*** 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.***


SO/AC Reports
Friday, 24 June 2011
ICANN Meeting - Singapore


>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you very much, Peter.  This session is a
report, as Peter said, of the supporting organizations and the
advisory committees and the office of the ombudsman.

We'll proceed in alphabetical order for the -- through the SOs and ACs
and then end with the office of the ombudsman.

I'd like to call on the chair of ALAC, Olivier Crepin-Leblond.

>>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  Thank you very much.  This is the report of
the ALAC on the ICANN 41st meeting here in Singapore.  I'm just going
to go through a few highlights of what the at-large community has been
doing.

We have continued and, indeed, ramped up our policymaking and outreach
activities between the 40th meeting in Silicon Valley and the one now,
and we had several successes over here in Singapore.

The first one is increasing the amount and the bottom-up character of
the ALAC policy input.

In the three months leading up to Singapore, we've had extraordinary
success in increasing both the number of policy inputs -- input
comments offered and also the input of those comments from the at-
large edges.  Those are the RALOs and the at-large structures which
really strengthens the bottom-up stakeholder -- the bottom-up quality
and process of the comments.

During this period, we've submitted 16 policy statements, and in our
report which we will be supplying, you will have a more detailed list
of those policy statements.

We've also increased at-large ALSs -- the input of at-large ALSs in
the actual policy advice process, and this is a major focus of the
ALAC and at-large improvements project.

The recommendations that came out of this project will call for
educational material to better explain ICANN's policy issues and the
ALS -- to the ALSs and the translation of these materials into more
languages, so as to be able to involve not only the English-speaking
communities but also Spanish and French.

We've also had much increased cross-community collaboration taking
place.

We have had several interactions with other ACs and SOs, one being a
collaboration with the GAC.  We had an EXCOM -- executive committee --
teleconference call which took place with the GAC chair.

We also had a call with the registrars that was a follow-up on the
40th meeting that we had in San Francisco, and we spoke on that
conference call about having joint educational material developed by
the registrars and by the at-large.

We also had support and guidance of the new SO/AC new gTLD joint
applicant support working group, and that's of course the -- one of
the primary bits of work that the GNSO and the ALAC have chartered,
and the group has made great progress.

The ALAC, independent of the GNSO, reviewed, commented on, ratified,
and submitted the -- to the board both the working group's first
milestone report in May 2011 -- sorry, the first milestone report
before San Francisco, and the second one in May 2011, and the work
group's recommendations in these areas were that the criteria of
people who should qualify for support was listed, but also what kind
of support should be provided and also how this support was as related
to the procedures in the new gTLD applicant guidebook.

We've had four new ALSs:  NetMission Asia and the Internet Society
India Calcutta chapter joined AP RALO.  The European media platform
and the Ukrainian association joined E.U. RALO.  And so this brought
the total number of ALSs in at-large to 134.

Also in June, the ALAC rejected an ALS application because we don't
actually allow all applications to come through.  There are a certain
set of criteria, and unfortunately -- well, I'm not going to list
here, but it will be included in our report.

Now, the ALAC also submitted a statement about the EG8 forum.  Some of
you might know that took place in France, and with the statement on
the EG8 forum, we registered our strong objection to the G8
governments' failure to invite representatives of Internet end users
and civil society to the forum while, in fact, further skewing
participation towards commercial interests via the firm sponsorship
requirements.

And let me try and find the next slide.

Now I'll turn to the Singapore highlights and I'll make this as short
as I can.

During the 41st meeting here, we -- we've held 11 meetings, and I'm
not going to go through the full list but they're listed in our
report.

But we also had six cross-community meetings and those I will list
because I think they'll particularly important.  We had a joint ALAC
and GAC meeting.  We had a joint ALAC and GNSO commercial -- well, a
commercial stakeholder group breakfast meeting, which was the first
one of its kind.  We had a joint ALAC and noncommercial users
constituency and stakeholder group meeting late last night.  We also
had a joint ALAC/WHOIS review team meeting, and a joint ALAC/executive
committee registrars lunch meeting.

And finally, we also had a joint African AFRALO meeting.  So that's a
lot of cross-community work, and I think this is very good because it
stops us from working in silos and certainly it exchanges information
between the communities.

At-large members were also active in all of the other meetings in
Singapore, and are filing reports about their interaction and what
these other groups were working on.

Now, we also -- if I go into slightly more detail, we had a very
productive meeting with the ICANN board.  The role of the at-large --
that the at-large has to play in the new gTLD program was confirmed
again, both in resolving outstanding applicant support issues but also
in the outreach to end users.

We had a productive meeting with the ICANN CEO, who -- well, we
expressed a wish, effectively, to initiate some policy issues rather
than just responding to policy issues, and our CEO said that this was
something that in the bottom-up process we needed to deal with
ourselves.  And if I can also take the opportunity to say that we have
a new futures working group that has been created, and that is
actually being chaired by Jean-Jacques Subrenat who was one of ICANN's
board members in the past.

We had a very, very enthusiastic APRALO showcase.  A showcase is a
moment when our ALSs are able to show what their real-life activities
are all about, when they're outside the -- when they're outside the --
these walls, effectively, and in that showcase, we had presentations
by five ALSs, Rajnesh Singh, who was APRALO's first chair, and Dr. Ang
Peng Hwa, director of Singapore Internet research.

And finally, I know that we are running out of time.  We have a --
much progress in the applicant support program, collaboration with the
CSG, as I mentioned before, and the at-large improvement process which
is very soon going to be completed and the reports will be -- will be
filed with the ALAC and the process taken further.

Finally, a couple of items which are not in my report.  The first one
is about criticism that some members of the at-large community are
just traveling around the world to have fun and are not doing any
work.  I hear that all the time, and in fact, we do get criticism
about this.

I am outraged by such comments.  I think they're totally unwarranted.
This is a group that works extremely hard, and in my view I've not
worked with people who have worked so hard in the rest of my business
career, and I must say that without them, this just wouldn't be
possible.

So I just wanted to applaud them for all the work they're doing.

[ Applause ]

>>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  And just before I step off stage, one thing
on a lighter note.  We have a new at-large member, a very young one,
and that's because Heidi Ullrich, ICANN at-large staff has given birth
to a young baby, Sophia, and so that's our latest, newest member.
Thank you very much and thanks to all the staff for all their work.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Any comments?  Any questions?  Good.  Olivier, I'd
like to offer a comment.

I've been involved with ICANN since 2002, and all parts of ICANN, all
the supporting organizations, advisory committees, the staff, have
undergone very, very substantial change and maturation, but in my --
my sense of things is that ALAC has had one of the hardest challenges
and has really gone through dramatic expansion and maturation and it's
very, very impressive.

I have watched over time and had the pleasure of interacting in
multiple ways, and the distance that ALAC has come is really quite
striking, and in a certain sense, ALAC is sort of the embodiment of
the openness and inclusiveness for everybody not tied to a particular
business model or business interest.

And so I want to express a personal appreciation and respect for the
work that's done, and one of the specific, but certainly not the only,
significant developments is the transformation of the position on the
board where I've been sitting, and so I've had kind of regular contact
from a nonvoting liaison position to a regular voting member, and
recognize our colleague, Sébastien Bachollet, and I think the -- for
those of you who have followed the mechanics of this very closely,
Sébastien is just now completing the initial six-month period and that
will begin a regular three-year appointment and I think we've got him
trained up now.  Now he can begin for real.

[ Laughter ]

[ Applause ]

>>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  Anyway, thank you for your kind words.  I
think the community really will appreciate that.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Good.  Anyway, thank you, and I congratulate you,
your predecessors, and as you and I both know, it's not just the
leadership but it's the enormous amount of work put in by the members
and --

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  -- I congratulate you.

>>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND:  Thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  All right.  Hard act to follow, but Louie Lee, I
know you can do it.

The ASO report.  I'm tempted to ask which hat you're wearing, but that
would -- never mind.

[ Laughter ]

>>LOUIE LEE:  This is the one from the Delhi meeting and if I don't
wear it, I don't think people know who is up here.

[ Laughter ]

>>LOUIE LEE:  So as the chair of the ASO Address Council, I offer you
a report from the ASO.

So about two months ago, APNIC reached a point in their address
allocation where they had a single slash -- IPv4 /8 block remaining in
their inventory.  In the other four regions, there are currently about
four to six /8 equivalents in their inventories.

While it's difficult to predict the future, it would not surprise me
if IPv4 is depleted in another region before the end of this year.

In APNIC, so up until runout, they've been preparing and doing some
education, community outreach, letting everybody know this is
happening so there will be no surprises.

They've changed their processing of IPv4 requests from a parallel
process to a serial process.  That way, as requests come in, they can
be processed in the order that it was received, there will be no
gaming or trying to get ahead just because you sent your request in a
little later.

When they reached the last /8 on April 15th, they switched to a policy
-- allocation policy, where the maximum size is a /22, which is about
a thousand addresses.

And with ongoing work, there are policy work to allow IP transfers
within region and IP transfers between regions.

And thank you for the opportunity, Rod and the ICANN board, for the
ASO meeting this week over lunch.  We brought you a number of topics
to discuss, and we did well focusing on just three of them.

We enjoyed this interaction and ask that we continue these sessions
for more than just 60 minutes each time.

This week, the ASO/AC held a workshop that included an IANA update
from Elise Gerich and an NRO update from John Curran.  It was well-
received by the audience that attended.  I thank the members of the
ICANN board who managed to attend this workshop, and we since Cyril
hope that we can increase both participation in future workshops.

And a couple highlights.  There are three global policy proposals
about IPv4 transfer between IANA and the regional Internet registries
that have been proposed in recent years.

Since my last report at the ICANN 40 meeting in San Francisco, we have
given designations to the proposals to make them easier to refer to.

You may recall that I reported that the first and second proposals are
not likely to gain consensus.

The third proposal differs from the other two in that the return of IP
address space from the RIRs to the IANA is voluntary and the IP
address distribution from IANA to the RIRs are in equal block sizes.

This third global policy proposal was adopted in the APNIC region on
May 6, and it gained the consensus at the AfriNIC region a couple
weeks ago and will soon be on last call.

Since it is still under discussion in the other three regions, there
is substantial time for anybody who has an opinion on the proposal to
offer input.

The next public policy meetings in these three regions will be in
October before the next ICANN meeting in Dakar.

The ASO Web site can provide you with news on new and active proposals
and participation is open to all individuals and organizations without
restriction on membership, status, or residency.  You may provide
input via the mailing list and at the open policy meeting, and these
meetings can be attended either in person or online.

Around the regions, there are 50 IPv4 policy proposals in discussions.
They cover Olympics of allocation, reclamation and transfers.  In
total, there are 68.

I'll touch on World IPv6 day.

On June 8th, over 400 Web sites -- or actually 1,000 Web sites joined
Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Akamai, and Limelight Networks in a
successful global scale trial of IPv6.

By providing a coordinated 24-hour test flight, the event, which was
organized by Internet Society, helped demonstrate that major Web sites
around the world are well-positioned for the move to a global IPv6-
enabled Internet, enabling its continued exponential growth.

ISOC documented the participating Web sites through a point of
clarification portal dashboard, if you just go to their Web site,
you'll go to the dashboard.

At Equinix, we run a number of public Internet exchanges.  Equinix
being my employer.  We have enabled IPv6 Internet peering for many
years now, and this graph aggregates the amount of v6 traffic we are
tracking across the IXs that we have in the United States.

There's a big boost on this traffic on World IPv6 Day.  What is
interesting is that our data reflects ISOC's findings that two-thirds
of the participating Web sites that contacted ISOC remained reachable
over IPv6 after IPv6 Day.

While compared to the many gigs of IPv4 traffic, the amount of v6
traffic is still very small, but depending on where you're measuring
this traffic around the world, we are seeing two to three times the
amount from before IPv6 Day.

So there is some kind of technical analysis and next steps being
prepared at the upcoming IETF in Quebec, Canada, at the end of July.

And thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Any comments?  Any questions?

>>CHRIS CHAPLOW:  Hello.  My name is Chris Chaplow.  Just a comment.

I'd like to thank Louie for his single-handed attempt to raise the
design standard of the presentations here at ICANN.  We've faced many
issues and one that we shouldn't be facing is death by PowerPoint.
Thank you.

>>LOUIE LEE:  And if I may, I just have one topic I forgot to include
in the update.  It's that the ASO review is going on right now.  We
have had many interviews this week from parties that -- with parties
who are interested or have a vested interest in the ASO organization.

Ray?

>>RAY PLZAK:  Thank you.  Ray Plzak, ICANN board.

Going back to a couple -- you don't have to do this.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Okay.

>>RAY PLZAK:  -- a couple slides where you talked about participation,
one is participation in activities in this venue, which is the
workshop that I know that the Address Council and the regional
registries are working hard on to get this thing into a really nice
package format and are also looking for different ways of working
across the other portions of the ICANN community.

The other portion is -- and it came up in discussions in a few areas
this week -- is how to be included in the policy process.

And I don't know if you heard what Louie said about the policy process
of the regional registries.

They are open to anyone to join, regardless of residency, so if you
live in Europe and you want to participate in a policy process in
South America, you can do so without restriction.

And you can participate on the mail list.  There's nothing required,
no money or checks to send in.  And if you want to participate in the
meetings, all of the regional registries have ways for you to really
participate, so it's not just watching presentations but they are
working on other ways where you can interactively participate.

So if some of these things tantalize you as far as what's going on,
you saw the depth of work here.  68 active proposals going on around
the globe, many of which could have some effect upon the way your Web
hosting business does work or whatever.  Pay attention.  Go to the ASO
Web site and see what's going on, and then if it's of interest to you
or you think it may affect you, get involved because you can have an
influence.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thank you very much, Ray.  I appreciate you pressing on
that point for everyone.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Raimundo Beca.  I would like to thank to Louie
because he was one of the persons who were interviewed for the ASO
review.  I am here -- I am here with a team of three persons who are
conducting the ASO review.  I'm still around if anybody in the room
wants to speak to me.  I am available.  Thank you very much.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thank you, Raimundo, and if I'm correct, I believe the
ASO review is due to finish before the end of this year?  Yes.  And I
will have an update in October.

>>BILL MANNING: Hello.  My name is Bill Manning.

>>LOUIE LEE: Did I throw you?

>>BILL MANNING: The wardrobe.  So the question I have for you is --
has to do with the one bulleted item about inter-region transfer.

I've heard discussions about that for at least four years, and it's
always a single bullet point that says we're talking about it.

And the next meeting, could we have a little more detail --

>>LOUIE LEE:  Of course.

>>BILL MANNING: -- as to what actually is happening, other than it's a
bullet point that won't die?

>>LOUIE LEE:  Well, we can easily dive into it with the two hours we
have at the workshop.  If I'm permitted to do so at the Friday morning
update, I will add more information on that.

>>BILL MANNING:  Well, at the next meeting, it would be -- you know,
I'll be happy to come to the workshop if you're going to talk about
it.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you.  Anybody else?

Let me just add a comment that, first of all, that was really quite an
excellent report, Louie.

We are at a very important time with the last of the allocations of
the IPv4.

There is -- the world at-large, I think we're all quiet aware that
there is not a great deal of clarity and understanding about the --
what this transition process is going to look like or is already
looking like.

The final allocations of the blocks of IPv4 addresses does not, of
course, mean that IPv4 networks are going to go away or that IPv4
service is going to stop.

I don't know that anybody has prognosticated how long IPv4 service is
going to continue or dominate, but my guess is that it has to be
measured in decades, and yet at the same time we are going to
necessarily see a rise in IPv6 service, and this is all going to play
out in a somewhat complicated and multifaceted way.

The World IPv6 Day was a -- a really excellent initiative from the
Internet Society.  I really have to applaud them.  And I think this
has helped stimulate both activity and recognition, consciousness
raising around the world.  That's probably -- there will probably have
to be many, many more steps along that way.

The role of the ASO in the details of the mechanics of setting
policies and working through this will be very important, and equally,
of course, the communications and educational outreach will be
enormously important, both in the general public sense and in all of
the various communities.  Governments and regulators and ISPs and all
the other major components.

So in the scheme of things, the DNS has dominated much of our thinking
and I know the address community sometimes feels that they don't get
as much attention.

My thinking in that case has always been that they should be pleased,
perhaps, that they didn't get much attention.  But I think this will
be fixed, and your time is here, for better, for worse.  So thank you
very much.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thank you very much, Steve.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Oh, Avri.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Avri Doria, member of the gTLD community.

And sorry I didn't get here earlier, but -- and this is partly related
to the comment that you made.

One of the requirements that we are now facing in the new gTLDs is the
IPv6 requirement.

Part of the problem, in looking at the developing world, is the
accessibility availability of IPv6.

Now, I know that the ASO is certainly not responsible for creating the
access, as it were, but I'm wondering whether there's anything that
the ASO can do to motivate people within your regions to help us.

Because as we look around, it's sort of like, "Well, who's
responsible?"

Okay.  ISPs are responsible, you know, for access and for, you know,
making sure that even if you get an IPv6 block, you can do something
with it.

So I'm wondering if there's any way, given that IPv6 is certainly a
cause that you have been championing quite well, if there's anything
that, having gotten -- having championed it well enough to make sure
that it's actually gotten into the requirements for new gTLDs, is
there anything that you can do to help motivate people to actually
make sure that it's there for if people actually want to do registries
that are local to regions where there is no IPv6.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thank you, Avri.  I believe Hans Petter is looking to
address that, a member of the ASO Address Council.

>>HANS PETTER HOLEN: Hi.  I'm Hans Petter Holen, also member of the
Address Council.  I'm not sure if I'm going to address it the way you
thought, but all regions in the NRO structure have v6 available
addresses.  What you're asking for is the service to get v6 access to
the Internet.

That service is actually not even necessarily available in my country,
Norway.  I'm working hard on turning that around, and I would actually
like to turn this as a challenge to all supporting organizations here.

Maybe in particular the Governmental Advisory Committee.  Please go
home to your government and make sure that the services your
government offers is available on v6 to your -- to all your
inhabitants.

Taxpayers' money are spent on providing more and more electronic
services to the taxpayers, and those services are not necessarily
available over the next generation Internet Protocol, and as Steve
said, this is going to be a long process.  Maybe that's the problem.
Everybody thinks that we have lots of time.  They're talking 10, 15,
maybe decades of years.  We need to have a sort of political movement
to make sure that the most important services are available on the
next generation Internet Protocol, so that there is a demand for the
services.

We as the technical community can't create that demand.  That, we need
help from the rest of the world to do.  Thank you.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Go ahead, Ray.

>>RAY PLZAK:  Ray, Plzak, ICANN board.

Avri, I don't know how much you're aware of the extensive outreach
activities that the various regional registries have engaged in for
now many years, and speaking from my own personal experience when I
was the president and CEO of ARIN, I remember being at many ICANN
meetings, standing where Louie is standing, telling the community and
the ICANN board, "Here are some things that you should be doing now to
increase the awareness of IPv6."

It's even more important that that be done.

The registries have been going outside of their traditional community
to raise the awareness, and so the people you wouldn't normally think
of being tagged, if you will, with presentations at trade shows where
people are trying to sell Web hosting services are getting hit up by
the regional registries.

I would put out a call to the other members of the ICANN community to
work with the ASO to see what information that you can get that you
can spread throughout your community to help raise the awareness.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, but we need more than just information.  But
thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Yeah.  So Avri, I think -- I think you raise a very
important point, and I know from thinking about things that IPv6
readiness, quote-unquote, is more than a single thing.  It is not just
whether there's IPv6 transport.  It's also whether the services are
available.  It's also whether the systems that you have internally are
ready.  And there's a lot of chicken-and-egg problems.

Right here, right now, we're using time that we haven't really
allocated.  I'm actually very pleased that the response to the report
is not just a simple dry, you know, "No response," and that we begin
to get some dialogue, and at the same time we don't have time to do
this really well.

So let me cut this off and suggest that this sort of dialogue is
exactly what's needed, that you guys are very, very experienced and so
the natural thing is organize joint GNSO/ASO interactions and any
other kinds of activities to dive right into this and breathe life
into the kind of comments and questions that you're raising.

So with that, let me say thank you very much.  Thank you, Louie.  Good
report as usual.  There will be more attention.  I'm tempted to try to
leverage off of the off-used phrasing we've had with respect to DNSSEC
or with respect to the gTLD launch about "this is not the end, it is
only the end of the beginning."

But in this case, perhaps we are somewhere different.  I don't know if
we are at the beginning of the end of IPv4, but we're in some other
state.  So thank you very much.

>>LOUIE LEE:  Thanks again, Steve and Rod, and everyone.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Let me also note that we are -- we've had now two
out of the eight reports and we are well into our time.  We're going
to run over the 10:00 time, but I'll try to move the pace along and
ask speakers to keep things brief.

And with that, I welcome Lesley Cowley to report on the ccNSO
activities.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Thank you, Steve.  I will be as brief as I can.  So
the report from the ccNSO, we started our week with Tech Day with
discussions on technical and operational topics of interest to ccTLD
managers.

We then held the ccNSO meeting, which was attended by more than 130
delegates from more than 50 ccTLDs.  And we talked about a series of
topics.  Firstly, we talked about ICANN's draft operations plan and
budget for financial year 2012 which we have extensively discussed
with ICANN's acting chief financial officer and other staff and the
ICANN board of directors.

The main points of our discussion were the need for greater clarity
and its description of the specific goals and activities and the
measurable objectives where they're missing; the spiraling costs in
terms of the budgeted 13% overall increase compared with a budgeted
6.5% revenue increase, the increase in staff costs, the 15% increase
in professional services and the increase in average staff costs and
our concerns about the challenge of managing all of these
professionals.

We talked about the initial 30% increase in ccTLD-related costs with
initially no explanation or justification but thankfully a very late
reduction of 2 million U.S. dollars as a result of input from the
working group.

Finally, we expressed some concerns about the long-term financial
strategy.  We moved on to talk about the further notice of inquiry
published by the NTIA on the IANA functions contract and in particular
on the statement of work it contains.  We discussed some aspects of
this process with the board and had a session dedicated to the topic.
At the meeting, the council decided to initiate the process to provide
a formal ccNSO process on the notice of inquiry.

Next we discussed some ideas for ccNSO improvements.  We adopted a
work plan and guidelines and we documented the process for formal
ccNSO statements or responses.

We were delighted to have a meeting with the GAC.  We've not met with
the GAC for a little while, and we're pleased that our meetings have
been reconvened.  I hear they have been a bit busy on something else.

Topics that were discussed range from the new regulatory framework on
geographic new gTLDs to the process -- to the progress, sorry, of the
framework of interpretation working groups and the findings on the
discussions earlier from the draft operations plan and budget.

We also met with the GNSO in a new format to help to improve sharing
of information of mutual understanding.  Both councils met and we
discussed the restructuring of the GNSO which was an endeavoring to
understand and the operations plan and budget.

In our main ccNSO session, we received an update on the IANA function,
shared news from seven TLDs and regional organizations, had
presentations from Costa Rica and Japan on incidents and disaster
recovery, from the anti-phishing group and lots of thing the DNSSEC,
you'll be pleased to hear.

We had an IDN session with IDN presentations working group updates and
discussion about the impact of IDNs on the formal ccNSO voting
mechanism.

I'd like to end with some thank yous.  Firstly, to the ICANN ccNSO
staff who, as a relatively new chair, I'm realizing are even more
fantastic.  And to the host and sponsors of this meeting and in
particular the dot SG manager for their wonderful hospitality and
assistance.

And, lastly, the ccNSO expressed its deep appreciation to Peter
Dengate Thrush for his service to the community as a ccNSO-elected
board member and his work as chair of ICANN.  Peter was selected to
the board by the ccNSO in 2005 and his depth of knowledge and
leadership to resolve issues for the general ICANN community and
particularly the issues facing ccTLD managers has been invaluable.
And we wish him every success.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you, Lesley.  It is a pleasure to have you as
chair of the ccNSO.  And, in general, I have a very high appreciation
of the ccTLD community which, in my estimation, brings diversity and
ingenuity and quite a bit of energy to the technical and business
processes of how you run registries.  And I'm always conscious that in
the ICANN framework, we have a tendency to be somewhat inwardly
focused on our contracts and processes and so forth.

And having a less restrained and more diverse community I think is a
rich source of expertise and ideas.  So I quite treasure and enjoy the
ccNSO community as a whole.  So thank you very much.

Anybody have any specific comments or questions?  In the interest of
time, thank you very much.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Good.  We now move on to the Government
Advisory Committee.  Heather Dryden.

>> HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Steve.  Following the usual practice, I
will read the communique.  The Governmental Advisory Committee of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers met in Singapore
during June 18th to 23rd, 2011.  49 governments participated in the
meeting, 47 were present and two by remote participation.  The GAC
expresses warm thanks to the Infocomm Development Authority of
Singapore for hosting the meeting and ICANN for supporting the GAC
meeting.

Regarding new gTLDs, the GAC notes the board's 20th of June decision
to launch the new gTLD program.  The GAC appreciates the potentially
beneficial opportunities provided by new gTLDs.  However, the GAC is
concerned that several elements of its advice on important public
policy issues including issues set out in the GAC's letter to the
board on the 18th of June, which is annexed to the communique, were
not followed by the board prior to the approval of the gTLD program.
The GAC acknowledges, however, that other advice was followed and that
the board has provided a draft rationale for its decision to reject
GAC advice.

The GAC has the expectation that the implementation of the new gTLD
program will respect applicable law in order to avoid detrimental
consequences to parties involved, in particular to applicants.

The GAC expresses its willingness to continue to work constructively
with the whole ICANN community on the new gTLD program.

The GAC also notes the commitment of the board to reply in writing to
the European Commission and the U.S. Government on the recent letters
they have sent to ICANN related to competition issues.

Regarding the GAC/board joint working group, the working group within
ICANN reviewed amendments to its draft report that address the
recommendations from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team,
pertaining to the GAC, in particular ATRT Recommendations 9 through
14.

The JWG agreed to finalize the report for public comment after which
the GAC expects to collaborate with the board to implement the
recommendations included in the joint working group report.

The GAC also restates its strong support for the timely implementation
by the board of all the ATRT recommendations.  The GAC will monitor
the development of the implementation closely.

Regarding advanced law enforcement objectives to mitigate DNS abuse,
the GAC together with representatives of law enforcement agencies from
several GAC members engaged with the generic names supporting
organization registrar stakeholder group on the status of LEA efforts
to advance a code of conduct or agreed best practices and reinforce
the critical importance of demonstrating concrete and effective
support for LEA objectives to include a timetable of implementable
actions.

The GAC welcomes the registrar's offer to identify any substantive
implementation issues with any unresolved LEA recommendations for
further dialogue with the GAC.

The GAC recalls its endorsement of LEA recommendations for due
diligence and amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in
June 2010 and urges the board to support actions necessary to
implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency.

We also met with the At-Large Advisory Committee.  The GAC met with
the ALAC on the 19th of June to further advance cooperation and
particularly to discuss how the two committees could support the work
of the joint working group -- sorry, the Joint Applicant Support
working group.  The GAC is encouraged by the reference to the ongoing
work of JAS working group in the resolution of the ICANN board in the
launch of this new round of gTLD expansion.

The GAC advises ICANN to provide the necessary resources required to
evolve the JAS work towards implementation, including provision for
legal, logistical and offering timely support of a universally
accessible needs-assessed applicant guidebook.

The GAC also held an informative and valuable meeting with the SSAC
that focused on the SSAC's recently released report on the effects of
blocking of top-level domains on the security and stability of the
DNS.

The GAC was particularly interested in the possibility of determining
and developing means to identify and measure the specific harm of
blocking top-level domains and possible incremental increase in harm
when multiple top-level domains are blocked on a wide scale.

The GAC expressed its for more research into these issues.  It also
suggested having the SSAC report published in languages other than
English in order to raise awareness across the wider Internet
community.  The GAC expressed its interest in further dialogue with
the SSAC.

The GAC exchanged views with the Country Code Names Supporting
Organization on the following issues:  The value of identifying shared
priorities, the ccNSO's perspectives on the ICANN operating plan and
budget, the framework of interpretation working group dealing with
delegation and redelegation, an update on the names of countries and
territory study group, an update from the ccNSO on ICANN security and
stability, and the impact of new territory or geographic TLDs on
ccTLDs.

The GAC indicated its strong interest in participating in the
Framework of Interpretation working group which will hold its first
face-to-face meeting on June 23rd and looks forward to receiving a
more detailed project timeline from the ccNSO regarding specific
issues for the GAC's attention.

The GAC also met with the WHOIS review team who provided the GAC with
a summary of the review's progress.  The GAC identified and discussed
concerns about privacy and proxy services, the potential benefits of
WHOIS data, validation, and the need for effective compliance
activities noting that legitimate users of WHOIS data are negatively
affected by non-compliance.  The GAC strongly supports the WHOIS
review team's efforts and looks forward to continued constructive
engagement as the review progresses.

The GAC also met with the Security, Stability and Resiliency review
team.  In acknowledges the team's mandate and scope of work, the GAC
noted that the review team -- that the review is an opportunity to
describe shortfalls in current plans, compliance and preparedness to
address potential and actual threats.  The GAC supports the review
team's proposal to review areas within the scope of ICANN's technical
mission while aiming to strike a balance to ensure that ICANN's SSR-
related activities are taken seriously and also recommending whether
the criteria would need to be modified as the Internet evolves.  The
GAC looks forward to continued engagement with the review team.

The GAC also met with the Number Resource Organization, or ASO, who
provided useful insights into the position of the numbering space
following the final allocation of the /8 IPv4 address box.  The GAC
discussed with the NRO about IPv4 exhaustion, legacy space,
competition concerns, IPv6 allocation and actions to facilitate the
transition to IPv6.

The GAC noted the need to develop national initiatives to promote the
technological update of the systems to ensure the communications
infrastructure, public services and applications of governments are
compatible with IPv6 and to ensure that content is accessible from
both IPv4 and IPv6 networks.

The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who
contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Singapore.  And the GAC
will meet during the period of the 42nd meeting in Dakar, Senegal.

And let me add my voice to others to thank both Peter Dengate Thrush
and Rita Rodin for their contributions to the dialogue with the GAC,
particularly over recent months.  Thank you from the GAC.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Comments?  Questions?  Heather, let me thank you for
excellent work and excellent report as usual.  I know the GAC meets on
a kind of onerous and rigorous schedule.  And I don't know how many
people appreciate kind of how much work goes on behind the scenes.
This is clearly -- we've entered a period where the work of the GAC is
more visible and the engagement with the other parts of the community
and with the board have increased.  And I think this is enormously
healthy.  So thank you very much.

>> HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  The GNSO report is next.  Stephane van Gelder?

>> STEPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks, Steve.

So, the GNSO's working week started, as usual, with weekend sessions.
We had -- just a quick overview of those sessions.  We had nine
sessions and working lunch on the Saturday, including a meeting of the
standing committee on improvement implementation.  I will speak to
that in a minute.  That's part of the GNSO restructure work that's
going on and that's kept us very busy for a long time.

We also had discussions with the board on the Saturday afternoon and
on the Sunday, although our workday was cut short obviously by the
consultations going on with the board and the GAC.

We still had four sessions, including one on new gTLDs, an update from
Kurt Pritz's team and updates on the PDP work team.

We had, as we normally do during an ICANN meeting week, constituency
and stakeholder group meetings all through Tuesday and our public
council meeting on Wednesday with a follow-up meeting yesterday.
That's our wrap-up session where we take stock of our working week.

And we covered -- throughout the week, we had open workshops:  One on
UDRP work that's going on within the GNSO, one on the consumer metrics
work that we had undertaken, and one on best practices.

So just to go over a few of the accomplishments for this Singapore
meeting week, the GNSO has adopted a series of recommendations on the
inter-registrar transfers, that's the IRTP Part B, working group.  The
IRTP, if you'll remember, has five sections in it.  So we are now
looking forward to starting work on IRTP Part C, and we will go
through IRTP Part E, which is the last part of this important work.

We also adopted some upgraded text on proxy voting.  This is part of
the GNSO Council's operating procedures, and this really finalizes a
lot of the work that we've done on those procedures in the recent
months and years since we started working on the GNSO improvements.

We've also discussed possible -- a possible review to the UDRP, and an
issues report has been produced on that issue.  And there is a
recommendation there that at this time, no PDP be initiated on the
UDRP.

And we've had ongoing discussions on prioritization which is an
important issue for the GNSO.  We continue to face a heavy workload,
and it is important that we can manage that workload in the best
possible way and the best use of our very dedicated core of volunteers
that work both at council level and at working group and drafting team
level.  And I would like to take this opportunity to thank those
volunteers, once again, for the excellent work that they do in
participating in the ICANN process and the GNSO's process.

So ongoing progress, we are still working, as I mentioned, on the GNSO
improvements.  But I'm happy to say that this work is now nearing
completion.  It certainly has completed as far as one of the two
steering committees that were set up to handle this work, and that's
the policy process steering committee which has now been closed.
We've had the final report on the GNSO PDP work that was submitted for
council consideration.  So a lot of that work has now moved forward
and we, as I mentioned earlier on, have a standing committee that we
have set up to track the implementation of these improvements.  That
standing committee started -- has started working and plans to meet
face-to-face at each ICANN meeting so that's very useful work going on
there.

And we have approved rules on proxy procedures, as I mentioned earlier
on.  So now the GNSO's operating procedures are more or less complete
and we can move on to other things.

As far as working groups and ongoing projects go, we are still looking
at post-expiration domain name recovery.  We will be considering a
motion soon on that topic and that motion will probably include a
number of proposals to the board for the adoption of best practices
with regards to post-expiry domain name recovery.

We have a drafting team on cross-community working groups, and that
drafting team is looking to identify key issues with regard to
community working groups and the GNSO's take on CWGs.

We have several WHOIS studies underway, and there is a list up there
on the slide of the studies that we are undertaking.  And we are still
looking at metrics for competition, consumer trust, and consumer
choice.  That stems from the Cartagena board resolution on the topic.
And since that resolution, we've undertaken that work.

Just a few words on the joint working groups that the GNSO is involved
in, the JIG, the IDN working group which brings together the ccNSO and
the GNSO Council's -- or the ccNSO and GNSO community, and both
councils have approved the final report.  And that report has been
sent to the board.

There's the IRD, the internationalized registration data working
group, which is currently drafting its final report.

The security and stability analysis working group and the work of the
DSSA has now been drafted, and the JAS that has already been spoken of
in other SO/AC chair reports today, the new gTLD applicant support
working group, as I'm sure everybody knows, is working -- that group
is working towards delivering a final report very soon.  And the
board's June the 20th resolution on new gTLDs requests a result in
time for Dakar.  So that group will continue to be very busy in the
months to come.

Some of the other things that we did was meet with the board and
discuss issues with the AoC and cross-community working groups.  And
we also met with the ccNSO.  Very useful meeting where we discussed
ideas on enhanced cooperation between the two SOs.  And we look
forward to continuing those discussions in the months to come.

So let me just join others in thanking our local hosts, the meeting
organizational team and the meeting planners.  This has been a very,
very well-organized meeting.  We've had excellent facilities.  We've
enjoyed really an excellent meeting.  So I just wanted to thank the
people involved in making that happen.

Let me also thank, once again, all the volunteers that work in the
GNSO's working groups and drafting teams.

And, of course, the GNSO would like to thank Peter Dengate Thrush for
his excellent service and for helping bring to a close a very
important GNSO policy development process that you may have heard of
called the new gTLDs.

Let me also thank and end by thanking Rita Rodin for her excellent
years of service.  She was elected to the board by the GNSO, and she
has done an outstanding job on the board.  So, Rita, thank you and all
the best for your future endeavors.

Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you.  Comments?

>>RAY PLZAK:  Ray Plzak, ICANN board.

Stephane, you reported that there was activity in the WHOIS area.
Louie reported that there were, I believe, seven policy proposals
being discussed in various parts of the world, in the addressing
world.

I am curious -- and I probably know what the answer to this question
would be, so I would rather say it and encourage that perhaps the GNSO
Council and the ASO Address Council could maybe get together and see
if there's some synergy involved in there, in what influences could
work back and forth.  It's another step that we can go through and
help the community work better together.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thank you Ray.  That's a good point, duly
noted.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Let me just insert that the ASO is wrestling with
the allocation of the last of the IPv4 addresses and there are some
discussions about how many IPv6 addresses, but there's enough WHOIS to
go around forever to anybody.  Sorry, mild humor.

[ Laughter ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Elliot?

>>ELLIOT NOSS:  Thank you.  Elliot Noss, Tucows.  Stephane, you
mentioned the UDRP discussions and the thinking towards PDP.

On Wednesday there was a UDRP session, and there was a lot of
discussion about two things:  How many of the interesting and desired
changes in the UDRP could probably be much more effectively dealt with
through rules changes as opposed to policy changes; and two, that
there is nothing even remotely close to a mechanism for effecting rule
changes.

Now, subsequent to the meeting, I asked around with some relevant
staff and it was suggested that the path to looking at the rules would
most effectively be achieved by having the GNSO recommend perhaps a
panel of experts or interested parties to evaluate the rules, and that
that should come from the community.

So (a) I wondered if you were aware of that, (b) if you had any
thoughts on it, and (c) how the heck can we get that started?  Thanks.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thanks for that easy question, Elliot.  As you
know, there's been a lot of discussion throughout the week within the
GNSO community on whether it was an opportune time to start a PDP on
the UDRP, so I won't speak for the GNSO community at this stage, but
as you said, there's -- there was that session on Wednesday.  We spoke
about it during the weekend sessions.  There's still a lot of debate
going on.  We have an issue report which recommends not starting a PDP
at this point, and we will probably have a vote sometime in the near
future on whether we do or do not start a PDP.

>>ELLIOT NOSS:  I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear.  What I said was
I thought it was understood that there was not an appetite for a PDP,
but that most of the valuable work could be effected through rules
changes as opposed to policy changes, and that there is no mechanism
existing within the ICANN community to effect rules changes for the
UDRP, and that staff had suggested that the route to evaluating rules
changes would best be served by having the GNSO make a recommendation
to do so.

So nothing to do with the PDP.  I'm referring only to starting down
the road for a mechanism for rules changes.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Yeah.  That is taken on board but I won't
second-guess what the GNSO will do at this time, as we are still
considering that issue, as you know.

>>ELLIOT NOSS:  So -- no, I didn't know that.  Has the GNSO formally
started considering the issue of rules changes as opposed to a PDP for
the UDRP?

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  So far the GNSO is still looking at the report
that's come out, the issue report that was requested.

>>ELLIOT NOSS:  Okay.  As I thought.  And so what I'm saying -- again,
to be crystal clear -- is that I would really encourage an initiation
of looking at rules changes.  I think everybody has heard that there's
not an appetite for a PDP and that we can effectively do this through
rules changes.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  I'm not sure that's a uniform view, though, of
the GNSO that there's no appetite for a PDP, so I will not commit to
that at this stage, but your point has been taken on board.

>>ELLIOT NOSS:  Thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you.  Anything else?

Good.

Very complicated structure that you oversee, and lots of challenges,
and you've provided us with a very, very excellent next candidate on
our board.  We look forward to welcoming Bill Graham shortly.

So thank you very much.

>>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER:  Thank you, Steve.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Suzanne Woolf, RSSAC.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF:  Thank you, Steve.

Apparently I require no introduction.

Yeah, we will keep this very quick.  These tend to be -- tend to be
brief, but I will say a little bit about current activities and our
activities at this meeting.

Excellent.  Having the remote up here is great.

First, our recent activities, we did a meeting -- RSSAC doesn't
normally meet at the ICANN meetings.  Normally we convene in
conjunction with the IETF because that's where many of the technical
activities that attract our members occur, but we are trying to
broaden that base a little bit, so we met actually at the San
Francisco ICANN meeting.  Also did a workshop.

That meeting, as many of you will recall, had some logistical
challenges and a real crush of extremely important business, but we
still got some good feedback on having done those activities, which is
-- which was very pleasing and we'll probably be meeting at other
ICANN meetings in the future.

I, as liaison, with a lot of backup from my colleagues have put in
significant time.  As everyone knows, a great deal of work has gone
into finalizing the new gTLD program and making sure that all aspects
of it are pursued with the proper attention to the security and
stability and viability of the overall technical and operational
system, so a great deal of time has gone into making sure that
security and stability of the root server system was included in those
considerations and I was able to participate.  Root scaling was one of
the issues that the GAC put in their scorecard as being particularly
important to make sure was resolved to the satisfaction of everybody,
so I participated in that activity as co-facilitator for that topic,
just making sure everybody's comfortable with the plans and
contingencies going forward.

RSSAC has also undertaken, as one of the outgrowths of really a couple
of years of work on root scaling and making sure that the system is
properly understood and so on, preliminary identification of shared
metrics that makes sense for root server operators to be encouraged to
gather and share.  I won't say very much about that work just yet
because we haven't been through the full process that we discussed for
bringing that through the committee, but I hope to have more to say
about that in the near future because we'll be discussing it when we
meet next in Quebec City at the IETF in July.

A few words about RSSAC at ICANN 41.

The thing I want to emphasize here is that even though we didn't have
a -- convene a formal meeting, several members were here and we
participated in a number of activities at this meeting, and a great
deal of outreach, hallway conversation, being able to educate and work
with folks, satisfy curiosities.

We nominated a NomCom observer to each NomCom and I know that
everybody has seen how busy the NomCom is this time, so that's -- it's
a good thing to be able to support.  It's important to us, as it is to
the entire community.

I've been acting as liaison to the board for some time now, and as,
again, everyone has the opportunity to see, that entails a certain
amount of activity at every meeting, including committee participation
and board participation.

We did a session with the GAC and SSAC, which I think is becoming a
regular activity.  Our chairman -- our vice chairman, Matt Larson, met
with those groups.

We also did a meeting with the SSR review team.  We were asked to
nominate a team member to that effort.  We also met with them here,
provided some feedback on their draft charter, and we did -- we did
have a very productive session in which we identified some questions
of mutual interest to pursue for both the SSR team and for RSSAC.

We also -- the members who are here have participated in a bunch of
other activities here with SSAC, with the ccNSO, the DNSSEC workshops,
the DSSA effort that's just going off the ground.

So what I'd like to emphasize for this meeting in the future is that
we are here and engaged with the community and very happy to play our
part in moving this work forward.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you very much, Suzanne.  Any comments?

Excellent.

Patrik Faltstrom?  SSAC?

>>PATRIK FALTSTROM:  Thank you, Steve.

Oh, the slides are there.  Good.

So what we have been working on since the last meeting, we regularly
meet at the -- at the ICANN meetings and we also -- the SSAC members
that are present at the IETF meetings also meet, and then we have one
extra meeting each year and that is our next meeting that will come up
in September.  So we have a separate retreat once, to make sure that
we maximize the number of SSAC members that meet at least once a year.

But since the last -- previous meeting, which was at ICANN 40 in San
Francisco, we have been publishing a couple of official statements
from SSAC, and we also presented those at the open -- the public
meeting that we had, and those documents were the SSAC 48, which is a
comment from SSAC on the wording in the applicant guidebook about
orphan glue and orphan glue has to do with records that might reside
in the zone file after a zone expires.

So in the zone file of the DNS, you do not only have the actual
delegation, you also have glue records and a lot of that kind of
thing, and now with DNSSEC, there are some other kind of
administrative records in the parent zone, and there is a -- people
are discussing and we are heavily engaging in that in SSAC to talk
about which one of those records should be removed when a zone
expires, and at what time.

SAC49 has to do with the -- with -- is a description of the zone risk
analysis, and it is a problem that is -- that we think is increasing
when we have hosting services all over the place and the actual
registrant in many cases do not know what the zone file for their
domain name actually looks like, and there are some risks there if it
is the case that that zone file is going away for some reason.  The
hosting prior might go away of the -- the DNS hosting provider might
go away, et cetera, so it might be difficult for the registrant to
reconstruct the zone file.

So we have some recommendations on how to take care of that.

Basically, the -- to summarize that in one line, it is:  Try to make
sure that you have a copy of your zone file.

We also Saturday -- which is now -- yes, it was not even a week ago,
we published an advisory on DNS blocking.  That was a response from a
question we got from GAC at the previous ICANN meeting.  One of the
reports that we have been -- spent most the time per word on, because
it's only two pages long, but we've been working for a couple of
months.  That document, as you heard from the GAC report, we spent a
whole hour -- the whole meeting that we had together with the GAC, we
spent on just that report, and we have got requests from GAC to
translate that into all the languages that ICANN normally translates
their documents to when they are translated, and we have requested
that translation and will see whether that is accepted.  It has to do
with budget and all those kinds of things as well.  But since it's
just only two pages, I really hope that will happen, because that
document is well received.

We also presented two of the work parties that we currently -- that
are currently active.  The source address validation, which is a
potential update of SAC Document Number 4, which has to do with
ingress filtering of IP addresses, the status of the work parties that
now that we have spent some time on t we do not really know what we
are going to do.

[ Laughter ]

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  To explain that a little bit different, let me
phrase it this way:  To be able to move forward, we need to try to
understand what kind of question we really are going to answer, and
who will be the reader of this document.  Because everyone agrees that
we actually do have a -- we do have an issue and there is a question
in there somewhere.

So at the moment, we are engaged in quite a lot of discussion with the
community in trying to find out what SSAC can do to help.

This also brings up one of the major more bureaucratic discussion that
we had this week, and that has to do with talking with the community
on process issues regarding when SSAC participants in informal
discussions and when SSAC actually do get a question and sends a
formal response.

We do both, and we are going to work much harder on being much more
clear when we're doing one or the other.

The SSAC formal responses are all published as SSAC documents.  That
is, the -- that is, the -- an information to all users, now that is on
the record as well.

The second work party that we presented is the WHOIS taxonomy, because
SSAC has already written -- SSAC has identified that we have written
numerous documents about the WHOIS service, the WHOIS protocol, and
the WHOIS database, but we still see that the community is using, for
example, the wrong taxonomy.  They are mixing up the service with the
protocol, et cetera, et cetera, so now we're working on writing just
one document which talks about the taxonomy itself and summarizes what
SSAC already has done and hope that the community might actually take
that up, because the previous documents were obviously too hard to
digest.

Last slide.

We also had private meetings with the WHOIS review team and of course
one of the things we're doing -- working very closely, together with
the WHOIS review team, is to make sure that what we are working on to
produce regarding the WHOIS syntax is something that actually is
useful for them.

We also met with the SSR team, of course.

We also had meetings with the internationalization of registration
data, the DSSA, and we also, as normal, on Wednesday had a session on
-- half-day session on DNSSEC.

New for this year was that we also had a DNS and DNSSEC beginners
section -- session on Monday, which was well-appreciated.

So with that, I'm done.  Thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you very much.  Any comments?  Any questions?

[ Applause ]

>>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Just a quick comment, Patrik.  You didn't mention it
here because I'm bringing up some old work, as it were, but the
registration -- the registrants guide to protecting domain names, SSAC
44, I believe --

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Yeah.

>>CHRIS CHAPLOW: -- has perhaps had a new lease of life or a spotlight
put on it because the IRTP-B working group found it and considered it
a very good document.  So I just wanted to underline it.  I think that
it should have a wider readership and really probably should be
reprinted, and maybe you want to talk to the ICANN communications
team.  Maybe they could consider reformatting it, republishing it, so
that it does get to the wider -- the registrant, the people that need
to read it, and so that it doesn't look so much like a SSAC report and
looks like something that's a very user-friendly publication.  Thanks.

>>PATRIK FÄLTSTRÖM:  Yeah.  Thank you very much for pointing that out
and putting that on the record that we have already started talking
about how we can use the enormous positive feedback of that document,
of Document 44, to maybe translate that into something, as you say,
that is more useful for the registrant than the little bit dry SSAC
document.  Thank you.

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Thank you very much.  Let me express my personal
appreciation and admiration for the speed and energy with which you've
taken over the complicated mess that I created over several years for
SSAC.

[ Laughter ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:  Kidding aside, the productivity is just really quite
astonishing, and I really have to applaud you and the team, and it's
heart-warming to see.

So thank you very much.

>>PATRIK FALTSTROM:  Thank you.  And thank you, Steve, for --

[ Applause ]

>>PATRIK FALTSTROM:   Yeah.  I shouldn't interrupt when people are
applauding me; right?

Thank you, Steve, for those words, and I must say you think you left a
mess but it was actually something that was very easy to continue to
build on, so thank you very much.

On the other hand, there is one key person that is not mentioned that
actually makes all of this -- which makes it really easy for me, and
that is actually David Olive of ICANN, which I would like to thank for
all the help specifically for the preparation of the budget and the
restructuring of how we actually do our daily work.

Thank you, David.

And with that, thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you.

That brings us to the end of the SO and ACs but we still have the
record from the office of the ombudsman, Herb Waye.

>>HERB WAYE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On a procedural note, I was wondering if I could suggest for the next
time to have all eight presenters make their presentations and save a
question-answer period at the end which will take the pressure off of
people like me who are running into the board meeting at the end and
place it on those who are asking the questions to be clear, concise
and brief with their comments.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, member of the boards, ladies and
gentlemen, good morning.

I have been working for the office of the ombudsman since shortly
after its inception, and have had the opportunity to attend many ICANN
meetings as adjunct to the ombudsman.  This is my second ICANN meeting
as interim ombudsman.

Mr. Chairman, to briefly summarize the activities of the office, which
since I as assumed the role of interim ombudsman, there have been ten
complaints received by the office since January 2011.  This compares
to 33 complaints lodged in the same period last year, January to June
2010.

This is a noticeable reduction, but I will mention that most of the
complaints received for both years were nonjurisdictional and resolved
through self-help or referral.

I am hoping the reduction this year is due to education and a better
understanding by the community regarding self-help and dispute
resolution as a result of information that is now available on the
ICANN Web pages and the ombudsman Web site.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board and members
of ICANN staff who have assisted me over the last six months.  Your
support, cooperation, and assistance have been critical to the success
of the office.

There have been no outreach activities since the departure of the
ombudsman in January of this year.  In my role as interim ombudsman, I
have chosen to focus my attention and energy internally rather than
externally.

I would lake to acknowledge to the ICANN board and community that
there will be a delay in publishing an annual report for 2010.  This,
and addressing recommendation 24 of the ATRT report, will undoubtedly
be the first priorities when the position of ombudsman is staffed in
the near future.

Until an ombudsman is appointed, I plan to continue to focus my energy
inward to serve this community of practice.  This inspiring group of
volunteers, committed to the Internet and its governance.

But I need your help.  I need you to let me know what is right and
what is wrong.  I want you, the community, to know that I am
interested in what you have to say.

I cannot walk around the office every day like an organizational
ombudsman or sit down in the cafeteria and have lunch with you as can
the ombudsman of a university.

I rely on you, the ICANN community, to initiate a dialogue with me.  A
simple e-mail, so that we can discuss any issues you may have.

Contact with the office of the ombudsman does not have to be on a
complaint form.

I hope to establish and maintain a communication network at a much
more informal level.

Ombudsman@at icann.org is the address you can use to reach the office
of the ombudsman.  The ombudsman's role is to listen to you, everyone
in this room and listening and watching remotely.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you very much.  And, Herb, let me say on
behalf of the board thank you very much for your service during this
period.  Very helpful.  We expect to make decisions about going
forward in a more formal sense, but your service during this period
has been enormously appreciated and helpful.

>>HERB WAYE:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>>STEVE CROCKER:   Anybody want to comment?

So I think everyone has taken your comment to heart and does not want
to stand between here and the break.

We have run substantially behind.

Let me ask that we reconvene at ten minutes to 11, and that will put
us only 20 minutes behind our advertised schedule.

Thank you very much.

We're adjourned and I hope there is coffee outside.