GAC Open Session with ICANN Board
 26 June 2007
 San Juan, Puerto Rico
 
 
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
 I would like to start by warmly welcoming board members, representatives of other constituencies to the GAC room.
 As of now, GAC is pursuing open-door policy, and you are most welcome to join us.
 We really appreciate the opportunity to interact with the ICANN board, and we are suggesting to discuss maybe three issues during this session.
 The one would be ICANN transparency and accountability principles.  The second would be the IDN deployment plan.  The third would be the state of play with review of different ICANN constituencies, GNSO and NomCom, also board would like to hear how the review process is going on.
 But before doing that, I would like to inform or do some housekeeping exercise on two issues.  One issue is concerning the fellowship program.
 I would like to say that GAC strongly endorses the fellowship program, and applauds its implementation.  And I would like to put it on public record.
 GAC stands ready to cooperate and facilitate the implementation of this program by, first and foremost, dissemination of information about the application process and all relevant issues.
 Equally, GAC considers to couple fellow with experienced GAC members during the first face-to-face meeting in order to maximize the efficiency of participation of new fellows in the meetings.
 I remember myself when I attended the first meeting, I understood maybe every third word GAC representatives spoke at that time.
 So it takes time to understand the complexity of issues.
 So I simply wanted to say that we're very happy about this initiative, and we are ready to cooperate with ICANN, with the board, to make this program working.
 The second housekeeping issue relates to our joint working group.
 I think this is -- I'm speaking now on behalf of the GAC.  We were very, very happy with, first of all, the creation of the group and the results this joint working group has achieved.
 We think that this, as a result of interaction with the board members in the framework of this group, has helped the GAC to synchronize its activities with the ICANN, with the other constituencies, that helped us put GAC more prominently on the map of ICANN.  And we're very happy about that.
 At the same time, we think that this is a time, maybe, to look back and review the terms of reference of the group.
 We feel that the initial target or initial aim which was put for what this group was created has been achieved.  And now, we would need to redefine terms of reference to make the work of this group more efficient.  And to that end, the chairman and the vice chairs of the GAC have been asked to interact with the designated members of the board to do this definition.
 Definition of terms of reference.
 And then inform it about that during the next meeting in Los Angeles.
 So this is kind of housekeeping exercise, and now we could go to the three agenda items I outlined.
 But maybe I should give, also, an opportunity to Vint to say something before we are moving to the agenda.
 >>VINT CERF:  Well, Vint Cerf, chairman of the board of ICANN.
 Just one observation on the housekeeping matter.
 We will undertake to identify board members to participate in the terms of reference development, and we'll have that this week.
 So we can get busy on that as soon as we have identified those parties.
 I'm really pleased to know of your support for the fellowship program, because it's an important portion of our outreach.
 I've had a chance to meet several of the people who have come to this ICANN meeting in connection with that fellowship program, and some of them had been at meetings before but then could not afford to be here again.
 So to see them return to participate is terribly important.  So I like the idea very much of linking the fellows who arrive with experienced people to help them understand what's going on and where they can contribute.
 Apart from that, I just want to reemphasize how impressed I am with the degree to which the GAC has been able to engage with all of the constituencies of ICANN and to draw your attention to the at-large portion of our community.  This week, the final RALO will be approved for North America, which means that the structure, which has been long coming, for the at-large community will be in place at this week.
 They then have the work to organize themselves, but I want to draw your attention to that because it's another more organized community now that you may wish to interact with.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:  Thank you, Janis.  And I would like to say good afternoon to everybody, and it's always good news to my ears to hear about new GAC members.
 I think that's a good thing.
 It's certainly a bigger one than it was in Singapore all those years ago.
 I just wanted to put on the table before we go to the issues that you've got for discussion, both I think it's very useful that we have changed the structure of the meeting such that I haven't got to sit here and go through a PowerPoint presentation, because I find that boring.  And so it's good that we have had a chance to do that at the public session, and then we will have it available for posting on your Web site, so we can now go to dialogue.
 The second thing I want to put on record is that I think the way in which the GAC has been interacting with other constituencies, particularly the ccNSO and the GNSO, in the last several months has been particularly heartening.
 And I know it's still a learning exercise, I know there are still issues of what's my status, how is my status being interpreted on a telephone call by other people.  I know those things are still part of the learning experience on both sides.  But I think in terms of the way in which the multistakeholder model is actually working, the last several months have been almost exemplary.  I think the whole discussion around IDNs and IDN TLDs has been much more focused around how to address the real problem with the right range of stakeholders.  And so I want to congratulate all of you who have been involved in that and continue to see how that evolves.  But I think it's been absolutely multistakeholder sort of approaches in action to try to solve a real problem facing everybody.
 So I just want to put that on the record.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Please, Vanda.
 >>VANDA SCARTEZINI:  I would just like to make -- ask to the whole GAC about the fellowship, because we try to bring some members of the government to make sure they can continue to work together with the GAC.
 So I'd like to ask all the members, because it's much more easy for you to reach other neighbors, countries, people that you know, just to promote the fellowship and suggest those countries to apply.  Members of the governments to apply, that we'll try to bring them to the next meeting.
 And this could be continuous, improve the membership in the GAC.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yes, thank you, Vanda.
 It is our intention, as I said, we would be happy to distribute information on the GAC mailing list, that it would reach all GAC members, including in developing countries, that they know that there is a possibility to apply for a grant.
 There is only one issue that we need to think together:  How to make the participation of fellows in the GAC sustainable.  Meaning, how to make sure that they participate or continue to participate in the GAC activities when the fellowship program is over.
 So that is a challenge we need to think how to make sure that -- otherwise, we invest money, we educate people, but then they discontinue to participate.  And that certainly is a disadvantage.
 >>VANDA SCARTEZINI:  Yeah, the fellowship program is -- well, we just started, but that's one point that we are working with.  Till now, our first intention is during this process, keep people from GAC more constantly coming for these meetings.  But certainly we need to address some alternatives for continuously.  I don't know right now how we are going to do that.  But anyway, it's a very important point that we could also bring to GAC to work together in some way to help to find out maybe other source of support in some countries and regions to bring them constantly, after this problem is over.
 I don't believe that problem will be over.
 Shall we move now to our first agenda item, transparency, accountability.
 I would like to start by saying that the issue is of very big interest to the GAC.  And on several occasions in the past, GAC has interacted with the board on issues of transparency and accountability.  We had exchange of communications, we had discussed the issue on several occasions in our previous interactions in previous meetings.  And we are following the developments with great interest.
 Today we had a session with Paul Levins where we had already internal exchange of views and heard a presentation.
 We noticed that there is a document posted on 23rd of June, ICANN's accountability and transparency framework and principles.  And it is our intention to comment on the proposed approach and document.  And certainly we would like to hear from president, most probably, maybe some in details, what kind of process ICANN will follow in order to adopt this framework and principles, and how best GAC could contribute to that.
 Of course, the late publication did not allow us to discuss the issue in detail during this meeting, and the first opportunity for us to develop some input and comments will be during our Los Angeles meeting.  And so we will do our best to formulate thoughts about substance of this document.
 But in the meantime, we would like to hear maybe what approach the board would follow and what are expectations from the GAC in this respect.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:  Thank you, Janis.
 The whole issue of transparency and accountability is very close to the heart of the ICANN board and ICANN community.
 And as you have seen in the exchanges of letters between the GAC and the chairman, there is a strong sense that there's been much progress made.
 I have to say that a lot of the transparency and accountability issues and principles for ICANN have been in place, for those of us who have been involved in the whole discussion of ICANN for the last nine or ten years, a lot of these things were actually discussed in the founding of ICANN and have been instituted in ICANN.
 But I think over a period of time, when people have sort of -- people have changed, not everybody here -- I suspect there are only a handful of people here who know the ICANN bylaws in detail -- blessed be you -- and other experiences of what's been there, that there's been a loss of corporate memory.
 But I think, also, further than that, there was a tradition of focus on transparency in terms of content being posted, content being able to be found, but not in terms of being accessible.
 And I think also in terms of greater clarity of process, which I know has been a great concern to the GAC, and transparency of that process, and transparency about the participation and discussions on key issues.
 I think that's been a key part.
 So there's been a number of changes since the board made an obligation in its resolutions in September 2006 to improve on transparency and accountability.
 I know Paul Levins went through this in some detail with you earlier, but to recap at a high level, there's been significant change to the Web site.  We continue to change the Web site.  We continue to put in tools for ongoing online interaction, such as blogs, which have been incredibly valuable in terms of  communicating to the community, especially -- to give you an example -- during the RegisterFly episode.  Also, tools such as the online participation sites for this meeting.
 But I think there's much more than that.  There is a set of understandings of what should be our framework and principles related to accountability and transparency.
 The document that was posted on the 23rd of June was a combination of conversations that were taking place with the community and the board purchase from December onwards, or September onwards.  It was not intended that there was an expectation that the GAC could respond to it in this meeting.  Rather, we put it up to start a dialogue with everyone over the summer, leading up to Los Angeles.
 I suspect we will be posting -- and we should make certain we liaise this with you through Donna Austin, I think.  We will be posting another version of this sometime between now and Los Angeles.
 We've got a public consultation date now for the 31st of August for this particular version.  I already have three changes here (indicating).  We're talking about things that have not been included in the document.  Already had a conversation.
 So we will be sure that we inform you of about that date and that you have a most-up-to-date version for you to be considering coming up to Los Angeles.
 We certainly would appreciate any feedback any of you might have on an individual basis on particular things up to that date of 31st of August.  But please, we want to make certain we get to you the most up-to-date thinking if you are going to formally consider this coming up to Los Angeles.
 I would just make one other comment, if you like, about the document.  It does, in many respects, place accountabilities that the board and others have all in one place.  And particularly the accountabilities under the bylaws and the accountabilities under law of board members I think is something that's worth thinking and exploring and talking about.
 It is no criticism of government officials, particularly those who have spent most of their career in government, that they do not necessarily understand the intricacies of fiduciary obligations under corporate law, but it is certainly worth exploring and explaining that because it actually has significant impacts on the way in which the board works, and that wasn't meant to be a point of condescension but I just think it's probably not often -- the accountabilities when one is in government are slightly different in terms of accountabilities if you are on a corporate board.  So I think Paul did actually talk to this a little bit this morning or earlier on.
 So perhaps that's worth just as a statement and see if there are any particular questions you want to ask around the principles.
 This is by far not our final statement on transparency and accountability.  We will keep pushing for ways to actually have that and be pushing for as much accountability.
 One of the things I had been a great advocate of, to use the jargon, push communications.  I don't expect you to spend every day of your life sitting there with tremulous finger looking at the ICANN Web site to see what's changed.  I don't.  I don't expect you to.
 And I think knowing your busy lives and other people's busy lives the degree to which we can have a tailored communication, a tailored newsletter, something that can tell you what's happened, why it's important to you, that sort of communication might also be helpful in trying to make things accessible as well as transparent.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 During our session with Paul Levins, it was acknowledged that there has been considerable improvement in transparency and in communications.  And I want to put that on record.
 We acknowledge that there has been a massive improvement on ICANN's Web site.  And GAC find that it is extremely useful, and also content of the Web site has been considerably improved.
 We made suggestions in line -- or in direction of this pushing information saying that there is a possibility to subscribe to the newsletter.
 There should also maybe be possibly to subscribe to the board meeting minutes.  That would be simply automatic announcement that the board minutes are available and people who are interested would go and look at them.
 But certainly, we feel that there are developments in a very positive direction.
 From the other side, of course, you know that this is a famous proverb that the biggest room in the world is the room of improvement.
 So that's why we can always hope for something better.
 I now would like to see whether there are GAC members or board members wishing to comment or ask questions.
 >>VINT CERF:  I have one.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Bill Graham from Canada, and then Bertrand De La Chapelle from France, and then Vint Cerf from United States.
 >>BILL  GRAHAM:  Thank you, Janis, and you have already covered many of the things I wanted to say about how I do appreciate the positive improvements that have been made.
 I really think that tremendous progress has been made on the transparency side and making the information not only available but more readily useful through the Web site design.
 So that's excellent.
 Certainly from my perspective, it's still on the accountability side that there are some questions and concerns.  And we talked a bit about that with Paul this morning.
 He drew to my attention the NomCom review that is upcoming, too, and I think that may very well be important next step on the accountability side as it will help us to understand how that process works and possibly come up with some suggestions for improvement.
 I think my question would be essentially in terms of next steps, are there -- could you at this point identify any particular areas where input from the GAC would be useful, which might allow us to do a bit of work intersessionally in preparation for the Los Angeles meeting?
 Thanks.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:  I think, frankly, Bill, one of the things that we would appreciate is a greater definition of what you mean by accountability.
 We're almost to the point of tearing our hair out in trying to understand what the word means.
 So you seem to be indicating something about the NomCom might be an element that you have got in your accountability question.
 We would appreciate greater clarity, because that would be very useful for us to be able to respond.
 The general phrase at the moment is we've tried to put down as we understand the accountabilities we have now but we would like to know specifics, when you say accountability, what specifically do you mean.  That's probably the main point.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.  It is always useful to know what we are talking about.
 Bertrand De La Chapelle.
 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thank you.  Just a few comments.
 The first element on transparency, I share the comments that have been made and the improvements that were brought to the Web site are really, really of a great quality.  It has made the interaction with the data much better.
 And as you know, in terms of transparency, it's not always -- or it's not only the amount of information that is accessible but the visibility and the ease of access and how you can dig into the information that is usually important.
 I just have to mention that if you have the Web the way it is today and no search engines, without qualifying any of them, to access this information, the Web would be a completely different information space.
 So in that respect, access to the information has greatly improved.
 I would still suggest that an improvement can be made in the fact that today the different issues are basically listed under the different bodies that address them.
 It's mostly the ASO, the GNSO, the ccNSO.
 Without suppressing this, it's interesting to have the other dimension as well, having the issues listed, in order to move the whole institution, and including the GAC and the different Supporting Organizations towards a theme-based approach, which is something that is in line with the thinking of the GNSO or our reform at the moment.
 The second element is related to the way the policy development process works and how the visibility of the progress can be improved.
 There are two experiments that I have been part of recently in the context of the working group, the joint working group with the ccNSO on the IDN ccTLD issues paper.  And the other exercise is the WHOIS working group on the with the GNSO.
 And indeed, it is a demanding participation, especially for the WHOIS group.  But it's a very useful and positive development.
 I would just suggest in the different processes in the future, probably more importance is devoted at the very earliest stages to the type of open working groups, and I want to commend the work that has been done by the group chaired by Mr. Gaetano on the reform of the GNSO in terms of moving towards a working group model instead of a task force model for the GNSO.
 This goes in a direction that is facilitating the participation of other constituencies, particularly the GAC members and ALAC at a very early stage.
 It is very interesting and very important because it allows to do the kind of issues paper that we are doing for the IDNs.  And it also allows to introduce an additional step between the issues papers and the setting up of formal working groups, which is a common work on the terms of reference.
 Working on the terms of reference and the scoping of the issue before launching into a full drafting exercise is a very important element in the policy development process and something we would like to work together.
 Finally, on the notion of accountability, I just want to repeat for the other board members -- for the board members, a comment I raised in the session with Paul Levins earlier.  There is a delicate tension in the board between two dimensions.  First the independence that is required from board members in order to allow the board as a collective to define a common interest.  And the second dimension -- and in that respect, each board member that has been designated by one constituency should be independent, and explicitly independent of those constituencies.
 At the same time, it is in contradiction somehow to the accountability of this board member towards the constituency that has delegated him or her.  And this tension between the two dimensions -- one, the collective function that requires independence and the accountability of that or to the constituency -- is something that is hard to reconcile.
 Finally, I would like to make a parallel about the thinking between the role of the GNSO council in the discussion of the reform of the GNSO and the role of the board.
 One of the big elements that was mentioned about the GNSO council is that it should ideally move more towards facilitator or manager of consensus-building processes rather than a legislative type of approach with voting.
 I think, and I'll conclude with that, that a similar thinking in terms of accountability should be applied or could be applied to the board as a whole to make it a supporter of the consensus-building policies rather than the last resort decision-maker when the consensus policies haven't worked.
 So in terms of accountability, I would measure one element of accountability in the level of consensus that the policy development processes produce in the organization.
 The less the board votes, the better it is in line with its mandate.
 Thank you.  And sorry for the length of the comment.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So before, Vint, giving you the floor, will ask Paul to respond.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:  Thank you, Bertrand, as usual, that's a very thoughtful intervention.
 I wonder, coming with some history of this organization, again, I think, Janis, your flippant line is so true, if we know what we're talking about, we have clarity.  So I wonder if I can just, for the purposes of our discussions, try some definitions.
 I think a number of the issues you have raised have been traditionally referred to in ICANN under the title of "evolution and reform" or "review."
 And while I think the things you are talking about are incredibly important, for instance, you talk about the way the working groups work, you talked about the scoping of work at the beginning.  And I do think they could give greater transparency so they actually overlap.
 Just for the -- just so that I can manage internally efforts and focus and how do you achieve success, may I suggest that some of the things you've mentioned would not formally fall under transparency and accountability, but would fall under the work we're doing on the reviews and effective reviews.  Now, I do see that, of course, the -- it's not an either/or that they do improve transparency.  But it's just in terms of defining things, I think that might be useful.
 Can I come to the comment, then, you made about accountability, particularly for board members.
 You used an interesting phrase, and I think we need to think very carefully about this.  You used the phrase that board members had -- those who were elected had a group responsibility under fiduciary obligations.
 But they also had an accountability.  And the phrase you used was "an accountability to their constituency."
 What's important to personally understand about the board is that the board members who are elected are not elected by constituencies; they're elected by supporting organizations.  And if I can use a bit of an example of this, it's a bit of a -- to make the point -- in my home country, the lower house is elected by small geography seats and the upper house is elected by the state.
 If you're the senator for New South Wales, you sort of have a broad grouping if you like to think of it that way.
 I think that's an important point, because I think what we have seen in the last 18 months a little bit from some of the constituencies complaining about accountability was that the representative of the supporting organization may not have taken the view in the board that they would like it to have done.
 And that is a challenge -- if we're going to change that, you've just made the board of 30 people.
 And I -- what I heard earlier today, even by some of the other -- by some of the constituencies, particularly in the GNSO, is that an attempt to try to have the board members participate in their working groups and hear what they think more, a more accountable by being here and listening to me speak.
 And that might end up being a more effective way of coming to the points you're making, right, which is how do constituencies feel that they're being heard and that they're being taken in consideration?  It might be more effective to follow those sorts of tools than per se to be saying, you are the representative of a constituency in the board.
 Now, I -- and I am being explicit about the point because I do actually think that some of the feedback that you've heard and that we've certainly heard, frankly, following the dot com agreement, let's put the dead moose on the table, as the Canadians would say, I think came partly out of board representation for the supporting organizations versus differing views in constituencies.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you.
 Vint.
 >>VINT CERF:  I actually had a different question.  But Paul's comment makes me think that it's worth considering for a moment that board members of ICANN wear at least two hats.  One hat they wear is as a consequence of ICANN being a corporation.  And as a corporation which is required to have a board, those board members have fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation to oversee the way in which it's operating, to make sure that it makes the proper reports to the state and federal governments about its activities, and so on.
 So that is a kind of -- a classic and more or less standard responsibility that board members have.
 But in addition, in the current formulation, the board members also have a kind of policy responsibility in order to take action on the recommendations that come up from the various constituencies on policies related to the domain name system and Internet address allocation and so on.  And that's a somewhat different responsibility than the statutory one you have as a board member of a corporation.
 It's occurred to me that those are sufficiently distinct that we might want to ask ourselves whether we should, in fact, separate the responsibilities.
 This is literally talking off the top of my head.  I have no business suggesting it as anything other than a momentary thought that the dual role that the board presently has might be reformulated.  It's just something to consider.
 The question that I had goes to the transparency and accountability and information that's available to the GAC through the Web sites, through newsletters, through e-mail notifications.
 What I'm interested in understanding is the kind of information that would -- you would find useful.
 And imaging that there are two kinds.  One kind is information that you need in order to be an active and productive participant in the multistakeholder activity in ICANN.
 But I would like to know whether there is other information that you need that you need to relay back to colleagues in your respective countries.  And if there is a distinction between those two kinds of information, is there also a need for that information to be rendered in other than English?
 So I'm probing a little bit to find out how we can be helpful in packaging information in the case that you need it to pass through to others in order to carry out your work.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I hope that some GAC members will respond to that.
 But I had a request from Martin, Martin Boyle from the U.K.  And after that, Yrjo from Finland.
 >>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you, Chair.
 And my comments, to some extent, have been made a little more difficult because of the conversations that's gone, because I'm still trying to feel my way into that sort of understanding what we see as ICANN as being the role and responsibility of the board.
 And I think I found your comment, Vint, a particularly interesting one, because that probably is part of the reason that I have a certain amount of difficulty in understanding the role of the board.
 And that was the comment about whether you needed to essentially split two sorts of functions so that the board -- you can actually understand that you have a board that is what -- and I'm certainly not using the right phraseology -- but a board that is essentially a board that oversees and keeps the management, holds the management to account and takes responsibility for the operation of the company.
 And my original question was, has there been any specific thinking about what the role of the board might be?  And I think you've actually answered that by saying you were talking off the top of your head when you came through with that.
 But, essentially, I think what I'd like to get is an understanding from you as the chairman, and therefore, having had that overall responsibility for holding the accountability, and then also from Paul, as to the -- what about the sort of, essentially, the management board function as opposed to the executive board function, that is to say. 
 I'm probably using entirely the wrong vocabulary, because I've not been involved on that side of industry at all.
 The other point -- and so this is now an entirely separate question, and apologies for those who have heard me use this before about a former director general of mine who used to say, yeah, the nice thing about transparency is when it's perfectly transparent, you don't see a thing.
 And what you can actually -- I think what comes out, to me, is that if you have too much information, it's actually probably worse than if you have too little, because now you haven't even got the excuse that you weren't told.
 And so you have set us the challenge of what information --  Before I carry on with that, yes, I would say quite clearly that the new Web site is much better.  The presentation of information is much better.  The highlighting and summarizing the information on the Web site so you've at least got some idea of the subject is very, very much better.
 But I think what still frequently is missing for me is actually an understanding of why ICANN feels it necessary to do a specific thing.  Because that is exactly the information that then I have to try and extract from all of this when I then go out and consult people.  You know, they don't understand the issues.  I've got to get over to them.  And their first question is, "Well, why are you doing it?  Why is somebody wanting to do it?"
 And that is perhaps, actually, something that you would turn around and say, "Well, that's your job to do."  But, actually, no.  I think if you're wanting to make a decision, you need -- do need to be very clear as to why that decision needs to be made in the first place.
 So, again, like France, I apologize for being long, and I also apologize for the perhaps lack of clarity in those questions.  But I am rather feeling my way into trying to understand those issues.
 Thank you, Chair.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Martin.
 Yrjo.
 >> YRJO LANSIPURO:  Thank you, Chair.
 I would like to answer Vint's question about two kinds of information.  And my answer is yes, because while in every country perhaps you have a few people who want to go through all these original documents, but there are dozens of people to whom we should try to explain what is going on.  And it is extremely helpful that there are summaries and fact sheets and that there are stories that are written in a more journalistic manner.  And I want to thank and congratulate you, actually, for that, since Kieren joined the staff -- I mean, joined the staff, there has been more and more material of that kind.
 Thank you.
 >>PAUL TWOMEY:  I'll let Vint keep making notes and make a response first, perhaps to Martin's questions, which I think are very thoughtful ones.
 First of all, we are going to be launching a review of the board very shortly.  So you will have a chance to ask these questions.
 And to your question, the -- we have had quite a number of internal discussions at board level and upper levels about board structures, about the idea of management boards and executive boards, and we've looked at the continental European models and quite a number of internal discussions.
 There's also a question that to a degree a little bit implicit, I think, in the representative of France's question is, is the board a parliament or is the board a management, sort of degree -- there's an element of that.  Are these people elected to represent -- is it representative or is it decisive?  And that's also at the -- somewhat at the balance of it.
 So we will have a chance to, I think, talk about that further in this review of the board.
 I would, however, just share an insight that, frankly, I have to say, as president, was never quite clear to me when I was chair of the GAC.  And that is that the place where -- the place where the policy role and the sort of run-the-business role, if you like, and the stability/security responsibility-type role all comes together are in the contracts that we have with registries and registrars.  And it has been -- if you actually think about the history of ICANN as to where we've had the flareups about the sorts of questions we're talking about, they've normally followed something significant around the contracts.  Because the contracts are both a business document, they are -- the board signs the contracts.  So the board is held accountability under fiduciary obligations under the law -- right, you can't walk away from it, sorry.  So they have got those obligations.
 They also explicitly have consensus policy aspects, they've got policy parts of it.  And then, where we have been talking, there are interests affected by those decisions and who is representing those interests at the board.
 So it's -- in some respects, you could simply say, on an average year in ICANN, ten months of the year, it's sort of easy to separate the policy and making decisions about the Internet as a whole and run the company, if you like.  But when you come to issues that emerge around the contracts, which are, of course, our key instrument for some form of international governance, especially in the generic space, they -- that's where it gets hard.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Vint, I -- do you want to answer?  Or shall we move to another question?  Otherwise, we are -- we have 15 minutes left in this session.  And we -- we have a proposed question on IDN and CC space.  And I think this is important for the GAC.
 >>VINT CERF:  Thank you very much, Chair.
 Let me -- I think you've been exposed fairly much now to the IDN activity.  So let me just summarize for you what's going on.
 First of all, you're already yourselves working with the ccNSO and others on generating questions associated with the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names to the domain name space.  I find those kinds of questions extremely helpful to focus attention on areas that may prove to be difficult.
 Second, as you know, we have policy development processes under way in the GNSO with regard to new gTLDs and, generally speaking, the introduction of IDNs.
 We also have technical activity which is quite critical to the introduction of IDNs going on in the Internet Engineering Task Force.  One of the key players -- several key players, in fact, are here in this room.  I think Cary Karp and John Klensin, to name two, Patrik Faltstrom over there.  And I apologize if I have left anyone out.
 That activity is coming to a very important moment in August at the next IETF meeting, where I hope a new draft of -- for the description of which Unicode characters are considered appropriate for use in IDNs can be put forward to the IETF.
 I think, just to express my own limited understanding of all of this, that after experiences with the 2003 standards, we discovered that they were overly permissive in the -- in allowing characters to be used, and they led to a number of very visible potential hazards for users.
 This new version is more careful as to what is allowed and what is not.  So it's, in fact, a very important introduction to make the use of IDNs safer for everyone.
 So that's a very important part.
 The second question has to do with IDN deployment.  I hope by this time you had reports from Tina Dam, who is one of the staff members at ICANN responsible for IDN work.  There is an extensive test plan for introduction of a specific set of strings into the root zone file.  These strings will read approximately example.test or their equivalents in other scripts.  All kinds of procedures have been put in place or have been proposed to make this a safe test.  But it is intended to replicate in the live Internet tests which have been successively performed in the laboratory under contract.  We are also looking forward to discovering from the user community what, if any, problems arise in their use of those special top-level domains with various pieces of software, browsers, and the like.
 It's been --  A question has been raised about the possibility of introducing IDNs even before we have a complete -- what we will consider a complete understanding of all of the requirements for every possible character set that we might consider.  This is in some respects to acknowledge a great deal of interest, not to say pressure, from communities that don't use Latin characters to have access to the Internet and to introduce new top-level domains.
 This is, in some we respects, to acknowledge a great deal of interest, not to say pressure, from communities that don't use Latin characters to have access to the Internet and to introduce new top-level domains.
 I think that if a two-track approach is taken -- that is to say while we're developing general policy, we're trying to figure out a way to introduce IDNs early on before that complete policy is in hand, that we will almost certainly have to take a very careful path, one which is focused on safety and on avoiding any foreseeable hazards.
 That suggests to me that if a fast track is considered, that any of the script characters that are used in the fast-track strings will have to come from what I will call a stable character set.  One which is not likely to change.
 It might change by addition, but not one which changes by subtraction.
 And there may, in fact, turn out to be issues associated with the strings that are proposed in this fast track.  And we, indeed, to make sure that we have dealt with any string-specific considerations.  There might conceivably be objections from one quarter or another about a particular string that is proposed in the fast track.  There may be collisions, particularly among communities using the same scripts or nearly the same scripts.
 There may even be an interesting complexity where a particular string that is proposed should actually be registered in more than one form.
 This is called bundling, and some of you, I hope, will remember that our colleagues in China, Japan, and Korea have concluded that for certain strings in their cases, that when you register one, you implicitly register several of them to ensure that only one party is allocated that particular string or its analogs.  This avoids ambiguity.
 So I think that for us to consider a fast-track option, which I would not reject out of hand at all, that we should be very careful to outline what things need to be catered to, what constraints need to be in place in order to assure that if we go down that track, any assignments can be considered stable.
 So that's all I have, Chair, for my brief summary.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Vint.
 I must tell you that we had, in the GAC, discussion on what would be our preferred option in terms of roll-out of IDNs in CC space when technically it will be possible, and we came to the conclusion that this double-track approach would be the one the GAC would favor, taking into account the considerable interest in many countries on this possibility to have international IDNs.
 Of course, modalities, that is up to the board to decide.  And certainly it should be done very carefully.
 Now I'm turning to GAC members, to board members, whether there would be some comments or questions in relation to IDNs.
 Martin, United Kingdom.
 >>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you, Chair.  And certainly, as I said in the meeting we had earlier with you, Vint, it is certainly a priority clearly identified in the world summit, and one against which ICANN as a whole's performance is going to be judged.  And therefore, it is very, very important we do move quickly, but sensibly and safely.
 From your explanation of where we are, I was left without a very clear idea of what -- what sort of time lines we can probably expect.
 And to some extent, that's quite an important piece of information, because if we're trying to develop our own thinking on what the policy issues are, do we need to rush like mad because in September, after a successful meeting of the IETF in August, you are ready to roll out?  Or, actually, no, there are several more steps in the process before we can get there.
 Now, it might just be that I've not looked carefully enough, but I've not seen anything anywhere that starts to say, well, you know, this is the earliest away could do anything.  And I wonder whether that information was available.
 Thank you.
 >>VINT CERF:  So let me start by observing that even if we settle the primary technical questions of characters that are considered safe to use as IDNs in IDNs, this long list of questions that have been developed through this cooperative process, the GAC, the ccNSO and others, and within the GNSO new gTLD effort, what we have today, at the end of June, is a list of questions but what we don't have is a list of answers.
 It would be my guess that it is unlikely that we would have sufficient answers, certainly not before the annual meeting in October.  And even then, if that's the first opportunity to look at proposed answers, it wouldn't surprise me if the GAC, among others, would want to digest those, understand if there were public policy implications.  Others of other constituencies may have different perspectives and concerns.
 So the chances are that we are into at least the next meeting in the spring of 2008 before I would expect to see some jelling of the answers and the potential plans that could go with them.
 So I think that we're probably not likely to see, in this normal course of events, not likely to see an opportunity for IDNs until perhaps the middle of 2008.
 So if we want a fast track which happens faster than that, then I think we need to pare down the range of possible characteristic sets that would be permitted and pare down the risks that might arise in any policy that we would need to apply to cope with disputes and other issues.
 So I think the earliest that you would see the normal course of events producing IDNs is sometime in the first half, possibly late in the first half of 2008.  And that's assuming we get all of our work done.
 I don't know how much more quickly a fast track could happen, but I would suggest that that would be a very good topic for us to take up during the annual meeting in October as a work item to come to the table with an examination of what that fast track process would have to look like.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Thank you, Vint.
 I see it's now 6:00 p.m, the time when we need to finish the session.
 I would like to know whether there are some pressing questions or issues under this agenda item on IDNs.
 Bertrand De La Chapelle, briefly.
 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  It's actually not on the IDN.  It's just a brief remark regarding the new TLD process.
 Just to give feedback that there was a workshop today on the notion of geo TLDs which explored whether this category of TLD, and particularly the category of city-related new TLDs could be an interesting category to explore in itself that could benefit from specific treatment, that would accelerate the process and could be addressed as a sort of fast track.
 The reason is that the general process that is put in place at the moment is a one-size-fits-all process, which is quite natural that that's the way it is planned, but it is much more adapted to large volume, very commercially oriented TLDs than to smaller TLDs, linguistic and cultural, or cTLDs.
 So I just wanted to raise the flag and ask whether it is possible to explore that further.
 Thank you.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  So thank you, Bertrand.
 I think we may -- unless you want to say something in response.
 >>VINT CERF:  To this?
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  Yeah.
 >>VINT CERF:  Only to draw your attention to a proposal that came in the year 2000 for something called dot geo.  And I don't know if that is something you had in mind or if it is something new.
 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Dot?
 >>VINT CERF:  Dot geo, g-e-o, was a top-level domain proposal from SRI International in the year 2000, and that may not be what you had in mind.
 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  That wasn't it.
 >>VINT CERF:  Okay.
 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:  I think we should close this session.
 In closing, I would like to say that from the GAC side, we have endorsed the list of issues and we will be able to present it during public forum on Thursday.
 We were very happy with the way we interacted with  ccNSO Council in developing this text through the joint working group and using opportunity of presence of many ccNSO members in the room, I would like to acknowledge appreciation of the GAC on this very successful cooperation.
 I would like to thank board members for the opportunity of this interaction.  I think the discussion was very useful, at least from my perspective it was very useful, and I hope that we will be able to continue our dialogue also during coming meetings.
 Thank you.
 >>VINT CERF:  Thank you, Janis.
 (6:00 p.m.)