Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Council meeting held 29 October 2003 in Carthage, Tunisia. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

GNSO Council Meeting
Carthage, Tunisia
Wednesday, 29 October, 2003

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK WE CAN -- WE HAVE PLENTY OF VOLUME HERE -- NEED TO GET STARTED.
FOR THOSE ON THE PHONE, YOU WILL PROBABLY EXPERIENCE QUITE A BIT ECHO, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A LARGE CHAMBER WITH LOTS OF HARD SURFACES.
MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
I'D LIKE TO IDENTIFY WHO IS HERE FROM THE COUNCIL AND WHO IS HOLDING PROXIES.
SO JUST BASICALLY GO THROUGH A ROLL OF ATTENDANCE.
IF YOU COULD JUST SAY "HERE" IF YOU'RE HERE.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE HOLDING A PROXY, IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW AS WELL.
JUST START WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S ALL I NEED.
MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTHE IS NOT HERE.
IS ANYONE HOLDING HIS PROXY?
GRANT FORSYTH, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M HOLDING GRANT'S PROXY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
JEFF NEUMAN, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I'M ON THE PHONE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREAT.
THANK YOU, JEFF.
CARY KARP.
>>CARY KARP: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN BUCHANAN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT'S ME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>TONY HARRIS: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>GREG RUTH: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
MILTON MUELLER, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES, I AM.
I'M HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I CAN, JUST.
AND GABRIEL?
YOU'RE HOLDING GABRIEL'S PROXY?
THANKS, CHUN.
KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M HERE AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE HAVE A NEW REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH IS NIKLAS LAGERGREN I GUESS IS --
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ELLEN SHANKMAN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: HERE.
AND I UNDERSTAND I'M HOLDING LYNDA ROESCH'S PROXY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M HOLDING THE PROXY FOR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE HOLDING THE PROXY FOR LYNDA.
OKAY.
AMADEU?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI.
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK WILSON.
>>ALICK WILSON: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WE HAVE SOME LIAISONS, LIAISON FROM THE GAC AUDRI.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS ROESSLER FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: PRESENT AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE ARE ALL PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR THE FIRSTLY, JUST THE GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA, THERE'S ACTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING, THERE'S DISCUSSION ON WHOIS.
THERE'S A DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUES REPORT ON NEW TLDS.
WE HAVE UDRP, A QUICK SECTION ON BUDGET.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE FOR INCLUSION IN THE AGENDA?
AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE COULD COUPLE THAT WITH THE PLACES RESERVED FOR THE QUESTION OF THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE GNSO COUNCIL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE STATUS OF THE SELECTION OF THE NEW MEMBERS, BECAUSE WE COULD -- I THINK WE COULD RUN INTO PROBLEMS BY THE END OF THIS MEETING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I WILL -- WE'LL COVER THAT UNDER ITEM 3.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS," DISCUSS THE INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: UNDER THE "ADDITIONAL BUSINESS," I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF AN ENFORCEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
OKAY.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, THE ONE HELD ON THE 25TH WAS THE LAST SUBSTANTIAL MEETING.
THE ONE ON THE 16TH DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF THE ISSUES REPORT FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.
CAN I HAVE A PROPOSER TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.
>>KEN STUBBS: SO MOVED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."
>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE THOSE MINUTES AS PASSED.
ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE LAST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER WAS A REQUEST TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF CONTINUING WITH THREE REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY INSTEAD OF TWO.
I BELIEVE THAT IS ON THE BOARD AGENDA FOR FRIDAY.
AND AS YET, WE DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME.
THE SITUATION, IF THERE IS NO DECISION FROM THE BOARD, IS THAT THE PRESENT COUNCIL CEASES AT THE END OF THE ANNUAL MEETING, WHICH IS BASICALLY ON FRIDAY.
AND EACH CONSTITUENCY NEEDS TO ELECT NEW MEMBERS TO THE COUNCIL TO TAKE UP OFFICE AT THAT POINT.
AMADEU HAD REQUESTED, I GUESS, A STATUS REPORT ON WHERE WE'RE UP TO ON THAT.
I CAN REPORT THAT THE REGISTRARS HAVE COMPLETED THEIR ELECTION.
I BELIEVE THE REGISTRIES HAVE AS WELL.
I THINK THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY HAS COMPLETED AN ELECTION.
I'M NOT SURE OF THE STATUS -- HAS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALSO?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
ISPS, TONY HOLMES, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?
>>TONY HOLMES: THE ISP ELECTION WILL BE STRAIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NONCOMMERCIALS, CHUN, PERHAPS YOU COULD --
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: WE ARE IN AN ELECTION PROCESS NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT ABOUT FOUR OF THE CONSTITUENCIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR ELECTIONS AND TWO WILL BE -- GO AHEAD, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: EXCUSE ME, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING THE ROUNDS.
JUST REPORT THE BC HAS HELD AN ELECTION AND HAS THE RESULTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DID INCLUDE THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY IN MY BRIEF SUMMARY.
SO IT SAYS FOUR OUT OF THE SIX CONSTITUENCIES HAVE COMPLETED ELECTIONS, AND TWO WILL -- SOUNDS LIKE WILL BE COMPLETED FAIRLY SHORTLY AFTER THIS MEETING.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
JUST TWO QUESTIONS THERE.
FIRST A PERSONAL REQUEST TO THE REMAINING TWO CONSTITUENCIES TO MOVE AHEAD VERY QUICKLY.
BECAUSE IF NOT, THEY WILL NOT HAVE -- I MEAN, WE -- I THINK WE SHOULD RESOLVE THAT WE WILL INVITE THEM, AS OBSERVERS, AT LEAST UNTIL A COUPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OR THREE, DEPENDING WHAT HAPPENS ON FRIDAY.
BUT THEY WILL HAVE NO VOTE UNTIL THEY HAVE THE NEW SELECTIONS.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT -- IS A QUESTION FOR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.
BECAUSE NIKLAS IS ALREADY SITTING HERE TODAY REPLACING LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN, WHICH MEANS HE HAS BEEN ELECTED UNTIL THE END OF THIS MEETING.
IT ALSO MEANS HE HAS BEEN ELECTED IN A SEPARATE VOTE FOR THE NEW TERM.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, NIKLAS HAS BEEN ELECTED FOR THE CONTINUING TERM, NOT JUST TO RUN OUT ON FRIDAY.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK HE IS APPOINTED BOTH TO THE COUNCIL AS IT IS TODAY AND WILL BE APPOINTED TO THE FUTURE COUNCIL IS WHAT ELLEN IS SAYING.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THAT'S CORRECT.
>>KEN STUBBS: CAN I ASK A FAVOR, BRUCE?
WHEN WE GET EXCHANGES LIKE THAT, I COULDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT AMADEU SAID THE SECOND TIME IN RESPONSE.
SO MAKE SURE THAT WE PUSH THE BUTTON.
BECAUSE I KNOW HE MADE A COMMENT AFTER ELLEN TALKED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, YES.
OKAY.
SO IT'S ITEM 3.
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA IS THE WHOIS TERMS OF REFERENCE FROM THE GNSO WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAS MET OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS SINCE MONTREAL AND HAS WORKED ON TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOIS PRIVACY ISSUES REPORT WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY THE ICANN STAFF.
THERE ARE OVER 25 ISSUES PRESENTED THERE.
THE CONSTITUENCIES WERE ASKED TO IDENTIFY WHAT EACH CONSTITUENCY THOUGHT WERE THEIR TOP FIVE ISSUES.
AND WE ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE DISCUSSION FROM THE MONTREAL WORKSHOP.
THE RESULT OF THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WAS PUBLISHED AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE GNSO WEB SITE.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE COMMITTEE BASICALLY DIVIDED THE ISSUES UP INTO THREE MAIN AREAS.
THE FIRST OF THOSE IS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DATA MINING OF THE PORT-43 AND INTERACTIVE WHOIS FOR MARKETING PURPOSES.
THE SECOND ONE IS LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF INFORMING REGISTRANTS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WHAT DATA IS COLLECTED AND HOW IT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF WHAT DATA SHOULD BE COLLECTED AND WHAT DATA SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
THE THIRD AREA IS LOOKING AT ACCURACY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS AND THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN THEN GO ON TO DISCUSS HOW WE ACTUALLY RESOURCE THE STUDY OF THOSE THREE AREAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT YEAR, AND THEN CONTEXT OF RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
SO TAKING THE FIRST ONE, RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE DATA, PREVENTING DATA MINING FOR MARKETING PURPOSES, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE?
MARILYN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TERMS OF REFERENCE IN THE AREA OF DATA MINING?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JUST ONE COMMENT ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
SOME REGISTRIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PORT-43 ACCESS, ESPECIALLY THE THICK REGISTRIES.
IF WE COULD ADD A RECOGNITION IN THE PURPOSE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK FORCE IS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONTRACTUAL CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOW REGISTRARS AND REGISTEREES TO PROTECT DOMAIN NAME HOLDER.
SO JUST ADD THE WORD "REGISTEREES" IN THERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
WHERE IT SAYS ALLOW REGISTRARS, YOU WANT IT TO BE REGISTRARS AND REG REGISTEREES.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: EXACTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE FIRST ONE?
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO FORMALLY, FOR THE COUNCIL, ACCEPT THAT AS TERMS OF REFERENCE.
IT'S NOT TERMS OF REFERENCE NECESSARILY FOR A TASK FORCE OR A WORKING GROUP, BUT JUST AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND THE TASK FORCES THAT NEED TO BE STUDIED TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
SO IF I COULD PUT THAT TO A VOTE.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, MY QUESTION REALLY IS JUST TO SEEK THAT WRITTEN CLARIFICATION THAT THIS IS THE -- BECAUSE THE USE OF THE TERMS -- THE USE OF THE PHRASE "TERMS OF REFERENCE," WHICH WAS A VERY HELPFUL OPERATIONAL TERM DURING OUR WORK, I THINK NOW HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS AND WE SHOULD CALL THIS SOMETHING ELSE.
BECAUSE "TERMS OF REFERENCE" IN OUR WORK PLAN HAS A DIFFERENT FOCUS.
SO IF WE COULD JUST MAKE THAT ONE MODIFICATION IN ALL THREE OF THEM, AND FIGURE OUT SOMETHING ELSE TO CALL IT, I -- I KNOW OUR INTENT, I THINK, IS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'LL CALL IT DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
>>MARILYN CADE: FINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: HOW'S THAT?
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MOVING FORWARD.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT TO A VOTE, THEN.
WHAT I MIGHT DO IS, I'LL INITIALLY JUST ASK FOR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST.
IF I START FINDING THAT THERE'S A MIXTURE, THEN I'LL INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH THAT.
SO IF I FIRSTLY -- YEAH, GO AHEAD, AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: BRUCE, I HAVE A SMALL, FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THE THREE TERMS OF REFERENCE AS A WHOLE.
WHEN IT SAYS "THE PARTICIPANTS," IT LEAVES THE CORRECT PARTICIPANTS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PDP PROCEDURE IN THE BYLAWS, THE COUNCIL MAY ADD UP TO THREE EXPERTS ON TOP OF THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AS I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE ONE OF THESE, I THINK WE SHOULD RESERVE THIS POSSIBILITY WHEN WE WILL REESTABLISH THE TASK FORCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: PUT THAT JUST AS A NOTE HERE, NOT TO MAKE IT MANDATORY, BUT JUST TO ALLOW THIS POSSIBILITY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
SO THAT -- UP TO THREE EXPERTS TO EACH OF THOSE.
IS THAT -- OKAY.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
OKAY.
CHUN, YES.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST A FEW AMENDMENTS.
AT THE LAST PART OF THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE, TASK FORCES, MILESTONES.
THE FIRST ONE IS COLLECT REQUIREMENTS.
WE HOPE THESE WERE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD BE CHANGED INTO "REQUESTS," BECAUSE WE THINK "REQUIREMENTS" SOUNDS TOO STRONG.
USUALLY THIS IS USED FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THEN EVEN IN THE CASE, "REQUIREMENTS" IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. "REQUESTS" IS ENOUGH.
SO I THINK -- WE HOPE TO USE THE WORD "REQUESTS."
AND SUBSEQUENTLY, I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER ITEM.
THIS KIND OF REQUEST SHOULD BE EVALUATED WITHIN COMMUNITIES.
SO EVALUATION OF THE REQUESTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THESE CONSTITUENCIES WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY AND DUE PROCESS, AND OTHER AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS.
SO WE WANT TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CAN I SUGGEST THE WORDING THEN BE "COLLECT AND EVALUATE REQUESTS"?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: EVALUATION OF THE REQUESTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THESE CONSTITUENCIES, WITH PUBLIC POLICY AND DUE PROCESS AND OTHER AGENCIES AND CONSIDERATIONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE'RE -- IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE TASKS FOR THE FIRST TASK FORCE, IT CURRENTLY READS COLLECTING REQUIREMENTS FROM NONMARKETING USERS, WHICH INCLUDES LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ANYONE ELSE, REALLY.
AND YOU SUGGESTED REMOVING IT FROM "REQUIREMENTS" TO THE TERM "REQUESTS."
IT'S PROBABLY JUST DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY.
FROM AN ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, THEY'RE THE SAME THING.
BUT I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE EVALUATED, AND WE COLLECT THAT INTO SOME SUMMARY OF THAT.
MARILYN, YOU HAD A....
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK AMADEU MAY WISH TO SPEAK AS WELL.
BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A POINT ABOUT THIS.
PERHAPS WE COULD USE JUST A NEUTRAL PHRASE OF "COLLECT THE STATED NEEDS."
I THINK THIS -- I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, WHILE WE ARE DATA-GATHERING, MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR GROUP THAT WE ARE COLLECTING STATED NEEDS FROM IS LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE.
THAT IS NOT OUR TASK, AS I -- OUR TASK IS TO COLLECT.
I THINK THAT IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS -- AND I WOULD -- I THINK WE SHOULD BE COLLECTING THE STATED NEEDS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WILL TALK TO A VERY WIDE NUMBER OF USERS, AND THAT THEN THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL THEN BE CONFLICTS BETWEEN -- OR OVERLAP OR, YOU KNOW, DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT NEEDS.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME IN WHICH -- AND PERHAPS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO NOT ONLY COLLECT THE REQUEST, BUT COLLECT SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE EXPLANATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ACTUALLY, THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF PUTTING IT, IS THE NEEDS AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND THEN LATER IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I THINK WE WOULD THEN BE ADDRESSING WHAT CHUN IS SUGGESTING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S GREAT AND ACTUALLY COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION.
AND I THINK PAUL TWOMEY MADE THE POINT TO ME EARLIER TODAY, THEN WE WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIND A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET ALL THOSE NEEDS.
IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC THAT YOU STATE A NEED AND THAT IT WILL BE DEALT WITH.
IT'S BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ACHIEVE A SOLUTION.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT THE END OF THE DAY IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE NECESSARY AS OPPOSED TO JUST MERELY VOLUNTARY.
SO I THINK JUSTIFYING OR LABEL SOMETHING A NEED VERSUS A REQUEST IS A GOOD IDEA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
SO THE TERM THAT MARILYN USED WAS "NEEDS" AND "JUSTIFICATION" AS OPPOSED TO JUST A REQUEST, WHICH PERHAPS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMAL.
SO I'D REQUEST FULL SEARCHABILITY ON ALL FIELDS AS AN EXAMPLE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I AGREE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND SO IT'S STATING THE NEEDS AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT NEED.
SO IT WOULD SAY, "COLLECT THE STATED NEEDS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE NEEDS FROM" -- ET CETERA.
IS THAT OKAY, CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
I WITHDRAW MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE FIRST -- LET ME GET THE RIGHT WORD -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."
>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?
ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
THE SECOND TERMS OF REFERENCE IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT'S ATTRACTED THE MOST ATTENTION AMONGST THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
AND THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE.
THERE IS ONE VIEW THAT THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE SHOULD ONLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER REGISTRANTS ARE PROPERLY INFORMED AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION ON THE PURPOSE FOR THE DATA AND HOW THE DATA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS.
AND THERE'S OTHERS THAT BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE FIRST STEP.
AND THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF WHAT DATA IS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED AND WHAT DATA IS REQUIRED TO BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
THE FIRST ITEM IS SOMETHING THAT CAN PROBABLY BE DEALT WITH IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME.
THE SECOND ITEM IS REALLY ONE OF THE MAJOR QUESTIONS FOR WHOIS, WHICH IS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THE ELEMENTS AND WHO SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THOSE ELEMENTS.
SO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DRAFT- -- THE WORK -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DRAFTED IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE FIRST STEP IS TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRARS AND THEIR RESELLERS INFORM REGISTRANTS OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DATA IS COLLECTED AND HOW THAT DATA WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, AND THEN EXAMINE WHETHER ANY CHANGES, POLICY CHANGES, ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE HOW THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO REGISTRANTS.
SO I THINK THERE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS WITHIN THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON THIS TOPIC.
THE SECOND TASK IS TO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING USES OF THE DATA ELEMENTS CURRENTLY CAPTURED AT REGISTRATION, DEVELOP A LIST OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE COLLECTED TO ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE INTERESTS OF THOSE SEEKING GOOD CONTACTABILITY AND THOSE ALSO SEEKING PRIVACY PROTECTION.
AND CERTAINLY MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE WORKSHOP TODAY WAS ON THIS ISSUE.
THE INTENT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ALL THE DATA ELEMENTS NOW COLLECTED ARE NECESSARY AND DETERMINE WHICH ELEMENTS CAN BE ACQUIRED ACCURATELY AT LOW COST AND WHETHER ANY OF THE CURRENT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE VOLUNTARY, WHETHER ANY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE ADDED OR SUBSTITUTED TO IMPROVE THE BALANCE BETWEEN CONTACTABILITY AND PRIVACY, AND HOW THE DATA MAY BE ACQUIRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND STABILITY ISSUES.
THE NEXT AREA IS LOOKING AT HOW REGISTRANTS CAN PRESENTLY MAINTAIN ANONYMITY AND ASSESS WHETHER THOSE CURRENT METHODS ARE ADEQUATE, AND THEN DOCUMENT EXAMPLES OF EXISTING PRIVACY LAWS THAT OCCUR IN SOME COUNTRIES TO GIVE PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN DECIDE WHAT OPTIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REGISTRANTS TO REMOVE SOME DATA FROM PUBLIC ACCESS.
AND, FINALLY, REEXAMINE THE METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRARS INFORM THEIR CUSTOMERS OF THE USE OF THE CONTACT DATA AND THE BEST WAY OF DISPLAYING THAT.
THAT IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORK IN THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK, BUT IT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE CORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES BEFORE THE GNSO.
SO I INVITE DISCUSSION ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
ELLEN, GO AHEAD.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'D FIRST LIKE TO ADDRESS, IF I MAY, THE -- HOW THIS EVEN GOT ON THE LIST SO THAT I CAN CLARIFY A POSITION.
WE WERE ASKED IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS A PRAGMATIC WAY OF DEALING WITH MORE THAN 20 ISSUES ON THE LIST HOW WE WOULD RANK WHICH WERE THE ONES TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMING TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING, AND THEREFORE EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WAS ASKED TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE FAVORITES, IF YOU WILL, THAT SHOULD -- THAT SHOULD BE EXAMINED.
IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THIS ELEMENT INCLUDES THINGS THAT DID NOT -- THAT WERE NOT COVERED BY THE TOP FIVE RANKED BY ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES.
I GUESS, TO CLARIFY, ALL OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WERE ASKED TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE.
AFTER THAT COUNT WAS DONE WHAT WERE THE TOP FIVE OF EVERYBODY'S VOTES.
AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE TOPICS.
THIS INTRODUCES ADDITIONAL TOPICS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RANKINGS OR WERE NOT LIMITED TO THAT, AND WE OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD OR -- IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WOULD BE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS BESIDES LIMITATION OF THE FIVE, THAT WE WOULD HAVE COMMENTED VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT.
AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND WHETHER THAT'S A PATH WE SHOULD BE GOING DOWN OR NOT, I LEAVE THAT TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ELLEN.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS TOPIC?
KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS, I'D HATE TO MOVE FORWARD IN A SITUATION WHERE CONSTITUENTS HERE OR ANY GROUP FELT LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY SANDBAGGED, TO USE THE TERM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DEALT WITH IN -- ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT QUESTION OR --
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.
I'M ONLY CONCERNED THAT I THINK -- THERE APPEARS TO BE -- THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF A COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE HERE IF THAT'S THE CASE.
BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME THAT MEMBERS OF THE IP CONSTITUENCY WERE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE, OR WORK -- WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING IT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
>>KEN STUBBS: AND THE -- IF WE'RE GETTING TO A POINT IN TIME NOW WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS THINK THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF ISSUE HERE THAT EITHER THERE IS A MISCOMMUNICATION OR A CLARIFICATION STATED, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I GUESS, YEAH, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING IS THAT THERE IS QUESTION OF WHETHER WE'VE CHANGED THE PROCESS ALONG THE WAY.
IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING?
>>KEN STUBBS: NO.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT ELLEN'S INDICATING THAT MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENCY, AND MOST UNDOUBTEDLY PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WERE NOT UNDER THE -- WERE UNDER SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ITEMS WOULD ONLY BE -- INCLUDE THOSE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES FOR THEIR LIST.
SO THAT -- THAT'S --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK -- MY PERSPECTIVE AS A CHAIR IS THAT THE WHOIS STEERING GROUP REQUESTED THE CONSTITUENCIES TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE AS A METHOD OF PRIORITIZATION.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THAT COMMITTEE.
THERE WAS AN OPPOSING VIEW, WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY A MEMBER FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, STEVE METALITZ, THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED -- THAT ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT WAS RANKED IN THE TOP FIVE COLLECTIVELY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CURRENT POLICY PROCESS.
SO THAT WAS A VIEW HE HAD EXPRESSED.
THERE WERE OTHERS THAT VIEWED THAT THE -- OTHERS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WERE A GUIDE THAT ALLOWED US TO STRUCTURE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK.
THE ISSUES IN TASK FORCE 2 WERE IDENTIFIED BY TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES AS ONE OF THEIR TOP FIVE. BUT WHEN VIEWED COLLECTIVELY, IT DID NOT -- ALL THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT IN THE TOP FIVE.
SO I GUESS IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN GOING BEYOND ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE TOP FIVE, AND I THINK THAT MY SENSE IS THAT MOST OF THE COMMITTEE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR TASK FORCE 2 BEYOND THAT. BUT THERE WAS CERTAINLY DIFFERENT VIEWS.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I SHOULD JUST GO ON THE RECORD AS STATING THAT WE DID EXPRESS CONCERN AS WELL, BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THE REASON WE TOOK THE TROUBLE TO GO TO OUR CONSTITUENCIES TO SEEK VALIDATION OF THE STRAW POLL WE HAD TAKEN WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE DID A PRIORITIZATION.
HAVING SAID THAT, I -- AND I HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE. HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD MAKE JUST ANOTHER POINT; THAT I BELIEVE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE IPC MADE, AND THAT WAS IF WE WERE TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SEEKING OF THE PRIORITIZATION HAD NO REAL BEARING OR NO BINDING, THEN WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY PARTICIPATED DIFFERENTLY.
SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENCE IN OUR PARTICIPATION BASED ON WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS TO BE.
HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO BE AS POSITIVE AS POSSIBLE ABOUT FINDING A PATH FORWARD THAT ALLOWS PRODUCTIVE WORK IN THE AREA OF WHOIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE VAST AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL.
SO AT SOME POINT, BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT PRIORITIZATION, I REALLY THINK WE MUST STOP AND, AS A COUNCIL, STOP FRANKLY, CANDIDLY AND REALISTICALLY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF OTHER TOPICS WE HAVE BEFORE US AND THINK ABOUT PRIORITIZATION.
>>MILTON MUELLER: MILTON WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ANY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, I THINK IT'S INCORRECT TO CHARACTERIZE THAT THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WEREN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND IN FACT, THE TOP FIVE HAVE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, SORRY. I WASN'T SAYING THAT THEY WEREN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. I WAS SAYING THAT WE DID NOT, IN THE BC, UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE THE LIMIT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE LIMIT. I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE, YEAH.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THAT'S CORRECT WITH THE IPC AS WELL. AND I COULD SAY WE WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH IT DIFFERENTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THAT'S FAIR.
PHILIP.
>>MILTON MUELLER: HOLD ON. HELLO.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE --
>>>: MILTON MUELLER WANTS TO SPEAK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL PUT MILTON ON THE LIST NEXT. CARRY ON, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT WE'RE TRYING TO DISCUSS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES. WE HAVE YET TO GO ON TO THE PRIORITIZATION OF THESE THREE TASKS IN FRONT OF US AND THE WAY WE ADDRESS THOSE.
SO I THINK IT MAY BE USEFUL IF WE FINISH OFF ON THESE THREE IN TERMS OF DESCRIPTIVES AND THEN PERHAPS HAVE A DEBATE FOLLOWING THAT.
I JUST HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT ABOUT THE TASK FORCE 2.
UNDER ITEM 1, AFTER LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION, MEANS OF COMMUNICATING INFORMATION TO REGISTRANTS, THERE'S AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER POLICY CHANGES ARE NEEDED, AND THERE'S A REPETITION OF THAT UNDER ITEM 4 IN LIGHT OF THE LEARNINGS OF 2 AND 3.
WAS THAT INTENDED TO HAVE A -- AN EXAMINATION EVEN AFTER 1 OR IS IT SUFFICIENT IF THAT'S SIMPLY A NOTING OF CURRENT METHODS AND THEN THE FINAL -- AND THEN ITEM 4 KICKS IN?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE INTENT THERE WAS THAT ITEM 1 COULD BE DEALT WITH IN A FAIRLY SHORT TIME FRAME, AND COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. BUT THAT ITEM 2 AND 3 COULD TAKE A SUBSTANTIALLY LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN AT THE COMPLETION OF THAT WORK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REEXAMINE WHETHER THE METHODS IN 1 ARE APPROPRIATE.
SO 1 IS REALLY DEALING WITH THE CURRENT STATUS QUO. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DATA. 2 AND 3, REEXAMINING THE STATUS QUO TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DATA NEEDS TO CHANGE IN SOME WAY.
AND THEN ITEM 4 IS SAYING MAYBE THAT IF THERE ARE CHANGES MADE IN 2 AND 3, WE MIGHT NEED TO CHANGE 1. SO IT'S MORE OF A SORT OF TIMING ISSUE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT THEREFORE WILL BE INDICATING SHORT-TERM ACHIEVABLES IN SUCH A PROJECT, I WOULD BE FULLY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE INTENT WAS TO TRY TO STRUCTURE THIS IN THINGS THAT ONE WAS DEALING WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ISSUE, WHICH WAS NUMBER 1, AND 2 AND 3 WERE LOWER PRIORITY. AND AS OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, THEY DIDN'T REACH THE TOP FIVE WHEN CONSIDERED BY ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES TOGETHER, BUT CERTAINLY THEY WERE IN THE TOP FIVE OF TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.
MILTON MUELLER, GO AHEAD.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>>: NO.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>>: BARELY, MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: I'M FINDING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TELECONFERENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN HEAR ME. WHEN I ASK TO BE RECOGNIZED, NOBODY RESPONDS.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THAT KEN STUBBS RAISED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, SO PLEASE GO AHEAD, MILTON.
ALL RIGHT.
>>MILTON MUELLER: ACTUALLY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE MADE SOME GOOD COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING AND THAT IS WE CANNOT UTILIZE THE STRAW POLLS TO BE MECHANISMS BY WHICH ONE CONSTITUENCY OR ONE GROUP OF CONSTITUENCIES IS PERMITTED TO BLOCK FROM CONSIDERATION ISSUES THAT WE ALL KNOW MUST BE CONSIDERED.
AND REALLY, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THIS IS A -- PURELY A PROCEDURAL MOVE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MISUNDERSTANDING. IT'S SIMPLY THAT CERTAIN CONSTITUENCIES DON'T EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ISSUES; NAMELY, PRIVACY.
NOW, IN THE FIRST ROUND OF WHOIS, WE WERE TOLD THAT PRIVACY ISSUES SHOULD BE SET ASIDE UNTIL WE DEALT WITH THE OTHER ISSUES, SO WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITIZATION ISSUE BACK THEN.
NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT PRIVACY ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE SHUNTED AWAY AGAIN, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE ARE JUST CONSTITUENCIES OUT THERE THAT DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRIVACY ISSUES.
AND THIS IS SIMPLY AN UNACCEPTABLE WAY FOR THE GNSO TO GO.
THE CALL TO DEAL WITH PRIVACY AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THIS.
THESE ISSUES SIMPLY HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH. THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES IN AN INITIAL PRIORITIZATION PROCESS REALLY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. WHAT THAT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS WAS DOING WAS SIMPLY GETTING THE SENSE OF WHAT ISSUES MATTERED MOST TO VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES.
WE CAN PREDICT PRETTY EASILY WHICH CONSTITUENCIES CARE ABOUT WHICH ISSUES. THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULDN'T DEAL WITH CERTAIN ISSUES AT ALL SIMPLY BECAUSE CERTAIN CONSTITUENCIES ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
SO WE REALLY HAVE TO STOP PLAYING GAMES ABOUT TASK FORCE 2. THESE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO WHOIS. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE LEGALITY OF ICANN. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE RIGHTS OF OUR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS WHO ARE NOT REPRESENTED ON THIS COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD JUST -- I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TASK FORCE 2 AS IT STANDS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PASS IT. AND ANY ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH IT, WE'RE GOING TO REJECT THAT ALSO.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MILTON.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, MILTON, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR THE EARLY PART OF YOUR SPEECH. THEY'VE GOT THE VOLUME ADJUSTED NOW AND I CAN HEAR CLEARLY, BUT I HOPE YOU DON'T THINK I IMPLIED BY ANYTHING I SAID THAT I DON'T FEEL THE PRIVACY ISSUES ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE IMPORTANT AND HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE ISSUE, IN THIS PROCESS.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: MILTON, WE'RE ALSO NOT SHYING AWAY FROM THE PRIVACY ISSUES WITH THE IPC BUT I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH ANYTHING THAT SAID THAT WE MISUNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS, THAT WE'RE BEING DISINGENUOUS ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO SANDBAG THE PRIVACY ISSUES ASIDE. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
BUT WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE PRIORITIZATION TO BE WAS TO SAY WHICH WERE THE ISSUES WHICH WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO EACH CONSTITUENCY. AND THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN READ IN ADVANCE OR ANTICIPATE WHICH ISSUES MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT TO SOME CONSTITUENCIES THAN OTHERS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WE HAVE A COUNCIL TO SIT AND DECIDE HOW TO PRIORITIZE THEM AND NOT DECIDE THAT ONE PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY'S DECISION ABOUT WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE ONE THAT THEN HAS TO CONTROL.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, THE IPC IS DEFINITELY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF INVESTIGATING MORE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH WHOIS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE WHOIS ISSUE.
AND SO TO CHARACTERIZE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER I THINK IS A MISSTATEMENT OF OUR POSITION.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN, YES, GO AHEAD.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I JUST WANT TO STAND BEHIND MILTON ON THIS ONE. AND I KNOW A FEW MONTHS AGO -- ACTUALLY, IN THE MONTREAL MEETING, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE MEETING BEFORE THAT IN RIO WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT PRIVACY AND FOR THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY THAT WAS ONE OF THE TOP IF NOT THE TOP ISSUE ON THE WHOIS. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF OUR PRIORITY, IT IS, AGAIN, THE TOP OR NEXT TO THE TOP ISSUE. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDRESSED.
IN FACT, WE SUPPORTED THE MOTION TO HOLD OFF ON ANY OTHER CHANGES TO ANY OTHER ASPECT OF WHOIS BEFORE PRIVACY WAS ADDRESSED.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, GO AHEAD, THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD MAKE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS. FIRST ONE IS THE HEADLINE UNDER WHOSE WORK THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE PROCEEDED AND STARTED AND YOU CAN STILL SEE IT ON THE GNSO WEB SITE, I BELIEVE, WAS PRIVACY.
I FIND IT AMAZING THAT WE ARE NOW APPROACHING A SITUATION ON WHICH SOME CONSTITUENCIES SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT CORE PRIVACY QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL WHATEVER TIME FRAME AND, INSTEAD, THE GNSO SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, FOR INSTANCE, WITH (INAUDIBLE) ENFORCEMENT. THAT IS CLOSE TO BEING ABSURD.
THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTE FROM VITTORIO BERTOLA THAT HE HAS FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL SOME DAYS AGO. THAT NOTICE INFORMS, BRIEFS OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORMAL REQUEST THAT THE GNSO -- THAT THE GNSO TAKE UP FOR POLICY MAKING A REVIEW OF DATA ELEMENTS COLLECTED AND DISPLAYED IN THE WHOIS SERVICE. WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO SEE THAT THIS REQUEST BECOMES MOOT BY THE COUNCIL INITIATING WORK ON WHAT WE CALL WORK DESCRIPTION 2 TODAY.
IF THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THE FACT THAT -- THE FACT THAT THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL THEN TRANSMIT THIS REQUEST TO THE ICANN SECRETARY TO INITIATE THE FIRST STEPS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ACCORDING TO ANNEX A-1, I BELIEVE IT IS, SUBSECTION B. THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, THOMAS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE?
OKAY. WHAT I PROPOSE, MY VIEW AT THIS STAGE IS THAT THE STEERING COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE TERMS OF REFERENCE WHICH WE'RE NOW CALLING DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK. THAT WAS ITS TASK. I THINK IT HAS COMPLETED THAT TASK.
THE METHOD IT USED -- AND I THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE METHOD, AND THAT WAS THAT WE ASKED FOR THE TOP FIVE AND THEN WE DIDN'T JUST LIMIT TO THE TOP FIVE; THAT WE WENT SLIGHTLY BEYOND THAT TO TRY TO ENCOMPASS THE MAJOR ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED, AND I THINK THE NEXT TIME WE GO THROUGH A -- AND THIS PRIORITIZATION WAS REALLY ONLY ATTEMPTED THIS WAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO I GUESS WE'RE LEARNING AS WE GO, AND PERHAPS NEXT TIME WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT PROCESS WILL BE.
NOW THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO THIS POINT AND WE DO HAVE A DESCRIPTION OF WORK, WHAT I PROPOSE IS THAT WE VOTE ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND THOSE THAT BELIEVE THAT THE DESCRIPTION'S INAPPROPRIATE SHOULD VOTE AGAINST.
SO HERE WE GO.
SO I'LL START.
YES, GO AHEAD, MARILYN. PLEASE USE THE MIKES.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE PHRASE UNDERNEATH "TASK" AND "MILESTONES," WHICH READS THIS TASK FORCE WOULD BEGIN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER ONE AND WOULD EXECUTE ITS DUTIES IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER." I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THAT SAYING THE TASK FORCE -- I'M NOT SURE THAT SENTENCE -- RIGHT UNDERNEATH TASK AND MILESTONES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I SEE. IT'S PROBABLY ALL TEXT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK IT'S TOO PRESCRIPTIVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS IS APPROVED OR IN THE APPROVED. SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE STRIKE THAT. I THINK THE NUMBERING TAKES CARE OF THE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT.
I GUESS WHAT I SHOULD DO AT THIS POINT IS ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THE -- THIS PARTICULAR WORK FORCE, WHICH MARILYN IS NOW ADDRESSING.
WOULD OTHERS LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE CONTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK? JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THIS ACTUALLY MAY BE MORE A QUESTION THAN A COMMENT, BUT I WONDER IF THE -- THERE'S NO DISCUSSION HERE OF DIFFERENTIATED ACCESS, WHICH I KNOW WAS A SEPARATE TOPIC WHICH WAS HANDLED BY THE STEERING GROUP, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THE ASSUMPTION HERE THAT DATA EITHER IS DISPLAYED TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC OR NO ONE AT ALL AND THERE'S NO ABILITY TO ACCESS THAT DATA?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IF THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK THAT PROBABLY ISN'T VERY CLEAR FROM THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND WHAT'S IN SCOPE AND OUT OF SCOPE. IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY LISTED AS OUT OF SCOPE BUT IT'S NOT VERY CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS BEING IN SCOPE EITHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO YOU'D LIKE A SENTENCE THERE THAT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE DATA MAY BE DISPLAYED DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT GROUPS; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO IN SECTION 2, DEVELOPING A LIST OF DATA (INAUDIBLE) ALL THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY. DETERMINE WHICH CAN BE ACQUIRED.
OKAY. THE SECOND ONE I THINK IS DEALING WITH THE COLLECTION OF DATA.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'D SUGGEST MAYBE IT WOULD EVEN BE A SEPARATE BULLET, A SEPARATE POINT, TO TAKE A NEW NUMBER 4 MAYBE INDICATING -- WELL, MAYBE NOT.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, ISN'T THIS COVERED BY THE CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PHRASE IN THE MIDDLE OF 2?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WHAT JORDYN IS DISTINGUISHING IS THAT THAT'S -- THE FOCUS THERE IS MAINLY ABOUT THE -- WHICH DATA ELEMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED FOR THE VARIOUS PURPOSES AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE ALL NECESSARY. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY INCLUDE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MY CONCERN, PHILIP, IS THAT THERE'S LEGITIMATE USES OUT THERE. THERE MAY BE DATA THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SHOW TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC BUT, IN SOME INSTANCES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, IP, AND SO ON, WHERE WE DO WANT TO MAKE THAT DATA AVAILABLE. SO RATHER THAN SAYING YES, THIS INFORMATION IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE OR NO, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE, THAT WE DO WANT TO COLLECT IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE ON A LIMITED BASIS AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ENCOMPASSED HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST ONE SECOND.
YEAH, IF I COULD JUST POINT OUT UNDER THE SECTION OF OUT OF SCOPE IN THIS TASK FORCE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS TRY AND FAIRLY NARROWLY DEFINE THESE TASK FORCES OR THESE DESCRIPTIONS, AND THIS ONE HAS SAID THAT THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT EXAMINE THE MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR ANONYMOUS PUBLIC ACCESS AND THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF WORK. THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT EXAMINE MECHANISM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS, BECAUSE THIS IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO LOCAL RULES, AND MAYBE THE SUBJECT OF A FUTURE TASK FORCE.
SO ONE APPROACH IS TO SAY THAT THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC, IF WE WANTED TO DIFFERENTIATE WHO WE DISPLAY THE INFORMATION TO, WE COULD EITHER DEAL WITH THAT AS A SEPARATE WORK ITEM IN THE FUTURE OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE ADD THAT AS A WORK ITEM?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WOULD GUESS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SOME OF THE DATA IS PROBABLY USEFUL TO -- MORE USEFUL TO CERTAIN TYPES OF ENTITIES THAN IT IS TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO ANY SUPPORT OF ANY OF THESE IDEAS AT THIS POINT. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE TWO STATEMENTS.
I THINK WHAT -- IF I'M CLEAR ON UNDERSTANDING YOU, JORDYN, YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE SEPARATE TOPIC OF DISPLAY OF DATA. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF WHICH DATA IS DISPLAYED, BECAUSE 2 IS FOCUSED ON COLLECTION OF DATA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO IF WE WERE TO ASSUME MUCH -- HYPOTHETICALLY, MUCH DATA MAY BE COLLECTED BUT NOT ALL DATA WOULD BE DISPLAYED, THEN ONE APPROACH WOULD BE TO CREATE A NEW 3 OR A 2B AND THINK ABOUT THE DISPLAY TOPIC.
WOULD THAT BE -- AGAIN --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- I'M NOT SAYING I'M SUPPORTING THIS. I'M MERELY TRYING TO FIND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ITEM 3 IS ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THAT TOPIC OF THE DISPLAY OF DATA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PRIVACY AND SAYING THAT WHAT OPTIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REGISTRANTS TO REMOVE DATA ELEMENTS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS.
SO IT IS BASICALLY ASSUMING THAT THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS AND THAT THE OTHER MECHANISM OF ACCESS COULD BE VIA ESTABLISHED MEANS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, ET CETERA.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I -- THIS DOES MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST ONE MECHANISM AVAILABLE, WHICH WOULD BE THIRD-PARTY ANONYMITY, AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER JORDYN WAS THINKING THAT -- WHETHER YOU WERE PROPOSING THAT THERE BE DISCUSSION OR EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENTIAL DISPLAY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, I THINK MY CONCERN WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY ADDING A SENTENCE TO 3, PERHAPS, INDICATING THAT "DISCUSS METHODS BY WHICH DATA MAY NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BUT MAY BE MADE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS NEEDED" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CERTAIN ENTITIES. I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CRAFT IT RIGHT NOW.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE.
>>MARILYN CADE: CAN I SPEAK TO ONE FURTHER POINT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: AGAIN, I THINK WE MUST, AT SOME POINT, STOP AND SAY IN THAT CASE, ARE WE GREATLY EXPANDING THE WORK OF THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE AND CAN WE ACHIEVE THAT IN NINE DAYS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT MAKING A COMMENT ON THAT; I'M JUST SAYING AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK CERTAINLY THAT THE SECOND ITEM IN THAT LIST OF TASKS IS TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT DATA IS COLLECTED AND WHY.
AND THEN THE SEPARATE ISSUE IS, HOW'S THE DATA DISPLAYED, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT.
I THINK THIS TASK FORCE IS ASSUMING THAT THERE IS STILL PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THAT DATA AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME MECHANISMS WHERE PEOPLE COULD PERHAPS OPT OUT OF DISPLAY OF SOME OF THAT IN A PUBLIC SENSE.
AND, I GUESS, ITEM 3 IS IDENTIFYING THAT AT THE CHOICE OF THE REGISTRANT, PERHAPS, THEY COULD OPT OUT OF THE SOME OF THE INFORMATION BEING DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
AND THAT COULD EVEN BE WRITTEN THE OTHER WAY AROUND, AS THEY MAY CHOOSE TO OPT IN TO SOME INFORMATION BEING DISPLAYED PUBLICLY AS WELL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, WOULD IT WORK BY ADDING TO THE BEGINNING OF THAT LAST SENTENCE OF 3, "CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS AND DECIDE WHAT OPTIONS, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS"?
WOULD THAT COVER YOUR POINT, JORDYN?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST READ THAT WHOLE SENTENCE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SECOND SENTENCE OF 3 WOULD READ, "CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS AND DECIDE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS, IF ANY, WILL BE GIVEN TO," ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ACCESS OPTIONS AND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MY ONLY CONCERN THERE WOULD BE THAT THAT MAY -- I MEAN, IT'S ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED ABOVE.
BUT -- WHAT'S NOT IN SCOPE.
BUT THAT'S A VAGUE ENOUGH PHRASE THAT IT COULD IMPLY, YOU KNOW, NONPORT-43 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS -- OR, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS, MAGIC TECHNOLOGIES THAT DON'T EXIST THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CONSIDER AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE IDEA OF DIFFERENTIATED ACCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMPLICATES THINGS A LITTLE BIT IS THAT THE FIRST TASK FORCE MAY WELL -- OR THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF WORK COULD, AS AN OUTCOME, DECIDE THAT THE MAIN INTEREST OF PREVENTING DATA MINING IS NOT TO DISPLAY ALL THE DATA IN OPEN, PUBLIC ACCESS WHICH IS ANONYMOUS, BUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE OBTAINED THROUGH SOME SORT OF AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURE, AND THAT THAT IS THE SOLUTION TO DATA MINING.
SO IN SOME DEGREE, IT'S SAYING THAT THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY DISPLAYED VIA, SAY, PORT-43.
IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S CONSIDERED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE FIRST DESCRIPTION AS ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS TO DATA MINING.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SURE, YEAH.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE TASK FORCE DOESN'T OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT DATA THAT'S GATHERED IS EITHER SORT OF DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC OR NOT COLLECTED.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE TWO VERY SEPARATE ISSUES.
AND I THINK CERTAINLY IT MAKES A DISCUSSION THAT WAS HELD WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE FEELING WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DATA COLLECTED WAS GOOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTACTABILITY, BUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DATA DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC WAS -- YOU KNOW, WAS CAUSING A PROBLEM FOR PRIVACY.
SO THAT WE HAVE SEPARATE ISSUES.
I'M JUST -- I CAN SEE THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING.
AND I ALSO CAN SEE WHAT MARILYN IS SAYING ALSO IF WE EXPAND IT TOO MUCH, IT GETS HARD TO MANAGE.
BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO DO NUMBER 2 FIRST, WHICH IS IDENTIFYING WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DATA ELEMENTS.
AND THEN YOU NEED TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WHAT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
MAYBE WE CREATE A NEW -- LET'S CALL IT A NEW 3 OR CALL IT 2.B FOR THE MOMENT, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS, CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITED AMOUNTS OF THE DATA COLLECTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FAIRLY NEUTRALLY -- SO JUST SAY, "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE USES AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE.
BECAUSE IT MAY BE THAT THE USES OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS COULD BE NARROWED DOWN TO A PARTICULAR GROUP, AND YOU COULD PROVIDE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ACCESS TO THAT PARTICULAR GROUP, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, SO FAR, WE'VE REMOVED THE FIRST SENTENCE, WHICH JUST SAYS THIS TASK FORCE WILL BEGIN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER ONE, AND WE'VE ADDED A NEW SENTENCE OR A NEW PARAGRAPH WHICH SAYS, CONSIDER THE OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK?
YES, CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: CAN I LOOK AT THE CORRECT -- AT THE COMPLETED SENTENCES?
ADDITIONAL PART.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL JUST READ IT OUT AGAIN.
AND IF YOU LOOK BEHIND YOU, CHUN -- IN FACT, IN FRONT OF YOU, SO I'LL READ IT AGAIN AND PERHAPS HAVE A LOOK AT IT ON THE SCREEN.
SO THIS WILL BE A THIRD PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH 2, UNDER "TASKS AND MILESTONES."
"CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
MY SUGGESTION IS TO ADD AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE "IF ANY."
BECAUSE I THINK TO REVIEW THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A NEED IS -- IS ALSO ONE IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR PRIVACY GROUP TO EXAMINE.
THAT'S WHY I WANT TO ADD THE TWO WORDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS.
SO IT COULD SAY "CONSIDER OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE OPTION OF" -- WHAT, REMOVING PUBLIC ACCESS?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'LL TRY READING THAT SENTENCE AGAIN. "CONSIDER OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE OPTION FOR REMOVING PUBLIC ACCESS, FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
IS THAT -- TO DRAFT ON THE FLY HERE IS A BIT DIFFICULT.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, I WOULD PREFER TO SUPPORT CHUN'S PREVIOUS LANGUAGE, WHICH I -- SOMEHOW I JUST THINK IS A BIT CLEARER, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'M FINE WITH THAT WORDING AS WELL.
CAN YOU SEE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, CHUN?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: STRIKE "PROVIDING."
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY.
WHAT WAS THAT?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I SAID, STRIKE THE WORD "PROVIDING" FROM THE WORDING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: STRIKE "PROVIDING."
OR TRY -- DO YOU WANT TO TRY READING THAT OUT AGAIN, MARILYN?
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT ON THE SCREEN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'LL READ WHAT I SAID.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOMAS'S SUGGESTION WAS.
WHAT I SAID WAS "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITED AMOUNTS OF" -- SORRY.
NOW I UNDERSTAND. "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
THANK YOU, THOMAS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: NOT TO BE A GRAMMARIAN, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT "IF ANY" APPLIES TO.
IT COULD APPLY TO THE LIMITS OR THE PUBLIC DATA.
I THINK, ACTUALLY, IT'S REDUNDANT.
ONE, THE EXTREME EXAMPLE OF LIMITING ACCESS TO THE DATA WOULD BE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY DATA.
I'M FINE WITH IT.
I JUST THINK IT'S NOT AS CLEAR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU FROM A PURELY ENGINEERING SENSE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ADDING IT AS WELL.
SO WE'VE GOT "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT, JORDYN?
YEP.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS?
OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO THEN PUT THIS CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO A VOTE.
AND SO IF I CAN START WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>CARY KARP: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN BUCHANAN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>TONY HARRIS: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>GREG RUTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
MILTON MUELLER.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M TAKING THAT AS A "YES."
GABRIEL?
>>GABRIEL PINEIRO: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
KEN STUBBS.
KEN STUBBS.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M HOLDING HIS PROXY, AND HIS ANSWER IS YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
AND I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR.
NIKLAS?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ELLEN?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
ABSTAIN FOR LYNDA AS WELL?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI?
ALICK?
>>ALICK WILSON: IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
WE'LL NOTE THAT MOTION AS CARRIED.
THE THIRD DESCRIPTION OF WORK IS IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY.
AND THE WORK ITEMS FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY IS, FIRSTLY, COLLECT INFORMATION ON THE CURRENT TECHNIQUES THAT REGISTRARS USE TO VERIFY THAT THE DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, TECHNIQUES TO DETECT TYPING ERRORS.
AND ALSO SURVEY APPROACHES USED BY COUNTRY CODES OPERATORS TO VERIFY THAT THEIR DATA IS CORRECT.
THE SECOND ITEM IS COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS WHERE THERE'S NO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT AND NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICES TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT.
OUT OF THAT, CREATE A BEST PRACTICES DOCUMENT FOR IMPROVING DATA VERIFICATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED THAT CAN BE APPLIED ON A GLOBAL BASIS.
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN THE CONTRACTS TO SPECIFY WHAT DATA VERIFICATION IS NECESSARY.
AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT VERIFICATION MECHANISMS CAN BE USED COST EFFECTIVELY TO COMBAT THE DELIBERATE PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION, AND DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL MECHANISMS ARE NECESSARY AND PROVIDE MORE TIMELY RESPONSES FOR MISUSE OF DOMAIN NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH DELIBERATE FALSE INFORMATION.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THOSE TASKS IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY?
OKAY.
IF WE HAVE NO COMMENTS, THEN I WILL MOVE TO VOTE ON THESE AS WELL.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, GO AHEAD, CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST HERE TO TAKE OUT TWO PARTS.
(INAUDIBLE) OF THE FIRST PAGE.
I WANT TO PROPOSE TO TAKE OUT TWO PARTS OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, WHICH ARE?
WHICH PARTS?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: PLEASE SHOW THE FIRST PAGE.
SECOND PARAGRAPH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS "ACCORDING TO THE OECD GUIDELINES."
IN MY VIEW, THOSE PARTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT HERE OF THIS IN TERMS OF REFERENCE.
BECAUSE I THINK, BASICALLY, THE DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENT FOR OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINE IS APPLIED TO REGISTRANTS, USERS, RATHER THAN SERVICE PROVIDERS.
AND ALSO, SECONDLY, THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IS APPLIED TO E-COMMERCE CASES.
AT THE TIME, USUALLY, THAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR WEB SITE RATHER THAN WHOIS FUNCTION.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE FOR QUOTING THOSE TWO OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES.
SO I WANT TO TAKE OUT THAT PART COMPLETELY.
AND ON THE SECOND PAGE, FROM THE BOTTOM, SECOND PARAGRAPH, --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE JUST PERHAPS DEAL WITH THOSE SUGGESTED CHANGES?
I GUESS IT -- WELL, WE CAN REMOVE THOSE.
ALL WE'RE REALLY DOING HERE IS CREATING SOME BACKGROUND AND SOME LINKS TO SOME GUIDELINES.
AND I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU GO TO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THEM IN TOTAL RATHER THAN NECESSARILY INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES.
MY ATTEMPT HERE WAS TO TRY AND SORT OF BALANCE THINGS, BECAUSE OFTEN I HEAR ONE QUOTED AND NOT THE OTHER, DEPENDING ON WHICH PARTY IT IS.
AND CERTAINLY, TO ADDRESS YOUR PARTICULAR QUESTION ABOUT USERS WITH REGARD TO DATA BEING ACCURATE, WE DO GET REQUESTS FROM MANY USERS OF THEIR OWN DATA THAT THEY WANT THEIR DATA ACCURATE.
AND THEY WANT IT ACCURATE FOR REASONS OF LEGAL OR CONTACT.
SO THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
I KNOW YOU ARE TAKING THE POINT OF VIEW OF A USER BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY.
BUT OTHER USERS ARE ACTUALLY CONCERNED THAT THEIR DATA IS ACCURATE THAT'S PROVIDED TO OTHER PARTIES.
SO IT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT HELPS OR ABETS ANY PARTICULAR POLICY POSITION.
THE SAME WITH ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IS THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES.
AND YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THOSE GUIDELINES COULD BE MET IN OTHER WAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, A WEB SITE AND OTHER THINGS.
THEY DON'T NEED TO BE MET BY WHOIS.
THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS.
I HAVE NO REAL PROBLEM WITH REMOVING THEM.
BUT I JUST PERHAPS WOULD LIKE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.
GO AHEAD, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THERE ARE MANY REFERENCES IN LIFE, THE FACTS OF WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH.
HOWEVER, THE CONCEPT OF REMOVING REFERENCES THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, I THINK, IS QUITE APPROPRIATE WHEN THOSE REFERENCES MAY INFORM.
I THINK THE LINK HERE TO THE OECD GUIDELINES DOES INFORM THE DEBATE.
AND THEREFORE I WOULD OPPOSE REMOVING THEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER APPROACH IS JUST TO BASICALLY SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, DATA QUALITY IS DISCUSSED IN THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES AND OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION WITHOUT QUOTING SPECIFIC SECTIONS, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT CHUN IS SAYING IS THAT IF I QUOTE A SPECIFIC SECTION, IT CAN BE OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.
SO WHAT I SUGGEST IS CHANGE IT JUST TO SAY -- JUST REFERENCE THE GUIDELINES WITHOUT QUOTING TEXT.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE OR?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY MY POINT.
WHOIS BASICALLY WAS DEVELOPED FOR A TECHNICAL FUNCTION.
THE PROBLEM IS HERE, THOSE PRIVACY GUIDELINES ARE QUOTED FOR THE PROPOSAL OF SUPPORTING SOME OTHER PURPOSES IS MY PERCEPTION.
SO WE SHOULD CLARIFY WHY WHOIS IS NECESSARY.
SO I THINK THE SECOND PART OF THE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS QUOTING ICANN SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS.
I THINK IT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE WHOIS IS BASICALLY OPERATING AS A FUNCTION FOR THE STABILITY OF THE NETWORK.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PARTS WHICH I'M -- I WANT TO REMOVE OUT IS REGARDING WITH SOME KIND OF DIFFERENT PURPOSES OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TECHNICAL FUNCTION.
SO I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THIS POINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WAS THAT CARY?
>>CARY KARP: I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE TELEPHONE QUEUE.
WE'RE BEING IM'D, ASKING, PLEASE, TO HAVE THIS LOUD SPEAKER NOT TURNED DOWN WHEN PEOPLE ASK SPEAK.
SO WE'RE NOT HEARING PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE LINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO EITHER MILTON OR JEFF NEUMAN WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH CHUN'S ISSUE.
IT'S ANOTHER ISSUE ON THE REPORT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT?
>>MILTON MUELLER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUN IS TRYING TO DO.
AND I SUPPORT IT.
MY MAIN COMMENT SIMPLY IS THAT IT'S -- IT IS SOMETHING OF A WARPING OF THE CONTEXT OF THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE THEM HERE, BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVED ACCURACY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS PRIMARILY ONE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT ENFORCEMENT, AND THE OECD GUIDELINES ARE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE FORMS OF DATA QUALITY THAT AFFECT USERS AND HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHETHER THAT DATA IS MADE PUBLIC OR NOT.
AND THE SAME THING WITH THE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE GUIDELINES.
THOSE FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE MAY SUPPORT, NEEDN'T BE PART OF WHOIS.
THEY COULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ON THE WEB SITE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THIS COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE VALUE OF THE TASK FORCE IN TERMS OF REFERENCE, BUT IT, I THINK, WOULD BE BETTER TO NOT HAVE IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK -- I THINK SOME OF THESE WERE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DID COME UP BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
DIFFERENT MEMBERS RAISED THESE ISSUES.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO QUOTE THE EXACT TEXT THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO.
AND, YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY, IN RETROSPECT, MORE APPROPRIATE JUST TO HAVE THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN TRYING TO INCLUDE THEM DIRECTLY IN THE BACKGROUND.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: PERHAPS A COMPROMISE IS -- BECAUSE, ACTUALLY, THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE QUOTED EXTENSIVELY BY THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY, AND IN POINTING OUT AND BRINGING TO PEOPLE'S ATTENTION THAT THERE WERE RESOURCES.
I THINK THE INTENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS TO JUST MAKE NOTE THAT THERE WERE RESOURCES AVAILABLE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- AS REFERENCES.
AND PERHAPS THAT COULD BE JUST NOTED THAT DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND JUST LIST THEM, WITH NO OTHER COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING OF DOING, IS JUST PROVIDING LINKS TO SOME OF THESE THINGS, WHICH IS THE PRIVACY GUIDELINES, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN -- IT'S ONE OF THESE THINGS, YOU NEED TO HAVE A SET OF FACTS, AND THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS WHAT YOU THINK THOSE FACTS MEAN.
BUT BOTH PARTIES HAVE QUOTED THESE GUIDELINES TO STRENGTHEN THEIR ARGUMENTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GO AND READ THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, AND -- BY REFERENCE.
SO PERHAPS WE JUST SAY DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, INCLUDING THE OECD, AND WE CAN IDENTIFY SOME LINKS TO THOSE TWO SETS OF GUIDELINES, AND THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND, YEAH, IF YOU READ THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS, THEN IT'LL GIVE YOU CONTEXT.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
I CAN ACCEPT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU CAN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: (NOD OF THE HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
OKAY.
SO JUST SAY DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, INCLUDING OECD, AND THEN LINKS TO THE TWO SETS OF GUIDELINES THERE, PRIVACY GUIDELINES AND PROTECTION, AND ICANN'S SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, AND JUST A LINK TO THEIR REPORT.
OKAY.
AND YOU HAD -- WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT COMMENT YOU HAD, CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: PAGE NUMBER 2, FROM THE BOTTOM, SECOND PARAGRAPH, FROM THE MIDDLE -- FROM THE CENTER OF THAT PARAGRAPH, THAT SENTENCE STARTS WITH "IN SUCH CASES, IT MAY BE NECESSARY."
THAT SENTENCE AND NEXT SENTENCE.
THOSE TWO SENTENCES ARE ALSO INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEXT, BECAUSE IT IS ADDRESSING DIFFERENT ISSUES, LIKE TRACKING AND HAVE YOU EVER VALANCE.
SO I THINK IT IS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF WHOIS.
SO I WANT TO TAKE BOTH OF THOSE SENTENCES OUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST SLOW DOWN.
I'M LOST AS TO WHERE THOSE ARE.
CAN YOU JUST TELL ME WHICH SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: FROM THE SENTENCE BEGINNING, "IN SUCH CASES, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN ONLINE REGISTRATION TO AID IN CONTACTING THE REGISTRANT, INCLUDING CREDIT CARD INFORMATION, SOURCE IP ADDRESSES, WEB SITE TRAFFIC LOGS, OR USE OTHER APPROPRIATE APPROACHES TO IDENTIFY REGISTRATIONS WITH SUSPECTED FALSE INFORMATION," AND NEXT SENTENCE.
THOSE ARE -- BOTH SENTENCES ARE NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CONTEXT.
AND I THINK IT ADDRESSES DIFFERENT -- OTHER ISSUES.
SO I WANT TO TAKE OUT THOSE TWO SENTENCES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I GUESS THE INTENT THERE IS JUST TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS OTHER THAN THE ACCURACY OF THE WHOIS INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED IN THE CASE OF TRACKING DOWN CRIMINAL LAW OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY.
THESE THINGS EXIST TODAY.
IF YOU'RE AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, GENERALLY, YOU ARE SUBJECT, CERTAINLY IN AUSTRALIA RIGHT NOW, THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN ACTUALLY REQUEST THAT SORT OF INFORMATION TO TRACK THINGS DOWN.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I HAVE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A POINT OF ORDER.
I NOTED THAT ON THE LAST TERMS OF REFERENCE, WE ACCEPTED SOME AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE THEN ABSTAINED ON BY THE PROPOSER OF THE AMENDMENT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK CHUN IF IT IS HIS INTENT IN THIS CASE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THESE PARTICULAR SET OF PROPOSALS IF THE REST OF THIS GROUP ACCEPTS YOUR AMENDMENTS.
BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT YOUR AMENDMENTS BY THEN FINDING THAT YOU ARE FAILING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THOSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY, WHICH WAS, WHY DID YOU ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE ON THE LAST TERMS OF REFERENCE?
BECAUSE WE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES THAT YOU SUGGESTED.
SO I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO WHY YOU ABSTAINED.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'M SORRY.
I COULDN'T EXPRESS MY INTENT CORRECTLY.
BUT MY INTENTION WAS, AS A WHOLE, TERMS OF REFERENCE 2 IS OKAY.
BUT PARTIALLY, THERE WAS SOME OBJECTION.
SO I CHOSE AT THAT -- MAYBE I THINK I TOOK SOME MISTAKE.
OKAY?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: BRUCE, MAY I ASK YOU ONE FAVOR?
COULD YOU MAYBE BRIEFLY, VERY BRIEFLY, EXPLAIN ONCE MORE THE RULE THAT AN ABSTENTION PLAYS IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE AT THIS TABLE WHAT THAT ROLE IS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
YEAH, I THINK IN -- FROM A PURELY (INAUDIBLE) POINT OF VIEW, ONLY VOTES CAST IN FAVOR COUNT IN RESPECT OF PASSING A MOTION.
SO AN ABSTENTION AND A VOTE AGAINST ARE EFFECTIVELY TREATED THE SAME WAY FROM A VOTING PERSPECTIVE.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE OF AN ABSTENTION IS, GENERALLY, WHEN YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND FEEL IN SOME WAY THAT YOU CAN'T VOTE ON THAT ISSUE.
SO MY ADVICE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, IN GENERAL, IS TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR MOTION.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE ABSTAINING, THERE'S GENERALLY A REASON.
SO IF I WAS TO VOTE -- IF THERE WAS A VOTE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME $100, I WOULD ABSTAIN, BECAUSE I HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THAT VOTE.
AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO JUST COMING BACK TO WHERE WE ARE HERE, CHUN HAS SUGGESTED REMOVING SOME DETAILS ABOUT WHAT YOU MAY DO IN ADDITION TO ACCURACY.
AND, AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, REALLY, REMOVING THAT TEXT.
IT WAS, AGAIN, JUST PROVIDED TO JUST GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF VIEWING THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE'S AN OVEREMPHASIS IN TRYING TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM A REGISTRAR PERSPECTIVE ON GETTING ACCURATE DATA IN REGARDS TO THE CONTACT DATA OF A REGISTRANT, WHEN THERE IS OTHER DATA THAT YOU CAN COLLECT WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME PRIVACY IMPLICATION BUT COULD BE USED IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE NOTE ON A SPECIFIC DATA ELEMENT THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED HERE AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING REMOVING IT AND THAT IS WEB SITE TRAFFIC LOGS AND (INAUDIBLE) JURISDICTIONS WHERE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP THESE RECORDS.
SO YOU MAY BE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS HERE.
I WOULD RATHER KEEP IT OUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
AND I -- AGAIN, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THESE CHANGES IS CHANGING BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
AND IT WAS REALLY -- IT'S NOT COMING UP WITH A POLICY OUTCOME IN ANY SENSE.
BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM REMOVING THAT TEXT IF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, BACKGROUND. I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THAT AND IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO -- IT WAS MORE TO SET THE STAGE THAT THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- WHERE, IN FACT, THIS KIND OF DATA MAY BE GATHERED AND THAT THERE ARE VALID REASONS TO DO THAT.
AS A BACKGROUND STATEMENT, I THINK IT MAY STILL BE HELPFUL WITH CERTAIN EDITING, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO JUST MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT MIGHT READ OUTSIDE OF THE WHOIS ENVIRONMENT ITSELF, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, JUST IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S TOTALLY CLEAR IT'S EXTERNAL TO WHOIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. SO WE MIGHT REPLACE THE TEXT IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND. IT'S DIFFICULT TO USE VERIFICATION FOR REGISTRANTS THAT DELIBERATELY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION. THE HIGH COST MECHANISMS TO VERIFY CONTACT INFORMATION CAN BE EVADED BY COST MECHANISMS. AND THEN WE MAY JUST HAVE A STATEMENT THAT THERE MAY BE MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, AND PERHAPS JUST LEAVE THAT AS A SENTENCE.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE, IF I INSERT THE TEXT? AND I'LL JUST READ IT AGAIN.
IF I REPLACE THE TEXT THAT YOU WANTED REMOVED, CHUN, WITH THE TEXT, "THERE MAY BE MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE."
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: (NODS HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? OKAY.
>>CARY KARP: BRUCE, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TELEPHONE QUEUE. THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST TO SPEAK WAY BEFORE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING NOW. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO THAT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS GLEN CAN REQUEST THAT.
I GUESS THIS IS REALLY -- CHUN HAS --
>>MARILYN CADE: ALICK'S WIRELESS IS WORKING AND MINE IS NOT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, BECAUSE I CAN'T GET ONLINE. IF I WAS ONLINE SOMEONE COULD JUST MESSAGE ME.
I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO SHOUT, I THINK, CARY.
>>CARY KARP: IT SEEMS THAT THE PROBLEM IS THE SPEAKER IS BEING TURNED DOWN WHEN IT'S NOT BEING USED. SO THEY ARE SHOUTING, BUT WE ARE NOT HEARING. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
>>KEN STUBBS: SOMEONE JUST SPOKE UP --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL GET BACK TO THE VOICE LINE AGAIN. DOES EITHER MILTON OR JEFF WISH TO SPEAK?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: IN THE -- I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE TASKS AND MILESTONES SECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ADDING A NEW TASK OR PUTTING A SECOND SENTENCE ON THE SECOND TASK, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A SENTENCE SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, "THIS SHOULD INCLUDE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION COMPARING THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER WITH THE COST OF EMPLOYING THE VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES."
I CAN SEND THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THERE COULD BE AN ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER THAT HAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT AND NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICES BUT COULD CHARGE A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR WHATEVER THEIR SERVICE IS. AND OF COURSE THEY WOULD HAVE TECHNIQUES THAT THEY COULD AFFORD TO USE. AND I THINK WHEN YOU COLLECT INFORMATION ON THOSE TECHNIQUES, YOU NEED TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON THE COST AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, JEFF, I'VE JUST GOT DISTRACTED THERE FOR A SECOND.
THE -- JUST REPEAT -- YOU'RE WANTING A -- THE ISSUE OF COST TO BE CONSIDERED? IS THAT YOUR REQUEST?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: NOT TO BE CONSIDERED BUT TO BE COLLECTED.
JORDYN, ARE YOU THERE? I SENT YOU THE LANGUAGE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR YOU.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, I CAN REPEAT. HE SENT ME THE LANGUAGE. IT SAYS "THIS SHOULD INCLUDE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION COMPARING THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER WITH THE COSTS IN EMPLOYING THE VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES."
SO THE IDEA IS JUST THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE CHARGING A LOT FOR THEIR SERVICES AND SO THEY CAN AFFORD LIKE A $25 VERIFICATION FEE WHEREAS THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE FOR A $6 DOMAIN NAME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I DON'T OBJECT TO THE INTENT, BUT I DO OBJECT TO THE WAY IT'S BEING PROPOSED. THIS WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. JUST AS REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ARE INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE ABOUT ANY REQUESTS FOR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE BUSINESS THAT YOU DO, SO WOULD BE ISPS, OSPS AND CONNECTIVITY PROVIDERS.
SO PERHAPS WE COULD TAKE THE INTENT AND JUST CAPTURE THE INTENT.
AND I THINK SOME ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO PROVIDE THOSE KINDS OF VALIDATION COULD BE EXAMINED. BUT WE REALLY CAN'T BE ASKING ISPS TO GIVE US PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE POINT THAT JORDYN AND JEFF ARE MAKING IS NOT SO MUCH THE COST BUT THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN BUY DIGITAL CERTIFICATES FOR, SAY, A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF VERIFICATION THAT'S USED IN THAT PROCESS. WHEREAS YOU CAN BUY DOMAIN NAMES FOR A LOWER FEE AND PERHAPS THE QUESTION IS REALLY FOR THE COMMUNITY, HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BE PAYING FOR THESE SERVICES.
I THINK THAT WAS OF THE KIND OF THE CONTEXT OF IT.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO YOU WOULD BE SUGGESTING A MARKET SURVEY OF THE KIND OF PRICING IN THE MARKETPLACE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M SAYING YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO USE THEIR COST. YOU CAN SAY WHAT TECHNIQUES DO THEY USE FOR ACCURACY AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PRICE OF THAT SERVICE BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: HEY, BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JUST TO ADD TO THAT. IF YOU'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY THESE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, THEN THERE'S NO PROBLEM IN COLLECTING THE COSTS THAT THAT SERVICE IS, EXACTLY AS BRUCE SAID IT. IF YOU'RE GET AGO CERTIFICATE, IT COULD BE A THOUSAND DOLLARS, $25,000. AND OF COURSE, THAT IS VERY RELEVANT WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, WHICH IS TASK NUMBER 2.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. PERHAPS I'LL JUST THINK OF SOME WORDS THERE. IT'S COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE VALUE OR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THOSE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
SO I GUESS IT'S WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE OF THOSE SERVICES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>>MARILYN CADE: I CAN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT HOW YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION SO LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THOSE OF US WHO PROVIDE THESE KINDS OF SERVICES, IF WE HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS PROBABLY HAVE PREFERRED DISCOUNTS, AND WE MAY BE OFFERING A BUNDLED SERVICE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO -- AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY -- I SUSPECT LEGAL COUNSEL IN CERTAIN OF THESE COMPANIES WOULD PROBABLY ADVISE PEOPLE NOT TO BE DISCLOSING THE TERMS OF THOSE CONTRACTS.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION IN THIS WAY.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: MARILYN, THIS IS JEFF. I'M SORRY I'M NOT THERE, I WISH I WAS. BUT IF YOU COULD GET INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES USED BY THOSE PROVIDERS ON VERIFYING INFORMATION, YOU CERTAINLY CAN GO TO THEIR WEB SITE AND FIND OUT HOW MUCH THEIR SERVICE -- NOT THE VERIFICATION SERVICE BUT THE ACTUAL PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE SELLING, YOU COULD FIND OUT HOW MUCH THAT COST. AND IF YOU CAN'T, THEN I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THIS WHOLE MILESTONE SHOULD BE CROSSED OUT. BECAUSE IT HAS NO RELEVANCE IF YOU CAN'T COMPARE IT TO THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THE -- JUST FOR THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION IN THE POLICY PROCESS, THE POLICY PROCESS REQUIRES, IN ANY CASE, A CONSIDERATION OF THE COST OF ANY CHANGES IN POLICY. SO IN ANY CASE, LET'S SAY THE -- THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO VISIT A REGISTRANT IN PERSON, WHEREVER THEY HAPPENED TO BE IN THE WORLD. YOU COULD THEN SAY, OKAY, THE COST OF ME VISITING SIBERIA TO VISIT A REGISTRANT IS GOING TO COST ME $10,000. YOU COULD CERTAINLY QUANTIFY THAT AS PART OF THE POLICY PROCESS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, JEFF, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO BUILT INTO THE PROCESS; THAT REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, IF THERE IS A SUGGESTION ABOUT A PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE, WILL COMMENT ABOUT THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT TECHNIQUE.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I MEAN, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS IN THE COLLECTION PROCESS OF INFORMATION, TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO COMMENT, RATHER THAN HAVING A REPORT THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY SOME AND THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY OTHERS, YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO NEED TO SAY, THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY A CERTIFICATE PROVIDER WHO CHARGES $5,000 FOR THEIR SERVICES.
IT'S A COLLECTION OF INFORMATION THAT I THINK IS REQUIRED IF YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: COULD I MAKE A WORDING PROPOSAL WHICH MIGHT CAPTURE BOTH THE INTENT AND RESERVATIONS? COULD WE JUST INSERT THE WORDS "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE" IN FRONT OF THE WORD "INFORMATION" IN JEFF'S PROPOSED WORDING? THAT WOULD --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S FINE.
SO IT WOULD READ "COLLECT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT."
>>MILTON MUELLER: I AGREE. THIS IS MILTON.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
>>MILTON MUELLER: YEAH. IN REGARD TO THE CURRENT TOPIC, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I HAVE TO GET OFF THE PHONE IN TEN MINUTES, AND WILL DELIVER MY PROXY TO CHUN AT THAT POINT.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: BRUCE, CAN YOU READ THAT? BECAUSE THE END OF IT SOUNDED -- INCLUDING PRICES?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT SAYS "COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT."
AND IN THE FIRST PART IT SHOULD SAY, "COLLECT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION."
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I THINK THE WAY YOU INSERTED THAT, THE PRICES -- IT MAY BE IMPLYING THE COST OF HOW MUCH IT -- OR HOW MUCH IT COST TO VERIFY THE DATA --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO. I SAID THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH, BUT I THINK THE WORDING THAT YOU MODIFIED MAY MODIFY THE WORDS "VERIFY THE DATA" RATHER THAN -- THE CONCEPT IS RIGHT. I JUST THINK THE WORDING -- BECAUSE THE WORD "TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT" AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: -- DOESN'T FIT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN YOU READ OUT WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD SAY, PLEASE, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: TO COLLECT PUBLICLY -- PUBLIC INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO -- WITH THE PARENTHETICAL (TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT) AS WELL AS INFORMATION ON THE PRICE -- THE PRICES OF THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP, THAT SOUNDS FINE. OKAY. WE'LL ADD THAT.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTED CHANGES? JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: ONCE AGAIN, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH IS DO WE CARE -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE'S ANY THAT WE -- THE TASK FORCE HAS ANY LATITUDE TO DECIDE THAT SOME INFORMATION OUGHT TO BE MORE CLOSELY VERIFIED THAN OTHERS IN TERMS OF THE DATA GATHERED. WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE -- LIKE WE MAY NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT ADMIN CONTACTS BUT WE MIGHT CARE A LOT ABOUT REGISTRANTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK FORCE IS JUST PURELY TO LOOK AT VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE ACCURACY, WHETHER IT'S POSTAL OR E-MAIL ADDRESS. AND THEN IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU NEED TO COLLECT ACCURATE DATA FOR ADMIN CONTACT, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT WOULDN'T BE THE TOPIC OF THIS TASK FORCE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: COULD THAT BE LISTED SOMETHING EXPLICITLY OUT OF SCOPE OF THE TASK FORCE IS DECIDING WHICH DATA ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN HAS A RELATED QUESTION.
>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, MY QUESTION, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND IT MAY BE SIMILAR, JORDYN, TO YOURS, IS SHOULD THE TASK FORCE BE WORKING FROM, FOR INSTANCE, THE PRESENTATION YOU MADE EARLIER WHICH SHOWED WHICH ELEMENTS ARE REQUIRED AND WHICH ARE OPTIONAL? AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT PERHAPS THAT OUGHT TO BE A BASE DOCUMENT THAT THE TASK FORCE WAS WORKING FROM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT IS, YEAH. THE INTENT OF THIS TASK FORCE IS NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING THE DATA ELEMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE THREE FOCUSED GROUPS SO THAT THEY CAN FOCUS ON THE ISSUE OF DATA VERIFICATION, WHICH APPLIES NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA IS, REALLY. WHETHER IT'S A REGISTRANT OR AN ADMIN CONTACT, THEY BOTH HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS. HOW DO YOU VERIFY AN E-MAIL ADDRESS IS KIND OF THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
>>MARILYN CADE: IF THAT IS OUR INTENT, WHICH I THOUGHT IT WAS, I THINK IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE STATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK -- I'M TRYING TO READ THE "OUT OF SCOPE" BIT.
IS SAYS THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGING THE DATA ELEMENTS THAT ARE COLLECTED. THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE TASK FORCE.
THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MECHANISMS FOR RESTRICTING THE PUBLIC DISPLAY FOR SOME DATA ELEMENTS WHICH MAY LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN THE PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION. THIS IS FOR A SEPARATE TASK FORCE.
IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO ADD TO THE ADD OF SCOPE.
>>MARILYN CADE: OTHERS MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BASE DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT WE MAY END UP, IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE TASK FORCES, WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM OUR CONSTITUENCIES WORKING ON THIS WHO AREN'T, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY WELL BASED IN ALL OF THE BACKGROUND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO IN THE DESCRIPTION OF TASK FORCE I SHOULD EXPLICITLY REFERENCE THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT.
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND THAT'S NOT QUITE GETTING TO WHAT I WAS SAYING, WHICH IS WE MAY DECIDE THAT, IN THE LONGER TERM, I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE, WE MAY DECIDE IN THE LONGER TERM IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO VERIFY THE ADDRESS OF A REGISTRANT, AND MAYBE THAT COSTS $5 TO DO, BUT DO WE CARE ABOUT THE ADDRESS OF THE TECH CONTACT? PROBABLY NOT. WE CARE ABOUT HIS E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER. I WANT TO POINT OUT IT'S OUT OF SCOPE AS TO WHICH ELEMENTS SHOULD BE VERIFIED OR SHOULD NOT BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE. I'LL PUT THAT IN IN "OUT OF SCOPE." THE SCOPE IS ASSUMING THAT ALL THE DATA COLLECTED NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE. IS THE ASSUMPTION. AND THEN -- PERHAPS TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE -- ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS MANDATORY TO BE PROVIDED MUST BE ACCURATE, IS THE ASSUMPTION. AND THEN ANOTHER TASK FORCE MIGHT DECIDE TO CHANGE WHAT'S MANDATORY, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT IS MANDATORY AND, IN FACT, THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES THAT THAT MANDATORY INFORMATION HAS TO BE ACCURATE.
SO THAT'S AN EXISTING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THIS TASK FORCE IS REALLY SAYING HOW DO YOU DO THAT.
SO I THINK PROBABLY EASIEST IS I'LL PUT A PARAGRAPH THERE IN THE DESCRIPTION TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENTS AND JUST STATE THAT THERE IS EXISTING INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WHICH IS MANDATORY, AND THAT THAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE. THAT THAT'S AN EXISTING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT.
AND SO THE INTENT OF THIS TASK FORCE IS STARTING FROM THE CURRENT CONTRACT IN RESPECT TO THE DATA. AND THIS IS THEN -- AND THE CONTRACT REQUIRES THE DATA TO BE ACCURATE. BUT WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THE DATA IS NOT ACCURATE, AND SO THIS TASK FORCE IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM.
OKAY. ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS? MILTON OR JEFF?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BRUCE, I'M JUST -- I THINK IT'S STILL NOT 100 PERCENT.
WE SPECIFICALLY SAY IT'S OUT OF SCOPE WHICH DATA ELEMENTS ARE COLLECTED BUT WE DON'T SAY THAT IT'S OUT OF SCOPE TO DECIDE WHICH NEED TO BE -- WHICH ARE MANDATORY VERSUS NOT MANDATORY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO WE MIGHT COLLECT THINGS, GENERALLY SPEAKING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: -- BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THEM OR REQUIRE THEM TO BE ACCURATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WHERE THIS SEEMS TO IMPLY EVERYTHING YOU COLLECT HAS TO BE ACCURATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL PUT THOSE WORDS IN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WHAT I AM SAYING IS THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT WE COLLECT THAT ARE NOT MANDATORY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO OUT OF SCOPE, THEN, UNDER PARAGRAPH UNDER OUT OF SCOPE, IS THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER ACCURACY ISSUES FOR DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU JUST SAID, JORDYN, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE, GIVEN THE EXCHANGE HERE, THAT NECESSARILY OTHER COUNSELORS WOULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS.
SO I MIGHT ASK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD, JUST, FROM YOUR BEST MEMORY AND THE FACT YOU DID THIS PRESENTATION EARLIER, THE THING THAT I MIGHT REMEMBER AS ONE AREA OF INFORMATION WHICH IS OPTIONAL IS THE FAX NUMBER OF --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S NOT, ACTUALLY.
>>MARILYN CADE: AH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S MANDATORY IF IT EXISTS.
>>MARILYN CADE: AH. THAT'S TRUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT WORDING.
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS IS WHY I'M A LITTLE -- EVEN I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED, HAVING SAT THROUGH YOUR BRILLIANT PRESENTATION. EVEN I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH DATA THIS WOULD REFER TO. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE I HAVE A -- I HAVE A REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND IT SAYS IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE REGISTRANTS MUST PROVIDE ACCURATE DATA. AND SOME OF THE DATA ELEMENTS HAVE OPTIONAL BESIDE THEM, BUT MOST DON'T.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: IF I WERE ON THIS TASK FORCE RIGHT NOW, I WOULD ASSUME I WOULD BE LOOKING AT HOW TO COLLECT DATA OF CURRENT TECHNIQUES OF HOW REGISTRARS AND OTHERS VERIFY ALL THAT DATA.
SO YOU'VE JUST THROWN ME, JORDYN, A BIT OF A WILD BALL.
I JUST ASKED YOU TO GIVE ME A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY EXTERNAL TO THIS GROUP TO DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE FIELDS OUGHT -- I THINK RIGHT NOW THERE'S PROBABLY WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT SOMETHING LIKE THE FAX NUMBER MAYBE OUGHT NOT TO BE, IN FACT, MANDATORY. AND A SEPARATE TASK FORCE MAY DECIDE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. I'M JUST TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT THIS TASK FORCE OUGHT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINING WHICH FIELDS ARE MANDATORY, WHICH ARE NOT, AND IT SHOULD OPERATE UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT CERTAIN DATA ELEMENTS THAT ARE COLLECTED MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE -- IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO VERIFY THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BUT NOT THE FAX NUMBER, FOR EXAMPLE.
>>MARILYN CADE: IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT I TOOK YOUR STATEMENT TO --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY STATEMENT, AND I'LL READ IT AGAIN, IS THAT THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE ACCURACY OF DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY. THAT'S THE STATEMENT.
NOW, THEN YOU'RE SORT OF SAYING WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE. FOR EXAMPLE, PASSWORD IS NOT MANDATORY, AUTHENTICATION. REGISTRARS MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH THAT BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESSES FOR THAT ANYWAY. SO I GUESS THIS TASK FORCE WOULDN'T BE SAYING "HOW DO I MAKE SURE THAT THE PASSWORD IS ACCURATE?"
BUT PHONE NUMBER IS ONE OF THE MANDATORY ELEMENTS SOMEWHERE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CONTACT IT IS. PHONE NUMBER IS A MANDATORY ELEMENT. SO WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER HOW WE COLLECT THAT ACCURATELY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BRUCE, COULD WE AMEND THAT TO SAY THEY WON'T CONSIDER WHICH ELEMENT -- THE ACCURACY OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT MANDATORY NOR OF WHICH ELEMENTS ARE MANDATORY OR NOT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR -- THE IDEA HERE IS TO GET TECHNIQUES. THE IDEA IS NOT TO FIGURE OUT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S FINE. I LIKE THAT.
SO THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE ACCURACY FOR DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY, AND WILL NOT CONSIDER WHICH ELEMENTS SHOULD BE MANDATORY.
OKAY. ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS?
OKAY. LAST CALL, JEFF OR MILTON?
>>>: NO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE TO A VOTE. I'LL JUST GET MY LIST OF VOTERS. STARTING WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I VOTE YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON. I THINK MILTON HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO YOU.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND GABRIEL.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN STUBBS?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL VOTE YES.
NIKLAS.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE LOSING YOUR VOICE.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES, AND YES FOR LINDA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI?
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK?
>>ALICK WILSON: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THAT ONE IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THE DRAFTING.
THE CHALLENGE WILL BE FOR GLEN TO ACTUALLY COLLECT ALL THIS BUT LUCKILY WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING.
OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA, THEN, IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE CONSIDER THESE THREE AREAS -- HOW WE HANDLE THESE THREE AREAS, AND THE OPTIONS ARE BASICALLY WE CAN WORK ON THESE AS A COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, THE COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE TO FORM A TASK FORCE, IT COULD CHOOSE TO FORM ONE TASK FORCE TO DEAL WITH ALL THREE AREAS, IT COULD CHOOSE TWO TASK FORCES OR IT COULD CHOOSE THREE TASK FORCES.
PROBABLY THE MOST VIABLE OPTIONS ARE TO EITHER HAVE A SINGLE TASK FORCE REPORTING TO THE COUNCIL OR HAVE THREE TASK FORCES REPORTING TO COUNCIL.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND I THINK MARILYN HAS RAISED THAT WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT ELSE WE WILL BE NEEDING TO ADDRESS.
WHAT'S CURRENTLY, I GUESS, ON THE HORIZON FOR, SAY, THE NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS SEEMS TO BE THESE AREAS REGARDING WHOIS, THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS, REGISTRY SERVICES, AND UDRP. AND WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER, I GUESS, THE PRIORITIZATION OF BOTH THE COUNCIL RESOURCES AND THE ICANN STAFF RESOURCES WITH RESPECT TO THOSE VARIOUS AREAS.
PERHAPS WE SHOULD START THE DISCUSSION WITH JUST A VIEW ON HOW WE SHOULD MANAGE ALL OF THOSE AREAS AND WHETHER WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DO ALL OF THEM AT ONCE OR WHETHER WE SHOULD TRY AND PRIORITIZE.
AND I'LL GET TO MARILYN TO SPEAK TO THIS FIRST BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE SHE'S RAISED, AND THEN I'LL ASK OTHERS.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT IN A BROAD WAY. WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES, BUT --
>>>: MARILYN, COULD YOU TALK INTO THE MIKE.
>>MARILYN CADE: SORRY. CAN'T HEAR ME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST A BIT CLOSER.
>>MARILYN CADE: WE HAVE BEFORE US A DEADLINE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED RELATED TO ADDRESSING NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, AND IF I CAN -- THAT IS, IN FACT, A WILD BALL THAT ARRIVED WITHOUT OUR EXPECTING IT, SO IT IS ON OUR PLATES TO DEAL WITH. AND IT HAS TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY TO DEAL WITH, IT SEEMS TO ME. I THINK WE'VE ALL PRETTY MUCH ACCEPTED THAT AS A REALITY.
THE DEADLINE OF JANUARY THE 15TH I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH IN TERMS OF THE FEASIBILITY OF MEETING THAT, BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S JANUARY THE 15TH OR JANUARY THE 20TH OR 30TH, STILL, WE BEGIN TODAY AND WE CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT. THAT WILL BE A PREOCCUPATION I BELIEVE OF EVERY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO WILL WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
SO THAT IS A MAJOR WORK ITEM TO CONSIDER.
WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF UDRP AND HYPOTHETICALLY THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION ON THIS, PERHAPS THAT IS ONE PDP THAT COULD BE POSTPONED FOR SOME TIME UNLESS THERE'S A NUMBER OF BURNING ISSUES RELATED TO THAT THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED NOW.
WE HAVE WHOIS AND HOW MANY AND HOW WE GET THE WORK OF WHOIS DONE.
WE HAVE ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE PROCESS OF NEW GTLDS. GIVEN THAT OUR DEADLINE ON THAT IS SEPTEMBER OF NEXT YEAR, PERHAPS THAT COULD BE -- WE COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SIGNIFICANT LAUNCH OF THAT WORK ON OUR PART COULD BE BEGUN AT THE END -- OR THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES. SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF A SERIAL APPROACH TO THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM.
THOSE ARE JUST THE THINGS THAT I KNOW WE HAVE IMMEDIATELY, AND I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES MAY WANT TO RAISE OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY CONSIDER OF SOME PRIORITY TO TRY TO ADDRESS VIA PDP AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MARILYN. I GUESS MY VIEW ON THE PRIORITY ISSUES IS PROBABLY WE'VE GOT A TIGHT DEADLINE THAT'S BEEN IMPOSED BUT -- WE ACTUALLY SAY IT'S IMPOSED BUT IT IS, IN FACT, IN THE BYLAWS THAT THERE IS A 90-DAY PROCESS.
WE HAVE THE WHOIS ISSUES, WE HAVE UDRP, WE HAVE NEW GTLDS, AND THERE COULD BE SOME OTHERS THAT ARISE.
MY FEELING IS THAT PERHAPS THE REGISTRY SERVICES WOULD BE PRIORITY NUMBER ONE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. THEN WE HAVE WHOIS, WHICH CAN START PROBABLY IN PARALLEL, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF DATA COLLECTION.
THEN WE HAVE THE NEW GTLD ISSUE, AND MY FEELING IS THAT ICANN IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SOME MORE WORK IN THAT, INCLUDING A CONSULTANT IS DOING AN EVALUATION OF THE OLD -- OF THE CURRENT GTLDS FROM THE LAST ROUND, AND THE POLICY PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
SO MY FEELING IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR WORK COULD START I WOULD SAY PERHAPS SECOND QUARTER NEXT YEAR. AND THEN UDRP IS PROBABLY THE LOWER OF THOSE, JUST IN MY PERCEPTION FROM HEARING THE AMOUNT OF LOBBYING I GET ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEW.
WOULD OTHERS LIKE TO PERHAPS JUST COMMENT ON THAT GENERAL PRIORITY ORDER, WHICH IS SORT OF SAYING, BASICALLY, REGISTRY SERVICES, WHOIS, NEW GTLDS, AND, FINALLY, UDRP IN THE SORT OF CURRENT ORDER? PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY THAT WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, I HAD ALREADY MADE MY OWN PRIORITY LIST, AND I FIND IT COINCIDES WITH YOURS IN EVERY ELEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. OTHER COMMENTS? ELLEN?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE UDRP CAN BE PUT LAST ON THE LIST. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS -- AND MARILYN SAID, IT'S TRUE, I WAS GOING TO SAVE IT FOR NEW BUSINESS, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE LIST TO BE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY FOR HIGHER UP IN THE ORDER OF PRIORITY AND THAT'S THE ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE -- AND I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU -- THAT IN OUR LAST EXPERIENCE OF OUR LAST TASK FORCE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS PRIVACY RELATED ISSUES IN WHOIS.
AND AT THAT TIME, AT THE LAST STAGE, OUR CONSTITUENCY MEMBER ADDRESSED ONE SERIOUS QUESTION.
IT HAS RELATED WITH THE TIME SPAN OR THE ORDER OF THE ISSUE TO BE TAKEN.
BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, ACCURACY ISSUE WANTED TO BE SEPARATED INTO TWO -- SEPARATED FROM PRIVACY ISSUES.
AT THAT TIME, ONE CONSENSUS WAS PRIVACY ISSUES CAN BE REVIEWED LATER, AFTER THE ACCURACY HAS BEEN DONE.
THEN THE PROBLEM IS, THOSE TWO ISSUES HAVE CLOSE RELATIONS, AND ALSO WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRIVACY ISSUES FIRST.
SO I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS KIND OF RELATIONS REQUIRES SOME KIND OF SEPARATED DISCUSSIONS AND THINKING.
SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES.
AND ALSO WE SHOULD PUT DOWN SOME TIMETABLE SEPARATELY TO THOSE THREE TASK FORCES.
IN MY VIEW, THE FIRST TASK FORCE, WHICH IS DEALING WITH THE BULK OF THIS, THAT DEMANDS SOME KIND OF TECHNOLOGY-CENTERED CONCERNS.
AND ALSO SECOND ONE IS DEMANDING SOME PRIVACY-CENTERED EXPERTISE.
AND THE LAST ONE HAS SOME COMPLEX OF EXPERTISES.
SO WE SHOULD SEPARATE THOSE THREE FIELDS.
I THINK THOSE ISSUES ARE NATURALLY PROPOSED INTO THAT SPECIFIED ITEMS BY THE COMMITTEE.
SO MY CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS WANT TO HAVE A SEPARATE THREE TASK FORCES AND ALSO WE SHOULD ALLOCATE SOME SPECIFIC TIMETABLE FOR THOSE TASK FORCES.
IT COULD BE ONE SOLUTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY, GO AHEAD.
>>TONY HOLMES: WELL, FOR THE ISPS, THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THE PRIORITY ORDER ALIGNS WITH WHAT YOU STATED.
SO WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE COMMENT THAT CHUN HAS MADE, WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE ONE TASK FORCE.
AND WE THINK THAT MAYBE YOU COULD BREAK THAT DOWN INTO A NUMBER OF WORKING GROUPS AND DO IT THAT WAY BUT DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR SEPARATE TASK FORCES FOR EACH ONE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
JORDYN, THEN THOMAS, THEN NIKLAS.
JORDYN, GO AHEAD.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
AS I INDICATED IN MY E-MAIL TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS SUBJECT, I'M A LITTLE PERPLEXED AS TO WHY WE'RE REVISITING THIS SUBJECT.
I THOUGHT WE HAD, IN CHARTER -- IN CREATING THE STEERING GROUP IN THE FIRST PLACE, DONE SO UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT WOULD CREATE TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR VARIOUS TASK FORCES, IN THE PLURAL, NOT A SINGLE TASK FORCE.
AND IF OUR GOAL WAS TO MAKE A BIG WHOIS TASK FORCE AGAIN, THAT WE WOULD HAVE CHARTERED A WHOIS TASK FORCE AND HAD THEM SORT OF DEAL WITH ISSUES SERIALLY AND MAYBE HAD SUBGROUPS OR WHATEVER WORKING UNDER IT.
SO WE SEEM NOW TO BE DEVIATING SOMEWHAT FROM OUR INTENT IN CHARTERING THE STEERING GROUP, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.
SECONDLY, BEYOND THAT, I JUST, GIVING THAT I THINK EVEN THE SECOND TASK FORCE IN AND OF ITSELF HAS PLENTY OF WORK TO IMAGINE POSSIBLY BE GETTING DONE WITHIN THE 90-DAY TIME FRAME ALLOCATED TO US BY THE PDP, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW WE WOULD AMALGAMATE THE WORK INTO A HUGE (INAUDIBLE) TASK FORCE THAT WE SOMEHOW WOULD IMAGINE TO BE MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE EFFECTIVE AT RESOLVING THE CONCERNS IN THE TIME LIMITS CONSTRAINED UPON US BY THE NEW PDP.
I'M THE FIRST TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THOSE TIM LIMITS ARE PARTICULARLY REALISTIC.
BUT WE OUGHT TO STRIVE TO DO THAT WORK ONCE A TASK FORCE HAS BEEN CHARTERED IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING BAGGED DOWN.
I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE WITH SUCH A BIG TASK FORCE WITH SUCH A BROAD MANDATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, JORDYN.
I GUESS JUST ONE COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, ONE, IN TERMS OF RESOURCING, IS, IF WE HAVE THESE -- WE HAVE THREE GROUPS OR THREE AREAS, I THINK WE WILL NEED, AS CHUN POINTED OUT, PEOPLE WITH SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS.
SO IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCING, I'M EXPECTING MOST CONSTITUENCIES WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THREE RESOURCES TO THAT AREA.
AND THEN IT COMES DOWN TO HOW WE MANAGE THE ACTIVITY.
IN TERMS OF THE TIME FRAMES THAT CHUN SUGGESTED, MY FEELING IS, RATHER THAN THE COUNCIL AT THIS STAGE TRYING TO DICTATE A TIMETABLE, IF WE WERE TO FORM -- WHETHER WE FORM ONE TASK FORCE OR THREE, I WOULD BE REQUESTING THE GROUPS TO COME BACK WITH A SUGGESTED TIMETABLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
BECAUSE JUST FROM AN ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE, THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS SOMEBODY IMPOSING A DEADLINE ON YOU WHEN YOU HAVE YET TO REALLY DETERMINE WHAT RESOURCES YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE -- WE DON'T CLEARLY KNOW AT THIS STAGE HOW MANY STAFF RESOURCES THAT WE'LL HAVE AVAILABLE OR EVEN IF WE HAVE ONE PERSON ALLOCATED, WHETHER THAT PERSON WILL HAVE OTHER TASKS.
SO WE WOULD NEED A LOT MORE DATA TO SET A STRICT TIMETABLE.
AND I WOULD BE SUGGESTING THE FIRST TASK OF THE TASK FORCE OR TASK FORCES WOULD BE TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A SUGGESTED TIMETABLE ONCE THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR RESOURCES ARE.
OKAY.
THOMAS, YOU WERE NEXT.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THE APPROACH OF USING THREE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES WHOSE CHAIRS DIRECTLY REPORT BACK TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THE APPROACH OF HAVING ONE LARGE WORKING GROUP ATTACK A NUMBER OF ISSUES WILL BASICALLY MEAN THAT SUBGROUPS OF THIS WORKING GROUP WILL TAKE THE ROLE OF TASK FORCES AND THAT THAT WORKING GROUP'S CHAIR WILL BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WORKLOAD WHICH BELONGS TO THREE CHAIRS AND THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.
I FAIL TO SEE THE BENEFIT THAT ONE WORKING GROUP OFFERS OVER THREE TASK FORCES.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE THREE TASK FORCES APPROACH IS SIMPLER, EASIER TO MANAGE, AND, IN PARTICULAR, MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT FOR PARTICIPANTS ALL OVER THAN THE ONE WORKING GROUP APPROACH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NIKLAS.
AND THEN --
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
SORRY ABOUT MY VOICE.
I MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE A PROXY TO SOMEONE SOON MAYBE.
IN PRINCIPLE, OUT OF THE TWO OPTIONS, I WOULD PERSONALLY FAVOR THE ONE TASK FORCE WITH THREE WORKING GROUPS.
THE REASON BEING THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF OVERLAPS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH ARE LISTED IN TEXT 1, 2, 3 OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
BUT NOW I THINK WE SHOULDN'T FOCUS TOO MUCH ON PROCESS, AND SUBSTANCE THAT MATTERS ABOVE ALL.
SO IF PEOPLE HAVE STRONG ISSUES ABOUT THE IDEA OF ONE TASK FORCE WITH THREE WORKING GROUPS IN COMMUNICATION, I GUESS IT'S -- BUT IN PRINCIPLE, I WOULD FAVOR ONE TASK FORCE AND THREE WORKING GROUPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD FAVOR ONE TASK FORCE, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE?
IS THAT IT?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: WELL, IT'S AN ISSUE, BUT, YEAH, I COULD LIVE WITH THREE TASK FORCES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
IT'S A MEDIUM ISSUE.
GO AHEAD.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'M GOING TO BE PART OF HIS PROXY VOICE HERE.
IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE AS MUCH AS OUR CONCERN THAT THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE GROUPS IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S OVERLAPPING, WHATEVER THE EFFICIENCY OF -- WE ACTUALLY THINK MANY OF THE ISSUES OVERLAP AND THE GROUPS WORK TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE ISSUES TOUCH ONE ANOTHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S VERY WELL STATED.
AND IT'S CERTAINLY THE INTENT IN THE WAY I DRAFTED THE TERMS OF THE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WAS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIAISON BETWEEN THE TWO.
BUT I THINK THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD AND ALSO THE THINGS THAT PAUL TWOMEY MENTIONED THIS MORNING IS THAT IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO COORDINATE THE ACTIVITY ON WHOIS.
AND IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN JUST AN INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE GROUP TALKING TO ANOTHER GROUP.
AND WE FOUND THIS -- I GUESS WE HAD A -- WE'VE HAD SESSIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SIMILARLY.
BECAUSE IF IT WAS JUST ME AS THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL TALKING TO THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY GET THE FULL NUANCES OF THE ISSUES.
SO I THINK THERE WILL BE TIME, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL COULD MANAGE, IS THAT THE COUNCIL COULD REQUEST THAT MAYBE EVERY THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS, THAT THE GROUPS GET TOGETHER AS A WHOLE AND DISCUSS THEIR PROGRESS SO FAR SO THAT THERE IS REGULAR CONTACT BETWEEN THE GROUPS.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANKS.
I THINK -- I SUPPORT EXACTLY THE COMMENTS YOU WERE SAYING AND THE SENTIMENT THAT ELLEN WAS MAKING JUST THEN.
FOR ME, THE KEY QUESTION IS, WHERE WILL BE THE LEVEL OF COORDINATION?
DO WE WANT THE COORDINATION TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF A WORKING GROUP, OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT?
OR DO WE WANT THE COORDINATION TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF THE COUNCIL.
MY FEELING IS THAT FROM PROCESS, YOU STILL NEED THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE MEANINGFUL SO THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED TO US IS IMPORTANT.
SO THAT LEADS ME INEVITABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SINGLE TASK FORCE BUT WITH DIFFERENT ELEMENTS TO IT IS A BETTER APPROACH FROM THE WAY THAT WE WOULD COORDINATE THIS.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE TWO APPROACHES ARE SO DIFFERENT, BECAUSE THEN THE QUESTION IS, IS REALLY ONE OF RESOURCE FROM EACH OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES.
AND ARE WE THEN GOING TO TACKLE THOSE THREE TASKS IN FRONT OF US THAT WE'VE JUST APPROVED IN PARALLEL OR IN SERIES WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE?
AND MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT, IN PARTICULAR, WITH 2 AND 3, THEY HAVE ELEMENTS WHICH HAVE A MUCH GREATER OVERLAP AND AN INTERDEPENDENCE.
AND I CAN SEE ALSO A TIMING ISSUE, WHERE BY TAKING 2 AND THEN 3 MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
SO I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO ASK CONSTITUENCIES IN TERMS OF RESOURCING FIRST, ARE THEY ABLE TO HANDLE, SAY, TWO SEPARATE WORKING GROUPS WITHIN A SINGLE TASK FORCE IN ORDER TO -- AT THE SAME TIME.
BECAUSE I THINK 1 COULD BE DONE IN PARALLEL WITH 2 AND THEN 3, BUT I WOULDN'T SUGGEST 3 TOGETHER FROM EITHER THE TIMING PROCESS NEEDED IN ISSUE NOR FROM THE RESOURCE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSTITUENCIES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE RESULT, REALLY, AT THE STEERING GROUP DISCUSSION WAS THAT I THINK PEOPLE FELT THAT IT WOULD BE NICE NOT TO HAVE TO DO THREE AT ONCE.
BUT PEOPLE COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT AT THAT POINT, THEN, AS TO WHICH ORDER YOU WOULD DO THEM.
AND THERE WAS VERY STRONG FEELINGS EITHER WAY.
AND SO I GUESS THE CONSENSUS POSITION AT THE STEERING GROUP LEVEL WAS THAT THE THREE ACTIVITIES SHOULD OCCUR IN PARALLEL, AND THEN THE ISSUE THEN COMES DOWN TO -- DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT, MARILYN?
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK -- I THINK THAT THE SENTIMENT AT THE STEERING GROUP WAS ENSURING THAT ALL THREE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED.
AND I THINK IT COULD BE -- I THINK PHILIP'S SUGGESTION SOUNDED TO ME LIKE IT WAS POSSIBLY A COMPROMISE THAT THE STEERING GROUP MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO CONSIDER, WHICH, IF I COULD RESTATE IT -- I'M NOT -- BECAUSE I'M JUST HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME MYSELF -- I THINK YOU WERE SUGGESTING THAT A TASK FORCE DO 1, AND THAT THAT SEEMED RELATIVELY STREAMLINED AND UNDOUBTEDLY COULD BE DONE WELL WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD.
AND A DIFFERENT GROUP DO 2 FIRST AND THEN GO ON AND DO 3 IN SERIAL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO IT WOULD BE TWO TASK FORCES AND ONE TASK FORCE WOULD HAVE TWO EXTENSIONS BECAUSE YOU WERE PERCEIVING THAT 2 AND 3 ARE LINKED IN TERMS OF EXPERTISE AND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE EXPERTISE IN 2 AND 3 ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT SURE EXPERTISE IS THE TERM I AM SAYING.
BUT THE EXPERIENCE FROM 2 SEEMS TO BE -- THE OUTCOME OF 2 SEEMS TO BE LINKED TO 3.
AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU WOULD DO 2 AND 3 SEPARATELY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DISAGREE.
THAT WOULD DRAFT --
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE STEERING GROUP.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT DOES.
AND THE STEERING GROUP DISCUSSION, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL -- THE FIRST TELECONFERENCE MORE OR LESS CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, THAT WE COULD DO 1 AND 2, AND THEN 3.
BUT THERE WAS VERY STRONG VIEW, PARTICULARLY FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEMBER, THAT ACCURACY WAS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND THE CONCERN WAS THAT IF WE DEALT WITH IT IN SERIAL, ACCURACY WOULDN'T BE DEALT WITH UNTIL 2005, EXAGGERATING A BIT, BUT IT WOULD BE DEALT WITH AT SOME LATER TIME.
AND THEN THE ISSUE WAS, WELL, PERHAPS ACCURACY SHOULD COME FIRST BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE HIGH-PRIORITY ISSUES.
AND THEN MEMBERS THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEIR ISSUE WOULD BE, IN TURN, DELAYED.
SO I GUESS WHAT I THOUGHT THE FAIREST APPROACH WAS, TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD TREAT EACH OF THOSE AS SEPARATE GROUPS, BUT THAT -- AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING NOW IS, IF THE COUNCIL DID DECIDE TO CREATE THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES, THEY CAN SET THEIR OWN TIME LINES, AND THE CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS OF THOSE TASK FORCES, IF A CONSTITUENCY OR A GROUP OF MEMBERS IS ABLE TO DEVOTE THE RESOURCES, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO DO 3 ON A FAST TIME TRACK.
AND THAT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON THE RESOURCES THAT THAT PARTICULAR GROUP HAD.
IF GROUP 2 FINDS THAT IT'S GOT REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC PEOPLE THAT ARE PREPARED TO MEET EVERY DAY, AS OPPOSED TO ONCE A WEEK, THAT MAY WELL MOVE VERY QUICKLY AS WELL.
SO MY FEELING WAS TO BREAK THE INTERDEPENDENCIES AND SAY YOU HAVE THREE GROUPS, FORM THOSE GROUPS, AND THEN THE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT FORM THAT GROUP THEN MEET TOGETHER TO DECIDE THE TIMETABLE THAT THEY BELIEVE IS ACHIEVABLE.
THAT WAS, I GUESS, MY SUGGESTION TO -- OTHERWISE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO A VERY DIFFICULT DEBATE AS TO WHICH COMES FIRST.
AND WE'VE ALSO GOT THE ISSUE THAT SOME OF THESE TASK FORCES, I THINK, ARE NATURALLY DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES.
AND I THINK TASK FORCE 1 COULD OCCUR ON A MUCH FASTER TIME FRAME.
AND I THINK IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT EXPERTISE OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS ON THAT, THEY SHOULD COME BACK AND SAY, "YES, WE CAN COMPLETE SOMETHING MAYBE BY JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OR SOMETHING."
TASK FORCE 2 MIGHT SAY, "OKAY, THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY BIG ITEM OF WORK.
WE MAY NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL JULY OR SOMETHING."
WHATEVER.
AND I THINK -- I'M JUST PULLING THINGS OUT OF THIN AIR HERE.
BUT JUST TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THOSE GROUPS COULD HAVE QUITE DIFFERENT TIMETABLES.
AND I WOULD RATHER LET THE GROUP DEFINE THE TIMETABLE.
YEP, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M PERSUADED BY THAT IF THAT'S GOING TO HELP IN TERMS OF REACHING A COMPROMISE ON COUNCIL, I THINK WE WOULD DO OUR BEST ENDEAVORS AS THE B.C. TO RESOURCE THREE GROUPS, IF NECESSARY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I MUST STRESS THAT THE COUNCIL IS ENTIRELY RELIANT ON VOLUNTEERS.
AND THE SPEED AT WHICH GROUPS CAN MOVE IS OFTEN LIMITED BY THE TIME AVAILABLE FROM THE VOLUNTEERS ON THESE GROUPS.
SO -- IF YOU HAVE THE GROUP OF VERY KEEN INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT A PARTICULAR TOPIC, I BELIEVE THEY CAN MOVE QUICKLY.
HOWEVER, WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS IS THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S KIND OF RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO BE A MEMBER OF A PANEL, AND THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO THEIR MEMBERS, BUT THEY PERSONALLY DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO SPEND ON IT.
AND THAT IS OFTEN THE DIFFICULTY THAT COUNCIL HAS.
JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, I THINK THAT I FIND MYSELF INITIALLY BEING QUITE PERSUADED BY PHILIP'S APPROACH OF THE -- WORKING THE SECOND TASK FORCE SERIALLY WITH THE THIRD TASK FORCE OR ONE BIG TASK FORCE, BOTH SETS OF DISCUSSION ISSUES IN THAT I THINK THAT, A, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE GOOD PROGRESS ON THE ACCURACY ISSUE WITH ALL SIDES COMING TOGETHER WITHOUT FIRST HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE USED.
BECAUSE I THINK YOU WILL FIND CONTINUED RESISTANCE TO STRONG ACCURACY PROVISIONS UNTIL SOME PRIVACY PROVISIONS EXIST.
AND I THINK THAT'S A POINT THAT I'VE MADE REPEATEDLY.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO STICK BY IT NOW AND SUGGEST THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO BE FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE IN DEALING WITH THE ACCURACY ISSUES ONCE WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUES IN ISSUE 2.
AND I THINK THERE'S MORE DIRECT -- THERE'S ACTUALLY DIRECT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL WORK BEING ACHIEVED IN THAT WE HAVE JUST DECIDED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT TASK GROUP 3 OUGHT NOT TO BE DECIDING WHICH INFORMATION ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE VALIDATED.
THAT SEEMS MORE LIKE SOMETHING THAT TASK GROUP 2 IS GOING TO DO.
BUT IF TASK GROUP 2 HASN'T DONE ITS WORK YET, THAT LEAVES TASK FORCE 3 OPERATING IN A VACUUM OF OPERATION.
THERE'S STRONG REASONS WHY THAT WORK SHOULD BE DONE SERIALLY.
ALTHOUGH I RECOGNIZE THERE'S DISSENTING OPINIONS HERE, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER AS A COUNCIL.
AND I THINK IT ALSO WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE RESOURCING ISSUES.
ALTHOUGH, RECOGNIZING, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT IN MANY CASES THE SAME PEOPLE WILL NOT BE DEALING WITH ISSUE 2 AS ISSUE 3.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I JUST COMMENT ALSO THAT THE OPTION -- MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE THREE TASK FORCES VERSUS ONE, AND THEN AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEN HAVE -- TRY TO FORM THE TASK FORCES.
AND THEN TRY THEN TO COME BACK WITH A TIMETABLE.
WHAT I SUSPECT THE OUTCOME OF THAT WILL BE IS THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE SYNCHRONIZATION POINTS BETWEEN 2 AND 3.
BECAUSE A LOT OF THE WORK IN ITEM 3 IS ACTUALLY ABOUT COLLECTING INFORMATION.
THERE'S REALLY NOT A LOT OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN ITEM 3.
THE POLICY'S ALREADY THERE.
THE DATA -- MANDATORY DATA ELEMENTS NEED TO BE ACCURATE.
BUT THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF WORK IN COLLECTING INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES FOR VERIFYING.
AND THAT'S NOT AN EASY THING, BECAUSE I KNOW WITHIN OUR COMPANY, WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR METHODS TO IMPROVE OUR DATA, BECAUSE IT'S OUR CUSTOMER DATA.
AND I THINK GAINING INFORMATION FROM OTHER PROVIDERS WILL TAKE TIME TO COLLECT AS WELL.
SO EVEN BEFORE ACCURACY IS AT THE POINT OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, THERE'S A LOT OF GROUNDWORK THAT CAN BE DONE.
IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH EXPERTISE IN THAT AREA, THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY CAN'T START THAT, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYTHING IN ITEM 2.
SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF THE APPROACH I'M SUGGESTING.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY EXPRESS THAT CONSENTING OPINION.
WE BELIEVE THAT ACCURACY IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EXACTLY THE REASON THAT YOU SAID, BRUCE.
NOBODY ARGUES THAT WHATEVER DATA YOU COLLECT HAS TO BE ACCURATE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY'S PREPARED TO PUT ON THE POSITION THAT FOR PRIVACY ISSUES OR OTHER POLICY ISSUES, IT'S REASONABLE TO SUPPLY INACCURATE DATA UNTIL THOSE ARE RESOLVED.
I ALSO SAID THAT I'M -- WE'RE WILLING TO BACK OFF ON THE ONE TASK FORCE VERSUS THREE TASK FORCE IF IT -- IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS KEEPING ACCURACY ON THE TABLE AS A FIRST ACTION AS OPPOSED TO SLOWING IT DOWN UNTIL AFTER THE SECOND.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THE SECOND POINT IS NOT ONLY WHAT ARE THE NEEDS FOR COLLECTING THE INFORMATION, WHICH I DO THINK TOUCHES AND IS A CROSS POINT 4, WHAT INFORMATION REALLY NEEDS TO BE VALIDATED VERSUS NOT.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF OVERLAP.
BUT POINT 2 ALSO INCLUDES THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO WHICH GROUPS.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN DELAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S A MUCH LARGER QUESTION.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN I HAVE AN INFORMATIONAL QUESTION?
WHICH IS, WHAT -- OUR BYLAWS CALL FOR A 90-DAY PDP PROCESS; RIGHT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BUT WE SEEM TO BE DISCUSSING HERE AS IF IT COULD TAKE A YEAR OR IT COULD TAKE FIVE YEARS OR SOME PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME.
ARE WE OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION HERE THAT THE BYLAWS JUST DON'T COUNT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO MEET THEM?
OR ARE WE OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION HERE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO ADHERE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, AND IF WE HAPPEN TO SLIP, IT'S TOO BAD?
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'RE TENDING TOWARDS THE FIRST AS OPPOSED TO THE SECOND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.
WHAT I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS IT'S DEFINED IS IT'S ACTUALLY DEFINING A PROCESS.
AND THAT PROCESS INCLUDES STEPS, WHICH INCLUDE GETTING POSITION STATEMENTS, GETTING PUBLIC COMMENT, MOVING FROM AN ISSUE REPORT TO A FINAL REPORT.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE PROCESS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE TIMING OF THE PROCESS, THE ISSUE IS THAT THAT IS FINE IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF IDEAL RESOURCES.
SO IF WE COULD GO TO ICANN STAFF AND SAY, "WE WANT SIX PEOPLE TO WORK ON THIS, AND I THINK WE CAN ACHIEVE SOME OF THOSE TIME FRAMES."
BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO.
AND I WAS DISSATISFIED AT THE TIME THAT THE ASSISTANCE GROUP MADE THE RECOMMENDATION OF 90 DAYS, BECAUSE IT DID NOT TAKE ANY OF THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
WE WERE WORKING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD REASSESS AFTER WE HAD MORE EXPERIENCE.
I AM VERY RELUCTANT TO PUT COUNCIL IN A POSITION OF NOT MEETING DEADLINES.
ICANN TODAY IS AN EMBARRASSMENT WHEN IT COMES TO MEETING DEADLINES.
AND I -- ASSUMING WE EVER GET TO THAT POINT -- WILL SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE ON ANOTHER POINT.
I WOULD -- I WANT THERE TO BE SOME INTEGRITY INTO THE PROCESS.
IF WE MAKE A COMMITMENT, THEN LET'S BE REALISTIC.
IF WE WERE TO DECIDE, ANY OF US WHO OPERATE A BUSINESS, TO TAKE A PRODUCT TO BUSINESS, IF ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS DID A NEGOTIATION WITH A CLIENT AND THEY GAVE A DEADLINE TO A CLIENT, I BET THEY WOULD MEET THAT DEADLINE.
SO I THINK WE -- AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN MOVE THE BALL AFTER -- YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE DECIDE, "HERE'S THE GOAL."
WELL, DIDN'T MEET THAT GOAL.
LET'S JUST MOVE IT AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD --
>>: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, NO.
BUT I THINK IF WE HAVE A 90-DAY DEADLINE, I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, OR WE HAVE TO SAY, "HERE'S OUR PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD TO SAY 90 DAYS IS UNREALISTIC."
OR TO SAY, "WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO" -- BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY UNLESS THERE'S A BOARD BYLAW CHANGE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CAN I JUST CLARIFY.
IF WE MAKE A DECISION TO PROCEED ON THIS TOPIC, THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING THE ENTIRE TOPIC TO BE DONE IN 90 DAYS?
>>MARILYN CADE: MUCH TO MY REGRET, THAT IS THE ONLY VISION I AM CAPABLE OF HOLDING AT THIS TIME.
NOT THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I MEAN, IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
IT COMES DOWN TO THE VOLUNTEERS.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE END OF 90 DAYS, WE HAVE TO SUPPLY INFORMATION.
AND IF AT THE END OF 90 DAYS, THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT WE CAN SUPPLY IS THAT, "THIS IS ALL WE GOT TO IN 90 DAYS AND THESE ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES' POSITIONS," THEN I THINK THE BOARD WILL BE HANDED, YOU KNOW, UNCHEWED, UNDIGESTED FOOD THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO THEN DECIDE TO DO.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 90 DAYS WAS EFFECTIVELY AT THE END OF THAT TO GIVE A PROGRESS REPORT.
SINCE I THINK WHAT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO, AND WHETHER WE'RE STUCK WITH IT OR NOT, IS TRY AND COME -- YOU KNOW, TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS WE NEED FOR RESOLUTIONS, MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THAT THOUGHT.
BUT MAYBE THE ONLY EXPECTATION -- MAYBE WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AT THE END OF THE 90 DAYS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BASICALLY, THE WAY IT'S DEFINED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS YOU HAVE DEPENDED A NEW POLICY AT THAT POINT THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD IS KIND OF THE WAY IT'S DEFINED CURRENTLY.

I'M STRUGGLING TO WORK OUT WHERE WE MOVE FROM HERE.
I'D STILL RATHER HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE THREE VERSUS ONE, AND THEN THAT'S KIND OF A RESOURCING DISCUSSION WHICH IS HOW TO DO IT IN THE TIME FRAME.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THE REASON I RAISED IT IS BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT THE IP CONSTITUENCY SEEMS TO HAVE IS IF WE RUN 2 AND 3 SERIALLY, THAT THREE MAY HAPPEN IN A REALLY LONG TIME.
BUT IF THERE'S A COMMITMENT THAT 2 WILL BE CONCLUDED IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME, I THINK MAYBE IT DOESN'T SOLVE THEIR CONCERN, BUT IT CERTAINLY AMELIORATES IT TO A CERTAIN ASPECT.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE DO 2 AND THEN 3, WE CAN GET TO 3 IN 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF A YEAR AND A HALF.
I'D PUT ON THE TABLE THAT WE'D LIKE IT TO START IMMEDIATELY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: PERHAPS I MIGHT DIVIDE THIS BABY IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
IF THE CONCERNS, WHICH I THINK ARE VALID AND I SHOULD PERHAPS CORRECT THE RECORD, THERE WAS STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE B.C., AND I BELIEVE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ISPCP ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ACCURACY AS WELL, ALTHOUGH STEVE'S E-MAIL -- MR. METALITZ' E-MAIL MAY HAVE THE POINT OF MOST FOCUS, I THINK THE OTHER TWO CONSTITUENCIES WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ACCURACY.
IF THE CONCERN IS WHAT WE ALL WANT TO DO IS ADVANCE THE MOST BALANCED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS POSSIBLE AND THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR THE INTERNET, SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A POLICY OUTCOME GOING TO THE BOARD, WE'VE DIVIDED THE TASK INTO THREE WORKING PARTS, SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE POLICY FROM 2 GOING TO THE BOARD BEFORE POLICY FROM 3 IS RESEARCHED, THOUGHT ABOUT, ANALYZED, PROPOSED, AND THEN AGREED TO, THEN PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE UNDER OUR CONTROL WOULD BE TO TIE THE FORWARDING OF THE POLICY FROM 2 AND 3 TOGETHER SO THAT THE BOARD -- SO EVEN --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT NOW --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'D SAY TO THE BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU 1 AND 2, BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM 3 90 DAYS LATER?
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
THE REASON I'M PROPOSING IT, THERE ARE TWO CONCERNS THAT DROVE MY INTEREST IN THERE BEING A SINGLE TASK FORCE WITH WORKING GROUPS.
AND THAT IS WHAT I SAW IS THE INTERRELATEDNESS OF THE WORK AND THE DATA GATHERING THAT IS NEEDED THAT COULD BE SHARED.
I THINK IN SOME CASES, WE WILL FIND THREE TASK FORCES GOING TO THE SAME PEOPLE AND ASKING FOR THE SAME INFORMATION.
BE THAT AS IT MAY, ONE OTHER CONCERN WAS, I SAW EACH PIECE PART AS BEING RELATED TO AND HAVING IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER PIECE PARTS OF THE POLICY.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: MY HESITATION, THOUGH, ABOUT -- OR THE QUESTION I WOULD RAISE, I GUESS, FOR CLARIFICATION, IS, A, HOW REALISTIC IS IT FOR PEOPLE TO GET INFORMATION, LET'S SAY, ABOUT 1 AND 2 AND JUST HOLD OFF MAKING ANY OPINION ABOUT IT UNTIL 3 SHOWS UP, AS OPPOSED TO IT SOMEHOW PREFORMING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION ABOUT 3?
AND I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS, IF 2 -- IF YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT 2 UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM 3, 90 DAYS LATER, THEN WHY DO 2?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANOTHER COMMENT THAT PICKS UP ON WHAT MARILYN IS SAYING.
FROM AN ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT POINT OF VIEW, I PREFER NOT SETTING A DEADLINE ON A TEAM NECESSARILY.
I PREFER THAT TEAM TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS AND TELL ME HOW LONG IT TAKES.
AND THEN THAT SETS THE EXPECTATIONS.
AND THEN I EXPECT THEM TO HOLD TO THAT TIME FRAME.
WHAT I WOULD PERHAPS PROPOSE AS AN APPROACH HERE IS THAT WE FORM THE THREE GROUPS.
THE THREE GROUPS COME BACK, BECAUSE THEY WILL KNOW THEIR RESOURCES AT THAT STAGE, AND PROPOSE A TIME FRAME.
AND IF THAT TIME FRAME IS LONGER THAN THE 90-DAY PERIOD, THEN THE COUNCIL CAN SEEK APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR THAT EXTENDED TIME FRAME.
AND IN THAT CASE -- BECAUSE I THINK THE KEY THING IS ESTABLISHING REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS ABOUT A DATE AND THEN WORKING TO MEET THAT DATE.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS HAVE AN UNREALISTIC DATE AND NOT MEET IT.
AND SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'M CURIOUS.
SO ARE WE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY SUBSTANTIVE WORK UNTIL AFTER THE NAMES COUNCIL HAD SAID OKAY TO THEIR SCHEDULE?
OR WOULD THEY JUST WORK HAPPILY ALONG UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE MAYBE TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE DOING IT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE FIRST CHALLENGE WILL BE TO ACTUALLY FORM THE GROUPS.
AND THAT USUALLY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, DOES TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS BY THE TIME PEOPLE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES AND THE FACT THAT MOST OF US ARE TRAVELING AT THE MOMENT.
ONCE YOU HAVE FORMED THOSE GROUPS, YES, I AGREE, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THE GROUP STARTING THE WORK.
BUT WHAT I WOULD ALSO BE ASKING THE GROUPS IS TO ASSESS THE WORKLOAD AND COME BACK WITH -- THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY SCHEDULE MEETINGS.
YOU BASICALLY PROJECT MANAGE IT, SCHEDULE WHAT YOUR MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE, SCHEDULE WHAT YOU NEED.
LOOKS AT THE DATES OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, LOOK AT THE DATES OF THE MEETING IN ROME AND COME UP WITH A REALISTIC SCHEDULE FOR, SAY, THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS I'M JUST CONCERNED.
I THINK ELLEN AND I ARE PERHAPS GOING TO BE EQUALLY STUBBORN ON THIS POINT, WHICH IS THAT SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT 3 GETS ACCOMPLISHED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE 3 GETS ACCOMPLISHED AT LEAST AFTER 2 HAS GOTTEN ITS WORK DONE SO IT CAN TAKE 2'S WORK INTO ACCOUNT.
SO I AM JUST WONDERING IF 3 COMES BACK AND SAYS WE'LL BE DONE IN 90 DAYS AND 2 SAYS 120 DAYS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I SEE THE WHOLE THING REALLY AS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS.
LET'S SEE THE ACCURACY TASK FORCE IS INCREDIBLY EFFICIENT AND FINISHES THEIR WORK IN 60 DAYS OR SOMETHING.
THEN, BASICALLY, THAT WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED AND WE'D BE GETTING SOME IMPROVED ACCURACY.
THEN TASK FORCE 2, LET'S SAY, FINISHES LATER.
AND LET'S SAY AS A RESULT OF THAT, MAYBE TASK FORCE 2 COMES UP WITH A COMPLETELY NEW ELEMENT CALLED WHAT'S THE GPS COORDINATES OF THE PERSON INSTEAD OF THE STREET ADDRESS.
THEN WE NEED TO PROBABLY RECONVENE THE ACCURACY TASK FORCE TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY OF GETTING ACCURATE GPS INFORMATION.
I MEAN, I DON'T -- I STILL THINK IT'S SENSIBLE TO ALLOW THOSE GROUPS TO MOVE AT A PACE AS FAST AS THEY CAN MOVE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS YOU'RE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE BETTER ACCURACY WITHOUT BETTER PRIVACY, AND I THINK THE VIEW OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, AT LEAST, IS THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT MAKING THAT --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: JORDYN IT HAS TO BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'RE SAYING ACCURACY AND PRIVACY ARE IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN ARGUE FOR HOURS, BUT THEY BOTH ARE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THEY BOTH ARE, BUT I THINK OUR VIEW HAS LONG BEEN THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE BETTER -- WE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD ON BETTER ACCURACY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PRIVACY PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE.
>>MARILYN CADE: I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT'S THE VIEW OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S NOT GET INTO THAT DEBATE AGAIN.
>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I THOUGHT -- AND I'M NOT DEBATING THE PRIORITY OF ONE OVER THE OTHER. I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL THE CHAIRMAN WAS MAKING DID NOT PUT ONE OVER THE OTHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE BEING LOOKED AT TOGETHER.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK WHAT IT UNDERSCORES AND IF ONE OF THE THREE TASK FORCES OR WORKING GROUPS OR HOWEVER YOU BREAK IT DOWN IS FASTER THAN THE OTHER, I THINK IT'S STILL VERY IMPORTANT FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE THREE GROUPS SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK TASK FORCE 3 OR 2 OR 1 COMES TO CONCLUSION FROM HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INFORMATION THAT'S FOUND FROM THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS, THEN I THINK THAT HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT; TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT WORKING IN A VACUUM FROM ONE ANOTHER.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS WE END UP WITH AN UNKNOWN HERE BECAUSE THE POINT I WOULD MAKE WHEN IT CAME TIME TO VOTE ON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE FOR TASK FORCE GROUP 3, IF THEY ARRIVE BEFORE THOSE OF TASK FORCE 2, WE WON'T BE ABLE SUPPORT THEM. THAT'S THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WE GET INTO BY NOT STAGGERING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S DEAL WITH THAT IF IT HAPPENS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET ALL THREE MOVING EFFICIENTLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER.
I'D LIKE TO DRAW THIS DISCUSSION TO A CLOSE AND TO TRY TO MAKE A DECISION. SO I'LL PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THAT MOTION IS THAT WE AGREE TO FORM THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES; THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE THAT THOSE TASK FORCES ARE COMMUNICATING EFFICIENTLY WITH EACH OTHER AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL REQUEST THE TASK FORCES TO COME BACK WITH A TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETING THEIR WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ICANN BYLAWS.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION?
>>THOMAS KELLER: I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, THOMAS.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?
OKAY. WE'LL PUT THIS TO A VOTE. AND AGAIN, GET MY LIST OF PEOPLE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: COULD YOU JUST SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN AGAIN EXACTLY WHAT MOTION WE'RE VOTING ON?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE WE ABLE TO GO BACK?
>>STEVE CONTE: YOU HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN. THEY'RE TYPING REAL TIME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THE MOTION IS THAT WE -- YEP, HANG ON. JUST LET ME GET IT CLEAR IN MY HEAD FIRST.
YES, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. IT'S JUST DIFFICULT DOING THESE THINGS ON THE FLY.
THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THAT THE -- THAT THREE TASK FORCES BE FORMED TO LOOK AT THE THREE AREAS OF WHOIS; THAT THE COUNCIL HAS PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE THREE TASK FORCES COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER; AND THAT THE COUNCIL REQUESTS -- THE COUNCIL WILL REQUEST THOSE TASK FORCES TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING THEIR WORK, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ICANN BYLAWS PROCESS.
I'M DELIBERATELY NOT SAYING ANYTHING SO PEOPLE CAN READ WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN.
OKAY. I'LL NOW PUT THAT TO THE VOTE.
YES, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT OBJECTING TO THE WAY YOU HAVE WORDED IT THIS TIME BUT I BELIEVE IT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IN THIS WORDING YOU SAID THAT THE TASK FORCES SHOULD COME BACK WITH A DESCRIPTION OF A WORK PLAN IN WHICH THEY COULD MEET THE DEADLINES. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK IN THE LAST ONE YOU SAID, AND IF THEY COULDN'T, THAT WE WOULD ADVISE THE BOARD OR SEEK --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I HAVEN'T INCLUDED THAT IN THE MOTION, BUT --
>>MARILYN CADE: SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE DO -- MY QUESTION WOULD BE DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT AT THE END OR ARE YOU --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE DEAL WITH THAT --
>>MARILYN CADE: WE CAN, IF -- WE CAN DEAL WITH IT IF IT HAPPENS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D RATHER DO THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M HAPPY WITH THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. THAT WILL BE IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING, THAT POINT.
LET'S TRY TO KEEP THE MOTION SIMPLE. YEAH.
OKAY. I'LL PUT THAT MOTION TO THE VOTE, THEN. PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTH.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, NO.
BUT I THINK IF WE HAVE A 90-DAY DEADLINE, I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, OR WE HAVE TO SAY, "HERE'S OUR PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD TO SAY 90 DAYS IS UNREALISTIC."
OR TO SAY, "WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO" -- BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY UNLESS THERE'S A BOARD BYLAW CHANGE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CAN I JUST CLARIFY.
IF WE MAKE A DECISION TO PROCEED ON THIS TOPIC, THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING THE ENTIRE TOPIC TO BE DONE IN 90 DAYS?
>>MARILYN CADE: MUCH TO MY REGRET, THAT IS THE ONLY VISION I AM CAPABLE OF HOLDING AT THIS TIME.
NOT THAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I MEAN, IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
IT COMES DOWN TO THE VOLUNTEERS.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE END OF 90 DAYS, WE HAVE TO SUPPLY INFORMATION.
AND IF AT THE END OF 90 DAYS, THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT WE CAN SUPPLY IS THAT, "THIS IS ALL WE GOT TO IN 90 DAYS AND THESE ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES' POSITIONS," THEN I THINK THE BOARD WILL BE HANDED, YOU KNOW, UNCHEWED, UNDIGESTED FOOD THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO THEN DECIDE TO DO.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 90 DAYS WAS EFFECTIVELY AT THE END OF THAT TO GIVE A PROGRESS REPORT.
SINCE I THINK WHAT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO, AND WHETHER WE'RE STUCK WITH IT OR NOT, IS TRY AND COME -- YOU KNOW, TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS WE NEED FOR RESOLUTIONS, MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THAT THOUGHT.
BUT MAYBE THE ONLY EXPECTATION -- MAYBE WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AT THE END OF THE 90 DAYS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BASICALLY, THE WAY IT'S DEFINED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS YOU HAVE DEPENDED A NEW POLICY AT THAT POINT THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD IS KIND OF THE WAY IT'S DEFINED CURRENTLY.

I'M STRUGGLING TO WORK OUT WHERE WE MOVE FROM HERE.
I'D STILL RATHER HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE THREE VERSUS ONE, AND THEN THAT'S KIND OF A RESOURCING DISCUSSION WHICH IS HOW TO DO IT IN THE TIME FRAME.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THE REASON I RAISED IT IS BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT THE IP CONSTITUENCY SEEMS TO HAVE IS IF WE RUN 2 AND 3 SERIALLY, THAT THREE MAY HAPPEN IN A REALLY LONG TIME.
BUT IF THERE'S A COMMITMENT THAT 2 WILL BE CONCLUDED IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME, I THINK MAYBE IT DOESN'T SOLVE THEIR CONCERN, BUT IT CERTAINLY AMELIORATES IT TO A CERTAIN ASPECT.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE DO 2 AND THEN 3, WE CAN GET TO 3 IN 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF A YEAR AND A HALF.
I'D PUT ON THE TABLE THAT WE'D LIKE IT TO START IMMEDIATELY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: PERHAPS I MIGHT DIVIDE THIS BABY IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
IF THE CONCERNS, WHICH I THINK ARE VALID AND I SHOULD PERHAPS CORRECT THE RECORD, THERE WAS STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE B.C., AND I BELIEVE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ISPCP ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ACCURACY AS WELL, ALTHOUGH STEVE'S E-MAIL -- MR. METALITZ' E-MAIL MAY HAVE THE POINT OF MOST FOCUS, I THINK THE OTHER TWO CONSTITUENCIES WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ACCURACY.
IF THE CONCERN IS WHAT WE ALL WANT TO DO IS ADVANCE THE MOST BALANCED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS POSSIBLE AND THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR THE INTERNET, SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A POLICY OUTCOME GOING TO THE BOARD, WE'VE DIVIDED THE TASK INTO THREE WORKING PARTS, SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE POLICY FROM 2 GOING TO THE BOARD BEFORE POLICY FROM 3 IS RESEARCHED, THOUGHT ABOUT, ANALYZED, PROPOSED, AND THEN AGREED TO, THEN PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE UNDER OUR CONTROL WOULD BE TO TIE THE FORWARDING OF THE POLICY FROM 2 AND 3 TOGETHER SO THAT THE BOARD -- SO EVEN --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT NOW --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'D SAY TO THE BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU 1 AND 2, BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM 3 90 DAYS LATER?
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
THE REASON I'M PROPOSING IT, THERE ARE TWO CONCERNS THAT DROVE MY INTEREST IN THERE BEING A SINGLE TASK FORCE WITH WORKING GROUPS.
AND THAT IS WHAT I SAW IS THE INTERRELATEDNESS OF THE WORK AND THE DATA GATHERING THAT IS NEEDED THAT COULD BE SHARED.
I THINK IN SOME CASES, WE WILL FIND THREE TASK FORCES GOING TO THE SAME PEOPLE AND ASKING FOR THE SAME INFORMATION.
BE THAT AS IT MAY, ONE OTHER CONCERN WAS, I SAW EACH PIECE PART AS BEING RELATED TO AND HAVING IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER PIECE PARTS OF THE POLICY.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: MY HESITATION, THOUGH, ABOUT -- OR THE QUESTION I WOULD RAISE, I GUESS, FOR CLARIFICATION, IS, A, HOW REALISTIC IS IT FOR PEOPLE TO GET INFORMATION, LET'S SAY, ABOUT 1 AND 2 AND JUST HOLD OFF MAKING ANY OPINION ABOUT IT UNTIL 3 SHOWS UP, AS OPPOSED TO IT SOMEHOW PREFORMING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION ABOUT 3?
AND I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS, IF 2 -- IF YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT 2 UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM 3, 90 DAYS LATER, THEN WHY DO 2?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANOTHER COMMENT THAT PICKS UP ON WHAT MARILYN IS SAYING.
FROM AN ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT POINT OF VIEW, I PREFER NOT SETTING A DEADLINE ON A TEAM NECESSARILY.
I PREFER THAT TEAM TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS AND TELL ME HOW LONG IT TAKES.
AND THEN THAT SETS THE EXPECTATIONS.
AND THEN I EXPECT THEM TO HOLD TO THAT TIME FRAME.
WHAT I WOULD PERHAPS PROPOSE AS AN APPROACH HERE IS THAT WE FORM THE THREE GROUPS.
THE THREE GROUPS COME BACK, BECAUSE THEY WILL KNOW THEIR RESOURCES AT THAT STAGE, AND PROPOSE A TIME FRAME.
AND IF THAT TIME FRAME IS LONGER THAN THE 90-DAY PERIOD, THEN THE COUNCIL CAN SEEK APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD FOR THAT EXTENDED TIME FRAME.
AND IN THAT CASE -- BECAUSE I THINK THE KEY THING IS ESTABLISHING REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS ABOUT A DATE AND THEN WORKING TO MEET THAT DATE.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS HAVE AN UNREALISTIC DATE AND NOT MEET IT.
AND SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'M CURIOUS.
SO ARE WE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY SUBSTANTIVE WORK UNTIL AFTER THE NAMES COUNCIL HAD SAID OKAY TO THEIR SCHEDULE?
OR WOULD THEY JUST WORK HAPPILY ALONG UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE MAYBE TOLD THEM THAT THEY WERE DOING IT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE FIRST CHALLENGE WILL BE TO ACTUALLY FORM THE GROUPS.
AND THAT USUALLY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, DOES TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS BY THE TIME PEOPLE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES AND THE FACT THAT MOST OF US ARE TRAVELING AT THE MOMENT.
ONCE YOU HAVE FORMED THOSE GROUPS, YES, I AGREE, THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THE GROUP STARTING THE WORK.
BUT WHAT I WOULD ALSO BE ASKING THE GROUPS IS TO ASSESS THE WORKLOAD AND COME BACK WITH -- THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY SCHEDULE MEETINGS.
YOU BASICALLY PROJECT MANAGE IT, SCHEDULE WHAT YOUR MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE, SCHEDULE WHAT YOU NEED.
LOOKS AT THE DATES OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, LOOK AT THE DATES OF THE MEETING IN ROME AND COME UP WITH A REALISTIC SCHEDULE FOR, SAY, THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS I'M JUST CONCERNED.
I THINK ELLEN AND I ARE PERHAPS GOING TO BE EQUALLY STUBBORN ON THIS POINT, WHICH IS THAT SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT 3 GETS ACCOMPLISHED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE 3 GETS ACCOMPLISHED AT LEAST AFTER 2 HAS GOTTEN ITS WORK DONE SO IT CAN TAKE 2'S WORK INTO ACCOUNT.
SO I AM JUST WONDERING IF 3 COMES BACK AND SAYS WE'LL BE DONE IN 90 DAYS AND 2 SAYS 120 DAYS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I SEE THE WHOLE THING REALLY AS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS.
LET'S SEE THE ACCURACY TASK FORCE IS INCREDIBLY EFFICIENT AND FINISHES THEIR WORK IN 60 DAYS OR SOMETHING.
THEN, BASICALLY, THAT WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED AND WE'D BE GETTING SOME IMPROVED ACCURACY.
THEN TASK FORCE 2, LET'S SAY, FINISHES LATER.
AND LET'S SAY AS A RESULT OF THAT, MAYBE TASK FORCE 2 COMES UP WITH A COMPLETELY NEW ELEMENT CALLED WHAT'S THE GPS COORDINATES OF THE PERSON INSTEAD OF THE STREET ADDRESS.
THEN WE NEED TO PROBABLY RECONVENE THE ACCURACY TASK FORCE TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY OF GETTING ACCURATE GPS INFORMATION.
I MEAN, I DON'T -- I STILL THINK IT'S SENSIBLE TO ALLOW THOSE GROUPS TO MOVE AT A PACE AS FAST AS THEY CAN MOVE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS YOU'RE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE BETTER ACCURACY WITHOUT BETTER PRIVACY, AND I THINK THE VIEW OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, AT LEAST, IS THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT MAKING THAT --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: JORDYN IT HAS TO BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'RE SAYING ACCURACY AND PRIVACY ARE IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN ARGUE FOR HOURS, BUT THEY BOTH ARE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THEY BOTH ARE, BUT I THINK OUR VIEW HAS LONG BEEN THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE BETTER -- WE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD ON BETTER ACCURACY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PRIVACY PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE.
>>MARILYN CADE: I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT'S THE VIEW OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S NOT GET INTO THAT DEBATE AGAIN.
>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I THOUGHT -- AND I'M NOT DEBATING THE PRIORITY OF ONE OVER THE OTHER. I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL THE CHAIRMAN WAS MAKING DID NOT PUT ONE OVER THE OTHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE BEING LOOKED AT TOGETHER.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK WHAT IT UNDERSCORES AND IF ONE OF THE THREE TASK FORCES OR WORKING GROUPS OR HOWEVER YOU BREAK IT DOWN IS FASTER THAN THE OTHER, I THINK IT'S STILL VERY IMPORTANT FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE THREE GROUPS SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK TASK FORCE 3 OR 2 OR 1 COMES TO CONCLUSION FROM HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INFORMATION THAT'S FOUND FROM THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS, THEN I THINK THAT HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT; TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT WORKING IN A VACUUM FROM ONE ANOTHER.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I GUESS WE END UP WITH AN UNKNOWN HERE BECAUSE THE POINT I WOULD MAKE WHEN IT CAME TIME TO VOTE ON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE FOR TASK FORCE GROUP 3, IF THEY ARRIVE BEFORE THOSE OF TASK FORCE 2, WE WON'T BE ABLE SUPPORT THEM. THAT'S THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WE GET INTO BY NOT STAGGERING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S DEAL WITH THAT IF IT HAPPENS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET ALL THREE MOVING EFFICIENTLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER.
I'D LIKE TO DRAW THIS DISCUSSION TO A CLOSE AND TO TRY TO MAKE A DECISION. SO I'LL PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THAT MOTION IS THAT WE AGREE TO FORM THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES; THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ENSURE THAT THOSE TASK FORCES ARE COMMUNICATING EFFICIENTLY WITH EACH OTHER AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL REQUEST THE TASK FORCES TO COME BACK WITH A TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETING THEIR WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ICANN BYLAWS.
DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION?
>>THOMAS KELLER: I SECOND THAT MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, THOMAS.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?
OKAY. WE'LL PUT THIS TO A VOTE. AND AGAIN, GET MY LIST OF PEOPLE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: COULD YOU JUST SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN AGAIN EXACTLY WHAT MOTION WE'RE VOTING ON?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE WE ABLE TO GO BACK?
>>STEVE CONTE: YOU HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN. THEY'RE TYPING REAL TIME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THE MOTION IS THAT WE -- YEP, HANG ON. JUST LET ME GET IT CLEAR IN MY HEAD FIRST.
YES, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. IT'S JUST DIFFICULT DOING THESE THINGS ON THE FLY.
THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THAT THE -- THAT THREE TASK FORCES BE FORMED TO LOOK AT THE THREE AREAS OF WHOIS; THAT THE COUNCIL HAS PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THE THREE TASK FORCES COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER; AND THAT THE COUNCIL REQUESTS -- THE COUNCIL WILL REQUEST THOSE TASK FORCES TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING THEIR WORK, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ICANN BYLAWS PROCESS.
I'M DELIBERATELY NOT SAYING ANYTHING SO PEOPLE CAN READ WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN.
OKAY. I'LL NOW PUT THAT TO THE VOTE.
YES, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT OBJECTING TO THE WAY YOU HAVE WORDED IT THIS TIME BUT I BELIEVE IT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
IN THIS WORDING YOU SAID THAT THE TASK FORCES SHOULD COME BACK WITH A DESCRIPTION OF A WORK PLAN IN WHICH THEY COULD MEET THE DEADLINES. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK IN THE LAST ONE YOU SAID, AND IF THEY COULDN'T, THAT WE WOULD ADVISE THE BOARD OR SEEK --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I HAVEN'T INCLUDED THAT IN THE MOTION, BUT --
>>MARILYN CADE: SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE DO -- MY QUESTION WOULD BE DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT AT THE END OR ARE YOU --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE DEAL WITH THAT --
>>MARILYN CADE: WE CAN, IF -- WE CAN DEAL WITH IT IF IT HAPPENS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D RATHER DO THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M HAPPY WITH THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. THAT WILL BE IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING, THAT POINT.
LET'S TRY TO KEEP THE MOTION SIMPLE. YEAH.
OKAY. I'LL PUT THAT MOTION TO THE VOTE, THEN. PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTH.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>>: AGAINST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>>: FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON MUELLER.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GABRIEL.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN STUBS.
>>>: IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TOM KELLER.
>>>: IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR. NIKLAS.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES, AND YES FOR LINDA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (NODS HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI.
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK.
>>ALICK WILSON: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THE MOTION IS CARRIED.
THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE MOTION FROM MILTON MUELLER ON THE PRODUCTION OF AN ISSUES REPORT ON -- SORRY. AUDRI.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE GAC LIAISON. WILL IT BE A PURE OBSERVER ROLE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE ROLE OF A LIAISON IS DEFINED IN THE BYLAWS AS SOMEBODY THAT CAN FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS BUT DOES NOT HAVE A VOTE ON THE COUNCIL. AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL AS TO HOW MUCH THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: I MEANT ON THE TASK FORCE. I NOTICED IT ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, THERE WAS A ROLE FOR GAC LIAISON PARTICIPANT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: IS IT THE SAME THING ON THE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. HOW ABOUT I GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I'LL ACTUALLY CHECK THE SPECIFIC WORDING IN THE BYLAWS.
>>MARILYN CADE: CAN I, IF I MIGHT, JUST ASK OUR GAC LIAISON, ARE THERE DESCRIPTIONS OF THAT DEFINE THE ROLE OF THE LIAISON THAT YOU COULD ALSO POST TO US?
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: THERE MAY WELL BE AND I COULD CERTAINLY SEND THEM IF THERE ARE. I ASK IT NOT TO BE DIFFICULT BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW ACTIVE THE GAC LIAISON IS EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCES.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK TO SOME DEGREE IT'S UP TO THE GAC AND THE GAC LIAISON AS TO HOW ACTIVE THEY WISH TO BE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDING THAT RELATES TO THAT.
I WILL COME BACK TO YOU. I'LL POST IT TO THE LIST FOR CLARIFICATION.
>>MARILYN CADE: THEN I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, WITH ALL SINCERITY AND DIPLOMACY, IS THERE A PROCEDURE BY WHICH COUNCIL MIGHT ALSO HAVE A LIAISON TO THE GAC WHOIS WORKING GROUP?
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: FAIR QUESTION. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT THAT -- I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T GUARANTEE ANY RESULTS AS THE GAC LIAISON TO THIS, BUT TO MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST, POSSIBLY E-MAIL IT TO THE GAC LIAISON, THE GAC LIAISON CAN FORWARD IT TO THE GAC CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE INTENT THAT PAUL RAISED THIS MORNING IS THAT HIS STEERING COMMITTEE WOULD ATTEMPT TO COORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE GNSO AND THE ASO AND CCNSO AND SO ON AND SO ON SO THERE AT LEAST WAS AN ELEMENT OF TRYING TO COORDINATE AT THAT LEVEL, YEAH.
THOMAS, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I JUST WANTED TO OBSERVE THAT I BELIEVE I CAN SAFELY STATE THAT THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE VERY MUCH APPRECIATES THE COUNCIL'S DECISION AND THIS BASICALLY TAKES ACCOUNT OF OUR REQUEST THAT WE HAVE TRANSMITTED TO YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANKS, THOMAS.
OKAY. ITEM 6 WHICH IS A MOTION FOR AN ISSUES REPORT ON NEW TLDS.
I GUESS THIS HAS COME OUT OF A PROCESS OVER THE LAST YEAR WHERE THE ICANN BOARD HAS BEEN CONSIDERING, IN THE SHORT-TERM, INTRODUCING A NUMBER OF SPONSORED TLDS BASICALLY AS AN EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL. BUT IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE COUNCIL THAT A FORMAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SHOULD BE USED TO DETERMINE HOW TO CREATE COMPLETELY NEW GTLDS INTO THE FUTURE.
I'M AWARE THAT THE BOARD HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND IS TRYING TO PUT INTO PLACE A PROCESS AND A TIMETABLE FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
SO THE QUESTION HERE IS DO WE, AT THIS MEETING, REQUEST THE ICANN STAFF TO PRODUCE AN ISSUES REPORT NOW OR DO WE WAIT UNTIL THE BOARD AND THE ICANN STAFF HAVE A CHANCE TO COME BACK AND SAY WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO. IT'S A TIMETABLE FOR BOTH THE SPONSORED TLDS AND NEW TLDS TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN FIT OUR POLICY PROCESS INTO THAT TIMETABLE.
SO HAVING MADE THAT PREFACE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE ICANN STAFF HERE.
DAN.
ARE YOU ABLE TO COMMENT, DAN? BECAUSE I'M UNCLEAR ON THE PLANS THAT THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD HAVE FOR NEW GTLDS JUST IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
ARE YOU ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT? NO. THAT'S OKAY.
SO I GUESS THAT'S THE ISSUE. IT ACCOUNTS PARTLY BACK TO THIS TIMING THING THAT JORDYN COMMENTED ON EARLIER, TOO, BECAUSE IF WE ACCEPT THIS MOTION, THE STAFF WILL HAVE 15 DAYS, BY THE BYLAWS, TO COME BACK WITH AN ISSUES REPORT. AND I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER THAT'S VIABLE GIVEN THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER THINGS AND GIVEN THAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO SET OUT A TIME FRAME FOR NEW GTLDS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO GET THE VIEWS OF THE COUNCIL ON THIS MOTION.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON WHETHER ONE STRATEGY OR THE OTHER ONE MATTERS MUCH, AND I NEED TO GO BACK TO MY CONSTITUENCY ABOUT SOME THINGS, SO THIS IS PERHAPS MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS THAN CONSTITUENCY COMMENTS. HOWEVER, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROLL-OUT OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF SPONSORED TLDS WAS GOING TO BE STAGE ONE, IF YOU WILL. AND THEN WE WERE GOING TO GET TO THE ISSUES ABOUT DEVELOPING POLICY AND REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS FOR THE LARGER ISSUE OF GTLDS.
AND BECAUSE THE IPC HAS -- YOU KNOW, SUPPORTS THE ROLL-OUT, WHERE -- LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, WHERE THERE IS A ROLL-OUT OF NEW TLDS, THE IPC HAS SUPPORTED THE FACT THAT THEY BE SPONSORED TLDS. AND, THEREFORE, THE COMMENTS THAT WE MADE OR HAVE ABOUT STAGE ONE WERE ON THE TABLE AND WE DIDN'T FEEL THERE WAS ANY NEED TO GET TO STAGE TWO BECAUSE WE FELT STAGE ONE WAS WHAT WAS OCCUPYING EVERYBODY'S TIME.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THE BOARD IS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF JUST PULLING STAGE ONE. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHATEVER MIGHT BE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE OR THINGS THAT WE HAVE SAID WITH THE IDEA THAT STAGE ONE WAS FIRST AND THEN STAGE TWO IS IN PLACE ARE BACK OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IF STAGE ONE IS PULLED, THEN WE'RE BACK IN THE POSITION OF BEING IN THE PLACE AS THOUGH PRE-STAGE ONE, NOT POST STAGE ONE, TO THE EXTENT THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS ONE OF THE ISSUES HERE IS DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO START DRIVING THE PROCESS OR DO WE SIT BACK AND LET THE ICANN BOARD AND STAFF DRIVE THE PROCESS? BECAUSE THE LETTERS, I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE RESPONDING TO EVENTS THAT AREN'T IN OUR CONTROL.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: IN ANSWER TO THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION, SINCE WE ARE NOT ANXIOUS TO SEE THE ROLL-OUT OF NEW TLDS AT ALL, IF -- BETWEEN THE TWO, DO I DRIVE IT FASTER -- DOES THE IPC WANT TO DRIVE IT FASTER SO NEW TLDS APPEAR FASTER ON THE HORIZON RATHER THAN LATER, THEN IT'S FINE, AND WE'LL WAIT TO HEAR THE POSITION THE BOARD MAKES. IF ON THE OTHER HAND WE'RE STILL UNDER A DEADLINE UNDER WHICH THE NEW TLDS WILL BE ROLLED OUT AND THE ONLY POINT IS WE WILL HAVE MORE TIME OR LESS TIME TO COMMENT ON IT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO COVER ALL THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEW TLDS AND NOT BE SQUISHED INTO A TYPE TIME LINE BECAUSE THERE'S A DEADLINE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WHEN THE NEW TLDS HAVE TO BE OUT OR APPROVED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THERE IS A DEADLINE IN THE MOU OF SEPTEMBER NEXT YEAR, AND THEN THE ISSUE FOR US IS HOW DO WE ASSIST --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: RIGHT. THAT WAS THE DEADLINE I WAS REFERRING TO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. I DON'T THINK THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE WANT OR NOT NEW TLDS OR HOW TO DO THAT BUT JUST WHAT WE DO WITH THE MOTION HERE.
I THINK THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T HAVE MILTON ON THE LINE ANYMORE; RIGHT? SO DISCUSSING THIS MOTION WILL BE DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I HAVE SOME CONCRETE ISSUE WITH THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE USE OF OBJECTIVE AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PROCEDURE AND THE USE OF "REGULARLY SCHEDULED" THAT I THINK SHOULD BE FURTHER DISCUSSED. SO I CANNOT ACCEPT THE MOTION AS IT IS WITHOUT AMENDMENTS AND DISCUSSION.
SECOND, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME. AS YOU SAID, IF WE DO THAT, IT'S JUST 15 DAYS FOR THE STAFF TO PRODUCE THE ISSUES REPORT, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE QUESTION IS THAT I WOULD FIRST KNOW WHAT ARE THE IMMEDIATE PLANS FROM THE BOARD/STAFF, IF ANY.
SO I WOULD SIMPLY PROPOSE TO TABLE THIS MOTION UNTIL NEXT MEETING SO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BOARD MEETING ON FRIDAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, BECAUSE THE ICANN PRESIDENT HAS TOLD ME THEY'RE PLANNING TO PRODUCE SOMETHING, BUT I HAVEN'T GOT IT ON THE TABLE, SO I HAVEN'T GOT THE DATA TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? CARY?
>>CARY KARP: PHONE QUEUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DOES MILTON OR JEFF NEUMAN WISH TO SPEAK?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JEFF.
AN INTERESTING POINT IS RAISED, I KNOW MILTON IS NOT HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ACTION PAUL TWOMEY AND THE BOARD HAS TAKEN AT ITS LAST MEETING, BUT A FEW MEETINGS AGO WE ALL SUPPORTED OR AT LEAST MOST OF US SUPPORTED THE NOTION OF NEW SPONSORED TLDS IN THE SHORT TERM.
DO WE WANT TO COMMENT? JUST BECAUSE THE BOARD TOOK AN ACTION THAT WAS COUNTER TO OUR SUPPORT, WE CAN STILL MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE BOARD THAT ALTHOUGH THEY TOOK THAT ACTION, WE WOULD ADVISE THEM TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS SPONSORED ROUND, IF THAT'S HOW THE COUNCIL FEELS.
I JUST THINK THE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE THAT ISSUE UP. JUST BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS MADE A PROCLAMATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT OR THAT WE CANNOT COMMENT ON IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK WE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT, JEFF.
WHAT I MIGHT DO AT THIS STAGE IS PROPOSE A PROCEDURAL MOTION THAT WE DELAY THE DECISION ON THIS SPECIFIC MOTION TILL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT YOU'VE RAISED.
SO IF I CAN JUST RAISE THAT AS A PROCEDURAL MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THE PROCEDURAL MOTION TO MOVE THIS -- TABLE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING? MARILYN SECONDS IT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY. WE WILL -- THAT MOTION IS PASSED, AND WE WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC MOTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
TO COME BACK TO JEFF'S ISSUE, JEFF IS RAISING THE ISSUE THAT THE BOARD APPEARS, IN A RECENT NOTE OR LETTER, TO BE EITHER DELAYING OR NOT GOING AHEAD WITH THE PROCESS OF THE LIMITED INTRODUCTION OF SPONSORED TLDS.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNCIL'S ADVICE TO THE BOARD WAS TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT PROCESS. AND SO THE BOARD WOULD BE GOING AGAINST THE COUNCIL ADVICE.
THE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, COULD PUT A MOTION JUST FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD THIS WEEK TO SAY THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT DECISION.
I'LL OPEN THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
MARILYN AND THEN CARY.
>>MARILYN CADE: I KNOW WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS UNDER OTHER BUSINESS BUT WE CAN DO IT NOW?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.
THIS IS MY HISTORICAL RECOLLECTION, SINCE I'M NOT ABLE TO GET ONLINE, I'M DOING THIS FROM MEMORY, BUT THERE ARE ENOUGH PEOPLE HERE WHO WERE PART OF IT THAT I THINK WE CAN DO A GOOD ENOUGH RECONSTRUCT.
THE BOARD DID ASK US FOR ADVICE. WE WERE OPERATING, AT THAT TIME, OUTSIDE OF TODAY'S PDP PROCESS, WHICH IS MORE STRUCTURED.
WE GAVE THEM ADVICE. NOT ONLY DID WE GIVE THEM ADVICE, WE GAVE SOME THOUGHT TO IT AND WE GAVE THEM SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER.
THEY RECEIVED OUR ADVICE AND ALL BEHAVIORAL INDICATIONS WERE THAT THEY ACCEPTED OUR ADVICE AND INTENDED TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE SPONSORED ROUND. THERE WERE, IN FACT, EXTENSIVE EXTENSIONS OF THE COMMENT PERIOD. THERE WERE LIMITS IN THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED. THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE SPONSORED ROUND WOULD BE LIMITED ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY APPLIED OR OPENED UP TO OTHERS. BUT THAT SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY REAL CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.
THE BEHAVIORAL PRESENCE, THE BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS CONTINUED TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO ALL OF US. OUR CONSTITUENCY HAS A POSITION, A PUBLISHED POSITION ABOUT THIS, AND IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE BOARD GAVE EVERY INDICATION, AND THE STAFF GAVE EVERY INDICATION, THAT THEY WOULD MOVE AHEAD WITH THE SPONSORED ROUND AND THAT THIS IS -- AND THAT BASED ON THE ADVICE OF COUNCIL, THEY SHOULD BE URGED TO GO AHEAD WITH IT.
I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF NEW PRIORITIES. ALL OF US DEAL WITH THAT IN OUR DAILY LIVES.
DROPPING EVERY OTHER PRIORITY THAT THEY HAVE AND MOVING OFF TO A NEW ONE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ICANN MISSES TOO MANY DEADLINES. I THINK WE NEED TO URGE THEM TO STICK TO THE COMMITMENT OF DELIVERING ON THE SMALL SPONSORED ROUND WITH THE RFP OUT THIS YEAR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC? AMADEU?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. AS I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN ALL THIS WAS SOMEHOW LAUNCHED AND TO HAVE (INAUDIBLE) WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS BECAUSE I THINK WE TOOK A COMMITMENT THAT IT'S BEEN VANISHING SOMEHOW. SO I WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT MARILYN'S WORDS HERE. AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH I MAY SYMPATHIZE WITH THE PROBLEMS OF LIMITS OF RESOURCES, WE SHOULD TRY TO REMEMBER WHY ICANN IS HERE. AND IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AS PRIORITIES, THAT'S OKAY. IF NOT, WELL, BEFORE WE START TAKING PLANES AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCES AROUND THE WORLD, WE SHOULD THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT THAT. IT'S NOT EXCUSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ELLEN.
>>ALICK WILSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE NOT YET SEEN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING WHERE THE BOARD DECIDED TO DISCONTINUE THIS PROCESS. HAVE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SEEN THOSE MINUTES?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL ON 13 OF OCTOBER OF 2003. AND AS USUAL, -- PUBLISHED ON THE 20TH, I THINK. AND AS USUAL, THE MINUTES DON'T SAY THAT MUCH EXCEPT THAT IT APPEARS THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION, WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED IN MANY WAYS. BUT THE GENERAL INTERPRETATION IS THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. AND WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS THAT THERE WILL BE NOT AN RFC FOR VOTE ON FRIDAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK.
>>ALICK WILSON: THANK YOU, AMADEU. CAN I SUGGEST SINCE ICANN WENT THROUGH A PROCESS AND HAD A COMMITMENT TO ISSUE NEW TLDS THAT THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE -- OF A SUBSTANTIVE REASON. AND IF THE MINUTES DON'T PROVIDE THAT SUBSTANTIVE REASON, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD ASK FOR, IF NOT -- ASK FOR THOSE SUBSTANTIVE REASONS. AND IF THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE REASON, THEN I THINK WE -- OUR REQUEST TO THE BOARD SHOULD BE RATHER STRONGER RATHER THAN WEAKER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I THINK THAT THERE ARE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING, AND I HAVE SEEN THEM. IF ANYONE HAS THEM, I COULD PROBABLY JUST QUICKLY READ.
>>KEN STUBBS: MAY I ASK A QUESTION, BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>KEN STUBBS: THIS IS TO ALICK HERE, BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT THAT WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN THE PAST AND PRIOR TO THAT WAS A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC COMMITMENT TO AUTHORIZE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF TLDS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT I'D SURE APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>>ALICK WILSON: MAYBE AMADEU CAN PROVIDE IT BECAUSE CAN PROVIDE IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE WAS ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THE WORD "COMMITMENT," IT DEPENDS WHETHER YOU TAKE THAT IN THE LEGAL WORLD OR IN THE ICANN PROCESS. IT WAS COMMENTS AND A DRAFT RFP AND FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS THERE WAS A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT THIS WAS THE WAY WE WERE GOING ON.
IN MONTREAL, THERE WAS A VERSION OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT SOMEHOW CHANGED SOME OF THE PARAMETERS FROM OPEN TO ANY NEW SPONSORED TLD TO THOSE THAT WERE PROPOSED IN 2000. BUT STILL IT WAS THERE. AND NORMALLY AFTER THE RFP TAKES COMMENTS, THE NORMAL WAY OF PROCEEDING, IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, IS YOU WILL HAVE AN RFC TO BE VOTED UPON.
WHAT SEEMS TO APPEAR IS AFTER THAT IS WHEN THE BOARD, IN THIS MEETING OF OCTOBER 13TH, THINKS THAT THEY NEED TO RETHINK ABOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS AND THAT PERHAPS, GOING NOW FOR WHAT WAS, SINCE SHANGHAI, PROPOSED AS THIS ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY NEED TO RETHINK THE WHOLE PROCESS AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE URGENT THINGS TO DO. THESE ARE THE TWO SORT OF REASONS.
AND DON'T TAKE MY WORDS CONTROVERSIALLY; JUST A VERY SHORT WORDS OF WHAT THEY SAID.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WANT TO READ SOME OF THE MINUTES. THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD WHICH WAS HELD ON THE 13TH OF OCTOBER. I'LL JUST QUOTE A COUPLE OF SENTENCES TO GIVE THE CONTEXT.
IT SAID BOARD MEMBERS REMARKED ON THE SIGNIFICANT STAFFING CONSTRAINTS FOR ICANN AT THE PRESENT AND THE FORESEEN LACK OF ABILITY FOR ICANN TO BOTH OVERSEE A ROUND OF NEW SPONSORED TLD APPLICATIONS AND INVEST SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND TIME IN GATHERING AND ANALYZING DATA ON GTLD ISSUES.
IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT -- AND THEN IT JUST SORT OF TALKS ABOUT THOSE RESOURCING ISSUES AND THE WORKLOAD THEY HAVE ON.
AND THEN IT SAYS "IN SUMMARIZING THE VIEWS, MR. CERF NOTED THAT THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE BOARD DID NOT SUPPORT A ROUND OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AT THIS TIME.
SO THE IMPLICATION, AND I ASSUME THERE WELL COULD BE A DECISION ABOUT IT THIS WEEK BUT THE IMPLICATION OF THOSE TWO SENTENCES SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THE BOARD WAS PREFERRING TO MOVE AHEAD, TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ADDING NEW TLDS AND NOT HAVE AN INTERIM STEP OF A LIMITED INTRODUCTION OF THE SPONSORED.
ELLEN FIRST AND THEN JORDYN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: IF THE CONCERN FOR WHY THE BOARD SUDDENLY DECIDED TO PULL STAGE 1, IF YOU WILL, IS BECAUSE OF LACK OF RESOURCES, THAT'S ONE THING.
IF THE BOARD, HOWEVER, IS DECIDING -- AND FOR WHAT MIGHT BE VERY, VERY VALID REASONS -- TO RETHINK THE ISSUE, AS AMADEU SAID, BECAUSE NOW THAT WE'RE ALONG THE PROCESS, MAYBE WE HAVE TO DO -- I DO SUPPORT THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, "WAIT A MINUTE.
WE DON'T WANT TO GO FURTHER DOWN A PATH THAT WE DON'T THINK IS THE RIGHT PATH TO GO DOWN JUST BECAUSE WE COMMITTED IN THE PAST TO GO DOWN IT."
AND I THINK THAT THE CONCERNS ON THE ONE HAND ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT NOBODY HAS HAD DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE ON COMMITMENTS MADE BY ICANN THAT ARE THEN PULLED, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, NOT BEING STUCK WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME, DOESN'T MEAN THAT JUST BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN COMMITTING TROOPS ALL ALONG DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO KEEP DOING IT WITHOUT REASSESSING, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE ROOM FOR BOTH OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS.
BUT IN MY OPINION, THAT'S OUR JOB AS POLICY AND NOT FOR THE BOARD TO SUDDENLY, UNILATERALLY DECIDE, WAIT A MINUTE, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, WE DON'T LIKE STAGE 1, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO PULL IT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WHY IT'S BEING PULLED.
AT THAT POINT, I THINK IT HAS TO COME BACK TO US TO DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT POLICY PROCEDURE FOR HOW TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S WHETHER IT'S A BOTTOM-UP OR A TOP-DOWN PROCESS, REALLY, ISN'T IT?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: PARDON ME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S WHETHER WE'RE CONSIDERING A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS, WHICH IS, BASICALLY, THEY'VE CONSULTED WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY IS OKAY WITH A PARTICULAR COURSE OF ACTION. IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT COURSE OF ACTION, THEY SHOULD GO BACK AND CONSULT WITH THE COMMUNITY.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: IT'S TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY THE EXTRA CHANCE TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, TELL US WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE, MAYBE WE'LL BE PERSUADED AND CHANGE OUR MIND ALSO.
BUT THAT HAS TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN AND THEN KEN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK REGARDLESS OF -- I THINK ELLEN RAISES A GOOD POINT THAT WE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY SORT OF CONTINUE DOWN A PATH OF FOLLY JUST BECAUSE WE STARTED DOWN IT.
BUT I THINK GIVEN THAT THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR AN ICANN TLD IS NOT A SIMPLE ONE, AND PROBABLY ONE NEVER ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHABLE PURELY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOCATED DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAD INTENDED TO APPLY PROBABLY HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME AND RESOURCES PREPARING TO DO SO LEADING UP TO THIS.
AND I'M SURE THAT THEY ARE INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED AT THIS TIME THAT THE BOARD HAS SEEMINGLY SOMEWHAT CAPRICIOUSLY DECIDED THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AND REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE DECISION, I THINK THAT THE BOARD OWED THEM A MUCH BETTER EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT MADE ITS DECISION.
THEN CERTAINLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT AND MUCH MORE -- CERTAINLY COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THE PROBLEMS THAT IT ENDED UP DECIDING THAT IT HAD FOR IN ADVANCE AND OUGHT TO BE REMINDED THAT THESE DECISIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES ON PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT HAVE OFFICIALLY PUT AN RFP OUT TO TENDER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: EXCUSE ME --
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JEFF, AM I IN THE QUEUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL HAVE YOU IN THE QUEUE.
KEN FIRST.
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH, A COUPLE OF ISSUES.
SPEAKING AS A REGISTRAR, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, I WOULD HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT -- HOW TO ACT ON THIS MEASURE.
BECAUSE UNLESS I MISSED SOMETHING, BRUCE, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY DID NOT DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AT ALL YESTERDAY.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY INPUT FROM THE REGISTRARS, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, AND THE -- I GUESS THE THINGS I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS, MANY OF THE DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE BOARD AND ACTIONS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE FINAL MOU BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ICANN WAS FULLY FINALIZED.
SO THERE MAY BE CONCERNS ON THE PART OF THE ICANN STAFF THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROCESSES AS OUTLINED IN THE MOU AND AT THE SAME TIME MANAGE A PROCESS LIKE THE RFP THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THAT CONTRACT.
I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT THOSE ARE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT I REALLY FEEL LIKE I NEED TO GET PERSONALLY MYSELF BEFORE I CAN MAKE A DECISION PERSONALLY MYSELF.
AND I AM SURE THAT THERE ARE ANSWERS -- THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE REGISTRARS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERS TO PRIOR TO GIVING US DIRECTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN AND THEN TONY.
JEFF, GO AHEAD.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: OKAY.
THANKS.
JUST ONE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT KEN HAD SAID.
THIS PROCESS ACTUALLY STARTED, IF ONE TRACES IT BACK, AT LEAST THEORETICALLY STARTED BEFORE THE LAST MOU WAS FINALIZED.
SO ALMOST TWO MOUS AGO.
THE SECOND POINT IS, LOOK, GUYS, THIS IS PROBABLY, I GUESS, MY LAST MEETING ON THE COUNCIL.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A POINT -- AND I'D LIKE TO SEE US MAKE A POINT -- THAT THIS ORGANIZATION, AT LEAST POLICY-WISE, WORKS BOTTOMS-UP AND NOT TOP DOWN.
AND THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE WHERE THE BOARD HAS ASKED FOR OUR INPUT INITIALLY.
WE GAVE OUR INPUT, SUPPORTED THE FACT OF HAVING NEW SPONSORED TLDS COME OUT.
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING BACK ON IT WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH US.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR US TO MAKE A STAND, AT LEAST IN A STATEMENT TO THE BOARD, THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY THAT WE ENVISION THE ORGANIZATION WORKING.
AND UNLESS I'M WRONG, UNLESS OTHER PEOPLE FEEL OTHERWISE.
BUT CERTAINLY THIS IS MY LAST MEETING HERE AND I'D LIKE TO SEE US FINALLY TAKE THAT STAND WHEN WE DON'T AGREE WITH ACTIONS WHERE THEY DID NOT CONSULT ON APPROPRIATE MATTERS WITHIN THE GNSO'S JURISDICTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: HOW ABOUT -- AND I'LL GO TO TONY IN A MOMENT.
BUT I GUESS I'D LIKE TO SORT OF GET A SENSE OF A POSSIBLE MOTION HERE.
AND THIS IS THE SORT OF WORDING I'M THINKING OF, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, "THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF SUSPENDING THE LIMITED INTRODUCTION OF SPONSORED TLDS AND SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE FROM THE ICANN STAFF," I GUESS.
SO IT'S BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE -- BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A POSSIBILITY AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION OR SOME REASONS.
IS THAT -- TONY FIRST, AND THEN MARILYN.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANKS, BRUCE.
A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE REFERRED TO THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS.
AND FOR ME, THAT IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE.
AND I THINK IT SETS A BAD PRECEDENT IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING.
SO I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO REACT.
AND I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO REACT TODAY.
I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, LOOKING AT YOUR MOTION, THAT IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE TOUGHENED UP A LITTLE, IF POSSIBLE.
I THINK THIS IS THE WEAKEST THAT WE SHOULD WALK AWAY FROM THIS MEETING WITH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY.
>>CARY KARP: WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE DECIDE TO DO, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT CAREFUL ABOUT THE WORDING THAT WE'RE USING.
THERE IS -- WHAT STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT IS IT THAT WE FEEL IS BEING RESCINDED?
THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT WE FELT TO BE IMPENDING THAT WE HAVE YET TO SEE.
SO POLEMICS OF THIS PROBABLY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH WITH SOME FINESSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S WHY I USED THE WORD ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT YET A FACT.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: BRUCE, I THINK THAT MOST WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE THIS MOMENT, A SIMPLE REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO CLARIFY THE STATUS AND TO PROVIDE A RATIONALE IN CASE THERE IS A CHANGE OF DIRECTION WITHOUT MORE CLEAR INDICATIONS ABOUT COMMITMENTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, OR EVEN PROCESS.
WE SEEM TO -- NO, WE GUESSED THERE WAS AN INTENTION THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE.
BUT AT THE MOMENT -- MY PERSONAL FEELINGS, THERE'S SOMETHING MORE TO THE FEELING OF OCTOBER 13 THAT -- LET ME GUESS, BUT TELL ME SOMETHING.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: A USEFUL HOOK MIGHT BE THE ICANN DECEMBER AMSTERDAM MEETING OF 2002, BECAUSE IT WAS AT THAT MEETING THAT THE BOARD PASSED THE RESOLUTION OF DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO DEVELOP A DRAFT RFP FOR CONSIDERATION IN A TIMELY MANNER, AS CONSISTENT WITH ICANN STAFF WORKLOAD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (INAUDIBLE) FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF SPONSORED NEW TLDS.
SO I THINK THAT WAS THE FIRST CLEAR SIGNAL TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE -- A PROCESS THAT HAD BEEN STARTED WITH DISCUSSION IN THE STUART LYNN PAPER AND SUBSEQUENTLY WENT FORWARD AT THAT TIME.
AND THERE'S A SERIES OF SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES, I THINK, THAT GO ON FROM THERE.
THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIEST POINT WHERE I THINK SOMETHING CONCRETE CAME FROM THE BOARD WITH A CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ALICK.
>>ALICK WILSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO PUT FORWARD SOME IDEAS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE FINAL WORDS, BUT SOME IDEAS THAT MIGHT BE INCORPORATED IN A RESOLUTION.
MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE GO AS FAR AS URGING THE BOARD TO CONTINUE AT FULL SPEED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS.
AND IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES WHICH MIGHT PRECLUDE GOING AHEAD AT FULL SPEED, THEN THEY SHOULD DISCUSS THOSE WITH COUNCIL TO DECIDE IN WHICH WAY THOSE DIFFICULTIES CAN BE OVERCOME.
>>: (INAUDIBLE).
>>: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TRYING TO HANDLE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS AT ONCE HERE.
SORRY.
I THINK WE HAVE MARILYN, THEN ELLEN, THEN CHUN.
SO MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO IS CRAFT A STATEMENT TO THE BOARD THAT CAPTURES A COUPLE OF FACTS.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE REFERENCE THAT PHILIP JUST GAVE, AND ALSO THE REFERENCE TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE -- WE DID GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT -- WITH STRONG INDICATIONS -- AND I'D LIKE TO CAPTURE THAT AS WELL.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CAPTURE THE POINT THAT TONY HOLMES WAS MAKING AND THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE HERE HAVE MENTIONED, INCLUDING AMADEU AND MYSELF AND OTHERS.
AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS A POLICY DECISION, AND THIS IS THE POLICY COUNCIL.
AND THERE MAY BE REASONS FOR MAKING SUCH A DETERMINATION, BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN CONSULTATION WITH THE POLICY COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I SUPPORT MARILYN'S LAST POINT VERY STRONGLY.
I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE A VERY STRONG STATEMENT ABOUT WHY IT HAS TO BE.
I AM NOT AS WEDDED TO SUPPORTING A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THAT THE STAGE 1 HAS TO GO FULL STEAM AHEAD.
BECAUSE MAYBE THE REASONS THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T WANT TO GO FULL STEAM AHEAD ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT.
MAYBE YES, MAYBE NO.
BUT I DO FEEL A STRONG STATEMENT NEEDS TO BE MADE THAT THIS IS POLICY, NOT PROCEDURE, AND THAT WE MUST BE CONSULTED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PROPOSE SOME WORDING IN A SECOND, BECAUSE I'M -- I'M TIRED OF TRYING TO CREATE MOTIONS ON THE FLY.
CHUN NEXT.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I WANT TO BE VERY BRIEF.
PROCESS STARTED.
OUR POLICY SHOULD BE PREDICTABLE.
AND SOMEBODY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE.
SO I THINK THIS ISSUE IS CLEARLY THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF ICANN.
SO THIS CONCERN SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN OUR STATEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK -- THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S PEOPLE THAT HAVE EXPENDED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES ON THE BASIS OF A DECISIONED THAT BEEN MADE SOME TIME AGO TO GO AHEAD WITH THE LAUNCH OF THESE SPONSORED TLDS.
AND THEN TO BE TOLD THAT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF HAVE BEEN GIVEN A TASK TO DO, AND TO CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE POLICY BODY WHERE THAT INITIAL REQUEST CAME FROM.
THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: SINCE IT'S LATE THIS AFTERNOON, I MAY JUST BE MISSING THE POINT.
BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED BY PHRASING THIS AS A POLICY DECISION.
A POLICY, IN GENERAL, IS SOMETHING THAT IS TO BE APPLIED GENERICALLY FOR MANY PLAYERS FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME.
WE'RE TALKING HERE ABOUT A --
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: A PLAN.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: -- A STOPGAP MEASURE THAT'S NOT A POLICY.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT TALKING ABOUT POLICY HERE.
WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL, I THINK.
NOT ABOUT TALKING ABOUT POLICY, THAT'S BADLY SAID, BUT CONCERNED -- LET ME SAY IT CHARACTERIZING AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION IN A SHORT -- BUT A SHORT-TERM EFFORT AS A POLICY CHANGE, THERE MAY BE DRAGONS IN DOING THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'M FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT, BRUCE.
I THINK IT COULD PROBABLY USE SOME ADDITIONAL BEEF, I GUESS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
AND PERHAPS WE COULD JUST INCLUDE A REMINDER TO THE BOARD THAT THE PROCESS WAS INITIATED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNCIL.
I GUESS MAYBE IT WASN'T THE GNSO COUNCIL AT THE TIME.
I CAN'T REMEMBER.
BUT -- AND ALSO REQUEST THEM TO CONSULT WITH US PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I NEED TO OFFER A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.
IN LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTATION WE'RE ABLE TO ACCESS -- THANKS, ALICK -- IT APPEARS THAT, REALLY, THE BOARD HAD PUT THIS OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TWICE, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY.
AND SO I MIGHT READ SOMETHING.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THIS IS GETTING ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO.
BUT WE MIGHT START WITH SOMETHING LIKE, "NOTING CONCERNS THAT HAVE EMERGED RELATING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A, QUOTE, INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED GTLDS, CLOSE QUOTE, THE COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT CLARIFICATION BE PROVIDED AS TO WHETHER AND WHY THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS AMSTERDAM 2002 DECISION TO GO FORWARD WITH SUCH AN INTERIM ROUND."
NEW PARAGRAPH.
"GIVEN THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE GNSO AND THAT ICANN IS BASED ON A BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS PROCESS," AND I'VE RUN OUT OF STEAM.
ARE WE GETTING ANYWHERE?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT LAST SENTENCE ISN'T REALLY A SENTENCE, THOUGH, I DON'T THINK.
RIGHT?
IT'S JUST A CLAUSE.
>>MARILYN CADE: SOMETHING LIKE, "GIVEN THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH THE GNSO AND THAT ICANN IS BASED ON A BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS-BASED PROCESS," --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, WHAT?
GIVEN THAT --
>>: POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR GTLDS --
>>ALICK WILSON: AND THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND LED TO A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, IT IS NOW THE VIEW OF THE GNSO THAT THAT PROCESS SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT WITH ALACRITY.
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS IS --
>>ALICK WILSON: THE POLICY -- SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN RELATION TO THIS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I JUST, PERHAPS, ASK DAN HALLORAN FROM THE ICANN STAFF TO PERHAPS CLARIFY -- HE BELIEVES THAT HE CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THE BOARD MEANT.
>>ALICK WILSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE -- COULD I JUST FINISH MY LITTLE THEME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>ALICK WILSON: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT I KNOW OF THIS PROCESS INCLUDED -- INCLUDED IN THE POLICY WAS A PLAN FOR EXECUTION.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT'S WITHIN THE PREROGATIVE OF GNSO TO EXPECT THAT THAT PLAN WOULD BE CARRIED OUT.
IF THE PLAN WAS SEPARATE FROM THE POLICY, THEN PERHAPS NOT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
DAN, CAN YOU COMMENT?
>>DAN HALLORAN: THANKS.
THANKS, BRUCE.
I'M SORRY.
YOU ASKED EARLIER IF ANY ICANN STAFF COULD COME UP, I THINK, AND EXPLAIN WHERE ICANN WAS GOING WITH NEW TLDS.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS TOO DAUNTING.
BUT I COULD MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF ILLUMINATION.
JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND ON WHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 13TH.
AND I BROUGHT UP THE PRELIMINARY REPORT.
AND I THINK A COUPLE PEOPLE TOOK STABS AT TRYING TO SUMMARIZE IT.
BUT I THINK IT -- BASED ON THE CONVERSATION, IT WOULD HELP TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE MORE CAREFULLY JUST WHAT'S IN THE PRELIMINARY REPORT.
AND THIS --
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIKE, PLEASE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: PLEASE TALK A LITTLE SLOWER.
>>DAN HALLORAN: ALL RIGHT.
SORRY.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL THE FULL PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT.
AND I HIGHLIGHTED THE PARTS I THOUGHT WOULD BE INTERESTING.
I WON'T TRY AND READ THE WHOLE THING.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THE PART THAT BRUCE READ, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD DID NOTE THE LENGTHY LIST OF TASKS SET FORTH IN ICANN'S NEW MOU AND SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR -- THE FACT THAT THE MOU CALLED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGY AND PROCESS FOR CREATION OF NEW TLDS BY SEPTEMBER 2004.
THE BOARD DEBATED THE WISDOM IN MOVING AHEAD WITH THE CREATION OF NEW TLDS AT THIS TIME IN LIGHT OF THE NEED TO SHORTLY COMMENCE A FULL-SCALE REVIEW OF POLICY IN THIS AREA.
THE BOARD FOCUSED ON THE SHORT TIME FRAMES SET FORTH IN THE MOU AND CONCERNS THAT ANY ACTION ON STLDS WOULD DETRACT FROM THAT EFFORT AND POSSIBLY RESULT IN A DISCORDANT RESULT.
BRUCE NOTED EARLIER THAT VINT CERF'S -- DID NOT SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH A LIMITED REPORT AT THIS TIME.
IT DID EXPRESS A COHESIVE -- (READING) ENCOMPASSING BOTH S STLDS AND GTLDS -- THAT LAST SENTENCE, BOARD MEMBERS NOTED AN APPRECIATION OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY OF THIS TOPIC AND THE BOARD'S INTENT, BASICALLY, TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY ON THE BOARD'S VIEWS ON THE TOPIC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THAT WAS ALL I WANTED TO THROW IN.
THANKS, BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS -- IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY, TOO.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BOARD'S VIEWS.
I NEED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE BOARD'S VIEW AND A BOARD DECISION.
SO CAN I JUST CLARIFY, WAS THE INTENT THAT THEY WERE JUST PROVIDING A VIEW TO THE COMMUNITY OR WAS THE INTENT THAT THE BOARD WAS MAKING A DECISION IN THIS REGARD?
THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION OR ACTION IN THAT.
THAT WAS A BOARD -- NOTES FROM A BOARD DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M REALLY ASKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE BOARD MEETING ON FRIDAY.
DOES THE BOARDS HAVE SOMETHING ON ITS AGENDA FOR DECISION ON TLDS? OR IS THE BOARD MERELY GOING TO PRESENT VIEWS TO THE COMMUNITY, THEN FOR THE COMMUNITY TO DECIDE?
>>DAN HALLORAN: THE BOARD AGENDA IS UP.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM ON STLDS OR ON TLDS AT ALL SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THERE IS SOMETHING CLEAR.
IF A DECISION IN ONE SENSE AND THAT IS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WERE TO BE VOTED ON FRIDAY, WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE THE THE REFERRAL ON THE WEB SITE.
SO IF THERE IS NO (INAUDIBLE) PUBLISHED, IT CANNOT BE VOTED ON FRIDAY.
OKAY?
SO THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.
WE DON'T KNOW FOR THE REST WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT THIS CANNOT HAPPEN RIGHT NOW.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.
I ACTUALLY REGRET THAT I AM EVEN MORE CONCERNED AFTER SEEING SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AS NOTED IN THE MINUTES IN THE FOLLOWING WAY.
AND IT'S TOUGH TO DO THIS ON THE FLY.
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE ICANN STAFF POINTING OUT THE RELEVANT SECTIONS TO US.
BUT I BELIEVE AS I READ -- AS I READ THOSE SECTIONS, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION THAT ALTHOUGH THE BOARD WAS RECONSIDERING PREVIOUS DECISIONS THAT HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO THE COMMUNITY, THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CONSULTATION.
THAT IS A VERY CLEAR INTERPRETATION ON MY PART, AND PERHAPS I'M WRONG.
BUT IT SEEMED TO ME THAT PERHAPS I HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF COUNCIL IN RECOMMENDING POLICY RELATED TO GTLDS AND THE -- WHAT AT LEAST CAME ACROSS TO ME IN THE DISCUSSION IN THE BOARD MINUTES.
IT SEEMED TO ME THERE WAS NO INTENT TO TAKE CONSULTATION ON THE CHANGE IN A DECISION RELATED TO POLICY RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.
NOW, PREVIOUS STATEMENTS MADE DID INDICATE IN A TIMELY MANNER, AS IS CONSISTENT WITH ICANN STAFFING AND WORKLOAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING PROPOSALS FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF SUPPORT SOURCE OF NEW TLDS.
THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE IN AMSTERDAM, 2002.
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN TAKING COMMENTS IN 2003, THE BOARD INVITES PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE SUBMITTED ON E-MAIL ON OR ABOUT 25 AUGUST, 2003, ON A DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR STLDS, POSTED ON 24 JUNE, 2003, AND SPECIFICALLY NOTES IT HAS AN OPEN MIND CONCERNING WHETHER THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO APPLICANTS WHO PROPOSED STLDS IN THE NOVEMBER 2000 NEW TLD SELECTION PROCESS OR WHETHER -- AND I'LL JUST -- WHETHER OTHER APPLICATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE FROM OTHERS, AND REQUEST PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE.
I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE BOARD IS RECONSIDERING PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH A RESOLUTION ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION AND EXPLANATION AND NOTING THE NEED FOR CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL IN THE AREA OF POLICY RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, CAN YOU JUST FORMALLY PROPOSE YOUR MOTION?
AND THEN I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT.
BECAUSE I THINK -- WE'RE DEVOTING A LOT OF TIME TO SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY JUST A STATEMENT FROM COUNCIL TO THE BOARD FOR ITS MEETING THIS WEEK.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST STATE YOUR FULL MOTION, MARILYN?
OR PHILIP?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
I HAVE, HOPEFULLY, A SHORT MOTION WHICH CAPTURES THE SPIRIT OF COUNCIL AT THE MOMENT.
COUNCIL AS THE BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR GTLDS, REQUESTS CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS AMSTERDAM 2002 DECISION TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS FOR AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: HAVE YOU SAID WHY OR WHETHER IT'S CHANGING?
BECAUSE I CAN'T READ THE MINUTES.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHY.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I WOULD PREFER WHETHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT THEY'VE MADE THAT DECISION.
THAT'S THE ISSUE.
>>MARILYN CADE: MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY WHETHER AND THEN SAY WHY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE THAT AGAIN, PHILIP?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THE COUNCIL, AS THE BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT BODY FOR GTLDS, REQUESTS CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS AMSTERDAM 2002 DECISION TO GO FORWARD WITH A PROCESS FOR AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AUDRI.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: JUST HOPEFULLY HELPFUL OBSERVATION.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD START.
BUT I THINK THAT MY SENSE OF IT, THAT ONLY CAPTURES PART OF WHAT I HEARD AROUND THE COUNCIL TABLE.
BECAUSE THAT JUST CAPTURES THE ISSUE OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND ICANN'S BOTTOM-UP NATURE.
BUT THERE WAS ALSO THE ISSUE OF ICANN HONORING ITS COMMITMENTS.
I'M WONDERING IF THAT SHOULD BE PUT IN, TOO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S USEFUL.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A COMMITMENT MADE, IF YOU LIKE, TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT THAT IS GOING AHEAD.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND MAYBE WE CAN MODIFY THAT BY SAYING "WHETHER, AND IF SO, WHY."
DOES THAT CAPTURE THE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, HOW ABOUT STANDING UP AT THE PODIUM AND JUST PLUGGING YOUR LAPTOP, IF YOU'RE DOING IT ON WORD OR SOMETHING.
WHAT HAVE YOU GOT ON THE SCREEN?
>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH, IT'S ON WORD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHERE CAN WE DO THAT FROM?
>>MARILYN CADE: THE PODIUM.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I CAN DO IT FROM THERE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: BRUCE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: LET ME READ IT AGAIN SO WE GET IT ON THE RECORD.
THANKS, BRUCE. NOW THAT'S IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN, I'LL ALSO READ IT FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE TELEPHONE.
SO THE MOTION IS: THE COUNCIL, AS A BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT BODY FOR GTLDS, REQUESTS CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS AMSTERDAM 2002 COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS FOR AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
DOES THAT CAPTURE THOSE LAST TWO POINTS.
>>MARILYN CADE: THAT CAPTURES THE -- THE QUESTION IS DOES THIS CAPTURE THE FIRST POINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AUDRI. AUDRI, CAN YOU JUST HAVE A LOOK AT THE WORDING THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN THERE NOW? YOU CAN READ IT ON THE MONITOR IN FRONT, IF YOU LIKE. DOES THAT CAPTURE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT THERE? WE'VE CHANGED IT TO AMSTERDAM COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY.
>>MARILYN CADE: THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS I THINK THE BOARD COULD EASILY SAY THAT WAS NOT A COMMITMENT IN AMSTERDAM AND I THINK WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT CONVEYING THAT WE THINK THERE WAS A FIRM COMMITMENT BUT WE DO THINK THERE WERE EXPECTATIONS, AND JORDYN MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WANT TO SAY THAT RECOGNIZING A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS MAY HAVE DEVOTED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IN PREPARING FOR.
>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, JORDYN, AND LET ME EXPLAIN WHY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: OKAY.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT ABOUT ANYONE WHO -- WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS A MESSAGE TO THE FULL COMMUNITY, BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST SOMEONE WHO DECIDED TO PREPARE TO BID, BUT ALL OF US HAD THIS EXPECTATION. AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: AND THE POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE, I DON'T KNOW FACTUALLY IF THEY GOT TO THE POINT OF SAYING IF IT WAS AN ACTUAL COMMITMENT OR NOT. KEN'S POINT EARLIER OF DID THEY GET THERE OR NOT AND I DON'T WANT A DEBATE OF YES THERE WAS A CONTRACT, NO THERE WASN'T, YES THERE WAS A COMMITMENT, NO THERE WASN'T A COMMITMENT.
BUT I THINK JORDYN'S POINT OF NOT TYING IT TO THE MONEY BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN SPEND MONEY JUST TO DO IT WISELY OR NOT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SOMEHOW WE ALSO EXPRESS THAT ICANN HAS CREDIBILITY AND INTEGRITY ISSUES WHEN THERE IS ONE KIND OF EXPECTATION CREATED THAT'S SUDDENLY PULLED.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GO AS FAR AS CALLING IT AN ACTUAL COMMITMENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE, AND I DON'T HAVE GREAT LANGUAGE TO GIVE YOU, BUT I THINK ICANN HAS TO RECOGNIZE THAT CREDIBILITY.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. ELLEN, I THINK ONE OF THE KEY WORDS IN THIS IS COMMITMENT TO A PROCESS.
AND INDEED, IT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WAS STARTED. SO I THINK WE'RE SAFE IN SAYING THAT THAT'S INDEED THE CASE. IT'S LIKE THE DIFFERENCE OF COMMITMENT TO --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THE COMMITMENT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS FOR AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED, MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THERE WAS A COMMITMENT THAT WE WERE GOING TO COME OUT WITH THE SPONSORED TLDS AND NOT A COMMITMENT TO THE PROCESS. IT LOOKS MORE TO ME THAT THERE'S A COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE COMING OUT WITH SPONSORED TLDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN, AND THEN AUDRI.
>>KEN STUBBS: MARILYN'S LAST COMMENTS MADE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME AND I LIKED HER "IF SO, THEN WHY?" BUT YOU'RE REALLY TAKING ME OFF IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION HERE AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING IT.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS EVERY TIME WE MAKE A CHANGE TO THIS IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFUSING.
I LIKE THE LOGIC, BUT THE LOGIC AND THE WORDS -- WHOOPS. EXCUSE ME -- DON'T -- I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.
BUT BASICALLY, I'M SAYING I LIKE MARILYN'S LAST COMMENTS MADE SENSE AND I LIKED THE IF SO, THEN WHY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS UPDATE THIS MOTION WITH MARILYN'S LAST COMMENTS; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK THE EARLIER VERSION HAD AN IF SO, THEN WHY IN IT, AND THAT'S GOOD.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE CAN'T SPEND HOURS ON THIS. WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF ROUGHLY THE SENSE OF IT, AND THEN I CAN PUT IT IN WORDS IN THE PUBLIC FORUM WHEN I ADDRESS THE BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL.
SO TONY --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MAYBE WE SHOULD APPOINT A GROUP OF TWO OR THREE PEOPLE --
>>MARILYN CADE: WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IF YOU WERE GOING TO PUT IT IN WORDS ANYWAY. I GUESS MAYBE TO PREPARE A LONGER STATEMENT THAT'S NOT A FORMAL RESOLUTION AND THEN HAVE A TIGHT RESOLUTION THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON QUICKLY.
>>TONY HOLMES: COULD I SUGGEST SOMETHING? IF WE TAKE THE CURRENT TEXT AND WE PUT A (INAUDIBLE) AFTER SPONSORED TLDS AT THE BOTTOM AND ADD AFTER THAT, "IF SO, THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR THAT DECISION AND WHY THERE WAS NO CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNCIL."
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: TONY, MAY I COMMENT ON THAT? I WOULD ACTUALLY ADD THE "IF SO, THEN WHY," AS PART OF THE FIRST SENTENCE. WHETHER THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS, AND IF SO, WHY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERY STRAIGHT STATEMENT. I DON'T WANT TO ASK THEM WHY THEY'RE GOING AHEAD WITH POLICY WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL, AND I WANT TO MAKE THE STATEMENT IF THIS IS A POLICY DECISION, COUNCIL ISN'T CONSULTED. I WANT TO HEAR WHY THEY THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH WITHOUT CONSULTING US.
>>>: CAN I TRY THIS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: HOLD ON, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME LAWYERS HERE. ELLEN, CAN YOU GET THE WORDING RIGHT AS YOU THINK IT IS. I WANT TO CAPTURE --
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: SO WHAT PHILIP JUST TYPED RIGHT NOW IS FINE. NO, NO, I'M SORRY, WAIT A SECOND. COUNCIL TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS OF AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS AND, IF SO, WHY, PERIOD.
AND THEN SAY, "THE COUNCIL STRONGLY OBJECTS TO --"
>>MARILYN CADE: THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES STRONG CONCERN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THANK YOU. THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES STRONG CONCERN ABOUT THE BOARD --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST SLOW DOWN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THANK YOU.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: UNFORTUNATELY, PHILIP IS NOT AS GOOD AS THE TRANSLATORS.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: NEITHER AM I SO THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES STRONG CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A POLICY DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SPELLING BECAUSE I THINK I CAN GET THE GIST OF IT.
WAIT ONE SEC.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: ELLEN, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN THAT THOMAS HAD HERE. I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE THAT NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PLAN IS A POLICY DECISION IN ITSELF. IT'S MORE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY, BUT IT'S NOT A POLICY DECISION, IN MY VIEW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO JUST TAKE OUT POLICY DECISION. IT SAYS THE BOARD APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. SO APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A DECISION.
>>MARILYN CADE: THE BOARD CAN CERTAINLY TAKE ANOTHER --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO.
>>MARILYN CADE: HOW ABOUT IF IT SAYS THE COUNCIL IS EXPRESSING STRONG CONCERN THAT THE BOARD HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS POLICY WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, THAT'S BETTER. YEAH.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: ADD THE WORDS IN THE GTLD AREA OF POLICY.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: CAN I COUNCIL AGAINST DRAFTING BY COMMITTEE AT THIS STAGE AND WE ACCEPT AN ENGINEERING ADAGE OF THE BEST WE CAN DO AT THE MOMENT RATHER THAN PERFECTION?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S MY PREFERENCE, BECAUSE I THINK....
YEAH, LOOK, I REALLY WANT TO TRY TO MOVE TO A CLOSURE, BUT AUDRI FIRST AND THEN ALICK.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT IN A SECOND PARAGRAPH, ALBEIT A SHORT ONE THAT THERE'S ISSUES, IS WHAT I'M HEARING AT THE TABLE, OF THE CREDIBILITY OF ICANN AND THERE HAS BEEN CAPITAL INVESTED BY DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT MAY BE LOST BECAUSE OF THIS DECISION.
AND I SPEAK NOT AS A GAC LIAISON BUT AS A HELPFUL DRAFTER LISTENING TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE TABLE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S GOOD. THANKS, AUDRI.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE AN IDEA ON THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU WANT TO JUST GRAB THAT PARAGRAPH?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I WOULD SUGGEST THIS IS NOT A ONE-ROUND EFFORT. WE'RE GOING TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD AND AS A COUNCIL WE CAN GO BACK AGAIN AND HAVE MORE DIALOGUE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SHOVE IN THE WHEELBARROW OF CONCERNS IN THIS QUESTION. BUT UP TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>ALICK WILSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A SUGGESTION HOW TO FIX THIS. HOW ABOUT WE CONVENE A MEETING LATER THIS WEEK AFTER WE'VE HAD SOME DRAFTING DONE? NO?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: THIS IS FOR TOMORROW ONLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, IT'S PRETTY -- THAT'S CORRECT, ACTUALLY.
HANG ON. I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO TAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS ON IT BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST PUT IT FOR A VOTE; OTHERWISE, WE'LL BE HERE FOREVER.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: BRUCE, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS PARTICULAR TEXT. THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES STRONG CONCERN THAT THE BOARD APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL. THE DECISION NEEDS TO BE QUALIFIED.
>>MARILYN CADE: IT SHOULD SAYS APPEARS --
>>KEN STUBBS: MAY HAVE, RATHER THAN APPEARS.
>>MARILYN CADE: APPEARS THAT THE BOARD -- APPEARS -- THAT MEANS MAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT DOES, YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A DECISION THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS POLICY WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL.
>>CARY KARP: WHAT ARE WE BASING THAT ASSESSMENT OF APPEARANCE ON? THE COMMENTARY THAT WAS POSTED IN REVIEW OF THE MEETING --
>>MARILYN CADE: I AM BASING THAT ON THE PRELIMINARY BOARD STATEMENT THAT WAS SHOWN TO US BY THE STAFF AND THAT IS ON THE WEB SITE. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING "APPEARS." NO ONE HAS BRIEFED ME, AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: A DECISION IN THIS AREA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK IT'S WORTH CLARIFYING THE WORDING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THE BOARD CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS.
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, NOT AT ALL.
ARE WE GOING TO ADD THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS "GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING --"
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO. LET'S NOT.
>>MARILYN CADE: CREDIBILITY OF ICANN?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK --
>>MARILYN CADE: ALL RIGHT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET'S JUST READ THIS AS IT STANDS. THE COUNCIL, AS THE BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTS CLARIFY CAKES AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD IS CHANGING ITS COMMITMENT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS FOR AN INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS, AND IF SO, WHY. THE COUNCIL EXPRESSES STRONG CONCERN THAT THE BOARD APPEARS -- I THINK IT IS BETTER TO SAY THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE TAKEN. I THINK THAT IS BETTER WORDING.
IF YOU CAN JUST CHANGE "APPEARS" TO "MAY," MAY HAVE TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING COUNCIL. I THINK IF WE LEAVE IT AT THAT. I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A SHORT, SIMPLE MESSAGE FOR PEOPLE TO READ. ONCE IT GETS OVER A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS, PEOPLE WON'T READ THAT FAR ANYWAY.
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY. THE MOTION IS PASSED.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THAT WAS A LONG ITEM UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS." JUST TRY AND DRAW THIS MEETING TO A CLOSE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: CAN I JUST PUT ON THE TABLE THE ENFORCEMENT QUESTION?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP. LET ME JUST GET THROUGH A COUPLE OTHER ITEMS. ONE IS THE SUMMARY OF THE TOP 5 UDRP ISSUES. THERE IS A REPORT ON THE GNSO WEB SITE THAT LISTS THE TOP ISSUES BY CONSTITUENCY.
THE ISSUES ARE FAIRLY SPREAD. ANY INDIVIDUAL ISSUE HAS NO MORE THAN PROBABLY THREE CONSTITUENCIES OUT OF THE SIX SUPPORTING IT, AND MANY HAVE PERHAPS TWO CONSTITUENCIES OUT OF THE SIX SUPPORTING IT.
SO THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A STRONG ISSUE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL BELIEVES, ON ITS OWN, IS IMPORTANT.
MY VIEW IN RELATION TO THAT IS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT ISSUE FURTHER NEXT YEAR, AFTER WE'VE INITIATED THE WORK ON THE WHOIS AND ON THE REGISTRY SERVICES.
THE BUDGET UPDATE, GLEN, CAN YOU JUST REPORT ON THE CURRENT BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT?
>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: THERE IS, AFTER EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CALCULATED AND PAID OUT, 20 -- $24,923.63 IN THE ACCOUNT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. NOW, THE DECISION THAT THE BOARD -- THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE IS WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE ON THAT ACCOUNT.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS PROBABLY TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT. BUT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT WOULD NEED TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL DECISION IN REGARD TO ANY EXPENDITURE FROM THAT ACCOUNT.
SO IF I COULD JUST PROPOSE -- AND THIS IS JUST A FORMALITY THAT'S REQUIRED AS ICANN IS CONTINUING TO MANAGE THIS ACCOUNT, THAT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE EXPENDITURE FROM THE ACCOUNT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL.
OKAY.
>>MARILYN CADE: WERE YOU SETTING A LIMIT ON THAT? LET ME JUST MAKE A POINT. IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE A SMALL INTERIM CAPABILITY OF SPENDING A SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT'S APPROVED BY THE CHAIR TO RESERVE MEETING ROOMS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND SO SOMETIMES WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS GIVEN UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU WANT TO NOMINATE A NUMBER.
>>MARILYN CADE: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK GLEN IF THERE IS A NUMBER THAT SHE THINKS IS APPROPRIATE.
IS THERE AN AMOUNT THAT YOU THINK IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY THAT WE WOULD CONVENE COUNCIL TO APPROVE AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPEND A THOUSAND DOLLARS OR THOUSAND EUROS?
>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: I THINK A THOUSAND EUROS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO THEY CAN COMMIT UP TO A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO BE RATIFIED BY THE COUNCIL? YEAH, YEAH.
SO THAT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT WOULD AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE FROM THE GNSO ACCOUNT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL CHAIR TO A LIMIT OF $1,000 U.S. DOLLARS.
IS THAT....
IS THAT OKAY? CAPTURES IT?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
FINALLY, OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA IS THE ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT. SO GO AHEAD, ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THANK YOU. JUST TO MAKE THIS BRIEF, BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE END OF A LONG MEETING, IN OUR BREAKFAST WITH PAUL TWOMEY, WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS WITH THE COUNCIL, AND THEN LATER AGAIN IN SOME OTHER CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETING, PAUL TWOMEY HAD EXPRESSED THAT ALL OF THE CONSTITUENCIES RAISED ENFORCEMENT AS A KEY ISSUE TO BE PLACED ON ICANN'S HIGH PRIORITY. SOMETHING WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT.
DURING THE CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETING, IT CAME OUT THAT PAUL UNDERSTANDS ENFORCEMENT NOT JUST TO BE AN OPERATIONS ISSUE, BUT A PHILOSOPHICAL SLASH POLICY ISSUE.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT JUST A "LET'S THROW MONEY AT IT, AND IF YOU GIVE ME RESOURCES WE CAN DO IT," BUT IN FACT WE HAVE TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, THEN I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND REQUEST A PDP.
AS A SUBSECTION OF THAT OR AS ONE OF THE SUBJECTS THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE COVERED, IT ALSO BECAME CLEAR THAT MANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT USING ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACTS BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A VARIETY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM IN WHICH TO DEAL. AND SINCE ALL THEY HAD WAS THE CHOICE OF PULLING THE CONTRACT OR NOT, THEY WERE RELUCTANT TO EXERCISE SUCH STRONG PUNITIVE MEASURES, IF YOU WILL. AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THAT COUNCIL SHOULD LOOK AT IS CREATING A VARIETY, AND A MENU, IF YOU WILL, OF POSSIBLE RESPONSES IN THE COURSE OF ENFORCEMENT THAT THE BOARD CAN TAKE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANKS, ELLEN.
WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL MINUTE THAT COMMENT, AND THEN WE'LL SCHEDULE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR A FUTURE MEETING, AND MAY BE PROBABLY THE ONE AFTER NEXT, I SUSPECT, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK WE'VE GOT ON THE TABLE. BUT WE SHOULD MINUTE THAT AS AN ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED IN 2004.
OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT ANYONE WANTS TO RAISE?
GOOD. OKAY.
WELL, THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR ATTENDING, AND WE'LL CLOSE THE COUNCIL MEETING AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU.
(5:47 P.M.)