SO/AC Chair Reports
Cartagena, Colombia
10 December 2010


>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Could I invite the SO and AC chairs to come
to the stage and present their reports?

The order will, in time-honored fashion, be alphabetical and we will
be beginning with the ALAC report, followed by the ASO report and the
ccNSO report.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Nice hat, Louie.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thanks.

>> Chris, please feel free to turn that off until you speak.

[ Laughter ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  If we're ready, I call upon Cheryl
Langdon-Orr, the chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee for the ALAC
report.

Cheryl.

>>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  Thank you, Peter.  And -- oh, we've gone ahead
one.  Never mind.

Okay.  This is a very short synopsis of the 10-page report that I've
just presented to the chairman of the board, which in itself
hyperlinks to very many pages of much more in-depth reports.  So this
is very much a highlights-only section.

There's been some 17 formal meetings of the ALAC and the at-large
during this Cartagena meeting.

At-large members who participated in this meeting also took part in a
large number of non-at-large meetings, and each of these sessions have
had reports back from those participants and there's a hyperlink to
show what the feeling and opinion and impressions and interactions of
at-large has been in those -- in those meetings.

And that's not, of course, the public sessions and workshops.

Slide 2, which I now have in front of me, is a delightful update, of
course, to the org chart we presented you in Brussels.

We do need to note the errata.  We were so excited about putting seat
15 on the ICANN board to show our new relationship of the at-large
community with the ICANN board that we somehow managed to lose Pacific
Oceania and Australia, which is kind of sad, although perhaps it
should be taking as writing on the wall.  We will be fixing that.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Cheryl, could I just interrupt -- could I just
interrupt and ask you to stop?  We seem to have some problem with the
scribes.

>>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  I do apologize.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, it may not be your fault, but it may
well have been the pace that we started with.

How are we going with the scribing?

>>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  As long as the clock's also stopped, Mr.
Chairman.

>> (Speaker off microphone.)

>>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: There is.  We have three minutes.  Indeed we do,
sir.





>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Let's try again.

Scribing is ready.  Thank you, scribes.  We appreciate the effort.

Cheryl, back to you.

>>CHERYL LANGDON ORR:   Thank you.  We will continue.

Okay.

Moving on to our next slide lists some of the other highlights from
this Cartagena meeting.

At Large and the ALAC have been very busy, and ALAC has ratified two
particular statements, one on -- and one endorsement of the DSSR draft
charter version 1.0.  It's also my pleasure to report that the African
community has prepared two regional statements.  These statements are
detailed in the full report.

The ALAC wishes to recognize the valuable contributions of the ALAC
members that were recognized yesterday, and they are listed with their
service records who they served with, where they came from, and with
our appreciation in our report.

But I would like to thank the board for their most sincere and most
welcome thanks to all of us on stage in yesterday's session.

I do, however, need to -- and it is my pleasure to report on our
incoming members and serving officers.

Our ALAC officers for the following 12 months from this annual general
meeting close to the close of the annual general meeting in 2011 are
as follows:  The new chair of the ALAC is Dr. Olivier Chair: Dr.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond from EURALO.

I am serving as one of his vice chairs from APRALO.  Evan Leibovitch
is serving as a second vice chair from NARALO.

Our rapporteur continues to be Carlton Samuels from LACRALO, and we
welcome Tijani Ben Jemaa as the representative from the African region
to ensure full balance in what we do in our executive.

And new ALAC members are Tijani, as I have just introduced; Edmon
Chung representing APRALO.  Sandra Hoferichter, I have  butchered her
name and I apologize, from EURALO;

Sergio Salinas Porto from LACRALO; Evan, who I introduced earlier; and
we welcome Marc Rotenberg as the NomCom selectee to NARALO.  He was
unable to join us at this meeting.

We have two new regional officers in -- of course it is not just the
ALAC.  It is At Large that is important here. And we welcome Aziz
Hilali, who is taking over the African AFRALO Secretariat; and Beau
Brendler is becoming the chair of NARALO.

I want to pause here as I move to the next slide to note an addition
in the NARALO leadership fold.  And this goes to, in fact, an
achievement of another one of the at-large improvement
recommendations.

As you know, the report recommended that we find mechanisms so that
individual Internet end users and now of course as Bruce is training
us to say, domain name users have abilities to have direct
representation in NARALO.  It is my pleasure to announce to everybody
that Mr. Eric Brunner Williams is taking the role as the leadership in
NARALO for the unaffiliated with ALS membership that they have.  So
congratulations to Eric, wherever he is, and congratulations to all of
us for achieving one of our important aims.

Listed in this slide is the four work teams and the 13 primary
recommendations we're dealing with.  You'll notice there is no pink
which means everything is at well over 25% completed, and I'm
delighted to show you how a few full purple lines, which is 100
percent completion of task.

These work teams have a whole lot of KPIs and milestones and full
reporting is in our hyperlinked report which is there.

What have while I say thank you for your time to listen to this last
report that I give you as chair of the ALAC, I do want to say special
thanks on behalf of At Large and the At-Large Advisory Committee to
our extraordinary staff.  Heidi, Matias, Seth, Gisella, Marilyn.  They
do unbelievable quite literally 24/7 support for all parts of the at-
large community.  They are extraordinary, indeed.

And finally we would like to thank the members of ICANN staff that
provided with us the exceptional briefings and preparation between
each of these meetings.  We have a lot of interface with many of the
policy staff and specific staff in ICANN.  They're always
approachable, they are always informative, and they are always a joy
to work with.  And I have to say, guys, ICANN meeting staff, thank
you.  You do make our lives so much more easier, and I know it must be
a challenge in some of these circumstances.  But this meeting has been
a joy, and our achievements rest on your shoulders.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I am open for questions.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Cheryl.  And on behalf of staff,
thank you for the comments you made in relation to that.

I see questions.

Ray Plzak.

>>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, chair.  Cheryl, I just want to extend to you
the appreciation of the Structural Improvements Committee for all of
the cooperative work that we were able to do together to ensure that
we could get a person appointed to the board by the at-large
community.  And so we will miss your leadership, but know you are not
going very far.  And again, thank you very much for helping us get
that very important task done.

>>CHERYL LANGDON ORR:   It was our pleasure.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Ray.

Kieren.

>>KIEREN McCARTHY:   Hi.  Kieren McCarthy.

I'm not a big fan of the big thank yous and whatever, but I think it's
worth pointing out, Cheryl, now you are leaving as chair, that I had a
conversation with you in Los Angeles three years ago at some weird
rooftop, and I said -- and Chris introduced me this is going to be the
new ALAC chair and I proceeded to run down all the problems with ALAC,
and you must have thought I was a lunatic.  But you, in your
Australian, I won't give the full rundown, there was some salty
language in it, you basically said, "Don't worry; I'll sort it out."
And I think you really have sorted it out.  I think ALAC is crucially
important to ICANN, and I thin you have done a superb job of making it
more viable and leaving a great foundation.  So I think it is worth
saying well done.

Thank you.

>>CHERYL LANGDON ORR:   Thank you, Kieren.

[ Applause ]

>>CHERYL LANGDON ORR:   And I must say it's hearing that from people
who are, I think, -- had rights to be slightly critical, but are
always willing to watch closely and help us along our way, makes a big
difference to each and every one of us, and we hope we have a good
foundation for ICANN to continue building on.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Cheryl.

Let's move on to the next report which comes from Louie Lee, the chair
of the ASO.  Louie.

>>LOUIE LEE:   Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much, Cheryl.

I am Louie Lee, the chair of the ASO address council.

The report that you can download lasts 10 or 15 minutes.  It's a
report of the workshop we had on Wednesday afternoon.  However, I will
only give you the highlights from that.

Here we go.

So this was the agenda for the workshop.  We covered what the ASO is,
what the PDP basically covers.  The global process.

IANA update, Elise Gerich who was able to give that for us.  Thank you
very much, Elise.

And the NRO update given by Axel Pawlik.

We also covered the mitigating effects of the IPv4 exhaustion, global
number policy and proposals.

Regional activities of the five regions, the RIRs.

Now, these covered the local regional policy proposals that are being
worked on, and also the recent policies that were passed.

And we also covered how to participate.

So this is the agenda I have for this presentation.

And some highlights from the different slides here.

Now, the IPv4 status in 2010, there were 19 /8s allocated.  Remaining,
seven unallocated /8 blocks.

This represents about 2 to 3% of the available -- of all v4 space in
the pool.

Two will be allocated under number policies, expecting probably about
February.  Maybe sometime in April.

It just depends on when the next RIR requires address space.

And then the -- after that, when there are five remaining, the five
will be divided evenly amongst all the RIRs.

So at that point, the free pool will be exhausted.

And then beyond that, there are projections, estimates that at least
one of the RIRs would exhaust their own pool by about November.

There's a fudge of about plus or minus three months in there.

And you may see the report for yourself.

In the NRO update, it shows that up of the available v6 space, only an
eighth is given to IANA to hand out, and there are 512 blocks of /12s.
And of that, only 1% of that is given to all five RIRs to hand out to
ISPs and customers.

So there is enough room there for the RIRs to work out policies that
work well in v6 Internet.

And if there's adjustments that's needed, we can do it within the
/12s.  But beyond that, we can do it within the one-eighth of a space
held in IANA reserve.

And this shows the amount of /32s given out around the world.  The
distribution is shown on the right.

RIPE NCC and APNIC regions have about equal amounts.

And my clicker has stopped.

Right at the three-minute mark.

And I will skip some of these slides here.

v4 activities are various transfer policies, soft landing policies, to
help mitigate the effects of the v4 exhaustion.

Along with that, there are also v6 activities to reduce the
requirements needed to obtain the space, and also add alternative
means for justifying the space that you're asking for.  Photograph
also, there are overall education and outreach efforts going on to get
the word out.  You'd be surprised that many people still think we are
over five years out before exhaustion.

There are several global policies that occurred in 2010.  One was
ratified by the board earlier.

This one was, for lack of better status word, abandoned.  It was
passed in four regions, and one region passed a different version.  In
that case, it ceased to become a global policy.

And there is one active one seeking to resolve the problem that not
all five regions agreed on.

So perhaps this one will be able to get passed within the next year.

And this just summarizes the amount of work that all the regions are
doing in the different areas of policies.  And covered over there,
there are 42 total.

Now, these are just the regional ones.  It does not cover even the
global ones, that all five regions have to discuss and adopt.

So participation is easy.  You can join the mail list, you can join
the meeting.  It's all open.  Do you not have to be a them of the
region.  Do you not have to reside or work within the region to
participate and provide input.

You may attend just one in order to effect change in a global policy.
You do not have to attend all five.  And you may visit the NRO booth
to get more information.  The NRO booth is on this same floor on the
way to the hotel rooms.

Thank you very much.  I apologize, Chair, for having gone past my
three minutes.  I had hoped to have finished by now.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Louie.  I want to say on behalf
of the board how nice it is to have an NRO booth here and to have had
the ASO meeting here.  Many of us attended some or all of the
presentation on the IPv4 situation.  So welcome and thank you.

I see Ray Plzak who has connections with addresses.

>>RAY PLZAK:   Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I would like to express again the disappointment that we
all felt when the ASO did not participate in the meeting in emerging
issue.  However, I would also like to express the appreciation for the
workshop that you conducted this week.

I think that there was a very lively discussion that occurred,
particularly on the mitigating effects of the v4.

I think that these workshops could probably continue into the future.
The members of the ICANN community are not only interested in the
global policies, but they're also interested in the collection of
policies that are called globally coordinated, globally harmonized,
whatever term you want to use.  But it's not a policy that comes
before the board.

And in addition, the persons from the various regions would actually
be interested in knowing what's going on in their regions.  So your
inclusion of those discussions this time was very important.

So I know that as we go forward that you will refine this process.
But it is very, very welcome to have that activity to be occurring at
an ICANN meeting.  Commend you for the booth.  You probably didn't get
as many customers this time as you wanted.  However, I think if you
jazzed it up a little bit, you will get some more.  You can always
throw some swag out there.

Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Ray.

Seeing no further questions, we will move on to the next report which
comes from Chris Disspain, the chair of the ccNSO.

Chris.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   It's on.  Thank you, Peter.  Thank you, Louie.

Good morning, everyone.  We have a formal report which is in the
process of being posted in the places it's meant to be, but certainly
on the ccNSO Web site.

Please have a look.  It's been an extremely busy meeting.

A couple of things, just to highlight.  Strategic plan, the ccTLD
members and the council have some concerns about the process and have
written to Peter and the board to say that.

We have set up a study group on country and territory names as TLD
strings.

The current application guidebook envisages that country names will be
excluded in this round of new gTLDs, but after that, they may well not
be excluded if no additional steps have been taken.

So we have established a study group to liaise with the ccTLD
community and other stakeholders to provide a comprehensive overview
of the issues and recommend a course of action, if necessary.

We have adopted the security and stability -- cross-constituency
security and stability working group charter which I think the ALAC
has also adopted.  And so we will be putting out a call for volunteers
for that working group as soon as we can, which will mean that
hopefully the work will start.

We had a really interesting session with the gTLD registrars.  We had
a session on the RAA.  And before we had the session, a number of
ccTLD people were asking why we were having the session, and a number
of people in the gTLDs were concerned that we were having the session,
because there was perhaps perception that we might be trying to
interfere in this process.

But as it turned out it was, in fact, an excellent session.  And I
think demonstrates that perhaps more often we should mingle ourselves
together and talk about stuff that may not appear to have anything to
do with this, but was actually very interesting and you learn things.

Finally, the GAC and the ccNSO met as usual, and what we talked about
mainly was the redelegation -- delegation/redelegation working group
that that group finally has.

That group has produced three reports and there is a fourth report on
its way.

The recommendations in the three current reports are that in respect
to retirement of ccTLDs, that the ccNSO should have a policy
development process because there currently is no policy.  But in
respect to delegation and redelegation, that as a first step, rather
than having a policy development process, the ccNSO should set up a
working group to produce what I think we are calling an implementation
framework.  In other words, to take the existing policies, GAC
principles and so on, and add some color and depth to those.  That is
likely to be the recommendation of all three of the of the reports?
And hopefully in San Francisco we will be able to have the discussion
with the ccTLD members and council on that recommendation, and if that
recommendation is accepted, set up a working group and start to do
some serious work on the actual delegation/redelegation principles.

So that's the summary, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Chris.  I see nobody beating a
rapid path to the microphone.

Are there any questions of the ccNSO?  If not -- Sorry?  If not, then
let's move to the next report which comes from the Governmental
Advisory Committee, and I call on the chair, Heather Dryden, to give
the GAC report.

Heather.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:   Thank you, chair.

Good morning, everyone.  The Governmental Advisory Committee of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers met in Cartagena
during 4th to 8th December, 2010.  38 members and four observers
participated in the meeting, and three members participated remotely.

The Governmental Advisory Committee expresses utmost gratitude to the
country code TLD for Colombia, dot CO Internet S.A.S., for hosting the
meeting and thanks ICANN for supporting the GAC meeting.

We also had a meeting with the ccNSO.  The GAC met with the ccNSO and
received an update on the current status of the report of the
delegation/redelegation and retirement working group.

New gTLDs?  The Bach met with the ICANN board, the GNSO Council and
the public session to discussion the current status of the new gTLD
process and outstanding issues as outlined before.

The GAC also welcomed an update on the work of the joint AC/SO working
group on support for new gTLD applicants, and encourages the working
group to continue their efforts, particularly in regard to further
outreach with developing countries.

The GAC accepted an invitation from the board to meet intersessionally
before the San Francisco meeting in the interest of resolving
outstanding issues with the new gTLD process.

Specific points in relation to new gTLD application processes.
Whereas the GAC notes it has provided substantial public-policy advice
on new gTLDs, the primary written advice being the GAC principles on
new gTLDs dated the 28th of March 2007 and delivered to the board in
advance of the decision by the board to adopt the proposal of the GNSO
related to the introduction of new gTLDs.  Whereas, since that time
the GAC has continued to engage regularly with the board, the GNSO,
and the ICANN staff regarding the policy development process and the
implement proposals as set out in the consecutive versions of the
Draft Applicant Guidebook.

Whereas, in addition, the GAC's continuing concerns regarding the
proposed approach to the introduction of new gTLDs and each version of
the Draft Applicant Guidebook have been repeatedly communicated to the
board as additional advice in the form of GAC communiqués and letters
from the GAC chair to the chair of the ICANN board as listed below.

Please take as read the list from the communiqué.

Whereas, the GAC appreciates the efforts made by many in the ICANN
community to understand and accommodate the advice of the GAC during
this period, but remains very concerned that many of the original
public policy issues raised remain unresolved in the latest version of
the DAG.

Whereas, the GAC considers that these result primarily from the fact
that the board adopted the GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs without
taking due account of GAC advice at that time, thereby creating a
flawed process.

Whereas, the most recent letter of the 23rd of November from the chair
of the ICANN board to the chair of the GAC confirms that many of the
concerns of the GAC remain unresolved and, in addition, the GAC notes
that the board has decided to explicitly reject GAC advice in several
specific cases.

Whereas, mindful that many gTLD applicants have made significant
investments in their business models, the GAC recognizes that gTLD
applicants have had a legitimate expectation that the process for
introducing new gTLDs should have been concluded by now.

Whereas, as a result of the GAC's exchange with the GNSO, the GAC is
also mindful that major stakeholder groups within ICANN such as the
business and intellectual property constituencies do not believe the
most recent version of the DAG reflects their advice and concerns.

The GAC would advise the board that:  One, the GAC considers that
there are still outstanding issues regarding the current procedure,
which include the apparent intent of the board to approve the current
version of the DAG on the same day that the public comment period
expires, raising questions regarding ICANN's ability to take those
comments into account.

The posting on 3rd December 2010 of the second phase of the economic
study, again raising questions regarding ICANN's ability to take the
public comments on this study into account.  And, the absence of a
detailed explanation and rationale for the decisions taken to date on
the new gTLD program exemplified by the recent board decision on
vertical integration.

Two, that the GAC will provide the board, at the earliest opportunity,
with a list or scorecard of the issues which the GAC feels are still
outstanding and require additional discussion between the board and
the GAC.  These include:  The objection procedures, including the
requirements for governments to pay fees; procedures for the review of
sensitive strings; root zone scaling; market and economic impacts;
registry registrar separation; protection of rights owners and
consumer protection issues; post-delegation disputes with governments;
use and protection of geographic names; legal recourse for applicants;
providing opportunities for all stakeholders, including those from
developing countries; law enforcement due diligence recommendations to
amend the registrar accreditation agreement as noted in the Brussels
communique; and the need for an early warning to applicants whether a
proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise
sensitivities, including geographical names.

In addition, the GAC would like to discuss the need for an appropriate
IDN policy in connection with the new gTLD program to take cultural
diversity into consideration consistent with the gTLD principles.

For example, the need for peer delegation for strings in some scripts.

Three, that in view of the board's determination reflected in its 23rd
November 2010 response to the GAC's comments on DAG Version 4, that it
cannot accept certain elements contained in the GAC advice.  The GAC
assumes the board is invoking the provisions in the ICANN bylaws to
seek a mutually acceptable resolution of these differences.

The GAC looks forward to engaging in the discussions foreseen in the
bylaws, to attempt to resolve situations where the board has decided
to reject GAC advice, pending the development of an agreed formal
approach.

Exchange with members of the ICANN board on the ICM registry
application.

The GAC participated in an exchange with the ICANN board chair at his
request on the staff overview of three issues included in the ICANN
board resolution from its 28 October special meeting.

The GAC informed the ICANN board chair that it has significant
concerns with the process by which the board is presently seeking
feedback with regard to the ICM registry application/contract.

As a threshold matter, it has been the understanding of the GAC's
membership that the board has never rejected the advice provided in
the Wellington communique and restated in the Lisbon communique.

The GAC reiterated its previously stated position that the Wellington
communique represents consensus GAC advice and still applies.

It is also the GAC's understanding that if the board determines to
take an action that is not consistent with GAC advice, that
determination would invoke the provisions in the bylaws.

The absence of a documented rationale for selecting the three specific
points for further consultation appears inconsistent with those
specific provisions and made it impossible for GAC members to
effectively consult in national capitals to determine whether the
three issues identified by ICANN are, in fact, the only areas of
contention.

For example, whether the sponsorship criteria have been met.

As such, the GAC does not consider its exchange with the board chair
to constitute the consultation process called for in the bylaws.

The GAC notes that these particular provisions in the bylaws have not
been invoked to date, and that it is of critical importance that an
agreed formal process be developed to meet the requirements of the
bylaws.

The current lack of clarity regarding the board's position on the ICM
application and its understanding of the status of the GAC advice
previously provided highlights, in the GAC's view, the problems
identified in the draft recommendations of the accountability and
transparency review team regarding the need to have a clearer
understanding on the status of GAC advice.

Controversial and/or sensitive new gTLDs.

The GAC commends the initiative of the Recommendation 6 cross-
constituency working group.  The GAC will take into account the
board's responses to the recommendations of the group in its further
consideration of gTLD issues.

Consistent with the GAC's letter of 22nd November 2010, the GAC
anticipates working with the board and other members of the ICANN
constituencies -- in particular, the ALAC -- in further consideration
of the integration of prior reviews to serve as an early warning to
Africans whether a proposed string would be considered controversial
or to raise sensitivities.

Meeting with the technical community.

Perspective on universal resolvability of the DNS.

The GAC and members of the technical community held a constructive and
informative exchange regarding universal resolvability of the DNS in
the context of controversial gTLDs.

The GAC appreciates and welcomes future exchanges on these important
issues.  The discussion covered the fact that blocking access to
resources and information already could occur at many other different
layers in the Internet architecture.

Based on the exchange, the GAC understands that DNSSEC is not designed
to accommodate blocking and that collateral damage and unintended
results are likely to be caused if TLDs are not universally
resolvable.

Accountability and transparency review team.

The GAC examined the draft recommendations from the Accountability and
Transparency Review Team and its implications for the ongoing
discussions within the joint GAC/board working group.  In addition,
the GAC met with the ATRT and exchanged views on the draft report and
the draft recommendations.  The GAC congratulated the ATRT for the
work done and generally welcomed the draft report and recommendations.

The GAC welcomed the undertaking of the ICANN CEO to ensure the
expeditious implementation of the final recommendations.

Board/GAC joint working group on the review of the role of the GAC at
ICANN.

The joint working group met in Cartagena and the discussion was based
on the draft of the joint working group report.

The main topics of discussion were GAC advice to the board in the
policy development process.  The joint working group aims to finalize
the report in San Francisco and will take into consideration the final
report of the accountability and transparency review team, as well as
the ongoing discussion of the review of the GAC operating principles.

Elections of chair and vice chairs.

Heather Dryden from Canada was elected to the position of GAC chair --

[ Applause ]

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.  Thank you.  You are listening.

[ Laughter ]

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Maria Häll from Sweden and Alice Munyua from Kenya
were elected to the positions of vice chairs.

[ Applause ]

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  This decision is effective from the end of the
first meeting 2011.

The GAC thanks Maimouna Diop Diagne from Senegal and Jayantha Fernando
from Sri Lanka for their service in capacity as vice chairs and their
outstanding contribution to the work of GAC.

[ Applause ]

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  And to conclude, the GAC formally thanks all those
among the ICANN community who have contributed to do dialogue of the
GAC in Cartagena.  The next GAC meeting will take place during the
period of the 40th ICANN meeting in San Francisco.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Heather.  And my personal
congratulations, again, to you and to your two co-chairs on your
recent elections.

Are there questions of the chair of the GAC?  Ray Plzak?

>>RAY PLZAK:  Thank you, chair.  As the co-chair of the joint working
group, Heather, again I want to thank you on behalf of the board
members for the very -- the way we've been able to conduct business
and make progress on this.

I also would like to take the opportunity at this time to note that
the board is determined to replace the two departing members from its
contingent and that will be announced today during the board meeting.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Ray.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ray.

>>ADAM PEAKE:  Adam Peake.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Adam Peake.

>>ADAM PEAKE:  Okay.  Thank you.  Heather, congratulations on gender
balance in the GAC leadership and --

[ Applause ]

>>ADAM PEAKE:  -- the --

So I've noted this week that the GAC has been very supportive of
community input and dialogue, and a question about the intersessional
meeting.

Are you proposing that this be open to the community as observers?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  The actual modalities of that meeting haven't been
worked out, but I am conscious that the community would have an
interest in that exchange between the board and the GAC.  Thank you.

>>MARILYN CADE:  My name is Marilyn Cade and I will add my
congratulations but skip the rounds of applause.  We'll save more for
later.

I just want to thank the governments who are sending their
representatives here to work in the GAC, and for the increasing amount
of work that you're taking on back home as well in the consultation
process.

I think that I have seen such an also significant evolution of the
amount of time that the government -- the GAC is meeting with the
community and taking input, and I want to thank you for taking on that
additional outreach and engagement while you're here.

I think that we're all seeing the benefit of our listening and
interacting with other groups, and in particular I know that as new
governments come to ICANN, they're experiencing a very different
modality of interaction.

So we should all be appreciative of the work that the existing GAC
members are doing to strengthen and encourage their colleagues to
come.  And with that, I will just say:  Later rounds of applause for
the leadership.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks Marilyn.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Heather, let me also add my appreciation of
the GAC's very prompt response to the invitation to attend an
intersessional meeting.  I think that is a very positive way forward
and likely to resolve all -- or at least many -- of the lists that you
listed in relation to the new gTLD program.

>> Peter?  Filiz here again.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Ah, a light is shining in the dark.  Filiz, a
comment from the remote participants.

>>FILIZ YILMAZ:  Yes, we have a question for Heather.

It's from Bambang Dwi Anggono.  He is from ICT Republic of Indonesia,
Ministry ICT Republic of Indonesia, and the question is:  Does
GAC/ICANN consider the possibility of a joint meeting with the ITU?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you for that question.

There aren't discussions currently to hold such a meeting, but I would
note that the ITU is an observer member of the GAC, and so has a
direct channel into what's happening at the GAC, and I believe that
ICANN has an interest in collaborating with the ITU, and I would hope
that that is the case, and so there aren't current plans but in the
future, why not.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  If there's an on-line response to
that, Filiz, please come back to me.  Let's come to the microphone.
Bertrand?

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you.  Bertrand de la Chapelle.  I
just wanted to pick on the last question, the on-line question, just
to remind that there was a proposal in the past I think one year and a
half ago from Janis Karklins who was then the chair of the GAC to
participate or intervene in one of the working groups of ITU which is
currently closed, which is a dedicated group on Internet public
policies.

And at that time, due to some relations it was not possible.  I think
in the improvement of the relations that is emerging, apparently
between ITU and ICANN, it is something that could potentially be
explored.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes.  I think in addition to the points that
Heather made, we could add the fact that we are about to seat, on
Friday -- so today -- the ITU liaison member to the board.  Every
three years the ITU places a liaison member on our board in rotation
with other members of the TLG, and they also have a nominee on the
nominating committee.  So we have a number of institutional
relationships like that with the ITU and I understand that we've also
recently arranged to join an IPv6 working group.

So there's -- and there may well be more, so there's interaction at a
number of levels with the ITU which we regard as very positive.
Kieren?

>>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Hello.  Kieren McCarthy.

Heather, in the communique there's a list of I think 11 points that
you would like to discuss with the board with regard to gTLDs.  Is it
the GAC's expectation after this special meeting that you will be able
to resolve all of those?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  That would be the aim.

>>KIEREN McCARTHY:  Okay.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Well, thank you, Heather.  Let's
move on, in the absence of questions, to the next report, which comes
alphabetically from the GNSO and we're pleased to be able to report
Chuck is with us.  I see you're joined by Stéphane, so I'll leave it
to you two to -- to deal with the report.

>>CHUCK GOMES: Good morning.  It is good to be here.

[ Applause ]

>>CHUCK GOMES:  I want to, first of all, thank the outgoing board
members for all the long, long hours of work they committed.  I've
certainly appreciated working with them, as I know the rest of you
have as well, and I want to welcome the new board members that are
starting their terms after this meeting today.

Secondly, I want to thank Stéphane Van Gelder and Olga Cavalli, the
vice chairs of the GNSO this past year for an outstanding job of
picking up the leadership while I went on my little jaunt to Bogota.

And they did a tremendous job and the whole GNSO community just picked
up the slack and I think that's the way it should happen, and it did.

Now I want to introduce to you the chair-elect for the GNSO, Stéphane
Van Gelder, and I'm going to turn the rest of the presentation over to
him.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thank you, Chuck.  I'll try and be very quick.
As usual, the GNSO started working during the weekend with a number of
working sessions.  I'll skip very quickly over those sessions.  You
can see them on the slides.  Happy to answer any questions about them,
if -- if there's time later.

We also had a number of joint sessions.  We always enjoy having these
sessions with other members and other entities in the community.  We
are involved in several joint or community sessions or working groups,
including one on new gTLD applicant support.

We have some work going on on the internationalized registration data.

We also met with the board.  We were using a new format for that which
we were -- which we started using for this meeting of an informal
dinner and a formal session during the weekend.  That was very
enjoyable and we found that format very satisfactory.  I hope that was
a feeling that was shared by the board members that took part in that.

We had a joint session -- well, we are involved in a joint community
working group on the rec 6 recommendation that came out of the GNSO
policy development process for the new gTLD program, and that has also
been going on this past week.

A number of council actions that took place here in Cartagena.

We have had elections for vice chairs.  As you know, the GNSO now has
a bicameral structure and we have two vice chairs.

The non-contracted party house is in the process of electing its
permanent vice chair.  In the interim, Olga Cavalli has agreed to
carry on serving as the interim vice chair for that house, and I want
to echo what Chuck was saying.  It has been an absolute pleasure
working with Olga this past weekend, trying to fill in for Chuck, and
Olga was an invaluable help with doing that.

So I just want to thank her very much for doing that.

The contracted parties house has elected Jeff Neuman as its vice
chair, and Jeff has started working on the council this past week.  We
want to welcome him to the council as well.

As part of the council resolutions that were passed during the open
council meeting on Wednesday, we have requested feedback from the
recommendation -- rec 6, that will be shorter -- community working
group.  We've requested feedback from the GNSO stakeholder groups and
constituencies on that report.  We have ended the -- much to the
relief of the junior and senior co-chairs the vertical integration
policy development working group.  And we have approved a charter for
another joint working group, one on DNS security and stability
analysis.

And with that, just to conclude, I would like to thank -- I would like
to thank a number of outgoing councillors, people that have been
working very hard with us over the past years, and we sincerely
appreciate their contributions, dedication, and hard work.  Mike
Rodenbaugh from the commercial stakeholder group, the business users
constituency, will be stepping down from the council at the end of
this meeting.

Terry Davis, a NomCom appointee, has been serving in the contracted
parties house and will be stepping down.

The registry stakeholder group have obviously decided that they've had
enough and have left en masse.

Edmon Chung, Caroline Greer and Chuck have all ended their terms here,
so we just want to say a big thank you to all of them and welcome a
number of incoming councillors.

John Berard, business users constituency will be taking over Mike --
well, taking over Mike's seat -- and as part -- the NomCom appointees
we have Carlos Aguirre joining us and the registry stakeholder group
have appointed Ching Chiao, Jeff Neuman, and Jonathan Robinson to the
GNSO Council.

So with that, I just want to give a big, big, big thanks to the staff.
I mean, they are just incredible, the amount of support they give us,
so I just want to thank the staff.  Thank the other SOs and ACs that
we work with on a regular basis, and that is a very enjoyable part of
our work.  And thanks to the board for the support they give us.

Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you, Stéphane.  Are there questions for
either Chuck or Stéphane on the work of the GNSO?

I see none.  So thank you.  We'll move on to the next report, which
comes from the root server advisory committee and the report to be
given by Suzanne Woolf.  Suzanne.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF:  Okay.  Sure.  Thank you, Peter.

I did have slides.

[ Laughter ]

>>SUZANNE WOOLF:  Well, I can get -- I guess I can get started.

I just want to do a real brief update on the recent activities of the
Root-Server System Advisory Committee.  Ah, thank you.  The Root-
Server System Advisory Committee, as I guess most everybody knows,
advices the board and the community on matters around the root server
system, and it has evolved -- when we're asked as technical experts
sometimes wider DNS topics.

We met most recently in Beijing in November, in conjunction with the
IETF meeting.  The main items of substance had to do with root scaling
and getting a closure there.  RSSAC and SSAC were both asked some time
ago by the board to undertake a study and form some advice regarding
large-scale technical aspects of large-scale changes to the root zone.

This has been a long -- long discussion, and we needed to get to
closure on a statement there.

And we -- there's been a great deal of discussion, actually, in this
meeting about root scaling so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail
but the highlights of the comment that was discussed in Beijing and
finalized to the board, sent to the board on 30th November foresees no
problem with the -- with the long -- with the publicly discussed and
staffed committed limit of up to a thousand new gTLDs per year.

The other key point, though, is that RSSAC undertakes a future project
-- you know, many details to be determined -- to identify parameters
that define desired service for the DNS root which is something that I
think has been discussed over a long period of time as something that
could use further definition.

A related matter was consideration of a request from the ICANN board
risk committee asking for a public statement on root server capacity,
specifically with regards to root scaling.

There's been some discussion and review of a draft comment but that's
not yet final.  We expect that to become final soon.

Which bears directly to the other -- the other set of actions
undertaken in Beijing.  We dealt with a number of long-standing sort
of administrative items around a feeling and the decision among the
members that some wider consultation and wider engagement among other
portions -- with other portions of ICANN and the related larger
community would be a good thing for everyone.

We are moving -- we are probably going to move at least one meeting a
year to occur adjacent to an ICANN meeting so that we get a little bit
more cross-discussion and people meeting each other and able to talk a
little bit more.

Since RSSAC has already met in conjunction with IETF which, you know,
has many advantages for us but changing a little bit makes some wider
engagement more possible, easier to support.

We think that would be to everybody's benefit.

I was directed, as the liaison to the board, to investigate logistical
support from ICANN.  This is not something that RSSAC has done but if
we're going to be taking on a slightly higher workload in a slightly
more organized way, there's some benefit there.

We also had a -- we also discussed a framework and a tentative
schedule for interim meetings.  Again, because our three meetings a
year worked well with -- with the level of activity we were -- we were
undertaking, but we're looking at doing a little bit more and engaging
a little bit more widely.

Here in Cartagena, several of us have been here and we've been running
around just as much as everyone else.  We have a representative to the
SSR review team, which was just ramping up this week.  I spoke in the
overarching issues workshop on the root scaling issue with -- Steve
Crocker and I sang a duet.  It was very charming.  And we -- several
of us were also part of a wider technical community consultation with
the GAC that was referred to in the communique on universal
resolvability.  That was actually a very lively session that I think
everybody -- everybody involved seemed to find beneficial and useful.

And of course we've been in the same assortment of workshops.  We've
talked about DNSSEC and we were in the SSAC workshops and some of the
IDN workshops with the board and so on.

So it's actually been a very busy week and I think a productive one.
And any questions I will take now.  Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Suzanne.  Are there any questions for
Suzanne?  Suzanne, just let me note with pleasure the decision to have
more meetings in conjunction with ICANN.  That would be very good for
communications and relationships and also to thank the root server
community for the work done in relation to the root scaling study
being one of the matters that's been of concern to the board and of
the community, that -- this is in relation to the new gTLD program.  I
noted it was one of the items on the list of the -- of the GAC list of
issues that they wanted to consider, so hopefully that work being done
means we can move to closure with some -- with that issue.

Any other questions or comments in relation to the RSSAC report?

If not, thanks, Suzanne.

Moving on to the next one, which is the SSAC report from Steve
Crocker.  Steve?

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Now we're on.  Yeah.

Thank you, Peter.  I hope that the audience will note that I have
strategically placed myself in a geographically dispersed position
here to avoid any shared fate with my fellow SO or AC chairs, all in
keeping with the highest principles of security and stability.

[ Laughter ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Next slide.  Oh, that's me.  I got to do that.
Okay.

It's still early.

SSAC has had a quite busy schedule.  We run a public meeting in which
we present the recent work.  We also have sponsored a separate track
of activities related to DNSSEC, and that's been on the rise and
become an ever-growing and vigorous effort with great success.

So for the SSAC activities in particular, the Registrant's Guide to
Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts, this has actually gotten
a certain amount of traction and appreciation in the other groups and
it's been heartwarming to see that there's been appreciation of that.

We did a review of the registry transition program.  This is what
happens if a registry were to go into various forms of failure and
need to be transitioned elsewhere.

We've looked at the phenomena of queries that go to the root for names
that are not in the root.  Dot local is the canonical example but
there are many others.

One of the interesting aspects is not for dot local, which is never
going to be assigned to anyone, but names that do reach the root today
that are potentially names that could be applied for under the new
gTLD program.

So if such a name was acquired and delegated, it would instantly start
getting the traffic that is currently going to the root for that.

What are the consequences of that?  We made some recommendations.

We've participated in internationalized registration data working
group.

We've finalized the SSAC improvements.

And we've finalized, at long last, our recommendations for root
scaling and breathed a sigh of relief that that's now behind us.  The
report on that has been forwarded to the board and should be posted
and, in conjunction with RSSAC's separate report and the staff's
separate report, completes that round of activities.

The net of it all is that the root is sound, stable, and more than
capable of handling the anticipated growth.

We ran two DNSSEC activities.  Our usual Wednesday morning session
expanded in Brussels to be three-quarters of a day, and we continued
that here.

Several individual talks, two panel discussions, lots of time for
questions and answers, and it was well-attended.

We also inaugurated a separate hour and a half on a separate day
DNSSEC for beginners tutorial.

That was very successful and very well attended and I think our plan
is to tune that, evolve that, and continue it in -- for the next
meetings, at least for a while.  And feedback, for anybody who was
there -- and particularly for people who weren't there and had
conflicts -- would be very welcome.

So that's the sum total of our activities this week.  I think that's
it.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Steve.  I'd just make the same
comment in relation to root scaling and the work that's been going on
there.  Very much appreciated.  And again, it will be fabulous to have
that particular issue closed off, so we can move on and pick things
up.

Any other comments or questions arising out of the SSAC report?

If not, I'll just -- Chris has asked for another moment and we
certainly have the time, so Chris, back to you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Peter.  I just wanted to personally --
and I suspect on behalf of all of the other chairs of the ACs and SOs
-- express my gratitude, thanks to Chuck and to Cheryl for being here
to do this ridiculous job of chairing one of these supporting
organizations or advisory committees.  It's extraordinarily
complicated.  It takes an awful lot of time and effort.  But
ultimately, it's huge fun.  And both of them understand that
ultimately, it's huge fun.

So I just want to personally say thank you to them both and we're
going to miss you.  Thanks.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  We'll close the session of
reports from the AC and SO chairs.  Thank you, AC and SO chairs.
Appreciate the effort.  Thank you, community, for questions and
participation.  We'll now adjourn until the board meeting, which
begins at 10:30, in about 12 minutes.  And I ask, ladies and
gentlemen, members of the board, to take seats on stage so that we're
ready at 10:30.  Thank you.