ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED AGAIN, IF KEN STUBBS COULD JOIN US.
AND THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS JOIN US.
THE BASIC AGENDA CONSISTS OF APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, A REPORT FROM STAFF, CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO WHOIS, CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCESS ICANN MUST USE IN CONSIDERING CHANGES FOR CONSENT, VOTING RULES FOR WHOIS, NEW TLDS, NEXT STEPS, ANY INPUT ON THE OPERATING BUDGET AND ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO DO JUST AS -- PERHAPS CHANGE THE AGENDA AROUND SLIGHTLY BUT UNDER TWO, UNDER STAFF REPORT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE CONSTITUENCIES REGARDING RECENT CHANGES TO THE DOT NET AGREEMENT BEFORE IT WAS SIGNED. A NUMBER OF THE CONSTITUENCIES MADE A REPORT TO THAT EFFECT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO GET PERHAPS THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF ICANN AT THAT POINT IN THE MEETING JUST TO GIVE A BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE AND AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THEY WERE ADDED, JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A -- I GUESS AN ICANN STAFF PERSPECTIVE ON THAT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS WE ALL HAVE OUR DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ICANN WAS SEEKING TO ACHIEVE.
SO FIRSTLY -- YES, YOU WISH TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA?
>>MARILYN CADE: I DO WISH TO PUT A PLACEHOLDER ITEM UNDER OTHER BUSINESS. I MAY WISH TO PROPOSE A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ON WHAT?
>>MARILYN CADE: ON THE DOT NET PROCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, BRUCE. I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHICH REITERATES WHAT I POSTED TO COUNCIL BEFORE THIS MEETING, WHICH CONCERNS THE TIMING OF MEETING OF COUNCIL. I'M CONCERNED IT'S COMING LATE IN THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE MAY NOT BE AT THE PEAK OF THEIR EFFICIENCY. AND SPEAKING AS A COUNCILLOR, FOR ME THE COUNCIL MEETING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETING THAT I COME TO IN TERMS OF AN ICANN MEETING, AND I'D LIKE IT TO BE CONSIDERED BETTER FOR THE FUTURE THAT THIS MEETING WAS TAKEN AS BEING A PRIORITY MEETING FOR THE DAY AND OTHER MEETINGS THAT ARE MORE ADVISORY AND INFORMATIVE ARE FITTED AROUND IT IN A BETTER WAY. AND INDEED, PERHAPS WE SHOULD CONSIDER MORE PARALLEL SESSIONS FOR SUCH MEETINGS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU, PHILIP.
WHAT I WANT TO DO, ACTUALLY, IS JUST INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, AT SOME POINT. SO UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING JUST ON THE AGENDA ITEMS, I'LL LEAVE IT LATER.
IS IT JUST ON THE AGENDA, KIYOSHI?
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: NO; I JUST WANT TO SECOND THAT. THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR US TO BE HERE IS THIS MEETING, AND WE SHOULD TAKE THIS MORE SERIOUSLY.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: BRUCE, I HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM IF I MIGHT JUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA, OTHER BUSINESS, AND THAT CONCERNS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, GRANT.
OKAY. SO JUST TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT ARE HERE TODAY. MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN, AND I REPRESENT THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY, AND I'M ALSO CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL. AND WE'LL JUST GO ROUND THE ABLE TABLE.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I'M AN ELECTED COUNCILLOR FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: MY NAME IS GRANT FORSYTH AND I AM AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: PHILIP SHEPPARD, ALSO AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE BC AND FROM THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRY OF BELGIUM.
>>GREG RUTH: GREG RUTH FROM THE ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.
>>TONY HARRIS: TONY HARRIS, ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.
>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES, ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.
>>THOMAS KELLER: THOMAS KELLER, REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.
>>ROSS RADER: I'M ROSS RADER. I REPRESENT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY FOR NORTH AMERICA.
>>ROBIN GROSS: ROBIN GROSS. I'M WITH THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.
>>NORBERT KLEIN: NORBERT KLEIN FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, AND I'M SWEDISH.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: LUCY NICHOLS REPRESENTING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I'M BRET FAUSETT. I'M THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIAISON TO THE COUNCIL.
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: KIYOSHI TSURU WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY FROM MEXICO.
>>KEN STUBBS: KEN STUBBS, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY FROM THE NEIGHBORING CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA.
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: PHIL COLEBROOK, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY FROM NEW ZEALAND.
>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP, REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, SWEDEN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE SOME OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT STAFF. PERHAPS IF THEY COULD INTRODUCE MYSELF, STARTING ON MY LEFT.
>>MARIA FARRELL: HI, I'M MARIA FARRELL, THE GNSO POLICY OFFICER BASED IN BRUSSELS.
>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: I AM GLEN DE SAINT GERY AND I AM THE GNSO SECRETARIAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO FIRSTLY, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHEN WERE THEY POSTED, GLEN?
>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: THEY WERE POSTED ON THE 4TH OF JULY TO THE COUNCIL LIST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
>>KEN STUBBS:I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, PLEASE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KEN. ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES?
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AYE.
OKAY. ANY AGAINST?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY. WE'LL NOTE THOSE MINUTES AS PASSED.
I WONDER IF I COULD HAVE JOHN JEFFREY, IF HE'S AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE. OH, THERE.
WHERE DO YOU WANT TO WORK FROM? WE HAVE PROBABLY QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT DOWN, IN FACT.

I'LL ALSO INTRODUCE JOHN JEFFREY, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF ICANN.
JOHN, IN THE SESSION EARLY TODAY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR THE GNSO, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF COMMENT, I GUESS, ON SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT. I GUESS SOME OF THE PARTICULAR CHANGES, ONE IS RELATIVELY OBVIOUS, I THINK MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, AND THAT IS THAT THE DOT NET PRICE IS SET AT ESSENTIALLY THREE FIFTY AT THE REGISTRY PLUS 75 CENTS TO ICANN FOR ROUGHLY 18 MONTHS AND THEN THE PRICE IS OPEN.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER CHANGES THAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS FAR LESS AND THAT IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE ONE OF THE TOPICS IS LOOKING AT A PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING CHANGES TO GTLD AGREEMENTS. AND THERE'S CERTAINLY A PERCEPTION THAT IN SOME WAY, THERE'S AN OPT-OUT OF THAT PROCEDURE IN THE NEW AGREEMENT AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD PERHAPS GIVE A BIT OF AN EXPLANATION AS TO PERHAPS WHAT THE CHANGE MEANS, AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS BEHIND THE NEED FOR THE CHANGE, IF YOU COULD DO THAT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: SO SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES FUNNEL, WHICH IS THE PROVISION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE CONSENSUS POLICY RESTRICTION, THE -- THIS PARTICULAR CLAUSE WAS NEGOTIATED THIS WAY IN ORDER TO GIVE SOME CERTAINTY TO WHAT THAT FUNNEL WOULD LOOK LIKE AS OF THE TIME WE WERE IN NEGOTIATING IT.
ESSENTIALLY, THE OVERALL LAWSUIT BETWEEN THAT THIRD PARTY THAT WE WERE NEGOTIATING WITH, VERISIGN, AND OURSELVES WAS RELATING TO THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE ON THE REGISTRY SERVICES PROVISION FROM THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT.
IT WAS VERISIGN'S POSITION, AND WE AGREED, THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A MOVING PROVISION IN THIS PARTICULAR PART, AND SO WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE COUNCIL HAD DONE ON THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO THAT TIME AND DEVELOPED THAT PORTION OF IT INTO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CONSENSUS RESTRICTION SO THAT THERE WOULD BE CERTAINTY IN THE AGREEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED TO ME WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT A BIT FURTHER IS THAT THE CONSENSUS POLICY PRIMARILY APPLIES TO THE PROCEDURE THE STAFF WOULD BE USING TO APPROVE A CHANGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: YOU MEAN THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES PROVISION FUNNEL?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS I WAS A BIT SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO PUT A PROVISION IN THERE THAT RELATED TO ACTIONS THAT ICANN WOULD BE DOING, BECAUSE THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH, IF YOU LIKE, AN OPERATIONAL PROCESS OF ICANN, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE ICANN A POLICY FOR HOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT OPERATIONAL POLICY. AND I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU COULD HAVE LEFT THAT OUT OF THE AGREEMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT -- THAT -- WHETHER THEY HAVE A CHANGE APPROVED OR NOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: WE BELIEVE IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO ENTERING INTO A FAIR AGREEMENT WITH A PARTY THAT WE WERE IN LITIGATION ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROVISION WAS LOCKED DOWN AND ABLE TO REFLECT A NONMOVING POSITION. AND THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO ENTER INTO A FAIR AGREEMENT THAT REFLECTED THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO THAT POINT, BUT ALSO PROVIDED A SPECIFIC DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM FOR THE VERY THING THAT WAS THE DISPUTE. SO WE SAW IT AS LIMITING POTENTIAL RISK TO THE ORGANIZATION OVERALL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS FOR THAT. I WILL JUST TAKE A QUEUE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I'VE GOT PHILIP AND THEN MARILYN. ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT?
OKAY, GO AHEAD, PHILIP. IS THAT ONE DOWN AT THE END THERE? BRET.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN IN LITIGATION, THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER THAT FROM A HYPOTHETICAL STANDPOINT. I CAN ONLY ANSWER IT FROM THE NEGOTIATION WE WERE IN. CERTAINLY DIFFERENT PROVISIONS WE NEGOTIATED WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES HAVE DIFFERED. SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY IN THE ABSENCE OF LITIGATION EXACTLY HOW THE RESULT OF THE NEGOTIATION MIGHT HAVE GONE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BUT LIMITING THE APPLICATION CONSENSUS POLICY IN ANY OTHER CONTRACT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE HERE, WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE YOUR ACTION TO LITIGATION, OR IS THAT MISCONSTRUING IT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THIS WAS NOT ONLY A SPECIFIC CONCERN FROM VERISIGN BUT IT WAS A SPECIFIC CONCERN THAT RELATED TO THE VERISIGN AGREEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS -- AND IT MAY BE VIEWED AS A STATEMENT, JOHN, AND YOU MAY PREFER NOT TO ANSWER IT, BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN WORKING ON WHAT YOU REFERRED TO AS THE FUNNEL NOW FOR SOME TIME, AND THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN BORNE BY THE COUNCIL AND LARGELY BY OUR COUNCIL CHAIR, WHO HAS DONE A TERRIFIC AMOUNT OF WORK.
WE HAVE -- I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT I NEEDED TO ACCELERATE AND PRIORITIZE THE WORK ON THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IT BEFORE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS MIGHT HAVE BECOME UNDERWAY. SHOULD I PERHAPS LOOK BACK ON THAT, I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHY, SINCE THE ICANN STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSULT WITH US, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ENCOURAGED US TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT WORK. SO PERHAPS IT IS BETTER IF I LEAVE THAT AS A STATEMENT AND ASK MY QUESTION.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I'D BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO THAT FIRST, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR THE PDP WAS GENERATED BY STAFF IN 2003 AS A RESULT OF THE SITE FINDER DISPUTE THAT AROSE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO NEW REGISTRY SERVICES.
WE BELIEVE IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT AT THAT TIME AND DID NOT CEASE FROM BELIEVING IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THAT POLICY MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS QUICKLY.
IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING THAT PROCESS, WE DID NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DOT NET AGREEMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN END TO THAT AGREEMENT. AND WE WAITED A VERY LONG TIME BEFORE THAT NEGOTIATION DID OCCUR.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT GOING TO GET IN A TIT FOR TAT WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF ICANN, I HAVE TOO MUCH RESPECT FOR BOTH OF US, BUT I NOTE THAT I WAS NOT ADVISED AND DID NOT RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS AS A COUNCILLOR, AND WE DID PRIORITIZE OUR WORK AS WE -- BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE WERE NOT AWARE. CERTAINLY I UNDERSTAND WE ALL HAVE PRIORITIES AND LIMITATIONS ON OUR WORK, BUT I THINK THAT I PERSONALLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT I SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS THE TOP PRIORITY, AND I DEEPLY REGRET THAT.
I'LL GO ON NOW TO MY SECOND QUESTION.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THE CONSENSUS -- THE POLICY, THE FUNNEL THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THAT AS CONSENSUS POLICY, HOW DOES IT APPLY TO THIS AGREEMENT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I CAN CERTAINLY SAY I HAVEN'T READ THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITH THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT IN MIND IN THE LAST DAY.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS A RESTRICTION ON HOW THE CONSENSUS POLICY WOULD APPLY TO THAT PROVISION IN LIGHT OF THE NEED TO HAVE A CONCRETE FIXED POSITION FOR THE NEGOTIATION TO CONCLUDE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT IN THE QUEUE, WHICH IS BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT YOU SEE AS THE WAY FORWARD WITH THE OTHER REGISTRIES AND WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEM ON THE SAME BASIS, AND IN NOT, ARE THERE COMPETITIVE ISSUES AT PLAY, NAMELY, ARE WE PUTTING -- ARE WE PUTTING ONE REGISTRY AT A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER REGISTRIES?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THAT'S A WELL-CONSIDERED QUESTION, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON THE FLY TO IT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO CONSIDER THAT AND SUBMIT BACK TO THE COUNCIL A MORE FORMAL ANSWER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: A COMMENT FROM THE CHAIR.
I SUSPECT THAT THEN MEANS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT, OR CERTAINLY THE BOARD TO NEED TO CONSIDER THAT IN ANY POLICY THAT WE FINALIZE THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE TOO MUCH OF A COMPETITIVE DIFFERENCE.
THAT'S PROBABLY ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW, GIVEN THAT IF WE ACCEPT THE DOT NET AGREEMENT AS FACT, WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A RELATED FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF BRET WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE I ASK MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
SO IF I LOOK FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE AND I SEE THE UPCOMING RECOMPETE OF THE DOT COM BID, DO I SEE A PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED THAT I ASSUME IS A GIVEN?
OR IS THIS STILL AN OPEN DECISION?
ABOUT WHETHER CONSENSUS POLICY APPLIES IN THIS AREA.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: WELL, THERE ARE SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT COME FROM YOUR COMMENT THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON.
DOT COM IS NOT PRESUMED TO BE A REBID.
IT'S PRESUMED TO BE A RENEWAL BASED UPON THE WAY IT WAS PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED.
IN TERMS OF NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT AROUND DOT COM, CERTAINLY THE FUNNEL WOULD BE RELEVANT.
AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS MOMENT TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT THAT FUNNEL WOULD LOOK LIKE OR -- WITHOUT HAVING A CONSENSUS POLICY DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA YET, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE BINDING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST ON THE RENEWAL SIDE FOR DOT NET, TOO, JOHN, I WAS A BIT UNCLEAR ABOUT SOME OF THE PROVISIONS FOR RENEWAL, BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME -- FIRSTLY, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCESS FOR REGISTRY SERVICES, THERE WAS, WHAT, A THREE-YEAR PROVISION AT THAT POINT, THAT WHAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT CURRENTLY STAYS LOCKED FOR THREE YEARS; WAS THAT RIGHT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I'M SORRY.
I'D HAVE TO REVIEW THAT TO BE SURE.
>>MARILYN CADE: THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF SECURITY AND STABILITY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND THEN THE ISSUE WAS, THERE WERE SOME THINGS IN THE RENEWAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT RELATED TO ALSO THINGS THAT COULDN'T CHANGE.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A PERCEPTION THAT EVEN IF THE CONTRACT WAS RENEWED, THE -- I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY THE DOT NET AGREEMENT -- THERE WAS STILL SOME, IF YOU LIKE, GRANDFATHERING IN OF THAT PROTECTION IN THE SENSE THAT THE PROCESS COULDN'T CHANGE OR SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS COULDN'T CHANGE.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THERE WAS A PROVISION RELATING TO THE RENEWAL PROVISION THAT HAD CERTAIN CLAUSES THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.
I DO NOT RECALL WITHOUT HAVING THE AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF ME EXACTLY WHICH ONES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU WANT TO READ THEM, DID YOU SAY?
>>MARILYN CADE: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF YOU'VE GOT THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'VE GOT A SCREEN WE CAN PUT IT UP ON.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT FOR ME, GLEN OR MARIA?
JUST PUTTING UP THE AGREEMENT ON THE SCREEN AND --
>>MARILYN CADE: IF YOU'LL GO TO THE AGREEMENT, I'M READING FROM WHAT I THINK IS PAGE 4 OF THE FINAL REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I CLIPPED IT SOME TIME AGO, SO I BELIEVE IT'S 4 -- SORRY, 5.
IT'S PAGE 4, V, SMALL ROMAN V.
IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER LIMITATIONS ON CONSENSUS POLICIES, THEY SHALL NOT, A, PRESCRIBE OR LIMIT THE PRICE OF REGISTRY SERVICES, COLON -- SORRY, SEMICOLON, B, MODIFY THE STANDARDS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES, INCLUDING THE DEFINITIONS OF SECURITY AND STABILITY SET FORTH BELOW AND THE STANDARDS APPLIED BY ICANN.
C, FOR THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE, MODIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES.
D, MODIFY THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS FOR THE RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL MORE.
HOPEFULLY, WE FOUND IT BY NOW.
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I JUST HAD IN MY E-MAIL THAT I HAD PULLED OUT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE READING FROM THE AGREEMENT, I THINK THE AGREEMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO WE'RE JUST ACCEPTING THAT AS STATEMENT, THAT -- BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER CONCERNS, I GUESS, IS THAT YOU NOT ONLY HAVE PUT IN SOMETHING FOR THE CURRENT AGREEMENT, BUT WHEN THE AGREEMENT IS RENEGOTIATED, YOU'VE LIMITED -- BECAUSE THAT, AGAIN, SOUNDS VERY STRANGE -- SEEMS VERY STRANGE TO US.
BECAUSE SURELY YOU'RE SAYING THE REASON WHY SOMEONE IS SIGNING A CONTRACT FOR SIX YEARS NEEDED TO HAVE THAT PROVISION PUT IN WAS 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THE PROCESS.
BUT I HOPE YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT WE WERE GOING TO FINISH SOMETIME IN THE NEXT SIX YEARS, IN WHICH CASE, WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS RENEWED, AND THEREFORE RE-SIGNED, THE CONTRACTING PARTY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO ACCEPT THOSE NEW CONDITIONS OR NOT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THE RENEWAL PROVISION ITSELF WAS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE RFP BID.
THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS THAT WERE PUT AROUND IT WERE RELATED TO THE NEGOTIATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY TO THE NEGOTIATION AND THE RESULTING SETTLEMENT, OR THE RESULTING AGREEMENT, RATHER.
NO SETTLEMENT.
SORRY FOR MY MISSTATEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO IT'S A SETTLEMENT FOR IN PERPETUITY, EFFECTIVELY?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THAT ISN'T THE WAY I READ THE LANGUAGE JUST NOW.
CERTAINLY I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT LANGUAGE.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE UNWISE OF ME TO OPENLY INTERPRET THAT LANGUAGE AT THIS POINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: FAIR ENOUGH.
BRET.
>>BRET FAUSETT: JOHN, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE HERE DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM, BUT WE HAD AN OPEN MIKE SESSION.
AND BECKY BURR SAID IT WAS HER OPINION THAT THE CONSENSUS POLICY LANGUAGE IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN CLARIFYING ONLY AND WAS -- REACHED THE -- HAD THE SAME EFFECT AS THE LANGUAGE IN COM, INFO, BIZ, OTHER GTLD REGISTRY CONTRACTS.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I THINK THAT THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT.
BUT, AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS INTERPRETING PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT I'VE JUST SIGNED.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNWISE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE CHALLENGE THAT, I SUPPOSE, COMES BACK TO OUR PROCESS QUESTION, THAT NOW THAT IT IS SIGNED, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH.
BUT I GUESS WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY THAT DON'T HAVE THOSE PROVISIONS IN THEIR AGREEMENT AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF WHATEVER WE MIGHT DECIDE, HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THEM.
SO THAT DOES HELP CLARIFY THAT FOR US.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE NEXT SORT OF TOPIC -- AND, AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO GET A BIT OF INPUT FROM YOU, JOHN -- WITH RESPECT TO WHOIS -- AND WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THERE WAS THE ISSUE THAT PERHAPS THE WORDING OF THE CURRENT REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT THAT HAS PROVISIONS THAT REGISTRARS MUST INCLUDE IN THEIR REGISTRATION AGREEMENTS, INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF DATA, AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, AND WE WERE CONSIDERING HAVING A RECOMMENDATION THAT SAID THAT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO WHOIS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED SUCH THAT THEY ARE CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS.
WE HAD A QUESTION, IS THAT APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, OR COULD YOU ADVISE US ON, GIVEN THE INTENT IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE HAVE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE OFTEN VERY LONG, THERE MAY BE SOME BENEFIT IN MAKING THE BIT THAT RELATES TO USE OF DATA MORE CLEAR IN THOSE AGREEMENTS, AND SO WE HAVE, IF YOU LIKE, A POLICY INTENT THAT THAT INFORMATION BE CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS.
AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEEK SOME ADVICE ON HOW YOU WOULD HANDLE THAT WITHIN THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I THINK CERTAINLY THAT ADVICE WOULD BE HEEDED AND WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN TERMS OF THAT, AND CERTAINLY ANY POLICY ADVICE COMING FROM THE GNSO WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND UTILIZED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE MY QUESTION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS IS WHAT -- FOR THE STAFF TO IMPLEMENT CONSENSUS POLICY WITHIN, SAY, UPDATING THE REGISTRATION AGREEMENT, THE VIEW THAT THE OPERATION STAFF GAVE ME WAS THAT IT WAS VERY HELPFUL IF THE ACTUAL LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT WILL BE GOING INTO THE NEW REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF OUR POLICY RECOMMENDATION.
SO WHAT I'M SEEKING IS, I GUESS, ADVICE ON HOW TO GET TO THAT NEXT STEP.
AND PERHAPS I'M PUTTING IT ON THE TABLE AS A REQUEST TO YOU, GIVEN THE CURRENT DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, PERHAPS THE COUNCIL OR, YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL STAFF OF ICANN COULD PRODUCE WHAT THE PROPOSED TEXT WOULD BE FOR THE RAI SO THAT WE COULD APPROVE THAT AS A SET.
BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS TO HAVE THE INSTANCE THAT HAPPENED WITH THE TRANSFERS POLICY WHERE THERE WAS A VERY LONG CHANGE -- TIME BETWEEN WHEN THE POLICY WAS SIGNED OFF AND WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAD EFFECTIVELY THE LEGAL TEXT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSFERS POLICY, AS AN EXAMPLE, IT IS CERTAINLY USEFUL TO HAVE A CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT OR IN WHAT WAYS THE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE ALTERED OR AMENDED.
SO CERTAINLY IN THAT REGARD, LANGUAGE WOULD BE USEFUL AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COUNCIL IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
I THINK AN IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THESE ARE AGREEMENTS THAT WILL BE SIGNED BY REGISTRARS, SO ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE THAT INPUT AND THAT THAT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING.
AS WE'VE HEARD FROM THE REGISTRARS, THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT LIKE, AND NOR SHOULD THEY, HAVING PROVISIONS IMPOSED ON THEM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JOHN.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
AND YOU CAN BE SURE THAT WE WILL BE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN THE BYLAWS WITHIN THE COUNCIL.
AND PART OF THAT IS THAT WE WOULD NEED THE CONSTITUENCY TO REVIEW THE FINAL TEXT OF THE POLICY RECOMMENDATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING ON THAT RECOMMENDATION TODAY, BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATION WILL BE FOR OUR AGREEMENTS.
AND SO WHAT I'M SEEKING FOR IS ASSISTANCE FROM THE ICANN STAFF TO HELP DRAFT WHAT THAT LEGAL LANGUAGE COULD BE.
AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO COMMENT BY THE REGISTRARS, AS IT WOULD BE FOR EVERYONE ELSE HERE, BEFORE WE WOULD APPROVE THE POLICY.
GO AHEAD, ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, BRUCE, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO ASK JOHN A QUESTION ABOUT THE LAST SUBJECT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE DOT NET SUBJECT?
>>ROSS RADER: YES.
WE CAN EITHER NOT DO IT OR DO IT LATER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST HOLD OFF ON THAT.
BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE COUNCIL JUST AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE WHOIS THING --
>>ROSS RADER: THAT'S FINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BECAUSE I GUESS I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE COUNCIL THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE WE HAVE JOHN HERE ON THE TOPIC OF THAT NOTICE AND CONSENT PROVISION.
IF ANYONE WANTS TO COMMENT FURTHER ON THAT.
SO I GUESS WHAT -- PERHAPS AS A RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNCIL AT THIS POINT, JOHN, IF WE CAN ASK THE LEGAL TEAM OF ICANN TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATION IN ITS CURRENT DRAFT FORM.
AND I THINK THERE'S -- I'LL DO ANOTHER UPDATE BASED ON INPUT I'VE RECEIVED IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE.
BUT IF I CAN JUST PUT A REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THAT AND PERHAPS PROVIDE A DRAFT OF WHAT THE TEXT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS A RESULT OF THAT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: CERTAINLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
OKAY, ROSS, GO AHEAD ON THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.
>>ROSS RADER: I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO LET THIS QUESTION SIT.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT ASKING IT AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME.
BUT, JOHN, YOU MENTIONED THE KEY WORDS "DUE PROCESS."
AND WITHIN THE ICANN -- THE ICANN BYLAWS, ACCORDING TO MY INTERPRETATION OF THEM, THERE'S A DUE PROCESS SPECIFIED THAT REQUIRES THAT THE STAFF, THE COUNCIL, THE BOARD, THE INTERNET CORPORATION ITSELF ADVOCATE THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS, WERE THESE NEGOTIATIONS CONDUCTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THOSE BYLAWS?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: BRUCE, MAY I ASK A QUESTION?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, LUCY.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: THIS IS A RATHER SIMPLE QUESTION, BUT I THINK YOUR RESPONSE IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I ASK FOR YOU TO GIVE -- NOT TO GIVE A "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER, IF YOU CAN.
AND THAT'S, DO YOU APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO THE DOT NET CONTRACT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I HATE TO SAY "YES," BUT, YES, AS A STARTING POINT, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE CONCERN.
AND WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING VERY CLOSELY TO THE MESSAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO US.
IF WE HAD OUR DRUTHERS, WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE PRODUCED THIS INTO A PUBLIC PROCESS AND HAD MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT.
THAT SAID, I BELIEVE THAT WE DID WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO AND HAD TO DO IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE IN ORDER TO CONCLUDE AN AGREEMENT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED UNDER THE CURRENT PROVISIONS OF DOT NET, THE OLD AGREEMENT.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP.
AND SO ANYTIME DURING THAT NEGOTIATION PROCESS, DID YOU SUSPECT THAT YOU MIGHT GET THIS KIND OF REACTION OR HAS THIS COME AS A TOTAL SURPRISE?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I CERTAINLY SUSPECTED THAT THERE WOULD BE CRITICISM OF AN ICANN STAFF ACTION OR AN ICANN BOARD ACTION.
THAT TENDS TO HAPPEN WITH MOST DECISIONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK I WOULD, LUCY, JUST I'LL MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS.
BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CONCERNED THE REGISTRARS' CONSTITUENCY, AND I CAN ACCEPT THAT JOHN WAS NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF ICANN, THE ORGANIZATION.
BUT I DO FEEL THERE WAS A FAILURE OF GOVERNANCE, BECAUSE IF I WAS A BOARD DIRECTOR AND I SAW CHANGING TO PRICING, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE REFERRED TO THOSE THAT WERE AFFECTED.
AND THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT A LEGAL ISSUE; THAT'S A JUDGMENT CALL THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
NOW, WAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC?
OKAY.
THE THIRD AREA, AND THE REASON WHY I GUESS I'M LOADING UP THESE QUESTIONS, JOHN, IS IT'S A BIT OF A BACKLOG OF QUESTIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK YOUR ADVICE.
THE THIRD AREA IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR OR THE FUNNEL, AS YOU CALL IT, THERE WERE A FEW SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT FUNNEL IN THE REGISTRARS' MEETING YESTERDAY.
AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WAS RAISED BY A MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUENCY WAS THAT FOR REGISTRARS, AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IS WHAT CHANGES COULD HAPPEN IN A REGISTRY AGREEMENT THAT COULD IMPACT THE COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRAR INDUSTRY.
AND IN THE CURRENT PROCESS, THE -- IF ICANN BELIEVES THERE MAY BE A COMPETITION ISSUE, ICANN WILL NOTIFY I GUESS A COMPETITION REGULATOR WITH THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION.
THE QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED YESTERDAY WAS THAT MANY -- IN MANY JURISDICTIONS, SOME OF THESE REGULATORS CAN BE VERY SLOW TO ACT.
AND THE CONCERN FROM THE REGISTRARS WAS THAT IF THEY WERE VERY SLOW TO ACT AND THE DIS- -- THE POINT THAT WAS MENTIONED YESTERDAY WAS SEVERAL YEARS, BY THAT STAGE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE COULD BE DONE TO COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRAR INDUSTRY.
SO I JUST WONDER IF YOU COULD COMMENT.
THE ACTUAL QUESTION WAS -- THAT WAS RAISED YESTERDAY WAS, HAS ICANN SPOKEN TO ANY OF THESE POTENTIAL REGULATORS AND DOES ICANN HAVE A DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER TO A CONCERN RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE REGISTRAR INDUSTRY.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: YES, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
WE HAVE VERY SKILLED ANTITRUST COUNSEL THAT WE CONSULTED ON THIS AREA.
AND THIS COUNSEL MET WITH AND DISCUSSED WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION AND, I BELIEVE, WITH THE FTC EXACTLY WHETHER THESE TYPES OF THINGS COULD BE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY IN THE APPROPRIATE FORM OF A LETTER WHERE WE MIGHT PRESENT AN ISSUE IF IT AROSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, JOHN.
AND WHO IS THIS OUTSIDE COUNSEL?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: JOE SIMS OF JONES DAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF JOE HIMSELF SPOKE, BUT CERTAINLY JONES DAY IN REPRESENTING US SPOKE WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT TOPIC?
ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAD BEEN RAISED ON THE REGISTRAR LIST WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESS WAS, I GUESS, PARTLY A CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE EXPERTS WOULD BE CHOSEN, BECAUSE THEY SORT OF -- THERE WAS A SENSE THAT THE PROCESS LOOKED ALL RIGHT AT THE HIGH LEVEL.
BUT IF THE PERSON THAT WAS CHOSEN AS AN EXPERT WASN'T AN EXPERT, THEN THE PROCESS WOULD FAIL.
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, REALLY, IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A BIT OF INFORMATION ON HOW EXPERTS WOULD BE SELECTED ON THE STANDING PANEL FOR SECURITY AND HOW YOU WOULD SELECT EXPERTS AT THE TIME THAT YOU'RE MAKING YOUR INITIAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO JUST IMMEDIATELY, EFFECTIVELY, USE THE FAST-TRACK PROCESS OR WHETHER TO SEND IT OFF FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THAT IS PRIMARILY AN OPERATIONAL QUESTION ABOUT HOW THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF THINKING GOING ON ABOUT THAT AT THIS POINT.
THE CHAIR OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED, NOR HAS THE -- THE COMPONENT MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE MIGHT BE CONSULTED, OR ANOTHER EXPERT, IF IT WERE APPROPRIATE.
BUT I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR ANSWER AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD OPERATIONAL QUESTION, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH MORE FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT IN A FUTURE MEETING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WOULD THE MEMBERS OF THE STANDING PANEL BE A PUBLIC LIST OF MEMBERS?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
IT'S NOT -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT SPECIFIES IN THE AGREEMENT.
I ASSUME THAT IT WOULD BE PUBLIC.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD.
>>MARILYN CADE: I NOTICED, I WAS ACTUALLY SORT OF SURPRISED WHEN I SAW THIS THAT WE HADN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE DIALOGUE.
BUT I NOTICED THAT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED TO THE STANDING PANEL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE A STANDING PANEL.
AND YET I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT -- I'M HOPING THAT WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE STANDING BY AND BEING PAID ON RETAINER TO STAND BY.
THAT SOUNDS -- IF THAT IS THE CASE, I'D REALLY LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO PARTICIPATE NEUTRALLY AND TO HAVE TRAVEL COST FUNDED.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: KURT PRITZ COULD CERTAINLY SPEAK MORE TO THE DETAILS OF THE BUDGET IN THAT AREA.
BUT LET ME SAY THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE GOING INTO THE BEGINNING OF A PROCESS LIKE THAT IS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THINGS ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH THAT FUNNEL.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PROJECT AND BUDGET AT THIS POINT.
WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE MORE CLARITY AROUND IT AS THE MONTHS GO BY.
IN TERMS OF THE WORD "STANDING," I THINK WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS WE HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT CAN ALWAYS BE REACHED OUT TO AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO SELECT THEM AND TAKE TIME TO DO THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: JOHN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS OFTEN NOT ONLY USEFUL, BUT VERY IMPORTANT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE NEUTRALITY TO HAVE A PANEL THAT IS PAID FOR A TASK.
AND THEREFORE, YOU CAN ASSURE, BECAUSE OF THEIR CONTRACT, THAT THEY ARE BOUND BY NEUTRALITY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU LIKE, THE BUDGET ALLOCATION IS $650,000.
SO IT'S QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
BUT AS JOHN HAS POINTED OUT, I GUESS THE DIFFICULTY IS KNOWING HOW MANY REQUESTS WILL COME THROUGH.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'D CERTAINLY HOPED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THAT'S GETTING SPENT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME SO WE KNOW WHETHER THERE'S STILL MONEY LEFT.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: WE'D CERTAINLY MUCH RATHER SPEND THAT MONEY ON THE STANDING PANEL THAN ON LITIGATION RELATING TO THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S A FINE POINT.
KURT, YOU'VE JUST JOINTED -- YOU'VE JUST STOOD UP.
WERE YOU HERE FOR THE REST OF THE EARLIER PART OF THAT DISCUSSION?
>>KURT PRITZ: I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE METHODOLOGY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THAT MUCH MONEY FOR THE STANDING PANEL WAS A COMBINATION OF A SMALL STIPEND AND THEN SOME EXPECTED LEVEL OF ACTIVITY.
AND THE IDEA, OF COURSE, IS TO DO THINGS IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND THEREFORE PAYING THEM, BUT ALSO HAVING A COMMITMENT FROM THEM THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DEVOTE MORE OR LESS FULL TIME TO IT IN A SHORT-ORDER BASIS IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE FEE PAYMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK JUST -- KURT, I WOULD COMMENT, AS JOHN POINTED OUT CORRECTLY, I GUESS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE EXPERT PANEL, ET CETERA, IS ESSENTIALLY AN OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT.
ARE YOU ABLE TO JUST SHED A BIT OF LIGHT ON YOUR THOUGHTS SO FAR ON HOW THE PANEL WOULD BE APPOINTED AND IF THERE'S GOING TO BE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY BOTH TO PERHAPS REVIEW THE LIST AND MAYBE GIVE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS ANY STREAM CONCERN ABOUT SOME MEMBERS?
>>KURT PRITZ: WELL, IT'S INTENDED THAT THE CHAIR WILL BE APPOINTED JOINTLY BY ICANN AND THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY IN A COLLABORATIVE MANNER.
AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL SELECT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
AND THAT THAT LIST WILL BE POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND VETTING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: SO THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY WILL SELECT THE CHAIR, WHO WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE?
>>KURT PRITZ: THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY AND ICANN JOINTLY WILL SELECT THE CHAIR, WILL AGREE ON A CHAIR.
>>ROSS RADER: AND THE REST OF THE IMPACTED STAKEHOLDERS WILL HAVE WHAT INPUT?
>>KURT PRITZ: THERE WILL BE -- THOSE NAMES WILL BE PUBLICLY POSTED FOR REVIEW AND IT'LL BE A VETTING PROCESS.
>>ROSS RADER: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THAT GIVES ME PAUSE.
AND I WONDER IF IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO INCLUDE SOME KIND OF REPRESENTATION FROM THE COUNCIL, JUST AS WHEN WE DO IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEES FOR CONSENSUS POLICY, WE VERY OFTEN BUILD THE PRIMARY COMMITTEE FROM THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS.
BUT WE ALWAYS INCLUDE REPRESENTATION FROM THE USER COMMUNITY.
AND IT'S TYPICALLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO TAKE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES SERIOUSLY.
BUT IT DOES PROVIDE SOME BALANCE FROM THE REST OF THE AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WILL BE RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS" BY GRANT BUT IS JUST PERHAPS THINKING ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS OF SOME CRITICAL POSITIONS.
AND I THINK THE CHAIR OF THE STANDING PANEL WOULD BE VIEWED DEFINITELY BY THE REGISTRARS AND MAYBE BY OTHERS AS A CRITICAL POSITION.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S SOME FORM OF VETO.
BUT IT'S BASICALLY SAYING THAT THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES PROCESS?
I THINK I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS.
IT HAS ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF FORMAL STAGES.
WE ARE AT FINAL REPORT FORM.
SO, TECHNICALLY, WE CAN VOTE ON IT AT ANY TIME FROM NOW.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT TODAY IS, FIRSTLY, I THINK WE NEEDED TO PAUSE AND REFLECT ON THE IMPLICATIONS FROM THE RECENT CHANGES WITH THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
AND ALSO JUST TO REFLECT THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S BEEN HELPFUL FOR JOB TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD THERE.
BUT I JUST ENCOURAGE COUNCILLORS TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE PROCESS ONCE AGAIN, AND PARTICULARLY MAYBE WE WANT TO PUT A BIT OF INPUT ON SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES WHICH COULD BE, AS EXAMPLE, REQUESTING AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME INPUT ON THE SELECTION OF THE CHAIR ESPECIALLY, AND MAYBE EVEN SOME INPUT WORKING WITH THE CHAIR ON APPOINTMENTS OF OTHER MEMBERS.
YES, ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: THIS IS MY STUPID QUESTION OF THE DAY.
JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR AS TO THE STATUS OF THIS PROCESS PROPOSAL AS IT RELATES TO THAT FOUND IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT, THE DOT NET AGREEMENT WILL -- OR DOES INCLUDE A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THE EVALUATION OF REGISTRY SERVICES.
AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO WITH THIS ONE, IT WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THAT ONE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: I THINK TO SAY "IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING" IS PROBABLY AN OVERSTATEMENT.
CERTAINLY, THE STANDING PANEL AND HOW THAT'S CONSTRUCTED AND MANY OF THE THINGS RELATING TO THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE WILL BE AFFECTED BY IT IN TERMS OF REPLACING THE DECISION WITH THE CONSENSUS POLICY, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO I GUESS WHAT -- MAYBE I JUST GIVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION, PERHAPS DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, ROSS.
I THINK WHAT THAT'S SAYING IS THAT AS LONG AS WHAT WE -- WHAT CHANGES WE MAKE ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE AGREEMENT SAYS A STANDING PANEL NEEDS TO BE APPOINTED AND THAT REGISTRIES, ESSENTIALLY, HAVE A POWER OF VETO, IF WE ADDED A PROVISION ON THE ICANN STAFF THAT THEY NEEDED TO CONSULT AND THERE WAS A METHOD OF CONSULTATION, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S IN ADDITION BUT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE PROVISION IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
>>JOHN JEFFREY: WELL, CERTAINLY AS YOU LOOK AT THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE, THE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE IS SELECTED BY THE REGISTRY AND ICANN.
AND CERTAINLY ICANN IS ALL OF US.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
I LIKE THAT ANSWER.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERUSE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
ARE WE ASSUMING THAT THE PROCESS THAT IS BEING DEFINED HERE AND BEING DISCUSSED IS CLEARLY OUTLINED IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW THE PANEL IS SELECTED AND SO FORTH?
AND IF SO, ARE WE THEN PROPOSING A PROCESS THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED AND ASKING, THEN, THAT THAT PROCESS BE IMPOSED ON THE OTHER REGISTRIES?
IF SO, THEN I WOULD EXPRESS A LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT PARITY AND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT NOW, THE THINGS ARE CONSISTENT, KEN.
AND IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGES FROM NOW, THEY MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT.
BUT ROSS IS JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, IF CHANGES WERE MADE, WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT ARE.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE CONSISTENT.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT?
OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JOHN AT ALL?
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE, JOHN.
>>JOHN JEFFREY: THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO I GUESS THE ISSUE IS ON BOTH ITEM 3 AND ITEM 4.
ITEM 3 IS WHOIS.
WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO IS REDRAFT THAT -- THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO THE FEEDBACK I'VE RECEIVED SO FAR.
AND THEN I'LL ASK THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROPOSE LEGAL TEXT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT POLICY.
WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 3, I THINK THE SENSE OF THE MEETING IS PROBABLY THAT WE PERHAPS PROVIDE THE STAFF A BIT MORE GUIDANCE AND INCLUDE IT IN THE POLICY JUST REGARDING THE SELECTION OF SOME OF THESE CRITICAL POSITIONS AND THE NEED FOR THE ICANN HALF OF THAT AGREEMENT TO BE ICANN INCLUDING REPRESENTATION FROM THE GNSO ESPECIALLY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ITEMS 3 OR 4 OF THE AGENDA, BEING WHOIS AND REGISTRY SERVICES?
GO AHEAD, NIKLAS.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: JUST ONE GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION.
I UNDERSTAND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE DO A REDRAFTING ON THE E-MAILING LIST BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.
BUT CAN I STILL MAKE JUST A GENERAL COMMENT?
BECAUSE I FEEL THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS MISSING IN THE RECOMMENDATION AS IT STANDS NOW.
I MEAN, THIS RECOMMENDATION, DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, RELATES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE NOTIFICATION TO REGISTERED NAME HOLDERS OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO CONTACT DATA VIA THE WHOIS SERVICE.
AND IN THIS CONTEXT, I FEEL THAT ONE THING THAT IS MISSING IS A REFERENCE IN THIS RECOMMENDATION TO ONE SPECIFIC CLAUSE OF THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT, WHICH IS, IF MEMORY SERVES, CLAUSE 3.7.7.5, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT SAYS -- THAT REQUIRES REGISTRARS TO OBTAIN CONSENT FROM REGISTRANTS FOR THE USE -- FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THEIR WHOIS DATA.
AND I READ THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN YOU QUOTE THAT ONE FOR ME?
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN A RECOMMENDATION THAT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT.
CAN YOU READ IT OUT FOR ME?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: WELL, I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS MISSING IN THE REFERENCE, A REFERENCE TO CLAUSE 3.7.7.5 ON THE OBLIGATION OF REGISTRARS TO OBTAIN CONSENT.
>>MARILYN CADE: IF I MIGHT, NIKLAS, YOU MEAN IT'S THE EMBEDDING THAT PARTICULAR LINK BACK TO THAT REQUIREMENT, YES?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I THINK THAT REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO MAKE SURE I ABSOLUTELY GET THAT RIGHT, IT'S 3.7.7.5?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: THAT'S RIGHT.
>> IF YOU WANT, I CAN PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
WE'LL DO THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
TOM.
>>THOMAS KELLER: WELL, SINCE WE'RE WORKING ON THAT PAPER, SINCE OUR RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN PUT OUT BY THE TASK FORCE, I THINK IT'S QUITE UNDUE TO MAKE SUCH SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO IT.
BECAUSE IF MY MEMORY SERVES RIGHT, THE TASK FORCE HAD A LONG DEBATE ABOUT EXACTLY THIS POINT OF WHAT HE JUST POINTED OUT.
AND WE DECIDED NOT TO PUT IT INTO OUR RECOMMENDATION.
IT WOULD BE NOT WORTHWHILE FOR THE COUNCIL, I GUESS, TO JUST IGNORE THAT WITHOUT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THIS IS JUST A REFERENCE TO WHAT EXISTS.
SO IT'S JUST FACTUAL.
>>MARILYN CADE: THAT'S RIGHT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING A CHANGE.
WE'RE JUST POINTING OUT A REFERENCE TO WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT, YEAH.
ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: I HAD A PROLONGED NEGOTIATION FOR AN EMPTY WATER GLASS WITH THE BARTENDER OUT THERE.
SO I DID MISS WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS.
WOULD SOMEBODY MIND RESTATING, JUST FOR MY BENEFIT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE -- WHAT I HAD PROPOSED TO DO, ROSS, IS JUST REDRAFT THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK THAT'S BEEN RECEIVED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND TASK FORCE IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO.
AND I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DO THAT.
BUT I'VE ALSO -- I'M ALSO GOING TO BE ASKING THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO DRAFT THE CORRESPONDING LEGAL TEXT THAT WOULD GO WITH THAT, THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY GO IN THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT, SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, NATURALLY, SEEK FEEDBACK FROM THE REGISTRANTS ON THAT CHANGE.
NIKLAS HAD SUGGESTED THAT THE CURRENT TEXT REFERS TO A FEW CLAUSES THAT EXIST, AND HE'S JUST POINTED OUT A CLAUSE THAT IS -- SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THAT LIST, EFFECTIVELY, AND SAID IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION, IT JUST INCLUDES MORE INFORMATION.
OKAY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT?
OKAY.
THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 5.
AND THIS IS REALLY JUST, I SUPPOSE, PARTLY FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN A FEW VIEWS ON THE COUNCIL LIST.
GIVEN THE HISTORY OF WHOIS TASK FORCES, WE, ESSENTIALLY, HAVE A COMBINED TASK FORCE AND THERE ARE THREE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH CONSTITUENCY ON THIS TASK FORCE.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE REPRESENTATIVES, MANY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES ALSO HAD SOME, IF YOU LIKE, ALTERNATE CANDIDATES OR PEOPLE THAT COULD STAND IN IF THE ELECTED REP WASN'T AVAILABLE.
SO OVERALL, IT'S QUITE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE.
WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCE THAT DO REQUIRE SOME VOTE OR SOME MEASURE OF THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT, I THINK IT WOULD ASSIST THE COUNCIL OR THE WHOIS TASK FORCE CHAIR IF THERE WAS CLARIFICATION ON JUST HOW VOTING SHOULD WORK WITHIN THE TASK FORCE.
THE WAY WE'VE TRADITIONALLY DONE VOTING IN TASK FORCES IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THERE IS ONE VOTE PER CONSTITUENCY.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE HAD BEEN SUGGESTIONS THAT IF THAT IS APPLIED IN THIS CASE AND WE ALREADY HAVE THREE REPS PER CONSTITUENCY, THAT EACH BELIEVE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE, THEN THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME VOTE AMONGST THEMSELVES AS TO WHICH OF THE THREE WAS HOLDING THE VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUENCY.
AND THE REALITY IS THAT THEN MOVES INTO CONSTITUENCY PROCEDURES, WHICH CAN BE QUITE CUMBERSOME FOR ELECTIONS AND CHANGES TO ELECTIONS.
SO I GUESS THERE'S THE COUNCIL PRINCIPLE, IF YOU LIKE, THAT WE HAVE ONE VOTE PER CONSTITUENCY, AND THEN THERE'S THE ISSUE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE WHETHER WE WANT TO MAKE A SPECIAL RULING THAT WE EFFECTIVELY GRANDFATHER IN THE PRACTICE OF THE PREVIOUS TASK FORCES BY ALLOWING THREE VOTES PER CONSTITUENCY.
SO I'M REALLY OPENING IT UP BECAUSE I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COUNCIL VIEW IS.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
AND TONY HARRIS WHO WAS THE CO-CHAIR, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST SPEAK ON THIS.
OTHER PEOPLE WERE ALSO ON THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE WHERE WE ALSO HAD MULTIPLE MEMBERS.
AND JUST EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE ARE DOING -- AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE JORDYN HERE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE ARE DOING, IT IS, I THINK, EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MORE THAN ONE MEMBER.
YET NOT EVERY CONSTITUENCY OR THE ALAC, PERHAPS, WOULD FEEL THAT THEY COULD DEDICATE THREE PEOPLE FULL TIME TO THIS PROCESS.
ONE CONSTITUENCY MIGHT PREFER TO ONLY HAVE TWO PEOPLE; ANOTHER MIGHT PREFER TO HAVE THREE.
I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
AND SO WE PROBABLY CAN DO SOMETHING UNIQUE TO THIS AND THEN GO BACK TO AN ASSUMPTION THAT EACH CONSTITUENCY HAS ONE VOTE IN THE FUTURE, WITH THE ABILITY, THEN, FOR THE CONSTITUENCIES TO DEAL WITH THEIR OWN VOTING RULES IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TASK FORCE.
I WOULD PREFER -- WE COULD DO IT ONE TWO OF WAYS, TO ME.
EITHER EACH CONSTITUENCY HAS ONE VOTE AND THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO CAST IT, OR WE COULD GIVE THEM EACH THREE VOTES, WHETHER IT'S TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE OR THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE.
IN THE END, IT COMES OUT THE SAME.
>>KEN STUBBS: EXCUSE ME.
YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.
AND AS REGARDLESS OF THE PROCESS THAT'S EVENTUALLY USED, I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THE CONSTITUENCIES -- THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL ARE, AS SUCH, JUST THAT, RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT ANY VOTE THAT IS TAKEN, A CLEAR DESCRIPTIVE OF THE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS USED FOR THAT VOTE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO USE A DIFFERENT VOTING METHOD ONE TIME VERSUS ANOTHER, THEN LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT CLEAR IN THERE SO WE DON'T -- YOU KNOW, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
SO, BASICALLY, THERE IS A FORMAL REQUIREMENT WHEN THE TASK FORCE PROVIDES A FINAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL THAT IT INCLUDE INFORMATION ON VOTING.
AND I THINK, KEN, YOU'RE RIGHT, WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE AS A PREFACE BEFORE THAT IS -- BECAUSE OTHERWISE THINGS GET LOST IN THE MINUTES OF A COUNCIL MEETING A YEAR AGO, AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY FLOW INTO THE REPORT.
SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATION.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH THAT.
CURRENT PRACTICE IS THAT IF A CONSTITUENCY IS NOT ON A CALL AND THERE'S A VOTE, THAT CONSTITUENCY SIMPLY DOESN'T VOTE.
THAT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK YOU NEED TO SEPARATE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SAY IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE FROM -- AND WE FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE PROCEDURAL VOTES, AND WE PROBABLY HAVE ONE TODAY WHERE WE MIGHT PASS A RESOLUTION OR SOMETHING.
THAT IS BASICALLY THE PEOPLE HERE.
WHEN WE'VE -- AND THIS IS ACTUALLY -- I DON'T THINK IT'S A REQUIREMENT.
BUT I GUESS IF IT'S -- IT'S LIKE BEST PRACTICE.
IF IT IS A POLICY-RELATED ISSUE, WE GENERALLY -- YOU KNOW, GLEN WILL GENERALLY TRY AND COLLECT THE FULL SET OF VOTES IN THAT REPORT.
AND WE CERTAINLY DO THAT AT THE COUNCIL.
AND I THINK WE DO THAT AT THE TASK FORCE AS WELL.
THIS IS BEFORE A REPORT WOULD BE --
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SO THAT WOULD BE SOLICITED BY E-MAIL OR WHATEVER?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AS PER OUR VOTING PROCEDURES, BASICALLY, YEAH.
SO I JUST WANT TO SEPARATE SO WE DON'T BOG DOWN PROCEDURAL THINGS LIKE WHO WANTS TO VOTE ABOUT WHAT TIME THE NEXT MEETING IS AND THEN WE HAVE A FOUR-DAY PROCESS TO VOTE ON THAT.
THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.
BUT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING CONSENSUS POLICY, WE DO NEED TO BE MUCH MORE FORMAL.
ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM -- TO ONE OF THESE TASK FORCES -- OR TO THIS TASK FORCE, ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THIS TASK FORCE FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, I WOULD NOTE THAT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY HAS A RATHER, SHALL WE SAY, WELL-DEVELOPED SET OF BYLAWS THAT REALLY RESTRICTS AND CONTROL HOW WE VOTE AND HOW WE PARTICIPATE IN THESE TASK FORCES.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER AND HELP US WORK THROUGH THESE MACHINATIONS OF HOW WE GET TO VOTE AND TO ENCOURAGE OUR PARTICIPATION, IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY USEFUL -- WE'RE NOT LOOKING THIS AS A WAY TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE OTHER CONSTITUENCY --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE'VE JUST FOUND GRANT'S BLACKBERRY.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>ROSS RADER: YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS A WAY TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO PARTICIPATE BUT JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO PARTICIPATE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ELECTION PROCESS AND PERHAPS RUN THE RISK OF LOSING SOME OF THE COLLECTIVE MEMORY THAT WE'VE ACCUMULATED ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
IF THERE WAS AN APPROACH THAT WE WOULD ENDORSE, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE MARILYN'S SECONDARY SUGGESTION.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE OTHER COUNCILLORS TO CONSIDER THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, ROSS.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, AND I REMEMBER, GOD LOVE HER, VANNIE, THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR WITH MEMBERS OF SOME CONSTITUENCIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR MEMBER PARTICIPATION BY PHONE CALLS AND SO FORTH.
SO I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WE NEVER PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE A VOTE COULD BE TAKEN IN A TASK FORCE AND SOMEONE COULD BE EXEMPTED BECAUSE OF AN ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY, OR AN INABILITY -- ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN ON OUR COUNCIL HERE SPENDS QUITE A BIT OF TIME IN CAMBODIA.
YOU -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE BEST COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WORLD, BUT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD POSSIBLY BE PUT IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK THAT'S A GENERAL PRINCIPLE.
WELL, WHAT I DO SUGGEST IS I PROPOSE A MOTION AT THIS POINT THAT WE -- THE VOTING RULES FOR THE WHOIS TASK FORCE WILL CONSIST OF THREE VOTES PER CONSTITUENCY, TO BE VOTED AS EACH CONSTITUENCY WISHES, TO PICK UP MARILYN'S POINT.
SO IF I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT AS A MOTION, I'LL TAKE NIKLAS.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M SORRY.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: THE SYSTEM YOU SUGGEST, WOULD THAT MEAN THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEAD REPRESENTATIVE OF A CONSTITUENCY ON THE TASK FORCE WOULD BE ABLE TO CAST THE THREE VOTES HIMSELF OR HERSELF?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S UP TO THAT CONSTITUENCY TO WORK OUT WHAT IT WANTS TO DO.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I SEE.
OKAY.
WELL, IF THE KEY WORD IS "FLEXIBILITY," I'M FINE WITH THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. OKAY. SO WHO WAS SECONDING THAT? ROSS SECONDED THAT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT?
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY YES.
OKAY. ANY AGAINST?
GRANT, I HOPE THAT WASN'T AN AGAINST; THAT WAS JUST A LATE DROPPING OF YOUR HAND?
>>GRANT FORSYTH: (NODS HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
WE'LL NOTE THAT RESOLUTION HAS PASSED.
THE NEXT TOPIC IS NEW GTLDS. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION IN THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY TODAY WHEN WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON THE NEW TLDS, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS AT THE MOMENT THE ICANN STAFF ARE BUSY COLLECTING QUESTIONS, AND THE CONCERN WAS ALL THE QUESTIONS COULD BE INFINITE AS THERE'S NO DOUBT LOTS OF INTERESTING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT NEW TLDS COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE.
AND THAT THE FEELING WAS CERTAINLY THERE THAT IT NEEDS TO COME BACK UNDER PERHAPS A MORE CONSTRAINED PROCESS WHERE WE'RE SAYING WHAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ANSWER, AND THEN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.
AND THERE'S ALSO THE SENSE, I GUESS, THAT THE GNSO NEEDS TO BE COLLABORATING WITH THE CCNSO IN DISCUSSING HOW TO MOVE THIS PROCESS FORWARD.
SO I THINK UNDER THIS TOPIC OF NEXT STEPS, MY NEXT STEP IS REALLY TO HAVE A MEETING BETWEEN HOPEFULLY THE -- CERTAINLY THE GNSO AND THE BOARD TO INDICATE THAT WE WANT TO RUN THE NEW GTLD PROCESS AS WE NORMALLY WOULD UNDER THE BYLAWS, WHICH IS MANAGED, IF IT RELATES TO GTLDS, MANAGED BY THE GNSO. AND THE GNSO WOULD TASK THE POLICY STAFF WITH THE WORK THAT WOULD HELP IN THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AS PER NORMAL PROCEDURES.
BUT IN THIS SPECIAL CASE, BECAUSE TLDS MEAN -- COULD MEAN A CCTLD OR A GTLD, THAT WE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BEGIN TO ENGAGE THE CCNSO IN WORKING OUT HOW WE COLLABORATE IN THE MANAGEMENT, IF YOU LIKE, OR THE JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THIS POLICY AREA.
GO AHEAD, ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: I'M JUST SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THAT PROPOSAL, BRUCE. WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD VARIATIONS OF THIS EXCHANGE A FEW TIMES OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, AND I OWE YOU A LINK THAT I HAVEN'T YET SENT YOU. BUT IT'S MY IMPRESSION, GIVEN A REVIEW OF THE MOTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS PASSED, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS COUNCIL ON THE SUBJECT OF NEW GTLDS ARE ACTUALLY IN AN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE RIGHT NOW. SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW POLICY TO GOVERN THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS OR TO IMPLEMENT THE EXISTING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU WEREN'T THERE IN THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY MEETING, AND WE MIGHT ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, BUT I ASKED THE QUESTION OF OLAF, WHO IS ADMITTEDLY A RELATIVELY NEW STAFF MEMBER, BUT I ASKED HIM IF THERE IS AN EXISTING POLICY ON NEW GTLDS, AND HE SAID NO.
AND THAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK IF NOTHING ELSE, THAT'S WHAT THE GNSO SHOULD CLARIFY. IF THERE IS AN EXISTING POLICY, LET'S AT LEAST FIND IT AND HAVE IT VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE IT'S CERTAINLY NOT CLEAR TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POLICY IS. ALL I KNOW IS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT A PILOT PROJECT. AND THAT PILOT PROJECT HAS BEEN IN TWO PHASES. SO THAT'S MY PERSONAL UNDERSTANDING, BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG.
>>ROSS RADER: I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH THE COUNCIL BUT IN TERMS OF SUMMARIZING IT FOR THIS DISCUSSION, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE MOTION THAT THE BOARD APPROVED WAS VERY, VERY EXPLICIT IN THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY DESIRED AND THAT THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS THAT WOULD BE A SERIES OF PILOT AND TESTING PROGRAMS TO DISCOVER WHAT SOME OF THE LEARNINGS MIGHT BE IN DOING A WIDER ROLLOUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I -- I'M WITH YOU SO FAR, ROSS, AND THEN I WANT TO GO FURTHER. AND THEN WE HAVE TAKEN SOME INTERIM STEPS, AND ACTUALLY I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO ASK OUR STAFF TO -- AND WE SHOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO FIND THE STEPS WE'VE TAKEN IN OUR MINUTES. WE HAVE TAKEN SOME INTERIM STEPS AND DISCUSSIONS. WE HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, TAKEN A POSITION IN PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON THE NEED -- JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY, THE BOARD APPEARED NOT TO BE MOVING FORWARD AT ALL ON SPONSORED TLDS, AND THE COUNCIL AND VARIOUS -- I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK BACK AT THIS, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE COUNCIL AND VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES REALLY PUSHED THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SPONSORED ROUND. BUT THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT WE ESTABLISH A STRATEGY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER NEW GTLDS.
AND I THINK THAT IS THE QUESTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE. IN THE MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, A LONGSTANDING REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN THAT ICANN DETERMINE THE STRATEGY. BY THE WAY, IT WOULD BE MY PERSONAL VIEW, IT DOESN'T SAY THE STRATEGY HAS TO BE AFFIRMATIVE. IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO HAVE A STRATEGY.
IT ALSO, BY THE WAY, DOESN'T SAY -- IT SAYS TLDS, I BELIEVE. TO ME, A TLD CAN BE OPENING A THIRD LEVEL -- SORRY, THREE LETTER COUNTRY CODE TLDS. COUNTRY CODES WILL KILL ME FOR SAYING THAT, BUT HYPOTHETICALLY IT'S POSSIBLE. IT COULD BE OPENING IDN DOT IDN. IT COULD BE OPENING IDN DOT EXISTING TLD. IT COULD BE OPENING ONLY FURTHER SPONSORED TLDS. IT COULD BE OPENING A MIX OF OTHER TLDS.
THE POINT BEING IT IS A WIDE RANGE, AND WE NEED A STRATEGY THAT ADDRESSES THAT DRAWING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BUT I'M STILL MISSING THE POINT, AND I WILL INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND BECAUSE IT DOES RELATE TO SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE PUBLIC FORUM THAT MILTON WAS RAISING AND THAT IS AT WHAT POINT ARE WE TALKING POLICY AND AT WHAT POINT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY?
SO ARE WE SAYING THAT THE POLICY IS JUST VERY SIMPLE, WE'RE INTRODUCING SORT OF NEW TLDS AND THE STAFF CAN IMPLEMENT THAT ANY WAY THEY WISH, OR ARE WE SAYING THAT WE NEED SOME FURTHER POLICY?
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE MANAGED, AND I'M SAYING THE MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE COMING FROM THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO. WE SHOULD BE MANAGING IT.
AND IF THERE IS NEW POLICY -- I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO THAT, ROSS. WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT IN THE PROCESS. BUT WHAT I AM SEEING, THOUGH, IS A TOTAL DIFFERENT THING HAPPENING. I'M SEEING A PROCESS WHERE THE STAFF HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO SOMETHING WHICH, TO ME, IS ALMOST AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK. BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING NO -- WHAT I WOULD -- I WILL USE THE TERM POLICY GUIDANCE. BUT IF YOU LIKE THERE IS NO GUIDANCE FROM THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHATEVER IS DONE.
>>MARILYN CADE: I -- I'D JUST LIKE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL GO TO ROSS. I DON'T WANT TO DOMINATE THE DISCUSSION. I'LL TAKE A QUEUE. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT ON IT? ROSS? BRET?
>>BRET FAUSETT: I'D LIKE SOME CLARITY ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS OUR DISCUSSIONS. I THOUGHT I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE ROLL-OUT OF NEW GTLDS WITH THE CCNSO AND THE ASO, AND I DON'T KNOW --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DIDN'T SAY THE ASO.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ROLE THEY HAVE TO PLAY IF ANY IN THE ROLLOUT OF NEW GTLDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE US. THE QUESTION THAT THE BOARDS PUT IS NEW TLDS. THERE'S NO "G" IN FRONT OF IT.
AND SO -- AND THEN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THEY'RE ASKING IS WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON THE ROOT OF ADDING TLDS.
NOW, THAT, FROM A ROOT POINT, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY IRRELEVANT. WE'RE PUTTING ARTIFICIAL LABELS ON THESE THINGS, BUT TECHNICALLY IT'S JUST AN IDENTIFIER AND A ROOT.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE SHOULD BE COORDINATED. AND THE COORDINATING MIGHT JUST BE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT GTLDS AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT CCTLDS AND WE AGREE ON THAT. MIGHT BE AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: EXCEPT THAT I THINK YOU HAVE TO ADD THE QUESTION OF HOW IDNS FIT IN.
BUT I THINK THESE -- I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS. I WOULD SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO MEET WITH THE CCNSO, IT'S A SISTER ORGANIZATION, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE POLICY WHEN WE'RE BOTH INVOLVED. WE PROBABLY NEED TO INVOLVE THE SESAC AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE CONFUSION. I MAY HAVE USED THE WRONG LETTERS EARLIER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: I WANTED TO CLARIFY, THE PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS COUNCIL THAT I AM REFERRING TO WERE THOSE THAT WERE PASSED I BELIEVE IN APRIL OF 2000. WE WERE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND UNANIMOUS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING NEW GTLDS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO GET BACK INTO. I'M REALLY TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE JUST MEANDERING ALONG, AND I'M JUST SEEING A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND I'M NOT SEEING ANY KIND OF ORDER AS TO THE NEXT STEP.
>>ROSS RADER: AND TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD AVOID THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW POLICY WHERE APPROPRIATE. I AM JUST SIMPLY SEEKING TO AVOID A REHASH OF THE SAME DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE ALREADY HAD IN THE PAST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S VERY WISE. AND LET'S DO THE HISTORY AND COLLECT THAT TOGETHER BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING THAT IN ANY OF THE RECENT DOCUMENTS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, A REFERENCE BACK TO THOSE DECISIONS.
TONY.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANKS, BRUCE. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME WORK AND SOME ATTENTION THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD GIVE ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRODUCED ON THE 7TH OF JUNE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS LISTED IN THERE, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE GNSO.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE ALSO OTHER ISSUES DOWN THERE WHICH ARE POLICY ISSUES, TO MY MIND, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE GNSO.
SO WHATEVER HAPPENS, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE SOME ATTENTION IN PUTTING SOME THOUGHT INTO THE WAY FORWARD AND ADDRESSING SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I THINK IN PARTICULAR, I'M THINKING OF PUTTING SOME STRUCTURE IN IT.
ALSO, IT'S THE NATURAL AREA OF FOCUS FOR THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO. AND I'D LIKE TO WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF IN HELPING THEM WITH THAT, BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT, TO ME, CERTAINLY I THINK THE SENSE OF SOME OF THE CONSTITUENCIES, I DON'T KNOW HOW UNANIMOUS IT IS, IS THE CURRENT PROCESS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE VERY EFFECTIVE. THERE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO BE AN END IN SIGHT.
OLAF, I THINK WERE YOU THERE, IF YOU WANTED TO RESPOND.
>>OLOF NORDLING: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE ON THE SHORT ANSWER YOU REFERENCE TO ME ON WHETHER WE HAVE THE POLICY FOR NEW TLDS.
I SAID WE HAVE A STRATEGY FOR NEW TLDS. NOW, THE STRATEGY CONSISTS OF A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS, AND TO THAT EXTENT, WE CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE OPERATIONAL ELEMENTS AND MOST CLEARLY POLICY ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE FILLED OUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I GUESS MY CRITICISM ON THAT, OLAF, IS A STRATEGY TO DO WHAT? AND THAT'S WHAT I AM UNCLEAR ABOUT; RIGHT?
TO ME, YOU START WITH A POLICY, AND JUST USING ICANN TERMINOLOGY; RIGHT? IF I WERE USING BUSINESS TERMINOLOGY, I WOULD SAY THERE'S A BUSINESS PLAN AND THERE'S A STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTING THAT BUSINESS PLAN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BUSINESS PLAN IS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POLICY IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT A STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT.
SO IF THE POLICY SAYS WE'RE GOING TO INTRODUCE AS MANY NEW TLDS AS POSSIBLE, THEN YOU CAN HAVE A STRATEGY TO DO THAT. IF YOU'RE POLICY IS WE'RE ONLY GOING TO INTRODUCE TLDS IF WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, THEN IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT STRATEGY. AND SO YOU STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO WHAT THE POLICY IS, AND THEN THERE'S A STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT THAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AT THE GNSO LEVEL, AND IF ROSS CAN ASSIST THE COUNCIL, CERTAINLY STAFF COULD, TO HELP US ACTUALLY IDENTIFY AND PUT IN ONE PAGE WHAT THE CURRENT POLICY -- WHAT ICANN POLICY IS, WHICH IS CONSENSUS POLICY WITH RESPECT TO TLDS AS THE STARTING POINT, THEN YOU CAN HAVE A STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT THAT. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M MISSING. THAT'S ALL.
>>OLOF NORDLING: ALL RIGHT. I WON'T GO INTO DISCUSSION ON WHETHER WE'RE TALKING MACRO POLICY OR MICRO POLICY OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN WHEN WE TALK POLICY. JUST TO EXPLAIN WHAT I STATED AT THE MEETING. THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE INHERITING A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION AS WELL. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO HIT THE RESET BUTTON A BIT AND REMEMBER WHERE WE STARTED FROM.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:I'M NOT THE LEAST OPPOSED IN TALKING TO THE CCNSO, BUT WE MUST BE CERTAIN THE BOARD INTENT WHEN THEY USE THE PHRASE TLD, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS -- WHEN THE BOARD USED THE PHRASE TLD, WE ARE CERTAIN THAT THE INTENTION THERE WAS THE INCLUSION OF POSSIBLE NEW CCTLDS AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY SHORTHAND FOR NOT SAYING EITHER SPONSORED OR NONSPONSORED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, PHILIP. I WAS SLIGHTLY DISTRACTED. CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WE'RE INTERPRETING SOMETHING WE SAW FROM THE BOARD IN TERMS OF STRATEGY FOR TLDS. NOW, ONE WAY OF USING TLDS WOULD BE TO AVOID SAYING EITHER SPONSORED OR OPEN --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, TLDS --
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OR THERE WAS INTENTION AT THE TIME THAT, INDEED, WE ALSO WANTED TO INCLUDE CCTLDS AS WELL IN THAT THOUGHT.
WE ARE CERTAIN THAT INTENT WAS INCLUSION IN THAT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: EXACTLY. BECAUSE IT STRIKES ME AS MORE -- MORE LOGICAL AND MORE COMPLICATED IF THAT HAD BEEN THE MEANING AND IT MIGHT BE WORTH ASKING THE QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF THE INTENT BEFORE WE GET OURSELVES CARRIED AWAY WITH --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: (INAUDIBLE) RESOLUTIONS COME FROM. MAYBE THERE IS NO RESOLUTION REGARDING CCTLDS, AND THAT'S VERY CLEAR BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M MORE CONCERNED, ACTUALLY, THAT WE INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IDNS. IT IS CLEAR WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS IDNS, AND THERE IS A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE GNSO -- THERE NEEDS TO BE A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO AND IDNS. AND IF WE AREN'T CLEAR ON THAT AS COUNCILLORS THEN WE OUGHT TO ARRANGE A DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY ON THAT TOPIC AND FURTHER EXPLORE IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THERE'S JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED, BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS IN THE MOU WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ALSO I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHETHER THAT'S REFERRING TO GTLDS AND CCTLDS OR ONE OR THE OTHER.
BUT MY PERCEPTION IS IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN FAIRLY GENERALLY.
ROSS AND THEN TONY.
>>ROSS RADER: I WOULD -- I'VE CIRCULATED THE URL TO THE MINUTES IN QUESTION. BUT TO CLARIFY YET AGAIN THE RESOLUTION IS VERY, VERY SPECIFIC THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEW GTLDS. NOT CCTLDS. THE NOTION OF STLDS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE INVENTED FAIRLY RECENTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BUT ROSS, THAT'S OUR RESOLUTION. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT CAME UP FROM -- THE BOARD SEEMS TO BE OPERATING -- THIS IS THE PROBLEM. IT'S KIND OF STARTING TOP-DOWN.
>>ROSS RADER: I'M READING A BOARD RESOLUTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU ARE READING A BOARD RESOLUTION. MY APOLOGIES.
>>ROSS RADER: AND A SECOND POINT THAT WAS SLIGHTLY MORE IMPORTANT, BUT I'VE FORGOTTEN. MAYBE I CAN RESERVE A POINT IN THE QUEUE IF IT COMES BACK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND I THINK WHAT'S COMING UP IS A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ON THIS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE BOARD WOULD BE A FIRST STARTING POINT. AND I'VE HEARD SOME SAY WE SHOULD DISCUSS THAT AT THIS MEETING. MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T. MAYBE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY GET THE DATA TOGETHER FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
AND TONY?
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
MY QUESTION IS QUITE SIMPLE. ACCEPTING THAT IN TERMS OF THE AREA THE COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, IT'S CLEARLY POLICY.
MY QUESTION IS SHOULD COUNCIL BE CONSIDERING RESPONDING BACK TO THE POSTING OF THE 7TH OF JUNE WITH A VIEW FROM -- FROM COUNCIL INTO THAT PROCESS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I CAN'T HEAR YOU. CAN'T HEAR YOU.
>>TONY HOLMES: SORRY.
MY QUESTION WAS, ACCEPTING COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY, SHOULD COUNCIL LOOK TOWARDS RESPONDING BACK TO THE POSTING OF THE 7TH OF JUNE WHERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES SET OUT FOR NEW TLDS IN TERMS OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH IMPACT THE WAY FORWARD AND THE FUTURE STRATEGY?
IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO RESPOND ON THAT PARTICULAR POSTING?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T KNOW. YOU TELL ME.
>>TONY HOLMES: WELL, FROM THE ISPS, THERE WAS CERTAINLY SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND SOME CONCERNS OF SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THERE. I ASSUME THAT OTHER CONSTITUENCIES WOULD ALSO HAVE LOOKED AT THAT POSTING. AND I WOULD THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, PERSONALLY, THAT COUNCIL DO HAVE A LOOK AT IT AND MAYBE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. CERTAINLY HAVE A LOOK AT IT AND RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS, YEAH.
>>TONY HOLMES: MAYBE WE THEN NEED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND RESPOND BACK AS COUNCIL ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THERE WHICH WERE PURELY POLICY ISSUES WHICH IMPACT THE COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO WOULD YOU BE IMPLYING THAT YOU IDENTIFY THE POLICY ISSUES OUT OF THOSE QUESTIONS? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
>>TONY HOLMES: I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE ISSUES LISTED IN THERE I BELIEVE ARE POLICY ISSUES, BUT THEY ARE NOT MARKED OFF AS ISSUES FOR COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I SEE. I UNDERSTAND.
MARILYN?
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR THAT WE NOT BECOME -- WE NOT IMMEDIATELY GO TO -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I OBJECT TO THE WAY THIS PROCESS HAS DEVELOPED. I FEEL THAT THE ROLE OF COUNCIL IS NOT DEFINED IN THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, AND IF WE GO INTO ANSWER AND RESPONDING, AND MAYBE THE POINT, TONY, WOULD BE RESPONDING JUST TO THIS LIST OF QUESTIONS, THEN WE ARE GOING TO MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE TRIMMING THE TREES.
WE NEED TO TRIM THE TREES, SO TO SPEAK; THAT IS, LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS. BUT I REALLY WANT US ALSO TO LOOK AT WHAT IS OUR ROLE AND WHAT IS THE RELATED ROLE TO THE OTHER SO AND GET THE OTHER DEFINITION.
WELL, I AM TIRED OF HAVING THE ROLL OF COUNCIL USURPED, AND IF IT'S NOT USURPED, THEN I'M TIRED OF BEING CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT MY ROLE IS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?
OKAY. ROSS HAS ALMOST GOT A STANDING HAND UP SO I'M JUST TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THAT'S -- TONY -- SO I'VE GOT ROSS, TONY, AND THEN GRANT.
>>ROSS RADER: THANK YOU, BRUCE. MY SECOND COMMENT THAT ESCAPED ME SO QUICKLY WAS REGARDING THE INTRODUCTION OF IDN DOT IDN NAMES INTO THE ROOT. AND THAT IS A MATTER THAT REQUIRES OUR ATTENTION AND SHOULD BE DEALT WITH WITH SOME PRIORITY.
BUT I WOULD -- I WOULD HESITATE TO WRAP THAT INTO THIS EVALUATION.
WE SHOULD LOOK -- THE ISSUES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. THERE ARE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONCERNS WITH IDNS THAT DON'T ENTER INTO THE NEW GTLD DISCUSSION, AND SO ON.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EVALUATION OF THE PLANNING OF INTRODUCTION OF IDNS IN A -- JUST SEPARATELY WOULD BE THE MOST SUCCINCT WAY OF PUTTING IT.
I HATE TO SEE THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT -- OR THE CREATION OF A COMPETITIVE REGISTRY ENVIRONMENT SLOWED DOWN BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL ISSUES AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN? OH, GRANT. SORRY.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: BRUCE, HOPEFULLY MY COMMENT WILL BE THE LAST IN THIS DISCUSSION. IT IS SIMPLY A QUESTION TO THE STAFF, LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT MARIA, TO MAKE SURE THAT AFTER ALL THIS DISCUSSION THAT THERE WAS CLARITY AS TO WHAT WE, THE COUNCIL, WERE ASKING THE STAFF TO DO VIS-A-VIS COLLECT THAT HISTORICAL INFORMATION WHICH WE NEED IN ORDER TO INFORM OURSELVES AS TO STRATEGY, POLICY IMPLEMENTATION, AND WHATEVER ELSE MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO UNDERSTAND HISTORICALLY REGARDING THIS MATTER OF NEW TLDS. SO THANK YOU, MARIA. WONDERFUL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK WE'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF DISCUSSION ON THIS.
ITEM 7 WAS DISCUSSION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN/BUDGET PLAN.
YES, TONY.
>>TONY HOLMES: I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DELAY THINGS, BRUCE, BUT IN COMING TO CONCLUSIONS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES RAISED THERE WHICH I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED. I THINK GRANT'S COMMENTS BACK TO ICANN STAFF ARE FINE, BUT THERE ARE STILL, I BELIEVE, ISSUES AND WORK THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AS COUNCIL, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND NOW WHERE THAT'S LEFT, HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, THE COUNCIL CONSISTS OF BASICALLY WHAT INPUT IT'S RECEIVING, SO IF YOU'VE GOT INPUT ON THAT, PLEASE PROVIDE IT AND WE'LL USE IT.
WE DON'T WORK IN A VACUUM. IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT THOSE QUESTIONS AND YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE, PLEASE MAKE THEM.
>>TONY HOLMES: MY FIRST COMMENT IS I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WHERE THERE IS A CALL FOR INPUT ON THIS. AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ENOUGH TO START THAT DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
AND SO SPECIFICALLY, YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE LIST OF QUESTIONS? IS THAT RIGHT?
>>TONY HOLMES: WELL, MARILYN MADE A COMMENT ABOUT NOT SEEING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES, AND I THINK THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THAT. BUT I THINK AS SOON AS YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH YOU WILL FIND THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE TOP-LEVEL ISSUES STEM FROM A REVIEW OF SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE THAT AT LEAST INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT IDENTIFY WHAT WE THINK THE CRITICAL ISSUES ARE. IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL POLICY ISSUES.
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT GOING FORWARD.
SO I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO THINGS THERE. SO WE ARE SAYING WHAT'S THE HISTORY, WHERE ARE WE UP TO, AND THEN GOING THROUGH THE LEST OF QUESTIONS THAT OLOF AND THE STAFF PUT TOGETHER AND IDENTIFY WHAT THE POLICY ISSUES ARE OUT OF THOSE. AND THEN ADD ANY OTHER INPUT THAT WE BELIEVE IS NECESSARY.
AND I GUESS WE NEED TO DO THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE OLOF IS LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK BY THE END OF JULY; RIGHT? FIRST OF AUGUST.
OKAY. KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH. THERE HAS BEEN COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE CONCERNS OF COORDINATING SOME OF THIS PROCESS WITH THE CCTLDS, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA OF IDNS.
AS ONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A STRONG TECHNICAL BACKGROUND IN THAT AREA, I THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA IF WE COULD MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE POSSIBLY SOMEONE LIKE CARY, WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF ONE OF THE COMMITTEES THAT'S BEEN EDUCATING PEOPLE ON IDNS, POSSIBLY BRIEF US, OR SOMEONE OF THAT NATURE, AS TO WHAT POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS ARE AND WHAT SPECIFIC NEEDS WE WOULD SEE IN COORDINATING.
IN OTHER WORDS, I NEED TO KNOW WHY WE NEED TO DO IT, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS, SO FORTH. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY EDUCATIONAL FOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK CERTAINLY THAT LOOKING AT THE IDN ISSUE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ABOUT GENERALLY, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PRETTY STRONG FEELINGS ON THAT TOPIC.
CARY.
>>CARY KARP: YOU CAN GET A HEAD START ON THE PROCESS BY ATTENDING THE WORKSHOP TOMORROW WHICH HAS A SESSION SPECIFICALLY ON IDN DOT IDN WHICH IS NOT SOLELY A MATTER OF ENTERING NEW TLDS INTO THE ROOT.
AND THAT WORKSHOP IS PREPARATORY TO A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FOCUSED ACTION THE NEXT TIME OUT. SO IF YOU INDEED REGARD THESE AS KEY ISSUES FOR COUNCIL AND ARE WONDERING HOW WE ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE ON THE DIALOGUE, THAT IS UNDERWAY. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE GOTTEN UNDERWAY BUT IT NEEDS TO BE POINTED IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE. BE THERE TOMORROW, BECAUSE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE THING IS TO GET THIS ROLLING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WHEN, TOMORROW?
>>CARY KARP: I THINK IT'S 11:00 TO 1:00. 11:00 TO 1:30.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WHEN TOMORROW?
>>CARY KARP: IT'S -- I THINK IT'S 11:00 TO 1:00, 11:00 TO 1:30.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ROSS, THEN MARILYN.
>>ROSS RADER: I'LL MAKE THIS REAL QUICK.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THREE OR FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THE ACTUAL CREATION OF THE PLAN.
AND ADMITTEDLY, AT THIS POINT, SUCH A PLAN WOULD BE HIGHLY OPEN-ENDED.
BUT EVEN DEVELOPING A ROUGH FRAMEWORK AS TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO AND HOW QUICKLY WE WANT TO GET THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE A VERY USEFUL FIRST STEP.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: FOR THE GTLDS.
>>ROSS RADER: THAT'S CORRECT, BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I FORTY-THREE WITH YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND THAT REQUIRES TO ME WORKING OUT WHAT THE STARTING POINT IS AND THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
AND WE'D NEED TO WORK WITH THE STAFF ON THAT.
AND THE PLAN'S GOT DATES AND A BIT MORE DEFINITION TO IT.
OKAY, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO PUT THE QUESTION BACK ON THE TABLE.
WE ARE HERE, THE CCNSO IS HERE.
I THINK IT'S WORTH OUR WHILE TO TRY TO HAVE AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO OF US AND DO THAT WHILE WE'RE HERE IN PERSON.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
OKAY.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT TOPIC?
OKAY.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS OPERATIONAL AND STRATEGIC PLAN, I GUESS ON THE OPERATIONAL STUFF, WE HAD SOME MEETINGS ON SUNDAY, AND I WILL TRY AND GET SOME NOTES TOGETHER ON THAT FOR THE STAFF, WHICH WAS WHERE WE ATTEMPTED TO GO INTO A BIT MORE DETAIL ON SOME OF THE PARTS OF THE OPERATING PLAN THAT RELATED TO POLICY, INCLUDING THE -- WHAT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WERE GOING TO BE APPLIED TO POLICY AND VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PIECES OF INPUT WE WANT TO PUT ON THE OPERATING PLAN?
LET'S START WITH THE OPERATING PLAN.
YEP.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILLOR.
I WAS AT THE MEETING YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INADEQUACY OF DETAIL IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT AMOUNT OF FUNDING IS SET ASIDE.
I'LL USE A PARTICULAR EXAMPLE.
ONE PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANT WORK ITEM HAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 15 AND 18 SUBITEMS, BUT THERE'S NO BREAKDOWN OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, THERE'S NO PRIORITIZATION OF THOSE.
IT DOESN'T SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THE TOP NINE ARE THE PRIORITY AND THE REMAINING WOULD BE GOOD TO DO BUT NOT IMPERATIVE TO DO.
THERE'S NO BREAKDOWN OF THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT GOES TO THAT SECTION.
I AM UNABLE TO SUPPORT FOR THE OPERATION OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT THIS IS AN ADEQUATE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
AND I AM NOT AT THIS POINT CLEAR ON HOW I CAN SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF A BUDGET THAT LACKS THE KIND OF DETAIL THAT WE HAVE REPEATEDLY NOTED IS NECESSARY.
I UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF TIME.
AND IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO CONTINUE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON FUNDING WHILE THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS DEVELOPED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT CERTAINLY DOES SURPRISE ME THAT A BOARD WOULD BE ACCEPTING A PLAN THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL TO IT.
BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE HOW YOU COULD GOVERN IT.
I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION WAS DOING ITS JOB WITH THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
ALL I'D KNOW IS I COULD WORK OUT WHAT ITS REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE WAS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY WHAT IT WAS APPLIED TO.
BUT THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO AS THE GNSO IS WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF ON AT LEAST THE BITS THAT RELATE TO THE GNSO AND HELP THEM WITH THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT AND PROBABLY HAS FALLEN ON ONE OR TWO PEOPLE TO TRY TO DEVELOP A PLAN, WHICH I THINK IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, NOT JUST SAY IT'S THEIR PROBLEM.
IT'S OUR PROBLEM AS WELL.
SO WE NEED TO WORK ON GETTING THAT DETAIL, PARTICULARLY OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, I THINK, AND PREFERABLY OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
ACTUALLY, I WOULD SAY, OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A BIT MORE DETAIL ON AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT THE COUNCIL FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS AND I SHARE SOME OF THEM.
THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS TURN INTO AN EXERCISE IN MICROMANAGEMENT.
THAT'S THE ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE WHOLE PROCESS WILL SLOW DOWN SO THAT A GROUP OF -- A BODY OF PEOPLE CAN DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO NEXT MAKES SENSE TO THEM.
SO (INAUDIBLE) NEEDS INPUT, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE OPERATION OF ICANN IS SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE FEEL THAT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING IN THE NEXT THREE DAYS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR VIEW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
NOR WOULD WE BE INTENDING TO, KEN.
THAT OPERATING PLAN IS FOR A 12-MONTH PERIOD OF TIME.
AND IT'S JUST SAYING SOMETHING LIKE IF YOU HAVE A STATEMENT LIKE "IMPROVE IANA OVER 12 MONTHS," I WOULD EXPECT IT TO SAY WHAT IS THE IANA PERFORMANCE TODAY, WHAT'S THE TARGET IN 12 MONTHS' TIME, AND WHAT'S THE BUDGET.
VERY SIMPLE, IT'S REALLY JUST HITTING THE TOP LINE ITEMS.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE OPERATING PLAN?
STRATEGIC PLAN, THEN?
GRANT.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: BRUCE, WE IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY DISCUSSED THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND AS YOU HEARD ME SUMMARIZE IN THE OPEN FORUM, WE THINK THIS IS A CONSIDERABLY -- A CONSIDERABLE STEP FORWARD FOR ICANN.
HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD -- SORRY, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH I WILL READ OUT IN A MOMENT, AS INDICATED IN MY SUMMARY FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS.
AND THAT RESOLUTION IS THAT THE BOARD NOT ADOPT THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT, RATHER, CONTINUE TO TAKE CONSULTATION AND WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO REACH A CONSENSUS-SUPPORTED STRATEGIC PLAN WITHIN AN EXPEDITED TIME FRAME.
SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTED RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
MARIA IS KINDLY TYPING THAT RESOLUTION UP SO I CAN ACTUALLY SEE IT, WHICH HELPS GREATLY.
YOU CAN CHOOSE A LARGER FONT, IF YOU COULD.
EXCELLENT.
YEAH, TONY.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
I REPORTED EARLIER THROUGH THE FEEDBACK OF THE CONSTITUENCIES THAT THE ISPS WILL ALSO BE MAKING A STATEMENT URGING THE BOARD NOT TO APPROVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO ON THAT BASIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THIS MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NOTED, SECONDED.
OKAY.
DOES -- DO PEOPLE -- ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THAT MOTION?
ROSS, THEN MARILYN.
>>ROSS RADER: ONE OF THE REALIZATIONS THAT I'VE HAD AT THIS MEETING IS THAT IN A LOT OF CASES, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE STAFF TO ACT AS OUR ADVOCATE.
AS BECKY LIKES TO ADVOCATE FOR HER CLIENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS, SO DO WE SEEK THAT SAME LEVEL OF ADVOCACY ON OUR SIDE OF THE TABLE.
WITHOUT THIS POSITION FILLED, I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE STAFF TO BE AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE ON OUR BEHALF.
SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, WHAT POSITION ARE YOU ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT.
>>ROSS RADER: GRANT'S MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A POSITION.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: WITHOUT AN AGREED STRATEGY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
SO YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE MOTION?
>>ROSS RADER: THAT'S CORRECT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE A RESOLUTION, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF IT.
I'D LIKE TO ALSO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF OUR MAKING IT CLEAR, WHETHER IN THIS RESOLUTION OR IN HOW WE CONVEY IT, THAT WE ARE FULLY COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING OUR OWN INFORMATION ON -- IN A TIMELY MANNER, BUT ALSO SUPPORTING THE STAFF AS NEEDED IN MOVING FORWARD ON THIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I'M SOMEWHAT CONFUSED, ROSS, BY THE COMMENT THAT YOU MADE ABOUT FILLING A POSITION.
ARE YOU TALKING -- ARE YOU TALKING IN REFERENCE TO PAUL VERHOEF'S POSITION OR -- PLEASE.
>>ROSS RADER: LET ME CLARIFY.
MY LAPTOP IS HAVING PROBLEMS, AND I -- MY REBOOT, I ACTUALLY HAD THE TEXT OF A DIFFERENT MOTION UP ON MY SCREEN.
SO I RETRACT THOSE COMMENTS.
BUT I'LL PROBABLY REITERATE THEM LATER.
MY APOLOGIES FOR CONFUSING EVERYONE.
>>KEN STUBBS: SO ARE YOU STILL SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL, BUT NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS YOU WERE BEFORE OR WHAT?
I'M CONFUSED EVEN MORE NOW.
>>ROSS RADER: YOU'RE ASKING FOR A SLIGHTLY DEEPER SHADE OF RED, AREN'T YOU, KEN?
I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, OF COURSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, GO AHEAD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK THIS IS WORTH SHARING WITH ALL THE COUNCILLORS, A COMMENT THAT VINT CERF MADE DURING THE CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETING, IN WHICH, TO THIS DISCUSSION, HE MENTIONED THAT HE SAW CERTAIN COMFORT FACTOR, IF YOU LIKE, IN EARLY ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE I THINK CERTAINLY APPRECIATED AND SAW THE REASON FOR.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE WORTH MINUTING IN TERMS OF OUR THINKING PROCESS IN THIS THAT WE BELIEVE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS EXACTLY THAT COMFORT PROCESS.
AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF, AS LONG AS IT ACHIEVES A GOOD CONSENSUS RESULT.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: UNFORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THIS DURING OUR CONSTITUENCY MEETING YESTERDAY.
SO I THINK THAT AT LEAST FROM THE IPS' PERSPECTIVE, WE WILL HAVE TO ABSTAIN, YOU KNOW, FROM VOTING ON THIS MOTION.
AND I'M SURE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES ARE IN THE SAME POSITION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE'LL GO BRET, THEN KIYOSHI, THEN PHILIP.
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: I JUST WANT TO SECOND LUCY'S.
>>BRET FAUSETT: I'M MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT AS THE LIAISON, I DON'T HAVE A VOTE HERE.
BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN HAS BEEN OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOW FOR MANY MONTHS.
AND TO STAFF'S CREDIT, THEY HAVE WORKED ITERATIVELY THROUGH IT AND COME UP WITH VARIOUS REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY.
BUT IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH THREE OR FOUR REVISIONS NOW AND WE'RE NOT MOVING REALLY CLOSER TO A CONSENSUS-SUPPORTED STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND I WOULD -- I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS RESOLUTION NECESSARILY GOES AS FAR AS WE MIGHT WANT IT TO GO.
BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO SEE MORE COMPROMISE OUT OF THE STAFF AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DRAFTING THIS AND MORE OF A MOVE TO ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT IN THERE.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE THING HAS BEEN REVISED SEVERAL TIMES, AND YET WE'RE STILL HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP AND THEN MARILYN.
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: JUST SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY HAS NOT ADDRESSED THIS POINT, THEREFORE, WE WILL ABSTAIN, TOO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I MUST ADMIT, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY HAS HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT -- WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M -- SO LET ME SPEAK TO TWO POINTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO IN MANY WAYS SUPPORT WHAT BRET JUST SAID AND SAY THAT THE AREAS THAT ARE NOT -- WHERE THE GAP IS NOT NARROWED ARE AREAS THAT WERE SIGNIFICANT.
BUT THEY CAN BE NARROWED THROUGH A COMMITMENT TO A DIALOGUE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT WE'LL BE COMPLETELY AGREED.
BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVEN'T DONE THE WORK YET TO BEGIN TO CLOSE THE GAP.
FOR INSTANCE, THERE WERE IDEAS THAT INSTEAD OF OPENING REGIONAL OFFICES, THAT PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER GROUPS COULD BE EXAMINED.
SO THERE'S -- THE UNRESTRICTED FUND IS AN AREA.
I THINK WE CAN, PERHAPS THROUGH OUR VIEW THAT WE HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY, ALONG WITH OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY, TO HELP TO ADDRESS THOSE AREAS, MAYBE HELP TO CLOSE IT.
BUT WE DO HAVE TO SEE MORE COMPROMISE ON THE PART OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE DRIVING BOTH THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
THE OPERATIONAL PLAN DOES MOVE AHEAD WITH INDICATIONS THAT SOME THINGS THERE'S NOT AGREEMENT ON IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN ARE GOING TO AT LEAST BE EXPLORED, WHICH IS ONE REASON I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
I DO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE DISCUSSION LENDS ANY EXTERNAL DEFENSE THAT IS NEEDED, AND THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, THE FACT IT'S IN PROGRESS, LENDS ANY EXTERNAL SUPPORT THAT IS NEEDED.
I WOULD, HOWEVER, ALSO ASK MY FELLOW COUNCILLORS TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO NOT VOTE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY, BUT TO CONSIDER LENDING YOUR INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT OR AGREEMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL, TO WHICH WE ALL WOULD DO, AS OPPOSED TO VOTING OUR CONSTITUENCY IDENTITY, TO THIS AS A SHOW OF SUPPORT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, GRANT.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES, JUST TO REINFORCE MARILYN'S LAST POINT, I WOULD EXPECT THAT ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES HAVE CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT IT'S BEEN OUT FOR SOME TIME, AND CONSULTATION HAS BEEN TAKEN AND VERSIONS HAVE BEEN CREATED.
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT COUNCILLORS WOULD BE ABLE TO REFLECT UPON THE -- THEIR CONSTITUENTS' INVOLVEMENT IN THAT CONSULTATION PROCESS AND REFLECT THAT VIEW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WITH REGARDS THIS MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I AM A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE POPPING UP HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR QUITE A FEW DAYS NOW.
WE HAD PRE-PLANNING SESSIONS.
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE A MOTION LIKE THIS EASILY COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND BROUGHT UP IN A PRE-PLANNING AREA.
THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.
THIS WAY, COUNCILLORS WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCY.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A SPECIFIC MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
AND I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, UNDER OUR BYLAWS, WE CANNOT VOTE WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY.
IT ALSO WOULD APPEAR THAT WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER CONSTITUENCY.
AND YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE REGISTRAR WOULD IMPLY ANY VOTES YOU ARE MAKING WOULD BE AS INDIVIDUALS AS WELL.
SO I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED THAT IF WE HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE SATURDAY THAT THIS THING WAS NOT VETTED IN OUR MAILING LIST OR WHETHER IT WAS DONE PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY SO THAT WE COULD HAVE GIVEN OUR CONSTITUENCIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO TAKE AN ACTION THAT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO TAKE WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM OUR PEOPLE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LET ME JUST -- BEFORE GRANT RESPONDS, I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON WHAT BRET WAS SAYING, BECAUSE IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HERE VERY WELL.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE HAS BEEN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT INTO THE PLAN.
THEN THERE'S THE SEPARATE ISSUE ABOUT PRODUCING A BETTER PLAN.
AND THAT'S SORT OF WHAT A LOT OF THE FOCUS HAS BEEN WITH PATRICK SHARRY AND OTHERS OF HOW TO PRODUCE A PLAN IN THE FUTURE WHICH IS BETTER.
BUT WAS THE QUESTION -- WAS THE ISSUE YOU WERE RAISING, BRET, THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT THE INPUT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED -- BECAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM AN ORGANIZATIONAL POINT OF VIEW YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME DOCUMENT -- I CAN UNDERSTAND VINT'S PERSPECTIVE.
AND THE ONLY REASON I'D BE SORT OF VOTING AGAINST IT IS BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION -- AND IT MIGHT BE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MOTION -- THAT THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE INPUT, AND THEREFORE THAT'S WHY IT HAS NO SUPPORT.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY THAT QUESTION.
WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING THIS?
ARE WE NOT SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO GIVE INPUT?
OR ARE WE NOT SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVIDED INPUT AND THE INPUT HASN'T BEEN ACCEPTED?
I JUST WANT TO -- PERHAPS IF YOU COULD RESTATE WHAT YOU DID.
BECAUSE MAYBE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>>BRET FAUSETT: MY READING OF WHAT THE DYNAMIC HAS BEEN IS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED A LOT OF INPUT.
THIS THING HAS BEEN OUT FOR, WHAT, NINE MONTHS?
THERE WAS THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, AND THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.
AND YET THE NEXT DRAFT THAT'S OUT THERE NOW ON THE TABLE DOESN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF MANY CONSTITUENTS.
AND I THINK EITHER IT'S TIME TO SAY ICANN STAFF NEEDS TO MOVE SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS, OR MAYBE THE BOARD HAS TO SAY, WELL, YOU GUYS ARE JUST WRONG AND THE STAFF GOT IT RIGHT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT MORE CONVERSATION'S ACTUALLY GOING TO MOVE THIS.
I MEAN, WITHOUT SOME SORT OF HAND GRENADE DROPPED IN.
SOMEONE'S GOT TO MOVE SUBSTANTIALLY.
EITHER WE'RE WRONG AND WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON, OR THEY'VE GOT TO MOVE SUBSTANTIALLY IN OUR DIRECTION.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT A SLIGHT ITERATIVE DRAFT IS REALLY GOING TO GET US TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
GRANT, YOU WERE NEXT.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: I HAVE TWO COMMENTS, I GUESS.
FIRSTLY, IN RESPONSE TO KEN.
AND, KEN, I KNOW THAT FOR PERSONAL REASONS, YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO BE HERE SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
BUT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION IN THE PLANNING SESSION, THE VERY MEETING WHICH YOU REFER TO, QUITE A DISCUSSION AMONGST THOSE WHO WERE THERE FROM COUNCIL, REGARDING THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
NO, A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION WAS NOT PUT.
BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COUNCIL IS NOT SO BOUND THAT IT CAN'T RESPOND TO A RESOLUTION LIKE THE ONE I HAVE PROPOSED, GIVEN THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE PARTICIPATED NOT ONLY IN THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES AND THEREFORE HAVE A GOOD FEEL FOR WHAT THEIR MEMBERS THINK ABOUT A PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND ALSO PARTICIPATED WITH COUNCIL, AND HAD THE INTERACTIONS, AS WE HAVE HAD, WITH BOARD.
SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD GENERATE AN ABSTENTION FROM A COUNCILLOR WHO WAS REPRESENTING THEIR CONSTITUENCY AND PARTICIPATING IN COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY, THEN KEN.
>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU.
JUST TO ADD TO THAT, THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION IS REALLY ASKING THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO REACH OUT AND WORK TOWARDS A CONSENSUS-SUPPORTED PLAN.
THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE QUITE RIGHT; THIS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.
IT'S GENERATED A LOT OF ACTIVITY RIGHT ACROSS THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
BUT NOT TO SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION OR ABSTAIN, TO ME, WOULD SUGGEST THAT EVERYBODY IN THERE IS SUPPORTED.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE FROM THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES IS THAT THEY ARE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN SAY, "WE SUPPORT EVERYTHING IN THAT PLAN, SO WE'RE HAPPY FOR THE ICANN BOARD TO VOTE ON IT AND APPROVE IT."
AND IF THAT ISN'T THE CASE, I SEE NO REASON WHY EITHER VOTING FOR OR AN ABSTENTION ON JUST THE TWO OPTIONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH, LET ME RESPOND A COUPLE OF WAYS.
FIRST OF ALL, YOU'D BE BLIND TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY HAVEN'T HEARD YOUR EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS.
WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE.
THIS HAS -- IS BEING FOLLOWED VERY, VERY CLOSELY BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO WHETHER OR NOT A FORMAL MOTION IS NECESSARY IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE TO GET VETTED THROUGH MY CONSTITUENCY.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, I THINK FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, NOBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH 100%.
YOU'RE MAKING IT SOUND LIKE IT'S EITHER BLACK OR WHITE, EITHER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE TOTALLY SATIATED AND PLEASED WITH EVERYTHING THERE OR WE CAN NEVER SUPPORT IT.
SO, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I THINK WE'VE SENT A VERY STRONG MESSAGE TO BOTH THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND TO THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS THERE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE CASTIGATED FOR NOT FOLLOWING OUR SPECIFIC BYLAWS FOR OUR CONSTITUENCY.
AS INDIVIDUALS, WE MAY HAVE OPINIONS, AND MANY OF US HAVE EXPRESSED OUR OPINIONS BOTH IN AMSTERDAM AND IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND STAFF ABOUT THIS.
BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I AM AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
AND I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
BUT I'LL SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, BECAUSE I WON'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION THAT I'VE JUST DRAFTED.
SO WE CAN VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION, IF YOU WISH, FIRST.
BUT MY APPROACH HERE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT, WHICH IS TO SORT OF SAY THAT WHAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT IS THAT WHEN ICANN IS TALKING ABOUT ITS STRATEGIC PLAN, IT CALLS IT WILL A CONSENSUS-BASED STRATEGIC PLAN OR IT SAYS THIS IS A PLAN BASED ON THE CONSENSUS OF ITS STAKEHOLDERS.
AND I'VE HEARD VIRTUALLY NO ONE IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.
I ACCEPT IT'S A PLAN AND I ACCEPT THE BOARD MAY WISH TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME SORT OF A PLAN AS A STARTING POINT.
BUT WHAT I WOULDN'T ACCEPT IS THE DESCRIPTION OF IT AS BEING A PLAN BASED ON THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE WE JUST PERHAPS STATE THAT FORMALLY SO THAT IT CAN'T GET MISREPRESENTED ELSEWHERE, JUST SAY WE DON'T CURRENTLY BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS IN THE SUPPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
THAT'S DIFFERENT TO TELLING THE BOARD NOT TO VOTE.
AND THEN SAY THAT THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSENSUS-BASED STRATEGIC PLAN.
MAYBE I'LL MAKE THAT A BIT MORE EXPLICIT.
BY -- WHAT'S THE PROCESS SUPPOSED TO DEVELOP THE NEXT PLAN BY?
JUNE NEXT YEAR OR SOMETHING?
>> (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO THAT'S -- THAT'S A MOTION I WOULD SUPPORT.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: MR. CHAIRMAN, AS THE PROPOSER OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION, I WOULD HAPPILY WITHDRAW MY MOTION IN FAVOR OF THE STATEMENT THAT YOU'VE SUGGESTED BE PUT FORWARD FOR SUPPORT BY THE COUNCIL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST TO REITERATE THAT, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS IS HOW WOULD YOU ESTABLISH THERE IS A CONSENSUS?
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AT THE EDMUNDO VALENTI LEAST YOU MIGHT NEED SOME VOTES AT DIFFERENT LAYERS.
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY WOULD HAVE VOTED ON THE PLAN AND WOULD ESTABLISH WHETHER THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY APPROVES WHATEVER THE PLAN IS.
THEN THE COUNCIL MIGHT APPROVE IT BASED ON THE INPUT FROM THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.
SO IT'S A BIT OF A BOTTOM-UP APPROVAL PROCESS, IF YOU LIKE.
AND THEN I THINK THE BOARD COULD MAKE THAT STATEMENT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE STAFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT, BUT LET'S CALL, IN AUSTRALIAN TERMS, A SPADE A SPADE.
GO AHEAD, ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: I JUST WANTED TO GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY THAT I NOW SUPPORT ALL THREE MOTIONS.
(LAUGHTER.)
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK KEN GOT HIS HAND UP JUST BEFORE YOU, PHILIP.
SO I'LL LET HIM GO FIRST.
WHAT DID YOU WISH TO SAY, KEN?
>>KEN STUBBS: WELL, IT'S JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION, AND IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN POSED THROUGH ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR CONSTITUENCY, AND THAT IS WHY DOES THE STRATEGIC PLAN REQUIRE A CONSENSUS? BECAUSE IF EVERYTHING WE DID REQUIRED A CONSENSUS, WE'D HAVE A REAL PARALYTIC SITUATION. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ICANN DOES THAT WE CAN'T GET CONSENSUS ON EVERYTHING.
WE HAVE A CONSENSUS PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING POLICY, BUT THIS IS NOT THE CREATION OF A POLICY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND THAT'S FINE, KEN, BUT LET'S NOT CALL THAT STRATEGIC DOCUMENT AS A DOCUMENT BASED ON THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY. JUST SAY IT'S A DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE BOARD AT THE REQUEST OF THE STAFF. THAT'S FINE.
YEAH P AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE ALSO SAYING IS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PLAN DEVELOPED VIA CONSENSUS PROCESS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE HAS TO BE 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT, BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A PROCESS TO REACH THAT. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE ALL ABOUT. WE'RE ALL ABOUT TRYING TO REACH AS MUCH AGREEMENT AS WE CAN ON SOMETHING.
AND IF WE REMOVE THE TERM CONSENSUS AND JUST TALK PRACTICALITIES, THE PLAN SHOULD HAVE BUY-IN FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND I DON'T THINK IT HAS BUY-IN.
OKAY. I'LL PUT THE MOTION TO A VOTE, AND I'LL START WITH CARY AT THE FAR END THERE.
>>CARY KARP: CAN YOU PLEASE STATE THE MOTION AS WE ARE VOTING ON IT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I WILL.
THE MOTION IS ON THE SCREEN. I'LL READ IT OUT BUT IT IS ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU, ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE SCREEN, PRESUMABLY. AND IT STATES THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL DOES NOT CURRENTLY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY IN THE SUPPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSENSUS-BASED STRATEGIC PLAN.
>>CARY KARP: I ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP.
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: ABSTAIN, BRUISE.
>>KEN STUBBS: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KIYOSHI.
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: FOR IT, YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LUCY.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: I'M IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NIKLAS.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: I'M IN FAVOR.
>>NORBERT KLEIN: IN FAVOR.
>>ROBIN GROSS: IN FAVOR.
>>ROSS RADER: ALSO IN FAVOR.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL.
>>TONY HOLMES: IN FAVOR.
>>TONY HARRIS: IN FAVOR.
>>GREG RUTH: IN FAVOR.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IN FAVOR.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: I'M IN FAVOR.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M IN FAVOR. I THINK THAT CARRIES THE MOTION. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN THE PROXIES YET?
SO CARY, YOU HOLD A PROXY FOR MARC SCHNEIDERS? SORRY, ROBIN HOLDS A PROXY FOR MARC SCHNEIDERS. YOU'RE VOTING IN FAVOR? MAUREEN CUBBERLEY, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE? ROSS?
>>ROSS RADER: IF SHE IS NOT ON THE PHONE, I WOULD ALSO VOTE HER PROXY IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN:OKAY. MOTION CARRIED.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS IS....
>>MARILYN CADE: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WELL, IN TERMS OF THE AGENDA, THERE'S TWO OTHER THINGS THAT WERE LISTED FOR DISCUSSION UNDER ANY OTHER BUSINESS. A RESOLUTION ON DOT NET, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH -- I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT WAS A RESOLUTION, BUT RELATED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: IF I MIGHT JUST SPEAK TO THE SECOND MATTER WHICH I ASKED TO HAVE ON THE AGENDA. GIVEN THE TIME, I'LL WITHDRAW THAT TO ANOTHER TIME. THANKS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S FINE.
ON THE RESOLUTION ON DOT NET, DOES ANYONE WANT TO TALK TO THAT?
>>MARILYN CADE: I WILL.
I'LL MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN WITHDRAW THE RESOLUTION.
THE STATEMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT I THINK THAT THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. I AM DISAPPOINTED BY MANY OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD, AND -- IN THE ADDITIONAL DATA GATHERING, AND I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED HAVE BEEN PERHAPS FULLY UNDERSTOOD AND I CERTAINLY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THESE ARE THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT?
>>MARILYN CADE: THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NONPOSTING OF WHAT I CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT AT LEAST MANY IN THE COMMUNITY FELT WERE INFORMAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE COMMUNITY UPON WHICH MANY OF THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS ARE BASED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WONDER IF IT MIGHT NOT BE WORTH A RESOLUTION JUST FOR CLARITY.
I KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL -- SEVERAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES IN THEIR REPORTS DID REPORT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL, AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER A SIMPLE ONE-LINER, WHICH IF SOMEONE CAN GIVE ME SOMETHING TO TYPE IN, I'LL TRY TO TYPE SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE.
I JUST WANT TO TRY TO CRYSTALLIZE THAT IN A SENTENCE.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO WE COULD SAY THE GNSO COUNCIL EXPRESSES ITS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN YOU MAKE THAT BIGGER FOR ME?
>>MARILYN CADE: THE GNSO COUNCIL EXPRESSES ITS CONCERN TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE PROCESS OF APPROVAL FOR THE DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT --
>>MARIA FARRELL: WE SHOULD SAY THE BOARD'S RATHER THAN ITS --
>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S NOT THE BOARD'S APPROVAL.
>>MARIA FARRELL: IT'S THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL JUST TRY TO MAKE IT REALLY SIMPLE.
(TYPING ).
>>MARILYN CADE: GOOD.
ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WHY? OH, GIVEN THE CHANGES. GOOD.
THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE.
I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT AND COULD VOTE IN SUPPORT OF IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN YOU JUST BRING IT BACK UP SO I CAN RE-READ WHAT I JUST TYPED?
OKAY. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO SECOND THAT AS A MOTION?
>>THOMAS KELLER: I SECOND IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON IT. I THINK I'LL JUST PUT THIS TO THE VOTE AGAIN, AND YOU CAN VOTE FOR OR AGAINST. AGAIN, I'LL START WITH CARY.
>>CARY KARP: I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THIS. THIS COUNCILLOR WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS HIS CONCERN TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT WE REPRESENT, WE ARE BOUND TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES OF OUR CONSTITUENCY. AND BEING PRESSED UP AGAINST THE WALL AND ASKED TO MAKE STATEMENTS ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT CONSULTATION IS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S --
>>CARY KARP: I'M NOT PREPARED TO BE PARTY TO THIS VOTE. I'M NOT SAYING A WORD ABOUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE MOTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S FINE. ACCEPTED.
PHIL.
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: ABSTAIN, BRUISE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN:.KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KIYOSHI.
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: LUCY.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: ABSTAIN.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: ABSTAIN. >>NORBERT KLEIN: IN FAVOR.
>>ROBIN GROSS: IN FAVOR.
>> PROXY?
>>ROBIN GROSS: HER ALSO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS?
>>ROSS RADER: I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION AND LEAVE MY PROXY ABSTAINING.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M IN FAVOR.
>>TONY HOLMES: IN FAVOR.
>>TONY HARRIS: IN FAVOR.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IN FAVOR.
>>GREG RUTH: IN FAVOR.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: IN FAVOR.
>>MARILYN CADE: IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I VOTE IN FAVOR. SO WE WILL DETERMINE WHAT THE STATE OF THIS MOTION IS. SO THE MOTION PASSES. WE WILL, IN REPORTING THE MOTION, ALSO REPORT THE CONCERNS RAISED BY CARY THAT HE FELT THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO VOTE ON THAT WITHOUT --
>>LUCY NICHOLS: I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT, TOO, ON BEHALF OF --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE ON THAT, AND I ACCEPT THAT AS A COMMENT, BUT THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE I GUESS IS TRYING TO REFLECT THE VIEWS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. WE'RE NOT MAKING A BINDING POLICY HERE. WE'RE REALLY -- I'M REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR CLARITY TO HELP ME MAKE A REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE VIEWS OF THE CONSTITUENCIES. AND I CAN CERTAINLY REPORT THAT THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY DID NOT HAVE THAT VIEW, BUT THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, AS REGISTERED BY THESE VOTES, DID. MAYBE THAT'S THE BEST WAY OF EXPRESSING IT.
SO I'M NOT -- I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUENCIES HAD THIS VIEW, AND THAT REPRESENTED A MAJORITY ON THE COUNCIL.
IT DOES SURPRISE ME A LITTLE BIT, I MIGHT ADD, THOUGH, THAT THE -- THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT THAT WAS MADE BY THE CHAIR OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. BUT I ACCEPT THE PROVISION IN TERMS OF (INAUDIBLE).
CARY AND THEN ROSS.
>>CARY KARP: I WANT TO EXPRESS MY ONGOING DISMAY IS THAT OUR CONSTITUENCY IS MADE TO APPEAR AS IF IT HAS AN OPINION THAT IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PROCESS THAT'S SUPPOSED TO APPLY TO THE WAY WE CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS ISN'T BEING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO I SHOULD REPORT THAT AS DID NOT -- JUST TELL ME HOW YOU WISH ME TO REPORT T CARY.
>>CARY KARP: I WILL LEAVE THAT TO YOUR JUDGMENT, BRUCE. YOU ARE IN THE CHAIR. YOU HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID AT THIS TABLE AND HOW YOU WISH TO CONVEY THAT I WILL LEAVE TO YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: BRUCE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, AGAIN, IT'S NOT WHETHER WE SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. IT'S THAT WE JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: VOTING ON IT.
>>LUCY NICHOLS: -- TAKING A POSITION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'LL EXPRESS IT THAT WAY, THEN. I'LL ACCEPT THAT.
ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: AS SOMEBODY WHO VOTED IN ABSTAINING BALLOTS, I JUST WANTED TO ESSENTIALLY ECHO LUCY'S STATEMENT. I HAVE NOT CONSULTED WITH MAUREEN ON THE SUBJECT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER VIEW IS. SO I WOULD HESITATE TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS ANYTHING BUT THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT VOTING A PROXY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
KIYOSHI THEN KEN.
>>KIYOSHI TSURU: OUR POINT IS THAT WE HAD A BRIEF MEETING YESTERDAY, NOT WITH ALL OF OUR MEMBERS, AND WE DID NOT REACH AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT. SO WE NEED MORE TIME TO OUTREACH TO ALL OF OUR MEMBERS AND SEE WHETHER WE HAVE A YES OR A NO OR ANOTHER RESOLUTION AT THIS POINT. WE CAN'T TELL.
AT THIS POINT, WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION AND THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS THAT WOULD FAVOR THAT WORDING, THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS THAT WOULD FAVOR A MORE NARROW WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION.
SO WE HAVE TO REACH OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT THE CONSTITUENCY WANTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WHAT I MIGHT DO IS RECRAFT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS GUIDANCE TO ASSIST ME IN MAKING A REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GNSO.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO CHARACTERIZE AS A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEN IT'S KIND OF EMBEDDED IN THE MINUTES FOR ALL TIME AS DISTINCT FROM CHARACTERIZING IT AS -- FUNDAMENTALLY, I HAVE TO GIVE A REPORT IN THE PUBLIC FORUM TOMORROW AND DECIDE WHAT THE GNSO COMMUNITY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AND THIS IS -- THIS IS ALLOWING ME TO SAY THAT CERTAINLY THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM A NUMBER OF THESE CONSTITUENCIES WHICH REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL DID EXPRESS THIS VIEW.
SO I'LL CAPTURIZE IT IN THAT SENSE.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I'D JUST LIKE AGAIN TO REITERATE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THOSE OF US THAT ARE BOUND SPECIFICALLY BY BYLAW PROVISIONS. PERSONAL OPINIONS AND SO FORTH ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT. BUT THE POINT I MAKE VERY SIMPLY IS WHEN YOU ASK US TO VOTE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>KEN STUBBS: -- WE VOTE AS REPRESENTATIVES REGARDLESS OF OUR PERSONAL OPINIONS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I UNDERSTAND.
>>KEN STUBBS: -- BECAUSE WE'RE BOUND THAT WAY. AND I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE RESULTS OF ANY VOTES CHARACTERIZED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ATTRIBUTES ANY ACTION BY THE CONSTITUENCY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY STATED HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, AGREED.
>>KEN STUBBS: BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO WILLINGLY PARTICIPATED IN DIALOGUES WITH REGARD TO THE BUDGET, WITH REGARD TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND SO FORTH LIKE THAT, AND WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE HAD CONCERNS ON CERTAIN THINGS.
BUT AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME, THINGS HAVE MOVED FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD AND I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE MY OPINIONS OR ANYONE'S OPINIONS AND ATTRIBUTE THEM TO ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF, AND I CAN'T DO THAT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS TO BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE POSITION EXPRESSED BY AND IT WON'T BE CHARACTERIZED IN ANY OTHER WAY.
OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS?

>>MARILYN CADE: JUST A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT, A QUESTION TO YOU. IF YOU RECALL, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE BOARD AND THAT IS STILL UP IN THE AIR. PERHAPS I COULD JUST TALK WITH YOU. BUT WE MAY NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND TALK ABOUT THAT. WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED THAT WE NEED TO ANNOUNCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. YES, PATRICK SHARRY WILL ACTUALLY BE TAKING INPUT ON THE NEXT ITERATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AT A MEETING ON THURSDAY AFTERNOON, I BELIEVE, AT 3:00, IS IT? 3:30. WHERE? WE DON'T KNOW.
>>MARILYN CADE: JOINT WHOIS COUNCIL TASK FORCE, UNLESS WE CANCEL IT, IS SCHEDULED FOR 2:00 TO 3:30 AND THIS IS SCHEDULED FROM 3:30 TO 5:00.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO 3:30 TO 5:00.
ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE WANTS TO RAISE?
OKAY. AT THAT POINT, THEN, I WILL CLOSE THE MEETING AND THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING.