ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO IF COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD RETURN TO THE TABLE SO AT LEAST WE HAVE A QUORUM TO RUN THIS MEETING.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I'M SORRY, DO WE NOT HAVE A QUORUM WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: COULD I JUST CLARIFY WHO'S ON THE TELECONFERENCE PHONE.
THIS IS BRUCE TONKIN SPEAKING.
>> GRANT FORSYTH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO WE HAVE GRANT FORSYTH.
AND WAS THAT ALICK AS WELL?
>> (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: BOTH OF YOU ARE VERY HARD TO HEAR IN THIS ROOM.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN AT LEAST HEAR YOU ENOUGH TO KNOW YOU'RE THERE.
BUT I THINK IF YOU HAVE -- IF YOU NEED TO GET A SPECIFIC POINT ACROSS, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF PERHAPS YOU SEND THAT VIA E-MAIL TO GLEN.
AND GLEN CAN REPEAT IT TO ME.
BECAUSE I CAN'T ALWAYS HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.
OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED WITH THE MEETING AND JUST CONFIRM WHO WE HAVE HERE.
>> THIS IS ALICK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE JUST HAVE A SHORT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM TONY HARRIS ABOUT LUNCH ARRANGEMENT.
IF TONY COULD DO THAT BEFORE WE START THE MEETING.
>>TONY HARRIS: YES, THIS IS JUST TO TELL EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT LUNCH IS BEING PUT FORWARD ON THE 12TH FLOOR AS FROM 11:30 SINCE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC FORUM STARTING AT 12:30.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY OKAY, I'D LIKE TO GET THE MEETING STARTED.
JUST CONFIRM WHO WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST ON THE COUNCIL AND SEE WHO WE HAVE HERE.
SO IF YOU JUST SAY YES WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTH, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, GRANT.
NIKLAS LAGERGREN.
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
LUCY NICHOLS I BELIEVE HAS PROVIDED A PROXY TO YOU, NIKLAS.
AND KYOSHI HAS PROVIDED A PROXY ALSO.
TONY HOLMES.
>> YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>> PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>GREG RUTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROBIN GROSS.
>>ROBIN GROSS: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARLOS AFONSO.
MARC SCHNEIDERS IS ABSENT.
WHO IS HIS PROXY?
CARLOS.
BRUCE TONKIN.
I'M HERE.
ROSS RADER.
>>ROSS RADER: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.
THANK YOU, TOM.
KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NOW I BELIEVE YOU HOLD A PROXY FOR CARY KARP.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>>KEN STUBBS: (INAUDIBLE) INDIRECTLY I MAY.
CARY'S PROXY GOES --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
--
>>KEN STUBBS: INDIRECTLY, IT GOES TO PHILIP COLEBROOK FIRST AND IF HE IS NOT THERE, THEN TO ME.
SAME WITH PHILIP'S.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO PHILIP, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE?
PHILIP COLEBROOK?
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.
OKAY.
YOU'RE CURRENTLY HOLDING PROXY FOR CARY KARP; IS THAT CORRECT, KEN?
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
OKAY.
MAUREEN CUBBERLEY?
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: YES, PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MAUREEN.
AND ALICK WILSON, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE AS WELL?
>>ALICK WILSON: (INAUDIBLE) IN QUEUE (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT, ALICK.
I COULD HEAR YOU'RE THERE, BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BACK TO US.

>>ALICK WILSON: (INAUDIBLE) MESSAGES.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS FOR SOMEONE TO PROVIDE ICQ OR SOME OTHER FORM OF MESSAGING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
GLEN IS DOING THAT.
YES.
SO IF YOU CAN COMMUNICATE OFFLINE WITH THE SECRETARIAT, GLEN, AND SHE WILL FORWARD MESSAGES THROUGH TO ME.
SHE WILL SEND YOU HER ICQ DETAILS.
THE FIRST ITEM IS REALLY JUST GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA.
WE NEED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING.
WE NEED TO RATIFY THE VOTE FOR ICANN BOARD SEAT NUMBER 14.
WOULD I LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE AN ITEM THERE THAT JUST PICKS UP ON SOME OF THE NEW ELEMENTS OF THE DOT NET AGREEMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE AWARE OF, AND ME IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES APPROVAL PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE PDP ITEMS ON THE COUNCIL.
AND THEN THE FINAL ITEM, WE HAVE STRATEGY PLAN AND OPERATING PLAN FOR 4 AND 5 AND 6.
SO I SUGGEST WE COMBINE THOSE INTO ONE ITEM AND JUST TAKE COMMENTS ON WHAT WE THINK THE PROCESS SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS PLANS THAT ICANN HAS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS?
OKAY.
THE FIRST ITEM, THEN, IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF THE 17TH OF MARCH.
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE?
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO PROPOSE THEY BE MOVED?
>>KEN STUBBS: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AS PRESENTED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KEN.
ANYONE WISH TO COMMENT ON THE MINUTES IN ANY WAY?
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES OF THE 17TH OF MARCH EITHER RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY AYE.
AYE.
ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?
ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?
WAS THAT AGAINST?
THAT WAS AN ABSTENTION, WAS IT, PHILIP?
THANK YOU.
SO HAVE PHILIP AND TOM ABSTAINING.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
NOTE THOSE MINUTES AS PASSED.
THE NEXT ITEM IS TO RATIFY THE VOTE FOR ICANN BOARD SEAT NUMBER 14.
IF I CAN ASK THE SECRETARIAT, GLEN, TO GIVE US A REPORT ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT VOTE.

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: ALL VOTES WERE RECEIVED BY THE CLOSE OF THE VOTING ON THE 31ST OF APRIL [SIC] -- MARCH, SORRY.
31ST OF MARCH.
YOU EACH HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE VOTES WITH THE WAY YOU VOTED.
SO YOU CAN CHECK.
I HAVE GOT TWO CONFIRMATIONS OF THE VOTES, FROM CARY KARP AND PHILIP COLEBROOK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT'S THE OVERALL RESULT OF THAT VOTE?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: OVERALL RESULT IS THAT, UNANIMOUSLY, MIKE PALAGE IS RE-ELECTED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANK YOU, GLEN.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S -- HANG ON.
IT'S NOT THERE YET.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THIS MEETING THAT WE RATIFY THE VOTE SUCH IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE CAN ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAR EACH OTHER, WHICH IS A VITAL REQUIREMENT.
SO I'D LIKE TO FORMALLY ASK EACH MEMBER OF COUNCIL TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE VOTE AND TO RATIFY THE VOTE.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS VOTING IN FAVOR TO RATIFY THE VOTE AS RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARIAT.
SO I'LL ASK FIRST PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTH?
>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: YES.
(INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
TONY HOLMES?
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS?
>>TONY HARRIS: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH?
>>GREG RUTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROBIN GROSS?
>>ROBIN GROSS: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARLOS AFONSO?
>>CARLOS AFONSO: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU LIKE.
I'LL --
>>CARLOS AFONSO: YES FOR ME AND PROXY FOR MARC SCHNEIDERS, ALSO YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
I VOTE IN FAVOR.
ROSS RADER?
>>ROSS RADER: I ALSO VOTE IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TOM KELLER?
>>THOMAS KELLER: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP COLEBROOK?
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: YES, BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND YOUR PROXY FOR CARY?
>>PHILIP COLEBROOK: THAT'S YES AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
KEN STUBBS?
>>KEN STUBBS: FOR RATIFICATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MAUREEN CUBBERLEY?
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK WILSON?
>>ALICK WILSON: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ALICK.
SO THE MINUTES WILL NOTE THAT BOTH THE VOTE AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF MIKE PALAGE BEING ELECTED FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM FOR BOARD SEAT NUMBER 14.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MIKE, SINCE YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD, PERHAPS SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS.
AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, MAKE IT BRIEF, PLEASE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU.
IS IT ON?
HELLO.
THANK YOU, BRUCE, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AND THOSE IN ATTENDANCE.
THANK YOU FOR THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
CONSIDERING I WAS RUNNING AGAINST NO ONE, I'M GLAD THERE WAS NO ABSTENTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT I DO CONSIDER A POSITIVE STATEMENT.
WHAT I WILL TRY TO DO OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS IS TO CONTINUE WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO DURING MY PREVIOUS TWO YEARS, WHICH IS TO LISTEN AND TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE VOICES AND CONCERNS OF THE COUNCIL AT THE BOARD LEVEL.
AS I'VE STATED IN MY CANDIDATE STATEMENT, THERE ARE CLEAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO SERVE NOT ONLY THE COUNCIL, BUT THE ICANN COMMUNITY AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MIKE.
OKAY.
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO NOW IS JUST GIVE A VERY QUICK SUMMARY OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES APPROVAL PROCESS THAT'S IN THE DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN THAT AREA.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET THE SCREEN FROM HERE UP ONTO THERE?
OKAY.
IN THE -- AS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY MAY BE AWARE, THERE IS CURRENTLY A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN ACTION TO LOOK AT WHAT PROCESS SHOULD THE ICANN STAFF BE USING TO APPROVE CHANGES IN A REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
THERE HAS BEEN, I GUESS, DRAFTS OF THAT PROCESS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, AND THE STAFF HAVE ALSO PROVIDED INPUT ON THEIR EXPERIENCES IN APPROVING PROCESSES SO FAR.
BUT WE'VE YET TO MOVE THAT FORWARD AS A CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AT LEAST AWARE OF THIS PROCESS AS IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
AND I'M REALLY ONLY JUST GOING TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW.
AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT USE THIS AS THE DEFINITIVE VERSION, BUT TO READ THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT AND PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM.
THIS IS PROBABLY A BIT HARD TO READ, BUT IT AT LEAST GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE FLOW.
ESSENTIALLY, THE REGISTRY WOULD NOTIFY ICANN THAT THEY WISH TO INTRODUCE A NEW SERVICE.
ICANN HAS THE OPTION TO GET SOME EXPERT ADVICE AT THAT POINT.
AND ANY EXPERT ADVICE THEY WOULD GET AT THAT POINT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY.
ICANN THEN WOULD MAKE A PRELIMINARY -- OR THE STAFF WOULD MAKE A PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO SECURITY OR STABILITY OR IF THERE IS A CONCERN REGARDING COMPETITION.
IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, THERE'S REALLY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.
IF THE CONCERN IS OF A COMPETITION NATURE, ICANN'S ROLE -- ICANN IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION THAT SPECIALIZES IN COMPETITION ITSELF, AND SO WHAT THE AGREEMENT SPECIFIES IS THAT IF THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT COMPETITION, ICANN WOULD NOTIFY AN APPROPRIATE COMPETITION REGULATOR OF THEIR CONCERNS, SO HERE THEY REFER THE AGREEMENT TO THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY.
THE REGISTRY IS REQUIRED NOT TO DEPLOY THE SERVICE FOR 45 DAYS.
THIS IS REALLY JUST GIVING ENOUGH TIME FOR THE COMPETITION REGULATOR TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE.
AND IF THAT COMPETITION REGULATOR THINKS THERE'S AN ISSUE, THEN THEY WOULD BE DEALING WITH THAT DIRECTLY WITH THE REGISTRY.
ICANN HAS NO FURTHER ROLE AT THAT POINT.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE SAYING THAT IT GOES TO THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY, AND ICANN HAS NO FURTHER ROLE.
BUT THE REGISTRY NEEDS TO DELAY 45 DAYS BEFORE LAUNCHING THE SERVICE.
THE ALTERNATIVE FLOW IS, IF THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND THAT IS THE CORE MISSION OF ICANN, AND ICANN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES, SO IN THAT CASE, ICANN REFERS THE ISSUE TO A STANDING PANEL OF SECURITY EXPERTS.
AND THAT PANEL MIGHT BE QUITE LARGE, IT MIGHT BE 20, 30 PEOPLE.
AND FOR A PARTICULAR ISSUE, A SMALLER GROUP OF THAT PANEL, A SMALLER NUMBER OF PEOPLE, WOULD THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOOKING AT THAT ISSUE.
THAT PANEL HAS A TOTAL OF 45 DAYS TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE.
BUT DURING THAT 45-DAY PERIOD, THEY'D ALSO BE RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY ON WHETHER -- YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR SECURITY AND STABILITY CONCERNS ARE.
AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD, THE STANDING PANEL WOULD PUBLISH THEIR REPORT ON THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES.
AT THIS POINT, THE REGISTRY OPERATOR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION.
AND ALSO AT THIS POINT THE COMMUNITY -- SO WE'RE HERE, STANDING PANEL REPORT HAS BEEN PRODUCED.
AND THEN THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER COMMENT.
AND THEN THE BOARD WOULD DECIDE WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THERE IS A RISK TO THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET BASED ON THE STANDING PANEL'S REPORT AND BASED ON FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FURTHER REGISTRY INPUT.
AND THEN THE FINAL DECISION'S MADE THERE.
SO THERE'S REALLY TWO DECISION FLOWS.
ONE IS, IS IT POTENTIALLY A COMPETITION ISSUE?
IF SO, NOTIFY THE COMPETITION REGULATOR.
IF IT IS AN ISSUE OR A CONCERN OF SECURITY AND STABILITY, A PANEL OF EXPERTS WOULD BE USED TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THAT.
THE COMMUNITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT.
AND THEN THE BOARD WOULD MAKE A DECISION.
SO THAT'S -- THAT'S ROUGHLY THE PROCESS.
AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT PRESENTING HERE AS AN EXPERT ON THIS TOPIC.
THIS CHART WAS PRODUCED FOR ME BY ICANN STAFF.
BUT YOU SHOULD READ THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEFINITIVE VERSION AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. AND THIS IS STILL DRAFT.
SO THE COMMUNITY STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT VIA THE PUBLIC COMMENT LIST ON ANY CONCERNS THEY HAVE.
SO PERHAPS OPEN IT TO COUNCIL IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ISSUES.
YEAH.

>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, MY QUESTION IS -- RIGHT NOW IT'S A POINT OF CLARIFICATION -- THAT WHEN YOU SAY IT'S STILL DRAFT, LET ME SEE IF I GET THIS STRAIGHT.
IT'S STILL DRAFT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT, BUT THE AGREEMENT IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?
IS THAT WHAT YOU --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE DOT NET AGREEMENT IS A DRAFT AGREEMENT AND IS OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS A PROCESS THAT IS IN THAT DRAFT.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, WHEN I READ THE SECTION, IT IS SIMILAR TO WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE COUNCIL.
BUT I DIDN'T DO A SIDE-BY-SIDE.
AS THE CHAIR OF THE WORK OF COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, DO YOU HAVE A QUICK IDEA THAT IT'S 70% CONSISTENT OR 90% CONSISTENT?
OR SHOULD WE ACTUALLY ASK MARIA TO SUPPORT US WITH MORE OF A SIDE-BY-SIDE AFTER THIS MEETING?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I MUST ADMIT, I HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO REALLY DO THAT.
ALL I CAN SORT OF SAY IS HIGH-LEVEL COMMENTS RATHER THAN KIND OF ATTEMPT TO DO A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON.
SO PERHAPS I CAN JUST SORT OF GIVE A CONCEPT THERE.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR DRAFT SO FAR WAS THE IDEA OF A QUICK LOOK AND A DETAILED LOOK.
I SEE THIS FIRST STEP HERE AS ESSENTIALLY BEING WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE THE QUICK-LOOK PROCESS, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY SAYING ICANN WOULD LOOK AT IT.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A 15-DAY PROCESS FROM WHEN THE STAFF IS ADVISED AND WHEN THE STAFF DECIDES WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
AND IN THAT QUICK-LOOK PROCESS, WE ENVISAGED THAT THE STAFF MAY NEED TO GET OUTSIDE EXPERTISE.
AND SO THAT -- I SUSPECT THE DIFFERENCES THAT THE DIAGRAMS THAT ARE IN THE COUNCIL GO DOWN TO, IF YOU LIKE, MICRO LEVEL ON WHAT SOME OF THESE HIGH-LEVEL BOXES ARE.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S AN OPTION HERE THAT IF ICANN'S -- AND SOME OF THIS IS ALSO IN THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, I MUST SAY.
THERE'S SOME SUBSTEPS HERE THAT ARE MORE DETAIL.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE ICANN NEEDS TO NOTIFY WHICH EXPERT THEY'RE GOING TO USE.
AND IF THE REGISTRY OPERATOR CONSIDERED THAT EXPERT TO BE A DIRECT COMPETITOR, THEY MIGHT COMPLAIN.
SO THERE ARE OTHER STEPS IN THIS DIAGRAM THAT ARE NOT ACTUALLY MAPPED.
SO THIS IS VIEWED, REALLY, JUST AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PROCESS, WE HAD A LOT OF STEPS IN THERE.
SO THIS DIAGRAM HERE WAS A FULL PAGE OF VARIOUS OPTIONS.
THE REGISTRY OPERATOR COULD CHOOSE TO PULL OUT AT ANY STAGE, BECAUSE THEY MIGHT LOOK AT THAT, GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM STAFF, AND DECIDE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER.
SO WE MAP SOME OF THOSE STEPS OUT A BIT FURTHER.
IF WE THEN LOOK AT THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS DIAGRAM, IT IS CONSISTENT THAT THE COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT SAYING YOU NEED TO LOOK AT COMPETITION ISSUES AND YOU NEED TO LOOK AT SECURITY ISSUES.
AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE DETAILED REVIEW PROCESS, BECAUSE THIS IS -- THIS IS ACTUALLY A PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS AT THIS POINT.
PRIOR TO THAT, IT'S NOT.
ICANN IS IN A 15-DAY PERIOD THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL.
BUT AT THIS POINT, IF ICANN HAS CONCERNS, IT ACTUALLY PUBLISHES IT.
AND IN SOME OF OUR DIAGRAMS, WE HAD STEPS WHICH ALLOWED -- THERE WOULD BE A STEP HERE SAYING DOES THE REGISTRY OPERATOR WANT TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT?
SO WE WERE VERY EXPLICIT IN DEFINING ALL THE STEPS.
HERE, IF YOU LIKE, THEY'RE -- OBVIOUSLY, A REGISTRY OPERATOR COULD PULL OUT AT ANY TIME.
AND YOU COULD MAP THAT IF YOU WANT TO.
SO I THINK AT A HIGH LEVEL, IT IS CONSISTENT.
THE MICRO DETAILS PROBABLY DIFFER.
BECAUSE WE PROBABLY HAD SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IDEAS THERE.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO -- WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING, I SUPPOSE, IS A COUNCIL PROCESS -- LET ME SORT OF SEPARATE THE TWO PROCESSES.
THERE IS A PROCESS OF THE DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT WHERE THE COMMUNITY SHOULD PROVIDE INPUT.
IF ANYONE HAS A CONCERN WITH THIS NOW, THEY SHOULD PUT THEIR INPUT TO THE DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT.
BECAUSE ONCE THAT AGREEMENT IS SIGNED, THIS IS WHAT WILL OPERATE FROM DAY ONE OF THAT AGREEMENT.
AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, WHAT I SUGGEST WE TO IS TAKE THIS AS INPUT INTO THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND HAVE A CALL AFTER YOU'VE ALL HAD TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND IT.
AND WE GET INPUT FROM EACH CONSTITUENCY AND WE DECIDE DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THIS IN ANY WAY, DO WE WANT TO IMPROVE IT IN ANY WAY AS PART OF THE CONSENSUS PROCESS.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND THERE'S TWO PATHS.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANKS.
I JUST HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
YOU SAID EARLIER -- AND, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ACTUALLY READ THIS.
SO IT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.
THAT IN THE FLOW, IF THE -- IF ICANN BELIEVES THERE'S A COMPETITION ISSUE, THEY REFER IT TO THE PROPER COMPETITION AUTHORITY.
AND THEN YOU SAID THERE'S NO FURTHER ACTION BY ICANN, WHICH I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
THERE SHOULD BE A FEEDBACK LOOP TO ICANN AT SOME POINT.
SHOULDN'T THERE?
FROM THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY?
OR DOES ICANN JUST SORT OF PROCEED, REGARD- --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THIS IS A BIT LIKE THE FINAL STEP IN THE TRANSFERS PROCESS.
THIS IS A NOTIFICATION.
BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRING A POSITIVE RESPONSE AS A RESULT OF THAT NOTIFICATION.
AND I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE SOMETIMES COMPETITION ISSUES TAKE LONGER TO DETERMINE AND THEY MIGHT EVEN NEED THE MARKET TO ACTUALLY OPERATE FOR A WHILE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
BUT IF IT IS REFERRED TO A COMPETITION AUTHORITY, THE IDENTITY OF THAT COMPETITION AUTHORITY WILL BE SPECIFIED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.
AND I THINK THE INTENT IS THAT THE PROCESS THEN HAPPENS OUTSIDE ICANN.
SO IF YOU, AS A -- REPRESENTING A BUSINESS USER, HAD A COMPETITION CONCERN, YOU WOULD ALSO GO TO THAT COMPETITION AUTHORITY AND SAY, "THIS IS MY STAFF."
AND I WOULD THINK IF THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY WAS REALLY CONCERNED, IF YOU LIKE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY ACT QUICKLY.
OR ALTERNATIVELY, THEY MAY SAY WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, IN WHICH CASE, THE REGISTRY OPERATOR, AS FAR AS ICANN IS CONCERNED, IS FREE TO DEPLOY.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY WOULDN'T TAKE ACTION.
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION, BUT --
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REGISTRY OPERATOR IS THEN OPERATING UNDER ITS OWN RISK.
IT'S NOT ICANN'S RISK.
IF THE REGISTRY OPERATOR GOES FORWARD, THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO ACTION FROM THAT COMPETITION AUTHORITY.
AND THAT'S AT THEIR RISK.
IT'S NOT AN ICANN -- ICANN IS NOT APPROVING IT.
IT'S JUST SAYING IT'S OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANKS.
THIS MAY BE A QUESTION THAT ICANN STAFF CAN BETTER ANSWER, AND IT MAY JUST BE A LIMITATION OF THE FLOWCHART.
IT STROKES ME IF IT'S A RELATIVELY NONCONTROVERSIAL CHANGE, THE BOARD IS LIKELY TO SEE A STANDING PANEL REPORT, WHICH WILL HAVE GOT THE FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC COMMENTS IN, AND MAYBE ADDITIONAL REGISTRY INPUT.
THEY WILL HAVE ONE REPORT UPON WHICH TO MAKE THE DECISION.
IF IT'S, HOWEVER, A CONTROVERSIAL MATTER, THEN SECOND-ROUND PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY WELL COME INTO PLAY, ADDITIONAL REGISTRY INPUT MAY COME INTO PLAY, AND THE FLOWCHART SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING THE BOARD MAY THEN POTENTIALLY HAVE THREE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF THEM, WHICH IS A STANDING PANEL REPORT, ADDITIONAL REGISTRY INPUT, AND SOME SORT OF STAFF COMPILATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I JUST WONDERED IF THAT IS CORRECT IN TERMS OF THE FLOWCHART AND IF THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS HAPPY WITH THAT THEY'VE SOMEHOW GOT -- ASSESSED THOSE THREE POINTS AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BASIS OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THIS WOULD NOT BE UNLIKE THE PROCESS WE'RE IN NOW FOR DOT NET.
BECAUSE IF YOU THINK OF THAT AS THE TELECORDIA REPORT, THAT'S A REPORT, THERE'S STILL PUBLIC COMMENTS BEING RECEIVED.
THE STAFF WOULD SUMMARIZE THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND GIVE THEM TO THE BOARD.
SO THE BOARD WOULD RECEIVE THAT REPORT.
IT WOULD RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND IF YOU LIKE, IN THIS MODE, THE REGISTRY IS EFFECTIVELY LIKE A MEMBER OF PUBLIC.
IT'S JUST KIND OF IDENTIFIED IN THIS DIAGRAM SEPARATELY.
AND THEN THE BOARD'S GOT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.
SO I BELIEVE THAT'S -- AS IT'S REPRESENTED IS CORRECT.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
BUT -- DID YOU ASK THE QUESTION IS THE BOARD HAPPY WITH THAT?
I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THE BOARD.
SO....
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED ICANN STAFF MAY WISH TO COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION OF PROCESS, BRUCE.
WHAT'S THE TIMING FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE COUNCIL WORK THAT'S RELATED TO THIS, A.
AND, B, WILL THAT THEN, ONCE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD, REPLACE THIS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
YES.
ANY CONSENSUS POLICY THAT'S DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA WOULD OVERRIDE WHAT'S THERE.
AND THE TIME LINE FOR THE CONSENSUS POLICY, I GUESS, IS PARTLY IN OUR HANDS.
BUT A COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD MUCH STAFF RESOURCE ON THIS TOPIC.
SO I THINK NOW THAT WE HAVE SOME NEW STAFF RESOURCES, I WOULD BE SORT OF SUGGESTING THAT MARIA WOULD BE PERHAPS FOCUSING ON WHOIS AND WE ACTUALLY WOULD GET OLOF, OLOF NORDLING, WHO ACTUALLY DID THIS DIAGRAM FOR ME, HELP US CONCLUDE AND MOVE TO AN INITIAL REPORT.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE INITIAL REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE GOT SOME DRAFTS, AND THEN THERE WAS SOME MORE STAFF INPUT. AND THEN I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO -- I DIDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
NOW I'VE GOT THIS.
THE OTHER THING THAT'S INTERESTING HERE, I SHOULD POINT OUT, IS THAT THE DRAFT DOT NET AGREEMENT DEFINES SECURITY AND DEFINES STABILITY.
AND THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE WORTH THE COUNCIL HAVING A LOOK AT AS WELL.
SO, YES, WHAT I WILL TRY AND DO IS KICK-START THE COUNCIL PROCESS AGAIN, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY.
BECAUSE NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME LEGAL TERMS, WE'VE GOT SOME LEGAL STRUCTURE.
I THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE SUCCINCT THAT WE CAN THEN LOOK AT AGAIN AND SEE IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT AND IMPROVE IT IN ANY WAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS?
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST HAD A GENERAL QUESTION, NOT ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY A COUPLE OF OTHER NEW POLICY-RELATED THINGS IN THE DOT NET CONTRACT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THEM TODAY.
BUT WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO HAVE A PROCESS BY WHICH WE FLAGGED THE POLICY-RELATED TOPICS AND SEE WHETHER ANY OF THOSE REFLECT BACK FOR FURTHER PDP PROCESSES ON OUR PART.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT?
I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS AT THIS POINT.
IF THERE ARE OTHER -- THE REASON WHY I HIGHLIGHTED THIS PARTICULAR SECTION IS WHEN I READ IT, I REALIZED, WELL, THIS IS DIRECTLY MAPPING TO A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN COUNCIL.
SO THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF IT.
BUT I'M ALSO CONSCIOUS THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF IT AS WELL.
THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT -- SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO INFORM PEOPLE OF THOSE?
HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED?
>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.
I GUESS I'M SORT OF -- I'M SORT OF THING THAT WHAT I NEED TO DO, AND PROBABLY OTHERS DO AS WELL, IS LOOK AT THE AGREEMENTS SPECIFICALLY WITH THAT IN MIND, NOT IN OUR ONE-HOUR SESSION HERE, BUT THINK ABOUT THE -- BEING -- IN OUR NEXT CALL, BEING PREPARED TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE AREAS WHICH ARE RELATED TO POLICY AND ASSESS WHETHER WE NEED TO DO RAPID-TRACK PDPS ON ANY OF THOSE TOPICS, WHATEVER THEY ARE, IF THEY IN FACT EXIST.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO, NORMALLY, -- HAVE WE GOT A DATE FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, GLEN?
NORMALLY, WE MEET, TYPICALLY, MONTHLY.
SO YOUR NORMAL MEETING, IF YOU LIKE, WOULD PROBABLY BE IN MAY, UNLESS WE WANT TO CALL AN EARLIER MEETING.
WE JUST WANT TO GET A SENSE OF THE TIME FRAMES.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BEING IN THE SAME TIME FRAME AS WHEN THE DOT NET AGREEMENT IS BEING NEGOTIATED?
OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES THAT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER?
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE ONE -- BECAUSE WE'VE DONE PREVIOUS WORK -- IS THE ONE THAT WOULD DESERVE THE SORT OF FAST-TRACK ATTENTION, AND THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE -- COULD BE PUT ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TRACK OF LET'S SAY IDENTIFY THEM, ASSESS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
SO BY THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO -- SHALL WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA?
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN AGENDA ITEM THAT LOOKS AT ARE THERE OTHER POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY THE NEW AGREEMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.
AND I THINK THAT IS A COMBINATION OF SOME STAFF SUPPORT AND SOME WORK BY COUNCILLORS AS WELL, AND JUST LOOKING AT THEM AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH A LIST.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL COULD DISCUSS THEM AND ASSESS OUR VIEW ON WHETHER PDPS SEEM INDICATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK THAT PROBABLY FOLLOWS ON FROM THE QUESTION WE HAD IN THE PUBLIC FORUM FROM PETER FORMAN, BECAUSE HE WAS CLEARLY RAISING ISSUES THAT, IN HIS VIEW, WERE POLICY ISSUES.
AND SO -- AND WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT SESSION.
SO WE CAN REFER BACK ON THOSE.
BUT I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY FOR THAT TO BE RAISED AT THE NEXT MEETING, YES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
ROSS.
>>ROSS RADER: JUST QUICKLY TO ADD ON TO THAT I SUPPORT THAT COURSE OF ACTION BUT ALSO NOTE THAT WE WOULD NEED A MUCH MORE COMPLETE VIEW OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAN WE HAVE TODAY.
I NOTE THAT THE DRAFTS THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED DON'T INCLUDE ANY APPENDICES OR EXHIBITS.
AND TYPICALLY, THAT'S WHERE THE MEAT OF THOSE CONTRACTS ACTUALLY LIE.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO PICK THAT UP, WE SHOULD ACTUALLY GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND, BRUCE, BEFORE YOU RESPOND, LET ME MAKE A CLARIFYING COMMENT ABOUT WHAT I MEANT.
BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THE STAFF, I WANT TO BE SURE I WAS CLEAR.
I THINK IN THE PAST THAT WE HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF WORK OURSELVES.
AND WE MAY BE QUITE EXPERT AT IT BY NOW.
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT OURSELVES TO HELP TO INTEGRATE THE STAFF INTO OUR WORK PROCESSES.
AND SO WE'LL HAVE SOME LEARNING ON BOTH SIDES.
BUT I'D LIKE FOR THIS PARTICULAR WORK EFFORT TO REALLY BE VERY PARTICIPATORY WITH THE STAFF, SO THAT WE'RE SHARING THE BURDEN OF REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS AND ANALYZING THEM, ET CETERA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THAT'S AN ITEM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
THIS IS BASICALLY ON THE AGENDA ITEM OF THE DOT NET AGREEMENT.
WE'VE COVERED THE REGISTRY SERVICES PART.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?
PHILIP SHEPPARD, I BELIEVE YOU POSTED SOMETHING TO THE COUNCIL LIST.
DID YOU WANT FURTHER ACTION TAKEN ON THAT?
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THIS IS ITEM 3B NOW, IS IT?
BY AGENDA?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
I DID, INDEED.
JUST TO INFORM COUNCIL, I MEAN, BESIDES THE CONCERNS I RAISED ON THAT POSTING, WHICH INCLUDED A POSSIBLE PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION, I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY POSTED THE MAJORITY OF THOSE CONCERNED ALSO TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS LIST IN MY NAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE DOT NET AGREEMENT, I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AROUND THE COUNCIL TABLE SO IT MAY BE THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO TAKE A FORMAL RESOLUTION BEING THAT WE ARE ALSO IN THE MIDDLE OF A PROCESS, A BIDDING PROCESS.
AND JUST TO NOTE THAT THOSE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD SHOULD BE EFFICIENT. IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT ANYMORE, I GUESS WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A DECLARATION OF INTEREST AROUND THE TABLE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS KIND OF A COMBINED ITEM WHICH IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE ICANN PLANNING PROCESS IN THE LAST TWO DAYS WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT INPUT ON THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN. THIS AFTERNOON WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT ON WHAT ARE PROPOSED OR HOW WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE PROCESS WORK IN THE FUTURE.
IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE NOW FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PERHAPS SUGGEST IDEAS THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THAT AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT HERE BEFORE WE HAVE OUR SESSION THIS EVENING.
YOU MENTIONED BEFORE THE MEETING YOU HAD SOME IDEAS, SO I'LL PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE FIRST. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY -- WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT TOPIC OF HOW WE'D LIKE TO SEE PLANNING DONE IN THE FUTURE.
OKAY, MARILYN, GO FOR IT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN MY REMARKS BY THANKING THE COUNCIL AGAIN FOR THE SUPPORT THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDED NOT ONLY FINANCIALLY TO FUND THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION ON THE ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT THE HEAVY-LIFTING DONE BY THE COUNCILLORS THEMSELVES AND I THINK VERY ENTHUSIASTIC AND WARM EMBRACING OF WORKING COLLEGIALLY THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CCTLDS AND FROM THE ASO AND FROM THE ALAC. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF ACTING AS THE CATALYST BUT ONLY A PART, OF COURSE, OF CREATING A MICROCOSM OF ONE FORM OF CONSULTATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I PROPOSE THAT COUNCIL SHOULD DEVELOP IS A FULL COMMITMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC PLAN OF OUR OWN, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH THE OTHER SOS ON A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF INPUT THAT ICANN REALLY NEEDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND SO THIS EVENING, EARLIER EVENING, WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE A STRAW PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED BY SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, GRANT FORSYTH, MAUREEN CUBBERLEY, LET ME GET THAT LAST NAME RIGHT, AND CHUCK GOMES AND MYSELF, BUT LARGELY THE LAST THREE HAVE PUT FORWARD SORT OF A STRAW PROPOSAL. IT IS JUST A PAPER FOR DISCUSSION, BUT IT DOES PROPOSE A REAL INTERACTION ON OUR PART. AND A LOT OF WORK ON OUR PART.
IN ORDER TO MANAGE A STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT ABOUT WHAT WE NEED, BUT ALSO WHAT WE CAN DO TO SUPPORT ICANN'S STRATEGIC PLAN, I THINK WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE A WORKING PROGRAM THAT IS CALLED STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SCHEDULE SPECIFIC TIMES AT WHICH WE WORK AS THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH OUR LIAISONS SPECIFICALLY ON STRATEGIC PLANNING, NEEDS ANALYSIS, AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN, ALL THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT GO INTO A ROBUST STRATEGIC PLAN WITH TWO TRACKS, REALLY. ONE, WHAT IS IT ABOUT US, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THEN WHAT IS THE FEEDBACK AND CONTRIBUTION THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THE ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARILYN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC?
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S -- THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF IS KIND OF THERE'S TWO LEVELS OF IT. I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE DOING PLANNING FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAD A MEETING ON SUNDAY WHICH WE JUST TRIED TO MAP ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR THE NEXT, SORT OF, ONE TO TWO YEARS. AND THE SORT OF THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THAT MEETING WAS WHOIS AND NEW TLDS AND CERTAINLY STRATEGIC PLANNING ITSELF BEING AN AREA WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
THE OTHER AREAS THAT WERE IMPORTANT WERE THINGS LIKE THIS REGISTRY SERVICES PROCESS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, TRANSFERS, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH OPTIONS AND DELETED NAMES, AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT HOW WE IMPROVE OUR OWN PROCESSES. SO THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF THINGS THERE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED A PROCESS OF PLANNING AT COUNCIL LEVEL, WHICH IS SAYING HOW DO WE PLAN OUR ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEXT ONE, TWO, AND THREE YEARS. BUT I'M ALSO THINKING THAT WHAT YOU'RE MEANING IS ALSO GETTING INPUT FROM THE COUNCIL ON WHAT THE WHOLE ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>MARILYN CADE: THAT'S CERTAINLY CORRECT. AND I -- YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE ASPECTS IN THE WORK OF OUR OWN STRATEGIC PLAN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SUCH THINGS AS THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE UNDERTAKE OUR OWN CONTINUING ASSESSMENT AND PERHAPS EVEN FURTHER EVOLUTION IN A STRATEGIC PLAN, AND OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SO IS GOING TO BE EVALUATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT. I THINK THAT, TOO, NEEDS TO GO INTO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. BUT I WOULD REALLY WELCOME COMMENTS FROM OTHER COUNCILLORS ON ANY OF THOSE IDEAS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER -- ARE THERE COMMENTS FROM ANY OTHER COUNCILLORS?
I THINK PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST THINGS TO DO AS WE MOVE FORWARD IS TRY TO PUT SOME OF THIS IN WRITING, MARILYN, AND THE COUNCIL CAN INTERACT ON THE LIST A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN THE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CERTAINLY THIS AFTERNOON WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THERE.
BUT I'LL PERHAPS JUST ASK FOR A GENERAL SHOW OF HANDS IF YOU SUPPORT THOSE GENERAL CONCEPTS, JUST SO WE GET A SENSE OF THE COUNCIL ROUGHLY ON AGREEING AT THE HIGH LEVEL.
YEAH. OKAY.
SO I THINK I CAN CERTAINLY THEN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL THIS AFTERNOON AND SAY THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE THINKING. YEAH.
OKAY. JUST LOOKING -- HAVE WE GOT ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES, DURING THE PUBLIC SESSION WE SAW THE PRESENTATIONS TO DO WITH OPTIONS FOR THE DELETED MARKET. MAYBE JUST WORTH US NOTING IN THE MINUTES HERE THAT WE HAD REQUESTED FORMALLY AT OUR 13TH OF JANUARY MEETING THIS YEAR THAT WE ARE EXPECTING AN ISSUES REPORT FROM ICANN STAFF. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THAT WAS MADE IN ADVANCE OF THE RECENT RECRUITMENT OF ICANN STAFF, SO NOT HAVING HAD IT YET I THINK IS FULLY UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT I THINK NOW TO SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE TIMELY TO SEE THAT AS A PRIORITY ITEM FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. AND I GUESS JUST FOR THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING, JUST PICKING UP ON THE FACT THAT WE HAD A REQUEST TO ASK FOR SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA OF ESCROW IN THE REGISTRARS' MARKET. SO WE'LL NOTE THAT AS A TOPIC FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND MINUTES IN THIS MEETING.

MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO ASK A FOLLOW-ON QUESTION.
HOW WILL WE REPORT ON OUR PUBLIC FORUM IN OUR MINUTES? TOPICALLY? AND THEN -- BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT IS LISTED. BUT IN THAT CASE SHOULDN'T THE TRANSCRIPT BE PULLED OUT AND CLIPPED AS A SEPARATE ITEM AND ATTACHED TO OUR MINUTES? BECAUSE OTHERWISE, PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT OUR MINUTES HAVE TO GO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT.
I'M SORRY; I'M NOT BEING CLEAR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE ANSWER. I THINK THE PUBLIC FORUM WAS SEPARATELY TRANSCRIBED AND ON OUR WEB SITE IT WILL BE A SEPARATE LINK, IF YOU LIKE. THEN IT'S A MATTER OF HOW YOU GET TO THAT LINK. THERE'S TWO WAYS TO GET TO IT, THE WEB SITE'S DESIGN. IF YOU ACTUALLY WENT TO THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING AND CLICKED ON THE HEADING CALLED GNSO PUBLIC FORUM YOU'D SEE THE TRANSCRIPT, AND YOU'D ALSO SEE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING.
THE OTHER ROUTE, AND I THINK IT WAS A QUESTION FOR PHILIP ON THE COUNCIL LIST, IS HOW DO YOU FIND THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING. THEY'RE KIND OF OBSCURELY UNDER THE HEADING OF "CALENDAR." SO IF YOU CLICK ON "CALENDAR" ON OUR WEB SITE, YOU ACTUALLY GET A LIST OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC FORUM IN THAT POINT.
SO DOES THAT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
>>MARILYN CADE: IT SORT OF ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE AND PERHAPS GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK A -- TO SUGGEST IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO ADDRESS HOW WE IMPROVE OUR OWN COMMUNICATIONS AND RESOURCES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES. CERTAINLY IT'S AN ITEM AND I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME INPUT BUT I THINK IT WAS GENERALLY ACCEPTED AND IT CAME OUT OF THE GNSO COUNCIL REVIEW THAT OUR WEB SITE DESIGN COULD BE IMPROVED. BUT OF COURSE WHEN YOU RAISE THIS WITH STAFF, IT'S LIKE THEY'LL CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT BUT THEY HAVE 100 THINGS THEY HAVE TO DO AS WELL.
SO WHAT I WILL DO IS WORK WITHIN THE DESIGN I HAVE TODAY TO MAKE THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND CERTAINLY, HOPEFULLY, THE DESIGN WILL GET BETTER IN THE FUTURE.
OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE SENT A NOTICE ABOUT THIS AND APOLOGIZE ABOUT BRINGING IT UP, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT TODAY, WE HAVE OUTSTANDING LIAISON ACTIVITIES THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF LIAISONS AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO PUT THAT ON OUR AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. AND EVEN MAYBE HAVE SOME INFORMAL CONTACT WITH CHAIRS OF THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE HERE INFORMALLY TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT ADVANCE LIAISONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED TO ME, IT'S FINE TO HAVE LIAISONS, AND WE CAN HAVE PEOPLE ATTEND OUR MEETINGS. WE, UP-TO-DATE, HAVEN'T HAD LIAISONS REALLY GOING BACK IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION. CERTAINLY NOT RECENTLY.
AND THEN THE ISSUE, OF COURSE, IS IT'S A ONE -- IT'S -- ONE PERSON ENDS UP BEING THE CONDUIT OF INFORMATION AND PERHAPS WE ARE NOT GETTING THE MAXIMUM INTERACTION.
WE CAN THINK ABOUT LUXEMBOURG AND HOW WE CAN ARRANGE AND MANAGE AN EVENT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE MAY WANT TO DO IS MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THE BREAKFAST THAT WE HAD WITH THE BOARD WHERE WE BROKE UP INTO TABLES. BECAUSE I'M THINKING IF I SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMBINED MEETING OF THE CCNSO COUNCIL AND THE ASO COUNCIL AND THE WHATEVER COUNCIL AND I DID IT IN THIS FORMAT, I'D NEED BINOCULARS TO ACTUALLY SEE THE OTHER END OF THE TABLE.
BUT IF WE BROKE IT UP INTO PERHAPS SOME ROUND TABLES WITH A MIXTURE OF PEOPLE, AND AT LEAST HAD A BIT OF INTERACTION THAT WAY, MAYBE THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY OF DOING THAT.
>>MARILYN CADE: (INAUDIBLE).
WE MIGHT TAKE THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THINK OF THAT AS PERHAPS A SHARED WORK ACTIVITY, WHICH IS OFTEN THE BEST WAY TO ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD PRESUMABLY BE SOME SORT OF FACILITATED THING.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO DO IN THE REMAINING COUPLE OF DAYS IN THIS MEETING IS START PLANNING THE NEXT MEETING WHILE WE'RE STILL HERE. AND AT LEAST GET A SENSE OF, AT THE VERY LEAST, WHAT EVENTS DO WE WANT NEXT MEETING THAT WE CAN GIVE TO THE ICANN STAFF STRAIGHT AWAY.
YES, KEN, SORRY. YOU'VE BEEN WAITING IN THE QUEUE.
>>KEN STUBBS: NO PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TACK, AND THAT IS I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER HAVING A REGULAR REPORTING FORMAT ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS; HENCE THE YESTERDAY FOR SOMEONE TO LIAISE.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, AND THAT IS I FORESEE OVER THE NEXT YEAR SIGNIFICANT NECESSITY FOR THE GNSO AND THEIR RIRS TO COORDINATE, WORK MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER ON ISSUES SUCH AS THE WHOIS THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE WORKSHOP.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF EXCHANGE, AND I THINK WE NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO CAN AT LEAST TAKE OUR PERSPECTIVES TO THAT ORGANIZATION. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DO THAT EFFECTIVELY OVER A BREAKFAST. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMETHING -- ALSO, THERE MAY BE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE AS WE MOVE FORWARD THAT WE NEED TO SHARE WITH THE CCSO.
THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE SOME -- AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN TO PUT ON STAFF. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING MAYBE WE COULD WORK OUT WITH THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
GRANTED, IT WAS A ONE-WAY ROAD FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ELIZABETH AND THEN I FORGET WHO AFTER, BUT HAVING THESE LIAISONS COULD BE QUITE VALUABLE TO US. THE BOARDS RECOGNIZE THAT IN TERMS OF BRINGING PEOPLE INTO BOARD MEETINGS WHO HAVE AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND WHO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE VARIOUS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. I THINK IT COULD BE HELPFUL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE NEED TO, AS AN ORGANIZATION, THINK -- THIS IS REALLY STRATEGIC PLANNING WE'RE DOING HERE IN A WAY, BUT HOW DO WE ACTUALLY MAKE THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF ICANN WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY ACROSS THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, BECAUSE I THINK WHOIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE, AT LEAST FOR THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THE GNSO, THAT THE USES ARE VERY SIMILAR AND IT MAKES IT VERY HARD FOR, SAY, LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WORK WHEN THERE'S REALLY A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ACTIONS HAPPENING THERE WHEN WE NEED TO THINKING OF THEM MORE AS ICANN AS A WHOLE AS OPPOSED TO JUST GTLDS OR CCTLDS OR REGIONAL ADDRESS REGISTRIES. SO I AGREE.
MAUREEN, GO AHEAD.
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: THANKS, BRUCE. YES, JUST TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA. AND LATER TODAY, MARILYN DID REFER TO THIS, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS CROSS -- I WON'T USE THE WORD "CROSS-CONSTITUENCY", BUT CROSS STAKEHOLDER, FOR WANT OF A BETTER TERM, INVOLVEMENT IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS. AND WE'RE PROPOSING A MODEL FOR THAT WILL INVOLVE THE ASO'S AND ALAC AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN A WAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. IT MIGHT BE A MODEL THAT WE COULD USE FOR ISSUE-BASED DISCUSSIONS AS WELL AS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING METHOD THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
AND IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING BEST USE OF EVERYONE'S TIME AND LIMITED ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS AS WE DO, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT SOME OVERLAP IN THOSE LIAISON FUNCTIONS SO SOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT CHOOSE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS WOULD BRING THEIR EXPERTISE IN OTHER SPECIFIC AREAS. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE DUPLICATION OF A LOT OF PEOPLE BUT A CORE GROUP OF PEOPLE, REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH OF THE GROUPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER COMMENT I'D LIKE TO RAISE, TOO, AND THIS PARTLY COMES UP IN THE TOPIC THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE A NOMINATING COMMITTEE NOMINATES MEMBERS TO COUNCIL. AND PRESENTLY, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, MAUREEN AND ALICK WILSON, AND WE ALSO HAVE A VACANT SPACE THERE WHO USED TO BE OCCUPIED BY DEMI GETSCHKO WHO THEN WENT ON TO THE BOARD. I THINK ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES WE'VE SEEN, CERTAINLY WITH DEMI AND ALSO WITH AMADEU, THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN THE BROADER SENSE, IT IS USEFUL FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE PLAYED A RANGE OF DIFFERENT ROLES AND TO BE ABLE TO REFLECT THAT. SO IN THE CASE OF AMADEU, HE HAD BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, HE WAS THEN ON THE BOARD, AND THEN HE CAME BACK TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT HELPED, I GUESS, INFORM -- HELPS TO LINK THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
IN THE CASE OF MAUREEN, SHE'S COME FROM, I GUESS, A CCTLD ENVIRONMENT. WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?
>>MAUREEN CUBBERLEY: (NODS HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND SHE JOINS THE COUNCIL BUT SHE'S HAD THE BACKGROUND OF THE CCNSOS THERE.
AND CERTAINLY, I GUESS, CARLOS, YOU'VE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THINGS LIKE AT-LARGE AND NONCOMMERCIAL AND OTHER ISSUES.
SO AGAIN, WE GET THE LINKAGE THROUGH YOU IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN ADDITION TO OUR LIAISON SUCH AS BRET.
BUT ONE THING THAT WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT FOR THIS CURRENT NOMINATING COMMITTEE PROCESS IS THINK ABOUT WHO DO WE THINK WOULD BE A GOOD CHOICE TO BE ON THE COUNCIL, EITHER OURSELVES NOMINATE THEM OR ASK THEM TO SELF-NOMINATE, WHATEVER.
BUT ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE'VE BEEN QUITE WEAK ON IN RECENT TIMES IS STRONGER LINKAGES WITH THE ADDRESS SERVICE ORGANIZATION SIDE OF THINGS.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTEES HAVE REALLY COME FROM THAT STRONG BACKGROUND. WE MAY HAVE SOME OVERLAP WITH SOME OF THE ISP REPS THAT PROBABLY IN THE PAST HAD SOME ASSOCIATION, PEOPLE LIKE TONY HOLMES AND SO ON, BUT THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY OF STRENGTHENING THE LINKAGES, IS USING THAT CHANNEL WHICH IS GETTING THREE MEMBERS THAT AREN'T KIND OF HEAVILY TIED UP WITH, SAY, REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS, ET CETERA, BUT HAVE HAD TIES WITH OTHER PARTS OF ICANN.
AND SO AT LEAST THEY UNDERSTAND ICANN, THEY UNDERSTAND THE ICANN STRUCTURE, AND THEY CAN BRING TO THE COUNCIL THEIR EXPERIENCE. IT COULD BE THROUGH THE RIRS. I MEAN, MAYBE THE SECURITY AND STABILITY, WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE SOMEONE THAT SERVED ON THE SECURITY AND STABILITY FOR A WHILE JOIN US AS AN APPOINTEE FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
SO I'M JUST THROWING UP IDEAS HERE, BUT CERTAINLY THE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE HAS ASKED ME TO ASK YOU TO SUGGEST CANDIDATES. AND I'M JUST THROWING IN AN IDEA OF ONE MECHANISM THAT WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT FOR FINDING CANDIDATES AND THE CRITERIA. SO IT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR AGENDA ITEMS?
OKAY. WELL, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS CLOSE THIS MEETING, BUT BEFORE I DO SO, I'D REALLY LIKE TO THANK TONY HARRIS. TONY, WOULD YOU MIND STANDING, PLEASE.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S SIMPLY BEEN A SUPERB MEETING AND AS YOU ARE ON OUR COUNCIL AND HAVE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THIS MEETING, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT WE THANKED YOU DIRECTLY. SO THANK YOU.
OKAY. AT THAT POINT, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE COUNCIL MEETING PRETTY MUCH ON TIME AT 12:00. SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
(11:54 A.M.)