Site Map

Please note:

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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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

ICANN Meetings in Vancouver, Canada

GNSO Council Meeting

Day, 02 December 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during GNSO Council Meeting held on 02 December, 2005 in Vancouver, Canada. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION COUNCIL MEETING
FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER 2005
VANCOUVER, B.C.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I WILL NOW CONVENE THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING.

MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN, AND I REPRESENT THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY, AND I'M
ALSO CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL. AND PERHAPS JUST QUICKLY INTRODUCE OURSELVES
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, JUST MOVING AROUND TO THE RIGHT, AND THEN
WE'LL SEE WHO IS AVAILABLE ON THE PHONES. STARTING WITH PHILIP, IF YOU WOULD
JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: PHILIP SHEPPARD, BASED IN BRUSSELS, BELGIUM, AND A MEMBER
OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I AM WITH THE BUSINESS
CONSTITUENCY.

>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES FROM THE ISPCP.

>>GREG RUTH: GREG RUTH FROM VERIZON, ISPCP.

>>TONY HARRIS: TONY HARRIS, FROM CABASSI, ARGENTINA, ISPCP.

>>ROBIN GROSS: ROBIN GROSS FROM SAN FRANCISCO. I'M WITH THE NONCOMMERCIAL
USERS CONSTITUENCY.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: NORBERT KLEIN FROM THE OPEN FORUM OF CAMBODIA FROM THE
NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THOMAS KELLER FROM GERMANY, REPRESENTING THE EUROPEAN
REGISTRARS.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: LUCY NICHOLS. I AM FROM THE U.S. AND I AM REPRESENTING THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN, SWEDISH CITIZEN, REPRESENTING THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: MAUREEN CUBBERLEY, APPOINTEE FROM THE NOMINATIONS
COMMITTEE TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.

>>AVRI DORIA: AVRI DORIA, NONCOM APPOINTEE TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.

>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTING THE EUROPEAN
REGION.

>>KEN STUBBS: KEN STUBBS, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTING NORTH AMERICA.

>>ROSS RADER: ROSS RADER, REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, NORTH AMERICA.

>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT, AT-LARGE LIAISON TO THE GNSO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WHO DO WE HAVE ON THE PHONE? IS ALICK WILSON?

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK WILSON APPOINTED BY NOMINATING COMMITTEE FROM NEW
ZEALAND.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ALICK. IS GRANT FORSYTH ON THE PHONE?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES, GRANT FORSYTH. I AM A BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY REP,
REPRESENTING ASIA-PACIFIC.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE ON THE PHONE?

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND WE HAVE APOLOGIES FROM MAWAKI CHANGO, WHO IS A
RECENTLY ELECTED MEMBER FROM THE AFRICAN REGION FOR THE NONCOMMERCIAL
CONSTITUENCY, AND JUNE SEO, WHO IS A NEWLY ELECTED MEMBER OF GTLD REGISTRIES
CONSTITUENCY AND HAS PROVIDED HER PROXY TO KEN STUBBS.

AND MAWAKI HAS PROVIDED HIS PROXY TO ROBIN GROSS.

ANYONE ELSE I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT?

AND KIYOSHI TSURU WHO HAS PROVIDED APOLOGIES AND PROVIDED HIS PROXY TO NIKLAS
LAGERGREN.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS JUST A VERY BRIEF ONE AND IT'S REALLY JUST
NOTIFYING THE COUNCIL THAT WE NEED TO ELECT A COUNCIL CHAIR FOR THE PERIOD
4TH OF JANUARY OF '06 TO 3RD OF DECEMBER OF 2006. AND I'LL ASK THE GNSO
SECRETARIAT FOLLOWING THIS MEETING TO INITIATE A CALL FOR NOMINATIONS, JUST
TO START THAT PROCESS.

THE SECOND ITEM IS THE TOPIC OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR NEW
GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES.

THERE WAS A MEETING EARLIER THIS WEEK WHERE THE COUNCIL AGREED TO INITIATE
POLICY IN THIS AREA BUT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF HEARING
COMMENTS WE RECEIVED IN THE PUBLIC FORUM AND IN THE CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS ON
THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT EFFORT, AND I SEE WE HAVE
THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN OVER THERE. THANK YOU, MARIA.

I THINK I'LL JUST KIND OF OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR. PERHAPS WE WILL JUST GO
THROUGH IT ONE BY ONE.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TERM OF REFERENCE, WHICH IS SHOULD NEW
TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES BE INTRODUCED? GIVEN THE INFORMATION WE HAVE RECEIVED
HERE FROM, THE GNSO SHOULD ASSESS WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT WITHIN
THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO ENABLE THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
AND ASSUMING THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THE OTHER TERMS OF REFERENCE WILL BE
ADDRESSED.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THAT FIRST ITEM.

MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, PLEASE, MARIA.

THE NEXT ITEM IS THE TOPIC OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR NEW TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS. THAT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO, I THINK, ABOUT -- WHAT HAVE WE GOT? ABOUT
FIVE PARTS. THE FIRST IS TO LOOK AT THE SELECTION CRITERIA THAT HAD BEEN
USED IN PREVIOUS TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN PROCESSES. THAT'S BOTH IN THE ROUND OF
2000, THE RECENT SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME ROUND, AND ALSO THE CRITERIA
FOR .NET AND FOR .ORG THAT HAVE BOTH BEEN THROUGH A SELECTION ROUND.

IN PARTICULAR, EXAMINE WAYS IN WHICH THE ALLOCATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS
CAN MEET THE DEMANDS FOR THE USE OF THE INTERNET IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

ANY COMMENTS ON THAT FIRST POINT? YES, PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES, BRUCE. I JUST HAVE POSTED EARLIER TODAY A SUGGESTED
MINOR AMENDMENT ON ITEM 2-C. WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET THAT UP ON THE SCREEN IN
A MOMENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE DO THEM ONE AT A TIME?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ARE YOU ON "A"? GOING PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. AND I CAN PUT IT ON THE SCREEN AS WE GO THROUGH.

ANY COMMENTS ON "A"?

>>MARILYN CADE: I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>MARILYN CADE: WHEN WE SAY USING THE EXISTING SELECTION CRITERIA FROM
PREVIOUS TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN APPLICANT PROCESSES AND RELEVANT CRITERIA IN
REGISTRY SERVICES REALLOCATION, I'M WONDERING IF IT IS ACTUALLY USING OR
PERHAPS IT'S TAKING INTO ACCOUNT. BECAUSE WE THEN GO ON TO SAY, "DEVELOP
MODIFIED OR NEW CRITERIA." AND WE ARE GOING TO BE GUIDED BY THIS GOING
FORWARD. SO I DO THINK EACH OF THESE WORDS, AS IT TURNS OUT, WILL MATTER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU WANT TO CHANGE "USING" TO "TAKING INTO ACCOUNT"?

>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK SO. AS I RE-READ IT, AND IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME
BEFORE, BUT AS I RE-READ, IT WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO
DEVELOP MODIFIED OR NEW CRITERIA. AND WE MAY ACTUALLY, BASED ON INFORMATION
WE GET, ET CETERA, ACTUALLY REJECT SOME OF THE PAST CRITERIA APPROACH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK RATHER THAN -- JUST REMOVE THE WORD "USING" AS WELL,
PLEASE, MARIA. SO IT SAYS "TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTING SELECTION."

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS "B." EXAMINE
WHETHER PREFERENTIAL SELECTION CRITERIA COULD BE DEVELOPED WHICH WOULD
ENCOURAGE NEW WAYS OF ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF INTERNET USERS."

ANY ADVANCES ON THAT? NO.

OKAY. "C" IS EXAMINE WHETHER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RESTRICTED, UNRESTRICTED,
SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED. WHAT I SUGGEST, IF YOU COULD JUST PUT AFTER
UNSPONSORED, COULD YOU PUT GENERIC? BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO BE SPECIFIC THAT
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CCTLDS HERE. EXAMINE WHETHER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
RESTRICTED, UNRESTRICTED ... GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS ARE NECESSARY AND HOW
THE CHOICE OF DISTINCTIONS MEETS THE NEEDS OF RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS.

ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THAT.

YES, PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I POSTED TO THE LIST EARLIER JUST A SUGGESTED CHANGE HERE.

I THINK THE WORD "NECESSARY" MAY NOT BE QUITE THE RIGHT ONE. AND PROPOSE
INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS EXAMINE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RESTRICTED,
UNRESTRICTED, SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES AND
HOW THOSE DISTINCTIONS MEET THE NEEDS OF USERS.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S A SLIGHT MODIFICATION. DIDN'T BRET MAKE A SLIGHT
MODIFICATION THERE ALSO?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: READ IT AGAIN.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: EXAMINE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RESTRICTED, UNRESTRICTED,
SPONSORED AND UNSPONSORED GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES AND HOW THOSE
DISTINCTIONS MEET THE NEEDS OF USERS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT OF THE WAY YOU HAVE
WORDED THAT.

ARE WE -- AREN'T WE TRYING -- THIS IS IN THE SORT OF SELECTION CRITERIA, I
GUESS, PART OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE, I
THINK, IS SHOULD THERE BE -- ARE THOSE DISTINCTIONS RELEVANT WITH RESPECT TO
SELECTION CRITERIA. AREN'T WE GOING FORWARD? IT'S SIMILAR TO THE POINT
MARILYN MADE FORWARD. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WE ARE GOING TO USE THOSE
DISTINCTIONS. WE WOULD CONSIDER WHAT DISTINCTIONS THERE ARE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: "NECESSARY" IS A DIFFICULT WORD TO JUDGE.

>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT, RIGHT. BRUCE, I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE, HAVING LIVED
THROUGH WORDSMITH 101, 102, 103 IN THE WSIS PROCESS, THAT I DO THINK
"NECESSARY" IS A VERY TOUGH WORD TO DEFINE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SUGGESTING REMOVING THE "ARE NECESSARY"
BIT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES. SO WE ARE MERELY EXAMINING THE DISTINCTIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WANTING TO SAY. SO JUST DELETE THE
WORD "ARE NECESSARY." SO WE HAVE WHETHER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RESTRICTED,
UNRESTRICTED, AND THEN WHETHER WHAT? WHETHER THEY AFFECT THE CHOICE. HOW
ABOUT WHETHER THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THOSE THINGS MEET THE INTEREST OF
RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS.

>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO JUST DELETE IN THE SECOND PHRASE, IF YOU COULD JUST....

NIKLAS.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: YES, JUST ONE QUESTION. REFLECTING THE USEFUL ADDITION
YOU SUGGESTED, BRUCE, OF ADDING "GENERIC" BEFORE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, SHOULDN'T
THE SAME IDEA BE REFLECTED IN THE VERY TITLE OF TERMS OF REFERENCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I AGREE.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: WHICH FOR THE MOMENT READS TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NEW
TLDS.

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

I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT WE ALL KNOW WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT INTERNALLY
BUT WHEN WE ARE PUBLISHING THIS TO THE WIDER COMMUNITY, WE HAVE TO BE A BIT
MORE CAREFUL.



>>ROSS RADER: COULD WE GO BACK TO THE LANGUAGE PHILIP WAS PROPOSING?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, YES.

ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO GENERIC, I WILL JUST ASK THE STAFF TO PICK THOSE
CHANGES UP AS KIND OF A SELECT ALL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME ON THIS DOCUMENT.

SO EXAMINING WHETHER THE DISTINCTIONS -- YEAH.

>>ROSS RADER: I'M NOT INCREDIBLY FAVORABLE TOWARDS THIS PROPOSAL HERE. I
THINK EXAMINING THE NECESSITY OF THOSE DISTINCTIONS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS
FIGURING OUT WHETHER THOSE DISTINCTIONS MEET THE NEEDS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I THINK BOTH QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED.

SO I WOULD PREFER TO EITHER MIX THE TWO PROPOSALS OR TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION, BRUCE. MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER
THE QUESTION FOR ME QUICKLY.

FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE A DEFINITION SECTION IN THE ICANN WEB SITE? AND IF SO,
IS THE TERM "GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN" CLEARLY DEFINED IN THAT SECTION?
BECAUSE EVERY TIME THIS COMES UP, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO CLARIFY. AND I JUST
THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT TERM, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S
CONSISTENTLY UNDERSTOOD BY ANYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT THIS
--

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KEN. SO KEN, TODAY THERE
ARE CCTLDS AND THERE'S A CCNSO AND THE GNSO.

>>KEN STUBBS: RIGHT.

>>MARILYN CADE: AM I CONFUSED?

>>KEN STUBBS: WELL, SORRY. ARE YOU DEFINING A GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AS
ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A CC?

>> I THINK PRETTY MUCH.

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.

>>KEN STUBBS: PRETTY MUCH. SO GOV AND (INAUDIBLE) ARE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS,
THEN.

>>MARILYN CADE: CAN I RESPOND TO, PERHAPS, ROSS'S SUGGESTION? ROSS, WHAT I
UNDERSTAND, YOUR PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THE
FOLLOWING.

>>ROSS RADER: I'M SORRY?

>>MARILYN CADE: COULD I CLARIFY THAT YOUR PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD
LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THE FOLLOWING: THE REINSERTION OF THE WORD "NECESSARY."
SORRY, EXAMINE THE NECESSITY? IT WOULD PROBABLY GO RIGHT AFTER "EXAMINE THE
NECESSITY OF."

I'M SORRY; MARIA, I'M IN A DIFFERENT PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT.

EXAMINE, RIGHT AFTER "C." .

EXAMINE THE NECESSITY.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING? EXAMINE THE NECESSITY OF DISTINCTIONS?

>>ROSS RADER: I THINK THAT WOULD DO IT, YEAH. YES.

>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY. SO I THINK --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SORRY, WOULD RELEVANCE BE BETTER THERE? DOES THAT GO TO
THE SAME ISSUE, ROSS?

>>ROSS RADER: SURE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE JUDGING RELEVANCE TO
STAKEHOLDER, WHEREAS, "NECESSITY" IS JUST VERY WIDE. I FIND IT A CHALLENGING
TERM TO REFERENCE. THAT'S ALL.

>>ROSS RADER: LET ME USE REAL PLAIN ENGLISH, PHILIP. I WANT TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT THE DISTINCTIONS ARE MEANINGFUL AND USEFUL, AND
WHETHER OR NOT THE VALUE THE USERS GET FROM THOSE DISTINCTIONS ARE MEANINGFUL
AND USEFUL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WE ARE CERTAINLY ONLINE IN TERMS OF THE VALUE ADD THAT
THOSE DISTINCTIONS MAKE, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD ADD THAT IN THERE.

>>MARILYN CADE: ROSS'S CLARIFYING STATEMENT WAS SO MUCH CLEARER TO ME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I AM KIND OF WONDERING WHETHER -- YEAH. IS THIS NECESSARY IN
ACTUAL TERMS OF REFERENCE, DO YOU THINK, THIS WHOLE PHRASE? BECAUSE THE
PREVIOUS ONES WERE SAYING LOOKING AT THE EXISTING SELECTION CRITERIA, THEN
LOOKING AT EXAMINING WHETHER PREFERENTIAL CRITERIA COULD BE DEVELOPED.

THE USE OF THE TERM "SPONSORED" WAS REALLY AN EXAMPLE OF PREFERENTIAL
CRITERIA, IN MY VIEW. YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING WE ARE GOING TO GIVE A
PREFERENCE TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT CHOOSE SPONSORED.

I JUST KIND OF THINK THAT THIS IS PROBABLY JUST BECOMING A BIT OF A RED
HERRING.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO BRUCE, ONE POSSIBILITY WOULD BE TO DO -- AND I AM NOT
ASKING MARIA TO TYPE THIS, LET ME JUST READ IT. GO BACK TO B. EXAMINE
WHETHER PREFERENTIAL SELECTION CRITERIA, IN PARENTHESES, E.G., RESTRICTED AND
RESTRICTED SPONSORS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WOULDN'T GO INTO THOSE CATEGORIES. I WOULD SAY EXAMINE
WHERE THE PREFERENTIAL SELECTION CRITERIA, AND THEN "E.G. SPONSORED," JUST
PICK ONE SO WE DON'T GET TIED UP IN ALL THE WORDING BECAUSE I DON'T THINK
IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL POINT BECAUSE IT'S PICKED UP IN "B," GENERALLY.

CAN WE JUST DELETE "C" FOR A SECOND, MARIA.

AND THEN GO BACK UP TO THE NEXT POINT AND EXAMINE WHETHER PREFERENTIAL
SELECTION CRITERIA, AND THEN IN BRACKETS AFTER THAT. IN BRACKETS, E.G.,
SPONSORED. JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH. I THINK WE
UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT.

JUST TO GO BACK TO KEN'S SPECIFIC QUESTION, I DID HAVE A QUICK SEARCH OF THE
ICANN WEB SITE. IF YOU GO TO ICANN.ORG SLASH TLDS, THERE IS A PAGE ON THIS.
TLDS WITH TWO LETTERS ARE REFERRED TO AS COUNTRY CODE TLDS. MOST TLDS WITH
THREE OR MORE CHARACTERS ARE REFERRED TO AS GENERIC TLDS. THEY CAN BE
SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO TYPES, SPONSORED GENERIC TLDS OR UNSPONSORED. AND THEN
THERE IS A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HISTORY OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

SO THERE IS ESSENTIALLY A DEFINITION, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PREFER TO IT.

>>KEN STUBBS: THANKS, BRUCE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE -- I THINK WE HAVE A
GOOD HANDLE ON IT, BUT SOMETIMES IT GETS A BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE WHEN WE
BRING IT UP, WE CONSTANTLY CLARIFY THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT, YES. I THINK THE EASIEST DEFINITION IS THE ONE
WE STARTED WITH, WHICH IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A COUNTRY CODE. AND I THINK
THAT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.

OKAY.

>>ROSS RADER: BRUCE, I'M SORRY TO BELABOR THIS POINT. THE CONVERSATION THAT
I WANT TO HAVE AROUND THESE CRITERIA IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EXISTING
DISTINCTION BETWEEN STLDS AND OTHER TLDS IS AN APPROPRIATE DISTINCTION TO BE
MAKING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT, ROSS. AND I'M SAYING THAT HAVING THAT DEBATE
-- WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA. SO IF YOUR
CRITERIA IS THAT WE ARE ONLY GOING TO ACCEPT SPONSORED, AND THEN YOU WOULD
HAVE TO DEFINE THAT, WOULD BE PICKED UP UNDER "B."

>>ROSS RADER: BUT WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT DEVELOPING NEW CRITERIA.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- WHICH MAY NOT
INCLUDE ANY OF THOSE WORDS, IS WHAT I AM GETTING AT.

>>ROSS RADER: SO YOU WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE EXERCISE OF THIS ANALYSIS WOULD
ACTUALLY BE A DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CRITERIA?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THIS IS THE SELECTION CRITERIA. WE'RE SAYING WHAT'S THE
APPROPRIATE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS; OKAY? AND
THEN WE ARE SAYING WHAT -- IN DOING THAT, YOU ARE TRYING TO CHOOSE CRITERIA
THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

NOW, IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION. THAT'S WHERE THAT DISCUSSION THAT YOU ARE
REFERRING TO WOULD HAPPEN.

RATHER THAN HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, WE SHOULD BE
HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WE SHOULD BE USING FOR
NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

>>ROSS RADER: SO YOU ARE ASSUMING A CLEAN-SHEET APPROACH TO THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>ROSS RADER: THAT THE ASSUMPTION?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. SOMEONE CAN -- AT THE PUBLIC MIGHT SAY AS PUBLIC INPUT
TO THE PROCESS, OR EVEN A CONSTITUENCY, THAT WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD ONLY BE
SPONSORED, AND THESE ARE THE DEFINITIONS. THAT'S A LEGITIMATE CONSTITUENCY
STATEMENT OR PUBLIC STATEMENT TO MAKE.

WE'RE NOT, IN TERMS OF REFERENCE, NOT PRESUPPOSING THAT.

>>ROSS RADER: IF THIS IS CLEAN SHEET, THAT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. THANKS.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE GO DOWN TO THE NEW "C." EXAMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL
CRITERIA NEED TO BE DEVELOPED WHICH ADDRESS ICANN'S GOALS OF ENSURING
SECURITY AND STABILITY. I DON'T THINK NO COMMENTS ON THAT.

"D," EXAMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL CRITERIA CAN BE DEVELOPED TO NORMALIZE AND
SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS OF SELECTING AND IMPLEMENTING NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

I THINK THAT'S -- MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH. I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION. I THINK ACTUALLY THE
TERM "ADMINISTRATIVE" PROBABLY IN OUR COLLECTIVE BRAIN HAS MEANING. I'M NOT
SURE THAT'S QUITE THE RIGHT PHRASE.

I THINK I WOULDN'T -- HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT JUST PUTTING SQUARE BRACKETS
AROUND ADMINISTRATIVE. WE WANT TO NORMALIZE AND SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS,
OVERALL, DON'T WE? WHICH INCLUDES THE AWARD -- THE SELECTION PROCESS --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T THINK THAT WORD NEEDS TO BE THERE, YEAH.

>>MARILYN CADE: I THOUGHT IT WAS TOO LIMITING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND THIS I THINK IS PARTICULARLY WHERE THE DISCUSSION WE HAD
EARLIER TODAY IS ONE ON REFLECTING THE MOST RECENT PROCESS WHICH IS THE
SPONSORED ROUNDS AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THAT.

AND IN PARTICULAR MAKING THIS MORE EFFICIENT. I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS
AND IN SOME DISCUSSIONS WE HAD WITH THE BOARD ON THIS AS WELL, THAT THE
PROCESS CURRENTLY IS EXTREMELY HEAVY WEIGHT. IT TAKES ABOUT TWO YEARS,
ALMOST, BETWEEN WHEN YOU DECIDE TO START UP AND WHEN YOU START SIGNING A
CONTRACT ON A NEW ROUND AND THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE FOR THE ORGANIZATION, I
GUESS, WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO THINK ABOUT.

ANY OTHER UPDATES ON THIS PHRASE, ON THIS SENTENCE?

>>LUCY NICHOLS: BRUCE, JUST A VERY MINOR ONE. IT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE "AMONG"
RATHER THAN "BETWEEN." "FOR KEEPING AMONG."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I CAN'T SEE WHERE "BETWEEN" IS. SORRY, WHERE ARE YOU
LOOKING?

>>LUCY NICHOLS: "BETWEEN" REFERS TO WHEN --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I UNDERSTAND. BUT I DON'T EVEN SEE THE WORD. SORRY, WHERE
ARE WE USING THAT WORD? I'M LOOKING AT 3.D. NEW D. JUST LOOK AT THE SCREEN.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THE SECTION ON SELECTION CRITERIA. IF WE CAN MOVE DOWN TO
THE NEXT SECTION, AT LEAST, MARIA, SECTION 3.

THE NEXT THING THEN IS TO LOOK AT THE SCENARIO WHERE IF YOU GET A CONFLICT.
SO TWO APPLICANTS ARE APPLYING FOR EXACTLY THE SAME NAME. SO THE FIRST PART
OF THAT IS USING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS, DEVELOP MODIFIED
OR NEW CRITERIA WHICH SIMPLIFY AND STANDARDIZE THE ALLOCATION METHODS.



I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE ARE CONFUSING TWO AND THREE HERE. I WOULD HAVE
THOUGHT THE FIRST PART OF THAT IS MORE LOOKING AT 2, WHICH IS THE CRITERIA
YOU ARE USING. I THINK I'D PROBABLY TAKE OUT "A," WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION,
AND JUST LEAVE "B" IN, WHICH IS EXAMINE THE FULL RANGE OF ALLOCATION METHODS,
INCLUDING AUCTIONS, BALLOTS, COMPARATIVE PROCESSES TO DETERMINE.

>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, GO BACK UP TO NEW "D" IN 2. EXAMINE WHETHER
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA CAN BE DEVELOPED AND NORMALIZE. THAT BELONGS UNDER
ALLOCATION, DOESN'T IT? SHOULDN'T THAT BE THE NEW "A"?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, OKAY.

YES, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE SELECTION CRITERIA, AND THEN WHAT PROCESS DO YOU
USE FOR THE ALLOCATION.

>>MARILYN CADE: MM-HMM, MM-HMM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.

>>MARILYN CADE: BUT WERE YOU PROPOSING TO STRIKE THE PRESENT "A" AND --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I JUST SORT OF THOUGHT WE WERE CONFUSING THE CONCEPT OF -- I
SEE ALLOCATION AS MORE OF AN ISSUE WHERE YOU HAVE CONFLICT. I ASSUME THE
OTHER PART OF IT IS A SELECTION PROCESS, AND I AM ASSUMING YOU HAVE PASSED
THE SELECTION PROCESS AND TWO HAVE MET THE CRITERIA AND ARE GOING FOR THE
SAME NAME.

>>MARILYN CADE: BUT YOU WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT IT'S AN OPEN -- I JUST WANT TO
BE -- WE SHOULDN'T BE PREJUDGING WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE AN OPEN-ENDED
ALLOCATION PROCESS OR THERE'S SOME OTHER OUTCOME THAT THE COUNCIL MIGHT
RECOMMEND. RIGHT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT? SORRY?

>>MARILYN CADE: WE WOULD NOT BE PREJUDGING WHETHER THE COUNCIL'S
DETERMINATION WOULD BE AN OPEN, UNLIMITED CEILING OR WE MIGHT COME UP WITH
SOME OTHER OPTION. WE'RE NOT PREJUDGING THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'RE NOT, AND I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THAT
IN CONTEXT OF THIS.

>>MARILYN CADE: WE ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE 400 A DAY OR 5,000 A YEAR OR ARE WE
GOING TO SAY WHERE WE END UP SAYING WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME OTHER
NUMBER OF NO MORE THAN "X" IN A FINITE PERIOD, ET CETERA. WE'RE JUST LEAVING
THAT --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU MIGHT COME UP WITH SELECTION CRITERIA
AND THEN YOU MIGHT SAY WE ARE ONLY GOING TO ACCEPT TEN.

I'M THINKING OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN STRINGS. YOU ARE THINKING OF THE FACT THAT
THERE'S SOME SORT OF FINITE NUMBER, AND THEREFORE, YOU MIGHT HAVE 100
APPLICATIONS FOR TEN SLOTS.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I JUST WANT TO HAVE SOME EXAMPLES SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
ARE MEANING.

SO 3 "A" SAYS USING THE EXPERIENCE -- BECAUSE IT'S SAYING CRITERIA. THAT'S
WHAT'S CONFUSED ME THERE.

>>MARILYN CADE: YES, YES.

>>BRET FAUSETT: COULD I ASK THAT -- I'M HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING
MARILYN AND ALSO THE EXCHANGE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT LANGUAGE, THAT WE GET
WHATEVER IS THE CURRENT VERSION UP ON THE SCREEN SO WE CAN FOCUS ON IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

I HAVEN'T WORKED OUT THE LANGUAGE YET.

SO IT'S JUST CURRENT LANGUAGE SO FAR.

SO CURRENTLY, IT SAYS, ON 3 "A" UNDER ALLOCATION METHODS -- LET'S JUST TALK
ABOUT GENERICALLY ALLOCATION FOR A SECOND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THE
EXAMPLES.

AN EXAMPLE OF ALLOCATION IS TO SAY THERE IS -- WELL, EXAMPLE OF ALLOCATION
PROBLEMS ARE IF THE -- IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIMITED
NUMBER INTRODUCED AT A TIME, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE THERE'S MORE
APPLICATIONS THAN AVAILABLE TO PROCESS AT ONCE.

AND TO SOME DEGREE, WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THAT WITH THIS RECENT SPONSORED
ROUND, AND THAT THE STAFF TEND, ALTHOUGH THEY'VE COMPLETED THE WORK OF THE
PREVIOUS EVALUATION, THE STAFF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS TENDS TO MEAN THEY'RE
FOCUSING ON ONE AT A TIME, WHETHER IT'S THE CURRENT DOT COM AGREEMENT OR
WHETHER IT'S THE DOT NET AGREEMENT OR THE DOT XXX AGREEMENT, THERE'S ONLY SO
MANY OF THOSE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH AT ONCE.

AND THEN TRYING TO DECIDE, WELL, HOW DO YOU ALLOCATE TIME IS AN ISSUE.

AND THEN IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT WANT THE SAME STRING, AND I THINK WE HAD
THAT IN THE SPONSORED ROUND, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE, I THINK, THAT WANTED .TEL,
HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, THAT THEY MIGHT BOTH BE VALID.

WOULD YOU TRY TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHO'S BEST?

WHICH IS MORE OF A EVALUATION PROCESS, OR WOULD YOU AUCTION IT?

OR WOULD YOU FLIP A COIN?

YOU KNOW, IT'S -- THOSE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS I SAW UNDER THIS GENERAL TOPIC
OF ALLOCATION METHODS.

>>BRET FAUSETT: CAN I JUST MAKE A COMMENT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE THIS REFLECTED IN THE
LANGUAGE OR NOT.

ANOTHER ALLOCATION METHOD IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.

I'M REMINDED OF THE PEOPLE WHO SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATIONS IN 2000 WHO WERE
TOLD THEY WEREN'T REJECT, BUT WERE PUT ON HOLD.

THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE PRESUMABLY STILL THERE IF THE APPLICANTS WANT TO
RESERVE THEM.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: I THINK OUR PURPOSE HERE SHOULD BE TO MAKE THE TERMS OF
REFERENCE AS ENABLING AS POSSIBLE.

THIS MAY BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE TOO MUCH DETAIL GETS IN THE WAY OF
EXERCISING JUDGMENT LATER.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT BULLET C, WHICH WE HAVEN'T YET ADDRESSED, IF YOU TURN
THE PAGE, REALLY ADDRESSES THE QUESTION IN A BROAD ENOUGH WAY THAT IT ALLOWS
EXAMINATION OF ALLOCATION METHODS WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY NAMING THEM.

IF WE NAME THEM --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WELL, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO SAY EG, BUT IT HASN'T -- IT'S NOT
IN THE SENSE OF THIS IS THE EXHAUSTIVE LIST.

CAN WE JUST GO BACK TO 3 "A" FOR A SECOND.

WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE A BIT MORE GENERAL TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS, IT SAYS -- WE
COULD HAVE USING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS, WOULD JUST SAY
DEVELOP ALLOCATION METHODS FOR SELECTING NEW TOPO-LEVEL NAMES.

I THINK THAT'S A MORE GENERIC STATEMENT, SO JUST AFTER -- SO USING THE
EXPERIENCE GAINED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS, THAT'S OKAY, MARIA, THEN, COMMA,
DEVELOP.

YES.

JUST SAY -- JUST DELETE THE WORDS BETWEEN "MODIFIED" AND "ALLOCATION."

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, DELETE THAT SECOND LINE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN.

JUST DELETE THAT LINE, YES.

AND THEN DELETE "THE."

SO JUST SAYS "USING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED IN PREVIOUS ROUNDS, DEVELOP
ALLOCATION METHODS FOR SELECTING TOP-LEVEL NAMES."

>>MARILYN CADE: I NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU, BECAUSE PHILIP HAD PROPOSED AND
PASSED TO ME SUGGESTED CHANGES IN EXISTING B.

SO BEFORE YOU DELETE B, I NEED TO RESERVE THE OPTION OF COMING BACK AND
OFFERING --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M STILL GOING ON TO B.

SO THIS IS JUST SORT OF THE FIRST -- THIS IS 3A.

SO WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT SENTENCE?

OKAY.

SO IF WE GO ON TO B, WHICH IS -- WHICH IS "EXAMINE THE FULL RANGE OF
ALLOCATION METHODS, INCLUDING."

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY OKAY.

IT'S NOT -- YOU COULD PUT FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT
THAT, BRET.

I THINK IT'S -- YEAH, MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT THAT IN THERE EXPLICITLY.

I THINK THAT'S A COMMON METHOD THAT'S USED TODAY.

BUT IT'S STILL USING THE WORD "INCLUDING," SO IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE
EXHAUSTIVE.

AND THEN C SAYS, "EXAMINE HOW THESE METHODS" --

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY, BRUCE.

I HAVE EDITS IN B.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO LET ME ASSUME THAT I AM GOING TO ACCEPT -- THAT -- IN THE
PROPOSAL THAT I AM GOING TO MAKE, THAT I WOULD ACCEPT THE ADDITION WE JUST
MADE, BUT MAKE FURTHER CHANGE.

AND LET ME READ A PROPOSAL BEFORE WE CAPTURE IT AND THEN GO BACK AND READ IT
AT DICTATION SPEED.

EXAMINE THE FULL RANGE OF ALLOCATION METHODS, INCLUDING AUCTIONS, BALLOTS,
FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, AND COMPARATIVE EVALUATION, STRIKE "PROCESSES," AND
GO ON, TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF ALLOCATION THAT BEST ENHANCES USER CHOICE,
WHILE NOT COMPROMISING PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME.

IF YOU CAN JUST DICTATE THAT AT A SPEED THAT MARIA CAN PICK IT UP.

>>MARILYN CADE: SURE.

EXAMINE THE FULL RANGE OF ALLOCATION METHODS, INCLUDING AUCTIONS, BALLOTS,
FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, AND COMPARATIVE EVALUATION.

STRIKE "PROCESSES."

TO DETERMINE THE METHODS OF ALLOCATION THAT BEST ENHANCE USER CHOICE WHILE
NOT COMPROMISING PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY.

I NOTE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE WE WOULD CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE METHOD OF
ALLOCATION, WHICH IS ONE POINT I WOULD MAKE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S FINE.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO THEN THE FINAL ONE, IF WE CAN JUST MOVE UP THE SCREEN, EXAMINE HOW THE
METHODS CAN BE USED TO ACHIEVE GOALS OF FOSTERING COMPETITION.

ANY COMMENTS ON THAT ONE?

OKAY.

LET'S GO TO 4A.

SO 4A IS THE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.

NOW, I WONDER WHETHER -- YEAH, JUST PICKING UP THE COMMENTS THAT JORDYN
BUCHANAN MADE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, WHETHER WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT HEADING THERE.

BECAUSE I KIND OF, IN A SENSE, WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCTION THAT WE'RE NOT -- I
DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL'S CREATING THE CONTRACTS.

I THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE CREATING THE POLICIES THAT GUIDE THE CONTRACTS
IN A WAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO, REALLY, WE WOULD -- I THINK IT SHOULD BE REHEADED TO SAY
"POLICY TO GUIDE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S BETTER.

YEAH.

AND THEN SAYS "USING THE EXPERIENCE OF PREVIOUS ROUNDS AND THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS," SO THAT PICKS UP THE PROPOSED DOT COM, SO THEN IT SHOULD BE
"DEVELOP POLICIES TO GUIDE," SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

TO DEVELOP POLICIES TO GUIDE, JUST SAY "TO GUIDE THE CONTRACTUAL CRITERIA."

SO REMOVE "MODIFIED OR NEW" FOR A SECOND.

YEAH, I THINK THE PUBLIC AVAILABLE BIT IS FINE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, BRET.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT IF THE GOAL HERE IS TO
FINALIZE TERMS OF REFERENCE THAT CAN START A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE
MAY WANT TO HOLD 4.

BECAUSE THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT CAN GO BEHIND THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION,
AND START THIS PROCESS AFTER WE'VE MOVED A LITTLE BIT.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT COMING UP WITH A TERMS OF REFERENCE THAT IS TOO BROAD FOR A
GROUP TO BE EFFECTIVE.

SO I PUT THAT OUT FOR DISCUSSION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD JUST TABLE 4 UNTIL
PERHAPS WELLINGTON.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE
INITIAL THING IS THAT -- THAT THE SELECTION CRITERIA IN 4 PROBABLY HAVE A
CODEPENDENCY, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT ARE THE SELECTION CRITERIA
FOR TLDS, YOU'RE ALSO KIND OF LOOKING AT WHETHER PEOPLE ARE -- WHAT IS THE
NATURE, I GUESS, OF THE TLDS THAT ARISE OUT OF THAT AND WHAT -- WHAT CONTROLS
SHOULD THEY HAVE ON WHAT THOSE TLDS ARE.

BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE DEBATES THAT COMES UP THAT, SAY,
SPONSORED, WE HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC FORUM, THAT IF YOU
SAY, OKAY, ONE OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA IS SPONSORED, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT
DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT TO CHECK WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY ARE SPONSORED AFTER
THEY'RE CREATED AND IT'S NOT IN THE CONTRACTS, THEN THE SELECTION CRITERIA
BECOMES A BIT IRRELEVANT, BECAUSE YOU -- YOU'RE NOT USING THE -- YOU'VE
CHOSEN THEM ON SOME BASIS, BUT YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY EFFORT TO CHECK TO SEE
WHETHER THEY ADHERE TO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD IN THE PROPOSALS.

JUST TRYING TO SEE WHERE -- I THINK THE SENSE THAT WE HAD WHEN WE DISCUSSED
THIS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE, IF WE
CAN, AND TRY AND ACCELERATE THAT PROCESS.

AND I THINK ELLIOT AND OTHERS HAD POINTED OUT THAT EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED DOT COM AGREEMENT, MANY OF THESE ISSUES NEED TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT
NOW, EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT.

SO TO WAIT UNTIL WELLINGTON MEANS WE'RE PROBABLY WAITING TO EVEN MAKE A
COMMENT ON SOME OF THE --

>>BRET FAUSETT: OH, I'M MAKING MY SUGGESTION BECAUSE I WANT US TO MOVE
QUICKLY.

I THINK WHEN WE DO COME UP WITH A TERMS OF REFERENCE, WE OUGHT TO BE MINDFUL
TO GIVE WHATEVER GROUP THAT WE'RE TASKING TO DO THIS THE ABILITY TO PERHAPS
FINISH SOME ITEMS QUICKLY AND --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OH, YES.

>>BRET FAUSETT: -- AND WAIT AND CARRY SOME ITEMS OVER LATER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, ABSOLUTELY.

WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THAT IN DEFINING THE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO FIRST AND BY WHEN.

BECAUSE THE NEXT THING THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT OF HERE IS KIND OF A WORK PLAN
TO SAY HOW WE HANDLE THE WORK, YEAH.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A
LOT OF CONVERSATION ON IN COUNCIL, BUT IT'S COME UP IN THE PLANNING GROUP.

AND THAT IS THE IDEA THAT WE FIND WAYS TO ACCELERATE OUR WORK THROUGH
IDENTIFYING EXPERTS WHO CAN WORK IN PARALLEL TO PERHAPS DELIVER INFORMATION
TO US ALONG THE WAY TO INFORM AND ADVANCE THE PROCESS.

THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, I THINK THE WORKING METHODS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE
GOING TO NEED TO REALLY EXAMINE HOW WE CAN BE MORE -- WE CAN -- I DON'T WANT
TO USE THE WORD "FLEXIBLE" HERE.

I WANT TO SAY HOW WE CAN MOBILIZE MORE RESOURCES AND PERHAPS THUS ADVANCE THE
PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SO, YES, LET'S JUST TRY AND SORT OF GET THROUGH THIS, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE
ONLY GOT THAT ONE MORE, PERHAPS TWO MORE, POINTS TO GO, AND THEN WE'VE GOT
SOME TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND THEN IT'LL BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, NOT TODAY,
BUT THE BEST WAY TO PROGRESS THAT WORK.

SO, YEAH, I THINK IF WE MOVE ON TO B, EXAMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL
CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE ICANN'S COMPLIANCE REGIME.

WOULD THIS BE EXAMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL POLICIES ARE NECESSARY?

IS THAT A BETTER....

WHETHER ADDITIONAL POLICIES ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE, YOU KNOW.

>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, LET'S MAYBE MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE NEUTRAL AND THEN
JUST -- AND PERHAPS SAY EXAMINE WHAT POLICIES ARE NECESSARY.

THEY MAY BE ADDITIONAL, THEY MAY NOT BE ADDITIONAL.

IT WOULD MAKE --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, WE'RE JUST GOING TO -- EXAMINE WHAT POLICIES ARE
NECESSARY, AND THEN REMOVE "COMPLIANCE REGIME," BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S KIND
OF A SEPARATE TOPIC AS WELL.

WELL, IT'S JUST ONE SPECIFIC POLICY YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SO WHAT POLICIES ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE PREDICTABILITY AND SECURITY OF
SECURITY SERVICES.

I THINK THAT'S --

>>MARILYN CADE: IS IT -- DID WE LOSE THE WORD --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: STABILITY IS PROBABLY THE BETTER WORD.

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D SAY SECURITY AND STABILITY.

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.

AND THIS IS KIND OF FAIRLY GENERIC.

AND THIS IS KIND OF ATTEMPTING, I THINK, TO PICK UP SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
ELLIOT NOSS AND JORDYN BUCHANAN SORT OF BROUGHT UP, THAT COULD INCLUDE THINGS
LIKE, YEAH, A NUMBER OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT
TO THE DOT COM AGREEMENT.

OKAY.

C IS, EXAMINE WHETHER A REGISTRY SERVICES CODE OF CONDUCT --

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: BRUCE.

JUST ON B.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, NIKLAS.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: IF YOU CAN GET BACK TO THE WORDING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: LET ME SEE.

PROVIDE SECURITY.

SO HERE, THE SUGGESTION IS TO GET TOTALLY RID OF THE MENTION OF CONTRACTUAL
COMPLIANCE?

THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING HERE IN PARAGRAPH B, NO?

AS IT'S STATED NOW?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT.



>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, WOULD YOU -- AND YOU DID NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTUAL
COMPLIANCE ISSUE MAY BE A SEPARATE TOPIC.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: OKAY.

BUT HOWEVER WE WORD IT, I THINK WE SHOULD BE WARY OF SUGGESTING THAT
CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE IS ACTUALLY A POLICY ISSUE.

A POLICY MIGHT BE NECESSARY PERHAPS TO INFORM THE ISSUE.

BUT IT'S ABOVE ALL AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE.

SO I WOULDN'T LIKE TO SEE A WORDING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT CONTRACTUAL
COMPLIANCE IS A POLICY ISSUE RATHER THAN AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT'S CHANGED THERE.

BUT LET ME JUST PICK UP ON SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AGAIN IN OUR DISCUSSIONS IN
THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

AND THAT WAS THAT AT THE MOMENT, WITH THE REGISTRAR CONTRACT, AND PROBABLY,
EFFECTIVELY, WITH THE REGISTRY CONTRACT AS WELL, IT'S A BIT OF AN ALL OR
NOTHING.

SO IF SOMEONE'S NOT COMPLYING WITH THEIR CONTRACT, THEY'RE KIND OF IN BREACH
OF THE CONTRACT AND YOU CANCEL THE CONTRACT, THAT'S VERY SEVERE.

AND ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS, WHICH I ACTUALLY THINK IS A SEPARATE POLICY
DEVELOPMENT EFFORT, BUT IS ABOUT A -- THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC.

SO I ACTUALLY THINK WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE.

BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT AS A SEPARATE
POLICY.

WHICH IS THE ISSUE OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS, BASICALLY.

IF THAT'S WHERE WE WERE --

>>MARILYN CADE: THAT'S A SPECIFIC -- RIGHT.

THAT'S A SPECIFIC ITEM THAT COULD FALL UNDER POLICIES MORE GENERICALLY.

BUT I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION, NIKLAS, IF I MIGHT.

I GUESS COMING FROM THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND THAT I COME FROM, I
THINK THAT, ACTUALLY, THERE MAY BE A POLICY THAT REQUIRES CONTRACTUAL
COMPLIANCE OR ENFORCEMENT REGIMES THAT'S A POLICY.

BUT THE SPECIFICS OF HOW IT'S DONE ARE NOT THE POLICY.

BUT THAT YOU HAVE A POLICY THAT INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
-- OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT.

>>AVRI DORIA: BRUCE.

I THINK I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY SORT OF A SIMILAR THING.

BUT I THINK THAT THERE HAVE TO BE POLICIES ABOUT COMPLIANCE.

I MEAN, THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT JUST CAN'T BE LIMITED TO THE CONTRACTS
THEMSELVES, BUT HAS TO BE GOVERNED BY POLICY.

AND IN THE SPIRIT OF NOT SEPARATING THINGS INTO TOO MANY POLICY STATEMENTS, I
THINK IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED HERE.

IT'S FINE TO BE INCLUDED AS A SEPARATE BULLET.

BUT I DO THINK IT NEEDS -- THERE NEEDS TO BE A POLICY THAT DISCUSSES THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO IF YOU JUST COULD SUGGEST SOME WORDING.

>>ROSS RADER: BEFORE WE START WORDSMITHING AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT -- WHAT ABOUT --
WHAT ABOUT A COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ISN'T PICKED UP UNDER C?

IN READING THE TWO OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS TOGETHER, I THINK IT REALLY GIVES US
WHAT WE NEED ON BOTH POINTS.

I'M NOT SURE WE NEED NEW WORDS.

>>MARILYN CADE: ROSS, I DON'T AGREE.

A CODE OF CONDUCT MAY OR MAY NOT -- A CODE OF CONDUCT -- TYPICALLY, A CODE OF
CONDUCT IN THE INDUSTRY IS PREFACED BY THE WORD "VOLUNTARY."

>>ROSS RADER: THERE'S A COMMENT IN THAT FIRST SENTENCE THAT TALKS ABOUT
ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THERE. THERE'S A CODE OF CONDUCT AND
CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS, BOTH PART OF THE COMPLIANCE REGIME.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE YOU NEED.

WE CAN SPEND THE TIME, I'M JUST -- I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.

>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY.

THE -- AS I READ IT, AND, AVRI, I WOULD REALLY WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS ON IT.

AS I READ C, IT IS ACTUALLY PREDICATED ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE PHRASES
CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE REGIME IN B.

AND WE'VE JUST STRUCK THAT IN B.

I WOULD SUGGEST PERHAPS A SEPARATE -- A NEW C, WHICH COULD READ, "EXAMINE" --
OR -- "EXAMINE APPROPRIATE POLICIES TO GUIDE A CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE."

I LIKE THE WORD "PROGRAM," PROBABLY BETTER THAN REGIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE PICK THAT UP, JUST CREATE A NEW C FOR A SECOND, MARIA.

JUST A NEW "C."

AND JUST READ THAT OUT AGAIN, PLEASE, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: EXAMINE APPROPRIATE POLICIES TO GUIDE A CONTRACTUAL
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: DOES THAT MEET YOUR REQUIREMENT, AVRI?

>>AVRI DORIA: YEAH THAT WORKS FOR ME.

>>MARILYN CADE: TO ME, THIS MEANS THAT UNDER THAT WE COULD EXAMINE GRADUATED
SANCTIONS, EXAMINE SOME NEW NUCLEAR OFFSITE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: D, I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED IT.

I JUST SORT OF THINK THAT, PICKING UP SOME OF BRET'S COMMENTS, IT'S KIND OF
GOING TO ANOTHER LEVEL WHEN TALKING ABOUT REGISTRY SERVICES CODE OF CONDUCT
AND STUFF.

AND I THINK THAT'S A NOBLE AIM THAT I THINK I'D WANT TO CONSTRAIN THESE TERMS
OF REFERENCE A BIT RATHER THAN TRY TO PICK THAT UP IN THAT PROCESS.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND WOULDN'T WE AGREE THAT UNDER THE NEW "C," ONE TOPIC COULD
BE A CODE OF CONDUCT?

WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THAT EXPLICIT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT MIGHT BE WHAT YOU DECIDE IS THE APPROACH, YEAH.

SO CAN WE STRIKE "D"?

AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT REASONABLY FOCUSED ON THIS OVERALL.

SO CAN WE HAVE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE OF 4 AGAIN, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS POLICY TO GUIDE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.

USING THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PREVIOUS ROUNDS, DEVELOP POLICIES TO GUIDE THE
CRITERIA, C IS EXAMINING WHAT POLICIES ARE NECESSARY FOR SECURITY AND
STABILITY.

C IS EXAMINING THE POLICIES FOR CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S IT.

ARE PEOPLE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT NOW?



>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: BRUCE, JUST ONE THING, IN THE FIRST BULLET, YES,
ABSOLUTELY WHERE YOU HAVE SAID TO DEVELOP POLICY.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE NEED TO GO BACK OVER THIS AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE
PLACES WHERE WE'RE MERELY EXAMINING AND IF THESE, INDEED, ARE TO BE THE NEW
TERMS OF REFERENCE TORE NEW TLDS, WE SHOULD BE DETERMINING RATHER THAN
EXAMINING IN SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN CHANGE B, THE WORD "EXAMINE" TO
"DETERMINE," PLEASE.

AND SAME WITH C.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER CHANGES? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.

I'D LIKE TO PUT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE TO A VOTE.

WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO PROPOSE AND SECOND THAT?

ROSS PROPOSE.

ANYONE SECOND?

SECOND FROM MARILYN AND AVRI.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY "AYE."

ANY AGAINST?



ANY ABSTENTIONS?

ALICK AND GRANT, ARE YOU STILL ON THE PHONE?

>> YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS TERM -- MUST BE PRETTY HARD TO
FOLLOW THIS ON THE PHONE, I MUST ADMIT.

BUT --

>> IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT?

>>ALICK WILSON: IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE, GRANT?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND WE HAVE PROXY VOTES HERE, TOO.

ROBIN, YOU'RE HOLDING A PROXY FOR MAWAKI CHANGO, IN FAVOR?

>>ROBIN GROSS: (NOD OF THE HEAD.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND, KEN STUBBS, YOU'RE HOLDING A PROXY FOR JUNE SEO?

IN FAVOR?

AND MARILYN'S A PROXY FOR PHILIP. OKAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND PHILIP IS IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR.

THE OTHER THING, AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE DECIDED THIS ALREADY, BUT I
THINK I WANT TO MAKE IT BE MORE EXPLICIT, IS, DO WE CREATE A TASK FORCE OR DO
WE DO THIS WORK AS A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE?

MARILYN?

>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO PROPOSAL THAT WE DO THIS WORK AS A COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT WE ACTUALLY UNDERTAKE A DIFFERENT
METHOD OF WORKING.

AND TO LOOK AT IDENTIFYING A COUPLE OF WORK ITEMS THAT WE COULD ASK FOR A,
QUOTE, EXPERT TO ASSIST ON, OR MORE THAN ONE EXPERT TO ASSIST ON, AND THAT WE
TODAY AGREE TO SCHEDULE AT LEAST A TWO-DAY -- FULL TWO-DAY PDP DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS IN WELLINGTON.

AND, BY THE WAY, WHILE I'M SAYING THIS, I WILL GO ON TO SAY THAT I THINK WE
NEED TO MAKE THIS A STANDING PRACTICE FAR OUR NEXT TWO MEETINGS AND BUILD
THAT INTO THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE'S EXPECTATIONS SO THE STAFF CAN START
WORRYING ABOUT HELPING US WITH FACILITIES ON THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SO I'M GOING TO BREAK THOSE DOWN INTO TOPICS.

THE FIRST TOPIC IS -- AND IT'S PART OF THE BYLAWS, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION
ON WHETHER TO CREATE A TASK FORCE OR WHETHER TO TREAT IT AS A COMMITTEE AS A
WHOLE.

SO WOULD SOMEONE JUST LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT THIS BE MANAGED BY THE COUNCIL AS
A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE?



>>MARILYN CADE: I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY SECONDER ON THAT?

ROSS.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY "AYE" AND RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?

ANY ABSTENTIONS?

OKAY.

ALICK AND GRANT, HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THIS TOPIC?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: VOTE FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND ALICK?

>>ALICK WILSON: IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

WE CAN VOTE PROXIES, BUT I THINK WE GOT THE SENSE OF IT.

WE HAVE ENOUGH TO CARRY THIS.

THE -- SO THEN THE NEXT QUESTION IS, IS A PLANNING DECISION. AND I GUESS THE
PLANNING DECISION IS THAT WE WOULD ALLOCATE, I THINK, AT LEAST TWO FULL DAYS
AT BOTH THE WELLINGTON AND THE MOROCCO MEETING TO WORK ON THIS POLICY
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I THINK. AND I THINK IF WE CAN PASS THAT NOW, THEN WE
CAN DIRECT THE STAFF TO ASSIST US IN DOING THAT.

IT'S MOST LIKELY TO BE THE WEEK BEFORE OR WEEK AFTER THE ACTUAL ICANN
MEETING. SO I THINK IN MAKING THIS STATEMENT, WE ARE REALLY COMMITTING
PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE THAT WAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF. I THINK WE
ACTUALLY NEED TO DO IT BEFORE, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT. BUT WE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO ADVANCE THE WORK SO WE CAN THEN TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING OUR
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS, ET CETERA.

AND WE ARE -- IT'S GOING TO TAKE SIGNIFICANT WORK SO I THINK WE ALMOST HAVE
TO DO IT BEFORE, RECOGNIZING, AS A MEMBER OF INTERNETNZ, THE LOGISTIC
CHALLENGES, I DID CHECK WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INTERNETNZ, AND
ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE MEETING ROOM CHALLENGES, HE HAS OFFERED TO PROVIDE
WORKING SPACE AT THEIR OFFICES FOR US, IF THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT.

SO WE CAN TALK TO HIM AFTER THIS. AND IF THERE IS NO HOTEL ROOM SPACE, THEY
WOULD HAVE A WORKING OFFICE SPACE AT THEIR LOCATION, THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY
USE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE LOGISTICS. I THINK WE
JUST NEED TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, IS THAT WE REQUEST THE
STAFF TO ASSIST US TO ARRANGE TWO FULL MEETING DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING IN
WELLINGTON AND BEFORE THE MEETING IN MOROCCO ON THIS POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS. SO WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT AS A MOTION?

SORRY, ROSS, I'LL TAKE THAT AS SECONDED BY MARILYN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND IF YOU ARE SAYING AYE, PLEASE VOTE YOUR PROXIES AS WELL,
UNLESS YOU TELL ME OTHERWISE.

ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS?

ALICK AND GRANT, HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THIS TOPIC?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: VOTE FOR.

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK, I VOTE FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. BRET, YOU HAD A QUESTION?

>>BRET FAUSETT: YES, JUST A PROCESS POINT QUESTION. WHERE ARE WE AS FAR AS
-- WE JUST CREATED A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; CORRECT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WHICH STARTS THE TIME LINES IN THE BYLAWS RUNNING FOR THE
RESOLUTION?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WHICH MEANS WE OUGHT TO HAVE A REPORT IN 50 DAYS, WHICH WILL
BE BEFORE WELLINGTON AND BEFORE MOROCCO.

SO I'M CONFUSED A LITTLE BIT AS TO WHY WE'RE PLANNING SO FAR OUT WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE BY THEN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE'RE PLANNING THAT FAR OUT BECAUSE THE REALITY IS
THAT, ACCORDING TO THE BYLAWS, THE WHOLE WORK WOULD BE DONE IN THREE MONTHS.

TWO OF THOSE MONTHS, A LOT OF PARTS OF THE WORLD TEND TO TAKE HOLIDAY TIME,
AROUND THE END OF DECEMBER, EARLY JANUARY. SO IF WE ARE STARTING TODAY, WE
ARE PROBABLY GOING TO LOSE A FEW WEEKS OF THAT ANYWAY. I JUST WANT TO BE
PRACTICAL, BUT I ACCEPT YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BYLAWS.

>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, BUT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE AN ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTED COMMENT FOR THE RECORD.

WE HAVE AN ACKNOWLEDGED PROBLEM IN THE TIME LINE OF THE PDP. IT IS
DOCUMENTED IN THE EVALUATION OF THE COUNCIL. WE HAVE A PENDING WORK ITEM
THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS YET ON MODIFICATION OF THE PDP.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WILL HAVE AN
EXTENDED WORKING TIME LINE AND WE NEED TO DEVELOP THAT BASED ON THE NEXT
STAGE OF WORK THAT WE DO, ESTABLISH A REALISTIC WORK EXPECTATION, AND ADVISE
THE BOARD THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE -- BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS.
WE CAN ADVISE THE BOARD THAT WE ARE TAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE BYLAWS AND
HERE'S WHY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARIA, YEAH.

>>MARIA FARRELL: HI, SORRY. FOR THOSE IN THE ROOM WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I AM
MARIA FARRELL, I AM AN ICANN STAFFER, GNSO POLICY OFFICER. I JUST WANTED TO
ALSO MAKE A SUGGESTION OR A QUESTION. THE STAFF IS EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF
DOING FULL WORKING DAYS ON THESE PDP ISSUES.

CAN I SUGGEST THAT THE -- AS A QUESTION OF REPORTING AND PROCESS THAT WE
CONSIDER THESE AS WORKING DAYS AND THAT THE OUTPUT OF THE DAYS WILL BE THE
DEVELOPMENT THAT WE MAKE ON THE WORKING DRAFTS AS OPPOSED TO A FULL MINUTED
SESSION, JUST IN TERMS OF PRACTICALITY AND OUR ABILITY TO SUPPORT THIS. I'D
LOVE TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE WORKING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE THE OUTCOME.
BECAUSE IT ALSO, JUST IN PRACTICAL TERMS, WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO
MINUTE TWO FULL DAYS AND DO IT BEFORE A MEETING.

IT'S A QUESTION. SORRY, RIGHT, WELL, BASICALLY IF THE GNSO IS MEETING EITHER
THIS FULL COUNCIL OR IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY TURN UP BEFORE
THE MEETING, THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THIS A WORKING SESSION THAT DOESN'T, FOR
EXAMPLE, HAVE A FULL GNSO MINUTES THAT ARE PRODUCED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME
AFTER THE MEETING. THAT WE LOOK AT IT AS A WORKING SESSION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I JUST WANT TO SAY I UNDERSTAND THE TERMINOLOGY. WHEN YOU
USE THE TERM "WORKING" DO YOU MEAN DRAFTING SESSION? SO WE'RE DOING WHAT WE
JUST DID, IN OTHER WORDS? SO WHEN WE ARE FINISHED YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE
DRAFT.

>>MARIA FARRELL: SORRY, YES, THAT'S THE TERM. THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO JUST TO RECLARIFY, WE HAVE THE ABILITY AS THE COUNCIL TO
EITHER CREATE A TASK FORCE OR TO WORK AS A GROUP OF THE WHOLE. BUT WHEN WE
WORK AS A GROUP OF THE WHOLE, I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT CLARIFICATION, WE
ARE NOT ASSUMING THAT IS THE COUNCIL WORKING. WE ARE WORKING IN A POLICY
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS UNDER -- RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S CERTAINLY HOW WE HAVE
WORKED IN THE PAST WHEN THE COUNCIL HAS --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. IT'S THE COUNCIL WORKING AS A TASK FORCE WOULD. YEAH,
THAT'S CORRECT.

>>BRET FAUSETT: MARILYN IS CORRECT, THE BYLAWS DO SAY WE CAN DO ONE OF TWO
THINGS. WE CAN CREATE A TASK FORCE OR WE CAN DECIDE NOT TO CREATE A TASK
FORCE, AND THERE ARE SEPARATE PROVISIONS IN THE BYLAWS ON HOW WE WALK DOWN
THAT PATH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS IDNS, AND SOME
OF THE MORE SORT OF PLANNING NATURE OF THIS WE CAN FOLLOW-UP AFTER THE
MEETING.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, CERTAINLY, FOR THE PLANNING POINT OF VIEW. AND
DIANE SCHROEDER IN PARTICULAR, AND ALSO FOR THE NEW ZEALANDERS THAT ARE HERE
WITH RESPECT TO PLANNING THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE CONVEY THAT MESSAGE.

THE NEXT TOPIC IS A REQUEST FOR AN ISSUES REPORT ON IDNS. SO IF WE CAN GET
THAT ON THE SCREEN.

SO THIS HAS COME OUT, I GUESS, OF DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE PAST FEW
MONTHS AND LOOKING AT THE IDN WORKSHOP. MANY PRESENTATIONS ON -- I'VE GOT TO
TRY TO REMEMBER THE DAY NOW, BUT I THINK IT WAS WEDNESDAY, PRETTY MUCH
STARTED WITH WE WANT TO HAVE IDNS IN THE TOP LEVEL. AND THIS IS HOW WE
SUGGEST IT WORKS.

SO IT'S CLEARLY A STRONG DESIRE BOTH FROM COUNTRY CODE MANAGERS AND ALSO FROM
OPERATORS OF GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT AND CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE DOMAIN SPACE.

SO I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THAT'S ONE OF THE GOALS OF ICANN MORE BROADLY.

WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT TO DEAL WITH THIS TOPIC, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR
THE CCNSO AS WELL AS THE GNSO, AND I BELIEVE THE CCNSO WILL BE VOTING ON A
SIMILAR REQUEST AT THIS MEETING.

SO WE WISH TO LIAISE WITH THE CCNSO WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.

I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE MIGHT WANT TO SIMPLIFY THIS WORDING A LITTLE BIT ON
THE SECOND POINT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY EASIEST TO EXPRESS THIS
PARTICULAR ONE JUST SAYING WE WISH TO LIAISE CLOSELY WITH THE CCNSO WITH
RESPECT TO INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE. AND THEN FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REQUESTING AN ISSUES REPORT, IS JUST I THINK A SIMPLER WAY OF
SAYING IT WITHOUT GETTING INTO WORDS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS FOR
DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SO IF WE CAN JUST DELETE THAT FOR A SECOND. SO WE WISH TO
LIAISE CLOSELY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ABOVE, REALLY, WHICH IS
INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE GENERAL SENSE, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING
AN ISSUES REPORT.

YOU DON'T NEED TO WRITE THIS, MARIA. SORRY. IT'S ALL THERE.

OKAY. SO IF WE CAN GO DOWN TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS THE SPECIFICS OF
WHAT OUR REQUEST IS. THE GNSO ITSELF CAN ONLY REQUEST -- MAKE A FORMAL
REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. IF THE CCNSO MAKES A
SIMILAR REQUEST, YOU CAN COMBINE THOSE TWO. SO THE FIRST THING IS SAYING WE
REQUEST THE STAFF PRODUCE AN ISSUES REPORT ON THE POLICY ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH TRADING INTERNATIONALIZED EQUIVALENTS OF EXISTING GTLDS AND SECOND LEVEL
DOMAINS WITHIN THE EXISTING GTLDS. I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE MIGHT BE QUITE
EXPLICIT HERE, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THE GNSO COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THAT
THE STAFF ENGAGE APPROPRIATE EXPERT RESOURCES TO ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THAT ISSUES REPORT. BECAUSE I THINK POLICY STAFF HAVE A HUGE WORKLOAD AT THE
MOMENT AND CERTAINLY ON NEW GTLDS ITSELF WILL BE A MASSIVE TOPIC PROBABLY
REQUIRING TWO OR THREE PEOPLE. AND ON THIS AREA, SIMILAR TO, I THINK, IF WE
GET AS FAR AS A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I WOULD EXPECT THE CONSTITUENCI!

ES WOULD BE APPOINTING EXPERTS AS WELL RATHER THAN USING THE RESOURCES OF THE
COUNCIL. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT IN AT LEAST OUR EXPECTATION IS
THAT THE STAFF WOULD ENGAGE OUTSIDE EXPERTISE FOR THIS.

TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: BRUCE, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER SUPPORT FOR THAT. I THINK IT
OFFERS A GREAT WAY FORWARD THAT WOULD REALLY BRING SOME VERY QUICK BENEFITS
FOR ALL OF US. SO I'D LIKE TO OFFER MY SUPPORT.

>>CARY KARP: BRUCE, THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF EXPERT DISCUSSIONS CURRENTLY IN
PROGRESS TOWARD PRECISELY THIS END. WE MIGHT EXPECT AN IETF REPORT ON THIS.
I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TRIGGERED SPECIFICALLY BY THE WORKSHOP WE HELD
THE OTHER DAY. AND WE MIGHT WANT TO MAKE EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO OUR
COGNIZANCE OF THIS ACTIVITY BEING IN PROGRESS AND PERHAPS EQUALLY EXPLICIT
REFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IDN AS AN APPROPRIATE
POINT OF INTERACTION WITH THOSE EXTERNAL COMMUNITIES, AND NOT AS THE ONE OF
THE TWO GROUPS INFORMING THE OTHER, BUT AS BEING A TRUE INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE
OR BIDIRECTIONAL DIALOGUE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE GO BACK THAT UP A NOTCH? AFTER THE SECOND WHEREAS, CAN
WE CREATE ANOTHER WHEREAS?

WHEREAS, THE GNSO COUNCIL WISHES TO INTERACT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. IS THAT THE RIGHT WORDS? TO INTERACT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S --
WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. YOU CAN WORDSMITH THE EXACT TITLE LATER, MARIA, BUT
FOR THE MOMENT THAT WILL DO FOR THE SECOND.

WISHES TO INTERACT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IDNS, COMMA,
AND RECOGNIZES -- OR WISHING TO INTERACT WITH THE IAB. IS THAT THE RIGHT
WORDING?

>>CARY KARP: WE RECOGNIZE EFFORTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TOWARDS OUR SHARED GOAL,
AND REGARD THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE AS THE APPROPRIATE POINT OF INTERACTION
WITH THE EXTERNAL COMMUNITIES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WILL BE INTERACTING WITH THE IAB AND WE'LL BE INTERACTING WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>CARY KARP: THE BROADER DIALOGUE IS -- THE NEXUS OF IT ALL IS THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. AND WE WISH TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT OUR INTERESTS IN THIS
ARE MANIFEST, BUT THAT IT IS OUR DIALOGUE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE THAT IS THE POINT OF CONTACT WITH ALL THE ADDITIONAL DIALOGUES
GOING ON ALSO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

WE ARE NOT ASSUMING CONTROL OF AN ISSUE HERE THAT IS MULTI-PARTISAN AND BEING
DISCUSSED WITH EQUAL INTENSITY IN OTHER FORA. AND WE NEED TO SOMEHOW HARNESS
ALL OF THAT KNOWLEDGE AS WE PROCEED WITH THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IF
INDEED A FORMAL -- SUCH PROCESS IS NECESSARY.

SO HOW DO WE STATE OUR COGNIZANCE OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON AT THIS
VERY MOMENT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: THE COMMENT I'LL MAKE ON THAT IS I THINK CARY IS RIGHT, WE
NEED TO HAVE THAT INTERACTION.

BUT THE POLICY ASPECTS, I THINK, LIVE HERE. AND BEARING IN MIND CARY'S
POINT, WE CAN ACTUALLY RESOLVE THAT BY TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE
APPOINT THE EXPERTS THAT WILL SUPPORT THE COUNCIL.

SO I THINK YOU CAN COVER IT OFF IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT
THE LINKAGE SHOULD COME THROUGH THE EXPERTS THAT WE PULL INTO THE PROCESS,
TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK CARY'S CORRECT IN THAT WE SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE
THE FACT THAT WE -- WE KNOW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE
HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME, JUST AS WE KNOW ABOUT THE CCNSO AND WE PLAN TO
INTERACT.

SO IF I CAN JUST SORT OF GET THE CONTEXT, WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL RECOGNIZES
EFFORTS CURRENTLY UNDER WAY IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. DO WE WANT TO BE
SPECIFIC ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, CARY, LIKE THE IETF OR IAB OR LEAVE IT GENERAL
LIKE THAT?

>>CARY KARP: ACTUALLY, IT IS THE CONSTITUENCIES THAT ARE PARTICIPATORY IN THE
PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO THE AGENCIES EXTERNAL TO ICANN WHICH ARE
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES OF CLEAR PRESENT CONCERN TO COUNCIL --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU ARE SAYING THEY HAVE REPRESENTATION.

>>CARY KARP: -- IN THAT GROUP.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I UNDERSTAND. MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE AN EXAMPLE I WOULD LIKE TO EXAMINE FOR A MOMENT, CARY.

THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY GROUP IS, IN FACT, AN ADVISORY GROUP ABOUT A WIDE
RANGE OF ISSUES, BUT WE ARE THE POLICY BODY. AND THERE WILL BE SOME OTHER
GROUPS WHO TAKE UP A DISCUSSION ABOUT IDN POLICY. AND I MIGHT ACTUALLY BE
SPENDING TIME AT ONE OF THEM CALLED THE ITU, FROM TIME TO TIME.

I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE INTERACTION OF THIS
COUNCIL, WHICH IS ABOUT POLICY, IN TERMS OF POSITIONS OR INTERACTION ABOUT
POLICY DISCUSSIONS THAT MIGHT EMERGE IN SUCH A SETTING WOULD ONLY GO THROUGH
THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, AND I THINK I
NOW UNDERSTAND WHERE TONY AND MARILYN ARE COMING FROM, IF WE SAY WHEREAS THE
GNSO COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THE TECHNICAL EFFORTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IN OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, AND WHICH ARE -- WHICH ARE REPRESENTED ON THE PRESIDENT'S
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND JUST COMMA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: RECOGNIZES AND WISHES TO BE INFORMED BY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, YES.

>>CARY KARP: TO INFORM AND BE INFORMED BY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. SO WHAT CARY IS SAYING IT'S -- IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
POLICIES, WE MIGHT BE SAYING WE HAVE A POLICY ON THIS AND WE WANT THE
TECHNICAL STANDARDS TO BE UPDATED TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT POLICY,
AS AN EXAMPLE, SO IT IS A DIALOGUE.

OKAY.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLY: EXCUSE ME, BRUCE, WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH THIS IS FOR
ISSUES PAPER JOINTLY PRODUCED. THAT WAS MONDAY WHEN WE FIRST MET WHEN WE
CAME UP WITH THAT PROPOSAL. AND IN THE WEEK THAT WE HAD HERE, AN AWFUL LOT
SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED OR AT LEAST OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO A LOT OF
ACTIVITY IN THE IDN AREA, PARTICULARLY IN THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THINGS.

I AM WONDERING IF OUR MONDAY IDEA OF HAVING A JOINT ISSUE PAPER IS NOW NOT
THE RIGHT IDEA. I AM WONDERING IF THERE'S ANOTHER POLICY APPROACH THAT WE
CAN TAKE TO IT THAT MIGHT FAST TRACK OUR WORK, AND THAT MIGHT, IN FACT,
REFLECT SOME OF THE SENSE OF URGENCY THAT CAME OUT OF THE SESSIONS THAT I
ATTENDED AND THAT I HEARD OTHERS ATTENDING.

I'M NOT SURE. IT'S A QUESTION WHETHER WE CAN --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK, MAUREEN, TO ADDRESS THAT, AND I HAVE HEARD THAT IN
SOME OTHER CONTEXTS, OUR MECHANISM IS WE ARE THE POLICY BODY AND OUR
MECHANISM FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THAT IS TO
FOLLOW THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING POLICY. NOW, I ACCEPT AS PART OF THAT, AND
WE HAD THIS DEBATE NOT JUST THIS WEEK BUT IN EARLIER MEETINGS, THAT THE
DIFFICULTY IS A LOT OF DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE AT A TECHNICAL LEVEL IN
MANY CASES ARE POLICY DECISIONS. AND THEY DO HAVE IMPACTS WELL INTO THE
FUTURE WHEN THOSE CHANGES ARE MADE.

SO I THINK IF I UNDERSTOOD THE COUNCIL'S VIEW AT THE TIME WHEN WE DISCUSSED
THIS A MONTH OR SO AGO WAS IT WAS IMPORTANT TO START IDENTIFYING THE POLICY
ISSUES AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE HERE. AND ONCE WE HAVE GOT THOSE ISSUES CLEARLY
EXPLAINED IN AN ISSUES REPORT, WE CAN THEN MAKE AN APPROPRIATE DECISION AS TO
NEXT STEPS.

WE CAN CERTAINLY, AND WE HAVE IN THE PAST, WE REQUEST AN ISSUES REPORT ON
SECONDARY MARKET. WE HAVE A PLANNING MECHANISM THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING TO,
IN SOME CASES, PLACE WORK ON HOLD, IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. OR IF THERE'S AN
URGENCY. AND I THINK THERE IS AN URGENCY IN THIS CASE, TO START PUTTING IN
RESOURCES AND PLANNING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

SO IT MAY BE THAT AFTER THE ISSUES REPORT AND AFTER WE GET ALL THE INPUT THAT
CARY HAS MENTIONED, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE IAB IS ABOUT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT
AND SO ON.

WELL, THAT WOULD ALL NATURALLY FLOW INTO AN ISSUES REPORT. AND FROM THAT, WE
CAN DECIDE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS.

SO WE'RE NOT -- BECAUSE AT THE END OF AN ISSUES REPORT, YOU CAN ACTUALLY
DECIDE NOT TO DO ANYTHING, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

BUT THE WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS THIS IS TO ACTUALLY GET THE ISSUES CLEARLY
BROUGHT TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE BECAUSE THEY ARE SPREAD OUT, AND INTO A SINGLE
DOCUMENT THAT'S AIMED AT THE COUNCIL AS AN AUDIENCE, AND THAT DOCUMENT CAN
THEN BE UPDATED AS WELL AS NEW MATERIAL COMES TO LIGHT.

>>CARY KARP: TWO COMMENTS ON THE TIME THING.

SOMEONE, PERHAPS IN PRESENT COMPANY, USED THE DELIGHTFUL METAPHOR OF THE IDN
SITUATION AS BEING ONE WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THE LIGHTNING BUT WE HAVEN'T YET
HEARD THE THUNDER. AND THAT INDICATES THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE NEED TO
RESPOND TO THIS.

AND I'M ALSO DISCOMFITED BY THE NOTION OF, OKAY, WE KNOW THAT THE TIME LINE
SPECIFIED IN THE BYLAWS IS DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE IN PRACTICE. BUT SIMPLY
CYNICALLY DISREGARDING IT IS PERHAPS NOT QUITE APPROPRIATE TO A BODY SUCH AS
THE COUNCIL.

CAN WE HAVE AN EXPLICIT "WHEREAS" OR WHATEVER IN THIS MOTION WAIVING THE TIME
LINE IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THIS ISSUE IS KIND OF DRIVING ITSELF?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING WITH NEW TLDS.

>>CARY KARP: RIGHT, BUT HAVE EXPLICIT VERBIAGE HERE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S DO THAT, LET'S CREATE A WHEREAS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S
A WORTHWHILE THING TO DO. SO WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THE TIME
LINES IN THE ICANN BYLAWS.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE REVIEW LAST TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET ME FINISH THIS. WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES
THE TIME LINES IN THE ICANN BYLAWS.

>>AVRI DORIA: AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY JUST BEFORE WE -- IF WE CAN HAVE A PHRASE JUST BEFORE THE
"AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS ISSUE." SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE TIME LINES OF THE
ICANN BYLAWS, COMMA, AND RECOGNIZE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL
REVIEW TO REVIEW THOSE TIME LINES, COMMA. HANG ON.

TO REVISE THOSE TIME LINES. AND GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS ISSUE, COMMA,
THE GNSO COUNCIL WILL DEVELOP A WORK PLAN. ANY WORK PLAN WE DEVELOP WAS
APPROPRIATE, BUT PERHAPS WE NEED TO BE EXPLICIT.

WILL DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE WORK PLAN THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE ICANN
COMMUNITY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T WANT PARTICULAR DATES OR ANYTHING
BUT I WANT TO GET THE SENSE THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT AS AN ISSUE.

OKAY?

NEXT. OKAY. THE GNSO COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THAT THE STAFF ENGAGE APPROPRIATE
EXPERT RESOURCES TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF AN ISSUES REPORT ON THE
POLICY ISSUES.

OKAY. AND THEN THE GNSO ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE STAFF LIAISE.

>>ROSS RADER: BRUCE, ON THAT POINT, I THINK WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE NOTION OF
RETAINING -- OR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO RETAIN OUTSIDE HELP ON THIS FROM
THE REQUEST TO PRODUCE AN ISSUES REPORT. WE ARE REQUESTING AN ISSUES REPORT.
WE STILL WANT ONE WHETHER OR NOT YOU FIND OUTSIDE HELP, I THINK IS THE KEY
TAKE-AWAY FOR ME.

WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU GET OUTSIDE HELP TO DO THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'LL SEPARATE THAT INTO TWO SENTENCES. SO THE GNSO COUNCIL
RECOMMENDS -- NO,.

THE GNSO COUNCIL REQUESTS AN ISSUES REPORT. AND NOW A NEW SENTENCE BELOW
THAT.

THE GNSO COUNCIL RECOMMENDS IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ISSUES REPORT, AND THEN
THE GNSO COUNCIL WILL REQUEST. SO I THINK THAT'S OKAY.

ANY OTHER WORDSMITHING?

I THINK WE HAVE PROBABLY GOT ENOUGH SENTIMENTS IN THERE.

SO AT THAT POINT, THEN, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO PROPOSE THIS AS A MOTION AND
SECOND IT? LUCY AND TOM.

AL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALL THOSE AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? ROSS, YOU ARE ABSTAINING?
OKAY. NOTE THAT ABSTENTION.

AND THEN GRANT AND ALICK, HOW DO YOU VOTE ON THIS REQUEST?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: VOTE FOR.

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK, I VOTE FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'LL NOTE THE MOTION AS PASSED.

>>ROSS RADER: BRUCE, IF I COULD REGISTER A NOTE ALONG WITH MY ABSTENTION FOR
THE RECORD?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE.

>>ROSS RADER: I FULLY SUPPORT THE INTENT OF THIS MOTION AND THE OUTCOMES WE
WILL GET FROM IT. MY ABSTENTION IS SIMPLY THAT -- MY REASON FOR ABSTAINING
FROM THIS VOTE IS THAT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH EXPLICITLY PASSING A MOTION
THAT URGES US TO IGNORE THE BYLAWS. SO IT'S SIMPLY JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL
PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT. BUT I DO SUPPORT EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE DOING AROUND
THIS MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WE'LL NOTE THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING.

OKAY. THERE'S ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO, JUST AS ITEM 4, AND THEN I THINK
WE NEED TO PICK UP ANY OTHER BUSINESS. ITEM 4 OF THE AGENDA IS NOTING THAT
WE WILL HAVE SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS LEAVING US AT THE END OF THIS ICANN
MEETING. AND THEY ARE PHILIP COLEBROOK, WHO WAS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY; AND JUNE SEO IS REPLACING PHILIP. ALICK
WILSON IS LEAVING, AND I CAN'T RECALL WHO IS REPLACING ALICK, BUT I BELIEVE
IT'S SOPHIA BEKELE, A DELEGATE FROM AFRICA OR FROM THE AFRICAN REGION. AND
ALSO NIKLAS LAGERGREN, AND WE HAVE UTE DECKER JOINING US. SO I WOULD LIKE TO
FORMALLY EXPRESS THANKS FOR THOSE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND IN PARTICULAR
THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT HERE, WHICH ARE ALICK AND NIKLAS, FOR THE EFFORT THEY
HAVE PUT IN IN THE PAST YEAR OR TWO. AND IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN A VERY BUSY
TIME FOR THE COUNCIL DURING THAT PERIOD. SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE HUGE EFFORTS
REQUIRED THERE.

AND IF I COULD JUST CALL FOR A FORMAL VOTE OF THANKS ON THAT TOPIC.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?

AND ANY ABSTENTIONS?

THANK YOU. OKAY. I WILL FORMALLY NOTE THE THANKS DURING MY PRESENTATION TO
THE BOARD.

>>ALICK WILSON: BRUCE, THIS IS ALICK, MAY I SAY A FEW WORDS?

(APPLAUSE.).

>>ALICK WILSON: I JUST WANT TO SAY NOT GOODBYE. THE NEXT MEETING OF ICANN
WILL BE IN WELLINGTON, AND I CERTAINLY WILL BE ATTENDING. A FEW NOTES ABOUT
MY TIME. I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST BATCH OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTEES
TO COUNCIL. IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING LEARNING AND CHALLENGING EXPERIENCE.
BECAUSE I CAME AS A NONCOM APPOINTEE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT IN
INTERNET MATTERS, THERE WAS A LOT OF LEARNING, A LOT OF UNDERSTANDING TO GO
THROUGH.

I'VE MET SOME VERY -- LOTS OF INTERESTING PEOPLE, AND I WILL VALUE THE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT I FORMED AND I INTEND TO MAINTAIN THOSE.

I WANT TO SAY ABOUT ICANN THAT I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE BOTTOM-UP
CONSENSUS DRIVEN MODEL, AND AS ICANN BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BODY FOR THE
GOVERNING OF THE CORE INTERNET. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AN ACTIVE
INTEREST IN SUPPORTING ICANN'S CONTINUING ROLE AND CONTINUING EVOLUTION.

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT DURING MY TIME, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU
IN WELLINGTON.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ALICK.

NIKLAS.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I WON'T BE AS ELOQUENT AS ALICK, BUT I JUST WANTED TO
THANK ALL OF YOU. IT'S BEEN, FOR ME, TWO VERY INTERESTING YEARS, AND I HAVE
NOTABLY VERY MUCH ENJOYED WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO TAKE THEIR WORK VERY
SERIOUSLY, BUT WHO DON'T TAKE THEMSELVES VERY SERIOUSLY. AND I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING I HAVE ENJOYED VERY MUCH IN THE ICANN SETTING.

AND IT'S ONE OF MY LAST DAYS NOW ON THE GNSO, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON ICANN ISSUES THROUGH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. AND
THANKS FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, NIKLAS.

KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: I'D JUST LIKE TO RESPOND TO NIKLAS. DOES YOUR LAST OFFER THERE
MEAN THAT WE CAN WAKE YOU UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT FOR THE NAMES COUNCIL
SESSION IN WELLINGTON?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT FOR THE WHOIS TASK FORCE.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: SO I'M SURE THAT CAN BE EXTENDED TO OTHER TOPICS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO THAT I GUESS BRINGS US TO ANY OTHER BUSINESS. AND I NOTE PHILIP
SHEPPARD POSTED A MOTION OR PROPOSED MOTION ON PROBABLY WEDNESDAY.

DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES, BRUCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I POSTED EARLIER A PROPOSED MOTION, AND FOLLOWING SOME FEEDBACK ON THE
COUNCIL LIST I POSTED EARLIER TODAY A PROPOSED COMPROMISE MOTION. I THINK WE
ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING THAT UP ON SCREEN IN JUST A MOMENT. THE COMPROMISE
MOTION IS SHORTER AND SIMPLER THAN THE EARLIER MOTION, YOU WILL BE DELIGHTED
TO HEAR. AND I WILL READ THAT FOR THE RECORD WHILE WE ARE BRINGING THAT UP.

SO WHEREAS, THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES PARTICIPATED IN REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, THIS OF COURSE RELATES TO THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT WHEREAS THE
GNSO CONSTITUENCIES PARTICIPATED IN REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND
HAVE DETAILED STATEMENTS ON ISSUES OF CONCERN.

WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE PRINCIPLE OF A SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN.

WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL DOES NOT SUPPORT ALL ARTICLES WITHIN THIS PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT.

WHEREAS THE GNSO COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE BROADER QUESTIONS RAISED IN
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT THAT NEED TO BE FIRST ADDRESSED BY THE GNSO.

THE GNSO COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT THE ICANN BOARD SHOULD POSTPONE ADOPTION OF
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WHILE THE COUNCIL FULLY INVESTIGATES THE POLICY
ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

SO THAT'S THE PROPOSED MOTION FOR COUNCIL TODAY.

>>AVRI DORIA: BRUCE, CAN I ASK?

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST BEFORE WE GO INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS.

AND THAT'S, IN THIS DISCUSSION, ASK ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO A FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THEIR POTENTIAL INTERESTS OR INVOLVEMENT IN ANY ISSUES AS WE'RE
GOING THROUGH THAT JUST TO MAKE THAT ALL EXPLICIT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE, YEAH.

>>AVRI DORIA: THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT NOW, THEN?

OKAY.

I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MY INTERESTS ARE.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND CAN I JUST NOTE A CLARIFICATION?

BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT.

NOTING A CONFLICT WITHIN THE ICANN -- IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTE OUR
CONFLICTS.

BUT HAVING A CONFLICT DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THE COUNCILLORS FROM
ENGAGING IN FULL DISCUSSION, NOR IN VOTING.

SO I JUST WANT TO BE SURE, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE
AUDIENCE AND WATCHING THE WEBCAST, THE COUNCIL ADHERES TO THE SAME KIND OF
CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD ADHERES TO.

>>AVRI DORIA: YEAH, OBVIOUSLY.

IF I HAD MEANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE QUIET, I WOULDN'T HAVE ASKED THEM TO NOTE
THEIR DISCLOSURE BEFORE SPEAKING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SO --

>>ALICK WILSON: THIS IS ALICK.

MAY I SPEAK?

I'M A NOM -- NOMINEE FOR THE APPOINTEE.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT.

I AM ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT IN THIS MATTER.

MY ONLY INTEREST IS AS AN END USER OF THE INTERNET, A LONG WAY REMOVED FROM
THE (INAUDIBLE).

I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO RECEIVE A PROXY FROM ANYBODY WHO FEELS CONFLICTED
AND TO VOTE IT AS I SEE FIT, IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN TRUST ME TO DO SO
APPROPRIATELY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ALICK.

OKAY.

MY STATEMENT -- MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN.

I WORK FOR A REGISTRAR CALLED MELBOURNE I.T.

MELBOURNE I.T. WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOMES OF THE PROPOSED DOT COM
AGREEMENT.

MELBOURNE I.T. ALSO HAS A SHARE HOLDING, I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 10%, IN ONE
OF THE REGISTRY OPERATORS, WHICH IS DOT BIZ.

THAT'S MY STATEMENT.

WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE.

ONLY REALLY STATE IF YOU THINK THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, RATHER THAN
STATE YOUR LIFE STORY.

PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: PHILIP SHEPPARD, BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT IN THIS ISSUE.

>>MARILYN CADE: MARILYN CADE, BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT IN THIS ISSUE.

>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES, ISPS.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT.

>>GREG RUTH: GREG RUTH.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT.

>>TONY HARRIS: TONY HARRIS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CONFLICT.

>>ROBIN GROSS: ROBIN GROSS WITH NCUC.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: NORBERT KLEIN.

NONCOMMERCIAL.

NO CONFLICT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: TOM KELLER.

I'M WORKING FOR A REGISTRAR IN GERMANY. WE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE DOT COM
AGREEMENT, AND WE, AS WELL, HOLD A SHAREHOLDING FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES IN
AFILIAS.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: I'M LUCY NICHOLS, AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY IMMEDIATE
CONFLICT, ALTHOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO DISCLOSE THAT I WORK FOR NOKIA
CORPORATION, WHO'S PART OF THE JOINT VENTURE FOR DOT MOBI.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN, IPC.

I HAVE NO CONFLICTS.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: MAUREEN CUBBERLEY, NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE APPOINTEE.

I HAVE NO CONFLICT.

>>AVRI DORIA: AVRI DORIA, NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE APPOINTEE.

I HAVE TO CONFLICT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT, OBVIOUSLY, AFFECTED BY ANYTHING THAT IS CONTAINED
IN THE REGISTRY CONTRACT.

>>KEN STUBBS: KEN STUBBS, AGAIN, THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

I'M A DIRECTOR OF AFILIAS.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS.



>>ROSS RADER: ROSS RADER, REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

AS A MEMBER OF ICANN, I BELIEVE WE'RE ALL AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE.

(LAUGHTER.)

(APPLAUSE.)

>>ROSS RADER: I WORK FOR TUCOWS, TUCOWS IS A SHAREHOLDER OF AFILIAS
CORPORATION, A REGISTRY.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY OTHER INTERESTS.

BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO PUT THEM ON THE TABLE AT ANY TIME.

SO....

>>BRET FAUSETT: I'M BRET FAUSETT.

I'M A NONVOTING LIAISON, REPRESENTING THE AT LARGE.

I THINK THE AT LARGE ARE AFFECTED.

PERSONALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A CONFLICT, BUT I'VE DISCLOSED THIS BEFORE,
BUT I -- MY FAMILY TRUST OWNS A DE MINIMUS AMOUNT OF STOCK IN TUCOWS, NEUSTAR
STAR, AND VERISIGN.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, BRET.

KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS: I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR ME TO DISCLOSE THAT
JUNE SEO, THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, IS AN
EMPLOYEE OF VERISIGN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KEN.

MAUREEN.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: YES, BRUCE.

I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION, IF I COULD ASK FOR ONE, PLEASE.

IT WAS STATED THAT IF A CONFLICT IS DECLARED, THAT DOES NOT PREVENT A
COUNCILLOR FROM ENGAGING IN DISCUSSION OR VOTING.

IS THAT WHAT I HEARD EARLIER?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT WAS WHAT YOU HEARD, YES.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: OKAY.

I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.

I UNDERSTAND.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: AND, INDEED, I HAVE LOOKED UP THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
POLICY ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.

SECTION 4, DUTY TO ABSTAIN, 4.1, STATES:"NO DIRECTOR SHALL VOTE ON ANY MATTER
IN WHICH HE OR SHE HAS A MATERIAL OR DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE."

SO I'D LIKE TO BRING THAT TO OUR COUNCIL'S ATTENTION.

AS WELL, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLOSURE, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER STEP, WHICH IS
DETERMINING CONFLICT.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT.

>>MARILYN CADE: MAUREEN -- BRUCE, COULD I CLARIFY?

MAUREEN, YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT TO BE MORE PARTICULAR.

I JUST MEANT DEPENDING ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WE MIGHT NOT.

BECAUSE IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT WE'RE VOTING
ON WHETHER WE WOULD NEED TO RECUSE OURSELVES.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: YES.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THIS PARTICULAR POLICY THAT PREVENTS A COUNCILLOR
FROM DISCUSSING SOMETHING.

HOWEVER, TO ME, IT SEEMS QUITE CLEAR THAT VOTING IS ANOTHER MATTER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH

LET ME --

>>CARY KARP: BRUCE, POINT OF ORDER.

ARE WE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE WILL BECOME INQUORIED BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS
OF US WHO ARE SITTING IN AN UNCERTAIN SITUATION HERE?

REGISTRIES ARE IMPACTED.

BUT DOES THAT, INDEED, GO ACROSS THE BORDER TO GENUINE CONFLICT HERE?

SO WE ARE ABOUT TO PUT OURSELVES INTO A POSITION WHERE WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
CALL ANY QUESTION RELATING TO THIS ISSUE.

>> OR, INDEED, ANYTHING ELSE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S CLARIFY THE POINT OF ORDER TOPIC.

THE MEETING IS IN -- WE HAVE QUORUM FOR THE MEETING.

SO WE'RE IN SESSION.

I THINK THAT'S A BIT SEPARATE FROM WHETHER YOU HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS A
MOTION.

BUT I THINK THE QUORUM RELATES TO THE MEETING, DOESN'T RELATE TO THE TOPIC.

AND SO WE DO HAVE QUORUM, AND WE ARE MEETING AS THE GNSO COUNCIL.

WITH RESPECT TO -- AND AS ALICK HAS MENTIONED, THERE IS THE OPTION FOR
SOMEBODY TO PASS A PROXY TO ANOTHER PARTY AND ASK THEM TO VOTE THAT PROXY AS
THEY SEE FIT, AS DISTINCT FROM GIVING THEM VOTING INSTRUCTIONS.

I'D LIKE TO, I GUESS, DECLARE AT THIS POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO STEP DOWN AS
CHAIR ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, BECAUSE I THINK HAVING LISTENED TO MAUREEN
AND ALSO THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I'D FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE CHAIRING A DISCUSSION ON
THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO STEP IN TO CHAIR THIS DISCUSSION, I'M HAPPY TO TALK
ABOUT THE POINTS OF ORDER.

BUT THE CONTENT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.

>>ROSS RADER: BEFORE WE DO THAT, BRUCE, I -- MAUREEN IS QUOTING FROM ICANN'S
BYLAWS HERE.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY THAT AFFECTS THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION.

NONE OF US, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, ARE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

SO I WANT TO REQUEST THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AROUND
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE POLICIES THAT ARE
GOVERNING OUR BEHAVIORS AND NOT --

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: ROSS, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND BY SAYING THAT THE REASON I
LOOKED UP THAT POLICY WAS BECAUSE THE OTHER PART OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE
OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS IS THAT WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONFLICT OF
INTEREST POLICY AS IS THE BOARD.

>>ROSS RADER: THAT'S MY QUESTION, IS, ARE WE?

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

ARE WE?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: JUST A COMMENT ON THIS.

I FELT THAT WITH THIS PARTICULAR MOTION, WE WERE VOTING REFLECTING THE VIEWS
ON THIS ISSUE FROM OUR CONSTITUENCIES AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS.

SO I THINK THE SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANYWAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DECLARE OUR CONFLICTS.

I'VE BEEN A PRETTY CLOSE OBSERVER OF HOW WE IMPLEMENT AND PRACTICE.

AND I DO THINK WE SHOULD, IN RELATION TO CONFLICTS.

AND I DO THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A COUPLE OF THINGS INTO ACCOUNT.

TONY JUST MADE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.

WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY, AS COUNCILLORS, TO PASS A PROXY WITHOUT INSTRUCTION
TO A NEUTRAL PARTY.

WE HAVE TWO SUCH NEUTRAL PARTIES, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

WE HAVE A PAST PRACTICE OF PASSING THE CHAIR WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT TO THE
PAST CHAIR.

MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT YOU PASS THE CHAIR TO THE PAST -- PAST CHAIR

CAN I GET -- I'VE GOT TO GET ALL MY PHRASES IN HERE CORRECTLY -- AND THAT WE
CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AND THAT COUNCILLORS PASS A NEUTRAL, WITHOUT
INSTRUCTION, PROXY TO ONE OF THE TWO NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND WE
ADDRESS THIS TOPIC AND WE CAN THEN SEE IF WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS.

I THINK WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE RESOLUTION IS REPORTING ON THE STATE OF
DISCUSSION IN THE CONSTITUENCIES AND IDENTIFYING THAT THERE ARE -- THERE'S
POLICY WORK THAT WE THINK IS OURS TO BE DONE, AND THAT WE WANT TO ADVISE THE
BOARD THAT WE INTEND TO DEVELOP THAT POLICY PROCESS.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DISCUSS OR DEAL WITH.

KEEPING IN ACCOUNT THE SAFEGUARDS THAT WE'VE JUST -- THAT I'VE JUST LAID OUT
OR JUST PROPOSED.

>>ROSS RADER: I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THOSE SAFEGUARDS ARE UNNECESSARY, MARILYN.

EVERYBODY AT THIS TABLE IS A STAKEHOLDER.

WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE.

>>MARILYN CADE: ROSS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL IF WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD AND NOT SPEND OUR NEXT 30 MINUTES.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO END THIS MEETING AT 1:30 IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO OPEN
THE -- THEIR PUBLIC FORUM.

SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL IF WE COULD SEE A SHOW OF HANDS
FROM THE COUNCILLORS THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PROCEED UNDER THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT I DO WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

LET ME JUST SAY THE FOLLOWING: IF WE CAN'T CONCLUDE THIS BY 1:30, THEN I WILL
PUT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW A PROPOSAL WE RECONVENE AFTER THE BOARD'S PUBLIC
FORUM AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND CONTINUE OUR WORK ON THIS.

THIS IS OUR JOB.

>>CARY KARP: ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER.

I'M REALLY AFRAID OF THIS.

IF WE ARE HERE NOT AS INDIVIDUALS WITH POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL CONFLICT, BUT AS
REGISTRIES, THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE VERISIGN IS A MEMBER
OF IT, IS CONFLICTED.

HOW DO WE PROCEED, CHAIR?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT CHAIRING IT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT -- LET ME JUST
EXPLAIN.

I THINK INDIVIDUAL COUNCILLORS NEED TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION AS TO WHETHER
THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN DISCUSS THE TOPIC.

THAT'S THEIR DECISION AFTER THEY'VE DECLARED THEIR CONFLICT.

I'M GOING TO HAND OVER THE CHAIR OF THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION TO PHILIP SHEPPARD,
WHO IS THE IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR.

AND I WILL NOT BE VOTING OR PARTICIPATING DIRECTLY IN THIS DISCUSSION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IF COUNCIL IS ACCEPTABLE, I ACCEPT THE CHAIR.

THANK YOU, BRUCE.

I THINK FOR ME, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF PRACTICALITY.

THE VERY NATURE OF THE CONSTRUCT OF COUNCIL IS THAT WE'RE ALL INVOLVED IN
THINGS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON ONE OR OTHER CONSTITUENCY IN
DIFFERENT WAYS.

THAT IS THE WAY WE ARE SET UP.

OUR VOTING PROCEDURES ARE SUCH THAT ABSTENTIONS COUNT AS A VOTE AGAINST.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

SO MY FEELING WOULD BE IT IS ILLOGICAL IN TERMS OF THE CONSTRUCT OF THIS
ORGANIZATION IF WE ARE TO FEEL THAT ANYTHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE
CONSTRUED AS SUCH A CONFLICT IN THIS, UNLESS IT IS ABSOLUTELY KEY TO THE
INDIVIDUAL COUNCILLOR, WOULD BE ABSURD TO NOT EXERCISE A NORMAL RIGHT OF
VOTING ON THAT.

AND MY ADVICE WOULD BE, TO ANY COUNCILLOR WHO FEELS, NEVERTHELESS, THAT THEY
WOULD WISH TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS, THAT THEY DO, THEREFORE, PASS A PROXY
TO WHOEVER THEY FEEL APPROPRIATE TO PASS A PROXY TO.

BUT NOT ABSTENTIONS ON THE TABLE

IS COUNCIL HAPPY WITH THAT GUIDANCE?

OKAY.

I'M ASSUMING FROM THE SILENCE THERE THAT COUNCIL IS HAPPY WITH THAT GUIDANCE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE THAT MOTION THAT WAS READ EARLIER AND PROPOSED ON THE TABLE.

DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT MOTION?

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT, TO MAKE ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR
SPEAK OTHERWISE.

TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: YES.

I'D LIKE TO REFLECT A COMMENT THAT CERTAINLY CAME OUT OF OUR CONSTITUENCY
DISCUSSIONS WITH REGARDS TO THIS, AND I GATHER IN SOME OTHER CONSTITUENCIES
AS WELL, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A HARD DATE PUT ON THIS FOR RESOLVING THE
ISSUE, AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT -- OUR ADVICE SHOULD BE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE
CONCLUDED PRIOR TO THE WELLINGTON MEETING.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.

WE HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR ADDING A HARD DATE TO THIS AS PART OF THE
RESOLUTION.

IS ANY COUNCILLOR OPPOSED TO THAT IDEA OF ADDING A DATE TO THIS BEFORE WE
DECIDE EXACTLY WHAT DAY THAT MAY BE?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: PHILIP, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNREALISTIC TO SET A
STRICT TIME LINE ON THIS.

AND THE WAY YOU HAVE WORDED THE PROPOSAL I THINK ALREADY STRONGLY GIVES --
SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THIS IS -- ISSUE IS VERY SERIOUS ISSUES THAT HAVE TO
BE ADDRESSED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

AND I DON'T REALLY -- I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIT ARTIFICIAL TO ADD A SPECIFIC
DATE.

I PERSONALLY SUPPORT THE WORDING AS YOU PUT IT FORWARD HERE ON THE SCREEN IN
FRONT OF US.

>>MARILYN CADE: I -- I JUST NEED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT
BUT IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTENT.

THERE -- THE BOARD'S PUBLIC FORUM WILL START VERY SHORTLY, AND WE NEED TO
HAVE A BREAK FOR THE WEB CAST AND THE TRANSCRIPTIONISTS.

SO WE ARE ENDING.

AND WE APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT

AND NO ONE ELSE KNOWS -- I WAS JUST ASKED TO ANNOUNCE IT.

WE'RE ENDING THAT FOR THE PERIOD RIGHT NOW UP TO THE START OF THE BOARD
PUBLIC FORUM.

SO WHAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO IS TO RE- -- IS FIGURE -- SPEND OUR REMAINING
MINUTES IN FIGURING OUT WHEN WE CAN RESUME THIS DISCUSSION IN ORDER TO HAVE
THE NECESSARY SUPPORT TO CONTINUE IT.

APOLOGIZE FOR DROPPING THAT ON YOU ALL.

BUT I THOUGHT I SHOULD ADVISE YOU.

>>KEN STUBBS: I APOLOGIZE

I'D LIKE TO --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: KEN, GO AHEAD.

>>KEN STUBBS: WE DO THE BEST TO PARTICIPATE AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

WE WORK ON DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES.

WE ELECTED THIS MORNING TO TAKE THE SESSION PRIOR TO THE NAMES COUNCIL
SESSION OVER FOR ALMOST AN HOUR.

THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS.

I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO RUN THIS BODY.

IF WE CANNOT STICK BY OUR TIMETABLE.

I'M SURE THAT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT
THIS ISSUE WAS GOING TO BE TABLED THIS AFTERNOON.

YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR, PHILIP, YOU AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD COMMENTS ON THIS
MOTION, THAT THAT WAS THE TAKE.

WHAT YOU'VE DONE NOW IS YOU'VE TABLED THE MOTION AND PUT IT INTO A SITUATION
WHERE, FRANKLY, MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS TABLE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
PARTICIPATE ON THIS THING.

WE'VE GOT TO -- WE CAN'T -- THIS IS NOT THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OR THE SENATE.

WE DON'T WORK ON MIDNIGHT SESSIONS ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

I'M SORRY, BUT I REALLY AM VERY DISTURBED BY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING
NOW.

WE COULD HAVE VERY WELL SHUT THE MORNING SESSION OFF ON TIME AND GONE INTO
THIS SESSION AND GOTTEN THIS OUT OF THE WAY.

AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING LATER ON.

AND I JUST AM VERY DISTURBED BY THIS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY, ROSS, JUST THIS POINT, I TAKE YOU.

MY GUIDANCE ON THIS IS THE FOLLOWING: THIS IS A MOTION THAT WE SUBMITTED.

IT IS HIGHLY TIMELY.

IT HAS NO MEANING IF WE DELAY SIGNIFICANTLY TAKING THIS.

IF WE CAN'T HAVE ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR TAKING THIS MOTION, THAT
DOES NOT -- THAT DOES NOT IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF US AS COUNCIL TO CARRY ON
AND TAKE OUR DECISION.

I THINK WE SHOULD, ANYWAY, DO SO.

AND I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO EXPEDITE THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

I RECOGNIZE -- AND WE WILL MINUTE THAT AND MINUTE ANYTHING WE TAKE FULLY.

AS WE DO SO, I RECOGNIZE ROSS FIRST.

>>ROSS RADER: I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MOTION.

THE SECOND "WHEREAS," AT LEAST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MY CONSTITUENCY, THIS
IS AN ISSUE THAT WE SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION OF.

WE DO NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, BUT SIMPLY
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ISSUE.

AND I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT THE TEXT TO BE AMENDED TO READ "SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN."

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

IS EVERYBODY ELSE HAPPY WITH THAT?

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THAT AMENDMENT IS SO NOTED.

CARY.

>>CARY KARP: GIVEN THE EXTREME PRESSURE OF TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO CALL
THIS QUESTION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: CALL THE QUESTION IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

REST OF COUNCIL HAPPY TO CALL THE QUESTION?

I THINK WE'RE SEEING --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST BEFORE DO YOU THAT, PHILIP, CAN I FORMALLY PASS MY PROXY
WITH RESPECT TO THIS VOTE TO ALICK WILSON IF HE'S ON THE CALL, AND IF NOT, TO
AVRI DORIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PASS A PROXY?

>>THOMAS KELLER: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO PASS MY PROXY TO NORBERT KLEIN, BUT I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A LOOK AT THAT ISSUE TO FIND OUT WHETHER --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT'S FINE.

BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VOTE, THANK YOU, THAT VOTE

HAS BEEN PASSED TO NORBERT.

LUCY.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: I WOULD LIKE TO PASS MY PROXY TO NIKLAS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY, LUCY IS PASSING HER PROXY TO NIKLAS. ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: I WOULD LIKE TO PASS MY PROXY TO NIKLAS, PLEASE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.

NIKLAS, YOU HAVE THAT PROXY FROM ROSS.

I WILL NOW TAKE THE VOTE.

AND I WILL START WITH THE PROXY THAT BRUCE HAS PASSED TO ALICK, WAS IT?

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK.

AND I VOTE BRUCE'S PROXY IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.

AND YOUR OWN VOTE, ALICK?

>>ALICK WILSON: FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.

MARILYN?

>>MARILYN CADE: I VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: TONY?

>>TONY HOLMES: I VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: GREG?

>>GREG RUTH: IN FAVOR.

>>TONY HARRIS: IN FAVOR.

>>ROBIN GROSS: IN FAVOR.

>>NORBERT KLEIN: IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: AND PROXIES YOU'RE HOLDING, NORBERT?

>>NORBERT KLEIN: ALSO IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.

I PASS OVER TOM. I PASS OVER LUCY.

AND, NIKLAS, FOR YOURSELF?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YOUR PROXY FOR LUCY?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YOUR PROXY FOR ROSS?

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: IN FAVOR.

AND FOR KIYOSHI AS WELL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: AND YOUR PROXY FOR KIYOSHI IN FAVOR ALSO. THAT'S
RECORDED.

MAUREEN.

>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: IN FAVOR.

>>AVRI DORIA: IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.

CARY?

>>CARY KARP: AGAINST.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: NOTED.

KEN?

>>KEN STUBBS: AGAINST.

AND I'M VOTING A PROXY FOR JUNE SEO.

HE WILL ABSTAIN.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.

THANK YOU, THAT'S NOTED.

ROSS, YOUR PROXY IS PASSED.

BRET?

>>BRET FAUSETT: I HAVE NO VOTE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRET, YOU DON'T HAVE A VOTE.

OKAY.

ON THE CALL, WE HAVE GRANT.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: I VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.

MY OWN VOTE IS IN FAVOR.

HAVE I MISSED ANYBODY OUT?

HMM?

ALICK, YOUR OWN VOTE?

>>ALICK WILSON: IN FAVOR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES, YEAH, WE HAVE EVERYBODY'S PROXY, TOO.

OKAY. THAT IS ALL THE VOTES. GLEN, COULD I HAVE YOUR ASSESSMENT AS TO THE
COUNT?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION, TWO NOES WITH A DOUBLE VOTE, A
TOTAL OF SIX AGAINST. THAT'S 27 VOTES ALL TOGETHER. 21 FOR, SO THAT MOTION
HAS BEEN PASSED. YEAH. OKAY. THAT MOTION HAS BEEN PASSED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.

THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM.

I PASS THE CHAIR BACK TO BRUCE TONKIN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU, PHILIP.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE MEETINGS, AND THANK EVERYBODY FOR ATTENDING.

AND PLEASE NOTE WE NEED TO GET OUT OF HERE QUICKLY BECAUSE THE BOARD NEEDS TO
MOVE HERE IN ABOUT TEN MINUTES.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: AND THANKS TO OUR TRANSCRIBERS FOR STAYING THE EXTRA MILE
FOR US. THANKS VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.) (1:20 P.M.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers