*** Disclosure: The following is the output resulting from
transcribing an audio file into a word/text document. Although the
transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or
inaccurate due to inaudible passages and grammatical corrections. It
is posted as an aid to the original audio file, but should not be
treated as an authoritative record.***


ICANN - Singapore
Framework of Interpretation Working Group
23 June 2011
 
 

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Sorry about the delays.  Two-minute delay until
we start.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Okay.  I think we should make a start.  For
anyone in the room who doesn't know me, my name is Keith Davidson.  I
am the chair of the FOI working group.  We are now record recording
and we have online participants.

 I have noted as present Patricio, Eberhard, Paulos, Stephen,
Suzanne, Frank, Dotty, Becky, Nigel.  And so far online, Jaap.  And
of course Bernie and myself, and Kim from IANA.

 Is there anyone else who....

 >> (Off microphone).

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Daniel, Daniel.  Thank you.

 And Katherine Reynolds.

 And is there anyone else online other than Jaap?  Is there anyone
else on Adobe Connect?

 No?  Excellent.

 Okay.

 >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:   I am (poor audio).

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Sorry.  Shout.

 >> (Off microphone).

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Jaap, are you saying something?

 >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:   I was saying that Adobe Connect is showing an
empty room.

 >>KRISTINA NORDSTROM:   Jaap, I just sent another e-mail to the FOI
with the remote details, so just wait a couple of seconds and it
should be there.

 >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:   Okay.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   So we have those present, and we have apologies
from Bill Semich.  Is that an accurate record of who is attending and
in the room?

 Thank you.

 And we have really just two items of business today, and I think
this is a very long session scheduled to run till 5:00 p.m., so I
think we'll have a break at about 3:15 for about 15 minutes.

 We can now quickly go through the meeting report for the 2nd of
June call, and then we'll move into the real business of the day,
which is the terminology paper.

 And, Bernie, do you want to step us through the meeting report from
the 2nd of June?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes, sir.  All right.

 Get this over here.

 All right.  Have you got the meeting report up, Kristina?  Yeah? 
Okay.

 Jaap, present.  Apologies.  Attendees:  Jaap, Martin, Becky, Keith,
Stephen, Chris, Dejan, Ranita (phonetic), Eberhard, Desiree, Paulos,
Nigel, Bill.  ICANN staff was Bart, Kim, Elise, Kristina, and Bernie.
We had apologies from Cheryl, Patricio, Suzanne and Katherine.

 We're talking about the June 2nd meeting.

 You're here today, yes.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   For those on the call, that was Katherine
Reynolds from Canada.

 [ Laughter ]

 (Off microphone)

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   All right.  I think aside from the frivolity,
if there are any speakers in the room, can you please avail yourself
of the microphone?  Kristina currently has it here, but for the
record and for the online participants, it's really important we
catch what you are saying.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   On to the business at hand.  The meeting
report for the May 26th meeting was approved.

 Election of vice chair.  Since we don't confirm anything, just one
meeting, we discussed the nomination of Becky Burr as vice chair, and
there was no opposition.

 So Becky is our vice chair.

 FOI working group charter.  The charter was amended to reflect the
GAC participation as selected by the GAC.

 The work plan for the FOI, we had a few notes, noted the wording
definition of "consent" in section -- Nigel noted that the wording
definition of "consent," section 3.2.2, may be incorrect or
inappropriate given the mandate of the working group.  After looking
at it, I generally agreed with his comment so we fixed that.  

 Nigel requested that a new section be added, similar definition of
consent section to address the use of the term "delegation." 

 And we got into a bit of a discussion with Jaap about draft RFCs
and if such things exist, et cetera, et cetera, to end up with Nigel
agreeing to distribute the paper via the working group list.

 I have reminded Nigel to -- get the microphone if you want to
speak.  It's right up there.

 And Nigel will tell us where we are with that.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   Yeah, that's available on my machine back at the
(inaudible) and I haven't been back there for three weeks.

 I'm going to --

 >> (Off microphone).

 [ Laughter ].

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   You have to bellow into it.

 It's back on my machine back at the Island.  Since the meeting I
have not been back.  I am back on Sunday.  So early next week.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   So Nigel is confirming that he will be
distributing that once he returns home and gets on his bigger machine.

 Bill Semich had found a stray local in IANA versus the law.  No, I
don't want you to show all my e-mails.

 And I corrected that in the updated version of the work plan.

 Finally, we were talking about preparations for Singapore, talking
about this meeting.  And finally, there was the presentation from El
regarding property rights of manager of ccTLDs.  Managers.  El
presented, general discussion ensued.  It was agreed this topic was
out of scope, and this topic is of interest of several members of the
working group.  It was recommended that they form an ad hoc working
group, which I believe has had a meeting here in Singapore.

 There was no other business.  The next meeting is this one.

 Over to you, Mr. Chair.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Thank you, Bernie.  And I think it appears to
me to be an appropriate recollection of my memories of the meeting.

 Does anyone have any changes, amendments, anything missing?

 If not, can we accept that as the record of the meeting?  Thank you.

 Did you have --

 >> I just wanted to report that the ad hoc working group on the
report issue did meet just to go over this a little bit and describe
it, because I'm not sure everybody was on the phone.

 There was a question that was raised about whether there was a
property interest in ccTLD that got created somehow.

 And we spent a lot of time talking about it on the call on the 2nd,
and Nigel and Katherine and I don't know if there was anybody else
and I were the ad hoc group.  We got together.

 I think that our conclusion is that -- and Eberhard will correct me
if I'm wrong -- that, yes, you know, a delegation, whatever it is,
creation of an entry of a ccTLD into the root represents some kind of
property interest, but that said, that can be anything from you have
the right to operate this until I say you can't to, you know,
something much more like -- the fact is that you either have a
license or whatever.  You have some kind of permission to operate the
ccTLD.  It might not be the same for all of the people who are out
there.

 Suzanne is looking at me in a concerned way, and I want to make
sure that everybody understands, I don't think it's a very -- I mean,
I just think it's a -- you can't operate something without some kind
of interest in it, a property interest here, but that doesn't mean
you own it.  It doesn't also mean that you don't own it.  It just
means -- pardon me?

 >> (Off microphone).

 >> It just means we don't know.  It also means it could depend
widely, very widely, from operator to operator depending on the
circumstances of the delegation.

 [ Scribes need people to identify themselves before they speak ]

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   So I think that takes us back to the original
concept that there is a form of contract in terms of the agreement
between the delegation or not, and we can't get to those actual
contracts.

 Eberhard has a point to raise.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Sorry, this is definitely not true.  It is also
not what was said.

 The word "contract" was never used in our deliberations.  Most of
us do not have a contract at all.  And the point is to --

 >> A deal.  A deal.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   The point is -- whether we have a deal or not,
the point is we don't know.  The group so far has deliberated that
there is some form of property, which we do not know or do not want
to go into or haven't gone into yet.  And there is some interest in
it.  Somebody owns it.  But we haven't gone any further.

 To say that there is a contact is clearly out of order.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Okay.  I'll remove the word "contract."  I was
thinking more of the legal context of contract as in there were --
there was an agreement between.  But I withdraw it.

 Is the ad hoc group going to continue to meet to discuss and may
require some time in Senegal for a more open discussion on the topic?

 The answer is --

 >> (Off microphone).

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Okay.  Yes.  So the answer is yes by Senegal. 
Thank you.

 Okay.  Thank you.

 And is there anything that's arisen since?  Yes, there is one point
that's arisen since the meeting report, and that is that the GAC have
agreed that they have received the work plan.  So we should note that.

 And so now we have our work plan and amended charter all in order,
and we can actually get down to the business of the Framework of
Interpretation.

 So unless there's anything more procedurally -- Frank?  Microphone.

 Who has the microphone?

 >>FRANK MARCH:   Hello.  Is it working?

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Yes.

 >>FRANK MARCH:   Yeah.  For those who don't know me, I am Frank
March.  I'm with the -- on the GAC representing New Zealand, but I'm
also part of Internet New Zealand that runs dot NZ so I have a foot
in both camps.

 Just to note, as far as the GAC is concerned, that, yes, it's
received the work plan.  It's fine.  To note a couple things about
the GAC would very much appreciate an outline of the expectations
that will be on it over the next two years.  It's got a huge amount
of work to do.  It does take time for the GAC to process paper, for
all sorts of reasons which I don't think I need to go into.

 The more -- The longer the warning time, the better.  And we're
trying to work out within the GAC a work plan for the next 12 months
or so, and obviously this work is extremely important.  We don't want
to unduly inhibit the work of the working group.  So a timetable,
which is sort of based on when we might expect to see draft papers
early, when the deadline of comment would be and those sorts of
things would be really helpful.

 Thanks.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Okay.  Thank you, Frank.

 And I think as a result of the joint ccNSO-GAC session, we
undertook from the ccNSO to provide a timeline of the critical points
of open consultation of our outputs, which are probably more
pertinent to the GAC to follow in detail, rather than our much more
detailed drafting documents, which are internal -- more internal to
the working group.

 Of course, if anyone who is not on the working group from the GAC
has a strong interest in the subject and wants to share papers, I
think we also clarified that once a paper has been through one
reading in this group, it should be considered to be a relatively
public document and can be shared with people who have an interest.

 Okay.

 If there's nothing else, can we move into our substantial topic for
the afternoon, and the terminology paper.  It's the Framework of
Interpretation Working Group Terminology, Version 2.0.

 And Bernie, do you want to walk us through?  And, please, all, if
you have questions, I think it's appropriate to indicate the question
at the time that we're addressing that text.  And for those online,
if you can raise your hand in the traditional way in the Adobe room,
and I'll try and keep an eye on that.

 Thank you.

 Bernie.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 I'm starting to love those words, "Bernie will walk us through." 
Walking is tougher at 2:00 a.m., though.

 All right.  Once more into the breach.

 This is probably the dryest one of the bunch of them that we're
going to do, so, sorry.  It's painful.  (Laughing)  It was painful
during the research and writing it up.  But if we can get through
this, I think it will be well worth it to frame our discussions in
the further documents with clear referencing of how we use certain
terms.

 So this being said, the structure is fairly standard if you have
survived the DRD working group; right?

 Background, introduction, the final report of the DRD delegation
identified the following issues with this topic.  From Section 3.6.1
of the final report delegations we have the terminology for the
entity to whom a ccTLD is delegated has evolved over time from
manager to sponsoring organization without any input from the ccTLD
community.

 Probably to line up with gTLD terminology.  

 The term "sponsoring organization" seems inadequate to many.  This
and -- Whoa.  Sorry.  This and other naming issues, potentially
including the role accounts, should be reviewed in order to ensure
they properly reflect the situation.

 So that was the remit of this from the DRD final report.

 Whoops.

 The applicability of terminology is across the board, so I don't
think we have any issues with that.

 And the related topics -- most other topics and issues to be
considered by the FOI working group will be affected by the
recommendations regarding this issue.

 All right.  Proposed objectives of the work here are to identify
all the terms that have been used to describe the parties involved in
delegations or redelegations, such as delegee, manager,
administrative contact, technical contact, sponsoring organization,
and to which party it refers from a functional point of view and to
produce a list of unique identifiers for all these parties identified.

 The initial list of terms to be considered under this topic was
agreement, interested parties, manager, operator, and redelegation.

 So what we did then was to look at the core policy documents to
identify which terms were used.  What you have got in 3.1 is
basically a list of the terms that are identified from RFC 1591, and
under which section they appear.

 So basically we've got designated manager, manager, administrative
contact, technical contact, community, significantly interested
parties, contending parties, interested parties, applying party,
organization, and registrants.

 Yes, Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   This is just presumably administrative, but you
say 2.5, redelegation.  And subsequently, you talk about delegation.

 So I think 2.5 should read "delegation and redelegation."

 And earlier on you said "without input from the ccTLD community." 
Historically, that's not correct.  There was a howl of input.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you for that, Nigel.

 So this is the list of the terms that we find in RFC 1591.

 The GAC principles 2005 also included a list of terms, but it was
good because they also had definitions for a number of terms.  And
I've quoted those terms which are relevant to us and included the
definition that we find in the GAC principles 2005 under Section 3.2.

 ccTLD registry or just registry means the entity, whether an
organization, enterprise or individual responsible for managing and
administrating the ccTLD, which is an interesting use of the term,
but could cause some confusion.

 Hold on.  We have Kim that has a comment, with -- if he can find a
microphone.

 Kim.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   I'm listening to you race through some of these
paragraphs, and thinking about the poor scribes in Marina Del Rey, so
just a suggestion to drop the tempo a little bit.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   They are actually trying to scribe this?

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Yes.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   My apologies to the scribes.  I'm sorry, I am
used to doing this without that.

 Yes, Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   I can see the scribing going on here.  They
seem to be coping quite well, actually.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I'll try to be -- yeah, and maybe they are
coping with it now, but after an hour of this, I'm not sure how they
are going to be feeling.

 We don't have to have that on the record.

 All right.  Terribly sorry, dear scribes.

 Okay.

 So we have a term for delegation under getting back to GAC
principles 2005, and its definition in there, which means the
procedures that need to be taken by ICANN-IANA for the inclusion of a
ccTLD in the DNS root upon receipt of an authoritative request.

 There's designated manager, relevant government or public
authority, there's local Internet community, which is an interesting
definition.  Local Internet community means the local community in
the country associated with the country code and includes the
national government.  This definition is specific to --

 I don't want that.  Okay.

 Fine.  Be like that.

 -- purposes identified in this document, and not broader.

 So basically they have a very specific definition, and we're going
to see how we're going to work with that a little later in this
document.

 Some other terms we find in the GAC principles, there's global
Internet community, organization, administrative contact, local
stakeholders, registry managers, government or distinct economy, and
redelegation.

 They do have a definition for redelegation.  It means the change of
the person or body responsible for the administration of a ccTLD
registry effected by ICANN-IANA upon receipt of an authoritative
request.

 So that would conclude the GAC terms, I don't think I missed any of
them, which are relevant to the types of things we're trying to do
here.

 But as we're all used to how we work here, of course this is not
the last crack we get at this.  We'll be going at it again.

 If you think or find anything after the meeting, post it to the
list.  If you don't -- if it's more of a question, you're unsure, you
can send it to me directly, and we can see if there is something
there.  And if there is, then we'll post it to the list or just
include it directly into the document.

 So let's -- Don't worry.  What we're trying to do here is get it
right.  So, please, if you have got information that's relevant,
let's share it.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Bernie, it's Keith.  Just for the sake of -- or
for the benefit of the non- ccNSO members of this working group,
during the joint ICANN board-ccNSO session, we were advised there is
a resolution coming up at the board meeting tomorrow to change the
name in the IANA database from sponsoring organization to manager. 
Just as a point of interest.

 Martin.

 >>MARTIN BOYLE:   Thanks.  Martin Boyle from Nominet, dot UK.

 It's a question of procedure going through this document.  I'm
sorry, I missed the beginning of this meeting.  I was tied up
elsewhere.

 You made a specific reference to the definition under the GAC
principles of local Internet community, whereas when I read the
document, I didn't find any other definition of local Internet
community listed here.

 Are we actually going to be discussing the difference of
definitions at some stage in this walk-through?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes, that's the point of the walk-through.

 >>MARTIN BOYLE:   At what stage?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   When we get to where it's defined.

 >>MARTIN BOYLE:   Okay.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   All right.  Let's get back to it.  

 Also, relevant IANA documentation that is publicly available
contains some terms which are of interest.  Terms used in the
document titled "Understanding the ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation
Procedure."

 I believe that's the 2007 version.  Right; Kim?  Yeah.

 There's sponsoring organization, community, parties served by the
ccTLD, local interest in the country, local Internet community, and
Internet community.  So I bunched those together because they seem to
all be talking about essentially the same thing.

 There is a reference to operator, proposed new operator, and
existing operator.

 There is administrative contact, and technical contact.

 So that's what I could dig up from that specific report.

 The one that's interesting, of course, are the terms used in the
IANA reports.  And you have got a line there that says "see Annex A
for details."  So for those wondering, yes, they were all torn apart,
every single one of them, and we came up with the information that
we're going to have here.

 So first up, in 4.2.1 under the heading of "manager," probably the
most used term in all of the 50 redelegation documents, and we don't
actually have a number.  It was just really large.

 There's all-inclusive caretaker which was popular for a very brief
time in IANA history with six references.  There's delegee with 29. 
That's a typing -- editing concern here.  Manager appears twice.

 Sponsoring organization appears 23 times.  Then there's Supporting
Organization which appears six times.  Temporary caretaker twice. 
And trustee, eight.

 So that's the lay of the land for manager.

 Next we've got -- Sorry about that.

 Next we go to interested parties when referring to local Internet
community instead of government, and we will get into that discussion
later on.

 There's comment sentiment which shows up 13 times.  Under the
general heading of persons, there's persons concerned or affected by
the transfer three times.  Persons and/or organizations that may be
significantly affected 12 times.  Persons and organizations that may
be significantly affected 8 times.  And persons significantly
affected by the transfer 27 times.

 Public interest 6 times.  Significantly interested parties --
there's two categories here, significantly interested parties plus
manager has 12 occurrences; and significantly interested parties plus
trustee has six occurrences.  

 Then there's stakeholders, which actually appears once in the dot
CA redelegation of 2000.  

 Our next major theme was agreement.  We find favor four times.  No
objections 7 times.  Not presented any challenge once.  And support
13 times.

 Redelegation we've got a provisional redelegation reassignment 12
times and transfer 27 times.

 Operator we have a large number of occurrences.  So, basically,
this section is just the raw data.  Once you've gone through all the
information what it looks like.  And we'll start cutting that up and
seeing what we can do with that in section 5.

 All right.  So are there any questions at this point?

 All right.  Either I've managed to put you all to sleep -- it's
easier on the phone.  You can imagine, you know, the people.  You're
not keeping them up, if they're really bored.  But for those that are
stuck in the room, I'm keeping an eye on you now, right?

 All right.  So let's head into the analysis.  Section 5.1 general
notes.  Definition of terms.  With the exception of the GAC
principles, there are no other formal definitions of terms used by
IANA for the administration of the DNS with respect to ccTLDs.  

 Specific terms for DNS administration:  Basically, the
administration of the DNS is a specialized field and, as such, should
have its own lexicon of terms.  These terms should have clear and
formal definitions for the specialized objects of the field and
should be used whenever these objects are referred to.

 Just as an example, we've got the definition of "manager" in
English from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.  And, you know, it's,
basically, a person who directs a team or athlete or a student in a
scholastic collegiate sports who supervises equipment of record under
the direction of the coach, a person who conducts business or
household affairs, a person whose work of profession is management.  

 And, of course, in our universe, the definition of manager in the
context of DNS administration, at least for ccTLDs, means the, quote,
person to whom the ccTLD is delegated and recorded in the IANA
database of TLDs.

 Are we okay?  Okay.

 And we're doing pages 9 and 10 out of 86.  But at the end we've got
the annexes.  So don't worry.  We won't wear you down that much.  

 So I think just this example illustrates why we're trying to come
up with some definitions.  And what we've done here is made
suggestions.  We don't think they are necessarily the end thing, the
final acceptable things.  But it's always easier for people to
comment and arrive at something if we've got something to start with.
Use of terms in public IANA reports on delegations and redelegations.
The narrative style used by IANA in the IANA reports on delegations
and redelegations makes use of many synonyms for key terms such as
manager.  We've got sponsoring organizations, supporting
organization, operator.  For local Internet community, interested
parties, stakeholders, et cetera.  And redelegation, reassignment,
transfers.  This common practice in English, when using a narrative
style.  However -- sorry, scribes.

 Technical terms in IANA reports are meant to have a single meaning.
As an example, manager is meant to be the, quote, person to whom a
ccTLD is delegated as recorded in the IANA base of TLDs.

 The use of synonyms in IANA reports on delegations and
redelegations, although good writing style for a narrative, greatly
diminish the clarity of what should be communicated. [beep]

 Are you going to explode, Nigel?

 Okay.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  The chair will, if the phone doesn't stop
beeping.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE: -- and can often lead to confusion for the
reader, especially when considering that the synonyms are not clearly
defined for specific use by IANA or are used in different ways. 
Operator can refer to manager or the person who is in charge of
operating the registry for the manager.  

 Terms related to the agreement of the parties for the delegation
and redelegation will be addressed in greater detail in the topics of
consent and unconsented redelegations by this working group.

 Terms related to the status of the registry, manager,
administrative contact, technical contact will be addressed in
greater detail in the topic of valid manager, AC and TC by this
group.  

 Terms related to the local Internet community will be addressed in
greater detail in the topic of interested parties.  And the general
notion that public IANA reports are produced in a narrative style
will be addressed in the topic of IANA reports.

 So it's -- was a little bit a question of the chicken and egg
whether to place this report first or at the end after we've gone
through all the specific ones.  And, basically, I decided to place it
at the beginning.  So at least we have a -- we can get ourselves a
set of terms to begin with.  I think that the lexicon that we will
develop today will continue to evolve as we do our work in the other
topics.  So it's not meant to be definitive.  I think the terms that
we define here will stay, but we will keep adding to it as we
progress through our work under the other topics.

 All right.  Let's dive in to our first one.  A question from Kim.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  So just a -- I guess it's more of a meta question. 
5.1.3.1 and 5.1.3.2, you know, I'm not disagreeing with the content. 
I fully agree with what's actually stated.  But it seems to commingle
observations and conclusions, the observation being how the
terminology is used.  And then 5.1.3.2 has a conclusion or a
recommendation that even perhaps a certain approach should be taken,
which is using terms consistently and so forth.  I'm just wondering
should it be made more clear which parts of the document are
observation and which are the conclusions of the working group?

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  I think, if we go through the document, that
will become very clear.  And the point is that there is a
recommendations section.  This is more, I would say, working document
style for now for us to go through.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Okay.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Any other questions?  All right.  So let's get
some work done.  Manager.  So I'll go a little quickly.  We've talked
about where the synonyms come from and how they're used.  So I'm not
going to bore us by doing that again.  We've got that full list
already going.

 There's some in our FC1591.  There are some in the GAC principles
2005.  There are some in the IANA documentation, understanding a
ccTLD delegation and redelegation procedure.  And there are all the
terms used in the IANA reports on redelegations.

 So what we do, then, is provide a summary of the terms used and
some comments where applicable.  

 All-inclusive caretaker from IANA reports, the last recorded use is
in the dot TK redelegation of 2006.  This term should be considered
as no longer being used, I think -- yeah.  We've got Kim shaking his
head.  I think he's happy with that.  Delegee from IANA reports last
reported in the dot CX redelegation of 2006.  I sort of like that
word, but it's not popular right now.  Eberhard is shaking his head
violently.  He doesn't like it.  

 Manager, designated manager, registry manager comes from IANA
reports RFC1591 and the GAC principles.  The term "manager" was last
used in a IANA report on redelegation in the dot CV redelegation of
2009.  Operator, proposed new operator, existing operator comes from
IANA reports and some documentation.

 The operator is used to denote manager or the company that is not
the delegee but in charge of operating in the ccTLD for the delegee. 
This could cause confusion.  So we really see a use of operator both
ways.  We see a use of operator for manager, and we see the use of
operator as the person who operates the ccTLD for the manager.

 So from the IANA document understanding the ccTLD delegation and
redelegation procedure we have the following:  A detailed description
of how existing ccTLD operations will be transferred to the proposed
new operator in case of a redelegation.  So clearly referring to the
fact that an operator is -- will be named a manager for us right now.

 In the dot KN redelegation of 2008, we have the following text:
"The proposal calls for the redelegation of the dot KN top-level
domain to the ministry of finance, sustainable development,
information technology.  In this proposal, registry operations would
be conducted by a partner organization with registry experience. 
This partner is the Taiwan Network Information Center, an established
registry operator, and the current supporting organization for the
dot TW domain."  So, obviously, in that one we've got IANA referring
to it as more the classical operator role as opposed to a manager.

 Kim's got a comment.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  I want to make this conversation, pretending that I
can speak for every report.  But I think I agree it's an issue to
clarify.  But I think "operator" has always been used in the sense
that it is the party that operates the registry itself.  And, as you
know, there's many different models and different countries where you
might have a policy board above them.  And, depending on the
circumstance in the country, sometimes that policy board is reported
sponsoring organization and, in other cases, it's that registry
operator.  So I agree with the conflation is an issue to be
discussed.  But I would say that it's probably consistent that
operator always refers to the party that operates the registry.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  I don't think we're arguing with that.  It's
just it can be confusing when you use it --

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  To paraphrase Bill Clinton who said famously "It
all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," it all depends
on what the meaning of the word "operate" is.  I've heard operator
used colloquially to mean sponsoring organization.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Yeah.   You know, and that's the point of what
we're doing today.  Okay?

 Where were we?  Ah, yes.  Okay.

 Organization comes at us from RFC1591.  The GAC principles.  Only
used in conjunction with sponsoring or supporting in IANA reports. 
Registry or ccTLD registry is a term used for manager in the GAC
principles.  The sponsoring organization, supporting organization
from IANA reports and documentation.

 These two terms seem to be used interchangeably by IANA in its
redelegation reports, yet the term "supporting organization" has
never been formally defined.  So Kim's got -- no, no, this is what
we're for.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  I honestly think supporting organization has just
been an error.  I think everyone has ccNSO on the brain and --
because we use the term "supporting organization" in so many other
facets of ICANN that, when the reports are being written, it was just
an honest mistake.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  No, I understand that.  But, if we're going to
go through it then,  you know.  

 So the term "sponsoring organization" was first used in 2000 and is
still in use currently.  The term "supporting organization" was first
used in 2005 and last used in 2008.

 So there was a period where IANA had supporting organization on the
brain, as Kim says.

 (Speaker off microphone)

 One would imagine they meant that.

 Temporary caretaker from IANA reports.  Only used twice in
redelegation reports for the dot LY and dot YU redelegations.  Again,
there's no formal definition of this term.  It should be studied in
greater detail by the FOI working group.

 Trustee has been showing up a lot in the IANA reports.  After an
initial use in the dot AU redelegation of 2001, the term fell out of
use until 2009 when it began -- when it began being used consistently
and is still in use.  Nigel?

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  The word "trustee" in a document that either is
a legal document or las legal effects is going to be of great
interest.  And I'm going suggest we spend some considerable time
looking at its implication in all meanings of the word "trustee."

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okeydokey.  

 Let's get into the analysis section.  The fact that half a dozen
significant terms have been used by IANA over the years often in the
same IANA report as a substitute for the term "manager" can lead to
confusion.  This is especially frustrating for the ccTLD community,
which has never been consulted by IANA on these matters.  The term
that is most used in IANA reports on redelegations the manager.  The
term is also defined and used in both RFC1591 and the GAC
principles.  

 So the term "operator" is used in more than one way.  Kim noted
that it depends on circumstances, and we should take that into
account.  I'll modify the text to note that.  But this can lead to
confusion.  And I think what we're trying to do with this bit of work
here is remove that potential confusion.  Right?

 Okay.  So, really, what we're saying here is the term we're
recommending is "manager." Okay.  Let's stop calling it anything
else.  It's going to be manager.  

 For those that came in late, Keith noted that the board should be
taking the steps to remove the wording "sponsoring organization" and
going to manager.  So I think we're consistent there.

 While we were at it, thought that we should go into the related
terminology, because we use a lot of terms that mean specific things
relative to managers.

 There's incumbent and proposed managers.

 There have been a variety of terms to describe the incumbent and
proposed managers in reporting on redelegation requests, such as
existing, current, listed, new, proposed.  So just a question there's
been a lot of different terms in use.

 The incumbent manager is the manager of record, according to the
IANA database of TLDs prior to a redelegation being accepted.  When
the term "manager" is used alone, it should be understood to mean the
incumbent manager.  The party which is identified as the new manager
in a delegation or redelegation request should be referred to as the
proposed manager.  That makes sense for everyone.

 And don't forget we'll have another crack at this or not making a
final approval, and we're looking forward to hearing comments and
alternative strategies.  But, as I said earlier, we're putting up
something so you can take a crack at it.  We got a comment from Kim.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Kim, you're looking just a little bit confused. 
Is it over where it transitions from --

  >>KIM DAVIES:  I'm actually not confused.  I think there's an
additional class of manager, which is perhaps what listed typically
would refer to, which is, where we have a situation where there's a
party listed in the IANA database but, based on all the facts and
circumstances, there's some other party, actually, that's taken over
operation often many years prior.  So I think sometimes when we say
"listed," we're alluding to the fact that it is what's in the
database, but the facts pertain to the fact they have no actual role
in running the domain name today.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Yes, I agree fully.  When I was going through -
- we're going through version 2.0.  While I was developing the first
draft of the consent paper, I came on to the de facto redelegations
and the stealth redelegations.  And I've included all that
terminology in version 2.1 of this document.  So yes, quite correct. 
Nigel?

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  I hate to keep doing this, because there are far
more --

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  We're going to do this all day, because we're
talking about words. And this is your thing.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  I appreciate it.  No what I'm going to do is
effectively be a little bit presumptuous, because there are far more
legally qualified and legally experienced people than me here.  

 But the IANA database is kind of like a register.  It's like a
domain name register, of course, is what is it.  It's a register of
top-level domains.  

 In land law, at least in England where there's a -- most land is
registered, nearly all of it now -- the expression is that you look
at the register on its face.  So, in other words, what is listed is
what is listed.  You can look behind it in some circumstances.  But
what is listed is what is listed.  That is the manager.  And, if you
want to think of a circumstance where, for example -- and we all know
the situation of Ireland where the university college is listed as
the manager.  That is the manager in law.  There may something else
going on, but that's the listed manager on its face.  So we could use
the expression "on its face."

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  I think what we're trying to do here, Nigel,
is come up with terminology that's going to be easy for a wide
variety of cultures to use.  And "on its face" I'm not -- I think is
very handy -- a term of art in Britain.  But, you know.

 So, Kristina, given that Nigel is all excited about us working on
words, could you order pizza?  And could you call your families,
because we're going to be here for a few days.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Sorry.  Can we have some order?  Martin has a
question.

  >>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thanks.  I hope I'm not going to try to confuse
all this.  It is a question.  And it really is, actually, about --
and I think it builds on Nigel's point without using "in your face"
or whatever it was he used.  

 It's -- it really is that, if it's listed in the registry, in the
list, in the IANA list, then that is the term "manager."  Where
somebody else is running it, wouldn't they really be the operator?

 Because, you know, otherwise, I'm finding difficult in
understanding why -- why we would use the word "operator."

 >>I think that going to be often the case.  For example, there's an
officially designated manager that uses a service provider or has
some relationship with it.  The only problem is where you have a
manager that has just passed along everything and disappeared.  But
the question whether somebody is an operator, that's a -- it doesn't
quite convey what's actually happened here.  

 I mean, I do think the manager in the database is the designated
manager.  And that's -- and it's very hard to -- I just don't think
that the operator is going to -- I think we -- for the stealth
redelegations, we need another word.  Because it just doesn't convey
the service provider kind of arrangement.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  But, essentially, what you're saying, in that
case, is that the IANA database is out of date?  In other words, that
--

 >> No, what we're saying, I think, is that something has happened
that has not been, you know -- I mean, it could be -- whether it's
out of date or unauthorized, I don't want to put a judgment on it. 
But it's, basically, the manager is the name in the database
designated to manage this.  And so you have an actual operator or
manager or something like that in a situation, but I don't know if we
can --

 >>KIM DAVIES:  So I just have the observation that -- I mean, this
is typically -- these terms are used in a narrative description of
the factual background that is the prelude to the decision.  So it's
not a case of trying to ascribe recognition to a particular party.
The sponsoring organization/manager that's listed in the IANA
database is who ICANN recognizes as the legal responsible party for
the domain.  

 However, when a decision is being made, we often talk about -- in
cases where, you know, effective or de facto operation has already
transferred to some other party, for most or all intents and purposes
except for ICANN recognition, we describe that and we use this kind
of terminology.

 >> Yeah.  There's a manager of record, and then there's another
word we need.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Can we actually come back to the original issue
raised by Kim?  And, just for the record, the previous comment on the
transcript was attributed to me.  And it was Kim who was speaking.  

 But I think, Kim, the point you made about why you might use the
term "listed manager," and it's quite valid.  So let's progress and
keep that noted and revisit further down the document, please.  Nigel?

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  I just want to underline that this is something
that, throughout the work, we're going to have to visit very
carefully.  

 There's a principle called the Torrens principle, which is in the
context of a register -- I won't use the expression "on its face" but
on its face is accurate, irrespective of what may really be going on.
I may own a house, and I may have allowed to you take it over.  But
the register still says I own the house.  Insurance or --

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I don't think we're having a discussion about
that.  We're asking two questions here.  Is the term we want to use
for what is listed manager?  Yes or no.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  Yes.  That is the point I'm making.  Yes, it is.
That is the manager.  There is no other manager.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  There may be other terms we will use which
will couch what that manager is, and we will have the discussion
about that at that point to see if it's valid.  But right now the
question is:  Do we want to use the term "manager?"

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   So we got to the short answer after the long
answer.

 Patricio.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:   Patricio Poblete here.

 I believe that we should try to be very specific, very precise
about the main word, the word "manager" so that we all understand
what manager is.

 And I'm sure we will find occasions when we will want to add some
modifier to, some objective.  Like, for instance, the current
manager, the future manager, we could talk about the first manager,
the initial manager, whatever.  We don't need to think of all those
possible combinations right now.  Only make sure that we understand
what "manager" is.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes and no.  I think it's useful to have some
qualifiers as we go through, because they are regularly used.  And as
we will progress through our work in other topics, some things became
obvious to me.

 So I've included them.  If we don't want to deal with those right
now, that's fine, but I'm recommending to you that we consider them,
at least, for the moment.

 >> Actually, I think it's important to do it as we go along because
we find out that words that we've picked don't work when we get into
that situation.  So it's actually useful.

 I just want to clarify that I think that the sense of the room, and
people can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the term "manager" is
used to refer to the manager of record, the name in the IANA
database.  Are we all there?

 I would like to use "manager of record" rather than just "manager,"
but we'll talk about it.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Okay.  Well, that was fun.  So our first
adjective is "proposed manager," because there really are two
different parties in a redelegation request.  There's the manager,
which is, as we've described, is the incumbent manager.  If we don't
use anything else, manager means the person who is in the database,
so that's the incumbent.

 But we need a term to refer to the party to whom we want to
redelegate.  Pardon me?  Mic read -- We don't want to argue about the
mic.  But the proposed parties.  So we've come up with "proposed
manager" to identify the second party in a redelegation request.

 Patricio.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:   My only problem with the word "proposed" is
that someone who has been proposed may be given that -- the
management of the domain or could be rejected; right?

 So once it's assigned to it, it's not proposed anymore.  The
proposal has already been accepted; right?

 So proposed manager doesn't carry through the whole process.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Well, the notion is it's proposed until he is
accepted, and when he is accepted, he becomes the manager.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  I actually think it raises an interesting question
which maybe we will deal with at some later point which is that the
tense of the report is that this is part of proposal to the board. 
So the way the wording is is this is a proposal and the board accepts
it.  But by the time it's published, obviously events have
transpired.  So maybe the ultimate conclusion of this working group
will be to change that methodology.  But just for right now, we write
it on the basis that this is a proposal, and all the language kind of
surrounds that.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   This is Keith Davidson, and for the scribes
purposes, Kim and Keith are being confused again.  That last note was
ascribed to me, so perhaps we sound alike as well as sharing the same
initials.  But, Kim, could you take your time each time you speak.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Kim Davies says yes.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Stephen.

 >>STEPHEN DEERHAKE:   Stephen Deerhake.

 Perhaps a less loaded word and substitute candidate for proposed,
as in "candidate manager."

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I see some noes, I see some yeses.

 We have Desiree.

 >>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:   Desiree Miloshevic with dot GI.

 To follow up what Steve was saying, can "manager" be -- what did
you call them?

 >> Candidate.

 >>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:   Candidate manager without being proposed by
anybody?

 So probably then "proposed" is good.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Eberhard Lisse.  Do we really have to talk
about this now?

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   If it's of critical importance -- sorry, Keith
Davidson.

 If it is of real importance to the working group, then yes.

 But I think we're getting into semantics, and we should probably --
Well, I think the point that we've noted from Kim that raised this
discussion was we have now a term manager for the existing manager,
and the proposed manager, and the other issue is sometimes there is a
listed manager who is not actually the manager and we need to think
about the listed manager term.

 Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   I was going to say something else.  The listed
manager is always the manager.  That's the point we were discussing.

 Kim's use of the word "proposed" is entirely and perfectly
acceptable as a modifier.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Keith --

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   Kim is entirely correct in what he said.  If you
want an alternative and you want to sound a little bit more
highfalutin, you can use "prospective" instead of "proposed," but I
like "proposed" myself.

 By the way, I thought interpretation was all about semantics.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Actually, Dotty was before Eberhard.

 >>DOTTY SPARKS DE BLANC:   The word "proposed" has a preferential
sound to it, and that's why I don't like it, because it sounds like
that person is going to be better than the existing one, and that may
not be true.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Again, do we have to talk about this now?  This
is --

 >> You may hear a list of available options at any time.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   No, do -- Really.  The rest of it, when we go
through this, we will discuss what it means.  Do we really have to
discuss --

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   The term "proposed" I think is important
because in a redelegation request, we have two parties.  So we need
to come up with one word.  If you want "candidate," that's fine.  If
you want "proposed," that's fine.  If you want something else, that's
fine, too.

 But it's a very -- it's a party in redelegation requests and we
need a name for it.

 Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   I agree with that, but do we need it now?

 We need to go through this document to see how many of these things
have been used how often, and then we start, and then we decide what
each thing means, and then we decide which we recommended we should
use in the future.  Are we there yet?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   If we want to wait a bit, we will get back to
it later in the document.  You're quite right.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Okay.

 Keith Davidson is speaking.

 Okay.  We seem to have reached a point of slight impasse.  Can we
move on?  Thank you, Bernie.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you, sir.

 Operator.  Now, we're -- Just to resync everyone here, we're still
under the heading of "Manager." 

 So "operator."  Although the term "operator" should not be used as
a synonym for "manager," it could denote some useful information as
to who actually is operating the ccTLD.

 This could be especially useful given that a number of ccTLDs are
not directly operated by the manager.

 All right.  The term "manager-operator" could denote a manager that
is both manager and operator.  The term "manager" can denote a ccTLD
that is managed but not operated by the same entity.  And the term
"operator" could denote the party that is listed as the manager of
the ccTLD but is responsible for all operations.

 >>BECKY BURR:  I like the two -- the operator for whoever is doing
the hands-on manager for the -- who is ever in the list, and the
manager-operator if they are the same thing.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Becky, please remember to use your name.  I'm
not sure why we are being scribed, but since we are, I guess we
should make it an accurate record.

 Patricio.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE: Yeah, Patricio Poblete here.

 I agree that perhaps the word "operator" used as Bernie describes
it could usefully identify that entity that's actually running the
day-to-day operations.

 What I don't see is the need for ever using that term in our work
because all what we are charged to do is to identify who the manager
is for a certain TLD and how that manager is changed.

 The fact that in real life sometimes there are outsourcing
agreements, for instance, should have no impact on that word and I
don't think we will ever be using the word "operator" as you define
it.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Kim Davies.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   I guess it probably echoes what was just said. 
Just looking at the examples there, my understanding is auDA
outsources registries back-end operations but provides customer
service and is the interface to the community for registry operations.

 So each country is different and you can't give a definition for
everywhere.  So I think we want to capture what do we mean by
"operator," in what context it's relevant for reporting and to work
out how it's used.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you.  Our next section gets back into
identifying a little bit the status of the manager because what we
see through the history of the IANA reports is managers have varying
status depending on conditions.  Active and inactive managers.  Not
all managers in redelegation requests are active.  And the
terminology to refer to their status varies greatly in each IANA
report.

 The variance in terminology can lead to confusion.  These essential
fall into three categories.

 There is derelict, there is documentation that the manager no
longer exists or will never be able to interact with IANA.  There
have been a few such cases over the years.

 We've got some examples, and I don't want to go through the
details.  If you are interested, it's there in the report.

 I think another category that might be useful would be "inactive." 
Although not derelict, the manager is not involved in the day-to-day
administration and operation of the ccTLD and has not been for some
time.  In such cases, there are two possibilities.  Either there is a
de facto manager, which is probably also the de facto operator, of
the registry which handles the day-to-day management of the registry
or the registry itself is inactive or derelict.

 There are some examples of inactive managers.

 There are de facto managers, which we talked about in a previous
point.

 Active, which signifies the manager is currently involved in the
day-to-day administration, operation of the ccTLD.

 The issue of how one classifies a manager as derelict, inactive,
active or de facto, and what procedures this should invoke if this is
confirmed will be addressed in the topic of active manager, AC and
TC.  However, it will be useful to formalize the terms for this topic.

 So that's the end of the analysis section and proposal for manager.
And I'll take any closing questions on manager.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Kim.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Do you use the same terminology laid out to refer
to administrative and technical contacts?  Because I think the term
derelict, inactive would be very useful there, too.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes.  That's what I've tried to do.  And as we
go through all the terms you will see a consistency of the adjectives
and how we applied them.  At least that's what I'm proposing that
could be useful when we are describing these objects.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   And if there's no other questions I think this
is an appropriate time to take our 3:15 break as it is in that time
zone.  So we got to where I predicted we would by this time expecting
exactly the amount of controversy we have had.

 Would the people who like "prospective" as a term walk through the
left door.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   We will reconvene in 15 minutes.

 Thank you.

 [ Break ]

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Could everyone resume their seats and we will
start again in one minute.

 

 

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Can everybody take that's seats now and we'll
resume the meeting.  Thank you -- thank you, Kim.  Thank you.

 Okay.  Can we go back?  Are we online and regarding and everybody
is happy.  Let's move along, please.

 Bernie.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 Just a note, in Version 2.1, we've included a formal definition of
"manager" which takes what was earlier in the document just to be
consistent with style.  I noted when I was reviewing it for this
presentation that there were a few inconsistencies.

 All right.  On to our next bit of fun.

 Administrative contact.

 Rather steady all the way through.  No significant misuse or
synonyms or everything, so I think that's a good idea.  What we don't
have is a definition.

 There is a proposal here.  The admin contact is the role or
individual named by the manager and listed in the IANA database of
TLDs and is responsible for acting as the primary administrative
contact between the manager and ICANN-IANA.  The AC is not required
to have extensive technical knowledge of the Internet but is required
by IANA to approve all changes to the IANA database regarding the
ccTLD, including redelegation requests.

 The AC can only be replaced by the manager as per the documented
IANA procedures for this.

 Now, I will add in the comments from Bill, who sent them in for
those who saw it on the list.  He sort of rewrote it around, and Bill
is such a great editor that his text obviously sounds better than
this one but it essentially says the same thing, but I will finish
confirming that, and everyone can have a read at it.

 His question relative to this was what's the IANA procedure for
replacing an administrative contact.  And as far as I'm concerned,
it's a change request, Kim?

 [ Laughter ]

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   What's the IANA procedure to change an admin
contact?

 >>KIM DAVIES:   The procedure is for the AC and TC to confirm, and
for the sponsoring organization or manager to also support that.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   With the benefit of history, this procedure was
unilaterally changed by ICANN around 1999 or 2000 without the benefit
of policy.

 The InterNIC system treated a TLD as any other domain.  The
administrative contact could change his or -- In other words, the
owner of the admin contact object in the database which used to hold
dot com and TLDs together, could replace or change his or her own
details automatically within seconds at any time.  In fact, it was
quite common to have something called a NIC handle which was used
both for dot com domains and for TLDs.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Can I stop you for a sec?  Okay.  I don't want
to get into discussions of procedures for admin contacts.  All I'm
saying is we have a definition.  There is a -- I mentioned Bill's
question:  What is the procedure currently for changing it.  Kim
answered.  This section is not about procedures for changing ACs and
TCs.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   But on the matter of definitions, one important
thing, and maybe you are dealing with this later, I don't know, about
an admin contact -- and if you are not dealing with it later, it's
worthwhile mentioning it briefly here.  An admin contact is an
essential part of the delegation because if the manager is not in the
country or territory represented by the two-letter code, then you
must have an admin contact who is.  That's one of the requirements of
the policy.  In RFC 1591.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Actually, that's a very good point.  That
should be in the definition.

 Thank you.  I mean, it's so obvious for me --

 >> (Off microphone).

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   No, no.  That's great.  Excellent.  Thank you.

 Kim, you have something else?

 >>KIM DAVIES:   It's not important.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Okay.

 Whoa, where did that come from?

 All right.

 Where were we?  Okay.

 There were types of contacts.  We have the role account, position
in the organization or government such as V.P. of operations or
minister of cultural affairs.  There is an individual, a specific
individual is named, such as John Smith, with associated contact
information.  It could further be specified that this person's role
is linked to their professional affiliation or not; i.e., you are
affiliated with a specific company or you're the -- you're the
contact as an individual.  So that may carry some import at some
point.

 The status.  We've tried to keep to what we talked about for the
manager.  Active, is in regular contact with the manager and IANA and
is involved with all changes with IANA.  Inactive, the individual
advises IANA that he does not consider himself -- or should be him-
or herself, in good standing with the manager or able to properly
carry out its duties as an AC.

 The manager is active but the role is not.  Examples of this are
the V.P. of operations or the manager and the organization was named
as the AC but the organization has restructured and there is no
longer a V.P. of operations out there.

 There is some basis for having an inactive contact.  Then there is
derelict, and we have tried to use the same methodology or
definition.  Role account AC no longer active.  If it's a role
account, the organization no longer active, or the affiliated
individual administrative contact cannot be contacted or is no longer
affiliated with the organization.

 Under an unaffiliated AC, cannot be contacted by IANA or is proven
to be permanently unable to carry its responsibilities:  death,
mental incapacity, whatever.

 So there are many -- Depending on the type of admin contact you
are, there are categories which we need to recognize.  There are
different classifications which we will investigate in detail under
active manager, AC and TC.  But I wanted to give some flavor to the
vocabulary we will be getting there.

 That concludes it for administrative contact.

 So basically we are proposing to keep the term AC.  We have given a
proposed definition.  Bill Semich has returned something.  We have
got the comment from Nigel.

 Are there any last questions on AC?

 Quick, before Patricio comes up with something.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:   Patricio Poblete here.  I am just a bit
confused by the "affiliated individual AC" which is no longer
affiliated.  How can someone who is called affiliated is not
affiliated?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Okay.  If we go back.  Okay.

 In 5.3.3.1, we are saying an admin contact, there can be several
types.  There can be a role account, okay?  It's a position in the
organization where the government.  So the V.P. operations that's
named or it's the minister of cultural affairs or something like
that.  So it's not an individual; it's position.

 There can be an individual.  A specific individual is named to be
the AC, but we are saying it could be further specified in that that
person could be named as part of an affiliation; i.e., this person
from that company.  Therefore, he is the AC as a member of that
company.  If he is no longer a member of that company, then that
could signify that he can no longer be an AC.

 It could also be unaffiliated being it's just the individual.  So
it doesn't matter where the person works, if it's an unaffiliated
individual who is named as the contact, then as long as IANA can
interact with the contact, then that would be okay.

 I believe that Nigel had his hand up first.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS: This is not semantics now, but it's worth noting
for a procedural point of view, and Kim can either take it on board
or -- to list John Smith VP of operations of Netco is ambiguous. 
It's probably almost certainly the case that he's there in his
position as VP operations of Netco.  But there are other
circumstances in which it's not so clear, depending on what's
written.  And, you know, we don't necessarily know that -- if it's
Nigel Roberts mailbox, incorporated, it could just be a mailing
address and look like that.  

 If it was listed that it was Netco that was the admin contact,
which easily can be because a contact be a legal person as well as a
residential one, contact John Smith, that would be absolutely
unambiguous.  So for future going forward, a procedural point might
be to insist that the legal person or the person who is the admin
contact, whether it's the organization or the individual, is listed
as admin contact and then contact name.  That's my point.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE: Very good.  Thank you, Nigel.  Kim?  Kim Davies.

  >>KIM DAVIES:   Yes.  So I think this is actually very
interesting.  But we have no distinction between affiliated and
unaffiliated right now.  And there's no notion that some ACs can be
replaced and some cannot.  It's uniformally applied irregardless of
whether it's a roll account, individual, or the business logic in
terms of when they can be replaced.  So I guess it raises an issue I
raised a little earlier, which is I'm a little concerned that it's
drifting possibly away from definitions and into the realm of,
perhaps, policy.  So I'm not saying it's wrong.  I'm just wondering
if it's classified clearly that, for example, 5.3.3.2.1.2 there's no
such entity right now in terms of our policies or procedures.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay. Nigel.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  Thanks.  Previous comment, to define, was not
interpretation but was procedural.  I think, uncomfortable although
it might seem, first of all, we'll stumble on to procedural matters,
which are relatively straightforward.  And we can make, perhaps,
comments that can be taken and procedures can easily be changed. 
And, on the other hand, we will stumble on thorny policy issues,
which we can't necessarily handle ourselves but we will have to
highlight as requiring attention.

 And the policy whereby, without any documentation, without any
change to the existing policy being defined, where an admin contact
who can, as you've identified, be unaffiliated, can block the proper
execution of the designated manager's responsibilities, is quite
worrying.  I know ICANN have been doing this since 2000, because I
remember sending in a request which wasn't acted on in the --
basically, when they split the database from the dot com database. 
And, all of a sudden, you now required all the admin technical and
contouring organizations -- perhaps we'll call it that until tomorrow
-- to positively verify the change.  

 If my address changes -- I'm the admin contact only in one TLD.  If
my address changes, and I write to IANA to tell them my address has
changed, I don't expect them to write to the commerce secretary to
confirm that Nigel Roberts' address has changed.  But that's the
situation as it is right now.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay.  And that's not what we're doing here. 
So what I'm taking away from this chunk of the conversation is
there's some questions around the notion of affiliated and
unaffiliated.  But the notion of administrative contact is good.  The
notion of active, inactive, and derelict is interesting.  Kim.  Kim
Davies.

  >>KIM DAVIES:  Sorry.  I was going to change slightly what you
said.  I think this clearly is a notion of affiliated and
unaffiliated.  It's just what powers they have, which is the second
clause of your definitions.  That's what needs to be tweaked.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay.  Anything else on AC?

 All right.  TC.  Essentially, close enough carbon copy of AC where
the only change of import is that the TC should have sufficient
technical knowledge to effectively interact with IANA.  The rest is
all exactly the same as for the AC.

 And TC is used rather straightforwardly everywhere by everyone.  So
I don't see any point in changing that.  Any questions on TC?

 Going once?  Going twice?

 Got the ball rolling, chief.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Keep going.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay. 5.5.  All right.  We're changing gears
here a bit.  Interested parties when referring to local Internet
community instead of the government.  And please let me finish going
through this.  I'll try to explain it, and then I'll be glad to take
all stones and comments.

 RFC1591 refers to the input from the local community in several
areas.  The two of interest to our group can be found in the sections
dealing with delegations and redelegations.  

 Section 4:  Significantly interested parties in the domain should
agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party.

 Again from section 4:  However, it is also appropriate for
interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated
manager.

 Section 6:  It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive
communications from other parties that may be concerned or affected
by the transfer.

 Nigel?

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  I think I'll just say out loud what I just said
privately to Eberhard.  God, you're good!  This is very, very
significant.  What you're actually saying here is that there's three
classes of people who should be consulted.

  >>EBERHARD LISSE:  I'm supposed to identify myself to the scribes.
I'm Eberhard Lisse.

 The point is you leave out in what context these things have been
referred to.  I'm just saying.  I'm just saying.  You just mentioned
they are being mentioned.  But it is the -- the context -- I think we
don't discuss this now, so I don't delve into it.  I just want to
make sure it's on the record.  I have never agreed with anybody
having any word in the unselection of existing incumbent.  The point
is that this is only for the delegation part of it.  But we will come
to this later, I think.  Just wanted to make sure it's in the notes.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Anybody else?

 Okay.

 The GAC principles refer to the local Internet community in section
3.9.  The local Internet community means the local community in the
country associated with the country code and includes the national
government.  This definition is specific to the purposes identified
in this document and not broader.

 So that's really about the GAC principles 2005.  There's also the
term "local stakeholders" in section 7.1.

 IANA documentation refers to community, parties served by the
ccTLD, local interest in the country, local Internet community, and
Internet community.  The IANA reports on redelegations include
community sentiment, first used in the BB redelegation of '07;
persons, and, you know, we can just go through details.  But have --
I don't think it really will add a lot to our discussion.  

 Such a number of terms can only lead to confusion.  I mean, there's
really a wide range and it's -- to me anyways, from reading all the
terms, even I sometimes scratch my head trying to figure out exactly
what we're talking about, especially in light of the GAC definition
that we've got something else.

 So one of the things we could consider for the local Internet
community could be that it's the official term for the collection of
individuals, organizations, companies, and associations which have an
interest in the delegation, redelegation, and operation of the ccTLD -
- I've added the "s" now that we have IDNs -- which represents their
country or territory.  This does not include the government of the
country or territory.  Eberhard.

  >>EBERHARD LISSE:  I can't live with the word "which represents."

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Jaap.

  >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:  This is Jaap Akkerhuis on the phone for the
scribes.  Since we are talking about terminology, we should probably
use same terminology as in ISO3166, which doesn't really talk only
about country, but talks about country and territories.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  I'm missing the point.

 >>BECKY BURR:  I think what he's saying -- Becky Burr.  The point
is that the ISO3166-1 list refers to -- includes countries and
territories.  We're talking about countries in here as opposed to
countries and territories.  I think that's -- I was just translating.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Jaap, yes, very good.  Just when we're
discussing things, we use country as a shorthand for country and
territory.  But in formal definitions we do include both.  But thank
you for reminding us of that.  Nigel.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  Leading on from what Jaap said, in one case,
there is something on the ISO list that is neither a country nor a
territory.  There may be more than one, but there's at least one. 
Can we just footnote this?  Because at some point you're going to
have to deal with who the local Internet community is for blocks of
land governed by multi-national treaty or something like that.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Thank you.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  I think it's a notable --

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  Yeah.  UM is also not a territory.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Well, Antarctica is not a -- is a disputed
territory covered by some treaties in different parts.  Anyway, I
think going back, I think Eberhard's first point was that he had an
express objection to the wording which represents their country or
territory and I think "is associated with the country and territory"
might be a more appropriate wording.  So, if you're satisfied,
Eberhard.

  >>EBERHARD LISSE:  I'm quite satisfied.  The territory issue is
fine.  I understand the ISO refers to countries and distinct
economies with regards to -- for statistical purposes.  They define --
it's really part of Denmark in a sense, but it's separate.  We don't
have to go into semantics because AQ is the only main exception.  M
is the other one.  But also what you do if a country doesn't have a
government, one can't say government of the country and -- I don't
really know.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  We probably do have to be quite semantic,
because we have Jaap who associates himself well with the ISO3166
list.  And he has his hand up, so Jaap.

  >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:  Yeah.  I don't want to go into a semantic
discussion.  But I -- but I think that, if you use the ISO3166 as a
reference, you should not deviate from the definitions in there.  And
I want to warn about that.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  You've got a lot of people nodding their heads,
Jaap.  Good point.  And yes, ISO3166.

  >>JAAP AKKERHUIS:  The definition, I can always look up precise
definitions from ISO, if you want to use it or repeat it.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  I don't think that's going to be necessary. 
Thank you, Jaap.  And yes, that's -- yeah, it's important to note the
history of the ISO3166 list and its uses for postal addressing
processes and so on and so on.  It's -- yeah, countries and
territories is a very loose term.  But I think we have an
understanding of the confines and the definition within ISO3166. 
Thank you.  Bernie.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Thank you.  So why change the definition
versus what the GAC had?

 I'll explain to you the thinking, and maybe it's incorrect.  I
think, if you go through all the IANA reports, whenever we're talking
about government or territorial administration, in an IANA report,
they're identified as such, very specifically, the government, the
territorial administrator. It's never in question.  It's never
grouped together.  

 Yet we needed a term to describe all those other bodies in a
country or territory which have an interest.  So, to my mind, it made
sense to sort of -- and the term that was most used was local
Internet community in the IANA reports.  So what we're proposing is
that the local Internet community be all those other parties and the
government is the government.  I don't want to make that frustrating
for the government folks, but --

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Nigel and then Kim.  All right.  Kim then Nigel.

  >>KIM DAVIES:  Kim Davies here.  I think that, typically, we've
used LIC as a catch-all, including government, typically, the way
we've used until now.  But I would note -- and I don't have an answer
for this.  But I would note, when we say "government," we mean, like,
the sovereign government of the country or territory.  And there's
other elements of government that would fall under the LIC
definition.  So I would be careful not to completely rule out
governments, if we're doing so, and perhaps try and capture the
sovereign government's role versus other aspects of government.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  We did have -- we were in the GAC -- joint GAC
ccNSO session yesterday learning about the difficulties of federated
states with no central government and so on.  Suzanne, did you want
to further clarify?

  >>SUZANNE RADELL:  If I could.  Suzanne Radell here.  Thank you. 
Is this better?  Oh, good.  

 There may some isolated cases along the lines of what was just
cited.  But, I think, if you do have a case where there is a central
government, then it would not be accurate to talk about other
ministries, other whatever.  I mean, in most cases,  okay? 
Government is government.  So I know we've run into this confusion a
little bit in ICANN trying to make a distinction between law
enforcement and the GAC.  And we have tried to -- that's just an
example unrelated to our work here.  And we have said no, well,
actually, law enforcement is part of government.  Therefore, they are
part of GAC.  So I think any government would -- probably, normally,
their instinct would be to say well, even if there is a regional
something or other, when we're talking about these issues at country
level, you're talking about the highest level of government, then,
would be the responsible entity that would fall under the heading of
government.

 But, just to make an observation to share with you, I'm not
entirely persuaded -- this is a personal view.  This is not a GAC
view -- that this distinction you're seeking to make is going to be
very workable or very helpful.  And I think it might aggregate the
issue of trying to shape and understand what the concept itself
means.  You will have several countries that could be fairly small. 
They could be fairly underdeveloped.  Whatever.  They might say no,
it is our responsibility as government to represent the interests of
our citizens.  And so they would find that they are appropriate
entity --

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Yeah, but we're not.

  >>SUZANNE RADELL:  -- to cover all these interests.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  But, just to be clear, we're not trying to
attribute responsibility here in this definition.  We're just trying
to identify blocks of people.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Suzanne, just for further clarification.  And
then I have Kim and Nigel --

  >>SUZANNE RADELL:  Just a quick follow-up -- and thank you for
giving me the time.  I know that's not your intention.  But, de
facto, that will be the understanding.  That will be a takeaway.  So
I just put that out there that you might want to be very sensitive to
that.  Thank you.

 >>We appreciate that.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  I think just before I move on to Kim, there was
the point made by the government of Norway about deciding in country
the relevant authority responsible for -- or that feels it's
responsible for delegation of new -- or agreeing and approving new
gTLDs and that department writing to ICANN saying we are the ministry
in charge of this.  So one could argue that the same could apply to --
by a government writing to ICANN saying we are the ones to clarify
anyway.  Sorry, Kim then Nigel.

  >>KIM DAVIES:  Just an example I thought that might help is, you
know, for example, commonly, we get an education ministry talking to
us representing that this is supported by the universities or the
high-level education secretary in the country.  So they're not
purporting to speak on behalf of the government in terms of giving
the overall government's view.  But they're part of the Internet
community, namely, academia.  And they're giving a position.  

 So just an example of where we're not talking about the government
stating an overall position, but some aspect of government that is
giving an opinion that filters in with many others.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Thank you, Kim.  And Nigel.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  Someone just gave me another microphone.  And
this one seems to work, which is good.  I think actually both Kim and
Suzanne are both correct.  I'm a little bit uncomfortable, although
prepared to go along with it, if it turns out to work out, to
redefine the local Internet community in this way.  It's my
understanding, based on the years that we've been doing this, that
from RFC1591 amongst other things but, principally, the term "local
Internet community" was inclusive of governmental authorities. 
Because, quite clearly, if you look at the other terms, significantly
interested parties, there's, again, no doubt that the government or
governmental authorities, which I'll come to a little bit more on
that in a second, are responsible for public policy for companies and
individuals located within their jurisdiction.  

 Having said that, there's another interesting point here.  And this
specifically and probably only, but maybe not, relates to our own
constitutional situation.  The Channel Islands are almost a country
but not quite.  In other words, complete self-government in domestic
matters except for defense and foreign affairs.  So the United
Kingdom government normally represents the interests of the Channel
Islands and the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories
abroad.

 So, in separating out the definitions, you may say, well, the
national government is the government that has the say, where, in
fact, it would be the national government on the advice -- it's a
technicality.  But there are these things, as Suzanne quite rightly
points out, are incredibly a matter of sensitivity in different
territories and countries.   Whereas, if you have the inclusive
definition, which I think Kim, Suzanne and I all prefer, it solves
that problem.  You don't have to look at that. Because the local
government and the national government all have things to say. And
it's resolved internally the communications terms in which they're
made.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  I take the wisdom.  It's not a problem.

  >>NIGEL ROBERTS:  I hope that wasn't too detailed.

  >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Yes, but it's okay.

  >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:  Okay.  So I'll bring the local Internet
community back to being completely inclusive.

 Agreement.  Terms used in IANA reports favor no objection.  Not
presented any challenge.  Support.  RFC1591 requires agreement of the
incumbent manager for redelegation.  Not all these terms can be
considered as synonyms for agreement in all circumstances.  The use
of the term "not presented any challenge" could mean the contact has
not responded to IANA's confirmation request.  As such, the use of
these terms to describe the agreement by the contact for redelegation
could lead to confusion.  

 So I guess what we're saying here is, when we're being very
specific regarding approving a request, we should use a specific
term, which should be "agree" or "consent," because we've gone
through some other work elsewhere.  But that's, basically, what it's
going to boil down to.

 Redelegation:  IANA reports on redelegation use a number of terms
as a synonym for this.  Provisional redelegation, reassignment,
transfer.

 This could lead to confusion.

 So, really, let's stick to redelegation.  If it's a redelegation,
it's a redelegation.  And we'll get that done in some of the next
sections -- whoa!  Come back here.

 Other related terminology issues.  We're in the home stretch,
folks.  Don't fall asleep!

 I'm proposing that the qualifiers we use for manager AC and TC
could also apply to the registry itself.

 So a registry could be active, inactive, or derelict.  And there
are some words here to talk about potential things, and I'm looking
forward to Kim adding color and depth or actually burning them at the
stake.  I believe it could be useful in going forward.

 Basically the way we've got this structured is we end up with a
recommendation that the FOI working group recommends that ICANN and
IANA use the lexicon, or you can call it a glossary, I'm not wed to
the word, developed by the FOI working group when communicating about
the administration of ccTLDs.  ICANN and IANA should not use
unapproved or undefined synonyms for terms defined in this document.

 So then we retake, basically, everything we've talked about today
as definitions.  There have been changes.  I don't think we need to,
you know, beat them to death.  There is nothing different in Section
7.  We have just condensed various definitions into a draft glossary
of those terms all in one place.

 Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   Section 7.1.2.1, here you define administrative
contact self-referentially.  I think that should read something along
the lines of, "The AC is the role or individual identified by the
manager and listed in the IANA database and responsible for acting as
the primary point of contact."

 Suggestion.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Any other questions?  The way I see this at
this point is we have gotten a lot of feedback from this session, so
I would propose that I draft a Version 2.1 of this that incorporates
the comments and the thoughts and the changes and the various other
things, and that we have another go at it.

 Does that sound okay?

 Desiree.

 >>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:   When will you -- It sounds okay.  When will
you actually take more feedback?  After -- We're not close being the
session now.  We're still going to discuss the contents of it or --

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Oh, we can keep going.  It's really not a
problem.  All I am saying is we can go over all the elements, and
feedback is, as I said earlier in the session, is always welcome.

 So whether it's in the session or in between meetings, if you've
got thoughts, you can post to the list or you can post to me
individually.  We will glad to consider those.

 >>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:   Desiree again.  I will make them here now
quickly.

 Just in 5.6.1.1 where you list the possible responses of the
manager, it says favor, no objection, not presented any challenge and
support.  I would have trouble differentiating "favor" and "support."
And I would think there might be a case where there is no support.

 So the 5.6.1.1.4 would be no favor or no support.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I'm not sure I understand where you are going.

 This is just a list of terms that are currently in use in the
documentation.  These are not proposed.  These are just --

 >>DESIREE MILOSHEVIC:   Sure, sure.  Okay.  Thank you.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Can we go back to 7 where it said "active
manager."  Active AC.  Active manager.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yeah, I think we can go at it going forward
into the section on manager, or do you want to go back to --

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   I want to go back forward.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Or forward backwards.  I don't mind.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   In that case, can we move forward?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Okay.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   7.1.3.1.  Active AC.  The AC can be contacted
by IANA, and that's the issue.  And it's responsible for acting.

 We have had the discussion about what "can be contacted by IANA"
means.

 We have had the discussion on the DRD group what "can be contacted
by IANA" means.  Or what else?  Stopped responding in the AU thing,
in the AU delegation, and in the dot IQ delegation the contact was in
jail at the time.  Does that constitute not -- We need to define what
that means, "Can be contacted."

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes, and I think what I mentioned when we were
talking about those things earlier is that that's exactly some of the
stuff we should be dealing with under active AC -- manager, AC and TC.

 So I'm not looking to get into that here.  That's a good question
and certainly something we will explore in great detail.  But that's
specifically targeted for the third topic.

 And just to be clear, from the work plan, we've got seven topics. 
This is the first.  The second is consent.  The third is active
manager AC and TC.

 Does that answer your question, Eberhard?

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   The first topic is definitions.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Yes.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   Then it's not acceptable because we indeed to
define what means "can be contacted."  It's not defined.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Well, to a certain extent, that's -- if you
will, to a certain extent that's a procedural issue and I think
that's better done in the third topic because it's not a question of
a pure definition of what "contact" means.  For me, anyways, you know.

 So if you will, what I'm proposing is that we've got an area where
we can deal with this specifically, and we're.

 -- and has been identified as such.

 Secondly, I think what we said when we started this is that this is
the first version of the lexicon or the glossary and that obviously
as we go through our work in the other topics, they will be
contributing to updating this.

 Eberhard.

 >>EBERHARD LISSE:   I have no objection to the usual Version 2.1.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Thank you.

 All right.

 Now, what time do we have?  We're 4:24.  Do you want a quick run-
through of the definitions of the lexicon?

 Is that what we're going to do?  Or do we want to spend some time
on meeting schedule and various other things?

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   No, I think let's work away on the lexicon, and
we do need to finish at no later than 5:00, 5:00 sharp being the end.

 So I think progress.  I think in terms of our meeting schedule
going forwards, I need to check calendars and time zones, and we may
try and doodle poll the group to find which day of the week is the
best day, and then we'll go into our rotational time things depending
on daylight savings and all the other criteria.

 So within a week or ten days, I will be back on list with a
proposed schedule going forwards.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   We have, I think, one, the next meeting right
now, or else we're pretty far off.

 Thank you.

 All right.  So let's do this.

 Administrative contact.  The term is correct.  It should be
continue to be used.  I think we all agreed on that.

 There were some slight changes to the definition.  Nigel pointed
some things out.

 I also noted that Bill Semich contributed to actually making this
more readable, and Bill, as an editor, is usually pretty good so
those will be considered and make sure they fit the bill.

 So we should have -- We want to keep using the word administrative
contact, and we should have a definition.  So I think we're in pretty
good shape on that one.

 The associated terminology, I think we'll be revisiting the notion
of active, derelict and inactive and "proposed" is probably not bad.

 As I was rereading the words of 1591 a little earlier, it struck me
that RFC 1591 has a good word for "proposed," and maybe we can use
that word.  It skipped my mind.  I forgot to write it down.  But the -
- Kim, maybe you can just scan it and find it.

 Then we go into agreement.  When describing the manager AC or TC
consent for delegation or redelegation, IANA should use the term
"agree" in its various forms.  Consent is an acceptable synonym.  So
we have two words there.  But if you are talking specifically about a
contact approving a request, it's "agree" or "consent."

 Interested parties.  Not going there.  We've got work to do.  We
agreed basically to stick to the all-inclusive definition, and so
that will be adjusted.

 Manager.  I think we've agreed to "manager."  That's not a problem.

 We've got a definition, we've got some associated terms: active, de
facto, derelict, inactive, manager, operator, and proposed manager. 
We are going to look at the term that is used in RFC 1591.

 Operator.  We've got a tentative definition here which is the party
responsible for operate being the ccTLD that is not the manager but
is delegated this responsibility by the manager.

 So basically the term "operator" should never be used as a synonym
for manager.  Those two clean up our formal language.

 Redelegation.  We've got a little definition here.  The process by
which a party applies to ICANN-IANA to affect a change of manager in
the IANA database.

 The spelling without the hyphen should be avoided.  I think we've
tried to standardize.  In the DRDWG we made a call that it would be
with the hyphen.  I am willing to have that discussion with Kim if he
wants to take it on again.  Personally, I don't care.  Just pick one.
But we did pick, from our previous working group, the one with the
hyphen.

 And I have proposed a set of definitions that go with that, just to
qualify them to see what their status is, because redelegation
requests live in many ways in many shapes.  I mean, they get
submitted and there are several outcomes.  So we've got a lot of
associated terms.  There's the redelegation request itself, there is
who is putting in the request, which is the applicant.  I think
that's used overall.

 Yes, sir.

 >> Simple question.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Name, please.

 >>MARTIN BOYLE:   Sorry.  Martin Boyle.

 A simple question.  What is, in this particular case, the
difference between an applicant and a proposed manager?  Surely at
that particular stage -- and if -- bearing in mind that "proposed
manager" was, for some people, a difficult word, I wonder whether
just going to applicant, that might help.

 And I think Kim might have the answer for me.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   We have no requirements that the person applying is
the person that would get -- particularly with delegations and
redelegations, 95% of the time they are the same party.  But when
we're documenting root management processes in general, there's no
obligation that the beneficiary of a change is the one that submits
it to us.

 So we distinguish applicant from the proposed operator.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Did that answer your question, Martin?

 Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   Well, I don't know if Martin thinks it answered
the question or not, but -- I don't know if Martin thinks it answered
the question or not but I think that is quite confusing.  Applicant
is commonly understood to be the person applying to become.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Another case where definitely clarity should be
sought.  We also use the term request, though.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I'm happy with requester.  Everyone happy with
requester?

 Kim.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   A related point on this section.  We actually have
terminology for things such as when a request is approved, not
approved and so forth which at the moment is internal to us and
internal to our ticketing system but with the deployment of
automation will actually become much more visible in a month's time.

 I guess --

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Would you care to redo this part, please?

 >>KIM DAVIES:   That was my question.  Would you like me to provide
that language?

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Please.  Let's standardize.  Let's not
reinvent the wheel.  I am very happy to use what works.

 All right.  Thank you very much.

 So we'll leave the rest of those redelegation status points and
we'll note that Kim will take a beating at them and give us something
that reflects more closely what their internal systems have.

 Thank you very much for that, Kim.

 Registry is a generic term used to describe both ccTLD and gTLDs. 
Given this term is generic in use, it should be avoided to refer to
ccTLD registries specifically.

 All right?

 Registry status.  Pretty much what we talked about previously.

 Active, closed -- closed is new.  Sorry.  And inactive.  "Closed"
is something I'm proposing as a weird status.  And again, I think Kim
may have some definitions which are better to deal with those things.

 That's a question.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Actually, on this I don't think we really classify
it in this way, so it's -- I don't have any suggestions.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Would you take the time to go over them in
detail?

 >>KIM DAVIES:   Oh, of course.  And that applies to everything,
really.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   Okay.  Thanks.

 So basically we've got active, closed, inactive, and derelict.  So
they match quite closely, but I felt we needed one more class of
"closed" to meet some of the situations.

 The issue of how one classifies a registry as derelict, inactive
will be dealt with in the section on active manager AC and TC.

 Technical contact.  Basically I have taken the notes and we've got
exactly the same thing that we had for AC.

 Kim.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   My meta suggestion is would it make sense to fold
both the AC and TC segments into a contact section to avoid
duplicating whole swaths of this document twice?

 >> Yes, agreed.  Yes.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   It appears by popular choice, we will do so.

 Nigel.

 >>NIGEL ROBERTS:   I spotted this earlier on and didn't quite
register.  It's only by repetition that it's begun to great.  7.9.1
and similar terms throughout all the contact section, although that's
-- in light of the last section, becomes an (indiscernible) comment,
the word is not correct.  The word "correct" is not correct.  And
it's been just bugging me.  And I think perhaps the word
"appropriate" is a more appropriate word.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   That doesn't seem inappropriate.  Thank you.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   I tell you, Kim....

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Thank you.

 >>BERNIE TURCOTTE:   And that concludes the document.  I'm not
going to go over the annex.  Oh, sorry.

 And that concludes the document.  The remaining pages are the
annex, which lists how we went through in detail each report to get
the information out.

 So over to you, Mr. Chair.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:   Thank you.  Thank you, Bernie.

 And just thinking about scheduling our next meeting while we're in
the room, I do need to look at the entire schedule in a bit more
detail going forward for future meetings, but if we could note that
the next meeting, we'll aim for the 7th of July, which is our regular
Thursday, at 1400 UTC, which I think will make it 2:00 a.m. for New
Zealand, midnight for Australia, 7:00 a.m. in L.A., and 3:00 p.m. in
U.K.

 But we'll -- I'll just see if I can do a better job, but I think
I'll talk to Gabby about Doodle polling and finding the most
appropriate day of the week going forwards for our meetings and we
will build a schedule as part of our business on that call.

 And so if you can, please all note in your diaries now.  I think
7th of July gives us time to do the redraft, and also to get home and
get settled and catch up on work e-mail.

 So is there any other business?  Is there anything anyone else
wants to discuss?

 Okay.  Our main purpose of business on the 7th of July at 1400 call
will be again the second reading of the terminology paper.  So please
note two hours in your diaries.

 I think all of our conference calls should be scheduled as two
hours unless it's just a tick-off of a document, and that way if you
finish in less than two hours, you can have some bonus time.

 Thank you.

 Thank you all for your participation.  It's been a most useful day,
and we'll talk to you again in about two weeks.

 Thank you.

 [ Applause ]