ICANN GNSO Council Meeting 08 December, 2010. 2:00 p.m. >>CHUCK GOMES: Welcome, everyone, to the GNSO Council meeting, at this annual general meeting of ICANN. I'm happy to be here and not in the hospital. [ Applause ] Thank you for all the many, many good wishes. I really appreciate that. And I can tell you that the hospitals here in Colombia are very good. The staff and the doctors are very good. But I'm still happier to be here. So let's start our GNSO Council meeting for this meeting. We have an extremely full agenda. We are going to try to incorporate participation from the audience at various points throughout the meeting, time permitting. And so you will need to go to a mic and queue up for that, when that opportunity happens. If you do look at the agenda that's posted on the GNSO workspace or the GNSO home page, you'll see where those opportunities are and can plan on that in advance. To start things off, let me ask Glen to do a roll call. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you, Chuck. Chuck Gomes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jeff Neuman who is the alternate for Caroline Greer? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Edmon Chung. >>EDMON CHUNG: (off microphone.) >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Adrian Kinderis? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: (Speaking Spanish.) >>CHUCK GOMES: If you haven't discovered it, the "on" button is up. The button is up for "on" and "off" is down. Okay? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tim Ruiz? >>TIM RUIZ: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Stéphane van Gelder? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Terry Davis? Terry, can you hear us? Terry was going to call in. Zahid Jamil is being replaced by John Berard who is going to be our new councillor for the business constituency. John Berard? >>JOHN BERARD: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mike Rodenbaugh? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Here in mind, if not voice. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Kristina Rosette? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: David Taylor? >>DAVID TAYLOR: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jamie Wagner? >>JAIME WAGNER: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Rafik Dammak? Rafik, are you on the phone? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you. Bill Drake? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Debbie Hughes? >>DEBRA HUGHES: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Wendy Seltzer? >>WENDY SELTZER: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Rosemary Sinclair? >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mary Wong? >>MARY WONG: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Olga Cavalli? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Andrei Kolesnikov? >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Alan Greenberg? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: And Han Chuan Lee? >>HAN CHUAN LEE: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you, Chuck. Terry? >> My name is Wolf-Ulrich Knoben. I'm present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Terry, are you there? Wolf-Ulrich, sorry I missed you. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Jaime Wagner, yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Anyone else? Okay, thank you very much, Glen. Are there any disclosures of interest? Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: I actually have a point of order, Chuck. Sorry to spring this on you. But a last-minute motion has just come in. It hasn't cleared the eight-day deadline, I realize that, even though it was submitted 104.78 hours beyond that deadline. Tim has agreed to let that pass. It is an unusual motion. It was made by Mary, and it was seconded by the full council. So I will let Mary read it now. >>MARY WONG: Whereas, the current chair of the GNSO Council was taken ill on arrival in Cartagena. Whereas, he has since had to wait an agonizing few days before undergoing a successful moved and seconded procedure in Bogata on Monday. Whereas, the council can attest to the commitment of the chair both to the ongoing work of the council as well as to his Blackberry, which dedication continued up to and including the moment of his imminent entry into the operating room which gives new meaning to the term "remote participation." And, Whereas, the ICANN community wishes to express in our public comment its welcome to Cartagena with best wishes for a speedy recovery. Resolved, the council hereby presents Chuck Gomes with the crowning glory of our week in Cartagena. [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. And it wasn't just craziness on my part to be actively involved in things going on in the hospital. I was bored silly. [ Laughter ] So it helped. Thank you very, very much. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Chuck, if we can get this meeting over quickly, we need to have that hat back in two hours. So... >>CHUCK GOMES: Will you be the timekeeper on that, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can I just add for the benefit of the audience, that was a joke. There was no motion. >>CHUCK GOMES: I want to thank Olga and Stéphane for taking over the leadership in just totally commendable fashion. Of course, everyone else for just jumping in and that was very rewarding to me because if things are going the way they should, it shouldn't be dependent on one person at all, and it wasn't. And that's a very good sign for the council. So my compliments and thanks, sincerely. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: On a serious note, I have a point just about this meeting, Chuck. I don't understand in all my time of having these public meetings exactly what the purpose of the public participation is. I understand the distinction of our phone meetings that we have every few weeks. And at that, we allow observers to listen in now, at the time, and dynamically to the conversation. They cannot participate. They are observers. I don't understand why we have -- and happy to have it explained to me. But I just fail to understand why we have a meeting now where folks can come up and contribute to the conversations at this one time. It seems to me if we are going to do it once, why don't we do it always. And if we are not going to do it, then why do we do it at the public meetings? So if I could get some clarification around that because largely if it is to sway our votes, our votes are subject to our constituencies and -- our stakeholder groups, rather. We already have determined our votes most times going in, unless we have the explicit permission from our stakeholder group to vote independently. So I'm not exactly sure why the requirement, and I don't want to stifle it if it is necessary and it can be explained. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying don't do it. I just want to know why it is being put in place. I don't know whether now is the appropriate time to have this discussion or pick it up sometime or take it offline. For me it seems a bit of an anomaly that I don't understand. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Adrian. First of all, I don't think it is a requirement. I'm not aware of any place that requires us to do that. It is more of a practice that has been going on for a few years. And we probably will -- to discuss it further, we will have to take it offline and talk further because our agenda -- we are going to be really challenged to finish our agenda today. It is a practice that I personally have always supported. You're right, and you know in my stakeholder group that we don't vote unless we have directions from our stakeholder group. So, you know, you can try and sway me all you want. I'm tied to what -- even if I disagree, to what the stakeholder group decided. But there are some, I think, on the council sometimes who do have the freedom to make adjustments. So I suppose there could be some influence there. But you raise good points, and I think we should talk about those and we can maybe follow-up on that in our wrap-up meeting tomorrow, if we have time. That's going to be pressed as well. Thank you, Adrian. Any disclosures of interest? [ No verbal response. ] Okay. Then going on to the statements of interest, there is one new statement of interest that John posted. Please note the second version. There were two sent out. Thank you very much, John. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Getting in early today. Am I required -- I did do my statement of interest at the council working session on Saturday. Did you want that to be brought up again now? >>CHUCK GOMES: I should have mentioned that one as well. Thank you for reminding me. Thank you, Adrian. That's appreciated. Any comments on the agenda? Then just one comment on the minutes from our 18 November meeting. Glen? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you, Chuck. They have not yet been posted because the amendment which was asked for, Bill Drake has not yet been put in the minutes. I will get them done as quickly as possible. >>CHUCK GOMES: You haven't been busy, have you? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: No. I have been at the beach. >>CHUCK GOMES: I didn't think so. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Okay, Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. Just a comment about my statement of interest. I submitted it with more detail to the councillors. Is it necessary that I read it? It's already sent to the list. There is a link in the agenda. >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I don't believe so. Thank you. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Olga. Appreciate that. Going on then to Agenda Item 2, the GNSO project decision-making or prioritization as we have referred to it over the past year or so. And Olga is going to give us a brief update of what occurred in one of our working sessions over the weekend. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. Well, we discussed during one hour what we did during Brussels and the good and the bad about a prioritization process. What we did is -- I don't want to take a lot of time about this. I already sent a summary of what we discussed into our council list. And we agreed that we should have a process that should be simple. We thought that it could be good that the leaders, chairs and vice chairs, would suggest the council after a simple process -- I think Rosemary made a very good suggestion about some key questions to do once a new project is going to be parent of our work. And then there were also suggestions about appointing methodology to put points into the different projects. So we thought we should have a methodology that should be simple. And then with this tool, the chair, vice chair should suggest to the council how to proceed and to how prioritize our work. It is a Spanish-surrounding environment that hits my English. Sorry. We agreed not to set up a drafting team but a group to talk over coffee. That was Rosemary's suggestion. And I already shared with you the names of these people in the council list. So this is more or less what we talked about Saturday morning. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Olga. Does that need to be Colombian coffee? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Should be, or Brazilian. I don't know. In Argentina, we don't have coffee. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from the council on that? Wolf? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thank you. With regards to this process which should be part of the prioritization process, I would like to draw the attention of the council to the presentations you have been given by the staff yesterday, by the CFO with regards to budget planning for the fiscal year '12 and the implementation of new -- a new process to that. And staff is requiring the SOs, the ACs and the different bodies in ICANN for input for this fiscal year plan with regards to their ideas, with regard to projects and so on. And as I understood from the timeline, it is a very tough timeline. There will be a public comment period until March of next year. So meaning this group that Olga just mentioned from this council dealing with those matters and also the councillors have to take that into consideration, that for the fiscal year '12 already there is a very tough timeline until March '12. I would like really to take into consideration during our next meetings. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wolf. Anyone else on the council or anyone from the audience? [ No verbal response. ] Okay. Going on then to Agenda Item 3, elections of council chair and vice chairs. This is mostly informational. I do appreciate an announcement regarding the non-contracted party house I received earlier today, that they are still working on the process of electing a vice chair. So hopefully that decision will be forthcoming shortly. The contracted party house elected Jeff Neuman as vice chair from that house. The chair election results, Stéphane van Gelder was elected as chair of the council. [ Applause ] And I want to publicly thank Stéphane and Olga for their willingness to put their names on the ballot and willingness to serve in what is an extremely demanding job. I know everyone will support Stéphane in that role. I know he will have a great team of vice chairs to work with him and the excellent staff support to make that happen. And, of course, I will be glad to be helpful in any way that I can in a less demanding capacity as a registry stakeholder member. Stéphane, please? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Thanks, Chuck. I just wanted to thank everybody, but more specifically I wanted to thank Olga. It has been great working with her this weekend and over the past year. And I think she deserves a round of applause as well for what she's done for the council. [ Applause ] I also, if I may, just wanted to add my personal thanks to both you and Avri for the guidance over the past few years and to Jon Nevett who has been an invaluable source of help for me. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much, Stéphane. And with regard to the assignment of Nominating Committee appointees, hopefully all of you are aware of the bicameral structure of the council where we have two houses. To each one of those houses, one of the three noncom appointees is appointed to that particular house. In this past year, Olga has been with the non-contracted party's house and Terry Davis who is on the phone with us today was assigned to the contracted party's house. And Andrei Kolesnikov was, to use the term that I think was created by Avri, the homeless NCA. It is a non-voting position that participates in the council, not in any particular house. And the NomCom appointees for this coming here for the non-contracted party house will again be Olga Cavalli. For the contracted party house, it will be Andrei Kolesnikov. So Andrei now has a home. Congratulations, Andrei. Welcome to the contracted party house. And our newest council, Carlos Aguirre will be the homeless NCA for this year. I suppose we shouldn't really keep using that term, but it at least gives us a little smile. And that's not meant in any derogatory way at all. The input from that position, even though it is not a voting position, can still be extremely valuable as the council is considering decisions it makes. And I can say, this past year, that Andrei in his capacity has many times offered insights and raised issues and asked questions that was very helpful to the overall council, even though he didn't have a specific vote. The next item on the agenda under this topic -- Yes. I see a couple hands. I'm sorry. I should be looking -- I don't see anybody in Adobe Connect. You can use Adobe Connect. I will start trying to watch. Wolf, please go ahead. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thank you, Chuck. Just going back to what you mentioned, the non-contracted party house didn't have the ability to provide you with a name for the vice chair for the next sessions -- for the next round. I would like to suggest that in order to have continuation on this position until the vice chair is elected from the non-contracted party house, Olga should continue to work on that position. And I was asking her and she was agreeing, and I think there's agreement also in the house about that. So that's my two cents. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: So if I understand it correctly, your suggestion is that Olga continue in her capacity as vice chair if one is not elected by the end of the annual general meeting? Now, that's not a decision for the council, okay? It's a decision for the house. And so I will leave it to the house to deal with that, if that's all right with you, okay? But I do appreciate you communicating that. Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Two things. First, I would like to thank very much Stéphane for a fantastic weekend. My dream came true. I was, for a second -- or for some hours, chair of the GNSO. But it was really special working with him. We really enjoyed it, and having your directions with e-mails from the hospital was also very helpful. So thanks very much for that, Stéphane. I enjoyed it very much. And, also, I'm okay vice chairing, of course, if the house wants that. I would like to make that very clear. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I was just going to ask if anyone from the non- contracted party's house could give us kind of a timeline or when there's an expected decision or what the goal is to have a vice chair in place. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: As soon as possible. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wolf. Okay. Next, let's spend a little bit of time in this meeting -- We are not going to resolve this next topic. There obviously have been a lot of concerns expressed about some of the procedures the council approved in the last few months. One of those is the election process itself, and there have been a lot of, I think, very constructive suggestions how it could be improved. But let's spend a few moments now talking about some concerns, even though many of them have been communicated on the council list. And you all can look at the archives of the council list to see those discussions. I think it might be beneficial if we did take some time here in this public meeting talking about some of the concerns of this process, the way it is defined today in the GNSO operating procedures. So I will open a queue on the council for that topic right now. Those of you not in Adobe Connect, just raise your hand and I will call on you that way. Everybody is happy with the election process the way it is designed right now? I know that's not true. Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: I didn't want to be the first to speak on this. But I think we have to have a look at this procedure carefully. There is certainly a lot of worries that came through as we were working through the procedure, both last year and this year. And I think that the basic worry is that most of us didn't really know what the exact procedures were and how we should work them. I mean, there's basic -- sorry. There's basic guidelines, but I think we need to go into more detail in the procedures and I also think we need to have a look at the way the rounds of voting are organized and the percentages and everything. So I think we should have a look and perhaps suggest some changes and take that back to the relevant steering committee to have them look at that as well. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. There are a couple of items noted on the agenda itself that have been identified: First of all, the need to define the chair and vice chair terms in the procedures themselves. That's really not defined clearly in there now. A second item was the -- that the OSC charter ends at this meeting, and that will be dealt with in another -- and they are the ones through which the procedures were recommended. And that will be dealt with in Item 10 on the agenda. Anyone else want to share a comment? Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I think there was some discussion over the last month or so and I think it's something worth exploring, is actually having the election of the chair done by the incoming council members as opposed to the way it was done this year with the outgoing council. And I think that's certainly worth exploring, and I think that has merit. And I personally -- again, it is all personal -- think that should be the first act of the new council. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I very much agree with what Jeff just said, and, in fact, that has affected the way -- the thinking along that line has affected the way some of us in NCSG have approached this election and our decisions. So I certainly hope we can fix that going forward. >>CHUCK GOMES: I continue to leave it open for councillors. If anyone in the audience would like to comment on this, please go to a microphone. And I see Philip. Welcome. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you. Speaking in my current capacity as OSC chair, which may or may not be relevant depending on what happens towards the end of the meeting, what I'm hearing, I think, was that council may be requesting some greater precision on the procedures and that will be helpful. But also has there been any issue having to do with the complexity of the procedures that you put in place and would something simpler be more desirable, or was that about right? >>CHUCK GOMES: Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah, thanks, Philip. Perhaps I should be more specific in my comments. I find the actual system that we have now going into the second round difficult to work, and I don't understand the logic of when you have -- when you're forced into a -- when you have a forced system, whereby you can only have two candidates, maximum. So I'm not clear on the logic whereby, in the second round the candidate has to beat himself, and -- that came out wrong. Sorry. [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: And why he has to beat a certain percentage. That's not clear to me. There may be a very good reason for that, but that's something that I'd certainly like to discuss or revisit. And I do think the -- I'm not sure it's a complexity thing. I think it's more understanding why things are done that way. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Wendy. >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you. I think that we have had a problem with the level of detail of many of the rules that have come before the council, and it sometimes gets in the way of doing the work that we're trying to do, to have to engage with a great deal of detail around how that work might be done. And, well, of course we all come into this with different viewpoints and differing interests. I think we might rely a bit more on trust in one another to be able to reach procedures by discussion rather than spelling out to the last "T" what must happen in every circumstance. >>CHUCK GOMES: Did you want to comment further, Philip? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Just listening. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. That's fine. No, that's fine. I just wanted to give you the opportunity. One of the questions I've heard a lot of people ask is should the new or the old council elect the chair? And I know quite a few people have expressed concern there. Probably the existing procedures would allow it to be the new council. I think that's probably true. So we didn't go that way this time, but that certainly, I think, is an issue that could be considered. And obviously if the new council was to do it, that would change some other timings, the terms, et cetera, but those are all issues that could be managed, I think. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Sure. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any other comments or questions? Okay. Thank you very much on that. Going on to agenda Item 4, the new gTLD applicant guidebook. And let me say right up front, this is not a -- an opportunity in this session to discuss the proposed final applicant guidebook. There have been other opportunities this week for that. But there are several motions that have been made that relate to new gTLDs that we're going to take up under this agenda topic, and the first one is the Joint Applicant Support working group, abbreviated the JAS working group, and was the JAS working group at the music night last night? I presume they should have been, but -- by their name, but anyway, the -- we have a link to their recommendations on the agenda there, and those are interim recommendations. They're still working on them. That group has been working amazingly hard. I compliment them sincerely, how much time they've been putting in. I think they've been meeting at least twice a week for months, and in response to a board motion. And we do have a motion that has been made in that regard. Now, let me request the patience of the audience today. There's been so much going on with motions in the GNSO Council in the last few days that if we need to correct or fix a few things on -- live today, please bear with us because it's been challenging keeping up with all of the things. But I also want to compliment the fact that there's been very active engagement by councillors on these motions to try and reach some consensus positions that most could support. So I compliment the council in that regard. So Bill, would you read your motion, please? Looks like I caught him off guard. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: You did indeed. It's Rafik's motion and he's on line, I believe. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, that's -- I forgot. I was anticipating that he was not going to be here and fortunately he was able to join us. Rafik, my apologies. I was working under my pre-hospital understanding and forgot that you were able to make it, so would you please read your motion? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: It's back to you, Bill. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: All right. But now we have Wolf's version, too. You want me to read -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, that's right. We have an amendment on that one. My apologies. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: So, yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Yeah. My mistake. So you'll have to bear with me a little bit here. So we have an amendment that was not accepted as a friendly amendment, and that needs to be acted on first to see whether we approve the amendment and then we will go to the motion itself. Rafik -- I mean, excuse me, Wolf. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thank you, Chuck. I'm sorry. Well, the amendment is only to be understood if you read the motion itself, but I can brief in this respect: You know, the motion is a larger text, and my amendment means just to remove one paragraph of this motion, and this paragraph deals with the following. Establishing -- the motion is about extending the charter of the JAS working group to fulfill their obligations. And my amendment was, well, to remove one paragraph which deals with the following: "Establishing a framework" -- in brackets, "for consideration, et cetera" -- "including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation for managing any auction income beyond costs for future rounds and ongoing assistance," full stop. So if I may, I would like to explain what I mean. In principle, I fully support the motion, all the other points. That's it. In principle, I also support this point to be done and to be done by a group, a respective group, which can cover this point. I'm of the opinion that the JAS group, at the time being, in their - - with their membership, is to mainly focus on just from the -- to the applicants. That is, it is called "Joint Applicant Support group." There may be other groups, others who are also interested in what is it about the auction profit, a potential auction profit for the new gTLDs, and therefore, I'm of the opinion this task should be allocated to a different group immediately which is capable to cover this task. And I have some doubts whether the JAS is a little bit -- what do you say -- narrow, you know, in looking to this task and therefore I would like to have this task taken out of this motion and allocated -- and the council should immediately talk about how to allocate this task to an appropriate group. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wolf. Is there a second to the motion for this amendment? Jeff, did you want to second it? Before we discuss it, we -- we need a second. >>JAIME WAGNER: I second it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jaime. Okay. Jeff, now you're up. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. You know, I think -- I certainly think that this is an improvement in what it took out, but I think there's other areas of this motion that I would also take out and apply almost the exact same comment. So I'm a little torn as to vote for this amendment, but I still think that the entire motion has got some issues. So I'll just sit back and listen to what people have to say. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's fine and we can deal with the other issues when we get to the motion that's the direct motion itself. Now, it's open for council discussion. And there is opportunity, if there's anybody from the audience who wants to participate in this. Okay. Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I would just repeat what I said to Wolf this morning in e-mail on the council list, that I can understand his concern about whether or not the JAS group is the right place to be specifying the modalities of a foundation in auctions and so on, although I don't actually think the text is that expansive. I suppose one could read it in an expansive way. But if that's the concern, I would think that we could have specified more clearly that what this -- the JAS group would have been doing would have been just establishing principles of framework for any funds that were -- if there were any funds made available through an auction, then that would be the place where they would set a framework for addressing them. That would have struck me as a kind of a middle-ground position, but I didn't get any response on that, and so if the only option is to simply strike this, then it seems to me then that leaves us in a position where all the people who did all this work over an extended period of time to come up with a mechanism to respond to needs that many people in the community felt were quite real would sort of be losing council's endorsement prematurely it seems to me. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Bill. Any other councillors want to comment? Jeff, is your hand still up? Okay. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: I'm Avri Doria. I'm co-chair of the JAS group. I appreciate very much Wolf-Ulrich's concern and I think it was some -- a concern that we were aware of when we put together the motion. The notion of what to do about these funds, auction funds, beyond the cost of auctions, has been a sort of topic of "not discussion" since the notion of auctions first came up. When the GNSO was first looking at how one deals with contention beyond community and how one deals with contention beyond all the other things, it got to auction, and one of the things I know was said at the time was, "Well, auctions might be okay as long as we're doing something right and proper with the monies and they aren't just going back into ICANN coffers as" -- I know it's not quite profits, because it's nonprofit -- but aren't just going back into general funds. This -- and in terms of foundations, there has been sort of a background conversation ever since then that these are the kinds of ideas that need to be looked into in terms of dealing with those funds when it -- when they're accrued. And again, there has been no discussion of doing that, as far as I can tell. And looking at the needs of people from developing economies, the fact that these funds would be there and would be there perhaps to help in the ongoing process, certainly not (inaudible) seemed like a natural starting point for us. So I understand the concern. And one of the things we looked at was what we would be doing was beginning the conversation. We would be beginning to put ideas on the table, talking to staff, understanding what the limitations and conditions were for doing such a process, and then opening up and giving just one suggestion. It would then come back to our various chartering organizations. We have, you know, the ALAC has already rechartered us. We are now, of course, beseeching you all to recharter us. And we come back to our chartering organization and say, "Here's one idea," it would go out to the community, there would be other ideas, the conversation would be rolling. So I truly respect Wolf-Ulrich's reasons, and if it is stricken, I certainly appreciate his intention but I still hope that this clause plus the whole motion will pass through, given the important consideration of finding support for people from developing economies to participate in our processes. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. Wolf? Or I'm sorry. It was Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Thank you. As a member of the working group and as the ALAC liaison -- and we have rechartered using the existing charter recognizing we might have to change it to be in line with the GNSO, but someone had to go first -- it's quite clear that this working group is not composed of a large number of lawyers and tax accountants who are in a position to write a detailed description of a charter of a foundation. On the other hand, as Avri said, it's important to get discussion going and to start trying to outline what we think might be the important aspects of such a foundation or such a process. Just because -- someone has to start first. ICANN staff have said, "Yes, we should probably go in that way. We haven't talked about it yet. Does anyone have any ideas on how to start?" And this was an attempt to do that start not with the belief that we could write all the papers to be submitted to the tax authorities to create a foundation. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Alan. Andrei, and then we'll go to Andy. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Thank you. I think that JAS as a working group has the full capability to handle the issue for auctions and can do -- can provide the further research on how to fund the projects which are out of scope of the big business and big money because this world, I mean, it's big and obviously people who want to light up the new gTLDs in the developing countries or low-income economies, they really need support, and this is -- and I believe this is the issue of the GNSO, it's not the issue of somebody else. Well, it's also the issue of other groups of ICANN. But regarding the lawyers, I don't think it's yet time to ask lawyers to define something because they will tell you multiple answers why not to do it, so suggest JAS continue its work and do a little bit more research in this area. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Andrei. Andy, are you still in the queue? >>ANDY MACK: Just to make a quick mention, I wanted to echo what -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Give your name, please. >>ANDY MACK: Andrew Mack. Sorry. I just wanted to echo what Avri and Alan had said much better than I would have, but to add one additional piece of it, which is, having spent the money with a lot of the people who might potentially benefit from this, I recognize we're not a group of lawyers and accountants but the sooner we get this process -- thinking about this process going and the sooner that we start to tap into the resources of this very smart community, the more likely we are to get to doing some of the support that we'd really like to get at, so thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Any other comments on the amendment? Jaime? >>JAIME WAGNER: I just think that Wolf's proposal is not only to suppress this, but also to -- as soon as possible to bring the subject to another working group, a wider community or even GNSO working group and this should be done immediately, I think. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. On -- I was hearing that in terms of sort of utilizing the funds from the auctions. I think it's -- it's useful for the community to talk about it. I understand that this is the applicant support part of it. I think perhaps the -- I mean, the scope of the use of the funds -- I'm not sure if I missed anything, or perhaps the board has some direction or anything. If not, then perhaps the funds could be used in other areas as well, so that definitely work should be done in identifying -- I mean, the community should do work on identifying, you know, how -- if those funds are available, what -- you know, to help developing areas and to promote ICANN's mission and stuff, but perhaps that's -- you know, that requires a slightly different scope than this particular working group. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Next, we have Mary. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead, Rafik. We'll let you jump in. Thank you for letting me know. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: (Speaker is off microphone) -- better for the management to make it -- to foster it and to not create any delay. It's better to continue the working and this working group about this matter, but we have to understand the concerns from the different stakeholder groups. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Rafik. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Chuck. And I'm not sure this, process-wise, is the right way to go about it, so I would just plunge ahead with my suggestion. Then if I have to make the suggestion again later, I will. So what I'm hearing, I think, is that there is general recognition that there is some need to explore applicant support and how that's going to be done, and that the JAS working group has started a very good effort in that regard. Secondly, that the question of auction income and the associated issues is something that has to be discussed and the question there, I'm hearing, is whether or not this is something that is within the purview of the JAS working group. At the same time, the JAS working group seems to me to be particularly well-situated to consider that broad question within its purview, within its specialization, which is support for particular groups of applicants. So so far, I think everybody's with me. What I'm going to do is to propose a hopefully friendly amendment to Rafik and Bill's motion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, okay. Now, let's hold on a second because our focus right now is the -- is the amendment made by Wolf, so -- >>MARY WONG: I understand. So -- which is why I'm raising my hand now and asking whether it would be appropriate if I made my proposal now, so that perhaps Wolf and others on the council can consider withdrawing their amendment or something like that. If that's not permissible, that's fine but I wanted to put it out there in case it is permissible. >>CHUCK GOMES: I suspect -- I'm no parliamentarian, but I suspect that the literal way of interpreting the Robert's Rules of Order is that we consider the amendment first. If the council was -- if there were no objections to us looking ahead a little bit, I'm okay with that. Are there any objections? Is there anybody that -- are there any objections to -- go ahead, Kristina. You had your hand up and I was going to call on you next. Let's let Kristina make her comment and then I'll come back to that, and then I have Adrian as well. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was actually coming about this from a different direction, that hopefully wouldn't require any further amendments. I do, in fact, have some concern as to whether any kind of work regarding a foundation is within the scope of the working group. However, we don't know because we haven't asked ICANN staff. So my suggestion would be that we accept the friendly amendment, we proceed to vote on the motion. In the meantime, we put in a request to staff to get clarification on this point, and if the answer is, "Yes, this would be appropriate work for a working group," then in our next meeting, which is less than a month from now, Rafik and Bill can put in an amendment -- can put in a motion that would amend the charter to add it back in. It would seem to me that if we can do that, we can do a couple of things. First, we can move on with what is a very full agenda. Second, we can, I think, address some of the immediate concerns while still keeping that option open. Third, we'll have more concrete, more accurate information as to go forward, and frankly, given that we're only a month out from our -- less than a month out from our next meeting, there's a lot in this charter for this working group to do in the meantime. I don't know if that's something that Rafik and Bill would consider entertaining. >>CHUCK GOMES: And Mary, I'm going to come back to your question. I'm go ahead and get the get the people in the queue right now because it may be relevant, and Adrian you're next. Okay. Thank you. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I think -- you know, I heard the statements from Mary, and I just wanted to respond that I don't think everybody everyone's with you on some of the points that you made, and so, you know, I was saving a lot of the discussion that the registries had for the full motion, and like I said earlier, you know, the registries are kind of shaking our head because, you know, we can -- I guess we can accept the amendment but it doesn't cure all the issues we have with the full motion that's pending. So, you know, again, like I said, we may accept the amendment but it's more than just the foundation that a number of us think are beyond the scope of this group. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jeff. Any other comments? Okay. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'd just like to agree with Jeff. Thanks. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. So now the question back to -- does anybody object to considering -- because I think it is a violation of Robert's Rules of Order, but if there's no objections, I'm okay with proceeding with it -- with listening to Mary's amendment before we -- you object, Wolf? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: It's not an objection, but from this discussion, I got the impression that it's not only about my amendment. So if Mary's suggestion is referring to my amendment, it might be not enough, so I got the impression -- so just looking around, that there are other points, which may -- councillors may prevent from agreeing to the motion itself, and this should be discussed. Thanks. >>CHUCK GOMES: So did I understand that that you believe it would be good to discuss these other issues before we act on your amendment? And you're okay with that? Are there any objections to that? Okay. So then let's -- I'm fully aware that this doesn't follow Robert's Rules of Order, but I don't think we have to be too legalistic in that regard. I think everybody wants to be constructive. I think as Mary said, everyone wants there to be support provided for needy applicants, okay? So I don't think that's a point of argument or debate. So let's go ahead, and using the chair's discretion and violating Robert's Rules, let's go ahead and proceed to discussion about the motion, but we should, first of all, have the motion read, and not just the amendment so if we could do that now. And Mary, I think it was your motion? >>MARY WONG: I was actually going to suggest that -- so as to not be in violent violation of Robert's Rules, that -- >>CHUCK GOMES: We already are -- >>MARY WONG: As to not be overly violent violation of Robert's Rules that perhaps we can defer this motion until the break and that I'll have a chance to confer with Wolf and others and perhaps that might be a lot easier. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is there any objection to deferring this motion till after the break? I won't -- I can't guarantee you it will be right after the break but I don't know that that matters. Anybody object to that? And maybe several people -- some of you -- what I would encourage, then -- it's going to be a busy break for a lot of you, okay? Maybe not much of a break. But what I would encourage is that -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Just one second. What I would encourage you to do is any of you who have thoughts on this, share them with one another so maybe we can work some things out on the break, not just what we've heard but maybe some new things. So I encourage that discussion. Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. I will just -- that's okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Thanks. Sorry if I took your thunder there. All right. So we will do that. Not seeing any further discussion at this time, let's go on to Agenda Item 5, which is the joint IDN working group and see -- this is regarding new top-level domains also. So let's go to Edmon. Did I skip one? Oh, my apologies. We have the vertical integration issue. I have a motion with vertical integration, so that's Item B of Item 4. So let's jump right to that. There is a link to the vertical integration. And a motion was made by Stéphane. And, Stéphane, I will ask you to read that. Is everybody okay with just reading the resolution part of the motion rather than all of the "Whereases"? Okay. Go ahead and read just the "Resolved" part, Stéphane. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: "Resolved, that the GNSO Council recognizes that in light of these recent developments, there is no longer a need or desire to pursue further policy development activities with respect to this issue. "Resolved further, that the GNSO Council formally ends the PDP on vertical integration between registries and registrars without making any recommendations for specific policy changes to ICANN's board of directors. "Resolved further, that the VI PDP working group is hereby disbanded. The GNSO council appreciates the hard work and tremendous effort shown by each member of the VI PDP working group in producing the interim report and sincerely thanks the co-chairs, Mike O'Connor and Roberto Gaetano for their leadership in this PDP." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Thank you, Stéphane. That motion was seconded by both Terry Davis and Andrei Kolesnikov. Is there any discussion? [ No verbal response. ] Okay. Yes, John? >>JOHN BERARD: I get to stand in for Zahid and speak for Mike seeing as how he stayed too long at the music party last night. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay, John. >>JOHN BERARD: There is, I think, agreement that the fine work of the group has done in its current form but that there may and are some other issues that could deserve attention in the near term. So that I don't think saying -- if the vote is to end the VI working group, it doesn't mean that there won't be opportunity or reason to look at other issues as they come up. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. I can't speak for everyone because this is the first time I've heard that particular comment, but I don't -- I believe we would agree with that. I don't think that as we go forward, we see additional issues that need to be addressed, that that wouldn't be agreed that they should be addressed. But I think that what we're looking at now is moving forward, let's find out, you know, what those issues are before we begin to pursue anything. So I think leaving the working group open and kind of hanging without any real direction for where they should go is what we are trying to avoid at this point. But as those issues and problems surface, then certainly they should be addressed appropriately. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Tim. Any other comments? Does anyone object to a voice vote on this motion? Object to a voice vote? Okay. So we will do a roll-call vote. Glen? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you, Chuck. Stéphane van Gelder? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: William Drake? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tim Ruiz? >>TIM RUIZ: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Chuck Gomes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Wendy Seltzer? >>WENDY SELTZER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mike Rodenbaugh? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: David Taylor? >>DAVID TAYLOR: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Rosemary Sinclair? >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mary Wong? >>MARY WONG: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jaime Wagner? >>JAIME WAGNER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Adrian Kinderis? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Rafik Dammak? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Sorry, I just joined now. Someone remind me what the vote is about. >>CHUCK GOMES: Rafik, this is the motion to end the VI PDP working group. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Okay. I think I will vote yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jeff Neuman? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Kristina Rosette? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: No. And I would like to either now or at the end of the vote provide a statement for the record as to why not. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Debbie Hughes? >>DEBRA HUGHES: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: John Berard? >>JOHN BERARD: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Terry Davis? >>TERRY DAVIS: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Edmon Chung? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Olga Cavalli? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: The motion passes, Chuck. There are two no's in the non-contracted party house, everybody in favor in the contracted party house. So the amendment passes. >>CHUCK GOMES: The motion passes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: The motion passes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: The IPC is voting against this motion because, frankly, we don't think it should ever have had cause to occur in the first place because the board voted to allow the vertical integration cross-ownership contrary to its previously stated positions and despite the lack of consensus among the GNSO charter PDP VI working group. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, I appreciate that clarification. Adrian? Okay. All right. Thank you very much on that. And I want to thank the -- myself, the many, many people who participated in that working group, some for many, many, many months that stuck it through right to the end. So my compliments and thanks. Thanks to the co-chairs for all the time they put in and for Roberto and for Mikey. Nice job, guys. And I want to reiterate again -- many of you that have been in the ICANN community for a while, you have heard me say this before -- the fact that consensus is not reached does not mean failure. It may just mean there really isn't consensus, and that's a fact that we need to be aware of. So thank you very much to everyone. Wolf? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thank you, Chuck. Following what you just said, I would like to make a personal statement more or less here. Whilst we have still concern within our constituency, I will present here as an individual opinion from the -- both councillors of the ISPC constituency with regard to the process of how we handled this process. My statement is: As councillors, we are not satisfied with the way the council managed the topic of vertical integration. The council establish and chartered a working group on vertical integration and received an interim report with no consensus on any recommendation. The council, claiming its role of being the manager of the policy development process, was not even able to comment on whether it would see further chances to come to conclusions or not and just forward this interim report to the board. As a result, the council seems to be very surprised that the board took a decision on the topic of vertical integration. We personally appreciate in general that the board is capable to act with regards to such an essential question. Also, some of our community has reservations to the decision made. Our concern is that the council's role as manager of the PDP maybe we can in the future, if more topics come up, where the council may be not in the position to provide guidance to the board. We, therefore, urge the council and ourselves to take this seriously in order to avoid this kind of scenario. What I would like to point out is not I wouldn't only criticize, it is our intent here to make this council more sensitive but you may lose awareness by the board with respect to important topics. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wolf. Any other comments? Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, and this may be an issue that we need to look at as far as the policy process as a whole. But I want to remind the council that many members of the council had opposed the creation of this -- or the initiation of this PDP in the first place. In fact, if I remember correctly, this did not have a majority of both houses. And you don't need that to initiate a PDP. But I think -- so it is not a surprise to many of us what happened in this group. And I think maybe it is something that we need to take back as part of the policy process. I just want to record that for -- or just remind people of that fact. From my perspective, it is not a surprise at all what happened in this group. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks. Liz, did you want to talk on this issue? >>LIZ GASSTER: No, it is on the preceding issue. I am monitoring the remote participation, so I have a comment from a remote participant on the preceding topic. >>CHUCK GOMES: We will get to that in a minute. Let me wrap up this one. Sorry, I probably should have called on you sooner. Any other comments on the vertical integration? Mary? >>MARY WONG: Just very briefly to respond to Wolf's statement, it seems to me that it simply is because the council is in a managerial role that when we received a report from the working group -- and I take to heart what Jeff is saying, and maybe there are things we need to look at about the process -- that the only thing we could do, particularly given the lack of consensus, was to support those in the community that worked so hard on it and forward it on to the board instead of doing nothing. And, secondly, I don't think it is true that we were surprised that the board took a decision. We may have been surprised at the actual decision that the board took, but we knew that the board was going to take a decision. But as Chuck said earlier, a lack of consensus might just mean a lack of consensus. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: I actually don't agree with Mary that it is a process issue. I think it is a communications issue. I strongly agree with what Jeff was saying. There was a motion that was put forward by me, if I remember rightly, to agree with the staff recommendations in the issues report. The council decided to ignore that and voted to initiate a PDP. That is something that is -- there's no issue with that process. That is the correct process. We may want to ask ourselves if we could have talked about this more and avoid that situation, but it is not a process issue. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. All right. Let's go to -- oh, on this topic, Mikey? I am glad to see you. You probably have been here all weekend and haven't even seen me, huh? >>MIKEY O'CONNOR: No. I'm happy to see you back with your nifty new hat. I like the hat a lot. My name is Mikey O'Connor. I was the junior co-chair of the VI working group. I have a substantive comment and then the usual formal stuff in the end. On this particular topic, one of the interesting observations that has come to me is that ICANN's, just like any organization, got a lot of different ways that it can make decisions. One way to do it is by consensus. One is by assigning an executive to run a function and that person makes a decision. If you sort of read your management 101 textbook, there are all kinds of ways to make decisions. And I think the VI working group is a good example of how ICANN has sort of limited itself a bit in saying, "We only make decisions by consensus." We might want to sort of back off from this and think about some options for different kinds of decisions which might need different kinds of decision- making processes. So it is right in with what Jeff was saying and all of you were saying. It is kind of a process issue. It is kind of a breath mint. It is kind of a candy mint. It is a puzzler for you. You might just want to think about different ways of making decisions in the ICANN context. On to the last little bit, I just wanted to say formally on the record, first, that I had an absolutely fabulous time in my junior co- chair role. I met a wonderful man as my senior co-chair in Roberto. And I'm sure if he was here, we would be arm in arm on this. I also met a fabulous group of people who worked unbelievably hard. There were 75 people in that group. It is kind of big for a working group. I wouldn't recommend it in the future. It is a little hard to manage. But it was a great group, and they did a great job and they produced a great report. And I just want to say thanks to all of them for everything they did. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Mikey. [ Applause ] Again, thanks to the working group. Andrei? >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: There was a lot of comments about the procedure, the process, the working groups, et cetera, et cetera. I would like to repeat the one very simple thing that we can talk about the process, spend a lot of time regarding this. But there must be a reality check. As I said last time, there is no need to develop something which you will not be able to control. The VIs in this realm, you cannot control these things in the big portion of the countries worldwide. That's it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Andrei. And, Liz, let's go to that comment. Sorry it's delayed. But if you could read that now, I would appreciate it. >>LIZ GASSTER: Thank you. I just need to scroll up for a second. This is a comment about the joint applicant support discussion that we had just previously. This is from a guest in the chat. The guest states: The community needs -- oops -- every time the chat moves it jumps, so I apologize. "The community needs significantly more direction from the board as to how the board envisions the use of any funds derived for auctions. It almost sounds like slicing up the pie before it is even made. Actually, the GNSO really has no authority to direct funds. Suggest a community comment after board decides the basic charter for the trust." And this individual further says, "way outside the scope of this working group." And I just want to note also that I did ask this individual to identify him or herself for the scribes and they are concerned that ICANN is not willing to accept an unascribed comment here. Sorry. The chat keeps jumping around. And that this is not an incendiary comment regarding auction funds. It is a suggestion from a member of the community and asks whether we are trying to intimidate here. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Liz, and thank you to whoever made the comment in that regard. Appreciate you participating remotely. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Just to Liz's point that ICANN won't accept an unascribed comment, if you want to put my name in front of it, I will happily take it. That was, I think, a very well-made argument. And I also have the same concerns. I think there is an assumption that there will be funds -- number one, that there is an assumption that there will be funds from auctions available and, number two, that if they are available, that this working group or these people of need or entities of need are going to receive some of those funds ahead of others. And I can think of many other ways to ensure that we impact the use of the Internet globally outside of owning a TLD that those funds could be used for. I have bit my tongue about talking about funds today because of the discussion around amendments, but this seemed like a good time to chime in and ensure that if this wasn't going to be acknowledged that at least some comment around the funds was by speaking up now. So thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Adrian. Going to move to Agenda Item 5 before we take a break. I'm sorry. Or Recommendation 6, oh, yeah. We might not get to 5. Okay, recommendation 6. Margie is going to give us a quick review of that. There is a reference to a motion that Mary will read. And there's been some proposed amendments. There is a lot of stuff going on here. Let's start with Margie. >>MARGIE MILAM: Hello? Perfect. I will give you a very brief overview of the Rec 6 report. We went in depth on this on the weekend sessions with the GNSO Council. Essentially, there was a cross-community working group that was established, formed by members of the At-large community, the GNSO community and GAC to address the issue of the implementation of Recommendation 6. Recommendation 6 is a GNSO recommendation regarding the new gTLD program. And it essentially states that strings may not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. Essentially, the working group did not revisit Recommendation 6 but it did develop implementation guidelines to address the concerns of the GAC, GNSO and At-large communities. There is a very long report. I'm not going to go over it now. But essentially the consensus in the report was that the implementation model for Recommendation 6 is flawed, and the report included numerous recommendations and described various levels of consensus to improve the implementation of Recommendation 6. And I provided you a link to the report on the slide. So after the publication of the report, the report came out before the board's Trondheim meeting -- or retreat. And the board took a look at the recommendations and made -- and adopted some resolutions. And some of the recommendations that were included in the report have been included in the proposed final applicant guidebook. Not all of them were included, however, because some of them were viewed as inconsistent with the GNSO Council prior Guideline H, that essentially stated that external dispute resolution providers would give decisions on objections. And there was also the board resolution relating to the board of the role with respect to the new gTLD strings. And there was some concern about there being inconsistencies with the existing processes that were already incorporated in the prior versions of the applicant guidebook. But since the ICANN board didn't have sufficient time to evaluate the recommendations, it did make a recommendation that a consultation take place with respect to the working group and staff and the board to identify additional recommendations to adopt. And if you were attending some of the sessions earlier this week, you'll see that this consultation took place and we're in the process of identifying additional recommendations that hopefully will be reflected in the next guidebook. And so the issue with respect to this report was that because of the timing of the publication and the GNSO Council meetings, it wasn't clear whether there was -- whether the recommendations in there did receive the support of the various supporting organizations and advisory committees. And the report itself actually stated that the next step with respect to these recommendations were that each supporting organization and advisory council would follow their procedures as outlined in the bylaws to approve or comment on the recommendations in the working group. And so that's where we are. There is a motion currently to approve the report to be discussed now. Any questions? >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Margie. Does anyone on the council have any questions of Margie? [ No verbal response. ] Okay. Now, I must admit, I'm not totally sure where we're at on the motion. Mary, do you think you know where we're at on this motion? Could you help me out? >>MARY WONG: I'll try because I find myself in the strange position of probably offering a friendly amendment to my own motion. So some day I would like to offer an unfriendly amendment to myself. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead. >>MARY WONG: I think for everyone who is in the room, it probably would be helpful to look at the printout that Glen has handed out. If you don't have that, I don't know if we are going to have it on the screen somewhere. >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you talking about the motion handout? >>MARY WONG: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think people in the audience have that. So just the councillors do, I believe. >>MARY WONG: It might be somewhat of a long read. >>CHUCK GOMES: That is what is posted on the Wiki. >>MARY WONG: It has been posted on the Wiki. And essentially the reason I mention that is if you have prepared for this meeting, looking at what was on the Wiki or on the Web site before 12:00 noon today, you would have seen the original and amended motion. So what I'm proposing that we vote on is the amended, updated motion which is now on the Wiki and on the handouts. Should I go ahead and read it? >>CHUCK GOMES: Please do. And I suspect in this case, even though it is long, it probably is helpful to read the whole motion. >>MARY WONG: I also want to first thank Margie for the summary. I think it captured the essence of what I'm trying to do with the amended motion bearing in mind we are looking at continuing consultation between the CWG and the staff. So here goes: "Whereas, on the 8th of September, 2010, the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested supporting organizations and advisory committees to provide guidance to the ICANN board -- sorry, the ICANN new gTLD implementation team and the ICANN board in relation to the implementation of the council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. "Whereas, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group or CWG was established in accordance with the terms of reference that were also approved by the GNSO Council on the 8th of September. "Whereas, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community. "And whereas, the role of the council is to manage the cross- community process on behalf of the GNSO community and the council notes that the CWG's implementation proposals have been produced in accordance with that group's terms of reference. "Resolved, the council thanks the CWG and its participants from the GNSO, the other SOs and ACs for their hard work and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute consensus policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO. "Resolved further, that the council hereby" -- oh, I'm sorry. Can I take that back? I'll start on the "resolved further" again. "Resolved further, the council recommends that each stakeholder group provide feedback as soon as possible to the CWG in order to resolve outstanding questions regarding implementation of Recommendation 6 in a judicious manner, considering in particular those recommendations that received full consensus in the CWG." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Mary. Bill, do you renew your second for this version of the motion? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Sure. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Discussion? Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: The staff has re- -- you know, developed a fairly detailed response to each of the recommendations. I guess my question was just if we could detail how the recommendations found their way in the staff's hands, since I don't recall here right off the top of my head and I don't really have access to all the history. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how did the recommendations get from the community working group to the staff and the board? >>TIM RUIZ: Exactly. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Well, of course you know the answer to that. They were sent. I think is your question really why didn't it go through the council first? >>TIM RUIZ: Well, my -- actually, to be -- honestly, my question is, I don't recall us doing it, but that doesn't mean that we didn't. With the way my recollection works. I just wanted to make sure I understand. >>CHUCK GOMES: No. You're correct. No, I'm not challenging. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on the question. Margie, did you want to jump in here? >>MARGIE MILAM: I was just trying to remember whether it was sent from the council or just -- >>CHUCK GOMES: No, it was not. >>MARGIE MILAM: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: It was not. And that may have been, Tim, as much -- I'll take responsibility for that. >>MARGIE MILAM: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: So right or wrong, let me take responsibility for that. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Chuck. And I don't have the full terms of reference for the CWG in front of me, but I believe that the language in one of the "whereas" clauses tracks the terms of reference and I believe our terms of reference were to provide the guidance on implementation to the new gTLD implementation team, whoever they are. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. And the council was involved in that, but not in the transmittal of the report. So you're absolutely right, Tim, on that. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I think, you know, we spent a lot of time on the weekend talking about the role of cross-community working groups, and the problem that the registries have with the -- what was added to the resolution -- I mean, we had problems with what was originally in, but the problems we have with what was added is the notion, or at least implied notion, that there would be comments going directly from stakeholder groups to the CWG, and then straight to the board without any kind of council involvement, and we spent a lot of time on the weekend talking about this, and really what's supposed to happen is that the cross-working group should finalize its report and send that to the council and it's the council that should forward that on to the board. I also want to say with a little bit of dismay -- and I'm not sure how this all happened but the fact that the board this week was talking directly to the working group as if all of this was a fait accompli, if I said that right, without the council approving the final report seems a little bit premature and is not something that -- you know, it's going to be part of our continuing dialogue. But certainly this resolution, again, implies -- I want to say it again -- that the stakeholder groups send their comments to the CWG, which gets sent to the board, almost setting another layer above the council or between the council and the board, and for that reason the registries are not inclined to vote in favor of this motion, and so obviously we'd like to hear some feedback on that, but that's what -- the discussion we had. >>CHUCK GOMES: Stéphane. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Jeff, I'm available for French lessons if you need them. Fait accompli. I want to -- as I see Avri approaching the mic, I was to echo what Jeff's saying, because we are, the registrars, puzzled, to say the least, by seeing this group talking to the board directly and thrashing out the issues, as if there was some policy development going on. I know it's a fine line between policy and implementation. I think we need to be very careful and try and define that line as well as we can because we certainly feel uneasy. We're not saying it shouldn't be done, but it certainly has us -- makes us feel uneasy when we see this kind of a meeting going on that we weren't really made aware of before. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Stéphane. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Avri Doria, simple member of the CWG. I think there's a couple things I'd like to mention. First of all, when you have a cross-community working group, you have many paths to the board. In other words, if ALAC accepts the outcome of the CWG and presents it to the board as advice from ALAC, it's certainly there. Now, the board has to basically take into account of "Cross- community working group? Okay. It's ALAC advice but GNSO has not passed on it yet so it's not a GNSO recommendation. It has none of the aura of a GNSO recommendation with various vote requirements and such it's advice from the ALAC." There certainly is that. So with any cross-community working group, you have various organizations -- and you have a board that is able to discriminate that, yes, this is advice from ALAC but we notice GNSO and GAC have not yet given us indication of what they think of it. Then I'd like to come to the thing of who is permitted to speak to the board when. I think understanding that a group -- a working group that is dealing with an issue, perhaps even dealing with an issue at the request of the board, has permission. I did not believe that we had quite gotten to the point of being a military institution where one could only speak through their chain of command. But that one could actually speak to board members. That groups of people could sit in a room and speak to the board. So I would sort of request that the GNSO Council not go too far in mandating a strict chain of command in terms of who the community is allowed to speak to when. Thanks. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Chuck. And just a couple of things. I think I definitely understand the concerns that have been expressed over the process of the CWG from beginning to end. In fact, that is one of -- it highlighted for the council one of the issues about how to manage this process going forward in the current environment and there's been discussions with the GAC and other parties on how to manage that. I would just like to urge the council to not let that concern take away from the work that's already been done by a group that we chartered in September, and that did its work within the terms of reference of that charter. And in that regard, I'm going to just comment. I would be very happy to offer a further friendly amendment to my friendly amended motion or for you to offer a friendly amendment where in the second, "Resolved" clause instead of saying "providing feedback as soon as possible to the CWG," to "provide feedback as soon as possible to the council and all other relevant parties." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Mary. We'll come back to that. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I appreciate that being offered by Mary and it's probably something that maybe when we take a break, we can talk about that to make sure that we can get some feedback from our groups. I do want to address Avri's point, because I don't want our statements to be interpreted that we're saying nobody can speak to the board, but we spent a lot of time this weekend talking about the perception that's created when someone represents a cross-community working group and presents that to a -- to the board, it is easy to understand how the board may assume that that actually has support from the community that the CWG is purporting to represent. So, again, we're not saying in any way to stifle any kind of speech, but if -- Avri, if you're talking to the board, they should know it's Avri talking to the board. If the CWG is talking to the board, then the perception should not be created that they actually represent the cross-community that they're purporting to represent, and the feedback I got from some board members who were quite surprised when they -- when I made the statement that this had not gone through the GNSO Council and that the statements that were made in that direct session were not necessarily the opinion of the GNSO community. So that is what I'm saying. If you want to talk to the board, have lunch with them, have dinner, I'm sure they're great people -- and I know they are -- have at it, but please don't misinterpret what we're saying. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: That was my concern as well that I -- you know, I don't think we have any intention of trying to restrict who can or can't talk to the board, but there's a difference if it's Mary and Avri and whoever having a discussion with the board versus the CWG negotiating with the board over how can we come to something that you'll agree to when we don't really have a very good understanding of how these community working groups are supposed to work. You know, I guess I was under the impression, as Mary's offering now, that these recommendations would come back to the council for our discussion, we would have an opportunity to vet them with our stakeholder groups before we were asked to approve the recommendations, and yet, you know, they found their -- their way to the staff and the board and we were concerned about what the -- you know, what the whole context of the meeting that the CWG was having with the board yet, because it was presented to us as a CWG and board meeting. So maybe we have that misunderstanding of what was taking place there. So probably a lot of this is just misunderstanding and a need to come to some more formal agreement as to how the community working groups are going to be formed and how they're going to work and what's the flow. And that might be a little bit different in each case, depending on what they address. Because they'll be addressing, you know, perhaps a variety of things that don't fit into any neat little cubbyhole. I can understand that. But as far as restricting who talks to the board, again, I agree with Jeff. We're not implying that at all. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Tim, and before I go to Bill, I want to -- I hope if there's nothing else that we learn from this discussion and all that's gone on this week, and in recent weeks in this regard, is that we do need to develop some procedures -- and maybe be flexible issues, depending on the issue and so forth -- so that these things are clear in that regard. So I hope there's -- that we will work as a community in the GNSO, first, to, okay, well, how are we going to handle kind of things in the future, because there is nothing that defines those procedures and that process. So let's at least learn from that. Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I understand the points that are being raised about the procedural issues, and certainly think that it would be sensible, based on this experience and others, for us to try to nail down more clearly, to everybody's mutual satisfaction, how we do these things. At the same time it's not obvious to me why one would penalize the work of this group in order to make the point that this needs to be done. I mean, the procedural stuff can be sorted out. People can put their heads together. I think everybody recognizes the problem. But at the same time, it certainly wasn't the intention of the working group or the motion supporting the work of the working group to be, in the first instance, problematizing the relationship between the council and the board or anything like that. And I think the main thing to focus on is the substantive work, the fact that, you know -- go back to Brussels. We had the GAC get up and say, "We can't live with what you guys have had in the applicant guidebook and you got to do something quickly." And there was pressure to come up with some thoughts about this, and ALAC and GAC were already talking and there was a need for us to try to push the ball down the court a little bit on the substantive merits of how does one work through these issues. And the group worked very hard and came up with some things that I think are real improvements, and it would be a -- to me, a pity to sort of not recognize that because we're unhappy with the mechanics of how the -- you know, the reporting flow worked. I mean, that can be sorted out separately. But I would still not, you know, set aside all the good work that was done by these people on the substantive merits of this issue. This is a very important issue from all kinds of perspectives, and, you know, the fact that we've moved away from that MAPO formulation based on something in international law, these are real improvements so I would just ask that we take that under consideration when we think about how we would act in this case. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. I want to let you know that I have a very long queue so I'm going to ask everyone to be brief. We're going to have -- I've got you, Alan. I've got one -- I've got Robin, Mary, Jaime, Alan, Mary -- oh, I got Mary twice. Don't need you -- you only get once, Mary. >>MARY WONG: Can I amend myself again? Maybe I get three times. >>CHUCK GOMES: Stéphane, Tim, and I would like to take my chair hat off and talk just briefly as one of the co-chairs of that community working group and I -- oh, I thought I added you, Wendy. I gotcha. All right. I think probably that's how I got Mary's. Robin's next on my list, so Robin. And again, everybody please be brief. I want you to know you probably don't need to know this but I am setting a new record in needing a break, so I do want you to be brief. So... >>ROBIN GROSS: Thanks, Chuck. I'm Robin Gross, with the noncommercial stakeholders group, and it's really unfortunate to me that this -- this is a misunderstanding, and it seems that there's -- it's a misunderstanding about a meeting that was called to clear up a misunderstanding, so you must see the irony here. The group was very concerned that our recommendations were not understood by the staff and the board; that they had somehow in the staff papers had been changed away or had been not characterized as the group had meant them to be characterized. So when the board got it, what the board got was actually, many felt, not what the working group had actually said. So this was about simply clearing up misunderstandings about what did the working group say. It wasn't about negotiating with the board. We were explicitly told there would be none of that at this meeting, and the chair of the meeting was very adamant about that this was not about lobbying the board or negotiating. This was simply about helping the board understand what did the working group come up with, what were our recommendations. So, again, I'm really surprised and it's unfortunate that now we've got a new misunderstanding over a meeting that had been called in order to clear up a misunderstanding. So thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Robin. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Actually, that's -- a lot of that was what I was going to say, and with the -- sorry. When you exist twice, it's very difficult to speak only once. The meeting with the board really was for clarification, and to my knowledge it wasn't a meeting sought by the CWG. >>CHUCK GOMES: And let me jump in there. I was actually called after the board did write its response paper and asked if the staff could meet with -- it wasn't the board, I don't believe. And Kurt can correct me later if I'm wrong on that. But he called me and said, "Hey, could we meet in Cartagena?" I suggested to him, "If we wait until Cartagena, that's going to delay things further," so I suggested a teleconference. And in advance of that -- which did happen. And then out of that, the drafting team was formed to come up with some clarification language, and that's what was discussed in the meeting this week. So just a clarification there. Let me go now to Jaime. >>JAIME WAGNER: Well, first, I would like to acknowledge that the work done by the group improved a lot the wording and the comprehension of this issue, and I would like to say that the very idea of cross-community working groups is a good one, and it helps to improve comprehension among the different SOs and ACs, the formal bodies, formal decision bodies of ICANN. And I think this is a way of improving that should not be formalized because of the risk to short-circuit these formal bodies. And I understand that there is a challenge to deal with time- sensitive questions, and this challenge is trying to put ahead the ideas without passing through the formal bodies. I mean, these cross- community working groups are something to help decision making, and I understand that Mary's amendment to her first amendment is correcting this. That was my concern. I mean, these recommendations should pass through the GNSO Council in a timely manner and I think this new correction that Mary did is acceptable. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jaime. Alan. Thought you were never going to come up, huh? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I actually had my hands up for about 20 minutes on Adobe, but nobody noticed. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, I did. I've had your name down for a long time. >>ALAN GREENBERG: A couple of things. First of all, I was part of the working group, and there were occasional lapses in the discussion where individuals started talking on their own behalf and said what they wanted, not what the working group had said and had decided, and they were very quickly pulled back and the board was continually -- the board members were continually reminded that this is the -- what was being presented were the feelings of the working group and no one ever implied that it was anything more than that or the bodies that chartered the group. What board members may have perceived, one can't control. That's number one. Number two, we've had a number of cases recently when dealing with complex issues that the -- the reports which we try to make short and concise so board members will read them do not convey the full intent and nuances of the things being discussed. And we are working in a mode where we toss reports over a brick wall to the board and they toss resolutions back, and this just is proving not satisfactory for getting the real concepts through. So I think what we have here is something that's almost revolutionary in the last few years. Some board members really wanted to understand what was being said and said, "Let's meet face-to-face so we make sure there's no misunderstanding." I think we should give praise that that's happening now, and not try to stop it from happening. I think it's absolutely marvelous that they want to stop the game of broken telephone and make sure that people understand on both sides what is being said. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Alan. Stéphane? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: In the interest of your health, Chuck, plus helping these discussions -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: -- I'd suggest that we break now and carry on -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, let's go ahead and finish the queue. I think I'll make it, so -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I thought I was the last one in the queue, so if I'm not, then let's finish the queue. But I suggest that we have some time to discuss this and see if we can't find a way forward. >>CHUCK GOMES: No. That's where I'm going. But let's finish the queue for now. I have Tim, Wendy, and then I'm going to take off my chair hat for about two minutes. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. Just to set the stage a little bit for our discussion during the break, and I -- your point is well taken, Bill, about not penalizing based on our concerns with the process and that, and I -- I accept that. But what I want to make clear is that, you know, the other -- another issue that we have is that, you know, we represent our stakeholder group. We don't represent ourselves. And so we got this motion very late. It wasn't one we were expecting. So, you know, we did not -- this was not high on the list of our stakeholder group discussions, preparing for this meeting, to go over in detail the -- the extensive recommendations that were made by the rec 6 working group. So it's been difficult to get a sense of our -- of our stakeholder group to be able to say, "Yes, we can support these recommendations in whole." And so that's the other problem that we're faced with, but again, hopefully maybe we can work through some of these issues over the break. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And I think you're absolutely right. I've been encouraged by this total discussion. I hope others have appreciated the fact that there's a lot of constructive discussion going on here, and I think we're going to learn a lot from it, we're going to do better next time around, et cetera. So thanks. Thanks for that comment, Tim. Wendy? >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks. I just want to briefly connect the discussion that we're having here with the discussion that we've had elsewhere in council about procedures and discussions in very -- along the stages of work in progress. Because I think all of ICANN is dealing with big issues and issues that it can take a long time to wrap our heads around. So while the council is responsible for declaring consensus of the community and reporting to the board that consensus, I think it's entirely reasonable for board members to want to get information about the issues before that consensus is declared, and it would be unreasonable to expect them only to hear consensus at the end and then act quickly upon just that limited knowledge. So I think as long as we can clearly express when council has acted upon an issue and declared a consensus, and send that to the board, that there's no problem with the board also getting information from other sources. And so I think we should enhance our ability to clearly declare and describe the consensus when we hear it from the community, or lack of consensus when the community can't reach it, and accept that there are many sources of information that don't rise to the level of consensus. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wendy. I'm taking my chair hat off and I'm putting on my -- you can see all the nice writing. Thank you. And putting on my co-chair -- CWG co-chair hat. I was one of three co-chairs with Cheryl Langdon-Orr from the ALAC and Frank March from the GAC that co-chaired the CWG, and I've already said -- taken responsibility for the way this was handled. And I'll just very briefly share my motivation. I saw in this an opportunity for big delays, so one of my motivations was how can we get some stuff done here to address the concerns without causing additional significant delays. Right or wrong, that was my motivation. And I felt as a -- as chair of the council that I had some responsibility to try and minimize delays. At the same time, there were some issues that were raised that I believed were implementation issues clearly in the guidebook, rather than policy issues, and I can tell you -- and I challenge you to ask any member of the CWG in this regard to see if they agree with me, but -- I work hard to keep us out of the policy area. I made it very clear from the beginning that the GNSO had already approved policy, the board had approved that policy, and we weren't going back there. I can tell you that many -- there were several people that tried to go that direction, and I think I was successful in pulling them back every time. So we focused strictly on implementation details in the guidebook and how those might be improved. And so in my opinion, the CWG didn't do anything related to policy. Now, I know how everybody defines "policy" different so I'm not even going to go there, but I just want to be clear. And so, again, I accept responsibility for the way the process was handled, and I look forward to the council improving that in the future, but, you know, don't blame anybody else but me with regard to the fact that it didn't come back to the council. The expediency of it seemed important to get the information out and try and get the clarity, but I'll take responsibility for that. And now, if no one else does, this chair desperately needs a break. We will come back to this issue and the JAS working group issue if we have time. Please put your heads together, if you can, in the next few minutes. Unfortunately, I'm going to say a 15-minute break because we're not even close to getting this agenda in, so thank you very much. So we'll be back at 4:20. Or I guess it's -- yeah, about 4:20 is good. [ Break ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. I would appreciate it if councillors would come back to the stage and we can get this meeting going again. Thank you. Okay. I'm putting my chair hat back on and resuming the council meeting. My understanding is there has been some good work going on on two of the agenda items that we didn't finish, and we'll just take those in order of when they were on the agenda, which was the JAS working group first. And I believe where we need to go to there is the motion itself. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. And let's talk about the motion. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Sorry. Point of order. What did we ever do with the amendment? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, we had agreed that we would consider the motion. And it is a legitimate point of order. We already discussed that. Okay? So let's take a look at the motion and, as needed, we will come back to the amendment. I know that's out of order, but I think maybe it might be more effective overall to do it that way. So let's open a queue on the council regarding the motion on the JAS working group. And who would like to be in the queue? Bill, did I see your hand? Is it Wolf? Wolf? I can't see hands. Go ahead, you can start. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm just trying to pull up some of my notes on this. I think a lot of the comments that were raised by the -- on the funding issue actually apply to a number of other areas in this motion. And it is a very quite extensive motion with a number of objectives to increase the scope of the working group. And I want to first, you know, thank the joint SO/AC working group on applicant support for all their hard work and dedication on ensuring that applicants have access to one of the most important developments in this industry in nearly a decade. And, you know, we do support -- speaking on behalf of the registries, we do support the notion that support needs to be provided to qualifying applicants in the following areas: For cost reduction support, sponsorship and other funding support, modifications to the financial, continued instrument obligation, logistical support, technical support for applicants operating or qualifying to operate a gTLD and exception to the rules requiring -- well, basically, discussing how vertical integration is affected. So we support those objectives. You know, we do believe that ICANN should carefully consider each of the recommendations and solicit opinion from independent experts on these areas with input from the entire Internet community. Now, all of that said, we do not believe that the current working group comprised of policy experts in the GNSO and ALAC have the expertise, experience or knowledge to address the financial, business and technical objectives raised in the current motion and, therefore, do not agree that the charter for this particular group should be extended. We strongly believe that the GNSO should have input to the recommendations, if any, that ultimately get presented to the board and we reserve our right to comment at that time. So, again, I want to stress, you know, that there are a number of parts to this motion that we do have trouble with. And I know this motion has been tabled once already. And I know in order to table the motion again to work on this, to meet the objectives, we'd have to have probably a full vote of council. So my first recommendation is, if we could table this motion for another meeting, to work on these issues, the registries would appreciate that. But if this -- if the request to table this motion gets denied, then at this point the registries are inclined to vote against this motion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jeff. Anyone else in the queue? Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I just wanted to make sure I completely understand what Jeff's saying. The suggestion is that you would terminate -- well, the ALAC will -- ALAC was already supporting this anyways. But we would express ALAC support of this based solely on the competence of the members of the group. Is that correct? And if that is the issue, wouldn't it make sense to get some of those people that have the skills that are required that you think are missing into the group? >>JEFF NEUMAN: If I -- can I address that? Just so you understand, this motion -- the crux of this motion is to extend the charter of the existing working group with added objectives. What we're voting against is to extend the charter for this working group. We believe these issues should be looked at, and we believe it is vital it should be looked at. We just do not believe that this is the appropriate group to do that. And in addition to the funding one, which I understand the amendment you may revise is certainly beneficial, there are other items that talk about -- sorry. I'm trying to find where it is. It is the one that deals with the coordinating assistance with back-end registry operators. I think there's one in there. Forgive me for not being able to find it immediately. Which number is it on here? With D in particular, it talks about establish methods for coordinating the assistance and discussions on the extent of such coordination to be given by back-end registry service providers, brokering new relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship. To us, to the registries, that item is beyond, we believe, the expertise of this particular working group. That's just one example and there are others in here. >>CHUCK GOMES: Going back to you, Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I don't mean to belabor the point. I just again ask if the problem with this initiative that people have spent an enormous amount of time and energy on in coming up with directions in response to the board's request in Nairobi and the expression of concern by many people in the community is simply about the expertise with a particular group of people that are involved now, why not have some registry experts get involved in the group and then we could go forward with this in a way that would tackle the problems that you see. >>CHUCK GOMES: Back to you, Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Again, I'm not advocating for registry experts. I don't think I have the qualification or the expertise or any other registries necessarily have the expertise that is needed for this. I mean, the point was raised before about tax and other perspectives for the funding. I think there are just as many issues that need to be looked at with respect to all of the other recommendations. And, Bill, with all due respect, you know, this is not just -- this is not a process issue. I want to stress the registries believe in a number of the recommendations in the report and believe that that alone -- if the council chooses to forward those to the board, may be acceptable. What we're saying is that this particular charter for this particular group should not be extended. That's the extent of it, and I really want to stress the registries do support the need to look at the issue of funding and assisting other applicants, very strongly we believe that. >>CHUCK GOMES: I want to ask a clarifying question here. Is my understanding correct that -- is there an expiration date of the charter that was previously approved? There isn't, is there? So if we don't act on this, the charter that's in place doesn't end, right? But it is being extended more in terms of the tasks that it was originally tasked with. Is that right? All right. So I have that correct. So if we don't act on this -- I'm not advocating one way or the other, okay? If we don't extend this, the working group can still continue to function, okay? It just won't have those new objectives. Okay, that's good. Now I have a queue here. And let's go with Rafik and then I will slip Avri into the queue with Wolf and Tim as well. Rafik? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: It is Rafik. Yeah, thanks. Just also to remind again that the working group is responding to a board resolution about -- how you say -- about supporting many applicants. It is in the last resolution in the 2010 -- I think it was in the 28th October. And then the working group is responding to the request from the board. On the other hand, I want to ask Jeff. I am a little bit confused. As we talk about expertise, it is my understanding that usually the GNSO working groups are open to everybody. We start talking about experts again and again. And I see that as a way to include members and participants from the community to be informed of the working group. We are asking for people to join us in the working group and to have more expertise. (Poor audio). If we talk about a working group, talking about expertise, I see that as a way to exclude people from participating. I am already concerned about that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Rafik. Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Avri Doria speaking as a co-chair of the group under discussion. To follow one of my favorite exemplars at the microphone, I am going to make three points. The first one is I just wanted to remind everyone of the resolved 2010.10.28.21 from the board that said, The board encourages the JAS working group and other stakeholders to continue their work on the matter, in particular provide specific guidelines on the implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for eligibility for support. So, basically, in terms of the JAS working group saying we've put forward a couple of high-level recommendations and now we need to basically continue the work but as opposed to continuing the work just because the board said we should. We basically said, well, we really should come back to our chartering organizations, the ALAC and the GNSO, and say, Okay, folks, can you bless this work that the board has asked us to continue doing? So that was the first point. Jeff put his hand up, so I don't know if you wanted to respond and ask questions while I was going on or I should move to my second point. >>CHUCK GOMES: You wanted to talk to the specific point that Avri just mentioned? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I guess my question then to Avri is you just mentioned -- and I would love to scroll it back but it is way back. Can you just read that resolution by the board. >>AVRI DORIA: That's just one of the three parts of the resolution. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Just that last part you read about looking at the eligibility. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>JEFF NEUMAN: If we had gotten a motion that said that this group wants to look further at the eligibility, we would be having a very different conversation. >>AVRI DORIA: That was -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: What I have in front of me -- if I could finish. What I have in front of me is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine different items, maybe one of which touches on eligibility. And that's what we're being asked to look at. So I take your point -- >>AVRI DORIA: I actually don't think you did. I don't think you actually took my whole point because my whole point says they ask us to look at our recommendations and how we go further such as -- which is the same as the inter alia work, such as "including but not limited to." The one you're pointing as the only one was listed as an example, and it is certainly one that they care about greatly. But they asked us to look at furthering "the recommendations in our report." So I don't think that your point goes to just that one. I think what the board's resolution indicates -- and as I said, the language says so -- is that they want us to take our recommendations and do further work on them, getting to greater specificity. So that's what -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: I take your point, and you have come up with nine other items. You are not implying that the council should just accept those nine items because there is a "including but not limited" clause. The registries discussed this, and the registries were not comfortable with a number of those items to be looked at by this working group. >>AVRI DORIA: I understand that, and I understand that this is all rather probably empty rhetoric at the moment because the decisions have already been made. However, just to get on the record, the conversation is the board did look at it and said, "Do more work on your recommendations. Go down a level," basically give us greater specificity on your recommendations. And so, therefore, what we did is we've got a charter that basically goes through our recommendations. And at each one along the way, it says where is the further work required? Certainly, we would like comments from the registries on issues. We were hoping that you would approve the charter because it makes sense in terms of both the recommendations we've got and the board's asking us to go further. But that was my first point, yes, is that this is in keeping with the board request in that resolved. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead and finish your points. >>AVRI DORIA: The second point has to do with expertise. In all working groups, once there are chartered items, you are going to go out and find the expertise to find the work. I think perhaps you underrate our group a little in saying it has none of the expertise that you believe is necessary. There is a lot of expertise in that group. That's what sometimes made it so difficult and why we had to have so many long meetings, because there were many experts that had a lot to say that was worth listening to. But, of course, like any working group, once you've got a chartered item, you go out and you find the expertise. You bring it in. If at the end of the day we have incompetent recommendations because we didn't get the proper expertise, then you'll at the end of the day say, "This is rubbish. You didn't have the experts." But to say upfront we don't have the experts is basically to say any working group that comes along that doesn't have -- in fact, on most working groups, you don't have any working group yet. You're basically setting up a working group saying, "Go out and find the people you need to do it." So that was my second point, as we would find the expertise we needed that we don't already have. The third point is if there is any chance of changing any of the minds of any of the stakeholders and houses who have already determined not to vote against this, to vote for this, whatever -- however -- basically convince people to vote for it, we certainly have no objection to you taking longer to talk about it. Now, I don't know how you do that by your procedures. But I would hate to see the council vote against this. As I say, the ALAC has already put these things on. So we will have a very interesting moment after this if the council does reject it because in some sense, we will be chartered to continue the work in respect to giving advice. But we won't be chartered to continue the work in respect to the GNSO considering making it a recommendation. So that will be a fascinating bit of process for us to go through, if that happens. But if more time would possibly provide an opportunity to convince people that this is really something that we should be allowed to continue working on, I would be very grateful. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. I have several people in the queue. I have Wolf and Tim and Andrei and Edmon, and I have -- and I think that's it for right now. Now, be as brief as possible. We are not going to be able to spend so much more time on this. We are so far over on our agenda and there are many items we have to cover in our meeting today. Be as brief as you can. Wolf? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thank you. My point is also with regard to the expertise question. I would like to understand that. For me the key question is: Are those items which are to be chartered also necessary to be done? So is there a need to do those at all? So if you could come to a conclusion, yes, there is a need to do that, then the other question is how shall we do this, how shall we organize it. Could we organize it within that group or within -- under a different roof? So these are steps to be done. And it is not clear for me whether from your argumentation, Jeff, that you see those items are really necessary to be done or not. And then we can -- if that is clarified, then we can discuss the other points. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wolf. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. I think -- First, I just wanted to say if the registrars had likely written a statement of our own, it probably would have read almost verbatim what Jeff read is a statement of the registry. So we would -- we definitely agree with that. We have many of the same concerns. And I think that part of it is that what has been laid out here is just so extensive. It goes way beyond what I think many of us had envisioned in the beginning when we talked about "let's find some applicant support." And I guess we kind of thought of it as find some willing parties that have some resources, that they are willing to offer to parties who need those resources. But we're talking about things way beyond that at this point, and we're not confident at all that this is the right process to handle that. In fact, in my mind, my personal feeling is that some of these things kind of touch on policy that perhaps need to come back to the GNSO Council as policy issues potentially. But I think definitely in order to support extending this charter -- and, again, as it has been pointed out, we're not -- this motion doesn't mean that the group ends or that the charter no longer exists. But I think in order to vote in favor of this charter, it would have to be changed extensively. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Tim. Andrei? >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Thank you. I think I could have some kind of (inaudible) with Avri. First of all, I think this group should not be really put into the limits. I will try to explain why. There are nine points they want to go after. And I think it could be 29. It is actually not a very principled (inaudible) because once the group place was a problem where they call the expertise, I don't see any problem with that. Also, you know, any kind of regulation -- you know, we are trying to assign in frames to the group to just study its work. I believe it's wrong. They should go out. They should do research and bring more information, a moderator. And the value will just kill it and slow it down. That's it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Andrei. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah, following, Chuck, your earlier question and I guess I wanted to ask Avri, actually, though you're a bit far, a couple of questions. One is, Avri, you mentioned that if we go on and sort of vote down this motion, that the JAS will no longer sort of report back to or, you know, sort of be in the remit of the GNSO. I wasn't sure if you were alluding to that. That's one. The other one is I was just looking back at the original charter, and I really don't see anything that you can't do with that, with the extension. I just want to understand what that -- those two things. >>AVRI DORIA: No. Certainly the working group is still open -- with your permission. Yeah. Sorry. I just started speaking. I forgot who I was. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly the group is still chartered by the GNSO and the ALAC and is responsible to both of them. What I was saying is basically if we had chartered items by one that were not chartered items by the other, it brings us into a sort of confusing space. Now, accepting what you say, that indeed on most of these items one could interpret our previous mandate as allowing us to delve more deeply, it was just the degree of specificity. We had always been fairly careful in sort of saying, you know, there was -- we were at a very high policy level in doing this and that we didn't want to delve down deeper because -- so therefore that's why we got explicit in asking for the charter extension. If we find ourselves working with a set of extensions that have been approved by the ALAC but which by interpretation could be understood as having been covered by the previous GNSO motion, that will also be interesting and entertaining. And certainly worth looking at and worth doing. So I thank you for that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. And I have Jaime and then Debbie and then I'm going to cut the queue off right there on this one and I'll explain what's next off that, okay? Oh, sorry. Oh, I thought you were -- I think you were talking when I saw your name there and I thought that was the old one. Okay. Gotcha. Oh, and I've got Kristina, too. Okay. But I am going to cut the queue off there and then I'll make a suggestion for next steps. So Jaime. >>JAIME WAGNER: Well, in the best intention of reaching some agreement, and to save this work, I would consult if -- since I see that the registries and registrars have some concerns with other issues behind Paragraph C of this, I would consult if an amendment to Wolf's amendment removing both C, D, E, and I paragraphs would be acceptable to both registries and registrars. And I do know that DNS -- Rafik wouldn't find this as a friendly amendment, but... >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I appreciate the constructiveness, Jaime, but we are not going to have time to consider that in this meeting. >>JAIME WAGNER: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: I apologize but we're so far over and again, they're essential items, so I have Jaime, Debbie, Jeff and Kristina and then I'll make a suggestion for next steps. Okay? Jaime, excuse me. Debbie is next. Okay. >>DEBRA HUGHES: Thanks, Chuck. I just -- I probably will just affirm, because I saw the registrars look like they were raising their hands, and my question really was: Are there -- and I guess this also goes to the registries -- are there any things that can be carved out or removed that would make this palatable or are we at a full stop? I guess I'm trying to understand the perspective of both the registrars and -- Jeff and the registries. >>CHUCK GOMES: Again, we're not going to have time for a continuing -- this could go on indefinitely and I think we're going to make -- I think there is some hope there, in my own perception. That's my own perception but -- >>TIM RUIZ: I can be really quick with the response. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Tim. Go ahead. >>TIM RUIZ: And that is, if we vote today, we would vote it down. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. And I think that said, though, I do appreciate the amendments that were offered by Jaime and I do think that that's why I would ask it to be tabled for one meeting, so that we can get to something that would be acceptable, and I think you're definitely leaning in the right way, and the main part of the statement I wanted to make is, again, I think this goes back to what Tim said. You know, this motion was made so last-minute as just we were leaving and it's so dense and it's so full of things that, you know, you can't cover all of this during your stakeholder day. So it's something that, you know, we just need to write motions a little bit better and need to figure out how to make it much easier for people to discuss during stakeholder day. And the other issue I just want to note quickly for the record is the whole notion of the board asking this group directly to produce recommendations goes to the same arguments we just made in the previous discussion about how we set up a cross-working group to report to the council as opposed to reporting to the board, and I would hope that some message is sent to the board to actually not do that in the future, that they should probably go back to the GNSO and then figure out the best way of getting the input that they need. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Jeff. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: If you are going to suggest that we table this, I would support that. That's just what I was -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think we have any choice. I mean, it's -- I don't think people are saying here they want to reject this effort and shut it down, but I do hear a need for a little more time. So one of the things I'd like to ask is: Those of you who would be willing to work on the issues that you have with some of the -- it doesn't have to be councillors, it can be some other people. It can be Avri from the -- as chair of the group and whatever, but would you identify yourself if you're willing to help work on this motion and deal with the issues that you have and see -- Jeff? Okay. Let's get these on the record. Jeff, Wolf, Tim. Anybody else? Okay. And Avri, are you willing to work with that? Thank you. All right. And again, that -- this doesn't exclude others that might want to do it. It's probably better to keep it a little bit small but make sure we have the people on there that have the issues, so that they can be -- they can be worked, and then keep in mind you've got the 8- day advance requirement and so -- and our next meeting is on the 6th, is that right, Glen? 6th of January. So keep that in mind. I appreciate you volunteering and we're going to move now to recommendations -- back to recommendation -- the rec 6 community working group, and where are we at on that. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Chuck, I hope I'm not speaking too optimistically when I say that I believe this will be short and sweet. >>CHUCK GOMES: I would -- that would be great. [ Laughter ] >>MARY WONG: I'm feeling incredibly friendly today, so I would like to offer yet another friendly amendment to myself. >>CHUCK GOMES: Very good. >>MARY WONG: Which I hope all the council will go along with me on. May I just -- may I read the amended motion in full? >>CHUCK GOMES: Please do. >>MARY WONG: "Whereas, on 8 September, 2010, the GNSO Council endorsed GNSO participation in a joint working group with other interested supporting organizations and advisory committees to provide guidance to ICANN's new gTLD implementation team and the ICANN board in relation to the implementation of the council's Recommendation 6 regarding strings that contravene generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law. "WHEREAS, the Recommendation 6 cross-community working group, or CWG, was established in accordance with the terms of reference also approved by the GNSO Council on 8 September 2010 and "WHEREAS, the CWG has since delivered a set of recommendations regarding implementation of the GNSO Council's Recommendation 6 for new gTLDs to the community; "RESOLVED, the council thanks the CWG and its participants from the GNSO and other SOs and ACs for their hard work and acknowledges that the CWG recommendations do not constitute consensus policy or GNSO policy development otherwise within the purview of the GNSO.; "RESOLVED FURTHER, the council recommends that each stakeholder group and constituency provide feedback as soon as possible to the council on the CWG's recommendations." >>CHUCK GOMES: Bill, do you second that friendly amendment? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Seems kind of unfriendly to me. I don't know whether I should -- yeah. No. I'm sorry. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Discussion? Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. So in light of the friendly amendment, the IPC can now support this motion. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Any other discussion? Jeff? Okay. Good. No other discussion? All right. Does anyone object to a voice vote on this motion as amended? Jeff, you do? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think we should get it on the record. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. You guys just aren't cooperating with me on time today. Okay. It will be a voice -- a roll call vote. >>LIZ GASSTER: Excuse me, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>LIZ GASSTER: It's Liz. If I could just make a quick comment from the remote participation. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes, you may. >>LIZ GASSTER: I apologize for interrupting. There is a comment from Ken that asks that this be made public before you all take a vote, and that is his concern that many constituencies will not have a chance to deliberate prior to the January 6 council meeting. Thanks. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, that's on the previous motion, yeah, okay. Yeah. Well, we have a process that's moving very quickly. I don't -- I don't know what I can say. We're trying -- while doing all these other things, we're trying to avoid further delays, so thanks for the comment. All right. Roll call vote. Glen? >>JEFF NEUMAN: In favor. >>EDMON CHUNG: In favor. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: In favor. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: In favor. >>JOHN BERARD: In favor. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah. >>DEBRA HUGHES: In favor. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Rafik? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: In favor. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Si. >>CHUCK GOMES: Gracias. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes. >>MARY WONG: Yes, please. >>WENDY SELTZER: Yes. >>DAVID TAYLOR: Yes. >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: Yes. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Si. Claro. >>TIM RUIZ: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: I guess I'd better vote yes. >>TERRY DAVIS: Yes, also. >>JAIME WAGNER: Yes, of course. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: I think I've called everybody's names, have I? Have I left off anybody? It passes unanimously, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much. And nice work. You're doing good a good job with friendly amendments to your own motion, Mary. My compliments. All right. Moving on -- I've tried to do this several times unsuccessfully, hopefully this time it will work -- to Item 5, the IDN -- the Joint IDN working group -- the JIG, as we abbreviate it -- and Edmon, I don't want to cut you unfairly short but if you would be as brief as possible, it would be appreciated, since there's no particular action item here but we do need to know where that's at. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. I was planning on trying to catch up some time for you. I already sent an update to the council list, so you can refer to that as well, but I will highlight a few things. So the JIG, I -- you know, after a lot of discussion about this cross-community working group, this is, I guess, one of the first as well. It's a joint group with the -- between the ccNSO and the GNSO on IDNs. The JIG identified three issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO. There are the single-character IDN TLDs. Number two is TLD variant. And number three was universal acceptance of IDN TLDs. So in terms of the first item, single-character IDN TLDs, an initial report was completed and published in July this year, and public comments were received, considered, and a draft final report was published and -- for public comments, and it's now open for public comments and closing December 30th, this year. December 30th, 2010. So I encourage everyone to take a look at it and provide us feedback. As a very quick summary of that, the recommendation is to -- for -- to stay with the GNSO policy recommendation to allow single-character IDN TLDs with some specific implementation recommendations as well, to assist staff in terms of implementation. Included was also -- in the final report was also some editorial suggestions to the applicant guidebook as well, so this hopefully can assist staff in the implementation. In terms of next steps, hopefully creating some good precedents, the next steps is actually after receiving the comments, the JIG will finalize the report and the report will go back to the respective councils for consideration. So it will come back to the GNSO Council and the GNSO Council hopefully -- will consider it and hopefully at that time would agree with it and pass it to the board. But in terms of process, it will come back to this council for consideration of next actions. In terms of the second item, which is the IDN TLD variant, work began earlier in the year, but it was suspended because the board made a resolution in October to -- for staff to create a work plan. The work plan, we haven't seen yet, so the work was suspended. This Thursday -- actually tomorrow morning, we'll have a working group session here in Cartagena. We are hoping that Tina would give us some update on that, so we can restart the discussion on that. That's the end of the update. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Any quick questions? Bill? >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I'm just curious, since we've had so much discussion lately about community working groups and the mechanics and modalities of how they report and so on, and their competence, could we learn any lessons from this group which apparently nobody has any problems with? Is there anything in particular that the other community working groups should know from this experience that we could perhaps apply elsewhere, since people have been raising all these concerns? >>CHUCK GOMES: Good question. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess I don't know how to offer the learning, but I think one important issue -- well, personally -- this is a just personally opinion -- I think when it was chartered, it actually specifically had the process such that the -- a final report is produced and it's feedback to the respective councils, the ccNSO council and the GNSO Council, and that was a very clear path. And the councils can deliberate and decide what to do with that final report, and whichever -- well, in fact, on that particular issue, item, each council may take different actions, and that's perfectly fine as well. So I think that might be one of the things to take into consideration as well. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other hands raised, what I'm going to suggest -- and you can overrule me if you like and I won't be overly sensitive about that, but is that we skip ahead to agenda Item 8 -- let me get them in order -- 11, and 12, and 13, which I think are pretty straightforward but really do need to be done in this meeting. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would actually -- >>CHUCK GOMES: (Speaker is off microphone). >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would actually ask if we could try and do the RAA friendly amendment only because I think what I tried very hard to do was to carve this up in a way that the parts to which I had been led to believe there was no objection we might be able to get through this relatively quickly. I'm happy to give us like a 10-minute time line if we can -- >>CHUCK GOMES: No. I'm willing to try. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: So -- and then skip ahead to those others and then come back in order like that. Any objections to that approach? So I'll include -- we'll go ahead and go to Item 7 -- or excuse me, Item 6, and then skip to 8 and so on. Okay? All right. Going on, then, to Item 6, the recommendation -- proposed changes to enhance ICANN's registrar accreditation evaluation process. There was a session on that earlier in the day that many of you were involved in. I caught the last half of it, I think, myself. And we have an overview by Margie, and while she's -- oh, yes. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was actually just going to suggest that in the interest of time, given the fact that we covered this overview during our weekend working sessions and given the fact that we can put the PowerPoint up in Adobe while we're discussing the motion, that perhaps we could, in this instance, make an exception and skip the overview. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is there any objection to that? Thanks, Margie. You did a wonderful job. [ Applause ] [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: I appreciate the brevity. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: And the smile. Okay. All right. So we'll go to the motion. Kristina, would you - - and then this is a revised, motion -- right? -- that happened today? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. It's a friendly amendment to the motion that I had introduced at the end of November, and I'll go through and read it, but the purpose of it is to essentially divide that initial motion into two discrete parts to deal with the actually two very distinct action items that came out of this final report and to defer action on one part of that simply because it's been made clear that there will be time for further work. So with that introduction... "WHEREAS" -- >>CHUCK GOMES: By the way, you're following Mary's example? A friendly amendment to your motion? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: No. She made it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, she made it. Okay. Boy, she's on a roll. Go ahead. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And I've accepted it. "WHEREAS, a motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvement to the registrar accreditation agreement has been submitted and seconded; "WHEREAS, that motion called for the GNSO Council to accept the final report to approve the form of the registrant rights and responsibilities charter as described in Annex D of the final report, to recommend that staff commence the consultation process with registrars to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites of registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA, and to recommend that staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the final report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report; "WHEREAS, some GNSO Councillors have expressed the view that further work is necessary on the portion of that motion relating to the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA; "WHEREAS, the GNSO Council does not wish for such work to delay progress on the registrant rights and responsibilities charter referenced above; "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the motion to approve the recommendations in the final report on proposals for improvements to the registrar accreditation agreement be amended as set out below: "Number 1, WHEREAS, on 4 March, 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a consultative process initiated by ICANN; "WHEREAS, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the at-large community to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA. Specifically, to draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; "WHEREAS, on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals for improvements to the RAA; "WHEREAS, the GNSO Council has reviewed the final report and desires to approve some of the recommendations and proposals contained therein; "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the final report for improvements to the RAA; "RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the final report and approves that the form of the registrant rights and responsibilities charters as described in Annex D of the final report; "RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that the staff commence the consultation process with registrars in the RAA to finalize the registrant rights and responsibilities charter for posting on the Web sites on specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA. "Number 2, WHEREAS, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 registrar accreditation agreement developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; "WHEREAS, in addition to approving the RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the at- large community to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA. Specifically, to develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable. 'WHEREAS" -- and it's the same "whereas" clause as before -- "on 18 October 2010 the joint GNSO/ALAC RAA drafting team published its final report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that further action on the priority topics described and the process specified as Process A in the final report to develop a new form of RAA be deferred until the GNSO Council's next regularly scheduled telephone meeting." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. And let's see. Who was the second on that one? Let me look at my notes here. Okay. Are you okay with that? >> Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: All right. Thank you. All right. Now it's open for discussion. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: And I'm the lawyer here, but what are we doing here? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: What we're doing, we're taking the initial motion, which you -- and this is in response to your criticism that it had too much in it, so I'm amending it to divide it in half. We today are going to vote on the half that relates to the registrant rights and responsibilities charter, and to essentially -- All -- it doesn't change the substance of the motion. It just says we're approving this portion now, and that's the -- approves the form of the registrant rights and responsibilities charter. It also then defers further action on anything relating to the priority topics and the -- the Process A until our next meeting. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And all this works from a motion perspective? This is good? This is clean? >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't see any problem with it. >>JEFF NEUMAN: It's a lot of words. And I'm the lawyer, I know. Right? Okay. That's my question. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. We have several hands up. Stéphane and then Tim. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I'm not a lawyer and I'm completely lost. Is there any way we can get that text up somewhere on Adobe or something so we can see it, because -- >>CHUCK GOMES: It's in the wiki. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: What, Kristina's new text? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. You see how lost I am? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, Kristina, let me request you do this: Would you just focus on the "resolveds" in this motion? And you're welcome to paraphrase them. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Sure. >>CHUCK GOMES: You don't have to read them verbatim. >>JEFF NEUMAN: It's a doubled "Resolved." >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes, it is. >>JEFF NEUMAN: It's a "Resolved" that's divided into two motions, and then there's a bunch of new "Whereas" clauses with new "Resolveds," and I think I'm okay with the substance. I'm just trying to make sure. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Basically what I was trying to do was to track as closely as possible the content of the original motion and to do it in a way that, standing alone in the future, people would understand what was trying to be done. I clearly did not do that very well, but, you know, in any event, what we're resolving to do today is to accept the final report, approve the form of the registrant rights and responsibilities charter that's described in Annex D of that report, and to recommend that staff start the consultative process with registrars that's set out in the RAA in order to finalize that registrant rights charter. Full stop. We are also resolving to defer further action on the priority topics identified for potential future amendment and the process for that potential further amendment, which is named Process A in the final report. We're going to defer any action on that until our next meeting. That's what it does. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Now, Tim, you were in the queue. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. You know, I don't want to be the wet blanket on this, but I think from our perspective that we don't feel we can vote on this today, and if we're going to defer the -- Well, the meatiest part, of course, is the RAA amendments part. Not that the registrant rights charter is not important. And we actually support that. So I want to make that clear. If we do vote today, however we vote, I want to make sure that's clear. But that we feel it would be best if we could -- if we could table this for one more meeting to give us a chance to kind of fathom this a little bit further and make sure that our stakeholder group's in line with it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Any further discussion? Now, Tim, was that a request to defer this motion to the next meeting? Okay. And we have a practice of honoring that first time around on a motion. So this will be deferred till to the next meeting. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Sure. I just wanted to clarify for the purpose of the registrar stakeholder group, you should anticipate seeing a new motion that essentially restores the original one and sets out further delineation of some of the process issues that were identified as concerns by the NCSG. >>TIM RUIZ: Then, Kristina, let's just vote on the original motion today. We would be up for that. We'll vote for the original motion today, or we delay this one until next time. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: The goal here is to move forward with the registrant's rights charter, which is what I had been led to believe there was no objection to. There were no questions or concerns articulated during our working sessions. >>TIM RUIZ: There isn't. But we just read a two-page motion. I'm reading it right now. We haven't covered this at all with any of our stakeholder group groups. I'm just nervous here because we had a very clear -- we had a very clear mandate about this particular motion, and we're just nervous about making an on-the-fly decision on this one. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. So that will be deferred to the next meeting at the request of the registrars. Mr. Foody, we're going to have to plug ahead because of time constraints. We're hoping still to have an open mic at the end, but we're so far behind schedule that I'm going to have to limit the audience participation until we see where we're at on the time. So please feel free to get back up at another point. What I would like to ask now is for Olga to take over the chair seat while the chair takes another needed break. And we're going to jump to Item 8 which is the joint DSSA, the DNS security and stability analysis working group charter. Olga, would you take that, please? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. Stéphane, is that okay for you, taking the chair role? Yeah? Is that okay that I take the chair role? >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Yeah. I wasn't even listening, so it is clearly okay. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you so much. So point 8 of our agenda is joint DNS security and stability analysis working group charter. There was a charter, and there is a link to the charter which is a PDF document and Julie will make an overview of the charter. Julie, are you ready? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yes, I am, thank you, Olga. The council received on the 15th of November for consideration a draft charter of the joint security and stability analysis working group. This is a charter that grew out of meetings that were held in the ICANN Brussels meeting along with members of the ALAC and the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NROs where they acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system. The charter, which you have a link to so I will not reiterate everything in the charter, contains drafts of objectives, activities and deliverables for this new working group, including a scope of activities, deliverables and time frames, various reporting requirements, membership requirements and some other procedural items standard to working groups based on models both in the GNSO guidelines as well as practices among some of the other SOs and ACs. The charter is in a draft that's presented for the GNSO Council consideration. It is also being considered by the ALAC, the ccNSO as well. And I, also, I think by the NROs as well. Each of these groups have their own processes for reviewing and approving the charter. And I welcome any questions you may have for me. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much, Julie. Any questions? Any comments to Julie? [ No verbal response. ] Okay. We have a motion which has been submitted by Chuck and seconded by -- hold on a second -- Jaime. Should I read the motion? "Whereas, there were meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting in June 2010 at the At-large Advisory Committee, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization, the ccNSO, the Generic Names Supporting Organization, the GNSO, the Governmental Advisory Committee GAC, and the Number Resource Organization, NRO, acknowledge the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global domain name system, DNS. "Whereas, this issue is considered to be of common interest to the participating supporting organizations, advisory committees and others and should be preferably undertaken in a collaborative effort. "Whereas, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO agree to establish a joint DNS security and stability analysis working group, DSSA WG, in accordance with each organization's own rules and procedures and invite other ACs to liaise and engage with this DSSA WG in a manner they consider to be appropriate. "Whereas, a drafting team of the chairs of the ccNSO, the ALAC and the GNSO along with interested representatives from those organizations produced a draft charter and posted it for the review of the participating SOs and ACs on 15 November, 2010." There is a link. "Now, therefore be it Resolved, that the GNSO Council approve this draft charter and encourages GNSO constituencies to call the groups and other GNSO participants to identify possible participants to the DSSA working group with demonstrated expertise in the objectives of the draft charter." This is the motion. I will open a queue for discussion, comments. Comments? Discussions? Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I just want to note that I think this is a good charter. I think it is important to note that this charter unlike some of the other ones we talked about specifically recognizes the roles of each of the SOs and specifically recognizes that any report would go back to the SO if it chooses to do so. So I want to note that for the record when we consider other cross-working groups. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Jeff. Any other comments about the motion? Are you back? >>CHUCK GOMES: Finish this one. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. I think we should take a vote. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Rafik, is it you? >>RAFIK DAMMAK: I raised my hand in the Adobe Connect. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I'm so sorry. I did not see you. Please go ahead. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Just a question, this new working group will be open to everybody or only the different constituency and stakeholder group groups will endorse the participants who can be involved in the working group? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Rafik. Who can address the question of Rafik about the openness of the -- Chuck, please? >>CHUCK GOMES: It would be open. Did you get that, Rafik? And we talked about it. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: We talked about that in the drafting team for that. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Rafik. Apologies for not seeing your hands up. Anyone else want to comment? Okay. I think we should take a vote. Anyone is opposed to take a voice vote on this motion? Okay. So everyone in favor please say -- what should I say -- aye? Say Si or aye? [ Chorus of Si's. ] >>OLGA CAVALLI: Are there any abstentions? [ No verbal response. ] Anyone opposing to the motion? [ No verbal response. ] Thank you. So the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you so much. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much, Olga. That helped me a lot. So we're going now to Agenda Item 11 -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: Chuck, can we do an abbreviated version of Number 10 since there is a charter that will expire if we don't act on it. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's a good point. I glossed over that. Yes, we can. Thank you. So we will go to Item 10, the GNSO improvements item. And we'll need, first of all, an Operations Steering Committee report from Philip Sheppard. Philip, we will turn the mic over to you. And then we'll go to the PPSC, the policy process steering committee, report from Jeff and then a staff report from Rob Hoggarth. Is Rob in the room? So, Rob, you might want to make your way down a little bit closer to the mic so that when we're ready, we can move quickly to that. Philip, are you ready? It is all yours. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I am. Thank you, Jeff, for sabotaging the agenda. So just to let you know, we had a meeting this session in Cartagena. There were three main topics of discussion. First was to do with the DOI/SOI. These are the statements of interest section. There has been some concern, as you know, on council about that. What we took was, in fact, a draft that council themselves had produced, which was eliminating the DOI and conflating that into the SOI. And we made some several amendments to that based upon discussion in the room. The meeting was fully attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups, and we had consensus on the changes that we made. We made some refinements in the SOI to clarify and make things a bit simpler from where they were. And in terms of not losing some of the issues to do with timeliness and the intent of what the DOI used to be about, which was an issue-specific declaration, we're going to be introducing a suggestion that all working groups and groups have the same practice as council in which the chair prompts any refreshment needed in the statement of interest at the beginning of the meeting, just to make sure that happens. We should have a draft of that available fairly shortly. That will just go through a consultation process at the steering committee level only. And if that looks good, we're happy with that. We will bump it to yourselves to have a look at. Basically, it looks like we have done the job on that. Second item was discussing the report that's come up from the constituency stakeholder group on global outreach program recommendations. There were several suggestions made, all supported and friendly in terms of where things have been on the provisional report. That report has gone back to the CSG. That will take on those points and come back to us. There was also, however, a broad item of principle about that which really had to do with the audiences that we're addressing because the current construct of the outreach program recommendations somewhat conflate -- or they recognize the differences of audiences, somewhat conflate the actions that could happen. We thought maybe it would be useful to perhaps tease out a little bit more the separation of that, the concept in terms of who you want to be involved and why do you want to be involved as opposed to simply chasing people for specific commercial opportunities, for instance. There has been difference of flavors in that. We may need to look at that a bit more. The third item was referred to -- we ran out of time. This is the absentee voting abstentions proxy procedures. I received some input from a couple of constituencies now that the procedures are causing some problems. We are very happy to take those back and look at them and define them in a way that makes sense. These procedures should be there to serve the functioning efficiency of council, not impede it. And I will be sending a communication to council shortly in which I will be prompting your responses and any learnings you have used in the current procedures so we can take those back in terms of precise problems that you have found and a better way of achieving the same objective. That's it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much, Philip. Stay there just a moment. Any questions of Philip? Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's go to Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks. There is a couple slides, very short actually. Just briefly, background, the PPSC is responsible for reviewing and recommending processes used within the GNSO for developing policy. And, eventually, we oversee two work teams, the working group work team and the PDP work team. The status of the working group work team essentially, we met here in Cartagena. And we believe that the PPSC subject to a couple wording things, we've agreed on all the issues and we believe that very shortly after this meeting we will vote to approve the working group work team final report and submit that to the council for consideration. So that should be on the next agenda. And with respect to the PDP work team, we are working on a draft final report to be published for public comment. We're addressing a number of outstanding issues. And if I can stress anything, as I did over the weekend, is we really encourage this council here to get all of their members that belong or that were members of the PDP work team to actually show up and contribute. We're moving forward. But it would be great to actually get more participation so we can get this out the door. And, finally, following review of the public comments, we will then have the final report and submit that in accordance with the procedures to the PPSC. That's where we are. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Any questions or comments regarding that report before we go to Rob? I will make one. I want to emphasize what Jeff just requested. A lot of us have been impatient and critical of the time some of these things have taken. And this particular working group, the PDP working team, really has had very erratic participation by its members. So please take to heart what he said, and let's help get that thing done by making sure we have good participation from all of the stakeholder groups and constituencies. Let's go to Rob. Welcome, Rob. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have asked me to report on three items with respect to GNSO improvements. Progress on the constituency and stakeholder group charters, progress on the GNSO Web site and then information about the GNSO toolkit of services for administrative support for constituencies and stakeholders. I will briefly touch on each of those. By way of contrasting the stakeholder group charter arena, you know that last July, the two contracted stakeholder groups received permanent charters. And under that process, the board said after a year it would review them. With respect to non-contracted party stakeholder groups, both those groups were given transitional charters. In terms of constituencies, they will ultimately all be subject to some reconfirmation. And the impacting element of their work is that the council in early August approved a new set of GNSO operating procedures that impacted how they conducted their business. So in that context, the CSG has actually ratified a permanent charter document. It has been submitted to the board for consideration and has been posted for public comment. That comment forum is going to be going through late January. So that's an active issue there. The NCSG has been in discussions with the Structural Improvements Committee of the board and they are continuing to proceed with those discussion and, I think, are meeting this week with members of the board about that proposal. The registry stakeholder group has pursued revisions to its charter documents and has shared some of those efforts with the staff. I understand it hasn't been formally voted on yet, but there has been some very good progress there. We have also been approached by the registrar stakeholder group regarding their efforts on charter revisions. And on the constituency front, the IPC has completed revisions to their charter document and submitted those to staff. The BC, we just participated earlier today with them on a meeting to work on their charter amendments. And we look forward to hearing from the other groups in terms of their efforts. With respect to the GNSO Web site, the council got a report during the working session this weekend from ICANN staffer Scott Pinzon as well as Chris Chaplow from Andalucia Web Services in the BC. In short, I think they got a very good response from members of the council with respect to some of the plans. Looks very good. And if members of the community are interested in seeing some screen shots of that new Web site, the pictures and the presentations that Scott and Chris offered are attached to the end of the GNSO work session's Web page. So you can find those there. In view the good response from the GNSO Council over the weekend, staff is going to pursue a goal of getting all the content loaded and provided by March of next year by the San Francisco meeting, a rather ambitious goal, but we are going to make an effort to do that. Finally, with respect to the toolkit, I offered the council an overview over the weekend. I was invited by the NCSG to make a presentation to them and we're hopeful to have the checklist with all the various stakeholder groups and constituencies to provide their insights to Glen with respect to FY11 and FY12 very shortly. We hope over the next several days we can complete that check sheet. Finally, at Bill Drake's request, I made an examination and asked our I.T. team about the success of the audiocast efforts on behalf of the GNSO Council. And I promised to report what I could about participation as well as cost. On average, it is our understanding that two to seven remote participants were actually making use of the audiocast. The I.T. team reports to me that at present their staffing resources that are necessary to make that effort work are really minimal. Most of their effort went into developing the capability itself and that the charges for running one of those audiocasts are really nominal on a meeting-by-meeting basis. And that's my report, unless you have any questions. >>CHUCK GOMES: Stay there a second. Let's find out. Thank you very much, Rob. Any questions, comments on Rob's report? Looks like there is some pretty good progress happening there. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Great, thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Okay. The next thing under this agenda topic are two motions. They are competing motions, and we will take them in the order they were submitted. I was confusing that with the existing constituencies. I skipped -- I'm doing this a lot today. Let's go now to new constituency presentations. And the first one we have is the cybercafe ecosystem constituency. And then we will follow that with the not-for-profit organizations constituency. Are the presenters ready on those two items? Please go to the podium. Thank you. Are we going to have a presentation -- Okay. If you would be close up there, that would be appreciated. If you can go down there and sit near the podium, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. >> NARESH AJWANI: Thank you very much. It is historical and there is no exaggeration about this because an important stakeholder who we have engaged during the inception of Internet, rather it has played a key role for enhancing the Internet usage, has got a presentation today. It has taken years, many years, but I must appreciate the council who's open to listen to this most-important stakeholder. Cybercafes are telecenters, are public Internet access providers, their personal ambitions and their way to take Internet to next billion, which is actually emerging through them and emerging economies. Let me take this opportunity on the behalf of entire cybercafe community, which is really large in number, for giving me the chance to elaborate further on our request to recognize cybercafe ecosystem public Internet access as a new constituency called PIA cybercafe ecosystem in the structure of the GNSO. We are delighted with the possibility that (inaudible) would briefly share some insights, some very important insights of the new Internet users and the important role played by this community. The existing is they have a basic literacy and education level. However, it would be wrong to assume that the next billion Internet users residing in the emerging nations, two would have the same profile since the nations have their own uniqueness, where users have their own cultural backgrounds. Despite the strength of Internet penetration, especially in the emerging countries, they are not a success. Many impediments have been referred and talked about. In our own opinion, in the opinion of this community's experience, it is all about lack of digital literacy and general mind-set of the people who don't belong to DIY that we have to do it ourselves. If they are rich, they want assistance. If they are poor, they want assistance. This community facilitates this assistance which as a result, the next billion Internet users are becoming very importantly depending upon this constituency. They not only play the role of customized facilities for the Internet users but also provide much-needed assistance service for the non-English speaking and non- computer literate population. They are a single point for access. They facilitate information. They facilitate dissemination. They facilitate education. They provide support services for the local residents who may not be literate. In simple words to reach out to the next billion users in Internet, we have an enhanced role to play. And they are present in significant numbers in most of the emerging countries. I belong to India. There are 180,000 cybercafes who are like many ISPs. The uniqueness of cybercafe relies in the fact that they are a complete ecosystem of Internet service provider. They are access. They are content. They are commerce. And they are the users. It is a place where physical and virtual coexist. It is a perfect place to fill up any gaps arising out of technology being virtual. Unlike the commercial ISP, cybercafe telecenters while dealing with issues of access especially in remote and rural communities are accountable for the content and service provider to the users. As a result, we are the most important means to reach out to the next billion users on the Internet from the widely spaced communities of the emerging world residing in Africa, China and India. Secondly, most cybercafes operate around a specific and limited local geographic area and are, therefore, familiar with the understanding that local patrons operate in a bottom-up approach unlike ISPs. We see it as an association, www.ccao.in, have followed an approach of an NGO, right from the membership to the service that we provide like free guidance to improve services telecenters, cafes, free legal support, free surveillance system, ultimate mobile payment to overcome payment issues, all are being done free of charge. Today, in India alone, there are a hundred million Internet users and 60% of them come from cybercafes or telecenters. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Let me ask. I apologize for interrupting, but we are so far behind schedule that if you can bring your presentation to a close fairly quickly, it would be much appreciated. >>NARESH AJWANI: I will do that, sir. This association, along with VeriSign itself, in the last two months -- rather, three months, has brought 6,000 domain name resellers and have been playing similar such kind of roles all across the world. This community needs recognition, needs representation in ICANN because it has got its own set of challenges, own different kind of an ecosystem, and if new ICANN is planning to think about reaching to the next billion, this particular community has to have a relationship, has to have a representation and a different approach. I'm available for any kind of inquiry, so that I really can address them instead of making a presentation, because the details are there on the Web site. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Another pending new constituency. >>AMBER STERLING: Good evening now. My name is Amber Sterling and I am a proponent, along with Debra Hughes of the not-for-profit operational concerns constituency, NPOC. We have been working very well with NCSG in person, face-to-face finally this week, and hence, the slight name change from the not-for- profit organizations constituency to the not-for-profit operational concerns constituency, and if you'd bear with me, I have two sentences to read from our mission statement. "The NPOC shall focus on the impact of DNS policies and their effects on the operational readiness and implementation of noncommercial missions and objectives. NPOC members rely on the Internet and DNS policies to provide valuable services to their communities." And we are continuously reaching out to organizations around the globe, and see that as something that we will never be complete with. New members will always be more than welcome. And we hope our charter is approved as soon as possible because it's always easier to sell a product that exists, so thank you so much for your time. >>CHUCK GOMES: And thank you for being brief. I much appreciate that. >>AMBER STERLING: Of course. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm sorry to squeeze you on time. >>AMBER STERLING: No, no. >>CHUCK GOMES: All right. Any comments or discussion on those presentations? Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. Just a quick question. So what happens now? I mean, maybe Rob is the person to answer it, but when is -- does this need to be considered by the board? If so, when? How does this happen? >>ROB HOGGARTH: The process is that both of these groups of proponents have submitted formal petitions for recognition by the board and it's in the board's hands. Quite frankly the process is theirs at this moment. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is it on the agenda for this week? >>ROB HOGGARTH: No, it is not. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: If I could just add on behalf of the noncommercial stakeholders group, we actually have a process within our interim charter where we consider constituency applications for our stakeholder group in an environment where there's board oversight. So I just wanted to let people know that that process is actually going along quite speedily, and there's a meeting with the structural improvements committee. So whilst it's not formally on the board's agenda at this meeting, from our point of view we are making good progress. >>CHUCK GOMES: And Rosemary, how does that relate to these constituency applications? >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: The one that we're considering is the not-for- profit operational concerns constituency. >>CHUCK GOMES: And how -- I'm still not understanding how that relates to their application to be a constituency. >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: Within noncommercial stakeholders group charter, we have a process within our charter -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, okay. >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: -- for considering constituencies which is in parallel with the board process, and they come together in our charter with an approach whereby our decision is -- seeks board oversight. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Thank you. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: So on that, if the NCUC doesn't approve -- >>CHUCK GOMES: NCSG. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Sorry. Okay. I'm thinking about the process that runs in parallel. Does there have to be approval by the NCSG of this new constituency? Is that what was said? And if that doesn't happen, then what? >>CHUCK GOMES: Rosemary, can you answer that question? >>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR: There's quite a process outlined in our charter which talks about what happens if the first decision by the exec committee is not to approve this, the appeals process and so on. So there's quite a process, a number of steps in our interim charter. >>CHUCK GOMES: So what happens if the board approves the charter and the NCSG doesn't? Avri, can you answer that? >>AVRI DORIA: This is Avri again, this time speaking as chair of the NCSG exec committee. The whole thing is under discussion at the moment with the -- the SIC. There is basically a proposal that includes the stakeholder group approves/disapproves/informs the board. The board, in its oversight role accepts/doesn't accept/sends it back, et cetera. There's a very -- and this is all in discussion and in definition at the moment, so - - and what we are really hoping -- and by the way, there's two constituencies in formation, not one. There's also the -- the consumer affairs constituency which is a combination of the one that already applied and one from within, so at one point we had two of them. They're combining. And we're trying to get them all through the board and the SIC altogether, so there's a lot of discussion and process going on, but it is very much a bottom-up stakeholder group decision with oversight and correction by the board. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Thank you very much. Rob, one more thing? >>ROB HOGGARTH: I just wanted to clarify one of my remarks. I suggested that both of the presenters today had been official. The CCAOI is still in the notice of intent phase, so they still have to submit a formal petition and charter, but the NPOC has already satisfied that requirement, as well as I believe the consumers group that Avri referred to. They made a presentation to this council back at Mexico City, I believe. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Just a very quick question. Maybe I missed it, but which stakeholder group is the first one, the cybercafe one, applying for? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Their notice of intent to form reflected, I believe, the CSG, the commercial stakeholders group. Oh, NCSG. Okay. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: NCSG. Thank you. Okay. Jaime? >>JAIME WAGNER: As I understand, it would be CSG. No? Because I - - in Brazil, cybercafes are known as LAN houses, and despite the fact that mainly very small businesses or sometimes individual businesses, they are businesses. So I don't know if this -- where would it fit if it is NCSG or CSG? >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm going to suggest that you get that answer off line. >>JAIME WAGNER: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay? So after the meeting, if you could -- >> (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: All right. One line. >>NARESH AJWANI: They are businessmen with a cause and not only for themselves but for ICANN, for the Internet community we have to think from that perspective than just thinking from that they make small money. That's my request. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. And you may want to pursue that discussion -- I suggest you pursue that discussion later, Jaime. All right. Let's go to the motion. And it's a motion that I made, and I don't believe I accepted Mary's amendment as friendly. I did it privately, but I don't think I did it on the council list, but I do accept your amendment, Mary, as a friendly amendment. And Jeff, you seconded the motion? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yes. And I'll accept the second. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. So the -- unless somebody objects, I'm going to skip the whereases. And I'm going to -- Mary, would you -- because it -- to make sure I don't mess up your amendments, would you do the -- read the "resolved" portions with your amended portion as it should be read, please? >>MARY WONG: And I shall do so in a very friendly manner. "RESOLVED, the council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC, and the five community work teams for their hard work and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the council anyplace remaining targets and benchmarks for the respective work by no later than 19 January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery; "RESOLVED FURTHER, a drafting team shall be established no later than 19 January 2011 to draft a charter for a standing committee to track and coordinate implementation of those OSC, PPSC, and work team recommendations already approved by the council and adopted as recommended by the communications and coordination work team in its final report of 9 April 2010." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Any discussion? Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. Just confirming, to make sure my understanding - - again, I'm a little slow, but -- so the standing committee, once formed, eventually it will exist. The idea is that the steering committees will no longer exist. So the standing committee is sort of the new structure in that regard? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, I don't think that's exactly right. The -- >> (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>TIM RUIZ: I know there may be some overlap but I'm just... >>CHUCK GOMES: There will be in the sense that the standing committee could start before all of the -- before the PPSC and OSC work is finished but the standing committee at that point would only work on those GNSO improvement recommendations that have already been adopted. They wouldn't -- they wouldn't be working on the ongoing work of the PPSC and the OSC. Does that make sense? Yeah. Very good question. It was important that that's understood. Mary? >>MARY WONG: I'm sorry to be -- to throw a (inaudible) in the works but I think you might have done better off if you'd done the reading of the motion because I think the way that it's been printed out was probably a little different. I think that the amendment that I had proposed, the intention was that it would replace the second sentence of your original motion, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right. So we should have included part of that original -- >>MARY WONG: So if I may read the "Resolved" again. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes, you may. Thank you. >>MARY WONG: "RESOLVED, the council extends the terms of the operations steering committee and the policy processes steering committee and their respective work teams as necessary through the San Francisco ICANN public meeting in March 2011. The council acknowledges and thanks the OSC, the PPSC, and the five committee work teams for their hard work and directs each steering committee and applicable work team chair to identify for the council any remaining targets and benchmarks for the respective work by no later than the 19th of January 2011, including expected deadlines for final delivery." Do I need to read the second "Resolved" clause? I don't think so. >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I don't think so. Let's just move to discussion. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I wasn't aware that that first part was in there. I think just being realistic, the PPSC will not wrap up. There's -- there's zero chance that the PPSC will wrap up by March 2011. And so I mean, I think that should -- I think that part should really be stricken or make a friendly amendment to put whatever date the San Francisco -- the June meeting is in, because I -- the schedule that we're on that we discussed about producing a draft final report, taking in public comment, and then producing a final report, since there aren't that many weeks left before the San Francisco meeting, just to be realistic it's not going to make that March date. >>CHUCK GOMES: So Jeff, you're suggesting that the part -- the March 2011 part be stricken or changed to the June 2011. Not that whole sentence. Because we do need to extend the charters. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Correct. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. Okay. Mary? >>MARY WONG: I was actually going to suggest instead of getting it -- making it more complicated that we stick with the motion the way it is, because part of the motion requires the identification of deliverables and deadlines. So it's -- what I would suggest, then, is for the -- is it the PPSC or the PDP -- you're talking about the PDP work team and possibly, therefore, the PPSC to then, at the January meeting, request specific extension for their charters. It might make it simpler. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Well, I mean, how is that simpler when I'm telling you that we're not going to make that deadline? I mean, consider this to be the formal request. You know, we're supposed to manage the process but we'll be realistic here, and given what's on our plates, there -- it's just not going to happen. So the simplest thing is to just extend it to June. Just take the word "months" -- >>MARY WONG: But you mean the PPSC charter or both charters? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Let's make it both. The simplest thing is to strike the word "March" replace it with the word "June." >>MARY WONG: I don't think I'm in any position to accept or not because it's not my motion, but I can say that that would be a problem for the NCSG. >>CHUCK GOMES: Has the -- >>JEFF NEUMAN: Let me ask why. Given the fact that there's no way that this report will be produced, given the fact that the work team is working, given the fact of what we outlined in the report I just gave, why would the NCSG not agree to the extension of that? >>MARY WONG: I think because I understood -- and my fellow councillors can jump in if I'm misspeaking on behalf of the entire group, because I think the request that you are making is a blanket extension of every work team and every steering committee that may not be working on the same time line as you. And given that the original intent, way back in -- whenever it was -- '09 when these groups were first set up, the original intent was one year, there's since been two extensions, we would like very much to have some further actual deadlines that we can work on as a -- as council to decide which group would or should be extended and which should just wrap up. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: I'll defer. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Wendy? >>WENDY SELTZER: Yeah. I just wanted to -- when we started these, we gave them specific time frames and part of the reason for doing that is to wrap things up and enable new people to get involved without having to go back through the entire history of an existing work group or work team. And so at the same time we're hearing complaints on the one hand that there isn't enough participation in some of these groups, won't we please encourage people to get involved, and on the other hand we have sort of policies and procedures that make it very difficult for people to engage anew in processes that have been going on for years. And so I would prefer it if we were able to set time frames and if work isn't completed, charter new groups to continue. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Wendy. Philip? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thanks. I'm a bit confused by some parts of this motion. Firstly, you guys get from me or staff every month a report with timeliness as to the outstanding items on the OSC. It looks like this. The big green lumps are all the stuff that's been done already. The little strips of whites that are left are the ones that are still to go. So, you know, you've got half a motion, which is basically "You're not really doing your homework at the moment." These groups will exist as long as you want them to if there's a job to be done. If there are no jobs to be done, we can scrap them tomorrow. If there's a job to be done, like the question you guys have asked me about fixing absentee voting which is too complex for you, then we've got a bunch of guys in the OSC and in the teams below who have told me this week they're all happy to continue looking at that and trying to make the processes better, leaving you guys the time to get on with doing the policy work for us, which I, as a constituent, want you to be doing and not wasting your time on this because we've got volunteers who are saying, "We are happy to do the grinding, the boring stuff that's all the stuff to do with your procedures." So, you know, we're giving you the deadlines you want, according to the work that you're asking us to do, and it will take as long as it takes, you know. So some things have been done and they're finished, some things may take a bit longer. So it's a strange motion. Clearly we need to extend them if their time is going to finish, but please decide what you want. We are there to serve. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Philip. Jeff? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. I agree with Philip. And, you know, I understand the point that when this was initially chartered, you expected things to be done, but when it was -- you initially voted to approve this, you were assuming that people -- that you guys would actually encourage your own stakeholder groups and constituencies to participate. Now that we've got -- you know, yes, I keep encouraging participation. We do have a good core group that's writing and will continue to work, and we are volunteers, and I think that, you know, if other people don't come, they don't come, but we'll still produce a work product. So just shut it off without any kind of background or context. And certainly, you know, speaking on behalf of the PDP work team, you know, we have great participation from Alex Gakuru. I think I might have pronounced that wrong, but he's been there every single week and he participants greatly and I'm wondering if you had feedback from him? Is this from him that you're talking about shutting down the team? My fear is that there's some politics going on here that I just don't understand as to why you want to shut down the team when it's working hard and there are volunteers that are doing the work and you're just basically telling them, "We don't care how hard you're working, we don't care that you're driving to conclusion, we at the top want things to be done." We totally understand that you want things to be done. We want this to be done. But I'm telling you right now that the deliverables that we have, which I will give you the complete list on the 19th which is in the motion, we will not have work done by San Francisco. If you want to pass a motion that we know today, at the time we're passing the motion, will not be met, I suppose we can do it and we kind of have to, to extend the charter, but it just doesn't make sense. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Maybe I heard incorrectly, and I hope I did, but I thought I heard words that said something like, "And if the groups working on it cannot meet the deadlines that we want, then we'll disband it and start a new group to do the work." Given that we are almost finished on the PDP group, that we have a plan how to get to the end, the concept of disbanding it, throwing the work away potentially and chartering a new group sounds like about the best way I can imagine to never get anyone to volunteer again. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Alan. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. This -- you know, this is difficult. I think that, you know, Jeff makes some very good arguments but I think others have too, and so it's really hard. I think, though, that from, you know, the councillors that I've talked to, I don't -- I think there's just concern that we -- that we can't set up a situation where we have, you know, a never-ending story kind of situation. And so the goal has just been to -- instead of just continually renewing the charter annually for a year at a time, start shortening it up now to something less than a year and let's see progress in order to have a reason to continue extending the charter. So that's kind of what I'm hearing. Opinion on things I -- you know, I know that's difficult, but I don't think anybody is looking for a way to sneak in an unexpected ending to work that's progressing and making progress, and I know we wouldn't support that, come January, if there's definite progress and a reason to extend. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Tim. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Just to respond to Jeff, Jeff, nobody's talking about shutting anybody down. In fact, this motion speaks to extending the charters of all the groups, and in response to Philip, it may be that it's worded poorly, because I think the idea was, as Tim says, that we don't want this never-ending story and loop. So -- and I have not had a chance to think about it, but it may be more acceptable if we extended the charters to June, bearing in mind that the rest of this motion talks about a standing committee that would start monitoring and tracking what's already been implemented. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Mary. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I -- I really agree with Alan and the comments that both Philip and Jeff have made. To me, it's just not reasonable to vote for a motion that has deadlines that we know -- it's irresponsible, actually. I mean, that's not a word I use very often, but I think it is in this circumstance to vote for a motion that has deadlines that we know cannot possibly be met. So I would suggest that if, you know, either you or Jeff want to tell me what would need to be done to do a friendly amendment to change March 2011 to June 2011, I'd be happy to do that. Although, you know, perhaps we should just put a placeholder down that picking up on Tim's point, that, you know, making clear to the -- the leads of those groups that further extensions beyond June 2011 are going to be difficult to obtain and that that should be kept in mind. Understanding, of course, that, you know, there are participation issues and I know that the IPC is guilty of that, so -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I will accept the amendment to change March 2011 to June 2011 as a friendly amendment. >> (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: What's that? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Then we should also remove the "San Francisco." >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Good catch, Marika. Appreciate that. Through the -- I guess it's going to be in June -- the June ICANN public meeting in -- or the ICANN public meeting in June 2011. Jeff, I don't suppose you would accept that as friendly, would you? I have to ask. >>JEFF NEUMAN: No, no, that is friendly, because -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I know. I just needed you to say it. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Oh. Yes, it's a friendly amendment. I second that friendly amendment. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Thanks. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Any further discussion? Does anybody object to a voice vote on this. All in favor say aye. [ Affirmative responses ] >>CHUCK GOMES: If you're opposed, please identify yourself. [ No response ] >>CHUCK GOMES: If you abstain, please identify yourself. [ No response ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Looks like it passed unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. We're going to have to move quickly and we're going to go next to Item 11, I believe. Let me get my correct paper in front of me here. These next few will go fairly quickly but they're very important items. I want to recognize and thank the outgoing councillors that will leave the council effective the end of the annual meeting. From the non-contracted parties house, from the commercial stakeholder group, Mike Rodenbaugh. Thank you very much, Mike, for your service for two terms -- [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: -- for four years. And I know you enjoyed every minute of it. Especially those really early meetings that you didn't come to. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Mike. Appreciate your service. And from the contracted parties house, on the phone with us, I hope you're still there, Terry -- are you still there? >>TERRY DAVIS: Yes, I am. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Terry. Appreciate you bearing with us. [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: From the registry stakeholder group, it wasn't designed this way but it's a total turnover of the registry reps -- [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Watch that, Adrian. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: You'll been very well behaved. Stéphane can -- oh, no I won't ask you to do that. [ Laughter ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: (Speaker is off microphone). >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. All right. So Edmon? [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Edmon served two terms. Caroline, who is not with us because she's looking for lodging in Brussels -- right? -- and is no longer going to -- in a few days is not going to be with dotMobi any longer, so they resigned. And then I also am termed out after two years, so let's give Caroline and you can applaud me, too, if you want. [ Applause ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. For -- what is this? Oh, well, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. And now, I also want to recognize and thank staff for the just incredible support we've had. The -- having been chair, as many long hours as I spent, I would have been dead if -- I wouldn't have had to go to the hospital this week without all the support that staff gave, and I know that Stéphane and Olga saw that support, I know the whole council did, and I would appreciate it if -- I'd like the staff members that are in the room to please stand and remain standing before we applaud. On the administrative support side, Glen de Saint Gery and Gisella Gruber-White. Stay standing, please. Hold the applause. We'll do it all at once for time's sake. I'd like to applaud each one individually too. Is Gisella here? No? Okay. From the direct GNSO policy support, David Olive, Liz Gasster, Rob Hoggarth, Marika Konings, Karla Valente, Julie Hedlund, Margie Milam, Denise Michel -- Denise supported us earlier in the year -- Steve Sheng, and Ken Bour, I -- I don't think he's here with us, is he? He's -- are you on there, Ken? Remotely? Anyway, let's give a big hand to the staff support. [ Standing Ovation ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Chuck, I just note that was disappointing that Jeff didn't stand up for that applause. >>CHUCK GOMES: He was standing. [ Laughter ] See, I can say that because I'm in the same boat. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I couldn't see the instructions because the light was shining off your head so bright. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Well, I am glad we still have a sense of humor after a very long meeting. We also want to welcome the new councillors from the commercial stakeholder group. John Berard. [ Applause ] Then the new Nominating Committee appointee, Carlos Aguirre. Is Carlos still here? He left. [ Applause ] Is he here? I talked to him earlier, but he must have had to leave. >>JAIME WAGNER: He fell asleep. >>CHUCK GOMES: At least all of you stayed awake. That's good. And from the registry stakeholder group, Ching Chiao, I don't think he's here. Is he, Edmon? Ching Chiao from DotAsia. None of us -- Ching's online. Welcome, Ching. And all of us know Jeff really we. Jeff Neuman. [ Applause ] And we didn't -- we didn't -- Hey, you got some people standing, Jeff. The TBD is known now, Jonathan Robson. And we forgot to change the TBD. Is Jonathan here? He had to leave, didn't he? I think he did have to leave. Let's welcome all of the new councillors. [ Applause ] Now, what I'm going to do because not everybody may agree with this, but we do try to have an open mic and I would at least allow ten minutes for open mic at the end of this meeting. And then if anybody wants to go a little bit further to cover the missed items, we can do that and I will leave that up to the council. Yes, Mary? >>MARY WONG: Just very quickly while everyone is getting ready, would those councillors, past, present, future, and all the staff I didn't manage to get to today please sign Chuck's hat. There is enough room, at least on the inside. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Mary. Appreciate that. Okay. Yes, Mr. Foody? >>PAUL FOODY: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Given the extent to which the board is now passing the buck back to you guys as regards new gTLDs and given the extent to which the vertical integration decision has materially altered what you guys presumably envisioned back in 2007, do you not believe, particularly given the extent to which many of you have, you know, conflicts of interest to a certain degree, the appropriate action for you now is to reconsider the whole thing? And from the point of view of a registrant, write to every single registrant and let them know what is proposed because as it stands, you know, to me it looks -- it looks terrible. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Liz? >>LIZ GASSTER: Thank you. Liz Gasster from the policy staff coordinating the remote participation. So I do have one question and one comment. I believe the question actually dates back in time to the JIG update, Edmon, that you gave. This is a question -- People are moving the chat. I apologize. I got to scroll back up. This is a question from David Cohen. And he asks: With more delays looming for gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs getting a first-mover's advantage on languages, will ICANN be introducing a fast-track process for non- controversial IDN gTLDs? And then there is a comment from Ken Stubbs of the registry constituency. And, again, if you just allow me to scroll down. He says, he believes it is impractical to push any motions for action forward only one meeting. We have the holidays and New Year's coming up and many constituencies will not due to these holidays have opportunity for adequate deliberation to consider these issues. Also, he believes many ICANN offices are generally open during part of this time. Would it be not more practical to move these items ahead two meetings? And I believe he is specifically referring to the RAA and the joint applicant support activity. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, what I'm going -- Do you have more, Liz? >>LIZ GASSTER: I'm just checking now. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm going to say something. What I'm going to do, again for time efficiency, is we'll hear the various comments and questions and then if any councillors want to respond to any of the questions asked or comments made, we'll do that after that, if that's okay. Okay. Liz, anymore? >>LIZ GASSTER: Just one more comment from Berry Cobb of the business constituency, no worries on postponing the registration abuse topic. But he hopes the council will give adequate time to review it at the next GNSO Council meeting. That's all I have. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Liz. >> SCOTT SEITZ: Hi, I'm Scott Seitz with Dotgay. And I'm here with Constantine. This is just more of a -- just giving you guys advance comment on or notice on what we are going to be doing tomorrow. We just wanted to go on record again as Dotgay in support of comments and concerns expressed by Constantine with the dot music initiative during the gTLD sessions addressing Kurt Pritz yesterday. We are concerned at the community process in AG5 as they have been made more difficult for a genuine community that has been building a community support for an application to keep the points gained in the application process because it's made it easier for outside commercial interests to block community points through the objection process, thus driving the applicant into an auction process at the detriment of the community and contradicting the meaning and the spirit of the GNSO's original implementation Guideline H. Instead of supporting new community gTLDs, it is placing barriers to the formation of new community gTLDs in creating -- which are created to advance global public interest and becomes inconsistent with the Affirmation of Commitments as well. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. You know, there is an open comment period so -- that ends this Friday. So -- >> SCOTT SEITZ: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's the most important place to put that comment. >> SCOTT SEITZ: That's where this is going to go as well. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS: I would also like to reiterate the same thing. >>CHUCK GOMES: Give your name. >> CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS: This is Constantine Roussos from the dot music initiative. My concerns are even with a music industry coalition leading, let's say, dot music, there are fears that there is a chance that it could be gamed and it could fall into an auction so we would like it to be a real community and genuine and not be penalized for trying to actually trying to do a community. We will add our comments, and we hope everybody reads them and takes them into consideration. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Marilyn? Are you trying to get the last word? >>MARILYN CADE: As usual. [ Laughter ] My name is Marilyn Cade. And I will start by saying "welcome back." >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. >>MARILYN CADE: My comment is going to follow on -- and I am speaking as an individual. My comment is going to follow on, I guess, a couple of the points that were just reflected. And it is -- I understand that this particular question is no longer in the council's hands, but I am going to raise it to the council's attention. I am very concerned about what I see as a choice exercised in the DAG to almost drive the selection of applicants toward an auction process. I think that does raise concerns, and I appreciate the points that were just made. My own constituency, the business constituency, has indicated a very strong preference for community supporting gTLDs rather than other forms and stated their reason for that, which I support. The point I want to make and call to your attention is, of course, as you all know, ICANN is a not-for-profit corporation. And I have real concerns that the rival of very significant amounts of money through the use of an auction process for the allocation of registries may result in so much money that it threatens ICANN's not- for-profit status. So, again, this is more a statement than it is a comment to you because I understand that particular decision is not in your hands. But it is an area of concern that I see. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Marilyn. All right. Adrian? No? Okay. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just, I guess, for the purpose of closing the loop, in response to the question posed by the person in the chat about whether ICANN is going to create a fast-track process for non- IDN gTLDs -- I think that was the question -- I think our answer as GNSO Council is we're not going to do it, so I don't -- you know, I don't know. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. Edmon? >>EDMON CHUNG: Well, I guess, just to that point, just a response to David Cohen's comment actually, the council or at least myself and a number of people did try to go down that path and see if there might be any consensus to do additional work on it. So I would say -- like to say that there was a, you know, effort to explore that. At that time, we didn't -- there was a strong feeling that we would not come to any consensus about moving forward as a work for the council or for the GNSO in general. And, therefore, that was not further -- did not further proceed. I guess I will leave it at that because I'm also leaving the council as well. But, overall, if there's -- interests continue to come up in the GNSO, that could be brought up, I guess. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Edmon. Someone else on the council want to respond to anything that was stated? I'll do a brief response to Mr. Foody. I didn't understand, and we can talk about this offline, but I didn't understand how you felt like the board had put the new gTLD process back in our lap. It seems to be just the opposite right now. Most of the stuff is out of our hands with the exception of a few comments on issues. But maybe you can explain to me offline what you meant by that. And there is -- we're not going to have time for dialogue, but I will be glad to dialogue with you individually. There will be, of course, a four-month communication period and, in fact, that communication period is going to be a lot longer than four months because ICANN has been communicating about this process for a long time. But there will be a specific four-month communication period broadly around the world. And so the council specifically recommended that, and it is being implemented. And they've got several hundred thousand dollars, I think, I think it is at least $300,000, that they haven't already spent on that communication period outreach. So that's just a response there. If you want to talk individually about that, hopefully we can find a time to do that. Anyone else? Yes, John. >>JOHN BERARD: I would like to thank everyone who stayed as long as I did at my first meeting. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. [ Applause ] Now, we skipped over two agenda items, the recommendations regarding the registration abuse policies, the drafting team that gave us a guideline of how we might proceed with those recommendations. There was a workshop on that over the weekend. And, unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend that. So I will have to be brought up to speed on that. And that's going to have to be deferred. But I do want to thank Mikey O'Connor who's right back here. And is Greg Aaron here? Greg didn't have the fortitude to stick with us, huh? But thanks to both of you for leading that working group. And so we very much appreciate that and all the people that have contributed in that effort. There is a whole bunch of recommendations that the council is going to have to act on. I can assure you -- and I'm not going to be the chair, but I can assure you the council is going to have to prioritize those and decide how to handle those because of the workload. The other item that we skipped over was WHOIS, and that was mainly - - neither one of those skipped items were action items because there's a little more work to do on both of those. But it would have been good information to share. Now, if anybody wants to go longer to cover a little bit further on either one of those, I'm willing to entertain that, but I want -- you want to go longer, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No, Chuck. You will be surprised I have got other commitments. >>CHUCK GOMES: You do? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Do you want to tell us about them? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It is with a lady. No, I have got commercial -- I have to go and pay some bills. >>CHUCK GOMES: All right, okay. Nobody's jumping up and saying "Let's go longer." Thank you, I appreciate that. So, you know, again, thanks everybody for sticking with us today. Hopefully you will appreciate how the council works and that it's a give-and-take process that we are working together. And there is lots of disagreement, but there is also lots of constructive work and hopefully you have seen that today. And so I thank the council. It has been great leading you, and it has been fun working with you. But I do look forward to a little bit more sane worklife. The meeting is adjourned. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Wait, wait, wait. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Wait. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Just to say that this is Chuck's last meeting on the council as chair and his last open council meeting. We just want to say thanks very much, Chuck, well done for all the years of service. We really appreciated working with you. I'm sure we will see lots more of you. I certainly hope so. It has just been a pleasure. Thanks very much. [ Standing ovation ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you very much. I hope to see all of you at the gala tonight.