Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee Chair Reports Friday, 25 June 2010 ICANN Meeting Brussels, Belgium We now move to the next part of the program, and I'm going to ask any directors who are on stage who are not also the chair of an SO or AC to make way for an hour and to invite chairs of SOs, ACs, and Nominating Committee, and the ombudsman, in fact all of the people who are giving reports over the next hour, to come and find a microphone and a seat on the stage. And we are going to do this reasonably alphabetically, so we are going to begin with the ALAC, and then go to the ASO and then the ccNSO. Thank you, board members, for making that transition easy, and thank you AC and SO chairs for it taking the stage. We begin with the At-Large Advisory Committee, and I call on Cheryl Langdon-Orr the chair of that group to give the report. >>CHERYL LANGDON ORR: Thank you all, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being out early if not so bright after a very, very long week. The report from the At-Large Advisory Committee, but more importantly, the at-large community that I present to you today is already lodged on the meeting Web site and will be also on our at- large Web site. It's a lengthy document, it has lots of information and I would encourage it as worthwhile reading and I will be giving Peter a hard copy along with the copy of our slides for today. We'll also be reading to the record and giving hard copy of these wonderful regional pamphlets which have been produced since the Nairobi meeting in multiple languages. These are outreach materials to assist us in our work in each of the five geographic regions in ICANN. At this meeting, we have had 26 members from all five of the at- large regions attending. They range from, of course, the 15 members of the ALAC through to at-large structures, which is the edges where all the work really needs to happen, attending our 13 formal meetings and two cross-constituency meetings. Now, this is just the formal meetings that we have been to. The at- large has also been in just about every other room that didn't lock them out during the whole week's proceedings. And we have been engaged in our -- in (inaudible) normal work group activities with GNSO work groups ranging from vertical integration through to the high-security work team. I have too many buttons and not enough hands. Slide two brings me to the RAA and compliance issues. And at our meetings, and you will find statements in our report to this effect, we remain strongly supportive that ICANN's compliance activities is strengthened and properly resourced. It is a matter of essential importance for trust at the consumer and end-user end that we have strong and effective compliance. Thank you so much, Louie. That's what I needed, a technician. And we shall very, very keen to work as we have been discussing closer with the registrars. We had a very productive joint meeting here, Mr. Chairman, with quite literally a room full, and we look forward to further cooperation and exploring mutualities in the future. My next slide takes me to a great deal of pleasure and that is to report some work since Nairobi and the board's resolution 20 which formed -- called for the formation of the joint ALAC and GNSO working group on exploration of options for an assistance model for those that might require it in new gTLDs. And at this meeting, we again had a chock-a-block room full of the African community, this is the AFRALO regional leaders and at-large structural members and the AfrICANN group, and they have produced a very significant and well-thought-out statement that is being inputted into the work group at exactly the right time. As the work group is calling for input, the cross-community work has been done, and it's coming directly into the work group. I believe Katim has also asked Tijani, one of the leaders of AFRALO, to pass it directly onto the board. What needs to be said from the At-Large Advisory Committee point of view on this is that the words in this statement, while tailored to African's needs, would be echoed for most of the other region's when they look at their needs for this particular issue. Moving on to the very important matters of our at-large improvements implementation, to assist with the visualization of our improvements implementation, we have grouped what we need to do and there are a number of tasks, 13 recommendations but many subtasks to make that happen, and you have heard from the Structural Improvements Committee how part of that planning is going, but you don't all want to read 65- page reports so here it is in five pretty colors. We have grouped them into matters of ALAC's continuing purpose, the very important matter between now and Cartagena of the at-large selected director, ALS at-large structure participation, ALAC's planning processes, and our policy advice. To give you just a brief rundown on where we are with all of the 13 recommendations of the at-large improvements, here is a brief chart showing us, heading up towards the 75% mark on a couple of our particular key items, but we believe we are on track and looking forward to getting much further between now and December in all of these implementation plans. It then brings me to the most important thing, which is the end of the slide deck, but the moment of thanks to the huge commitment that our staff and our regional leaders and those members out in the at- large structures are making. The hundreds of hours they are contributing into policy development, in work groups, not within the At-Large Advisory Committee or the world of at-large but in other parts of ICANN. It's hats off to each and every one of them and it is those voices that you hear when you get an ALAC piece of advice. It's coming out from the edges, it's getting woven into a view or a diversity of views, and it's coming through. I do need to mention a bit of leadership change. Amongst all of the other meetings that our members have been doing here this last week, we have managed to have both EURALO and APRALO have their normal monthly meeting and in the Asia-Pacific region normal monthly meeting it's my pleasure to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that with a vice chair elected intersessionally between Nairobi and now, Fouad Bajwa is our vice chair of Asia-Pacific regional at-large organization from Pakistan, and Professor Huong Xua (phonetic) at our meeting has been appointed as the current chair of Asia-Pacific regional at-large organization. We will be pulling a call for elections of a second vice chair shortly after this meeting closes, and we would like to note for the record our respect and our good wishes to both (saying name) acting as our chair and to Liz Allison as one of our vice chairs who through personal and medical circumstances have had to suddenly leave us. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Cheryl, for that report on the activities of the at-large and the ALAC. Are there any questions from the board? Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. Cheryl, on your first slide you mentioned that there were not enough resources being put into complains. Can you just elaborate on how that's assessed? Is that assessed in that your -- there's a focus on WHOIS accuracy and because there are inaccuracies in WHOIS there is a compliance problem? Or is that assessed on the basis that you think a compliance complaint has been made and the staff haven't acted on it? I just want to kind of get a source for that conclusion. >>CHERYL LANGDON ORR: Certainly. Thank you for the question, Bruce. In fact, it is not limited to those issues at all. It's very particularly coming out of the work groups. We're talking to David Giza and the compliance, we meet with him regularly, and we hear an ability both in staffing resources and in ability to focus on things where he can follow down on things like, for example, financial issues of compliance but perhaps not so readily on things that matter to our consumers as well. So we would like to ensure that compliance has everything it needs in terms of manpower and effective tools to assure us that we're in a trusted environment. It's certainly not suggesting that it's just matters of only WHOIS or -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Right. So you made two comments there. You said staff and effective tools. One of the things that's not apparent to the board, and this was discussed yesterday following the public forum, is we heard a number of people raising issues around compliance, and we did actually ask some of the senior management on what resources they need, because it hasn't been clear. I certainly haven't seen a proposal come from the staff to the board saying, Hi, we don't have enough compliance staff. Can we double the budget? It is not as though the board saying no. It is a case of saying, what specifically are we talking about? What resources do we need to solve what problem? Some of the tools, they're not necessarily tools within control of the staff. Some of the tools are actually policy tools that need to be created by the community. So that the compliance program at the moment, just so you understand, it's basically -- and I will just take the WHOIS particular example, there may be others. But taking the WHOIS example, the system as it's constructed today is that the registrant warrants that the information they provide is correct. And if a member of the community finds that that's not correct, they report that problem to a registrar, and the registrar takes action. So, certainly, there can be compliance if registrars are not responding to these reports. And I hope that that compliance is happening. But the other side of it is actually compliance at the registrant level and at what stage should that be done. Do we have systems that check that? And then we contact the registrar and ask them to fix it. So whose responsibility is that? And lot of that discussion and decision is actually a policy decision. Once that policy decision is made, then we can resource the staff function to ensure that policy has been applied. I just want to separate those issues out. It is not -- one of the questions we were asked yesterday, if we added another couple million dollars to the staff budget in the compliance team, would we appreciably make a difference on the issues people are complaining about? And the answer is no. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We are going to have to get up out of the weeds of the detail of compliance, I'm afraid. Thank you, Bruce. I hope we can carry on having that conversation in the forum of the policy development discussions. Are there any other questions of Cheryl about the at-large report? If not, thank you, Cheryl. Can I ask you hand the controls to Louie, and I call on Louie to give the ASO report. >>LOUIE LEE: Thank you, Peter. Members of the board, chairs of the SOs, ACs and members of the community, this is the ASO report. I'm Louie Lee, chair of the ASO address council. I would like to note that much of this material in this report was already provided to the GAC earlier this week. So IPv4 status, the IPv4 runout, we have exactly 16 IPv4 /8 blocks remaining at IANA. The studies are showing that we estimate the runout to be in August 2011, somewhere between then and April 2012. That's approximately 14 to 22 months. We are seeing that there is an increase consumption rate in Asia- Pacific region, which is not surprising. The growth is there in Asia- Pacific to justify that. And for IPv6, we are also seeing an increase in adoption rate. That's good news. We are receiving the regular updates on vendor support at our regular meetings because this topic is up there for everyone. But the bad news is that the adoption rate right now is not fast enough to eliminate last-minute adoption. There will be a small amount of rush. This will be mostly in the form of people asking for v4 address space, and they understand they will be receiving v6 space when they go to the RIRs and there is no v4 left to be given them. The activities of the regional Internet registries. The five regional Internet registries are engaged in outreach at all the regular meetings. At the ITU IPv6 group meeting in March, a decision was made by the ITU to research the rumor problems in IP number allocations before jumping into conclusions and design solutions that lack a problem. The RIRs are succeeding in very closely liaising with the law enforcement community with the main focus on IANA outreach and managing expectations. The RIRs are working with ICANN and the IANA to sign the IANA root and they are working amongst each other to roll out the initial RPKI service in 2011. The RIRs are always on the lookout for developments that touch about RIR responsibilities, ready to reach out, educate and defend bottom- up in this reself-regulation. Activities of the ASO address council. Recently the ASO address council appointed Kuo-Wei Wu to the ICANN board of directors. We are monitoring three global policy proposals concerning autonomous system numbers, i.e, the ASNs, allocations from the IANA to the RIRs, and the return and redistribution of IPv4 addresses. The AC is identifying ways to increase communication and interaction with the other parts of the ICANN community. And I thank you all. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Louie. Any questions for Louie about the report of the ASO? Seeing none, then I say good morning to Chris Disspain who is the chair of the country code names supporting organization. I ask for a report from that group. Chris? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Oh, right. That's clever, isn't it? This is technology at work. There you go. Good morning. Sorry about that. Small microphone issue. I don't have slides. As usual, we'll file our written document at all the necessary places. I'll be brief. We've had an incredibly busy meeting. It is actually the first time that the ccNSO has not been able to complete all of its stuff in two days. We've had to start on Monday afternoon with a session on IDNs so that we could get everything done. On the operational planning and budget, we talked a lot about that. We filed some questions and comments. We set up a working group to start negotiations with ICANN with respect to financial contributions. There were two legs to that: One is to talk about the quantum, and the other is to talk about a methodology for payment. It would be unfair of me to suggest that we have any -- we're close to any sort of agreement. We're not. We're a fair way apart but we are, one, getting fantastic information which is great -- that helps us enormously -- two, we are willing to -- we are willing to do the work to see if we can reach some sort of agreement. I announced at the public forum yesterday the drafting group -- cross-ICANN constituency drafting group for the security and stability analysis working group. That's not necessarily going to be the name of it, fits for now. We have a very lively and interesting meeting with the ccNSO review team. The review document was presented to us and discussed. We will obviously be formally responding to it, and we will request the working group to extend the public comment period until the 15th of September because we think it is important that the ccNSO as a group, as a SO, responds rather than having individual comments from members, although there will be those as well no doubt. On the IDN ccTLD policy development process, substantial progress has been made there by the working group and the community. We're adopting the IDNAbis definition of what is an IDN TLD. And we are starting to do some work -- we will be starting to do some work looking into variant management issues which, of course, is critically important. Just a mention of the country code -- sorry, the country names in the gTLD space, ccNSO welcomes the change in position regarding the applying for country names under the new gTLD process, as expressed in DAG Version 4. So thank you all for that. On delegation and redelegation, we have -- the working group has published a large document. It's 110 pages long. It is an analysis of IANA -- sorry, the board decisions in respect to delegations and redelegations. It is a really, really interesting document. I command you all to read. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I just got to ask you. We seem to have lost scribing. I'm not sure whether that's a problem for remote participants. I can see a mouse moving on the screen there, so something is happening. It's back. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It sounds like we're back. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: It seems so. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Carry on. Thanks, Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I will just rewind slightly to delegation/redelegation. The working group has published an analysis of delegations/redelegations in the ccTLD world and I would commend the document to all of you to read. It is a crucial research document for our work but I also think it's a valuable document for everybody to see how the process works. A few other things, we held a strategic planning session to look at what the ccTLD's think ICANN should be looking at strategically over the next three to five years. We have got more work to do there, of course, but it was a very interesting session. And we'll be carrying on with that so that we can contribute more effectively to the strategic planning process. We met with law enforcement and talked about trying to satisfy their -- the things that they would like to have whilst at the same time maintaining territorial boundaries. Finally, I'd just like to thank EURid for their organization and for being sponsors of our ccNSO dinner. And I'd like to also, on behalf of the ccNSO, welcome Heather as the new chair of the GAC. We look forward very much to working closely with you. And that's it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Chris. Any questions for Chris about the report from the ccNSO? Obviously a very full program. Seeing none, I join Chris in welcoming Heather Dryden who is the interim GAC chair, as I understand the process, with the resignation and the farewell yesterday of Janis, the GAC appoints someone to fill the remaining term and Heather has been appointed. Heather, welcome to that process. We look forward to working with you as well, and we look forward to the reading of the GAC communiqué. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Is it working. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate the warm welcome that I have received this week. Today is my first day in this role, so I'm going to ease into things by reading the communiqué. So here goes. As an introduction, the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers met in Brussels during June 19th to 23rd, 2010. 60 members and four observers participated in the meeting. The Governmental Advisory Committee expresses gratitude to EURid for hosting the meeting in Brussels and thanks ICANN for supporting the GAC meeting. The board/GAC joint working group on the review of the role of the GAC at ICANN also met. So the JWG met in Brussels and the discussion focused on two main issues for the JWG report. GAC advice to the board, and the role of GAC liaisons. Regarding GAC advice to the board, in the view of the JWG, any explicit advice in any written form constitutes the advice foreseen in the bylaws. The GAC also advises on the effectiveness of procedures for facilitating interactions between ICANN constituencies for the development of policy. In addition, the GAC first seeks consensus in its work, and this can take time to achieve. If consensus is not possible, a range of views can be provided as advice. The bylaws provide only for GAC advice to be given to the board and do not include provisions for the other SOs and ACs to formally consider GAC advice. Several recommendations are identified, including the creation of a transparent register to record when GAC advice has been provided and to track whether, when, how the board has taken into account or responded to particular advice from the GAC. The JWG aims to finalize their report in Colombia and further JWG discussion is anticipated on ways that the bylaws could formally acknowledge methods for the ICANN constituencies, including the GAC, to provide inputs to the policy development process at an early stage and as the process develops. Regarding new gTLDs including morality and public order issues, the GAC was grateful to receive a briefing update from ICANN staff on the changes incorporated in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. The GAC wishes to acknowledge the dedicated work of the ICANN staff in addressing the issues of concern for the GAC. The GAC will provide a full response to DAG 4, including issues related to morality and public order in accordance with the timeline for the public consultation. The GAC expects to receive a response to its letter to the board in relation to the DAG 3. The GAC believes that the new gTLD process should meet the global public interest consistent with the Affirmation of Commitments. It therefore urges ICANN to set technical and other requirements, including cost considerations, at a reasonable and proportionate level in order not to exclude developing country stakeholders from participating in the new gTLD process. Key documents should be available in all U.N. languages. The GAC urges that the communications and outreach strategy for the new gTLD round be developed with this issue of inclusiveness as a key priority. The GAC appreciates the exchange of views on these issues with the GNSO. The GAC also met with the ccNSO. The GAC and the ccNSO held a constructive exchange regarding the scope and work to date of the ccNSO delegation/redelegation and retirement working group based on a presentation of the working group's progress report and initial assessment. The GAC welcomes the ccNSO's invitation to provide comments on the text and looks forward to further discussions during the annual meeting in December 2010. Other issues addressed during the exchange included an update from ccTLDs and GAC members on pending IDN ccTLD applications under the fast-track process. The treatment of geographic names, and -- the treatment of geographic names in new gTLDs. Moreover, the GAC supports the chron's decision to work jointly with the GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to draft a charter for potential cross- constituency working group to consider further ICANN's proposals regarding the security and stability of the DNS. The GAC notes that these issues are of significant public-policy interest and indicates its willingness to collaborate with other parts of the ICANN community on this important issue. Concerning law enforcement, due diligence recommendations. An absolute majority of GAC members made the following statement. The GAC encourages the board, the RAA working group and registrars to work with law enforcement agencies to address their concerns and implement the necessary changes without delay. Following from the GAC's Nairobi communiqué, the GAC requests an update of progress on consideration of these proposals, including the board's consideration of the due diligence recommendations. Based on the deliberations in Brussels and the previous meetings, the GAC endorses the proposals from law enforcement agencies to address criminal misuse of the DNS, noting that implementation of these proposals must respect applicable law and respect all requirements concerning the processing of personal data such as privacy, accuracy, and relevance. Some countries felt that further efforts need to be deployed in order to clarify these proposals. We also had a meeting with the accountability and transparency review team. The GAC met with the ANTRT to discuss a number of questions relating to the accountability and transparency of GAC interactions with ICANN. Much of the discussion covered the same areas as those coming out of the work of the JWG on the review of the role of the GAC, including the nature and treatment of GAC advice provided to the board and the need for early engagement in PDP activity with the ICANN constituencies. The GAC will work intersessionally to provide a written response to the ANTRT questions. The GAC also met with the NRO. The GAC welcomed the briefing from the NRO with updates on IP address space management and the depletion of the IPv4 address space. The estimated depletion date for IPv4 addresses was August 2011, and the RIR estimated depletion date, April 2012 based on the current allocation rate. The GAC and NRO highlighted the need and importance of cooperation between the RIRs and governments for promoting deployment of IPv6 and for addressing the allocation needs for IPv6 address space throughout the world. In terms of GAC Secretariat support, the GAC discussed a refined proposal to ensure appropriate Secretariat support for the GAC along the lines of a hybrid model. In other words, funded by governments with continued support from ICANN. The GAC accepted the offer from Brazil, Norway, and the Netherlands to finance and host a Secretariat for the duration of five years. The donor countries have the intention to put in place a lean and flexible Secretariat, providing professional and proactive support to the membership. They propose to evaluate the Secretariat after three years in order to explore ways forward after the five-year financial support currently guaranteed. These countries will start the necessary arrangements and have the Secretariat operational at the latest from the 41st ICANN GAC meeting in June 2011 allowing a transition from the current Secretariat provided by India. In terms of the election of GAC officers, Mr. Janis Karklins resigned from his post of GAC chair following his departure from the Latvian government. This resignation is effective on the 24th of June, 2010. Following provisions of the Article 9 of the GAC operating principles, the GAC appointed Ms. Heather Dryden from Canada to serve as an interim chair and a nonvoting GAC liaison to the board for the remainder of the current chair's term, which ends at the end of the first GAC meeting of 2011. This appointment is effective from the 25th of June 2010. The GAC launched the process of nominations for the post of the chair and three vice chairs. Election of new officers will take place during the Cartagena meeting of the GAC. Members of the GAC welcomed Ms. Heather Dryden and expressed their gratitude to the outgoing chair, Mr. Janis Karklins, for his service to the GAC. In terms of the GAC operating principles, the GAC created an ad hoc working group that will review the GAC operating principles. The working group's proposals will be examined during the Cartagena meeting of the GAC. The GAC also noted the declaration of the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe adopted on the 26th of May, 2010 on enhanced cooperation of its member states in Internet governance matters, and welcomed the Council of Europe as an observer to the GAC. The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Brussels. The next GAC meeting will take place during the period of the ICANN meeting in Cartagena, Colombia. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Heather. Are there any questions of the interim chair of the GAC in relation to the communiqué? I see Ray Plzak at the microphone. Ray. >>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Peter. Speaking in my capacity as the co-chair of the board/GAC working group, first I would like to express gratitude on behalf of the board members for all the work of my co-chair Heather. She has done an admirable job and thank you very much. I would also like to provide emphasis that the board members of the working group considered particularly important that the role of the liaisons is, in our mind, very, very important. Not only the liaison to the chair, which most board members are very, very familiar with, but also those liaisons to the NomCom and the rather inactive, at the moment, liaisons to the various supporting organizations and advisory committees. We see a rejuvenation of those efforts to actually help facilitate the participation of the GAC in the early stages of the policy development process so the advice can be taken early and work itself into the policy process as it progressed. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray. Rob Hoggarth, any questions online? >>ROB HOGGARTH: (inaudible). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Was that a no, Rob? >>ROB HOGGARTH: That's correct. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Thank you, Heather. So after the "G" of the GAC, we come to the "G" of the GNSO and I say good morning to Chuck Gomes, the chairman of the council of that group and I ask Chuck to give the report. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Good morning, everyone. Let's see if I can figure out where to point the -- there we go. Okay. I'm not going to try and summarize all the work that's gone on since Nairobi, but it's pretty much been nonstop in the GNSO with contributions from hundreds of people within the GNSO community and with other ICANN communities, because all of our work is open to anyone who is willing to volunteer and contribute. We had a very busy week. We had eight sessions on Saturday, including a joint meeting with the Governmental Advisory Committee. We had 12 sessions on Sunday, and that included a joint meeting with the board and staff. On Monday, we met jointly with the ccNSO. Tuesday is, of course, the constituency and stakeholder day where our constituencies and stakeholder groups met all day, some of them jointly in various sessions with house meetings and joint constituency meetings, et cetera. On Wednesday we had a four and a half hour-plus public GNSO Council meeting, and had a follow-up meeting on that on Thursday. And mixed in with all that were a bunch of working group sessions and other sessions to get public input on the various projects that we're working on. Some of the accomplishments this week, the council completed a prioritization exercise where we prioritized 14 active projects that are going on right now. We also approved our procedures for endorsing candidates for the Affirmation of Commitments review teams going forward. We started the discussion of which WHOIS studies we will initiate in fiscal year 2011. We approved GNSO improvements communications and coordination work team recommendations which particularly relate to GNSO Web site improvements and recommendations and guidelines for communication with other ICANN organizations. And so those are now ready for implementation. And we opened up a public comment period on some additional GNSO improvement operations, procedures, changes that will be implemented and acted on by the council after the public comment period. In addition, we opened up comment period at the same time for discussion on recommendations for constituency and stakeholder group operating procedures. Some of the ongoing progress with regard to GNSO improvements, let me just generally say that we're probably within -- pretty close to within three months or so of finishing all of the recommendations for the GNSO improvements. The working group model implement recommendations just had a comment period, and so those are very close to final, depending on the comments. The policy development process recommendations or PDP recommendations, as most of us call it, they have a preliminary report that's out for public comment right now and are making good progress. The final GNSO operating procedures, just a few more elements of that are very close to completion. And then the stakeholder group and constituency operating procedures work team has just one more task to finish in their efforts. As far as working group progress, the registration abuse policies has a report out and there was a session on that this week for public input. The inter-registrar transfer policy part B, that's the second of a series of five PDPs, is making very good progress. They will be initiating a public comment period in the next few days. The post-expiration domain name recovery post-expiration domain name renewal PDP is getting feedback on their -- some of their possible recommendations. And, of course, everyone knows, I think, that the vertical integration PDP working group met at least four times this week and continue to strive accomplish what the board tasked it with in Nairobi. Couple other things done this week, we entertained a request from the ccNSO, as Chris mentioned, to form a drafting team to look at possible -- a possible charter for the creation of an SSR working group that would be open to the community, not restricted to the ccNSO and the GNSO. It is just that the two SOs along with the ALAC and the SSAC has also expressed support for that, so you will hear more about that in the coming weeks and months. And then WE approved a motion to allow live audio-only access to GNSO meetings. I want to thank all of the participants in the GNSO and other community members that have been a part of all the work that's gone on because it has been a tremendous amount of work and it can't happen with all of the hundreds, literally, of volunteers that have contributed to that. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Chuck. Again, very busy time for the GNSO. Any questions for Chuck on the report from the GNSO? Thank you, Chuck. We'll move on then to the next report which comes from the RSSAC, the Root Server System Advisory Committee. And I will call on Suzanne Woolf to give that report. Suzanne? >>SUZANNE WOOLF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually thought I was not quite next. Technology is a wonderful blessing, when it works. As we wind to the close of yet another ICANN meeting, I will take a few minutes. I will be brief. On the current work of the Root Server System Advisory Committee, as most of you know, RSSAC is one of the original ICANN advisory committees, formed to offer advice to ICANN on the various aspects of coordination and shared concerns among root server operators, the activities of IANA as touches on the root server system and the root zone, and potential impacts of various other ICANN undertakings as may be requested. The committee meetings tend to be co-located with IETF, which is the most natural arrangement, given its membership and the types of consultations with colleagues it generally needs to do, although there are always a few of us at ICANN meetings. You can see us in the halls. The most recent meeting was Anaheim on March 21st. The next will be in Maastricht on July 18th. The first major item we have been working on has been the DNSSEC rollout for the root. There has been a great deal of discussion about that this week. So I'm not going to go into a whole lot of time on it. But RSSAC members have been part of the extensive consultations around this effort for a long time now. And, of course, the root server operator members of RSSAC have been an integral part of the deployment. I do want to say thanks to the ICANN, VeriSign and NTIA team that have been managing the DNSSEC rollout. They have been terrific to work with. There has been lots of reporting on progress, some very open discussion around some of the issues involved in making the rollout a success. And on a personal -- kind of a personal note, I will add that many of the RSSAC members have been part of the design and implementation of DNSSEC from the very beginning. Some of my colleagues have been working on DNSSEC for a decade. So, you know, they are among the people that worked on the specification, worked on the technology in the IETF, worked in their own software and operations environments, created and tested the technology so that when people realized they needed it, it would be there for them. So there has been a lot of satisfaction in watching the signing of the root actually happen. Not all of us were sure it ever would. In fact, I think I want to bet -- or I will on July 15th as the root DNSSEC rollout reaches a conclusion, the main open item on our plate is the advice requested by the board in regards to root zone scaling considerations. This has sometimes been mischaracterized a little bit as RSSAC and our colleagues with SSAC -- I believe Ram will be speaking to this -- being asked to tell ICANN how many new TLDs are okay or how big the root zone can be, which is not what we were asked and not what we intend to provide. What we are working on is some high-level recommendations including advice on what primary data IANA and the root server operators should provide to each other in order to collaborate on supporting the overall health of the system as the root zone grows. The aim is not to give detailed specific advice now but to help ICANN and the other parties responsible for the system with guidance on how to make sure it has continuing access to such advice in a new world with a root zone that is DNSSEC signed and has new TLDs in it, perhaps quite a few. The effort to get advice based on the scaling study and further discussion is behind schedule. We're disappointed about that. But we hope to get back on track in the near term. As the other outstanding issues for new gTLD rollout work towards conclusion, this one will conclude also. It's helped to be able to gather perspective from the DNSSEC root deployment, including the shared data gathering and the operational coordination that ICANN, VeriSign and the root server operators have been doing with that effort. There's actually been a great deal learned and great deal we can take into analysis and recommendation for the future there. A couple of the ICANN senior staff came to Anaheim to present the model that ICANN had commissioned on the numbers they are expecting with new gTLD rollout: How many applications, what kind of timelines, which has also been helpful in framing the technical and operational advice they need from RSSAC. The agenda isn't yet set for the next meeting. I expect the root scaling item and getting closure on it to be at the top of the list. The DNSSEC signed root zone will just have gone to production. So I expect some review and analysis on that, some sort of early after- action reporting, along with, honestly, I hope some celebrating. I expect to report on from this meeting -- part of what RSSAC does is I report back and part of what -- the items I expect to report on from this meeting include DNS CERT and the SSR discussions that have been so lively and so informative this week; The final report -- now that it's out, the final report from the board's working group on the RSSAC review; and some initial discussion of plans that some of you may have heard in the IDN workshop for some testing around possible variant support for IDNs. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I return the floor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Suzanne. Are there questions of the RSSAC? If not, thank you, Suzanne. Again, we'll move to the SSAC and call on Dr. Crocker, the chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee who give that group's report. Steve? >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you very much. First of all, having listened tentatively to each of these other reports, I thought we were working hard. But I am just blown away by the amount of work that all of the other committees and supporting activities -- supporting organizations have done. And I'm not sure how we're going to match all of that. It's been a very vigorous week, nonetheless. We've had three meetings, an internal meeting of the committee, a public meeting of the committee where we present reports, and then an extended somewhat marathon DNSSEC session that ran Wednesday morning and early afternoon. And I'll say a bit more about that. Next slide, please. Who's got -- there we go. Thank you. Now I have to learn how to use a new piece of technology here. We've had a long-running focus within the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on the general topic of protecting registrations in and various specific aspects of that we have dealt with over time. I am very, very pleased to see that the ALAC has also begun to devote an extensive amount of attention to that. And I think that this is a good thing. We have a work party on a registrant's guide to protecting domain name registration accounts. This is an attempt to coalesce experience gained from previous studies on name hijacking, on weaknesses in registrar systems and related matters. We've begun work on orphaned name servers. This is one of the ragged loose ends that come from a widely distributed system that operates over time and sort of cleaning up around the edges there. We've been cooperating with other groups, participating in various working group meetings here in Brussels. The internationalized registration working group, the zone file access working group and the high security TLD advisory group. As Ray described earlier in the process of the reviews of the various components, SSAC is in the late stages of that process as mandated by the bylaws. We've instituted internally most of the recommendations that came out of the review. There is one particular change that requires an action at the bylaw level. And later you will see a board action to post a small change to the bylaws instituting three-year terms for SSAC members and adding a little bit of process structure to us. In general, we've been reviewing internally our processes, tightening them up, expanding them, documenting them and so forth, all part of the maturation process, unlovely work but necessary. And I'm very pleased that we're able to go through that process fairly smoothly. Suzanne has just covered the RSSAC side of the root scaling study process. We're in a comparable position, somewhat embarrassed that it's taking so long, trying to wrestle with the processes and watching the events unfold that are changing the ground as we move along. The introduction of signatures into the root zone has gone very smoothly. That's been very helpful. And, equally, there is much greater clarity about the anticipated rate of change in terms of number of TLDs to be added. Along the way, one of the things that has become very clear is the very simple and straightforward idea that various parties that are involved in operations need to talk to each other and that much of the mystery of all of this melts away with a little bit of communication. And last, clearly not least, the DNSSEC activity has been dramatic, extensive and will have enormous and far-reaching consequences. I was privileged to be a witness -- an observer, I should say, to use -- not to use the wrong terms and just observe the process of the key ceremony a week ago, I guess. Is that all it was? It seems like forever. An extremely well-orchestrated and well-executed process. There is another one coming in a couple of weeks on the West Coast of the United States, and then the root will go live on July 15th. It's been astonishing to see the quickening of the pace and the breath of activity. Messages have been arriving even this morning about activities that I thought were going to be either never or a long time in coming, just popping up all over the place. So we're going to see a substantial change, not only in the tightening of the domain name system itself, which is important, but also the leveraging of that for other activities around the -- up and down the protocol stack and across multiple applications. And the only other thing that I want to say, it's been a privilege working with all of the other components of ICANN and, indeed, with the entire community. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. I think your statement that DNSSEC was dramatic, extensive and far-reaching consequences massively understates all of those things. It is an extraordinary event. And thank you for the personal leadership that you've always shown in this project, which very modestly you have down played in this report. Thank you for that. Other questions for Steve in relation to the SSAC report? I see none. So we move then -- and if we can pass the controls to Wolfgang. And Wolfgang Kleinwächter is the chairman of the Nominating Committee. Good morning, Wolfgang. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you very much. (Speaker off microphone). >> Mic. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Peter. Good morning, everybody. My report is rather brief because the main decisions which has to be made by the Nominating Committee will be taken after the end of this meeting. So what I have to report with just two slides is our process. We have phased our process into three phases. The first phase was outreach. We are using conferences like the IGF in Sharm El-Sheikh, in Geneva and the APRICOT in Kuala Lumpur, and other conferences, the domain post in Lausanne and elsewhere to talk with potential candidates and to invite them to apply. We organize some special events including an event in Beijing to get more candidates from the Asian -- east Asian region. And we distributed a lot of information material and newsletters, blogs, and we had our own publication where we tried to get information out to the broader public. In early April, we started with an evaluation. We had 82 candidates for the seven positions we have to fill. We started with the trac polling of all of the 82 candidates. Then we had an external service provider, ONB, which, you know, interviewed candidates and tried to find out what are the specific skills of the candidate. We had an internal rating where each of the NomCom members, you know, put their top five candidates so we got a better picture of the capacities and the quality and the skills of the various candidates. And we did, where needed, also additional interviews via phone or face to face using various opportunities. And this phase has come now to an end, and we are moving immediately after this meeting here to a nice place outside of Brussels where all the NomCom mails are jailed for three days. And at the end of Sunday, you know, we hope the white smoke will come out from the shadow where we are sitting and we will have seven new members from the -- in the various committees of ICANN, including three new pappas (phonetic). Some observations from our process: We had 82 candidates but only four women. I think we need, indeed, in the future more applications from female candidates. And I -- this is a call to all women in the room and to their friends. You know, ICANN needs more to begin to balance. And we have only one sitting female board member at the moment, and we need more. Among the applications, there is the main interest in the board, which is understandable. But I think this demonstrates also that obviously something has to be done to explain better to the community that the most important policy development work is done in the councils. And, also, the at-large advisory committee has a growing importance in the architecture of ICANN. And so far, you know, we have to do something to bring more transparency into interaction among the various ICANN bodies so that not all the interest is concentrated in the board decisions. One third observation is key questions in the interviews and discussions we had was the workload and the question of compensation. And to be frank, you know, we have to be very careful that at the end of the day, the ICANN board will not be a club of rich, old men because we have to attract young people. We have to think about ways, you know, how to compensate the workload for people who have to feed a family, are interested in ICANN but cannot do all this from a voluntary point of view. And the final thing is, you know, my experience, it is my fourth NomCom, the first time as a chair. The NomCom is really an interesting place. The composition is very interesting. It represents the whole community of ICANN. By the way, you know, it should be really noticed that the officers of ICANN are selected and elected by the constituencies themselves because each constituency can send people to the Nomination Committee. And I really am very thankful that the various constituencies of ICANN take the nomination of the members in the Nominating Committee very seriously because this is a very, very important task. And we are happy we had four former board directors in the nomination committee. And this signals also that the community understands very well the meaning of the nomination committee. A special thanks goes to (saying name) and all of the ICANN staff. They did a wonderful job. And without the staff support, I think the nomination committee, which is also based on voluntary work, could not have done the work the nomination committee has to do. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much, Wolfgang. The figures in relation to participation by women is extraordinary, particularly when you consider the board has -- thinking just about the board appointments, in history, a very good female contributions, thinking back to Esther Dyson or Tricia Drakes or Njeri Rionge or Susan Crawford or Linda Wilson. There has been high quality. Do you have any sense as to why this time in our history we've got such a strange ratio in terms of the candidates? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: No. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Is there a problem in the way -- we're obviously doing large reachout. We have a large number of people responding. Is there something in the outreach that's sending a signal that women need not apply? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I have no idea. Probably we create a study committee that would look deeply into the issue. [Laughter] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. We'll be forming an all-male study committee to look at that. >> Now you see the problem. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Actually, Marilyn at the microphone. Let's start with a question from Bruce and then we will come to the floor. Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just a really quick question. What's the composition of the Nominating Committee itself in terms of gender diversity? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I think we have in the Nominating Committee, there are three women out of 15 voting members. But it's up to the constituencies. I think the Nominating Committee takes the people they get from the constituencies. And really this is an outcry to all the female members of the ICANN community to think about to apply for the various positions. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. I see a formidable lineup of people at the microphone. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Peter. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm going to talk about three things. One, I'm going to talk about the individual efforts that I made to reach out to senior qualified women to ask them to stand -- consider standing for a range of the positions. And I want to make a point here very clearly. The Nominating Committee is not solely about appointing people to the board. But my observation from the time I was on the Nominating Committee and my observation continues to be there is an undue focus on just the board and not sufficient focus on bringing in leaders in the rest of the supporting organizations to enable people to build the skills and the understanding and to groom themselves and to be mentored in order to then move into other positions of responsibility and accountability. And that is a very important point because when you go to -- in particular I find, when I go to women in other countries and other cultures and I ask them to consider doing this, many of them say that they do not feel competent to take on a board seat and they feel that they would need to start somewhere else. But we don't actually make a concerted effort to build. So point number one. Point number two. It is a barrier to recruit highly qualified candidates, male or female, without baseline of reimbursement of some kind. I have spoken on that before. But it is an actual barrier, and I -- >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Absolutely. >>MARILYN CADE: I face it every time I go to someone and say, "Let me tell you about this fantastic organization. You can make a difference." And they say, "wow, there's an opportunity cost of not doing my day job while I do that very worthwhile job," back to the compensation point. Point number three, during the Affirmation of Commitments accountability and transparency review team, the GNSO policy councillors added a criteria that called for almost a quota of gender balance. Female members of my constituency objected to this and focused on the neat for qualifications and capability. So let's be very careful that as we are trying to enhance gender diversity and geographic diversity, we must keep our eye on the ball and make sure that we give the organization the most highly qualified, most capable board members while we also strengthen the process to bring more women into the process. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you, Marilyn. Just two very quick answers. Number one is quality first before all the other balance criteria comes. And the second reply is we talked to some candidates who applied for the board and asked us if they would be available for other positions in the council. But 99% the answer is no, just the board. That's why I reflect this. I think it is an important point to raise the level of recognition of the positions in the councils and the advisory committees. >>MARILYN CADE: Actions speak louder than words. And all of the promotional materials, whether they are words or actions, make it look like the only place to be to contribute to the leadership of this organization -- and I'm not talking about the Nominating Committee. I'm talking about all of us. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Marilyn, I have to close you down. We are not going to get through the current speakers in the time frame. We have a board meeting scheduled to start very shortly and we get to hear a very important report to come. So, Vanda? >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Okay. Just to it is really astute about reducing the number of women in ICT field as a whole, not only in the Internet field around that. So I have this studio we will provide for the audience and whatever. So it is just that because it is quite important that it start in our homes. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Vanda, by the way, you are a very good example that from a board position, you can move to an at-large advisory committee and do good work. I use your example to try to convince some of the board candidates. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I'm trying. I'm trying. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Young Eum Lee from Korea. >>YOUNG EUM LEE: I realize I'm the third female, but I'm not here to speak on my behalf. I know that there were several finalists for some of the important positions that the Nominating Committee was considering, and I'm hoping that if they did not make it this time, that their application would still be valid and that they would be considered in the future. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dr. Lee. We come to this microphone. Thank you. >> (saying name) from Pakistan, APRALO, ALAC. Since I come from a developing part of the world and my recent experience is with ICANN fellowship, they have taught me and given me many messages. I think the fellowship program is an important ingredient even for the outreach of the NomCom. Why? If you actually look into our regions, for example, in Pakistani ICT telecom industry, there is a woman leading who's had it declared as a $2 billion industry. These are certain examples. They have come to ICANN but there's been -- for them it's been hard to find ways to, like, participate in the main constituencies and groups. So I think that, one, the fellowship program should have more increased gender participation. That's the first step. Second step, we do have extensive examples of women participating in the core industry issues of our countries. And those women should be encouraged to come forward, whether that's to be considered, like -- you know, have them participate in the core of the advisory committees and so forth. And then the third thing is that it is very necessary that we bring in as many women as possible from developing countries. There is a problem in our part of the world that I can say that women are reluctant to merely step in. Maybe they have to be taken through that process that we fellows also go through. For ten months coming into a leadership program of the constituencies in ICANN has been a pretty overwhelming experience, but, still, I think the same experience can work for many women in other regions. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Dr. Williams? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is Liz Williams. I wanted to just reiterate having been on the Nominating Committee last year, and I fought the good fight for saying quality first and it didn't matter what gender you happen to be. And I want to reiterate that because I think it is a very, very important point. And there is nowhere in the ICANN bylaws that says we need to have gender diversity at all anywhere. One of the things that I do in another part of my life is I run a global online trading directory for women-owned enterprises. My members, and they're from all over the world, rely on the Internet for their businesses because that's how they do business with each other wherever they are in the world. And one thing that I thought might be a helpful suggestion about engaging with more women is to put out a call to different elements of the community to say, "We're looking for really highly qualified people." For example, yesterday I received an e-mail from the appointments commission in the U.K -- I live in the U.K -- seeking women in leadership positions to do all kinds of other things. And I suggest having been on the Nominating Committee, having been involved in the community for a long time, having been on the board of auDA where Cheryl and I were the only girls and it was really good fun, there are different channels to do things. I'm happy to take on an outreach role and to advise people. There is also perhaps another way of doing it. People are terrified of the commitment of time and the workload when they realize what they are getting into. And it is a justified terror. And I wonder if it's not a more sensible thing to do to invite a group of people to say, "Perhaps you want to come in and learn and do a baby starter course in a way" to get more familiar with the issues, to get more familiar with the language and the way of doing business. And, again, I'm very, very happy to help facilitate that because, again, I come back to the issue of quality. At the same time, I do recognize that effective boards and effective leadership organizations, it has been well-proven that a gender diversity and mix of different kinds of people does enable leadership groups to work better. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Those two things. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much the offer of further help. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg. As someone who has applied to the Nominating Committee twice, not for a board position, the statement -- the statement of interest, the supporting documentation is all aimed at the board. It is a real strain to fill it out when they are trying to apply for one of the other positions. Just the name saying we are looking for people for leadership, well, if you have never been in the GNSO or the at-large or the ccNSO before, try to frame yourself of saying, "I now want to be a leader of the organization" doesn't work. If you want people to apply for these positions, create documentation and the FAQs, and the statement in the request itself that are aimed at people applying for that. A one size fits all ends up completely focusing on the board. Wolfgang Kleinwächter thank you. It is a good point. Anywhere, if you are a member of the at-large Advisory Committee, you are in a leadership position. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Let's move to the last on this topic, Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Peter. I thought I would weigh in as the only female voting board member currently to give some of my thoughts. I think I want to support what everyone has said here today. I do a lot of work with diversity at my law firm also, and the sad reality of the whole matter is that really successful women are, frankly, really busy. So even though it's improved and the statistics show that the amount of time men spend parenting has been on the rise and is actually quite significant now, women still have the majority of child rearing and household duties. It is just really difficult to balance your job with the home life. And I think that's why I want to focus as many people have said on trying to deal with the board workload. I think a lot of times there's just a standard, it is 20 to 30 hours a week and that's what people are told coming in which seems overwhelming. I think we need to manage that expectation as well, and I think -- let people know there is some flexibility there in terms of the time that you are going to be spending on a weekly basis. The other thing I would like to do -- and Wolfgang, I'm happy to talk to you about this. I agree we need successful, talented people across the world. I think that we need to start doing some outreach if we are really only having four people apply. Maybe we need to have an event sometime at these meetings to try to get women in. And I'm happy to offer my services to speak to them, to try to mentor them and to try to get them to understand a little bit more about what the board requirements are. I do really like Marilyn's idea about mentoring. I think it is important. I always try to meet the women in the community as best I can, although you know we have a pretty busy schedule. But I am happy to avail myself of any ideas you might have to improve relationships with women and get women more interested in what we're doing. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita. And thanks also for that offers of help. We have lots of offers of help, Wolfgang. Hopefully the NomCom will be able to take that up. If there is anything the board can do to help on this issue, just let me know. I would like to close out there unless there is any further issue arising out of the Nominating Committee report. We seem to have focused on one very important -- but only one of the issues. If not, thank you, Wolfgang, very much. And good luck to the work of the Nominating Committee. We will be watching with bated breath for that white smoke. Come then to the last, but by no means the last reports today from the ombudsman. And I ask Frank -- say good morning to Frank and ask for the report from the office of the ombudsman. >>FRANK FOWLIE: Hello? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being that you have a board meeting starting in four minutes, I'll simply say that my report has been online for several days with this session and I would be very happy to answer any questions that anyone would have. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Frank. We will certainly postpone the meeting of the board to accommodate all of these other important reports. Are there any questions of the ombudsman about the ombudsman's report? I see none. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Peter, I do have a question for the ombudsman from the remote participation community. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. >>ROB HOGGARTH: This was submitted before Frank took the stage. Will the ICANN board consider an independent evaluation with public input of the ombudsman's performance? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The answer is that there is no current plan, that the compensation committee, which supervises an aspect of the ombudsman's performance, conducts a regular performance discussion with the ombudsman and has on occasion taken outside advice in relation to standard industry review techniques. So there is no current plan, but in time the compensation committee may well return to that. Any other comments or questions of the ombudsman? If not then, then, Frank, thank you for your report. Thank you for waiting until the end. Any other comments from any of the panelists, or can we close the session? Seeing none, thank you all, ladies and gentlemen, for the reports from these very important organs of ICANN. We will now take a short break of five minutes during which I'd ask board members to come to the stage and take up a seat. And as soon as we're ready, we'll go. Thank you all. %%%jen4end. END OF AC/SO reports %%%jen4start. As far as working group progress, the registration abuse policies has a report out and there was a session on that this week for public input. The inter-registrar transfer policy part B, that's the second of a series of five PDPs, is making very good progress. They will be initiating a public comment period in the next few days. The post-expiration domain name recovery post-expiration domain name renewal PDP is getting feedback on their -- some of their possible recommendations. And, of course, everyone knows, I think, that the vertical integration PDP working group met at least four times this week and continue to strive accomplish what the board tasked it with in Nairobi. Couple other things done this week, we entertained a request from the ccNSO, as Chris mentioned, to form a drafting team to look at possible -- a possible charter for the creation of an SSR working group that would be open to the community, not restricted to the ccNSO and the GNSO. It is just that the two SOs along with the ALAC and the SSAC has also expressed support for that, so you will hear more about that in the coming weeks and months. And then WE approved a motion to allow live audio-only access to GNSO meetings. I want to thank all of the participants in the GNSO and other community members that have been a part of all the work that's gone on because it has been a tremendous amount of work and it can't happen with all of the hundreds, literally, of volunteers that have contributed to that. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Chuck. Again, very busy time for the GNSO. Any questions for Chuck on the report from the GNSO? Thank you, Chuck. We'll move on then to the next report which comes from the RSSAC, the Root Server System Advisory Committee. And I will call on Suzanne Woolf to give that report. Suzanne? >>SUZANNE WOOLF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually thought I was not quite next. Technology is a wonderful blessing, when it works. As we wind to the close of yet another ICANN meeting, I will take a few minutes. I will be brief. On the current work of the Root Server System Advisory Committee, as most of you know, RSSAC is one of the original ICANN advisory committees, formed to offer advice to ICANN on the various aspects of coordination and shared concerns among root server operators, the activities of IANA as touches on the root server system and the root zone, and potential impacts of various other ICANN undertakings as may be requested. The committee meetings tend to be co-located with IETF, which is the most natural arrangement, given its membership and the types of consultations with colleagues it generally needs to do, although there are always a few of us at ICANN meetings. You can see us in the halls. The most recent meeting was Anaheim on March 21st. The next will be in Maastricht on July 18th. The first major item we have been working on has been the DNSSEC rollout for the root. There has been a great deal of discussion about that this week. So I'm not going to go into a whole lot of time on it. But RSSAC members have been part of the extensive consultations around this effort for a long time now. And, of course, the root server operator members of RSSAC have been an integral part of the deployment. I do want to say thanks to the ICANN, VeriSign and NTIA team that have been managing the DNSSEC rollout. They have been terrific to work with. There has been lots of reporting on progress, some very open discussion around some of the issues involved in making the rollout a success. And on a personal -- kind of a personal note, I will add that many of the RSSAC members have been part of the design and implementation of DNSSEC from the very beginning. Some of my colleagues have been working on DNSSEC for a decade. So, you know, they are among the people that worked on the specification, worked on the technology in the IETF, worked in their own software and operations environments, created and tested the technology so that when people realized they needed it, it would be there for them. So there has been a lot of satisfaction in watching the signing of the root actually happen. Not all of us were sure it ever would. In fact, I think I want to bet -- or I will on July 15th as the root DNSSEC rollout reaches a conclusion, the main open item on our plate is the advice requested by the board in regards to root zone scaling considerations. This has sometimes been mischaracterized a little bit as RSSAC and our colleagues with SSAC -- I believe Ram will be speaking to this -- being asked to tell ICANN how many new TLDs are okay or how big the root zone can be, which is not what we were asked and not what we intend to provide. What we are working on is some high-level recommendations including advice on what primary data IANA and the root server operators should provide to each other in order to collaborate on supporting the overall health of the system as the root zone grows. The aim is not to give detailed specific advice now but to help ICANN and the other parties responsible for the system with guidance on how to make sure it has continuing access to such advice in a new world with a root zone that is DNSSEC signed and has new TLDs in it, perhaps quite a few. The effort to get advice based on the scaling study and further discussion is behind schedule. We're disappointed about that. But we hope to get back on track in the near term. As the other outstanding issues for new gTLD rollout work towards conclusion, this one will conclude also. It's helped to be able to gather perspective from the DNSSEC root deployment, including the shared data gathering and the operational coordination that ICANN, VeriSign and the root server operators have been doing with that effort. There's actually been a great deal learned and great deal we can take into analysis and recommendation for the future there. A couple of the ICANN senior staff came to Anaheim to present the model that ICANN had commissioned on the numbers they are expecting with new gTLD rollout: How many applications, what kind of timelines, which has also been helpful in framing the technical and operational advice they need from RSSAC. The agenda isn't yet set for the next meeting. I expect the root scaling item and getting closure on it to be at the top of the list. The DNSSEC signed root zone will just have gone to production. So I expect some review and analysis on that, some sort of early after- action reporting, along with, honestly, I hope some celebrating. I expect to report on from this meeting -- part of what RSSAC does is I report back and part of what -- the items I expect to report on from this meeting include DNS CERT and the SSR discussions that have been so lively and so informative this week; The final report -- now that it's out, the final report from the board's working group on the RSSAC review; and some initial discussion of plans that some of you may have heard in the IDN workshop for some testing around possible variant support for IDNs. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I return the floor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Suzanne. Are there questions of the RSSAC? If not, thank you, Suzanne. Again, we'll move to the SSAC and call on Dr. Crocker, the chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee who give that group's report. Steve? >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you very much. First of all, having listened tentatively to each of these other reports, I thought we were working hard. But I am just blown away by the amount of work that all of the other committees and supporting activities -- supporting organizations have done. And I'm not sure how we're going to match all of that. It's been a very vigorous week, nonetheless. We've had three meetings, an internal meeting of the committee, a public meeting of the committee where we present reports, and then an extended somewhat marathon DNSSEC session that ran Wednesday morning and early afternoon. And I'll say a bit more about that. Next slide, please. Who's got -- there we go. Thank you. Now I have to learn how to use a new piece of technology here. We've had a long-running focus within the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on the general topic of protecting registrations in and various specific aspects of that we have dealt with over time. I am very, very pleased to see that the ALAC has also begun to devote an extensive amount of attention to that. And I think that this is a good thing. We have a work party on a registrant's guide to protecting domain name registration accounts. This is an attempt to coalesce experience gained from previous studies on name hijacking, on weaknesses in registrar systems and related matters. We've begun work on orphaned name servers. This is one of the ragged loose ends that come from a widely distributed system that operates over time and sort of cleaning up around the edges there. We've been cooperating with other groups, participating in various working group meetings here in Brussels. The internationalized registration working group, the zone file access working group and the high security TLD advisory group. As Ray described earlier in the process of the reviews of the various components, SSAC is in the late stages of that process as mandated by the bylaws. We've instituted internally most of the recommendations that came out of the review. There is one particular change that requires an action at the bylaw level. And later you will see a board action to post a small change to the bylaws instituting three-year terms for SSAC members and adding a little bit of process structure to us. In general, we've been reviewing internally our processes, tightening them up, expanding them, documenting them and so forth, all part of the maturation process, unlovely work but necessary. And I'm very pleased that we're able to go through that process fairly smoothly. Suzanne has just covered the RSSAC side of the root scaling study process. We're in a comparable position, somewhat embarrassed that it's taking so long, trying to wrestle with the processes and watching the events unfold that are changing the ground as we move along. The introduction of signatures into the root zone has gone very smoothly. That's been very helpful. And, equally, there is much greater clarity about the anticipated rate of change in terms of number of TLDs to be added. Along the way, one of the things that has become very clear is the very simple and straightforward idea that various parties that are involved in operations need to talk to each other and that much of the mystery of all of this melts away with a little bit of communication. And last, clearly not least, the DNSSEC activity has been dramatic, extensive and will have enormous and far-reaching consequences. I was privileged to be a witness -- an observer, I should say, to use -- not to use the wrong terms and just observe the process of the key ceremony a week ago, I guess. Is that all it was? It seems like forever. An extremely well-orchestrated and well-executed process. There is another one coming in a couple of weeks on the West Coast of the United States, and then the root will go live on July 15th. It's been astonishing to see the quickening of the pace and the breath of activity. Messages have been arriving even this morning about activities that I thought were going to be either never or a long time in coming, just popping up all over the place. So we're going to see a substantial change, not only in the tightening of the domain name system itself, which is important, but also the leveraging of that for other activities around the -- up and down the protocol stack and across multiple applications. And the only other thing that I want to say, it's been a privilege working with all of the other components of ICANN and, indeed, with the entire community. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. I think your statement that DNSSEC was dramatic, extensive and far-reaching consequences massively understates all of those things. It is an extraordinary event. And thank you for the personal leadership that you've always shown in this project, which very modestly you have down played in this report. Thank you for that. Other questions for Steve in relation to the SSAC report? I see none. So we move then -- and if we can pass the controls to Wolfgang. And Wolfgang Kleinwächter is the chairman of the Nominating Committee. Good morning, Wolfgang. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you very much. (Speaker off microphone). >> Mic. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Peter. Good morning, everybody. My report is rather brief because the main decisions which has to be made by the Nominating Committee will be taken after the end of this meeting. So what I have to report with just two slides is our process. We have phased our process into three phases. The first phase was outreach. We are using conferences like the IGF in Sharm El-Sheikh, in Geneva and the APRICOT in Kuala Lumpur, and other conferences, the domain post in Lausanne and elsewhere to talk with potential candidates and to invite them to apply. We organize some special events including an event in Beijing to get more candidates from the Asian -- east Asian region. And we distributed a lot of information material and newsletters, blogs, and we had our own publication where we tried to get information out to the broader public. In early April, we started with an evaluation. We had 82 candidates for the seven positions we have to fill. We started with the trac polling of all of the 82 candidates. Then we had an external service provider, ONB, which, you know, interviewed candidates and tried to find out what are the specific skills of the candidate. We had an internal rating where each of the NomCom members, you know, put their top five candidates so we got a better picture of the capacities and the quality and the skills of the various candidates. And we did, where needed, also additional interviews via phone or face to face using various opportunities. And this phase has come now to an end, and we are moving immediately after this meeting here to a nice place outside of Brussels where all the NomCom mails are jailed for three days. And at the end of Sunday, you know, we hope the white smoke will come out from the shadow where we are sitting and we will have seven new members from the -- in the various committees of ICANN, including three new pappas (phonetic). Some observations from our process: We had 82 candidates but only four women. I think we need, indeed, in the future more applications from female candidates. And I -- this is a call to all women in the room and to their friends. You know, ICANN needs more to begin to balance. And we have only one sitting female board member at the moment, and we need more. Among the applications, there is the main interest in the board, which is understandable. But I think this demonstrates also that obviously something has to be done to explain better to the community that the most important policy development work is done in the councils. And, also, the at-large advisory committee has a growing importance in the architecture of ICANN. And so far, you know, we have to do something to bring more transparency into interaction among the various ICANN bodies so that not all the interest is concentrated in the board decisions. One third observation is key questions in the interviews and discussions we had was the workload and the question of compensation. And to be frank, you know, we have to be very careful that at the end of the day, the ICANN board will not be a club of rich, old men because we have to attract young people. We have to think about ways, you know, how to compensate the workload for people who have to feed a family, are interested in ICANN but cannot do all this from a voluntary point of view. And the final thing is, you know, my experience, it is my fourth NomCom, the first time as a chair. The NomCom is really an interesting place. The composition is very interesting. It represents the whole community of ICANN. By the way, you know, it should be really noticed that the officers of ICANN are selected and elected by the constituencies themselves because each constituency can send people to the Nomination Committee. And I really am very thankful that the various constituencies of ICANN take the nomination of the members in the Nominating Committee very seriously because this is a very, very important task. And we are happy we had four former board directors in the nomination committee. And this signals also that the community understands very well the meaning of the nomination committee. A special thanks goes to (saying name) and all of the ICANN staff. They did a wonderful job. And without the staff support, I think the nomination committee, which is also based on voluntary work, could not have done the work the nomination committee has to do. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much, Wolfgang. The figures in relation to participation by women is extraordinary, particularly when you consider the board has -- thinking just about the board appointments, in history, a very good female contributions, thinking back to Esther Dyson or Tricia Drakes or Njeri Rionge or Susan Crawford or Linda Wilson. There has been high quality. Do you have any sense as to why this time in our history we've got such a strange ratio in terms of the candidates? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: No. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Is there a problem in the way -- we're obviously doing large reachout. We have a large number of people responding. Is there something in the outreach that's sending a signal that women need not apply? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I have no idea. Probably we create a study committee that would look deeply into the issue. [Laughter] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. We'll be forming an all-male study committee to look at that. >> Now you see the problem. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Actually, Marilyn at the microphone. Let's start with a question from Bruce and then we will come to the floor. Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just a really quick question. What's the composition of the Nominating Committee itself in terms of gender diversity? >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: I think we have in the Nominating Committee, there are three women out of 15 voting members. But it's up to the constituencies. I think the Nominating Committee takes the people they get from the constituencies. And really this is an outcry to all the female members of the ICANN community to think about to apply for the various positions. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. I see a formidable lineup of people at the microphone. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Peter. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm going to talk about three things. One, I'm going to talk about the individual efforts that I made to reach out to senior qualified women to ask them to stand -- consider standing for a range of the positions. And I want to make a point here very clearly. The Nominating Committee is not solely about appointing people to the board. But my observation from the time I was on the Nominating Committee and my observation continues to be there is an undue focus on just the board and not sufficient focus on bringing in leaders in the rest of the supporting organizations to enable people to build the skills and the understanding and to groom themselves and to be mentored in order to then move into other positions of responsibility and accountability. And that is a very important point because when you go to -- in particular I find, when I go to women in other countries and other cultures and I ask them to consider doing this, many of them say that they do not feel competent to take on a board seat and they feel that they would need to start somewhere else. But we don't actually make a concerted effort to build. So point number one. Point number two. It is a barrier to recruit highly qualified candidates, male or female, without baseline of reimbursement of some kind. I have spoken on that before. But it is an actual barrier, and I -- >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Absolutely. >>MARILYN CADE: I face it every time I go to someone and say, "Let me tell you about this fantastic organization. You can make a difference." And they say, "wow, there's an opportunity cost of not doing my day job while I do that very worthwhile job," back to the compensation point. Point number three, during the Affirmation of Commitments accountability and transparency review team, the GNSO policy councillors added a criteria that called for almost a quota of gender balance. Female members of my constituency objected to this and focused on the neat for qualifications and capability. So let's be very careful that as we are trying to enhance gender diversity and geographic diversity, we must keep our eye on the ball and make sure that we give the organization the most highly qualified, most capable board members while we also strengthen the process to bring more women into the process. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Thank you, Marilyn. Just two very quick answers. Number one is quality first before all the other balance criteria comes. And the second reply is we talked to some candidates who applied for the board and asked us if they would be available for other positions in the council. But 99% the answer is no, just the board. That's why I reflect this. I think it is an important point to raise the level of recognition of the positions in the councils and the advisory committees. >>MARILYN CADE: Actions speak louder than words. And all of the promotional materials, whether they are words or actions, make it look like the only place to be to contribute to the leadership of this organization -- and I'm not talking about the Nominating Committee. I'm talking about all of us. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Marilyn, I have to close you down. We are not going to get through the current speakers in the time frame. We have a board meeting scheduled to start very shortly and we get to hear a very important report to come. So, Vanda? >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Okay. Just to it is really astute about reducing the number of women in ICT field as a whole, not only in the Internet field around that. So I have this studio we will provide for the audience and whatever. So it is just that because it is quite important that it start in our homes. >>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER: Vanda, by the way, you are a very good example that from a board position, you can move to an at-large advisory committee and do good work. I use your example to try to convince some of the board candidates. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I'm trying. I'm trying. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Young Eum Lee from Korea. >>YOUNG EUM LEE: I realize I'm the third female, but I'm not here to speak on my behalf. I know that there were several finalists for some of the important positions that the Nominating Committee was considering, and I'm hoping that if they did not make it this time, that their application would still be valid and that they would be considered in the future. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dr. Lee. We come to this microphone. Thank you. >> (saying name) from Pakistan, APRALO, ALAC. Since I come from a developing part of the world and my recent experience is with ICANN fellowship, they have taught me and given me many messages. I think the fellowship program is an important ingredient even for the outreach of the NomCom. Why? If you actually look into our regions, for example, in Pakistani ICT telecom industry, there is a woman leading who's had it declared as a $2 billion industry. These are certain examples. They have come to ICANN but there's been -- for them it's been hard to find ways to, like, participate in the main constituencies and groups. So I think that, one, the fellowship program should have more increased gender participation. That's the first step. Second step, we do have extensive examples of women participating in the core industry issues of our countries. And those women should be encouraged to come forward, whether that's to be considered, like -- you know, have them participate in the core of the advisory committees and so forth. And then the third thing is that it is very necessary that we bring in as many women as possible from developing countries. There is a problem in our part of the world that I can say that women are reluctant to merely step in. Maybe they have to be taken through that process that we fellows also go through. For ten months coming into a leadership program of the constituencies in ICANN has been a pretty overwhelming experience, but, still, I think the same experience can work for many women in other regions. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Dr. Williams? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is Liz Williams. I wanted to just reiterate having been on the Nominating Committee last year, and I fought the good fight for saying quality first and it didn't matter what gender you happen to be. And I want to reiterate that because I think it is a very, very important point. And there is nowhere in the ICANN bylaws that says we need to have gender diversity at all anywhere. One of the things that I do in another part of my life is I run a global online trading directory for women-owned enterprises. My members, and they're from all over the world, rely on the Internet for their businesses because that's how they do business with each other wherever they are in the world. And one thing that I thought might be a helpful suggestion about engaging with more women is to put out a call to different elements of the community to say, "We're looking for really highly qualified people." For example, yesterday I received an e-mail from the appointments commission in the U.K -- I live in the U.K -- seeking women in leadership positions to do all kinds of other things. And I suggest having been on the Nominating Committee, having been involved in the community for a long time, having been on the board of auDA where Cheryl and I were the only girls and it was really good fun, there are different channels to do things. I'm happy to take on an outreach role and to advise people. There is also perhaps another way of doing it. People are terrified of the commitment of time and the workload when they realize what they are getting into. And it is a justified terror. And I wonder if it's not a more sensible thing to do to invite a group of people to say, "Perhaps you want to come in and learn and do a baby starter course in a way" to get more familiar with the issues, to get more familiar with the language and the way of doing business. And, again, I'm very, very happy to help facilitate that because, again, I come back to the issue of quality. At the same time, I do recognize that effective boards and effective leadership organizations, it has been well-proven that a gender diversity and mix of different kinds of people does enable leadership groups to work better. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Those two things. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much the offer of further help. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg. As someone who has applied to the Nominating Committee twice, not for a board position, the statement -- the statement of interest, the supporting documentation is all aimed at the board. It is a real strain to fill it out when they are trying to apply for one of the other positions. Just the name saying we are looking for people for leadership, well, if you have never been in the GNSO or the at-large or the ccNSO before, try to frame yourself of saying, "I now want to be a leader of the organization" doesn't work. If you want people to apply for these positions, create documentation and the FAQs, and the statement in the request itself that are aimed at people applying for that. A one size fits all ends up completely focusing on the board. Wolfgang Kleinwächter thank you. It is a good point. Anywhere, if you are a member of the at-large Advisory Committee, you are in a leadership position. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Let's move to the last on this topic, Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Peter. I thought I would weigh in as the only female voting board member currently to give some of my thoughts. I think I want to support what everyone has said here today. I do a lot of work with diversity at my law firm also, and the sad reality of the whole matter is that really successful women are, frankly, really busy. So even though it's improved and the statistics show that the amount of time men spend parenting has been on the rise and is actually quite significant now, women still have the majority of child rearing and household duties. It is just really difficult to balance your job with the home life. And I think that's why I want to focus as many people have said on trying to deal with the board workload. I think a lot of times there's just a standard, it is 20 to 30 hours a week and that's what people are told coming in which seems overwhelming. I think we need to manage that expectation as well, and I think -- let people know there is some flexibility there in terms of the time that you are going to be spending on a weekly basis. The other thing I would like to do -- and Wolfgang, I'm happy to talk to you about this. I agree we need successful, talented people across the world. I think that we need to start doing some outreach if we are really only having four people apply. Maybe we need to have an event sometime at these meetings to try to get women in. And I'm happy to offer my services to speak to them, to try to mentor them and to try to get them to understand a little bit more about what the board requirements are. I do really like Marilyn's idea about mentoring. I think it is important. I always try to meet the women in the community as best I can, although you know we have a pretty busy schedule. But I am happy to avail myself of any ideas you might have to improve relationships with women and get women more interested in what we're doing. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita. And thanks also for that offers of help. We have lots of offers of help, Wolfgang. Hopefully the NomCom will be able to take that up. If there is anything the board can do to help on this issue, just let me know. I would like to close out there unless there is any further issue arising out of the Nominating Committee report. We seem to have focused on one very important -- but only one of the issues. If not, thank you, Wolfgang, very much. And good luck to the work of the Nominating Committee. We will be watching with bated breath for that white smoke. Come then to the last, but by no means the last reports today from the ombudsman. And I ask Frank -- say good morning to Frank and ask for the report from the office of the ombudsman. >>FRANK FOWLIE: Hello? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being that you have a board meeting starting in four minutes, I'll simply say that my report has been online for several days with this session and I would be very happy to answer any questions that anyone would have. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Frank. We will certainly postpone the meeting of the board to accommodate all of these other important reports. Are there any questions of the ombudsman about the ombudsman's report? I see none. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Peter, I do have a question for the ombudsman from the remote participation community. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. >>ROB HOGGARTH: This was submitted before Frank took the stage. Will the ICANN board consider an independent evaluation with public input of the ombudsman's performance? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The answer is that there is no current plan, that the compensation committee, which supervises an aspect of the ombudsman's performance, conducts a regular performance discussion with the ombudsman and has on occasion taken outside advice in relation to standard industry review techniques. So there is no current plan, but in time the compensation committee may well return to that. Any other comments or questions of the ombudsman? If not then, then, Frank, thank you for your report. Thank you for waiting until the end. Any other comments from any of the panelists, or can we close the session? Seeing none, thank you all, ladies and gentlemen, for the reports from these very important organs of ICANN. We will now take a short break of five minutes during which I'd ask board members to come to the stage and take up a seat. And as soon as we're ready, we'll go. Thank you all.