ICANN Board Meeting San Juan, Puerto Rico 29 June 2007 >>VINT CERF: This is Vint Cerf speaking. Good morning, everyone. My apologies for the slight delay in starting. This is the official board meeting of ICANN in Puerto Rico. And, of course, it is the culmination of a substantial amount of work this past week. We have a fair number of actions and some discussion items today, so we're going to go through this as expeditiously as we can. Let me begin by asking Rita Rodin if she would call on the board to pass a resolution approving the minutes. Rita. >>RITA RODIN: Sure, Vint. We're seeking to resolve that the minutes of the board meeting of the 18th of June 2007 are approved. >>VINT CERF: I take it that's a motion. Is there a second? I see Peter Dengate Thrush seconds. Is there any discussion of the minutes of the 18 June meeting? All right. I'll call for a vote. All those in favor, please say "aye." >> Aye. >>VINT CERF: Any opposed? Any abstentions? Mr. Secretary, the minutes are approved. The next item refers to the 2007/2008 budget, running from July 1st of 2007 to June 30, 2008. And I'd like to call upon the chair of the finance committee, Raimundo Beca, to introduce the resolution for approving that budget. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you, Vint. The resolution on the -- >> Mike. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: -- on the approval of the (inaudible) reads like this. Whereas, ICANN posted a draft operating plan for public comment -- >>VINT CERF: You have to have the microphone almost stuck into your left nostril in order to be heard well here. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Okay. The resolution on the approval of the 2007-2008 ICANN budget reads like this: Whereas, ICANN posted a draft operating plan for public comment on 22 March, 2007, including links to the strategic plan and details of costing of major projects. Whereas, ICANN held community consultations on the draft operating plan at the Lisbon ICANN meeting, with sessions in English at the public forum, with the option of remote participation, and also in French, Spanish, and Arabic. Whereas, the proposed budget for year 2008 -- for fiscal year 2008 was developed to implement the fiscal year '08 operating plan and was posted for public comment in accordance with the bylaws on 17th May, 2007, a slightly revised version was posted on 23 May, 2007. Whereas translations of the budget have been posted in Arabic, French, Russian, and Spanish, with a Chinese version in progress. Whereas, ICANN has actively solicited feedback on the budget from numerous constituencies, including consultations with ALAC, gTLD registries, and registrars constituencies. Whereas, continuing consultation on the budget has been conducted at ICANN's meeting in San Juan, with sessions at the public forum, and also special sessions in French and Spanish. Whereas, the ICANN board finance committee met in San Juan on 24 June 2007, and recommended that the board accepts staff recommendation that this budget represents the resources necessary to execute the posted operating plan; Adopt the financial budget targets proposed in the fiscal year '08 budget, with management discretion to use contingency and execute the plans as needs/issues arise; Approve the formal process used to solicit feedback, and appreciates that the feedback has been identified and accommodated through changes to the budget for further analysis for next year; Approve the amended proposed budget as of 29 June, 2007, to be adopted for fiscal year 2008, including increased support for translation, administrative support, revenue plans, and fee structures; Amend the planning calendar for fiscal year 2008 to allow for the budget and operating plan to be introduced earlier and at the same time. And get staff to assess the reserve fund requirement level and timing and show the long-term revenue models and report back to board -- to the board in Los Angeles. Resolved, the ICANN board approves the recommendations of the finance committee and approves the 2007-08 operating plan and budget. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Raimundo. Is there a second? Ramaraj seconds. Actually, so did Peter, but Ramaraj got his hand up first. Before we call for a vote, I'd like to introduce just a little bit of discussion about this budget. Raimundo didn't say so, but my recollection is that he pointed out in earlier board meetings that this is -- we're now -- we now appear to be in a very regular process for getting the strategic plan done, getting the operating plan done, getting the budget matched to the operating plan, getting the operating plan elements associated with budget items. This should produce a substantial degree of clarity as to how our money is spent and with what priority. So I want to congratulate the staff especially for having achieved this synchronization which we hoped for but now seem to have reached. The other thing that I think is equally important is that we assure that the community has opportunity to participate in the development of the budget. And I think during the course of this fiscal year 2008, we'll have opportunities to increase participation in budget development. It already is a fairly well-defined process. And so I congratulate the staff, Paul, you, and others, for having put this process into place. Are there any other comments about the budget at this point? Bruce Tonkin. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Vint. I just wanted to make a comment on the fee structure in the budget, and the budget states that ICANN's fee structure will remain consistent with that of the last fiscal year. I just want to make it clear for the benefit of board members that my employer is a registrar, Melbourne I.T., and does pay those fees. And note that in the budget, that as the line item for registrar fees, the calculation of those fees is based on estimates of things like transaction volumes. I have no input on what the specific fee should be. I believe it's staff to make estimates in that area. But I wonder if I could just call on a staff member, Doug Brent, just to explain the methodology that would be used for setting that fee structure, or setting the amount of the fee. >>VINT CERF: That's a reasonable request. Can we get -- Doug, do you want to take a microphone to explain that. >>DOUG BRENT: Sure. Thank you, Vint. Right. I think the principles used are very much like they have been in the past, Bruce, and all that the key elements are that the fees and overall fee structure is set such that the revenue that comes in will cover the expenses for the items identified in the operating plan. I think a second point is that, as a long-term thought, as with growth in the Internet and growth in the transaction volumes that pay ICANN's expenses, a long-term commitment towards unitary price reduction. And a third element would be that from a philosophical point of view, the revenue covers our reserve fund for the organization. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Doug. Any other questions or comments? Period. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, I was also going to comment, Vint, as did you, about the maturation of the process. But moving on from that, to note the lack of controversy now about that planning process and the much greater acceptance by the community of the process and of the result. I think this is probably the least controversial one that we've seen in recent years. And of all the things that are mentioned in the resolution, I just wanted to point out or support the note with pleasure, really, the increased funding for translations. I think it's up close to half a million dollar now, and the importance of that increasing participation by the global community in the work of ICANN. And the other part of that is the increased support for our policy development processes, one of the most important things we do. So it's an excellent budget and I'm going to be voting in favor of this resolution. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Peter. If there aren't any other comments, I'm going to call for not a voice vote, but a show of hands, because it's important to make sure that we -- oh, I'm sorry. You wanted to vote early and often or you had a comment? >>PAUL TWOMEY: As is my usual pattern. No, I wanted to put on my record, Chairman, my appreciation for the dialogue that's taken place between ICANN staff and particularly the registrar constituency, specifically about transaction demand forecasting. And the board will recall that in 2003, we made a fundamental shift in our approach to revenue in changing the way in which revenue was contributed through the registrars to take on the same sort of business cycle -- the same sort of business model that the registrars themselves had, on their request, in other words, that we've taken on the same sort of risk that they themselves share. And so at the heart of that is a lot of discussion about demand forecasting and what's the nature of transactions that may well take place. I appreciate the conversations that have been shared with the constituency. I'd particularly like to thank Jon Nevett for his leadership in that. I know that Doug has been in further discussion. And those sorts of discussions are allowing us to be able to come back and, I think, further refined revenue forecasts, and also a further discussion about what the level of the fee should be at any particular year. So I just want to put that on the record. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Paul. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Well, thanks, Vint. As the chair of the finance committee, I would like to underline the big cooperation we have had in all the operational plan and the budget drafting with the staff. This has been an exercise in which the finance committee has been highly involved. We have had early reports of every document, and we have the opportunity to make our comments in due time. And I think that the community has to know that this operating plan and the budget is not an exercise of the staff; it's something that has been considered in a daily way with the finance committee in representation of the community. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Raimundo. Steve Goldstein. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I'm -- I'm also a member of the finance committee. And Doug Brent and Henrietta Bertelsman came in rather new to the organization. When I looked at the budget, I had a hard time myself trying to figure out how all the pieces added up and how they illustrated the various priorities that the organization had. And I kept pressing Doug to please pull it all together with some simple pie charts so that I could understand it better. And much to my satisfaction, Doug and HENRIETTA and staff did that and actually produced even more views of our financial situation than I had requested. I just wanted two simple things: Where the money was coming from and where we were spending it. And they did an even better job, showing different aspects or different looks at how it was being spent and where the priorities were. So these are on our Web page. If you haven't seen it, I think for the first time, very simple, easily understood illustrations, very open and transparent illustrations of our budget and financial situation. Maybe I'm using the word "financial" wrong, because I'm not an accountant. But where the money is coming from and where it's going, I guess, is the bottom line. If you haven't seen that on our Web pages, I invite you to take a look at it. I'm very, very proud of the job that our staff has done to put that information together. And I know it's only going to get better in the future as the operation plan and budget are coupled more tightly. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thanks very much, Steve. I'm sure that the staff really appreciates that. If there are no other comments, I'll call for a show of hands. All those in favor of adopting the FY 2008 budget as written, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you. That's all of us. So there are no abstentions and there are no opposing votes. The next item on the agenda is the election of a new chief financial officer. Let me explain that you might find it a little odd this is a board action. But, in fact, officers of the organization have to be authorized by the board. So, Paul Twomey, let me ask you to introduce this resolution. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. It is my pleasure to introduce the briefest of the resolutions before the board today. And let me do that quickly. >>VINT CERF: No, the briefest one was the approval of minutes. That was a one-liner. You couldn't even find it, because it was on the first page, hiding at the bottom. That was the stealth amendment. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I'm shattered. The -- it is resolved that Kevin Wilson is elected as chief financial officer, to serve at the pleasure of the board and in accordance with the bylaws of the corporation, and shall hold his office until his resignation, removal, or other disqualification from service, or until his successor shall be elected and qualified. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Paul. Is there a second for this motion? Demi Getschko seconds. Just one comment. We are -- I am personally very, very glad to see that we've been able to fill this position. It's a very critical one to ICANN. And the qualifications that Kevin brings, I think, are eminently well suited to what we require. Are there any other comments on this particular resolution? If not, I'll ask for a show of hands. All those in favor of adopting the resolution, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you very much. It's unanimous. Mr. Secretary, will you record that Mr. Wilson is now officially our chief financial officer. The next item on the agenda is really important, because it is one of the key elements of discussion and debate. It was also a topic from the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the opening session, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce, in the opening sessions. And I'd like to call on Peter Dengate Thrush to introduce a resolution regarding a consultation on transparency and accountability operating principles. So, Peter, you have the floor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The resolution reads: Whereas, the transparency and accountability of ICANN and its processors are of crucial importance to the community. Whereas, a draft set of frameworks and principles for accountability and transparency has been released for consultation and public comment. The principles document ICANN's approach -- sorry, the principles document ICANN's approach to its work, including several new elements, such as a documentary information disclosure policy, a translation policy, and a participation policy. Whereas, a workshop discussing the draft principles was held during ICANN's meetings in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Whereas, the board encourages discussion and community input to facilitate continued improvements and measures designed to increase and assist accountability and transparency. A further workshop concerning enhancements to ICANN's transparency and accountability is planned to be held during ICANN's meetings in Los Angeles in October 2007. It's resolved, the board actively encourages debate and discussion with a view to considering further improvements to both transparency and accountability. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Peter. Is there a second to the motion? I see Vanda. Is there any further discussion of this motion before we vote? Susan. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Vint. We had a very rich workshop here in. -- buzz saw noise). >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: We're cut to go the heart of the issue here. >> That's the drone. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Let's just wait for a second. >>PAUL TWOMEY: The sound of ICANN being re-engineered. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Right. We're going building a record. Any more jokes? All right. We had a very rich workshop here in San Juan on these accountability and transparency principles. And I urge people to go look at the transcript there. I think it's fair to say that as ICANN contemplates moving towards being a different kind of organization, you'll recall, colleagues, that we had a report from the president's committee on strategy in Lisbon that presented a number of questions for further investigation. So as ICANN contemplates perhaps moving away from the oversight provided by the Department of Commerce, our accountability to the outside world becomes ever more crucial, I think. It's clear that we are making strides on transparency. It's a lot easier to figure out what's going on inside ICANN. But our accountability, the ability to remove directors, the ability to second-guess decisions of the board, is still quite limited. And so I look forward to the further workshop in Los Angeles, and I urge that we all focus on these issues with great attention. Because this is the serious -- I don't want to say impediment, but serious issue we need to consider as we change our structure in the future. Thanks. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan. I saw Janis Karklins' hand up and also Njeri Rionge. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Vint. In fact, Susan sounded like working for the government on this issue. On a more serious note, from governmental perspective, from Governmental Advisory Committee perspective, we really welcome this resolution and ongoing discussion on transparency and accountability. We had a very rich engagement with the board during this meeting, and certainly we are preparing our further input on accountability principles for Los Angeles. And I welcome adoption of this resolution. >>VINT CERF: Thank you. Njeri Rionge. >>NJERI RIONGE: Those of us who in the audit committee have actually got information that Doug is actually looking for an I.T. person and will get I.T. skills within the organization. I would just like to add to that we look at solutions that are I.T. related as well to capture content and knowledge so we can retain, as we continue to change -- as directors continue to move on and the information is actually retained in the organization. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Njeri. Peter, did you have your hand up? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, if I may. I just wanted to endorse Susan's comments about the importance of the accountability side of this to ICANN's future. And also to comment on the transparency side, just to record the enormous improvements that have been made by staff, even recently, and the continuing steps in relation to the Web site. The understanding that simply making the information available on the Web site doesn't meet the transparency. I think it's fair to say that this is now well understood, and we can see really good progress in implementing transparency principles. >>VINT CERF: Somewhere buried in all this must be participation, too, because we've noticed a significant improvement in our ability to interact with parties at interest thanks to the new mechanisms in the Web site. Paul, I saw your hand up, and then Rita. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, I just want to put on public record two things. First, as the community is aware there has been quite a discussion among the board members on way to improve on some of the transparency relating to these actual board meetings themselves, these public meetings. And I think the community can expect to see some further changes for the upcoming meeting in Los Angeles in October, particularly related to when agendas will be set, to tray to work to have the agenda for the meeting set potentially two weeks before the commencement of the meeting. If we are to move that way we are going to need the assistance and help of the Supporting Organizations and advisory committees, because the sort of issues that they wish to raise in the meeting, we will have to know about at least a week before that. So it will be three weeks before we -- even more than that. Three to four weeks before we are in the meeting in Los Angeles we have to have some idea of what issues people want on the agenda so the executive committee can consider them and then perhaps have an agenda posted two weeks prior to the meeting. Bruce Tonkin has been a particular voice about other ways that we can get the resolutions posted earlier, that people in the community can actually have a sense of commenting on what the resolutions might be. I don't think we will ever be in a position to do that 100 percent because of what happens in the meetings, but that's another thing we should try to move for October is to try to have a posting of draft resolutions prior to the meeting so people during the week have a sense of what it is that's being discussed. The second point, to pick up on what both Peter and Susan have said, I think it's key, and I would like to point out in the documentation that's been released on the management operating principles, that, first of all, it's I think one of the first times since '98, probably, that the accountabilities have been written down in one place. I think very early on there were some draft documents that talked about the types of accountabilities. But it's one of the first times that accountabilities that appear in, say, under the law, in the bylaws, those are the things that are actually put in one document. And a key part of that, there's a paragraph which makes the point, I don't think in any discussion where ICANN may evolve to, if it changes at all, that there should be any diminishment of the standards of accountability that exist now. And that the levels and standards of accountability that the board and others are under now needs to be at least -- at least maintained. So that's a -- just an important part of that. You'll find that in the operating principles, a reference to that. >>VINT CERF: The mathematician in me wants to say that you want accountability to be monotonically increasing. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Yeah. >>RITA RODIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to pick up on a couple comments that were made, I think I agree with what all my fellow board members were saying about increasing our accountability and transparency. One thing, while I think it's important to have principles set forth in a document and written that talk about accountability, I also think accountability is more than process. Sometimes I feel as though we get very caught up in the processes here at ICANN. But I think accountability also means engaging in a robust dialogue and being accountable for what you are saying. So I know, personally this week, I have gotten a lot of positive feedback. The board I think has tried to attend many of the workshops. I think we tried to have a robust discussion yesterday at the public forum, and at these board meetings so that the community actually understands what we're doing and the type of deliberations that we're engaging in. And I would encourage everyone in the audience to think about doing the same. I think the more people talk and understand different views, they then become in a sense accountable for their views. And again, I just want to say that I think having a dialogue will go a long way in making everybody feel like they are part of an organization and accountable for its actions. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Rita. Are there any other comments before we vote on this resolution? All right, I'll call for a show of hands. All those in favor of the resolution on accountability and transparency, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. It is unanimous. Thank you. Mr. Chairman -- I mean Mr. Secretary, we passed that resolution. The next item on the agenda has to do with the renewal of the dot coop sponsor agreement. And I would like to call on Bruce Tonkin to introduce this particular resolution. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Vint. This resolution relates to the renewal of the dot coop sponsor agreement. And it states: Whereas ICANN staff conducted good-faith negotiations with DotCooperation, sponsor for the dot coop sponsored top-level domain, for the renewal of their sponsorship agreement. Whereas on the 20th of April 2007, ICANN announced that negotiations with DotCooperation had been successfully completed and posted the proposed dot coop renewal agreement for public comment. WHEREAS, ICANN extended the public comment period on the 16th of May 2007 in response to community feedback on the proposed renewal agreement. Whereas DotCooperation wrote to ICANN on 15th of June 2007 agreeing to delete a provision from the proposed agreement that would have permitted the sponsor to request exemptions from some consensus policies. Whereas the board carefully considered the proposed renewal agreement, public comments, and the sponsors' responses, and finds that the approval of the proposed renewal agreement will be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet community. It is hereby resolved that the dot coop agreement is approved, and the president is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreement. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Bruce. Is this a second for this motion? Susan. Is there any comment or discussion on the motion before we vote? I would just like to make one, then. It seems to me that this is a very direct example of the response of staff and board to public comment on a particular proposed agreement. And it's the kind of thing that illustrates a form of accountability, which is that the organization reacted to input that said that this agreement needed to be amended. And so it is, in fact, proposed to be adopted in an amended form. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. I wonder if I can just build on what you said, and if you will forgive me, to perhaps refine it. I would like particularly to thank the registry operators for dot coop who themselves proposed the amendment that you see in the third "whereas." And I think this is a very important principle, partly coming to clarity around accountabilities. I think one of the things that's important for stable community confidence in the processes around contracts and any attempts for amendments around contracts is that the people who are proposing them are also the people who are open to the public feedback and open to respond to that public feedback. And that it's not being seen, per se, necessarily as the ICANN staff or the ICANN board versus the community on somebody's contract, which I think sometimes we have to be a little careful of in the way it gets perceived. So I would like to think that this present process for dot coop I think worked reasonably well. And I would particularly like to thank the registry operator who listened to the concerns raised, did not want to produce that sort of unintended consequence, and made the amendment. I think that's a good way of working forward. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Paul. I think that is a better characterization of what actually happened. I appreciate the amendment. Any other comments on this motion? All right. All those in favor of adopting the amended dot coop agreement, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the motion is adopted unanimously. The next item on the agenda is another amendment to an agreement. And this is the one with the operator of dot tel. And in particular, it's an amendment of the fee structure in that agreement. So I'll ask Vanda Scartezini to introduce this particular motion. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Okay, thank you, Chairman. It's okay? >>VINT CERF: Yes. You have to speak closely in the microphone. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Okay, thank you so this is an amendment about the fee of dot tel. Whereas telnic has submitted an amendment to Article VII, Section 7.2(b) of the dot tel registry agreement to change the fees paid to ICANN. Whereas the language of the proposed agreement is similar to that approved in existing agreements, results in fees aligned more closely to other registries than the fees in the existing agreement, and represents a fee reduction. WHEREAS, ICANN conducted analysis and review of the requested amendment. It is hereby resolved that the president and general counsel are authorized to enter into an amendment of the dot tel registry agreement to accept the proposed change in fee structure. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Vanda. Is there a second for this motion? I see Roberto seconds. Are there any comments or questions about this motion? In that case, I'll call for a show of hands. All those in favor of adopting this modified agreement, raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. It is unanimous, Mr. Secretary. >>RITA RODIN: Vint, Vint, I'm sorry, I am going to be abstaining. >>VINT CERF: I beg your pardon. I counted wrong. Rita abstains. You need to see any reason why or just abstaining? >>RITA RODIN:Sure, Vint. My firm represents Telnic so I am going to abstain on this vote. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the vote is 14 in favor with one abstention from Rita. The next item on the agenda has to do with the situation for escrowing registrar data. There was considerable discussion throughout the week and before, of course, in connection with the RegisterFly incident. And I'd actually like to call on Kurt Pritz and Doug Brent to give a brief report on the status of plans for initiating escrow processes available to the registrars from ICANN. Kurt. >>KURT PRITZ: Yeah, thanks for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. As you know, board members, and everyone here, the purpose of data escrow is to -- well, it intends to ensure continuity for registrants in the event of a determination of the RAA. And it does that by requiring registrars to escrow their data either with an ICANN-provided escrow service provider or their own ICANN-approved third-party provider. And then it permits the release of escrow data only when there's a termination of the registrar accreditation contract or expiration without renewal. In this process, it's ICANN's duty to establish a data escrow specification, and then offer to provide that service at no cost to registrars so they can engage that service at their option, if they want. And also, it's for ICANN to approve any third-party escrow agents if registrars elect to secure their own escrow provider. And that specification I just mentioned has been drafted through a negotiation of technical terms with registrars that was coordinated by Mike Zupke on the ICANN staff and calls with them. And we also received input from SSAC and the general counsel's team, and also escrow service providers; in particular, E- -- e-escrow providers. So just to touch for a couple of minutes on what's in the specification and on the RFP. There's the schedule and frequency of escrow deposits. So for example, the largest registrars, the 20 or so largest registrars are required to deposit -- make incremental deposits daily and then full deposits weekly. There's a standardized CSV format involved so that all deposits follow the same format and baseline security requirements, such as file encryption and secure transmission. So in the case of the RFP, we call out SFPP and SCP but don't require those specifically. I think we got one application using HTTPS. The application requires the applicant to demonstrate the ability to transfer and receive data securely, and demonstrate an ability to receive up to 1,000 data receipts daily or weekly. We calculate that to be 500 gigabytes per week. If you double the total possible sum by a mirrored site, have checksum validation, and then submit inspection reports and receipt reports. May I have the next slide? It also requires specific technical capabilities and redundancies. So they have to specify hardware, software, a certain minimum connectivity capacity, rights security, and failover contingency plans. One area of discussion has been that applicants that are also ICANN-accredited registrars are required in this process to describe precautions that would prevent the use of -- inappropriate use of that information. So that's an issue that requires a lot of attention. And we intend to have a discussion with gTLD registrars to determine the feasibility, the suitability, and sufficiency of those screening measures. So we understand the nature of that marketplace and the need for that consultation. And that's, then, one of the factors that's going to be considered in making the final award of the contract. So we will take that into account, and also these factors that are stated in no order here. But certainly technical competence is one, and a reputation because we want to make this service attractive to registrars to engage the ICANN service provider. Another bullet up here is comprehensive service. So part of the negotiations we're undertaking is not just for the escrow of data, but perhaps providing some management to the overall process so ICANN can outsource that, and performing -- self-performing some audits. And also of key concern to ICANN is the start-up timing because we want a rapid spin-up to this process and full compliance by registrars as soon as the escrow provider is announced. We released publicly the RFP on May 17th, and we also did some outreach to well-known service providers to make sure that they knew that this proposal was being -- the request for proposals was being posted. We received seven competent proposals from applicants in five different countries. Three turned out to be gTLD registrars. One was a gTLD registry. And there's four e-escrow companies. So if you add that up, it adds up to eight. But one of the providers was -- hopefully anticipating the only question you will have, one of the provides was both a registrar and an e-escrow provider. So the next steps are that ICANN is going to complete evaluation of those proposals. And then there will be some resolution of remaining issues that result from that evaluation. And in particular, briefings and discussion with board members. There's been several areas of interest indicated such as the feasibility of these precautions that a gTLD registrar could effectively screen the data from its registrar operations. And that's something, in particular, that Rita brought up. And then Thomas had a question about the specification itself and how the different applicants were responding to it, and if that indicated a completeness to the specification or if it needed to be augmented. And I know Steve had some specific advice about the start-up of this process. And paraphrasing, and I might get it wrong, but sort of beta testing or having a Q.A. plan in place to ensure when it's on, it's working 100 percent. So one of the things I would like to solicit here is to carry on that conversation with board members and get their advice in those areas as we go through the evaluation of these proposals, and then, you know, have the discussions with the gTLD registrars and make a selection. And then we think we're very close to selecting a provider. And the discussions that we've had say that they would be able to commence operations ten weeks after the award of the contract, and then ICANN would ask gTLD registrars to be fully compliant six months after that date. So that's essentially the timing for it. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Kurt. Paul Twomey asked to make a comment, and then others. I see Bruce has his hand up. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Kurt, for that explanation or exposition. I wonder if I can expand some potential points to those who may not be close to this particular issue. It would be completely reasonable, I think, for an outsider who arrived in ICANN with a normal sense of the world to say, "Why would you ever run a process for escrowing data and allow competitors to be able to hold data?" Why didn't you simply say that no registrar could be a bidder for this process because -- you know, at first glance, it would look like that's an obvious thing to do. That, you know, if you are going to escrow the data of a whole lot of registrars, that you would not allow another registrar to be an applicant. And that would seem quite reasonable. I would just like it make the following observations for those people who would come with that perspective, is that one of the realities of the marketplace is that at least one or two, or more, of the industry leaders in escrow and who are utilized well within this industry and elsewhere have also taken out ICANN accreditation registrars. And because of that phenomenon that some of the industry leaders -- escrow leaders have been -- have also taken out and are very skilled and are trusted already by some of the key registrars, other registrars, it was considered not -- probably appropriate for competency reasons not to say that they could not bid. But the point of ensuring that registrars are absolutely comfortable with any choice and that they feel that they are not being forced to have any -- forced to utilize anything which is potentially conflict of interest of course is very high considerations. There will be further dialogue with the registrars constituency about that, further dialogue with the board because the board quite rightly has a concern over that issue. And I would remind everybody that this is not compulsory. So this is the free service. But there's nothing compelling any registrar to use the service. And the final point I make is there's not been a final selection. So we're not -- This is still a selection process just underway. But I think it's worth making the point. It might at first glance look a bit strange that registrars were allowed to be included, but that's because of the nature of the people involved in the industry. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Paul. Bruce, you had your hand up. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Vint. And again, I just want to preface my comments by restating for the benefit of the board that I do work for a registrar. And as a registrar, we would need to be compliant with the escrow provisions in the contract. I just want to reiterate a couple of things Paul said and perhaps provide a little more context. One, certainly I think as Paul has pointed out, registrars would not be required to use the ICANN escrow provider, and that they could choose to escrow their data with another party that ICANN is comfortable with. However, I do think it's important that for this service to be of value, it does need to be supported by a significant number of registrars. And to that aim, I think it is important that the staff sound out some of the larger registrars and get a sense of would they be using this provider. In other words, how much value would it be. And would they be prepared to use another registrar as an escrow provider. The second point I want to raise is that some registrars, depending on where they are located in the world, would probably be limited by their national laws with respect to sending data about individual's names and contact information offshore in bulk to another provider. So that also might require some of those registrars, even though they may be okay with the escrow provider in principle, they might be required by national law to escrow their data in a national location. The third point I want to raise is, again, just to set some context here, at least in the discussions I've had with most major registrars, they do store their data with third parties as a backup service. So I just want to make clear that what an escrow service allows is the ability for ICANN, if a registrar disappeared off the face of the planet, that they can go to another company that still exists, such as an escrow provider, to retrieve that data. So it's probably, in many cases, of more value for the smaller registrars that perhaps, I guess, may not have some of those procedures in place. But certainly large registrars, and assuming they are financially stable, at least in terms of any kind of natural disaster or physical disaster, do nearly -- as far as everyone I have spoken to, does store their data with a third party for backup reasons. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Bruce. Other comments? Other comments from board members? Susan and Vittorio. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Just a brief comment here. I want to support the work of staff in moving this process forward. The registrar accreditation agreement has said for a long time that registrars must escrow data, and that they can do it through an ICANN provider. We're just now setting up the ICANN provider for escrow. And this has been prompted in part by the RegisterFly problem. So we have -- we should be operating with a lot of urgency here. And I'm very happy with how staff is proceeding. And I hope that they can go ahead and finish this process promptly. Thanks. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan. Vittorio. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you. I just wanted to reiterate how important it is this for consumers and also for the at large. This is a key element in providing some level of resilience and guarantees for consumers. So I support the idea of going forward with it as soon as possible. And I also support Bruce's point about the need to ensure that whatever is done is compliant with the various laws on privacy and data protection in the different countries. So please ensure that whatever system we create is compliant and does not create problems in regard to that. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. Perhaps in the spirit of transparency, I wonder if I can make a further observation. I agree with Susan's comments, and I think, yes, we've been remiss, we have not pushed forward on escrow, and we should have. And that's been I would say both on the side of ICANN and on the side of the registrars, in fact. There's been a dialogue for a long time on this topic but no sense of urgency and it hasn't gone anywhere. And I would like to point out to the community that there is a big difference between backup and mirroring and escrow. And the biggest difference is actually a legal difference rather than necessarily a data difference. I think one of the things that the community has come to realize following on from the RegisterFly experience is that our analysis of potential failure has tended to be bimodal. We've tended to talk about failure. And we haven't talked about failing. And there's a difference. So that you have this -- we've tended to analyze we should think of so-called registry failover. We tend to think of it as either working or not working. The real issue of RegisterFly has shown us is that for very good commercial history reasons, it's actually the -- when things get difficult, when companies get difficult, there is already existing legal processes for winding up of companies. You've got this interregnum of the walking dead, if you want to use the venture capital language. Escrow is incredibly important during that period. So that's one of the reasons, I think, also why there's been some, I think, further acceleration in the registrar constituency coming to understand that that's going to be an important issue. >>VINT CERF: Slow down, please. The scribes are not able to keep up with you. Let's see. Rita, Steve, and Janis. >>RITA RODIN: Thanks, Vint. Just want to be clear for the community, since we were talking about this yesterday. I think that the RegisterFly situation has highlighted for everyone the need for ICANN to have a very strong data escrow program that actually can be enforced. Because we've seen when that's not the case how that can impact registrants. And we're really looking to try to avoid that. But to be clear, I think this dialogue has been very important, because notwithstanding the urgency to get the data program in place, we don't want to do something that's going to create additional problems. And here, the issue that was raised was, well, if I'm a registrar and I have to give all my competitive -- what I consider my competitively sensitive data to another registrar, that causes me a concern. Just so everyone in the audience is clear, that is being balanced with this sense of urgency to try to get this done. So, again, I'm very encouraged by the robust dialogue the board has had on this point. And staff very much understands and is going to engage in the appropriate constituency -- that would be the registrars -- to make sure that there are appropriate protocols in place to the extent that this is part of the escrow program that we institute. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Rita. Steve Goldstein and then Janis Karklins. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are about to consider a number of resolutions dealing with IDNs that I think will demonstrate our commitment and the importance we place on IDNs. As we look at things like data escrow and other things that might come up, so far, we have been operating in, basically, you know, as ASCII-based environment on many of these things. The data are -- in one sense, are just strings of 1's and 0's when you get right down to it. So, in principle, the issues once IDNs are more widespread, shouldn't be that different. On the other hand, there may be cultural aspects, business aspects, legal aspects around these items. And there may be some technical issues that we haven't thought of. So I would only ask that all of us, including our staff, be aware that once we get into the IDN era, that we should be vigilant about the workability of all items, not just data escrow, in the new environment. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Steve. It's probably worth mentioning that registrations already are taking place using more extended character sets, but just not at the top level. So in some sense, we're already experiencing the use of those extended strings in both the backup and escrow case. Bruce, is this specific to the topic? And then -- or Janis, do you mind if Bruce intervenes? Go ahead, Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just wanted to also clarify that when we're looking at different character sets, we're not looking at it just in the string for the domain name, but also in the string for the individual's name, as well as their address. And as Vint says, those concerns exist today, but certainly the escrow format needs to be specific about the encoding that's used for the -- for some of those characters. >>VINT CERF: The more relevant thing that Steve Goldstein points out is the situs of the registrar or registry. And as we find people operating more and more around the world, then some of the legal issues may become more valid or relevant, and also, of course, some of the technical ones, like available capacity. Janis, you had your hand up. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Vint. I just wanted to put on the public record that GAC also is of the view that the issue is important, because there is a significant public-policy component. Vittorio already spoke about that. Consumer protection is an important issue, and concern for Government Advisory Committee. We welcome work which has been done by staff in this respect, and certainly we will follow developments in the future. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Janis. Steve, you asked to make a comment on this as well. Steve Crocker. Sorry. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you. I want to just echo the kind of comments that have been made here, that, obviously, a lot of attention and a lot of interest in making sure that in addition to the great work that has been put into making sure that we have a system in place, the additional effort to make sure that it is actually working after it's in place. And to that end, I'd like to see rather stringent kind of testing, unscheduled tests, just to make sure that the process works. Because if it doesn't work when you need it to, then all of the preparations are for naught. And, in general, the kind of fire drill testing that makes it evident to everybody, to the registrants, to the operators, to the community at large, and to the ICANN staff, that we take this very seriously and have the highest standards for making sure that it works when we need it to work. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Steve. Are there any other comments or questions for Kurt before we move on? All right. In that case, I think we'll press on with the rest of the agenda. But thank you very much, Kurt, for those clarifications. The next item on the agenda has to do with the remaining IPv4 allocations. You've been apprised many times now in the last several months of the pending runout of IPv4 address space, with varying estimates of the times, and also AS numbers as well. So I'd like to call on Raimundo Beca to draw our attention to some of the activities, particularly at LACNIC, for dealing with policy in the allocation of IPv4 addresses in this end phase of the remaining space. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you, Vint. Before explaining where the -- some addressing global policies which are in the pipeline, I will try to recall some of the facts how global policies are worked in this organization. I have been involved with the Address Council since the Address Council was created in 1999. I was at that moment appointed to the Address Council by ARIN, and then afterwards, I was appointed by LACNIC, when LACNIC was created. And then I came to the board, appointed by the Address Council to the board. So I have been an actor in all of these activities. Global policies are not very often. In fact, until now, we have only three global policies. The first global policy is the recognition of the RIRs criteria to recognize the RIRs. The second one is the allocation of IPv4. IPv4 were allocated by IANA to the RIRs without a policy. And then it is only in -- only two years ago that the policy was adopted on how the IPv4 address blocks have to be allocated by IANA to the RIRs. And the third one is the one we approved last year on the allocation of IPv6 blocks. So those are the only three global policies until now. But what was more curious about this is that as they were not so often, there was not the methodology. And now we have all the procedures -- all the procedures have been stated. And the procedures for the approval of global policies are in three important documents. The first one is attachment A of the ASO MOU, which defines what is a global policy and how a global policy has to be treated. And a global policy, in two words, are policies that cannot be implemented by RIRs by their own, but they have to have an activity by ICANN and IANA. And to become a global policy, they have to be approved by the five RIRs with a common text. Even if a comma, as has been said by Ray in the workshop, one of these days, even if a comma is different from one RIR to the other one, it has to go through and be approved by the five with the same wording. The second document which is important is that the Address Council, which is the organization which forwards the policy to the board for ratification, has also a procedure on how the Address Council treats the -- a global policy since the very first moment. And the third one is the board. The board has the procedures, procedures on how to ratify, how to treat the global policies as it appears in the pipeline somewhere in the universe. And at this moment, in this context, there are two new global policies that are in the pipeline somewhere. These two global policies are, number one is a policy on ASN address assignment. ASN address assignment, like IPv4, have been assigned from someone from Vienna to the RIRs without a policy. And then in this case, the other of the factors has been the opposite. IANA asked the RIRs to develop a policy to have this according to the procedures that have been defined. This policy has been presented to RIPE, where it was approved and is in the last call. And it was approved also in LACNIC, where it's approved definitely. So the second policy is a policy that has been presented by authors from LACNIC and AfriNIC. It has been presented at this moment only in LACNIC, but it will be presented in the other RIRs. And it was presented as a global policy. This policy is a policy which concerns the allocation of the reserved pool. The reserved pool of IP addresses is the -- is what is the nonallocated addresses held by IANA. At this moment, the reserved pool, if I am correct, is of 49 /8. The policy states that when the -- when the reserved pool achieves a level of 25, of 25, then a the remaining pool will be distributed in an even basis among the five RIRs. And this policy was approved by LACNIC. Well, these two policies, the ASN allocation and the allocation of the reserved pool at the level of the last 25 /8s were -- according to the procedures of the Address Council, they were qualified as global policies, which means that if these policies go around the five RIRs and they have a common text, with no comma of difference, in that case, they will be sent or forwarded by the Address Council to the board for ratification. But the Address Council makes a sort of early awareness sign to the community saying, well, this policy that has been approved by one of the RIRs qualifies as a global policy. According to the board's procedures, the board procedures have stated that when the board, because the staff has noticed the board of the existence of a global policy in the pipeline, when the board is aware that something is in the pipeline, it will start what was called -- what has been called an early awareness report. Early awareness report means that the policy is tracked, and it's tracked in the interest of all the ICANN constituencies and all the communities by a report which is a spreadsheet which indicates what is the state in each RIR, which are the points to the documents of the 11 documents. And the board has to decide in some moment if this document, the drafting of this document, has to be made or not. And I would like only to inform the board publicly, like I am doing, of the existence of this global policy and the state of them. And I hope that at some moment, the board will decide to start the drafting of this early awareness report. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Raimundo. I think that we will be increasingly interested in these proposals, particularly if other of the RIRs besides LACNIC show an interest in and, in fact, adopt the proposal or policy an amendment of it. So thank you very much for drawing that to our attention on the record. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of IANA root zone procedures for evaluating IDN deployment. Essentially, what is going on here is that a series of tests is now planned in the live domain name system, not just in the laboratory. And it is always possible that in the live system, the insertion of an IDN top-level domain in the root zone file might be the origin of some problem. And it's very important that we have procedures agreed here in IANA, at ICANN, and also in the other parts of the root zone management system, which includes the Department of Commerce, VeriSign, and the root zone operators -- root zone operators, that we have mechanisms for properly handling any emergencies that might arise. And so this resolution is intended to speak to that. And I'd like to ask Ramaraj if he would please bring this to our attention in the form of a motion. >>RAJASHEKAR RAMARAJ: Thank you, Vint. I'm happy to introduce the resolution on the adoption -- >>VINT CERF: I'm sorry. Could you move closer to the microphone. >>RAJASHEKAR RAMARAJ: Thank you, Vint. Happy to introduce a resolution on the adoption of IANA root zone procedures for evaluating IDN deployment. Whereas, the introduction of internationalized top-level domains is considered a priority by ICANN; Whereas, the IANA root zone procedures for test IDN deployment paper is considered an important component of enabling evaluation and testing prior to deployment; Whereas, significant consultation in the technical community and including a public posting with comment purpose has taken place with no significant recommendation for change received; Whereas, the IDN TLD root server performance/tolerance paper has undergone the same review as the IANA procedure and is -- finalization is anticipated in conjunction with the root server operators; Resolved, the board accepts the IANA root zone procedures for evaluation -- evaluating IDN deployment and directs staff to implement this in accordance with the contract for IANA performance and IANA's procedures. Resolved, the board considers the root server operators' participation an important component of the further plans for IDN evaluations and directs staff to receive and implement recommendations received for the RSSAC at their 22nd July, 2007 meeting. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much. Is there a second for these resolutions? Peter Dengate Thrush. I see that staff has already caught the typographical error in the first resolution, where the word "evaluation" should be replaced with "evaluating." Similarly in the title. So thank you for that correction. Are there any comments or questions about the proposed resolutions? Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just very briefly, tonight -- this is the first of no less than three resolutions we're about to have on IDNs to reflect partly the priority this has in our work, but also the complexity, there are many aspects to this. This is simply one, the IANA process. So I'm going to be voting in favor of this and the other IDN resolutions that are coming up. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Peter. Let us know when you're also planning to run for office or something along those lines. It's just voting -- Peter sounded so very senatorial in that -- [ Laughter ] >>VINT CERF: All right. Are there any other comments? All right. I'll call for a show of hands. All those in favor of adopting these two resolutions, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Are there any abstentions? I hope not. If there are, I counted wrong. Mr. Secretary, the resolutions are approved unanimously. The next resolution has to do with the Regional At-Large Organization for America, the RALO -- for North America. I hope some of you were able to participate in the signing ceremonies that brought this institution into being. This is an important culmination of a very long effort on the part of our ALAC fellows to achieve the organization which was originally proposed in the -- during the ERP period. So I imagine a number of people feel a considerable amount of relief and pride in having gotten this far. I'd like to call on Roberto Gaetano to introduce this motion. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas, the ICANN bylaws, article XI, section 2, part 4, provide a process that allows individual Internet users to participate meaningfully in the work of ICANN, as the community known as at-large, and; Whereas, groups representing individual Internet users throughout the North American, NA, geographic regions, have finalized work on organizing themselves as a Regional At-Large Organization, a RALO, by creating a memorandum of understanding between themselves and ICANN, and; Whereas, the parties to the MOU signed it at the public ceremony at the San Juan ICANN meeting, the execution of the agreement on ICANN's part contingent upon final approval by the ICANN board following completion of the public comment period, and; Whereas, the ICANN board wishes to recognize and applaud the North American at-large community in question and the achievement of this milestone; Whereas, the board wishes to recognize with the signing of this memorandum of understanding and the election of two North American members of the At-Large Advisory Committee, the ALAC is no longer interim and the whole at-large community is to be congratulated on an enormous amount of work; Resolved, the board ratifies the memorandum of understanding with the North American at-large structures on the same basis under which it was signed. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Roberto. Is there a second? I see Vanda's hand up. Is there any further discussion or comment on this resolution? Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Well, I would like to say a couple of words, because this is just not normal business, we approve a RALO and -- without underlining the importance of this. This is not only the last RALO that needed to be organized in order to make the ALAC no longer interim, but it's also a RALO that has been formed in a region that in the beginning had serious difficulties and serious objections for reasons, most of which historical, to the organization of the individual user community through a RALO. So it took, really, a substantial amount of work and really a lot of dedication not only from ICANN staff, but also some of the people in the region. And we still have to observe that, unfortunately, the RALO is still a little bit unbalanced in the sense that the vast majority of the organizations are Canadian, and we still have to work in order to have a higher penetration in the southern part of North America, so to speak. So I think that -- I'm confident that we are going to have, now that the RALO is formed and is accepted as a reality, that we are going to have a sort of snowball effect, and that other organizations are going to join. There are -- among the organizations that have joined the RALO, there are some organizations that are quite important and represent a substantial number of users. There's a consumer protection -- for instance, a consumer protection agency that has a subscription -- paper that is subscribed by the millions. And so I think that it can be an extremely useful vehicle for ICANN to extend the network and the contacts and the outreach. So I -- in summary, what I want to say is not just one more RALO. Is really an important milestone. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Roberto. Vittorio wanted to make a remark as well. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Yes. I think that the real comment is that apart from the fact that finally we are removing the "interim" qualification from the ALAC, so we are assuming our role, that this was really the result of our work that went on for several years. For many people. And even -- actually, it was not just a practical work. It was really a work of people getting to know each other and learning how to live together. In some cases, maybe having real disagreements, having strong fights, but also starting to build what in the end could be one of the most precious values for ICANN, which is an avenue for collecting real input from consumers, from general public, from users of the Internet of all kinds. And I think that now the challenge is for ICANN to understand how to make good use of that, not just to receive this kind of input, but to actually listen to it. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Vittorio. Any other comments? Vanda. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I just want to raise the importance of we have now all the RALOs set up around the world for the development of fellowship program. Because they would be the focus point for the fellows to continue to be connected with the -- all the things that happen in ICANN. And in order to enlarge their participation and encourage other people to come and to apply for the fellowship. Now we have all the regions covered, so it would be much more easy to get this network working for the fellowship program. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Vanda. I think this is actually a really -- as Roberto and others have said, it's a really important milestone, but it also represents an important new kind of work because now that the structures are in place, the RALOs have to adapt to that structure and learn how to use it in both directions, in getting information from the general public or other organizations representing them into our processes, and by the same token, relaying information of importance and value to them about decisions that ICANN makes and the impact that it might have on their interests. So in a sense, we have a whole new set of tasks to perform, just in a different context. And one which I hope will be more effective than in the past. So, actually, I would like to suggest that we adopt this resolution by acclamation, if there are no objections. I don't see any. Therefore, I propose we acclaim this resolution. [ Applause ] >>VINT CERF: The next item on the agenda has to do with a consultation on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement amendments. The RAA, as you all know, is an important document that specifies a key relationship within the ICANN process. And its amendment is not only important to the parties who are involved but also, I believe, relevant to our ability to respond better to various and sundry issues arising in the registrar community. I would like to call on Bruce Tonkin to introduce this resolution. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Vint. I will first read the resolution and then make a couple of comments. So the resolution as written states: WHEREAS, ICANN has received considerable comment and recommendations from registrants and others in the Internet community for improvements in ICANN contracts in order to protect the interests of registrants. WHEREAS, ICANN posted several recommendations in a call for major review of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreements and the accreditation process. WHEREAS, community comment received since the posting tends to affirm those same areas as important, and ICANN has published specific areas for amendment. WHEREAS, ICANN board and staff have met with the registrars constituency to discuss specific recommended changes to the RAA and agreed to continue discussions to expedite the publication and consideration of proposed amendments. WHEREAS, it is important to implement amendments in a timely manner to avoid future harm to registrants. So it is resolved that the board directs staff to solicit and consider the input of the Internet community, including the at-large community and the GNSO constituencies, regarding proposed changes to the RAA, registrar accreditation process, and related policies. It's resolved that the board requests that staff engage with the registrars constituency in order to arrive at and post for public comment a set of proposed amendments or alternative version to the RAA that is intended to address many of the concerns raised by the Internet community. It's also resolved that when the RAA is published for public comment, that notice be provided to allow the At-Large Advisory Committee, the GNSO, and other interested parties to review the proposed revised RAA and provide advice to the board nits review. So that's the motion. I would just like to make a couple of comments, in that the -- I guess the structure of ICANN's agreements, there's an agreement between ICANN and registrars called the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, then there's agreements between a registrar and a registrant. Some minimum terms for those agreements between the registrar and registrant are in the agreement between ICANN and registrars. Then separate to the agreement, we have consensus policies, and registrars need to comply with those consensus policies, but they are, in effect, separate documents. And there's a described process in ICANN for updating those policies. So having said that, I think we've just recently had a motion about the at-large community, and Vittorio as the liaison from the at-large community has certainly been advising the board that the ALAC would like to comment on issues that affect registrants. It's pretty hard to ask them to comment on specific parts of the structure of our agreements. If you think about the average Internet user, they don't know what a Registrar Accreditation Agreement is. They don't know what a consensus policy actually means in the way we use the term. And so I think the first part of this resolution is really saying, let's get input from the community on issues that they have. The second part of that resolution, though, is quite focused on proposed changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which is only one part of the structure, to address some of those concerns. But I just want to make sure that we are managing expectations; that we are not creating an environment where we can suddenly implement every suggestion into the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. That's not what this process is designed to do. And, in fact, it's quite focused. So I expect that if we look at the community input, you know, you might only be able to implement ten percent of the many good ideas that might come from that in the actual accreditation agreement. But hopefully the GNSO itself can look at the input that's received and then use that to determine whether it itself wants to conduct some consensus policy development on areas related to transfers and WHOIS and all the sort of issues that registrants might have. And then the third part of the process is that before the board would approve such changes that the community again has an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the agreement. I just wanted to give better context. >>VINT CERF: Thanks very much, Bruce. Vittorio, did you have a comment? >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Yes, I have, of course, because this is again a really important matter for registrants. In the end, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement is -- it is a fundamental keystone for an industry, so I understand the business value of that. But it is also what sets the basic rules and principles that create this market. And as such, it does have significant impact on consumers and significant public policy implications, I think. So we have been going through a phase where ICANN made headlines for not being able to effectively prevent something that it's part of the normal life of business. But still, it might have been made much less painful for consumers. So after that happened, I saw a lot of reaction, and really high commitment by staff and a lot of interest in the board in helping consumers. So if that ever happened again, it would not be so painful as it was. So I think we are on the right track. We really have been making progress on this. Still, when the process for examining these changes to the RAA was proposed, the at-large was very vocally unhappy. If you were here at the workshop some days ago, I had some really nasty comments on the initial proposal because we think that the RAA really needs to be discussed in a broader session than just between registrars and staff. And perhaps, after having some discussions also with Bruce, with other members of the community, I have realized that it's an intermediate step that was missing. This is basically crossing the requests from the global public, which are really very general in nature and so maybe not all of them fit within the RAA, maybe they fit in the policy development process or in other places, with the very technical and limited nature of this contract. So this is why in the end the that is being proposed now is much better and it has our support, because in the end, we really have an initial phase where we want to collect input from the entire community, and this doesn't just mean the at-large. It's also the public. It also means other elements in the community. And possibly try to help staff in designing a map of what needs to be made better, which might include the RAA or items for changing the RAA. It might include maybe new policy development processes or it might just include staff action, like education or special programs. So once we collect all the input on that, then staff should get back to registrars and try to tell them how the things that affect them, and we know that the RAA has to be approved by registrars. So we are fine with that. So in the end, we do support this resolution. The only note I have, the only remaining concern is that in the second "resolved," there is that many of -- it is intended to address many of the concerns raised by the Internet community. And we are a bit afraid that this might leave some very vital parts out in the cold. So I don't know how we can reword that, but in the place of that "many of," maybe we can have something like "to the extent feasible." Something that still makes it clear that not everything will be resolved immediately and not everything will be resolved in the RAA, but also ensures that all the concerns will be at least read and considered. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Susan. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thanks, Vint. Just briefly. I was part of a workshop earlier this week on Monday devoted to the subject of protecting registrants, and it was clear to me at that workshop that we have a particularly good moment to make progress on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. There's a lot of energy, lot of interest, lot of concerns coming from many different directions. And I think that the right thing to do now is to gather those concerns, write them down, and work hard towards crystallizing an agreement. I think we need to seize this moment. And it's apparent to me that it is being seized. So I want to make that report to my fellow board members, that we are going in a constructive direction here. The registrars, for their part, say that staff hasn't presented us with a proposed revised agreement. So Vittorio, your intervention is well timed. They need input on a redrafted agreement. But at the same time, what really needs to happen is after that input is gathered, for the registrars and the staff to work together very closely to come up with a revised agreement that will meet the concerns prompted by the RegisterFly situation. So just briefly, we have the energy. We should do it now, and I urge everybody to move ahead. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan. Any other comments? Peter? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: A very minor, low-level comment after Susan's high comment, which I support. Just the wording of this, in the second resolve. Once we have done this work, and Susan says we need to do it, the set of comments that -- the set of proposed amendments or the alternative version is intended to address many of the concerns. What that might mean is we go through this process and pick up many of the concerns but miss all the important ones. So I think if we could change the swept of "many" to something like "addresses to the extent feasible the concerns raised by the community," or "addresses the most pressing of the concerns" or something along those lines. Otherwise, we may find we have collected up a whole host of technical amendments and actually missed the key points. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Peter. I'm actually going to argue against that, but let me explain why. The consultation almost certainly will raise a variety of concerns, some of which would not be appropriately addressed within the RAA, but which are of great concern to registrants and others who are affected by registrar operation. In fact, I'm very much in favor of gathering this broader picture of what people are concerned about. In the discussions about registrar -- registrant pro tech techs, it's pretty clear that there are a very wide range of scenarios through which registrants become registered. Some of them involve resellers, some of them involve parties that are offering Web sites and hosting and all kinds of other services and, incidentally, a domain name is registered which may not actually be in the name of the registrant. It may be in the name of the hosting organization. So many users of the net who are associated with domain names may not actually have any direct control over, ownership of, or lease of the domain name. The only reason for bringing all this up is to say that it seems to me very important not to allow the broad range of concerns to be inadequately served by over focus only on the RAA agreement, but rather to capture them so that we can begin to address the broader question of how we protect registrants in all these various contexts. And then, quite honestly, to parse those issues and concerns that are within our purview and those which may have to be addressed by some other means. And I think Vittorio's comments, as I interpreted them, anyway, allowed for a pretty flexible response to all the various concerns. So my only reason for wanting to discuss your proposal, Peter, is that I wouldn't want to leave -- I don't think it would be helpful to leave the impression that everything that is important to a registrant about protection can or should be addressed only in this resolution -- rather, in this RAA. And so in the way in which your language might be interpreted, if it was important, it should go into the RAA. And my reaction is if it was important, it should be addressed properly. And I would like to distinguish between the two. And I would like to ask, Peter, whether you can offer your thoughts about how to handle that problem. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Vint. I guess I was making the assumption that these would be relevant to the RAA. And so I was assuming that people would not be putting in every good thing they wanted in this entire context into this. Staff are not going to do that and they are not going to interpret -- >>VINT CERF: So, Peter, your term "relevant" might actually be helpful here, because in constructing a phraseology, maybe we could say "important and relevant to the RAA," in order to make sure that it's focused. Bruce had his hand up. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I was just going to say, Peter, bear in mind that not all the user community are lawyers. So they are unlikely to read the -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Really? >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's hard to believe when you look at this audience. But from the broader community. And their way of offering comments is not to read the RAA and offer a red line. Their way of offering comments is, "I think registrars should do X," and then we then, as Vint says, we have got to parse that and say is that something that's relevant to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. And we have to be careful that we are constraining scope here because the whole ICANN bylaws are really all about allowing us to protect registrants and make changes based on community feedback. This is very quite specific. It's saying that there's a whole raft of other processes that we have at ICANN, including the consensus policy development process, for dealing with some of the broader concerns. So I prefer the wording that was initially suggested by Vittorio, just to not to unrealistically raise expectations but to keep the wording of "to the extent feasible." So I think the wording of that is intended to address "to the extent feasible, the concerns raised by the Internet community" I think is a reasonable compromise there. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Vint, I would agree. I think feasible incorporates implicitly the notion of relevancy, so it's a good reframing of this and I would support that revision. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan. Are there any other comments? Can I ask staff to make the appropriate edits? Vittorio, you look like you needed to say something. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: No, actually, I just wanted to reassure everyone that we are in agreement. So we don't want this to go beyond the scope of the RAA. And in any case, I think staff that will be making the activity of collecting the input they will be able to tell which ones are relevant and which ones are not. There may be a way to deal with the other ones accordingly, in a separate manner. >>VINT CERF: Thank you. Are there any other comments? In that case, I'll call for a vote on this particular resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the resolution has passed by -- unanimously. Yes, Susan. Yes, I was about to ask Susan to address a resolution acknowledging the progress -- I'm sorry, Roberto, did you have a comment? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. Just a quick comment. The ALAC apologizes because their they were not attending the meeting. They are still working next-door to do some internal businesses. But they acknowledge that the resolution passed and they thanked the board. >>VINT CERF: You're welcome. Susan, would you lake to introduce a resolution acknowledging progress -- technical progress on Internationalized Domain Names? >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Vint, I would. This resolution deals with technical progress on Internationalized Domain Names, and it reads: WHEREAS, the board expresses its gratitude to the volunteers in the technical community, including the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the Root-Server System Advisory Committee, and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee for their work related to the deployment of Internationalized Domain Names. WHEREAS, the board recognizes the important work being done on the revision of the protocol called Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications, or IDNA, that provides the framework for what characters can be used when registering domain names, as well as successful results in the laboratory tests conducted by Autonomica. WHEREAS, ICANN is preparing the near-term release of a publicly accessible facility for the evaluation of at least 11 IDN top-level domains that will be provisionally entered into the root zone of the Domain Name System and that will include second-level domains in the same languages as the top-level domains, all for evaluation purpose only. WHEREAS, the board recognizes that this is a significant step towards the stable deployment of Internationalized Domain Names. Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has undertaken a technical study to analyze stability and security issues associated with the deployment of Internationalized Domain Names top-level domains. Whereas the TLD registries working group has recently released IDN guidelines revisions and plans to continue this effort as further details of the IDNA protocol, Internationalized Domain Names in Applications protocol, revision is being completed. Whereas the ICANN board remains committed to the development and deployment of IDNs that enable people to use domain names with characters other than A through Z and 0 through 9, and at the same time benefit from the promise of a single interoperable Internet. Resolved, the ICANN board acknowledges the work performed by the members of the community working on this important topic and urges this work to continue to move forward in a manner that emphasizes the security and stability of the Internet. WHEREAS, it is -- oh, now we are on the resolved, second resolution. The ICANN board respectfully requests that technical volunteers continue to work closely together to complete their work revising the IDNA protocol and identifying technical requirements for IDN registrations to guide the policy-making community. And finally, resolved, the ICANN board requests staff to consider the resulting technical recommendations as essential for the introduction of IDN at the top level in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Susan. Is there a second for these resolutions? I see Paul Twomey seconding them. Susan, I want to congratulate you on two things. First of all, spelling out all the acronyms is a really good idea, and second that you spoke slowly and clearly for our scribes. Thank you. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: You are welcome. >>VINT CERF: Is there any other discussion or commentary on these resolutions? >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: This is pretty exciting. We have you had have some discussion about this. >>VINT CERF: I think it's all right. I think that it's very clear from the "whereas" sections that we all care very deeply about making progress here. So without further ado, I will call on the board to, by a show of hands, approve these resolutions. All those in favor, please raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. It is unanimous, Mr. Secretary. Now it turns out that it isn't enough to make technical progress on Internationalized Domain Names if we aren't quite sure what to do with them or how to treat them. So there also is an acknowledgment on policy progress regarding IDNs, and I would like to call on Steve Goldstein to introduce that resolution. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Chair. Yes, as Vint says, this is yet another set of resolutions pertaining to IDNs. Again, I think it should illustrate and emphasize to our constituencies in general the importance that ICANN places on the introduction of IDNs. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all these IDN resolutions coming forth. I would like also to point out that this set of resolutions and the recitations, just as the previous one, does our best to incorporate the wishes expressed yesterday by Khaled Fattal in the clause that will read or reads in both of these sets, "Whereas the ICANN board remains committed to the development and deployment of IDNs that enable people to use domain names with characters other than A through Z and 0 through 9, and at the same time, benefit from the promise of a single interoperable Internet." In any set of framing, we go through considerable edits and wordsmithing. And I can see that there was just some last-minute wordsmithing this morning. But I hope that this goes a long way to satisfy the request that you brought up yesterday, Khaled. So we have our alphabet soup here again because all of our constituent bodies and advisory groups, the Generic Names Supporting Organization, the country code name supporting organization, the Governmental Advisory Committee, and the At-Large Advisory Committee, have all collaborated on this issue, are all addressing policy issues. And a joint effort involving the ccNSO and the GAC has made considerable progress publishing a list of issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. Whereas the ICANN community is discussing the details involved in using an interim approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO 3166 two-letter codes to meet the near-term demands and to gain experience with mechanisms for selection and authorization of such TLDs that can inform a policy development process aimed at creating an overall policy. Again, whereas the ICANN board remains committed to the development and deployment of IDNs that enable people to use domain names with characters other than A through Z and 0 through 9, and at the same time benefit from the promise of a single interoperable Internet. And that's, I think, so far pretty dense recitations. What I believe we are referring to is a -- is some early implementations once we get by the testing phase, of very quickly getting some IDNs into the root zone. And there are a lot of policy issues that revolve around this. So it's not just technical. And, in fact, at that point, the policy issues may be the dominating issues. And until the policy issues are resolved, progress can be slowed, if not halted, so some considerations are being given to refer to the 31- -- to the 3166-1 tables to see if they can be used as a basis for quickly getting some ccTLD equivalents or analogs, I'm sorry, analogs, into the zone file. And, basically, it's the policy issues surrounding that that we're talking about here. So resolved, the ICANN board respectfully requests that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, the ccNSO, the GAC, and the ALAC, provide the board with responses to the published list of issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. The board requests status reports regarding progress by the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007. And resolved, the ICANN board respectfully requests that the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC continue to work collaboratively, taking the technical limitations and requirements into consideration, to explore both an interim and an overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes and recommend a course of action to the board in a timely manner. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much. Are there any comments -- I'm sorry. Is there a second for the resolutions? I see Dave Wodelet's hand up. Are there any further comments on this resolution before we go to a vote? Paul Twomey. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. I just -- I know we've discussed this a lot in the community this week, so I don't want to add to that. But I think for an external audience, I just want to point out the extreme importance here of the way in which, to use the wording of the World Summit on the Information Society, we have enhanced cooperation being undertaken in great detail between governments, country code operators, technical community, and representatives of users of the Internet in thinking through what is a very difficult issue but what is a fundamentally very significant issue for use of the domain name system, particularly in parts of the world where Roman characters are not commonly used. This is a very significant example of the multistakeholder model really working to ensure good Internet governance. And I would hope that people who are watching this area carefully will note the emerging discussion amongst the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Country Code Name Supporting Organization about both an interim action for near-term demand and a long-term policy perspective and will recognize that the discussion that is significantly going to affect their interests is presently taking place inside those two organizations. So that the discussions which will be setting the actions that will affect the interests of many Internet communities and related governments are presently being discussed in the Governmental Advisory Committee and in the County Code Name Supporting Organization. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Paul. It seems to me very critical here to make two points. The first one is that the discussions taking place in the GAC and in the ccNSO might well result in outcomes that would be of interest to other constituencies, and it's very important that their views also be heard. And the second one is that the sense of interim measures or, you know, multitrack measures and the like in some sense implicitly assumes that the track that we are on fails to complete quickly enough or that it has no potential possibility of producing an opportunity for an early implementation. So I want to suggest that we not accidentally think we have to do things in parallel when we could in fact go down a main track and have an opportunity to implement something sooner if all things that are needed are in fact in place. All right. Any other comments on this resolution? In that case, I'll -- oh, I'm sorry. Janis Karklins. And was there someone else that had a hand up that I didn't see? Janis, you were -- >>JANIS KARKLINS: I think that David's asking -- >>VINT CERF: Dave Wodelet. Oh, I'm sorry, David -- no? Okay. Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you, Vint. This issue, indeed, took prominent place in the work of the Government Advisory Committee in the runup to this meeting, as well as during this meeting. We -- I would like to put on record our appreciation to the ccNSO Council in a way how we interact with each other in developing this set of issues. I think you are right saying that this is an extremely complex issue. And as we -- when we read through these questions which now need to be answered, we may think that this will take considerable time. But, of course, the pressure is -- the pressure to introduce IDNs in the root in many countries is very strongly present, and we need to reflect in the best possible way how to address those pressing issues, pressing need to be able to operate the Internet in different scripts and thus bring more people to the community of Internet users. So we certainly stand ready to continue our work. And we will try to develop or start developing answers to the set of issues and will inform the board and the community on developments already in the Los Angeles meeting. Two more points. I think it is very good that the board on so short notice, since the list of issues was presented to the board only yesterday, found the possibility to react and propose this draft resolution for adoption. We are not losing time, and that gives a very positive signal to the GAC and I believe also to the ccNSO Council, who is awaiting this signal from the board. And the last comment. I think it is very good that the board is suggesting to engage in discussion on possible answers to the list of issues, also other communities and other organizations, like GNSO and ALAC. It is important. This is a collaborative effort. And we're looking forward to working with all interested parties in developing the answers. Maybe only one suggestion to the text of the resolution. That would be -- maybe that would be useful to put URL to the site where the list of issues will be published on the ICANN Web site. I think it is not yet published. But if we could sort of put a place mark and add the URL once the list of issues is published, I think that would be useful. >>VINT CERF: Certainly either -- we may not need to amend the resolution for that purpose. It will be part of the record. But, in any case, points well taken that we want people to see that list. Are there any other comments before we call for a vote? All those in favor of these resolutions, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you. It is unanimous, Mr. Secretary. The next item on the agenda is the -- a resolution regarding deployment of IPv6. And I'd like to just note how many important new things that are happening to the Internet are showing up now on the ICANN board agenda, which says that we are really in for some interesting and changing times in the next 12 months. Dave Wodelet, could I ask you to introduce this resolution. >>DAVE WODELET: Yes. I'd be pleased to, Mr. Chairman. Is this working? >> Get closer. >>DAVE WODELET: Up my nostril, as Vint suggested earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an appointed member from the Address Supporting Organization, I am certainly very pleased to be able to introduce this resolution on IPv6 deployment. As we although, there has been a great deal of discussion on IPv6 deployment at this meeting and previous meetings, and I suspect future meetings as well, as we near IPv4 exhaustion in just a few short years. Therefore, I'd like to propose that, whereas, the unallocated pool of IPv4 address space held by the IANA and the Regional Internet Registries is projected to be fully distributed within a few years; Whereas, the future growth of the Internet therefore increasingly depends on the availability and timely deployment of IPv6; Whereas, the ICANN board and community agree with the call to action from the Address Supporting Organization and the Number Resource Organization, the Regional Internet Registries, the Government Advisory Committee, and others, to participate in raising awareness of this situation and promoting solutions; The board expresses its confidence in the Internet community to meet the challenge to its future prospects and expresses its confidence in the bottom-up, inclusive, stakeholder-driven processes in place to provide any needed policy changes. And; The board further resolves to work with the Regional Internet Registries and other stakeholders to promote education and outreach, with the goal of supporting the future growth of the Internet by encouraging the timely deployment of IPv6. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, David. I couldn't possibly think of anything more critical at this point, given all the reports coming about IPv4. Is there a second nor resolution? I see Raimundo Beca has his hand up. Is there any further discussion of this resolution before we vote on it? I don't see any. So all those in favor of this resolution, please raise -- oh, I'm sorry, Raimundo, you had a comment. Yes, go ahead. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you very much, Vint. I would like to underline how important it is that the users take the decisions on time. The dates have now been clarified. Some of the RIRs have been exchanging in these days some statements even with dates, in particular. And an effort has been called by the RIRs to users to take their decision and to deploy their IPv6 facilities. One main idea which has been stressed out is the fact that, well, you know, in any computing facilities, you always have a plan on the deployment of your activities. All companies have their strategic plan, their operating plan, their three-year plan or four-year plan. Well, it's time that these plans of the companies should include the deployment of the IPv6. And the call is to underline the necessity for all users to introduce in their planning activities the deployment of the IPv6. >>VINT CERF: Thank you, Raimundo. Any other comments? Well, I'll call for a show of hands. All those in favor of the resolution, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you very much. The resolution passes unanimously, Mr. Secretary. The next item on the agenda has to do with the review and potential improvement of the Generic Names Supporting Organization. I'd like to call on Rita to introduce this resolution. >>RITA RODIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas, articles IV, section 4 of ICANN's bylaws calls for periodic reviews of the performance and operation of each supporting organization, each supporting organization council, each advisory committee, other than the Governmental Advisory Committee, and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. Whereas, these reviews are part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement and are intended to ensure an independent examination of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN. Whereas, independent reviews of the GNSO and the GNSO Council were completed and submitted to the board. Whereas, the board created the Board Governance Committee/GNSO review working group -- say that six times fast -- to consider the independent reviews and other relevant input, and recommend to the committee a comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations, and communications. Whereas, the working group posted a working draft and supporting documents which present the group's initial ideas and pose key questions regarding GNSO improvements on which public comment has been and continues to be sought. Whereas, public forums were held in Lisbon and San Juan at which the community discussed the proposed draft and areas of emerging agreement, possible recommendations, and questions about how to improve the GNSO's inclusiveness and representativeness, while at the same time increasing its effectiveness and efficiency. Whereas, the public comment period comments on the working draft is continuing, and the working group encourages additional comments from the community. Whereas, the working group will consider all input and develop a new draft of proposed recommendations for additional public comment and Board Governance Committee consideration, after which the board will act on final proposed recommendations on GNSO improvements. It's resolved that the ICANN board acknowledges with gratitude the work of the community and the working group and encourages additional public comment and stakeholder input on the draft and ideas for appropriate GNSO changes. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Rita. Is there a second for this resolution? Vanda has her hand up. Is there any further discussion of the resolution? Rita. >>RITA RODIN: Not really discussion, Vint. I just want to note, we've had some comments from the community which we heard at both the GNSO improvement forum and sort of around this week that the draft was posted and people want additional time to review and comment. So I just want to reiterate that the session that we had on Monday was really meant to be sort of a primer and an introduction to some of the issues. The board and specifically the working group has heard many of the comments in the community, and we really both look forward to getting your comments, but really do encourage you to take a look at that draft, and please submit written comments to us for our consideration. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: Thanks, Rita. Are there any other comments? In that case, I'll proceed to a vote. All those in favor of this resolution, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the resolution passes unanimously. There are two other additional business matters that need to be attended to that were not on the original agenda. One of them I'd like to call on Peter Dengate Thrush to introduce. This has to do with the President's Strategy Committee. So, Peter, you have the floor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As co-chair of the President's Strategy Committee, I just thought it might be helpful to give the board a brief update. Members of the board will recall that the board adopted the President's Strategy Committee final report in Lisbon and instructed the committee to collect further information and do further work. Members of that committee present here in San Juan met here and reviewed the work done since Lisbon. We also looked at our work schedule to deal with meeting the information and other instructions that we got from the board in Lisbon, and bearing in mind that our report did undertake to complete some of this work in 2007, and to say that we're expecting to have our further meeting with the community -- further meeting possibly with the community at the Los Angeles meeting. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Peter. I also understand that Paul Twomey has some material to introduce on the strategic plan. So, Paul, let me offer the floor to you now. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Vint. And it's been commented several times today that the strategic plan is the process whereby we start the informing of the operational plan and the budget process for next year. The strategic plan consultations start as of this meeting, and the aim is that they will be conducted for confirmation at the -- well, it had been originally considered they would be started for confirmation at the annual general meeting, but because the annual general meeting is actually going to be quite early this year, in October, it is likely that they will be confirmed by the board in -- by December. But October will actually give us another opportunity for consultation. But just to report to you the progress today. It is actually still -- the planning process is running according to the schedule, which is available through the Web site. And there were some very successful sessions conducted this week. There was a specific session conducted for the Caribbean. There was a session conducted in French and in Spanish, which were fruitful. They're always very fruitful, the sessions held in languages apart from English. The public forum for comments is open. And that can be found at ICANN.org/planning. And I want to pick up a suggestion made by I think it was Theresa Swinehart, which I think is a good one that we'll include within the strategic planning process, which is that we'll ensure a review of all the communiques and public expressions by the supporting organizations and advisory committees over the recent time to make certain the things that have been raised in those communiques either by the Governmental Advisory Committee or the GNSO Council or others is incorporated into this consultation framework. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Paul. It's nice to see a process that is operating more or less as planned. We have just two other items on the agenda. I'd like to note that there is a face missing from the board now because the longstanding vice chair, Alex Pisanty, ended his term in early June, the 8th, I believe. So he isn't here. In fact, he's in Mexico City at the moment. We would like to recognize his contributions to ICANN. But in his absence, it feels like it's inadequate. So what I am proposing to do is to read a resolution for board approval, but also to say that we are going to invite Alex to the Los Angeles meeting, where we can properly recognize, in a public setting, his longstanding service to the board. But I would ask your patience while I read a resolution recognizing Alex, for the record, until we can do something a little bit more celebratory. Whereas, Alejandro Pisanty was elected by the Domain Name Supporting Organization to serve on the first elected ICANN board starting at the annual meeting in 1999; Was elected by the DNSO to a second term starting in mid-2003; Was elected by the Generic Names Supporting Organization to a final term on the board that expired on June 8th, 2007; Was elected vice chair of the ICANN board at the annual meeting in 2001, and served in this position through the annual meeting in 2006; Served as chair of the ICANN Committee on Evolution and Reform from its formation at the annual meeting in 2001 through implementation of its recommendations; Served as chair of the Board Governance Committee from 2004 to 2006; Served as a member of the Executive Committee from 2000 through 2006, a member of the finance committee in 2004 and 2006, a member of the Reconsideration Committee from 2001 through June 2003, and co-chair of the ICANN Board and Governmental Advisory Group Joint Working Group. That should read Governmental Advisory Committee Joint Working Group. Whereas, Alejandro Pisanty has tirelessly served the board and virtually all aspects of the ICANN and Internet communities with brilliance, energy, distinction, panache, and a devastating ironic wit; Whereas, he has contributed in countless ways to the successes of ICANN with his unique blend of technical, diplomatic, and collaborative skills; Now, therefore, it is resolved that the ICANN board offers its sincere and heartfelt gratitude for his long and diligent service and conveys its best wishes for success in his university roles and expresses its great appreciation for his continued service to the Internet community in the Internet Governance Forum, as a leader of the Internet Society, and, more generally, as an unflagging advocate for the spread of the Internet to all who wish to use it. I ask that we adopt this resolution by acclamation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Chairman, just a suggestion about how we deal with this resolution. I think it's very, very good that we have today read this resolution into the record, because this is the first opportunity since Alejandro retired. We could perhaps adjourn this motion until Los Angeles, where he will be present. >>VINT CERF: What a good idea. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And we can carry it by acclamation. >>VINT CERF: Excellent. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's on the record. I suggest we adjourn it, and when he's here, we carry it by acclamation with him present. >>VINT CERF: The Americans would say we table it. But it's okay. I think we get the point. That's a very good idea. Thank you, Counselor. So at this point, without objection, the resolution is adjourned or tabled until Los Angeles. Thank you, sir. Much appreciated. Last item on the agenda is a thank you to the staff, the scribes, event teams, and local hosts. And after I have completed reading this particular resolution, I'm going to ask our local host, Oscar Moreno, to join us on the stage so he can assist in making thanks to the local sponsors. So I'd like to assemble all of that together. So when I complete the reading of this, I would ask that you withhold your frenetic applause until we get Oscar up here in order to thank everyone. But for the record, the board wishes to extend its thanks to the Gauss Research Laboratory and its Managing Director, Dr. Oscar Moreno, for hosting the ICANN meeting. The board would also like to thank Meredith Atwell Baker the deputy assistant secretary of the Department of the Commerce; Brad Weiner, Dean of the faculty of Natural Sciences at the University of Puerto Rico; Boris Jaskille, Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company; and Bernadette Lewis, Secretary General of the Secretariat of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, for participating in the welcome ceremony. The board also thanks those who worked with the local hosts to make this a successful meeting. The board expresses its appreciation to the scribes, Laura Brewer, Teri Darrenougue, Jennifer Schuck and Charles Motter, to ICANN staff present here in San Juan, and to the rest of the ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting. The board also wishes to express its appreciation to all the Gauss Research Laboratory staff and the students of the University of Puerto Rico for support of meeting arrangements, Centennial Communications and JW Technology Service for bandwidth and wireless support; Media Stage, Incorporated, for audio/visual support; Sizzling Ideas Event Designers and ICCS for staging and setups. And additional thanks to the Caribe Hilton for this fine facility and to their event facilities and support. And now I would like Oscar to please join me on the stage if he would help me in giving thanks to the local sponsors. You need a microphone. Come up on the stage here. There you go. >>OSCAR MORENO: Yes, I want to thank actually, first of all, ICANN for their helping making -- realize this conference. And in particular, in ICANN I would like to thank Dr. Cerf, Dr. Paul Twomey, and all the staff. Furthermore, second I would like to thank the participants of this community for their kindness throughout this week. Third, I would like to thank the sponsors, and in particular, they are Centennial, dot US, cira, Afilias, auda, VeriSign, dot org, DENIC, JW, dot mobi, PRIDCO, the Puerto Rican Tourism Company, InterNetX, LogicBoxes, Skenzo, MarkMonitor, Junta Reglamentadora de Telecomunicaciones, nicMX, Domain Distribution, dot EH, IBM, Lenovo, and AgroExport. So I would like to thank all the staff from the Gauss Research Laboratory as well as dot PR and also the students of the University of Puerto Rico for their help. And then so I guess that's all. Thank you very much to all of you [ Applause ] >>VINT CERF: This is a little something to thank you for an endless amount of work. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>VINT CERF: Well, and that, ladies and gentlemen, completes this board meeting in Puerto Rico. We look forward to seeing you all of you in Los Angeles, and before that, of course, on the net. This meeting is adjourned. (11:02 p.m.)