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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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

ICANN Public Forum Part II

Saturday, 03 December 2005

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the ICANN Public Forum, Part II held on 03 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.

ICANN PUBLIC FORUM, PART II
SATURDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2005
VANCOUVER, B.C.


>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO TAKE YOUR PLACES
SO WE CAN GET THIS SECOND PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM STARTED.

THIS MORNING, AS YOU NO DOUBT KNOW, WE BEGIN WITH A SERIES OF COMMITTEE
REPORTS TO BRING YOU UP-TO-DATE ON VARIOUS OF THE COMMITTEES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ICANN BOARD.

THE FIRST COMMITTEE REPORT IS FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND LET ME ASK IF YOU
COULD BEGIN.

>>NJERI RIONGE: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, RAIMUNDO BECA, VENI MARKOVSKI, JOICHI ITO,
AND MYSELF AS CHAIR. AND THE REPORT WILL READ, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAS
REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THE LAST MEETING HELD IN
LUXEMBOURG. FURTHER TO THE ACTION POINTS OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND THIS
WAS VANCOUVER MEETING, WE HAVE REVIEWED AND UPDATED THE SCHEDULE OF THE
DELIVERABLES WITH DEFINITE TIME LINES IN ORDER TO MAKE ICANN'S EXPECTATIONS
SET WITHIN THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

WE STARTED WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT, INDEPENDENT AUDIT FINANCIAL YEAR
2003-2004, WHICH WAS LATE. AND FOLLOWING THE LUXEMBOURG MEETING, KPMG'S
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT WAS POSTED TO THE ICANN WEB SITE ALONG WITH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30TH, 2004.

KPGM GAVE A CLEAN OPINION OF THE ICANN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE AUDIT
REPORT.

INDEPENDENT AUDIT FINANCIAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005. AT THE LUXEMBOURG
MEETING, A NEW AUDIT FIRM, MOSS ADAMS, WAS APPROVED BY THE ICANN BOARD AND
THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGED TO COMPLETE THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005.

DURING THE EVALUATION PROCESS, THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT MOSS ADAMS ENGAGEMENT
TERMS BE ALTERED TO IDENTIFY CALIFORNIA AS THE FORUM FOR DISPUTES. THIS
CHANGE WAS REFLECTED INTO THE FINAL ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES ENGAGED, SIGNED WITH MOSS ADAMS.

THE AUDIT COMMENCED IN SEPTEMBER 2005, AND THE ICANN STAFF REPORTED THAT MOSS
ADAMS HAS BEEN EFFICIENT IN THEIR AUDIT WORK, AND HAVE MINIMIZED THE
POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES INHERENT WITHIN THE ENGAGED NEW AUDITORS.

MOSS ADAMS IS EXPECTED TO RETURN FOR COMPLETION OF AUDIT FIELD WORK
MID-DECEMBER.

THE AUDIT REPORT WILL THEN BE CIRCULATED TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW,
AND SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION TO THE ICANN BOARD.

INDEPENDENT AUDIT FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-2006, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THE
RECOMMENDATION BY ICANN STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ENGAGEMENT OF MOSS ADAMS TO
PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-2006.

MANAGEMENT WILL MANDATE -- WILL NEGOTIATE AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MOSS ADAMS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 2006.

ON THE FINANCIAL CONTROLS, A NEWLY HIRED CFO, MELANIE KELLER IS NOW
ADDRESSING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND ENHANCED FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND
REPORTING SYSTEMS. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THESE EFFORTS ARE PROGRESSING.

IN ADDITION TO THE NEW CFO, TWO ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTING STAFF POSITIONS HAVE
RECENTLY BEEN FILLED. THESE STAFFING ADDITIONS PROVIDE VALUABLE RESOURCES
NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT AND ANTICIPATE ENHANCEMENTS.

ICANN'S PROPOSED INTERNAL FINANCIAL CONTROL DOCUMENTATION IDENTIFIES KEY
RESULT AREAS IN ORDER TO MEASURE AND IMPROVE FINANCIAL CONTROLS ACROSS THE
ORGANIZATION.

SUCH DOCUMENTATION WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE NEW CFO WHO WILL RECOMMEND CHANGES
TO REFLECT RECENT STAFFING ADDITIONS AND ENHANCED FINANCIAL CONTROLS BEING
IMPLEMENTED.

IN REFERENCE TO THE BANKING, ICANN STAFF HAS RECENTLY MET WITH THEIR CURRENT
BANK TO DISCUSS IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY IN BANKING SERVICES FOR MORE FULLY
SUPPORT ICANN'S CONTINUED INTERNATIONALIZATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREAS OF
EFFECTIVE CASH MANAGEMENT AND FOREIGN CURRENCY PAYMENTS. ADDITIONAL
PROPOSALS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BY OTHER BANKS. THE NEW CFO WILL REVIEW
THE PROPOSALS, MEET AND EVALUATE POTENTIAL BANKING PARTNERS AND RECOMMEND AN
APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION.

FURTHER, THE AUDIT -- THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT CHARTER. IN THIS MEETING, THE
AUDIT COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE ICANN BOARD MET AND
HAVE AGREED THAT AS ICANN HAS CONTINUED TO IMPROVE ITS INTERNAL PROCESSES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE BOARD, THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE ADDITIONAL
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONAL REPORTING MECHANISMS.

THEREFORE, THE COMMITTEE -- COMMITTEES HAVE JOINTLY RECOMMENDED THE BOARD TO
DIRECT THE PRESIDENT AND CEO TO ENABLE A SYSTEM OF PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY
AUDITS OF THE VARIOUS OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS OF ICANN. AND FOR THE BOARD AND
THE COMMUNITY TO BE INFORMED OF THE OUTCOME OF THESE PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY
AUDITS.

BASED ON THIS RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE CHARTER WOULD NOT BE ALTERED AT THIS TIME.

IN CONCLUSION, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE ACTION PLANS
FOR THE COMING YEAR, 2006, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL OFFER THE ICANN BOARD, STAFF
AND COMMITTEE AT LARGE A PROPER SUPPORT AS PER THE ICANN BYLAWS.

END OF REPORT.



>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NJERI. I LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING THE
ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEES.

LET ME NOW CALL UPON ALEX PISANTY TO GIVE THE REPORT OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE
COMMITTEE.



>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, VINT.

THIS WILL BE A BRIEF AND SUCCINCT REPORT, I HOPE.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS HELD DISCUSSIONS OVER E-MAIL AND HAS HAD
TWO WORKING SESSIONS HERE IN VANCOUVER. WE HAVE COVERED SOME GROUND.

IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, WE HAVE PROCESSED THE AUDIT COMMITTEE PROPOSAL, WHICH
WOULD EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE ITSELF. WE HAVE FOUND -- WE
HAVE GONE, TOGETHER WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY WHAT THE
PROPOSAL ENTAILS BECAUSE IT'S BASED MOSTLY ON THE VERY GOOD AND HEALTHY
PURPOSE OF HAVING OPERATIONAL AUDITS AND TO HAVE GOALS THAT WILL BE MEASURED
APPROPRIATELY AND SET UP IN ADVANCE.

SO OPERATIONAL AUDITS ARE DIFFERENTIATED AND THERE WILL BE A RESOLUTION TO
INSIST AND INSTILL THE ORGANIZATION WITH PROCESSES THAT WILL SERVE THE
OBJECTIVE OF INCREASING THE QUALITY OF OPERATIONS IN A CONTINUOUS MANNER.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE OMBUDSMAN IN TERMS OF THE
WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN, WHICH WILL BE BASICALLY GEARED TO HAVING INCREASED
STABILITY IN AGREEMENTS OF -- OF THE WORKING AGREEMENT OF THE OMBUDSMAN WITH
ICANN TO MAKE FOR A STRONGER GUARANTEE OF THE OMBUDSMAN'S INDEPENDENCE. THE
BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS TO PROPOSE TO THE BOARD THE CHAIR FOR THE
NOMINATING COMMITTEE. WE UNDERTOOK RATHER INTENSE AND EXTENSIVE
CONSULTATIONS WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT REGIONS, AND WE
WILL PUT FORWARD TOMORROW CANDIDATES FOR THIS, WHICH HAS VERY STRONG
EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNITY, HIGH STATURE. AND HAS ACCEPTED TO
UNDERTAKE THIS ENORMOUS WORK AS DESCRIBED YESTERDAY BY GEORGE SADOWSKY, IT'S
A HUGE TASK, AND WE HAVE LOOKED VERY CAREFULLY FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY
ENGAGE AND PERFORM IT.

THERE IS A MANDATED NOMINATING -- A MANDATED REVIEW OF THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE IN THE BYLAWS, AND WE ARE WORKING WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH
THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THIS REVIEW.

NEXT, WE WILL PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF COMMITTEES FOR THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THAT IS NOT ONLY THE EXISTING ONES, BUT THE ONES THAT
ARE FORESEEN TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE BOARD AND ICANN IN
GENERAL IN THE COMING, LET'S SAY, PROBABLY TWO-YEAR TIME FRAME.

WE CONTINUOUSLY ARE MET WITH SURPRISES WHICH WILL REQUIRE MORE THAN AN
INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSE.

A COMPENSATION COMMITTEE HAS BEEN AGREED TO BE CREATED. THAT'S ALREADY IN
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS SESSIONS. THIS WILL INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION WHILE KEEPING IT EFFICIENT AND
COMPETITIVE.

IT WILL LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMPENSATIONS OF THE OFFICERS OF ICANN,
NOT ONLY AT THE AMOUNTS BUT ALSO AT THE INCENTIVES AND THE WAY COMPENSATION
IS TIED TO REACHING THESE GOALS. AND THE COMPOSITION WILL BE ANNOUNCED AFTER
CONSULTATION WITH THE BOARD TODAY.

PREPARATION -- WE HAVE ENGAGED IN THE NECESSARY PREPARATION OF WORK FOR THE
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIALS OF THE BOARD AND CORPORATION, WHICH WILL AGAIN -- IS
STILL UNDER INTENSIVE CONSULTATION AND WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONCE ALL PEOPLE
INVOLVED HAVE BEEN APPROACHED.

AND WE HAVE BEEN IN TASK -- THE CHEMIST INSIDE OF ME WILL SAY A DANGLING
BUNT, ON TASKS RELATED TO GUIDELINES FOR THE ETHICAL CONDUCT OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS. AND THIS HAS BEEN REVAMPED BY SOME PROPOSALS WE HAVE RECEIVED
WHICH WILL ENABLE A NEW ANGLE TO TAKEN. SO THIS IS A TASK THAT WE WILL TAKE
ON FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

THAT WILL BE ALL. THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX. I CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO THE
RE-POPULATION OF THE COMMITTEES AND THE ADDITIONAL WORK WHICH YOU HAVE JUST
DESCRIBED TO HELP IMPROVE THE OPERATION OF ICANN AND ITS BOARD.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD
CALL ON HAGEN HULTZSCH TO GIVE THAT REPORT.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THE MEMBERS OF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE ARE MYSELF, CHAIRING. MIKE
PALAGE, HUALIN QIAN, NJERI RIONGE, AND VANDA SCARTEZINI.

NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.

THE -- SORRY.

AS IT'S OUR MANDATE, WE WERE CONTINUOUSLY INVOLVED IN RELEVANT DIALOGUES WITH
THE FULL BOARD, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, AS WELL AS LEGAL COUNSEL, THUS ENSURING,
AND THAT'S OUR TASK, THAT EITHER NO CONFLICT SITUATIONS WERE ARISING OR, IF
SO, WERE PROPERLY MANAGED.

NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS COMMITTEES WERE TO PROVIDE A FULL
SET OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STATEMENTS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS AND
THE LIAISONS. THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE.

WE HAD A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE -- THESE STATEMENTS, AND ALSO THE RELATED
CONSIDERATIONS, WHAT THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE TASK WOULD BE.

WE HAVE DISCOVERED NO MAJOR CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST SITUATION WITHIN THE BOARD,
AND WHERE WE HAVE DISCOVERED MINOR, LET'S SAY, POTENTIAL CONFLICT SITUATIONS,
THEY WERE PROPERLY HANDLED BY ABSTAINING AND OTHER THINGS.

THERE'S A CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF IMPROVEMENT IN REPORTING THE
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST SITUATION. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE DEVELOPED A FORM WHICH
WILL BE USED FOR THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENTS OF THE UPCOMING TERM.

AND WE ARE PREPARING A KIND OF STANDARDIZED VERSION TO DO THIS, INCLUDING A
C.V., ET CETERA.

NOW, THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST REVISION PROCESS, WHICH WE HAVE REPORTED
ALREADY DURING OUR LAST MEETING IN LUXEMBOURG, WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT
THE EXISTING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICY CAN BE ENHANCED, AND STEPS CAN BE
TAKEN TO SEEK PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MAKE CHANGES TO THE POLICY, INCLUDING NOT
ONLY THE POLICY REGARDING BOARD MEMBERS, BUT ALSO REGARDING CONSTITUENCIES.

THE COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED THAT GENERAL COUNSEL CIRCULATE PROPOSED CHANGES
TO THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COMMITTEE AT OR, BETTER, BEFORE THE NEXT PUBLIC
BOARD MEETING IN WELLINGTON.

THANK YOU.

OH, THE FINAL CONCLUSION, THE BOARD MEMBER CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONTINUE TO
BE CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE, THAT'S OUR TASK. AND THE COMMITTEE
WOULD LIKE STAFF TO FOLLOW UP WITH ICANN'S SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS TO REVIEW
THEIR OWN CONFLICTS POLICIES SO THAT ALL CONFLICTS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND
DISCLOSED.

THAT'S ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR ORGANIZATION: TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAGEN. THAT LAST TASK SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD
ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE NORMAL REVIEW PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE
PERIODICALLY FOR EACH OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

LET ME NOW CALL UPON HAGEN ONCE AGAIN TO GIVE THE REPORT OF THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: FINANCE COMMITTEE. THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, MYSELF, JOICHI ITO, TOM NILES, MIKE PALAGE AND ALEJANDRO
PISANTY.

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THAT'S THE MAJOR TASK, TO WORK ON
THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD DURING THE LUXEMBOURG
MEETING, WHICH INCLUDED A MAJOR SET OF NEW PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES.

THE BOARD RESOLUTION IDENTIFIED CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES THAT
REMAIN UNDER DISCUSSION WITH YOU, AND WERE FROZEN AT FISCAL YEAR -- TO THE
LEVEL OF FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005.

THESE CATEGORIES WERE DNSSEC, TRANSLATION, IT'S ONE OF OUR MAJOR ISSUES, ALAC
PROJECTS, REGIONAL MEETINGS, AND REGIONAL PRESENCE.

WE HAD A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE, A LONGER ONE, IN SEPTEMBER. WE REVIEWED
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AND CURRENT RUN RATES FOR THE FROZEN BUDGET ITEMS.

WE, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDED MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD
FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. THIS MATERIAL IS ALSO POSTED ON ICANN WEB
SITES.

THE MAJOR CONTENT IS TO PROPOSE TO THE BOARD TO UNFREEZE THE FROZEN ITEMS.

WE HAD A MEETING ON -- LAST MONDAY HERE IN VANCOUVER WITH A REVIEW OF THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FOUR MONTHS ENDING OCTOBER 2005. TO REVIEW THE
CASH FLOW SCENARIOS. CASH FLOW IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE. WHEN YOU RUN OUT OF
CASH, YOU RUN INTO A PROBLEM. SO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.

AND TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR SECURING CONSISTENT REVENUE STREAMS, BECAUSE
OF THE SITUATION WE HAVE WHICH I SHOULD NOT COMMENT HERE.

NEXT, PLEASE.

THE SUMMARY OF EXPENSES. THE MANAGEMENT OF ICANN WAS MAINTAINING, LET'S SAY,
TOOLS, PROCESSES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE CASH RESERVES. THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER ARE UNDERRUNNING THE BUDGET BY 25 -- 27%.

THE SAVINGS ARE BALANCED AMONG TRAVEL, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LINE ITEMS, SUCH AS LEGAL FEES, WHICH SO FAR, FORTUNATELY, ARE
UNDER-RUNNING PLAN. AND UNDER-RUN ALSO INCLUDES THE FROZEN ITEMS WHICH WE
HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE HIRING SPENDING IS SOMEWHAT UNDER PLAN WITH POTENTIAL FOR
FUTURE SAVINGS BY A TEMPORARY FREEZE ON HIRINGS, IF THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.

THE EXPENSES ARE BEING TAILORED TO MATCH THE REVENUES. THAT'S ONE OF THE
TASKS OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. REVENUES ARE, UNFORTUNATELY, DELAYED AND WILL
BE POSSIBLY DIMINISHED BECAUSE REGISTRARS HAVE NOT YET APPROVED THE REGISTRAR
FEES SET OUT IN THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET. BUT JUST AS A SIDE
REMARK, WE ARE LEARNING DURING THIS MEETING THAT THERE ARE SIGNS THAT WE
HOPEFULLY WILL SOLVE THAT SITUATION SOON, WHICH IS VERY POSITIVE AND PART OF
THE GOOD CULTURE OF THIS BODY OF ICANN.

NEXT, THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY, REVENUE AND CASH FLOW.

ICANN HAS GENERATED SEVERAL CASH FLOW SCENARIOS TO MEASURE THE EFFECT OF
POTENTIAL VARIANCES IN FEES IN THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM.

REGISTRARS REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF BUDGETED REVENUE, AND IN THE
EVENT THAT REGISTRAR FEES ARE NOT APPROVED BY, DUE TO ICANN BYLAWS, A
TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE REGISTRARS, ICANN HAS THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY
REGARDING THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE ORGANIZATION TO MOVE FORWARD ON BILLING
AND COLLECTING OF SEPTEMBER 2005 FEES NO LATER THAN JANUARY 2006.

SO THAT'S OUR TOOL WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO USE IN CASE WE WOULD NOT, WHICH
HOPEFULLY DOESN'T HAPPEN, WHICH WOULD NOT ACHIEVE AGREEMENT.

ABSENT REGISTRAR APPROVAL, GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTS PROVIDE THAT ICANN MAY
INVOICE VARIABLE FEES DIRECTLY TO REGISTRIES WHO WOULD PASS ON THE FEES TO
REGISTRARS IN VARIOUS FORMS AS GOVERNED IN THE REGISTRY AGREEMENTS.

THAT'S THE FALL-BACK SITUATION.

DRAFT PLANS FOR INVOICING OF FEES WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO AND REVIEWED WITH
THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCIES FOR COMMENT PERIOD TO EXECUTION.
AND THIS IS, AGAIN, ONLY THE FALL-BACK.

ICANN CONTINUES TO PURSUE DIVERSITY OF REVENUE SOURCES VIA AGREEMENT WITH THE
RIRS, POLICY FOR ICANN FUNDING DEVELOPED BY THE CCNSO. IT'S DID YOU KNOW OF
THE, MAYBE, UNFAIRNESS SITUATIONS THAT CURRENTLY THE DOMINANT PART OF THE
REVENUES OF ICANN IS PROVIDED BY THE GNSO INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND PART OF THIS SITUATION IS TO DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK FOR ACCOUNTABILITY WITH
THE CCTLDS.

NEXT POINT.

WE HAVE SEVERAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES. ICANN CONTINUES THE WORK ON
ACHIEVEMENTS OF ITS OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES DESPITE DELAYS IN REVENUE AND HAS
PUT IN PLACE A PLAN TO ACHIEVE THOSE OBJECTIVES WITH RECEIPT OF PLANNED-FOR
FUNDS. IF YOU REMEMBER IN LUXEMBOURG, I SAID WE NEEDED THESE FUNDS IN ORDER
TO BE PROTECTED. WITH POTENTIAL INCREASES IN REVENUE, ICANN WILL PROVIDE
GREATER TRANSPARENCY TO OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE EXPENSE PLANNING AND REPORTING.
THAT IS AN ISSUE WHICH IS PART OF OUR LEARNING PROCESS: HOW DO WE MAKE THE
INFORMATION AVAILABLE WHICH IS PART OF THIS TRANSPARENT AND OPEN STRUCTURE OF
ICANN.

CREATE N THE SECOND HALF OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AN OPERATIONAL PLAN WHERE MAJOR
OBJECTIVES ARE SEPARATELY BUDGETED AND MANAGED. OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES WILL
BE EXPRESSED -- EXPRESSLY LINKED TO KEY ELEMENTS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND
FINANCIAL REPORTING WILL BE MADE AGAINST MAJOR OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES.

OVERALL, THE -- THERE IS A CONTINUED INCREASE IN EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FINANCE
ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE HIRED A NEW CFO, MELANIE KELLER. MELANIE, WHY DON'T
YOU JUST STAND UP SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOU. SO SHE IS --

(APPLAUSE.).

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: MELANIE HAS, DURING HER FIRST -- WHAT IS IT? TWO MONTHS?
ABOUT TWO MONTHS, A GREAT JOB IN GETTING THE NUMBERS AVAILABLE IN THE WAY AS
WE WOULD LIKE IT, AND PROBABLY YOU WOULD LIKE AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENHANCEMENT TO ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND REPORTING,
WHICH EARLIER WAS NOT AVAILABLE JUST BECAUSE OF LACK OF HUMAN RESOURCE.

AND WE ALSO HAVE INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL CONTROLS, WHICH, AS THE
ORGANIZATION IS GETTING LARGER AND MORE SPREAD OUT, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

CONCLUSIONS. THE FINANCE STRUCTURE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD
WOULD PROBABLY -- WHICH I HOPE IT WILL NOT HAPPEN -- PURSUE APPROPRIATE
COURSE OF ACTION IN JANUARY TO ENSURE A REVENUE STREAM AND FINANCIAL HEALTH
OF THE ORGANIZATION.

TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN BUDGETING AND SPENDING.

INCLUDING THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS WILL START EARLIER.
WE ARE PLANNING TO START THE BUDGETING DIALOGUE FOR THE 2006-2007 PERIOD IN
JANUARY/FEBRUARY. SO YOU, THE CONSTITUENCIES, WILL BE STARTED TO BE INVOLVED
BY THEN.

AND CONTINUE EFFORTS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE NEW REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES
RELATED TO THE ARISING BUSINESS MODELS OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES.

DURING THESE MEETINGS, ALL OF US LEARNED THAT THIS INTERNET WORLD GENERATES
BLOGS AND ALL THESE KINDS OF THINGS, NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTS WHICH WE
CURRENTLY ARE NOT CONSIDERING TO BE A BUSINESS. AND IN THAT SENSE, ALSO, A
PART OF ENSURING THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF ICANN.

THANK YOU.

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

LET ME NOW CALL UPON VENI MARKOVSKI TO MAKE A REPORT FROM THE MEETINGS
COMMITTEE.

VENI.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU.

BEFORE I START THE FORMAL REPORT, I WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS. THANKS TO THE
LOCAL HOSTS. I GUESS THEY WILL RECEIVE ANOTHER THANK YOU FROM YOU AT THE END
OF THIS MEETING, BUT I JUST FEEL OBLIGED TO SAY IT. IT'S A GREAT
ORGANIZATION, AND THE VENUE HAS RECEIVED VERY GOOD AND POSITIVE REMARKS FROM
ALL THE PEOPLE I HAVE TALKED TO.

THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE CONSISTS OF MIKE PALAGE, AND SPECIAL THANKS FOR HIS
CONTRIBUTION TO THE REPORT; MOUHAMET DIOP, HUALIN QIAN, VANDA SCARTEZINI AND
MYSELF.

WE EXPECT THAT MEETINGS CONTINUING, FROM WHAT HAGEN SAID, WE EXPECT MEETINGS
WILL BE MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED STARTING NEXT YEAR BECAUSE OF THE SUPPORT
COMING NOW FROM DIANE SCHROEDER WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AS
WELL, JOHN CRAIN, MIKE EVANS, STEVE CONTE AND ACTUALLY EVERYONE ON THE STAFF,
TO WHOM I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART FOR
THEIR CONTINUOUS WORK. AND PLEASE ACCEPT MY THANKS AS WELL AS MY APOLOGIES
FOR THE TOUGH TIME THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN GIVING YOU AND WILL
CONTINUE TO GIVE YOU.

SO NOW THE FORMAL REPORT.

WE MET IN VANCOUVER ON NOVEMBER 30TH AND DECEMBER 1ST. WE ACTUALLY HAD AN
UNSCHEDULED MEETING ON DECEMBER 1ST, AND WE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THE
FOLLOWING. WITH REGARDS TO THE 2006 FALL MEETING, FOR WHICH EVERYONE IS
EXPECTING TO HEAR WHERE IT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE, WE WANT YOU ALL TO HAVE IN
MIND THE FOLLOWING. THE FIRST PRIORITY OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS TO HAVE
A SUCCESSFUL MEETING. THE SECOND PRIORITY IS TO DO IT IN THE REGION
DESIGNATED.

LATIN AMERICA HAS ALWAYS GIVEN US A COMMON PROPOSAL, AND THE COMMITTEE IS
REQUESTING THAT BY DECEMBER 15 WE RECEIVE ONE SUCH PROPOSAL WHICH HAS A
SPECIFIC VENUE SPECIFIED AND HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
REGION. IF THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT RECEIVE A VIABLE PROPOSAL, WE WILL THEN
SWITCH THE LATIN AMERICAN REGION WITH ONE OF THE REGIONS DESIGNATED FOR 2007
MEETINGS. WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT ISSUE AGAIN IN A TELEPHONE CALL OF THE
MEETINGS COMMITTEE.

THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW. THE COMMITTEE HAS VOTED AND UNANIMOUSLY
ACCEPTED THE FOLLOWING. FIRST, TO MOVE THE DATES OF THE ANNUAL MEETINGS FOR
2006 A WEEK EARLIER, FROM OCTOBER 23RD TO OCTOBER 27TH. AND SECOND, TO
PERMIT THE POTENTIAL SHIFT FOR THE REGIONAL 2006 ANNUAL MEETING, AND IN
PARTICULAR TO ALLOW SHIFT BETWEEN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2006 REGION AND ONE
OF THE 2007 REGIONS IN THE CASE OF FAILURE OF A COMMON PROPOSAL FOR ICANN
MEETING FROM THE LATIN AMERICA REGION.

FURTHER IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE COME TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. THE
MEETING COMMITTEE HAS BEEN EXPLORING VARIOUS OPTIONS TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF MEETINGS FOR THE BENEFITS OF ALL PARTICIPANTS.

CONSISTENT WITH THIS EFFORT, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN AN OPEN MIND
AND WE HAVE APPROACHED THIS TASK WITH A CLEAN SLATE AND NO PREDETERMINED
OUTCOMES. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL PROPOSALS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TASK.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR BACK FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES BY THE END OF THE MONTH,
THEIR OPINIONS ON THE NEXT THREE ITEMS.

FIRST, THE MEETING COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF THE GROWING CONCERN THAT MEETINGS
ARE TAKING TOO MUCH TIME, COST TOO MUCH, AND ARE NOT AS EFFICIENT AS THEY
NEED TO BE.

SECOND, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS ALSO CONTEMPLATING THE REDUCING THE NUMBER
OF ANNUAL REGIONAL MEETINGS FROM THREE TO TWO. IN PLACE OF THE THIRD DELETED
REGIONAL MEETINGS, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS DISCUSSING THE USE OF ONE-DAY
REGIONAL WORKSHOPS WHICH WOULD BE HELD AT LEAST ONCE ANNUALLY IN EACH OF THE
FIVE ICANN REGIONS. THESE MEETINGS WOULD IDEALLY BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OTHER EVENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO INVOLVE ICANN PARTICIPANTS. FOR EXAMPLE,
RIPE, IPTLD, ISOC, IETF, ET CETERA.

THESE MEETINGS WOULD NOT INVOLVE A FORMAL BOARD MEETING BUT DIRECTORS FROM
THOSE REGIONS WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THESE WORKSHOPS EVENTS IN
ADDITION TO ICANN STAFF.

AND THREE, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS SEARCHING FOR OPINIONS OF
CONSTITUENCIES, MAINLY REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS, IF THEY WILL BE INTERESTED
IN MEETINGS IN MARINA DEL REY WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE FACE-TO-FACE
TWO-, THREE-DAY INTERACTION WITH STAFF AND WITH BOARD.

ANOTHER TOPIC THAT REGION ROTATION IS LESS THAN OPTIMAL. THE CURRENT
ROTATIONAL STRUCTURE HAS RESULTED IN ICANN FACING SOMETIMES PROBLEMS IN
CHOOSING A COUNTRY WITH SPECIFIC REGION. SOMETIMES DUE TO LACK OF VENUE,
SOMETIMES DUE TO LACK OF ENOUGH COMMITMENT FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES, SOMETIMES
BECAUSE OF FUNDS. ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS HAVE COMPLAINED FROM THE
WEATHER CONDITIONS, NO ONE SO FAR HAS SAID THAT'S A MAJOR OBSTACLE, ALTHOUGH
IT'S GOOD TO HAVE IT IN MIND.

THE MEETINGS COMMITTEES, THEREFORE, IS EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF ALTERING
THE REGIONAL SEQUENCE OF MEETINGS WITHIN A FIVE-MEETING BLOCK. THEREFORE,
THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO SELECT MEETINGS IN
REGIONS TO SOLVE ALL OF THE ABOVE PROBLEMS WHILE KEEPING IN MIND THAT NO
REGION WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE ROTATION.

AND THE LAST ITEM IS ABOUT SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING FOR REGIONAL MEETINGS.

THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE ALSO TO ASK COMMUNITY INPUT IF IT'S
WORTHWHILE TO CONSIDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLANNING
PROCESS THE POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO HELP SUPPLEMENT PROPOSALS OF
SOME APPLICANTS FROM DEVELOPING REGIONS THAT MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO
HOST AN ICANN MEETING.

THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE BELIEVED THAT THE ALLOCATION OF THESE FUNDS WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH ICANN'S MISSION AND WOULD WELCOME FEEDBACK FROM THE
COMMUNITY.

THAT'S THE FORMAL REPORT OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE.

AND BECAUSE MANY DISCUSSIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING THE VANCOUVER AND BEFORE
THAT IN LUXEMBOURG SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE WAY THE MEETINGS ARE TAKING PLACE,
WE REALLY FEEL INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE TO COME WITH A
DECISION.

WE WANT THIS TO BE A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS.

WE WANT THE CONSTITUENCIES, THE PARTICIPANTS, TO ACTUALLY COME TO US AND TELL
US WHAT THEY THINK.

THAT'S WHY WE HOPE THAT BY THE END OF THE MONTH WE WILL HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE
QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

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

I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU
WILL ACHIEVE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF THE REMAINING QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE
ALREADY MENTIONED.

WE NOW GO INTO REPORTS FROM THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE AXEL PAWLIK TO -- SORRY, IS THERE A
QUESTION?

ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VENI, ONLY VERY MINOR POINT, JUST I THINK THIS IS
EXCELLENT WHAT YOU REPORTED, BUT I WOULD NOT WRITE DOWN INTO THE MINUTES OR
INTO THE RECORD THAT THE ANNUAL MEETING IS GOING TO BE THE ONE IN OCTOBER
BEFORE IT'S DECIDED.

THAT'S A SEPARATE DESIGNATION.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: OKAY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THE ANNUAL MEETING CAN BE A TELECONFERENCE MEETING.

IT'S VERY USEFUL FOR THAT TO BE LATER IN THE YEAR THAN OCTOBER, IF POSSIBLE.

AND THAT'S --

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: DID YOU SAY OCTOBER?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YOU SAID ANNUAL MEETING FOR OCTOBER 2006.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: OH, NO, NO, NO.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I WOULD JUST DECOUPLE THAT.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: SORRY.

THIS IS -- WE HAVE DECIDED THAT THE MEETING NEXT YEAR IS IN OCTOBER.

YOU ARE RIGHT.



>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

I SEE AXEL IS NOW PREPARED TO OFFER THE ASO STATUS REPORT.

SO LET ME TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO AXEL.

>>AXEL PAWLIK: THANK YOU, VINT.

GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS AXEL PAWLIK.

I'M THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE RIPE NCC AND ALSO FOR THIS YEAR THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE NRO, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TO GIVE THIS REPORT AS THE NRO FULFILLS THE
ROLE OF THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

ALL RIGHT.

THIS REPORT IS IN THREE PARTS.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION, WHO ARE WE AND WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING.

THEN A SHORT OVERSIGHT OVER THE ACTUAL STATUS OF THE INTERNET NUMBERS, AND A
REPORT ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE WAY IN THE REGIONS VERY
SHORTLY.

OKAY, ORGANIZATION.

THE ASO MOU WAS RE-SIGNED IN OCTOBER 2004, AND THE IDEA NOW IS THAT THE NRO,
THE NUMBER RESOURCE ORGANIZATION, PERFORMANCE THE FUNCTIONS, AS I SAID, OF
THE ASO.

SO THE NRO AND ICANN TOGETHER ARE BEING THE ASO.

WHO IS IT?

IN THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, IT IS THE NUMBER COUNCIL OF THE NRO.

WHAT IS IT?

IT IS AN ADVISORY BODY THAT ADVISES THE ICANN BOARD ON NUMBER RESOURCE
POLICY.

IT'S ORGANIZED ON A REGIONAL BASIS.

THERE ARE 15 MEMBERS IN THERE, THREE FROM EACH REGION.

TWO ARE ELECTED AT LARGE FROM THE COMMUNITIES AND ONE FROM EACH REGION IS
APPOINTED BY THE RIR BOARD OF THAT REGION.

AND THERE ARE OBSERVERS FROM ICANN AND FROM THE RIR STAFF.

THE TERM OF OFFICE IS THREE YEARS FOR EACH MEMBER, AND THEY ARE STAGGERED TO
ALLOW FOR CONTINUITY.

WHAT DOES IT DO?

BASICALLY, AS I SAID, ADVISE THE ICANN BOARD ON POLICY MATTERS, ADDRESS
POLICY MATTERS, FOR INSTANCE.

IT DOES SELECT TWO ICANN BOARD MEMBERS AND ALSO ONE MEMBER OF THE ICANN
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE.

THESE ARE THE MEMBERS FROM THE REGION.

I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM IN ANY GREAT DETAIL.

YOU SEE THOSE THAT ARE APPOINTED BY THE RIR BOARDS WITH A LITTLE ASTERISK AT
THE END.

HANS PETTER HOLEN IS THE CHAIR CURRENTLY.

THE BOARD MEMBERS FROM ICANN THAT ARE APPOINTED THROUGH THE ASO ARE RAIMUNDO
BECA AND MOUHAMET DIOP, WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE TERMS HERE.

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL OVER THE LAST MONTHS AND, OF COURSE,
CONTINUING ALSO, THEY HAVE RESPONDED TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE
WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.

THEY HAVE KEPT ICANN STAFF UP-TO-DATE WITH REGARD TO A GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL
STATUS ON IPV6.

THEY HAVE REVIEWED THE ASO WEB SITE AND DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WANT TO PUT UP
FOR TRANSLATION AND WHICH LANGUAGES, FOR INSTANCE. AND THEY HAVE WORKED ON
THE INTERNAL PROCESSES.

AC MEETINGS ARE DONE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

AND ALSO THERE IS THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE PHYSICAL MEETINGS
JUST TO MEET PEOPLE FACE TO FACE AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS.

SO FOR NEXT YEAR, WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE A PHYSICAL MEETING IN ISTANBUL.

THAT'S LONG SIDE DURING THE RIPE MEETING THERE.

AND ALSO IN NOVEMBER IN THE LATIN AMERICAN MEETING THAT ICANN HOLDS.

THOSE ARE THE PLANS.

OF COURSE, AS YOU IMAGINE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET 15 PEOPLE UNDER ONE HAT TO
ACTUALLY COMMIT AND GO THERE.

SO WE TRY TO DO THIS VERY (INAUDIBLE) IN TIME.

SHORT OVERVIEW OF STATISTICS.

AS YOU KNOW, THE RIRS ARE ALL PUBLISHING THEIR ALLOCATION INFORMATION ON THE
RESOURCES THEY ARE WORKING WITH.

ACTUALLY, IT'S ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS THAT THOSE STATISTICS ARE PUBLISHED.

BUT THIS IS AS OF THE 30TH OF SEPTEMBER.

IPV4 SLASH 8 BLOCKS, YOU SEE THE ALLOCATION TO THE RIRS, AND YOU ALSO SEE THE
BIG YELLOW BAR, HOW MUCH OF IPV4 ADDRESS SPACE IS AVAILABLE.

IF YOU DO THE NUMBERS REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S ABOUT AS
MUCH AVAILABLE TODAY AS THE RIRS ALTOGETHER HAVE ALLOCATED PREVIOUSLY.

THERE IS A BIG GRAY BAR THAT SAYS "CENTRAL REGISTRY."

THOSE ARE ADDRESS BLOCKS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED PREVIOUS TO THE EXISTENCE
OF THE RIRS.

THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME OF IPV4 ALLOCATIONS FROM THE RIRS TO THEIR
MEMBERS, THE LOCAL INTERNET REGISTRIES AND ISPS, OVER THE YEARS.

AND YOU SEE THERE WAS A DIP AFTER 2001.

IT'S GROWING AGAIN.

YOU ALSO SEE A BROWN BAR, A SMALL ONE, THAT SAYS "AFRINIC."

AND YOU ALSO SEE THAT EARLY ON IN TIME, THERE ARE SOME ALLOCATIONS THERE.

THOSE ALLOCATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE AFRICAN REGION FROM THE
THEN-EXISTING RIRS, SO NOT THROUGH AFRINIC.

AFRINIC HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY RECENTLY AND IS NOW A FULLY-FLEDGED
MEMBER OF THE NRO AS OF THIS YEAR.

THE ALLOCATIONS ON A CUMULATIVE TOTAL ALSO BETWEEN THE REGIONS, YOU SEE IT'S
ROUGHLY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION, OF COURSE, OF AFRINIC AND
LACNIC.

BUT THOSE REGIONS ARE RAMPING UP, AS YOU'VE SEEN.

ASN, SIMILAR PICTURE HERE.

AGAIN, THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OVER THE REGIONS.

NOW THE IPV6 ALLOCATIONS FROM IANA TO THE RIRS.

AND YOU SEE TWO REGIONS ARE THERE VERY, VERY ACTIVE.

THAT'S THE APNIC AND THE RIPE NCC REGION.

WE DO SEE QUITE A LOT OF UPTAKE FROM OUR MEMBERS OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, OR
MAYBE TWO YEARS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.

QUITE A LOT IS HAPPENING.

AGAIN, THE TOTAL.

YOU HAVE, AS I SAID, STATISTICS FROM THE RIRS, AND YOU SEE THEM ON THESE
LINKS.

AND, OF COURSE, THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
NRO WEB SITE OR THE INDIVIDUAL RIR WEB SITES, THERE ARE LINKS THERE.

YOU CAN HAVE A LOOK AND PLAY WITH THE DATA YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO.

OKAY.

POLICY DISCUSSIONS OR BASICALLY JUST A VERY SHORT REPORT WHAT IS BEING
DISCUSSED CURRENTLY AND HOW IT IS BEING DISCUSSED.

WE HAVE ALL THE RIRS A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT LOOKS PRETTY SIMILAR
WITHIN THE REGIONS AND THAT ACTUALLY PREDATES THE ICANN POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.

BASICALLY, THE PROCESS IS VERY OPEN, THERE'S TO ACCREDITATION NEEDED.

YOU CAN COME AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITHOUT BEING A MEMBER OF THE
RIRS, FOR INSTANCE.

IT'S TRANSPARENT.

ALL THE DISCUSSIONS, ALL THE PROPOSALS, ALL THE MINUTES OF MEETINGS ARE MADE
AVAILABLE PUBLICLY.

AND IT'S VERY MUCH BOTTOM-UP INDUSTRY, SELF-REGULATION WITH THE PROCESS.

SO BEING TOPPED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL BY ICANN.

OKAY.

THE PROCESS WORKS IN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY.

THERE'S A PERCEIVED NEED FOR A POLICY THAT IS THEN DISCUSSED.

HOPEFULLY, SOONER OR LATER, CONSENSUS IS FOUND IN THE REGION ON THIS POLICY
PROPOSAL.

THEN IT IS IMPLEMENTED AND EVALUATED, WHETHER IT MEETS THE INITIAL NEED OR
WHETHER IT SHOULD BE CHANGED OR MAYBE DROPPED TOTALLY.

AND THEN THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTS AGAIN.

THE GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS INTEGRATED WITH THE RIRS PROCESS,
AND WE ARE SPEAKING HERE ABOUT POLICIES THAT -- THE GLOBAL POLICIES THAT ARE
USED TO DETERMINE WHEN, FOR INSTANCE, THE RIRS SHOULD GET RESOURCES ALLOCATED
FROM IANA.

SO, BASICALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT A PROPOSAL IS BROUGHT UP THROUGH THE
INDIVIDUAL RIRS' COMMUNITIES.

IF THAT FINDS CONSENSUS IN ALL THE REGIONS, THE NRO ACTS AS A FACILITATOR
THERE AND FORWARDS THE GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL TO THE ASO ADDRESS COUNCIL.

THE ADDRESS COUNCIL THEN CHECKS WHETHER THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITHIN
THE INDIVIDUAL REGIONS WAS FOLLOWED AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, THE ADDRESS COUNCIL FORWARDS THE PROPOSAL TO ICANN.

WE HAVE REGULAR PUBLIC POLICY MEETINGS, MOSTLY TWO PER YEAR, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF LACNIC, THEY DO ONE PER YEAR.

YOU SEE THE LOCATIONS.

IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TRAVELING, YOU ARE HEARTILY INVITED TO GO NEXT WEEK
TO CAIRO AND TAKE PART IN THE AFRINIC MEETING THERE.

WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF -- LOTS OF TRAVEL THERE.

A LOOK AT THE PRESENT DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE REGIONS.

AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING INTO ANY GREAT DETAIL.

YOU SEE THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL POLICIES AS BEING EITHER DISCUSSED OR
INFORMALLY BROUGHT UP AS IN "TOPIC," OR MAYBE ABANDONED OR ADOPTED WITHIN THE
REGIONS.

THIS IS IPV6 POLICY THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE.

AND SOME OTHER POLICIES THAT ARE NOT NUMBER -- IPV6 OR IPV4 ADDRESSING
POLICIES.

NOW, A BIG TOPIC THESE DAYS IS THE IANA TO RIR IPV6 POLICY.

AND THAT IS ONE OF THOSE VERY FEW GLOBAL POLICIES THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING.

AND I WANT TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT IT IS, IS IT FAIR, WHAT'S THE
HISTORY OF IT AND WHERE ARE WE TODAY.

SO THE NEED HERE IS THAT THE RIRS, OF COURSE, NEED ADDRESS SPACE TO ALLOCATE
TO THEIR MEMBERS.

SO HOW DO THEY GET THAT?

IANA GIVES IT TO THEM.

THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM ALLOCATION THAT ROUGHLY SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT OF 18
MONTHS SPACE OF NECESSARY SPACE TO GIVE OUT TO OUR MEMBERS.

AND THE UNIT SIZE HAS BEEN DETERMINED IS A SLASH 12 HERE.

ALLOCATION CRITERIA, WHEN DO WE GET MORE ADDRESS SPACE?

WHEN WE HAVE LESS THAN 50% LEFT OF AVAILABLE ALLOCATION SPACE.

SPACE FOR ALLOCATION.

OR IF THE AVAILABLE SPACE IS LESS THAN NINE MONTHS OF THE SPACE THAT WE THINK
IS NECESSARY UNDER CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO GIVE OUT.

OR IF A SPECIAL NEED POPS UP, AS IN TECHNOLOGY CHANGES THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

NOW, SHOULD A NEW RIR COME UP, AND WE DON'T EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN ANYTIME
SOON, BUT IN CASE THAT HAPPENS, THEY WILL GET A SLASH 12 REGARDLESS OF ANY
UTILIZATION, OF COURSE, OR TRANSFERRED SPACE FROM THE OTHER EXISTING RIRS AT
THE TIME.

AND THE ANNOUNCEMENTS, THE IANA, NRO, AND THE RIRS WILL ALL MAKE
ANNOUNCEMENTS ON THE VARIOUS MAILING LISTS, UPDATE THE WEB SITES, AND
BASICALLY TALK TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.

NOW, THE QUICK CHECK WHETHER THIS IS A FAIR POLICY THAT MEETS ALL THE
POLICIES' DEMANDS -- DEMAND FOR A FAIR POLICY.

CONSERVATION, AND WE HAVE TWO COLUMNS HERE, IT'S THE MINIMUM ALLOCATION, THE
INITIAL ONE, AND THEN FURTHER, NEXT ALLOCATIONS AFTER WE USED UP SOME OF THE
INITIAL SPACE.

AND WE SEE TWO OBVIOUS BLOCKS HERE.

UNDER AGGREGATION, WE SAY THE ALLOCATION -- THE NEXT ALLOCATION CRITERIA FOR
AGGREGATION IS NOT REALLY MET.

WE ARE TRYING TO GET BIGGER ADDRESS BLOCKS AND TO AGGREGATE WITHIN THOSE
ADDRESS BLOCKS.

BUT, OF COURSE, IF WE GET ANOTHER ALLOCATION THAT DOESN'T SIT ADJACENT TO THE
FIRST ALLOCATION, AGGREGATION IS DIFFICULT TO DO BETWEEN THOSE TWO BLOCKS.

ACCOUNTABILITY AS A WHOLE THERE UNDER THE INITIAL MINIMUM ALLOCATION, OF
COURSE, AS WE SAY, WE HAVE INITIAL ALLOCATION FOR A NEW RIR.

THERE ARE NO EXISTING RECORDS THERE.

SO WE DIDN'T DARE TO PUT A CROSS IN THERE.

BUT, OF COURSE, ON INITIAL -- ON FURTHER ALLOCATIONS, WE'LL CHECK WHETHER THE
CRITERIA THERE EXIST TOGETHER.

AND NEXT ALLOCATION.

THE HISTORY OF THIS.

WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE THAT IS RATHER OLD AND WAS MADE UP BY THE IETF IN
'99.

IT PRECEDES THIS GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THIS POLICY THAT I'VE JUST PRESENTED IS DISCUSSED IN OUR REGIONS, IN THE
MAILING LIST, AT THE MEETINGS, AND IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, AS I SAID, IN FOUR
OR FIVE OF THE REGIONS.

AFRINIC IS COMING UP NEXT WEEK ON THIS ONE.

CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED IN ALL THE RIRS REGIONS WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED IN
THE POLICY MEETINGS.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT AN IMPACT ANALYSIS HERE AND THE
LIABILITY ANALYSIS.

AND ONGOING, ON AN ONGOING BASIS, AS I SAID, POLICIES ARE EVALUATED.

THIS IS ENABLED BY THE COLLECTIONS OR THE PUBLICATION OF THE STATISTICS THAT
WE DO WITHIN THE REGIONS.

AND AS I SAID, EVERYBODY IS WELCOME TO LOOK AT THAT AND PLAY WITH THE NUMBERS
THERE THEMSELVES.

THE STATUS OF THIS, AS I SAID, IT IS DISCUSSED IN MOST OF THE REASONS.

AFRINIC IS HOPEFULLY ADOPTING THIS POLICY IN THE COURSE OF THE NEXT WEEK.

THERE'S A LITTLE ASTERISK AGAIN IN THE RIPE NCC REGION.

THE POLICY HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CONSENSUS, BUT IT GOES OUT REALLY SOON NOW
FOR A FINAL COMMENT PERIOD.

AND AFTER THAT, IT'LL BE ADOPTED.

AND WE THINK THIS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE ICANN BOARD IN THE FIRST QUARTER
OF THE NEXT YEAR.

WE HAVE ARCHIVES, I SAID, TRANSPARENT, AS WE ARE, YOU CAN LOOK UP ALL THOSE
DETAILS ON THOSE URLS.

THOSE ARE THE LINKS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RIRS.

AND WITH THAT, I COME TO AN END, AND I THANK YOU.

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

ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT IN A FUTURE MEETING, THAT WE MIGHT
SCHEDULE SPECIFIC TUTORIALS ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF I.P. ADDRESS
ALLOCATIONS, BOTH AS NUMBER ALLOCATIONS, A HISTORICAL VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENED
AND WHAT WE MIGHT ANTICIPATE IN THE FUTURE.

I KNOW SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD -- AND I WILL INCLUDE MYSELF -- WOULD FIND
THAT VERY HELPFUL.

SO I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT DURING 2006.

>>AXEL PAWLIK: THERE'S A STANDING INVITATION TO DO THIS FROM OUTSIDE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE CHAIRMAN --

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: VINT, CAN I JUST COMMENT?

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND UP.

GO AHEAD.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, AXEL.

I JUST WANT TO COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH
THE REGIONS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT STEP THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED WITH THE
ADDRESSING COMMUNITY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT LAST YEAR WE WERE REALLY EXCITED
TO BE THE AFRINIC REGISTRAR COME ON BOARD, AND JUST FILL THE EMPTY SPACE THAT
WE HAVE IN ADDRESSING DISTRIBUTION ROLE WORLDWIDE.

AND I THINK THAT BASED ON THE DIFFERENT DISCUSSION WE HAVE AND THE HISTORY
AND THE LEVEL OF PENETRATION OF NETWORKS IN DIFFERENT PART OF THE WORLD, THAT
I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO SOMETIMES EXCHANGE A LITTLE BIT ON THE SITUATION THAT
WE ALREADY HAVE.

FOR EXAMPLE, JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE RELATED TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION WE HAD
IN THE AFRINIC MEETING LAST YEAR, THE QUESTION WAS THE SIZE OF THE NETWORKS
OF THE ISP IS TOO SMALL, THAT IF WE DEAL WITH THE MINIMUM ADDRESS ALLOCATION
THAT WAS APPLIED BY THE OTHER REGISTRY, IT WILL JUST BE A LOSS OF ADDRESS
SPACE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MINIMUM ALLOCATION
SIZE.

SO WE JUST DECREASED THE NUMBER IN ORDER TO HAVE A BETTER DISTRIBUTION OF
RESOURCES FOR THE ISPS.

SO COMING TO THE SITUATION WE HAVE, WE KNOW THAT THE NETWORKING IS NOT WELL
INTRODUCED.

IF YOU SEE THE NUMBERS, HOW MANY PCS YOU HAVE IN AFRICA, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW
MANY NETWORKS YOU GET COMPARED TO OTHER REGIONS, IT JUST COME TO MY MIND, AND
IT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY A DIFFERENT PERSON, THAT IF WE APPLY THE SAME
PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABLE AND FAIRNESS, AND I THINK THAT WE IN ICANN
TERMINOLOGY, FAIRNESS MEANS OTHER THINGS IN OTHER -- OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM
WHAT PEOPLE THINK FAIRNESS WILL BE.

AND I JUST WANT THE ADDRESSING COMMUNITY AND ALL THE INTERNET USERS TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE OUR PERSPECTIVE IN THE LONG-TERM DISTRIBUTION OF
I.P. RESOURCES IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE PEOPLE BEHIND THE LINE NOW, BECAUSE
WE'VE GOT LESS THAN 2% OF PEOPLE CONNECTED IN AFRICA.

LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS AND TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OR
TO APPLY A LONG-TERM FAIRNESS DISTRIBUTION OF I.P. RESOURCES THAT WILL NOT,
I MEAN, PREVENT WHEN THIS PART OF THE REGION WILL BE READY TO CATCH UP THAT
THEY WILL HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES FOR THEM.

THIS IS JUST FOR AXEL, COMMENT FOR THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK THE CONCERN THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE I.P. ADDRESS SPACE WHEN THEY
NEED IT IS QUITE IMPORTANT FOR US TO PROVIDE REASSURANCE FOR.

LET ME CALL UPON THE CHAIRMAN OF THE -- OH, I'M SORRY.

AXEL, YOU WANTED TO RESPOND.

>>AXEL PAWLIK: JUST A VERY SHORT RESPONSE TO MOUHAMET'S CONCERN.

BUT YOU STARTED TO ADDRESS IT ALREADY.

AS YOU KNOW, WE DO ALLOCATE ADDRESS SPACE BASED ON DEMONSTRATED NEED.

AND WE CURRENTLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABLE OVER THE FUTURE TO
CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

SO WE HAVE SEEN, AS YOU ARE AWARE OVER THE LAST MONTHS AND YEARS,
PRESENTATIONS OF STATISTICS, SEEN HOW MUCH ADDRESS SPACE IS STILL AVAILABLE.

THAT IS NOT THAT MUCH OF AN ISSUE IN IPV6.

BUT ALSO WE HAVE SEEN PRESENTATIONS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS GIVING A SPECIFIC
VIEW ON HOW LONG DO WE WANT IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE, FOR INSTANCE, TO LAST.

AND WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT WE WANT IT TO LAST FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME, SO
WE CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
COMMUNITIES AS WELL TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE ACCORDING TO THE
NEEDS.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

I THINK -- YES, RAIMUNDO.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MUCH OF A DISCUSSION HERE.

SO THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT I'LL TAKE.

AND THEN I NEED TO GO ON TO THE NEXT REPORT.

RAIMUNDO.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: OKAY.

THANK YOU, VINT.

ONLY TO RECALL THAT AT LUXEMBOURG, WE ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION PUTTING IN PLACE
THE PROCEDURES WHICH WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE BOARD TO -- FOR THE RATIFICATION
OF THE GLOBAL POLICIES ON ADDRESSING, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE IPV6.

AND IN THIS RESOLUTION, THERE WAS ONE POINT WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL,
WHICH IS THE PROCEDURE OF EARLY AWARENESS OF THE COMMUNITY ON THE POLICIES.

AND THIS IS NOW IN PLACE, AND I INVITE THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
IS HAPPENING AND WHICH IS THE EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY.

AND IT'S UPDATED EVERY TIME THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS.

AND THE NEXT POINT THAT WILL HAPPEN IS, IN TWO WEEKS MORE, AFRINIC WILL BEGIN
THE ADOPTION OF THE POLICY ON IPV6 IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.

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

NOW I'D LIKE TO FINALLY CALL ON SHARIL TO GIVE THE REPORT ON THE GOVERNMENTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, VINT.

GOOD MORNING, ALL.

MY NAME IS SHARIL TARMIZI, AND I AM CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

AND I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR COMMUNIQUE HERE IN VANCOUVER.

THE ICANN GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET IN VANCOUVER FROM THE 28TH OF
NOVEMBER TO THE 1ST OF DECEMBER 2005.

GAC PARTICIPANTS COMPRISED OF 40 MEMBERS AND THREE OBSERVERS.

THE GAC HELD A SPECIAL SESSION WITH DR. VINT CERF, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
ICANN; DR. PAUL TWOMEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICANN; AND THE ICANN BOARD ON
TUESDAY 29TH NOVEMBER 2005.

AN OPEN SESSION WITH THE ICANN BOARD WAS HELD IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE SAME
DAY.

THE BOARD GAVE AN UPDATE ON RECENT ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY ICANN.

IN PARTICULAR, THE GAC APPRECIATED ICANN'S COMMITMENT TO
INTERNATIONALIZATION, AS MENTIONED IN ITS STRATEGIC PLAN.

IN ADDITION, GAC HELD SEVERAL SESSIONS WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY, NAMELY, A
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ASO ON THURSDAY 1ST OF DECEMBER 2005 ON I.P.
ADDRESSING POLICY.

SESSIONS WITH THE CCNSO AND ALAC ON THURSDAY 1ST OF DECEMBER AS WELL.

AND A WORKSHOP ON IDNS TOGETHER WITH THE REST OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY ON
WEDNESDAY, 30TH OF NOVEMBER.

ON MATTERS DISCUSSED, IN RELATION TO THE DIALOGUE WITH THE ICANN BOARD, AS A
PRELIMINARY REMARK, THE GAC WELCOMES THE FRUITFUL DIALOGUE ESTABLISHED IN
VANCOUVER WITH THE ICANN BOARD REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE GAC IN RELATION TO
ICANN, HOW THAT ROLE COULD BE STRENGTHENED, AND THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO
MAKE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE BOARD MORE EFFECTIVELY.

GAC EXPRESSES ITS HOPE THAT THIS SPIRIT OF GOODWILL AND MUTUAL COOPERATION
WILL GIVE RISE TO THE ADOPTION OF CONCRETE SOLUTIONS IN 2006 AND BEYOND.

ON POST-WSIS, THE GAC GAVE CAREFUL CONVERSATION TO THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE
INFORMATION SOCIETY AND BUILDING UPON EARLIER WORK, THE GAC, AS A MATTER OF
HIGH PRIORITY, HAS COMMENCED A THREE-FOLD PROCESS TO PUT IN PLACE NEW
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GAC SECRETARIAT, INCLUDING ITS FUNCTIONS AND FINANCING;
TWO, TO EXTEND THE GAC MEMBERSHIP, DEVELOP OUTREACH, AND BUILD CAPACITY, AND
MORE GENERALLY, WIDEN INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION; AND, THREE, IMPROVE THE
WAY IT ADDRESSES PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER IN RELATION
TO THE ICANN FRAMEWORK FOR DECISIONS AT OUR MEETING IN WELLINGTON IN MARCH
2006.

THE GAC ALSO ACCEPTS THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE ICANN BOARD TO SET UP A JOINT
WORKING GROUP TO EFFECTIVELY IMPROVE THE COMMUNICATION LINKS AND
COLLABORATION PROCESSES BETWEEN GAC AND THE ICANN BOARD AND THE RELEVANT
ICANN CONSTITUENCIES.

ON NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, IN VIEW OF THE RANGE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PUBLIC
POLICY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS, THE GAC AGREED TO INITIATE WORK ON -- SORRY, MY SCREEN JUST BLANKED
OUT -- THE GAC AGREED TO INITIATE WORK ON PUBLIC POLICY APPLICABLE TO NEW
GTLDS.

THIS INITIATIVE IS INTENDED TO IDENTIFY THE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AND
CONTRIBUTE TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IN ICANN.

IN THAT REGARD, THE GAC WELCOMED THE PRESENTATION BY THE GNSO COUNCIL CHAIR
REGARDING THE STATUS AND SCOPE OF THE GNSO'S WORK IN THIS AREA.

THE GAC ALSO WELCOMED A REPORT FROM ICANN ON THE STATUS OF BOARD APPROVAL OF
SPONSORED TLDS, AS WELL AS THE EVALUATION REPORT REQUESTED BY GAC MEMBERS.

IN THAT REGARD, THE GAC WELCOMED THE DECISION TO POSTPONE THE BOARD'S
CONSIDERATION OF THE XXX APPLICATION FROM ITS DECEMBER 4TH MEETING UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS THE GAC HAS BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE EVALUATION REPORT AND THE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM ICANN.

ON WIPO II, -- EXCUSE ME -- ON WIPO II, THE GAC NOTES THE STATEMENT BY THE
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICANN ANNOUNCING THAT ICANN WILL CONTINUE TO CONSULT
WITH OTHER INTERESTED CONSTITUENCIES TO DETERMINE IF A WAY FORWARD EXISTS
REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WIPO II RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE GAC LOOKS FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH ICANN IN 2006 AND BEYOND.

POST- -- IN THIS REGARD.

SORRY.

ON IDNS, THE GAC WAS INFORMED OF THE EFFORTS TAKEN BY ICANN WITH A VIEW TO
DEPLOYING IDNS IN THE DNS SPACE.

GAC REAFFIRMED ITS STATEMENTS IN KUALA LUMPUR, MAR DEL PLATA, AND LUXEMBOURG
THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND INTRODUCTION OF IDN REQUIRES THE COLLABORATIVE AND
COORDINATED EFFORTS BY ALL GOVERNMENTS AND VARIOUS PARTIES AND INPUT FROM ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, PUBLIC POLICYMAKERS, LINGUISTIC AND TECHNICAL EXPERTS, AND
OTHER RELEVANT PARTIES.

THE GAC ENCOURAGES ICANN TO CONTINUE TO PLAY A PROACTIVE ROLE TOWARDS THE
ENABLEMENT OF IDN AROUND THE WORLD, KEEPING IN MINDS THE LINGUISTIC,
TECHNICAL, AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF IDN IMPLEMENTATION.

ON GAC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS, THE GAC IS COMMITTED TO
INCREASING ITS MEMBERSHIP, IN PARTICULAR, FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND
ENSURE THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE GAC.

THE GAC WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT FOR HOSTING AND ORGANIZING THE PACIFIC ISLANDS
FORUM COMMUNICATIONS MINISTERIAL MEETING DURING THE ICANN MEETING IN
WELLINGTON IN MARCH 2006.

THE CONCURRENCE OF THE TWO EVENTS WILL ALLOW ICANN TO PURSUE ITS
INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS.

THEREFORE, THE GAC IS WELCOMING ALL THE DELEGATES OF THE PACIFIC ISLAND
COUNTRIES TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE GAC MEETING.

LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, THE GAC EXPRESSES ITS WARM THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
CANADA AND THE ORGANIZERS FOR HOSTING THE MEETING IN VANCOUVER.

THE GAC ALSO THANKS ALL THOSE AMONGST THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO HAVE
CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIALOGUE WITH GAC IN VANCOUVER.

THE NEXT MEETINGS WILL BE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ICANN WELLINGTON MEETINGS.

AND WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I END MY REPORT FOR THE BOARD.

THANK YOU.

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

I CERTAINLY WANT TO COMMEND THE GAC FOR THE MANY MEETINGS THAT IT HELD THIS
WEEK AND IT HAS BEEN HOLDING IN PRIOR SESSIONS TO INTERACT WITH ALL OF THE
CONSTITUENCIES AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

I PARTICULARLY VALUED THE MEETING WITH THE BOARD THIS TIME.

AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE EXCHANGES IN THE FUTURE.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE ROOT-SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND I'D CALL UPON SUZANNE WOOLF TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION.



>>SUZANNE WOOLF: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

I'M SUZANNE WOOLF.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF OUR RECENT ACTIVITIES IN THE
ROOT-SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW FROM THE PREVIOUS INSTANCES OF THIS REPORT, RSSAC IS ONE
OF THE ORIGINAL ICANN ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

WE ADVISE THE BOARD ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO OPERATION OF THE ROOT NAME
SERVERS, AND IT'S THE FORMAL MECHANISM WHEREBY THE FOLKS WHO OPERATE THE ROOT
NAME SERVERS INTERACT WITH ICANN ON ISSUES OF MUTUAL INTEREST.

IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS AND FOR --
TYPICALLY FOR RSSAC.

EXCEPT FOR OPERATIONAL IMPACT, SUCH AS CHANGES TO SOFTWARE THAT MIGHT BE
REQUIRED TO SERVE THE ZONE, WE HAVE NO POSITION ON CONTENT.

WE PUBLISH WHAT WE ARE GIVEN.

THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE THE ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATORS WORLDWIDE AND
OTHER LIAISONS AND OBSERVERS.

OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE AT THE IETF IN DALLAS IN MARCH 2006.

OUR MOST RECENT MEETING, AT IETF 64 IN NOVEMBER, THE MAJOR WORK ITEM HAS BEEN
A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF HOW TO ADD IPV6 DNS RECORDS FOR
THE ROOT SERVERS TO THE ROOT ZONE.

%%%L{^}END





THE MAJOR WORK ITEM HAS BEEN A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF HOW
TO ADD IPV6 DNS RECORDS FOR THE ROOT SERVERS TO THE ROOT ZONE. WE HAVE HAD
IPV6 RECORDS IN THE ROOT FOR SEVERAL TLDS FOR SOME TIME NOW, BUT SUCH RECORDS
FOR THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS.

MOSTLY BECAUSE SO MUCH DNS SOFTWARE TREATS THE ROOT SERVERS AS A SPECIAL
CASE.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE AVOIDING COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR OLDER SOFTWARE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE'RE DOWN TO FINAL DETAILS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION TO
IANA. AND THAT WILL ALLOW THE ROOT SERVERS TO BE REACHABLE BY IPV6 ONLY FOR
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THAT, WITHOUT CAUSING CONFUSION FOR PEOPLE STILL
RELYING ON OLDER SOFTWARE THAT NEEDS TO QUERY THE ROOT SERVERS AND MAY NOT
UNDERSTAND IPV6.

SO THAT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD FOR V6 INDEPENDENCE ON THE INTERNET FOR THOSE
WHO WANT TO OPERATE V6 ONLY.

WE ALSO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH IANA AND OTHERS ON DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT. THERE
ARE NOW TWO REGISTRIES, THE SWEDISH TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN AND THE RIPE NCC THAT
ARE SIGNING THEIR DNS DATA WITH DNSSEC, WHICH POINTS OUT THAT DNSSEC IS
DEPLOYABLE WITHOUT A SIGNED ROOT BUT ALSO IT WILL BE MORE USEFUL WHEN THE
ISSUES AROUND SIGNING THAT ROOT AND SERVING THE DATA ARE MORE FULLY RESOLVED.

SOME OF THE DNS ROOT SERVERS ARE READY FOR SIGNED DATA. THE REST ARE
PROCEEDING TOWARDS THAT WITH THEIR NORMAL SOFTWARE EVALUATION AND UPGRADE
CYCLES.

THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF RECENT OUTREACH ACTIVITY AMONG RSSAC MEMBERS.
WE TRY TO KEEP FORMAL RSSAC ACTIVITY TO A MINIMUM BUT THE MEMBERS ARE
INCREASINGLY INVOLVED IN OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS.

THERE HAVE BEEN, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF EFFORT AND ACTIVITY AROUND WSIS AND WGIG.
SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS WORKED ON ISOC'S BOOTH AND OUTREACH EFFORTS IN TUNIS
AND HAVE PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR ICANN STAFF AND FOR VARIOUS GOVERNMENT
DELEGATIONS.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE UNOFFICIAL COMMITTEE WEB SITE AT
RSSAC.ORG, AND RECENTLY, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THERE HAS BEEN MORE
INFORMAL CONSULTATION BETWEEN IANA AND RSSAC ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES. RSSAC AS
A BODY DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN ISSUES RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THE ROOT
ZONE BUT THE MEMBERSHIP REPRESENTS A CONSIDERABLE RESERVE OF DNS PROTOCOLS
AND OPERATIONS EXPERTISE. SO IANA DOES OCCASIONALLY ASK US FOR ADVICE ON
TECHNICAL DETAILS ON HOW TO BEST SERVE THE COMMUNITY. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
PROVIDE SUPPORT AND ADVICE.

THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE FOR THIS REPORT OUR CHAIRMAN REQUESTED WE MIGHT HAVE
SOME NUMBERS OR GRAPHICS TO MAKE SOME OF WHAT WE DO A LITTLE MORE ACCESSIBLE.

MOST OF THE ENGINEERING BEHIND KEEPING THE DNS OPERATE SOMETHING NOT ALL THAT
INTERESTING, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF PICTURES HERE ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE DNS
ROOT SYSTEM THAT MIGHT PUT SOME PERSPECTIVE. I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THIS
DISPLAY WAS JOHN CRAIN'S DISPLAY, HE PRESENTED SOMETHING LIKE IT TO THE CCNSO
EARLIER THIS WEEK AND THEN WE PUT THIS VERSION TOGETHER FOR YOU, SO THANKS,
JOHN.

YOU SEE HERE, AND I CAN'T TELL HOW THE MAP LOOKS ON THE BIG SCREEN, BUT THE
PRESENTATION WILL BE ARCHIVED, A ROUGH IDEA OF THE ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION 20
YEARS AGO OF DNS NAME ROOT SERVERS. VERY SIMPLE, THEY WERE NEEDED WHERE THE
INTERNET WAS CONCENTRATED IN THE UNITED STATES.

MOVING FORWARD, AS THE INTERNET BEGAN TO EXPAND ACROSS THE DEVELOPED WORLD,
SO DID THE DNS ROOT.

THERE BEGAN TO BE SERVERS AT THE REQUEST OF THE IANA AND JON POSTEL, THERE
BEGAN TO BE SERVERS ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

BUT THE INTERNET OUTGREW THIS, TOO. IF WE LOOK AT THE SYSTEM TODAY, WE'RE
CATCHING UP.

THE DOTS DON'T INCLUDE EVERY SITE WHERE THERE IS A DNS ROOT SERVER. JUST
MOST OF THE METRO AREAS WORLDWIDE. THERE ARE OVER 110 SITES.

SOME AREAS WHERE DEMAND AND INTEREST JUSTIFY IT HAVE SEVERAL SITES. EACH DOT
ON THE MAP, THOUGH, REPRESENTS IMPROVED DNS SERVICE AND IMPROVED RESILIENCE
AGAINST ATTACKS OR FAILURES FOR INTERNET USERS IN THAT AREA AND WORLDWIDE.

WE'RE NOT DONE YET, AND THE INTERNET IS STILL GROWING. BUT FRANKLY, WE THINK
WE ARE MAKING SOME GOOD PROGRESS.

THIS ONE ALSO PROBABLY LOOKS FAMILIAR. OUR JOB IN THE COMMUNITY IS PRIMARILY
THE OPERATIONS LEVEL, NOT SO MUCH POLICY. BUT WE ARE HERE, WE ARE PART OF
THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE AVAILABLE TO TALK. AND YOU CAN REACH US AT THE
ADDRESS GIVEN ON THE SLIDE OR LOOK US UP AT ROOT-SERVERS.ORG OR RSSAC.ORG.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE. THE CHAIRMAN EXPRESSES HIS
APPRECIATION FOR THE PICTURES THAT YOU SUPPLIED, THANKS TO JOHN CRAIN.

SOMETIMES THE CHAIRMAN NEEDS A PICTURE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. THAT
ONE WAS REALLY VERY HELPFUL.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND
I CALL UPON STEVE CROCKER TO MAKE THAT REPORT.



>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU, VINT. LET ME HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE.

THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDES ADVICE BOTH ON
SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES. SECURITY GENERALLY RELATES TO TRYING TO
PREVENT BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN WHEN SOMEBODY IS SPECIFICALLY TRYING TO MAKE
THINGS BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. STABILITY GENERALLY REFERS TO TRYING TO PREVENT
BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING EVEN WHEN NOBODY IS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MAKE BAD
THINGS HAPPEN. SORT OF MOTHER-NATURE ISSUES, SCALING AND ARCHITECTURAL
WEAKNESSES AND SO FORTH.

WE ARE ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE BOARD, TO THE STAFF, TO THE
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND NOT INCIDENTALLY, TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

WE ARE MOST SPECIFICALLY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE HAVE NO FORMAL AUTHORITY,
EITHER IN TERMS OF MAKING RULES OR MAKING DECISIONS. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY AN
IMPORTANT AND, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, A VERY COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE IN.

HERE IS THE LIST OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS. WE'RE DRAWN FROM A FULL RANGE OF
EXPERTISES OF OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH AND SECURITY. THE ADDRESS COMMUNITY,
THE REGISTRAR, THE REGISTRY, THE ROOT SERVER OPERATORS, AND A VARIETY OF
OTHER EXPERTISES. WE ALSO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY. WE HAVE
A COUPLE OF OTHER KEY PEOPLE. DAVE PISCITELLO CAME ON A FEW MONTHS AGO AS
THE ICANN FELLOW. THIS GIVES US MUCH MORE ABILITY TO HAVE REPORTS AND REPORT
ON RESEARCH TOPICS. JIM GALVIN HAS BEEN HANDLING THE EXECUTIVE
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR US. DANIEL KARRENBERG IS A DISTINGUISHED
INVITED GUEST. WE HAVE FORMAL LIAISONS FROM THE GAC, STEFANO TRUMPY, FROM
THE INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD, PATRIK FALTSTROM, AND FROM THE ROOT SERVER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE JOHAN IHREN WHO HAS ALSO BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE RSSAC
LIAISON. AND WE ARE GENERALLY COMFORTABLE AND EAGER TO WORK WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS ON APPROPRIATE BASIS.

AS I INDICATED, WE ARE DIVERSE 12346789 IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS
AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR SELECTED ADDITIONAL PEOPLE OVER TIME. WE TRY TO
REFRESH THE COMMITTEE AND KEEP IT VIBRANT AND ALIVE.

NEXT SLIDE.

HERE ARE A SELECTION OF SOME OF OUR ACTIVITIES.

TYPICALLY, WE'LL TAKE ON A TOPIC, HAVE SOME FAIRLY INTENSE INTERNAL
DISCUSSIONS. SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES RESULT IN PUBLIC REPORTS. GENERALLY
THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE TRY TO GO.

IN SOME CASES, IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO LOOK AT SOMETHING ON AN INTERNAL
BASIS.

A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WE DID A MAJOR REPORT ON REDIRECTION IN THE COM AND NET
DOMAINS, REFERRED TO AS THE SITE FINDER INCIDENT. WE HAVE ONGOING ACTIVITY
GOING ON IN DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT. BUT THAT IN SOME SENSE OVERFLOWED THE
BOUNDARIES OF WHAT WE CAN DO WITHIN SSAC AND SPAWNED A MUCH LARGER PARALLEL
ACTIVITY. WE HAD A MAJOR WORKSHOP HERE AND WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST COUPLE OF
MEETINGS. THIS ONE WAS FOCUSED ON THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY, AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO HAVE A LOT OF FOCUS ON DNSSEC. AS SUZANNE POINTED OUT, ONE OF
THE COMPONENTS OF ALL OF THAT IS GETTING THE ROOT SIGNED AND THE ROOT SERVER
OPERATIONS GROUP IS A CORE COMPONENT OF THAT.

IN LUXEMBOURG, WE PRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT REPORT ON DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING AND
I EXPECT THAT WE WILL FOLLOW-UP ON THAT AFTER SOME PERIOD OF TIME, REVISIT
AND SEE IF THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED.

CURRENT THINGS THAT ARE IN PROGRESS, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION TUESDAY MORNING
IN OUR PUBLIC MEETING ON ALTERNATE ROOTS AND INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES
AND WE ARE HAVING INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PRECISE RULES FOR HANDLING
THE GLUE RECORDS INSIDE OF THE ROOT ZONE. SOME COMPLEXITY THERE THAT IS
WORTH WORKING OUT.

AND THAT'S IN CONCERT WITH RSSAC AND MOST PARTICULARLY WITH IANA. AND I
EXPECT THAT WE WILL COORDINATE WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY,
PARTICULARLY THE CCTLDS.

NEXT SLIDE.

LET ME SAY A WORD -- ANOTHER WORD ABOUT DNSSEC. SOME INTERESTING THINGS
HAPPENING HERE.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE OVERVIEW IS THAT IT PROTECTS AGAINST THE ATTACKS ON THE DNS
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROTOCOL PROVIDES ONE KEY INGREDIENT. IT'S NOT A
SOLUTION TO ALL POSSIBLE ISSUES.

DNSSEC IS A TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR QUITE A LONG
TIME. IT'S NOW READY TO DEPLOY, AND THE DEPLOYMENT IS NOT SHORT OR EASY. SO
A FAIR AMOUNT OF ENERGY HAS TO BE PUT INTO IT.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT DEPLOYMENT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. AS SUZANNE SAID, THE
SWEDISH TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IS SIGNED, AND RIPE NCC HAS A PORTION OF ITS
OPERATION SIGNED AND MORE IS COMING. THERE ARE IMPORTANT TEST BEDS.

NEXT SLIDE.

HERE IS A QUICK PICTURE ON HOW THE LOOKUP PROCESS WORKS, WHICH I THINK IS
FAMILIAR TO MOST PEOPLE. LET'S JUST WALK THROUGH THIS QUICKLY.

STEVE, KEEP HITTING THE BUTTON THERE. SO THERE'S A SYSTEM MAKING QUERIES,
AND THE POINT OF THIS IS THAT A SINGLE, WHAT LOOKS LIKE A SINGLE QUERY TO THE
USER IS A SERIES OF QUERIES THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM, THROUGHOUT THE HIERARCHY
OF THE ROOT SERVER AND TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN SERVERS AND OTHERS.

NEXT SLIDE.

AN ATTACK IS POSSIBLE AT MULTIPLE PLACES IN THAT PICTURE. HERE IS ONE
PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, AND THERE ARE OTHERS.

SO A BAD GUY COULD BE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING, COULD SEE A QUERY
GOING OUT BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THE NETWORKS, YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S
GOING ON THE NETWORK.

NEXT BUTTON.

AND IT COULD SUPPLY HIS OWN RESPONSE FASTER THAN THE REAL RESPONSE COMING
BACK. AND THE ORIGINAL REQUESTER WILL ACCEPT THAT AS A PERFECTLY VALID
ANSWER, AND THEN THE ATTACKER IS ABLE TO DIVERT THE INTENDED QUERY THAT IS
GOING TO FOLLOW TO HIS OWN CHOICE, RATHER THAN TO WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO.
KEEP GOING.

HERE, THIS JUST SHOWS THE -- THE REST OF THAT SLIDE SHOWS THE OTHER PARTS
COMING IN BELATEDLY.

WE DID A LITTLE EXERCISE. I HAVE TO THANK RODNEY JOFFE FOR THIS. THIS SLIDE
IS A LITTLE HARD TO READ, BUT I'LL SHOW YOU THE PIECES OF IT IN A MINUTE.

THE KEY THING IS THE SAME QUERY MADE FROM A PROTECTED PLACE IN THE NETWORK AT
HOME VERSUS A QUERY MADE FROM RIGHT HERE EARLY THIS MORNING, AND THE ANSWERS
ARE DIFFERENT.

NOW, THE INTENT IN THIS CASE IS PROBABLY THE HOTEL SERVICE PROVIDER'S IDEA OF
DOING A GOOD JOB, BUT THE POINT IS THAT THEY ARE REMAPPING AND MAKING THEIR
OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TO SUPPLY WHEN YOU MAKE A QUERY THAT IS THAT.

NEXT SLIDE. SO HERE IS WHAT THE CORRECT ANSWER WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND THIS IS
JUST A SNIPPET OUT OF THE PRIOR SLIDE. AND IT'S A LOOKUP FOR WWW.ICANN.ORG,
AND WHAT COMES BACK -- THE LEFT-HAND EDGE OF THIS IS SLIGHTLY SMEARED, BUT
WHO THE NAME SERVERS ARE FOR ORG. AND FROM THERE, A SERIES OF OTHER QUERIES
SHOULD TAKE PLACE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

HERE IS WHAT ACTUALLY COMES BACK WHEN YOU MAKE THAT QUERY FROM THE HOTEL.
AND THEY ARE BEING VERY HELPFUL IN GIVING YOU THE ANSWER DIRECTLY AND
POINTING YOU AT A WHOLE SERIES OF OTHER PLACES. AS I SAY, THIS IS NOT
NECESSARILY THAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN DIDDLED WITH FOR THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN
HERE, BUT IT DOES MAKE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A LOT OF ACTION GOING ON
THAT ISN'T ENTIRELY VISIBLE.

DNSSEC WILL ACTUALLY MAKE SOME OF THIS A BIT HARDER, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

NEXT SLIDE.

KEEP GOING.

SO JUST TO SUM UP, DNSSEC PROVIDES AN APPROACH THAT ADMINISTRATORS CAN USE TO
VALIDATE THE DATA THAT THEY RECEIVE AND THAT THE DATA HASN'T BEEN TAMPERED
WITH IN FLIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF RESOURCES AND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY THAT IS
ONGOING. THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE COMING OUT OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO.
SITES TO GO TO ARE LISTED AT THE BOTTOM. THESE SLIDES, OF COURSE, WILL ALL
BE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE IN SHORT ORDER.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE MAIN POINT OF THIS MESSAGE IS THAT DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT IS IN PROGRESS.
IT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME. IN SOME RESPECTS, IT'S PARALLEL TO IPV6, ALTHOUGH
I HOPE THE SPEED IS NOT QUITE AS SLOW AS THAT. BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO PLACE
ANY BETS.

AND THERE'S TWO MORE WEB SITES LISTED AT THE BOTTOM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

ACCORDING TO MY CLOCK WE ARE RIGHT ON SCHEDULE, AND WE CAN NOW TAKE A BREAK
UNTIL 11:00. SO WE WILL RETURN AT 11:00 AND CONTINUE WITH THE REPORTS
STARTING WITH THE OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT. SO SEE YOU IN HALF AN HOUR.

(BREAK)





>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO
ORDER, PLEASE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE STILL STANDING, PLEASE EITHER TAKE A SEAT OR PERHAPS
YOU MAY WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATION OUTSIDE OF THE ROOM.

I'D LIKE TO CALL UPON OUR OMBUDSMAN, FRANK FOWLIE, TO MAKE A REPORT OF THE
OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICE.

>>FRANK FOWLIE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, VINT CERF,
PRESIDENT AND PAUL TWOMEY, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS,
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE ICANN, ICANN STAFF, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR RECEPTION THIS MORNING. WELCOME TO VANCOUVER, WELCOME TO CANADA,
WELCOME TO MY HOME. BIENVENUE.

BEFORE I BEGIN MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT OR
TWO TO ADDRESS A FEW WORDS TO OUR HOSTS, LEADING EDGE BC AND CIRCLEID. AS A
BRITISH COLUMBIAN, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE THANKS OF YOUR LOCAL AND CANADIAN
COLLEAGUES FOR PUTTING TOGETHER SUCH A FANTASTIC CONFERENCE FOR ICANN, AND WE
ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. IT IS MY GREAT PLEASURE TO BE HERE THIS
MORNING TO BRING YOU AN UPDATE ON THE OFFICE OMBUDSMAN AND ITS ACTIVITIES. I
WANT TO BEGIN BY LETTING YOU KNOW THAT SINCE WE LAST MET IN LUXEMBOURG, THIS
OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY BUSY. I VIEW THE WORK OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AS
HAVING THREE MAIN PILLARS. THE RECEPTION AND HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS,
OUTREACH AND PEER ACTIVITIES. THIS CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS DOING THE WORK,
TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE WORK, AND TOUCHING BASE WITH COLLEAGUES TO MAKE
SURE I'M DOING THE WORK IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY.

WITH RESPECT TO DOING THE WORK, IN THIS CALENDAR YEAR I HAVE REVIEWED 1648
FILES. OF THESE, A LARGE NUMBER CONCERN AN E-MAIL CAMPAIGN WHICH WAS TOTALLY
UNRELATED TO ICANN'S ACTIVITIES AND WHICH WERE ALL CLOSED AS
NONJURISDICTIONAL.

APART FROM THIS NUMBER, THERE HAVE BEEN TO NOVEMBER 30TH, 2005,307 TRUE
CONTACTS. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE COMPLAINT INTAKES OVER THE FIRST 11 MONTHS OF
2005.

YOU WILL NOTE THAT OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS THERE HAS BEEN A MARKED GROWTH IN
THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS. MY ANALYSIS WOULD BE THAT THIS GROWTH CAN BE
DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO PLACING A LINK TO THE OMBUDSMAN PAGE ON THE ICANN MAIN
HOME PAGE IN MID-OCTOBER.

THIS GROWTH, HOWEVER, HAS NOT LED TO AN INCREASE IN COMPLAINTS OVER WHICH I
DO HAVE JURISDICTION, WHICH IS TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE ISSUES OF FAIRNESS
CONCERNING ACTIONS, DECISIONS, OR INACTIONS BY THE BOARD, STAFF, OR
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

LAST MONTH I DID RECEIVE 85 COMPLAINTS, BUT ONLY THREE OF THEM WERE ACTUALLY
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF MY MANDATE.

REVIEWING THESE NONJURISDICTIONAL INTAKES, THERE ARE SOME THEMES THAT CAN BE
FOUND. SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN LOOKING FOR GENERAL ASSISTANCE ON AN ISSUE.

OTHERS HAVE A SPECIFIC PROBLEM, AND ONLY STUMBLED INTO THE OMBUDSMAN SITE
BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE A LOGICAL PLACE FOR THEM TO COMPLAIN, AND STILL OTHERS
HAD A SPECIFIC INTERNET-RELATED PROBLEM, HAD BEEN UNABLE TO RESOLVE IT
ELSEWHERE OR FIND SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO THEM AND THEN BELIEVED THAT THIS
BECAME PART OF MY JURISDICTION.

MY GOAL IN HANDLING THESE NONJURISDICTIONAL INTAKES IS TO REDUCE THE
CONSUMER'S FRUSTRATION BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE SELF-HELP INFORMATION OR BY
REFERRAL.

I MUST UNDERLINE THE GREAT ASSISTANCE I HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE REGISTRAR
LIAISON TEAM OF TIM COLE AND MIKE ZUPKE WHO HAVE HANDLED A LARGE NUMBER OF
THESE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRANT ISSUES. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THESE CONSUMERS
WITH MORE ACCESSIBLE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION, WE HAVE RECENTLY UPDATED THE
OMBUDSMAN WEB SITE TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS
POSED AND TO HELP THEM DETERMINE MORE AND BETTER OPTIONS BEFORE FILLING OUT A
COMPLAINT FORM.

I MUST ALSO NOTE THAT WITH THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOMAIN NAME TRANSACTIONS
THAT OCCUR ON A DAILY BASIS AROUND THE WORLD, I AM IMPRESSED THAT SO FEW
REGISTRANTS ACTUALLY END UP COMING TO MY OFFICE, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAVE
JURISDICTION, AND I'M ALSO VERY PLEASED BY THE VERY HIGH LEVEL OF COOPERATION
DEMONSTRATED BY REGISTRARS IN RESOLVING ISSUES REFERRED TO THEM.

MR. CHAIRMAN, OF COURSE THE MORE VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE THE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION SYSTEMS OR CUSTOMER SERVICE CONTACTS, THE LESS OFTEN CONSUMERS
WILL FIND IT NECESSARY TO BRING QUESTIONS TO MY OFFICE. IN THIS LIGHT, I AM
VERY PLEASED TO NOTE THAT THE STLD APPLICATION FROM ICM REGISTRY INCLUDES A
PROVISION FOR AN OMBUDSMAN, AND I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE STEP ACROSS ALL
REGISTRIES.

THE SECOND CHART SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTAKES BY COUNTRY. IN 2005, I
RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM 35 COUNTRIES, WITH THE MAJORITY OF THEM COMING FROM
THE UNITED STATES, FOLLOWED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM, CANADA AND AUSTRALIA.

AND I AM NOT OVERLY CONFIDENT THAT I CAN EXPLAIN WHY THE MAJOR COMPLAINING
NATIONS ARE ENGLISH SPEAKING, COMMON-LAW BASED STATES, BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO
ME OF THE NECESSITY TO CONTINUE OUTREACH AROUND THE GLOBE TO RAISE AWARENESS
OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE FORUM TODAY, PLEASE ALWAYS BEAR IN MIND
THAT THE OFFICE IS AN AVAILABLE RESOURCE, AND PLEASE CONVEY THAT MESSAGE IN
YOUR HOMELANDS.

THIS NEXT CHART SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTAKES BY BROAD SUBJECT MATTER,
AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER IN THE "OTHER" CATEGORY WHICH
REFLECTS MY EARLIER COMMENTS. YOU WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A HIGH VOLUME
OF CONTACTS CONCERNING TRANSFER ISSUES, AND FINALLY, THERE ARE 34
JURISDICTIONAL FILES, OR ABOUT 11% OF THE TOTAL RECEIVED.

THE NEXT CHART SHOWS THE CLOSING CATEGORY FOR FILES. YOU WILL OBVIOUSLY NOTE
THE LARGE NUMBER OF FILES CLOSED THROUGH REFERRAL OR BY PROVIDING SELF-HELP
INFORMATION ON GENERAL SERVICE ISSUES. THE CATEGORY NO FURTHER ACTION
REQUIRED INDICATES THAT AFTER A INITIAL FACT FINDING REVIEW THE SERVICES OF
THE OMBUDSMAN WERE NO LONGER NEEDED.

THIS FINAL CHART SHOWS THE COMPLAINT CLOSINGS FOR FILES RELATED TO ACTIONS,
DECISIONS, OR INACTIONS BY ICANN STAFF, THE BOARD, OR SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS. AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO NOTE THAT THE MOST POPULATED
CATEGORIES IS THAT OF HAVING THE ISSUE RESOLVED. THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND ICANN BEING WILLING
PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS, AND I REMAIN VERY CONFIDENT THAT ICANN
RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF AND IS COMMITTED TO THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
MONTHS, I HAVE CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF ORIENTATIONS FOR STAFF. MY GOAL BEING
THAT ALL STAFF MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE OMBUDSMAN
FUNCTION SO WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FROM
THE COMMUNITY TO A MEMBER WHO MAY BE IN DISPUTE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DO
THAT.

IN THE EARLY FALL, I PARTICIPATED IN THE UNITED STATES OMBUDSMAN ASSOCIATION
ANNUAL MEETING, AND THIS OFFICE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP AND
CERTIFICATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTE, AN ORGANIZATION
WHICH IS NORMALLY RESTRICTED TO GOVERNMENTAL OMBUDSMAN. BUT FOLLOWING
DISCUSSION WITH ITS PRESIDENT AT THE USOA MEETING, WE WERE EXTENDED AN
INVITATION TO APPLY BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT ICANN -- THAT THE OMBUDSMAN
IS GOVERNED BY A STATUTORY-LIKE DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF THE BYLAWS AND WE
PROVIDE A SERVICE TO THE GENERAL POPULATION. IF OUR APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED,
IT WOULD MAKE ICANN, I BELIEVE, THE FIRST CORPORATELY-BASED OMBUDSMAN IN THE
WORLD TO BE SO ADMITTED. IN CONTINUED SELF-EVALUATION, I RECENTLY REVIEWED
THE OMBUDSMAN FRAMEWORK AFTER ITS FIRST YEAR OF BEING IN OPERATION. I HAVE
MADE A SMALL NUMBER OF CHANGES TO THE FRAMEWORK, TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT
THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE WORK THAT I DO.

THESE HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND I AWAIT THE
APPROBATION OF THE CHANGES.

OVER THE COURSE OF MY PRESENTATION I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHAT MY OFFICE IS
AND WHAT IT DOES. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT OR TWO TO DESCRIBE WHAT AN
OMBUDSMAN IS NOT. THIS IS A RESULT OF A SMALL NUMBER OF COMMUNICATIONS WHICH
INDICATES TO ME THAT THERE ARE SOME IN THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE EXPECTATIONS
FOR MY OFFICE WHICH ARE NOT IN SYNC WITH THE BYLAWS, AND, THEREFORE, THE
AUTHORITY THAT I HAVE.

TO SUMMARIZE, THE ROLE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS TO USE INFORMAL PROCESSES TO
RESOLVE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING ICANN RELATED MATTERS. TO QUOTE FROM THE FORM
OF CANADIAN OMBUDSMAN, AN OMBUDSMAN IS AN INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATOR
OF PEOPLE'S COMPLAINTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS,
BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.

AFTER A FAIR AND THOROUGH REVIEW, THE OMBUDSMAN DECIDES IF THE COMPLAINT IS
JUSTIFIED, AND THEN MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO
RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IS NOT THAT OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL, NOR OF AN
AUDITOR GENERAL.

IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, WITH AN ENGAGED, LITERATE, AND THOUGHTFUL COMMUNITY, THE
OMBUDSMAN ACTS UPON REQUEST OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT IT FEELS ARE
IMPORTANT ISSUES AND WHICH NEED INVESTIGATION OR REDRESS.

THE OMBUDSMAN, AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER, DOES NOT ENGAGE IN ROUTINE
SELF-GENERATED AUDITS OR INSPECTION BUT SEEKS THE GUIDANCE OF THE COMMUNITY
TO KNOW WHAT IT THINKS ARE THE PRESSING ISSUES.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION WHICH ONE CORRESPONDENT RECENTLY SENT
TO ME, AND I WILL QUOTE. "I THINK THE JOB OF ICANN'S OMBUDSMAN, LIKE THAT OF
A WOODSMAN IN THE GREAT FORESTS OF YORE. ONE COULD APPROACH THE JOB BY
CUTTING THE SMALL, EASY TIMBER, AND ONLY WHEN ASKED, DO SO IN THE MOST
PRECISE OF TERMS. OR ONE COULD APPROACH THE JOB LIKE PAUL BUNYAN AND USE
SELF-INITIATIVE TO FIND THE BIG TREES AND DEAL WITH THEM."

BASED ON A DESIRE TO AVOID CUTTING LARGE OLD TREES RATHER THAN A DESIRE TO
AVOID USING AN INITIATIVE TO IDENTIFY, DEFINE AND REMEDY LARGE AND ENTRENCHED
PROBLEMS IN AN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS ICANN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD PERMIT ME TO CONTINUE WITH THIS HORTICULTURE
ANALOGY, I PREFER TO THINK OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN NOT AS AN
AX-WIELDING GIANT BUT MORE AS A SKILLED CARETAKER IN A COMMUNITY ORCHARD.
THE OMBUDSMAN UNLIKE THE FIGURE PORTRAYED BY MY CORRESPONDENT DOES NOT SLAY
TREES, BUT RATHER ON THE ADVICE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ORCHARD, HELPS TO FIND
TREES WHICH ARE IMPORTANT TO THE GROUP BUT WHICH REQUIRE HELP TO GROW. BUT
GROWING WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND THE ADVICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE TREE CREATES
BETTER VALUE FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ONCE
AGAIN ADDRESS THE PUBLIC FORUM.

MAY I WISH THE BOARD, STAFF, AND COMMUNITY NOTHING BUT THE BEST OF VISITS
WHILE YOU ARE IN VANCOUVER.

THANK YOU. MERCI.

>>VINT CERF: FRANK, I WANT TO MAKE JUST ONE SMALL SUGGESTION TO YOU. THE
REPORT WAS, AS ALWAYS, MOST HELPFUL AND ENCOURAGING.

IT OCCURS TO ME THAT MANY THINGS COME TO YOU WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARILY WITHIN
YOUR JURISDICTION. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO ANALYZE THEM, IT
MIGHT TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT AREAS IN WHICH ICANN HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY
THAT NEED SOME KIND OF ATTENTION, EVEN IF IT'S NOT BY YOUR OFFICE.

SO UNDERSTANDING MORE ABOUT THE KINDS OF COMPLAINTS AND ISSUES THAT ARISE, WE
MIGHT DISCOVER, FOR EXAMPLE THAT THERE IS LACK OF CLARITY AMONG THE
REGISTRANTS DOMAIN NAMES OF HOW THE REGISTRAR PROCESS WORKS, OR OTHER KINDS
OF ISSUES LIKE THAT.

SO THERE MAY BE SOME DATA MINING THAT IS WORTH DOING.

PLEASE.

>>FRANK FOWLIE: EXACTLY, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT TO HELP TAILOR THE WEB SITE
MORE TO THE QUESTIONS.

PEOPLE SOMETIMES DON'T REALIZE IN THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THEY'VE ACTUALLY
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT, AND WE'RE ABLE TO HELP THEM FIND THAT SORT OF
THING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
KERNELS OF TRENDS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO REPORT TO ICANN STAFF WHO HAVE THEN
BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH THE APPROPRIATE OUTSIDE GROUP TO HELP DEAL WITH
BROADER ISSUES.

THERE ARE SOME, OBVIOUSLY, SOME SPECTRUM ISSUES THAT DO COME UP.

TRANSFERS IS ONE.

IT'S SIMPLY A MATTER OF GETTING THE PEOPLE TO THE APPROPRIATE SPOT.

UDRP-RELATED QUESTIONS ARE ALSO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY FREQUENT.

AND WE TRY TO BEEF UP THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GIVING TO CORRESPONDENTS SO
THEY'RE ABLE TO FIND THAT MORE EASILY.

>>VINT CERF: THIS IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE REASONS I KEEP LOOKING FOR HELP IN
BUILDING A GRAPHICAL PICTURE OF THE LIFE CYCLE OF A DOMAIN NAME, TO HELP
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT STATES THEIR DOMAIN NAMES CAN GET INTO ONCE THEY'VE
BEEN REGISTERED.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK.

I APPRECIATE IT.

OUR NEXT REPORT COMES FROM TINA DAM, WHO IS GOING TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE
STATUS OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

SO, TINA, WELCOME TO OUR MEETING.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU.

SINCE I STARTED WORKING IN THIS COMMUNITY, THIS MEETING HAS FAR BEEN THE ONE
WITH MOST INTEREST ON IDNS.

I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERY CONSTITUENCY, WORKING GROUP MEETING THAT HAS TAKEN
PLACE HAVE HAD SOME THINGS TO SAY ABOUT IDNS.

AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT ALSO MEANS THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO GIVE A REPORT
ON EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON THIS WEEK, BECAUSE WE ARE SIMPLY STILL
GATHERING SOME OF THE INFORMATION.

BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHAT I THINK ARE THE HIGH POINTS OF
THE RECENT ACTIVITIES.

THERE IS FOUR TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN MOVED FORWARD TO SOME EXTENT, THE IDN
GUIDELINES REVISION, THE REVISION OF THE IANA REGISTRY FOR IDN TABLES, THE
PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES TOWARDS IDNS AT
THE TOP LEVEL.

AND BEFORE I GET INTO THOSE FOUR TOPICS, I JUST WANT TO MENTION, WE'RE GOING
TO CONTINUE HAVING THE FACILITATION OF THE IDN WORKSHOPS TO BRING THE
COMMUNITY TOGETHER AND HAVE THESE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS.

IT'S BEEN VERY POSITIVE, BOTH THIS TIME AND IN THE PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO CONTINUE THE PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE
COMMUNITY IN SETTING UP PARTNERSHIPS TO ICANN TO THOSE PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY
THAT HAVE AN EXPERTISE IN AN AREA THAT HAS TO DO WITH IDNS THAT ICANN DOESN'T
NECESSARILY HAVE A ROLE WITHIN.

BUT BACK TO THE FOUR TOPICS, THE FIRST ONE IS IDN GUIDELINES REVISION.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, WE HAD THIS AS ONE OF THE MAIN TAKES A LOOK DURING THE
LUXEMBOURG WORKSHOP, PROVIDED A PUBLIC DISCUSSION FOR INITIATING THAT
REVISION.

SOME OF THE BACKGROUND FOR WHY THIS WAS STARTED HAD TO DO WITH THE SPOOFING
AND PHISHING ISSUES THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE WERE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WAYS OF SOLVING THESE PROBLEMS.

AND ONE OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH REVISING THE GUIDELINES.

SO IN LUXEMBOURG, SOME OF THE RESULTS COMING OUT HAD TO DO WITH NON-MIXING OF
SCRIPTS BETWEEN LABELS, OR IF YOU DO HAVE TO MIX SCRIPTS, THERE ARE SPECIFIC
WAYS FOR HOW YOU NEED TO MAKE IT VISIBLE ON HOW YOU ALLOW MIXING LIKE THAT.

THE GTLD REGISTRIES MET IN LUXEMBOURG, AND AS YOU REMEMBER, THEY MADE A
STRONG STATEMENT ON COORDINATING THEIR EFFORTS TOWARDS SOLVING SOME OF THOSE
PROBLEMS.

SO AFTER THE WORKSHOP IN LUXEMBOURG, WE FORMED A WORKING GROUP TO REVISE THE
GUIDELINES.

AND VERSION ONE OF THE GUIDELINES DIRECTED THAT THAT SHOULD BE TOGETHER WITH
THE IDN REGISTRIES, OBVIOUSLY.

WE ASKED THE CCNSO AND THE GTLD CONSTITUENCY FOR NOMINATIONS AND FORMED OUR
WORKING GROUP.

IT'S A VERY STRONG AND HARD-WORKING GROUP, SO THE RESULT COMING OUT OF THAT
WAS VERY POSITIVE.

IN THE WORKING GROUP, WE HAD CARY KARP FROM DOT MUSEUM, PAT KANE FROM
VERISIGN, RAM MOHAN FROM AFILIAS, AND ON THE CC SIDE, HIRO HOTTA FROM JAPAN,
AND MOHAMMED EL BASHIR, FROM SUDAN.

THE WORKING GROUP TOOK THE RESULTS OUT OF LUXEMBOURG AND MADE IT INTO A DRAFT
THAT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

I MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT THE WORKING GROUP DID IN SOME CASES ASK FOR EXPERTISE
FROM OTHER PARTS IN THE COMMUNITY.

AS AN EXAMPLE, WE GOT SOME LINGUISTIC INPUT FROM MICHAEL EVERSON, WHO WAS
HERE THIS WEEK AS WELL.

SO THE DRAFT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO CONSTITUENCIES, COMMITTEES.

THERE'S AN IDN MAILING LIST.

THERE WAS A 30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD.

AND THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED WAS BASICALLY IN TWO CAMPS.

THE ONES THAT WERE AIMED AT THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK WERE INCLUDED.

AND THE RESULT OF THAT WAS THE FINAL VERSION 2.0.

AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED HAD TO DO WITH SOMETHING
THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO PUT IN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK.

SO WE DECIDED WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN THE CONTINUED PROCESS FORWARD.

IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION TO STOP THE REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES AT 2.0.

WORK IS -- HAS BEEN INITIATED TO MOVE THAT TOWARDS A BCP PROCESS.

THE BOARD MET ON THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER TO ENDORSE THESE GUIDELINES AND AGREED
ON A TEMPORARY ENDORSEMENT.

AND IF YOU LOOK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AT THE RESOLUTION, THE BOARD ASKED THE
WORKING GROUP AND THE COMMUNITY, IN ALL, TO RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH SPECIFIC
IDN IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE ICANN MEETING IN MOROCCO.

AND THE BOARD ALSO SUPPORTED THE WORKING GROUP'S CONTINUED ACTION TOWARDS THE
BCP PROCESS.

THE WORKING GROUP AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITIES SAW THIS AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IDN GUIDELINES AT THE WORKSHOP HERE IN
VANCOUVER.

AND WE WILL BE PROVIDING THE BOARD WITH SOME MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT
INPUT TOWARDS ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS SHORTLY, AS SOON AS WE CAN GET
AROUND TO GET THAT WRITTEN UP.

SO THE INTENTION IS THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU IN MOROCCO.

WE'LL COME BACK SEVERAL TIMES AS THESE THINGS GO FORWARD.

AND A PLACE WHERE THAT WILL TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL ACTION IS WITHIN THE
PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IDNS AS WELL.

MOVING TO THE IANA IDN REGISTRY, SINCE THE GUIDELINES NOW ALLOW FOR
SCRIPT-BASED TABLES, WE MADE THAT CHANGE IN THE IANA REGISTRY RIGHT AWAY.

SO NOW YOU CAN SEND TABLES THAT ARE BASED ON SCRIPTS IN ADDITION TO THOSE
THAT ARE BASED ON LANGUAGES.

BUT WE ALSO HAD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REQUESTS AND COMMENTARY IN THE
FORUM WHERE WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON REVISION OF THE IDN GUIDELINES.

AND THESE HAVE TO DO WITH ITEMS SUCH AS NAME CHANGE.

THE NAME OF THE REGISTRY IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A
STANDARD IANA REGISTRY.

THE REGISTRY WAS FORMED BY A PREVIOUS IDN COMMITTEE.

SO THERE HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.

ALSO THE NAME OF THE REGISTRY RIGHT NOW CONTAINS LANGUAGE IN THAT NAME.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY CHANGING THAT.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME UPDATES TO THE TEMPLATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY AMONG THE TABLES, AND, BASICALLY, CHANGES TOWARDS HOW
YOU DISPLAY THE TABLES AND IDENTIFY THEM, SO THAT IT'S EASIER FOR THE
COMMUNITY TO FIGURE OUT WHO HAS SUBMITTED WHAT, SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO
THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE CONDUCTED IN THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND REGIONS.

NOW, SINCE THE REGISTRY WAS SET UP BY THE PREVIOUS IDN COMMITTEE, WE ARE
TASKING THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH MAKING A RECOMMENDATION
TOWARDS THESE REQUESTS FOR CHANGES.

AND THE COMMITTEE WILL RETURN TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF
AND ADDRESS THESE THINGS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THESE THINGS UPDATED IN THE
REGISTRY AS WELL.

SO I MENTIONED THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WE ANNOUNCED THE COMMITTEE ON THE 23RD OF NOVEMBER THIS YEAR, AND WE HAD THE
FIRST MEETING THIS WEEK, ON THE 28TH OF NOVEMBER.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY 18 MEMBERS, THREE CHAIRS.

PAUL TWOMEY, MOUHAMET DIOP, AND PROFESSOR QIAN.

THE COMMITTEE'S NOT FULLY POPULATED YET, AND SOME OF THE MEMBERSHIP WILL BE
ROTATING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE ON THE COMMITTEE THAT IS
RELEVANT FOR THE ISSUES THAT ARE AT HAND AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME.

AND RIGHT NOW, THESE MAIN TASKS RELATE TO IDN AT THE TOP LEVEL, IDN TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, AND POLICY CHALLENGES.

SO THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE WORKSHOP IN VANCOUVER.

THERE WAS THREE SESSIONS.

THE FIRST ONE THAT WE SAW AS THE MAIN FOCUS WAS INTERNATIONALIZED TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS.

THE SECOND ONE WAS WITH A FOCUS ON THE SECOND-LEVEL IDN ISSUES.

AND THEN WE HAD A LAST SESSION THAT BASICALLY WAS AN UPDATE FROM VARIOUS
PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT DIDN'T FIT INTO THE TWO ABOVE CATEGORIES, TO SEE
WHAT OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE DOING TOWARDS IDN EFFORTS.

WE HAD A FORMAL CALL FOR PAPERS BEFORE THE WORKSHOP, AND EVERYBODY WHO
REQUESTED SPEAKING TIME AND TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATIONS WAS GRANTED.

AND, ACTUALLY, BEFORE I MOVE ON TO SOME OF THE RESULTS, THE WORKSHOP WAS A
SEVEN-, EIGHT-HOUR WORKSHOP.

THE PREWORKSHOP MEETING THE DAY BEFORE WAS A FIVE-HOUR SESSION.

AND THERE WAS -- THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF POST-WORKSHOP MEETINGS GOING ON AS
WELL.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE COLLABORATION BEFORE I
CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE RESULTS ARE.

BUT DEFINITELY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTS, SUCH AS ENTERING XN DASH DASH IN THE ROOT OR USING THE DNAME
PROPOSITION.

AND THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TESTS OF HOW THIS IS WORKING ON A TECHNICAL
LEVEL, WHAT THE USERS ARE EXPERIENCING WHEN THEY SEE IDNS AT THE TOP LEVEL.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A
CCTLD VERSUS TLD OR WHETHER DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A TLD THAT WISHES TO
HAVE THE USE OF MULTIPLE LANGUAGES OR SINGLE LANGUAGES OR SCRIPTS.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PROCESS AND POLICY ISSUES.

NOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL OF THIS WORK AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE INTO THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE FOR IDNS.

AND THOSE REPORTS ARE ALSO GOING TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY THE PLAN, IS TO HAVE THAT COMMITTEE MOVE FORWARD
TOWARDS PROVIDING SOME PRINCIPLES AROUND HOW WE CAN DO THESE EXPERIMENTS AND
TESTS AT THE TOP LEVEL.

AND MY LAST SLIDE IS A THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS WHO WERE HELPING
OUT WITH THIS.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY GOOD TO SEE ALL OF THE COORDINATION ACROSS THE COMMUNITY,
EVEN THOUGH IT'S DIFFERENT CULTURAL BARRIERS AND DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS TO
WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS.

BUT THINGS ARE MOVING FORWARD FAST, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH EVERYBODY WHO
PARTICIPATED.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

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

AND I THINK YOU DESERVE A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIT FOR ORGANIZING A PRETTY
COMPLEX PROCESS THIS WEEK.

I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSCORE SOMETHING THAT TINA SAID TOWARDS THE END ABOUT
THE EXPERIMENTATION THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.

IDEAS LIKE INVENTING A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN CALLED DOT TEST OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN
DIFFERENT SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES, AND THEN PROVIDING A BATTERY OF EXAMPLES OF
INSTANCES IN WHICH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES MIGHT APPEAR, WHETHER IT'S
IN URLS, IN E-MAIL ADDRESSES, AND OTHER THINGS, SOFTWARE CONTEXTS IN WHICH
IDNS MIGHT BE ENCOUNTERED, YOU'RE DOING E-MAIL, YOU'RE EDITING A DOCUMENT,
YOU'RE WORKING WITH A SPREADSHEET, YOU'RE DOING CUTTING AND PASTING, YOU'RE
INTERACTING WITH THE WEB.

THE IDEA HERE IS TO GET AN EARLY WARNING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE START
USING THESE SPECIALLY ENCODED STRINGS IN EXISTING SOFTWARE PACKAGES SO WE
WILL HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT USERS WILL ENCOUNTER WHEN WE START USING IDNS ON
A REGULAR BASIS.

I WANT TO STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK IN A SAFE
CONTEXT, THAT IS TO SAY, THE THINGS THAT ARE USED, THE NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN
INSTALLED IN THE TABLES, LET ME SAY REGISTERED, NEED TO BE TREATED AS PURELY
EXPERIMENTAL OBJECTS.

GETTING SOME REAL FEEDBACK FROM REAL SITUATIONS IS BETTER THAN SIMPLY
SPECULATING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE DNAME PROPOSAL IS QUITE INTRIGUING.

I'VE HEARD VARYING SUGGESTIONS ABOUT IT.

IF IT WORKS, IT COULD BE A VERY CLEAN WAY OF INTRODUCING AT LEAST IDNS AT THE
TOP LEVEL AND COULD BE USED IN LOWER LEVELS AS WELL.

SO, TINA, YOU'VE LAID OUT A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM FOR US AND I REALLY LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THAT WHEN WE GET TO MOROCCO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET ME CALL ON KURT PRITZ NOW TO BRING US UP-TO-DATE ON THE NEW STLD
SITUATION.

AS YOU KNOW, TEN STLDS WERE PROPOSED LAST YEAR.

AND WE ARE NOW IN THE CLOSING PHASES OF PROCESSING MOST OF THEM.

SO, KURT, LET ME INVITE YOU TO MAKE THAT REPORT.



>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THE STLD PROCESS CONTINUES.

I'LL RECALL THAT THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT THE PRESIDENT AND STAFF OPEN A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF STLDS, ONE, TO ADD VALUE TO THE
NAME SPACE, BUT, THEN, SECONDLY, AND IMPORTANTLY, TO USE THAT PROCESS AND
THAT EXERCISE AND THE RESULTS OF THAT FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW GTLD
PROCESS AND INFORM THAT.

AFTER ICANN PUBLISHED ITS RFP ON A TIMELY BASIS, WE RECEIVED TEN APPLICATIONS
FOR NEW STLDS.

I THINK THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THESE
APPLICATIONS.

IN THE RFP, WE LAID OUT A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION PROCESS.

APPLICANTS APPLIED FOR A USER NAME AND PASSWORD WHEN THEY PROVIDED SOME
DEMONSTRATION OF A BONA FIDE APPLICATION.

THEY COMPLETED AN ONLINE APPLICATION FORM.

ICANN THEN RETAINED THE PANEL OF INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS TO EVALUATE THOSE
APPLICATIONS ON THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF CRITERIA.

THE APPLICATIONS WERE EVALUATED FIRST ON TECHNICAL CRITERIA TO SEE IF THEY
MET THAT BENCHMARK THAT WAS -- OR THAT BASELINE CRITERIA THAT WAS STATED IN
THE RFP.

THERE WAS ALSO BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL CRITERIA THAT HAD TO BE MET.

AND, FINALLY, THIS ROUND WAS FOR SPONSORED TLDS ONLY, WHICH IS A SPECIAL
CLASS OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND THERE WAS A DEFINITION OF SPONSORED COMMUNITY IN THE APPLICATION
MATERIALS.

AND THAT WAS THE OTHER SET OF BASELINE CRITERIA.

IF THE APPLICANT WERE FOUND TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA, THE BOARD WOULD THEN
DIRECT ICANN TO INITIATE COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THOSE
APPLICANTS.

AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN A CONTRACT LEADING TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE STLD.

SO AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PROCESS WAS REALLY THAT ICANN HELD SEPARATE THE
EVALUATION -- THE EVALUATION OF THE APPLICANTS ON THE THREE SETS OF CRITERIA.

AND I HAVE DESCRIBED THE THREE SETS OF CRITERIA.

WE HAD THREE PANEL MEMBERS SITTING ON EACH PANEL.

AND IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARILY COMPETENT AND INTERNATIONALLY DIVERSE SET OF
EXPERTS THAT -- NINE OF THEM ESSENTIALLY CAME FROM EIGHT COUNTRIES.

THESE ARE THE PANEL MEMBERS.

YOU WILL RECOGNIZE MOST OF THEM AS BEING MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

MIRIAM SAPIRO WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND I'LL DESCRIBE WHY WE RETAINED A PROJECT MANAGER IN JUST A SECOND.

BUT THEN THE TECHNICAL PANEL WAS MADE UP OF PATRIK FALTSTROM, OLAFUR, AND NII
QUAYNOR.

THE BUSINESS PANEL WAS MAUREEN CUBBERLEY, FERNANDO SILVEIRA GALBAN, AND THEN
JEFF LISSACK

AND THEN FINALLY, THE SPONSORSHIP PANEL WAS COMPRISED OF PIERRE OUEDRAOGO,
DANNY WEITZNER, AND LIZ WILLIAMS.

THEY CONDUCTED THESE REVIEWS IN A BLIND, INDEPENDENT FASHION.

AND THAT MEANS THE PROJECT MANAGER WAS THE CONDUIT FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS,
EITHER FROM STAFF TO THE PANEL MEMBERS OR FROM THE APPLICANTS TO THE PANEL
MEMBERS.

THE PANELS NEVER MET FACE TO FACE.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF THIS PROCESS WAS, WE DEMONSTRATED A
COMPETENT ABILITY TO CONDUCT AN EVALUATION WITHOUT A LOT OF TRAVEL EXPENSE.

AND EACH PANEL, I THINK, BECAME VERY FACILE AT COMMUNICATING BY PHONE AND
CONDUCTING REAL BUSINESS AND GETTING THINGS DONE.

PARTWAY THROUGH THE EVALUATION PROCESS, TO ENSURE THE CLARITY OF THE
APPLICATION, THE PANEL MEMBERS POSED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO EACH OF THE
APPLICANTS WHICH WERE RESPONDED TO IN WRITING AND BECAME PART OF THE
APPLICATION RECORD.

AND THEN, FINALLY, THE -- WELL, NOT FINALLY, AS IT TURNS OUT.

BUT THE NEXT STEP WAS THAT THE INDEPENDENT PANEL FURNISHED A REPORT, THREE
SEPARATE REPORTS, FOR EACH APPLICATION, DESCRIBING AT THE END THE CONCLUSION
AS TO WHETHER THE APPLICANT MET THE BASELINE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE RFP.

THESE REPORTS WERE SENT TO EACH OF THE APPLICANTS.

IN THE CASES WHERE THE APPLICANT MET ALL THREE SETS OF CRITERIA AND THERE
WERE NO OTHER CONTINGENCIES INVOLVED, THE APPLICATION WENT ON TO A COMMERCIAL
AND NEGOTIATION STAGE WHERE THE GOAL WAS TO ARRIVE AT A CONTRACT THAT
DESIGNATED A TLD.

HOWEVER, IN CASES WHERE THE CRITERIA WERE FOUND NOT TO BE MET, THE BASELINE
CRITERIA, ICANN REQUESTED CLARIFYING DOCUMENTATION.

WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION AND
FULL REVIEW.

YOU MIGHT THINK THAT WE RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF
PEOPLE, FROM VENTURE CAPITALIST KIND OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD SCRIBBLE OUT A
BUSINESS PLAN ON THE BACK OF AN ENVELOPE AND CONSIDER THAT ADEQUATE TO A
LARGE MULTINATIONAL UNION OF CORPORATIONS THAT PROVIDE VERY PROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS PLANS.

AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS OUR JOB TO EXTRACT THE MOST -- THE MEANINGFUL
INFORMATION FROM ALL THE APPLICANTS, REGARDLESS OF THE FIRST FORMAT OF
PROVIDING INFORMATION.

SO AS APPROPRIATE, THEN, WE RECONVENED THE PANEL MEMBERS TO DISCUSS
ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING INFORMATION.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE "CLARIFYING INFORMATION" MEANS THAT, IT MEANS
EXACTLY THAT.

THE APPLICANTS WERE NOT PERMITTED TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION
IF THE EVALUATORS FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION AS ORIGINALLY POSTED DIDN'T HAVE
MERIT, BUT, RATHER, WERE REQUESTED TO SUPPLY CLARIFYING MATERIAL.

SO THAT RESULTED IN -- I WON'T CALL IT A DO LOOP, BUT AT LEAST AN ITERATION
IN THE PROCESS, WHEREBY THE APPLICANT WOULD RESPOND IN WRITING TO THE
CONCERNS OF THE INDEPENDENT PANELS.

AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A TELECONFERENCE WITH THE PANELS, EVEN THOUGH WE
DIDN'T IDENTIFY THE PANEL MEMBERS, WHICH BECAME A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD.

BUT I THINK THEY WERE CONDUCTED VERY PROFESSIONALLY.

AND THE IDEA HERE IS A PROCESS WHERE YOU'RE EXCHANGING DOCUMENTS BACK AND
FORTH CAN BE VERY LONG, WHEREAS AN INTERACTIVE TELECONFERENCE CAN SHORTCUT
THE ISSUES AND RESOLVE ISSUES QUICKLY IF THEY CAN BE RESOLVED.

AND THEN, FINALLY, AFTER RECEIVING MINUTES OF THAT TELECONFERENCE, THE
APPLICANT WOULD RESPOND IN WRITING TO UNDERSTANDING -- THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CLARIFYING INFORMATION THAT MIGHT AID THE -- AID THEIR APPLICATION.

SO IF CONTINGENCIES STILL REMAINED AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS, IN OTHER
WORDS, IF THE -- AT THE END OF THAT DAY, ALL THREE PANELS DID NOT FIND THAT
THE APPLICANT MET THE CRITERIA, OR WHETHER THERE WERE SOME CONTINGENCIES OF
SOME OTHER SORT LEFT ON THE APPLICATION, WE COMPILED THAT INFORMATION, ALL
THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN GENERATED WITH EACH APPLICATION, AND PASSED
THAT ON TO THE BOARD.

AND THEN, THROUGH EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BOARD AND THEN IN BOARD
MEETINGS, IT WAS DISCUSSED WHETHER THIS APPLICATION SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT GO
ON TO THE TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL PHASE.

SO AFTER ALL THAT, THE STATUS OF THE TEN APPLICANTS IS THIS, THAT THREE
APPLICANTS HAVE COMPLETED THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND THEY ARE IN THE ROOT ZONE.

AND THAT'S JOBS, TRAVEL, AND MOBI.

AND CERTAINLY FOR ALL THE FUTURE ONES, TOO, BUT I WOULD INVITE THEM TO REPLY
TO THIS GROUP FROM TIME TO TIME AND LET US KNOW HOW THEY'RE DOING.

OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO FORMALLY CONSULT WITH THEM ALSO TO GLEAN
INFORMATION THAT WILL INFORM THE NEXT PROCESS.

ONE APPLICANT, .CAT, COMPLETED NEGOTIATIONS.

THE CONTRACT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

AND THE TLD'S IN THE IANA PROCESS, WHICH MEANS ANY DAY, ANY DAY, IT WILL BE
IN THE ZONE.

THREE OTHER APPLICANTS HAVE MOVED ON TO COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL
NEGOTIATIONS.

SO THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS.

AND SO WE ARE -- CONTRACTS ARE BEING NEGOTIATED WITH THEM.

THAT'S POST, TELNIC, AND TRIPLE X.

WITH REGARD TO DOT ASIA, IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET BY THE BOARD WHETHER
THAT APPLICATION SHOULD GO ON TO COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL NEGOTIATIONS.

AND THEN, FINALLY, THERE ARE TWO APPLICANTS THAT -- APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NO
LONGER AVAILABLE, AND THAT'S DOT TEL, THE PULVER DOT TEL APPLICATION AND DOT
MAIL.

RECENTLY, ICANN PUBLISHED A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
AND THE STATUS OF EACH OF THE APPLICANTS, WHICH INCLUDES, ESSENTIALLY, ALL OF
THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS GENERATED DURING THIS PROCESS.

IT'S QUITE EXHAUSTIVE.

WE GAVE THE APPLICATIONS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REACT -- REDACT COMMERCIALLY
SENSITIVE INFORMATION OR INFORMATION THEY DEEMED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL.

THIS IS IN LINE WITH POSTING OF THE APPLICATIONS WHICH HAD CERTAIN FINANCIAL
INFORMATION REDACTED.

AND THEN, FINALLY, TO CLOSE WITH HOW I OPENED, REMEMBER THAT ONE OF THE
PURPOSES OF THIS EXERCISE WAS TO INFORM THE GRANDER NEW GTLD PROCESS.

MIRIAM IS WORKING ON A REPORT THAT SUMMARIZES THE EXPERIENCES OF HER AND ALL
THE PARTICIPANTS.

SHE'S INTERVIEWING THE PARTICIPANTS AND COMPILING THAT AND WILL PROVIDE A
REPORT ON THE EXPERIENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

AND THAT WILL BE ONE OF THE FACETS OF THIS STLD PROCESS THAT WILL INFORM THE
GTLD PROCESS.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

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

SO THERE'S STILL WORK REMAINING.

BUT I HOPE WE CAN GET THROUGH IT PROMPTLY.

THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM DAVE CONRAD.

AND THAT'S ABOUT THE IANA PROCESS.

DAVID IS NOW THE NEW GENERAL MANAGER OF THE IANA OPERATION WITHIN ICANN.

SO, DAVID, IF YOU AND KURT CAN SWAP PLACES, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM
YOU.

>>DAVID CONRAD: THANK YOU, VINT. AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

AS VINT MENTIONED I AM THE NEW GENERAL MANAGER OF IANA. I AM HAPPY TO BE
HERE AND PRESENTING STATISTICS ON THE IANA'S FUNCTION UP TO -- 2005 UP TO
BASICALLY LAST MONTH. THESE STATISTICS WERE PUT TOGETHER BY MYSELF AND
BARBARA ROSEMAN.

A QUICK OVERVIEW. PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTION, TALK ABOUT THE ROOT ZONE,
INTERNET DRAFTS. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS. USER PORTS, NUMBERS, PRIMARILY
IP ADDRESSES. SOME OBSERVATIONS I HAVE MADE, AND A SUMMARY.

SO INTRODUCTION. I'M SURE I DON'T NEED TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT THE IANA IN THIS
CROWD. IT'S BEEN OPERATING SINCE AROUND 1972.

WE HAVE RECENTLY HIRED THREE NEW PEOPLE INTO THE IANA: MYSELF; KIM DAVIES,
FORMERLY OF CENTR, AS THE NAMES LIAISON; AND SARAH TREHERN, WHO IS ONE OF OUR
NEW PROJECT SPECIALISTS. I SHOULD ADD THE PROVISO I AM NEW HERE WITHIN THE
IANA AND ACTUALLY WITHIN ICANN, SO IF ANY MISTAKES ARE FOUND WITHIN THIS
DATA, YOU CAN BLAME ME.

THIS NEW STAFF JOINS THE FORMER STAFF OF IANA. BARBARA ROSEMAN, WHO IS IANA
OPERATION'S MANAGER; MICHELLE COTTON, NAELA SARRAS, AND PEARL LIANG, WHO ARE
PROJECT SPECIALISTS. AND I SHOULD NOTE THAT RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN IANA ARE
DUE PRIMARILY TO THE VERY HARD WORK OF BARBARA AND HER STAFF.

SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO SEE THEM ANYTIME, GIVE THEM THANKS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS
YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED.

AS ANOTHER NOTE, MICHELLE COTTON, WHO HAS BEEN WITH IANA FOR OVER FIVE YEARS,
SHOULD BE CREDITED WITH KEEPING THE IANA FUNCTIONAL DURING A LONG PERIOD.
AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO SEE MICHELLE AT ANY POINT, DEFINITELY THANK HER.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>DAVID CONRAD: SO WHAT I AM GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY ARE
STATISTICS FOR 2005 UP TO TODAY.

I SHOULD NOTE THAT THE DATA QUALITY FROM WHICH THESE STATISTICS ARE DERIVED
IS MEDIOCRE AT BEST. I GIVE IT 75% CONFIDENCE LEVEL, PRIMARILY DUE TO
INCONSISTENT COLLECTION AND LACK OF CLEAR DATA STANDARDS.

WE PLAN IN THE FUTURE TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE DATA. THERE'S SOME CLEAR
PROBLEMS WITH SOME OF THE DATA, AND ALSO MODIFY OUR DATA COLLECTION
TECHNIQUES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN OUR
DATA.

I SHOULD NOTE THAT WHAT FOLLOWS IS PRIMARILY A BEST GUESS AT THIS POINT.
THESE STATISTICS ARE MOSTLY CORRECT, BUT THERE ARE SOME KNOWN DEFICIENCIES.
ONE IN PARTICULAR IS THE TICKETS IN QUEUE, WHICH I WILL SHOW IN A BIT.
PARTICULARLY, THERE IS -- BASICALLY I JUST WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN DATA FROM
JANUARY OF 2005 AND FORWARD. SO THE QUEUES THAT EXISTED BEFORE 2005 ARE SORT
OF UNKNOWN.

ALSO, THE DEFINITION OF "IN QUEUE" VARIES BY RESOURCE. IN SOME CASES, THE
NOT-YET-COMPLETED IS IN COMPARISON TO OTHER RESOURCES WHICH TERM THE QUEUE IN
PROCESS.

I WILL BE PROVIDING UPDATED GRAPHS PROBABLY ON THE IANA WEB SITE AS SOON AS
THE DATA HAS BEEN FULLY COLLECTED AND ANALYZED.

I HAVE ALSO ADDED TREND LINES COURTESY OF MICROSOFT EXCEL, THEY ARE LINEAR
REGRESSION TRENDS, SO TAKE THAT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

STARTING WITH THE ROOT ZONE, THIS IS THE NUMBER OF NEW TICKETS THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED SINCE JANUARY OF 2005. ABOUT 220 NEW TICKETS HAVE HIT THE SYSTEM.

THE MAX WAS IN AUGUST. THE MINIMUM WAS IN FEBRUARY.

THERE'S A SLIGHTLY INCREASING TREND HERE INDICATING THAT THESE ARE CHANGE
MANAGEMENT -- CHANGE REQUESTS WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE. SO WE'RE GETTING A
SLIGHTLY -- A SLIGHT INCREASE MODULE, THE VARIABILITY IN THE DATA, OF THE
NUMBER OF REQUESTS TO CHANGE DATA WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE.

THIS GRAPH SHOWS YOU THE NUMBER OF COMPLETED TICKETS FOR THE ROOT ZONE. WE
HAVE COMPLETED 249. SO WE HAVE STARTED TO REDUCE THE QUEUE THAT HAS EXISTED
IN THE ROOT MANAGEMENT AREA.

IN AUGUST, WE WERE ABLE TO CLOSE 55 OF THE TICKETS. FEBRUARY, WE WERE BUSY
DOING SOME OTHER THINGS, AND WERE ONLY ABLE TO CLOSE ABOUT NINE.

I SHOULD NOTE THAT FOR SOME REASON, EXCEL DECIDED THAT IT DOESN'T WANT TO PUT
MONTHS DOWN THERE ON THE "X" AXIS AND GAVE THE UNIT VALUES, WHICH ARE NOT
PARTICULARLY HELPFUL. BUT IT'S INTERESTING SOFTWARE, NONETHELESS.

SO THIS IS THE NUMBER OF TICKETS IN QUEUE. AND REMEMBER THAT PROVISO I HAD.
IT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT THE QUEUE WAS PRIOR TO ENTERING THIS YEAR -- OR THIS
YEAR ACCURATELY.

IN APRIL WE HAD A MAX QUEUE DEPTH OF 81. THE MINIMUM QUEUE DEPTH WAS
OCTOBER.

THE QUEUE SIZE IS BEING REDUCED, AND IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINEAR REGRESSION
DOWNWARDS, IT SAYS THAT THE QUEUE WILL BE EMPTY BY APRIL 2006. OF COURSE,
THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY THE CASE.

THE QUEUE WILL BE REDUCED, BUT IT WILL NEVER REALLY BE EMPTY BECAUSE THERE
ARE ALWAYS SOME REQUESTS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING.

IN TERMS OF HOW LONG IT TAKES US TO PROCESS ONE OF THESE REQUESTS, THE
MAXIMUM TIME WAS 103 DAYS; MINIMUM, WAS EIGHT DAYS. THIS TREND IS DECREASING
BASICALLY TO THE EXTERNALLY CONSTRAINED MINIMUM.

THE IANA HAS TO THROW REQUESTS OFF TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR FOR
IMPLEMENTATION. THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES FROM THE TIME
IT HITS THE IANA TO THE TIME THE CHANGE IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED DEPENDS ON
ENTITIES THAT THE IANA CANNOT CONTROL.

THIS GRAPH, WHICH IS MAYBE A LITTLE HARD TO READ, SHOWS WHERE THE CHANGE
REQUESTS SIT WHEN THEY ARE IN THE QUEUE.

THE BLUE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE TIME A REQUEST IS ACTUALLY SPENT AT THE IANA IN
ONE OF OUR QUEUES OR ACTUALLY IN PROCESSING.

THE NEXT NUMBER IS YELLOW, AND IT'S WHEN A QUERY IS SITTING -- OR A CHANGE IS
SITTING OUTSIDE OF IANA IN SOME EXTERNAL ENTITY. IT'S TYPICALLY LEGAL REVIEW
OF ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.

GRAY IS DAYS AT THE REQUESTER. THIS IS WHEN WE HAVE REQUESTED A CONFIRMATION
OR A REVISION TO THE CHANGE REQUEST.

AFTER THAT IS DAYS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
SEE, BECAUSE IT'S TYPICALLY A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME. ONE BUSINESS DAY,
GENERALLY. AND THEN THE LAST IS THE DAYS AT VERISIGN WHEN WE'VE GONE THROUGH
THE ENTIRE APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE REQUEST PROCESS AND WE HAVE GIVEN IT TO
VERISIGN TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE.

MOVING ON TO OTHER THINGS, THE IANA DOES PROCESSING OF INTERNET DRAFTS FOR
THE IETF.

WE HAVE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TICKETS FOR INTERNET
DRAFTS OVER THE YEAR. AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER TIED FOR THE LARGEST NUMBER OF
NEW TICKETS, OF 25. MINIMUM WAS IN JULY, OF 9.

TOTAL NUMBER OF TICKETS, 163.

THE PROCESSING OF INTERNET DRAFTS WAS ACTUALLY FAIRLY INVOLVED. IT TYPICALLY
REQUIRES SOMEONE WITHIN THE IANA TO READ THE ENTIRE DRAFT, FOCUSING ON
SPECIFIC KEY WORDS, ENSURING THAT THE IANA CONSIDERATION SECTION ACTUALLY
REFLECTS WHAT THE IANA REALLY NEEDS TO CARE ABOUT.

IT DOES TEND TO TAKE A BIT OF TIME TO PROCESS ONE OF THESE.

NUMBER OF COMPLETED TICKETS, 176. WE FINISHED 36 IN JUNE, 8 IN MARCH.

THIS TREND IS INCREASING MORE SLOWLY THAN THE NEW TICKET GROWTH, WHICH MEANS
THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS AT SOME POINT.

I'M HOPING THAT AUTOMATION CAN HELP OUT A BIT BUT I SUSPECT THAT WE'RE GOING
TO NEED TO BRING IN NEW STAFF TO HELP US DO THE REVIEW OF INTERNET DRAFTS.

NUMBER OF COMPLETED TICKETS -- OR, SORRY, NUMBER OF TICKETS IN QUEUE. THE
CURRENT QUEUE SIZE IS ACTUALLY BEING REDUCED, BUT BASICALLY BY MICHELLE,
PRIMARILY, WORKING EXTRA HARD TO TRY TO REDUCE THE QUEUE TO MEET IETF
REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, THAT'S GOING TO LEVEL OFF UNLESS WE BRING IN NEW STAFF AND BEGIN TO
INCREASE AGAIN.

THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO PROCESS IN DAYS, MAX HAS BEEN 54; MINIMUM,
ABOUT 16.

THE TARGET THAT THE IETF HAS PLACED ON US IS A 30-DAY REQUIREMENT. SO WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO PROCESS INTERNET DRAFTS WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY HIT
THAT REQUIREMENT SINCE MAY.

AGAIN, THIS IS A TREND THAT'S DECREASING TO THE EXTERNALLY CONSTRAINED
MINIMUM. THERE IS SOME INTERACTION WITH RFC EDITOR IN THIS TASK, AND AGAIN,
IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO BRING IN ADDITIONAL STAFF, THEN THAT TIME WILL PROBABLY
GO -- WELL, THE PROCESSING TIME SHOULD REMAIN RELATIVELY CONSTANT; HOWEVER,
THE QUEUE WILL INCREASE SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE TICKETS ENTERING THE
SYSTEM.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS. THESE ARE IDENTIFIERS THAT ARE USED IN SNMP AND
NETWORK MANAGEMENT. WE GET ON AVERAGE SOMETHING LIKE ABOUT 250 OF THESE A
MONTH. WE MAXED IN JUNE AT 289, HAD A MINIMUM OF 205 IN SEPTEMBER.

IN 2005, WE DID 2299 OF THESE.

THE TREND FOR THE REQUESTS OF THESE IS DECREASING SLOWLY. I'M NOT ENTIRELY
SURE WHY THAT IS THE CASE.

NUMBER OF COMPLETED REQUESTS. THE TOTAL COMPLETION OF TICKETS IS 1753.
THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE IN THAT THE DECREASE OF CLOSING OF TICKETS IS SLOWER
THAN THE DECREASE OF NEW TICKETS ENTERING THE SYSTEM. SO AGAIN, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE QUEUE WILL EVENTUALLY START GOING UP AGAIN.

HOWEVER, THIS HANDLING OF PENS IS VERY EASILY AUTOMATABLE, AND THAT'S
PROBABLY SOMETHING WE WILL DO IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

ONE OF THE INTERESTING PROBLEMS WITH PENS IS THAT WHEN WE ACTUALLY PROCESS A
PEN AND WE SEND IT TO THE REQUESTER, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO US
THAT THEY RECEIVED IT. WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTIES IN ACTUALLY GETTING PEOPLE
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE PEN. AND AS A RESULT, WE DON'T
REALLY KNOW IF IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN ASSIGNED OR NOT.

THIS BAR CHART SHOWS THE NUMBER OF UNCONFIRMED BY REQUESTER PENS.

GIVEN PENS ARE NOT A SCARCE RESOURCE, IT ISN'T THAT SIGNIFICANT AN ISSUE, BUT
IT DOES MEAN THAT WE HAVE OUTSTANDING TICKETS IN OUR SYSTEM THAT SORT OF CLOG
UP THINGS.

AND THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE OVERALL QUEUE. THE TICKETS IN GREEN ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE NOT CONFIRMED. SO IT SHOWS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT STATISTICS OF
PENS, THAT YOU CAN GET A SOMEWHAT SKEWED UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW
IF THE PENS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY REQUESTERS OR THEY HAVEN'T.

THE QUEUE. RIGHT NOW THE QUEUE IS GROWING AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
SOME CONCERN ABOUT, BUT THE AUTOMATION SHOULD HELP SOMEWHAT IN ADDRESSING
THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM.

PROCESSING TIME IN DAYS. IT'S GOING DOWN, BUT NOT QUICKLY ENOUGH. WE HAVE
-- THE ADVANTAGE OF PENS IS IT DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
VERIFICATION, SO WHEN YOU ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT A SYSTEM THAT ACCEPTS REQUESTS,
DOES THE MINIMAL VERIFICATION AND DOES THE ALLOCATION, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE
TO REDUCE THE PROCESSING TIME OF PENS DOWN TO BASICALLY SUB TEN DAYS, AT
LEAST.

USER PORTS. THE USER PORTS ARE VALUES THAT ARE FOUND IN -- ABOVE THE IP
LAYER, IN TRANSPORT, EITHER UDP, TCP OR SCTP, THAT INDICATE THE COMMUNICATION
END POINT.

WE RECEIVED 245 TICKETS IN 2005 TO DATE. WE PROCESSED -- OR THE MAXIMUM
NUMBER WE RECEIVED IN JUNE WAS 32, TEN IN SEPTEMBER. THIS TREND IS
DECREASING. AGAIN, NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHY. IT MAY BE BECAUSE OF DELAYS IN
PROCESSING. PEOPLE HAVE SIMPLY GIVEN UP.

THE NUMBER OF COMPLETED REQUESTS. MAXIMUM WAS 113 IN AUGUST. THE MINIMUM
WAS ZERO IN APRIL THROUGH JULY. AND -- JANUARY THROUGH APRIL AND JULY.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TICKETS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED SO FAR.

TO DATE IN 2005 WAS 150.

I'M NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHY THERE WAS NO PROCESSING OF PORT REQUESTS IN THOSE
FOUR MONTHS. IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT I CAN EXCUSE FOR IANA, SINCE
THIS IS A PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE IANA.

HOWEVER, THERE IS GOING TO BE A BIG JUMP IN THE STATISTICS BECAUSE I ACTUALLY
TOOK IT ON MYSELF TO WANDER THROUGH THIS QUEUE AND PROCESS THESE -- A LOT OF
THE OUTSTANDING PORT REQUESTS.

SO I ACTUALLY KNOW THE NUMBER IS GOING TO BE BIGGER.

THIS SHOWS THE QUEUE, AND IT DOES SHOW THE EFFECTS OF NOT PROCESSING ANY
REQUESTS. IT SORT OF GOES UPWARDS. NOT A BIG SURPRISE.

THE QUEUE DID DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY IN AUGUST WHEN THERE WAS SORT OF THAT
MASSIVE PORT REQUEST CLOSE-OUT DONE BY BARBARA. THE QUEUE TREND WILL BE
STABILIZING AFTER AUGUST, SO THAT TREND LINE YOU CAN HOPEFULLY IGNORE AND IT
SHOULD BE DECREASING IN DECEMBER.

PORT PROCESSING TIME. THE MAX WAS ABOUT 295 DAYS FROM JANUARY, WHICH IS
ASTONISHINGLY LONG FOR ANYONE WHO IS ATTEMPTING TO DO PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT.
THE MINIMUM WAS 47 DAYS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN IETF MAXIMUM OF 30 DAYS, AND
WE ARE TARGETING THAT FOR DECEMBER.

MOVING ON TO IP ADDRESSES, THIS SHOWS THE NUMBER OF ALLOCATIONS DONE TO THE
RIRS INDIVIDUALLY IN 2005 TO DATE.

THE AVERAGE, WE'RE DOING SEVEN SLASH EIGHT BLOCKS. SORRY, THIS IS DAYS TO
COMPLETE.

WE AVERAGE ABOUT A WEEK TO ACTUALLY PROCESS AN IPV4 REQUEST.

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT, THE NUMBER OF DAYS TO COMPLETION IS A BIT HIGHER BECAUSE
THE POLICIES ARE STILL SOMEWHAT IN FLUX AND IT'S TAKING A BIT OF TIME FOR
IANA STAFF TO GET OUR HEAD AROUND DOING THE IPV6 ALLOCATIONS.



ASNS, OR AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM NUMBERS. THEY ARE USED PRIMARILY -- WELL,
EXCLUSIVELY IN ROUTING. IT DOESN'T TAKE US VERY LONG TO CLOSE ONE OF THESE.
BASICALLY A DAY AND A QUARTER.

SOME OBSERVATIONS. AS I MENTIONED, THE DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN A PARTICULAR
FRUSTRATION FOR ME. IT TOOK ME WAY, WAY LONGER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED TO
COME UP WITH THESE STATISTICS SIMPLY BECAUSE I HAD TO GO BACK TO THE RAW DATA
AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THE NUMBERS ACTUALLY MADE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

ROOT ZONE PROCESSING. THE NEW TICKET RATE IS INCREASING, BUT WE ARE
IMPROVING TO PROCESS THEM. SO WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE
ABLE TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE IANA SERVICE IN THAT AREA.

INTERNET DRAFT PROCESSING, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO
BRING IN ADDITIONAL STAFF.

PEN. WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO AUTOMATE THIS, AND IF NECESSARY, WE CAN BRING
IN SOME TEMPORARY STAFF TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING QUEUES.

AND WITH USER PORTS, IT ISN'T REALLY A BIG SURPRISE THAT YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE
TO PROCESS THEM TO REDUCE THE QUEUES IN THAT AREA. WE ARE PROCESSING THEM IN
A REASONABLE WAY NOW, AND THE LEGACY SITUATION SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY JANUARY
2006.

SUMMARIZING, MOST OF THE IANA PROCESSES IN TERMS OF RESOURCES THAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH NOW ARE IMPROVING AND HAVE BEEN IMPROVING SINCE AROUND AUGUST
TIME FRAME. THE PENS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY IN NEED OF
ADDITIONAL WORK. MORE AUTOMATION AT IANA IS NECESSARY. REQUEST VALIDATION
AND PROCESSING, AS WELL AS DATA COLLECTION, IS DONE MOSTLY MANUALLY NOW.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING NEW MECHANISMS THAT WILL FACILITATE BOTH
THE REQUEST VALIDATION AS WELL AS DATA COLLECTION. AND WE ALSO HAVE A DATA
PROCESSING EFFORT UNDER WAY TO ALLOW FOR PRESENTATION, MUCH BETTER THAN WE'RE
ABLE TO NOW. I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE PRIMITIVE NATURE OF THESE GRAPHS.

FINALLY, THE ICANN STAFF AND IANA STAFF ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MISTAKES HAVE BEEN
MADE IN THE PAST. IANA WAS UNDERSTAFFED SIGNIFICANTLY FOR A LONG -- A LARGE
AMOUNT OF TIME. WE HAD THE WRONG PEOPLE IN SORT OF THE WRONG JOBS.

THERE WAS A DE-EMPHASIZE AND DE-PRIORITIZATION OF THE IANA INTERNALLY WITHIN
ICANN BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH.
HOWEVER, ICANN HAS REALIZED THAT THERE WERE MISTAKES, AND STEPS HAVE
DEFINITELY BEEN TAKEN TO NEVER REPEAT THOSE MISTAKES.

SINCE I HAVE JOINED IANA, I AM VERY AWARE THAT IT HAS A VERY HIGH PRIORITY,
BECAUSE I HAVE MY BOSS AROUND MY NECK EVERY NOW AND THEN ASKING FOR NUMBERS
AND ASKING WHY IS THIS TAKING TOO LONG AND THAT SORT OF THING, WHICH I
UNDERSTAND AND ACTUALLY VERY MUCH APPRECIATE.

WE HAVE BROUGHT IN NEW STAFF. IANA DOES HAVE AN INCREASED BUDGET. AND WE
HAVE, PARTICULARLY WITH MY ENTERING IANA, A NEW FOCUS ON RESPONSIVENESS,
EFFICIENCY AND AUTOMATION.

IN ADDITION, I HAVE DISCOVERED AND HEARD ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAS
BEEN A LOSS OF TRANSPARENCY, A LOSS OF OPENNESS, AND HONESTY WITHIN THE IANA.
AND I VOW AND I MAKE THE SOLEMN PROMISE TO THE ENTIRE IANA, ICANN COMMUNITY
THAT I WILL BE AS OPEN AND HONEST AND TRANSPARENT AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE FOR
ME IN THE POSITION AS IANA GENERAL MANAGER.

AND WITH THAT....

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID. AND I THINK ALL OF US APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMITMENTS THAT YOU ARE MAKING AND THOSE OF YOUR STAFF. THIS IS NOT AN
EASY JOB, AS YOUR STATISTICS SUGGEST. SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU ANTICIPATE. AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL FIND WITH NEW
RESOURCES THAT THERE WILL BE NEW TOOLS AND MORE RAPID ABILITY TO PROCESS ALL
THESE MANY, VARIED KINDS OF REQUIREMENTS.

WITH THAT, DAVID, I THINK I'LL THANK YOU. YOU CAN RETURN TO THE FLOOR, AND
I'LL ASK THERESA SWINEHART TO GIVE US THE FINAL REPORT OF THE DAY ON THE
WSIS, POST-WSIS SITUATION. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

THERESA.

>>THERESA SWINEHART:OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS VERY, VERY SHORT, BECAUSE I
THINK WE HAVE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME ON THE TOPIC, AND WE HAD A LONG
WORKSHOP EARLIER THIS WEEK.

BUT JUST TO TAKE US THROUGH A QUICK OVERVIEW, WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE'RE
GOING.

I THINK IT'S GOOD TO REFLECT WHEN THIS PROCESS ACTUALLY STARTED. IT WAS WELL
BEFORE 2003. AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WSIS AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD
THIS WEEK AND THE MOVING-FORWARD PROCESS ARE ACTUALLY A CULMINATION OF
MEETINGS THAT WERE IN 2003, THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SUMMIT, I THINK WHICH HAD
RESULTED IN A STRONG QUESTIONING OF WHETHER THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL WAS
THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO, AND A STRONG QUESTIONING OF ICANN'S EXISTENCE.

AND THE SECOND PHASE OF THE SUMMIT, WHICH JUST CONCLUDED IN NOVEMBER 2005,
WHICH RESULTED IN ACCEPTANCE OF THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MODEL AND IMPROVING
EXISTING MECHANISMS.

I THINK A STRONG CONGRATULATIONS IS DUE TO THE ENTIRE INTERNET COMMUNITY FOR
SPENDING A LOT OF ENERGY AND TIME IN PROVIDING INFORMATION ON HOW THE
INTERNET FUNCTIONS AND WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH THIS AND WHY THIS IS THE RIGHT
DIRECTION TO GO. AND FOR THE OPEN-MINDEDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENTS TO LEARN NEW
WAYS OF THINKING IN WHAT ARE VERY TRADITIONAL MODELS OF GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURES.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE PLEASED WITH THE VARIATIONS BETWEEN 2003 AND 2005.

THE OUTCOME OF THE TUNIS SUMMIT HAS RESULTED IN FOUR DOCUMENTS, TWO OF WHICH
CAME OUT OF THE GENEVA PHASE AND THE OTHER TWO OUT OF THE TUNIS PHASE,
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, A PLAN OF ACTION, TUNIS COMMITMENTS, AND THE TUNIS
AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY. THE ISSUES SURROUNDING INTERNET
GOVERNANCE ARE CONTAINED IN THAT DOCUMENT AND REFLECT THE HARD WORK OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE, THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY AND A LOT OF
DISCUSSIONS AND PREPARATORY MEETINGS.

ICANN'S INVOLVEMENT IS A BROAD INTERNET COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, BOARD
INVOLVEMENT, STAFF INVOLVEMENT, CONSTITUENCY INVOLVEMENTS. BOTH IN THE WSIS,
WSIS PREPARATORY PROCESS, AND THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.

THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS WORKSHOPS AT THE ICANN MEETINGS. I'D LIKE TO
ADVANTAGE VITTORIO AND IZUMI FOR HAVING BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ICANN COMMUNITY IN THE MONTREAL MEETING. I WILL NEVER FORGET THEM GOING UP
TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND POINTING OUT THAT THIS
PROCESS WAS GOING ON.

THEY HELPED ARRANGE THE FIRST SORT OF WSIS DISCUSSION WITHIN THE ICANN
CONTEXT AT THE TUNIS MEETING THAT ICANN HELD, AND IT HAS TAKEN OFF SINCE
THEN.

WE HAD OUR SIXTH SESSION THIS WEEK, AND I WAS JUST REVIEWING THE NOTES. IT'S
ABOUT 26 PAGES, SO I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS GOING ON.

THE ICANN COMMUNITY, STAFF, BOARD AND OTHERS ARE ALSO PARTICIPATING AND
COLLABORATING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE INTERNET
GOVERNANCE DISCUSSIONS IN LARGE PART TO CREATE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
ICANN DOES AND DOES NOT DO. AND ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR
LED MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL AND HOW TO WORK TOWARDS IMPROVING THAT.

MOVING FORWARD, THIS MEETING I THINK REFLECTED A STRONG DIRECTION IN
DISCUSSING THE POST PHASE, AND MY NEXT PRESENTATION AT THE NEXT ICANN MEETING
WILL NOT BE CALLED WSIS BUT I WILL THINK OF ANOTHER TITLE.

A LOT OF THE DISCUSSIONS WERE WITHIN THE CONSTITUENCIES, BETWEEN THE
CONSTITUENCIES, HALLWAY DISCUSSIONS, ONE WHICH WAS A NEW PROCESS FOR US BEGAN
WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, WHICH AS WE HEARD FROM THE GAC COMMUNIQUE, HAS RESULTED IN AN
AGREEMENT TO COLLABORATE AND WORK TOGETHER IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
OF GOVERNMENTS.

I THINK WE'LL SEE THAT WITH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED ON HOW TO IMPROVE
THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.

WE HAVE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM RESPECTIVE CONSTITUENCIES ALREADY. WE SAW THAT
YESTERDAY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM CONTEXT HERE.

AND I THINK WE'LL SEE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS MOVING FORWARD, AND IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT ALL THE COMMUNITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THIS.

ON THIS NOTE THE THANK YOU IS NOT ACTUALLY JUST THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME
ON THE PRESENTATION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A NEW UNDERSTANDING AND A
NEW DIRECTION, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK AHEAD OF US IN THE COMING YEAR AND
YEARS, IN ALL ASPECTS OF THE INTERNET-RELATED DISCUSSIONS IN THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. BUT I THINK EVERYBODY DESERVES A GOOD THANKS FOR
ALL THEIR HARD WORK IN BRINGING THE COMMUNITY TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK AMBASSADOR KARKLINS AND MARKUS KUMMER FOR, AFTER ALL
THEIR HARD WORK IN TUNIS, COMING TO THE ICANN MEETING IN VANCOUVER TO SHARE
THEIR THOUGHTS ON HOW THEY SEE THE DISCUSSIONS HAVING GONE AND LISTENING TO
THE ICANN COMMUNITY'S VIEWS ON WHERE WE SAW THE DISCUSSIONS GOING.

SO WITH THAT, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, THERESA. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE DO HAVE A
LOT OF WORK TO DO, BUT I WANT TO REMIND YOU ALL OF US, BOARD, STAFF AND
PARTICIPANTS, THAT THE CRITICAL THING AHEAD IS TO DO THE WORK THAT ICANN IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND TO DO IT BETTER THAN ANYBODY. BECAUSE ALL THE
PREPARATION AND BALLOT IN THE WORLD WON'T BE SATISFACTORY IF WE ARE NOT
ACTUALLY DOING OUR JOBS.

SO WE HAVE PLENTY ON OUR PLATE.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, WE NOW HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO TWO THINGS.

I'M NOT SURE WHETHER EVERYONE HAS ORGANIZED THEMSELVES IN THE WAY THAT THE
AGENDA PROPOSED. ORIGINALLY I WAS HOPING TO SEE ANY COMMENTS ON THE REPORTS
AND UPDATES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THEN WE'D HAVE OPEN MICROPHONE.

GIVEN THE SHORTNESS OF THE TIME, I'M GOING TO DO TWO THINGS. WE'LL GO
STRAIGHT TO ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO BRING UP. SECOND, I'M GOING TO PUT A
FOUR-MINUTE LIMIT ON EACH SPEAKER SO AS TO TRY TO STAY ON SCHEDULE.

SO LET ME ASK STAFF TO PUT UP THE CLOCK, AND I WILL INVITE THE GENTLEMAN AT
THE MICROPHONE TO BEGIN.

>>STUART LAWLEY: THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS STUART LAWLEY.

I'M THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICM REGISTRY, THE ORGANIZATION THAT PROPOSES TO
OPERATE THE SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FOR THE RESPONSIBLE PROVIDERS OF ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT ONLINE.

ICM UNDERSTANDS THAT THE SUBJECT OF ADULT MATERIAL ONLINE INVOLVES SENSITIVE
AND UNCOMFORTABLE ISSUES.

WE APPRECIATE AND, IN FACT, APPLAUD THE WILLINGNESS OF THE BOARD AND THE
STAFF TO GIVE OUR PROPOSAL SERIOUS CONSIDERATION AND TO EVALUATE IT BASED ON
THE BOARD-APPROVED CRITERIA WHEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN EASIER TO TRY AND DUCK THE
DISCUSSION ALTOGETHER.

THE BOARD'S WILLINGNESS TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION UNDERSCORES THE INTEGRITY OF
THE ICANN PROCESS AND THE MEMBERS OF ITS BOARD.

WE ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER A WEEK AGO LOOKING FORWARD TO A SCHEDULED MEETING
WITH THE GAC, AND ESPECIALLY TO FINAL BOARD CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED
CONTRACT.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE ARE EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE BOARD WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERING THE CONTRACT TOMORROW.

ALTHOUGH AT THIS POINT IT PROBABLY ISN'T PRODUCTIVE TO DEBATE EXACTLY WHY THE
CONTRACT WAS REMOVED FROM THE BOARD'S AGENDA, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON RECORD
THE FOLLOWING FACTS:

ONE, ICANN TOLD ALL APPLICANTS, AS THE REPORT POSTED THIS WEEK SAYS, THAT THE
EVALUATION TEAM REPORTS WOULD BE POSTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS.

AS THE ICANN REPORT PUBLISHED THIS WEEK ALSO GOES ON TO STATE, THE PROCESS IS
NOT COMPLETED FOR DOT TRIPLE X, DOT ASIA, AND DOT TEL.

NONETHELESS, IN AN EFFORT TO BE RESPONSIVE, ICM PROVIDED TO ICANN ON OCTOBER
THE 19TH A PROPOSED REPORT THAT CLEARLY SET FORTH THE FINDINGS OF THE
EVALUATION TEAMS.

IN ADDITION, ICM REGISTRY SENT TO ICANN STAFF A REDACTED VERSION OF THE ET
REPORT NEARLY A WEEK BEFORE IT WAS POSTED. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE, BASED ON MY
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS THIS WEEK, THAT THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID, THAT EVEN
HAD THE REPORT BEEN POSTED EARLIER, THE GAC WOULD HAVE HAD ONE LESS EXCUSE TO
BLOCK THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF OUR CONTRACT.

IN FACT, HOWEVER, GAC REPRESENTATIVES FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE TOLD ME TWO
THINGS: FIRSTLY, THE VERY FEW GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE WRITTEN TO ICANN ON THIS
ISSUE, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ARE NOT
OPPOSED TO OUR PROPOSAL ON SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS.

AND SECONDLY, THE ICM APPLICATION IS, IN EFFECT, BEING HELD HOSTAGE IN A
DISPUTE BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC.

SINCE SEPTEMBER, ICANN -- SORRY, ICM REGISTRY HAS TRAVELED TO THREE
CONTINENTS TO MEET WITH GOVERNMENTS AND ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

IT NOW APPEARS THAT OUR FATE, THE FATE OF OUR PROPOSAL, IS NOW OUT OF OUR OWN
HANDS.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD TO ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THIS MEETING TO REVIEW AND ACT ON OUR CONTRACT.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT SUCCINCT CONTRIBUTION.

COULD WE HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER.

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: YEAH.

I HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO IANA.

THE CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WITH REGARD TO IANA TERMINATES
IN MARCH NEXT YEAR.

AND MY QUESTION IS HERE, ARE THE ICANN BOARD AND IANA PREPARED FOR THE PHASE
AFTER THE TERMINATION OR CALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

THANK YOU.

>>BECKY BURR: I ACTUALLY --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SORRY.

CAN I JUST RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION FIRST?

THE NTIA HAS NOT PROPOSED ANY FORMAL -- NOT MADE ANY FORMAL STATEMENT OF
POLICY ON THE NATURE OF THAT CONTRACT.

SO LET ME BE QUITE CLEAR, THERE IS NO FORMAL STATEMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT AROUND THAT -- AROUND THAT GOVERNMENT, AND ANY FURTHER INQUIRIES
CAN BE DIRECTED TO THEM.

OBVIOUSLY, WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FORWARD TO THINK THROUGH THE WHOLE MOU, THE
WHOLE SET OF AGENDAS ON 2006 NEXT YEAR.



>>BECKY BURR: I ACTUALLY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR CHAIRMAN TARMIZI ON THE GAC
COMMUNIQUE.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS WITH TIMING.

BUT I GAVE HIM A LITTLE BIT OF A HEADS-UP.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOUR COMMUNIQUE WELCOMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TO POSTPONE
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS GAC HAS BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE REPORT AND OTHER REQUIRED
INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO .XXX.

CAN YOU TELL US WHAT OTHER INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED, WHEN YOU EXPECT TO
RECEIVE IT, AND THE PROCESS THAT THE GAC WILL USE TO EVALUATE THAT MATERIAL.

AND THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, BECKY, IF I MAY.

THE -- JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE WERE TWO REQUESTS THAT THE GAC MADE TO THE
BOARD.

ONE WAS RECEIVED, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL REPORT OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS ON THE
STLDS.

AND THE SECOND IS THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH WE WOULD GIVE AN ACCOUNT
OF THE BOARD'S REASONING FOR ITS FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE DECISIONS THAT
IT'S TAKEN.

SO I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH VINT YET AS TO HOW WE'RE
GOING TO WORK THROUGH THE RESPONSE IN RELATION TO THIS SITUATION.

SO I WON'T WANT TO RESPOND PUBLICLY YET UNTIL I'VE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH VINT
ABOUT HOW THIS CAN BE WORKED THROUGH, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: SHARIL, WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND REQUEST BY SUMMARIZING THE
SEQUENCE AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION-MAKING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
CERTAINLY PROVIDE TO YOU CERTAINLY BEFORE THE END OF JANUARY, IF NOT BEFORE
THAT.



>>BECKY BURR: OKAY.

THANKS.

I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT YOU
PROPOSE.

I HAVE ONE THEORETICAL QUESTION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK IT'S A
THEORETICAL QUESTION.

UNDER THE GAC RULES, WHEN IT PROVIDES ADVICE TO THE BOARD, THAT ADVICE IS
REQUIRED TO BE THE PRODUCT OF CONSENSUS.

NOW, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A VOTING PROCEDURE.

BUT THE GAC OPERATING PROCEDURES ARE ACTUALLY UNAVAILABLE THIS MORNING.

SO I COULDN'T LOOK IT UP.

BUT, IN ANY CASE, ASSUMING -- PUTTING ASIDE THE VOTE ISSUE, IN THE -- ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT AT LEAST ONE GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL
AND AT LEAST ONE GOVERNMENT THAT I'M AWARE OF -- AND I THINK PROBABLY A
NUMBER OF GOVERNMENTS -- WILL BE PRECLUDED BY THEIR NATIONAL LAWS FROM
OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL ON THE GROUND -- ON SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS, I'M A LITTLE
BIT CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THE GAC PROPOSES TO REACH CONSENSUS, AND, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, IF THE GAC CAN'T REACH CONSENSUS, IS IT FAIR TO HOLD THE APPLICANT
UP FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS?

OR COULD THERE BE A PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENTS EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS
INDIVIDUALLY TO THE BOARD IN A MORE TIMELY FASHION?

I'M JUST -- AND I AM ASKING THIS WITH ABSOLUTE AND UTMOST RESPECT, AND ALSO
BECAUSE I HAVE WATCHED THIS PROCESS, AND MR. TWOMEY WILL CONFIRM THAT
SITTING UP THERE WHERE YOU ARE IS A LITTLE BIT OF SHOOTING THE MESSENGER,
WHICH I DON'T INTEND TO DO, BUT I'M HAVING A SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTY FIGURING
OUT HOW, UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
THE LIKE, THE GAC CAN PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE BOARD.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: VERY BRIEF RESPONSE, BECKY, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

FIRST THINGS FIRST.

WE'VE ONLY GOTTEN THE NEW INFORMATION JUST RECENTLY, THE LAST FEW DAYS.

SO MANY OF US -- AND I AM CONSCIOUS OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GAC WHO ARE NOT
PRESENT IN THE ROOM BUT DO FOLLOW THE WORK OF THE GAC ONLINE.

AND I NEED TO BE AS INCLUSIVE AS I CAN.

SO WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT DISCUSSION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES DUE TO THE FACT
THAT THE INFORMATION HAS ONLY JUST BEEN RECEIVED.

AND I WELCOME THAT -- VINT'S COMMENT THAT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE
RECEIVED IN -- VERY SHORTLY AFTER THIS.

AS HOW WE NORMALLY WORK IN THE GAC, WE ACTUALLY, UNFORTUNATELY, DON'T DO VERY
WELL IN TERMS OF ONLINE COLLABORATION.

WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT.

BUT IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS THIS FACE-TO-FACE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, IN WELLINGTON.

ON THE OTHER ISSUE OF GOVERNMENTS RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, THAT IS
SOMETHING GOVERNMENTS CAN AND MAY DO SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SOVEREIGN
GOVERNMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE GAC.

I WON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM IN THAT REGARD AS TO WHAT THEY MIGHT DO, AND
NEITHER DO I WANT TO SPEAK, SINCE I'M NOT A U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT,
I'D RATHER NOT SPEAK OR COMMENT ABOUT WHAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT MIGHT DO.

BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, AT LEAST FOR THE GAC, WE HAVE NOT YET HAD THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE FACE TO FACE.

AND IN LIGHT OF THE NEW AND RECENT INFORMATION RECEIVED, WE WOULD FIRST LIKE
TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE WE MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR ADVICE TO THE BOARD,
IF ANY.

THANK YOU.



>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SHARIL.

LET ME TAKE AMADEU NEXT.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY, THANKS.

GOOD MORNING.

AMADEU ABRIL, .CAT THIS TIME.

FIRST A COMMENT ON THE OMBUDSMAN REPORT.

HE MENTIONED THAT ICM HAS AN OMBUDSMAN IN THEIR APPLICATION.

WE ALSO HAVE ONE, WE STILL HAVE IT. BUT WE HAVE SOME TROUBLE FINDING SOMEONE
THAT'S ABLE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THOSE THAT WE HAVE APPROACHED ARE NOT VERY
INTERNET SAVVY.

SO IF HE IS WILLING TO LEARN SOME CATALAN, WE HAVE A PART-TIME JOB FOR HIM
AVAILABLE.

NOW, ON THE STLD REPORT, I HAVE THREE VERY SHORT COMMENTS, ONE LESSON, AND
ONE WORRY.

THE THREE SHORT COMMENTS IS: TOO SLOW, UNACCEPTABLY SLOW, UNNECESSARILY SLOW.

THE LESSON IS, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF ATTENTION, IT'S NOT A LACK OF --
I MEAN I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCRETE COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYBODY.

PAUL AND THE BOARD AND ALL THE COMMITTEES SHOULD BE VERY HAPPY HAVING THIS
MANY BRIGHT, TALENTED, DEDICATED STAFF.

IT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH ANY INDIVIDUAL.

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE STRUCTURE ON HOW ICANN WORKS THAT MAKES THAT
ICANN AT 35 OR 50 OR 80 MEMBERS OF THE STAFF ONE DAY SEEMS TO WORK EVEN AS
SLOWLY WHEN THERE WAS LOUIS TOUTON AND THE SHADOW OF LOUIS TOUTON.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AND THE REASON IS THAT OUR EXPERIENCE WAS, WE SENT
SOME QUESTIONS IN APRIL.

IN JULY, WE SIMPLY DROPPED THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE NOBODY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE AN
ANSWER DURING THE CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATIONS.

WE ASKED FOR SOMETHING IN IANA.

WE DON'T GET ANY ANSWER, BECAUSE APPARENTLY EVEN FOR SAYING, "IT'S BEEN
DONE," YOU NEED TO SCULLEY THAT INTERNALLY TO TOO MANY PEOPLE.

YOU NEVER GOT THE SIGNOFF, YOU NEVER GOT THE ANSWER.

AND THEN YOU START GOING YOURSELF IN PARALLEL TO ANYBODY, UP TO THE TOP OF
THE STAFF AND THE BOARD, TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

SO EIGHT PEOPLE ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT -- AS SIMPLE AS, "IT'S
ALREADY DONE."

BUT IT TAKES TWO WEEKS.

OR IT MEANS THAT IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE TOO MANY PARALLEL KINGDOMS, HAVE TOO
MANY DIFFERENT BOXES DOING DIFFERENT THINGS AND NEED TO TALK ALL OF THEM.

FOR INSTANCE, FOR NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT, NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE EVEN SOMETHING THAT MEANT FOR ICANN $78 A YEAR, AND YOU
HAVE TO GO UP TO PAUL TWOMEY FOR THAT.

BUT PAUL TWOMEY HAS TOO MANY THINGS TO DO.

SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING GETS QUEUED.

SO MY ADVICE FOR PAUL AND THE BOARD, TO REVISE THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND
PROBABLY GRANT MORE POWER OF DECISIONS FOR MINOR THINGS TO THOSE BRIGHT AND
DEDICATED AND TALENTED STAFF YOU HAVE AND NOT BRING EVERYTHING TO THE TOP.

THAT WAS THE LESSON.

THE WORRY, THE WORRY I HAVE, IT IS NOT VERY -- I MEAN, SOMETHING THAT'S
POLITICALLY VERY INCORRECT TO SAY HERE AND NOT VERY POPULAR.

MY WORRY IS, YOU HAD A (INAUDIBLE) REPORT.

SOMETIMES THE REPORTS, LIKE THE FUNNY REPORT FROM TELCORDIA AND DOT NET SEEMS
TO BE THE WORD OF GOD.

SOMETIMES THE REPORTS SEEM TO BE WORTH NOTHING.

MY WORRY IS THAT WE HAD AN ARTIFICIAL PROCESS, SAY, ONLY STLDS.

SO WE HAVE SOME VERY GOOD APPLICATIONS BEING FORCED TO BE TRANSVESTITES, LIKE
STLDS, WHEN THEY WERE NOT, PROBABLY.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEN YOU ALLOW TO CHANGE NEARLY EVERYTHING AND TO REPLAY
THE GAME ALL THE TIME, TO ADDRESS LEGITIMATE APPLICATIONS FOR TLDS THAT WERE
NOT STLDS.

IN THE FUTURE, THIS MIGHT MEAN THAT WE WILL HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS ADDRESSING
NEW ROUNDS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY WILL EXPECT TO REPLAY THE GAME ONCE AND OVER
AND OVER AGAIN.

FINAL COMMENT, VINT.

THIS, THE CLOCK ON THE SCREEN, IS INSULTING.

I MEAN, YOU SHOULD DO THAT FOR ME, BECAUSE I HAVE A WELL-ESTABLISHED
REPUTATION OF USING TOO MUCH TIME FOR SAYING TOO LITTLE.

BUT THIS IS ICANN.

WE ARE TRAVELING AROUND THE WORLD TO DO THIS.

AND WE CANNOT SIT HERE, LISTENING TO BORING REPORTS HOW MANY TIMES WE MET
HERE OR THERE.

WE CAN READ THAT ON THE WEB.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WE HAVE THERE THE DAMOCLES SWORD
SAYING, "YOU ARE TALKING TOO MUCH."

WE COME HERE JUST TO TALK WITH YOU.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WELL, AMADEU, IF YOU NOTICE, THERE'S A FAIRLY LONG QUEUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOURS YOU WANT TO SIT THROUGH THIS.

WE'LL KEEP PROCESSING THE QUEUE.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I SAT 14 HOURS IN A PLANE.

SO AT LEAST THAT MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: AMADEU, I SIT FOR A LOT OF HOURS IN PLANES, TOO.

PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>KEITH DRAZEK: THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS KEITH DRAZEK WITH NEULEVEL, THE DOT BIZ REGISTRY.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

I WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT TODAY CONCERNING REGISTRY FEES THAT ARE PAID
TO ICANN.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN FEES NEGOTIATED WITH VERISIGN FOR DOT COM AND DOT
NET ARE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR NEWER AND SMALLER UNSPONSORED REGISTRY
OPERATORS AND SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON THEM.

DUE TO THE HIGH FIXED COSTS OF OPERATING ANY GTLD REGISTRY, REGARDLESS OF ITS
VOLUME, THE FEE LEVELS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR DOT COM AND IN PLACE FOR DOT
NET ARE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR SMALLER AND NEWER REGISTRIES THAT COMPETE
WITH VERISIGN.

THE IMPACT OF ICANN FEES ON A PER-NAME BASIS IS DRAMATICALLY AND
DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGHER AT LOWER REGISTRY VOLUMES.

THE IMPOSITION OF DOT COM OR DOT NET FEE LEVELS ON NEULEVEL FOR DOT BIZ AND
ON OTHER SMALLER, UNSPONSORED REGISTRY OPERATORS WOULD BE NEITHER EQUITABLE
NOR CONSISTENT WITH THE PROMOTION OF REGISTRY COMPETITION AND WOULD
NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR BUSINESS.

VERISIGN, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR COM/NET BRANDS, ENJOY MONOPOLY MARKET POWER IN
THE UNSPONSORED GTLD MARKET THAT ICANN REGULATES.

IT'S NOW TIME FOR ICANN TO DELIVER ON ITS CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS AND TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO PROMOTE COMPETITION IN THE GTLD
MARKET BY ENSURING THAT NEWER AND SMALLER REGISTRY OPERATORS CAN COMPETE ON
EQUITABLE FOOTING WITH VERISIGN, THE MONOPOLY THAT CONTROLS AN 85% AND
GROWING MARKET SHARE.

ONE WAY TO DO THIS IS TO CONSIDER ACTUAL MARKET CONDITIONS AND NEGOTIATE
LOWER, REASONABLE ICANN FEES WITH VERISIGN'S COMPETITORS.

THANK YOU.



>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU FOR A CONCRETE RECOMMENDATION.

MR. HASBROUCK.

>>ED HASBROUCK: MY NAME IS EDWARD HASBROUCK, AND I HAVE A VERY CONCRETE
RECOMMENDATION AND DEMAND THAT THIS BOARD PROMPTLY, THAT IS, AT YOUR MEETING
TOMORROW, REFER MY OUTSTANDING INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUEST TO AN INDEPENDENT
REVIEW PANEL CHARGED WITH DETERMINING WHETHER ICANN'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
ON DOT TRAVEL COMPLIED WITH ICANN'S TRANSPARENCY BYLAW, AND THAT ICANN STAY
ITS DECISION ON DOT TRAVEL PENDING RECEIPT OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL ON MY REQUEST.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

I'M A TRAVEL JOURNALIST, AND I HAVE TRIED TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL
ABILITY TO REPORT ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTERNET AND TRAVEL, WHICH IS THE
FOCUS OF ONE OF MY BOOKS AND A MAJOR TOPIC OF MY WRITING ONLINE.

I'VE REPORTED ON A LOT OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS, NOT LEAST, WHAT IS THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IATA AND TRALLIANCE, AND WHY WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS OVERRULED.

BUT THIS FOES QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED AND I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO RELY ON
THE SOURCES I HAVE, THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY THAT'S
DENIED ME ACCESS TO THE PRIMARY SOURCES, DENIED ME OPPORTUNITY TO THE
MEETINGS AT WHICH DECISIONS WERE MADE AND TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE
REVIEWED BY ICANN ITSELF.

MY -- THE SUBJECT OF THIS REQUEST IS NOT TO ASK WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH WHAT
I'VE WRITTEN.

IT IS NOT TO ASK THAT ICANN RECONSIDER ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR ITS
DECISION ON DOT TRAVEL.

IT IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT ICANN SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT
MAKE DECISIONS TRANSPARENTLY.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT ICANN SHOULDN'T MAKE DECISIONS TRANSPARENTLY, MAKE A
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE TRANSPARENCY BYLAW.

IT IS NOT ASKING WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER ICANN ACTED
TRANSPARENTLY.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW IS AVAILABLE ONLY WHERE SOMEONE ALLEGES THAT ICANN HAS NOT
FOLLOWED ITS BYLAWS.

IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IN MOST SUCH CASES, ICANN WILL BELIEVE THAT IT HAD
ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS.

THAT IN NO WAY GIVES YOU THE RIGHT NOT TO REFER THE REQUEST TO AN INDEPENDENT
REVIEW PANEL.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT I'M WRONG AND THAT YOU ACTED PROPERLY, REFER THE REQUEST
TO AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL.

IT WILL UPHOLD YOUR DECISION AND I'LL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE ARBITRATION.

I'M HERE AT MY OWN EXPENSE, TREMBLING WITH FEAR THAT ICANN IS GOING TO TRY TO
FIND SOME WAY TO DRIVE UP THE COSTS OF THE ARBITRATION TO BANKRUPT ME.

AT THE SAME TIME, I'M FULLY AWARE OF THE RISK I'M TAKING, AND IT'S NOT FOR
YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER I SHOULD TAKE THAT RISK.

AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF OFF-TOPIC DISCUSSION.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS IS GOING TO COST.

I HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY ASKING SINCE MAY FOR A COPY OF ICANN'S POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES ON INDEPENDENT REVIEW, IF THERE ARE ANY.

THE BYLAW SAYS "ICANN SHALL HAVE IN PLACE POLICIES FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW,"
CLEARLY CONTEMPLATING THE EXISTENCE OF POLICIES ADDITIONAL TO THE BYLAW
ITSELF.

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THEM.

I AM STILL WAITING FOR THEM.

THE LAST COMMUNICATION, AFTER A VERY DESULTORY EXCHANGE OF E-MAILS, EXCERPTS
OF WHICH WERE PUBLISHED BY ICANN, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, INCLUDING BIZARRE
CLAIMS TO THINK I HAD GIVEN UP MY REQUEST, THE LAST OF THOSE WAS A MESSAGE
SAYING THAT ICANN WAS RESEARCHING AND REVIEWING MY REQUESTS AND WOULD GET
BACK TO ME.

I'M STILL WAITING, EIGHT MONTHS LATER.

AND IF ICANN TAKES NO ACTION ON THIS REQUEST, I THINK IT WILL BE APPARENT TO
THE WORLD THAT CONTRARY TO YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AS OFFICERS OF A
CORPORATION WHOSE BYLAWS PROVIDE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND CONTRARY TO YOUR
CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR IT, ICANN DOES NOT, IN FACT, HAVE AN
OVERSIGHT PROCESS.

SO I URGE YOU TO PROVE THAT YOU DO BY VOTING TOMORROW TO REFER MY REQUEST TO
AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL AND TO STAY THAT REQUEST TO AFFORD THE PANEL THE
AUTHORITY IT IS GUARANTEED BY THE BYLAWS TO MAKE A -- A MEANINGFUL
RECOMMENDATION FOR A STAY PENDING INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: MR. HASBROUCK, GENERAL COUNSEL IS PREPARED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH
THE DETAILS OF HOW TO GO ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE.



>>ED HASBROUCK: WHEN?



>>VINT CERF: JJ?

I ASSUME WITHIN THE WEEK, IF NOT TOMORROW MORNING.



>>ED HASBROUCK: I WILL BE HERE TOMORROW.

WHERE IS HE?

I'D LIKE TO MEET HIM.

LET'S GET ON WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

CAN WE -- CAN WE MOVE ON, MR. HASBROUCK?

>>ED HASBROUCK: ARE YOU AGREEING THAT YOU WILL TAKE ACTION?

>>VINT CERF: MR. HASBROUCK, WHAT I HAVE JUST SAID IS THAT THE GENERAL
COUNSEL WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH DETAILS OF HOW TO INITIATE YOUR ACTION.

>>ED HASBROUCK: I AM STILL WAITING.



>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: HELLO.

I'M JORDYN BUCHANAN, WITH REGISTER.COM.

I'LL MAKE ONE QUICK NOTE.

I NOTICED DURING THE TRANSCRIPTION, I THINK MR. HASBROUCK WAS CURIOUS ABOUT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRALLIANCE AND "IATA," NOT "IANA," JUST FOR CLARITY
IN THE RECORD.

I WANT TO REACT MOSTLY TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT HAGEN PROVIDED.

THE REPORT INDICATED CORRECTLY THAT REGISTRARS HAVE NOT APPROVED THE PAYMENT
TO ICANN FOR THE YEAR.

I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED YET TO APPROVE PAYMENT FOR THE
YEAR.

SO I HOPE IT'S NOT COMING AS A SURPRISE TO ANYONE THAT WE HAVEN'T APPROVED IT
YET, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED TO DO SO.

I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE REASON WE HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED WAS THAT A NUMBER OF
REGISTRARS PROBABLY MADE IT CLEAR AT VARIOUS TIMES THAT WE WERE DISPLEASED
WITH THE DOT NET PROCESS.

BUT I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT WE ASKED FOR A FEW SPECIFIC THINGS FROM THE BOARD IN
ORDER TO RESOLVE THAT -- THOSE CONCERNS, WHAT WE CALLED A BREACH OF TRUST AT
THE TIME.

AND I THINK ICANN HAS BEEN ENDEAVORING TO TAKE ACTION ON EACH OF THOSE
REQUESTS.

SPECIFICALLY, A NUMBER OF -- SOME MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE DOT NET
CONTRACT, AND FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH VERISIGN.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY OUTSTANDING REQUEST, WHICH IS THAT ICANN
CONSIDER A BYLAWS CHANGE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET INTO SUCH A SITUATION
AGAIN, TO MAKE SURE THAT IMPORTANT CONTRACTS ARE ACTUALLY POSTED, AS ICANN
DID IN THE CASE OF DOT COM, PRIOR TO APPROVING THEM, AS LONG AS THE BOARD
CONTINUES TO -- I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE BOARD IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THAT HERE IN VANCOUVER.

THAT'S VERY ENCOURAGING.

I WILL CERTAINLY GO ON THE RECORD HERE AS SAYING, GIVEN THAT ENVIRONMENT,
REGISTER.COM IS PREPARED TO APPROVE THE FUNDING FOR THE YEAR IF ICANN WILL
REQUEST THAT WE DO SO, THEN GIVE US A VOTING IMPLEMENT IN ORDER TO DO SO.

AND I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF REGISTRARS WHO
FEEL SIMILARLY.

SO I THINK THE -- ICANN'S FUNDING FOR THE 2005/2006 FISCAL YEAR, I HOPE, CAN
BE RESOLVED VERY QUICKLY.

AND I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THERE'S NO SENSE THAT WE NEED TO SOMEHOW COUPLE ANY
OTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FOR OTHER REASONS OTHER THAN
2005/2006.

I THINK WE CAN SOLVE THE 2005/2006 PROBLEM VERY QUICKLY.

I THINK HAGEN INDICATED IN HIS REPORT HE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE AS WELL.

AND I CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS IN A CONTEXT WHERE
WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT SHOULD BE VERY EASY TO RESOLVE THE FUNDING FOR THE
'05/'06 YEAR.

AND I'LL ALSO INDICATE THAT, SPEAKING FOR REGISTER.COM, WE ARE EAGER TO
ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH ICANN ABOUT ENSURING THAT IF THE NEEDS IN '06/'07
AND BEYOND AS PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS ARE GREATER THAN ICANN
NEEDS IN '05/'06, THEN WE NEED TO FIND SOURCES FOR MORE REVENUE.

LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

VERY INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT DISCUSSION.

VERY INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT HOW TO PAY FOR IT, WHETHER IT'S LOOKING AT
EXISTING MODELS OF FUNDING OR THERE ARE NEW PLACES THAT WE CAN GET MONEY
FROM.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE IT AS A DISCUSSION AS OPPOSED TO BEING SURPRISED IN
THE MORNING TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS A, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, REGISTRY FEE THAT WE
ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO PAY.

THANK YOU.



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

PAUL TWOMEY WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.



>>PAUL TWOMEY: MAY I SAY, THANK YOU, JORDYN.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH YOU SAID IT.

AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT YOU MADE THE DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH I HOPE PEOPLE
WILL ALSO HAVE HEARD FROM MY PRESENTATION YESTERDAY, THAT THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE 2005/2006 BUDGET IS IN VAST AMOUNT QUITE SEPARATE AN ISSUE TO WHAT
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE PROPOSED DOT COM SETTLEMENT.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME REPORTING AND OTHERWISE THAT WE HAVE PUT FOR CONSULTATION
THE DOT COM PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AS PART OF A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO TRY TO GET
THIS YEAR'S BUDGET REQUIREMENTS MET.

AND I TRIED TO MAKE CLEAR YESTERDAY THAT THE PROCESS WHEREBY WE CAME TO THIS
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL, AND SECONDLY, IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY LINKED WITH THE OTHER
ISSUE WHICH YOU HAVE POINTED TO, WHICH IS THE 2005/2006 BUDGET.

BUT WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT AND THE CONTRIBUTION YOU JUST MADE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL. MARILYN CADE IS NEXT.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE, I AM AN ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, BUT I AM SPEAKING HERE AS A
MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO START MY COMMENTS BY
NOTING WITH APPRECIATION THE BEHAVIORAL INDICATOR OF THE BOARD AND THE STAFF
ON CARRYING THROUGH THEIR COMMITMENT MADE IN LUXEMBOURG TO INCREASE THE
PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION AND THE LISTENING THAT THEY ENGAGED IN.

AND I THINK THAT HAS BEEN NOTED AND IS MOST WELCOME.

I KNOW IT REPRESENTS AN ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT OF WORK FOR YOU. THAT IS NOT
LOST ON US. SO LET ME OPEN MY COMMENTS BY SAYING THANK YOU.

LET ME ALSO EXTEND THAT COMMENT BY SAYING THAT TO YOU, AND PERHAPS TO THE
COMMUNITY, YOU MAY FEEL A BIT LIKE YOU ARE GETTING A MEAL OF TAPAS RIGHT NOW
IN HOW WE ARE SERVING YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION.

BUT AT THE END OF THIS EXPERIENCE OF THE PUBLIC FORUM, I HOPE YOU WILL FEEL
LIKE IT'S BEEN A FULL MEAL. SO PERHAPS MY COMMENT RIGHT NOW MIGHT BE A BIT
OF DESSERT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT MEAL.

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN COMMENTING ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS AND THE
OPERATIONAL PLAN THROUGHOUT ITS EXTENDED PERIOD NOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
ON IT AND I HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ON THE BEHALF OF MY CONSTITUENCY AND THE
BROADER BUSINESS COMMUNITY ABOUT A FEW AREAS. SO I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR ME
NOW TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE YOU ON MY VIEWS ABOUT THE OPEN BUDGET
ITEMS, OF WHICH THERE ARE FIVE, AND TO TELL YOU THAT I AM EXTENDING A
PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE BUT REALLY SUPPORTED BROADLY I THINK BY MANY IN THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY THE BOARD'S DECISION TO GO AHEAD WITH LIFTING THAT PROCESS
AND MOVING FORWARD WITH ADOPTING THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE
YOU, WHICH WOULD, OF COURSE, CHANGE THOSE FIVE BUDGET ITEMS AND FUND THEM.

I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE SOME COMMENTS WHICH I WILL TRY TO COVER VERY QUICKLY THAT
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU DO THAT.

FIRST OF ALL, IN THE ISSUE OF DNSSEC, SECURITY IS, IN FACT, AN ISSUE OF VAST
IMPORTANCE IN THE ROLE OF ICANN. IT IS NOT ICANN'S JOB ALONE, BUT ICANN CAN
BE A CATALYST, AND I SUPPORT THAT IDEA.

I WILL SAY THAT IN MY EXPLORATION AND CONVERSATION, GUIDED A BIT AND INFORMED
A BIT PERHAPS BY STEVE CROCKER AND CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS, I DO THINK THE
IDEA OF AN OUTSIDE FOUNDATION OR SOME OTHER MECHANISM HAS GREAT MERIT, BUT I
WOULD ASK YOU TO COME BACK TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE ISP CONSTITUENCY
AND THE BC CONSTITUENCY IN PARTICULAR AND ASK US TO GIVE YOU THE NAMES OF
SOME KEY CTOS FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY GLOBALLY WHO MIGHT PARTICIPATE,
SINCE AFTER ALL, DNSSEC HAS TO BE ADOPTED VERY BROADLY BY THE BUSINESS USER
COMMUNITY AND THE ISPS AS WELL.

ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSLATION, THAT IS PERHAPS AN AREA WHERE I WOULD SAY OUR
BUDGET IS NOT BIG ENOUGH.

AND I THINK THAT THE SINGLEMOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE CAN DO TO CONTINUE TO
BROADEN OUR PARTICIPATION IS TO CONTINUE TO TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS, TO CONTINUE
TO REAL-TIME TRANSCRIBE, AND TO CREATE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT CAN EXPLAIN ICANN
AND WHAT IT DOES. LIVING THROUGH THE WSIS PROCESS HAS ONLY EDUCATED ME
FURTHER IN THAT AREA.

ON THE ISSUE OF THE AT-LARGE AND COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND INVOLVEMENT, I THINK
THAT PERHAPS WE'LL FIND THAT OUR BUDGET THERE, OVER TIME, WILL NOT BE LARGE
ENOUGH AND THAT WE WILL NEED TO DO MORE AND MORE TO LEVERAGE WHATEVER ICANN
DOES BY WORKING WITH OTHERS AND BY LEVERAGING OUR WORK THROUGH THE WORK OF
OTHERS.

ON THE ISSUE OF REGIONAL MEETINGS PARTICIPATION, I THINK THAT ACTUALLY OUR
HEADING IS PROBABLY WRONG. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PARTICIPATION
BY THOSE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN BOTH THE ICANN MEETINGS AND IN REGIONAL
EVENTS. AND WHEN YOU READ THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION, THAT'S WHAT COMES
ACROSS TO YOU.

I WILL URGE YOU AGAIN TO NOTE THAT WE HAVEN'T YET DONE ENOUGH WORK IN THAT
AREA ON INVITING DOCUMENTED PROPOSALS FROM EXISTING ENTITIES TO HELP US IN
HOW TO DO THAT, AND TO HELP US IN HOW TO ACTUALIZE IT.

I WILL SAY THAT I FEEL STRONGLY THAT ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL, AND THIS
COMMENT GOES FOR THE LAST POINT, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF ESTABLISHING
REGIONAL PRESENCES.

I THINK WE MAY FIND THAT, IN FACT, REGIONAL PRESENCES HAVE YET TO BE EXPLORED
IN THE BEST WAY TO DO THEM, AND THAT WE WILL CERTAINLY FIND THAT THEY CAN'T
BE DONE THE SAME WAY IN ALL REGIONS. WE MAY FIND IN FACT THAT BEA MUST TAKE
A SUBREGION APPROACH AND IT MAY BE ASIA AND PACIFIC AND IT MAY BE MID EAST
AND AFRICA. I COULD GO ON WITH SUBREGIONAL IDEAS BUT I PROBABLY SHOULD STOP.
MY POINT IS WE NEED TO THINK IT THROUGH MORE AND WE NEED TO BE ADVISED BY
OTHERS. MY POINT IN MAKING THIS COMMENT IS TO UPDATE YOU ON MY AGREEMENT AS
AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WITH THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THIS.

I WILL OFFER TWO FINAL THOUGHTS. I AM CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
DISTRIBUTING WORK, WE BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT DIVIDING SOME KEY OPERATIONAL
TASKS. AND FINALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, AND THIS IS
AN OFFICIAL BUSINESS POSITION, COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCY POSITION, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE SAFEGUARDS THAT THE REGISTRAR APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET HAVE BEEN
IMPORTANT, AND IF WE MOVE TO LOOKING FOR OTHER FORMS OF FUNDING, WE MUST
THINK ABOUT ESTABLISHING SAFEGUARDS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARILYN. THOSE ARE ALL GOOD CONCRETE
PROPOSALS.

MAY WE HAVE THE NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI, DOTBERLIN. WE ARE PRESENT HERE IN
VANCOUVER AT THE ICANN MEETING AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY IN BERLIN,
AND I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION THAT BERLIN'S SIZABLE COMMUNITY HAS A DEMAND IN
USING THEIR OWN LOCAL TLD AND WANTS TO APPLY FOR IT.

WE THINK THAT A DOTBERLIN TLD IS A LOGICAL CHOICE SINCE OUR COMMUNITY IS A
COMMUNITY BY NATURE.

WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT A DOTBERLIN TLD OFFERS CERTAINTY AND MEANING TO THE
GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY AND DOESN'T HARM OTHER TLDS OR THE DNS.

THEREFORE, WE ASK ICANN TO OPEN UP A WINDOW FOR NEW TLD APPLICANTS AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE AND TO MAKE DOTBERLIN AND OTHER TLD COMMUNITIES AVAILABLE.

WE ADDITIONALLY THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO ROUNDS BUT AN ONGOING NEW TLD
PROCESS. AND IMPORTANTLY, WE ASK ICANN TO SPEED UP THE ONGOING PROCESS OF
NEW TLDS AND MAKE IT RELIABLE FOR NEW TLD APPLICANTS.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAY WE HAVE THE NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>RICK WESSON: MY NAME IS RICK WESSON. I OWN ALICE'S REGISTRY. I'M A
REGISTRAR. I HAVE SERVED ON NUMEROUS CONSTITUENCIES AND HAVE ENJOYED OVER
THE YEARS CONTRIBUTING TO ICANN.

MY COMMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT SEVEN YEARS AGO ICANN WAS ABOUT PROMISE. IT
WAS ABOUT THE PROMISE WHAT THIS ORGANIZATION COULD DO FOR THE COMMUNITY. AND
OVER THE YEARS, WE DEVELOPED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BUILT ON THE WORK OF
MANY, MANY INDIVIDUALS AND THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PEOPLE THAT THEY
REPRESENT.

AS WE DEVELOPED THOSE PROCESSES, WE BECAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE
PROMISES. AS WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE PROCEDURES, THEY'RE A PROMISE TO THE
PEOPLE, THEY'RE A PROMISE TO THE PARTICIPANTS WITHIN THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

MY CONCERN IS THAT A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE BOARD THAT YOU INTEND TO MAKE A
DECISION ON IS GOING TO BREAK THOSE PROMISES.

WHEN THE COMMUNITY BELIEVES IN THE ORGANIZATION, WE BELIEVE IN THE PROCESS,
AND PARTICIPATION GROWS AND MAKES A STRONGER ICANN.

IN 1999, WE LOOKED FOR THE PROCESS, THE PROMISE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
EVALUATE THE .COM AGREEMENT THIS NEXT YEAR.

I REMEMBER PERSONALLY THINKING I HAVE SEVEN YEARS TO WAIT BEFORE I GET TO
COMMENT ON THIS AGAIN.

I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT THAT PROMISE BE KEPT.

WE HAVE ACCEPTED THAT COMPROMISE, AND I'M ASKING YOU NOT TO COMPROMISE AGAIN.

TRANSPARENCY IS A PROMISE. OUR PROCESSES ARE A PROMISE. AND WE EXPECT THEM
TO BE KEPT.

ESSENTIALLY, THE COLLECTIVE FRUSTRATION IS A REFLECTION OF THE FAILURE OF
THOSE PROMISES, AND I WISH, I ENCOURAGE YOU, TO LISTEN, TO HAVE A DIALOGUE,
AND TO DO THE BEST THAT YOU CAN TO UPHOLD THE PROMISES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HOPE THAT --

(APPLAUSE.).

>>VINT CERF: I HOPE THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO PAUL
TWOMEY'S DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT'S GOING ON ORGANIZATIONALLY AND OTHERWISE AT
LEAST CONTRIBUTE TO OUR EFFORTS TO CREATE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY AND MORE
TRANSPARENCY IN WHAT WE DO. BUT YOUR POINTS ARE QUITE WELL TAKEN.

MARTIN -- I'M SORRY, IT'S VENI.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: YES, I JUST WANT -- BECAUSE I SAW THAT MILTON IS THE NEXT
ON THE MICROPHONE, I JUST WANT TO QUOTE HIM, HE WROTE IT TODAY -- YESTERDAY.

"I'M LEAVING TOMORROW AROUND 5:00 P.M." THAT'S TODAY I GUESS, YES?

"NOT SURE WHY ANYONE WOULD STAY FOR THE BOARD MEETING SUNDAY." THAT IN
COORDINATION WITH WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MEETING CHANGES.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONTEXT.

MILTON. I'M WONDERING. BUT PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>MILTON MUELLER: IT'S INTERESTING TO HAVE MY COMMENTS READ FOR ME.

MAYBE I DON'T NEED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF, BUT I AM MILTON MUELLER. I AM WITH
THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY AND AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

I WANT TO MAKE THREE POINTS. I WANT TO REGISTER STRONG OBJECTIONS TO THE
TREATMENT OF THE TRIPLE-X STLD APPLICATION. I WANT TO EXPLAIN, SECONDLY, WHY
THIS IS IMPORTANT. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOU ACCEPT XXX OR NOT. IT TOUCHES
ON EVERY CRITICAL ISSUE FACING ICANN RIGHT NOW. THE U.S. ROLE, GOVERNMENTAL
OVERSIGHT, NEW TLDS.

AND I WANT TO PROPOSE TWO SIMPLE ACTIONABLE CHANGES THAT YOU COULD MAKE IF
YOU CHOOSE TO RECTIFY WHAT I SEE AS PROBLEMS.

FIRST, WHY DO I OBJECT? XXX WAS REMOVED FROM YOUR AGENDA FIRST BECAUSE THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT DEMANDED IT.

NOW WE ARE TOLD IT HAS BEEN REMOVED AGAIN BECAUSE THE GAC HAS DEMANDED TO SEE
THE REPORTS OF THE EVALUATION TEAMS. IN MEETING BOTH OF THESE DEMANDS -- AND
THESE, OF COURSE, ARE RELATED -- THE ICANN BOARD OR ITS LEADERSHIP HAS WARPED
AND CORRUPTED ITS TLD APPLICATION PROCESS.

FIRST AND MOST OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADDED A COMPLETELY NEW LAYER TO THE
APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH NO ONE KNEW ABOUT AT THE TIME THEY APPLIED. I
THINK THIS IS UNDENIABLE.

SECONDLY, THE DEMAND FOR A REVIEW OF THE REPORTS INTRODUCES A TARGETED AND
DISCRIMINATORY STANDARD OR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT APPLICANTS. SOME
APPLICANTS HAVE POTENTIALLY DEROGATORY INFORMATION RELEASED ABOUT THEM AFTER
THEY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR CONTRACT. SOME OF THEM HAVE THIS INFORMATION RELEASED
BEFORE THEY HAVE GOTTEN THIS CONTRACT.

NOW, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE REASON FOR THIS DISCRIMINATION IS THAT SOME
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE CERTAIN TLDS AND SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T OBJECT TO OTHER ONES.

I COULD GO ON FURTHER ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE PROCESS HERE OR THE OBVIOUS
PROBLEMS WITH CHANGING YOUR RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, BUT LET ME MOVE
ON AND EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF ICANN.

BASICALLY WHAT I SEE HAPPENING HERE IS THE GAC ACTING AS AN INVESTIGATOR, AS
SORT OF A CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AGENCY, DEMANDING TO SEE INFORMATION ABOUT
PARTICULAR TLDS SO THAT THEY CAN ASSERT THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE FINAL
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER IT IS ACCEPTED OR NOT.

WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BE ASKING FOR THIS INFORMATION AND WHY ELSE WOULD THE
BOARD BE DELAYING ITS DECISION UNTIL THE GAC WEIGHS IN.

BUT OF COURSE, THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS, AND AS MS. BURR EXPLAINED
EARLIER, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER AGREE.

SO HERE IS MY ACTIONABLE PROPOSALS.

NUMBER ONE, VOTE ON TRIPLE-X TOMORROW.

GET A BACKBONE.

SHOW THAT YOU ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND YOU ARE INDEPENDENT
AS GAC AS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU HAVE THE ADVICE OF THE GOVERNMENTS.
THEY SHOULDN'T NEED TO SEE THE EVALUATION REPORTS BEFORE MAKING THEIR ADVICE.
THEY HAD 18 MONTHS TO WEIGH THE APPLICATION, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

VOTE IT UP, VOTE IT DOWN. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO ME WHETHER THIS TLD
EXISTS OR NOT, BUT WHAT DOES MATTER IS WHETHER ICANN IS TRULY INDEPENDENT OF
GOVERNMENTS, WHETHER IT HAS A TLD PROCESS THAT CAN EVER BE OBJECTIVE, BECAUSE
IF YOU BACK DOWN ON THIS ONE, WON'T YOU DO IT ALL THE OTHER TIMES? WILL YOU
EVER HAVE AN INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE TLD APPLICATION PROCESS?

MY OTHER ACTIONABLE CHANGE -- THE TIMING IS PERFECT -- OPEN UP THE GAC
MEETINGS, PLEASE. DO NOT ALLOW ANY MORE, NOT ONE MORE CLOSED GAC MEETING. I
AM NOT DEMANDING THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GAC MEETINGS, BUT IF THEY ARE
GOING TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL GAMES THEN AT LEAST WE CAN WATCH THEM AND WE CAN
KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITHIN THEM AND HAVE AN OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR MAKING THESE
DECISIONS.

JUST LET ME CONCLUDE BY GOING OVER BY THREE SECONDS. IF MARILYN WAS THE
DESSERT AND THE OTHER PEOPLE WERE THE TAPAS, I HOPE THIS IS A VERY STRONG CUP
OF ESPRESSO AND YOU WILL WAKE UP. THANK YOU, BYE-BYE.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, BEFORE YOU START. MILTON -- WHERE DID MILTON GO?

JUST ONE -- ESPRESSO OR MAYBE PICK ANOTHER LIQUID.

JUST ONE OBSERVATION. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT GOVERNMENTS
ARE A PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS. THEY ARE ONE OF OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEES,
JUST AS THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ARE.

IT'S MY VIEW THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER THIS MATERIAL
IS NOT UNREASONABLE. WE APPARENTLY DISAGREE ON THAT POINT. BUT I DON'T SEE
THIS AS A QUESTION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE PART OF OUR
PROCESS.

>>MILTON MUELLER: JUST FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE IN THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER
PROCESS. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE INPUT FROM GOVERNMENTS. BUT I SEE A REAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN -- IF I CAME IN AFTER THE FACT, AFTER YOU HAD VOTED ON
TRIPLE-X OR THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CAME IN OR THE GNSO CAME IN AFTER
YOU HAD VOTED, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

AND I DON'T SEE THE SAME TREATMENT BEING AFFORDED TO GOVERNMENTS HERE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE DOING THIS BELIEVE IN PEER
STATUS FOR THEMSELVES. I THINK THEY WANT --

>>VINT CERF: I DON'T WANT TO PROLONG THE DEBATE BUT I WILL POINT OUT THAT WE
HAVE ALSO EXTENDED COMMENTARY FOR OTHER SITUATIONS, INCLUDING THE .COM
MATTER. SO I AM TRYING VERY HARD AS THE CHAIRMAN TO BE OPEN TO THESE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

I HAVE TWO -- YES. I HAVE -- IS IT JUST SHARIL? PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: SORRY, THANK YOU, VINT.

JUST TO RESPOND TO MILTON, IT'S NOT JUST TRIPLE-X THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
THERE WERE OTHER STLDS THAT SOME GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS IN THE GAC WERE
WONDERING AS TO THE REASONS WHY THE BOARD CAME TO SUCH DECISION, SO THEY
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER.

THAT'S ONE POINT, SO IT'S NOT JUST TRIPLE-X WE WERE LOOKING AT.

SECOND, ON THE VERY USEFUL SUGGESTION OF OPENING UP THE GAC MEETINGS, I
WONDER HOW MANY HERE ACTUALLY KNOW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WEB SITE FOR THE
GAC, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PUBLIC FORUM ON THAT WEB SITE FOR THE GAC.

SO FAR, I HAVE SEEN ONLY TWO POSTINGS. PERHAPS WE HAVEN'T DONE VERY WELL IN
ADVERTISING THE FACT THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY POST THINGS. BUT MATERIALS OF A
DEFAMATORY NATURE WILL BE TAKEN OFF. SO PLEASE DO THAT. INSOFAR AS OPENING
THE MEETINGS IS SOMETHING WE CONTINUE STRIVE ON AND WORK TOWARDS. BUT YOU
WILL APPRECIATE, AS IN OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, SOMETIMES YOU NEED SOME TIME
AMONGST YOURSELVES TO CONSIDER ISSUES BEFORE OPENING UP TO THE BROADER
COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL. NOW MAY WE HAVE THE NEXT COMMENT.

>>MARCUS FAURE: MARCUS FAURE, I AM WITH THE CORE COUNCIL OF REGISTRARS.
UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF MEAL I AM

(LAUGHTER.)

>>MARCUS FAURE: JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP COMMENT TO WHAT MARILYN SAID ABOUT
TRANSLATIONS. I BELIEVE TRANSLATION OR THE QUALITY OF TRANSLATION TODAY IS
NOT SUFFICIENT, AND I HAVE PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE;
NAMELY, THE GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPORT IN LUXEMBOURG THAT
CONTAINED LIKE 50 ERRORS ON 12 PAGES, MANY OF THEM CHANGING THE MEANING.

SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.

MY QUESTION IS, AS WE HAVE RECEIVED DIFFERENT SIGNALS HERE, WHAT THE EXPECTED
TIME LINE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS OR THE NEXT ROUND, IF IT'S A
ROUND, IS WHAT THE BOARD SEES HERE.

>>VINT CERF: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE. AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD NOT SCHEDULE ANY
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF NEW TLDS UNTIL WE HAVE A NEW TLD PROCESS AGREED.
AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF PDPS GOING ON IN THE GNSO.

SO UNTIL WE HAVE, AS A COMMUNITY, AGREED ON THAT PROCESS, GROUND RULES AND
RATIONALE FOR THE CREATION OF NEW TLDS, I DON'T EXPECT TO SCHEDULE ANY MORE
CONSIDERATIONS OF THEM.

I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT WE ABSORB, ANALYZE, AND THEN
SYNTHESIZE A PROCESS BASED ON THE EXPERIENCES WE HAVE HAD SO FAR. AND IF THE
COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING TODAY AND IN THE PAST ARE ANY INDICATION,
THE PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE USED IN THE PAST HAVE NOT NECESSARILY LED TO A
VERY SMOOTH PROCESS FOR INTRODUCING NEW TLDS.

SO I THINK WE HAVE HOMEWORK TO DO BEFORE WE COULD INITIATE ANY ADDITIONAL
PROCESSES.

IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING?

>>MARCUS FAURE: YES.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HEAR A YEAR. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. BUT ANYWAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT IN 2007 WE WILL BE BUSY WITH THE .COM
REASSIGNMENT, AND YOU SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO BERTOLA.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:THANK YOU. VITTORIO BERTOLA FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. AND MY COMMITTEE -- SORRY, MY COMMENTS OF COURSE IS ON THE SAME
MATTER AS MILTON'S ONE. PERHAPS IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE PERSONALLY I
DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN OBJECTION TO THE GOVERNMENTS TAKING THEIR TIME TO
EXPRESS THEIR TRUE ON THE TRIPLE-X. BUT I DO HAVE AN OBJECTION ON HOW THIS
WAS DECIDED, ACTUALLY.

SO I THINK THAT BY DISRUPTING THIS PROCESS AT THIS POINT, YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY
CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME. AND I THINK THAT WE MIGHT AGREE THAT -- I
MEAN, ICANN IS A LEARNING EXPERIMENT. WE LEARN AS WE GO. WE MIGHT AGREE
THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO CHANGE OUR PROCESSES ON SPECIFIC ISSUES, BUT IF WE ARE
TO DO THIS, WE HAVE TO DO IT IN A COLLECTIVE MANNER.

SO I WOULDN'T LIKE TO SEE THESE KIND OF CHANGES IN THE PROCESS BEING AGREED
ONLY BY THE ICANN BOARD WITH THE GAC. I THINK ACTUALLY FOR THE THIRD TIME IN
THE WEEK I AM URGING THE ICANN BOARD TO START A PROPERLY FORMED PROCESS THAT
CAN BE OPEN AND INCLUSIVE TOWARDS THE ENTIRE ICANN COMMUNITY SO THAT WE CAN
BE ALL TOGETHER AND DISCUSS HOW TO CHANGE THE WAY ICANN BEHAVES TO ADAPT TO
THE CHANGE IN THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT. I HOPE I CAN ACTUALLY GET A REPLY TO
THIS PROPOSAL, BECAUSE HAVING A LOOK AT WHAT MY COMMITTEE DOES, MY COMMITTEE
HAS BEEN PUTTING FORWARD A LOT OF STATEMENTS AND ADVICE TO THE BOARD, AND I
MUST SAY THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS RECEIVE A REPLY, ACTUALLY. MANY TIMES WE DON'T
HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER THE BOARD READS WHAT WE SAY OR WHAT IT DOES WITH IT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN LUXEMBOURG WE PUT OUT A STATEMENT ON TRANSPARENCY THAT WAS
WELL THOUGHT OUT, IT TOOK MANY DAYS TO DRAFT IT. IT HAD SOME REALLY WORKABLE
PROPOSALS, I THINK, IN TERMS OF TRANSLATIONS AND MAKING OUR MEETING!

S MORE ACCESSIBLE AND ON AND ON, AND ACTUALLY WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY REPLY.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED, WHETHER YOU DECIDED TO DO
ANYTHING IN THIS FIELD. AND IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME. THERE ARE OTHER CASES
IN WHICH WE PUT FORWARD REQUESTS, PROPOSALS, AND WE DON'T GET ANY FEEDBACK.

SO I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO GET THE SAME TREATMENT AS THE GAC, BUT I HOPE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE OMBUDSMAN TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE
BOARD IS CONSIDERING WHAT WE SAY.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, LET ME DISTILL DOWN FROM THAT ONE OBSERVATION.

AS I HAVE LISTENED TO MANY OF THE EXCHANGES THIS WEEK, I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT WE SOMETIMES DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT A PARTY WHO HAS SAID
SOMETHING IS ALSO LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR A REPLY.

THIS BECAME CLEAR IN AN EXCHANGE WITH THE GAC, AND YOUR COMMENTS SIMPLY
HIGHLIGHT THAT.

SO I NOW THINK THAT CLARITY IN COMMUNICATION WILL PROBABLY HELP A GREAT DEAL.

THIS IS NOT TO EXCUSE ANYTHING, BUT WHEN WE -- IF WHEN YOU ARE COMMUNICATING
SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY TO THE BOARD AND AN EXPLICIT RESPONSE IS EXPECTED,
PROBABLY IT WOULDN'T HURT TO SAY THAT, JUST TO UNDERSCORE THE POINT.

THANK YOU. ELLIOT.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: THANK YOU, VINT.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUXTAPOSE A COUPLE OF THE THREADS THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING,
BOTH YESTERDAY AND TODAY. TRY AND TIE THEM TOGETHER AND TO MAKE A SPECIFIC
REQUEST. AND THE BULK OF MY REMARKS WILL BE DIRECTED TO CHAIRMAN TARMIZI.
SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WILL BE FOCUSED AROUND THE INTERACTION AND THE ROLE OF
GOVERNMENTS IN THE ICANN PROCESS.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY HEARD MUCH ON TRIPLE-X AS WE ARE TALKING HERE. EARLIER IN
THE WEEK, WE SAW A PROPOSAL FROM DOTBERLIN AROUND A NEW TLD. I AND OTHERS,
BUT CERTAINLY ESPECIALLY I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT LIBERALIZATION
OF NEW GTLDS AS REALLY HOLDING THE PROMISE OF SOLVING THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS
THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND THE ICANN PROCESS FACE TODAY.

WE ALL KNOW THAT CONSIDERATION TAKES SIGNIFICANT TIME TO BE ABLE TO REACH
CONSENSUS.

I FEAR THAT, AGAIN, AS I NOTED YESTERDAY, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY IN
TIME AND PLACE TO REALLY ACCOMPLISH A LOT OF WHAT WE ALL -- BOARD, STAFF,
CONSTITUENCIES, COMMUNITY -- HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ICANN IS
VERY DELICATE, VERY -- WHEN I SAY UNCERTAIN, WE'RE ALL GROPING AROUND IN THE
DARK TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PLACE.

I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THIS
PROCESS. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR LEGITIMACY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR MAKING SURE THAT
WE'VE TAKEN ALL OF THE RIGHT INFORMATIONS IN.

AND SO WITH ALL OF THAT IN MIND, I WOULD STRONGLY URGE CHAIRMAN TARMIZI THAT
RATHER THAN TAKING AWAY FROM THIS MEETING, STEPPING BACK AND TRYING TO
ADDRESS TRIPLE-X INSIDE OF THE GAC COMMUNITY, TO GENERALIZE THAT PROCESS.

AND IN THE SPIRIT OF ALLOWING THE COMMUNITY TO BE AS RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS
OF GOVERNMENTS AS POSSIBLE, PROVIDING US, THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER THAT'S THE
GNSO, THE BROADER COMMUNITY, THE STAFF, THE BOARD, WITH AS MUCH AS THE GAC IS
ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR US IN TERMS OF GUIDANCE, INPUT, CONCERNS, CONSIDERATIONS
WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY LIBERALIZED GTLD PROCESS IN GENERAL.

I KNOW -- I WAS REALLY STRUCK AS WE'RE LISTENING TO THE DOTBERLIN FOLKS, THEY
TRAVELED ALL THE WAY HERE FROM BERLIN TO VANCOUVER, THEIR MONEY, THEIR TIME,
THEIR EFFORT. THERE IS NOT A CONSTITUENT IN THE GAC WHO DOES NOT HAVE ONE,
TWO, FIVE, TEN COMMUNITIES WITH EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION, INTEREST, VIEWS.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU TO BROADEN THE SCOPE OF YOUR INQUIRY AND
INPUT AND ALLOW ALL OF US TOGETHER TO TRY TO REACH A PLACE THAT IS THE
HAPPIEST AND THE HEALTHIEST, AND, THEREFORE, HAS THE BEST CHANCE OF
SUCCEEDING IN THE SHORTEST TIME POSSIBLE.

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

SHARIL.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT, AND THANK YOU, MR. NOSS, FOR THAT
COMMENT, WHICH I ACTUALLY RECEIVE VERY WELL.



>>ELLIOT NOSS: IT WAS INTENDED TO BE RECEIVED VERY WELL.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: PSHEW.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: I THINK THERE IS A LARGE RECOGNITION AROUND THE ROOM, AND I
AM VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

TODAY, IN THE CURRENT CONSTRUCT, THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN THE ICANN
CONSTRUCT IS RATHER DELICATE AND RATHER THAN UNCERTAIN. I THINK WE ALL
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

I THINK ALSO, POST THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY, THERE'S A
GREATER INTEREST FROM GOVERNMENTS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND MANY OF THEM ARE
NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTED IN THE GAC YET, TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS,
REALIZING THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY BRIDGE THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE AND ACHIEVE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND WHATEVER NATIONAL REASONS
THEY MIGHT HAVE.

SO ON THAT -- SO IN THAT REGARD, I THINK I SORT OF -- I THINK EARLIER I
ALREADY WELCOMED THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE OFFER THAT VINT HAD MADE ON BEHALF
OF THE ICANN BOARD TO ENGAGE IN A SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT
PEOPLE IN THE GAC AND THE BOARD TO FIND OUT HOW WE CAN DO THIS BETTER.

FOR EXAMPLE, SOME COULD BE VERY SIMPLE ISSUES LIKE -- WHICH WE TAKE FOR
GRANTED. MANY GOVERNMENT DELEGATIONS DON'T WORK ON E-MAIL. THEY WAIT FOR A
LETTER, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW.

THAT IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THE SECOND POINT IS THAT -- SO THAT WORK, I'M
HOPEFUL WE'LL HAVE A DEEPER DISCUSSION -- I THINK ALEX PISANTY HAS BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS THE CONTACT POINT ON THAT.

SECOND, ON THE ISSUE OF THE GTLDS, THIS WAS ALSO TOUCHED UPON ON THE WORLD
SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY IN TUNIS, AND THE GAC HAD BEEN CONSCIOUS
ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR SOME TIME WHICH IS WHY WE HAD ALREADY ENGAGED IN SOME
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL TO TRY TO SEE HOW WE CAN BE USEFUL.

OBVIOUSLY, THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THAT PERHAPS WE IN GOVERNMENT SPEAK
HAVE IS A LOT LESS THAN WHAT THE TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAVE ON
THIS. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE INTERACTION. SO THAT'S ALREADY
UNDER WAY. AND WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO PROGRESS MUCH MORE THAT WORK IN
WELLINGTON SUCH THAT THERE WILL BE PERHAPS A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS OR A SET
OF PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.

SO SORRY, VINT, I HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF TIME.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: THAT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED.

IF I COULD MAKE ONE POINT EXPLICITLY.

THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD MOST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AND THAT I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT IS REALLY BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE EXPLICITLY BEFORE IS THAT IT'S MY BELIEF
AND IT'S MY BELIEF THAT THIS IS NOT A WELL-UNDERSTOOD POINT, THAT A
SIGNIFICANTLY LIBERALIZED GTLD PROCESS PROVIDES, BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, THE
GREATEST OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS WHOLE ICANN COMMUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE IN A
SIGNIFICANT WAY TO SOME OF THE GOALS AROUND DIGITAL DIVIDE AND THE MILLENNIUM
PROJECT, ET CETERA.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPPORTUNITIES, FOR ME, IS DEEPLY AND
INEXTRICABLY LINKED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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

COULD WE HAVE THE NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>COLIN JACKSON: MY NAME IS COLIN JACKSON.

I'M PRESIDENT OF INTERNET NEW ZEALAND.

WE'RE THE NEXT HOSTS.

YOU WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR WE'RE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF GETTING THE NEXT
MEETING READY.

I WAS INTERESTED IN COMMENTS FROM THE MEETING COMMITTEE ABOUT TRYING TO GET
SOME MORE MEETINGS INTO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE
EMINENTLY SENSIBLE AND WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CORE
VALUES.

BUT MY COMMENT REALLY RELATES AROUND THE COST OF HOSTING, WHICH IS EXPENSIVE.

I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD PROHIBITIVE, BUT IT'S EXPENSIVE.

LESS THAN HALF OF THAT IS RECOVERABLE FROM SPONSORSHIP.

NOW, NEW ZEALAND IS A DEVELOPED COUNTRY.

THAT'S OKAY.

WE CAN AFFORD THAT.

BUT I HAVE A MORE CONCRETE SUGGESTION, AN ACTIONABLE COMMENT ON HOW ICANN
MIGHT WISH TO DEAL WITH THAT.

AND THAT'S TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE COST IS IN THE REQUIRED
TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE BOARD, FOR THE GAC, THE COST OF THE AV
SYSTEMS, MAINLY, ICANN MIGHT WISH TO CONSIDER SUPPLYING THOSE ITSELF AT THESE
MEETINGS.

AND I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE THINGS A LOT EASIER FOR SOME OTHER COUNTRIES TO
HOST.



>>VINT CERF: IN FACT, THAT NOTION HAS POPPED UP MORE THAN ONCE.

AND IT'S CERTAINLY WORTH SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

IT MIGHT MAKE THINGS SIMPLER, TOO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE SAME SET OF
EQUIPMENT EACH TIME WE SHOW UP.

>>COLIN JACKSON: WELL, ABSOLUTELY.

I THANK YOU.

AND I MIGHT JUST TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REITERATE OUR WELCOME TO THE BOARD
AND TO THE ICANN BOARD FOR WELLINGTON, MARCH 2006.

THANK YOU.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>RICHARD CAMPBELL: MY NAME IS RICHARD CAMPBELL, AND I'M A LOCAL, ACTUALLY, I
APPRECIATE ICANN COMING TO ME.

I HAVE WATCHED YOU FROM AFAR FOR SOME TIME. AND IT IS NICE TO ACTUALLY COME
AND ATTEND THE MEETINGS AND SEE THE PROCESSES GOING ON.

AND I WONDER IF OTHERS SEE, AS I DO, THAT SO MUCH OF THIS IS WORKING WELL,
THAT THINGS ARE ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD, THAT ICANN, FROM ITS ORIGINS AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE INTERNET, WHICH I WAS AROUND THEN, HAS ACTUALLY PROGRESSED.

IT SEEMS A MORE COMPETENT, MORE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION THAN IT'S EVER BEEN
BEFORE.

MY LIVING IS MADE BUILDING SOFTWARE, LARGELY ON THE INTERNET.

SO I'M REALLY DEPENDENT ON WHAT YOU GUYS DO.

IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL TO ME.

IF THERE'S ANY REAL COMMENT I CAN MAKE, IT'S, KEEPING MOVING FORWARD.

WE NEED MORE, AND WE NEED SOME OF THOSE THINGS SOONER THAN LATER.

THANK YOU.

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

THAT WAS BETTER THAN A CUP OF ESPRESSO, I THINK.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>JEAN ARMOUR POLLY: HI, I'M JEAN ARMOUR POLLY.

I'M ALSO KNOWN AS THE NET MOM.

AND I'M ALSO A NORTH AMERICAN MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
APPOINTED BY NOMCOM LAST YEAR.

AND I WRITE A LOT IN THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY INTERNET SAFETY SPACE, AND I
SPOKE BEFORE YOU LAST YEAR BEFORE CHRISTMAS, HOPING THAT I WOULD FIND UNDER
THE TREE SOMETHING FOR THE INTERNET SAFETY FIELD, AND NAMELY, THE .XXX TLD TO
BE APPROVED.

BUT I DIDN'T GET IT THEN.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE I MIGHT NOT GET IT THIS YEAR, EITHER.

THIS IS DISAPPOINTING.

IF YOU FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT NET MOM AND OTHER CHILD SAFETY EXPERTS DO
SUPPORT .XXX, THEN YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PROPOSAL CLOSELY ENOUGH.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT.

I WAS ENCOURAGED TO HEAR DR. TWOMEY SAID YESTERDAY THAT HIS GOAL WAS TO GET
THE GAC INVOLVED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD REALLY HELP THE PROCESS ALONG, BECAUSE I THINK IT
LOOKS TO US LIKE THE GOALPOSTS KEEP EVER MOVING MORE DISTANTLY AWAY IN THIS
PARTICULAR TLD PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT THIS WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHILLING INNOVATION.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT ICANN IS ABOUT.

SOMEONE THAT MIGHT WANT TO BRING A TLD FORWARD MIGHT FEEL THAT THEY -- THAT
THIS WAS AN UNATTAINABLE GOAL.

SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PROCESS MOVE FORWARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, IF NOT
TOMORROW.

AND SOMETHING THAT NET MOM IS FOND OF SAYING IS, PULL UP YOUR SOCKS AND GET
ON WITH IT.

NOW, THE SECOND THING -- THIS IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC -- WE IN THE ALAC ARE
ALWAYS TRYING TO GET LOCAL PARTICIPATION.

AND WE DID TRY TO DO THAT BY REACHING OUT TO USER GROUPS IN THE AREA FOR
VANCOUVER THIS YEAR.

IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US IF YOU GUYS CHANGE YOUR SCHEDULE IN THE
MIDDLE OF WHEN WE HAVE ADVERTISED THAT WE WILL BE AVAILABLE.

SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT IF YOU SET A SCHEDULE, GO AHEAD AND STICK TO IT.

AND, FINALLY, AS THE AFTER-DINNER MINT, THANK YOU FOR DOING SOMETHING ABOUT
THE WEATHER.

(LAUGHTER.)

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: WE -- ICANN CAN'T CONTROL ANYTHING ELSE, BUT WE CAN CONTROL THE
WEATHER, LET ME TELL YOU.

IZUMI.

>>IZUMI AIZU: THANK YOU.

I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM ASIA-PACIFIC, AND LIKE
THE NET MOM, I WAS APPOINTED AS AN INTERIM MEMBER, AND I HAVE SPENT THREE
YEARS ALMOST ALREADY.

WE SPENT ANOTHER WEEK HERE IN VANCOUVER TO WORK OUT THE AT-LARGE AREAS.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE ARE STILL ON THE WAY.

BUT (INAUDIBLE) IS TRYING VERY HARD WITH THE THIRD VERSION OF THE BYLAWS, OR
WE CHANGE THE NAME INTO THE OPERATING PRINCIPLES, WITH MUCH LIGHTER RULES.

WE HOPE AND WANT TO SET UP THE RALO AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THEN MOVE TO GO
TO THE NEGOTIATION OF MOU WITH ICANN BOARD, HOPEFULLY AT OR AFTER THE
WELLINGTON MEETING.

BUT WE ARE NOT SO SURE, BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS AMONGST OURSELVES,
HOW MANY COUNTRIES' ECONOMIES ARE SUFFICIENT TO CLAIM SOME MINIMAL LEGITIMACY
THAT WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY -- WE ARE EFFECTIVELY ABLE TO CHANNEL THE VOICES OF
THE INDIVIDUAL USERS TO THE ICANN PROCESS.

SOME SAY IT'S ONE-THIRD OF THE REGION'S ECONOMY IN SOME COUNTRIES.

OTHERS SAY WELL, MAYBE TEN IS ENOUGH.

SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW.

AND WE'LL TRY TO RESOLVE THAT.

BUT WE HAVE THE WIDER QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU HERE, WHO NEEDS THE USERS'
VOICES? THE USERS NEED THE USERS' VOICES, OR YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM THE USERS'
VOICES, WHICH I THINK GIVES VERY GOOD BENEFIT TO THE ICANN PROCESS, DIRECT
PARTICIPATION.

BUT IN SOME SENSE, MAYBE INDIRECT PARTICIPATION IS ENOUGH, OR NO
REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD AT LEAST.

AND THEN SOME SAYS, WELL, GOVERNMENTS, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, REPRESENT THE USERS
AND THE DOMAIN.

WE ARE THE PUBLIC SERVANT OR PUBLIC POLICY, WE ARE HANDLING IT.

OR SERVICE PROVIDERS SAY, WE ARE THE CHANNEL, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CONSUMERS
WE ARE LISTENING TO AND WE HAVE THE MARKET MECHANISM.

SO THAT WILL BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN A HANDFUL OF ACTIVIST-LIKE PEOPLE COMING
INTO THE ICANN PEOPLE, INCLUDING BEING PAID BY THE ICANN BUDGET.

SO WE HAVE TWO CAMPS, AND WE ARE SORT OF CHALLENGED BY TWO SIDES.

ONE SIDE SAYS, "NO, NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE THERE.

WE HAVE OTHER PROCESSES.

DON'T WORRY."

OR "DON'T SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY."

AND THE OTHER SIDE SAYS, "WELL, IT'S HARD" -- AND I AGREE THAT THERE'S SOME
TRUTH IN IT THAT, FROM KARL, "OKAY, YOU GUYS, YOU FAILED.

GIVE UP."

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE BUT THAT GO TO DIRECT ELECTION.

SO WE ARE SORT OF ENTRENCHED INTO DIFFERENT IDEAS.

AND WE ARE ASKING THE QUESTIONS TO US, HAVE WE DONE THE JOB GOOD OR NOT?

I ASKED YOU YESTERDAY THAT YOU MAY START THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PRETTY SOON,
AND WE ARE MINDFUL THAT WE PREPARED OUR SELF-REVIEW BEFOREHAND.

WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT.

BUT....

SO THE FINAL QUESTION IS THAT I'D LIKE TO LISTEN TO THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
PROCESS, BUT DO YOU THINK THE STRUCTURE IS OKAY BUT THE PEOPLE UNDER THE
STRUCTURE WORKING ON IT'S WRONG ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB, THEN BETTER CHANGE
THE PEOPLE.

OR YOU THINK THE PEOPLE ARE OKAY, PERHAPS, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS WRONG,
THEN BETTER CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE LARGE.

AND SO WE'LL TRY ANOTHER ROUND OR SOME MORE.

BUT OUR ENERGY IS ALSO NOT INFINITE.

AND WE NEED SOME GOOD BENCHMARK OR, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S MY FIRST COMMENT.

I HAVE TEN SECONDS OTHER COMMENT, IF I MAY.

AS AN INDIVIDUAL USER, AND MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN RECEIVING A FLIER EVERY
MORNING IN MY HOTEL ROOM, AND I HAVE NOT REALLY -- I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE, WHO
KNOWS WHY I AM THERE.

BEING AN AT-LARGE, THE HOTEL IS ARRANGED BY ICANN, AND KINDLY PAID BY, MOST
OF THE COST.

BUT I'M WONDERING WHY, AND I CONTACTED THE HOTEL, AND ALSO FOUND OUT IT'S A
PLATINUM SPONSOR WHO KINDLY REPLIED THAT IT WAS OKAYED BY ICANN.

BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CLEAR PRIVACY POLICY WHICH WE CAN AT LEAST
OPT OUT OR KNOW EXACTLY WHY I'M RECEIVING THIS ONLY BUT NOT OTHERS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY SOUND TRIVIAL, BUT IT IS SIMILAR TO THE PRIVACY OF THE
WHOIS ISSUES, THINGS LIKE THAT.

TO ME, WHERE I AM STAYING IS MY PRIVATE SPACE THAT I WILL DISCLOSE TO
SOMEBODY I TRUST, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE DISCLOSED TO UNKNOWN PROCESS.

SO I HOPE IF ICANN STAFF OR ICANN ITSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF
MEETINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, PLEASE RESPECT THIS.

THANK YOU.

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

THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT MADE.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, EITHER.

BUT I'M GOING TO FIND OUT.

MIKE.

>>MIKE NELSON: I'M MIKE NELSON WITH IBM, ALTHOUGH I'M SPEAKING AS AN
INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USER AND A DOMAIN NAME OWNER.

I'M ALSO SPEAKING AS SOMEBODY WHO SPENT A LOT OF TIME TEN YEARS AGO WORKING
AT THE WHITE HOUSE HELPING GET ICANN STARTED, HELPING WRITE THE GREEN PAPER
AND THE WHITE PAPER AND HELPING GET SOME OF THE INITIAL FUNDING.

AND IN ADDITION, I'M PART OF A VERY UNUSUAL CONSTITUENCY.

I'M PART OF THE GROUP THAT DOESN'T COME TO ICANN MEETINGS.

I SHOWED UP THIS MORNING, AND I'M ONLY HERE FOR TWO DAYS.

I HAVEN'T BEEN TO AN ICANN MEETING FOR A LONG TIME. AND THAT GIVES ME TWO
ADVANTAGES: ONE, I CAN GIVE YOU A HISTORICAL VIEWPOINT.

AND I SHOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY.

AND I WANT TO SECOND WHAT MR. CAMPBELL SAID ABOUT THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN
MADE AND HOW EFFECTIVE ICANN HAS BECOME IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, PARTICULARLY IN
BECOMING TRANSPARENT AND OPEN AND PROVIDING A MODEL FOR A LOT OF OTHER
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUENCY THAT DOESN'T COME TO ICANN MEETINGS, I
WANTED TO REALLY SUPPORT WHAT VENI MARKOVSKI AND THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS
SAID ABOUT HAVING SHORTER MEETINGS AND SEEING IF THERE IS A WAY THAT YOU
DON'T HAVE TO SPEND FIVE OR SIX DAYS AT AN ICANN MEETING TO REALLY
PARTICIPATE AND UNDERSTAND ALL THE PROCESS.

THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES ON THE TABLE, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO FIND A WAY TO
GET THE WORK DONE IN THREE DAYS SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN COME, PEOPLE WHO HAVE
LOTS OF OTHER JOBS, LOTS OF OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES, CAN MAKE TIME TO BE PART
OF THE PROCESS.

THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS TO DO MORE VIRTUALLY.

AND I THINK YOU HAVE TAKEN SOME GOOD STEPS THERE.

THE FACT THAT PEOPLE FEEL THAT THEY CAN TUNE IN TO A WEB CAST AND REALLY KNOW
WHAT GOES ON HERE IS A VERY GOOD THING.

AND THE I.T. INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED IS SOME OF THE BEST THAT I'VE SEEN AT
INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS LIKE THIS.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT REASON TO HAVE SHORTER MEETINGS, OF COURSE, IS THAT YOU
HAVE LESS DEMAND UPON ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE UP HERE.

AS YOU RECRUIT NEW PEOPLE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND
PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SPEND THREE OR FOUR WEEKS A YEAR AT ICANN MEETINGS.

CHANGING TOPICS, I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE VERISIGN PROPOSAL AND SAY
AGAIN THAT THIS IS MIKE NELSON SPEAKING, NOT IBM.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE IDEA OF HAVING A
PERCENTAGE FEE RATHER THAN A FIXED FEE, BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED THAT BY
SETTING A FIXED FEE, YOU ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMPETITION, AND
YOU'RE ALSO SETTING A MINIMUM PRICE FOR DOMAIN NAMES.

AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE BOARD IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY THOUGHT
-- WHETHER THERE IS ANY REASON I CAN BE ASSURED THAT WE WON'T SEE ANOTHER
MAJOR JUMP IN THAT FEE WHEN YOU COME TO NEGOTIATE SIMILAR DEALS WITH OTHER
REGISTRARS IN THE FUTURE OR WHEN YOU RENEW THE VERISIGN DEAL.

AND SO THE LAST THOUGHT ON THIS IS, I AM SOMEWHAT CONCERNED THAT AS I READ
THE DEAL AND AS I DO THE CALCULATIONS, I SEE A MAJOR INCREASE IN THE BUDGET
FOR ICANN.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S JUSTIFIED, AND I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED THAT
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WILL START LOOKING AT THAT
BUDGET AND SAY, "WE SHOULD GET IN THIS BUSINESS."

SO IF I COULD HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT LAST QUESTION, THE QUESTION ABOUT
PERCENTAGE FEES, AND WHETHER THERE'S ANY DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON THAT FEE IN THE
FUTURE, I'D APPRECIATE IT.



>>VINT CERF: MIKE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN, PERCENTAGE OF WHAT?

>>MIKE NELSON: RATHER THAN JUST HAVING A SET FEE, SAYING THERE'S A CERTAIN
AMOUNT, SAYING THAT YOU -- YOU, BASICALLY, HAVE A TAX THAT ICANN GETS A
PERCENTAGE OF THE REGISTRATION FEE.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THIS IS A REGISTRAR, OF THE REGISTRAR CHARGE.

>>MIKE NELSON: RIGHT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY --

>>MIKE NELSON: THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU, SO THAT IF THE PRICE OF THE REGISTRATION
FEE GOES DOWN IN THE FUTURE, YOU GET A SMALLER CUT.

YOU GET A SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT YOU GET A PERCENTAGE OF THAT.

>>VINT CERF: I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THIS COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR WORK.

ALSO, BY THE WAY, THE WORD "TAX" WAS USED ONCE BEFORE IN AN EARLIER ICANN
ENVIRONMENT AND TURNED OUT TO BE QUITE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH.

>>MIKE NELSON: WELL, I FULLY UNDERSTAND.

AND THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS HERE.

>>VINT CERF: MICHAEL PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANKS, VINT.

I BELIEVE A MORE APPROPRIATE FEE WOULD BE A LICENSING FEE OR SURCHARGE.

THIS WAS A PAPER I CIRCULATED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT GOING TO THE CURRENT TRANSACTION-FEE BASED MODEL.

BUT I THINK WHAT MIKE IS TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO SORT
OF LOOK AT AND EXPLORE, IS THE VIABILITY THAT NOT ALL REGISTRIES ARE CREATED
EQUAL, AND AS WE BEGIN TO OPEN UP THE TLD NAME SPACE, WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR
DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODELS.

AND THERE MAY BE A TLD OUT THERE WHERE, AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC OR VIABILITY
OF THAT TLD, YOU MAY HAVE TO GIVE OUT A COUPLE OF MILLION OR SOMETHING ALONG
THAT NATURE, AND THAT THE PER-UNIT OR THE PER-DOMAIN NAME FEE MAY IMPACT THE
VIABILITY.

SO I THINK THAT'S SORT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I'M GLAD YOU RAISED THAT QUESTION.



>>VINT CERF: OKAY.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL.

RAY PLZAK.

>>RAY PLZAK: I'M RAY PLZAK, THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ARIN.

I -- AT ONE TIME, I WAS THE LAST IN LINE.

I HAD HOPED TO BE ABLE TO SAY, "LAST CALL," GENTLEMEN AND LEAD YOU IN A
CHORUS OF "GOODNIGHT IRENE."

BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN REGARD TO THE IANA AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE GENERAL
MANAGER AS IANA.

AS MANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, DAVID, PRIOR TO ASSUMING HIS CURRENT DUTIES, WAS A
MEMBER OF THE ARIN BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

SPEAKING AS ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE ARIN BOARD OF TRUSTEES, I CAN TELL
YOU THAT I AND MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS REALLY FEEL THE LOSS OF DAVID FROM OUR
BODY.

HOWEVER, SPEAKING AS THE CEO OF ONE OF THE RIRS, AND ON BEHALF OF MY
COLLEAGUES, (INAUDIBLE), PAUL, RAUL, AND AXEL, WE WELCOME DAVID IN HIS NEW
ROLE AND LOOK FORWARD TO A VERY FRUITFUL AND SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIP AS WE
MOVE FORWARD.

THANKS.


(APPLAUSE.)

>>BECKY BURR: BECKY BURR, DOING MY FAMOUS --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: CAN I INTERRUPT FIRST?

I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT RAY HAS SUGGESTED TO ME THAT IF
AT ANY TIME WE WISH TO MOVE DAVID ON, WE JUST MAKE HIM TREASURER.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY YOU LOSE HIM.

>>BECKY BURR: I'M GOING TO DO MY FAMOUS VERSION OF THE ANTACID.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS TODAY ABOUT CHANGING THE RULES.

AND THE IMPLICATION HAS BEEN IN THIS CONVERSATION THAT IT WAS OKAY IN THIS
CASE, BECAUSE TRIPLE X WAS SORT OF DIFFERENT.

I WANT TO SAY I AGREE.

TRIPLE X HAS BEEN DIFFERENT.

AND ICM HAS BEEN CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY RECOGNIZED IT WAS
DIFFERENT, THAT THEY RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENTS WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST.

SO I'M NOT SAYING IT'S INAPPROPRIATE UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES TO CHANGE THE
RULES.

GENERALLY, HOWEVER, YOU CHANGE THE RULES IN WAYS THAT ARE -- THAT WORK.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE GAC HAD QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
SHOULD KNOW THAT ICM REGISTRY OFFERED FORMALLY AT EVERY MEETING OF ICANN FOR
THE LAST YEAR, STARTING IN CAPE TOWN, TO MEET WITH THE BOARD, ASKED
REPEATEDLY, CHAIRMAN TARMIZI I THINK WILL CONFIRM THAT WE WERE NOT PERMITTED
THAT OPPORTUNITY.

SO ONE WAY OF SAYING, ACKNOWLEDGING THIS IS DIFFERENT, THE GAC HAS CONCERNS,
THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, IS TO GET US IN THERE, LET US ANSWER SOME
QUESTIONS.

OR EVEN IN THE CASE OF THIS REPORT, SAY, YOU KNOW, THE GAC HAS CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS REPORT THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

HOW CAN WE PROVIDE IT TO THE GAC IN A WAY THAT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO YOU?

THAT'S WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND SO I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO WALK OUT OF HERE THINKING THAT ICM IS NOT
FACING UP TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH CREATING A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FOR ADULT CONTENT.

AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO WALK OUT OF HERE THINKING THAT ICM SAYS YOU NEVER
CAN CHANGE THE RULES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

WE'VE TRIED VERY HARD TO BE ACCOMMODATING.

AND I JUST, AS MY ANTACID OR OTHERWISE, MAYBE YOU'LL NEED ONE AFTER THIS,
WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

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


(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I SUSPECT I'LL BE -- NOT EVERYONE WILL BE IN AGREEMENT WITH ME.

I THOUGHT THAT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL TIME, GIVEN THE REQUEST FOR MATERIAL
WASN'T SATISFIED UNTIL VERY SHORTLY BEFORE THE GAC MEETING, THAT IT WAS
REASONABLE TO POSTPONE FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

WE TAKE YOUR POINT.

DID YOU WANT TO --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THOUGHT I'D JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION AND COMMENT ON THE STLD
QUESTION.

I WAS GOING TO DO THIS AT THE END, BUT CHUCK'S -- I'LL GO BEFORE CHUCK.

THE -- THE WHOLE QUESTION BEING RAISED ABOUT QUESTIONS OF PROCESS ON THE
STLD, I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT CERTAINLY I THINK ALL STAFF
ADVICE TO THE BOARD AS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PROCESS HAS BEEN VERY CAREFULLY
CHECKED TO BE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE BROADER FRAMEWORK OF THE RFP LANGUAGE,
WHICH IS OTHER ICANN POLICIES AND THE ICANN BYLAWS.

SO IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CHANGES WITHIN THE PROCESS AS IT'S GONE ALONG THAT
WE HAVE NOT FORESEEN, WE THINK THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT
OF THE RULES.

AND WE'VE BEEN VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.

HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO UP ONE LEVEL AND THINK -- AND I PUT
THIS TO THE COMMUNITY TO THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT, OKAY.

WE HAVE COMING UP IN FRONT OF US THE NEW GTLD PROCESS CONSIDERATION, OKAY.

AND THERE'S LOTS OF DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROCESS DISCUSSION --
IN THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW -- IF I CAN SORT OF PARODY ONE VIEW, LET A
THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM, LET'S HAVE LOTS OF TLDS, LET'S HAVE NONE.

THERE'S LOTS OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SORT OF THE OUTCOME.

I REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK A LOT ABOUT SCALABILITY OF CERTAIN PROCESSES
AND THINK A LOT ABOUT THE LESSONS BEING LEARNED NOT ONLY FROM THE 2001
PROCESS, BUT FROM THE STLD PROCESS.

AND IT WAS INTENDED IN THE BOARD DECISION OF DECEMBER 2003 THAT WE WOULD RUN
PARALLEL THE NEW GTLD POLICY QUESTION WITH THE STLD ROUND.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE THINK THROUGH VERY CAREFULLY THE
IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ONLY -- NOT ONLY ISSUES AROUND STRING AND WHAT STRING AND
HOW MANY STRINGS AND IN WHAT LANGUAGE STRINGS AND ALL THIS SORT OF QUESTION,
BUT ALSO PROCESS QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT ACTUALLY WILL GET DETERMINED.

AND I'M PARTLY PLEADING BECAUSE AT A PURELY PAROCHIAL LEVEL, I AM VERY
CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE NEED TO THINK THROUGH WHAT THE STAFFING IMPLICATIONS
WILL BE OF ANY SORT OF ENVIRONMENT.

SO JUST I WANT US TO, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE THAT'S BEING TALKED
ABOUT, I WANT PEOPLE ALSO TO THINK ABOUT IT CAREFULLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
NEW GNSO WORK.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU, PAUL. WE HAVE THE NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>SEBASTIAN RICCIARDI: GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM SEBASTIAN RICCIARDI. I AM WITH
THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT, MAYBE
IN CONTRAST TO IZUMI'S COMMENTS, THAT MANY LATIN AMERICAN AND AT LEAST ONE
CARIBBEAN ORGANIZATION FOUND IN THIS PROCESS A NEW WAY TO PROVIDE INSIGHTS
AND IDEAS TO IT.

AND I REALLY LIKE TO POINT IT OUT THAT THIS USER INPUT PROCESS WAS -- WERE
MANY TIMES KIDNAPPED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE THE
ONLY ONES WHO HELD SOME KIND OF USER REPRESENTATION IN THE PAST. AND WE
DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND ALTHOUGH WE MIGHT ACKNOWLEDGE -- WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROCESS
IS IMPROVABLE, AND WE MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THAT IN ACCOUNT.

THANK YOU.

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

CHUCK.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I'LL BE REAL BRIEF. I KNOW HOW LONG OVER WE HAVE GONE.

BUT AS WE LOOK AT IMPROVING PROCESSES AND, IN PARTICULAR, I AM THINKING OF
THE GNSO, AND AS ICANN AND THE GAC WORK TOGETHER TO SEE HOW THEY CAN COME UP
WITH NEW WAYS TO WORK TOGETHER, I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT THE GAC
DEVELOP PROCESSES TO BE TIME EFFICIENT IN INTERPRETS OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
I SAY THAT FULLY RECOGNIZING THE COMPLEXITY OF YOUR SITUATION, SO I WANT YOU
TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT AS THE REST OF THE ORGANIZATION IMPROVES PROCESSES, IF THE GAC DOESN'T
AND IS NOT ABLE TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER IN THINGS, IT COULD REALLY BOG
THE WHOLE OPERATION DOWN.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: JUST IN DEFENSE OF THE GAC, ALL OF OUR PROCESSES NEED TO FOLLOW
EXACTLY YOUR NOSTRUM.

DAVID.

>>DAVID JOHNSON: DAVID JOHNSON. WELL, IN RESPONSE PARTICULARLY TO THE
SCALABILITY OF PROCESS, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT'S EASY OVER TIME
ALWAYS TO ADD ANOTHER CONTRACT CLAUSE OR ADD ANOTHER PROCESS, AND I THINK
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT ONE WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS IS TO
HAVE SOME WAY OF SUNSETTING CONTRACT CLAUSES IN PROCESSES.

ICANN WAS ESTABLISHED TO SOLVE THE QUESTION: WHEN DO WE NEED A GLOBAL RULE
AND HOW DO WE GET ONE WITHOUT CREATING A NEW TREATY ORGANIZATION.

THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION SURELY IS NOT VERY OFTEN. AND IT'S, I THINK, AN
IMPORTANT ROLE OF THIS BODY TO REMEMBER THAT AND NOT LET EVERY DEMAND FOR A
NEW INTEREST TO BE PROTECTED OR A NEW CONSIDERATION TO BE MADE TO
CONTINUOUSLY ACCRETE MORE AND MORE APPENDICES TO THE CONTRACT, MORE AND MORE
PROCESSES THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. SO ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS YOU CAN DO
TO ADDRESS THE SCALING PROBLEM, TO ENABLE INNOVATION AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
YOU ARE THE BODY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK IS TO ELIMINATE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT
DEMONSTRATED TO BE NECESSARY.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: DAVID, I THINK EVERYONE WILL AGREE THAT BREVITY HELPS A GREAT
DEAL. IN FACT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IN GOING THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS
STLD PROCESS, GREAT DEAL OF MATERIAL WAS REMOVED FROM THE EARLIER CONTRACTS.
AND SO I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK FOR LEAN AND BRIEF AGREEMENTS THAT ARE
CLEAR AND CONCISE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUGGESTION.

>>DAVID JOHNSON: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: I DO NOT SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME
THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY PERIOD, ALBEIT ABOUT AN HOUR
LATE.

I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH EVERYONE'S PATIENCE, AND I APPRECIATE THE GENERAL
SPIRIT IN WHICH THIS DISCOURSE HAS TAKEN PLACE.

THE MEETINGS, I THINK, HAVE BEEN VERY FRUITFUL. YOU HAVE GIVEN A GREAT DEAL
BACK TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.

WE WILL BE RESPONDING PARTICULARLY TO THE MANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE
VERISIGN AGREEMENT. STAFF HAS BEEN ASKED TO PRODUCE A SUMMARY OF ALL THAT WE
HAVE HEARD IN A COHERENT FORM AND POST THAT TO BE ASSURED THAT WE HAVE HEARD
CORRECTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED.

AFTER THAT CONFIRMATION, THEN WE WILL TAKE THE MATERIAL AND DETERMINE WHAT
MIGHT NOT NEXT BE DONE.

SO I WILL CLOSE THE SESSION FOR NOW. WE LOOK FORWARD TO -- I'M SORRY. WE
HAVE ONE OTHER ACTION TO DO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET ME -- I AM GOING TO REMOVE MY APPARATUS HERE, AND I'LL ASK THAT TOM NILES
AND RICHARD THWAITES JOIN ME AT THE LECTERN. OKAY. WELL, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THIS IS -- THIS IS A BIT OF A BREAK IN TRADITION, BECAUSE NORMALLY
I WOULD BE OFFERING THANK YOUS FOR SERVICES RENDERED TOMORROW AT BOARD
MEETING WHERE IT'S TYPICAL THAT WE PASS RESOLUTIONS ALONG THESE LINES. BUT
SINCE THERE ARE MORE OF YOU HERE NOW THAN I SUSPECT WILL BE HERE TOMORROW, I
WANT TO TAKE THIS LARGER OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER MY THANK YOUS ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD, BOTH TO RICHARD THWAITES AND TO TOM NILES.

EACH OF THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAS SERVED THEIR TIME, AND I USE THAT TERM
ADVISEDLY, THEIR SENTENCES HAVE ENDED, WILL HAVE ENDED AS OF TOMORROW AFTER
THE BOARD MEETING. EACH OF THEM HAS CONTRIBUTED ENORMOUSLY TO OUR TASK AT
HAND. AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PUBLICLY AND OFFER THEM SMALL
MEMENTOES OF OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE TIME THAT THEY HAVE SPENT WORKING WITH
THE BOARD. AND I HOPE WE WILL SEE THEM PARTICIPATING IN OTHER WAYS AS THEY
GO ABOUT THE PERIOD AFTER THEIR SENTENCES HAVE BEEN COMMUTED.

SO I WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK RICHARD

(APPLAUSE.).

>>VINT CERF: AND TOM.

(STANDING OVATION.)

>>VINT CERF: I CAN'T TELL IF THEY WERE CLAPPING BECAUSE THEY ARE GLAD YOU ARE
LEAVING OR THEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LUNCH IS SERVED.

(APPLAUSE.)

(1:40 P.M.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers