ICANN Brussels
GNSO Council Meeting
Wednesday, 23 June 2010


>>CHUCK GOMES:  Testing.  I would encourage all councillors to please
log into the Adobe Connect room.  The link was sent around.  It's
important that you're in there right now.  Not too many are in there.

Before we start, I'd like to try to give a little assistance with
regard to these mics.

You either have to hold down the "talk" button or you can slide the --
is this still working?  Yeah.  You can slide -- hold it down and then
slide the little silver button to the right.  It will hold it.  The
only thing you have to remember is to slide it back and take it off
after you're done talking.

So hopefully that helps.  I'm sure we'll all probably foul it up
somewhere along the line, but they gave me that instruction and that
was appreciated.

Okay.  We have a very full agenda, and so I am going to call this
meeting to order, and I will ask Glen to take roll call.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Thank you, Chuck.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Present.

>>CAROLINE GREER:  Present.

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Present.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Present.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Present.

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Present.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Present.

>>DAVID TAYLOR:  Present.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Present.  Good morning.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Present.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Present.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  William Drake.  Bill will be here later.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Present.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Present.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Present.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Present.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  And Han Chuan Lee, absent.

Thank you, Chuck.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Glen.  Appreciate that.  All right.  Before
we go to the next part of our administrative items, I want to start
off by thanking each one of you, as well as those of you in the
audience, for all the work that has taken place so far.  We've had a
full schedule starting Saturday morning, and some of us even did some
things on Friday.  So thank you very much for your commitment and the
time you've put in, the long days and the hard work.  That's very much
appreciated.

Next, we need to talk about the agenda, and I will start that off.
We're going to delay Item 3 -- make sure I got the item right.  Item 3
in the commend, the Affirmation of Commitment drafting team and
endorsement process item.  Bill hopes to join us, and he's a key
player in that since he chaired the drafting team, but he is ill this
morning and asked if we could move that back and hopefully he'll be
able to make it later.

So just to let you know.

Are there any other changes -- suggested changes or additions to the
agenda?

Okay.  Then the next item is just to note the status of the
amendments.  They are scheduled for approval on Friday of this week,
the 25th, automatically if there are no comments.  They were posted
within the time frame that is required by our procedures, and on the
25th they will become approved.  And that's from our last meeting on
the 10th of June.

Our first major topic on the agenda is the prioritization of the GNSO
work, and we did our first council exercise in that regard to test out
the draft procedure on Saturday.  Most of you were involved in that,
and I'm going to ask Liz Gasster if she would give a report on that
exercise.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Thank you, Chuck.

Okay.  Just briefly, the purpose of this exercise was to understand
the council's priority so that the council are manage the workload
based on deadlines and resources.

This is really a first effort, so we're just learning how best to
perform this kind of assessment.

As Chuck said, the process so far is the council rated all of the GNSO
projects individually, in advance of Saturday's meeting, and then on
Saturday they all got together in a facilitated session to review and
adjust those ratings.

So the agenda for this session will be to review briefly key
statistics before and after that discussion.  I'll give you a summary
of some of the changes that resulted, the final value ratings and
council resolution, and an opportunity for questions and discussion of
next steps.

So we will be discussing this chart in more detail.  It's a busy chart
that you may not see so well from your vantage point.  The chart
essentially looks at three things.  It looks for each -- well, you'll
see across the top horizontally each of the projects that we rated,
beginning with IRTPB.  These are abbreviations that we've used for
each of the work projects that we have, so as an example IRTPB is the
inter-registrar transfer policy PDP B, vertical integration,
internationalized registration data working group, et cetera, and then
there are really three things that we're looking at on this chart.

The first is the range.  The range is essentially the high score minus
the low score that council members selected.  The second variable that
we're looking at is the mode.  What was the most popular answer that
council members identified for each of the projects.  And then the
third is the median.  The median is the middle answer if all of the
answers that council members provided were lined up in sequence.

The next two charts are probably of greatest interest to the council
members themselves because they really look at the differences that
resulted between their individual ratings and the ratings that were
then done collectively as the council shared their views.

So on this particular slide, you'll note -- and this is really looking
at the range and percentage and the mode results.  So you'll see that,
for example, for two of the stats, there was improvement after the
council discussions.  "Improvement" meaning that the range was closer,
was narrowed.  And then there were, sorry, eight projects where the
ranges were narrowed and seven projects where -- had a higher
percentage of councillors choosing the mode.

This next slide looks at mode and median results, and notes that for
key -- two key stats, the majority of projects did not change after
council discussion.

For nine projects, the modes were identical, and for 11 projects the
medians were the same after the group discussion rounds.

So I think this was a learning experience for all of us, in the sense
that we might have expected more changes as a result of the council
discussions on Saturday, but I think we learned that overall there may
not have been huge value to group discussion, although there was
certainly some value to that.

This slide looks at something that I think would be of broad interest
to everyone, council members and the community, because this chart
really shows the final value ratings for each of the eligible
projects, and I'll just give you a couple of examples here.  I won't
read from the whole chart, but you'll see that for example the
registry/registrar vertical integration PDP was rated a 7.0.  The work
-- meaning that was the top rating that was afforded, and that was
consistent.

Working groups work team was rated second highest in priority at a
6.0.  You'll see policy development process work team at 5.5.  You'll
notice two projects at 5.0.  The council operations work team and the
constituency and stakeholder operations work team.

Six projects rated at 4.0.

And then two projects at -- or one project at 2.5 and then two
projects at 2.0.

So these are the final value ratings that the council derived as a
result of this Saturday working session.

Today there is a motion that really does two things.  One is to just
show that we've reduced the number of projects from an original
project list of 15 projects down to 14.  We eliminated, on Saturday,
one particular project that was viewed as being closed, so there are
actually 14 projects.

This motion would approve the ratings as finalized on Saturday, and it
would direct staff to post these ratings for public view.

Then my last slide, in terms of questions and next steps, is really in
light of the constrained resources, what should the next steps be?

So once we're -- since we're at this place now where we have a good
sense of how the council views all the projects, it's really up to the
council to consider how that information is going to be useful and
relevant for further decision-making in terms of prioritization and
workload management that affects both community resources that have
been very much taxed by the number of working groups and the volume of
work in the GNSO, and then staff resources as well.

So that concludes my overview of this effort.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Liz, and we'll leave that particular slide
up there and we'll probably move back to the motion slide when we get
there.

Now, for the audience's benefit, we're going to have a brief
discussion period right now on the results that Liz just reported on,
and we'll start out with the council -- councillors commenting and
asking questions, but -- and then once the councillors have commented
and asked questions, we will take comments or questions from anyone in
the audience.  I'd just ask you to go to the microphones and to state
your name, please, when you're ready to comment.

All right.  Please use the -- probably to keep it easy, it would make
it easier on me if you use the Adobe Connect room and raise your hand.
If somebody's not in the room, please let me know.  Are you not in the
room yet, Stéphane?  Okay.  All right.  I saw Rafik's hand.  You're
not in the room either?  Okay.  All right.  Oh, I see it now, okay.
Good.  Rafik is first.  Go ahead.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Thank you.  I hope that my noted that I get about
statistics can help.  I think that the range as a metric is not really
helpful.  It's making the process for the rating complicated and we
have this iteration.  Usually we use standard deviation, so to find
what is the variance between the median and the extreme.

But with range, even if I check in Wikipedia, what they said it's a
poor and weak measure of dispersion.

So I'm not sure why we choose -- choose this metric, which making our
task so difficult in -- made it so difficult in Saturday.

Is it possible maybe to change or to improve it?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Well, our expert on all this, Ken Bauer, is no longer
here at the meeting, so he can't comment, so let me comment, first of
all.

The range really was used to help us see whether we're close enough
together, and my personal opinion is it served that purpose for
deciding whether we needed additional discussion and then so forth.

The second comment I would make would be more of a statistical one,
and that is that standard deviation, of course -- you're right -- is a
much better statistic, but it also is much more reliable when you have
a large enough sample size.  And in this particular case, we have a
relatively small sample size.

Now, that doesn't mean that we can't use standard deviation, but I
would say that some of your argument is -- relates -- is minimized a
little bit because of the small sample size.  Go ahead, Rafik.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Okay.  If I can complete what it said in the
Wikipedia, it said it's a poor and weak measure of dispersion, except
when the sample size is large.

So in our case, the sample of -- is not large.

But also the problem with range, even if we have -- how much -- we
have 19 councillors, say, for just one -- they agree for one value, if
just one councillor chooses a big or smaller one, we have to make the
iteration again.

So I'm not sure we are trying to find a kind of consensus or just
to...

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  And in fact, as -- and keep in mind, let
me qualify our discussion right now.  We are really looking -- we're
going to be reviewing this after the public comment period, and we're
going to -- and we're starting that review today, just for discussions
before we open up a public comment period.

So we could very well decide to take your recommendation and use
standard deviation for that part of the process instead of range.
Okay?

Jaime?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Well, first I would like to comment on Rafik's
remarks.  I think one of the lessons learned is that, yes, range is a
measure of dispersion that is worse than standard deviation but why
was it taken at first?  We try to use the same method that is used in
the scram methodology project evaluation and project management, one
of the agile methods of project management.

And it uses range as a measure of dispersion, and it uses the extreme
values as -- identifies the extreme values through iterations come to
the -- the main aim is to reduce range.  It was kind of a
disappointment to me that during our discussions, we were not able, in
many instances, to reduce range.  Indeed, the dispersion -- and also
in this case is the standard deviation was worse in the end of our
discussions than in the beginning.

So it means in these cases that the amount of consensus was worsened
by the discussion.  What is -- this is why I was disappointed.

But anyway, I think that we should maintain the evaluation of some
amount.  Either the range or the standard deviation.  Some amount of
the -- some measure of the amount of consensus or dissent that there
is among us and how it progresses.  And I think that we should
maintain this information somewhere, and if not I think it would not
-- it's not good to maintain the same list, the final list, but
somewhere I ask the staff to maintain this information on range or --
and I would recommend the standard deviation.  This is the only remark
that I would like to make.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Jaime.  And Edmon is next.  Zahid, are you
in Adobe Connect?  I've got you down, but if you would join in Adobe
Connect and raise your hand in there, but I have got you.  Yes?  I do
not.  You've raised your hand?

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I -- it's --

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>CHUCK GOMES:  No.  That's what I'm saying, I cannot, so I don't know
what's going on.  Raise it again.  Maybe take it off and raise it
again and see if that works.  In the meantime, I'll go to Edmon and
then Stéphane and then Zahid, okay?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Thank you, Chuck.  I see that the summary -- I think
the summary was quite appropriate, but it did draw attention to that a
lot of the discussion didn't really result in much change, but I also
want to, you know, sort of point out that, yes, maybe nine out of the
13, the mode didn't change, but also four out of the 13, which is over
30%, did change.

So, you know, I don't think it's totally useless.

The other thing is that just I guess as a suggestion, perhaps when we
were -- you know, when we go into the meeting, we probably have sort
of a -- some idea of which ones we might change or we might not.  So
rather than going through one by one in the next -- you know, if we do
it anytime again, perhaps we can start off by, you know, just is there
anyone that wants to bring out anything, rather than, you know, just
go one by one.

Because one by one, it takes a lot of time, and sometimes there are
certain discussions that actually maybe people are getting a little
bit bored and create certain interesting ways of ranking things again,
but I guess the suggestion is really that perhaps we can -- we can try
to narrow it down to a few items to discuss, and I think that then it
would be -- could be more useful.

The other thing is, I do think having a -- a sort of a matrix to see
how people voted -- well, how people ranked and then each particular
-- sort of have a view of all the projects that are being done, I
think that is quite useful for councillors to get a sense of what --
what the council is doing.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thank you.  I'll get there in the end.

I think the exercise on Saturday was actually disappointing for a lot
of us because it was time-consuming.  We were actually quite rushed,
so some votes, as other people have said, ended up going in a
different fashion than -- in a different direction than what we'd had
previously, possibly just because we were rushed.

And one of the interesting elements that came out of those votes, the
working group that worked on the -- or the drafting team that worked
on this model had not anticipated because their numbers were smaller
than the council's and this is what I learned from Ken, talking to him
about the exercise afterwards, was considering the modes.  And I think
it would be -- I'd like to suggest that we do next time, because I
think the mode on Saturday was actually quite interesting and would be
something that would bring a lot to this exercise.

So as part of the comments from the exercise, something that we can
take from that I think is to insert the use of the mode into the
process.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Stéphane.  Zahid.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  You got to hold is it?  All right.  Oh, lock.  Thank
you.  Sorry about that.

I'd first like to thank staff for the tremendous work they did in
trying to put this together.  I know that they have been feeling the
pressure and the workload of the GNSO Council as much as we have, and
at times probably more than us, because a lot of the work is done by
them as well.

I'm particularly concerned about the efficacy of this whole exercise,
especially in light of certain comments I heard from the chair of the
board yesterday at our CSG breakfast, which are basically, to
summarize, "Well, the workload of the GNSO is the GNSO's own making."
And I paraphrase.

That concerns me because eventually that means that we have to do a
better job of not only prioritizing, but basically saying no to work
or putting work in sequence.

But from my little experience I've had on the council, we seem to be
running to rush and meet deadlines set by others, and so I'm
particularly concerned about how we would prioritize work where
deadlines are set by others, and for the benefit of transparency, I
will be abstaining from voting on this motion and I have a statement
prepared.  Thanks.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So you're going to abstain from voting on a motion to
put this out for public comment?

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Simply because I think it's important that it's on the
record that -- I mean, as I said, I'm not against it, but I also don't
understand why -- I want to make -- I'll make the point that a lot of
the work that the GNSO Council gets -- for instance, nine out of 20 of
the pieces of work we're working on are set by the board, and the view
that is taken by some in the community -- especially the board -- the
chair of the board yesterday -- that we set our own motions and we set
our own deadlines and we cannot handle the situation I think needs to
sort of be addressed and I think that perception, my abstention help
in creating a different perception, so that's what I'll be doing.
Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'll respect your decision on that, even though I
don't understand it.  Because we -- I think we want additional
feedback from the community.  Okay.  We're running out of time, so I
would encourage people to be as brief as possible.

Next up is Wolf.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you.  I wouldn't say just (inaudible)
process have been disappointing me.  For me, it's obvious it needed
time, well, to step into to understand what's going on and also to
understand the content of the project, and then come to values.

What we confused a little bit on Saturday was that it was not clear
about what kind -- how we are evaluating.  That means so there was on
the one hand the opinion we are evaluating only the value of the -- of
those projects for the community and not the prioritization itself.
So that means that was confusing me and it may have confused also
other people.  They were of the opinion, "okay, we are looking how we
arrange those projects in a priority list," and that was really very
much confusing.  I do hope we could overcome that next time.  Thanks.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks for being concise there, Wolf.  I appreciate
that.  Adrian.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Thanks, Chuck.  Two quick points, if I can.  The
first one is to address something that Edmon brought up just about
separating out, potentially, some of the topics.

I think the benefit of -- whilst it's somewhat painful to go through
and do it all in one hit, and I understand that we lag and potentially
breaks may help, I think that viewing the prioritization as -- our
work as a whole is beneficial.  To pull things out and just prioritize
two or three things and then come back, if that's indeed what Edmon
meant, I think can sometimes slice up the picture and you don't always
get the full prioritization piece, so that would be my comment there.

Secondly, I want -- the prioritization framework is a necessary
mechanism, but I would -- I would also just -- don't forget that we
are, I believe, going through an anomaly period at the moment.
Particularly with new gTLDs.  I think once we are over the hump and
there is a light at the end of the tunnel -- and I hope it's not a
locomotive, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and I think
once we get over this hump, a lot of our prioritization tasks will be
made easier, and I don't think we'll be given so many tough time
lines, more to a few points that have been made.  So I hope that's
helpful.

>>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Adrian.  Jaime?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  I'd just like to -- I would like to emphasize that
for a second round, it is predicted that some projects will be skipped
in front of some consensus ahead, so it will be a second round of
prioritization will be much faster and less boring.

Although I should point that I -- my disappointment was not with the
process.  It was with us as councillors in some discussions, and I
think the process is -- has achieved its goals of increasing awareness
amongst us of the projects, of the workload that is going on, of the
status of these projects, and this is a good thing.  Also, it
increased the discussion.  The discussion gave a sense of relative
importance and also I think this tends to increase this awareness and
discussions tends to increase with the process being run again and
again.

So I ask all the councillors here and the ones to come to have the
patience to engage in this process seriously.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Jaime.  I'm going to -- the last comment
will go to Wendy and then I want to move on to the motion, please, not
seeing anybody from the audience at the mics.  Wendy, please.  Sorry
for the problems you're having with Adobe Connect.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Thank you.  Yes.  And I want to thank the staff and
everyone for the time that was obviously put into this prioritization
exercise, but I don't think that this was the most useful exercise for
all of the time that it took.

I think it is helpful to get all of the projects in one place for
consideration at once, but without any notion of budgeting or
tradeoffs built into the rankings that councillors were making or -- I
don't think it really spurred the kinds of discussions that we needed
to be having about how to prioritize matters when different members of
council place different priorities and even used different scales for
ranking what they felt was important.

So I would not recommend using this procedure again.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Wendy.  And keep in mind we will
continue this discussion.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Wendy.  And keep in mind we will
continue this discussion and evaluation.  And you may want to note
down the concerns you had, although I suppose everyone will remember
them just fine.  So thank you very much.

Olga, would you please read the motion.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you, Chuck.  Before I read the motion and being
the chair of this working team, I would like to thank very much Ken
and Liz from the staff and also those active members in the group:
Chuck, Jaime, Wolf and me involved in it.  I know it has been
complicated.  It was very complicated for us when we were deciding
what to do.  And thank you very much, everyone, for the patience.

I will read the motion from the Wiki, is that okay?

Whereas, the GNSO Council at its 21st April 2010 meeting, adopted a
resolution and timeline to conduct this first work prioritization
effort according to a set of procedures, proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX
-- there is a link there -- recommended by the Work Prioritization
Model Drafting Team.  Whereas.

The adopted timeline outlined four major process steps, the first
three of which have been completed as follows:

Step 1, ICANN policy staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO counsel
a recommended work prioritization project list, version 1.0, including
a cover letter on 30 April, 2010.  Council approved on 20 May, 2010.
There is a link there.

Step 2, 18 councillors and one liaison, 19 total, submitted individual
value ratings for all 15 eligible projects approved in Step 1 on or
before 9 June, deadline extended from 7 June, which were then
successfully processed and aggregated by staff for input to Step 3.

Step 3, the GNSO Council had a work prioritization group discussion
session on 19 June, 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set
of value ratings for 14 eligible projects.  Note, the IDNF project was
determined by the council to be ineligible.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO
work prioritization value ratings finalized in its group discussion
session held on 19 June, 2010 and directs staff to publish those value
ratings on the GNSO Web site according to Step 4 of the adopted
timeline.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Olga.  That motion was seconded
by Wolf.  Is there any further discussion on the motion?  And, Adrian,
I'm assuming you need to lower your hand.  That's okay.  We all do it.

Seeing no hands up for discussion, is there anyone who opposes a voice
vote on this?  Okay.  All those in favor please say aye.

[Chorus of Ayes.]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Any opposed, please identify yourself.

[No verbal response.]

Any abstain, please identify yourself.

Thank you, Zahid.  You already gave your reasons.  Unless you want to
say something more, that's okay.  It is up to you.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  I have a statement, if I could just read it out.
Thank you very much.  Here's my explanation for the abstention.  I'm
unclear of the efficacy of this item in light of the fact --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Please speak slowly.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Thanks.

I'm unclear of the efficacy of this item in light of the fact the
priorities in regards to work that the council has to undertake are
often set by externalities.  Example, the board.  Another example is
the AoC endorsement, et cetera.

I know that nine out of the 20 of the work items that we're working on
are board initiated.  In particular, I'm concerned by the view
expressed by the chair of the board of the CSG breakfast that the
workload of the council is within the council's own control.  I'm
paraphrasing.  And the council should address this issue itself.

This is disconcerting since the deadlines at times are set by the
board or the externalities.  I wish from now on the council set its
own deadlines and priorities in regards to work received externally
and avoid two items -- two possibilities:  One, that we may compromise
on quality as a result of those deadlines in favor of speed; and, two,
have deadlines be used as leverage in negotiations or policy making to
push parties to compromise.

That's the end of my statement.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.  I appreciate that.  Liz, could
you put up the slide that have the portion of the agenda?  Thank you
very much.

I think we really covered that in our previous discussion.  And since
we're over time now and unless there are any objections, we will move
onto the next agenda item.  Is there any objection to that?

We really were doing kind of the first talk of the evaluation before
the motion.  And that's fine.  Okay.  Then we will now move to the
next agenda item.

We are going to skip Item 3.  So we will go to -- as I previously
stated, we will go to Item 4 which is WHOIS studies.  And ask Liz to,
please, give -- notice on the agenda there are lots of links there.
We are not going to put all those links up.  But there's a lot of
information available on this particular topic.  And this is the first
session that the GNSO Council is dealing with this topic.

Our ultimate objective is to decide on which WHOIS studies to pursue
in fiscal year '11, and Liz will go over some of that in her
presentation.

Just to properly set expectations, we do not expect to make any
decisions on which studies to pursue in this session.  This is our
first step in leading to that process.

Liz, all yours.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Thank you, Chuck.  Good day, everyone.  So if you
recall some of the history here in the WHOIS that led us to this idea
of looking at WHOIS studies, WHOIS policy has been debated for many
years.  There are many competing interests with very valid concerns.
This has really led to the idea that council hopes that study data
would provide a factual objective foundation for further policy
making.

So back in the March time frame of 2009, the council identified
several WHOIS study areas that they asked staff to examine in terms of
the costs of actually conducting those studies and to assess the
feasibility of doing each of those studies.  And once we have that
information, to get back to the council so that further decision-
making could be done about which studies to actually pursue.

So what you have here is a rather difficult chart to read, I
understand, but it is a summary of the four study areas that the
council has asked us to look at initially.  We'll come back to this
slide.  But just as a summary, we have a category of WHOIS misuse
studies that look at the extent to which publicly displayed WHOIS data
is misused.  There is a category called registrant misidentification
which would gather bases how commercial registrants are identified.

There is a topic area having to do with WHOIS -- relationship between
abuse and use of proxy and privacy services.  And there's a fourth
study area on -- that would analyze reveal requests that are sent for
proxy and privacy registered domains to a measure associated delays
and failures.

So the rest of my presentation is just going to quickly walk through
the status of each of those four studies and suggest the next steps
that the council has.

So WHOIS misuse, there are really two possible studies in this
category to assess whether public WHOIS significantly increases
harmful acts and also that looks at the impact of varying anti-
harvesting measures.  One is a survey approach that would survey
registrants, registrars, research and law enforcement organizations
about passed acts.  And then there is a second study within this area
that would measure a variety of acts aimed at WHOIS published versus
non-published test addresses.  We call that an experimental study.

We did use an RFP approach to solicit input from independent
researchers on costs and feasibility.  We received three responses.
The responses were informative.  And we then sent an analysis to the
council following our analysis of the responses that we got.

In summary, the -- we learned that the estimated cost to do this study
would be roughly $150,000 U.S., that it would take roughly 12 months
to complete.  The researchers felt that the study could count and
categorize a variety of harmful acts attributed to WHOIS misuse and
showed that the data was probably not caused by other sources.

So acts may be more difficult to measure than others, and it would be
extremely difficult to tie WHOIS queries directly to acts, which makes
it difficult to prove that reductions in misuse were caused by any
particular anti-harvesting measure.  It also may be difficult to
assess whether measured misuse is, in fact, significant.

So I think this would be useful in, you know, counting harmful acts
and -- and it still might help decide whether anti-harvesting measures
should be required or could be required and find at least a loose
correlation there but probably not an exact correlation.

If you want more detail on staff's analysis of this study, again, we
did produce a report on the 23rd of March and I encourage you to, if
you're interested, read that report in more detail.  It has more
information about our analysis than I can capture here today.

The next area that the council asked us to look at was a registrant
identification study.  This study would look at how registrants
identify themselves in WHOIS and to what extent domains registered by
businesses are used for commercial purposes are not clearly identified
as such in WHOIS and also the relationship to the use of proxy and
privacy services.

So, for example, perhaps their identity is on occurred in some way or
suggests that the registrant is a noncommercial entity when, in fact,
they're a commercial entity.

We also used an RFP approach for this and received five responses from
researchers.  We performed an analysis that's actually included in
that same March 23rd report.  Some of the things that we learned as a
result of that, the estimated cost was also very consistent with the
previous study, about $150,000 U.S.

It would also take probably about a year to complete.  Researchers
felt that they could classify ownership and purpose of what appear to
be commercial domains without clear registrant information and also
measure how many were registered using a proxy or privacy service.

In our view, the study does seem intractable, although some number of
domains will probably be hard to classify.  Some of the approaches
that we learned about from the researchers varied in terms of, for
example, how much of the process might be manual versus automated.
And we do think that there are several ways the results might be
useful.  There might be insight on why registrants are not clearly
identified.  Today we don't ask registrants to state the purpose of
their registration, so there is ambiguity there.  And it would
certainly help determine the frequency of proxy and privacy service
use by businesses.  It might suggest things like, you know, whether
more specific WHOIS requirements should be encouraged or required.  It
might suggest providing help information to make clear what WHOIS
information is specifically desired or expected.  And, potentially, it
could lead to at least some to conclude that restrictions should be
imposed on the use of proxy and privacy services for businesses.
That's just speculative on my part, and I would certainly encourage
the council and the community to think more specifically about how
these and the other studies would be valuable in enhancing or
informing the policy debate.

The third area of study is what we're calling the proxy and privacy
abuse study.  This study would study the relationship between domains
that are associated with illegal or harmful Internet acts or
communications and the tie to proxy and privacy services, to compare
the use of proxy services with the overall frequency of proxy and
privacy registrations.

This study is slightly in the timeline behind the other two that I
just mentioned.  We only recently released an RFP soliciting views and
responses from, again, independent researchers.  We did so on the 18th
of May.  We're expecting feedback by the 20th of July.  Staff will
then produce a report on the analysis that we received from
researchers and our own following that and we will be sharing that
with the GNSO Council, very much like the report I did on the 23rd of
March for the first two study areas.

And then the last study area is what we're calling a proxy and privacy
services reveal study.  This study would help measure the delay
incurred when communication relay and identity reveal requests are
made for proxy and privacy service, registered domain names.  In our
view, this is one of the hardest studies to think through in terms of
terms of reference.  So the draft RFP has been delayed.  I think we
kind of saved the hardest for last here.  We're hoping to have an RFP
posted by the end of July.  We're just putting the terms of reference
together -- draft terms of reference together now.  We'll be
circulating that draft with the GNSO to give the council a couple of
weeks to review it before it is posted.  So we're hoping we get that
done by the end of July.  But it is a bit challenging.

Some of the issues that we're kind of grappling with right now is that
there really need to be actual victims of actionable harm to originate
reveal requests accompanied by evidence of harm.  So one concern is
finding complainants willing to participate.  And then some other
questions we are kind of asking ourselves and we will be asking the
council and the community is, should we be studying both the relay and
the reveal function?  Should it be limited to the reveal function?
Should we be studying both proxy and privacy service responses or
simply one and not the other?  So you will be hearing more about this
study.  We are working very hard to wrap this one up.  This is kind of
the fourth in a series.  And hope to get that out, and happy to answer
more questions about that.

In terms of timeline and next steps, I think Chuck opened by mentioned
that there is some funding allocated in the draft fiscal year 2011
budget that will be considered by the board later this week.  It's
over $400,000 U.S. in funding that's been set aside.

Next steps would also include council discussion on whether to pursue
these first two studies or one and not the other or either.
Certainly, we want to await responses and the staff analysis on this
proxy and privacy abuse study and continuing to develop the terms of
reference on proxy and privacy reveal studies.

So I think in terms of the community discussion and discussions that
the council will engage in, I guess, have already begun to already
think about but will engage in full throttle is really, you know,
which of these studies would best inform some of these intractable
policy questions.  Which studies are the most feasible?  Which are
likely to produce the kind of information that councillors were
looking for when they suggested the studies that they did?  And, you
know, what can we learn that we really need to know in terms of
advancing the discussion on policy development on WHOIS.  So that
pretty much concludes my presentation.  I can flip back to the chart,
if you'd like.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Please do.  And what I'm going to do next then is open
it up to the council for any questions or brief comments on Liz's
presentation.  Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Thanks, Chuck.  Thanks, Liz, this is very
helpful.  The one thing -- and I apologize if we have covered this
ground in the past, but I believe it's been a while.  The one thing
that I wasn't clear on is the extent to which in connection with all
four of these studies that staff may have conducted almost a
literature review to see to what extent, if at all, others may have
conducted studies on these points or points sufficiently analogous
that the results might be useful and to the extent that such other
studies have been identified, a review to determine whether they were
sufficiently rigorous, I guess; that we may be willing to rely on them
almost not necessarily in whole, although I guess theoretically we
could, but in part.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  I can respond.  Thanks, Kristina.  Yes, we did and one
thing that might be helpful, if you look at the terms of reference for
the first three studies, the two we have already received the
responses and the one that's kind of pending now, you will see in the
back of the RFP terms of reference an inventory or a bibliography, if
you will, of relevant studies that were previously done and where
we've tried to suggest why an additional study might add more or take
a difference tack than a previous study that might have been done.

The other thing I want to mention in that regard is that we were also
very careful to use terminology and definitions that were used, for
example, by NORC in the compliance-related studies so that to the
degree that we wanted to make sure, there could be consistent use of
terms.  The data pools themselves won't be the same because of the
time lag between the NORC studies and when we will embark on these
studies.  But the intent was to utilize the reasoning and the
formatting and the definition so that we would have an apples-to-
apples comparison to the degree that that was useful.  But it is
possible out there, there could be some study that we missed.  So if
you have something in mind that you're wondering about, let us know
because it's possible.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Okay, thanks.  The other question I had, the last
study, the one for which the RFP has not yet gone out, realistically
speaking given other demands on staff time, et cetera, I'm going to
put you on the spot.  Sorry.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  That's okay.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  And ask when do you think it is likely that for
that one we would reach the point where the RFP has been finalized,
the responses have come back, they have been analyzed and we are at
the next stop.  Is that this year?  Early next year?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  I say this year, later this year.  So if I post --
let's say I post the RFP in August.  60 days -- let's say early
August.  So early October we get the results.  Even giving the little
extra time, end of October we do our analysis.  Council would have the
information by November.  Just off-the-cuff.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  All right, thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And that's an excellent question, Kristina, because
what -- obviously we have limited funds that we're looking at and
we're going to have to make some decisions.  So by the time we make a
decision, you know, could we do that study in the rest of fiscal year
'11 or would we budget it for it the next year?  Those are complicated
questions, but things we will consider as we are making our decision.
So excellent question.

Andrei?

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  Yes.  Thank you.  It's just a recommendation
that to include into the RFP requirements to simple the user base with
cheap price registrars versus premium price registrars.

What I found is the bad guys are very price sensitive, and when you do
the abuse -- any kind of abuse studies of anything, just, you know,
the first thing you look at the, you know, lower price horizon.

And also, I think it's very important to have an international
approach, to have examples from different -- well, at least
territories.  Let me put it like this.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Andrei.  Go ahead, Liz.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Just real quick.  We did take that into account, to
get some geographic diversity in the results and also an array of
names in I think the top five gTLDs, so thank you for that.  That was
important.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Steve, I haven't -- I'm not ignoring you there.
You're not -- you can stay seated for a little bit.  There's a couple
other things we're going to discuss at the council level and then I --
then we will open it up for comments from the floor as well.  And
they're very welcome.

What -- not seeing any new hands there, and assuming the hands that
are up just haven't been lowered, the next thing I'd just like to
spend a few minutes on is our -- a little bit about procedure for how
are we going to decide the -- what kind of process are we going to use
to determine what studies to recommend be pursued this year.

I do believe it's going to be wise for us to at least identify one as
soon as possible, so it can get started as early as possible.  We may,
depending on what other decisions we make, want to wait for other
studies to do others, but those are decisions we have to make and so
we're going to have to figure out how to come to some conclusions
there.

What I would like to ask every stakeholder group councillor to do --
and certainly the other members of the council are also encouraged to
do something as it relates to their community, is to make sure that
very quickly after this meeting, if you haven't already done so,
ensure that your stakeholder group and the various constituencies have
the information that is needed and review it.

Now, Liz, am I being presumptuous to say that you would -- schedule
depending -- make yourself available for stakeholder groups and
constituencies if they would like to invite you to one of their
meetings to discuss this further?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Yes, I'd be delighted to.  And I also have a talented
consultant who has helped me, and I would make every effort to have
her available too.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Fantastic.

So please take advantage of this.  And what I would really ask is that
we would really make a good effort for our July 15th meeting to be
able to start zeroing down on maybe at least one study that there's
strong support for.  Now, maybe there's not one like that.  Maybe it's
going to take longer.

But at least I'm asking you to come prepared with information from
your constituency, your stakeholder group, that can help us move this
process forward.

As you saw, at least the two studies that are scoped out right now are
probably going to take about a year, and depending on when we start
them, we may actually be able to start more than two studies because
we won't use up all the funds in fiscal year '11.

So I'm just challenging you to do that.

Now, I'd also like to ask Han Chuan Lee and Alan to please take the
information back to your SO and advisory committee respectively there,
so that you also can provide any feedback at that time.  Now, I'm not
saying we will definitely make any decision on July 15th.  If we can,
I think that's good, but we're not going to force it if we don't have
that.

At the same time, it's not in our best interests to prolong this
excessively, and we know that there are community members and advisory
committees and so forth that would really like to see some of this
stuff get going, and to be responsible, the sooner we can get that
going the better.

Now, I'd also like to -- and I'll ask Glen to help me in this regard
-- to let's draft a message and forward the materials.  Maybe Liz,
maybe you're the best one to help me on that.  If you could draft a
message that I can send with the attachments and so forth so that we
can -- I will send it to the new GAC chair and ask for any input they
have with regard to this, and let them know what we're doing.

We have communicated what we are doing, but now we're at a stage where
any other input from them would be welcome.

So I would appreciate that, Liz.

Now, having said all that, let's let me pause now and again focusing
on the council, let's just spend a few minutes talking about -- okay
-- how are we going to decide and any thoughts or questions you have
in that regard and Kristina you have your hand up.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Just from a -- I hate to use the word but just
from a process perspective, I think it may be difficult, given our 10-
day -- all motions in 10 days ahead, given that many of us in many of
our constituents will be traveling until next Monday and then at least
in the U.S. you then immediately have a holiday weekend, I think it
might be extraordinarily difficult to meet that deadline.  And
certainly to the extent that it's possible for, you know, David and I
to consult with our constituents in the IPC, we certainly intend to do
so, but I would also kind of pick up on -- just caution following up
on something that Zahid was saying earlier that I think yes, we need
to do this, we need to do this promptly, but I don't want us to try
and impose false deadlines on ourselves and perhaps not make as good a
decision in the short run as we would if perhaps we'd waited to our
next meeting.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And that wasn't my intent at all, to impose a -- in
fact, I didn't set a deadline.  I said let's at least be able to get
started in our discussion on July 15th.  I would note, though, that
this has been on our agenda for -- we've had to postpone it for I
think this is the third meeting, so this isn't the first announcement
of this.

But at least at a minimum, get the information distributed so that
your groups can have some time to review, because there is a lot of
it.

Now, I saw a hand.  I don't see it -- or Tim.  You are in there.  Tim,
go ahead.

>>TIM RUIZ:  All right.  A little technologically challenged here,
but, you know, that's -- I agree with what's been said as far as the
process goes.  I am concerned, too, about spending too much time on
all of this.  If there's -- it seems to me, at least from things that
have been said, even at council level, that there seems to be a -- you
know, pretty much a given that some, if not all, of these studies are
going to go forward.  And so if we can get a sense pretty quickly of
the rest of the council and the stakeholder groups, that's the case,
you know, that would be helpful and we wouldn't have to spend, you
know, weeks and months debating this, knowing that the outcome is
going to be, you know, two-thirds of the council wants to move
forward.

So if we know that now, then the sooner we can get to that conclusion,
the better, and we can move on to the next project.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Tim, and I'll come to you in just a second,
Liz.

Keep in mind that there are two large tasks with each of these RFPs.
One of them is feasibility, and one of them is cost.

So -- and when we originally went down this path, we decided that
after we get the data, we would decide whether to pursue the study.
Certainly if one didn't look terribly feasible, maybe there's --
there's doubts when we can really, you know, test the hypothesis.  We
could reject a study.

So I don't want to -- you know, and you may be right.  We may decide
they're all good.  But there is that option to either not do one or
delay one and so forth, so I just want to make that clear.

Liz.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Yeah.  And I think the first priority, probably, is
making some decisions about the studies that are pending, but I also
want to mention that we also completed a study that was requested by
the council at around the same time on the WHOIS service requirements.
It's in draft final form.  There will be a workshop on Thursday, and
then we're going to finalize it.  And I think it's also a pending task
for the GNSO Council to decide what the next steps should be with
regard to that report.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'm going to call on David and then after that, on
Steve DelBianco from the audience.

>>DAVID TAYLOR:  Thanks, Chuck.  Yes, going to the point of process
and the Study Number 3, which I see the RFP released on 18th of May
and the responses due by the 20th of July.  I just think that we need
to have everything on the table so that we can decide which ones to
pursue because we've got limited funds, so I think that's a key point.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, David.

Steve, you're up.

>>STEVE DelBIANCO:  Thanks, Liz, and Chuck.  I was pursuing in my own
thoughts the same line of thinking of Kristina, and finding a way to
actually maximize the utility of the studies that could be done within
the budget cycle we've provided for.  And I'm sure a lot of you are
thinking the same way, and that maybe the best of all worlds, we could
fine-tune this and maybe get -- if you look at the -- what's up on the
screen, 3 and 4 speak to the very hot topic of relay and reveal.
Especially given the KnujOn report that came out just on Monday.  And
I'd really love to see those studies make it all the way through RFP
proposals, negotiation, and completion, but I have a feeling that's
not going to happen within the fiscal year that we're budgeting for
now.  So I look at 3 and 4 and say I can't wait to get to that but can
he we cannot miss the chance to do Number 1.

And if you were to jump to Slide 9, I'll tell you what I'm thinking
about.

I've spent a lot of time listening to the GAC this week indicate that
their number one example of where ICANN has failed on accountability
was their perception that the board didn't adequately address their
WHOIS letter.  And you remember there was a communique at the end of
the Los Angeles meeting in 2007, and then the GAC letter on WHOIS in
2008, and that letter is so explicit.

It said, "First and foremost, the GAC believes that studies of WHOIS
gTLD data should be undertaken by neutral third parties and should
create a factual record that documents the uses and abuses of WHOIS
recognized by the GAC WHOIS principles."

The goal is to initially compile data that provides documented
evidence base regarding two areas, the amount and source of traffic
and the types and extent of misuse of WHOIS.

So I was one of the work group members who took that GAC letter,
because what did the board do?  The board conveyed the GAC letter to
council, because after all, we're a bottom-up policy-making group, and
we made sure we mapped the GAC's request on WHOIS to these studies.

So I respectfully disagree when the GAC says that ICANN didn't listen.
We did.  It just takes us a little longer, right?  The difficult, we
do right away.  The impossible, well, that takes a little longer.

And we're working our way through this.  And it's my belief that given
the GAC is so firm on that, I'm reminded of Liz's graphic on the slide
you had called "Truth and Consequences."  And what I'm afraid is, if
we don't seek the truth, we're going to pay the consequences, and it
will be difficult to get Study Number 1 done.  I note that staff, in
-- in its analysis of the replies for Study Number 1 uses the word
"difficult" twice over in your analysis column.  Well, Liz, I would
invite staff that begin negotiating with the vendor you think is the
best -- or two, if two of them are good -- and try to resolve those
difficulties before you write the final contract to deliver.

But I don't feel we have the luxury of waiting for the RFPs on studies
3 and 4 in order to delay Number 1.  A delay in doing Study Number 1,
given the GAC's insistence again and again and the GAC's perception
that that's an accountability problem, we've got to do Study 1 and do
our best to resolve the difficulties.  Because if we let the perfect
be the enemy of the good on this, it could -- it could actually
undermine the credibility we have with the GAC at a time when we need
it more than ever.  And I'm just reminding you of three letters, I-G-
F, and three other letters, I-T-U.  So let's take care of the GAC
later two years later and do Study Number 1, and I'd proceed in
negotiation right away.

Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Steve.  That's the kind of
feedback that's going to be very helpful in our process of making
decisions.

Now, before I -- before I go to another comment from the audience, we
have some chat questions and comments and I'm going to ask Margie to
cover those.

>>MARGIE MILAM:  Okay.  Yes, we have a question from Jorge in the
chat, and his question is:  How much money is on the budget to fund
these particular studies?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  As Liz pointed out earlier, there's at least $400,000
in the draft budget.  Now, keep in mind that budget hasn't been
approved by the board.  We'll find out on Friday of this week whether
that's approved, whether there's any changes there, but council
certainly requested at least $400,000, and I'd be surprised if that
changes.

So that's the answer to that question.  Okay.  Next?

>>BILL SMITH:  Bill Smith with PayPal.  I'm noting that discussion on
this has taken years.  And every report that is -- that comes out on
accuracy of WHOIS data indicates it is a substantial problem.  I'm
concerned that doing more studies -- and I respect that the GAC has
asked for more studies and perhaps we can do them and be responsive,
but will the result of these studies change what we all know.  That
the data is inaccurate, contracts are not being complied with, and the
longer we wait to do something about it, the more -- the worse the
problem becomes.

So I would like to encourage us to request that ICANN do something
about this sooner rather than later.  I believe they have the ability
to do it today.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks for the comment.  Now, I don't think -- and
correct me if I'm wrong, Liz -- that any of these studies have to do
with accuracy or compliance.  Is that correct?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  That's right.  There is a WHOIS accuracy study that
compliance is just finishing up, and there's actually a briefing on it
I think at 11:00 this morning.  It's sadly in conflict with this
session, but it may be worthwhile to -- for those of you who are able
to check in on that session, too.

It's a briefing by David Giza on compliance of the NORC study of
accuracy in WHOIS, so that is quite compliance-related but there are
recommendations or I should say some interesting paragraphs on what
barriers to accuracy are that I think also would be of interest to the
council as we proceed further in terms of a factual basis for further
policymaking.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  There is work going on with accuracy and compliance
but it doesn't directly relate to these studies.  Very good.  But your
point is well taken and it's been one that's been made over and over
again in the community.

I know that ICANN has seriously beefed up its compliance staff.  Are
they there yet?  No, I don't think so.  But -- but there's a lot of
focus on that and I think we'll probably have to keep the focus there
as well.  Any other comments from the council or the audience on this
issue?  Okay.  Seeing no hands, we're going to go on to our next
agenda item.

And that item is GNSO improvements.

We have been working on the implementation of the board
recommendations with regard to GNSO improvements for many, many
months.  I'm happy to report that most of the efforts are coming to
conclusion.  In fact, really all of them are very close to conclusion.
Some of them a little bit closer than others, but in the -- I'm
hopeful that in the next few months, we will be reaching closure on
all of the work teams that are working on the implementation plans for
those recommendations.

We formed two steering committees that, in turn, formed work teams to
work on various categories of these recommendations.

The first one we're going to focus on today is the policy process
steering committee, which is chaired by Jeff Neuman, and that area
will focus on first starting with the working group work team
recommendations.

There is a link in the agenda to the -- to the report, to the policy
process steering committee, and let me talk a little bit about the
process here.

The steering committee tasked a work team to work on recommendations
with regard to the working group model as tasked by the board, so what
is -- the stage we're at right now, they have submitted their
recommendations to the steering committee and the next step is for the
steering committee to respond to those, and that could mean going back
to the working team for a little more clarity or several steps, or it
could mean that they approve those recommendations and forward them on
to the council for action.

Once the council approves the recommendations, they will then go into
an implementation phase.

So having said that, Jeff Neuman is going to come up and give us a
report.  And Jeff, I'd like you to sit at the table here so that
you're not in the way of some of the councillors over there, and I've
been told that those microphones should be working.

Thanks, Jeff, for all the time you have spent, and not only on the
steering committee but also on -- as we'll see in a moment -- one of
the work teams under the steering committee as well.  So we -- that's
very much appreciated.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Thanks, Chuck, and it's kind of weird to have
my back towards the council, so...

[Laughter]

You know, Chuck, I think you gave a lot of the update that I was going
to give, so you did a good introduction.  So on the first item, the
working group work team recommendations, as Chuck said, have now --
the work team has produced its recommendations and it has now sent it
up to the policy process steering committee, and what's important to
note is that our role at the steering committee level is not really to
review all of the individual recommendations or individual work that's
done by the work team.  In other words, we're not really going into
every item that the work team went into, the working group work team,
but really to review the entire process to make sure that the working
group report is representative, that they have gotten -- solicited the
appropriate amount of feedback, and that all the feedback was taken
into consideration.

So it's not really -- we're not going to completely reopen the entire
process.  That's not really our role.  That's not what the Board
Governance Committee had envisioned for supervisory bodies, and so,
you know, we had our first meeting of the PPSC in a long time.  We had
it on -- I'm getting my days mixed up -- I believe it was Sunday, and,
you know, we've set our agenda for the next few weeks.  We're going to
have several teleconferences.  We're going to review the report and
make sure that it contains all of the feedback, and we're going to see
if there are any questions that the steering committee has to send
back to the work team.

So although I thank the working group work team for all of its hard
work, their job may not be done yet.  And assuming all those questions
can be answered, then our goal is to present it to the council as
quickly as possible.  I think there were a lot of valuable
recommendations in the working group work team report, and I think the
sooner we can get those implemented, the better the policy development
process will be for it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Jeff, just one question.  So what's your best guess in
terms of OSC action on this?  Excuse me.  PPSC.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Well, I think that's a good question.  I'm not sure.
It was clear that at the meeting that we had that not everyone had
fully read the report by the time of the meeting, and it's hard to say
exactly when we'll submit it to the council until we can get
appropriate feedback and make sure that there are no questions
remaining.

I've read the working group work team report.  I think it was an
excellent job by J. Scott and I'm not sure if he's here right now, but
we should certainly give a plug to him.  If you are here.  There you
are.  J. Scott.

[Applause]

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  And so, you know, from my point of view, it was a job
well done, and I'm not sure that the PPSC will find that there are
holes in the report but obviously I can't prejudge that.  Assuming
that there aren't too many holes in that report and assuming that
there's not too many questions, I mean, you know, it's my hope that we
could send it to the council very -- as quickly as possible.

Like I said, there are some very valuable recommendations in there
that -- some of which actually reflect current practice, what's going
on now anyway, but some of which that haven't been adopted can
certainly be adopted as quickly as possible.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  And I'm going to ask you
to stay there, which you probably anticipated.  But I, for one,
reviewed that report in detail as the working team knows, because I
provided feedback and I concur with you totally.  It's great work, and
in reference to what Jeff just said, the GNSO has been evolving to
this working group model over the last several years, even going back
as far as the start of the new gTLD PDP, which goes back at least
three years now, when we started that.

So we've been, over time, trying to incorporate these principles, and
this work team has incorporated those in a great document, and one
that is critical.  You saw how high it was prioritized, because it --
it affects everything -- all the work we do in policy every day.  So
thank you very much in that.

Let's go on to the PDP working team, and Jeff, we'll just let you jump
right into that.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Sure.  Thanks, Chuck.  The policy development process
work team has been working on its initial report for the past -- well
over a year, and has been having most of the -- for most of the past
year, weekly teleconference calls, so it's definitely taken up a lot
of time.

We did, however, publish our initial report on May 31st, and it's been
out there since then, open for public comment, and at this point it's
open for public comment until at least July 20th or 21st.  I can't
recall the exact date.

I anticipate because of the number of public comment periods open,
that we may see an extension of that time frame.

It is very important for councillors to encourage their stakeholder
groups and constituencies to comment on this.  You know, the policy
development process is the process documented in the bylaws to set the
policies for -- you know, near and dear to our heart as contracted
parties, it is the means by which consensus policies are developed.

Now, consensus policies are not the only outcome of a policy
development process.  In fact, it's just one of a large number of
possible outcomes.  But it is crucially important for the GNSO as a
whole to function properly that we really focus on those comments and
focus on delivering those comments.  There will be a public workshop
session this afternoon in the Silver Room on this floor at 2:00.  I
believe it starts right after the vertical integration meeting so I'm
assuming everybody will go from that meeting straight into the other
one.  Again, it is vital to attend these sessions, to provide
comments, because this really is a change in the way that things have
been done in the past, and a real focus not just on, you know, making
sure that we are able to develop policies efficiently, but really on a
lot of the work that leads up to the policy process as a whole.

And I think a lot of the work that's been before the council and has,
you know, created a lot of -- I'm trying to think of the word here,
but kind of cluttered the work of the council in initiating a policy
development process, we're hoping can be worked out through the
initiation of the policy process and making sure that we have well-
researched, well-focused policy development processes in the future.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Jeff.  Are there any questions or comments
from anyone on the council?  Okay.  And we will, at the end of this
Agenda Item 5 on GNSO improvements, we will also open it up for
comments from the floor.

Seeing no one, Jeff, thank you very much.

We will now go to the Operations Steering Committee, the OSC and focus
on the work that's going on there.  And the first item that we're
going to talk about there is the recommendations from the
Communications and Coordination Work Team.  They have produced final
recommendations to the OSC, and the OSC has approved those and
forwarded them on to the council.  So there are links, again, in the
agenda to the relevant documents as well as to the public comments and
the public comments summary.

Liz Gasster is going to give us a brief overview of the
recommendations and the comments.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Okay.  So there is a Communications and Coordination
Work Team report that essentially looks both at Web site changes,
significant changes to make the GNSO Web site more easily navigable,
to make it easier to find content, to more easily group content in
related ways and to link or tie content so that you can navigate in
various ways to avoid some of the painful searches that occur today.

The other recommendations in the report deal with an array of other
communications issues dealing with everything from how to enhance
communications between and among the supporting organizations and
advisory committees; how to improve communications between the GNSO
Council and the board, particularly related to pending policy topics
that might benefit from more two-way interaction; how to improve
communications with the community, including some translation issues
and plain language; providing recommendations on trying to simplify
the wording in reports so that they can be more easily understood by a
diverse community and recommendations along those lines.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Liz.  And we have a resolution that was
made by me and seconded by Olga to approve these recommendations for
implementation.  And I would like to read that motion now.  Whereas,
the GNSO Council at its 21 May, 2010 meeting accepted the deliverable
of the commune, I guess, and coordination work team as its final set
of recommendations; whereas, a 21-day public comment forum completed
between 23 April, 2010 and 16 May, 2010 and staff summary and analysis
has been prepared;

Whereas, the GNSO Council agreed to take action on the CCT's
recommendations as soon as possible after the end of the public
comment period;

Now, be it, therefore, resolved, that the GNSO Council approves the
final consolidated report of the CCT without further modification and
directs staff to begin work on implementation.

Further resolved, that the GNSO Council accepts the CCT's specific
recommendation to convene a standing committee whose role will be to
monitor, coordinate and manage the continuing implementation of the
various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO improvements
work teams;

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council appreciates the thoughtful
feedback of those community members who contributed to the public
comment forum and directs staff to consider their suggestions and
recommendations during the implementation phase;

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council hereby discharges the CCT and
expresses its gratitude and appreciation for the team's dedication,
commitment and thoughtful recommendations.

Now, with regard to this motion, there has been an amendment that I
accepted as friendly and, Olga, you also accepted as friendly,
correct?

What it does, the only thing it does to change the motion is to -- we
will incorporate the amendment in the recommendations document itself.
It just changes one sentence.

And, Alan, would you like to explain the change?  And is it possible
to put -- it is in Adobe Connect, okay.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Sure, Chuck.  One of the statements in the report
was that the work group recommended that future work group charters
include the desired outcomes.  And ALAC felt very strongly that the
council should not be specifying what the outcomes were and should
give full latitude to a work group to decide what the problem was and
what the appropriate solutions were to a problem without restricting
them.

That comment was made in a suggestion in one of the comments.  And the
original motion says towards the end that it asks staff to implement
the recommendations considering comments.

The amendment simply changes the wording of the report to make the
implementation of that particular comment mandatory and not subject to
the discretion of staff.  The wording in the proposed change was
agreed to by Mason Cole, the chair of the CCT group, and I believe
does not change the intent whatsoever but simply removes one level of
staff discretion in implementation.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Alan.  And can somebody read the two
sentences, the original and the -- who has that in front of them?  Do
we have that ready there?  If you could read the old sentence and the
new, I'd appreciate that.

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  The old one read "Resolved, that the GNSO Council
approve the final consolidated report of the CCT without further
modification and direct staff to begin work on implementation."  And
the new one reads, "Resolved, that the GNSO Council approves the
consolidated report of the CCT," replacing the second sentence,
Section 5.8, with "the CCT recommends that working group charters be
drafted with careful attention to the issues and/or questions that
should be considered and the goals/objectives desired to be
accomplished in addition to desired time frames and direct staff to
begin work on implementation."

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Marika.  I appreciate that.  Now, I'm going
to open it up for a -- for discussion by the council and if there are
any comments or questions from the floor.  We have one, I know, from
the floor.  Anyone from the council, first of all?  Any questions or
comments?  Wolf?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you, Chuck.  It sounds a little bit
complicated to me, that formulation.  So I didn't get it really.  I
would like to ask, Alan, does this have to do something which means
this report or the content of the report -- of the CCT final
consolidated report should be taken again and reviewed to some extent
or what is the real (inaudible) of that?  Does it accept the report
under a certain condition?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  The only thing that the change does is to delete
the word "proposed" -- rather "desired outcomes" and replace it with
"goals/objectives."  The removal of "desired outcomes," that is, the
council should not specify exactly what is supposed to come out of the
investigative and deliberative process was the suggestion that at-
large made.  And later on in the resolution, staff was directed to
implement the recommendations considering the comments.  That is,
staff could follow the comments or not, as they wished.  This simply
put it into the body of the report and it is no longer discretionary.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Alan.  And thank you, Wolf.

In fairness to the CCT, we had checked with them after seeing the
public comment; and, certainly, they did not intend the understanding
of the wording "desired outcomes" as it was seen.  So I believe it's
accurate to say -- and, Alan, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- it
was a choice of words that we wanted to make clear, that it was not
the intent it is supposed to define what's supposed to come out of the
working group.

So, Alan, do you want to comment again?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  In discussions with working group members, there
was never any malicious intent to try to force the issue of what comes
out.  It was just, I think, an unfortunate selection of words that
made us feel uncomfortable.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Any other councillors?  I don't see any hands up in
Adobe Connect.  Let's go to Avri from the audience.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  This is Avri Doria.  I have no objection to
you guys amending it as you're doing, though I would like to remark
that it is somewhat kludge in trying to do this.  So I'm taking this
opportunity to sort of bring up an annoyance that I have been annoying
you with for a while now on this one, which is when comments come in,
it really should go back to the work team or the OSC or whatever to
basically deal with these, make any changes that need to be made in
the documents to basically decide as opposed to, "I've talked to them
all and they're all fine with it," and basically to give back comments
to responses on all comments.

It is an example that some of the work teams have been following.  It
is an example that ICANN staff has been setting for us all, that all
comments get direct responses.  And if they're acted on, you get a
document and then you either approve or don't approve that document.
So this is a great example of the kind of kludge motion you will end
up with at the end of the day if you skip that step in the process.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Avri.  It sounds like one more task for us
to work on as a council.  It is a good suggestion, so one of the
things we're going to have to work on is how we make that happen going
forward.

Any other comments or questions?  Alan?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  No, I agree with Avri.  And, again, I don't think
there was anything malicious.  The work group did look at the comments
and said, "There's nothing we really need to do."  I would have
preferred if there had been a step saying "At-large, thank you for the
comments, we don't really see the relevance of making any changes, can
you explain any better than you did in the written comment why you
thought it was important to put words in place there" and perhaps we
could have resolved it prior to this stage.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?  That was Alan's hand.  So I guess no
others?

Does anyone object to a voice vote on this with the exception of Bill
who can't speak because we don't have remote connectivity today, but
Bill has sent an e-mail.  I will talk about that in a minute.  Does
anybody object to a voice vote on this?

[No verbal response.]

All right.  All in favor of the motion please say aye.

[Chorus of Ayes.]

Anybody oppose, please identify yourself.

[No verbal response.]

Anybody abstaining, please identify yourself.

[No verbal response.]

And does anybody object to us including Bill's vote in this?  Normally
we're supposed to provide remote connectivity.  As far as we could
determine, everybody was going to be here in person so we didn't set
it up.  And he has sent an e-mail saying he supports this motion.
Anybody object to including his vote in that way?  Then this vote
passes unanimously including Bill's support for the motion.  And I
thank Bill for doing that.

Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Could Bill not have posed his response through the
Adobe Connect room?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  He probably could have, yeah.  I think that's true.
That's a good point.  Yeah.

Continuing then on the GNSO improvements, we now have the status
reports from the other GNSO improvement work teams that are continuing
in their work.  And the first one we have is the GNSO Council
Operations recommendations.  And I think Liz is going to give that
one, unless Ray Fassett -- is that the plan, Liz?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Yes.  We have a motion that actually deals with two
reports.  First is a report by the GNSO Council Operations Team.  This
report deals with a number of changes to the GNSO operating
procedures, including procedures for voting, procedures for
abstentions, statements of interest, term limits and other voting --
other operational procedural elements.

The second report is the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Team
report which provides recommendations on a framework for participation
in any ICANN constituency or stakeholder group, provides operating
principles for constituencies and stakeholder groups, and I think at
least comments on a database of all constituency and stakeholder group
members.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And we actually have a motion with regard to
recommendations from the GNSO Council Operations Work Team regarding
some additions in the GNSO operating procedures and related to the
recommendations regarding constituency and stakeholder groups
operating procedures from that applicable work team.

That particular motion was again made by me, but it was seconded by
Wolf.  And I'm going to ask Wolf if he would read that motion.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you, Chuck.  Happy to do so.  Whereas, in
October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework for
implementing the various GNSO improvements -- link -- identified and
approved by the ICANN board of directors on 26 June, 2008;

Whereas, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of
two steering committees, the Operations Steering Committee and the
Policy Process Steering Committee, to charter and coordinate the
efforts of five community work teams in developing specific
recommendations to implement the improvements;

Whereas, the OSC established three work teams, including the GNSO
Council operations work team -- link -- and the constituencies and
stakeholder group operations work team (CSG-WT) work team -- with a
link -- which were chartered to focus on specific operational areas
addressed in the BGC report recommendations -- a link as well;

Whereas, the GCOT has completed and submitted the following document
that it recommends be approved for implementation into the GNSO
operating procedures as follows:  Section 2.1, council member term
limits -- link provided; Section 2.4, board seat elections -- link
provided -- Section 3.8, absences and vacancies -- link provided --
and Chapter 4.0 voting -- okay -- Chapter 5.0, statement and
disclosures of interest, with a link provided; Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3
are not approved pending further staff action to be determined.  These
sections are footnoted in the document as inactive until subsequently
approved by the OSC and council.

Whereas, the CSG-WT has completed and submitted the following document
that it recommends be approved for implementation within the GNSO:
Recommended common operating principles and participation guidelines
for GNSO stakeholder groups and constituencies and recommendations on
a GNSO database of community members -- link provided as well;

Whereas, the OSC has approved the above-referenced GCOT amendments to
the GNSO operating procedures and the CSG working team recommendations
and has forwarded these documents (via embedded links) to the GNSO
Council on or before 15 June, 2010.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council accepts these
deliverables submitted by the work teams and approved by the OSC and
directs staff to post these aforementioned documents for 21 days in
the ICANN public comment forum.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on
these documents including potential modification as soon as possible
after the conclusion of the public comment period.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Wolf.  Two different parts -- two
different sets of recommendations as Wolf read in the motions.  One of
them related to some additional GNSO operating procedures additions.
Certainly, I encourage everyone to look at those and comment during
the public comment period.  I think there's some very good things that
are being added in there.  But I encourage you to read those on your
own and comment, if you'd like.

Secondly -- And, by the way, with regard to those -- and in a moment
I'll give opportunity for comment -- I do want to point out that there
was an amendment suggested here that was -- it was pulled back just so
-- because it can be handled during the comment period so it may come
up again.  And if that person wants to comment, that would be more
than welcome.

With regard to the other recommendations, I strongly encourage
constituencies and stakeholder groups to review that document
carefully, submit comments in the comment period because it has to do
with how we as constituencies and stakeholder groups operate every
day.  And a lot of good work went into that, but it's very important
that everyone's eyes within these two types of groups take a look at
that and see if anything was missed, see if there is any questions or
anything like that.

I will now open it up for discussion.  Any comments or questions from
the council or, for that matter, from the floor?  Kristina, thank you.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I was just wondering whether staff could give us
some sense as to when the two sections that have not yet been approved
or completed are expected -- work on those is expected to be
completed?  Is that likely to be before the end of the public comment
period?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  I think they're going to wait until the end of the
public comment period, take all the input.  They may continue to work
on it during the public comment period, but I don't think they're
going to produce anything until the public comment period is complete.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Okay.  Just to follow up, just to confirm that to
the extent that those two carve-out sections are of interest, that now
is the correct time to submit public comment on them?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Yes.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Okay.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Philip.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Is this working?  Hello?  Philip Sheppard as chair
of the OSC.  Just clarification on the two carve-out sections.  It's
simply a practical issue, nothing else that's too substantive.  It
relates to statements of interest, and the new way of looking at
statements of interest is we're asking staff to do some work to create
an online format for statements of interest with various fields they
have to fill in, so making it more consistent in terms of what's put
in there.

But the key there is part of the discussion the work team had is to
what exactly is a statement of interest and how far does interest
extend, which led to the question of why it may be relevant to ICANN
contracts, then led to is there a list of all ICANN contracts, which
led to the answer no.

So the work that staff has been asked to do is to create an accessible
list of contracts so people making a statement of interest can refer
to it.  As that list doesn't exist, it is, therefore, impossible to
implement those criteria.  And that's where those two carve-outs were.

One item that was missed was, in fact, a third item, I think, which
also relates to that, that's tangentially relevant to it.  And, again,
that wouldn't actually happen because it can't until that work takes
place.  But I imagine it shouldn't be too difficult to create a list
of ICANN contracts within staff as we hope you've got reasonable track
of where they are.  That's it.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Philip.  That's a really helpful
clarification there an much appreciated.  Any other comments or
questions before we vote on the motion?  Does anyone object to a voice
vote on this motion?

[No verbal response.]

Seeing no one, we will now take a voice vote.  All those in favor of
the motion please say aye.

[Chorus of Ayes.]

Anybody opposed, please identify yourself.

[No verbal response.]

Anybody abstaining, please identify yourself.

Okay.  We have two abstentions, David and Kristina are abstaining.  So
the motion carries.  Thank you very much --

Everyone, in abstentions, we do need to ask people to give a reason.
So let me start with Kristina, then I will go to David.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Principally because in my view, there is a
section of the document which -- I may get the number wrong, but I
believe it's 4.5.2.B, or whatever it is -- it deals with obligational
abstentions.  And I think it is, in my personal view, in how it would
apply to me in light of my professional, ethical obligations as an
attorney, I think it's inextricably linked with the two sections that
are not yet approved.  So I don't believe it is appropriate for me to
be voting on it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  David?

>>DAVID TAYLOR:  For exactly the same reason as Kristina.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.  We're glad to welcome Bill to
our meeting.  Just at a time, Bill, when we're going to take a 15-
minute break.  But before I do that, I do want to thank the Policy
Process Steering Committee and the two work teams that they tasked as
well as the Operations Steering Committee and the three work teams
that they tasked because they have been working a long time on these
things and in some cases they still have some more work to do.  But
thanks for all the great volunteer work in that regard.

Right now we're going to take a 15-minute break, so we will convene
just shortly after 10:20, okay?  15-minute break.  And give people a
chance to get coffee, if they want and whatever else is needed.  We'll
be back here at 10:20.

Unlike the other floors we've been at during the last few days, there
is coffee around the booths.  It's been here all week, we just haven't
been on this floor.

(Break)

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'd like to let people know, especially the
councillors, that we're going to resume hopefully in five minutes.

All right.  I'm going to call the GNSO Council meeting to order at
this time.  I want to get moving because I really am trying to make
sure that we have plenty of time for open mic at the end of the
session, and we still have quite a bit to cover.

So welcome back, everyone.

And we're now going to go back to Agenda Item 3 on the Affirmation of
Commitment review team endorsement process for the GNSO, and I'm going
to turn it over to Bill to -- who chaired the drafting team in this
regard keeping in mind that we had an interim process that we used for
the first review team and the drafting theme was then tasked with
developing a longer-term process.  Bill, it's all yours.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Hold it?  All right.  Thank you.

Good morning, and I'm sorry I wasn't here this morning, but I was
rather ill.

I have to keep it held down?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  No.  There's another way to do it, but I don't know
how to do it.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Slide it?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yeah, maybe.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  What the hell kind of technology is this?

[Laughter]

"Lock."  There we go.  I'm locked.

Okay.  So we had -- of course for the first review team that was put
together, the Affirmation of Commitment review team on accountability
and transparency, a process that involved there being the possibility
of six slots, six people to be endorsed by the council to represent
the GNSO.  That process included having one kind of hard-wired slot
for each stakeholder group, and then two competitive slots, one of
which was for people who did not identify themselves with any
particular stakeholder group.

And it worked fairly well, but nevertheless it seemed to generate, in
some circles, some measure of angst and consternation about exactly
how the electoral aspects would work in the various scenarios, et
cetera, and so given that, when we were mandated to go back in the
drafting team and come up with a standing process that we could use
routinely going forward, we decided to try to simplify it as much as
possible and kind of preclude any extraneous or unnecessary levels of
strategic consideration and angst.

So we decided that we would simply give each stakeholder group the
possibility to have one hard-wired representative or endorsement, and
that in the case that the selection by each of the stakeholder groups
of a candidate resulted in a pool that was not sufficiently diverse --
and we specified that as meaning that they should not all be of the
same gender and that there should not be more than two from the same
region -- the council would have, as a discretionary option, the
possibility to add one or two additional endorsees on the basis of a
60% vote of both houses.

And the text of the draft process is -- is it up on the screen for
people to see?  It's in the Adobe space, right?

It should be, I hope.

Well, it looks like it is not.  But in any event, we set out a process
for how that would be done, essentially, and we had suggested that in
making their initial selections for who they want their primary
representative to be, stakeholder groups might think about if there
are any other candidates in the pool of people who have gone ahead and
applied, that they would be able to live with, should we decide to
fire up this mechanism to try to add somebody for the sake of
diversity, so that people would have, in their minds ahead of time,
somebody that they might want to support.

The process also envisioned -- or included some additional GNSO
requirements that were discussed at some length that we wanted people
to fill out beyond the baseline requirements set forth by ICANN in the
call for applications.

Most importantly, I suppose, is to mention that we asked that the
applicants indicate if they see themselves being associated with a
particular stakeholder group, which would facilitate the process of
sorting in people's minds and deciding who they might like to endorse.

And also, some additional informational requirements -- statements
about their knowledge of the GNSO community, structures, and
operations, and any participation therein -- and a statement about
their specialized technical or other expertise of direct relevance to
the responsibilities of the review team in question.

So basically, it was a very straightforward process that the drafting
team had representatives from all stakeholder --

[Audio is echoing]

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Oops.  You seem to have wiped out my -- am I still
here?  Okay.  Good.

The -- I've totally lost my train of thought because of that.  Sorry.

The stakeholder -- the drafting team had representation from all the
stakeholder groups.  The document that we put forward was on the table
for some time, and then objections were raised prior to the council
vote, and an amendment was offered.

And so I guess what we should do now is that perhaps the people who
put forward the amendment could describe that and then I can come back
and say why, ultimately, I decided to we would regard this as an
unfriendly amendment and, hence, we would vote on both the original
process and -- and the amendment.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Bill, did you want to go through the motion, your
proposed motion first.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I'm sorry.  I should.  Like I said, I'm not feeling
so well so my brain is not working.  The motion -- is it on the Adobe?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I don't see any motion.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah, the council Adobe Connect room, it's on, yes.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I'm -- what am I, in the wrong Adobe room?

Boy, I can't -- okay.  So the motion to approve the -- can you
increase the size of that?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  I can.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  The motion to approve the AoC endorsement process.

Whereas, in furtherance of ICANN's responsibilities under the
Affirmation of Commitment, the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to
develop a process to endorse volunteers to serve on each of the AoC
review teams;

Whereas, the AoC review requirements drafting team has proposed a
process to facilitate such GNSO Council endorsements;

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to adopt the AoC-RR drafting team
proposed process for all future AoC review team selections;

Now therefore, be it:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the endorsement
process described in the attached document.

Resolved further, that the GNSO Council should implement the
endorsement process for all future AoC review team selections,
including the WHOIS policy and the security, stability, and resiliency
of the DNS review teams; and.

Resolved further, ICANN staff is requested to post and distribute the
endorsement process as widely as possible to all GNSO related groups
in an effort to inform qualified applicants of the important work of
the WHOIS policy and security, stability and resiliency of the DNS
review teams.

So that's the motion.  Thank you, Chuck.  Sorry.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Bill.

Now, as Bill pointed out, there has been a proposed amendment to this
motion proposed by Wolf, and I'll now turn it over to Wolf, and can we
switch to the amended version of the motion on the wiki, please.

Excuse me.  In the Adobe.  My mistake.  In the Adobe Connect room for
the council.  Wolf, it's all yourself.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you, Chuck.  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben speaking.

May I first come to one point, which is -- I think essentially that in
that context -- and I did -- I didn't hear that from Bill, which is
essential for us with regard to the number of applicants which should
be nominated by the council and which we are -- which are required
from the GNSO side with the number of slots in the different R teams,
so we had discussion about that, and the council -- there's strong
support of that.  All the teams, review teams, should be filled up
with four slots from the GNSO side, so that means this message has
been delivered to all the selectors, and I think that is essential as
well to mention here in this context.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  And just for clarity for the audience, let me
say that that particular issue doesn't have anything to do with this
motion, but I'm perfectly fine that that message be communicated, and
let me reinforce that the council passed a motion in a previous
meeting recommending that for each of the review teams, there be four
representatives from the GNSO.

The ultimate decision on the composition of the review teams is up to
the selectors, and I can say positively that Janis as one of the
selectors has been very good about collaborating with the chairs of
the SOs and the ACs in that regard, but the ultimate decision still
comes back to them.  No final decision has been made on the
composition of the security, stability, and resiliency review team or
the WHOIS review team, but there is a proposal on the table.  If
people have questions on that later, we can talk about that.

But let's now go to the motion itself, which does not relate to the
composition of the review teams, okay?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.  Thank you, Chuck.  The only thing that I
would like to point is there is some consensus here in council with
regard to this overall thing, so with regard to the team and
participating in that and maybe the chance that we could find
consensus here about the process with regards to the amendments and
the motion here.

Well, with regard to the amendments, I've -- since I was a member of
this working team as well, of this drafting team, representing a
specific commercial stakeholder group and their constituencies which
are represented by others as well, so we came, at the end of this
drafting process, to a discussion where we were saying, "Okay, we have
some -- we have two issues with the draft proposal.  The first is we
would like to see the stakeholder groups having more -- or being
displayed here in that motion as having more importance versus the
council itself.  So coming from our understanding with regards to the
working group and the stakeholder group model.  And this is reflected
in our amendment with regards to the process and touches only one
point.  That means we are in consensus that the stakeholder groups
should put forward (inaudible) in the first round nominations of
applications, and in the case the council cannot come to a consensus
about it due to diversity issues with regards to geographical and
gender diversity, then in the second round the application --
additional application should be drawn provided as well from the
stakeholder groups, not from the overall pool which is available from
the GNSO.

So that's the only difference we have in the amendment here with
regards to the process.

The second one is the motion itself says it should relate to all
future AoC review teams, and that also caused problems within our
stakeholder group where we were of the opinion that is -- that that
may be too hard to overlook, say, for the future what's going to
happen, and we would like to have it a little bit softer, and
therefore our amendment relates to that point, not saying that this
motion should refer to all future AoC teams, but leave it open that we
-- it should refer to -- only to the -- to the review teams and may --
keep open that a future discussion about the process could take place.

So these are the two points we raised here, and these are not in
consensus yet.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Wolf, and let me try to restate, to make
sure that we're all on the same page with regard to the amendments.

One amendment has to do with the proposed process that Bill described,
which is -- and I'm putting this out as my understanding, so I want to
confirm it to make sure that we're all together.  So one amendment has
to do with the process if the four stakeholder group nominees for the
process, endorsements by the stakeholder groups, do not represent
gender or geographic diversity as much as possible in the available
pool, then the council can then add one or two others to the pool,
leaving the four the same, and -- but I believe the amendment is that
the way that should happen as the first step is it should come through
the stakeholder groups, not just the council.  Stakeholder groups come
back with some alternates and they make proposals initially and it
would come from them and then if we don't reach any improvement in
diversity, then the council could look at the broader pool at that
point.

Did I capture that part correct?

Okay.  And then the second amendment is a little simpler to describe,
and that is, instead of the proposed process applying indefinitely
until we change it -- okay? -- it would only apply to the next two
review teams.  So it would not apply, for example, to the WHOIS review
team.

Did I capture that correctly?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Almost.  So if you look to the amendment, how
it's formulated, it really leaves it open also because it's formulated
that way, that it applies to the review teams.  It's just deleting the
word "to all."  So that's the difference.  It doesn't say it's only
for the next two ones.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  I guess I'm not understanding that exactly.

So the way the amendment is formulated, then, translates into what in
terms of implications for the next review teams?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.  Surely -- and it could also be -- could
apply also for the next one unless someone from any stakeholder group
stands up and says, "Well, we have got some experience from the last
process.  We have -- and we would like to have further amendments in
the process."

But it could be used as well for further -- for further teams as well.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So I guess what I'm not understanding, I don't
understand how that's different than the original proposal, because we
could at any time go back, as we had information -- anyone on the
council could raise the issue and say, "Let's revisit the process
before we do this."

So how is that different than what Bill's original motion was?  Please
help me there, and then I'll go to Tim.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  I'm not sure I see that way.  So if we fix it
for all, then it means if you would like to change it in the future
process, then that means you have to go to a certain procedure on the
council.  So that's a barrier.  And on the other hand, that's -- from
my perspective -- from our perspective, is different.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Thank you.  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Technical and you got to be ambidextrous to boot.  Wow!

[Laughter]

My problem with the amendment is twofold.

One -- and it's a question, too, I guess.

As you said, I don't see the difference.  We at any time can make a
change if we see something different coming up down the line, so I
don't see where that -- where this really resolves that.

But the other question I have is, to me the amendment seems to
restrict the process to three of the four review teams that the AoC
identifies.  Because by removing that "all future," now it just simply
says the process -- it applies for the process of AoC review team
process including WHOIS policy, security, stability and resiliency of
the DNS review teams, who is -- yeah.  So those three.

But there's no mention of the accountability and transparency review
team that's going on now and will repeat in the future, so if we were
going to go with this amendment, I think we'd have to amend it in
order to be clear.

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

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Thank you, Chuck.  The -- the aspect with regard to
the -- going back to the SGs, was an important one to at least RSG and
other constituencies within RSG as well.

So what we're basically saying is, we wouldn't like this to lock us
into a process for all future endorsements because the structure of
ISGs -- RSG, CSG currently, for instance -- is still under
development.  We don't know what it's going to look like, so from a
process point of view, subsequently there may be differences.  Maybe
the SG doesn't want to be involved, maybe it does want to be involved,
maybe there may be different views they may have as we develop that.

So creating a process for endorsements now which might be affected by
changes in the SGs subsequently may be sort of something we want to
avoid.  So that's the first reason.

The second is, if we were to say, "Well, we can always open this up
subsequently" -- and I understand their argument -- the difference --
and I would concur with wonderful on this, is that if we set a process
into place, we have to actually seek reopening of that process again
and saying of course we can change it, but we have to, if I understand
correctly, request a reopening of the endorsement process as we did
last time.

So that would require an additional state.  We would suggest keep it
open.  When it comes up next year, RSGs will have a pretty good
process as to how to deal with endorsements, and then we can probably
even crystallize at that stage.  That would be one of the reasons why
we're suggesting this.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  And again, I'd say that either way, you've
got to open it up, but that's okay.  You've made it very clear, and I
appreciate that.

Next, Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yeah.  I had a clarification and then actually a
question for Tim.  And the clarification is that when you were
describing how the amendment was different, it is not the intention of
the amendment that if the four SG identified nominees don't satisfy
the diversity criteria, that the council would then have to say,
"Okay, we're taking a time-out.  Now we're going to go back to the SGs
and identify additional candidates."

The idea is that if the SGs wish to identify additional candidates
that will be considered in such a circumstance, it's incumbent on them
as to go ahead and identify them when they forward to the council the
name of their nominee.

So I just want to make sure that everybody's clear that there's no
intention that we'll, you know, take a break, cause a delay in the
process, in terms of having to go back and consult with our SGs and
then wait till the next meeting, et cetera.

That's certainly not the intent.

And I guess just as a follow-up for -- partly for Tim but I think
partly for everyone is, I guess, Tim, did you have a concern with that
second part of the amendment, and then the broader question for
everyone is that I think there's also, frankly, some concern here that
if we say all future reviews, if there's ever a desire later to
revisit this, those who may wish to revisit the process will be met
with a "all means all," boom.  And frankly, that's -- you know, we
have enough things to worry about without having to get into those
types of situations.

>>TIM RUIZ:  This is Tim.  For me, I think listening to Zahid explain
it cleared up what the amendment is after, and so now I understand it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Tim.  Let's go to Mary.institute.

>>MARY WONG:  Okay.  We got it.  I'll try and make this as clear as
possible because I'm not so sure it's clear in my own mind, so it's a
good thing I just had coffee.

It seems to me, Kristina, that the current proposal as it stands and
the current motion as it stands does not prevent the SGs from doing
exactly what you've said, which is, in their deliberations, basically
see also if there are other additional candidates that the council
could consider.

My support for this motion and for the process really is based on two
things.  First of all, all the SGs were represented on the drafting
team.  They did a great job coming up with a process that was fair,
transparent, and clear.

Secondly, that in terms of having representation, each SG in the
current document gets one representative and then eventually we have
to go through the diversity exercise and maybe we'll end up with six
GNSO candidates instead of four and that then goes to the selectors.

To change that -- and I'm not talking about the future teams; I'm just
talking about it in principle -- it seems to me to encourage the kind
of gaming and the kind of trading and negotiations that we see a lot
of in ICANN, and I can't believe I just said that out loud, and I
would prefer a process that actually does not expressly facilitate
that.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Mary.  Let's go to Caroline.

>>CAROLINE GREER:  Thanks, Chuck.  I think at this stage I would
probably just be repeating what you have said and what Mary has said.
I just do not see any need for the second amendment.  I think it is
completely unnecessary and tying ourselves into knots for no reason
when we are not precluding ourselves from revisiting this at a later
stage, if the earlier processes show that we need to.

And having been on the drafting team with Bill and others, it was our
understanding that we were developing a process for future review
teams.  So kind of disappointed to hear that this amendment is now
being proposed.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Caroline.  Back to Tim.

All right.  Go okay on then to, back to Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I would just note two points.  First that, yes,
it is true that the stakeholder groups were represented in the
drafting team.  But the timing of the drafting team was not such that
at least with regard to the IPC, there was sufficient time built into
it to allow us to formally consult and go through the formal
procedures.  So it was -- to the extent that there was any
misunderstanding about whether or not my ability to say, "I can live
with this" was me saying, "I can live with this as a member of the
drafting team" versus, "I can live with this as the official view of
the IPC," two very different things.  To the extent that was not
clear, then I regret that.

Second, I think it really comes down to a philosophical difference as
to whether or not you think as a councillor that you can make
decisions for other stakeholder groups.

And it is the view of the commercial stakeholder group that we don't
believe that that should be the case, and that by allowing the -- by
requiring the council to, if it is necessary to do so, first look to
the additional candidates identified by each stakeholder group, that
you're at least deferring in the first instance to those preferences.
It may be even by doing that it's necessary to go out to the broader
applicant pool.

But having said that, it is very much the strong view that if the
stakeholder group has expressed a preference, that preference should
at least be considered, which by going directly to the applicant pool,
you would circumvent that.  I think, you know, frankly it seems to me
we are at the point we will have to agree to disagree and hopefully we
actually pass something.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Kristina.

Bill?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you.  I would just like to reply to a few of
the points that have been made and say why I regard it as unfriendly.
The first point I think is precisely the point that Kristina was just
mentioning.  There's an underlying philosophical difference, which, I
think, has been sort of bubbling up and showing itself in a number of
different conversations within the council in a recent week or two
over exactly what the role of the council is.  And I think that that
is a larger conversation that we really probably need to have so that
we all get on the same page in our understanding of what is
appropriate for council members as elected representatives to do or
not do.

It seems to me that in the meanwhile, since we haven't actually had
that conversation, to base an amendment or base a decision on one
stakeholder group's view of that, which may not be shared by others,
is potentially problematic.  I don't know that certainly in NCSG we
understand the role of the council in the same way apparently the CSG
does.  We don't view it as quite so restrictive.

Two other points -- or three, just quickly.  The one point is a
procedural issue.  I think that as Mary noted, you know, all
stakeholder groups are represented on the drafting team.  The drafting
team was given a mandate.  The drafting team worked collaboratively
without friction over a couple-of-month period.  The ideas that were
ultimately put into the document were on the table for some time.  And
then they were given to the council, I believe, ten days prior to --
the motion was made ten days prior to the council meeting in which the
issues then arose.

It seemed to me, as Mary suggested, it would have been useful if there
were problems, if they could have been indicated earlier.  For me, a
drafting team that represents all stakeholder groups and is given a
certain charge, the text that they agree should have the opportunity
to be voted on, I believe.

On the issue of the precise procedure that we would follow in trying
to fill one of these diversity slots, the point is that, as Kristina
has indicated, in their view, they would like an assurance that the
council is obligated to only talk about those candidates that
stakeholder groups have mentioned specifically in advance as being of
interest to them, and that would be one to two per stakeholder group.

And from my standpoint, as I've indicated in the listserv discussions,
I can't imagine a circumstance in which if stakeholder groups have
indicated an interest in particular candidates anybody would refuse to
talk about them first.  I mean, just as a basic matter of comity and
getting along and functioning as a group, if we are looking at a pool
of 15 candidates and stakeholder groups have said, "Gee, we are really
interested in X, Y and Z," I think the conversation is going to start
with X, Y and Z anyway.  I don't see why we have to codify a
limitation that we can only talk about X, Y and Z and only if X, Y and
Z don't satisfy the requirements may we look at the rest of the pool.

There may be people in the pool who may not have struck everybody in
the first instance as a good compromised candidate.  Perhaps as we get
into it and we start talking to one another, we would think, "Hmm,
let's look at them."  It seems unduly restricting the council's
ability to work together and make a decision.

The last point I would make is the point Chuck has raised about the
notion of whether we can revise these things.  And, again, the point
has been made that, well, we would have to go back and ask the council
and this is a barrier because we would have to convince the council.
Again, I can't imagine if a stakeholder group says, "We have some
issues with the way the process has evolved, we would like to reopen
the discussion" that people would refuse.  I mean, that would be a
very conflictual set of interactions for no particular purpose.  Of
course, we would reopen the discussion if people were unhappy with it.

But to set as the baseline the notion that we don't have a standing
process and the drafting team must go back and reconsider things from
scratch and so on, it just kind of leaves things in limbo.  I just
think it is better to say we have a default.  And if the default
proves not to work well, then we'll fix it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Bill.  Now, we have a couple more people in
queue, and I'm going to put myself in the queue.  But each of us needs
to be brief because we are over our allotted time for this agenda
item.  So, certainly, I would discourage you from repeating statements
that have already been made.  But to the extent that you can add new
information, please do so.

Wolf, you're next.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Thank you, Chuck.  Last try, at least at this
forum.  We had a lot of discussion in other fora throughout.  We
should be aware about what we are doing here and what is our goal here
from the council with regards to that process.  We would like to have
a process in place because we need one.  The call for application is
already public.  Applications are coming in.  It would be very, very
bad if there is no process in place when the application deadline is
-- the call for deadline, call for applications.  So that's one point.

So I would like to make it transparent what happened in the last day
as well, is we had a lot of discussion about that point and tried
within our different groups and between them to come to a point.  I
have seen normally in those cases to find a compromised question.  Why
couldn't it balance -- let me say a little bit -- our position?  That
means we have two amendments here in front of us.  So the other was
okay.  I could incline to step back from one of the amendments with
regards to the question of the teams or all of the teams.  But the
other position is a cordial one, and it should be accepted.  Thank
you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Wolf.

Kristina?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I just want to -- it sounded as if -- and maybe I
misheard Bill, but it sounded as if there may have been somewhat of a
misunderstanding of what we're suggesting in the sense that we are not
suggesting that the council, if it needs to consider additional
candidates in order to meet the geographic and gender diversity goals,
we are not saying that the council can only look at the alternates
identified by the stakeholder groups, if any.  What we are saying is
that they should be considered first.

And I think -- and I think Bill is right.  I think this raises some
pretty significant issues.  For example, drafting teams, I don't think
it was ever my intention, as far as I know anyone in CSG's intention
meant that you were committing your stakeholder group to whatever that
drafting team came up with.  Otherwise, we would just call it a motion
as opposed to a drafting team.  So, you know, I do think that we need
to be very clear in the future about what exactly the understanding,
expectation is.  And if the expectation is what comes out of the
drafting team has got the seal of approval by all the stakeholder
groups and constituencies, then we need to build into the drafting
team structure enough time so that everybody's individual processes
can be followed, whether that means putting things out for vote for
two weeks, three weeks, whatever it is.  I think we need to be very
careful about that in the future.

Frankly, I would very much like to be able to sit up here and say, "I
believe wholeheartedly that if we end up having to go to the applicant
pool that a stakeholder group has identified additional candidates
that they like first" that I'm 100% confident that consideration of
those candidates would happen first.  Sadly, I'm not.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Kristina.

Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah, I just -- I think that what Wolf has suggested is
reasonable, that if they're willing to drop the first requested
amendment -- we're don't necessarily think that the second amendment
is needed.  But just in the interest of moving the process forward, we
don't really have an issue with it and would suggest that we accept
that and do whatever voting here is necessary and move forward.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Tim.  I'm now putting on my registry
stakeholder group hat instead of chair hat, okay?  Because we talked
about this yesterday.  You have already heard me say I don't think the
amendment with regard to only applying to the next two RTs as
necessary.  I can support it if it is important to others.  We can as
registries support that.

I actually think that the other amendment is good, and the reason I
think it is good is because it makes it clear that we're emphasizing
the bottom-up process and coming through the stakeholder groups.  So I
actually -- if I'm understanding correctly, and I think I am, I think
that's actually a valuable amendment.  The registry stakeholder group
can support the amendment as it stands, both parts of it.

But let me now come back -- I'm switching my hat back to chair, okay?

And we can either vote on the amendments with both included.  It's
been -- Wolf, you made a suggestion.  Would you like to drop the one
element of the amendment, or do you want to have a vote on both
elements of it first?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  I'm sorry, I didn't catch it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'm sorry, Wolf.  Let me try to be clearer.  We can go
ahead right now and vote on your amendment as proposed that included
both elements, okay, that you described, okay?  Or if you would
prefer, you can drop the one element on just applying -- you know,
removing the "all" or whatever, and then just change your amendment to
just the part of it that relates to how the diversity is dealt with.
Did that help?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.  So you want me to redraft --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  No, I'm not wanting you to do anything.  I'm asking
what your preference is.  You're the one that made the amendment.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Okay.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Would you like a vote on the amendment as you proposed
it first?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  And then a second one with only one point in
the amendment?  No.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Your amendment has two elements to it.  Would you like
to vote on that right now including both elements, or do you want to
withdraw the one element and vote on a modified amendment?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  The latter one.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Which?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  The latter one.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So you want to withdraw --

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So the only part of the amendment that we're going to
vote on now is the part with regard to dealing with improving
diversity.  Does anybody need any more clarity on that?  Would you
please direct anyone -- Wolf, in particular, but if anyone else wants
to, too, could you inform Marika what needs to be taken out of the
amendment as it's worded right now?  What needs to be changed so that
we're clear?  We will try to get this on the Adobe Connect room so
nobody is unsure of what we're voting on.

Yes, Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Not to put, you know, the cart before the horse,
once we get this straightened out, I second.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks.  We're going to give Marika one minute to get
it captured and in Adobe Connect.  Unless she objects strenuously, I
will probably ask her to show where we're at, where the changes were
made and unmade and so forth.  Let's let her do what she's doing.

I hope everyone in the audience is enjoying these procedural issues
that we're going through.  Okay?  Can you describe and point out on
the Adobe Connect site that the councillors have access to where we're
at in terms of the motion?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  So the only change that actually has been made, the
original motion that was made by Bill and seconded by Caroline is
still there.  The only thing that has been added from Wolf's proposed
motion is the amended process at the bottom of this motion.  That's
the only difference.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Would you read that part, please?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  The amendment draft process?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Just the change.

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  In the original motion, there was no draft process.
It was just there by reference.  So this includes the whole draft
process, and I'm not aware exactly what is the change.  If Wolf knows
exactly in the draft process what has changed --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Wolf, is it possible for you to call out where the
draft process changed with regard to this amendment?  Again, I want to
make sure people are clear.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  May I refer to Kristina in that respect?  I'm
sorry, Kristina, because --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  She's smiling.  I assume that means she's glad to do
it.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  My other alternative is to cry.

Essentially, what we're doing here is -- Marika is correct, that
essentially what we've got is that the change was not in the motion
itself.  It was in the process document that was incorporated by
reference.  And what we're specifically changing, assuming I can get
it to move in the Adobe Connect, is that we are adding under Item
Number 2, Step 2, a third bullet that reads, "Each stakeholder group
is encouraged to, A, identify its internal deliberations and, B,
notify council of one or two additional candidates whom it could
support, if available, in the event that the diversity procedure
outlined in Item 4 below is utilized.  Stakeholder groups should only
propose additional candidates that are of a different geographical
location or gender than their primary candidate."

And then the second change -- again, if I can get this to work --
without having the other text in front of me, it is probably safe to
say that what we should just do is substitute in A, B and C which I
will read as A, if the list -- I will just read the whole thing.
Sorry.  "Four, the council will consider the resulting list up to four
nominees at its next teleconference.

A" -- and, I believe this was in the original iteration.  Bill, please
jump in if I'm wrong.  "If the list meets the above mentioned
diversity objectives, the council will consider the list of
endorsements to be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN.

B," which is definitely new, "if, however, the list does not meet the
above-mentioned diversity objectives, the council as a whole may
choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from among those
identified by the stakeholder groups under Item 2 who would help to
give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance.

C, if consideration of these additional stakeholder group identified
candidates does not meet the diversity objectives, the council may
refer to the GNSO applicant pool to identify these additional
candidates."  And then I believe the remainder is the same.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Are there any questions on what we're
going to vote on?  Okay.  We're voting now.  This is a procedural
question.  There's two ways we can do it.  One of them is probably
kosher, one of them probably is not but we're running out of time.  So
we could just vote on the motion as amended here, or we can vote on
the amendment and then come back and vote on the motion.  It seems to
me that they're one and the same.

Does anyone object to doing it the shorter way?  Bill?  In other
words, normally what we would do is vote on the amendment and then
vote on the amended motion, if it passed.  What I'm suggesting is
combine that into one vote on the amended motion and if it passes, it
passes.  If not, we go back to your motion instead of two steps.
That's all I'm suggesting.  It's probably against Robert's rules.  But
we're running out of time.  We ran out of time.  No objections to
that?  There is -- You have an objection, Wendy?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  I object to the way that this procedure has been
drawn out and at this point I think I would like to vote on the
amendment and then on the motion.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  That's what we will do.  So we're voting just on the
amendment to the motion right now.  Does anybody object to a voice
vote?  Only takes one objection.  Everybody's okay with that.  All
right.  All those in favor of the amendment please say aye.

[Chorus of Ayes.]

Anybody oppose, please identify yourself.  I see a couple hands.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Bill.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I want you to give a name if you're -- hang on.  Let's
go down the line here.  Hands up please so I can call on you.  Okay.
I see Olga.  I see Bill.  I see Rafik.  I see Wendy.  I see Rosemary.
I see Debra.  I see Mary, and I see Mike.  Those are opposed.

Anybody abstaining, identify yourself, please.  Anybody abstaining?

[No verbal response.]

Okay.  All right.  We have -- we'll have to tally -- how are we doing
on the vote with the opposition versus the support?  On this motion,
we need a simple majority of each house.  You want to do a roll-call?
All right.  We're need to going to do a roll-call on this to keep it
straight.  So we have a random order of the councillors that we will
use.  So Glen will do the roll-call right now.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Debra Hughes.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  No.

>> GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Olga Cavalli?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Mike Rodenbaugh?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Edmon Chung?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Jaime Wagner?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Stéphane Van Gelder?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  William Drake?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Kristina Rosette?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Tim Ruiz?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Zahid Jamil?

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Terry Davis?

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Mary Wong?

>>MARY WONG:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  David Taylor?

>>DAVID TAYLOR:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Rafik Dammak?

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Wolf-Ulrich?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Caroline Greer?

>>CAROLINE GREER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Rosemary Sinclair?

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Chuck Gomes?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Wendy Seltzer?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Adrian Kinderis?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  We have seven votes in favor from the
contracted party house, and we have -- so we have five votes in favor
from the non-contracted party house.  The amendment does not pass.

We will now go to the original motion.  Is there any additional
discussion on the original motion?  Okay.  We will now vote on the
original motion, and we will take a roll-call vote on this as well.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Wendy Seltzer?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Rosemary Sinclair?

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Olga Cavalli?

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Caroline Greer?

>>CAROLINE GREER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Tim Ruiz?

>>TIM RUIZ:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Bill Drake?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Chuck Gomes?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Edmon Chung?

>>EDMON CHUNG:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Stéphane van Gelder.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Zahid Jamil?

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Kristina Rosette?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Mary Wong?

>>MARY WONG:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Rafik Dammak?

>>RAFIK DAMMAK:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Jaime Wagner?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Mike Rodenbaugh?

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  David Taylor?

>>DAVID TAYLOR:  No.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Adrian Kinderis?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Terry Davis?

>>TERRY DAVIS:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Debra Hughes?

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Yes.

>>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Have I left off anyone?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  On the contracted party house, there were seven
yes votes.  On the non-contracted party house, there were eight votes
in favor, so the motion passes.

We do have now a few other items under this category that we'll go --
that I will go through very quickly.

First of all, the next steps regarding the AoC review teams, Olof
Nordling was going to do this but he is -- he had a conflict and had
to leave, so I will try to do that and depend on the rest of you to
keep me straight.

This process will now be posted, so that the applicants for the SSR
and WHOIS review teams will know -- that request GNSO endorsement,
they will know exactly what steps we are following.

It's been posted -- the draft -- the proposed process has been posted,
but posted as a draft not yet approved, so it will now become an
approved process.

The -- so the next steps, then, in this -- the application period is
open through the 15th of July, and Glen is forwarding to the council
list applicants that request GNSO endorsement as they come in.

After the 15th of July, we will have all the applications, and the
stakeholder groups will then be asked to identify their endorsements,
one each as a primary endorsement, and then after that if is there is
not reasonable geographic and gender diversity, the council may --
it's not required to, but the council may decide to add one or two
candidates to the pool to improve the diversity of the names put
forward to the selectors.

The selectors, based on the names given, will be able to -- they pick
from that pool whatever number is -- whatever number they decide will
be selected from the GNSO.  The latest proposal from them -- this is
not determined yet.  This will be determined by the selectors.  The
latest proposal from them is that there would be two for the SSR team
and four from the GNSO for the WHOIS team.

Both of those numbers could change.  That decision, I believe -- this
could change, too, but I believe that decision will be made by Rod and
by the new chair of the GAC, unless Janis and Rod make that decision
before Janis ends his term -- his service this week.

Any questions on that process?

You know, I apologize.  Not knowing that I was going to be doing this
on behalf of Olof, I -- there are time frames for the stakeholder
groups and the constituency to ask on this, but I don't have those at
my fingertips so we can check that and let's ask Olof to make sure
that the time frames are communicated to the council list and we can
then forward it on to our stakeholder groups.

Thank you very much for the lively discussion.  I'm actually glad that
we had something that was a little more entertaining in our public
meeting.  That makes it a little more fun, so thanks again.  And
thanks for -- you know, in spite of the fact that we have
disagreements on this issue, I compliment everyone for doing that in a
way that was very professional.

Okay.  We're now going to go to agenda Item 6, reports from working
groups, and in this case we are going to -- and anybody that's giving
these reports that's not a part -- that's not up here on stage, please
go up and take your seat at the table there so that we can save time
when we get to these.  Obviously, we are behind time and we really
would like to have time for open mic at the end.

The first report we have is one that no one is interested in, and
that's the vertical integration PDP working group, and these are the
two guys that are doing magic there, right?  Mikey O'Connor and
Roberto Gaetano are the co-chairs, and I'll let you guys give a brief
report of where you're at.

>>MIKEY O'CONNOR: Thanks, Chuck.  I'm Mikey.  This is Roberto.

My time budget is like five minutes, right?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  More or less.

>>MIKEY O'CONNOR: For those of you who are really, really interested
in this, we heartily recommend the 12:30 session in this room.  We're
going to solve the budget deficit of ICANN by charging admission for
that session.  We expect a full house, so we'll go through this really
fast.

If I could have the next slide.

Basically, this is a two-for-one PDP.  The part we're in right now is
the early part because we're under a pretty tight deadline to make our
recommendations fit into DAG 4 and then we'll have another one after
this.

Next slide, please.

I think we might skip that one.

We'll go to the next slide.

Basically, what we want to concentrate on for a minute is these are
the major topics -- what we call atoms -- what we'll talk a lot more
about at 12:30.  These are the major facets of the conversation that
we've been having very intensely over the last three months.  There's
no way to summarize where we're at because it's changing as we speak.
My BlackBerry just went off on my hip, and it's usually an indication
that something has come up.  The group is very engaged.  The group is
making incredible progress.  Any scuttlebutt that things are broken is
completely wrong, and you'll hear a lot more about that, again, at
12:30.

Next slide, please, if there is one.  I can't remember.

Ah!  Let me just talk for a second about that.

Basically, we came into Brussels with three possible outcomes.  One is
that we will not have arrived at consensus and we will not be able to
arrive at consensus, in which case we'll stop, and the current board
resolution, as evidenced in DAG 4, will prevail.

I think that's very unlikely.

I think that the best possible outcome is that we're either at or very
close to consensus by the end of Brussels, and that's what we're still
trying for.  We may not quite make that, in which case we may need a
week or two to get there.

DAG -- or VI time is to Internet time what Internet time is to regular
time.

This is a very fast-moving group.  We're having a great time.  I'm
honored to be part of it, and I commend us all for the great job that
we're doing.  Roberto, do you have anything you want to add?

>>ROBERTO GAETANO:  Just one thing.  I think that in this working
group, of course everybody knows that in this working group we have
people that have different interests, different points of views, and
conflicting sometimes, and so in the beginning we could think that it
would have been impossible to achieve any level of consensus on
anything.

However, I have to say that every member of the working group is doing
an incredible effort to be able to come to a compromise, so we have an
example in this working group of how the community thinks in terms of
finding a solution that is not exactly what we want, but is something
that everybody can live with, and I think that this is -- if we happen
to bring results, it will be a great achievement, and that's the merit
only of the people who have participated in this -- are participating
in this working group.

>>MIKEY O'CONNOR: Chuck, I think that's it unless the council has
questions for us, or there are questions from the floor.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  And I would like you two to remain there while
we check that out, but before -- and please, I see two hands in there,
and if you want in the queue on the council -- and by the way, for the
audience's sake, in this particular agenda item, agenda Item 6 with I
think there are three different -- or four different working group
reports, we're going to save the opportunity for any comments or
questions from the audience until the end of all four reports, but we
will allow some opportunity for council, and that was done just
because of time constraints, which are even tighter now.

So the -- I want to correct one thing, based on my understanding, and
I don't -- I'm not an authority, so I would probably word something
you said, Mikey, a little bit differently.

I don't think it's fair to conclude that if the working group does not
reach consensus, that the default position will automatically be the
-- what's in Applicant Guidebook Version 4 right now.  I think the
footnotes and so forth clarify -- and the reason I think that's very
important to point out, I think we're all hoping and I know the board
is really hoping -- well, the council is too because it's going to be
put in our laps, next and then the board -- but that there is some
consensus recommendations.

But if there's not, as long as there's good information provided on
what the prevailing options are with pros and cons and so forth, I
think that will be very useful, and there's nothing to preclude the
board from approving something different than what's in the applicant
guidebook right now.  Now, I'm not encouraging that, but I am saying
that I think it's a little bit different than just the default
position.

Are there any questions or comments from the council?  And I have Tim.
Your hand up from before?  Okay.  Wendy.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Thank you.  Just a very quick intervention.  Given
that we've spent so much time with VI considerations here, and we're a
technical community, I want to make sure that we've also considered
the equitable method of allocating contested strings, or EMACs.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  You want to explain what EMACs are, for
the rest of the people?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Sorry.  There's -- an editor war between VI and
EMACs, two different text editors.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Sorry.  The joke fell flat.

>>MIKEY O'CONNOR: I'm a VI guy, so I like the joke.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  It's actually not a question, but I don't know
that -- I think the timing is such that we may need the answer before
our next council meeting, so I just wanted to get it on the record.

And that is, under Paragraph 10(b) of Annex A to the bylaws, which
deals with the GNSO policy development process, that paragraph
provides that the council, when it considers the final report, may
solicit the opinions of outside advisors at its final meeting whose
input can be considered in voting.

And I have no information about how we would go about using this
process, so I'd just like to ask that we receive from the appropriate
staff person information as to how this process would be used, what
the mechanism is, are there any restrictions to the extent that
outside advisor might need to be paid, what budget is available.
Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Kristina.  That's a good thing to point out.

And I would also point out, as we're moving forward on this, that
because of many elements of the existing PDP have been problematic for
us, especially time frames and so forth, that this is a case where we
may have to, as a council, decide whether some exceptions are made in
some of the requirements there.  And of course we've been making those
all along in PDPs.  If we went by the rigid requirements, we wouldn't
be able to accomplish anything.

So that may come up again in terms of specific areas.

With regard to time frame, I talked with Mikey a little bit about this
yesterday.  Roberto, I don't think -- either it was in a different
place of the music night affair or not, but my estimation is that
council would noticed to act in its August 26 meeting on the final
report, and the reason -- and this isn't in concrete, but the
information I have is the board is going to have a retreat in
September with one sole topic, and that's vertical -- or excuse me,
the new gTLDs implementation.  In other words, the Applicant Guidebook
Version 4.

So it's incumbent upon us before that meeting to do our best to do
that, and so I communicated that to the chairs in that regard.

So -- and again, that's not in concrete, but that's what the tentative
plans are right now.

And I have next in queue Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Chuck, you more or less made the point that I
was going to make about the retreat, the fact that things have seemed
to have changed in the last two days.  I just wanted to remind you,
too, of the -- if you'd just bear with me for five seconds -- of
Objective 6 of the charter.  Please communicate that to the group.  I
know you're having a meeting, as you said, just after this meeting.

Not to delay the new gTLD process, that is an important objective in
the drafting team.  In the working group charter.  Sorry.  So, you
know, in the light of what Chuck has just said and what we've learned
over the last few days, I think you'll have to take that into account.
I don't --

I don't know that you were specific in your report about the time
lines that you'd anticipated originally, but those might have changed
or they might change now in light of this.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Stéphane.  Seeing no other hands, let's --
thank you, both, not only for your reports now but for all the time
you've been spending on this issue and, you know, it's been really
encouraging to see what's going on, and thank you to all of the many
working group members on this PDP because you're spending a tremendous
amount of time and it's encouraging to see the accomplishments you're
making.  Thank you.

Our next report is the registration abuse policies working group.
There's a link to their final report in the agenda, and I'm going to
ask Marika if she would summarize the discussion from the session on
Sunday and then I'll open it up for council questions and we'll talk
about next steps.

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  Thank you, Chuck.  This is Marika.  So I'll try to
keep it very brief, as the council got a full overview at its meeting
on Sunday.

So the group has now published its final report, which is based on the
initial report that was published in February and following public
comments that were reviewed in detail by the working group.

So as discussed in the session, there are a number of recommendations
that are put forward by this group relating to a number of different
areas.  I think that some of the -- there were some clarifying
questions in the discussion but I think the most focuses, well, what
are the priorities of the group looking at these recommendations for
the council to consider, what are the top priorities, as there are a
number of recommendations put forward, and also what is the role of
the council in some of these recommendations because some call for,
you know, further monitoring, further research, further discussion.

So I think those are some of the issues that the council might want to
consider, going forward, in its deliberations on these issues.

And I think just to note, I think the feedback from the working group
chair and I think it was supported by some of the working group
members there, that I think one of the areas that they considered a
priority was the recommendation on cybersquatting, which recommends
the initiation of a policy development process on the UDRP, and
another area I think was the creation of best practices in relation to
malicious use of domain names and then what can be done to address
those abuses, especially in the context of new gTLDs coming,
hopefully, maybe, soon.

And I think those are the main points.

I would just recommend everyone to review the full report, and I
presume there will be further discussion on these recommendations in
the report and then coming council sessions.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.  In fact, this agenda -- this item will be on our
-- probably on our agendas for the next several meetings, probably, as
we try to work through how to approach the various recommendations,
some of which are consensus recommendations, some of which are mixed
support recommendations, and so, again, I hope that everyone will come
prepared on July 15th to begin to work through that process.

I believe this is an area where our prioritization exercise may become
helpful in terms of figuring out, okay, at least if nothing else, in
the prioritization exercise, we have got some ranking but we also have
a list of all of our work, so hopefully we'll at least have that in
front of us as we develop a plan.  And that may be our first real test
of the information that we -- that has come out of the prioritization
exercise, how it may help us in making decisions in terms of going
forward with the recommendations of this working group, and I want to
thank Greg Aaron as the chair of that working group and again, the
entire working group for all the efforts that they've put in on this
over quite a long period of time.

So the next steps, we'll consider this again on July 15th and probably
subsequent meetings as we refine a plan -- develop and refine a plan
for taking next steps.  Any questions or comments?  I have Kristina.

Okay.  Stéphane?  Okay.  All right.

Then going on quickly to the next report from the inter-registrar
transfer policy Part B PDP working group.  Marika?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yes.  This is Marika again.

Again, an overview was provided as well on Saturday afternoon on the
initial report from this group, but unfortunately not many councillors
were able to attend that session, so I'll just very briefly highlight
the main elements of that report.

So the working group addresses five charter questions.  Three of those
are related to whether there should be a process or special provisions
for the urgent return of hijacked registration -- of hijacked names or
inappropriate transfers or a change of registrant.

And there are two questions that relate to registrar lock status:
Whether there should be standards or best practices; and whether a
clarification of Denial Reason 7 as part of the inter-registrar
transfer policy should be pursued.

So most of you know this is a second PDP in a series of -- I think
we're up to five that looks at issues that require modification or
clarification in the inter-registrar transfer policy, so this group
has now published its initial report and it's planning to open a
public comment forum at the end of this meeting, probably around the
5th of July, to allow for a sufficient time for people to come back
from Brussels and review this report and put in their comments.  As
this is a PDP, it's for a limited period of 20 days, so we just wanted
to make sure that everyone would have sufficient opportunity to
prepare for that and submit their comments.

So just to highlight very briefly some of the -- you know, the
highlights of that report, and that people might want to focus on,
there is a proposal in the report to develop an expedited transfer
reverse policy to deal with those cases where you might want to have a
quick reversal of a hijacked name that has been transferred out.

Those are draft recommendations to consider requesting an issues
report on the requirement of having thick WHOIS for all gTLDs, and
specifically in the context of transfer-related issues.

There are some proposals in there, too, to standardize and clarify who
is status messages regarding registrar lock status as the group thinks
it might help understand and facilitate the process for registrants
when they're trying to unlock their names and might not know what is
happening and why they cannot unlock the name.  And there's a proposal
in there for a new language for Denial Reason 7 that deals with this
issue -- yeah, it's relating to a domain is locked and I think it's --
provides some language on defining what a reasonable time is to unlock
a name and that -- in which case it can be used as a valid reason for
denial.

So the working group is looking for input on these recommendations and
would just like to strongly encourage everyone to take the report back
to your respective stakeholder group and constituencies and look at
these different proposals.  You know, especially I think that the and
he dated transfer reversal policy is a new policy that might have a
significant impact on the way that disputes are being addressed and
might provide a new platform in addressing those different questions.
So, you know, the group has done its best at looking at the different
elements and looking at the different scenarios that they could think
of, but I think it's really good if people have a look at that
proposal and look at the different elements and provide inputs that
the group can take into account for their second round.

Also I want to highlight that there is a session this afternoon at
4:00 in Room 311/312, where the working group will present the report
and have some discussions with the community and is there to answer
questions and get input on the initial report.  I think that's it.
And here you'll find the links to the information.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Marika.

Are there any questions or comments from councillors?

Okay.  Seeing none, we will then go to the post-expiration domain name
renewal, the PEDNR PDP working group, and again, Marika is helping us
on that one.

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  I'm sorry.  It's getting a bit boring, I
guess, for you.

Again, this is a PDP working group that has just published its initial
report.  Also, they provided an update on Saturday afternoon, but
again, unfortunately we had limited attendance, so I'll just very
briefly highlight what the main elements are of this report, and
again, encourage everyone to take this back to your respective
stakeholder group and constituencies to provide input during the
public comment period.

So this report contains the results of our registrar survey that the
group carried out looking at the practices of the top 10 gTLD
registrars in relation to expiration and deletion policies to help
inform the working group's deliberations.

It provides a summary of the discussions of the working group.  We've
got input as well, as required by the charter, from ICANN's compliance
team in relation to complaints received and audits carried out in
relation to the EDDP, the expired domain deletion policy.  And this
group hasn't come as far yet that it's ready to put forward draft
recommendations but is at a stage where it would like further input
from the community.  It has used a survey in which it puts forward
different kinds of options for each of the issues it's looking at, in
a desire to get putter input from the community on, you know, which
options they should further pursue.  And you can see there as well
clearly where the working group members sit and, you know, in some --
I think the main difference there you'll see many of these options is
that there's a clear split between what should be a change to policies
or consensus policy and what should be further pursued as a best
practice, and I think most of you can guess who sits on which side of
that issue.  And so then following the feedback, the group will
further review how to take that to the -- to the next level, and
hopefully come to consensus on that, so just here briefly, you'll see
that the working group has divided the different elements and the
different time frames related to expiration-related issues, so looking
at some overarching issues prior to expiration, post-expiration,
contractual conditions and redemption grace periods.

This group is also having a session on Thursday morning.  I think if
I'm remembering correctly, from 9:30 to 11:00, also in Room 311 and
312, so anyone interested to hear more about this report is encouraged
to go to that session, and again, this group will also open the public
comment period, I presume somewhere in July, on the report, and I'll
be forwarding that information to the council so everyone can
hopefully get their comments in.

And I think -- it's likely, you know, maybe at one point, because as
this report doesn't contain any specific recommendations yet, but just
options for further consideration, it's not unlikely that a second
iteration of the initial report or draft final report might be put
forward for community comment, if the group feels that's appropriate.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So that could happen before they move to a final
report with recommendations?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  Correct.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Any questions or comments from the
council?

Okay.  At this time, I will open it up for the four reports we've
heard for any comments or questions from the audience, if there are
any, please go to one of the mics on either side.  And this is your
opportunity to comment on any of these efforts.

By the way, on the last one, on the post-expired domain name group,
the PEDNR group, Michele Neylon is the chair of that.  Is that right?
Did I get that right?

>>MARIKA KONINGS:  No.  That's Alan.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'm sorry.  Alan.  My mistake.  These are all --
that's IRTP.  I didn't mention that on IRTP so there's two of them
that I didn't mention the chair.

So Alan Greenberg -- my apologies -- he's chair of the PEDNR group,
and Michele Neylon is chair of the IRTP Part B PDP.  Thanks for both
of them and to the working group members on both of those.  I
appreciate that.

Not seeing any comments from the floor.  We're going to move right
ahead to agenda Item 7, and the first item there has to do with a
request from -- thank you very much, gentlemen -- a request from the
ccNSO for the GNSO to form a joint drafting team to develop a charter
for a DNS CERT community-wide working group.

And the intent in that is not to be restricted to the ccNSO and the
GNSO, but the two SOs taking some leadership and forming that.

We have word that the SSAC would be glad to participate in that.  I
talked with others yesterday that are connected to like Greg Rattray
in particular with regard to other organizations that may not even be
involved in the ICANN world most of the time, so this will be an open
team.

Now, all this is -- let's be clear.  This is not the working group.
This is a drafting team to develop a charter for a possible working
group that the ccNSO and the GNSO would then act on with regard to
forming the working group.

So far we have in the GNSO solicited volunteers and volunteers do not
have to be councillors, as you'll note by the list of names I'm going
to give you now.  Some of them are councillors, some of them are not.
But the volunteers to date are:  Terry Davis who is on the council as
an NCA; Rafik Dammak who is also on the council as a noncommercial
stakeholder group representative; Greg Aaron from the registry
stakeholder group; Kathy Kleiman from the registries; Keith Drazek
from the registries; Mike Rodenbaugh from the commercial stakeholder
group; Zahid Jamil from the commercial stakeholder group; and Rodney
Joffe, again, from the registries.

The opportunity for volunteers, assuming the council doesn't object to
pursuing this, will be still open; but we would like to have those
right away because we'd like to get that drafting team -- charter
drafting team started.

Did I see a hand there?  Did you want to comment, Jaime, or did you
want to be a volunteer?

>>JAIME WAGNER:  I would like to volunteer.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.

Any other volunteers that you're aware of?  It doesn't have to be done
in this forum right here.  But if you are interested, please get word
to me or Glen that you're interested in that in the next few days.  I
will communicate a final list to Chris Disspain, and then we'll move
forward in terms of forming charter drafting team.

Any questions or comments on that?  Are there any objections on the
council to us pursuing this effort with the drafting team?  This is
not a decision to form the working group.  Any objections at all?
Question?  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  So this drafting team will be drafting a charter for a
joint working group?  Is that the first --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes, that's all this drafting team will be tasked
with.  And it will be a draft charter that will then be presented to
both councils to consider and ultimately, if we decide to move
forward, to approve and initiate the community-wide working group.
Good question.

Any other questions or comments?  Yes, Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Chuck.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm a
member of the business constituency, but I'm speaking at this point in
my individual capacity.  I will repeat some of what I said to the
council in an informal meeting over the weekend.

I am interested in understanding -- and I'm not asking that you give
me a prolonged answer, but I'm really interested in understanding why
and how a working group on the DNS CERT is most effectively addressed
as a GNSO issue.  I understand that the letter did come from the ccNSO
chair.

I feel a bit more comfortable given that the SSAC is involved.  It's
my view that the responsibility for creating working groups and
examining the implications of things of this nature are really a
community-wide issue.  I see significant workshops going on here that
are open and involving all of the community.

I also see that the decisions affecting the issues related to SSR and
the budget implications are moving very quickly.  I personally
question whether chartering a working group on a DNS CERT is actually
keeping pace with other changes that may be going on.

So while I recognize the councillors' interest and I recognize the
interest of different parties in looking at this issue of SSR and DNS
CERT fits into that overall issue, I think it is a much broader issue.
I would also raise the question that given the significant concerns
rightfully expressed by the council about their workload as managers
of the policy process and the huge amount of work they have on their
plate and the fact that there is community-wide examination of this, I
believe, emerging elsewhere, I have questions about whether this is
something that the council should be voluntarily taking on.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Marilyn.

Unfortunately, because of our time constraints and taking longer for
the break and longer in particular on one issue, we don't really have
time to debate that now.  So it is certainly something we can consider
if we move forward if we do decide to move forward on this ID.

Jordan?

>> JORDYN BUCHANAN:  Hi, I'm Jordyn Buchanan.  Like Marilyn, I'm a
little -- I will take -- I will go further than Marilyn.  I'm
perplexed why GNSO would be looking -- I understand, like Marilyn, why
people are interested in this topic.  I think it is of vital
importance and would love to see something done to resolve it.

GNSO is supposed to be a policy development entity.  This doesn't seem
to be a policy issue at all.  It seems to be largely an issue of what
sort of body should exist in order to coordinate this work.  I think
we should have such a thing.  There seems to be essentially no policy
issues related to the gTLD namespace at all in this topic.  And I'm
very surprised that GNSO would be willing to spend time on it given
that and given your otherwise heavy workload.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Steve?

>>STEVE DelBIANCO:  The drafting team volunteering is all well and
good.  But we could save time.  We could write a one-sentence
resolution right now that appreciates the staff's top-down, proactive
suggestions for a team.  At this point, the GNSO does not see a
business case for an ICANN-run DNS CERT.  If we recorded that, why not
vote on a resolution like that and speak now.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Steve.

>> TADEUSZ GOLONKA:  Hi.  My name is Tadeusz Golonka.  I am from
Poland.  I run a consulting business in software development.  I'm
first time at this meeting.  And I am just am using -- I mentioned I
am from Poland, but I feel like western people.  I feel very safely in
Poland, even this time having all the cyber attacks and other
problems.  Why?

We have (inaudible) in Poland like in other countries, and this is
very (inaudible) but they work very modern with the new methods.  They
work very quickly.  So I don't understand why you would not allow this
to stay between the victim and the police.  They can catch the victim
in two minutes, three minutes, something like this.  So this is the
way to solve this problem, not to build an extra business.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Could you give Glen your name, please.
She was unable to capture that.  That would be very much appreciated
for the transcript.

Please understand that we're not weighing in on whether there should
be a DNS CERT or not, okay?  There has been no opinion made by the
GNSO in that regard.

Yes, sir?

>> BILL SMITH:  Bill Smith, Paypal.  I understand your point you
aren't weighing in and saying whether there should be a DNS CERT or
not.  However, I want to second the comment from the gentleman earlier
as basically a point of process.  I don't see how discussion of a
charter for a DNS CERT hits within policy.  So I am confused why,
first, such a discussion would occur here.  And then secondly, the DNS
CERT itself, while Paypal believes it may be of use and good thing, we
think ICANN is the wrong place to be doing this.

We think there has been ample support for that position demonstrated
in the comments that came out from the initial documents that were
released by ICANN.  And so I'm wondering why we just don't say no.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Bill.  Again, let me clarify this
is not a charter for a DNS CERT.  It is a charter for a community-wide
working group that will investigate many of the issues that have been
addressed at the mic, including questions like should it even be
pursued?  Should it be in ICANN's court?  Should it be in the GNSO?
Should the GNSO and ccNSO be involved?  I think all of those are very
legitimate questions to be a part of the charter for a working group
on this issue.

Just a little history, there was quite a reaction from all sectors of
the ICANN community when the original paper was proposed, the business
case for a DNS CERT.  And so these are all legitimate questions.  And
we may end up at the end of this initial process of not even deciding
to initiate a working group in this.  That is a legitimate outcome of
the working group.  Excuse me, but not the drafting -- let me rephrase
that.  That was wrong.  That's a legitimate outcome after there is a
draft charter for a working group.  At that point, we need to decide,
should we form this working group?  Do we have the workload to do it,
the capacity to do it?  Is it within our mission, et cetera?  Those
are all decisions that we will have to make before we would ever move
forward with even creating this working group.

Bill?

>>BILL SMITH:  I'm suggesting that that be done now before the
drafting team is even created.  I believe that there is enough
information already to say, no, that this work should not be done
here.  If there is an interest in the work being done somewhere, it
would be fine to discuss it here.  But to me it seems that this --
that the work itself, okay, belongs elsewhere.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And I heard you.  That's certainly a valid viewpoint.
I have heard from many.  We met with the ccNSO earlier this week, and
we talked about this topic.  One of the points that came out was do we
even have enough data and information to make that decision?  You
obviously are of a strong opinion that you do, and you could be right.
But there are a lot of people in our community and in the cc community
that think that more information is needed to make that decision.

Thank you very much for the participation from the floor.  We have one
more Agenda Item before the open mic.  I apologize for time running
out on us here.  The other Agenda Item has to do with a motion on
enhancing the transparency of GNSO Council meetings.  Just a little
background --

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Chuck, excuse me.  Don't we need to take a vote on
the drafting team?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Do you want to take a vote?  I asked if there were any
objections in pursuing a drafting team.  There were none.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Sorry, I missed that.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Going on then to Agenda Item 7.2, a motion that Bill
Drake put forward on enhancing the transparency of the GNSO Council
meeting, the motion link is there.  I will let Bill talk to that in a
motion and read the motion.  Just for the sake of everyone's
understanding, we have this open meeting, public meeting at the
international -- the three international ICANN meetings each year.
But we also have every three weeks a teleconference meeting that only
councillors are able to hear.

Now, we record that and the recording is available.  And I'll let Bill
pick up from there.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you, Chuck.

Well, this was basically motivated by the desire in light of the
discussions occurring around the ATRT process and the broader
recognition of the need to enhance the transparency of ICANN
activities.  The idea was simply why not allow people in the community
who are interested in listening in realtime to what we're doing to do
that.  And it is, of course, the case that many types of meetings are
audio cast now, such as the ATRT face-to-face meetings, et cetera.

I am not a technical systems guy.  I'm a political science person by
background, so I have never actually done this personally myself.  But
I have asked lots of people who are techies how difficult would it be
to do a Web audio cast off of a teleconference feed and been told
repeatedly, A, that it shouldn't be difficult and, B, it shouldn't be
expensive.  And the thought was with that in mind, it might be useful
for people who wanted to be able to listen in to do so.  And, in fact,
if they wished to coordinate and share ideas with their councillors in
realtime via Skype or something in the course of discussions, maybe
this would even enhance the degree of fit between council actions and
stakeholder group preferences.

So it is a fairly simple motion.  Shall I read it?  Okay.  So motion
on enhancing the transparency of GNSO Council meetings:

Whereas, the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes
be made as transparent as possible;

Whereas, the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness
of and engagement in GNSO activities;

Whereas, the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members
represent their respective stakeholder groups in a manner determined
by those stakeholder groups;

Whereas, this representation function would be enhanced if stakeholder
group members were able to listen in realtime to council meeting; and.

Whereas, it would be impractical to open GNSO Council meeting
teleconference facilities to stakeholder group members; now,
therefore, be it resolved beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council
teleconference meetings will be audio cad in addition to being
recorded so that members of the community can listen in realtime, full
stop.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much, Bill.  Now, after this motion was
made in consultation with our great ICANN staff support team, there
was hope that maybe they would be able to pull some information
together regarding this motion with regard to maybe possible costs and
different alternative ways of fulfilling this.  Unfortunately there
was not time to do that.  And so staff suggested that they could have
that information, I think, by the 15th of July, in our next meeting.
And it is going to be entirely up to Bill whether he wants to -- and
Olga as the seconder -- to decide whether they want to defer till then
or not to act on this motion.  But let me open it up for comments in
that regard.

Is there anybody on the council that would rather defer this to that
meeting?  And I will give you an opportunity to speak up on that.  I
see Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  With respect, I submitted a friendly amendment
to this motion which you probably haven't had time to see because I
submitted it --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  That's correct.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: -- while you were chairing the meeting asking
precisely that, that that be in the motion, that staff would be able
-- I can read the friendly amendment if that's okay?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  That would be fine.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  The result would change to, "Resolved, that
the council ask staff to determine the costs associated with audio
casting all GNSO Council teleconference meetings, in brackets, in
addition to being recorded, end brackets, so that members of the
community can listen in realtime.  In making this determination, staff
shall assess the services and prices of external supplies as well the
cost of providing such services internally through ICANN's own network
operations.  Staff is asked to provide cost information on the
available options to the Council prior to its meeting on 15 July,
2010."

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Stéphane.

Now, in the interest of time, is that, in essence, what staff has
already committed to doing?  I'm seeing a yes.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Yes, that's right.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So we may not need an amendment to do that.  I think
what would be of interest to Bill -- and you can jump in, Bill -- if
there are those that would rather wait and act on his motion once we
have that information, are you comfortable acting on it today?
Anybody else want to comment on that?  I have Wolf next in the queue.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Just briefly, I would like to pour what
Stéphane was saying.  Not to be misunderstood, I'm very much in fair
to make it as transparent as possible those meetings.  But I would
prefer to have those figures in advance.  Thanks.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Bill?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Thank you.  I just wondered if, Stéphane, and, Wolf,
just to be clear, is your only concern with the possible costs?
Because from what I understand, that would be fairly marginal.  Or do
you have any concern in principle about the idea of audio costing?
Just so I understand how strongly you feel about this and what the
motivation is.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Wolf?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  I don't feel opposed to that.  But we are
talking about a budget and somebody saying, okay, that's marginal,
that's cheap.  I would like to see something.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  Stéphane?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks, Chuck.  Yeah, exactly the same
feelings from the registrars.  We have absolutely no problem with the
motion itself and the idea.  It's just that from management's sake, we
would like to know -- we don't expect it to be very expensive, to be
honest.  If we could just have some figures, that might be helpful.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Any -- oh, we have several hands here.  Liz,
did you want to say something?

>>LIZ GASSTER:  I was just going to say if the issue of getting costs
is not viewed as essential, then sort of option 3 is we try to meet
the 15th date with a capability.  But if we don't think we could make
the capability at a minimum, we would reply to the council with an
update.  Option one is get the cost by then.  Option two is try to
make it work by then with the caveat that if we can't, we would
provide an update to the council on the status at that time.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I'm not sure you need to provide the capability on the
15th.  I mean, obviously I think once it's passed, the sooner the
better.  But certainly the cost estimates and the alternative ways of
doing it so we can talk about that.  What I'm hearing from a couple of
people, that would be nice information to have on that.  Let's go on
to Wendy.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Thanks.  I wonder whether we can agree in principle
that we want to audio cast all meetings and if the cost is tremendous
and unexpected, we can revisit the question.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Are you asking for kind of -- is there anybody that,
you know, is opposed to the general direction that is being suggested
here, the live audio casting?  Anybody just raise your hand if you
are.  I think there is a general sense that I'm detecting that it is
something that people support, several, though, would rather deal with
it when they see a little more information.  I've got next in the
queue Mary.

>>MARY WONG:  All right.  I'm on.  So just agree with Wendy as well.
But it seems to me that in light of some of the comments that we've
heard during this meeting, particularly regarding what the proper role
of the council is, the coordination with our respective stakeholder
groups and so for the, it seems to me that we probably should pursue
this capability and do it as soon as possible.  If we've got members
of our community that actually want to volunteer their time to listen
to us talk for two hours every three weeks -- and if they can then
interact directly and immediately to us -- that seems to me to be a
good thing.

As Wendy says, if it turns out to be expensive, I think at that point
in time we can evaluate the cost, the level of participation and so
forth.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Mary.  Alan?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Since council does not have sign-off authority on
any budget -- any operational budget at all, why can we not simply say
that we request this?  And if staff finds the cost insurmountable or
unreasonable, come back to us.  We are not the ultimate sign-off
whenever it is, whether it is $10 or 14,000.  Staff is going to make
that decision.  So let's give them the option of making it quickly.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I don't think there is anything to prevent us from
doing that.  Any other comments or questions?  Philip?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Thank you, Chuck.

With respect, I think council is looking at this in the wrong way.  It
is my understanding that you currently have the audio cast within
minutes of the close of a meeting.  So the audio cast is available
almost in realtime.  So we may be talking about a two-hour gain in
terms of the community listening in, if they happen to be in a time
zone that makes them desire to wish to listen in.

And I suspect also if we do get some cost estimates on this, it won't
be significant.

So to me, what you are actually talking about is interaction with the
community as councillors during the course of the meeting as being
probably the prime benefit of this.  There is not really a timing
issue.  It is not a cost issue.  It is to do with interaction with the
community in realtime during your meetings.  And I think you need to
consider more closely the benefits and costs of that interaction.

The benefits may simply be getting ideas in realtime might help you in
terms of what you say as councillors.  The costs, of course, could be
distraction, in attentiveness in terms of what is happening.  But I
think we you need to consider this issue a little bit more carefully
in terms of what it might mean to the change in the nature of council
meetings.

ICANN is an extraordinary institution in the amount of distraction it
gives all of us during meetings anyway.  And I think you need to
consider how this option might affect the flavor and effectiveness of
council.  So it is a bit of a deeper question than the one you are
currently considering.  Just my observations as someone who has been
on both sides of the fence now.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Alan, is your hand still up?  Okay.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  With respect to what Philip said, we do exactly
that during live meetings like this.  Many of us are on Skype and
interacting with our communities.  The at-large representative on the
accountability and transparency review has been doing that live in the
public meetings for the A and T review team, interacting and, yes, on
occasion actually making comments based on something that was raised
by the community on Skype.  Is it distracting?  Probably.  But we do
it a larger amount of the time anyway, and it changes the dynamic in
such a positive beneficial way, that I can't say why we need to study
it.  Any individual councillor can always decide to turn off Skype and
not do it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Adrian?

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yeah, I think what we're trying to do is mirror
the experience that we have here, which is we're only talking about
audio casting.  We are not necessarily talking about interacting.  We
don't interact with anybody here.  We have public -- we have an
opportunity for a small question time.  But largely, I think what
we're trying to do is mirror this experience where people can hear the
debate and everything live.  It was my understanding it was about
audio casting only, and that is broadcasting the events of the council
meeting in realtime.

As to costs, for mine, if it is deemed important that the community
hear it, it should be found no matter what the cost.  We are a bottom-
up organization after all.  So if it is deemed appropriate for the
community to be involved at that level, then it must be found.
Thanks.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Adrian.  Avri?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  This is Avri.  I wanted to make two points.
One, I just wanted to make sure that the council members know that the
ATRT was able to look at this issue and make an in-principle decision
that this was something they wanted to do.  And that also means that
there may be an opportunity to sort of piggyback on their research and
their effort to get that in place.

In terms of Philip's point about the distraction, I would actually
like to point out that there are many people that are already
interacting with their councillors during meeting.  And this will
actually lessen distraction because the councillors won't have to say
"and so and so is saying this at the moment" and "now we have moved on
to that topic."  It will lessen the burden for anyone who is
interacting with their group members.  Thank you.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thanks, Avri.  That's good.  By the way, historically,
there was a time when you could listen in, if you weren't a councillor
to council meetings, so this isn't totally new.  I used to do it
myself.  So interesting history.  Sorry about that.  Probably wasn't
needed.

Okay.  Bill, it's up to you on the motion.  Would you like to have us
vote on it now?

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  Personally, I would, but if Stéphane's going to be
unhappy with me, I'm -- I don't want -- you know, we've already had
one divided vote and I don't really want to have another one over
something that probably something that probably everybody agrees with
it on in the end.  It's really up to Stéphane.  If you feel strongly
that we should wait, I'll accept your motion as friendly.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Bill, I appreciate that.  In the interest of
time, I don't think I'll -- I'll just withdraw the amendment.  I'm
convinced with the arguments that have been made.  Thank you very
much.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Wolf, you also expressed concerns there.  Do you want
to comment or are you okay with proceeding?

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Sorry.  I didn't follow.  I think I'm --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Our okay.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  I'm okay, yes.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Our okay with proceeding.  Okay.

Yes, Olga.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  I would like to support what Adrian said, that if --
in the sake of transparency, we need some budget assigned for this,
it's not a bad idea.  I mean, I have heard from technicians that it's
not expensive, but it would be good to have it in spite of the fact
that it has a price.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So would you prefer -- and this is information for
Bill.

Would you prefer waiting until the 15th of July?

>>OLGA CAVALLI: No.  No.  Just a comment.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Thank you.  Okay, Bill.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  I'm sorry.  I just wanted to say I meant Stéphane
and Wolf.  I didn't mean to exclude Wolf.  I recognize he had a
concern too.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  Okay.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE:  By anyway, I do strongly agree with what Adrian
said, and I also would support what Alan and Avri have said.  I know
that within the NCSG, we Skype during calls sometimes and it's very
helpful sometimes to hear what friends in the community think about
what we're doing.

So I don't think it would be a major distraction for anybody.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  So we're going to vote on the motion.  And I
just want to say that I'm -- as chair, I'm going to ask staff to still
go ahead with the information that they're provided and to provide it
at the next meeting, which I think they would have done anyway.

So does anybody object to a voice vote on this?  Okay.  Seeing no one
objecting, all in favor say aye.

[Affirmative responses]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Anybody opposed, please identify yourself.

[Silence]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Anybody abstaining, the same.

[Silence]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  That motion passed unanimously.

Now, I think we have about three or four minutes, so we're going to
have to be brief on the open mic, and I apologize for that.  My goal
was really to have at least 30 minutes for this.  I failed.

So in the next election cycle, you can elect someone else.

So the -- not pointing out that I have to be -- there has to be
somebody else anyway, so -- all right.  Jeff.  It's all yours.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Good morning.  I know me being up at the mic is
probably a surprise to everyone there.  And as I see Adrian, if you
need this translated, I could do it later.

[Laughter]

I just want to comment this is not new.  I made the comment over the
weekend, and several times in many discussions, but I believe that
over the last several months I've noticed the GNSO Council engaging in
a number of activities that are beyond what I believe and others in
the community believe are beyond the scope of how councillors should
act, and what they should be doing.

And in that vein, specifically there were three incidents, the last
one occurred as late as Monday, where there was a private meeting
between the GNSO Council and the board on an ongoing policy
development process that's being undertaken by a working group.

In my opinion -- and maybe there's others who would support it, maybe
they do not, but my opinion is that when a -- there's an active PDP
that's underway, the council should never be meeting with the board on
that substantive issue other than in the council's role as being a
policy manager, as opposed to something Wendy had said -- and I'm
hoping it was an accident but during the weekend Wendy called the GNSO
Council a policy development policy.

You are not a policy development policy -- you are not a policy
development council; you are a policymaking body.  And you are
accountable to all of the stakeholder groups for which you represent
or the ALAC which you represent or other groups that you may
represent.

In that regard, I am calling for an examination to be -- as Bill had
said on -- over the weekend, and Mary just referred to it a little
earlier, that the role of the council should be studied and made more
in line with the Board Governance Committee report several years ago.
You know, we've refined the structure.  Now it's time to get down to
the details and all matters of policy development should be done by
working groups and be done by the GNSO community as opposed to the
council.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you -- thank you, Jeff.  Just I would request
that you put that request in through your council representatives, and
that will -- that will be considered.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Actually, the request was made to my council
representatives but they didn't --

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Any rather it -- I have never heard it exactly in that
format but maybe I missed it.  But thanks.  I appreciate that.  And I
just -- for one point of clarity, there was no policy development
going on in the meeting you're referring to.  I'll be glad to explain
that more later.  And secondly, I want to say please don't accuse the
council of anything on this issue.  You may excuse me because I was
the one that made that decision.  Okay?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  I'll be looking forward to seeing the minutes
from that meeting.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  There aren't any, so you won't.

Yes, please.

>>VASSIL PETEV: Yes.  Good morning.  I have a quick question related
to Cyrillic top-level domains.  My name is Vassil Petev.  I do work
for a Bulgarian company called Telerik.  It's a very well-known I.T.
company.  We do business in the United States, Canada.  We do have
offices in Russia and Bulgaria as well.

And we were very excited to hear that we will be able to have our top-
level -- our domain name in Cyrillic so we can serve our Russian and
Bulgarian customers.  However, what I'm hearing now is that the dot
kom as written in Cyrillic, dot k-o-m, will probably not make it
because it look too similar to dot c-o-m, which is the Latin
representation, but at the same time, ICANN stands for the idea to --
the Internet to be accessible to everybody, all languages, et cetera,
and at the same time they put those restrictions on the domain names.

So could you please clear this for me so that I really -- so that we
actually know what to do?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Well, I'll be glad to answer that.

The best thing you can do, in my opinion, is to submit a comment of
what -- a written comment of what you just said in the public comment
period that's -- that the GNSO opened up just recently with regard to
that issue.

>>VASSIL PETEV: Okay.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Because we're waiting for comments before we decide on
submitting a letter dealing with that very issue that you're talking
about.

So if you would submit the comment in that regard, it would be very
much appreciated.

>>VASSIL PETEV: All right.  Yeah.  Thank you.  I will.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Thanks a lot.  That's very good.

I have some councillors who would like to comment.  Bill?  Are you --
you're not up there anymore.

Okay.  Well, I got somebody else first.  It's Stéphane.  Sorry.  The
text here is very small and hard to read, so Stéphane, yeah.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Yeah.  Thanks, Chuck.  Just want to very
quickly address what Jeff said.  We've talked about this since the
meeting that we had on Monday, so I know how he feels.  I respect his
views.

But I really want to stress that the idea was to increase or improve
communication channels, and improve the way we can work.  "We" being
the community.  There was no policy development process going on.  It
wasn't an end run around anything.  And the main topic, actually,
could have been VI or anything.

The idea is just to be able to exchange.  Don't forget that these
issues will -- once the working group has finished its work -- come
back to the council.  And once the council has finished its work, go
back to the board.

So it seems like some measure of communication between those two
bodies at some point can only improve matters, and that was the spirit
of that experiment.

There was a logistical reason for it to be closed, the reason being
that it was just too late in the day to include it as an open meeting,
but there was no -- absolutely no intent to keep it secret.  I've
heard that word used, and that was not the intent at all.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Wendy.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Thanks.  I just wanted to respond briefly to Jeff
Neuman's comment that -- so your -- so it's clear, I understand that
the GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development
process of the GNSO, and if I misspoke or was misheard, I want to make
that clear.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And we're going to have to cut this off just because
we're going into other people's times.  I think the VI working group
has probably already started, isn't that true?  Wasn't it 12:30.  Oh,
so it's in here.  So we're actually interfering with you doing it.
Oh, well, maybe it's not so bad.  No, no.  Okay.  Yes, sir.  Please.

>>STEFANO CIMATORIBUS: Hello.  My name is Stefano Cimatoribus, and I'm
a new participant, first ICANN meeting.

I agree with one of the previous speakers.  I serve as the commercial
manager for a Russian firm that established its southern Europe
headquarters in the northeast of Italy, and this company works in the
commerce sector for fresh-cut flowers, retail, wholesale, and
franchising.

Since I've always worked within the commercial divisions, I had
everyday contacts with my former Russian colleagues in St. Petersburg,
and I felt more than once that they found sometimes operative
obstacles in using Latin characters.

Therefore, I think that ICANN should take into serious consideration
the possibility of giving them urgently the chance of typing their
URLs in their native language, consequently creating general top-level
domains in Cyrillic.

But they are not wanting country code top-level domain name like dot
RU or dot RF.  They don't want to register with the government.  They
just want a global generic top-level domain and they want it in
Cyrillic script.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you very much.  That's appreciated.  Would you
like to comment, Andrei?

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  (Speaking in a non-English language).  I can
explain in Russian.

This is easy.  First of all, we have now the Cyrillic domain in
Russia, dot RF, and all the second-level domain names can be written
in Russian.  What -- but except that support of the IDNs, we have to
wait -- well, my estimation -- two years until the complete support of
Cyrillic in the e-mail addressing will be completed.

But, I mean, there is no difference between -- when applying to the
TLD, there is no difference between Latin or any other script when you
apply for the top-level domain.  There is no segregation.  There is no
-- it's equal approach to all languages.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  And I think what I heard him saying -- I don't
want to put words in his mouth -- is that he also wanted the option to
apply for and maybe even preferred applying for an IDN.IDN in a
generic name in addition to the ccTLD.

Any other comments?  I see some hands up.  Stéphane, are you -- is
your -- okay.  And Wendy, is your hand still up?

>>WENDY SELTZER:  No.  It's not.  I apologize.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.  Is there anything else?  I apologize for
rushing through the open mic period.  That was not the plan, but I do
thank everyone, and I -- some of you noticed several staff members up
here, and I'd let you -- like to let you know there's a lot more staff
that support us, and we would be lost without their support in
everything we do in policy development in these meetings and so forth.
So I'd like the council and the rest of you to join me in thanking all
the support we get from the staff.

[Applause]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And we will try to exit stage as quickly as possible
for the VI session, and thank you very much for your attention and
your cooperation.