GNSO Working Session
23 October 2009
Seoul, North Korea

>>AVRI DORIA:  Hello.  Okay.  Can people find seats so we can get
this thing started?  

All right.  While it's quiet, let me jump in and start.  Good morning.

This meeting that I am kicking off -- oh, and I was supposed to let
people know in the back that we were starting.  I apologize.  We're
starting.

This meeting which I am kicking off is a house meeting of the
noncontracted parties house, which I started writing as -- what? --
"NCP," just to create yet another acronym but have been very grateful
for the acronym collector that's been put up.

And so in terms of agenda -- and I'm going to ask people to go
around and introduce themselves at first, but in terms of kicking
this off, I wanted to talk about the agenda because several people
have asked me and I also wanted to bring up one issue.

In terms of the agenda, what we had originally written was "Choosing
a vice chair for the house" and "Housekeeping."

Now, at the moment, I need to ask to add one thing before that,
which is picking your candidate for the chair role.  Each of the
houses were asked to take the three nominees, and from the three
nominees pick one of them as the candidate they wanted to put forward.

This is based on the new council procedures.

That hasn't happened yet, so the first thing I've asked both -- I'm
asking this group and I've asked the other house to do is to try and
come up with your chair candidate, then the vice chair.  

Then under "Housekeeping," the reason I've got that rubric is
because as you've probably noticed, there are no rules or practices
or anything about how houses do stuff.  Part of the reason for that --
and just a little bit of an historical is -- houses were just
supposed to be counting fictions.  In other words, when ballots were
counted in the council, they were counted according to house, and
percentages and thresholds were based upon membership in a house of
the council members.

But even at the very beginning of "house purely as a counting
entity," the notion of a vice from each house was determined.

So all of a sudden, even with that act, the house started to become
a little bit more of a thing in itself than just a counting fiction.

And now, of course, with the new council operating procedures also
putting the duty of picking a candidate for chair on the house,
that's yet another thing that houses have to figure out how to do. 
So that was the reason for calling it "Housekeeping."  

And as I say, I am not, at the moment, part of this house as a
council because as a council member, I still am a NomCom appointee
and not a member of the house.  I have, of course, as is well known,
joined a house, but that's for later when I stop being a NomCom
appointee.

So that said.

Now, the last thing I wanted to bring up was an issue that was
brought up to me at the beginning.  

As people probably noticed, we have the scribes scribing, as we do
at all of the council's open meetings..  

(a) this is not a council open meeting.  

(b), various people have said, "Gee, for this kind of meeting, do we
really need or want scribing?"

I understand that the leadership in the registry/registrar house, or
the contracted parties house meeting, has -- as opposed to the
noncontracted parties -- has decided not to have scribing, so I just
wanted to put that on the table.  

And that was pretty of the last thing I wanted to say to get things
kicked off.  

I think people should go around and introduce themselves and maybe
while they're introducing themselves, they can give an opinion on
scribing or non-scribing, and we can see where we're at.

So J. Scott, would you like to give your name and your view on
scribing or not scribing?

>>STEVE METALITZ:  As long as you don't have to scribe.

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I'm J. Scott Evans.  I'm with the IPC.  I'm from
Yahoo, Inc., and I'm the incoming president of the IPC.  

With regards to scribing and non-scribing, I really don't have a
view one way or another.  It really depends on what the purpose of
the meeting is.  So...

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.

>>STEVE METALITZ:  I'm Steve Metalitz from the intellectual property
constituency.  I'm a member of the executive committee of the
commercial stakeholders group, one of the components of this house,
and I don't -- I have no objection to scribing, if people think it
would be useful.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Kristina Rosette, IPC representative on the
GNSO council, and notwithstanding my reputation for wanting to keep
all things secret, I really have no preference and will go with the
flow on this one.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Rosemary Sinclair, and I think I'm going to
get my title right, but I'm one of the newly appointed council
members representing, I think, the noncommercial stakeholder group,
so I'm really looking forward to the couple of days of meetings and
I'm really pleased to be here.

In terms of scribing, I guess I'm usually comfortable with records
of important discussions being kept, but the level of detail allowing
for free-flowing discussion.  

So maybe I'm having a each-way bid here, Avri.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  And welcome.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  And I apologize for not welcoming the rest of you,
but I've seen so you often.  But she's new.

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Alan Greenberg, the liaison from the ALAC.

I have no strong preference, although I think I sort of side with
Rosemary's last comment that if scribing will inhibit some people,
it's better to not have it, and I don't see a counter one, so if I
have a small preference for not scribing just because I think we need
to be as open as possible.  

Given the number of observers in this room who have their own tape
recorders, we don't know who's going to record it anyway.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Ron Andruff, business constituency, and I would vote
for scribing, Chair, simply because there are many who can't attend
this meeting.  It would be good to be able to look back at the
record.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

>>CLAUDIO DiGANGI:  Claudio DiGangi.  I work on staff for the
International Trademark Association.  We're a member of the IPC.

I'm also an alternate on the executive committee of the commercial
stakeholder group.  I have no objection to the scribe.

>>MARILYN CADE:  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm a member of the
business constituency.  I have a strong preference for scribing and
offer two rationales for that.  

There are many people, due to the time difference, who may not be
able to participate remotely but will be following and will be
interested and will want to tweet, e-mail, and SMS their elected
representatives to give them guidance on any decisions they make.

Secondly, I think we could observe the following option:  If it
becomes necessary to go into executive session, you can stop the
recording for a very brief period of time, announce you're going to
do that to allow negotiations or executive session, and then go back
in -- then open it back up.  

I've seen that done very effectively in a number of other meetings.

I think in the interest of openness and transparency, where
possible, we all have consistently urged the board to be more open,
we've urged the GAC to be more open, so perhaps we should strive to
practice that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

>>MARY WONG:  Hi.  I'm Mary Wong, one of the existing and continuing
councillors for the NCUC -- now NCSG -- and I have a strong
preference for scribing for all the reasons that Marilyn has mentioned.

>>ROBIN GROSS:  Hi.  My name is Robin Gross.  I'm the chair of the
noncommercial users constituency, and I also have a very strong
preference for scribing.  I think we -- it's important that we try to
be as open and transparent as we can, and, you know, we've got people
back home who are relying on us to represent them and looking to
these conversations to see what's happening at this meeting and I
think, you know, we have a responsibility to be as open and
transparent as possible.  Thanks.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  I realized that when I started this
meeting, I didn't introduce myself.

I'm Avri Doria, the outgoing chair of the GNSO Council, and soon to
be a member, an active member, of the NCUC.  In fact, am a member of
the NCUC at the moment, but still participating until my term ends on
Tuesday evening as an NCA.

And, yes, I tend to think we should scribe everything.

>>WILLIAM DRAKE : I'm Bill Drake.  I'm also at NCUC and NCSG as a
councillor, and I am strongly for scribing and transparency in
everything.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  Wendy Seltzer.  I will be joining you as a new
councillor from the NCUC/NCSG, currently serving as at-large liaison
to the board, and so therefore, just an observer right now, but as an
observer, I always prefer transparency of the organizations that I
observe, and as a participant, I prefer transparency as well.

>>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN:  Wolf-Ulrich Knoben.  I'm from the ISPCP and a
newly appointed councillor.  

Right now, I do not have any objection with regards to scribing. 
Thank you.

>>TONY HOLMES:  Tony Holmes, chair of the ISP constituency, and I'm
happy to go with whatever is the favored decision.  I have no strong
views.

>>TONY HARRIS:  I'm Tony Harris, with the ISP constituency, and I
have no objection to scribing.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Good morning.  I am Debbie Hughes, from the Red
Cross, and I, like, Rosemary, am one of the new councillors that's
been appointed by ICANN, and I certainly support scribing.

>>AVRI DORIA: And welcome.

>>DEBRA HUGHES:  Thank you.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Good morning.  Welcome to the new councillors.  My
name is Olga Cavalli.  I am a NomCom appointee, and I think
transcribing could be good for transparency and for people not
attending the meeting.  Thank you.

>>RAFIK DAMMAK: Hello.  I am Rafik Dammak, and I am a new appointed
GNSO Councillor, and I have a strong preference for scribing.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  And welcome.

>>JAIME WAGNER: My name is Jaime Wagner.  I'm from the ISPCP
constituency, and I have no strong feelings about anything.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Welcome.  You will get them.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  My name is Philip Sheppard.  I've been a member
of the GNSO since 1795. 

I can't have a stop clock going counting away the hours until I'm no
longer. 

And I really don't care.

>>AVRI DORIA:  So Tuesday evening is important for you as well.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Mike Rodenbaugh, GNSO Councillor from the
business constituency.  No objection to scribing.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Zahid Jamil, business constituency councillor to the
GNSO.  Again, no objection to scribing.

>>LIZ GASSTER:  Liz Gasster, ICANN policy staff.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  We also have a roving mic.  I'd like to
pass it around to the people in the back so you can introduce
yourselves as well.  You've got it in your hand, so why don't you
start over there.

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: I was just holding that.  

I am Amadeu Abril i Abril.  I'm not a member individually of any of
these constituencies.  I have a general preference for scribing, if
you can afford that.

>>ROGER GAMPER: Hello.  I'm Roger from CORE.  I'm just listening here.

>>JOLDEN JOHNNYBOY: Good morning.  Jolden Johnnyboy, Federated
States of Micronesia.  I'm an ICANN fellowship.  Specifically, I'm
with government.  I'm here as an observer.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Welcome.

>>DAVE KISSOONDOYAL: Dave Kissoondoyal, NomCom appointee to ALAC.  I
have no objection to scribing.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.

>>KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Hello.  Konstantinos Komaitis, member of
the NCUC, and I'm in favor of scribing.

>>KATHY KLEIMAN: Kathy Kleiman, cofounder of the NCUC years ago when
we did this process the first time, and scribing is great.  Let's
scribe.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS: Liz Williams with CORE.  

>>REBECCA MacKINNON: Hi.  I just walked in, so I'm a bit confused
about why we're going around.  My name is Rebecca MacKinnon.  I'm
from Hong Kong, the United States, and various other places.  

I'm affiliated with the NCUC and, sure, why not scribe.

>>MARTIN SUTTON: Martin Sutton, business constituency.  And, yes,
please scribe.

>>NANCY HEGARTY: Nancy Hegarty, Thomson Reuters.  And, yes, please
scribe.

>>VICTORIA CARRINGTON: Victoria Carrington, Shapiro Cohen, Ottawa,
Canada, IPC member.  Please scribe.

>>JONATHAN COHEN: Jonathan Cohen, Shapiro Cohen, Ottawa, Canada,
longtime ICANN groupie.

>>CAROLINE GREER: Hi.  Caroline Greer from dot mobi, member of the
registries constituency and I just arrived.

>>FLÁVIO RECH WAGNER: I'm Flávio Rech Wagner, from the President's
Internet Steering Committee.  I'm in favor of scribing.

>>ALAIN BIDRON: Alain Bidron, member of the ISPCP constituency.  I
have a very strong preference for scribing for the reasons explained
clearly by Marilyn.

>>SCOTT McCORMICK: Scott McCormick, business constituency member, in
favor of scribing.

>>JIM BASKIN: Jim Baskin, Verizon Communications, part of the
business constituency, and I can neither confirm nor deny that we
would want scribing. I think it would be okay.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I thank everybody for introducing themselves. 
I am really excited to sort of see that the house meeting has started
with one of its first acts being a consensus.  

Even though there were a few other opinions, they weren't strongly-
held opinions, so hopefully no one minds me saying that we actually
had our first consensus in this house on allowing the house meetings
to be scribed, and I think that's a good start.

[Applause]

>>AVRI DORIA:  So now the next issue that I put on -- 

Did anybody object to the agenda that I had set out?  First figure
out who -- okay.  I'll just go through the agenda.

First, figure out who your candidate for chair is.  Then figure out
who your vice is.  And then start talking about everything else it
means to be a house.

Yes.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Thank you, Avri.  I have a -- I just have a point
of clarification.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm a member of the
business constituency.  Just for the purpose of scribing, I think it
might be useful to acknowledge that there may be a need to take break
times in which constituencies or sub-houses -- is that what we think
of -- half houses?  Whatever --

>>AVRI DORIA:  No.  Stakeholder groups.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Stakeholder groups.  Thank you.  God, I got to
practice this.

Stakeholder groups might need to take consultation with not only
elected officers, but also any members who are here.  Is that worked -
- is that possible in the agenda, to work that in?

>>AVRI DORIA: Unless there's an objection.  I mean, this is very
loose but I think at any point at which several people start saying,
"We need a break to go off and huddle," or whatever people do when
they have a break, I think that that's fine.

Okay.  So in terms of the chair, we have three nominees.  

One nominee was nominated by the -- someone in the noncommercial
users constituency and seconded by someone in the commercial
stakeholder group.  I guess it was in the ISPCP.

We have another candidate -- and that's Olga.

We have another candidate -- nominee.  I'm trying to distinguish,
and I trip over this myself, having three nominees, needing to pick
two candidates, just to try and keep the vocabulary separate.  

We have another nominee who is from the registrar stakeholder group,
and Stéphane, who was nominated -- I forgot by whom, but was seconded
by Chuck.  No.  He was seconded by Chuck, not nominated by Chuck.  I
forget who nominated him.  Adrian.

Then we have Chuck, from the registries stakeholder group, who was
nominated by -- again, I forget who, but seconded by Stéphane.  It's
easy to remember who seconded who.

So we have those three nominees. 

As the rules of the game were set out, there's no binding on any of
the houses to pick the candidate or to pick as candidate a nominee
from their house, but, you know, that's where the discussion is now.

There's an option, obviously, at the end of the day, of taking a
vote of all the council members.  Of course we'd have to figure out,
since it's a house, council member past or present.  I don't
understand.  Is it a vote of the executive committees?  Which it
could be.  

As we say, houses haven't figured out how they're doing stuff
together yet.  

So if we can come to consensus, it will be easy.  If we can't come
to consensus and we have to vote on it in some way, then we have to
figure out how we vote on it in some way.

You had your hand up.  Oh, okay.  And one of the things I did want
to remind people is to -- as I was reminded when Marilyn spoke, give
your name when you speak for the scribing.  

And to the scribing, thank you.  And even though I said you were
going to get to possibly leave, I apologize for you having to stay. 
But I'm happy.

So who would like to start figuring out how we figure out -- I mean,
basically this is -- I mean, I'm initiating this meeting, but it's
you all that got to figure this out.  Yes, Steve.

>>STEVE METALITZ:  This is Steve Metalitz.  Maybe the simplest way
to do this, as I understand it -- and I recognize I could be totally
off base here -- what we're doing at this point is deciding which --
since there are going to be -- there are going to end up being two
candidates for GNSO Council chair and one candidate has to come from
this house, we're here to decide who that candidate will be.

It is not -- we are not here voting for who should be council chair.  

Is that correct?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Correct.  Right.

>>STEVE METALITZ:  Okay.  In that case, I think since we have one
candidate who comes from this house, or has been nominated by both --
someone from both stakeholder groups within this house, I think the
easiest and most appropriate thing to do would be for us to, with --
you know, by acclamation or whatever, however we could do it so we
don't actually have to formally figure out how to vote, we should say
that Olga is the candidate from -- nominated by this house, so that
she would be one of the candidates, and then the contracted parties
house would figure out who is that candidate, and then ultimately the
council will vote between those two candidates.

If that's correct, then I guess my suggestion would be that we state
that Olga is the candidate nominated by this house, to be one of the
two candidates on whom councillors will ultimately vote.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Yeah.  I just want to add one
small thing and then I'll come to other people.  

It's:  There could be two candidates -- there could theoretically be
just one candidate, if both houses happen to pick the same person. 
And in all of the elections, there will also be a "none of the above"
option.  

So nobody is a third option, but...

Okay.  And then I had Robin and then I had Marilyn and I don't know
if I had anybody on that side.

 >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah, I just wanted to support what Steve said that,
you know, here's a rare opportunity where we've got the commercial
folks and the noncommercial folks have been nominated and seconded
the same candidates.  So I think this would be a really good
opportunity to build upon that kind of consensus.  And I think Olga
should be our candidate.

Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you.  Marilyn Cade.  I need more
clarification.  I thought I studied ahead and behind as well on this.
So the -- let me understand the relationship between the two election
cycles, one being chair, one being vice chair.  So -- and I should
have asked this question before.  So there is a candidate or two
candidates that could be put forward by this house.

 >>AVRI DORIA: No.

 >>MARILYN CADE: There's only one candidate --

 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  Basically, the way the operating procedures
have been written, which, hopefully, get approved on Wednesday
morning, but the ones we're following for this election, is that each
house gets to put forward a candidate out of the nominated pool.

 >>MARILYN CADE: So my second question is:  At what point would --
since that candidate might or might not win, at what point are
candidates who are nominated for the chair position, which they might
or might not win, also able to be nominated for the vice chair
position.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  That is a really good open question.  And I
think you get two answers on it.  One is, after we finish this bit
with the chair, we go into talking about the vice chair.  You can opt
to elect a vice chair at that point.  I think you can very well say
the person we just nominated for chair we nominate for vice chair
also.  And then, should she want to be -- I mean, there's lots of
hypotheticals in this particular answer.  

Should she want to be nominated for vice chair, should she win vice
chair, and then should she later win chair, she would drop out of
being vice chair and you'd have to elect another vice chair.  

Or you could say oops, that's too complicated.  Let's wait until the
end.  

Now, in general ongoing practice, it's normally been the vice chairs
have been elected after the chair elections.  In this case, I've sort
of forced it to the front.  And I admit having been largely
responsible for that.  Because you've got a charter and a bylaws rule
that says, if the council can't elect a chair, then the two vice
chairs, in other words, I'm -- I'm chair for this meeting as I'm
chair now.  And then come Wednesday I'm nonmember chair until such
time as you elect a chair or the meeting is over.  So, when the
meeting is over, you've either got to have a chair or you've at least
got to have two vice chairs that could take over as interim chair.

 >>MARILYN CADE: I have a followup.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Sure.

 >>MARILYN CADE: It is also possible -- Marilyn Cade again. It is
also possible, it seems to me, Avri, that we could choose an acting
chair or an acting vice chair until -- I don't think we should be
driving -- I don't think we should exclude candidates because we have
a process that perhaps was not well thought through when we put it
together, right?  And so forcing the selection of the vice chair
before the chair is chosen, I don't think is a good practice at all. 
And I think it was an accident of crafting.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I think it was an accident of -- in -- any time you
do a transition from one set of rules to another set of rules, there
are a couple awkwardnesses.  I think that, after we finish the chair,
that's when we'll open up discussions on how to do a vice chair. 
And, if you guys want to pick a temporary vice chair until you hold
an election or whatever, that's your option.  I mean, it's that.

Going back to the chair, though, is there anyone that would want to
speak -- I've, basically, had two people mention that we should do
this by acclamation.  Is there anyone else that would like to comment
on that at this point?  If there's no objection, do we have
acclamation for Olga as the candidate from the noncontracted parties'
house?

[Applause]

You wanted to speak?

 >>TONY HARRIS: I wanted to say yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  I wasn't sure.

 >>TONY HARRIS: You didn't say "raise your hand" or -- 

>>AVRI DORIA:  I didn't.  I apologize.  Basically, so Olga.

>> Let's applaud.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.

[Applause]

>> That's two.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much.  I'm really honored with this
nomination for candidate for chair.  I already submitted a candidacy
statement to the GNSO, and I don't want to bother you explaining what
it says again.  Some of you know me because we have the -- the chance
to share some working teams, some working groups and drafting teams. 
Some of you are new in the GNSO, so you don't know me.  So feel free
to contact me and ask me any questions.  Some of you have already
done that in private.  Call me or we set up a conference call or just
exchange some e-mails.  

So I'm open to any comments, any questions that you want to make me
about different issues regarding what we are dealing with, the new
GTLDs, WHOIS, and many other things.  So just feel free to do that,
and thank you very much again.  Thank you very much.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  Now, as Bill pointed out, that's two
things this house has done by consensus.  I'm really quite happy. 
Now the third one. This is the vice chair.  We've got, as I said,
there's the two options.  There's elect someone now.  I don't know if
there's anyone here that even wants to be vice chair.  Vice chair is
a whole lot of work.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, please.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Would it be appropriate to move that Olga takes
over the chair of the meeting?  Would that be satisfactory --

 >>AVRI DORIA: Take over vice chair?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No, Olga simply facilitates the meeting from now
on.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  That works for me.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Might be an appropriate thing to do if the
conference facilitator and acclaimed chair candidate are happy with
that suggestion.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE: I think I actually am not sure I'm quite ready for
that, and let me explain why.  I think actually it's entirely
possible that nominations for vice chair might include Olga.  I'm not
forecasting anything.  But I'm wondering if we might not put the --
one of the candidate nominees in a position of taking on duties that
are yet to be totally determined.  It's just -- with great
recognition of Olga, that would be my proposal that we keep Avri
acting as the chair of this particular function.

 >>AVRI DORIA: If there's one thing we know about me, I will not be
a candidate for vice chair.  

Yes, Bill?  Do we have somebody on line also?

 >>BILL DRAKE: Since we're having this weird kumbaya this morning,
I'm going to support what Marilyn said.  I think that's entirely
logical given that we might want to consider Olga in that light.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Anyone else?

 >>ROBIN GROSS: I just also wanted to support what Marilyn suggested
there.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  So -- yes.  Olga?

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: About vice chairs, do we have people in this room
that would like -- I would like to know if someone wants to -- wants
to be vice chair.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I believe that we've had one person state an
interest.  I don't know if you want to restate the interest.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: You looking at me?

 >>AVRI DORIA: You're the only one I've hear state an interest.  You
stated it at least publicly enough for me to hear it.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I don't know I stated it in front of this crowd.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I didn't actually point at you.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: It's okay.  Yes, I'm willing to stand for vice
chair.  I think from the commercial stakeholder group side of things,
we haven't had any other volunteers.  And, obviously, if Olga is the
chair, I certainly think it makes sense that the vice chair should
come from our house.  And I'm happy to stand.  I'm entering my fourth
year on the council.  I think it would be a good position for me.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  Anyone else want to volunteer themselves
or volunteer someone else?  Yes, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE: I have another point of clarification.  I wonder,
though, if it wouldn't be a good opportunity for stakeholder groups
to have a brief break to discuss their preferences before we continue
this particular discussion.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Is there any objection to -- yes, Steve.

 >>STEVE METALITZ: I was just going to say, there might be one issue
that we could -- see if we could resolve before we break. And that is
Marilyn made a suggestion that perhaps we should be looking now not
to elect a vice chair but to elect a temporary vice chair pending the
outcome of the chair election.  Because, obviously, we don't know who
is going to be the candidates, the two candidates for the chair
election, we don't know who's going to win.  We don't know if
nobody's going to win.  And all of those outcomes might make a
difference in terms of our vice chair.  So I just wanted to clarify
are we talking about electing now a temporary vice chair, or are we
talking about electing a permanent vice chair?

>> Yeah.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  I saw Mike first.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think I'm leaning with where Steve is going
with this.  And, Marilyn, why do we have a vote on this at all?  Why
don't we wait and see what happens with the chair election and then
do this?

 >>AVRI DORIA: When would you do this?  As we -- in case --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: We could do it soon after this meeting.  It
doesn't have to be done here in Seoul.

 >>AVRI DORIA: You need a chair, or at least you need a vice chair --
should you not elect a chair in the council, you need to have the
vice chairs to act as acting chairs come Friday afternoon.  Because,
otherwise, there is no chair for the council come Friday afternoon. 
The way the bylaws are written, the vice chairs become interim co-
chair in the case that there is no chair.  And since there's a
possibility, as was pointed out, that someone not get the 60%
threshold in both houses, and if that happens, then you don't --
okay, I've got -- and then and then J. Scott.  And then -- okay.  So
yeah, it's yours.

 >>JAIME WAGNER: Jaime Wagner.  I would ask for clarification,
assuming we have the break Marilyn is suggesting.  From Olga, are you
also not only running for chair but also for vice chair in the event
that the chair has not made this threshold of 60%?  

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Should I respond?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Please.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: I must confess I never thought about it.  But, if --
that could be possible, yeah.  But I -- but -- well, I don't want to
over-- I can't find the word in English.  Sorry.  I speak Spanish.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm sure someone here can translate.  (Speaking
Spanish.)

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  I wouldn't go over the intentions of -- impose
myself over, for example, Mike that wants to be vice chair.  And he
has volunteered for that.  So I don't want that to be interpreted as
going over him.  I don't know if it's well said in English.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  Understood.  Thank you.

 >>TONY HOLMES: Priority has to be the appointment for chair.  But I
would suggest at the moment that the best way out of this would be,
having had the clarification from Olga that she would consider vice
chair, to appoint her as interim vice chair.  And, once the GNSO
chair has been elected, then we can have a formal election for vice
chair because we know what the situation is then and cover it off
that way.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: I guess this is sounding a little bit surreal
from my point of view.  If we have someone who is gullible enough to
have said she would be willing to be chair, if elected, and both
houses -- both stakeholder groups have supported that, why would we
not want her to be vice chair should she lose the election?  If we're
willing to trust the whole council, why wouldn't we trust the
position of helping the chair if she should not be the chair?  That's
assuming Olga is willing, of course.  But -- it seems to be the
logical path.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Have you just joined our house?  Alan?  Have you
just joined our house?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: No.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: You just said "we," which is terribly nice of
you.  I'm afraid that's going to merge, then this is good news.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: I take back the "we."

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Okay.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: You'll note, however, that I just realized
talking to someone this week that the liaison has not been attached
to any house; therefore, it belongs to neither or both.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I believe the liaison is a liaison to the council,
just like --

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: Belong to both houses.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  Just like the unassigned council member is on the
council.  Yes, J. Scott?

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS: I think we're over-politicizing and
overcomplicating this.  It seems to me, if Olga is going to run for
chair and she makes that option and her group has made that option,
that that is a role they'd like her to play if she's appointed.

 >>AVRI DORIA: She's a NomCom appointee.  She's an independent.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Or we've made the point that's the role we'd like
her to play, if she's lucky enough to be elected.  But we need to
have a vice chair in place because the rules say that we need to have
a vice chair in case the council can't get it together.  And I think
that that's our role to do that and we need to be comfortable with
that, and we don't need to be playing games with well, if A gets it,
we'll only do it temporarily and then B -- because then I think that
sets a bad precedent of bringing leaders up through the organization
and identifying new leaders.  And so I think that we what we need to
do is we need to have a firm candidate for chair and a firm elected
vice chair and be done with it.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE: I would still like to move for the ability for the
stakeholder groups to meet.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I wasn't --

 >>MARILYN CADE: Before people start closing off the option of there
being other candidates for vice chair.  Because I understand that
somebody may volunteer.  But I also understand that there may be
nominations.  And I think we need to, first of all, allow a
discussion in the stakeholder groups.  I still think -- like the word
"half house."

 >>AVRI DORIA: But stakeholder groups came first.  Houses came
second.  Is there any objection to taking a what?  15 minute -- of
course, it takes us 15 minute -- yeah -- 15 stakeholder group break
to caucus among yourselves and --

>>STEVE METALITZ:  Is there a room available for these caucuses?  

 >>AVRI DORIA: I think one group could stay here and one is -- or is
there other rooms?  I don't know.  I could go see if there's rooms. 
There's certainly the outdoor thing, but I'll see if there's another
room where you can all go.  No objection to doing that?  In which
case we're on a -- yes, please?  Jaime.

 >>JAIME WAGNER: I believe somebody raised his hand.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Somebody?  Where?

 >>JAIME WAGNER: Never mind.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Does anyone wish to speak before I break?  Okay. 
Thank you.  It is true.  I -- in all the years of chair, I haven't
learned to do that.  Okay.  Thank you.  

Have a break.  Have your caucus.  I'll go see if I can have a room
for -- who wants to stay here?  Talk among yourselves.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Personally I'm going outside because I hear there's
coffee there.

[Break] 

 >>AVRI DORIA: If people could come back, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA: 15 minutes turned into 36, but that's pretty good. 
And 15 minutes always turns into 30.  If we had said 30, it would
have been 45.  So -- but anyhow, we've got 20 minutes left before
this particular session is over.  So yes, Steve.

 >>STEVE METALITZ: Yeah, I'd like to, in terms of this vice chair
question, I would like to propose the following:  That -- and this
came out of our stakeholder group meeting just now -- that we vote
this morning or we elect this morning an interim vice chair to serve
until November 15th or until a GNSO Council chair is elected,
whichever is later; and that at that time there would be an election
for a permanent vice chair from this house.  

And the reason for this proposal is that, while there are diverse
opinions within our stakeholder group, as well as, I'm sure, within
others in this house, about who would make the best leaders, everyone
seemed to agree that, when you look at the leadership of the council,
you need to look at the whole package.  You know, we need to know who
is the chair and who -- before we can make a final choice on who
should be the vice chair.  And there's a lot of different
permutations, and you can run through all these.  But you can't
really decide these in isolation.  It's unfortunate that the way the
schedule has worked out that we've been asked to vote for a vice
chair before the election for the chair.  But, given that chronology,
we think we should be voting now for an interim vice chair and that
there be a definite commitment to an election for a permanent vice
chair either by November 15th or, if, in fact, it takes longer for
the GNSO Council to decide on a chair, it could be even later.  But
we're certainly prepared to vote on an interim vice chair on that
basis.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  Comments on that proposal?  Is that
generally acceptable to people?  Is there anyone that wants to speak
against doing an interim chair?  And it's, basically, November 15th
or a month after whenever a chair is elected?  You said "sometime
after" so --

 >>STEVE METALITZ: Either November 15th or the time a GNSO chair has
been elected, whichever is later.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So does anybody wish to comment further on that?

 >>ROBIN GROSS: I just have a question.  Sorry, this is Robin.  I
just want to make sure I understand.  You said "whichever is later,"
meaning we might -- I mean, shouldn't it be the other way?

 >>STEVE METALITZ: There are two possibilities:  Either a chair will
be elected here in Seoul or not.  If a chair is elected here in
Seoul, then we would by November 15th elect our permanent vice chair
because we'd know who is chair.  If a chair is not elected in Seoul,
I'm not guessing when that chair will be elected.  We'll have an
interim vice chair in place who can act as a co-chair.  And then,
whenever the council finally succeeds in electing a chair, we would
then select a permanent vice chair.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Can I jump in?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Let's be sure, Steve, that I understand as well. 
So, if we have an election for an interim vice chair, we -- so
there's an open election for chair.  The threshold of 60% may or may
not be met in the council --

 >>AVRI DORIA: In each house in the council.

 >>MARILYN CADE: In each house in the council.  I would assume that
while people are present physically, they would attempt to have
meetings and try to resolve the election of the chair while they're
here.  That's question number one.  And then question number two is: 
If we proceed with an election of an interim -- I just want to be
sure that Robin hears this.  If we proceed with the election of an
interim vice chair and there is an election that takes place on
November -- sorry, what date?  November 15th.

 >>AVRI DORIA: By November 15th, you said, right?

 >>MARILYN CADE: 15th.  What standing does the interim vice chair
have in that election?  The election is open to nomination from
another party who might have -- I just want to be sure we all
understand what happens in that election on November the 15th.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Should I answer the first part about the elections? 
In terms of the elections here, assuming there's two candidates,
neither one receives the 60% threshold, I'll immediately try to -- of
each house, I'll immediately try to call a -- the runoff between the
one that was in the lead on that one and the none of the above
option.  If the person still does not get 60 or there are any number
of other circumstances, then, actually, the election procedure, as
written by the operating principles, says, basically, there's -- two
weeks later, there's a new nomination cycle, and then there's another
election.  So, basically, there's at least -- if it fails in the two
rounds that are either here or end shortly after here, depending upon
whether we do the second round by e-mail, then there's at least a
month time out before something else would happen.

 >>STEVE METALITZ: In answer to Marilyn's second question, the
election for permanent vice chair would be an election for permanent
vice chair.  People could be nominated.  And then the house would
vote, presumably through stakeholder groups, who should be the
permanent vice chair.  But that wouldn't happen we know who the chair
is whether that's here in Seoul or, as Avri said, it might be a month
or two afterwards.

 >>AVRI DORIA: My other assumption on that is you would take some of
that time between now and November 15th to figure out how you would
do a household election.

 >>STEVE METALITZ: Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  Okay.  So does anyone object to following
that as a way forward?  Yes, Mary.

 >>MARY WONG: I'm sorry.  I think I'm getting confused.  Do you mind
summarizing what that is?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Summarizing is, as opposed to electing a permanent
chair, vice chair, sorry, you're going to elect an interim vice chair
who will serve until November 15th or until after a chair is elected,
depending on which is later.  In the meantime, you'll figure out how
to do an election.  I'm adding that extra little bit. >>MARY WONG: 
Just to follow-up -- this is Mary Wong.  And, for the benefit of the
scribes and those not in the room, I think I speak for the NCSG when
I say we that can support this general principle.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  So, if there's no objection, I'll
sort of say we've hit our third consensus point for the morning.  I
see no objection.  No objection?  A comment after that.  You got your
hand up during the objection-looking period.  Okay. Seeing no
objection, we've hit our third consensus point.  Thank you, Steve. 
Thank you, CSG.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: Ron Andruff, member of the business constituency. 
In our discussion when we caucused just now, we thought long and hard
about the process we're going through as has been stated a number of
times.  The issue of having a vice chair election where our vice
chair may become the chair and so forth is a little bit tricky and
confusing.  So we have taken the decision internally that it would be
best for us to have -- once we have the election for the chair and as
we know who the chair is, then we would have an election for the vice
chair as opposed to an automatic appointment, just from the point of
view that it would be good to step back and have a review of that. 
Our candidate may well become the chair.  That would force an
election, in any case.  And so I just wanted to note, for the record,
that I would like to nominate Zahid Jamil as our candidate for vice
chair in that case that our candidate for vice chair or candidate for
vice chair becomes the chair.  Does that make sense?

 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm confused.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS: It's my understanding, from what we just decided,
was we are going to, by acclamation, hopefully, or by consensus
appoint an interim vice chair that will serve for this house until
November 15th or when the election at the GNSO level finds a chair. 
And then we will have an election in which that -- whomever can
stand.  We'll take nominees for the election at that time.  It could
be the interim chair.  It could be somebody different.  It could --
you know.  

And so, with that in place, I would like to make a motion that we --
Olga be considered as our interim vice chair to serve until November
15th until such time a chair is elected at the GNSO level because
she's going to be familiar with the process anyway and just go ahead.
And we are all in consensus she's going to be the candidate from this
house.  So I would just like to move that we do that by consensus or
acclamation, since we don't know how we're going to vote for anything.

 >>AVRI DORIA: However, you also have two -- in succession of that,
two separate motions to sort of put on the table.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: I'll accede to that first motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Anyone else want to comment or
speak to that?

 >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah, I think we would support that having Olga as
our vice chair while we figure out the elections is a really good idea.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Olga, I suppose before I go much further, I think I
should ask if you're willing to have this happen, should it happen?  

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  I think I didn't get the whole picture.  Sorry.

 >>BILL DRAKE: Just say yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA: No.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: Then we have two candidates.  One proposed by you,
Zahid Jamil.  And we have Mike.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Mike is done.  Mike only volunteered because
nobody else would.  And now someone else has, so I am not.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Basically, right.  And Ron withdrew in favor of the
call for acclamation.  Ron withdraw the other.  So, I mean -- but
then again if you don't accept --

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: No.  I accept.  But there's also another candidate
proposed, which is Zahid.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: If I may clarify, Olga, if I may clarify, what I was
saying was we, as a group, have by acclamation would like to put you
forward as our candidate.  If you become the chair, we need to have a
vote.  So what I was then doing I was a little too quick on that.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, I see.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: At that point, when the vote happens for our vice
chair, should you become chair, then I would like to put forward
Zahid Jamil as the --

 >>AVRI DORIA: You're getting an early nomination.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: I put that on the table.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS: I would suggest we not make any nominations at
this point.  We appoint by acclamation someone to serve until the
15th until the chair is elected at the GNSO level.  Once that
decision has been taken, then we call for nominations and we have a
formal call for nominations.  And we decide how we're going to vote
at that point.  But that way it's just cleaner.  We know Zahid's name
is out there now.  Or Zahid.  I've been corrected five times today. 
I'm from the south.  I apologize.  But we do that and keep it clean
and less fuzzy, that we take it one step at a time.  Let's do baby
steps.

 >>RON ANDRUFF: I agree with that.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thanks.  I'd like to recommend that you think
about how you're going to do the voting before nominations as opposed
to after, but that's just a recommendation.  Okay.  Is there anyone
further speaking on this?  Yes, Olga.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: I still don't get it.  It's -- I'm for chair and
vice chair?  This is what I don't get.

 >>AVRI DORIA: No, what -- you are candidate for chair.  That's
already been done.  What they're suggesting is that, until a chair is
elected, that you would serve as a -- as an interim vice chair for
the council.  Then after a chair is elected, there will be elections
for a vice chair.  If you've succeeded at becoming chair, then,
obviously, you wouldn't consider running.  If -- but it's open to
anyone to run, including you at that point or Zahid or anyone in the
council that wishes to run.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI: I -- thank you.  I say yes for the vice chairing. 
But I would suggest for -- I would suggest that, if we can consider
other candidates also.  Because if -- when we get out of this room
and say okay, we have a chair and vice chair candidate, it would be
the same person.  Am I right or --

>>AVRI DORIA:  The vice chair is not a candidate.  The vice chair is
chosen by this house.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Okay.  I thought that we were going -- this here
says "elect vice chair," that's the purpose --

>>AVRI DORIA:  That is exactly what we are doing now.  This house is
picking its vice chair.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Okay, fine.  So I'm okay with that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, yes.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  That's okay.

>>AVRI DORIA:  We have decided by consensus that this house --

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Okay.

>>AVRI DORIA:  No, you've decided by consensus.  I don't want to --
I will be in the house eventually.  But you have decided that you are
picking your interim vice chair now.  Okay.

I've got a sort of motion by acclamation.

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I just want to make sure Olga is clear because
this is her second language and we are speaking fairly quickly.  What
we're doing is we are appointing you to serve as a limited time as
our vice chair and then we will have an election at a later time.

>>AVRI DORIA:  That means you would start working with me, assuming
the acclamation happens at the meeting Wednesday morning.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  We are strongly recommending that once there is a
chair election, there is a new moment where we can put --

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Okay.

>>AVRI DORIA:  In fact, that was part of the consensus decision of
this group, is that, yes, once a chair is elected, then you start
figuring out how to do a vice chair.  You start figuring that out
sooner.

Okay.  Any more comments or questions, clarifications?  In which
case, I ask for acclamation of Olga as the interim vice chair of the
non-contracted party house.

[Applause

Okay.

>>OLGA CAVALLI:  Thank you very much.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Fantastic.  This has been a wonderful morning for
agreements and consensus, I think.  It shows a really good beginning
to this house.  I hear that the story is very different upstairs.  So
you are all to be congratulated.

Now, the next thing I had was the housekeeping.  There's eight more
minutes on this meeting.  I think your next item for you to start
talking about, whether you do it now or later, is how you go about
doing house elections and stuff because the two biggest tasks that
pertain to a house is electing vice chairs and chair candidates.  So
other than, you know, starting a discussion on that, I don't know if
there is anything else you all wanted to cover today.  

Is there something other people wanted to cover today in their last
eight minutes, like how the houseworks together on other stuff?  I
don't know.

My agenda items are pretty much done except for housekeeping.

Yes, Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Avri, it's Marilyn Cade.  I wonder if this topic of
how the house works together might deserve, first of all, some
discussion in the subgroups.  But one of the things that I think is
going to be important is looking ahead at the schedule and making
sure that there are opportunities for inter-house communication on
administrative -- different things that aren't so much about policy
but are really about communication back into the groups and across
both houses because it seems to me we're looking ahead at procedures
that are still to be finalized, the working group, the PDP process,
other kinds of things.

And maybe we really should be thinking in preparation for the next
meeting actually making sure that there is time on the Saturday and
Sunday -- and maybe it needs to be Sunday, if that's the day before,
so more people from the constituencies will be sure to be there for
some of these discussions and that they be, you know, not so much run
in camera, which is what this is, but run more as an open
consultation around -- because I could envision that there is going
to be a lot of complexity in, Okay, this is how the new PDP works. 
This is how the new working groups work, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And that might take up a Sunday rather than -- and lots of people
won't be able to travel in for both Saturday and Sunday but they
might be able to come, you know, one day before to work through some
of those things.  So maybe that could be something that the group
thinks about.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Avri, you might be able to clarify this or
whoever is in the room or one of the staff members who has been
working on this forever, the electorate for the chair of council --
councillors, ultimately, the electorate for the vice chair of each
house is also councillors within that house or nothing was ever
decided?

>>AVRI DORIA:  I don't believe it has been specified.  Rob can
correct me, but I think it is the houses and however the houses
determine --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Decide to do that.  So that's all up in the air,
we think?

>>AVRI DORIA:  I don't believe that one -- and Rob is here or Liz
can correct me, but I don't believe it is written anywhere how houses
make their decisions.  So at the moment, I would say it is up to you
all to decide how you want to do stuff.

And whether there are lists like Marilyn is suggesting that are
house-wide, whether your executive committees are the ones that are
talking closely, whether it's your council members that are caucusing
on these things, I think there's any number of ways at which the
house can decide it wants to do things.  

I don't know that you want to have house-wide elections for these
things, but you may.  It's really -- and one could ask someone else
to determine it, but I think that being kind of nice for the house to
figure out for its health how it would like to do these things.

Anyone?  Yes.

>>ROSEMARY SINCLAIR:  I just have a question.  It is Rosemary
Sinclair here.  Given that there's so much new scaffolding to be put
in place as part of this transition, do we record as we go along once
we've figured out how to have house elections and how to develop
working groups and what our policy development process looks like? 
Is that --

>>AVRI DORIA:  Well, some of that scaffolding is already being built
and is -- for example, there are working teams that are in the
process of making proposals on how working groups work on the new,
you know, PDP process on -- policy development process on -- "PDP
process" is redundant, I have to stop saying that, but anyway -- on
all of that.

The only thing that's not really being worked on anywhere is the
scaffolding for what it means for a house to do stuff.  Because, as I
said at the beginning, it was really just supposed to be a counting
fiction but now it's got at least two tasks.

Now, whether houses want to caucus together on issues because
there's going to be a lot of issues where there's going to be
commonalities in the contracted parties house and commonalities in
the non-contracted parties house and whether houses actually want to
do some caucusing and position-making together is something that's
interesting to consider at a future time.

But -- Yes, Ron.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you, chair.  I think it is really important
that we -- there are so many issues here that we really have to
caucus within our own groups before we start to bring it to the GNSO
and have those conversations.  So there is really a lot of dialogue
that needs to happen in the course of the next week.  Thank you.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  I'm not trying to predetermine anything other
than to list all the possibilities.  I see that sort of my role at
the moment of just listing what's possible but not what should --
nothing normative in what I say.

>>MARILYN CADE:  This is Marilyn.  It is my understanding that the
structural activities of the two houses do not have to mirror each
other, and I think that's just good for people who maybe have not
been sleepless like me and reading every -- you know.  I just want to
clarify that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  To put to lie what I said about saying "nothing
normative," normatively, no, there is nothing binding the two houses'
ways of doing things to each other.  They can both be their own
characters, unless at some point the council decides that it wants to
try to impose that, and then it is a different issue.  And you guys
can talk about that then.  However, no, there is no constraint on how
you guys decide to do your business.  

Is there anything else we want to talk about now?  It is 11:01.  It
is really time to break this one.  The whole council gets together at
11:15 to sort of talk about where we respectively are.  And then
after that we have a lunch, which is a council lunch with the two --

>>MARY WONG:  Three maybe.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Three what?  Candidates?  Well, with the candidates,
basically, you know, speaking to the council members about why they
should vote for them or why they should vote for the other guy.  I
don't know.

[laughter]

But, anyhow, anything else anyone wants to do?

>> JIM BASKIN:  Sort of a housekeeping schedule.  The schedule for
today and tomorrow for GNSO activities, at least the one I printed
out from the Web site a day or two ago, shows there are two parallel
sessions.  And we know there is a session going on now with the
contracted party house.  But both sessions are scheduled for the full
day today.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  There's another one that's been -- these
sessions both end now and then at 11:15 to 12:30, council meets
together basically to discuss the council rules and anything that
comes out of this election because we've got to vote -- or the
council has to vote on the operating procedures on Wednesday, so to
make sure we've covered any of the comments that came out.  

And then there is a working lunch that's a discussion of the
candidates for GNSO chair.  That's 12:30 to 2:00.  And then from 2:00
to 3:30, there's updates from the working groups and there's
basically just -- and this is basically to catch everyone up,
especially the incoming council members on the status of every one of
the working groups that we've got going.

Then after that, there's an update on the WHOIS study, discussion of
the RFP for the studies.  There is a travel team drafting meeting
with ICANN staff.  And, also, parallel to this that's not on the
schedule -- and somebody can fill me in -- there had been discussions
about the specific trademark issues response-to-the-board letter team
getting together in a room at some point today to try and figure out -
- and I just don't know whether that's happening or whether -- but I
was going to bring that up in the next meeting.  So I will bring this
question up when the whole council is sitting together on whether
there is a meeting of this STI drafting team to make a recommendation
to the council on Wednesday of how it should go about doing this
stuff.  

But anyway, that's what's on for today.

>>JIM BASKIN:  But just so I understand.  I won't ask you to repeat
the whole thing.  But there is not specifically a -- two separate
house meetings going on at any time this afternoon?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Not that I know of.  Of course, things could change,
but that's not what's planned.

>>JIM BASKIN:  Tomorrow we also have scheduled two GNSO in-parallel
work sessions from 930 till 1600 or 1730, depending on which --

>>AVRI DORIA:  There is a full breakout.  I don't know that it made
it to there.  There is a full breakout, and Glen can either tell you
where it is.  She passed out physical ones to many people.

>>JIM BASKIN:  I passed it up because I thought I had the right one.

>>AVRI DORIA:  You should have taken it.  It is one of those great
general rules because that means it changed.

I want to thank the house for a morning of consensus.  I think it is
a really wonderful beginning.  I hope this house continues to have
that kind of spirit.  

And unless there is any objection, I will call this meeting closed
so that we can get ready to have the whole council meeting going
forward.  Okay.  Thank you.

[Applause]

[Break]

>>AVRI DORIA:  How are we doing as getting seated?  I would like as
many of the council members to be seated around the table as possible.

Are we getting close to ready?  Are people here?  I would like to
call the meeting.  Can I get more people to sit down?

Starting this meeting now.  This is the meeting of the council
meeting together.  On this agenda, we had, basically, two things even
though only one thing is written here.  

The first thing is to check and see where we are with each of the
houses in terms of having candidates for the chair position.

Now, we have a working lunch after this meeting, which is a
discussion with the candidates for GNSO chair; and that lunch is at
12:30.

The other main topic for this meeting is the operating procedures
that have gone through -- that are ready as a motion for the
Wednesday meeting.  They are the first item on the agenda to approve
them.  There's already one predefined amendment that was part of the
review.  

So the main purpose of this meeting was to go through the comments,
if any, that were received for the charter -- not the charter, the
operating procedures to determine whether any further amendments
needed to be crafted to be voted on at the Wednesday meeting and
such.  So that is the agenda for this particular meeting.

There is a possibility of a quick interrupt presentation from -- I
don't know if he's here at the moment -- but in terms of NomCom
review is happening and the people doing the NomCom review wanted to
come and make an entreaty to us to read their stuff and comment. 
Should that happen, I will take an interrupt where we are to let that
quick message come through and then go back to our discussion, unless
there is an objection to doing that.

So I would like to ask for each of the houses to sort of report
where they are on candidates for chair and their vice chair
determinations.

So is there someone from the contracted parties house that would
like to say where you're at.  Do you have a candidate?  Was there
white smoke?

[laughter]

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm not on the council, but I can summarize the
discussion.  Hi, this is Jeff Neuman.  The discussion of the
contracted parties is that we were going to put forth Chuck Gomes for
chair and that we were going to put forth Stéphane for vice chair.

>>AVRI DORIA:  And when you say "put forth Stéphane for vice chair,"
that's a decision that your house makes that they want Stéphane to be
vice chair.  So you, basically, elected Stéphane your vice chair.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Correct.  That's the proposal going forward.  We
just want to have it ratified on constituency day when the registry
constituency meets.  But that's the way it's looking.

>>AVRI DORIA:  And will Chuck be in a position at today's lunch for
candidates to speak to the council?  Will he be okay with speaking as
the provisional candidate?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  We did discuss that, so, yes, he should be here.

>>AVRI DORIA:  I know he's here.  I just wanted to make sure that
was in keeping with your provisional decision.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yes, that was it.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Great.  Thank you.

Any questions on that?  Okay, thank you.

And would someone like to speak for the non-contracted parties house?

>>ROBIN GROSS:  So we decided -- it was a little more complicated
for us but we decided we wanted to put forth the candidate of Olga
for the chair position.  

And in terms of the vice chair, we decided to do an interim vice
chair pending the election of the chair and so we've also got Olga as
the vice chair -- excuse me, interim vice chair while we hold the
chair election.

>>AVRI DORIA:  I will add to that part of the decision was that the
election of the vice chair will happen on November 15th or sometime
after a chair is picked, if the council is not successful at picking
a chair during that meeting.

So any questions on that?  So I think it is actually quite exciting
that we've got candidates for this election.  And I think that that's
great, and I congratulate both houses for doing that.

Is there any more discussion on the candidate issue or such?  Were
you asking to speak or waving hello?

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I was waving hello.

>> (inaudible) joined.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Somebody joined.  Did somebody wish to speak
remotely?  Okay.  Thanks.

In which case, I guess we can move onto the main item for this
meeting which is the new procedures for the new council operating
procedures, which just to give a slight bit of history were rewritten
largely because of the new bicameral nature of the council required
reconsideration.  Those were done within the OSC and the name of the -
- I keep -- I'm remembering initials and losing the names of all
these groups -- but, basically, the work team responsible for council
operations.  So the council operations team, I guess, is what it was
called.

Basically, they came up with a proposal.  The council voted for --
yes, voted on sending that out for review, but it's for the new
council to accept those. 

And what we basically have in front of us today at the moment, there
are two motions in the motion list for those.  These are motions that
I wrote but they have not yet been moved by anyone or seconded by
anyone.

One of them, the second one is the approval of the council procedure
-- I mean, the new council operating procedures.  The other one is an
amendment that was already laid out inside the release.  As anybody
who read all of the operating procedures noticed, that at one point
there was a discussion and possible amendment; so that has been laid
out as an amendment and we can get specifically into that later.

What I wanted to ask now -- and I interrupted Rob from another
meeting to basically come and fill us in on the analysis of comments
from the comment period because what we needed to do was basically
talk about any comments and then decide whether any further
amendments needed to be proposed for the Wednesday meeting.

So, Rob, did you need slides or anything or were you just going to
talk?

>>ROB HOGGARTH:  No, it is a very brief report, Avri.  We received
one set of comments submitted by Clark Walton on behalf of the
registrars and their point of view is basically is that they were
supportive of the substitute section that was provided in Section
4.2.  That clarified the abstention issue.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  And I've got the abstention issue already
written up as an amendment and it was written up as "to amend" with
that new language.

Yes?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  So just to -- another outcome of the contracted
parties house is that we talked about proposing a change to the rules
whereby it would not require the chair or a vice chair to be members
of the council.  So that's something you may see from the registry
stakeholder group and separately from the registrar stakeholder group.

>>AVRI DORIA:  In other words, you want to require them to be members?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  No, to not require them.

>>AVRI DORIA:  At the moment, I believe both the bylaws and the
operating procedures are silent on that.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  So then --

>>AVRI DORIA:  I mean, I need to check.  And perhaps, Ron, you want
to --

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Maybe to make it more clear then.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Because I believe it is silent on that, although I'm
not positive.  I read it looking for it, and I believe it is silent
on it.  

Yes, Marilyn?

>>MARILYN CADE:  Ron first and then I will go.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  I was distracted for the first part of that.  Jeff,
could you please restate what you said.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  The contracted parties in our last meeting just this
past hour had talked about raising comments to the nature of not
requiring that a GNSO Council chair or vice chair be a member of the
council.  In other words, they could be anyone that the house wanted
to put forward and that the council wanted to elect.  That would be
for the chair, and for the house to put forward would be a vice chair.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  I think you are right on that, Chair.  I think you
are right on that comment.  But I'm going to check right now online
as we continue this meeting.  And if that's incorrect for any reason,
I will come back to you.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Margie, you wanted to clarify?

>>MARGIE MILAM:  I wanted to clarify the bylaws are silent on that
issue.  I thought when we discussed earlier today that it is in the
draft operating rules and procedures that I'm not clear on that.  And
maybe someone from that group can confirm that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  At one point I thought it had been there in the
operating procedures, but then I went looking for it and couldn't
find it.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Ray's in the back of the room there, and he has --
he was the chair of the council operations work team.

>>RAY FASSETT:  Well, in case it's not, right now the operating
procedures clearly state that the -- I think it's on now.

>>AVRI DORIA:  It is.

>>RAY FASSETT:  The operating -- the council operating procedures,
the new ones clearly state that the chair must be a member of the
council.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Is that in the ones that were reviewed?

>>RAY FASSETT:  Yes.  And on the vice chair it is silent.

>>AVRI DORIA:  It is on the vice chair that it is silent.

>>RAY FASSETT:  That's correct.  Now, I will say that tomorrow there
is a meeting of the operations work team and this is on the agenda
for anybody that would like to join that meeting at 2:00.

>>AVRI DORIA:  So basically someone might still be proposing an
amendment for voting on Wednesday.

>>RAY FASSETT:  Yeah.  Understand we were working under some time
deadlines, as you know, to be ready for Seoul.  So we prioritized our
work.  This was a discussion item that we went back and forth on
quite a bit.  So we landed where we did, but we always envisioned
that we would go back and review this again as a work team.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thanks.  Could someone give me --

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Chair, I have the language.  It is 4.1.  And
actually 4 is GNSO Council chair.  4.1, selection of council chair. 
And the language that we have is under Section B, "Each house will be
allowed to nominate one candidate for GNSO chair, a candidate for
GNSO Council chair does not need to be a member of a house, should a
chair be elected from outside of the houses, that chair will be a non-
voting chair."

>>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  So it doesn't say it has to be a member of
the council.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Correct.

>>AVRI DORIA: So, and as it's still silent on it, is -- okay.  I
have Marilyn and then I have Philip.  Oh, I'm so sorry.  Yes.  I
apologize.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Marilyn Cade.  I have a point of concern that I
want to register.

I want us to think about -- and I'm not expecting us to debate it
here but I do want us to think about the issue of accountability. 
The -- if the chair or the vice chair are not a member of the
council, I have two questions.

One is, you know, people are elected or selected to an official
position, either by the Nominating Committee or they're elected by a
supporting organization, a/k/a constituency, and they have a duty of
diligence, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm not comfortable at this point as a community member with the
idea that someone who doesn't come through one of those two processes
would be eligible to be the chair or the vice chair.

So I have a clarification about that.

I also have a question about what that would do to the -- I think
I'll stop just with the question about the accountability.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Were you asking a point of clarification?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I was going to address it.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Can I get back?  I have a couple people.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Sure.

>>AVRI DORIA: So I had -- and I've been -- I had Philip, but I've
been --

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Is this a council meeting or what?

>>AVRI DORIA:  It's a council meeting that is open like most council
meetings have been, where we -- it's not a council members-only
speaking.  We've never done it that way, so...

Okay.  I had Philip and then I had Stéphane.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I'd like -- I fibbed it extraordinary this
discussion is even taking place.  The role of the chair of council,
or vice chair, is -- or the vice chair of the houses, is to do with
the functioning of that body.  It's an administrative task that moves
action forward, you know, and gets trains running on time and it
creates the agendas, helps doing prioritization.  It is fundamental
to be working with the members of council in doing that, and the
concept that it would be somebody coming from outside I just find
totally bizarre, so I mean, if that's serious thinking, I think we as
council would need to know the rationale behind that, but it just
strikes me as completely misunderstanding the roles that we've
created here.  We're not going for figureheads.  We're not creating
presidents who are out there, you know, speaking and doing
presentations.  It's a tough administrative role of -- you know, it's
a bizarre concept.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Perhaps I could respond to that, chair, as a --

>>AVRI DORIA:  I'd like to -- I've got you on the list because
everybody is speaking to the same topic, so please.  So Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Who I apologize to for forgetting here.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  No problem at all, Avri.  Thanks very much.

I just want to suggest that although I think the chair could
possibly come from outside the council, I understand the points that
have been raised, but it may in certain cases be a solution where we
can get outside talent to come in and if -- you know, if the -- all
the chair does is make sure the trains run on time, which I'm not
sure that's correct, but at least, you know, we could get -- we might
want to give ourselves more options is what I'm saying.

On the vice chair, though, I would suggest that that would be
difficult.  The vice chair is a house nomination.  It's an internal
thing, and I think -- I'm not sure that there's anything clear in our
bylaws about the vice chair.

I don't think it's clear about the chair or the vice chair at this
stage, and Ron, maybe you can correct me on that, but I think the
vice chair should come from the council.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Jeff?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah.  Philip, it's kind of ironic that you think
it's so strange because it was actually your BC motion against Avri
that brought this to the attention.  It's all about neutrality, and
the fact is that we -- when we look at a chair, we look at a chair to
be neutral and not necessarily accountable only to one stakeholder
group or to one particular interest.

And the thinking was that if you can get someone who's qualified to
manage this administrative group, that that did not necessarily have
to be a councillor; that a lot of people have taken the position even
in this council chair election -- I mean, we've heard it over and
over again, "Oh, well that nominee is from this stakeholder group and
we don't want this stakeholder group to ever have a chair."

I've heard people make those comments.

In order to avoid that completely and get the right person for the
job, there's no rational basis that I can think of to require that
person to be a member, an elected member, of the council.

And Philip, your motion actually helped bring that to light, so I'm
kind of glad you did.

So it's not as ludicrous as you're saying.  It's just more on the
whole neutrality concept and I'm not sure I understand the thinking
that it's only a councillor that could actually move the council
forward.

And I do think they're accountable because they're accountable to
the council as a whole.  If the council doesn't like the job the
chair is doing, they can remove them a lot easier than removing a
chair who's also a member of a stakeholder group council.  So --

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just a clarification, if I might make it, as we
are being transcribed.  The motion you refer to and characterize as a
BC motion against Avri should be characterized as a CSG statement
concerning Nominating Committee appointees.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  That's fair.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Ron?

>>RON ANDRUFF:  In response to Stéphane's question or comment, it is
noted here that each house shall select a vice chair within its
respective house, so it's quite clear that that's going to come to
the council, to the GNSO process.  No, no, vice chair.  For the vice
chair side.

But what I wanted to do was echo our chairman of the work group's
comments that we have a meeting tomorrow and it's very important that
this particular topic is brought forward, because with all of the
rules and procedure that we had to review, in my view as I sit here
right now speaking as myself as a work team member, it seems to me
one of those things that fell through the cracks and until this
debate has happened, it hadn't even been tabled.  So thank you very
much for bringing that to our attention.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Anyone else like -- yes, Chuck.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  The -- I was fascinated when the work team first
brought this idea forward.  One thing we -- and I think it should be
well vetted, but I suspect that there's enough controversy with it
that it's going to be easier to deal with that after the meeting on
Wednesday, rather than to try to do an amendment.

I'm not saying -- I'm not opposing an amendment on this issue now. 
I'm just suggesting that because we have to have some procedures
approved on Monday, if this in any way caused -- on Wednesday, if
this in any way causes delays of getting the procedures approved, we
ought to table this particular part of it, with the understanding
that the working team has ongoing work.

We're not done with the procedures.  They just tried to come up with
some procedures that were sufficient enough for the council to start
operating in the bicameral manner on Wednesday.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  

Yes, Zahid.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  So just two questions, really.  If it doesn't say
that the chairman or the vice chairman has to be from, you know,
basically the council, then it doesn't say that it has to be --
sorry.  

>>AVRI DORIA:  I was wrong that it didn't say that.  I was corrected
that it indeed does say that at the moment.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  It does come --

>>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.  The bylaws doesn't, but the yet-to-be-approved
operating procedures does.  I was corrected. 

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  So they have to be councillors?  Is that clear?  Okay.

>>AVRI DORIA:  The chair does.  Well, and then you quoted something
about the vice chair having to be from the house, so the language is -
- the language is perhaps ambiguous in any sense.  The bylaws with
certainly are silent on it.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Well, I mean the point I'm trying to make is if
we're not clear on whether they have to be councillors or not and
we're saying, well, it's not clear, and so does that mean that it
could be someone who's not from the ICANN community, number one. 
Just because, you know, it doesn't say anything, it could be -- you
could extend that by implication even further.  So we need to sort of
keep that in mind, one.

Secondly, I'm just thinking about the timing of this.  We've already
nominated people under the assumption -- some of us, probably -- that
they had to be councillors.  So do we go back and --

>>AVRI DORIA:  No.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  I mean, I don't know.  I'm just asking the question,
really.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  First, I want to answer.  I think it -- that
approving this operating procedures and whether an amendment is put
in or not has nothing to do with the fact that there are two
candidates -- or at least one candidate and one provisional candidate
-- standing for the chair this time.  They are both council members. 
It's not an issue in this election assuming one of the two of them
gets the 60% threshold at some point.

If one of them doesn't and it becomes time to pick new candidates, I
don't want to be so pessimistic for this new council, but then it
could end up being an issue.

But certainly for the election that's going to happen Wednesday,
whether it -- the charter -- I mean, whether the operating procedures
are changed or not changed won't change a thing.  Yes, Jeff.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah, I think that's in line with the way the
contracted parties talked about it.  It was because you guys were
voting on hard set of rules of operations -- and I know they could be
changed at any time, but we all know the reality of how long it takes
to get rules to be changed once they're hard-coded.  

So it was basically that, yeah, we all understood that this first
election is going as it's going and we're not intending to derail
that at all, but maybe putting something in the rules to be voted on
this time that says "the first election," or something like that, to
clarify that that maybe for the first election, it has to be a member
of the council but for ongoing -- sorry, the point was not to derail
the current process.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  At this point, since there seem to be
candidates, it doesn't seem that it -- and in terms of your question,
Chuck, if there is an amendment, the amendments are pretty much an up-
and-down thing and either the amendment is accepted -- so if somebody
wants to put in an amendment, you know, it gets voted on, it's up-and-
down, it's not something they think we're doing as a friendly
amendment because it's -- you know.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  And just -- this is a little different situation in
that there will be more work on the procedures.  They're not done
with the procedures yet.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  So it's a little bit different situation in that
regard.  There's a lot more work to do on it.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.  Stéphane?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks.  Just to -- I'm reading the draft
operating rules and procedures, and it says in there, just to go back
to my earlier point, that although the chair doesn't need to be from
a specific house, the vice chair does.

And if that's the case, then, you know, that seems fine to me.

What I said earlier was that the vice chair should be from the
council, I believe, and that -- it says in there that it should be
from the house and I think that's actually more apt.  Let the vice
chair be electable from just the house candidates, be they
councillors or not.  That's fine.

And the vice chair -- the chair itself, at the moment, in those
rules and procedures, can be from anywhere.

So that's outside the ICANN community, possibly, going back to
Zahid's earlier point wherever he is.  I don't know where he is.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Ron.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  If I may, I don't -- Zahid brought up a very good
point, this point about it could be anybody is something that
obviously doesn't make sense.  So we will make sure that that gets --
that is part of the ICANN community, at least at the very base point.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Okay.  Any other -- so anyhow, this is
one possible amendment that comes out of the comments that were put
forward.

As I say, we've got -- now, one of the things -- is there any more
conversation on this one at the moment?  I do suggest that people
that are interested in this one go to that meeting tomorrow of the
operations team, and speak on it some more.

I'd like to check if I have someone from the incoming council that
wants to move and second the -- (a) the motion to adopt the updated
GNSO Council procedures; and (b) the motion to amend them for the
absentee -- the abstaining, rather.  And I just have these motions at
the moment that are there that are essential to be voted on
Wednesday, Hahn don't yet have any council members as either making
those motions or seconding them.  So if anybody would like to be in
that position, please let me know.

Still no?  Okay.  I will ask again, obviously, because I can't put
them to a vote on Wednesday morning until I have councillors moving
them and seconding them.  It would be very interesting if we don't
have them moved and seconded before then.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I have a question about the process.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, please.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  So can somebody just outline the process for me
as to where we got to this document that we're looking at that we're
supposed to vote on on Wednesday?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  Certainly.  I can or Ron can.

Basically, the OSC created a work team to create a proposal for
updated operating procedures.  Those operating procedures were then
reviewed by the OSC, which then sent them to the council.  The
council made a decision to then put them out for community review
before voting on them on -- as the first act of the new sitting
council.  So it's been a long-term process.  You know, we've
basically reported on the progress of those at almost every council
meeting.  They -- the council did have them before it for at least
three weeks, if not longer, before sending them out to community
review.  And they were -- and they did go through the OSC approval.

So it -- the predetermined "how to do this process" was indeed
followed all the way through.  I assumed there were BC members on the
COT but I -- someone can -- oh, yeah.  You're a BC member on the COT.
Right.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  So I'm not just talking about within the BC. 
Obviously there's an issue there.

But on the council and the interplay between the OSC and the
council, I don't recall this being discussed among the council.  I
don't remember there being a drafting team or any -- anybody else.  I
don't remember it being an agenda item.  I just don't think we've
discussed it.

>>AVRI DORIA:  This has been a part of the structural program since
the very beginning, and it was discussed a long time ago when the
first implementation of how we were going to implement the GNSO
improvements was first discussed.  That's when we voted on the two --
the OSC and the PPSC, divided the work among them, and then basically
this was a specific work item chartered to the OSC to figure out how
it was done, with the responsibility of doing it.

Then it did come back to the council.  The council did vote to put
them out to the community and now we're --

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  There we go.  And so now we're to the point
where we should be discussing it, basically.

>>AVRI DORIA:  We should be discussing it and I assume that people
also could have discussed it during the community.  They're up for a
vote -- they're on the table for a vote on webs.  I have --

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Assuming somebody makes a motion.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Assuming someone makes a motion, you're right.  All I
did was write the motions but since I'm not on that council, I didn't
believe I had the right to move it and it would still need to be
seconded.

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Okay.  I just -- I don't feel personally
prepared to vote on them at this point.  So I'll just advise that, I
guess, before our Wednesday meeting and maybe if -- by Wednesday, I
will be.  I'm not sure.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Anyone else wish to comment?  Yes,
Kristina.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I have a clarifying question about the
abstention-related amendment.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  And I don't know who to direct it to, but it
was my understanding that one of the real issues with regard to the
original language is that it automatically created a situation in
which abstentions count as negative votes, votes against.  And that
in certain circumstances, particularly with regard to conflicts of
interest, you could end up essentially perpetuating the same
implicate that gave rise to the abstention in the first place if you
take the position that abstentions are always votes against.

What I guess I'm not seeing in the proposed amendment is language
that specifically speaks to that point.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Ron?

>>RON ANDRUFF:  I'm actually looking at version -- it says "Final
Draft Version 090911, Final Draft," so I'm hoping that that is the
same one as you're looking at.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I'm looking on the what's on the council Wiki.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  We should be looking at the one that was put
out for community review.  I assume that's the same one as the
council --

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Well, in general -- thank you for bringing that
point up.

This has been, again, another point of long debate and discussion
and the general response to that is we've kind of followed the board
policy in terms of how that would work on -- in terms of absent
voting, as I understand it.  And Ray, might correct me if I'm wrong.

>>RAY FASSETT:  That's correct.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  That's correct.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  No, not absentee voting, abstentions.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  And abstentions being the same thing.  We're having
the problem with whether it should be cast as a nonvote or a vote.

Actually if I might Chuck, you brought that argument to the table
quite clearly.

>>CHUCK GOMES:  Yeah.  The amended -- the amendment -- the motion
that's -- or the wording that's in the amendment does not say that an
abstention counts -- is the same as a "no" vote, but it does say that
the percentage of -- for the threshold is calculated based on the
number of seats, the number of votes in a house.  Not those who just
voted affirmatively or negatively.

Does that make sense?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Kristina. I mean, it does, but I frankly would
prefer something a little bit more specific.  That, you know,
abstentions shall count -- you know, count as votes cast or -- I just
would like some very specific language in there as to whether or not
we're saying they count as votes cast and whether or not we're saying
that they count as votes against, because in some cases, you know,
particularly for those of us at the council who are lawyers and have
to, you know, very specific conflict of interest rules that we need
to follow, being put in a position where abstaining in order to
accommodate that conflict of interest then continues to essentially
perpetuate the conflict of interest puts me in a very awkward
position professionally, and, you know, just ethically.  And I think
it's something we need to be more specific about.

>>RON ANDRUFF:  And we agree.  We agree with that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Marilyn.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Okay.  Fine.  I'll come up with some lack and
I'll post it around.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Marilyn Cade, I'd like to raise a question directly
related to this in the sense of, if you have a conflict of interest,
you should be, I believe, recused from the discussion and the debate
as well as from the vote as opposed to abstaining.  Isn't that what
we expect the board to do?  And wouldn't that be -- because -- and,
you know, Kristina, I'm not making a comment on whether an attorney
might have a different obligation related to -- but I'm making a
comment about, if we have a counselor who has a conflict of interest,
I believe it's a recusal issue, both from putting forward -- stating
your conflict of interest.  And so perhaps what we would need is a
category that is basically recusal.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I think that's what we've been calling abstention,
historically.

 >>MARILYN CADE: But to follow up on that, that actually -- in the
time I was on the council, that was not how abstention was defined. 
You could abstain from a vote for a number of reasons, not only the
fact that you might have a declared conflict.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I think that was the reason for declaring why you
were abstaining, and you would declare it was for recusal reason or
some other reason of --

 >>MARILYN CADE: But to Kristina's point that, if you have only a
category -- if all abstentions count as negative votes, no votes,
then I'm not -- you know, I think that's actually the issue.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  Yes.  I understood that.  You're effectively
voting no, even though you're abstaining.  And that means that you're
not recusing and you're actually voting no.  So yeah, no.  I
understand -- and so I think that the idea that, you know, the
amendment language is going to be looked at to take into account is
probably a good thing.  Yes, Chuck.  

And then -- oh, and then Ray.  Thank you.

 >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, I want to point out a nuance here, so
everybody gets the flavor of this.  There are now voting thresholds
in the bylaws.  And those voting thresholds in the bylaws for certain
things that I don't recall what they all are, I think a lot of you
are familiar with them.  It assumes that the denominator, if you
would, would be fixed.  That was the advice given to me.  So, if we
were to, as a work team, as we looked at this and talked about this,
it would be awfully confusing to say okay, in which cases would
abstentions potentially not count as a "no" vote versus these other
ones that are hard coded in the bylaws where it is taken -- our
understanding from legal counsel is that it -- it assumes that
abstentions do count as "no" votes.  That would be very confusing, if
we weren't consistent with the bylaws.

 >>AVRI DORIA: So one of the options becomes asking the board to
change the bylaws to be consistent with what the council decides it
would like in that case.  I saw Alan and Margie.  Margie, did you
want to make a point of clarification to what was just said?  And
then I'll get to Alan.

 >>MARGIE MILAM: Yeah, I think you're right, Avri.  If the council
decides that they want it to be different, then you just go through
the process of amending bylaws.  So that's correct.  The thing I do
want to clarify, which is an earlier point, is the -- I don't think
we've dealt with recusal or conflict in the operating rules and
procedures.  And perhaps you get confirmation from Ray.  But, in
looking through them, I don't see anything that's specific to that. 
So, if that's something that's important, as Marilyn indicated, you
guys want to consider that.

 >>AVRI DORIA: I've got Alan, Tim, and then Edmon.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: Ignoring the issue of abstaining for the moment,
unless I'm mistaken, my three years on council all votes have been
counted.  You know, a majority was more than 50% of the votes cast. 
I can't remember any regular vote where the denominator was of the
possible votes, you know, that were -- you know, based on the number
of council members.  So, if we're now using a fixed denominator, this
is a very different change from what has been done in the past.  And
I'm simply -- 

>>AVRI DORIA:  It's in the bylaws.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG: Ignoring the bylaws, it's a conceptual change
that's quite different.  In the past we've said half the voters
casting votes would pass something.  Whereas, now we say --

 >>AVRI DORIA: I don't believe it was that case for all things.  I
think on some of the PDP issues that had fixed thresholds it was
always that way.  I have Tim, Edmon.  Then I had Chuck.  Did you have
your hand up?  No, I just want to put you on the list, if you had
your hand up.  No?

 >>MARILYN CADE: I do have my hand up.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  I have Tim, Edmon, and then Marilyn and then
anyone else?  Go ahead, Tim.

>>TIM RUIZ:  I'm just concerned that, if we get too far into this
during the council meeting where we're trying to modify and amend the
current operating procedures, we're going to spend a lot of time on
that.  I think these are important issues, but I don't think they're
things we're going to be able to resolve in a few hours meeting
publicly on the council.  So it seems that maybe one approach might
be to take those concerns that we have with those operating
procedures and kind of designate those in some way as being
priorities, maybe even study some time frame around where we ask the
OSC to deal with these issues so they can be addressed as quickly as
possible and not spend a lot of time on that ourselves as council
members.  We've got other things coming up like the IRT letter sent
to us by the board that I think are a much higher priority.  And
there's going to be some expectations about how quickly we deal with
that kind of thing.  So that's where the council would spend their
time.  So whether that means we can adopt, perhaps, the procedures as
sort of interim procedures with this idea that these other things are
priorities are going to be dealt with quickly in this amount of time
and then we get on with it from that point, if that's acceptable or
not.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Does that mean I can list you as having moved the --
I'm sorry.

Edmon.

 >>EDMON CHUNG: Just have a quick comment.  We talk about abstention
and recusal.  In -- if we go down that road, we need probably to
consider, you know, how we deal with quorum as well for each
particular vote, if a lot of people recuse.  That's just the dynamic
of why abstentions, I guess, usually are counted as against the motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you.  Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE: Part of what I was going to say has already been
said.  I think this does go back to the working group.  But I think
we also have ICANN staff appointed to support this.  And -- you know.
So maybe the question is coming up with the list of questions to go
back to the working group and then asking them to work through the
options to address it.  I just want to make one point.  I believe
that most votes about -- we have to also keep in mind there is a
threshold on what is determined -- what can be determined as
consensus policy.  So, when we think about thresholds, we also have
to factor that into the development of the counting of the votes.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.  I think that's one of the reasons why all
those things are bylaws determined.  And they won't get changed
without the board -- with the concurrence of legal counsel having
figured it out.  So we could certainly recommend and request.  But,
yes, the fact that it is consensus policy and affects contractual
conditions is, obviously, a relevant issue to all of that.  I have
Mike and then Philip.  I saw Mike first.  Oh, and I have Chuck.  Did
I miss you before?  I'm sorry.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So what happens if we don't approve these? 
We're already working under rules today.  What's the big rush to
approve rules on an interim basis that we then agree we seem to have
some consensus would need to be changed?

 >>CHUCK GOMES: Avri, you want me to talk to that?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Please do.

 >>CHUCK GOMES: The portion of the rules that are being changed
needed to be changed to accommodate the bicameral council model.  And
that's why all of the rules and procedures haven't been dealt with
yet.  They're just identified portions that were particularly
necessary to be able -- for the new council under the bicameral model
to function.  So the -- that's why.  The -- now -- go ahead.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay.  But then we still have a little bit of
time to get them right.  There's no reason why we need to approve the
interim one and then come back and debate later, is there?

 >>CHUCK GOMES: Every meeting we hold is run on the basis of the
rules.  The old rules, especially the portions that are being dealt
with now, don't work for the bicameral council.  So the idea was
okay, that's why it's the first agenda item on Wednesday is to
approve the rules that we're operating under.  Otherwise, we have old
rules that don't apply in the same manner that they did under the old
council.  The comment I really -- two comments I really wanted to
make was I agree with Tim that I think this is controversial enough
that we're going to have to deal with it.  We can deal with it
quickly, but not by Wednesday, I don't think, without creating even
more controversy.  There's not enough time to deal with it accurately.

>> Phone:  He might back out if he's too tired or something.  But --

 >>AVRI DORIA: Somebody should mute remotely.

 >>CHUCK GOMES: The -- by the way, there is quorum.  It's 50% of
both houses for quorum.  But the possibility exists if we -- even
with recusals, if we dis-- if we base the percentage for the
threshold on just those present, even if we meet quorum.  So quorum
is 50%.  And you have two or three recusals, what's happening then is
we're making decisions with very minimal support in the council. 
And, personally, I think that goes contrary to really having a bottom-
up process where there's a fairly strong consensus.  And that's an
issue that needs to be -- we don't need to resolve that right now. 
But that's an issue I think that the working team will need to
consider as well.

And so that's -- I think we have to be careful, so that we don't end
up with a situation where, you know, 25% votes of each house, or
maybe it's 30%, can pass a motion and satisfy the threshold.  I think
that goes against what we were trying to achieve, which is to get
stronger support in the GNSO as a whole.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Philip?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I just wanted to point out, really, that the --
there are two main changes, I think, which should dictate the need
for this review particularly on -- all abstentions.  I mean, one, of
course, is the simple fact it's a bicameral model.  And we've got the
various thresholds we've created as part of the voting structure
there.  But also, in the meantime, we introduced the concept of
absentee voting, which, therefore, changes the concepts and
restrictions of quorum in some cases.  And it's those three dynamics
that we need to solve.  And I think indeed we're not quite there yet
with existing text.

 >>AVRI DORIA: But I just wanted to point out something. And I go
Stéphane.  And that is, for example, one of these is just the making
of simple decisions, which is the 50% threshold.  I mean, the
majority threshold in each house, which needed to be changed from
majority council to majority threshold, that's not one that has an
absentee ballot.  So many of those, only the policy issues and the
election issues have absentee ballot.  And so it's even more
confused, but yes.

Stéphane?  

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks, Avri.  I do think it's important for
us to reach a decision on this quite quickly for the reasons that
Chuck gave.  One of the things that comes to mind is, when we're
working on the bylaws, when we came to some kind of problem where we
felt there wasn't consensus, we pushed that to the operating rules
and procedures.  So, if we have the same problem now where on the
rules and procedures we don't have full consensus on some aspects and
we feel that might prevent us from reaching a decision in time on
Wednesday, is there any way that we can push those points out
somewhere else and try to isolate those points and make sure we can
vote on the rest of the text so that we do have a model of rules and
procedures that fits the new structure of the council?

 >>AVRI DORIA: I don't know.  I mean, certainly one can propose an
amendment to remove anything without replacing it.  So, certainly,
one could -- if there was a certain clause or, you know, a certain
something that, you know, on constituency day or something that one
of the constituencies decided is controversial and they'd like to
propose an amendment to scratch that for now and send that back to
committee, I think that would be one way to do it to look at anything
in there and say no, that one is too controversial. But without that -
- so that's certainly one -- I can't think of another possibility
offhand. But that's certainly a mechanism that would do that.

 >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Can I ask a follow-up question.  If we vote
on this on Wednesday, are we using the new voting system so that we
just need a majority in each house?  Is that correct?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I think it was determined that way under the
transition plan, I think.  I'd have to go back and reread the
transition plan, but that's been my assumption.

And then they are -- the other thing that's bylaw stipulated is that
then they are sent to the board for review, that doesn't mean that --
they're operational from them.  It doesn't mean a step asking for
approval.  It's a step giving them sort of post facto review of them.
Any other comments on the -- yes, on the operating principles?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Sorry.  One more question.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Is it -- embodied in these rules are, I guess
it's an unwritten rule that we've been operating under for years that
when one constituency is not prepared for a vote, they can push it
off to another meeting.  Is that embodied in these new rules?

 >>AVRI DORIA: I don't believe it's in there explicitly.  And I know
that on this particular one, because it's the rules by which your
whole new bicameral council will work, I would certainly advise
against pushing it off.  But, you know, that's all I can say on that.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Appreciate it.  Just this one -- yet one more
thing that probably needs to be changed in the rules.  But I think I
hear what Chuck is saying is that we can approve, you know, this bare
minimum of what we absolutely have to get done right now and then
leave things open.  Of course, you know, history, that's exactly what
we did with the RAA.  And that was six months ago, and we still
haven't really restarted those discussions either.  So history --

 >>AVRI DORIA: I think we have restarted them, and that will be in
the next working --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: We're about to restart them.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.  I guess.  Yes, Ron.  

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Chair, I just would like to make two points of
clarification for everyone.  And the first is that the operating
procedures are really working hand in hand with the bylaws.  In fact,
we stripped a lot of duplicate language out of the procedures.  So
you really have to read both the bylaws and the procedures together
to understand the whole story in that sense.  So, if it's not in
these few pages, it could well be in the bylaws.  And I don't know
the answer to the question.  And the second point I wanted to bring
out was tomorrow's meeting, just so it's fresh in everyone's mind, is
taking place at 2:00.  And it will happen in the Sapphire 4 room.  So
from 2:00 to 3:15 this discussion will be continued.  Thank you. 
Thank you.  Ray?  

>>RAY FASSETT:  Hi, Ray Fassett. Just a quick comment to Mike's
point, which is a good one.  It should be pointed out that the
charter of this work team has been extended to the next ICANN
meeting.  So -- and I think the council should have confidence that
this work team is very active, has met frequently, will continue to
do so.  And it was anticipated that there would be issues left to be
resolved.  And one of the biggest challenges we had as a work team
was to prioritize -- in order to get what was absolutely needed to be
completed for this Seoul meeting, to get the new council seated.  But
it was also fully anticipated that there would be remaining open
points to go through.  And some of the ones you're talking about are
ones we've already identified as a work team.  I would encourage, as
Ron just said, join the work team, get in the middle of it right
there.  Thank you.  Anything further on this topic?  If not, I'd like
to bring up one other thing, which is the specific trademark issues
and how, since we've sort of been trying to get that started and have
a mailing list, have lots of people that have volunteered to get
involved, talked about that group taking some time this afternoon
during, you know, the after-lunch period, for example, during the
update from working groups, which is important for everybody, but
most important, perhaps, for some of the incoming council members,
although certainly useful for everyone, or during some other part to
start getting together. One of the things that I have on the agenda
for Wednesday is a discussion of this as part of the open meeting. 
And what I was hoping is that there would be some sort of proposal to
at least put in front of the council and the community for how to go
about doing this work.  When we come out of this meeting, as Alan has
pointed out a couple times, we will have six of our eight weeks left
or you will have six of your eight weeks left.  So time -- the clock
is running on that, has been running on that.  That's sort of one of
the reasons why we said, yes, put together the group quickly and,
yes, find some time to meet today, tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, try to
accommodate people with a room, if it's necessary, to meet so that
there's some proposal to put in front of the council of how to get
this done.  Yes and then yes.

 >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah.  I can tell you the noncommercial users are
not ready to have a meeting this weekend and start to pull together,
scope the work and agendas and that sort of thing.  We need a couple
days -- we need a few days to talk amongst ourselves about how we
want to approach this and how we want to move forward.  So we
wouldn't be prepared for a -- for a vote or for a meeting this
weekend or a vote on Wednesday.  It's just too soon for us.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Stéphane?

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  What would we be voting on on Wednesday
about launching --

>>AVRI DORIA:  I doubt we would be voting on anything.  But if there
was a proposal, about how to go forward with the work.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  Right, yeah.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Setting up the working groups or whatever, I don't
know.  It is just that -- the thought was that there would be a
possibility of how to get the work going.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  What I was going to say is I have a concern
actually about the size of this -- what is it?  A drafting team or a
working group?

>>AVRI DORIA:  It is a drafting team at the moment to get started.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  It looks -- I haven't counted but it looks
huge.  If we have six weeks left, are we going to be able to work in
an efficient way with a huge drafting team?  I'm not sure.  I'm not
suggesting anyone be excluded from the drafting team.  I'm just
saying that has me worried.  

And if the constituency -- sorry, stakeholder groups need to be
consulted as well about the drafting team, then, you know, we need --
we have six weeks left.  I guess the question I'm asking is how can
we take this drafting team forward?  Can it not meet unofficially if
people aren't ready to meet officially?  Can't we get something
started this week?

>>AVRI DORIA:  That was certainly my hope.  I have Mike, and then I
have --

>>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I think there is quite a bit of confusion at
least in our constituency on what exactly we are doing on this right
now.  You have called this a "drafting team," but it really has just
been a mailing list that a whole bunch of people have signed up to. 
We have never had a drafting team nearly that large before.

There's no possibility that we could possibly respond to the board's
letter if this drafting team is this large.  We have to keep it
small, a couple appointees from each constituency, one NomCom, one
ALAC, like we have done with every other drafting teams and let the
bottom-up process work like it is supposed to.  

But you can't have everybody sitting at the table and hope to come
to a conclusion in six weeks.  It will not happen.

>>AVRI DORIA:  What I had asked for is two to three from each
constituency and then liaisons.  So that, indeed, what I had asked
for.  Okay, not two, but two to three.  Okay, Adrian and then Tim.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  My -- just a question to Robin.  Surely whilst
you -- you just said you wouldn't be ready to meet this --

>>ROBIN GROSS:  Yeah, this STI team in the next couple of days.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Right.  But you can surely come along and listen
if there was a meeting.  You could participate?

>>ROBIN GROSS:  Our point is we don't know exactly who we are going
to send.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Right.  I get it.  You could at least be there
and participate and chat, and it wouldn't be wasted time unless, of
course, you wanted to see the sites of --

>>ROBIN GROSS:  I'm worried decisions will be made about the scope
of work and things like that before we get a chance to --

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  And that's completely valid.  So long as no
decisions were made, however discussions were had, it would be
valuable to have participation.

>>ROBIN GROSS:  Absolutely.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Tim?

>>TIM RUIZ:  A question and comment.  First, is it clear to
everybody what this drafting team is supposed to be doing?  I guess
my impression was it wasn't the team that was actually going to come
up with the questions to the letter in response but was going to
quickly try to draft a way forward to get there.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah, I mean, I was just asking for something to
bootstrap and, basically -- now, this team could among itself make
the decision that, yes, this is a great team, let's go ahead.  We
decide we're the ones to do the work.

But, yes, it was just getting something started immediately.  And
that's why I asked for two to three from each constituency just so
you could bootstrap the process so that we didn't have to end up
letting another week of the eight go by.

>>TIM RUIZ:  Right, right, okay.  I think it is important that we
understand the difference and try to do it in way that we don't get
too delayed in getting started.

The other thing is just from a -- try to get this group jump
started, it would seem that one thing that's really missing right now
at least from my perspective, I don't know if it is something the
staff could produce or some on the IRT, a comparison of what the
staff is recommending in their report versus what the IRT came up
with.  So you could have this side by side.  It would make it much
easier for everybody, so we are not trying to do that individually on
our own and have different ideas and concepts but something that's
concrete, "Here's the difference, here's what the IRT recommended. 
Here's what the staff is saying," so they have something valid to
start with.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Margie, what do you think of that idea?

>>MARGIE MILAM:  Actually, it already has been developed.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Wow.

>>MARGIE MILAM:  And I can certainly send it around.

>>AVRI DORIA:  That be would be fantastic.  Thank you.

>>MARGIE MILAM:  It has two columns and a brief explanation.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I have Jaime, Kristina, Stéphane and then Alan.

>>JAIME WAGNER:  Jaime Wagner.  And I have a suggestion.  I'm not
quite concerned with the size of the drafting team or mailing list or
whatever.  But I think it should have a coordinator or some chairing
in order to have -- to maintain the schedule.  And I don't know if
people here would agree to elect a coordinator for this drafting team.

>>AVRI DORIA:  I don't know.  I mean, provisionally, what we've
tended to do is either one of the chairs or vice chairs does it until
the group meets and it picks itself a coordinator.  So that's why
I've sort of been driving it at the moment until such time as it can
meet and pick itself a coordinator, and then that usually comes back
to that.

I will add Chuck to that.

But I have a feeling it would be difficult.  I don't know about
making a decision to pick one at the moment sitting in this room but
perhaps people can do that.  I have Kristina, Stéphane, Alan and
Chuck and.  Anyone I missed?  And then Philip.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I was hoping I could get some clarification
because if I remember correctly, the original message on the council
list indicated that each stakeholder group would have two to three
designated -- could designate two to three representatives, but I
know we've kind of since then been talking from a constituency
perspective.  

And obviously in the commercial stakeholder group, it makes a
difference to us as to whether we are talking about constituency or
stakeholder group.

The second question/recommendation I would have is that regardless
of what is done/decided as to whether the drafting team is actually
going to do the work or the plan and who is going to lead it, one
thing that I think should be resolved today, if possible, would be
for that group to figure out who the staff person is that is going to
be attached to it because speaking as a former IRT -- member of the
former IRT, for another acronym, having staff support was very
extraordinarily helpful.

And you all are looking at less time and more people.  So you're
going to need some staff support, and I suggest that get nailed down
soon.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Stéphane.  

And you are right, it was written as stakeholder group, not
constituency, when I sent out the mail.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  But which are we going with, I guess, is a
decision point that I would like to have this group decide.

>>AVRI DORIA:  It is up to this group.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Because it will make a difference.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Margie, you wanted to kick in something on the staff
availability?

>>MARGIE MILAM:  Yeah.  On the staff side, we have been talking
about me supporting it given I was involved in the IRT discussions as
well.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thanks.

>>MARGIE MILAM:  I'm certainly prepared to do that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Stéphane.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  Thanks.  Yeah, on the -- I really think it
is a good idea to limit the participation to two or three people
maximum from each stakeholder group.  I think, you know, coming back
to your point about the fact that it's not the size of the group that
matters but the leadership, you know, I'd say anyone who wants to
step forward and lead a group of 50 people to do something in six
weeks, I'd say good luck to that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  That's 15.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  Is it 15 now?

>>AVRI DORIA:  If it is two to three from each stakeholder group.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  But at the moment.  But the size of the
group at the moment is more than 15, I think.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, I don't know.  I would have to look at the list.

>>STÉPHANE van GELDER:  If we can limit that to 15, then that would
work, I think, or it would work much better and we might get some
results in six weeks.

Knowing that the registrar stakeholder group has put forward about
ten people, I'm happy to drop off.  

So I think it is important that we, yeah, we limit that to two or
three people.  Maybe you can decide that now.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Alan?

>>ALAN GREENBERG:  Yeah, again, regardless of whether this is the
group coming up with the plan or the group coming up with the answer,
the board asked for a reply from the GNSO council, which presumably
that means the answer has to come from the council.  

So one thing the council has to do this week is set the deadline for
whenever the group that's going to draft an answer comes out to be
sent back to council for council approval, whether it's, you know, a
special meeting on the 14th or something two weeks earlier, but
whatever that deadline is the deadline that group has to work
towards.  And I haven't heard that talked about at all.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Chuck?

>>CHUCK GOMES:  One of the things we need to keep in mind, this
drafting team is not going to have the time frames that most drafting
teams have.  They have about a week or two to try and reach some
consensus in terms of how we're going to proceed.  Otherwise, whether
they are the ones that do it or someone else or two other groups or
whatever, our time will be gone.  So we shouldn't view this as a
typical drafting team but one rather that hopefully we can work
constructively together to map out a plan.  

We don't have to be too rigid about it, where we can work on the
specific items that are identified in the board's letter.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  I have Philip, Robin, Ron.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just a couple of suggestions which might help
move this forward.  I want to be clear.  What we got so far is a
mailing list and nothing else.  Why don't we ask each stakeholder
group by Wednesday to give us nominations, maximum three, who will be
their people on the drafting team.  So we have clarification between
the difference of the drafting team and the informational mailing
group, at least that way we have a structure to work with.

Secondly, there is clearly process issues.  There's non-substantial
decision-making stuff.  Your earlier suggestion of whoever's
interested huddle together during the information session this
afternoon makes eminent sense.  All they can do is come up would some
plans that will have to come back to the council in general and say,
"Hey, we thought about it a bit more and here looks like a workable
structure.  Do you all agree?"  

Let's do that.  I mean, those two things would help at least move us
forward.  Let's work in parallel on something like this.  It is a
very tight time frame and we know the board is as keen as mustard on
this one because it holds up everything else that it has made
promises about.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you, Philip.

Robin?

>>ROBIN GROSS:  I just wanted to support the proposal that we would
have two to three people per stakeholder group.  I think that would
be a way of trying to at least limit the number of people and make it
a bit more manageable of a group if it's per stakeholder group.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  Ron?

>>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you, Chair.  I think that having had the
experience of the operations work team, unfortunately we were a
handful of people, even less.  So you had a very small number of
people trying to determine the way forward with very important -- on
the very important document, the rules of procedure.

So the idea I would like to bring to the table is simply that if you
have a list of -- on the mailing list of 20 or 25 or 30 or 40,
however many might be there, that they would submit comments and then
you would have a smaller drafting team.  

I support the idea of the smaller drafting team that will actually
be the final arbiters of what will go into the final document but
let's have lots of voices weigh in because it is critical that as a
community that we have broad representation of ideas.  

As I said, in our own experience of the operating team, we had a
very small number of voices weighing in on very important topics.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  What I would like to suggest now
since it's -- unless more people want to talk about it, but I wanted
to say that we basically have the Sapphire room.  It can be set that
at 2:00 those of you that really want to go and huddle about that
can.  As I say, what will be going on in this room will be sort of
the update from all the working groups.  

So while I think that's a very important thing, there will also be a
transcript and slides that people can check out later.  I don't
expect everyone should go to that.  If they do, then we've got a
problem.

And especially one of the reasons we were definitely doing the
update from working groups is to make sure that all the incoming
members were certainly able to get a good snapshot of what was going
on inside the council, but it is also important for council members.

So is there any objection to saying that at 2:00 those from the
stakeholder groups -- first of all, if the stakeholder groups already
know who their two or three are, but others just go there and start
having that wider discussion that Philip and Ron were both talking
about.  Is that at all okay with people?  And then those groups can
decide they want to meet again at some other point.

If they decide that they need a room, I'll be staying with this one.
I won't be going to that one.  If they decide they want to meet again
and need another room at some other time, I don't know that it's
possible but I will certainly take the request back to staff and the
meeting room planners to see if we can find ways to accommodate more
discussions on that.

I wanted to remind the council members that the topic on the Sunday
night dinner will be at least for part of the meal this and we're
going to start the dinner slightly differently in that the board is
going to give a sort of summary of what they meant to say in that
letter, hopefully it is the same of what we read in that letter.  A
little bit of Q and A before we actually eat.

However, have a range to make sure there is some finger food before
that so everybody is not starving through the first part there.  But
we will have a little bit of discussion and chance for council
members that have questions directly to the board, "Did you mean
this?  Did you mean that," et cetera.

Yes, Jeff.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  Just a request.  If you could after that meeting for
those that can't attend that meeting, if you could document the
discussions that take place and any conclusions and then send that
out to the community at-large, that would be greatly appreciated.

>>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Do we have a chair for that group?

>>AVRI DORIA:  We do not have a chair for that STI group yet.

Anything else that people would like to cover in this first meeting?
As I say, we have a working lunch now for the council with the
candidates and provisional candidates for chair, just to sort of talk
about their, I guess, visions for being chair for the next year and
stuff.  And then there's -- and then there's assorted junk, yes.  And
then there is the update from working groups and the STI original
initial discussions.  Then afterwards from 4:00 to 5:00, there's
update on WHOIS study, the discussions of the RFP for the studies and
then from 5:00 to 6:00, there is the travel team -- the drafting team
meeting with ICANN staff and then there is an off-site dinner tonight
for the council members, the meet, greet and complain dinner.

Okay, great.  Remember I said I would have an interrupt for the
NomCom review.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  I will just grab this one.  I will try to keep
it short.  Thomas Roessler here speaking as the chair of the NomCom
working group.  As most of you probably know ICANN commissioned an
independent review of the Nominating Committee in 2007, in fact.  The
results of that review have been languishing through various
processes, and we are trying to wrap that up.

The working group that deals with that has a draft report out.  In a
nutshell, I don't think there is much controversy in there except for
one question, the composition of the Nominating Committee.

One review recommendation is to reduce the size of the Nominating
Committee.  There are some strongly held views that the committee
should be smaller.  The current bylaw provisions are a mechanical
translation of the previous constituency-based representation for the
GNSO to the current environment.  So we will be looking at that.

We have a draft report out for public comment that includes a
strawman for a Nominating Committee composition that would be
significantly smaller than what we have now and we have a public
session at this meeting on Wednesday at 11:00 a.m.

The purpose of my intervention here is basically just to remind
everybody in the room is that this report is out.  It is mostly
boring, but it asks a really important question.  And on that
question, we would like your feedback and we would like to see you on
Wednesday in, I think, a room called garnet.  Thank you.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  Since I know that some council
members have strong opinions on NomCom appointees, I'm hoping that
some of you do put in comments.  Anything else before we break for
the lunch?  Is Glen here to tell us what we have to do about the
lunch?  Oh, it is right outside?  That's easy.

>> There are people eating already.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Hurry up and go get your food.  Okay.  Thank you. 
Thank you.  Have lunch.

[Lunch Break]