ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>VINT CERF: WOULD THE BOARD MEMBERS PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.
THAT INCLUDES LIAISONS.
I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MARCH 2004 MEETING OF THE BOARD TO ORDER.
WE HAVE NINE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
AND I AM GOING TO TRY TO COMPLETE THIS BOARD MEETING WITHIN A COUPLE OF HOURS, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE SHUTTLES THAT THEY NEED TO -- BY WHICH THEY NEED TO BE OUT OF HERE SOONER THAN THIS AFTERNOON.
SO WE WILL TRY TO MOVE THROUGH THIS AGENDA PROMPTLY.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OCCASIONED BY THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE BETWEEN ICANN AND THE OPERATOR OF DOT NET, VERISIGN.
IN THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ICANN MUST BEGIN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING FOR A SUCCESSOR TO THE REGISTRY OPERATOR BY A CERTAIN TIME.
AND IT HAS TO DO SO WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE EXPIRATION TIME OF THAT CONTRACT.
SO THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE ICANN BOARD TO INITIATE THAT PROCESS.
I'D LIKE TO CALL ON PAUL TWOMEY TO INTRODUCE THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS IT, IF NECESSARY, AND MOVE TO VOTE.
PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AS YOU'VE INDICATED, THIS IS A RESOLUTION WHICH ACTUALLY COMES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DOT REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
AND AS THE RESOLUTION MAKES CLEAR, SECTION 5.1 OF THAT AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE AGREEMENT WILL EXPIRE NO LATER THAN THE 30TH OF JUNE, 2005.
AND SECTION 5.2 OF THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT OBLIGATES ICANN TO ADOPT AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING A SUCCESSOR REGISTRY OPERATOR BY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE THE 30TH OF JUNE, 2004.

IN OTHER WORDS, BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT LARGE MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR.
THEREFORE, THE RESOLUTION PUT TO THE BOARD IS THAT IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE BY THE 30TH OF JUNE, THE BOARD AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TAKES STEPS TO INITIATE THE PROCESS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 5.2 OF THE AGREEMENT FOR DESIGNATING A SUCCESSOR OPERATOR FOR THE DOT NET REGISTRY, INCLUDING REFERRALS AND REQUESTS FOR ADVICE TO THE GNSO AND OTHER RELEVANT COMMITTEES AND ORGANIZATIONS, AS APPROPRIATE.

>>VINT CERF: I TAKE THAT AS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: GENERAL COUNSEL, I THINK, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A POINT.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: CAN I MAKE A CLARIFICATION?

>>VINT CERF: YES, COUNSEL.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: JUST TO BE CLEAR, VERISIGN WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO REBID FOR -- AS THE SUCCESSOR.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOHN.
THAT IS CORRECT, VERISIGN IS ELIGIBLE TO REBID.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION?

IVAN CAMPOS SECONDS.

DISCUSSION OF THIS -- OF THIS MOTION?
LET ME MAKE JUST ONE REMARK ABOUT IT.
THIS IS ALL BUSINESS AS USUAL.
THESE ARE STEPS THAT WE ARE BOUND TO TAKE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OUR CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS.
SO I HOPE NO ONE READS ANYTHING INTO THIS.
THIS IS SIMPLY THE NATURAL PROPER PRACTICE FOR THE BOARD AND FOR ICANN.
SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, LET ME CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11.
11 IN FAVOR.
ARE THERE ANY WHO VOTE NO?
ARE THERE ANY WHO WISH TO ABSTAIN?
ONE ABSTENTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. CEO, YOU HAVE YOUR MARCHING ORDERS.

>> ALEJANDRO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
IS ALEJANDRO ONLINE RIGHT NOW?
IS HE ON IM RIGHT NOW?
ALL RIGHT.
I AM NOT ON IM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO BOOT UP MY MACHINE.
SO IT'S ALL BILL GATES' FAULT.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: SO IF YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE VOTES ON THIS.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: CAN --

>>VINT CERF: MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: JUST A POINT OF ORDER.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THIS VOTE, I BELIEVE THE BYLAWS REQUIRE FOR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION.
IF I COULD JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION FROM GENERAL COUNSEL.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY OF OUR ACTIONS TAKEN HERE TODAY INVALIDATED ON THAT TECHNICAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE BYLAWS.

>>VINT CERF: WE CAN PUT HIM ON THE TELEPHONE, MIKE.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX, ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO US YET?
IF WE WERE USING VOICE OVER IP, THIS WOULD WORK BETTER.
MAYBE.
JOHN, IF YOU'RE IN CONTACT WITH ALEX ON IM -- YOU'RE NOT?
OKAY.
YOU HAVE HIM?
ALL RIGHT.
SO LET'S HEAR FROM ALEX.
CAN YOU HEAR US, ALEX?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES, VERY WELL.

>>VINT CERF: WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ACTION, THE DOT NET ACTION?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NO, I WASN'T.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: ALEJANDRO, IT'S THE PRESIDENT.
CAN I JUST GIVE YOU THE SAME INTRODUCTION THAT I DID TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: ACCORDING TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN ON THE 25TH OF MAY, 2001, IT PROVIDES THE AGREEMENT WILL EXPIRE NO LATER THAN THE 30TH OF JUNE, 2005.
AND SECTION 5.2 OF THAT SAME AGREEMENT OBLIGATES ICANN TO ADOPT AN OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING A SUCCESSOR REGISTRY OPERATOR BY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE END OF THE AGREEMENT, IN OTHER WORDS, BY 30TH OF JUNE, 2004, WHICH IS BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR.
SO THE RESOLUTION IS THAT IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TRANSPARENT PROCEDURE BY THE 30TH OF JUNE, 2004, THE BOARD AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TAKE STEPS TO INITIATE THE PROCESS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 5.2 OF THE NET REGISTRY AGREEMENT FOR DESIGNATING A SUCCESSOR OPERATOR FOR THE DOT NET REGISTRY, INCLUDING REFERRALS AND REQUESTS FOR ADVICE TO THE GNSO AND OTHER RELEVANT COMMITTEES AND ORGANIZATIONS AS APPROPRIATE.
THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAS INFORMED THE BOARD ALSO THAT VERISIGN WOULD BE FULLY OPEN TO BE SUCH A SUCCESSOR.

>>VINT CERF: SO, ALEX, IS THAT --

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THAT'S FINE, I HAVE READ THAT TEXT ALSO BEFORE.

>>VINT CERF: VERY GOOD.
ALEX, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION.
ALL THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE VOTED.
LET ME ASK YOU HOW YOU VOTE.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I AM ASKING IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION.

>>VINT CERF: SO THE VOTE, IF MY COUNT IS CORRECT, IS 12 IN FAVOR, ONE ABSTENTION.
EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT?
COUNSEL, YOU HAVE RECORDED THE VOTE?

IN THAT CASE, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

THE SECOND ITEM DEALS WITH THE WLS NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING WITH VERISIGN.

THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON OUR AGENDA HAS A SUBSTANTIAL HISTORY, AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOUNT THAT HISTORY SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
COUNSEL, I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS MEASURE, AND I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONFIRM THAT THE SUMMARY IS CORRECT.

IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE SUMMARY, PLEASE SAY SO.
YOU WILL NOTE -- WE HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN, YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS OF WORKING ON THE WAIT-LIST SERVICE BEGAN IN 2002, 21 MARCH, 2002, WHEN VERISIGN REQUESTED THAT AMENDMENTS BE INTRODUCED FOR REGISTRY AGREEMENTS TO PERMIT THIS SERVICE TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR DOT-COM AND DOT NET.
THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT DEVELOPED A VARIETY OF VIEWS, SOME FOR AND SOME AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.
ON 23 AUGUST, 2002, THE BOARD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF ICANN TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE REVISIONS TO THE DOT-COM AND DOT NET REGISTRY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN TO PROVIDE FOR THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.
THERE WERE SIX CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT NEGOTIATION.
SO I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD, ON 23 AUGUST, 2002, ESSENTIALLY APPROVED THE WAIT-LIST SERVICE, BUT WITH CONDITIONS.
ON 16 OCTOBER, 2002, VERISIGN COMMUNICATED TO ICANN A DESIRE TO RECONSIDER THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE SPECIFIED.
WOULD YOU SCROLL UPWARD, PLEASE?
THANK YOU.

ON THE 2ND OF JUNE, 2003, THE BOARD ADOPTED ADDITIONAL RESOLUTIONS THAT PARTIALLY GRANTED VERISIGN'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.

IT DID SO BY REVISING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ICANN WOULD CONSENT TO MODIFYING THE REGISTRY AGREEMENTS TO ALLOW FOR THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.

ON 26 JANUARY, 2004, ICANN'S GENERAL COUNSEL WROTE TO VERISIGN TO DOCUMENT THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ICANN WOULD APPROVE VERISIGN'S OFFERING OF THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.
BECAUSE DOT-COM AND DOT NET ARE UNIQUE AMONG THE GENERIC TLDS UNDER CONTRACT TO ICANN BECAUSE AMENDMENT 3 IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ICANN CONTAINS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE APPROVAL OF ANY MATERIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE DOT NET, DOT-COM, AND DOT ORG REGISTRY AGREEMENTS, THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE THE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

I THINK IT IS ICANN'S VIEW THAT THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE IS A MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN.

AND SO THE NEXT PROVISION SPECIFICALLY NOTES THAT WE WON'T ENTER INTO SUCH A MATERIAL CHANGE, MATERIAL AMENDMENT, WITHOUT THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

NOW, WITH THAT PREAMBLE, WHAT THE BOARD IS ASKED TO DECIDE TODAY IS WHETHER WE APPROVE THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN AS PRESENTED TO US BY GENERAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THIS WAIT-LISTING PROPOSAL.

AND IF WE APPROVE OF THOSE -- OF THE RESULTS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, THAT WE WOULD AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO SEEK DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE APPROVAL, AS REQUIRED UNDER OUR MOU, TO APPROVE AND TO AMEND THE VERISIGN REGISTRY AGREEMENTS PERMITTING THE OFFERING OF THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.

AND, FURTHER, IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, YOU WILL AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO ENTER INTO THE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS WITH VERISIGN IF AND WHEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
AND THAT IS THE COMPLETE SUBSTANCE OF THE RESOLUTION.
GENERAL COUNSEL, I ASK WHETHER THIS SUMMARY IS SATISFACTORY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: SO I NOW INVITE THE PLACEMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE BY MEANS OF A MOTION.

LYMAN CHAPIN MOVES.
IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND FROM IVAN CAMPOS.
LET ME ASK IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD.
VENI.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I WAS KIND OF WONDERING WHETHER ONE CAN EXPLAIN A VOTE IN ADVANCE, SINCE WE ARE PUBLIC -- SINCE WE ARE VOTING IN PUBLIC, I GUESS I CAN DO THAT.

>>VINT CERF: YOU CAN DO THAT.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: WELL, I WOULD VOTE --

>>VINT CERF: YOU DON'T HAVE TO REVEAL WHAT YOUR VOTE IS.
YOU CAN SIMPLY DISCUSS ISSUES ABOUT IT.
YOU CAN ALSO REVEAL WHAT YOUR VOTE IS, IF YOU WISH.
BECAUSE IT'LL BE A PUBLIC VOTE ANYWAY.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I JUST WISH TO SAY THAT I WILL BE VOTING FOR THAT RESOLUTION, BUT WITH A LITTLE DISGUST, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT ALL PARTIES SHOULD STAY -- SHOULD STAY -- STICK TO THEIR CONTRACTS THAT THEY HAVE WITH ICANN.
THAT'S MY COMMENT.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VENI.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
A REMINDER THAT IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, YOU WILL BE APPROVING THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND YOU WILL BE AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE.
SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I CALL UPON ALL BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE -- I'M SORRY.
IS THERE A QUESTION FROM MOUHAMET?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I JUST WANT TO -- IT'S NOT -- I THINK THAT THERE WERE SO MANY EXPECTATIONS AND SO MANY PASSIONS RUNNING AROUND THAT DISCUSSION THAT IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO SEE THE CONTEXT OF THAT VOTE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT -- WE JUST HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT A NEW PROCESS WE ARE TRYING TO SET UP.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF SOME DISCUSSION.
AND THE BOARD HAS THE SAME PREOCCUPATION AS THE STAFF, AND WHEN -- COME HERE TO DISAGREE OR NOT TO APPROVE WHAT'S HAPPENED GOING AFTER WE DECLINE WHAT HAS BEEN THE PREOCCUPATION OF THE FORMER BOARD WHO HAS AGREED ON THESE CONDITIONS.

AND MY CONCERN IS, WE HAVE THE INSURANCE THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOARD BEFORE THIS DISCUSSION HAVE BEEN LED IN A VERY RESTRICTIVE AND -- FIRM AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IN ORDER TO ANSWER THAT.
WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE AND WHAT ICANN'S ROLE IS IN THAT AREA.
SO THAT'S IT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.

SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, I CALL UPON ALL BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION TO QUACK !
QUACK.

>> QUACK, QUACK, QUACK.

>>VINT CERF: I WILL ALSO ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR HANDS SO I CAN GET A VOTE COUNT, SINCE I'M NOT GOOD AT COUNTING QUACKS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION, RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN.
ALEJANDRO, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S 11.
ARE THERE ANY WHO VOTE NO?
ARE THERE ANY WHO WISH TO ABSTAIN?
ONE ABSTENTION.
DID I GET THE RIGHT VOTE COUNT?
SOMETHING'S WRONG.

>> SOMETHING'S MISSING.

>>VINT CERF: IT DOESN'T ADD UP.
SO DID I COUNT WRONG?
LET ME SEE A SHOW OF HANDS AGAIN FOR POSITIVE VOTES.

ONE, TWO -- PROFESSOR QIAN -- THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN.
NO, I COUNTED ME.
OH, IT'S 11.
THAT MEANS I DIDN'T COUNT ME.
QUACK!

AND 12 FOR ALEJANDRO, AND ONE ABSTENTION FROM MIKE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL NEXT TIME COUNT MY HAND.
SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE NEXT STEP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WAIT-LISTING SERVICE HAS BEEN APPROVED AND THAT THE STAFF WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE NEXT STEPS.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE, BECAUSE AMONG THE IMPORTANT PROCESSES OF ICANN IS THE POPULATION OF ITS BOARD AND OTHER COMMITTEES.
AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, WE HAVE A NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
I'D LIKE TO CALL ON TRICIA DRAKES, WHO IS REPRESENTING THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PHYSICALLY AT THE MEETING.

AND ALEX, I KNOW YOU'RE ON LINE.
BUT FOR CONVENIENCE, I'VE ASKED TRICIA, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION.

SO, TRICIA, LET ME ASK YOU TO DO THAT.

>>TRICIA DRAKES: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
AS REQUIRED UNDER THE BYLAWS, WE NEED TO APPOINT A CHAIR TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
AND IT IS THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE THAT MAKES THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I WOULD AT THIS STAGE ALSO LIKE TO PUT ON RECORD ALL OF OUR THANKS TO ALEJANDRO, AS CHAIR, WHO HAS PUT A LOT OF ENERGY AND EFFORT INTO THIS, AND ALSO IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING UP WITH POTENTIAL CANDIDATES AND DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATION BOTH IN PERSON AND IN CONFERENCE CALL, AND WE HAVE ALSO SET VARIOUS CRITERIA, OR WE SET VARIOUS CRITERIA FOR THE APPOINTMENT IN TERMS OF LEADERSHIP, IMPARTIALITY, TRYING TO GAIN CONSENSUS AMONGST THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES.

AND THE CANDIDATE THAT WE, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORWARD AND JEAN-JACQUES DAMLAMIAN.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, CHAIR, IF WE COULD ASK HAGEN HULTZSCH, OUR COLLEAGUE ON THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, TO ACTUALLY SAY A FEW WORDS OF INTRODUCTION IN TERMS OF OUR CANDIDATE, AS HAGEN KNOWNS JEAN-JACQUES PERSONALLY.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: THANK YOU, TRICIA.
AND WITH PLEASURE, I WILL GIVE YOU SOME WORDS ABOUT JEAN-JACQUES DAMLAMIAN.
IT'S A LITTLE STRANGE TO PRONOUNCE FRENCH, BUT TRICIA DID A VERY GOOD JOB.

JEAN-JACQUES IS ACTUALLY A SCHOLAR OF POLYTECHNICAL SCHOOLS, SO HE HAS AN ENGINEERING BACKGROUND.
HIS DEGREE IS FROM THE NATIONAL SCHOOL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
AND HE JOINED FRANCE TELECOM MANY YEARS BACK, HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITIES ALSO IN, LET'S SAY, FRENCH OVERSEAS REGIONS, ISLANDS, ET CETERA.
AND HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF -- THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF FRANCE TELECOM SINCE MANY YEARS AND IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY, HOW IT'S CALLED, FORMER PROBABLY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
AND HE WAS A GREAT PROMOTER OF INTERNET AND INTERNET-RELATED SERVICES IN FRANCE AND IN FRANCE TELECOM.
HE HAD INITIATED AND RUN SEVERAL SESSIONS ON THE PROMOTION AND USAGE OF INTERNET AND IS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT SUPPORTER OF ICANN, WHICH I ACTUALLY LEARNED AGAIN WHEN I MET HIM ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO IN PARIS.
SO JEAN-JACQUES TOLD ME THAT, WITH PLEASURE, HE WOULD SERVE TO CHAIR THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

>>TRICIA DRAKES: THANK YOU, HAGEN.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPECIFICALLY INTRODUCE THE REST OF THE RESOLUTION, TRICIA, IF YOU -- IT SHOULD BE IN FRONT THERE.
THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS TO THIS NOMINATION.
SO IF YOU WOULD MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE PROVISIONS ARE, THEN WE'LL CALL FOR A VOTE.
WE'LL CALL FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN --

>>TRICIA DRAKES: THANK YOU, VINT. I'LL READ IT. WHEREAS, ARTICLE VII, SECTION 2(1) OF THE BYLAWS CALLS FOR THE NONVOTING CHAIR OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE ICANN BOARD; WHEREAS, THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT JEAN-JACQUES DAMLAMIAN BE APPOINTED TO THE CHAIR -- TO CHAIR THE 2004 NOMINATING COMMITTEE, AND MR. DAMLAMIAN HAS INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. THE RESOLUTION IS THAT MR. DAMLAMIAN IS APPOINTED AS CHAIR OF THE 2004 NOMINATING COMMITTEE, TO SERVE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE ICANN ANNUAL MEETING IN 2004 OR UNTIL HIS EARLIER RESIGNATION, REMOVAL, OR OTHER DISQUALIFICATION FROM SERVICE.

>>VINT CERF: AND FURTHER RESOLUTION?

>>TRICIA DRAKES: THE FURTHER RESOLUTION IS THAT THE PRESIDENT PROVIDE SUPPORT BY ICANN AND OTHER SOURCES TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE AS DETERMINED, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTIONS.

>>VINT CERF: SO I WILL TAKE THAT AS A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND ASK FOR A SECOND. MIKE PALAGE SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION? IF THE BOARD VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS, IT WILL PLACE MR. DAMLAMIAN IN CHARGE OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, A TASK WHICH, AS A FORMER NOMINATING CHAIR, LINDA WILSON, WILL TELL YOU IS A NON-TRIVIAL EXERCISE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT JEAN-JACQUES IS PREPARED AND HE WILL HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF LINDA WILSON IN THE CONDUCT OF THIS WORK AS AN ADVISOR.

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO -- I COUNT MYSELF AS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11.
ALEX, IF YOU ARE ONLINE, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: IN FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?

SO HOW COME I ONLY ENDED UP WITH 12 THIS TIME? DID I MISCOUNT AGAIN? LET'S TRY ONE MORE TIME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11. I INCLUDED ME.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: IF THE PRESIDENT COUNTS FROM THE OTHER SIDE, DO YOU GET IT DIFFERENT?

>>VINT CERF: I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M HAVING THIS PROBLEM. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, AND ALEX IS 13, SO THIS IS UNANIMOUS.

WE CAN COUNT! THE MINUTES SHOULD SHOW THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD HAS JUST LEARNED TO COUNT TO 13.
THANK YOU, AND WE APPRECIATE JEAN-JACQUES' WILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN THIS ROLE.

TRICIA, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE LET ME ASK YOU TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT RESOLUTION, SINCE IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH OUR POPULATION OF OUR COMMITTEES.

>>TRICIA DRAKES: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ACTUALLY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL APPOINTMENTS AND CHANGES, AND WE HAVE TO NOMINATE A NEW CHAIR OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COMMITTEE, AND BASICALLY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE SET OUT IN THE RESOLUTIONS THERE.

EQUALLY, AND I'M GOING TO ASK IN A MINUTE LYMAN TO COMMENT ON THIS, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO FORWARD -- OR, IN FACT, LYMAN IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO FORWARD AND REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER THERE.

SO CAN WE PASS THIS RESOLUTION IN SPLIT BASIS? SO IF WE DO THE RESOLUTION, THE FIRST RESOLUTION, THAT THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ARE HEREBY APPOINTED TO THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COMMITTEE, WITH LYMAN CHAPIN IN THE CHAIR, MICHAEL PALAGE, PROFESSOR QIAN, AND NJERI RIONGE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TRICIA. I'LL TAKE THIS AS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? MOUHAMET SECONDS.

>>>: ALEX.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; IT WAS ALEX SECONDING. NOW WE HAVE A CHAIRMAN WHO CAN'T HEAR AND CAN'T COUNT. WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM
(LAUGHTER.)

>>VINT CERF: TRICIA, YOU PUT ONE OR BOTH OF THE RESOLUTIONS ON THE TABLE?

>>TRICIA DRAKES: ONE. I PUT ONE ON THE TABLE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. SO WE'LL DO THEM ONE AT A TIME.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE RESOLUTION TO POPULATE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMITTEE AS PROPOSED?
I TAKE IT ALL MEMBERS NAMED ARE WILLING TO SERVE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. I'LL COUNT FROM THE OTHER SIDE THIS TIME. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12. AND ALEX, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: 13.
TRICIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT RESOLUTION.

>>TRICIA DRAKES: BEFORE PUTTING THE NEXT RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE, I REALLY WANTED TO INVITE LYMAN CHAPIN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, TO ACTUALLY SAY A FEW WORDS IN TERMS OF THE NEXT RESOLUTION.

>>LYMAN CHAPIN: THANK YOU, TRICIA.
THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE AND THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS COMMITTEE HAVE BOTH FORWARDED REQUESTS TO THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ASKING THAT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE APPOINT AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER TO EACH OF THESE GROUPS.

THE BYLAWS REQUIRE ONLY THAT WE HAVE NO FEWER THAN THREE MEMBERS, BUT IN BOTH CASES, THE POSSIBILITY THAT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL ARISE IN WHICH ONE OR EVEN MORE THAN ONE OF THE MEMBERS MAY BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE HIM- OR HERSELF ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE LEADS US TO MAKE THE REQUEST THAT WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PERSON AVAILABLE SO WE'RE NOT CAUGHT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE SHORTHANDED.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, LYMAN. I TAKE IT THAT IS ON THE TABLE AS A MOTION. MIKE PALAGE SECONDS. I THINK THIS IS A PRUDENT MOVE, SO THANK YOU, LYMAN, FOR TAKING MA REQUEST.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12. AND ALEX, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: 13 IN FAVOR. UNANIMOUS. SO PASSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TRICIA.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT MATTER, WHICH IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, AND LYMAN CHAPIN, AS CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE, I ASK YOU TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION.

>>LYMAN CHAPIN: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM BRET FAUSETT ON SEPTEMBER 9TH OF 2003. MR. FAUSETT WAS ASKING RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION -- IN FACT, AN ACT THAT THE BOARD HAD NOT TAKEN, WHICH WAS TO POST THE MINUTES OF ITS MEETING IN A TIMELY FASHION, WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS DEFINED AS FIVE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE MEETING.

AND THAT REQUEST WAS FOLLOWED BY SOME CHANGES TO THE WAY IN WHICH WE SPECIFY TIMELINESS. WE NOW REQUIRE ONLY THAT WE POST THE MINUTES IN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS FOLLOWING THE MEETING.
BUT IN ANY CASE, THE INTENT OF THE REQUEST AND THE REQUIREMENT ON THE BOARD IS THE SAME, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN BY THE BOARD ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE COMMUNITY AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE MEETING. AND IT CERTAINLY IS THE CASE THAT NOT DOING SO REPRESENTS A PROBLEM FOR MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO FOLLOW THESE THINGS AS CLOSELY AS SOME OF US CAN.

AND EVEN FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE ABLE TO FOLLOW IT CLOSELY, CERTAINLY THE REQUIREMENT TO POST THE MINUTES IN A TIMELY FASHION IS REASONABLE.

AND SO THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD THAT THEY ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION WHICH CALLS ON THE ICANN STAFF TO TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN COMPLY WITH THAT PROVISION OF OUR BYLAWS.

I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION. RESOLVED THAT BASED ON THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION RC 04-1, WHICH I WILL NOTE IS POSTED AT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE'S PAGE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, THE BOARD HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT STAFF PAY DUE ATTENTION TO THE BYLAWS' TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS, AND URGES STAFF TO DEDICATE NECESSARY RESOURCES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED TIME LINES FOR THE POSTING OF PRELIMINARY REPORTS.

AND I MOVE TO PUT THAT RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, LYMAN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS? I SEE MOUHAMET SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION?

IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE TO REMIND THE STAFF THAT TIMELINESS IS APPROPRIATE.
SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, AND ALEX, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: 13. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ITEM IS A VERY NOTABLE ONE BECAUSE IT SPEAKS TO THE FORMATION THIS WEEK OF THE COUNTRY-CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

SO LET ME INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE COUNTRY-CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WAS CREATED HAS OCCUPIED A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME, AND THE EFFORTS OF MANY, MANY PEOPLE.

THE ACTUAL CREATION OF THE CCNSO OF COURSE REQUIRED THE CREATION OF BYLAWS TO GO WITH IT AND A POPULATION OF COUNTRY-CODE OPERATORS, CCTLD OPERATORS, TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE PARTICIPATIONS WERE MET THIS WEEK; HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE INTERESTED PARTIES -- NOTABLY, THE CCTLD OPERATORS, ICANN STAFF, AND SOME BOARD MEMBERS -- CONCERNING THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE BYLAWS.

AND SO THIS RESOLUTION HAS TO DO WITH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE SIMPLE EDITORIAL CLARIFICATIONS TO THOSE BYLAWS. BUT BECAUSE ACTION ON A BYLAW AMENDMENT REQUIRES PUBLIC POSTING AND COMMENT, THE ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT TO ADOPT A CHANGE TO THE BYLAWS BUT IS SIMPLY TO PUT THE RECOMMENDED EDITORIAL CHANGES UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.

THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, AND I WILL RECOUNT SOME OF THE HISTORY JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE OF HOW LONG IT HAS TAKEN AND HOW MUCH WORK HAS GONE INTO THE CREATION OF THIS ORGANIZATION.

PARAPHRASING THE RESOLUTION, WHEREAS, BEGINNING IN MARCH 2002, WHICH IS TWO YEARS AGO, THE ICANN COMMUNITY ENGAGED IN AN INTENSIVE DISCUSSION LED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ICANN EVOLUTION AND REFORM COMMITTEE CONCERNING REFORMS TO ICANN'S PROCEDURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES. ONE IMPORTANT GOAL WAS THE CREATION OF THE COUNTRY-CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND THE BOARD ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION 03.106 AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS SHOWN IN APPENDIX "A" TO THESE MINUTES.

THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT THERE WOULD BE A CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CCTLD MANAGERS TO JOIN WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE LAUNCHING GROUP TO EVENTUALLY COMPRISE THE CCNSO. THE CCNSO WOULD BE CREATED UPON THE JOINING BY 30 CCTLD OPERATORS OF THE ORGANIZATION.

THE BOARD ALSO RESOLVED THAT THE LAUNCHING GROUP WOULD NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE A COUNTRY CODE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR OTHERWISE ENGAGE IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT OR SELECT ON BEHALF OF THE CCNSO ANY DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF ICANN, OR AN OBSERVER OR ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT IN ANY BODY. SO THIS IS TRULY A FACILITATING GROUP THAT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO CARRY OUT ANY OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CCNSO ONCE IT WAS CONSTITUTED.

THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP ANNOUNCED ON THE 1ST OF MARCH OF THIS WEEK THE FORMATION OF THE CCNSO. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS, THIS IS INTERESTING, ARTICLE XX, THIS THE TRANSITION ARTICLE, THE CCNSO IS NOW CONSTITUTED. WHEREAS, THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP STATEMENT IS POSTED TO THE ICANN WEB SITE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4 PART (1) OF THE ARTICLE; WHEREAS, IN ADDITION TO POSTING, THE STATEMENT IS ALSO BEING FORMALLY COMMUNICATED TO THE ICANN BOARD, STAFF, AND THE ICANN COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO THE ARTICLE, AS SOON AS FEASIBLE AFTER THIS NOTIFICATION, THE MEMBERS OF THE INITIAL CCNSO COUNCIL TO BE SELECTED BY THE CCNSO MEMBERS SHALL BE SELECTED ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES STATED IN ARTICLE IX, SECTION 4, PART (8) AND (9) OF THE BYLAWS. WHEREAS, THE LAUNCHING GROUP WILL POST THE ELECTION PROCEDURES TO BEGIN THIS PROCESS AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE CCNSO, AND LOOKS FORWARD TO COMPLETING ITS WORK AS SET FORTH UNDER THE ARTICLE. AND WHEREAS, THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP HAS PROVIDED TO STAFF ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CHANGES IN -- OF THE CCNSO BYLAWS FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE ADDITIONAL CCNSO BYLAWS. IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOGNIZES AND WARMLY WELCOMES THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTED CCNSO AS POSTED ON MARCH 1ST, 2004.

IT FURTHER RESOLVES THAT THE STAFF -- REQUESTS THE STAFF TO POST THE PROPOSED CLARIFICATIONS TO THE CCNSO BYLAWS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IT RESOLVES -- WE RESOLVE THAT THE BOARD AGREES TO CONSIDER THESE PROPOSED CCNSO BYLAWS DURING THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. AND FINALLY, THE RESOLUTION STATES THAT THE BOARD WARMLY THANKS THE CCNSO LAUNCHING GROUP FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND LOOKS FORWARD TO HAVING THE CCNSO COUNCIL MEET AT THE NEXT ICANN MEETING.

I PLACE THAT RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE FOR A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? LYMAN CHAPIN SECONDS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION OR COMMENT ON THE RESOLUTION?

MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, AND NOT IN AN EXCLUSIVE WAY BUT IN AN INCLUSIVE WAY.

I THINK THAT IF -- IT'S JUST A COMMENT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IN THE PROCESS, AND I'M NOT LOOKING IT AS THE FINAL POINT OF THE PROCESS, BUT JUST LIKE ONE STEP ON THE WHOLE PROCESS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYBODY HERE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTEGRITY AND THE MANAGEMENT OF ALL THE STAFF.
ICANN IS ONLY IP AND DOMAIN NAMES, SO IF YOU REMOVE IP AND IF YOU REMOVE DOMAIN NAME SPACE, I MEAN, YOU JUST HAVE SOME -- IT'S JUST AN IMAGE, TAKE IT LIKE A JOKE. YOU JUST HAVE LAWYERS AND ARE TURNING AROUND.

SO WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING TECHNICAL THINGS AS A WHOLE FAMILY. AND WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT AGREEMENT ON ALL POINT BUT EVERYBODY HERE IS CONCERNED THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE IF WE ARE NOT SEEN AS A WHOLE AND A COHERENT GROUP. AND I'M JUST INVITING ALL THE CC TO JOIN. I KNOW THAT THERE IS SO MANY STEP THAT WE HAVE TO HANDLE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE IT. BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT AT THE END IT WILL BE THE INTERNET FAMILY THAT GO TOGETHER IN ORDER TO HAVE A BETTER INTERNET WITH BETTER MANAGEMENT ROLE AND I HOPE THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN VERY SOON.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK YOU SPEAK FOR A GREAT MANY PEOPLE, MOUHAMET, WITH THOSE WORDS.
ALEX, I KNOW THAT YOU HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT IN THIS. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANKS, VINT. YES, I WISH TO STATE THE FOLLOWING. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CCNSO IS FOR US A MAJOR STEP. I AM VERY GLAD THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK -- TELL YOU THE STORY OF MANY PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER AND FINDING WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETIMES OPPOSING PRINCIPLES AND INTERESTS. THERE HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUALS IN THE CCTLD COMMUNITY, THE FELLOW MEMBERS IN THE EVOLUTION AND REFORM COMMITTEE. WE HAVE ENORMOUS STRENGTH AND FLEXIBILITY HERE ALSO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO REALLY MAKE A CCNSO THAT WILL BE INVITING AND THAT WILL INVITE (INAUDIBLE) FROM OUR MEMBERS AND WILL BUILD FROM ITS MEMBERS. FURTHER, I THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CCNSO BEGINS TO FULFILL THE ARCHITECTURE OF ICANN IN A WAY THAT WE HAVE LONGED FOR IN A LONG PERIOD. AND IT ALSO SHOWS HOW ICANN IS A PECULIAR INSTITUTION OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, HOW IT IS A CROSS (INAUDIBLE) OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, AND IT HAS TAKEN A FEW YEARS, AND IT STILL MOVES AT INTERNET SPEED!

AND CREATE REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND WAYS OF WORKING WHICH RECOGNIZE THE FULL COMPLEXITY OF THE GLOBAL NATURE OF THE INTERNET.

AND A FINAL COMMENT, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CCNSO BEARS WITNESS TO THE EFFORT OF ONE MAN IN PARTICULAR, WHO WAS HANS KRAAIJENBRINK, WHO WAS A VERY KEY PLAYER IN FROM THE BOARD'S SIDE IN UNDERSTANDING THE CCTLD PROBLEMS, TRANSLATING THEM FOR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND BUILDING SOLUTIONS SUCH THAT WE NOW HAVE THE CCNSO.

MOST OF THE SHAPE OF THE CCNSO THAT WE ARE NOW SEEING ON THE RESOLUTION WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE BY THE TIME HANS WAS LEAVING THE BOARD.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AND WHO HAVE NOT YET JOINED, ARE A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A GREAT POLARITY OF THOUGHT, AND DISCUSSING WITH THEM CERTAINLY MADE FOR A MUCH BETTER ORGANIZATION.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX. I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN MAKING THE CCNSO HAPPEN. AND I WANT TO MENTION THERESA SWINEHART ON THE STAFF WHO WORKED VERY HARD TO FACILITATE THIS PROCESS, AND I ALSO WANT TO REMEMBER PETER DENGATE THRUSH WHO I THINK STARTED THIS PROCESS MANY -- WELL, TWO YEARS AGO, AND WHO DEVOTED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO HELPING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

WE NEED PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO HAVE COMMITMENT AND ENERGY TO MAKE THESE THINGS HAPPEN. SO I PLACE THIS RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE FOR A SECOND, AND ASK IF THERE IS ONE.

I SEE MOUHAMET SECONDS AND PROFESSOR QIAN ALSO SECONDS, SO NOTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENT ON THIS RESOLUTION?

ALL RIGHT. I NOTE THAT MEMBER VENI MARKOVSKI HAS DEPARTED BRIEFLY SO WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE IN HIS ABSENCE, AND I'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN COUNT PROPERLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11. AND ALEX, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: FAVOR.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S 12 IN FAVOR. NO ABSTENTIONS, NO "NO" VOTES, AND VENI IS ABSENT FOR THIS.
THE NEXT RESOLUTION IS A SAD ONE, AND ONE THAT I THINK WAS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THE ICANN BOARD TO UNDERTAKE. IT'S TITLED IN MEMORY OF HANS KRAAIJENBRINK.

I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO READ ALL OF THIS IN EXACT TEXT, BUT I WANT TO PARAPHRASE THIS RESOLUTION.
THE BOARD TRULY DOES MOURN THE LOSS OF ITS FORMER MEMBER AND COLLEAGUE HANS KRAAIJENBRINK, WHO PASSED AWAY QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY ON THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. HE SERVED AS A DIRECTOR OF ICANN FROM THE CREATION OF ICANN IN 1998 UNTIL JUNE OF 2003 WHEN HE RETIRED FROM THE BOARD AND, VERY EXCITEDLY, WENT OFF TO RETIRE FROM HIS BUSINESS.

HE PLAYED A KEY ROLE, LEADERSHIP ROLE, IN THE EVOLUTION AND REFORM OF ICANN. HE ALWAYS LOOKED FOR WAYS TO BALANCE INTEREST AND PRINCIPLES IN THE FACE OF MANY CONSTITUENCY VIEWS AND HE WAS ALWAYS READY TO SERVE WHEN HE WAS ASKED, AND HIS VISION AND DETERMINATION WILL SORELY BE MISSED.

WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO WORK WITH HANS FOR FIVE YEARS. AND WE OFFER OUR COLLECTIVE CONDOLENCES TO ALL OF HIS FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

WE HOPE THAT THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WILL BE SUSTAINED IN THIS SAD TIME BY THE LOVE OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO KNEW AND VALUED HIM AS A FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE.

HANS PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE EVOLUTION AND REFORM COMMITTEE'S WORK; IN PARTICULAR, IN THE FORMATION OF THE OF THE CCNSO WHERE HIS SPIRIT, HUMOR AND DEDICATION MADE WORKING ENJOYABLE WHILE MAKING KEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION.

WE CAN BE SURE THAT HANS WOULD HAVE BEEN PLEASED TO LEARN OF THE FORMATION OF THE CCNSO ON THE 1ST OF MARCH.
THOUGH WE SUFFER A GREAT LOSS, WE CELEBRATE HANS' LIFE.

AND WE RESOLVE THAT THE FOLLOWING VALE BE READ INTO THE RECORD.

IT IS WITH GREAT SADNESS THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY LEARNED OF THE PASSING OF HANS. ONE OF ICANN'S FIRST BOARD MEMBERS, APPOINTED IN 1998, HE WAS ALSO ONE OF ITS ENDURING SUPPORTERS.

ACTIVE FROM THE START, HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE ORGANIZATION'S DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING ITS RECENT REFORM. A KEY PARTICIPANT ON THE EVOLUTION AND REFORM COMMITTEE, HANS WORKED WITH ALEJANDRO PISANTY, LYMAN CHAPIN, AND NII QUAYNOR TO GUIDE THE ORGANIZATION TOWARDS REFORM. HIS TIRELESS EFFORTS SHOW WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE NEW BYLAWS FOR THE ICANN AS WELL AS NEW CCNSO BYLAWS, AND ONGOING WORK WITH THE RIRS.

REFORM WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT HIM. HANS WAS A GREAT SOURCE OF WISDOM, AN ABLE NEGOTIATOR, A FIRM DEFENDER, STANDING ON PRINCIPLES. HIS DEDICATION TO MAKING ICANN WORK WAS ENDLESS. HE BELIEVED IN IT, AND HIS WORK AND DEDICATION REFLECTED THIS. FOLLOWING REFORM, HE WORKED TO IMPROVE THE BOARD AND STAFF PROCESSES BY CHAIRING THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE. HIS TIRELESS DEDICATION FOR ICANN TOOK MANY DIMENSIONS, A DIFFICULT MISSION IN THE FACE OF BIG COMPANIES, SPECIAL INTERESTS, CLUELESS ORGANIZATIONS, AND FOES. THOSE WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM, STILL ADMIRED HIS INTELLIGENCE AND IRON WILL, EVEN IF THEY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT AND THE REASON THAT ASSISTED HIM, AS WELL AS THE JOY WITH WHICH HE EMBARKED ON THIS JOURNEY.

HE HAD A WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR, GIVEN AWAY ONLY BY THE SPARKLE IN HIS EYE. HE LOVED FINE WINE, FOOD, AND GOOD COMPANY. HE TREATED HIS COLLEAGUES AT ICANN AND THE STAFF WITH RESPECT AND EQUALITY, VIEWING HIMSELF AS A TEAM MEMBER WHO HAPPENED ALSO TO SIT ON THE BOARD, NOT TO MENTION TO BE INCREDIBLY ACTIVE AND RESPECTED IN OTHER INTERNATIONAL FORA.

HIS UNTIMELY AND SUDDEN DEATH IS A GREAT LOSS TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND TO ICANN. HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE FRUITS OF THE HARD WORK TO WHICH HE STILL LOOKED FORWARD TO COMMIT RENEWED EFFORTS. WE WILL SEEK TO FULFILL HIS HOPES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR ICANN.

THE BOARD, MANAGEMENT, AND STAFF OF ICANN SEND OUR DEEPEST CONDOLENCES TO HIS PARTNER, FAMILY AND FRIENDS. OUR DEAR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE HANS WILL BE DEEPLY MISSED BY ALL WHO KNEW HIM DURING HIS ALL TOO SHORT LIFETIME. VALE HANS, OUR DEAR FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE. VALE.

I ASK THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THIS RESOLUTION AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT BY ACCLAMATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: NOW WE TURN TO A HAPPIER RESOLUTION. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ROBERTO GAETANO TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION.

HE DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO DO THIS TO HIM. GO AHEAD, ROBERTO. DO YOU HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF YOU? VERY GOOD.

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: YEAH, AND I HAVE THE....

THANK YOU FOR THE UNEXPECTED HONOR TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION.
IT IS A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION AND THANKS TO ELISABETH PORTENEUVE.

WHEREAS, ELISABETH HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF SEVERAL DISTINGUISHED ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO INTERNET ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING BEING THE FOUNDING MEMBER AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH CHAPTER OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY AT ITS ORIGIN IN 1996. SHE ALSO SERVED AS COUNSEL TO GENERAL DIRECTOR OF AFNIC, ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE POUR LE NOMMAGE INTERNET EN COOPERATION FRANCE, AND NETWORK DEPARTMENT MANAGER AT CNRS, WHICH IS A LABORATORY OF THE CETP.

ELISABETH PARTICIPATED AS A COUNTRY CODE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE WHITE PAPER IN 1998, THE PROCESS THAT LED TO THE CREATION OF ICANN ELISABETH HOSTED THE PARIS DRAFT GROUP WORKING ON THE DNSO PROPOSAL AT THE END OF JANUARY 1999, ATTENDED THE FOUNDING MEETING OF THE CCTLD CONSTITUENCY OF THE DNSO IN 1999, AND CONTRIBUTED TO ITS ORGANIZATION AS ONE OF THE SEVEN FOUNDING CONSTITUENCIES OF THE DNSO.

ELISABETH HAS DEDICATED THOUSANDS OF HOURS SERVING AS THE FIRST ICANN/DNSO SECRETARIAT BETWEEN 1999 AND 2001. SHE IS THE AUTHOR OF A CONCEPT AND DESIGN OF THE ELECTRONIC VOTE BY E-MAIL THAT WAS USED BY THE DNSO/GNSO COUNCIL AND SOME CONSTITUENCIES. SHE MANAGED THE FIRST ELECTION PROCESS FOR THE DNSO, WHICH INCLUDED THE ELECTION OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS.

AFTER THE COUNTRY CODE MANAGERS INITIATED AN EFFORT TO FORM THEIR OWN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, ELISABETH LENT BOTH HER ENERGY AND LEADERSHIP TO THE FORMATION OF THE CCNSO AND ALSO CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THE NEW GNSO AS A LIAISON.

ELISABETH HAS PARTICIPATED IN AN AD HOC GROUP CONSISTING OF CCTLD MEMBERS AND ALSO ON THE ICANN SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE REGARDING UPDATES TO THE CCTLD NAME SERVERS IN THE IANA DATABASE.

ELISABETH SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE ICANN INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, IDN, COMMITTEE SINCE NOVEMBER 2001.

ELISABETH WAS ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CENTR, COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN NATIONAL TOP LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRIES, AT ITS INCEPTION IN 1999, AND ALSO SERVED ON DIFFERENT COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS, INCLUDING SERVING AS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CENTR IANA WORKING GROUP.

ELISABETH HAS TRAVELED MORE THAN 320,000 KILOMETERS OR EIGHT TIMES AROUND THE WORLD IN THE COURSE OF HER WORK FOR ICANN.

WE NOTE WITH GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION THE DEEP COMMITMENT AND INEVITABLE HELPFULNESS WITH WHICH ELISABETH GREETED ALL MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE WILL MISS HER EBULLIENT PERSONALITY AND ENTHUSIASM THAT SHE BRINGS TO ALL THAT SHE DOES. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT THE ICANN BOARD FORMALLY RECOGNIZES ELISABETH'S SERVICE AND OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE CCTLDS, ICANN, AND THE WIDER INTERNET COMMUNITY, AND THAT THE BOARD EXPRESSES ITS GOOD WISHES TO MS. PORTENEUVE FOR CONTINUED SUCCESS IN HER FUTURE ROLE AND THE HOPE THAT SHE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE HERSELF AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION IN ICANN MATTERS IN THE FUTURE.

IF I MAY ADD A COUPLE OF WORDS ON THIS.

WE -- I HAVE JUST READ AN IMPRESSIVE LIST OF ACHIEVEMENT.

AND ALTHOUGH ELISABETH IS PART OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND GAVE TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INTERNET SINCE THE '80S, THE '80S WERE THE TIME IN WHICH PEOPLE LIKE ME WERE THINKING AND WORKING ON THE OSI MODEL, INCIDENTALLY.
AND --
(LAUGHTER.)

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: BUT I DON'T WANT TO -- I MEAN, IN SPITE OF THIS IMPRESSIVE ACHIEVEMENT AND TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, I THINK THAT WHERE ELISABETH HAS LEFT A MARK THAT WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN IS ON HER HUMAN APPROACH TO LIFE.

I WOULD LIKE JUST TO VERY BRIEFLY REMEMBER TWO ELEMENTS.

FIRST, WE WERE IN THE FORMATION OF THE DNSO, IT WAS THE EARLY DAYS OF ICANN.

THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS, TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.

AND THOSE TWO PARTIES WERE SOMEHOW IN A CONFRONTATIONAL MODE.

AND ELISABETH WAS AMONG THE FEW WHO THOUGHT THAT WE COULD NOT EVENTUALLY BUILD AN INTERNET FOR ALL BY HAVING ONE PART PREVAILING ON A MAJORITY BASIS.
AND SHE THOUGHT THAT DIALOGUE WAS THE WAY TO GO.

AND SHE HOSTED A FAMOUS MEETING IN PARIS WHERE THE TWO PARTIES WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN A FACE-TO-FACE DISCUSSION.
FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THOSE DAYS, THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT MOVE.

AND REGARDLESS HOW THE PARIS DRAFT ENDED, THE FACT THAT TWO PARTIES WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN DIALOGUE AND IN PARTICIPATION, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS WHERE, IN THE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE HEARD THAT ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE THE RISK OF CONFRONTATION AND NOT DIALOGUE, I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT.

AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT THE MOMENT THAT ELISABETH IS DEPARTING FROM THE ACTIVE ROLE IN ICANN, THE INTERNET COMMUNITY IS GOING IN THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS ONCE AGAIN THE CONFRONTATION AND THE COURTS AND THE ATTITUDE OF WHO CAN PREVAIL ON THE OTHER INSTEAD OF WORKING TOGETHER.
THE SECOND ELEMENT RELATES TO STILL THE EARLY DAYS OF THE DNSO.

INCIDENTALLY, THAT VOTING PROCEDURE OF ELISABETH'S DID NOT ELECT ONLY THE THREE BOARD MEMBERS; ELECTED ALSO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHAIR.
AND I HAD THE UNIQUE PRIVILEGE TO GET THAT POST.
AND THOSE WERE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT DAYS WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO ORGANIZE THE PARTICIPATION FROM THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WAS -- WE COULD SEE THAT AS THE FIRST ATTEMPT OF WHAT THEN BECAME THE AT-LARGE.
AND EVERYTHING HAPPENED IN THOSE DAYS.
AND SHE WENT UNDER AN EXTREME PRESSURE.

AS CHAIRMAN OF THE GA, I COULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO DO THE VERY LITTLE THINGS THAT I DID, BUT TO WORK PROPERLY WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE DNSO, WHO WAS, IN FACT, ELISABETH PORTENEUVE, WHO GAVE INCREDIBLY LONG WORKING HOURS.
AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THINGS THAT I CAN -- OR ELEMENTS AND FACTS THAT I CAN REMEMBER.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE -- I HAVE TO CLOSE IT HERE.

>>VINT CERF: NOW, WE HAVE AN ACTIVE RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE.
WE NEED A SECOND FOR IT.

>>ROBERTO GAETANO: WELL, I AM NOT -- UNFORTUNATELY, I AM A NONVOTING MEMBER OF THE BOARD, SO I THINK I CANNOT TABLE THE MOTION.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S RIGHT.
SO I WILL ASK VENI TO MOVE.
AND PROFESSOR QIAN SECONDS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION?
ALEX?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I AM ALSO JOINING, VERY GLADLY, THIS RESOLUTION.

>>VINT CERF: I ASK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO VOTE BY ACCLAMATION.
(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ROBERTO.
I APPRECIATE YOUR EXCELLENT HANDLING OF THAT RESOLUTION, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD BE ASKED TO DO THAT.

THE NEXT AND FINAL RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE IS TO THANK OUR HOSTS AND ALL OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED TO MAKE THIS MEETING POSSIBLE.
SO THIS RESOLUTION IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SO LET ME INTRODUCE IT.

WHEREAS, ICANN HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ITS MARCH 2004 ICANN MEETING IN ROME; WHEREAS THE GRACIOUS AND WARM HOSPITALITY, SPLENDID FACILITIES, STRONG SUPPORT, AND CLOSE ATTENTION TO FULFILLING THE NEEDS OF PARTICIPANTS HAVE BEEN TRULY MAGNIFICENT, IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT THE ICANN BOARD EXPRESSES ITS DEEP APPRECIATION AND THANKS ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PARTICIPANTS, TO OUR HOSTS, CLAUDIO CORBETTA AND FRANCO DENOTH FROM REGISTER.IT S.P.A., DADA GROUP AND IIT-CNR, RESPECTIVELY.

THE BOARD ALSO EXTENDS ITS THANKS TO ALL SPONSORS OF THE MEETING, INCLUDING ALITALIA, BASIC FUSION, DADA, FASHION DISTRICT, FASTWEB, INFOCAMERE, ITALIATOUR, LOGICBOXES, NAMEINTELLIGENCE, MCARTHUR GLEN, NEW.NET, OLITALIA, .ORG, RADIO 24, SEEWEB SRL, TIKO, TUONOME.IT, VERISIGN, AND WEB.COM.

THE BOARD THANKFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE HARD WORK OF THE STAFF OF REGISTER.IT S.P.A. DADA GROUP AND IIT-CNR, PARTICULARLY CHIARA RONCHETTI AND GIOVANNI SEPPIA.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORT MADE BY THE STAFF OF THE MELIA ROMA AURELIA ANTICA HOTEL TO MEET ALL OF OUR MANY REQUESTS.

THE BOARD EXPRESSES ITS GREAT APPRECIATION TO THE ICANN STAFF PRESENT HERE IN ROME; LAURA BREWER, TERI DARRENOUGUE, AND THE REST OF THE ICANN STAFF FOR THEIR DEDICATED EFFORTS IN ENSURING THE SMOOTH OPERATION OF THE MEETING.

AND I PAUSE HERE TO REAFFIRM AND UNDERSCORE THE TREMENDOUS VALUE THAT OUR CAPTIONING INTERPRETERS GIVE TO US, LAURA AND TERI.

WE THANK YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR THE SERVICE YOU RENDER TO ICANN AND ITS COMMUNITY.

I PLACE THIS RESOLUTION ON THE TABLE FOR A SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>>VINT CERF: THERE IS A SECOND FROM HAGEN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY THE USUAL ACCLAMATION.

(APPLAUSE.)

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE NO FURTHER AGENDA ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY MATTERS STILL THAT NEED TO BE RAISED BEFORE WE ADJOURN?
ALEX -- OH, YES, MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN.
I THINK THAT WE ONLY HAVE GOOD NEWS INTO THE BEGINNING.
SO I JUST WANT TO PUT SOME THOUGHT.

IT'S NOT IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT OF HAPPINESS THAT WE HAVE AND THE AMBIENCE OF THANKS FOR WHAT WE ARE DOING.
I JUST WANT TO RAISE A POINT IN ORDER TO LET PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT, I MEAN, MILESTONES HAVE BEEN DONE, BUT WE HAVE A HUGE AGENDA IN FRONT OF US.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT EVERYTHING IS PERFECT AND EVERYTHING IS FINE AND WE HAVE DONE THE JOB.
IF I RAISE THE POINT, FOR EXAMPLE, CONCERNING -- TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST WILL BE IDN, BECAUSE I AM NOT TRYING TO OPEN UP EVERY DAY THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS OF ICANN.

WE HAVE TWO AREAS, TECHNICALLY, WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FROM US TO GIVE ANSWERS.
IT'S ALL ABOUT IP, SO THE NUMBERS, AND ABOUT THE NAMES.

SO ON THE NUMBERS SIDE, I THINK THAT WE HAVE VERY TALENTED PEOPLE THAT ARE ORGANIZED AROUND THE REGISTRY THAT ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE JOB OF THE REGISTRY.
IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.

AND IPV4 IS RUNNING, IPV6 IS COMING.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY CONTROVERSY DEBATE AROUND THE IP ADDRESS SPACE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE, THAT IS THE SECOND TECHNICAL AREA WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FROM US TO BRING SOMETHING.

WE HAVE TWO AREAS IN THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE.
THE FIRST IS THE CC, A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF COUNTRY CODES DEFINED THROUGH AN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT OURS, SO WE ADOPT IT.

SO THERE IS NO FLEXIBILITY IN THAT AREA.
THE SECOND AREA IS ALL ABOUT THE GTLD ENVIRONMENT, WHERE WE KNOW THAT IT'S A TREMENDOUS, IT'S A HUGE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING US TO MOVE VERY FAST.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT AREA?

WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE BASED ON THE CONSTRAINT WE HAVE.
THE CONSTRAINT IS BUDGET CONSTRAINT, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO HIRE PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB IN A VERY TIMELY FASHION.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXCUSE FOR US TO MOVE AS SLOWLY AS WE ARE MOVING.
IF WE LOOK AT HOW MANY TLDS HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF ICANN, I DON'T THINK THAT IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THIS TREND, WE WILL HAVE THE COMMUNITY HAPPY ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE EXPECTING FROM OUR SIDE.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE REMINDED THAT ON THE GTLD, EVERYTHING IS ON OUR HANDS.

I MEAN, WE HAVE THE DECISION, WE HAVE THE POWER TO EXPERIMENT, TO LAUNCH, TO TRY TO SEE, EVALUATE, AND MOVE FORWARD.

AND I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY IS VERY -- IS NOT SO DIFFICULT ON THAT SIDE, BECAUSE THEY EXPECT US TO LAUNCH TEST BED, THEY EXPECT US TO DO SOME TESTS IN THE FIELD AND TO TRY TO LEARN, I MEAN, EXPERIENCE FROM THEM.
SO I THINK THAT IT'S A GREAT CHANCE.

THERE WAS SOME ENVIRONMENT WHERE EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO COVER EVERYTHING, TO GO INTO DETAIL BEFORE YOU LAUNCH ANYTHING.
AND THIS CAN TAKE YEARS AND YEARS.

IN OUR INTERNET ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE ALLOW US TO GO, YOU KNOW, WHERE EXPERIMENTATION ARE ALLOWED.
AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE CRITICAL AREAS HERE IS IDN.

I MEAN, WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID THE PROBLEM BY ACCEPTING CC TO LAUNCH AND GTLD TO LAUNCH AT THE SECOND LEVEL AT THE IDN.
BUT I AM NOT REALLY SURE THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS EXPECTING FROM US.
WE ARE TRYING JUST TO SIMPLIFY A PROBLEM THAT IS REALLY COMPLEX AND HUGE.
AND, I MEAN, WITH DIFFERENT ASPECTS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY DEFERRING.
IT'S NOT A GOOD APPROACH.
AND IT'S JUST LIKE WE HAVE STARTED SOMETHING AND WE STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
SO IDN COMMITTEE HAS BEEN SET UP BY ICANN.

IT WAS A GREAT RESPONSE TO A HUGE HOPE FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE SET UP AND READY TO GO IN TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS.
BUT AT MIDTERM, WHAT HAPPENED IS THE IDN COMMITTEE INSIDE ICANN HAS STOPPED THEIR JOB, AND NOW WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN IMPLEMENTATION IS EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT ACCORDING TO ITS OWN COMPREHENSION AND ITS OWN CONSTRAINTS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS EXPECTING FROM US.
WE NEED TO DRAFT POLICY; WE NEED TO WORK ON THE -- THE TECHNICAL SIDE HAS BEEN ALREADY LAID OUT.

SO WE HAVE THE IDNA, WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT, SO IETF AND IAB HAVE ALREADY PUT IN PLACE THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THE MORE COMPLEX AND THE MORE DIFFICULT AREA WILL BE POLICY.
AND IN THAT AREA, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THE JOB.
SO THERE IS -- I MEAN, THERE WAS -- PEOPLE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT AREA AND EVEN TO DRAFT WHAT WILL BE THE BEST PRACTICE IN THAT AREA.

AND FOR ME, IF ICANN IS NOT DOING THIS JOB IN ORDER TO HELP PUTTING IN PLACE BEST PRACTICE IN IDN ENVIRONMENT AND PUSHING FOR SOME EXPERIMENT AT THE IDN AS A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME, I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE DOING WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS EXPECTING FROM OUR SIDE.

SO I THINK THAT THIS IS JUST TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE HERE, AND WE KNOW THAT THE EXPECTATION FROM THE GROUND IS HIGHER THAN WHAT THE BOARD IS GIVING NOW IN TERMS OF TIMING, IN TERMS OF RESPONSE.

AND I AM DREAMING THAT THE INTERNET IS GOING FAST COMPARED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION.
AND IF WE DO NOT TAKE CARE, I MEAN, WE WILL LEAD THE ORGANIZATION IN A VERY SLOW PROCESS THAT WILL FREEZE INNOVATION AND THE EXPLORATION WE ARE EXPECTING TO GET IN THE INTERNET.

SO I AM REALLY APPEALING TO PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN TRY TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE AND LESS CONSERVATIVE TOWARD THE IDN APPROACH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S -- WE CANNOT STAND HERE AND SAYING THAT IT'S TOO COMPLEX; WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD; IT'S TOO COMPLICATED.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT THE COMPLEXITY IS ON A TECHNICAL SIDE.
THE COMPLEXITY IS JUST ON POLICY.
AND WE HAVE -- WE KNOW HOW TO DO POLICY.
WE KNOW HOW TO MOVE ON THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.

SO IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF RAISING IT AS A MAIN POINT, AS ONE OF THE TWO AREAS WHERE ICANN HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AS TECHNICALLY RESPONSIBLE TO GIVE ANSWERS TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND IF NOTHING IS DONE, I MEAN, IT'S JUST LIKE WE'RE ALWAYS IN AN EXCLUSIVE APPROACH NOT TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ENGLISH-SPEAKING OR FRENCH-SPEAKING OR ASCII-ORIENTED TO BE PRESENT IN THE INTERNET.
SO I AM JUST CALLING FOR PEOPLE TO CONSIDER THIS AND TRYING TO HAVE A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH ON THAT SIDE.
THE SECOND THING IS, WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPETITION.

I AM NOT TRYING TO RAISE SOMETHING THAT WILL -- OKAY.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT I AM COMING FROM A MONOPOLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS A TELCO ENVIRONMENT.
AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE COMPETITION IS A VERY GOOD THING.

AND WE HAVE SOME AREAS IN ICANN WHERE ALSO COMPETITION IS NOT UP TO NOW ALLOWED.
SO I WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WE HAVE COMPETITION AT THE GTLD LEVEL.
IT'S SOME AREA THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT FOR NOW.

WE DON'T HAVE TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF THOUGHT BECAUSE THE MARKET WILL ASK FOR US TO THINK ABOUT IT.
SO JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON THE ROOT SERVER.
I MEAN, WE HAVE DIFFERENT ROOT SERVERS DOING THE SAME JOB, JUST LIKE A CLUSTER.
I MEAN, WE HAVE DIFFERENT ROOT SERVER WHO MANAGE THEIR OWN SERVER, BUT THEY GIVE THE SAME SERVICES.
AND IT'S JUST THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION.
WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF TOMORROW YOU HAVE VERISIGN AND TWO OR THREE OTHERS RUNNING THE DOT-COM?
I MEAN, WITH THE CLEAR RULE DEFINED.
JUST TRY TO THINK THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BLOCK OURSELVES TO THINK IN A WAY TO MAKE THAT ENVIRONMENT MORE OPEN, WHERE COMPETITION IS NOT ONLY LIMITED TO SOME LAYERS, BUT WILL BE A FULLY MODEL APPROACH WHERE COMPETITION IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE.

I AM NOT TRYING TO SPOIL ANY BUSINESS, BUT THE IDEA IS, WHATEVER WE CAN BRING COMPETITION, AT ANY LEVEL IT WILL BE, I MEAN, IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE USERS THAT WE ARE SERVING AT THE END.
SO THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: IVAN, DID I SEE A HAND?

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: YEAH.
WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, MOUHAMET, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM SURPRISED.

WE ARE BOTH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, AND I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU SAY THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE ON OUR AGENDA.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO ELABORATE ON THIS.

BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO PUT FORWARD YOUR IDEAS SO THAT WE CAN IMPROVE ON OUR WORK, ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE WORK BETWEEN THE BOARD AND STAFF, AND THAT WE CAN BE, AS YOU ARE ADVOCATING, AND ALL OF US ARE, BETTER RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY.

I AM QUITE SURPRISED THAT YOU THINK THAT WE ARE -- I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU -- THAT WE ARE SITTING BACK AND OBSERVING THINGS HAPPENING, THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE OUR BEST IN TERMS OF TRYING TO PROMOTE COMPETITION AND DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

I REMIND YOU, IT'S OUR OBLIGATION, AMONG OTHERS, IN THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO HELP IN THE PROCESSES IN ORDER TO HAVE OUR DUTIES ACCOMPLISHED.

>>VINT CERF: MIKE PALAGE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I GUESS, IVAN, I SORT OF SEE THE MIDDLE GROUND.
I DON'T -- TO ME, SOME OF THE, IF YOU WILL, FRUSTRATION THAT MOUHAMET FEELS IS NOT REALLY THAT MUCH DIFFERENT FROM SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM BRUCE TONKIN.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS ORGANIZATION WILL BE TASKED WITH OVER THE UPCOMING MONTHS WITH ITS STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AND COMING UP WITH A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MODEL IS TO PUT IN PLACE THE MECHANISM SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD MORE AGGRESSIVELY IN THOSE AREAS.

AND AGAIN, JUST GOING BACK TO MOUHAMET AND TO IVAN WITH REGARD TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, THIS IS BOTTOM-UP, AND IT'S NOT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE AT THE TOP SETTING POLICY, BUT IT'S US WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE USERS, THE DIFFERENT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP DO THAT.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A TEAM EFFORT WITH BOTH THE BOARD AND THE USERS WORKING TOGETHER.
SO I DON'T SEE THERE TO BE THAT MUCH OF A DISCONNECT, BUT JUST REMINDING US THAT WE DO NEED TO GO FORWARD.

>>VINT CERF: MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
IVAN, I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT THAT PEOPLE AREN'T DOING THEIR JOB. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF YOU MEASURE THE EXPECTATION AND THE SPEED WE ARE RUNNING, WHAT I'M SAYING IS JUST -- OKAY, LOOK AT THE LAST ROUND ON THE STLD. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FOR US TO BE ABLE, AND I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE NOW, I MEAN, THE -- WHAT IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE IT IN A TWO-MONTH PROCESS OR THREE-MONTH PROCESS.

BUT TO BE HONEST, PAUL IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF HIM IN TERMS OF EXPECTATION, PROBLEMS TO SOLVE, SOLICITATION, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE BUDGET WE HAVE NOW HELP HIM SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE TRANSLATION OF WHATEVER WE NEED THAT HAVE TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR ORGANIZATION THE BEST.

SO THIS IS NOT ONLY A MESSAGE TO THE BOARD OR TO THE STAFF. IT'S A MESSAGE TO EVERYBODY HERE, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S ONLY A BOARD CONCERN OR STAFF CONCERN.

EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO PLAY ITS OWN ROLE. WHAT ABOUT THE BUDGET ISSUES? YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, IS HITTING THEIR HEAD IN ORDER TO SEE WHETHER THEY CAN HAVE ALTERNATE FUNDING, IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE ISSUE BY THE BOARD, BY THE CEO AND THE STAFF IS TRYING TO INVOLVE IN THE PROCESS.

NOW, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS CLEARLY WHAT HAVE TO BE DONE IN OUR CORE BUSINESS, AND OUR CORE BUSINESS IS, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THE (INAUDIBLE) SPACE AND IN THE DOMAIN NAME. AND THE WAY WE ARE RUNNING NOW IN THE DOMAIN SPACE IS TOO SLOW WITH REGARD TO EXPECTATION OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS IN THIS AREA. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

SO I DON'T SEE I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT ISSUE, BUT THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADDRESS HERE IS THE INTERNET WAS RUNNING FAST AND EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY BECAUSE THINGS ARE MOVING FAST AND WE'RE NOT WAITING EVERYTHING TO BE OKAY PERFECT IN ORDER TO LAUNCH IT.

AND IN THIS APPROACH, I SEE THAT IT IS THE KEY PROCESS OF THE INTERNET PROCESS.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE LAST STLD WE HAVE LAUNCH? WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE EVALUATION. BUT IT DID NOT PREVENT US TO LAUNCH A NEW STLD BECAUSE IF WE MAKE SECONDARILY THESE THINGS, WE KNOW THAT NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN AND WE HAVE SO MANY CONCERNS THAT WE CANNOT DEAL WITH.

SO WE SAY FINE, WE'RE GOING TO LAUNCH A NEW PROCESS AND AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE GOING TO COMPLETE THE EVALUATION. AND WHY NOT HAVE THE SAME APPROACH, SAY LOOK, WE KNOW THAT IT'S REALLY COMPLEX, IDN IS COMPLEX, BUT WHY NOT, ACCORDING TO THE COMMUNITY, TRY TO SEND ON THE LIST WE WANT TO HAVE AN EXPERIMENTATION ON IDN AT THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

IS THERE ANY VOLUNTEER? I DON'T KNOW, TC OR ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THAT JOB AND WE'RE GOING TO LAUNCH IT AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT LEVEL.

AND AT THE END, ALL THESE PROCESS OF EVALUATION, TEST, EXPERIMENT, IS THE WHOLE INTERNET IN WHICH WE ARE LIVING. I MEAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED PERFECTLY ON THE PAPER BEFORE WE LEARNT IT.
SO THAT'S MY IDEA.

AND IT WAS LAST THING TO START THINKING ABOUT AN IDN APPROACH AT THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME.
ANY COMMENT WE HAVE HEARD UP TO NOW, ANY IMPLEMENTATION IS AT THE SECOND LEVEL DOMAIN NAME. SO THAT IS JUST UNDER THE -- A POLICY OF A CCNSO, UNDER A POLICY OF A GTLD.

SO MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE BECAUSE THE OBJECTIVE THAT WE HAVE TO COVER IN ORDER TO MAKE THE INTERNET MORE INTERNATIONALIZED, MORE DIVERSE IN TERM OF CONTENT, SHOULD DEAL WITH THE FACILITATION OF MUCH MORE DOMAIN NAME LAUNCHED, NEW IDN DOMAIN NAME LAUNCHED AND PEOPLE START USING THE INTERNET IN THEIR FULLY LANGUAGE TO PUT THE IDN AT THE END OF THEIR NAME. AND I KNOW THE BOARD AND STAFF ARE DOING A GREAT JOB BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. IT'S A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT EVERYBODY HAVE TO MAKE PARTICIPATION IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS THING SMOOTH.

>>VINT CERF: I SEE SOME OTHER HANDS UP BUT MOUHAMET I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I APPLAUD YOUR ENTHUSIASM AND YOUR DESIRE TO MAKE THINGS MOVE FORWARD FASTER.

FIRST OF ALL, THE INTRODUCTION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES WITH MULTILINGUAL COMPONENTS HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF UNCERTAINTIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TECHNOLOGY AND HAVE A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WHERE THEY WILL BE DRAWN FROM, HOW THEY WILL BE ASSIGNED. THERE'S A LONG LIST OF ISSUES THAT ASSOCIATE WITH NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN THE CC ARENA IN PARTICULAR. SO THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE.
THERE'S NO CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT IT WILL MEAN TO HAVE A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAT IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SOME OTHER CC JUST REPRESENTED WITH ANOTHER LANGUAGE.

SHOULD WE HAVE CCS FOR EVERY COUNTRY NAME IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IN EVERY LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD -- LET'S SEE, THERE ARE 10,000 LANGUAGES TIMES THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES IS 22,000 SOME -- 220,000. IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN THAT. IT'S 2 MILLION POSSIBLE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITHIN ANY REGISTRATION WITH ANY ONE OF THOSE THINGS?

SO THE POINT HERE IS THIS IS A NON-TRIVIAL MATTER AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEREFORE WE SHOULD DO NOTHING, BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THIS YOU HAVE TO HELP ANALYZE WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF INTRODUCING THIS.

IT'S AN EASY IDEA TO SAY, BUT IT HAS SUBSTANTIAL SCALING ELEMENTS, AND IT HAS SUBSTANTIAL POLICY ELEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD. THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE.

POINT NUMBER TWO, WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF COMPETITION, YOU USED A VERY INTERESTING AND, I THINK, INAPPROPRIATE EXAMPLE. IN THE CASE OF THE ROOT DOMAIN SERVERS, THE CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THEIR SUCCESS IS COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION. THAT IS NOT COMPETITION. THE ROOT SERVERS ARE NOT COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.

THE FACT THAT THIS WORKS IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER. IN OTHER PARTS OF THE INTERNET SYSTEM WHERE WE HAVE INTRODUCED COMPETITION, ALTHOUGH THERE HAS TO BE AN UNDERLYING COLLABORATION BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO MEET THE SAME TECHNICAL STANDARDS OR THINGS DON'T WORK AT ALL, THE COMPETITION IS NOT THE SAME AS COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION.
SO SUGGESTING THAT THE ROOT SERVER COMMUNITY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PLACE WHERE YOU WANT COMPETITION IS NOT SOMETHING I WOULD AGREE WITH.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TRYING TO DRAW ANALOGIES AS WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN INTRODUCE SOME OF THESE NEW IDEAS.

I ACTUALLY HAVE OVERSTEPPED MY BOUNDS BECAUSE JOHN KLENSIN ACTUALLY HAD HIS HAND UP, AND SO JOHN, I'LL ASK YOU TO TAKE THE FLOOR.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: ACTUALLY, VINT, IN THE INTEREST OF OUR GETTING OUT OF HERE BEFORE 5:00 THIS AFTERNOON, I THINK I WILL AVOID ELABORATING ON YOUR COMMENTS BUT WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS COMPLETE AGREEMENT, AND TO MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES WITH THIS IDN STUFF THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND.

THE FIRST IS THE MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TECHNOLOGY IS DONE AND IT'S ALL POLICY IS A MATTER OF HOW ONE DEFINES THOSE BOUNDARIES. THERE ARE SOME VERY DIFFICULT ESSENTIALLY TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN FRONT OF US.

IF THOSE PROBLEMS ARE NOT RESOLVED OR IF YOU PREFER, IF A POLICY PROBLEM IS NOT WORKED OUT CAREFULLY, WE END UP IN A SITUATION IN WHICH IDNS BECOME A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR CYBERSQUATTERS AND SIMILAR BAD FOLKS AND POSSIBLY A FULL EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROVIDERS, BUT NOT A BENEFIT EITHER FOR REGISTRANTS OR FOR USERS.

AND THAT'S PARTIALLY A POLICY ISSUE, IT'S PARTIALLY A TECHNICAL ISSUE, IT'S PARTIALLY, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, AN ISSUE WITH THE WAY SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE EVOLVED OVER THE LAST 6- OR 10,000 YEARS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, JOHN.

LET ME TRY TO TURN THIS AROUND SO THAT IT IS CONSTRUCTIVE.
MOUHAMET, LET ME MAKE A REQUEST OF YOU.

HAVING PASSIONATELY LAID OUT A SET OF CONCERNS, IF YOU CAN HELP US BY DOING A BIT MORE ANALYSIS TO PUT A FRAMEWORK TOGETHER IN WHICH THESE MATTERS THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN COULD BE CONSIDERED, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. ESPECIALLY BEARING IN MIND THAT OUR PROCESS ASKS THAT THE COMMUNITY MAKE ITS INPUT AND HELP DRIVE US TOWARDS GOOD POLICY.

SO HELPING THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU SUGGEST, CREATING A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THE THINKING CAN BE DONE WOULD BE A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION, SO I ASK TO YOU VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO A MATTER WHICH YOU TOUCHED ON, IF I COULD. DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND IN SOME WAY TO THE IMMEDIATE, PREVIOUS DISCUSSION? BUT I WANT TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER RELATING TO STLDS.
GO AHEAD.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: OKAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENT ON THE -- ON THE ANALOGY WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE FOR THE COMPETITION. BUT I THINK THAT THE IDEA WAS CLEAR ENOUGH, THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE WAY THAT THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE IANA FUNCTION, THE CC OR THE GTLD AND THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT HAVE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION THAT IS NOT BASED ON A PROFITABLE BUSINESS.

I MEAN, THE IANA FUNCTION IS NOT -- WHAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT IT IS IT'S A CRITICAL TECHNICAL FUNCTION, BUT THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT IS RUNNING UNDER IT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERNET, WE HAVE A LAYER THAT IS A LAYER SHARED BY EVERYBODY THAT IS ASSUMED BY THE IANA FUNCTION, AND ON TOP OF IT. SO YOU HAVE THE BUSINESS MODEL THAT TRY TO RUN. INDIVIDUALLY IT CAN BE THE GTLD ISSUES OR IT CAN BE THE CC MODEL.

SO MY CONCERN IS I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS QUESTION HAVE BEEN RAISED SEVERAL TIME OUTSIDE OF ICANN. I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION HERE THAT TO THINK ABOUT WHY NOT HAVE TWO OR THREE REGISTRY WORKING ON THE SAME AREA. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT THERE WAS A NEED OF COOPERATION AND COORDINATION, BUT I'M SEEING THIS TO BE DONE AT THE ROOT LEVEL THAT IS NOW DONE BY THE IANA FUNCTION.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SET UP OR EXPLAIN TECHNICALLY HOW THIS NEW MODEL CAN WORK, BUT IT'S JUST TO RAISE A POINT THAT WE ARE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE AT SOME LEVEL WE HAVE A MONOPOLY, AN ECONOMIC MONOPOLY, THAT IS THE FIRST LAYER AND ON TOP OF IT YOU HAVE COMPETITION THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO RAISE. AND SOME CONCERN, IS THAT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A MODEL WHERE IT'S NOT A MONOPOLY? BUT IT CAN BE TWO, THREE, OR FOUR, SOME SORT OF INTRODUCTION OF COMPETITION AT A THIRD LEVEL.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT -- AS PART OF THAT COMMUNITY, I HAVE TO BRING, I MEAN, ALL THE PREOCCUPATION THAT I HEARD FROM OUTSIDE, AND SOMETHING THAT WILL MAKE OUR ENVIRONMENT STRONGER IS TO GIVE ANSWER THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, AND EXPLAIN WHY. AND IF IT IS POSSIBLE, WHY NOT?

THESE ARE THE TYPE OF ANSWERS I WAS EXPECTING, EVEN IF I AM NOT THE ONE WHO WILL BRING IT ON THE TABLE. BUT THIS WILL HELP FROM OUR COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS TYPE OF QUESTION WE'RE GETTING FROM OUTSIDE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE WERE SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT OF THE INTERNET, THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING WHAT IS NOW A MONOPOLY, WHAT IS NOT A MONOPOLY, WHAT CAN BE CHANGED, WHY NOT HAVE A (INAUDIBLE) ENVIRONMENT. THESE ARE THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS WE RAISE HERE. AND MAYBE YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WHO CAN EXPLAIN, IF IT IS ONLY TECHNICAL CONSTRAINT, WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT. IF IT IS POLICY CONSTRAINTS, WE CAN CHANGE IT. THIS IS MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS IDEA OF THE MONOPOLY ENVIRONMENT.

BUT ON THE IDN, I MEAN, JUST TO COME BACK ON THE ISSUE, THERE HAVE BEEN, I MEAN, SEVERAL DOCUMENT ISSUED BY JOHN KLENSIN, ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN, THERE ARE SO MANY SUMMARY THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE A STATEMENT WHAT THE PROBLEM -- ELISABETH PORTENEUVE WAS INVOLVED. THERE WAS SO MANY CONTRIBUTION THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. AND FOR ME, IT'S JUST LIKE ALL THIS WORK HAVE BEEN DONE, AND JUST LIKE PUT IT ON THE TABLE SAYING IT'S TOO COMPLEX, WE HAVE TO WAIT. YOU DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE READY TO DO THAT.

THIS IS THE IMPRESSION I AM JUST GETTING, WHEN -- I'M SORRY. IT'S JUST, I WAS PART OF THE PROCESS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I WAS NOT VERY USEFUL IN THAT PROCESS BECAUSE I WAS LEARNING A LOT AT THAT TIME. BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS I KNOW THAT THERE IS A WINDOW FOR IMPLEMENTATION. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S -- BY THAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DOCUMENT THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN ORDER TO SHOW PEOPLE HOW WE CAN IMPLEMENT IDN AS A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME, AND WHAT CONCERN WE HAVE.

>>VINT CERF: I HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR HANDS UP, MOUHAMET. CAN YOU TURN YOUR MICROPHONE OFF? THANK YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE ALREADY DISCOVERING THAT EVEN IMPLEMENTING IDNS IN THE LIMITED WAY THAT WE HAVE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE HARD. AND SO ONE THING I SUGGEST WE DO, YOU IN PARTICULAR, WOULD BE TO TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPLEMENTING THEM TO FIND OUT WHAT PROBLEMS THEY'VE EXPERIENCED.

WE HEARD SOME STORIES IN THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES.

SO THAT WOULD BE A USEFUL THING TO DO.
I HAVE IVAN AND I HAVE MIKE PALAGE ON THE QUEUE.
IVAN.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: I DON'T KNOW IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, BUT I HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU POSED THE QUESTION OF WHY DON'T WE TRY ALTERNATIVE ROOTS AND HAVE MORE THAN ONE REGISTRY FOR THE SAME DOMAIN NAME. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS? IS THIS -- DID I HEAR IT WELL? DID I HEAR IT RIGHT? I'M SURPRISED. JUST A CLARIFICATION. ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE MAKE EXPERIMENTS WITH HAVING MULTIPLE REGISTRIES FOR THE SAME TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: IVAN, THOSE TWO ISSUES THAT I WANT -- I DON'T WANT TO MIX BOTH OF THEM. THE FIRST ONE IS MY QUESTION ABOUT REGISTRY COMPETITION, AND I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ABOUT IT, BUT I HAVE THAT QUESTION --

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: YOU ARE POSING THIS QUESTION, ACTUALLY.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I AM RELATING THE QUESTION.

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: I HAVE THE SAME SUGGESTION AS VINT. TALK TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE STUDIED THE ISSUE AND HAVE -- YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN BENEFIT FROM PREVIOUS THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, PAPERS PUBLISHED, INCLUDING MANY OF THEM ON THE ICANN SITE ABOUT WHAT IS THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATIVE ROOTS.
AND --

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: IT'S NOT -- NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ROOTS. I'M SORRY.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT. I'M CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CONTINUING DISCUSSION.
MIKE.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: SINCE I'VE ARRIVED HERE, MY APPRECIATION ON THE IDN GROWS BOTH FROM THE DEMAND, USERS THAT WANT THEM, AND THE TECHNICAL CONCERNS AS TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DO GO FORWARD.

I THINK MOUHAMET'S CONCERN IS THAT IF, IN FACT, WE, AS AN ORGANIZATION, WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH IDNS UNTIL WE HAVE THE PERFECT TECHNICAL SOLUTION, I THINK I'M OF THE OPINION THERE MAY NEVER BE A PERFECT TECHNICAL SOLUTION.

SO SORT OF BALANCING THE TECHNICAL CONCERNS VERSUS THE MARKET CONCERNS OF USERS THAT WANT THESE SOLUTIONS AND COMPANIES THAT WANT TO PROVIDE THESE SOLUTIONS, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE, AS AN ORGANIZATION, NEED TO BALANCE BOTH TECHNICAL AND MARKET FORCES. AND AGAIN, I THINK MOUHAMET'S CONCERNS -- AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HIM -- IS JUST THE SPACE AT WHICH THE MARKET SIDE OF THAT EQUATION IS GOING.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION, BOTH FROM A TECHNICAL AND FROM A MARKET EVALUATION SIDE.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I ACTUALLY WANT TO CALL A HALT TO THIS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION, THOUGH I THANK YOU, MOUHAMET, FOR INTRODUCING THE MATTER. AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THIS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THE BOARD AND IN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY.

I WANT TO TURN TO ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN THE PUBLIC FORUM. IT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE PACE AT WHICH WE ARE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE STLD EVALUATIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THE -- AND I THINK THE REST OF THE BOARD APPRECIATES THE CONCERN THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME IT MIGHT TAKE IN ORDER TO PROCESS THOSE STLD PROPOSALS. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WILL COME IN, SO IT GETS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO HANDLE ALL OF THEM. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CONDITION THEY WILL BE IN.

HOWEVER, THE PROCESS BY WHICH THOSE STLDS ARE EVALUATED HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN IT.

SO PAUL, I WOULD LIKE YOU OR KURT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF HOW THE PROCESS ACTUALLY WORKS AND WHETHER THERE IS ANY MECHANISM WITHIN THE CURRENT PLAN PROCESS TO ALLOW EVALUATIONS TO EMERGE ANY SOONER THAN THE SCHEDULE THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED.

I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE ARE NOT CONSTRAINED AS TO THE NUMBER OF STLD AWARDS, LET ME CALL IT, THAT ARE MADE. SO IT'S NOT AS IF WE HAVE TO EVALUATE ALL OF THEM AND THEN ONLY, AFTER EVALUATING ALL OF THEM, THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THEY ARE -- WHICH OF THEM ARE ACCEPTABLE.
THE PROCESS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, PERMITS US TO CONCLUDE THAT SOMETHING IS ACCEPTABLE, AND UPON CONCLUSION, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, EVEN IF OTHERS ARE STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION THERE, PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. WELL, I THINK YOU'VE MADE SEVERAL POINTS THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE AS WELL, SO THAT'S QUITE RIGHT.

THE PRESENT TIMETABLE FOR THE FIRST STAGE OF THE EVALUATION, THE EVALUATION -- THERE'S AN EVALUATION BY AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR, AND THEN THERE WILL BE ENTERING INTO SECOND STAGE, COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL, IN COMMERCIAL TERMS, DISCUSSIONS.

IN TERMS OF THE FIRST ONE, IT'S ALLOCATED AT 120 DAYS. THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF UNCERTAINTIES THAT WE'VE HAD TO FACE. FIRST OF ALL, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS WE WILL RECEIVE.
SECONDLY, WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THOSE APPLICATIONS?

AND THIRD, WHAT IS THE -- ARE THERE ISSUES OF DIFFICULTY IN THE -- TO BE DETERMINED BY THE EVALUATOR?
IN PARTICULAR IN THAT WILL BE THE ISSUES OF THE BOUNDARY, WHAT IS A SPONSORED TLD AND WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE COMMUNITY THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY BEING SERVED. AND THAT PROCESS MAY TAKE -- WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM YET SO WE CAN'T ANSWER IT, BUT THERE MAY BE SEVERAL WHERE THAT WILL TAKE SOME EFFORT AND TIME.

HOWEVER, WE, OF COURSE, CAN PRIORITIZE THOSE PROCESSES AND RUN THEM IN PARALLEL. SO THE STAFF THINKS IT WILL BE IN A POSITION TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY TO SAY SOME SENSE OF WHAT SORT OF PRIORITIZATION AND IF POSSIBLE, HOW TO DO THAT, EITHER PARTICULAR ONES CAN BE DONE FASTER THAN OTHERS. WE MAY NOT MENTION THEM BUT WE HAVE TWO FAMILIES, ONE WE EXPECT TO BE FINISHED BY THIS TIME AND ONE BY THAT TIME, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR WE MAY FIND THEY'RE ALL RATHER EASY AND WE CAN DO IT FASTER.

SO ONCE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE THE FIRST ROUND OF EVALUATION CAST OVER THE APPLICATIONS, WE CAN COME BACK ON THAT TIMING.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL. I THINK THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THOSE INTERESTED IN THE STLDS WILL VALUE ANY FURTHER GUIDANCE THEY CAN GET FROM STAFF ON THIS MATTER. I HESITATE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.

I HAD PROMISED I WOULD TRY TO CONCLUDE THIS BY 11:00 SO OTHER THINGS COULD BE ADDRESSED; SPECIFICALLY, THINGS LIKE PEOPLE CATCHING AIRPLANES. SO I'D LIKE TO DRAW THIS MEETING TO A CLOSE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: SO MOVED.

>>VINT CERF: AND SECONDED. I SEE MANY HANDS.

IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THEN, WE STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU IN KUALA LUMPUR LATER IN THE YEAR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
(10:48 A.M.)