviously, there's each different environment is going to have its own kind of norm but I think we all need to really take a look and say is there -- are we doing this, and if we are doing it, even presumably inadvertently, how do we need to be interacting differently with each other so that at least at the council level we make clear that it's not acceptable? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I think a lot of that has to do with cultures too because I know coming out of the IETF I tend to see this as polite society. [ Laughter ] So, you know, yes, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Actually, I was going to say the same thing but coming out of France. [ Laughter ] I really wanted to get a better grasp of what it is that you and Mike are talking about. Because is it just an IRT flak thing, I mean, you've, obviously -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Talking about specific comments that were insulting to communities of people. And were offensive by almost any standard made by persons who have done that previously. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm assuming it's not council because I have a feeling we've grown into a fairly collegial group, by and large. I mean, even when we violently disagree with each other, we seem to be civil about it. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: (Inaudible). >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'll let that go, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I apologize. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'll let it go once and then you and I step outside and we'll settle it old school. >>AVRI DORIA: I surrender. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah, I just wanted to, for clarity's sake you're not talking intercouncil? Okay. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: No, but I think, you know, as councillors we have an obligation, and to the extent we see it happening during our sessions I think we absolutely have, you know, to make sure that it doesn't continue, and to the extent that we are aware that certain members of our constituents -- of our constituencies may have developed a conversational style that is, frankly, just going to be perceived as hostile and counterproductive then I think it is incumbent on us. You know, I'm not suggesting that -- you know, that we're the conversation police, by any stretch of the imagination. But there's -- it makes it so much more difficult to get things done, particularly where people aren't agreeing in the first place, if you have to deal with all that nonsense on top of it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So when you say "our sessions," you mean the public session that we have on a -- traditionally on a Wednesday? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, as well as our working sessions on the weekends. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Really any sessions that relate to our work. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You're talking about where we're interacting with people outside of the council. So I agree, you need some sort of -- but I think you've got to go back to the point that was raised earlier that I think you disagreed with is that I think you do just have to -- we can indicate to the chair that this speaker -- I think you've got to let the chair be the central point of contact. And the police officer. And what we've got to do is put our point to the chair. If everybody -- if something you say I don't like or I think is offensive to me and I arc up, that doesn't help the situation, you start getting -- I think I've got to let Avri know that I'm displeased with the way that you're speaking or whatever, maybe by interrupting, if it's that bad, but let Avri have the final thing and say, look, if that's the case, that -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm good with that. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't creating the situation where it was only where the chair him or herself noticed it, that it was something that would get acted on. But stephane, to answer your question, no, I mean, it wasn't solely related to IRT, although I do wish I would have brought a vest, a bulletproof one. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: The point I think I'm getting is that there are some things they're offensive, period, it doesn't matter what the topic is or who the group is that's up at that particular point, they're just offensive, you know, racially disparaging markets or sexually disparaging remarks, those kinds of things. Seem that it could be some high-level -- some high-level requirement that these topics are going to get you in trouble, you know, are going to get you banned or whatever the case may be. So I think that's what I understood Mike asking about. And I know there's other issues where it's a little more difficult for the chair to make a call about what's offensive and that may be more difficult but I think there are some clearer bright lines that could be drawn otherwise. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can I take this to a -- on a slightly different route? And that's, you know, maybe not offensive but, you know, I think that our -- what frustrates me when we have an interaction session is, and like the public forum where I think people have to ask questions and, you know, try to get us engaged, this is an opportunity for you to engage the council. What I see is, you know, people just getting up and grandstanding or making, you know, circular conversations that go on -- and chew up a lot of time. You know, I think there's, you know, got to be a mechanism by which we can just say that's great but submit that -- if that's a comment that you -- like -- I actually don't mind the way that Peter's, you know, conducting the public forum. Taking a pretty hard line, but I think we're getting through more comments. My only concern is by limiting for two minutes, you're going to get people speaking very fast and they're not going to understand what they're saying -- sorry, scribes. [ Laughter ] Especially with an Australian accent. So you've got two minutes and people fly through what they've got to say and so that's the only concern I have but outside of that I'm -- generally think that's not necessarily a bad way to go. >>AVRI DORIA: One comment I did see and, actually, I saw this one in Twitter, so it's not one -- it's a question someone asked that why is it at ICANN meetings, when there's people standing at a line, most of the talking is being done by the people on stage? And I just pass that comment on as one that I saw on Twitter, and a lot of people basically saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So that's another part of that whole equation is that I'm wondering, because sometimes we get into pontificating from the stage as opposed to, you know, like what Bruce did in the meeting which is, you know, ask a couple pointed questions to try and understand better, but not necessarily have a discussion on the point and I'm wondering if that's something that we need to think about as well. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: But that's always in balance with obviously providing some sort of answer. They want to interact, they want to get a response. You want to make sure you give one. And I think that that's a very, very, you know, fine line to walk. And sometimes the board does well and sometimes it doesn't. You know, I -- there was a huge line, in a public forum I submitted a comment there. On the bloody thingy that they have, whatever that is, and -- >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Question box. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thank you, question box. And Kieren read it out coming back from a break, and, you know, quickly, because he had four other questions to read out, there was only two board members there and that was it, so I felt compelled that I had to stand up and go forward, and when I was talking, it was -- you know, eye contact, engaging the board, and they're all nodding and listening, and I felt much better that my comment had been listened to rather than the first way it was done where it was just a thing, so that way we've -- I don't think we can -- I think we've got to make sure that we stay on that route and do get that level of engagement. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I was just going to say I would personally support Twitter character length for all questions and open forums. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: I like it! >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Although you are being funny, that's not a bad way to be about it. Because don't limit it to time; right? It helps the scribes out then. Limit it to some sort of length. Then you are going to see all sorts of shortened -- I have a trouble now reading it, there's a T in there with an 8 and an F. The kids today. I can't work it out. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I would love to see Philip and Adrian manage that. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: I guess that does that theme. Are there any other feedback themes that we got from any of the Wednesday issues that people would like to bring up and discuss more? Including -- I don't know if any of the staff noticed anything that we haven't brought up yet that they would like to sort of remind us of. Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: One of the things that we talked about several years ago in the ICANN community, and actually, there's been some good improvements along this line in the scheduling of topics and meetings and so forth, is the duplication of topics across the week. A terrible lot of repetition of the same things, the same people making comments and so forth over and over again in multiple sessions. This week was really bad for that. It's not an easy problem to solve, but I think we could really improve. And it's not just -- it's certainly not just a GNSO issue. In fact, it goes well beyond the GNSO. So I think focusing on that -- and we could maybe make some suggestions to ICANN staff in terms of scheduling and so forth. I don't have any big answers as to how you best solve it, but I think probably all of us in this room sat in multiple sessions where we heard the same things over and over again with perhaps some minor variations. And considering how pressed we are for time and how many conflicts there were this week in terms of important subjects, boy, if we could handle that better, it would really improve our efficiency. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I guess there are two parts to that. One is several different meetings that cover the same theme and you don't know, but then there's a lot of people that don't follow a general rule -- not that I know it is a general rule -- is that if somebody has already made your point, do you really need to make it again is an interesting question. Okay. You had a hand up. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Could I bring up a slightly different topic? >>AVRI DORIA: If we are finished with this topic, yes. Anyone want to comment further on this? Yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: To the extent you were referring to the IRT presentations, those were the instructions we had from staff. >>CHUCK GOMES: And I understand that. In fact, my suggestion is, we could have made this a lot easier on the IRT team this week if you didn't have to go to all these different places to make your presentation. So we made it really hard on you. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And we still haven't had a chance to actually present to the board, but that's another conversation for another time. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Just by way of feedback, and maybe we can take this back to the staff, but I got a lot of colleagues saying they got a lot out of the registry/registrar separation discussion on Monday. So I think that was a really, really good session. >>AVRI DORIA: There were several really good sessions. That was one I also got feedback on some of the technical sessions that were held that people that like technical subjects and care about them were quite impressed by some of the discussions that went on. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And one more thing I think that we need to sort of communicate to staff is I think the meetings do actually start on Saturday now. The meeting does officially start on Saturday now, and whether that means you need to tell your sponsors to get their booths in on a Friday so they are ready for Saturday or whatever it is. I think this conception -- or there's misconception that it starts on Monday. You know, to let people know. Because our sessions are great. I think on Saturday and Sunday. And more people knew there were some interesting topics to be discussed, I think we would probably get a few more people coming along. I think people generally think I will come Monday morning, and that's where it all starts. And sure enough, there is a ramp up of meetings. But especially within what's going on within the GNSO Council at the moment, I think there's a lot of relevant topics that people should know about that potentially the meeting should just start on a Saturday, formally. I don't know what everyone else thinks. >>AVRI DORIA: I am afraid if they start formally on Saturday, we will have to come on Thursday. [ Laughter ] >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: And there is a coordinating opening session on Monday morning. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Any -- yes. >>JIM BASKIN: Jim Baskin. One thing I have noticed on the agenda for this week is that there's lots of break time scheduled, but all the meetings run right through the breaks, officially. And then they overrun, and there's really no break time that -- unless you walk out of meetings. I would think they might be able to schedule some breaks that are real breaks, but I know there's a shortage of time so doing that makes things even more difficult for the meetings. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I think on scheduling, because I was part of some of the scheduling discussions, there's a clash of cultures where scheduling break times means having fixed meeting lengths of X length followed by break, X length. And none of us were willing to, you know, well, what meeting did we have that could be scheduled in a 45-minute block? What meeting did we have -- So that's why you find so many of the meetings spanning it, because we would say, well, we need two and a half hours for that. And two and a half hours -- And that was sort of an old way of doing the ICANN meetings. And the new sort of more organized way has been to define a certain number of blocks with a certain number of break blocks, and none of us have really managed to figure out how to schedule ourselves within that kind of working limit. So there really is a -- a scheduling clash of -- you know, it's not a bad thing, but it's just basically two different ways of looking at scheduling and we haven't managed to figure out how to do it. Scheduling of these meetings has turned into quite a fun thing, and, you know, it's terribly interesting how we manage to get all these things juxtaposed. Okay. I have Alan and then Liz. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I will note that aside from Saturday when the coffee disappeared when we didn't show up instantly, the local people were really good about, no matter when we took our break, there was usually coffee, there was almost always still orange juice and it worked out really well. If the local people had been more rigid, we would have had a really hard time. >>AVRI DORIA: From what I understand, that was a problem solved by ICANN with money. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Yeah, well. [ Laughter ] >>ALAN GREENBERG: Perhaps or certainly. I am just pointing out that if -- next time around we are in a place where they take it more seriously and it can't be fixed, we have a big problem. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: So I'll wade in on a couple of general questions. One is in Mexico we tried to do a couple of things differently, or we picked up on some things that you requested that we do. One was to try to augment the glossary a bit. One was to do briefing papers for this meeting, for the things we actually -- that you voted on yesterday. We have done some things with the action-item list to try to make it a little easier to find information and get sort of at a glance what's happening with all the working groups. Not looking for, you know, extraneous compliments -- not fishing for a compliment but is this working for you? Should we be doing more things to help you or different things to help you? I think the glossary, frankly, is an ongoing challenge and important to keep doing. So I would throw that out. But my first question to you is is this good, is this working and particularly for the policy staff. Particularly for what we can influence here. And the second thing I wanted to raise is that I think with all these working groups, we continue to really struggle with attendance and participation from the constituencies. And I so recognize what an enormous challenge this is with all the pending working groups we have right now. And I just -- you know, to the degree that we can help in some way or at least acknowledge some of those challenges and how effectively the working groups work, we want the community, obviously, to be driving these working groups. But, you know, from a staff perspective it is hard in the absence of consistent participation, which is -- I am very sympathetic with but just acknowledging that it's there. So if there's any discussion or thoughts on either of those two general points, we would love to hear them. >>AVRI DORIA: I have Stephane and I have Chuck. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Liz, on the briefing papers, I said it in yesterday's council meeting, and I think it's a great idea. I would have a question on that, is that are you doing those just for the council meetings that happen during the ICANN meetings? Or is that something that you plan to do for all our council meetings and send to us by e-mail before then? >>LIZ GASSTER: It was something that was requested in Mexico specifically for the public meetings. Which isn't to say that we couldn't do them for all meetings. You know, obviously, a bandwidth issue. But if they are useful, that's the point. So -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: If I can just add, the audience which I had in mind when writing those is more the newcomers to ICANN who had never heard about IRT and a snapshot to see what the council was discussing. So if it was for council members, I think I would put in some information more specific assuming that some of the background you would know. So there may be two different audiences if you say, as a council, we would like something like that as well. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: It's the first time, so I am not judging the content. I am just saying the initiative was good. And whatever the target audience, I think, to be honest, it helps everyone. You know, there are subjects that each of us will know better than some others, and it's always useful to have a briefing paper on something that you haven't had time to look at in detail. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have Adrian and Carlos and Toni. >>CHUCK GOMES: She skips me all the time, Adrian. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You never get to speak! I'm truly sorry. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: That will be the day, huh? Thanks. This is really a commendation because I heard feedback from several of the people who participated remotely in some of the sessions, and as far as I could tell, this was one of the best setups for remote participation. And those who are doing that really appreciated it. So that's a commendation for staff and for the team that they -- that set that up and the technology, et cetera. I think, also, that actually other than the narrow tables, which have been kind of tight for us, the audio and stuff in this meeting has been very good. And we all know that we have had some meetings where we were hassling with that a good part of our time. So my compliments. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah, Chuck, we had all this stuff flown in. Before this, it was just cans and string, you know. [ Laughter ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: We got all the technology straight from the States. >>CHUCK GOMES: Appreciate that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah, yeah. [ Laughter ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Just on the topic of the glossary, well, first of all, I would like to commend Tim for the way he read out the motions yesterday, and I don't think he used one acronym, which was great, when he read them out. Even though they were printed on the paper he was reading, he stopped and used the full word, which was good of him. But is there a reason why the glossary couldn't be a public Wiki? Do we not trust the public enough to update it? I mean, is there a rule around it for ICANN that -- I mean, there may well be and that may be understandable. But if there is, then any working group at anytime -- like the IRT, when they came up with their -- >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Implementation -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Implementation Recommendation Team -- Stephane, you are too sharp. Now you have blown my train of thought. Oh, yes, when the 20 new acronyms came out of that, they could have instantly just gone on there, the chair of their working group could have easily just made it as part of -- and we have should do it for all chairs, that if they have invented something, that they simply log onto the Wiki and update it. It's very, very easy to do. >>AVRI DORIA: Carlos. >>CARLOS SOUZA: Just going back to the briefing issue, maybe one of the reasons that could justify having the briefings, and I would like to compliment because it was really helpful for a lot of people that I talked to. But maybe for us in the council, the briefings could be important for us to raise awareness in the constituencies about the issues that are going to be voted on in the next GNSO meetings. So for us, it's good because sometimes we send e-mails to the list saying the next GNSO meeting we will decide on this, this and that. So if we could follow-up with the briefings, that would be certainly very helpful to get more people in the constituencies to jump in the subjects and to give feedback. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mary. Sorry, I had Tony and then Mary, because I did -- and I'm being terrible at list making. >>TONY HOLMES: I was going to make the same point as Carlos. I think that would be very helpful to do that. And the other point I was going to make -- and I did raise it after the Mexico meeting -- I still think we have lessons to learn about priorities and matching the resource to the workload, because the point that was made about number of working groups, there are 17 working groups, I think, now. And if you look down the list, a lot of those involve the same people carrying the load. And it's no wonder that participation is going down. And it is really reducing in a lot of those working groups. And I think we need to recognize that and start scaling the work. And that's a lesson that needs to endure, even when we move into the new way of working as well. You just cannot keep throwing out working group after working group and think the work is going to get done. It's not happening. >>AVRI DORIA: I mean, there is a hope that the doing of the working groups will also bring more people into the process. But that will -- There's only so much elasticity in that and how quickly that elasticity can grow. Mary. >>MARY WONG: So just picking up on Carlos's and Tony's point and following on from Chuck's point, I think that really is an important thing to note. The briefing paper is providing information, because as Carlos says, you can provide a link to the council motions, for example, but nobody, unless they have been actively involved, can read through the 60 pages of documents that led to that motion, if they can find them. And especially in constituencies like NCUC where we have a lot of new members, and they have given us feedback to say that a lot of the introductory sessions, the briefings that they have gotten here have been helpful, for those that could make it. Going back to Chuck's point, again, with the NCUC, the nature of our membership is such that a lot of them are not able to come personally to ICANN meetings. And so I'd like to echo the commendation to ICANN staff, the local staff, the hotel staff, particularly the technical people, for really enabling great remote participation in the main sessions as well as on constituency day. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. So any -- yes, Liz -- Philip, because you were going to add a new question? Okay. Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Just following on from what Mary said, one simple thing may just be sort of interstaff coordination, because there is some good stuff done on issue summaries, on the policy summaries we see, what, every month or so posted to the council list. There's the public participation stuff which tends to capture some of this work. And it may just be making sure those links are available or getting it all in the same place and repeating good work that's been done for one purpose within the structure elsewhere. Good management is about utilization of resources. And I think a lot of this stuff is done and we sometimes see it a little ad hoc. And we think that's rather good. We are just looking at this good piece of work, that document that's been done on explaining the IDNs issues. It's been distributed outside. That's a great, great thing. But that should have hit the liaison 6 list, and got itself to constituencies so that we could use that in a PDF version or whatever and send it out. So I think there are some linkages of existing staff work which will very much help the point that Mary is making. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: Yes, so just to kind of close it up. Actually, I made the recommendation, too, to the -- the corporate affairs runs the glossary. And I thought the Wiki idea -- I think someone mentioned the Wiki idea maybe in Mexico. I don't think it was my idea. I think it was your brilliant idea, Adrian. So that just -- I am still working that issue, internally, because I think there's really merit there. And I think that they are kind of looking at redoing the whole thing. So it hasn't been forgotten, but a little more complex to try to implement and get concurrence on. With regard to the briefing papers, I just want to make sure, it sounds like what I am hearing is people would really find them useful for the regular meetings, too, the nonpublic meeting -- or they are all public, but the nonface-to-face meetings, which adds staff work but I think if it's useful, we are happy do them. I just want to be clear that we are talking about just actions for voting and not every topic on an agenda. [ Laughter ] >>LIZ GASSTER: And also there is a light sort of timing challenge because the motions aren't in until a week before the meeting. So my question, particularly to those of how want to be able to use this tool with your constituencies, is it enough time? If the motions -- We can write some of it before but we really need the motion language to write the rest of the briefing paper. If it's a week before the meeting or even less, does that give you enough time to really use it effectively with your constituencies? Because we're more than willing to try to do it but I do see a potential sort of timing challenge there. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: In reality, from my experience, and I'm sure all the rest of the constituencies are different, but I find that not too many people prepare very much in advance of a meeting anyway. And I'm not talking about the council. I am talking within our own constituency. So that when we get to a meeting where we're going to discuss how we are going to deal with a motion, so many people are just visiting it that day or even in that meeting. So at that point, the briefing papers become very useful, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I would actually like to move on to the next topic unless somebody would like to add anything to the feedback. And of course we can come back to feedback when people remember bits of feedback that they wanted to talk about. This one, I'm not sure really sure where to go with it, and I know staff is working with the candidate constituencies. But I also have heard two sets of comments from people dealing with constituencies is, you know, why is it just staff working with them. And once they have sort of said to a stakeholder group, you know, that may be the stakeholder group we're interested in, is there any way of working with a level of -- I have also heard quotes of, "Don't they understand X, Y or Z about our stakeholder group?" Or our this or our that. And I was just wondering if there is any way for, you know, giving a helping hand to the candidates constituencies in terms of that. How -- Is that even a reasonable idea for the existing constituencies to try and help for the forming stakeholder groups, especially, to try to help those constituencies that want to come in there? And it's just an idea to put on the table. It's just from various things that I have heard over the week from new constituencies or possibly new constituencies, and responses I have heard from some stakeholders about the level of understanding of people in the constituency. So I am just wondering whether there's anything we need to do for a better communication path. I will just open the question. I don't know if anybody has anything to add to it. Yes, you would like to add something, Dirk and then Mary. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Thanks, Avri. We had, with our city top-level domain constituency petition and charter and filing of notice of intent, even before that understanding the things going on in the new GNSO structure. It was very helpful to have communication with Rob Hoggarth or Ken Bour and others from ICANN staff, but also with Roberto Gaetano or Chuck and so on. But with ICANN staff, I mentioned Robert and Ken, and it is very valuable, and we had exchange at the last two ICANN meetings, including this one. And I feel it's very helpful for us. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Mary. >>MARY WONG: . So I'm not sure this is an answer to your question. And this certainly shouldn't be interpreted as a desire to load more on staff, because it isn't. It's just a comment that, for example, this week, there were representatives or there was a representative from a potential constituency, the consumers constituency here in the ICANN meeting, and perhaps on the NCUC, as we talk about going into the NCSG, that we should have tried to find out who was going to be here, how, when, and coordinated a meeting. But that didn't happen. And we didn't actually know. And I'm sure we could have found out if we had known who from the other potential nonconsumer -- noncommercial constituencies could have been here. So again, I'm not sure there is an answer to your question, but simply to say that this is probably ,in our transitional stage, something we should talk about. And ultimately, when NCUC talked to the representatives from consumers' constituency and said, "Come to our meeting," especially when we were talking to the SIC, he had a conflict. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I find a need for a document describing in simple terms, a one-page document with four quadrants on it describing what the new council looks like and how the divisions are made. Now, maybe such a thing exists and I haven't seen it. Because although there's starting to be a feeling out there that we are looking for new constituencies, it's not at all clear to some people where they fit. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And we have seen enough misunderstandings at a significant level that it's not surprising. So I think we need some sort of overviews. And I look at the glossy sheets that the Nominating Committee puts out, sort of one side of one paper, two sides of one sheet, that is really clear and tries to explain what this new structure is, to the extent we know already, anyway. But in words that are not cryptic. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to add on this? Yes, Dirk. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Dirk speaking. The new GNSO reform was the call to self-form constituencies raises a lot of expectations, I think, from interests groups being there outside and want to form a constituency. And I think this creates a demand. And when we started to think about this in the structure, we even thought, okay, where do we fit? And maybe we are not a contracted party. We also don't want to be in the noncontracted house, because we want to -- we are aiming to be a contracted party. And we thought maybe a stakeholder group would be nice for all the new TLDs coming up there. That was clarified very quickly that there shouldn't be a fifth stakeholder group at this moment. But the documents that said, okay, there's the comment period. You can file a stakeholder group petition and charter. And it wasn't clear that it was already fixed with these four -- four stakeholder groups. So some very simple help at the beginning might be very good. I support this. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Someone else wish to comment on that one? Okay. I guess the next one is just to look at the plans between Sydney and Seoul. We've already talked a bunch about what needs to happen on the restructuring improvement side and have a fairly full agenda, I guess, as it were, going through there from bylaws to getting the stakeholder groups charters approved to getting all of the constituency renewals done and agreed to, but then, you know, and then there's also all the work that's being done on getting the GNSO rules and procedures at least completed by then. I don't know that we'll have all of the working group and PDP stuff done but that stuff's moving along well, so we may, I don't know where we're at. But we also have, as Tony was saying, 17 other working groups going. We can have an expectation of some more policy work possibly, some more issues to deal with, who knows, but I just wanted to sort of start looking at it and start looking at it in terms of, gee, there's very little time between now and Seoul and I'm already feeling like I'm late. And I don't know if you guys feel like you're late yet, but -- so I just wanted to make sure that if anybody else saw anything beyond what we already know in terms of working groups we've got formed in terms of yet another working group, we created a charter yesterday, we have another charter that's being discussed now, and that will be at our next meeting. And I don't know, I know one of the things that has been at -- on my list that I've never gotten us to do and I figure it's going to be an activity for the new council and the new chair quite quickly afterwards is this whole setting of priorities and how we figure out how to add things in the priority and how to do that. I was always afraid that when you're constantly in response mode to a lot of stuff to stand back and talk about priorities just makes you late again. And so there's that. But I just wanted to bring it up and -- yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: It dawns on me as you're talking that I would like to see a nice, simple diagram with a horizontal line, nice, thick, black line for all the things that are going on in parallel, you know, just the name and when it started and when it's projected to end just to give us a feeling of the number of parallel things that are going on. Maybe it's better not to see it but. >>MARIKA KONINGS: (Speaker off microphone). >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Small type. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Yeah, we've been -- gotten fairly good at tracking the next set of things not in a thing, but that's what the action item list has sort of been, sort of this is what's next, but to actually have something that shows almost using that process line with where we are on all these things and when they plan to end could be -- and it could be a very useful thing for when you do get to your prioritization exercise after Seoul. Yes, Rob, it feels so good to be able to say -- but anyone how -- >>ROB HOGGARTH: That's an excellent suggestion. I recall staff offered to do that in the November-December time frame and so we'd certainly be happy to take that up for the next meeting. When you talk about the bylaws perhaps we could present the list so you can see all the various piece that are on that progression, Alan. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Anything else on that particular topic before moving to assorted administrativa before folks start come in to talk about the working groups at 2:00. Okay, so let me -- I just uploaded a set of meetings and go here and do a refresh. I thought I saved it. If I saved it why I don't see it? Oh, I did, it just didn't come in with line breaks, I'll redo it in a sex. But anyone how we had the 9 July meeting which is our bylaws meeting. And then the next meeting being thought of is 23rd July, 13 August, 3 September, 25 September, then you give me a choice of two, an 8 or a 15 October. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Can you explain the reason for the choice? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: The reason for the choice is that the last date is very close to the Seoul meeting. And perhaps we don't want to be -- it's just a week before. Perhaps we want to have a bit of a space between that and -- because people might be traveling, it's a long way. >>CHUCK GOMES: They might not be traveling then, but keep in mind we have these new requirements from the board, the documents that are going to be reviewed need to be there. Now, that doesn't probably even allow us to -- the 8th doesn't even quite make the three-week deadline for the GAC but at least it would more than cover the two-week deadline and quite often we do need to finalize some things before they can be published, so I would suggest the 8th rather than -- even though that's only a two-week -- >>AVRI DORIA: That's only two weeks after this. So are there any comments on that list of dates? By the way, just -- and nowhere started thinking about the October Seoul meetings, but I was thinking that probably a good part of the 24th or the 25th, but I was thinking the 24th, would be dedicated to the houses that had just been formed trying to meet and figure stuff out. I mean, I don't know. But it was just occurring to me that we may need some time for stakeholder groups and houses and especially if they're going to be electing vice chairs and anything else. And so we're not there and planning those meetings yet but I've started to think in those terms and please correct me if I'm thinking wrongly that people will need time and want time in that case, just to do that. So is this an acceptable list of dates? We need to get those in the schedule and notice that we didn't talk about times yet because that's the next issue, is how do we time these things fairly, having been here for a week and having had conference calls with other places this week, I must admit I've both found it convenient and nasty. Convenient because it never interfered with anything else I had to do. Nasty because it was in the middle of the night. So, you know, I -- it was good to come down here and get slight better appreciation for the pros and constant of living down here. But there's been an issue put on the table of the convenience of having it not interfere with the rest of your day is far outweighed by the nastiness of having it in the middle of the night. I was just giving my personal view that I had a couple conference calls while I was here and I thought it was great that they were at 1:00 in the morning because it didn't mess with anything else I had to do. And so that was the good part. Having a conference call at 1:00 in the morning is nasty. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: May I respond? >>AVRI DORIA: I was waiting for you to respond. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thought you might. >>AVRI DORIA: That's why I repeated it because you hadn't been listening to me the first time. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. No, I was listening, I just couldn't believe what I was hearing. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm a little weird in that respect. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It's okay, with all due respect, Avri, I know you're being a little bit flippant, but, yeah, no, to have full-time employment and be somewhat respectable when I come into work, respectable not by my actions but more -- but, you know, my demeanor, yeah, is that by, yeah, I've got to be at work by 8:00 in the morning. Now, I've got a full day ahead of me and I owe that to my organization. Now, I don't think anybody sits on a conference call and does, you know, dedicates their time exclusively to doing, that like we are now, we have our laptops open, we can do little sound bites of other things. It's okay that you -- just once I would like to have it in my working hours, and I don't think I ever have, I think there was an opportunity for one, or Kristina wants to talk, I think there was one just recently that -- >>AVRI DORIA: I'm not sure where that falls in our code of contact. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Conduct. >>AVRI DORIA: Conduct. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So for me it comes down to the -- I understand, you know, between Europe and North America you guys -- what? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Never mind. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: What time is it for you when we usually have our calls, what time would you like us to have them and what time would that be and kind of -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sure. Generally they're at 11 -- Glen will tell you this. Generally, they're at 11:00 p.m. or 2:00 a.m. And then the earliest we get them sometimes is like a 5:00 in the morning or a 6:00 in the morning, sometimes 6:00. So it all depends on daylight savings and all those sort of things that occur. So all I'm asking for is -- and as we moving to a more international organization, and I hope that we fill more international spots, that we can rotate through. And that way if I do feel like missing one because it is in the middle of the night, it doesn't kill me, I can read what I need to know about it after or proxy one after and the next one I'll catch up, but if they're going to be continually at that time -- and understand through weight of numbers potentially why you want to do that, I'm not going to participate it, and I've told my constituency that, and I have my support, it was actually Bruce Tonkin's idea. And Bruce just said when the meetings were scheduled outside, I just didn't play. So that's -- so long as I have the understanding of my constituency, then I guess that's fine, because I have the same fights with them, right? We have a registrar executive committee meeting once a month as well and that's, you know, generally they able to accommodate me -- pardon. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Which we've kind of mixed them by having them at an unholy hour for us. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: It's either that or you just have a meeting by yourself. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: If I understand the way the schedules go very often, for you to have a convenient time basically you all end up with it in the dinnertime spot and that, I guess, is a problem for family members and stuff as -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: There's no resolution here. Someone is always going to be put out. And I am absolutely fine with that. I just think that that person or that group should be rotated through. So if, you know, once every so often we had one at 2:00 in the afternoon for me, you know, good times. You'll actually hear me participate a little bit more which may be a bad thing. >>AVRI DORIA: No, no, no, no, no, that would be a very good thing. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sure, sure. So, yeah, that's my only point, the doodle, it always makes me giggle when I say that, lucky my wife isn't here, but the doodle seems like a popularity contest all the time. And just to put it out there and say please note it when you can. The one good thing about a doodle is in there's a particular time -- there's lots of good things about a doodle -- [ Laughter ] Some people are laughing, some aren't. I have to explain to those that aren't. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Should I call out the offending comment condition here? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sorry? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Should I call out the offending comment condition? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sure. I'm now gagged for the rest of the day. I'll take my five-minute penalty in the box. Sorry. If someone has a particular, like a board meeting or something else at that time they can indicate then that they could make that meeting. So doodles are good in that sense but for larger being a popularity contest, back to my previous point and I've flogged the horse I'll let it go. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was just wondering, I mean, Adrian at what point -- is there a particular time that would work best for you, if it was totally your call what time would it be at? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Between the hours of 7:00 and 10:00, 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m, 9:00 p.m. if they're going to go for two hours. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Seems fair, just rotate it. >>CHUCK GOMES: We actually did that for a while. It's been a few years now. And we actually did. It's nice to have it consistent. But Adrian's right, you know, we really shouldn't overburden one region of the world even if it is Adrian's. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: Right. And sharing the pain -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Five minutes sin bin for that, my friend, five- minute sin bin. I love the idea of a sin bin. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I mean sharing the pain and rotating it does seem reasonable. Is there anyone that objects to that because it does mean that everyone is going to have -- people are going to have meetings during the family hour, people are going to have meetings at dinnertime, in other words, I've had people basically object that they go home and the 7:00 to 10:00, the 7:00 to 8:00 is family time because that's where it hits the sort of difficult parts it hits for Europe is often at that dinnertime hour when they're just with the family. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: As a point of clarification, that's all we've had for half a year anyway in Europe so that's not solving Adrian's problem, that's -- >>AVRI DORIA: I thought that -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. So messing up our dinnertime also messes up Adrian's sleep time, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: When I'm sleeping it usually hits around 10:00, I thought. >>ALAN GREENBERG: You have funny times in Sweden, that's why. >>AVRI DORIA: It's either always night or always day, so what do we care, right? Mary, okay, thank you, Mary and then Stephane. >>MARY WONG: Actually, I don't think so, but I thank you for your gentlemanly chivalry. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: (Speaker off microphone). >>MARY WONG: That's true. Not that, though, happens all the time. Sorry, okay, I won't take up any more time. I'm not actually going to object to it, I'm actually going to say what he said, meaning Adrian. I think it is fair to rotate, and I also think there's a number of us around the table that actually travel to different regions, and so we may well end up being in a different time zone when otherwise it would have been a good time zone for us even if it is Australia. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thanks, Stephane and then what I'd like to do is take a break in this discussion or perhaps continue it later so that we can get the working group reports and just, basically ask Glen to propose some times for rotation. Okay Marika, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I just wanted to have some clarification on the rotation thing. The meetings that I've recently attended or it seems to be, you know, for the last few months we've been at very, very good times for me because it's in the middle of the afternoon, which I don't know how that equates to everybody else, but I've noticed that the times are always the same so I thought it was just a free-for-all, pick-on-Adrian thing and everyone was happy with that. But had they been changing before? Is that something that, you know, in previous times -- >>AVRI DORIA: We tried a couple times, but it -- there's -- there's another balancing difficulty that we've run into which is scheduling a rotating meeting and people's time and their day becomes difficult because people can often I can carve this out and I can hold this spot for a regular meeting but -- so that's been an issue. Okay, as I say I do want to cut it because we do have people to come in but Adrian, Tony and Marika and I'll cut this one and then ask Glen to work something out. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: My point is too Glen I just want to say for the record that Glen is always fantastic and I know it's a really tough gig to do what she does and she often sends me a little note apologizing for the scheduling of the meetings so I do appreciate the work that Glen does and that she does try to accommodate me where possible but you might be the only one that's on my side, Glen. [ Laughter ] >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Just quickly, if we make the next meeting for this bylaw thing at 12:00 UTC that will be 7:00 in the morning for you, Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I should be home from the pub by then. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: But 5:00 in the morning for the Californian people. >>AVRI DORIA: Chuck, you have to turn it on. >>CHUCK GOMES: I have done dozens of meetings at 5:00 in the morning, I can deal with it. >>AVRI DORIA: Anybody else in California? Yes, Tony? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah, I have, and I do not deal with them as well. But, you know, honestly, if we're going to rotate times, that's fair. I'll do it sometimes. But I don't -- I remember at one point we were doing it kind of every six months, so we were doing, for me, 5:00 a.m. council meetings for six months. I didn't like that at all, you know. So let's definitely rotate. >>AVRI DORIA: So that's the rotation, okay, so everyone is fine -- okay, Tony, I need to let you speak. >>TONY HOLMES: Yeah, can I just ask, I'm fine with this rotation, can I ask if we're going to do that we pin down the times with the dates as quick as possible. >>AVRI DORIA: Makes sense. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Could we make it a monthly rotation, we should talk about the length of rotation, right, I think if it's a monthly rotation it helps. If it is rather than like a three or six-month rotation or something else. >>AVRI DORIA: I think we were talking about a meeting rotation, so we're meeting on the average of three weeks so. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Whatever it is yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Per meeting. Or look at that way. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's what I'm advocating, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: So thanks on that. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: (Speaker off microphone). [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: So I invited the working group chairs from the two other working groups in to talk about what was going on in the working groups and who wants to go first? >>GREG AARON: Hello, I'm Greg Aaron. I'm the chair of the registration abuse policy working group. I'm from Afilias and the registry constituency. This group got under way in Mexico City. So over the last three months, we've made some substantial progress, I think. We've had good participation. We have a core of about 12-13 people attending our biweekly meetings. I persuaded them all to start meeting for 50% longer starting this month, actually, so hopefully our work's going to accelerate. As you know, we've got a fairly broad mandate in this group. And the members have proposed a list of issues to look at and we spent our first couple of months, thoroughly briefing our members on policy-making and getting some briefings from staff about contractual issues and so forth. One of the reasons we did this was to establish some common understanding of processes and definitions. This is the way to get the group to get some common language and hopefully allow us to drive towards consensus wherever possible. There's some learning that came out of some previous working groups like the Fast-Flux working group. We have a working definition of what abuse is that we're going to be applying basically as a test case against all of our particular issues. We now have subteams breaking off some of these issues going off crafting some language that they're bringing back into the group for discussion. That's allowing us to deal kind of with our laundry list of issues. And we'll eventually, you know, create text for a report that we can submit to you. Because the list is rather long, we're not exactly sure how long it's going to take us to arrive at an initial report, but we're working -- you know, we're working our way through it very diligently and we'll continue to provide updates. And be happy to answer any questions you may have. >>AVRI DORIA: I'd like to open it up to questions but I wanted to ask one. In terms of the milestones that were originally set up, have they been updated, do they need to be updated? Just so that the -- sort of -- so that we can keep that bit of accounting straight, I don't know where they are with that. >>GREG AARON: What we had was -- the only thing we had, actually, Avri, was a 90--day check-in. What we quickly found out is that the issues were large enough and numerous enough that we have no idea when we're going to be able to wrap things. So we want to continue to check in with you as often as you require and any advice you have -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: Just to briefly add, we did already get to some of our milestones such as the workshop that was organized in Mexico City and SSAC participation, but two of the other issues that are the more substantial work issues indeed will require more time. But this charter didn't have the T plus -- >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Because it's not a traditional PDP, it's a pre- PDP, so it wasn't included. >>AVRI DORIA: But it still would be good if, at some point, I would think, you could establish a couple just to even give yourself a target to work. I mean, it's -- we never know, but if you take a guess and you try to make it and then you move, it might be helpful. Any other questions, comments? Yes, Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So Greg, you know, you've done a great job, I really appreciate that you volunteered and worked really, really hard as the chair. I know how difficult a job it is having chaired once, only once, and maybe never again. But, you know, I've got to take issue, frankly, with your opening statement which was that we've made substantial progress. It has been three months, and really, we have come to a working definition of abuse. And we basically spent our entire meeting this week trying to determine a definition of cybersquatting which in my opinion is just, as you know, ridiculous. I mean, the term has been defined very clearly in many different places. And we also argued for a while whether we should even be talking with cybersquatting as a form of abuse which I think is just absolutely ludicrous. So I'm speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of plenty of other people in the group, and including -- I'll just leave it at that, plenty of people in the group who are really frustrated with this and how it's taking so long. And many of us were also involved in the Fast- Flux work, Fast-Flux working group where really the same things happened. So I just -- I'd like to ask you to speak to that a little bit. I presume you have a differing opinion than me, but ask whether there's anything we can do to speed this up. >>GREG AARON: Okay, thank you, Mike. Thus far I've heard comments from you but I have not heard comments from other members of the working group. And if they do have suggestions, I would ask them to step forward. But so far I have not heard anybody else step up with their comments. In the fast flux working group we didn't have enough discipline and didn't get definitional issues on the table. And that led to almost, you know, many, many months of circular discussion. So we're taking a different tack here. And I think now that some of those issues, you know, are on the table, then work's going to accelerate from here. I know that there are very specific issues that you're interested in discussing because you, you know, brought them up as part of the motion. I think we'll be getting to those very soon. There's always a problem that a chair must face. These groups are open for anyone to join. And it's my responsibility as a chair to let people speak their mind and their opinion. That doesn't always lend itself to swift resolutions, but I feel a responsibility to let it happen. So your points are taken and, you know, we'll see what we can do. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Just to add, we will be switching to instead of an hourly call to a one hour and a half call biweekly so that might allow for a bit of speeding up as we'll have more time to discuss the issues, but, you know, coming back to with a we've discussed before when we initially started this working group and asked members whether they wanted to meet weekly most people said, well, we can't, there's so much going on we cannot meet on a weekly basis. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah, no, absolutely I still believe we cannot meet on a weekly basis but I guess, the one concrete suggestion we have is we just really try to move so a lot more work to the list. And we've had problems with folks showing up on the calls, I know we've had to postpone or reschedule at least one call, maybe two, because enough people didn't show up so I just think we need to move more of this decision-making and analysis to the list by giving people specific chunks and asking for opinion and making more repeated consensus calls, I think. >>GREG AARON: Yeah, absolutely. And we see that happening now. We set up the Wiki with different discussions for each topic. I have made different assignments now to two different teams to delve into subjects and bring back text for us to talk about. And you actually may have missed the discussion that we had about that work method in order -- specifically in order to speed up the work. I think you were absent from that meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: Anyone else want to ask a question? >>GREG AARON: One more thing. I would like to thank the staff support. Marika and Glen and Margie have been a big help and I'm very happy to have them with us. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I will ditto that. And also thank you very much, Greg, for your help. >>GREG AARON: You're welcome. That's it for myself. >>AVRI DORIA: Go back to your other meeting. Thank you for coming. >>JAMES BLADEL: Good afternoon. I am James Bladel from GoDaddy and the registrar constituency, and the chair -- I believe our third chair of the Fast Flux Working Group. >>AVRI DORIA: Second chair. The other one was just an interim. >>JAMES BLADEL: Really? I liked that one. That was my favorite chair. The Fast Flux Working Group group began in May of 2008. And I can report at this point that it is very near its completion. In Mexico City, we came out of that meeting with an objective to take the interim report and the comments that were received. The comments were numerous and very detailed. It was clear that the commenters had put a lot of effort and research into their responses, and we wanted to ensure we did justice to those by incorporating them into the report and giving them a full analysis. I believe it was in Mexico City that the council, Avri and some others, asked that we million our comments approach after the one that was used for the Draft Applicant Guidebook, and that has been our blueprint for the comment analysis. We have successfully rebooted the group after several weeks of not being able to reach a quorum, and we have followed that method that Mike laid out or recommended where we take a lot of the work off list and then bring back into the weekly meetings for a consensus call. What remains in front of us are two additional deliverables. We still are in a process of cleaning up some final language relative to the conclusions, recommendations, and possible next steps forward. With Marika's help, we put together a poll of the working group membership to just kind of understand where the ranking or prioritization was for each of those conclusions. We haven't had those results yet but I can tell that there maybe is going to be some additional consensus call work after that. And then finally, to finish up the language and then possibly button up everything into a final report, including a draft motion that we can bring back to the council. Ambitiously, we had set out to do that for this meeting. Unfortunately, we fell short by a couple weeks. And I think that once you run into T minus two or three weeks before an ICANN meeting, participation and attendance on the calls start to drop off significantly. So I should have foreseen that coming, and it will probably -- we are now aiming for the July council meeting to have the conclusion of that group brought to the council. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. So for our 23rd -- Up there, just so you have it as a reference, the meetings. 23rd July doesn't leave you a whole a lot of time because the week before that is -- is -- gee, only two weeks away. Maybe three weeks. So you are probably then talking about the 13 August meeting as a meeting when we can tentatively expect. Because that also means that if people have two weeks or even three weeks to read a report like that, it's probably good. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I just wanted to comment on that because the report is rather lengthy. So probably the council will request anyway to defer to the next meeting in order to allow everyone to review it. >>AVRI DORIA: But I will definitely have it on the agenda, and then whether we vote and postpone. I saw a hand but didn't register. Yes, Adrian. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Stephane, actually. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, my word. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: That is definitely some sort of problem with the code of conduct there. >>AVRI DORIA: I truly apologize. I will go out for five minutes. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Ten, Avri, I think. [ Laughter ] >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: James, I just wanted to congratulate you on that work. The fact that you are the third chair means that it's been difficult. I'm glad to hear that it's coming to fruition. So I just wanted to say well done. >>JAMES BLADEL: And I say thank you, but congratulations is probably a strong word. You know, it's more of just kind of bringing the team back together to get this over the finish line. And to balance that need for a lot of folks on the call to get this done, get the work completed, but to do justice to the body of work that came before it and the people who took the time to comment. So.... >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. And as the interim chair that you replaced, I'm extremely grateful to have you in that role. Yes, Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm also very grateful that you stepped in to drive this thing home, James, and thank you for that. I am just wondering if it might be helpful or if you care to do it to just kind of outline for the council some of the recommendations that are getting pretty close to final? I noticed you didn't bring anything with you, so it would be off the top of your head. >>JAMES BLADEL: I can. It would be from memory. Marika, did you have anything that you could -- maybe some mnemonics or maybe whisper me some lines? I think for the first step, we were looking for -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: I will just whisper. >>JAMES BLADEL: Just whisper? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Marika, you can, please, just go ahead and kind of summarize. >>JAMES BLADEL: If you have them on the list there. You have a more pleasant voice than I do anyway. >>MARIKA KONINGS: The group basically put together a number of recommendations, none of them being recommendations for a consensus policy or changes to any policy. So the recommendations the group is now looking at -- and I want to put in perspective the group is discussing these and finalizing these and discussing thousand prioritize these. So the first one they are looking at is redefinition of the issue and scope. The second one is to explore the possibility to involve other stakeholders the fast-flux policy development process. The third one is to highlight which recommendations or solutions that are being discussed throughout the report would be addressed by policy development, best practices and/or industry solutions. The next one is consider whether registration abuse policy provisions should address -- could address Fast Flux by empowering registries/registrars to take down a domain involved in Fast Flux. The next one is looking at developing a Fast Flux data reporting system, basically a centralized way where people could find information on Fast Flux hosting domains. And the last one was a recommendation where maybe ICANN could be -- could serve as a best practices facilitator. So I think all these recommendations are for the council then to discuss, and then all of them will need further work before a final solution or anything would be put on the table, I guess. >>JAMES BLADEL: And thank you for having those. And, Mike, I know you are aware of this, but just for the benefit of the council, as the council liaison, the sequencing, priority, or order of those recommendations is still up for finalization. So that order was just inherited from the interim report. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I was reading just as they were listed. And I do have the results of the poll here. I had actually hoped there would be a very clear division of, you know, what people considered first priority and second priority, and it's not a full consensus on what should be first priority and second. So that probably needs a little bit more discussion in the group. >>AVRI DORIA: Any other questions? Was that a -- No. Okay. I wasn't sure whether I saw a finger go up. Okay. In which case thank you, and thank you for leaving your other meeting to come in and give the report. So thank you again. Okay. We are pretty much at time. In fact, we are a little past time. We had scheduled to end at 2:15. Liz did offer to give us a quick update on what was going on with the WHOIS studies and such, if people want to stick around for another couple minutes, two minutes. Well, not if there's questions. I don't see anyone jumping up and saying absolutely no. So please, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: So you may recall that in the March meeting in Mexico City, the council approved a list of six broad study areas that you asked the staff to go back and sort of test feasibility on and identify costs for. And then in May, in one of the two May meetings, you approved an additional resolution asking staff to gather service and compile service requirements on WHOIS and on a potential replacement to WHOIS. So on the first six study areas, let me talk about five of them in one bucket and let me pull out the one that's on non-ASCII text and IDNs, because we're treating that one a little differently. The five broad study areas other than the IDN one from March, which include multiple studies, or potentially multiple studies in each one. I do have a consultant retained to help me on that. We have agreed that staff is not going to be able to actually develop costs to do these studies ourselves; that we're going to have to use an RFP process to solicit cost. And that's really a relief to me because I think the opportunity for misjudging estimates is high. So what this consultant is really charged with doing is helping me define the parameters to issue RFPs. Some of you may be aware that, especially the study proponents, the original study proponents, I have gone back to them off-line to get some additional guidance on some specific questions that the consultant has. And I have also approached a couple of additional people -- for example, Tim Ruiz -- because a lot of this information, you know, may rest with the registrars or impact the registrars. So there's some dialogue going on with members of the community, and we could make that a broader effort, but in the goal of sort of teeing up the studies as best we can, we will be issuing RFPs. I am doing them serially. So, for example, there was one category on misuse that I have started with, and that's the -- I have a draft document that will result in an RFP on that. And then we will go through the other study areas. And for those of you who may have been proponents of those study areas, you may hear from me. And if anyone else is interested in that, I would be happy to be inclusive. We are just really into the details of how to configure these studies. And I think it's going to take time. Let me be honest. I think it's going to take time to even get the RFPs ready, and then obviously posting them, soliciting views, analyzing them. We are talking about months here. On the IDN non-ASCII study and on the WHOIS service requirement study, I am going to be retaining a different consultant. And they will actually probably do those two functions. It's not going to be an RFP process, at least I don't think it will. I think they will actually perform those two analyses. And it's a very technical person. I am waiting for his availability. He is finishing up some other work right now. I am hoping to have him on board to do that by August, mid to late August, and I will be happy to report further on that as we go. I'm happy to answer questions. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Yes, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Liz, just wanted to say that if you need some input from Europe as far as registrars are concerned, that might be helpful. I am not been very, you know, involved in this, but if you do need -- sometimes WHOIS is seen in a very different light in Europe, and there's certain contractual or legal obligations that we may have that North American registrars may not. So if you need help there, please don't hesitate. >>LIZ GASSTER: Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Any other questions? In which case I would like to bring this meeting to an end, and that's over 24 hours of meetings, not counting constituencies, workshops and whatever. I thank you all of the council members, all of the participants, all of the policy staff, all of the staff, the scribes, the technical folk. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. [ Applause ]