Sydney GNSO 21Jun09 >>EDMON CHUNG: Good morning. I think we're supposed to have printouts of the latest version of the draft charter. Glen went out to grab them but does anyone -- does everyone have the -- have it -- is everyone on the mailing list before and have the draft? No? Well, they should be coming and but what -- I've projected on the screen. I haven't really put together any specific agenda but the idea is to take a look at the new charter but I guess wheal start with a number of things to -- because there was quite a bit of discussion on the list in the last couple of weeks. I think we -- the group started out by looking at the issue of potentially grating an IDN gTLD fast track. I think it was based on the proposition that the GNSO has expressed a couple of -- you know, more than a couple of times the importance of having some parity between especially time frame whereby IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are introduced into the root, and the IDN gTLD fast track discussion came out of that basis. After some discussion since Mexico, some discussion about whether a fast track process would work, I think we came to a conclusion, or somewhat of a conclusion the last few weeks, that perhaps what we're really talking about is looking into a method or measures to somehow harmonize between the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs, and fast track may be one possible way, and there may be other possible ways of dealing with it. And so the latest draft sort of took a fairly significant turn and that's why we've sort of taken the motion out of the agenda for this week. And basically I think we're back to -- I don't want to say we're back to square one, actually I think we have progressed. But we're back to discussing whether we can create a group with the revised purpose of looking into really possible methods to harmonize the introduction of the new IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs. We have expressed a couple of times formally that if IDN TLDs, whether it's cc or g, would be introduced into the root before the other -- before the other, then some sort of measure should be taken to avoid conflicts but we have never actually put together, or put forward any suggestion to do that. So I think the group now is -- I'd like to see if the group now could take the direction towards producing something that would satisfy what, you know, the issue that we address -- we identified. So that's -- that's, I think, where we are. I'll see if anyone wants to jump in. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis. Can I ask a clarifying question, Edmon, do you mind? Could you, please define for me what your interpretation of harmonizing is? And I know that given we're in Australia you could probably spell it with an S, but that's a joke and albeit an early morning one, thank you. >>EDMON CHUNG: Really, it's the -- I sort of chose the word when -- as addressing conflict 'cause we have repeatedly said that if one -- you know, if cc or g is introduced before the other, measures should be taken to avoid conflict. That is directly taken out of our statements. So "harmonize" is to address conflict. >>CHUCK GOMES: Would you use a different word, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. I guess what I'm trying to stay away from here is -- I know I speak on behalf of the registrar constituency when we talk about harmonizing to the point of -- I have to be careful how I choose my words -- we don't want to see a splintering of the process and I think we've been fairly vocal on this point, at least Stephane has in representing us and if that's -- if harmonizing meant must be released at the same time or in advance of, you know, if that's what you meant by "harmonizing," then that could be sort of poison news to our support of this process. You know, assuming that eventually it's going to end up as a motion or something before the council. So for those that don't know, the registrar constituency sees that potentially allowing for a fast track, and you already know all this Edmon, but allowing for a fast track in IDNs in the g space may take momentum away from the overall process and that is allowing for a partial release, potentially seen by some groups as a beta release which could be at the expense of getting the overall process under way so we just want to be very, very careful here. >>EDMON CHUNG: That's very well taken. I think that's a very strong argument. And I think it was taken through at the mailing list as well. And that's hence put forward this new revised direction. And right now the point is we know that -- well, at least it seems like that the IDN ccTLD fast track is moving along and it is potentially going to be in the root much earlier than IDN gTLDs potentially, or may not. If there -- if it is not the case, then, you know, I think we're all happy about it. Right now the work -- I guess, what I hope for the work of this group to do is to address the case where if, in the case that new gTLD process is further delayed, and we know that it may be a possibility, you know, I don't think anybody wants that, there are some who want that, but a lot of people in the GNSO community does not want to see that. But there's still that possibility. And this -- and if we keep hoping and not do anything, we'll see that gap potentially widening, so this is what the group was hopefully formed for. And how, we haven't really talked about how. We can talk about it here and get it started on how we address the Harmonization issue or if you want to choose a different word. But yeah, this -- there's no particular presumption. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: If I might reply. You've put a lot of thought into this and I thank you, and I thank you for your effort so far. Do you have intuitively a feel for what would be an appropriate time frame, sorry, maybe the question is: What would be an inappropriate time frame between launches, between cc's and g's, when would it get to a point question you would think that -- that harmony is out of synch? >>EDMON CHUNG: Well, I think that's a very good question. I think Tina mentioned numerous times about the -- there's always going to be time difference, whether it's a day, a week, a month. It's a tough question. And actually, this is one of the things, further down, I would have said that the minimal -- or the reasonable acceptable time difference between the introduction of the first new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs to the root is one of the, you know, one -- actually, the first topic to be discussed. Personally, I feel that probably three months is a very long time. I don't know whether others would be interested to speak to that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Of course, we have to define what we're talking too. If we're talking about three months between the starts of the process, in other words, when applications are assembled, that's very different than talking about three months of getting names in the root. It's quite likely to expect that the ccTLD fast track process for approving applications could be much shorter than the gTLD process for accepting applications. I don't know that for a fact. But our process is certainly much more complex than the -- than I think the IDN ccTLD fast track. So if you're talking about the start of the processes you're probably talking about an even -- if there was three months separation of the starts of both when applications -- application period's open you're probably really, in reality, talking a much larger gap than that, between actually getting names and the root. If you're talking about names in the root, then, you know, if we're talking about three months separate there, you know, it's still a pretty big gap because if there's some good marketing going on there's going to be a competitive advantage to whoever gets out the door first. Assuming we're all right, that there's this huge pent-up demand for these names and I suspect in certain regions of the world that's very true. >>EDMON CHUNG: Just one comment and then I'll -- in -- at least in the proposed draft, I'm talking about the anticipated time into the root. So after the validation, after the process and into the root, of course, that's very difficult to anticipate given the very different processes that the two tracks are on. But at least, you know, I think everyone's end goal is when it gets into the root. That's the idea. And we should talk about that sort of time difference with that basis 'cause I think that would be more meaningful. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thanks, Steve Delbianco with net choice and also a member of the business constituency. I'd like to just try to bring back to the perspective of registrants and users to supplement your discussion of this perspective of registries and registrars, and in particular, registrants and users who currently are using certain TLDs and have a desire, express desire, to have those TLDs in IDN. When you look at this perspective, it isn't really "conflict" is the right word, it's really "dilemma." Let me see if I can explain. So we heard about it in Paris and Cairo. One of my members is bluebridge.net. Arabic, target audience, 30 or 40 employees in Cairo, and they serve the Arab world through IT solutions. He wants bluebridge.net in all Arabic, he wants that IDN. The dilemma he would face is if the fast track put into the root 15 or 20 Arabic IDN ccTLDs and he thinks it could be six months or 12 months until he gets something like a dot net in Arabic, his dilemma is wait or jump, and what does "jump" mean for him? It would mean visiting a dozen to 20 Arabic ccTLDs and IDN and launching his own domain name in those ccTLDs. That isn't at all what he wants to do. And he said as much at the public forum in Cairo and also in Paris. So the dilemma is what do I do? Do I just bypass the IDN customer base and wait until I can get what I want or do I take the jump? And when they do, it would mean him figuring out whether he has to register to do business in up to 20 different Arab countries or waiting. And from the standpoint of his business, he has said loud and clear -- and others have as well in the BC -- we want to be able to move as quickly as possible to an IDN target, but we want to do so with our current domain name and some IDN equivalent of their current TLD. I realize you can't transliterate dot net to Arabic or dot com to Arabic. I'm netchoice.org and I might want an Arabic, but I don't know how we're going to work that out, but keep in mind that registrars and users have a different perspective if they're incumbents, and what they want to do is move quickly and not have to vulcanize and fragment their brand across as many as 20 different Arabic. And think about -- it's not just the domain name of bluebridge.net but it's all of the e-mail addresses within his employee base as well, and notifying all of the different customer sets that if you happen to be in Egypt, you're going to be using the Egypt IDN ccTLD, and Jordan or his other customer base, are they use supposed to use the Egypt or are they supposed to use Jordan? What he really wants is a single bluebridge.net in all Arabic. >>EDMON CHUNG: I think that's definitely well understood. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah, I guess the ccTLD providers would like him to protect his trademark in all regions, but that's a different story. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: (Speaker off microphone). >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I was being facetious about potentially registering a number of domains. I think you have an issue where the council -- the GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council have sort of come together and said, well, one -- as far as IDNs are concerned -- new gTLD process and IDNs is that one might retard the other, you know. And I think that so long as you have that, then you're also looking at time to get things into the root seems to be a moving target. So unless -- the only way I think you can sort of get around that issue is to draw a line in the sand and say one won't go without the other because then, you know, then you can have a moving target and that's acceptable. Which, you know, I don't see any other way around it because if you -- you don't know the two end results, you don't know when either is going to go. Yet you have a rule that says one can go instead of the other. That may by definition indicate there's a huge lag in the process. >>CHUCK GOMES: What if we fail in that? My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, Edmon, but my understanding is the purpose of this working group was to come up with some alternatives in case we're unsuccessful there. And we might not be successful there. We have been -- the council's been saying for a long time they should, you know, start at the same time. But the bottom line, as you know, very well and are concerned about, that we keep getting more delays on the gTLD process and it's not really fair to the ccTLD side that they -- they are impacted by our delays. Now, I think all of us here probably, and if somebody differs, they should speak up, I think all of us here would like that approach, if we could succeed at it. And we should keep trying, I think, to do that. But if we wait until we know we failed, it's too late to do anything else and I think that's what this is all about. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I think that without that -- Avri Doria -- without that getting into the root at the same time, we're basically allowing ourselves into the gaming situation because we can interfere with each other's processes to get one in front of the other. One group can make demands about what happens with geo names at various levels that forces things to take longer. One can force issues on how long it takes to do IDNA BIS. And so if we're not actually locked coming out at the root at the same time we actually have the risk of competing to come -- who comes out first. And that's one of the things that's always worried me. Not so much that one did come out before the other, but if it was possible, we can trip each other while we're running for the finish line. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thanks Edmon, I do understand what Chuck Gomes was saying about coming up with a plan B if you're unable to obtain the parity. Plan B from the standpoint of registrants and users you want to minimize the dilemma or delay but keeping in mind you have to get something out there for IDN users and it would be seen from the standpoint of an IDN demand that delaying the cc's is going to be seen as undermining the needs of the registrant community so how do you find a way to split the baby? It may well be that a small subset, not the entire beauty contest of all new gTLDs but some subset, call it the equivalence of the current or come up with another short list, 20 or 30, categories that could be launched so that you can do some IDN g's on a fast track. Not necessarily be slowed down in the giant round of new gTLDs that include the ASCII gTLDs. So that may be one thing to consider as a plan B which is to fast transparency and accountability the current or IDN equivalents of the current set of TLDs. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: For discussion purposes, Edmon, can you elaborate on why, you know, there are a certain set of circumstances that are retarding the new gTLD process, you know, the overarching issues. Why don't -- why, in a fast track g -- fast track IDN gTLD world don't those same overarching conditions apply, what would permit them to fast track. >>EDMON CHUNG: I'll answer that first and then I'll come back to the question. The way to go about it is really if we do a fast track we can put together certain elements of it such that it would address if not all, some of the overarching issues. And how we do that, there is one possibility, you know, let's say certain TLD, let's say dot Asia, for example. Okay. We've always (inaudible) this but any case we would, for example, run the same zone between dot Asia and dot yazhou which is Asia in Chinese. In that sense, then at least the IPR issue is being dealt with because we're talking about one TLD essentially, one zone, shared between two TLDs. And, you know, certain other issues. There are, of course -- as I mentioned in the earlier versions of the draft, there are certain issues, for example, if there's contention, if there is other issues that come up, yes, it is possible that, you know -- and it is -- it may be correct that if there's an application that came into the fast track and bumped into those issues they would, then, have to be punted to the full IDN -- full gTLD process. But we can build that in so that for ones that are - - do address the issues, they could go ahead with the fast track. That, conceptually I think is a possibility. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It seems to me that potentially it can take unfair advantage by trying to get into this. For example, ICANN is embarking on a full-month communications campaign, that four-month communication campaign time may vary is not just about trying to get applicants to join the process, it's for those who want to understand the process and on potentially if something happens. You get an IDN gTLD fast track, people may not have had the opportunity nor visibility to respond or react and won't just have seen what's happening. So if I wanted to get something through -- I guess I'm saying I could have an unfair advantage in going in an IDN gTLD now, in a fast-track sense, because the momentum and the public profile hasn't occurred and all of a sudden they're -- and someone turns around afterward and says, well, man, I didn't see that coming. This name got through and I didn't have a chance to object because I -- I only found out about it -- and that's why ICANN has been so steadfast in having this communications campaign. So it seems to me you're circumventing this communication campaign as well and the purpose of it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes again. Of course, the communication campaign could start earlier. To accomplish your problem. I don't think there's anything to prevent that. As far as the overarching issues, I would predict that by the time we would be ready to do an IDN gTLD fast track, if we went that route, we would know the solutions to all of the overarching issues so those requirements would be very easy to put in. It's probably unrealistic anything like an IDN gTLD fast track could happen before the December time frame anyway. And by then hopefully, if there are not more delays, as you know, we will know -- you know, it would be about the time that the board would approve them. So that could be incorporated. And you raised the one issue, the communications issue, but there's no reason why that couldn't start earlier to cover that 'cause that's a legitimate concern. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Chuck. Adrian Kinderis, I'll just announce myself every third time I speak. The -- that's actually helpful because that's the first time I've sort of got a sense of when you think that the IDN gTLD fast track would come into play, you know, and it's not something you're talking about starting tomorrow. And, you know, so I think it's been helpful, at least for me, and I'll certainly take it back to my constituency that, guys, this is, you know, a worst case scenario here is that new gTLDs blow out for another year, we could still get something off the ground. Am I picking up the sense here, is this the purpose that the court -- Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: I'm confused because what would blow out new gTLDs for another year other than overarching issues? So -- and now, one way to go about it -- sorry, this is Avri -- one way to go about it -- I'm sorry, I'm just not used to it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: (Speaker off microphone). >>AVRI DORIA: One way to go about it is to say that, you know, in this sort of noncontroversial aspect of the fast track IDN gTLDs you go into it accepting the maximalist point of view on the overarching issues solutions, so you take the whole IRT package, you take the whole, you know, geographic names issue package, and thank you don't try to discuss it or change it. But if it wasn't for the overarching issues I'm not sure what would slow us down anymore in the full gTLD program. >>EDMON CHUNG: I -- I think that's, you know, that's -- that's a good summary. I think most people agree to that. It's always the question whether there will be delays on those issues. And I think we're still on the same page somewhat in that if that happens do we have a plan B and that's I think -- you pointed exactly sort of at least the sentiment or the crux of the issue and why at least I did he do indicated time and effort to look into this -- this group. I think, it seems to me, you know, a lot has been discussed and it seems to me that yes, I did change this -- actually, I want to go back to Avri's point but I did change the direction of the group in talking about a method to -- to sort of address the conflict issue that we brought up. And it seems to me that the two most obvious possibilities is, one, is to somewhat go back on what we say that one should not retard the other and based on I think Avri's argument, that it may be to the benefit of both because we won't be trying to trip each other over or ourselves over trying to get to the finish line first. And so it seems like the two most obvious possibilities would be, one, to have some sort of agreement that they will go together into the root. And the other part is the other option may be a sort of an IDN fast track, again, we're always based on the potential that the full gTLD process is for the delayed. And that's -- that's a basic assumption on a lot of discussion and without that assumption a lot of - - this might not be useful but again, we come back to the issue of if we don't do it now then we'll be much late when we know that it happens. So -- Adrian and then Stephane. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'm going to move to a different topic so if you want to pick up. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: I wanted to ask Avri a clarifying question about this statement. Steve Delbianco. Avri, did understand -- I know you're brainstorming as well. But you talked about a plan B for these IDNGs. You said perhaps they might have to embrace the maximum sort of IRT protection or embrace the maximum restrictions that the GAC might be seeking on geo names and that, out of embracing the most restrictive, the most protective sort of regime, that you sort of make a case for why you can proceed more quickly or the broader new gTLD and ASCII, new gTLD in Latin works out which portion of the IRT makes its way into the final agreements or what compromises are worked out with the GAC on geo names. But, Avri, did I catch that correctly? You're thinking that the people who move the fastest would have to embrace the most restrictive regime? >>AVRI DORIA: In a sort of logical brainstorming way, yes. Because it's -- there may be other places that the delays come from other than working out these overarching issues. For the most part. But, for the most part, I think the delays are going to come in solving the hard issues. Okay, I know geographical names isn't strictly one of the overarching. It's overarching plus one. But that's where most of the delays are going to come out. They're not going to happen in areas that aren't conflict areas. And so, if you're going to have something that can go faster than the other, you basically have to sort of say listen, we have no conflict. We're noncontroversial. Our noncontroversial perhaps means something different than my government agrees. It means that we have no argument with anything that anybody has mentioned wanting to impose on it. I'm just speculating. I'm not, you know, trying to state something as fact. Merely logically. That seems to me to be the case. >>STEVE DEL BIANCO: Thank you. One follow-up to that. Earlier I was stating sort of the perspective from the registrant and user group community. And I would say that, if our plan B included IDN equivalents of certain Gs on their own fast track, then one litmus test is to ask, if they embrace the most restrictive and protective elements of the IRT, you'd have to ask would it prevent a lot of incumbent registrants, members of mine who happen to have IDN.net or IDN.com or dot org, anything that would prevent them from getting the same thing in the IDN equivalent ends up frustrating the whole purpose of the fast track. Because, remember, their goal is to quickly -- I gave that example of bluebridge.net. Their goal is get that whole thing in Arabic and not have to go to 20 different countries. So, whenever we embrace the most restrictive elements, let's just check that to make sure it wouldn't prevent the actual goal here, which is letting registrants quickly address the entire IDN community. So the restrictiveness aspect should be tested rather than just assumed that we can embrace the worst of all. >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I -- sorry. I think that's a very good point. And -- and, if we are going down the track of talking about a fast track, then this should be one of the discussions. And I do think that there are ways to handle it. I mean, if -- take, for example, the one that I just proposed for dot Asia. Then we would grandfather -- well, our proposal would be to grandfather anything that's in the zone. Right now we don't offer IDN, so we don't have that problem at -- we don't -- when we -- what I mean is that -- >>STEVE DEL BIANCO: (Off microphone.) >>EDMON CHUNG: We currently do not because we have been warned not to because people don't want to say IDN dot asia. They feel it's confusing, and they feel it's -- it creates the dilemma that you mentioned. Whether they want to register now or wait until there's a full IDN solution to register. And they don't want to pay now and only be able to use it when we do have the IDN TLD. So we've been warned not to. And we've been holding back. But so, yeah. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis. I think a peripheral issue here -- I was listening to Avri when she spoke before about our goal is to somewhat leap together and to try to get together. One thing that bothers me is we now, after Kurt Pritz's presentation yesterday, we've got a timeline that doesn't seem to have slipped since last time when, potentially, there's a little bit more confidence in the gTLD process. What we don't have is certainty over when the IDNA protocol, when the work around that is going to be finalized. And that's a concern. Because that's seems to be taking some time. And I'm not too much of a technical person. And maybe someone in the room could speak to where that is currently. But our attention, I think, will quickly flick across to we're all ready to go in a policy process of new gTLDs and we've covered all the overarching issues. All of a sudden we're not ready to go because we have to launch IDNs at the same time in the G space. So now we have a clock ticking. And, you know, I think, although it's a periphery concern at this point in time, potentially it may impact what we're talking about here. Absolutely. In fact -- let me jump in and then Chuck. That's exactly why I slipped in the second part of the purpose. Which is there are commonalities between IDNs ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs that we want to get resolved. And the standards issue and how we deal with it on an implementation level is one of them. And there are others, too. I mean, Tina is in the other room. But there are three or four items that we have created policies around. But, when it comes to implementation, you know, they have repeatedly come back with, well, at least one of the issues repeatedly come back with something -- I personally don't like, which is the number of characters thing. And then there's the issue of variant management at the root. There's no -- we -- the GNSO provided the policy. And also the IDNC also provided policy to say that you should follow the IDN guidelines and the IDN tables. But how exactly is it implemented into the root is something that is -- you know, is a common interest between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs. There's the issue of the IANA WHOIS, how the IANA WHOIS will be managed for IDN TLDs, whether it's CC or G. Those are that's also a common, you know, interest between the two. And so -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And I also think that that common interest then extends to the gTLD community full stop because they're tied into the IDN gTLD, right? One can't go without the other. At least that's my understanding. So that common interest is about to get a bigger audience, right? >>EDMON CHUNG: Well, I don't quite understand. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Okay. So dot eco is out there. And they're only concerned. And all they're doing is looking at Kurt's timeline. But all of a sudden, if IDNs aren't ready by that time, dot eco is going to be very concerned about what's happening with the IDN protocol, even though they're not an IDN name. Do you understand? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yes, exactly. That's exactly the case. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: I can't predict what the IETF is going to do. None of us can. They can't either. But, with regard to the IDNA standard, they are having a meeting in Stockholm this summer. So we may get an idea then. But I did want to remind people that in the past several times it's been pointed out that ideally it would be good to have that protocol in place, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a gating factor. So, whether that's really true and whether they -- people will believe that, when we get down to the end, I don't know. But, in other words, in other words, the revision of the IDNA protocol may not necessarily have to be a prerequisite to starting a new IDN gTLDs or ccTLDs for that matter. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Starting, yes. But I thought we were talking about here the conclusion was entering into the root. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm including both. The question was put bluntly to Tina in times past. And, correct me if I'm wrong on this, Edmon. But -- and Avri, too. And, you know, I think the goal is that it would be good to have it in place. But I have heard several people say that it doesn't necessarily have to be an absolute prerequisite to be finished, that if somebody thinks differently on that, please speak up. >>AVRI DORIA: Avri speaking. I -- it used to be -- and I think we've gotten into revisionist history because things are taking a long time in the IETF. It used to be absolutely required. Now that things have been delayed within the IETF because people are trying to work things out, I think there's a wiggling and there's a bunch of revisionism. I would still say that I think it's totally inadvisable not to wait. That, basically, IDN -- to have to change over to have to do that will be problematic. We don't exactly know how problematic. And I know I'm probably disagreeing with Tina here. I believe Tina won where she said it had to be IDNA BIS. And I have disagreements with, Tina, too, saying it's not necessary. >>CHUCK GOMES: And, actually, if it is necessary, then it's necessary for ccTLDs and gTLDs. And that could be a solution to our problem of going out at the same time. So I'm not personally opposed to it being a prerequisite as long as they don't take forever. But -- but that could be a solution that's out of our hands that would help what we're talking about. >>AVRI DORIA: Avri again. Actually, slowing it down is in our hands. Slowing down the IETF process is trivial. >>EDMON CHUNG: I think that is exactly what Avri mentioned earlier on when we're saying that we could -- you know, we could trip each other or trip ourselves over if we are trying to race to the, you know, finishing line first. And that that is one of the obvious ways that do that. And I think Avri mentioned the geographic names as the other trump card from the other side. One of the things that I wanted to mention is that exactly. Because, currently, in terms of the standards, currently, both the GNSO recommendations and the IDNC, which is the IDN ccTLDs fast track recommendations both point to saying that to wait for the finalized version of the IDN standards. And I would find it very interesting if that implementation time that those policies be violated unless there is another implementation recommendation group kind of thing, which is exactly what we're talking about here, that recommends otherwise. So this might be one of the issues that this group needs to take on -- you know, take into consideration. And, again, coming back to why this group originally was formed -- or currently thinking about forming it with the participation from ccNSO as well this might be a good particular topic that's -- again, it's a common interest to address this particular issue of IDNA standards. And in the group we can probably address the issue and the issue of what -- you know, how do we deal with the conflict of one going first or not. And the end result, again, there are two obvious options that we're seeing right now. But we might end up with more options. But currently two options, maybe one, is yes, we're now going to say that both would go in at the same time to the root. We would change our position somewhat and make that assertion. And both sides needs to agree to it. The other option is that, you know, we continue with this no retard. But we have the plan B in place which everyone agrees to. So that's -- that's sort of, at least in my mind, why we want to create this group and why we want to involve others. And I think Chuck earlier mentioned why don't we just create a GNSO group to talk about this. And I think this -- there might become interests -- enough common interests to bring together a board-created work group so that we can address the issue head on. The biggest issue for us is the timing between the cc and the G IDN. And then there are common interests that affect that particular timing. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Um, can I just pose the question just so I get an understanding? I'd love to hear from Chuck and Avri and anyone else. So would -- are we -- is our opinion changing on when we would -- how do you say this? Should we tie ourselves back where in the past we've made ourselves to say one way retard the other. Is this something where eventually we should be going back saying we must jump together, "we" being CCs and Gs. >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I answer this? That is exactly what Avri's suggestion was is to consider that option. And it may be a good option looking at, you know, the two -- you know, one side may be retarding the standards. The other side may be retarding the full gTLD process. And we each may be tripping ourselves up to get to the root. And maybe a way to harmonize the situation is, in fact, to say that, you know, let's just agree that we'll go in together. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, this is Avri. I think one of the possibilities was that the processes don't need to retard each other. In other words, all the prework, all the amount of time it takes to get the contractual stuff and the allocations, that that doesn't need to -- one doesn't need to stop the other. It's the -- it's the entry into the root. The fastest of the fast track and the easiest of the gTLD. And, as the noncontroversial gTLD, the first entries of each get rooted at the same time. And -- but how the processes go, they don't mess with each other. In other words, you know, one could take six months to approve. One could take three months to approve. You then have your marketing organizations going. You have your starts. You have your, you know, everything else. It's just that the start date is the same. >>EDMON CHUNG: Is that still revisionist? >>AVRI DORIA: Is that revisionist? It could be. >>CHUCK GOMES: The -- this has been great dialogue, but there's only five of us participating. I would love to hear what some of the rest of you think about this. Disagree or agree or some new ideas? Sorry to put you on the spot. But I really -- it would really be helpful to get a broader perspective of what people are thinking about this and what your needs are, what your concerns are, et cetera. >>EDMON CHUNG: Does anyone want to speak up? >>WANG LIYING: Yes, I'm trying to keep up with everyone's discussion. I just wonder how could you -- how could the GNSO to guarantee when the IDN gTLD get to the fast track and the other -- the third party could put enough information and type to object to the new gTLD so that would be included into the guideline? >>EDMON CHUNG: If we do go down the path of discussing a gTLD fast track, then we would have to address that issue which Adrian brought up as well. >>WANG LIYING: Everyone could have enough time to now who gets into the fast track and get enough time to put into the objection. Thank you. >>EDMON CHUNG: Right. The problem right now is we're not even starting to talk about the fast track. There -- there isn't even enough agreement to start that discussion. But we're thinking about options, whether fast track is one option. There may be other options to deal with it. And, if we talk about fast track, yeah, absolutely, that's definitely one important point. >>Liau speaking from Konac. We're wondering whether the fast track is providing for implementation we have any time schedule or deadline for the final submitting of the application? >>EDMON CHUNG: That's a very good point. We -- in the group that was convened earlier, we addressed that issue a little bit. It is -- at what point do we think a fast track is meaningful after all? Because the -- if the full gTLD -- full gTLD process is ready -- and we're talking about, I don't know, like two weeks before that, there's a fast track, then maybe it's not useful. Rather than talking about the timeline from now, the -- if we are going down the discussion of fast track, I think the best way to approach it is to figure out what time difference between the full gTLD process and the gTLD fast track could be put in place, you know, what's the meaningful time lag between that? And, in terms of how fast a fast track could be put together, it's anybody's guess. But, at the very aggressive timeline that I try to put together earlier, have -- put it together in four to five months. >>CHUCK GOMES: A logistical suggestion, I suspect there are people here today that aren't on the list. We should welcome them to join that list. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. Everyone is welcome to join the sort of drafting team for the IDNG group. And we sort of sent around to that constituencies to name people to participate to. >>STEVE DEL BIANCO: I'm aware that on the cc side, the way they generate pressure for the fast track was to show they're ready. And I've looked at those lists that show that a certain particular government says, "We're ready. Our registry is ready to go. We're going to follow the protocols. We have demand. We have an install base of domains at the second level. We just want a IDN cc to go." So being ready, I think, really contributes to the appreciation that this could happen. So I would invite some of the registries or applicants for new registries -- I would invite a few of you to assert the same readiness. That would mean articulate in writing we have an install base. We have thousands, or in some cases millions of IDNs at the second level. We have strong demand in our target market for IDN gTLDs. And we're ready to embrace whatever it the GAC is requiring on GO. We're ready to embrace whatever it is we have on IRT. And bring that forward would be the tip of the spear that starts to lead this thing along. It takes us out of an abstract discussion under what are the conditions and what are the processes into here we have demand, head-to-head demand. We're willing to go with almost any process that gets us there, including what you asked for. Would there be sufficient time, say, for objection? So whoever this applicant is who says I'm ready to go and I'm going to open the door for objections, make sure that I proactively solicit whether there's an objection from appropriate governments that use those scripts. In other words, that readiness, that display of readiness in an aggressive way could be what breaks the log jam that we have right now. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis. So what I'm getting from today's discussion -- and I think, Chuck, you're exactly right. Some more input here would be great. But I think also to take some of this back to council, at least get them thinking, that potentially we may want to revise our position here with respect to one going before the other. That's fairly groundbreaking for me here today to sort of get that sense. Just see how that floats. Not necessarily in a formal sense to bring it up. But, in an informal sense, I'd like to talk to my colleagues about that. Because, to have an understanding that our first would be to say we all go together. And then, if not, plan B clicks into action. And a plan B is a fast track. That -- you know, I think that's more palatable. I really do. Especially to my constituency, because you're getting something rather than nothing, right? So, you know, I would value certainly some more council input on this. >>CHUCK GOMES: I hesitate a little bit to bring this up. But it's a fact, so I'll say it. One of the realities in the ICANN budget -- and you can see it in the proposed budget that's out there right now -- is that gTLD registrants through their fees are the ones who will pay for the IDN ccTLD process, certainly have so far. Because about 80- to 90% of the ccNSO budget is funded outside of the ccTLD fees. So one of the real contradictions in this is that if the ccTLDs go first, we're actually funding it. "We" meaning the gTLD side of the house. Because the fees from gTLDs cover over 93% of the total ICANN budget. So that's a real contradiction, especially if the ccTLDs get a competitive advantage over gTLDs. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Question then, Chuck, is why, as a council, do we -- were we that confident we were going to go first with Gs that we put forward this motion to say, you know, not let one retard the other? I mean, given what you said, it makes damn good sense to sit here and say, well, why should you get a competitive advantage, right? >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't think we were overconfident or arrogant. I think that seemed like the right thing to do that neither should disadvantage the other if there are significant delays. Do we need -- I think you asked the question should we reconsider it? It's still the right thing to do. It's an ideal way to approach it. We're now getting down to the nitty-gritty. And so that's why we're here. >>AVRI DORIA: I think another way to look at that statement is we shouldn't be doing anything to interfere with the other one's ability to get in. So, I mean, if you look at that statement that neither should do anything to impair the other, that is most definitely a thing I'm still willing to say is true. Neither of us should be interfering with the other one's ability. However, that still doesn't mean that one should get there first. >>EDMON CHUNG: About Chuck's comment, I think that's -- I was walking in and out of the IDN session at the GAC earlier today. I might have heard it wrong, but what I -- if I heard was right, there are GAC members who are putting forward, that yes, the gTLD will have to cross-subsidize the ccTLDs. And -- (Speaker off microphone.) -- like we have all along that's at least put forward by some GAC members. But I might have heard it wrong. Because I was walking in and out. >>AVRI DORIA: Would that be an entitlement? >>EDMON CHUNG: Okay. So I guess -- did anyone else want to -- because we've been sort of somewhat dominating. We're almost closing this session, I think we're a little bit late, running out of time, too. Does anyone maybe from ICANN staff want to talk you know about what you think about -- Olof, maybe? >>OLOF NORDLING: Olof Nordling, ICANN staff, yes. And we're happy to talk about just about anything. But primary concerns are -- well, like you say, we're -- I think my primary concern is what do the end customers really want. So more of the input of the -- kind of what Steve is saying, what are others saying from the customer's side? Because that's really what we're here to serve at the end of the day. >>EDMON CHUNG: That's a very interesting observation. Perhaps we haven't -- at least on my part we -- I haven't emphasized that enough. But we certainly -- I'm sure Chuck can speak to that as well. Certainly there has been, we, at least at the registry, have heard significant demand. Every time I speak at any occasion, the first three questions would include when is IDN and we don't want IDN dot Asia. We want IDN dot IDN. When is it going to happen? Doesn't matter who I sort of speak to. That's sort of almost like the first few questions would have that now. So I think that's a good point. Steve? >>STEVE DEL BIANCO: And on what Olof said, the work, this term of reference -- I know it's just a draft. It turns out you do show the perspective of the target community, the customer base. But it's under commonalities. And it's the third bullet in on commonalities. One has to dig deeply into this term of reference to get to what Olof and I are saying should be the primary driver. And that is the serving of the target community. So it's a matter of elevating it and making it clear. The second is to avoid characterizing our concern as being about conflict. You see, conflict is two suppliers vying to get to someplace. It isn't a conflict. From the standpoint of the perspective of a customer is, as I called it earlier, it's either a dilemma or a delay or the inability for an IDN user -- taking registrants out of it for a second. Let's just say a user. Doesn't even register. Users are ICANN customers, too. And that IDN user is suddenly excited that they can have an all IDN. They actually don't have to do keyboard gymnastics to type in email addresses or type in URLs, except that they only have a tiny little group of TLDs that are available, the one or two that got launched in their own country code. What they really wanted is the full robust Internet experience in IDN. So we end up saying, from their perspective, it's not just registrant. It's end users who aren't going to have the full access to contents. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Just on that point. And your example you used with your Arabic domain name before is an interesting one, because I really think it's going to come down to those who have existing TLDs and where they have them as to -- so when we talk about what the user wants, do they want a G or do they want a CC, I think it's really what they have now that dictates that. So I don't know that that's necessarily -- whilst I'm all for what the user or the registrant wants to see, I think it's a very fine line. Because, if you've got a dot ae domain name for the Arab Emirates and they're going to get their IDN ccTLD, that's fine for me. But, if I've got a dot com that I happen to be in the UAE, then I'm going to be hanging out for the gTLD. So, you know, I -- I don't know that that's necessarily helpful in that respect. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: May I respond to that? Adrian, great question. You said there's sort of a subtle distinction between the user and registrant with regard to it, because it's a function of what you have now. I think that is only true of the registrant. If a registrant has invested a lot of branding, like bluebridge.net, they're really focused on what they have now. And they want it in IDN. But a user doesn't sort of have anything. A user accesses the entire Internet. And she turns her fingers like this to access content from a variety of places, none of which she has but what of it she wants. So I think the user and registrant perspectives should maintain a distinction and ought to make its way into the term of reference for this document. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And for the scribes, acknowledged, thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Edmon, make sure we left the people who would like to get on that list either leave their e-mail or give their name or their URL or something for that. >>EDMON CHUNG: How do you propose we do it, perhaps -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: The scribes will take it and then they can check the transcript of this, potentially, one way to do it, is that helpful? >>EDMON CHUNG: The e-mail of the drafting team, I don't remember exactly. But for those who are not already on the list, who would be interested to be on the list and want to be added to the list? >>EDMON CHUNG: Okay, yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No, no, no. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I've got the drafting team e-mail address here, it's gnso-idng -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Go slowly. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Am I speaking too fast? Sorry. Hello, everyone, sorry I'm late, this is Stephane Van Gelder. Is that good. So the e-mail is gnso-idng@icann.org. >>EDMON CHUNG: And if anyone is interested to join that mailing list, you know, it's open for anyone to join. Talk to me or anyone to get join -- and check that mailing list on the ICANN Web site and the mailing list part. I think -- and -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Glen de Saint Géry is the GNSO Secretariat, and you can also send an e-mail to Glen to be added to that at glen@icann.org. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And that's Glen with one N, G-L-E-N. And let the record show Stephane Van Gelder turned up only three minutes ago, thank you. >>EDMON CHUNG: Okay. No, I think it's -- we ran over time now and I think we should wrap the session. But I think we had a really constructive discussion today. And it seem -- we will have further discussion at the council meeting as well later on in the week. And it seems to me that the approach is a little bit clearing more up in a way that people can agree to and move forward with and address the address a few of the concerns that we had all along. So thank you -- >>CHUCK GOMES: For those who don't know her, the person I just gave her e-mail out to all of you just came in, Glen is right over here. [ Applause ] >>EDMON CHUNG: Thank you, everyone, for joining. [ Break ] >>MASON COLE: All right, good morning, everybody, let's get started, if we can. The agenda for the day is up here projected on the board. I'm in the middle of trying to pull up a document here that I think will be helpful to our discussion but let's start off with a role call so we know who's here and as we -- as we -- as we go around let's just introduce ourselves and where we're from and who we're representing, so can we do that? Jeff, can we start with you? >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Jeff Eckhaus, ENOM registrars constituency. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I'm actually sitting next to Adrian Kinderis who is late. I'd like the scribes to record that, please. My name is Stephane Van Gelder, I'm from INDOM France. >>TEREZA BARTOSKOVA: Hello, my name is Tereza Bartoskova from the Czech Arbitration Court and I'm just an observer here. >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Zbynek Loebel from the Czech arbitration. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Chris Chaplow from andalucia.com in Spain and representative of the business community, constituency. >>RON ANDRUFF: Ron Andruff, member of the business constituency, member of the operating steering committee, alternate, and also GNSO operating work team, GNSO operations work team. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Julie Hedlund, ICANN staff. >>SCOTT PINZON: Scott Pinzon, ICANN staff. >>ZUO RAN: Zuo Ran from China Organizational Name Administration Center. >>FLAVIO WAGNER: Flavio Wagner from the Brazilian Internet Governance Committee. >>CARLOS AFONSO: Carlos Afonso from the Brazil Internet Governance Committee. >>KEN BOUR: Ken Bour from the ICANN policy staff. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Rob Hoggarth, ICANN staff. >>MASON COLE: Thanks very much, everybody. It's good to see you, a good turnout like this. Oh, I'm sorry, Steve are you on the phone with us? Anyone else on the phone? >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Yeah, I'm on, hi, Mason. >>MASON COLE: Good. Good to have you, Steve. Now Julie's pulling the agenda back up because we -- >>JULIE HEDLUND: Sorry. Sorry, technical difficulties. >>MASON COLE: Computer problems. I know we just for the benefit of everyone in the room, this group has been at work since the Mexico City meeting and we've been charged with providing the board a set of recommendations about how the GNSO can more effectively communicate with the board and with the broader ICANN community, and the GNSO board. We've set ourselves a deadline for October to have our preparation -- to have our recommendations made to the board an IDN gTLD fast after a period of going through the process of identifying what the board is saw as problems and some issues that we saw ourselves in terms of communications difficulties we're -- don't worry, it's going to be fine -- what we did is we divided the workup into -- up into four parts and created subteams to address those parts. And right now we're in the process of preparing really our recommendations document and I'd say we're probably about halfway through that so what I'd like to do if I may is just go from team to team and get a brief update and then teams, staff, anybody who's ready to contribute that and then as we describe that if anybody else in the room would like to contribute thoughts or ideas to what those teams are doing I think that would be very helpful so let's start with subgroup one which is dealing with the Web site and the GNSO Web site and our document management issue. Ken, would you like to lead off? >>KEN BOUR: Sure, thank you, Mason. Steve, do you want to have any comments out there from space? >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Out here from space. Well, one thing I didn't get was who all is on the call today. Is it the entire team, do we have Zbynek and Helen and Julie and Ken and Mason? >>MASON COLE: Everybody is here except Helen. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Okay, great. Yeah, I think actually the agenda that set out the status was very sterile and complete and I have relied very heavily on Ken to give the status updates each time since he's been taking the (inaudible). So I guess I won't add any editorial comments, but just to let Ken lead off. >>KEN BOUR: Okay, thank you, I'll do that. I would like to just acknowledge that the subgroup team who has been working on what we're calling the GNSO Web site replacement project, that team is Chris Chaplow, who is sitting across from me there, and Steve Holsten who is on the horn back in the U.S.A., and myself as the staff facilitator and helper. What we were able to do, the three of us, was to create a first draft of a set of business requirements for the GNSO replacement Web site. It's also being characterized as the GNSO online presence or Internet presence so that we don't get completely tangled up just with the idea that as a page or a Web site, but more of a complex series of functions and capabilities that we would like to deliver to the GNSO. The business requirements draft was completed at the end of May, and that was version 1.0. Subsequently, thanks to Marc Salvatierra, who is the ICANN webmaster, web designer in corporate affairs, he took some time to go through our business requirements in great detail and made a lot of constructive edits and changes and suggestions, terminology and things that we weren't capable of doing on our own as accurately. And so we've since published version 1.1 which is now the current latest version of that and it's clean, it's not red lined, it's, you know, in pristine condition. I'm not sure if that's a sufficient update for now and whether you -- >>MASON COLE: No, that's good. Actually, I have to -- I have to say, this subteam has made the most progress of anybody so far in terms of developing recommendations and business requirements so thanks to Ken and Steve and everybody on that team for all the hard work. Anyone else in the room who's here, observing, would like to offer any thoughts or suggestions, Ken, yeah. >>KEN BOUR: I'd like to comment for anybody who has looked at this document or who is about to look at it, it's intended to be written, and we use this term called "business requirements," and it's an attempt to write what the need is, right, so the perspective that we have when we try to describe what kinds of functionality and feature set the GNSO needs, it gets written at that sort of business need level versus a technical level so there's nothing in this business requirements document that will specify anything like a platform or a particular way to deliver a capability. That's the next step, right? So if we -- if this document has approval to go forward, what we would like to do very -- the next step, is to -- for me and our team folks to meet with Mark, I'll probably take the lead on this, and really start to sit down at the design level and I believe that the platform of choice within ICANN right now is Drupal. And so -- and Mark is a Drupal expert, and he has consultants who are Drupal experts, and we will be taking the business requirements and then driving them down to the design level to see how they might actually look when they get developed. And that's where our subteam will continue to work on this project, what we'd like to do is to get in sort of a iterative or agile development kind of methodology with the corporate affairs technical staff and start turning out versions of a replacement Web site project that folks can look at and play around with and interact within and comment on answer then it can go through changes and so forth and so on so that's where we're heading. >>MASON COLE: So one point, too, so that if I may just offer a bit of context, when this team first convened and started discussing methods for improving communication, what we wanted to avoid is a tactical approach, we wanted to take a strategic approach and not, for example, rely on the Web site as a panacea for solving the problems of GNSO communications. There's probably a tendency in this community to think about technology as the automatic go-to idea for solving a problem. And we wanted to take a broader view of that. And the Web site may or may not be -- I mean, it's an important component but it may or may not be the best solution to -- ultimately to improve communication between the board and the GNSO. It's an important step, but we wanted to make sure that that wasn't the only thing that we focused on. All right, so other thoughts on Web site document management, et cetera? Yeah, Rob. >>ROB HOGGARTH: I'd just like to acknowledge that the corporate affairs team has been very supportive with respect to this project. Kieren McCarthy, our general manager of POP participation has just joined us as well. >>MASON COLE: Thanks for being here, Kieren, appreciate it. Okay, let's go to task three which is soliciting meaningful feedback. Zbynek. >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Okay, so we discussed two basic directions: First one, we had a very useful conference call, the localization team with representatives of the ICANN localization team. And we verified that it seems that the localization policy is consistent and it seems that it's working pretty well. We had a couple of questions and also questions where it was reasonably answered. And then, actually, we just brainstormed several times among ourselves with Helen about some -- some ideas how to improve the -- how to get better feedback, et cetera, and we actually planned to get together in Sydney and to try to write something. So Helen should be here and -- at least that's what I understand. And we plan to produce something actually here in Sydney. One of the ideas which we are brainstorming about was something like a special commands forum or a Web site which would be -- which could be referred towards the registries and registrars as a sort of a logo which they put on -- they can put on their Web sites and which would go directly to like a Web site which would ask the readers to provide feedback and so on. So in this way, the request for feedback would not be just on the Web site of ICANN or related institutions, but if, of course, on a voluntary basis. So on the Web sites of the registries and registrars. So this is just one of the ideas, but we want to -- unfortunately, we have not come to writing something, but we plan to do it during this week. >>MASON COLE: So if I understand what you're saying, you're looking -- you're looking at ways to make sure that end users and others who have a stake in how ICANN operates become aware of ICANN and its operations because right now there are too many who are just really insiders to the game, right? >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Exactly, this is -- yes, right. >>MASON COLE: Right. So spread the word beyond the stakeholder groups and everyone else into the broader user community in a way that's relevant so that they understand why ICANN is important, why it's important to contribute and gives them an avenue to do that, right? >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Yes, this is correct. And this is one of the ideas. Another idea is to -- that perhaps there is too many acronyms used in the communication and it would be good to have a comprehensive vocabulary of the acronyms, et cetera. So these are just a range of ideas which we have discussed repeatedly, but again, unfortunately, due to time constraints, we were not able to put something in writing. >>MASON COLE: Okay. >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: We will do it. >>MASON COLE: Thank you, Zbynek, good. Ken or Rob, anything you'd like to contribute there? Julie? >>JULIE HEDLUND: No. >>MASON COLE: Anyone else? Yeah, Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah, thanks, Mason. Just want to come back to what was being said and ask a question. I understand you haven't had time to go into the details of how we could do what you're proposing which is to provide better communications to non-GNSO SG ICANN insiders. Have you got any leads that you could give us on how that could be done? Because, you know, public participation was mentioned earlier on this. There's a lot of avenues that exist already. You have a blog, you have obviously, a comprehensive Web site, you have lots of people twittering and blogging about things. How could we organize -- I mean, do you have any ideas on how to organize all that to make it available to people who have just on, you know, ICANN insiders who basically are going to be deluged by acronyms, things that they don't understand? >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Yeah, no, as I said, I mentioned two possibilities, and, which are just on a brainstorming level. So one possibility is to -- to have like a special logo which could be, which would be offered to registries and registrars to put it on their Web sites. And the logo would -- would -- access to special Web sites, or which can be in the form either of a Web site or -- or public forum or a blog. With specific requests for -- to provide feedback. So this is just one option. And second possibility which would be discussed is to create a comprehensive vocabulary of acronyms. >>MASON COLE: Stephane, yeah. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Sorry. That acronym thing, doesn't that exist already, or is that something we're working on at the council level? Getting confused, sorry, jet lag. >>MASON COLE: Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I think what Stephane's referring to is, I came up, I think it was the last meeting, with the idea of putting together a glossary on behalf of the GNSO Council and especially during the public forums and I think Kieren McCarthy has responded to this anyways, but to have an idea of a publicly viewable glossary whilst things like the public forum is on so that when someone mentions a PDP about the OSC your eyes don't roll around in your head, you can go very, very quickly to find out what that means 'cause I -- >>MASON COLE: Sorry, no, go ahead -- yeah, that's good. I was going to ask Kieren if he'd like to contribute anything here. It would probably be pretty relevant, Kieren? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Yes, so this is what I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to do, how to put the work that we do in a broader context. With regard to the glossary, the problem we faced and the staff are compiling about 10 different glossaries that are being built up over the years, exactly with this sort of process, not to have a go at the process, but everyone started drawing up different glossaries and they've all been kept on people's laptops and on various Web sites. So there is compiling. And I think the best way we'll find to do it is the translation manager, Christina, is compiling them all so they can all be translated so that our translations are also consistent. So the idea which I put to her not that long ago, a couple weeks ago -- she thought it was a good idea -- was to put it on Wikipedia and just stick up a multilingual glossary that we -- a first version and then you stick it up on Wikipedia. Which tends to work. And I can't see that that many people would want to deface GNSO terminology, I don't think it's that exciting for most people. So that's the part of the problem, the problem was that everyone creates their own glossaries in all a slightly different -- I feel if you've put it on Wikipedia and leave the community to figure it out itself without having to go back and forth. With regard to the use of plain language, that is a consistent problem, and I know that the public participation full committee are looking at it and they're looking at executive summaries. I've been pushing for the use of plain English since I took the job. And it's a struggle. It's much better, but it's -- I think it's more of a cultural thing, we create acronyms before we even know what we're talking about, you know, sort of -- and they don't -- often don't mean anything. My favorite is IRT which even when you know what it means doesn't really mean trademark protection. So it's a struggle. If anyone's got any ideas, I'd be delighted. We are trying to produce on staff more clearer, less technical, less lingo, more plain-English text and I think it's getting there, but it's still a long way to go. >>MASON COLE: Okay, hold on, Ron and then Adrian. >>RON ANDRUFF: I wanted to pick up, Zbynek, on your comment about making out a GNSO logo and putting that somewhere, but I didn't quite understand. So the idea is that all of the contracted parties or the stakeholder groups, everybody relative to the GNSO would, then, have that and that would be a direct link to the GNSO site? Is that my right understanding? >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Well, it can be like that, or it can be slightly different. It would not be -- it would not be mandatory. But basically so -- so -- and it would not access the GNSO Web site. But it could access specific parts of the GNSO Web site just with the most current issues which needed feedback, which needs feedback. So the idea is that basically how we -- how we -- how we are thinking of it, that this may be a logo which could be on the let's say broader participants including registrars, for example, or registries, and it would -- and then basically the readers, or the users which would simply click on the Web site of the registrar or the registry, would see the logo, would be able to click on it, and would access Web site asking for comments on specific, most up-to-date issues. >>RON ANDRUFF: So that my understanding, then, is that it's more about public participation and issues as opposed to just a link to the GNSO site? >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Yes. >>RON ANDRUFF: Thank you. >>MASON COLE: Kieren? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: I have a possible suggestion you might want to look at which is I've been using a thing called Woofoo, actually, there's -- on the front page now there's a usability study which I would urge you all to go and have a look at for using the Web site. And one of the good things about Woofoo -- it's not just Woofoo, there's lots of these things -- is you can embed that code. So someone can set up a form, a feedback form or whatever and then you can provide that code to whoever wants it and they can embed that form into lots of different sites. And the great thing about that is you're not compiling all the information into one spot which makes life much easier. >>ZBYNEK LOEBL: Yes, that's exactly what we have in mind and we just need to sit down with Helen and brainstorm a little bit more about it and put it down on paper. >>MASON COLE: Okay, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah, Adrian Kinderis. I want to pick up on one of Kieren's points. And I think Kieren should be commended on all the work he's done within the communications realm since coming on board. It's the generation of acronyms that, for some reason, as an industry or, you know, within I'll call ICANN the industry, we seem to be very quick to develop new acronyms at every meeting. Even such -- and Kieren brought up the IRT acronym. But I sat through yesterday an IRT information session, and I swear there was at least another 10 new acronyms that had come out of that working group. You know, so it just seems to be forever evolving. And I think as we move and as we get more a grasp of multi language, multiple languages and multiple cultures, that acronyms don't necessarily serve us in such a good capacity. So, potentially, there needs to be some education by the different chairs or different working groups and have that filter through is that, where possible, try to keep the language -- so it's not only a reactive measure. Potentially, it's a proactive measure as well to ensure that we don't continue to go down paths of having to create a steeper learning curve for folks to come that are new to the table. I hope that is helpful. >>MASON COLE: Yeah, that does make sense. I think what I heard you saying was that the longer you don't participate in ICANN, the harder it is to get literate with ICANN. Very good point. Stephane, you had something? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Mason. I think there's two main issues. There's the acronym issue. I don't think you can avoid acronyms. You go into any subject, any subject that requires some kind of -- call it expertise, for want of a better word. And you'll always have acronyms. You'll always have special vocabulary. You'll always have things that, I mean, any hobby that you have, you know, you'll have special words in there. And outsiders will always face that wall coming in to the subject, coming in to the topic. So, obviously, a glossary is a great idea. It's a great way of understanding things. But I'm not sure that you can fight special lingo when you're in a specific topic all the way through. I think there has to be some way to decode that. But there's another issue that I see which is just the -- the wealth, the sheer amount of information that you have to tackle coming into ICANN. I mean, look at the preparation coming into this meeting. For the last couple of weeks, it's just been, you know, email alert after email alert, report after report. These reports are like 120-page documents when they're not 200-page documents. So, you know, I tried to read some on the plane coming in and fell asleep halfway through. So first time I've ever been able to sleep on a plane. So I think we also have to work -- you know, if we're looking at communications, we also have to work on a way of precising that? How can we get -- how can we condense that flow of information so that we can come out with -- I don't know. There's been -- in the past we've seen the Wiki do an ICANN quickie thing. We've seen Kieren, who I absolutely agree with what Adrian said earlier on. Kieren has done a fantastic job. And, you know, we've seen things coming out that have tried to simplify the information. But isn't there some way that we can just provide one or two sentence updates on what's really happening? What do you need to know about the IRT? Basically, there's five sentences there. They've got five recommendations. And then, if you need more information, just go in and look for yourself. Just provide the links and go in. But, if we try and explain it more than that, then you just lose people. So, you know, I'd also like to see us work on something extremely short. Just to break down documents in an extremely summarized fashion. >>MASON COLE: Kieren? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: It's worth pointing out that I think -- where did it come from? I think it came from the improving institutional confidence consultation. And I think the board is going to vote on Friday on a series of measures for this. And one of them is to write more executive summaries in simplified language. And one of the committees is going to pick up the work for how to do that. So it is recognized and there is a sort of board level review of that. So I think it's coming. But it always goes -- as everything with ICANN, it goes a little bit slower than you want it to. >>MASON COLE: Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Without laboring a point, I just wanted to pick up on something Stephane said. I think we can avoid acronyms on occasions. And, you know, rather than calling -- IRT is a bad example. But uniform rapid suspension system. As I said, there's 20 of these things came out of the IRT report. But just call it that. Yes, it's a little bit more cumbersome. But for those in the room, you now understand what I'm talking about. If I just sat here and rattled off 5, it's so divisive. It separates those that know and those that don't know. I tend to think I'm fairly in tune with what goes on at ICANN. But to sit in a meeting and for me to sit and Google what the hell that acronym was, for those that are attending ICANN for the first time must be incredibly intimidating. So my point is, I guess, that, where possible, you know, even if there is an acronym, when you're sitting in a meeting, there should be some sort of etiquette that says, especially in public forums and councils -- and I know we spoke about that in our public council meeting that we do -- whilst we have an audience, let's ensure that we don't use acronyms. Let's turn it back on us a little bit. Not just put it to one person. Don't dump this all on Kieren's lap. Put this all back on each one of ourselves as stakeholders within the industry to want to work harder to make sure that we're engaging everybody. >>MASON COLE: I think, if I may -- I don't want to speak for you and Helen, Zbynek, I think what this subgroup is doing is looking at two questions. The board has identified that the original study that looked at where the GNSO was falling short said we're not getting enough meaningful feedback from enough people, right? Who are impacted. Okay? So then the questions then that Zbynek and Helen are trying to address are how do you make people who are unaware of the impact that ICANN has on their lives aware of it in a way that they can understand? And how do you open new avenues for communication to make it easy for them to contribute to the process or to give their feedback? Right? And so now, tactically, right, strategically what you do then is exactly what Zbynek and Helen are doing, which is how do you distribute the information about ICANN in new ways where people will find it and understand it. And then now what we're all talking about is how do we make that easier? Well, we avoid things like acronyms. Right? You know, we -- what have you. Whatever the recommendations are. So did I make sense there? Does that seem like what you're doing, Zybnek? >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: Yes, yes, exactly. I think so, yeah. And the issues like even the acronyms vocabulary. Because, if -- I also think that unfortunately, we have to live with acronyms. So this summary explanations, et cetera, if necessary, can be part of the vocabulary even. >>MASON COLE: Do you want to speak, Zbynek, any more about the translation work that you're doing? >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: Actually, the localization was -- our localization work was very positive, in my personal view. Because we simply verified. We had a couple of questions. It was very interesting for me. Because the arbitration code, I was involved in a project where we had to put up with 21 languages. So it was also personally interesting for me. And we had a couple of questions. And all the questions were answered by the lady responsible for the localization. And the answers were very satisfactory. So it seems that there is a consistent policy within ICANN and within GNSO regarding the localization texts or the texts which would be localized that there is an effort to develop consistency in localizations, meaning that there is sort of -- there are tools being used to adapt the vocabulary. And the lady, unfortunately, I will not give you now a name. But she definitely knows -- yeah. >>MASON COLE: Christina Rodriguez? >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: Yes, Kristina. Thank you. So she definitely knows her job. And she is trying to create and maintain a system and so on. So, in fact, from my personal view, really did not have anything to add to this. >>MASON COLE: Kieren or Rob, anything you wanted to add to that? >>ROB HOGGARTH: My only observation there is where there may need to be some in form of gap analysis or whatever is taking the existing translation system that exists within ICANN and then matching it with what the true expectations are for the GNSO. In other words, the capabilities are there to provide the translations. What particular documents do you all think require that or what pieces of them? Are they executive summaries like Stephane refers to where you're taking some shorter version and you're providing that translation? Do you also provide the full translation for the document? In what languages? Those -- that type of analysis, I think, would also be useful at some point in time and in terms of a recommendation. >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: Yes. I think, actually, that the transcript of the conference call which we had is very useful also in this respect. And we would edit or we would work with the transcript in the material which we are going to prepare. Yeah. >>MASON COLE: Okay. Stephane? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Mason. I think to try to answer Rob's or try to come up with a few suggestions there, one of the problems that we have in trying to answer our own questions is that we're all talking to all ICANN insiders. So, Rob, when you ask, you know, what kind of material would foreigner -- not foreigners, non- English speakers -- require. Strike that, please. I'm French, so I can make that kind of a mistake. If I look at people in France, the take that they have on ICANN, I'm sure that they will never go in to the level of detail that Zbynek has just suggested of reading a conference or a meeting transcript. Because they are just too far away from everything. So perhaps there, once again, you have two levels. You have the pure translation that you do all the stuff that's coming out of ICANN where it's kind of like a U.N. system where you translate everything word for word because the ICANN community isn't all English and they all need to understand. And then for people -- non-English speakers that want to come in to the ICANN process, there, I'd suggest that we once again go back to the summary, the precis, whatever that is. And try and just -- I think it must not be word for word. It has to be easy enough to get into that people can come into it quickly without having to labor through the full ICANN process, as it were. >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: Yes, exactly. I fully agree. And, in fact, it seems that the current approach of the localization team is exactly the same as we prefer to answer the conference calls, et cetera, et cetera. There is consistent policy. And the team is in play executing the policy. And I think that this is the only way how you can resolve the issue of multiple languages. Because you cannot satisfy everybody. And so the only thing is to develop some reasoning behind that policy and to then -- then to be -- to simply follow the policy. >>MASON COLE: Kieren? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: So I wanted to flag up -- this has been an issue. The translation has been an issue for a while. And the counterargument that we get is well, it costs a fortune and no one reads it. So we set up a system which I hope some of you have seen. On every page on the ICANN site at the bottom is the 10 languages that we've sort of agreed we would do. And nearly every page is in English. If you click on that, then it brings up a popup box. And it says in that language -- so say it's Chinese. You click on Chinese. It says, "I would like to see this page in Chinese." And you click that, and it goes back to a form of the back end that we can see. We can see how many people have clicked on particular pages for particular languages. And then, when it gets to -- when there's a clear demand. We've got hundreds with just one. When there's a clear demand, when it starts getting to about 10 to 15, we then translate that page and put the translation bar at the top. So just to make you're aware of that. That's a way that the community can say I want to read this page in my language. And then we can see the back end, go and translate it. >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: And also you develop the policy of the summaries and the localization of summaries, as I understand. And then it is clear that we have to be reminded also the issues which is necessary the multiplicity of languages bring. And this is not just cost but also possible time delays, et cetera. So -- >>STEVE HOLSTEN: I didn't exactly get that. Did you say that you gauge demand and then you decide to translate? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: So we translate an enormous number or increasing number of documents. Every document gets translated in the five U.N. languages. And every major document for -- what do you call it? -- for participation, public participation gets translated into 10 languages. But, in terms of all of those pages on the Web site, we don't know where to begin. It would cost millions and millions of dollars to translate everything. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Sure. >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: So we put code on every page of the Web site. So that, if people say, "I want to read this page in my language," you can click. And we pick it up. And we can see it. And so oh, lots of people wanted to read -- the first one we did was UDRP, which was unusual. I thought the first one would be the "About" page, or the first one would be the comment page or the gTLD page. Actually, the first one all the demand came in for was the UDRP page. So we translated that. And then the next one is "About" page. So on and so forth. So it's just a system by which we can translate all the material according to what the demand is. >>MASON COLE: It's a method of prioritizing so you don't have to do everything at once. You let the community prioritize what's most important, right? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: Yes. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: That definitely makes sense. It is a bit of a chicken and egg question. Unless you know what it says, you can't necessarily know that's what you want to see. But I also agree with you that you would spend an inordinate amount of money and time translating absolutely everything. >>MASON COLE: Have you had that problem, Kieren, with, you know, people not really in the first place being able to identify what it is they want translated because they don't understand what they're reading? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: It's a horrible vicious circle. Because I don't know because they don't follow ICANN because they can't understand what it says. So it's -- you know, where do you break it? I'm of the view that at some point we'll get to a point in which, say, a Chinese speaker, Arabic speaker will suddenly be able to follow a lot of things. And then I think we'll suddenly see a lot of people appear where they didn't appear before. But it's an impossible question because you don't know. >>MASON COLE: Right. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Perhaps something Stephane was saying earlier here is that the executive summaries become important. So maybe the executive summary is the part that gets translated, not the whole document. And then they can then indicate I'd like to know more about this. So sort of pick up on probably a couple themes that have been going around here. If each -- start again in English. If each page had an executive summary down at the bottom or whatever it was in each of the language just simply saying two or three lines about what this page meant and now I'd like more information, I think that's much more helpful. >>ZYBNEK LOEBL: It is my understanding this is the way that the localization policy is actually developing. Yeah. >>MASON COLE: Okay. Any more input on this issue? I want to make sure we cover everything. >>SCOTT PINZON: I would like to get this team's opinion on another view. No one has talked yet about information architecture. So, in other words, if I'm a newcomer and I care about -- we'll just take for an example DNSSEC. And I come to the GNSO page to see what is being done about DNSSEC. DNSSEC isn't anywhere. I see here are the documents that are drafts. Here is the Wiki. Here are resolutions. Everything is mapped through the grid of who said what and when they said it. I wonder if there is interest or if -- you know, from these folks on also having dropdowns where you can track by an issue and maybe come to a central page for IPv6 or DNSSEC or whatever it is. And then I think outsiders may track more efficiently coming in that way than by having to understand the whole ICANN structure before they can even track an issue. >>MASON COLE: That's a good question. Anyone? Kieren? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: I'd like to make you all aware of a usability study which we've just started which is what we this survey on the front page is about. And we've hired this group called Revere Group who are experts in this field. And they're looking at exactly that. So they're going to be interviewing people and following those surveys and looking at what do people want? Who are the people coming into the site? And part of that will be what to figure out what they're after and to change the architecture. I think my personal view is what they've got as websites is a mix between what the staff create, because the staff are doing the work, and this sort of mismatch of what different parts of the community want. And that's not the best way of doing it. We've created an insider Web site for insiders. And part of the problem is it's very hard, if you're not an insider, to figure out what's going on. So part of that usability study that's currently ongoing, which I really recommend everyone get involved with, is to figure out exactly that. >>MASON COLE: When is that scheduled to be completed? >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: We've got a schedule to have something to show for the Seoul meeting. But it never, ever works out like that. So I've got a real schedule of probably the end of the year to have something solid or something to show inside of you or what do you think. >>MASON COLE: All right. Thank you. Chris and then Ken. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Just to point out we have started to take this on board. We deliberately decided to go into that detail wasn't appropriate in the business requirements document. We're hoping, obviously, by doing the prototype with Mark, that will be an opportunity for people to comment on what they see there and give an opportunity for that feedback to come in. >>MASON COLE: Thank you. Ken? >>KEN BOUR: I wanted to chirp in on that too, Scott. This is Ken Bour. The business requirements document did absolutely mention the importance of information architecture and the sort of taxonomy issue which derives exactly from exactly the same point that you're coming from. How do you find anything, right? And so we clearly did not do -- we have not done that work yet. But the requirements for a robust and user friendly taxonomy or information architecture were clearly specified in these business requirements. So that's going to be a design level issue. And we've already started doing some research around how you go about that. Like you can catalog all the information that you have like on the GNSO site, and you can put little index cards and you throw them on the floor and you try to group them -- there's all kinds of different techniques for going around that. And, in fact, Chris Chaplow has had experience with doing that very thing with cards and sorting them out on tables and having lots of different people group them that way. That only deals, of course, with the GNSO side. And Kieren's clearly looking at a much larger information architecture problem at the ICANN level to which our piece would hopefully fit in. >>MASON COLE: Okay, thanks, Ken. All right. Anything else on this area? Okay. So going to task 4, which is the one that I managed somehow to assign to myself talking about improving coordination with ICANN structures. And let me just give some context about what that means. In the original report, the LSE identified four areas where they thought the GNSO could better coordinate in terms of communicating to the board and to other ICANN structures. Better transparency, more open meetings, a published set of minutes of their proceedings, and, hopefully, more interpersonal interaction rather than just over email. Telephone meetings or especially face-to-face meetings as much as is practical. So, when we first tackled this area as a team, we discussed whether or not the LSE list of problems, frankly, was comprehensive enough. And we decided probably it wasn't. So we have some other things that we included on there, some of which we already talked about now. The terminology that we use to discuss our work, right? We tend to lapse into the technical or sort of diplomatic speak that may be offputting or difficult for a new person to understand. Or it may even be too cumbersome for the GNSO to communicate effectively to other bodies. As we also talked about a tendency to overrely on technology. Things like Wikis and listserves and other things like that that, while well- intentioned, may clutter up the communications process more than it needs to be. There also has been identified the idea that there's lack of visibility into the board's own discussions. And this came up -- I'm representing this group from the registrar's constituency point of view. This came up in the registrar's group because the question was put to us how can the board interact better with the constituency during the ICANN meetings, during constituency day? And one of the things we discussed was the fact that we don't really know what the board does with the input once we give it to them. And I imagine that's probably true in terms of other -- even the GNSO or other bodies within ICANN that have the occasion to communicate with the GNSO or the board. So these are all being laid out -- all the input from all the subteams are going to be laid into a document that is going to represent all of our recommendations. And from my part of this, for this task, I've been identifying those problems and then starting to look at what's currently being done inside of ICANN and then what's not being done, where the gap might exist. So I'm in the process of doing that. So, with that as context, I'd like to know if, first, Ken or Rob, if you want to contribute anything to that point of view. And then, second, if anybody in the room here has other things they would identify in terms of opportunities for ICANN structures to better communicate with one another. So let's start with Ken and Rob, and then I'd like to open it to everyone else. >>ROB HOGGARTH: I just think it's a good approach to look at it going both ways. I think that's the appropriate context to put it in definitely. >>MASON COLE: You mean in terms of the board's own communication outward or GNSO's communications outward and then the communications inbound to those as well? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Yeah. I mean, I think your primary focus is on how to have a level of comfort that the GNSO is doing its job in communicating but a recognition that there is a two-way street. And you may be more -- I don't know -- identifying solutions but certainly issue spotting for potential ways to understand better what the processes might be. And that would be useful input, for example, into the board committee that Kieren was mentioning earlier, the public participation group, which is looking at what are better ways for the organization to communicate particularly at the board level? >>MASON COLE: All right. Thank you. Ken? >>KEN BOUR: I'm not sure if this issue is appropriate or not in what you're looking at, Mason. But in recent times I've become aware of the ICANN code of conduct. In particular, there was a public forum that was held recently. I might have mentioned this on one of our earlier calls. And some of the behavior that I see in writing and probably a little less so in person face-to-face, but certainly in writing, it's abysmal. It's just really awful. And it strikes me that there might be something that could be said in your work around not only how to improve communications but how to make it more civil. So that's just a thought. >>MASON COLE: It's a good point. And one that from my point of view, we should embrace, I agree with you. I think it's much easier to say things -- I don't know -- in the heat of the moment behind your keyboard when you don't have to sort of back it up in person or really have to interact in a real way with another human being. That doesn't contribute to working together. It detracts from working together. >>KEN BOUR: Right. And one of the things that -- sort of a practical recommendation that might come out of it could be to have moderated forums. That takes work, and it takes staff and so forth. But people can put things out there, and they can call people slimebags and every other imaginable thing. And it just sits there. It doesn't ever get pulled down. It -- no one responds back and says that's inappropriate. So maybe a recommendation comes out that says we should at least do something along the lines of moderating these public forums, especially what issues are real controversial. >>KIEREN MC CARTHY: That's not a bad idea. I don't -- I think it would have to be self-moderated simply because, whenever I've come up with an idea and it's taken off, it becomes impossible to keep it up. Because, when something kicks off there's just thousands of -- you see the number of emails that everyone gets. But you have things like -- I'm thinking of slashdot. I don't know whether you know the Web site slashdot. That gets self-moderated. People vote comments up or down. And then you can select whether you want to see comments above or below this number. I think it goes up to 5. You say I only want to read comments 4 and above. And it just cuts out all the rubbish, all the fighting with people. But you don't say to people I'm not allowing to you say anything. You just allow people where they want to cut people off. >>MASON COLE: Okay, Chris. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Actually in the business constituency we've just moved to moving across to having an unmoderated forum we've moved the other way there's a question I want to ask Kieren the mailing list, are they moderated in an extreme cases if someone is on there that's taken down or are they just totally unmoderated. >>KIEREN McCARTHY: There have been one or two, I remember with regard to public comment periods we have a policy because some people say or at least claim that they're surprised it's been published and I remember we put some wording on every time, public comment forum, by the way, by clicking this, it will be published. So when anyone asks for it to be taken down, we review whether it came before or after that date when asked that it be taken off. We've had spam, which is a pain, and have we ever cut anyone off? No, I don't think we have cut anyone off. But we have said to people this is not reasonable and usually the community does a pretty good job of saying this is not reasonable so no, I mean, there's very, very limited moderation and I'm not sure that's always a good thing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. >>MASON COLE: Okay, good, thank you for raising that point, Ken, I think that's very valid. All right, any other ideas, comments, issues? Chris? >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: There was some talk earlier, actually, on our own mailing list about a cross-constituency mailing list. Is that something that you're picking up or it's to be picked up? >>MASON COLE: In my area you mean? No, yeah, I'll be happy to pick it up. Okay, other thoughts? Okay. All right, any other business to bring before this group today? We're in danger of actually finishing early. Are you sure we want to do this? All right. Steve, anything else you'd like to add on the telephone? >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Well, I'm thinking that it might be useful in the interest to take the Stephane Van Gelder approach and take people from foreign language and send them to London so they could learn English with a great accent, I think that would be a very beneficial thing. >>MASON COLE: Can you set up an ICANN fellowship for that, how about that? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: As long as you call it the Van Gelder fellowship. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: I would like to see that. The only thing I would add is we within the registry has been debating the transparency issue about the lists that we use and whether there should be open or closed lists and I think you alluded to that within the registrar constituency too, that there is -- there's a balance that needs to be struck between open and candid conversation and not shilling communication by allowing people to speak their piece but then having it open and available to the rest of the world and I'm not sure exactly what the proper balance is. I don't know if everything they say every moment of the day be on the official public record, but at the same time, enough of that has to be out there for folks to feel like there are not back-room sessions being had. And maybe there should be different standards with different constituencies versus ICANN at large but I would be interested in hearing what you or the others in the room have to say about that topic. >>MASON COLE: Sure. Any thoughts on this, anyone? Steve, if I understand your question, it's how to strike a balance between transparency and having discussions mainly online being public so that they see the light of day versus things that deserve to have some privacy and areas, thank you, need to have privacy to encourage meaningful contribution, is that right? >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Exactly right. Because as I understand it, some stakeholder groups have two lists. You probably know very well if the registrar constituency has an open list and a closed e-mail list, which gets more traffic? I'm not sure what the right balance is, but I think that's a discussion that merits some attention. >>MASON COLE: Stephane? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: I have to say something after Steve's introduction anyway, so no, I think it's a very -- it is something that we've grappled with, as Mason knows, in the registrar constituency. And it's something that we've also given some thought to in the GNSO Council. One solution is to sometimes close things off and sometimes have fairly open meetings and that can happen with meetings, mailing lists and everything where you can have two levels of communications -- of communication. You can have meetings that close off for an hour when you just want to have private discussions and you want -- it is true that when you do close things off, people tend to say things that they never do otherwise. When the mic's open and the scribes are there, you know, most people, I'm, I'm an exception to this rule, but most people tend to shut up and, you know, watch what they're saying. Which sometimes means or leads to inproductive communication and so that's why sometimes we close meetings. That's one -- one idea. It does tend to promote a kind of conspiracy theory about nontransparency so that's a problem. And the mailing list issue is actually the same. We -- the problem that we have had in the constituency, and Mason will correct me if I'm wrong, is that we ended up with one list where no one would dare post because it was public and so everyone would, all the members, you mean, would just use the other lists, so we basically had one list just die on us. So I don't know what the solution is there. But it's -- maybe that's a kind of mix of those things can help. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Yeah, and we in the registries constituency have also thought about having some more detailed minutes of meetings or some other manner of communicating if not a verbatim transcript or a fully open list. I don't have any "therefores" or solutions at this point on it but rather to raise it as an issue that I know ICANN faces tremendous scrutiny about anything that is closed and not fully opened and most people in their own self-interest would rather be able to speak privately and only claim things publicly when they choose to, ICANN is itself able to provide in that way, and I'm not sure whether the more individual subgroups should be allowed to do so or not. I have a personal -- by allowing people to speak privately on some matters and then come out with a public position that they're willing to share with the rest of the world. I think that tends to lead to more productive discussion so anyone how, that's it. I don't want to jeopardize Mason's thoroughly meeting end. >>MASON COLE: That's okay, you've still got seven minutes, you're doing fine. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: (Inaudible), okay. >>MASON COLE: No, it's a relevant question and it may be one that's difficult for us to find a definition for. I mean, you had to define whatever the border is between things that should be discussed privately versus things that should always have transparency. It's -- it may not be possible to do. Rob, do you have something there. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Yes, sir. The dialogue has brought up a number of points that I was going to run through. One other thing very quickly so as not to jeopardize -- >>MASON COLE: You're doing fine. >>ROB HOGGARTH: You know, part of it is looking back at your goals which is additional communications to facilitate participation in the policy development process. So you almost have to look at what are the considerations, what are you trying to accomplish with some of these goals. It's that interest in, for example, someone who hasn't been able to make it to a meeting, you want them to be able to hear the recording so that they can be up to date and consistent with the rest of the group. The issues of transparency are there because of those very concerns, suspicions, paranoia, whatever you want to call it, among a broader group of people about what's going on in other communities. If you look at a lot of the public comments, not just in the GNSO improvements area but with respect to the existing constituency renewals or reconfirmations or if you look at some of the comments with respect to some of the new constituencies that are proposing to be recognized by the board there's a lot of community interest in understanding who the members are. So open mailing lists. Having access to public communication tools like forums or mailing lists and the rest. So all those have to be, I think, factored in particularly as this group looks at general recommendations. You're not going to necessarily be dictating but you want to be able to package some of these discussions for the broader GNSO, I think, to crunch on a little bit as well. One area of, I think, of interest, when you look back last year, and the board created the special working group on GNSO Council restructuring, there the group came together and said, "we really don't think our deliberations would be useful for valuable if people were looking over our shoulders. We understand we're going to be consulting with our own constituencies and those groups, but we don't want people looking over our shoulders right now." And so the agreement that that group reached was we will deliberate in confidence, you know, among ourselves but every call will be recorded and transcribed, and at the end of our efforts, then it will be opened. And they stuck to that commitment. So there was really a balancing of helping the deliberations and the negotiations go forward but at the end being very open about what the process was so that people who are interested could go back and look and see what did the GAC representatives say, what was the registry constituency's interest here. So there are ways I think to balance things moving forward. As a work team I'm not quite sure at what level you want your recommendations to ultimately reach and I think you'll have to discuss that as a team but I think identifying some of these issues would be certainly helpful for the broader community once you're done. >>MASON COLE: Yeah. All right, thank you, Rob. Very good. All right. Anything -- yeah, Ken? >>KEN BOUR: Just a question, Mason, as to where the business requirements document is in terms of publication or distribution or circulation. Has it -- >>MASON COLE: No, it's not been circulated. I know we talked about that that it would be useful to do that near in the Sydney meeting so that we could get some community input. And I just haven't taken that step yet. There is a broader OSC -- I think there's a broader OSC meeting, isn't that right, coming up? Or are we not meeting? No? I thought that was up in the air. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Mason, aren't you going to draft an accompanying press release? >>MASON COLE: Yeah, right. [ Laughter ] >>JULIE HEDLUND: There is an OSC meeting and that is in conjunction with the GNSO operations work team, but that's the only OSC meeting. >>MASON COLE: Beyond that, I might take the step of publishing the business requirements to the OSC itself and asking for some input from there. >>KEN BOUR: The reason I bring it up is because, like I mentioned earlier, it's my hope to actually get with Marc Salvatierra, the week after we come back from Sydney, assuming he's available, and to actually begin working on some design and project structure and that kind of work. And if we had any input or feedback on the business requirements from those in the community who have had a chance to look at it, that would clearly be helpful. >>MASON COLE: Okay, all right, I'll take care of that. All right, anything else? We're two minutes away from closing time. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Obviously, we're around here all week, so if anybody wants feedback, they can sort of track us down in a corner somewhere and -- >>MASON COLE: And beat us up? All right, if there's no other business, then we will adjourn at this point. Thanks everyone for coming. Bye, Steve. >>STEVE HOLSTEN: Bye. Have a great day. G'day. >>MASON COLE: Thanks, Steve. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Hello, this is the GNSO operations work team call. I was wondering if we have anybody on the phone. This is Julie Hedlund from ICANN staff. >>RAY FASSETT: Hello, Julie, you have Ray Fassett on the phone and Wolf-Ulrich. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, wonderful. Who else is on? >>RAY FASSETT: Wolf. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Wolf is on. Hello, Wolf-Ulrich. We're just trying to see if we can round up a few more of the work team members who are here in Sydney. Sorry for the delay in getting you on. We had a little bit of a scheduling mixup here, but we'll be starting up shortly. Ray, I do have a question for you. Since you are chairing the call remotely, I would be happy to assist you in identifying people who have questions or comments during the call if you'd like that. >>RAY FASSETT: That would be very useful, Julie, to take the names as people want to speak. That would be very useful for me. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yeah. And both Ray and Wolf-Ulrich, if you -- it would be best if you're not speaking into a speakerphone. We get a little echo here. And also, when you're not speaking, be sure that you're on mute. Otherwise, we get a little bit of feedback or background noise as well. Ray, I just want to let you know, so far on this side from the work team we just have Ron Andruff. Sorry. Yeah, okay. Great. Actually, we've got Robin Gross is here as well. And then -- well, let me ask you this, Ray, shall we go ahead and get started? >>RAY FASSETT: Well, I know Ken Stubbs did give his regrets not being able to -- >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ken Stubbs sent his regrets? >>RAY FASSETT: Yes. And we have Ron and Wolf and yourself. How about Rob? Is Rob present in this meeting? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yes, he is. And, as I mentioned, Robin Gross is here. And Chris Chaplow is here as well. And also from ICANN staff we have Craig Schwartz and Francisco Arias. That's what we have in the room. That's all we have in the room right now. So, if you like, I could turn it over to you, if you wanted to go ahead and start. I guess I sort of just did the roll call. I mean, in addition to those I announced here, it was also then yourself, Ray Fassett, and chairing the team and then Wolf-Ulrich Knoben on the line. Is that correct? >>RAY FASSETT: That's correct. My understanding is the meeting has already been started, the recording. So I think we can go ahead and get started. We've -- we're about 20 minutes into our time for the first session of our meeting. This is Ray Fassett speaking, by the way, the chair of this particular work team. I'm -- I am participating remotely. And Julie is going to assist me with picking members who may want to speak at various times. Has everybody, I assume, had an opportunity to review the agenda that I had sent out? And it really, the first part of this meeting was to focus as best we can on the updated GNSO Council rules of procedure document that Julie updated for us at our request for a brief background for those that were not in our last call, is our team is to do our best to focus in on the GNSO Council rules of procedure that have really not been updated since, in some respects, since the old DNSO days. And, in order for us to progress on that particular work item, we asked staff to look at the areas of the existing rules of procedure that aren't in flux or involving the bylaws or other areas that other work teams or other areas that are being worked on, other parties, that we could then identify the areas that we could then work on. And this document was updated for this purpose by Julie and Rob and some other ICANN staff members at our request. And that is a document that I've sent around that is also in our Wiki work page. So, if we all have that document open or handy, that would be the place for us to start per our agenda today. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Excuse me, Ray. I just -- I just wanted to let you know, I do also have the document up here projected on the screen here in Sydney. So all of the people in the room can see it as well. >>RAY FASSETT: Great. That's even better. Nice job, Julie. So on our last call we did spend some time on two particular sections. They were section 3.5 and 3.6. First I'm going to ask am I coming through okay there? Can everybody hear me okay, Julie? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, I'm sorry to interrupt you a little bit. Are you on speakerphone by chance? We're still getting a little bit of feedback here. >>RAY FASSETT: No, I'm not. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Okay. Thanks. >>RAY FASSETT: But I don't really plan on doing too much talking here today. But I just want to get us started here on the section 3.5, which is quorum. This is where we left off on our last call. And what I wanted to say to get this started was, you know, our part of what our work team is to be looking at is how to, you know, move away from votes, if you will, at the council level. And I would like to just have a discussion here on, A, what is the quorum for, and a discussion on the preliminary language that Julie has put in for us, as everybody can hopefully see on the screen. So with that, I'm going to just open it up for discussion. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, I've got Ron Andruff in the queue. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, please. And, Julie, if you can go ahead and take the lead, as you see people wanting to speak, go ahead and allow them. >>JULIE HEDLUND: I'll do that, thanks, ray. >>RON ANDRUFF: Ron Andruff speaking. Regarding the quorum, I had a conversation with staff this past -- yesterday, actually. And I asked specifically about the language that was originally in the document regarding quorum because it was very ambiguous. And what I understood from the conversation was that the quorum needs to be one representative from each of the constituencies, as it has been in the past. So we may need just to revise that language that quorum is one representative from each of the stakeholder groups or something along that line. So we're just -- basically, a quorum is at least one representative from each group, then you have quorum. So that might be a way to start moving this ball down the field. >>JULIE HEDLUND: And, Ray, I don't see anyone else here with comments. Did you have a comment on that or Wolf-Ulrich on the phone? >>RAY FASSETT: This is Ray. I have a comment. I think I just want to have an understanding of what the quorum is for. What's the purpose of the quorum? Anybody have any ideas or thoughts on what the purpose of a quorum. >>ROB HOGGARTH: Sure. Hi, Ray, this is Rob Hoggarth. >>RAY FASSETT: Is it discussion? Can the meeting even go on if there's not quorum? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Ray, this is Rob Hoggarth. I'll take a stab at that. Fundamentally, I think it's are there enough members of the GNSO Council available to discuss and conduct business? And the evaluation you all have to make in terms of your recommendations are is whether you think the level that you ultimately agree on is appropriate for that. Is it 6 out of 22 people? That would be one member from each constituency? Should it be a majority, which would be at least that number? At present, at least the way I understand it from Glen, is that it's a majority of council members assuring the fact that each constituency is represented. So it's not a minimum of six. But it's -- you have, at least in this case, I think there's 22 members of the council. So you have at least 12. And ensure that each member represents at least one of the constituencies. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: It's Wolf. I would like to be in the queue. >>RAY FASSETT: Go ahead, Wolf. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: So I do have a question to that, Rob and Ray and others. So, as members in preparing the document from the consensus group, you remember, it's just one year ago. There were fixed some voting thresholds. And they were related to some specific issues. For example, for the PDP process and other things, as I remember. And so my question is why shouldn't we then refer to those specific items and think about, you know, each item. Is that to think about quorum. Is that the question? I would like to understand should we go that way, or should we think about different issues, different items, any items which the council is dealing with? So I would like to see -- to ask should we pick up more particular questions, pick up those items and go through them step-by-step and think about if -- are those items ones which should be items for quorum questions? Is that understood? >>RAY FASSETT: This is Ray. I think I understand, Wolf. I think you're saying that depending on what the issue or item is -- >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. >>RAY FASSETT: -- would identify whether a quorum is necessary. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. But that means that we need to have just list the complete list of the voting thresholds and go through step-by-step. >>RON ANDRUFF: This is Ron. I think, Wolf, you're maybe moving in the right direction in terms of trying to figure out how to get quorum. But "quorum" is a very specific term. Quorum means you have to have enough people in the room to make -- have a discussion and make a decision or take a vote in this case. So quorum has to be a static defined term. It cannot float, as far as I know. I look to general council for that. And I'm seeing both Rob and Julie nodding their heads. So the bottom line is that -- okay, staff support. I beg your pardon. Not general council, for the public record. But so quorum has to be a fixed definition, as I understood it. And I think what we need to be doing is just reviewing this language that we have. The language was ambiguous before. What we're trying to do is really firm it up. So I think the ideal here is to have, as Rob has described, at least one member of each stakeholder group present for quorum. Otherwise, what we'll find is that the GNSO might find itself not able to have a discussion or meeting or be able to act on anything. Because, if we're requiring two from each stakeholder group, that would be 12 people, as Rob's described it. That might -- we might find ourselves in terms of difficult situations in terms of them having meetings. So the recommendation is that every stakeholder group would have representation by at least one individual for quorum or two. Is that -- Rob, I'm looking to you for that. >>ROB HOGGARTH: That's an interesting different twist to it. I mean, at present, the measuring stick is the constituencies. You're recognizing that with the restructuring process that will likely be measured by stakeholder groups. You might run into an even greater challenge there in that you only have four stakeholder groups. So I think it's some combination of assuring that you have a majority and then making sure that you have at least X-number of representatives from each stakeholder group. Again, you know, Wolf-Ulrich mentioned the concept of voting. That's going to be another item for you to discuss because the council has approved this absentee voting model. So for someone to vote, they may not need to be present. So that will be another issue that you have. But, yes, getting back to the fundamentals for you to have the discussion, for there to be enough people -- a minimum to do business but enough that you feel like there's a full-blown discussion. I think you have to have a minimum of majority and then define it perhaps by the stakeholder groups because you also want to prevent the situation that, if a particular stakeholder group simply doesn't want to move things forward, what if nobody shows up? Can they prevent the council from ever conducting business? So there's that element as well, I think. >>RON ANDRUFF: That's actually a very good point. The key words you just said were a minimum, if you could just restate that. We would have at least a majority of the members. So that would mean we'd have to have more than 11 in a 22-member group. So that would be 12. And then one -- at least one representative from each stakeholder group. Is that correct? >>ROB HOGGARTH: Yeah, I think you'd want to keep it just the language being majority, because the bylaws provide for additional liaisons to be named to participate in the council. I don't know how detailed you get. I'm looking to Robin on this as well in terms of do you measure it just based on voting members of the council or just all members of the council including nonvoting members? You've got those issues as well. Remember you have three Nominating Committee appointees, two of whom vote but one who sits at the council level who's a council level NCA who doesn't have a vote. And then you'll at least have the ALAC liaison who is a nonvoting participating member in the council and conceivably other stakeholder -- I'm sorry, other supporting organizations or advisory committees could also have liaisons. I don't mean to overcomplicate things. Just note the various issues that you have. >>RON ANDRUFF: Well this is Ron. You're not overcomplicating it, but you are bringing some things to light that are critical. My knee- jerk reaction to this is that it would be only members who have a vote because liaisons or others who are nonvoting members, they're always, obviously, participating in the meeting but they're not voting. So the whole point about quorum is you'd have to have enough people to vote, in my view. So I think you're moving down a very interesting path because it gets -- as you said, there can be -- you can have lots of people in the room, warm bodies. But they're not -- if they're not -- if they don't have the authority to speak on behalf of their stakeholder group or whatever, then we don't have the right quorum. Simple as that. >>ROBIN GROSS: I actually agree. I think it makes sense to have the majority to require a majority and require it be the voters, I think that makes perfect sense. And also, though, making sure that each one of the stakeholder groups is represented. A mixture -- which is what you guys are saying. So I think we're on the same page with this. >>JULIE HEDLUND: This is Julie. I just want to make sure that we're giving opportunities for Ray and Wolf-Ulrich to comment. I had a question, Ray, if it's okay. Wolf-Ulrich, I didn't mean to cut you off. I hope we addressed your question concerning voting thresholds that, as I think we were trying to say, that the quorum is -- the quorum is sort of what comes first. It's whether or not you determine whether you can even take a vote. And, once you have that quorum, then you're absolutely right. We would look at the various voting thresholds depending on what was being voted on whether it was a policy or whether it was some other business. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: It's Wolf speaking. So I would like to be sure -- are we talking about -- with regards to quorum, are we talking about taking decisions or taking votes on the council level in case -- where the majority of members should be attending and taking part in the voting, majority of the members? Or are we talking about voting where a majority of attending members are taking a vote? So this is different, I think. So -- and what we're talking about here? >>ROB HOGGARTH: This is Rob speaking. I agree. Those are two different issues. The issue you've been discussing is just the basic quorum which is how many or what attendance do you need simply to conduct the business? That's section 3.5 of the current operating rules I guess or based on your draft. There is, Wolf-Ulrich, a subsequent section that talks about votes itself. So that would be a separate issue, arguably. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes, I understand. 3.6 is about votes. 3.5 is about quorum. So maybe I'm not very clear what this is about quorum. But I understand at the time being the quorum is so -- about to be -- to get, let me say, to be sure at council meetings that in case we are taking votes that we have a, let me say, a -- a -- it's a kind of voting. It's a kind of voting. That's what I understand. That in case of taking votes, that we have votes enough from the different groups related even either the stakeholder groups or what else representing the council. And that's what I understand. Is that correct or not? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Wolf-Ulrich, this is Julie. My understanding is that's correct. It's really there for the council to determine whether or not they have the suitable majority, as we define here in the procedures in order to have a vote, if there is indeed a vote scheduled for that meeting. >>ROB HOGGARTH: This is Rob again. This work team could be a good example. You guys are conducting business. You know, you haven't necessarily declared that there is a quorum. But it doesn't prevent you from meeting and discussing the issues. You just wouldn't be -- if this were the council, you wouldn't be eligible to make a policy decision, vote on an initial report or something like that, if you didn't have the quorum there to conduct the vote. I'd like to also observe one other thing. Clearly, the area in the draft document that's been deleted referenced some concept of weighted voting. That's why you needed to change this, presumably, Julie, in putting it together. And now, since each council rep has a single vote and it's not weighted, the draft language looks appropriate. >>RAY FASSETT: This is Ray. I think what I'm hearing is there is really two purposes of a quorum. One is simply to conduct business, to have the meeting, to go forward with the meeting. And then there could be another purpose, which is to take a vote on something. So we may want to delineate those two things under this section 3.5 quorum, draw attention to both aspects of what quorum means as it pertains to the council. So it makes sense to me that you would have to have a majority of members to -- just to conduct business, even if not all members happen to have voting ability. What do others think? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, this is Julie. My understanding is that it's -- you can have a council meeting with at least, as it stands now - - and this is certainly a point that we can discuss. But, under the current procedures you can have a council meeting without a quorum. But you generally can't come to a vote on something where a vote is required. In fact, I was on a meeting recently where this happened and there were votes. And so we moved to discussion of nonvoting issues. And, you know, there were certainly interesting and useful discussions and had to avoid the issues that required votes until the appropriate quorum was present. I don't know if that's helpful. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, sure, that's helpful. I mean, I can see both sides on that point. I think what I'm trying to get to is there a threshold at all that we should identify under this section 3.5 quorum in order just to have the discussion? There are two members that happen to be in a -- council members that happen to be on a particular - - in a work session, or would that meeting go forward? I'm just throwing the question out. What do we think about that? We should identify high level principle inside this 3.5. That is clear. You know, we want to sharpen up what quorum means. What does it mean to conduct business? What does it mean as it pertains to voting? I'm throwing out the idea. Do we care if there are less than six members or five members and those five members go ahead and conduct business that day? Is that something we should care about or not? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, this is Julie. I'm sorry, but we have two people in the queue. We have Robin and Ron. >>RAY FASSETT: Great. I would prefer to see this discussion happen there. Go ahead, please. >>ROBIN GROSS: Hi. I think you raised a point that we should actually touched upon or maybe it was Julie that raised the point, which is at which point do you have to have a quorum? If you've got a quorum at the beginning of the meeting and some people leave, can you still have your vote? And I think that we need to clarify that, that at which point do you have a quorum? And, if you lose the quorum, can you then still go ahead and have the vote as long as you had it at the beginning of the meeting? I'm not offering a proposal. I'm just saying this is something we might actually want to think about. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. >>RON ANDRUFF: This is Ron. Wikipedia defines "quorum" as a minimum number of members of a deliberate body necessary to conduct business of that group. That's quorum. So what we need to do with regard to this is just establish what is quorum. So -- and that is -- by definition the minimum must be of necessary to conduct business. So we don't -- it's not -- quorum is not two things. It's not one to have a meeting and another to have votes. Quorum is one thing. A minimum number of members necessary to conduct the business of that group. So what Rob was suggesting -- and we're getting support from, I believe, Robin and I, correct me, if I'm wrong -- to say simply that quorum is a -- a majority of the 22 members of the council. So that would be at least more than 11. That's 12 people. And that we would want of those 12 people, at least one from every stakeholder group, which would be roughly six people or four people. So you have to have one from each group and a minimum of 12 in order for that -- for the GNSO to conduct the business of the GNSO. And that's regardless of whether they're voting or just having a conversation about business of the GNSO. Thank you. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Actually, Ray, I just wanted to let you know that Tony Holmes has joined us. And I tried to catch him up a little bit on what we were discussing. And we'll see if he's got any comments. Thanks. >>RAY FASSETT: Ron, if I understand you correctly you're saying we should define the minimal as 12. >>RON ANDRUFF: Well, I think the way Rob described it gives a little more flexibility. And I can't imagine why. But, I imagine there must some kind of legal perspective on that to say majority of 22. But, if we were to say 12 of 22, from my lack of legal background, that sounds like that would make sense. >>RAY FASSETT: Anybody in the queue there, Julie? >>RON ANDRUFF: Does that establish something too tight? I'm not sure. >>ROBIN GROSS: I'm sort of thinking it should be a majority of voting members. So not just 12. But the majority and then make sure we tack on the bit about the voting members. And then also the other qualification is including one from each stakeholder group. >>RON ANDRUFF: I see Tony looking across at me. And what we're trying to do is establish a minimum -- what does a quorum mean? So at this stage of the same, we've gotten to the point where at least it's the majority of the group, of voting members. Because liaisons and others may be invited to that meeting. What we're trying to define now is a majority of the GNSO voting members are present. So that's why the -- perhaps, Ray, that 12 of 22 doesn't work. You may have -- you may have 12 people in the room, but they may not all be voting members. So the majority of voting members and one at least from each stakeholder group. >>RAY FASSETT: So we're defining the minimum to be a majority of voting members given that each stakeholder group is one of those members? >>JULIE HEDLUND: And, Ray, since you can't see this, I think Tony had a comment. >>TONY HOLMES: Yeah, I was just going to say the way it's been explained, I'd be fine with that. And apologies for joining late. This conflicted with the preparation for the meeting with the GAC with council and that was pretty important as well. So sorry I'm late. >>RAY FASSETT: That's okay, Tony. Thanks for coming. Now all I want to raise is the point Rob made earlier, which is does this leave open the possibility of somebody purposely not showing to a meeting and holding up business? >>TONY HOLMES: Well, is there the potential to overcome that in terms of the way it works? Now, maybe I was just thinking through the involvement of the stakeholders. But providing that's there, in most of these issues, you can progress these things with a smaller amount of quorum. And, when it comes to votes, make sure you have the ability to have voting after, after the meeting ends. >>ROBIN GROSS: And, actually, that's the rule now that we -- you know, we have to have one person from each constituency, which is actually harder than getting one person from each stakeholder group. So we don't see people gaming that now. It's not something that -- you know, nobody's refused to go to meetings to hold up the process. So, while I see that as a theoretical possibility, it really hasn't happened. So I'm not sure we need to worry too much about that. >>RON ANDRUFF: I support that. I think anyone who's going to try to filibuster and try to block something, that will be found out pretty quickly. And I think the embarrassment of the community or the wrath of the community on that, either that stakeholder group or those individuals will sort itself out. So I think that's less of a fear. >>RAY FASSETT: Let's go back and see what we have in place of a stakeholder. It says -- I'll go ahead and read it. "At the time of a vote there must be a quorum present which shall be defined as majority of representatives from both the contracted party house and the noncontracted party house." We're going to change that now, right, if I'm understanding this conversation? Can somebody try and put down what that will read like now? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Well, I apologize. But, you know, we had talked about 12. But then we talked about that. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Majority. But do we want to define what a majority is? >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, it will be a minimum for quorum is defined as a majority of -- >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yeah, what do we want to say the majority is of? I put in as a placeholder a majority of representatives from the contracted party house and the noncontracted party house. But no, from the stakeholder groups. I mean, you know, I don't want to -- you know, I don't want to put words in our mouths here. And you folks are more familiar than I am. >>RON ANDRUFF: Let me take a kick at the cat. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, please, Ron. >>RON ANDRUFF: It would go something like this. A quorum is a majority of voting members of the GNSO, which includes one member of each stakeholder group and neither liaisons nor nonvoting members can be included in that majority? Something along those lines? >>ROBIN GROSS: I think that's right. And then we maybe want to talk about the point of the quorum and the majority being at the time of the vote or at the beginning of the meeting. And it looks like right here the way it's been is at the time of the vote. That seems like a reasonable -- I mean, I don't know of a reason to change that. >>RON ANDRUFF: I agree with that. Quorum really is about the vote more than the discussion about it. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. So we definitely want to tie a quorum to voting. So a meeting can go on. If there's not a majority of members, the meeting can go on. The meeting has nothing to do with that. >>ROBIN GROSS: The meeting could continue even though they lost quorum, but they wouldn't be able to take any votes. >>RAY FASSETT: The reason I'm harping on this is we're definitely tying this to voting. >>RON ANDRUFF: I think that might be incorrect, Ray. I actually just asked Robin, just an aside, during while you were speaking, if GNSO has to have quorum now before they have a meeting. And the answer is yes. So we don't want to change that. Quorum for a meeting and -- but the quorum has to still be there if a vote is taken. So what we're saying is, if everyone shows up for the call or face-to-face meeting, it's all well and good. But, if one person or two people should leave that meeting who are quintessential to the quorum, then no vote can be taken. But the meeting doesn't necessarily end at that point. It started with a quorum. So the meeting can continue, but no vote can be taken until that quorum has been reconvened. >>RAY FASSETT: So a quorum will be identified at the beginning of the meeting. And, if it requires a vote, then the quorum will be retaken again. So that's the practical sense of how that will work. >>JULIE HEDLUND: This is Julie. I think that may be covered in the statement at the beginning that says, "At the time of a vote." So at any time there is an imminent vote to be taken, then there must be a quorum. >>RAY FASSETT: Right. But when I read it -- and maybe it's me -- it seems that we're only identifying the purpose of a quorum. If we lead off with the sentence "At the time of a vote," then it's not identifying that a quorum is also needed to conduct business. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Tony has a comment. >>TONY HOLMES: I was just going to come back to the point that Robin made. The fact that it's easier to obtain it now, I think we can also add that reference to representation from each of the stakeholder groups as well. Because it shouldn't being a tough barrier now. So we should add that one in as part of the makeup of the quorum. >>JULIE HEDLUND: So the proposal is that the quorum consists of representatives of each of the stakeholder groups. But I was hearing -- and I'm sorry. I was sort of typing and then trying to gather the comments as well. So perhaps someone can help me. That we're -- Ray, were you also saying that we need to have a quorum to conduct any business? >>RAY FASSETT: That's what I'm asking. That's exactly the question that I'm asking. >>RON ANDRUFF: So let me -- I'll just rephrase what I said, Julie. And we'll see if we're on the same page here. So quorum is a majority of voting members. This is how we'll start the discussing. A quorum is a majority of voting members, which includes one member of each stakeholder group and only voting members. And in parentheses, not liaisons or nonvoting members, as an example, can make up quorum. Then the second line or the second paragraph, if you will, is what you've written here. At the time of a vote, there must be a quorum present. So you need quorum for the meeting, and then you need quorum for the vote. >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah, I support that. I think that's the fairest way to do it. >>JULIE HEDLUND: As I have it written now, though, I think we might need to modify this. If we just say a quorum is the majority of voting members, we need to say, in order for a meeting to be conducted, a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members. >>RON ANDRUFF: While Julie types, I'll pick up this pause so that you understand, Ray and Wolf-Ulrich, what she's doing now is trying to draft that language. So I think I've captured the essence here from the people in the room. I don't see any dissents for that, so I'll turn it over to you as Julie continues to type. >>RAY FASSETT: that makes sense to me. Wolf, do you have any comments? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: No. For me. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: For me it's really I'm thinking practically really. So that means to have really strict quorum in both cases, in conducting a meeting and in taking votes. And I will come back to it, to what Robin was saying. I feel that there is a slight difference. If you start a meeting and ask for a quorum, so that could help. But it could be -- and I understand from many teleconferences I took part in -- and I think on council level it may be the same -- that somebody is going to disappear or doesn't have time off after half an hour, he has to leave. And then the quorum is going away. And the question for me is really so -- then, the council is not -- we'll not be able to conduct the meeting any more. So I don't think that it's -- it's the optimal way. So -- because I was thinking because -- so, if somebody is going really to -- if somebody wants to, if the council -- to make the council unable to conduct the meeting, so he has only to leave. And this can't be the case. So I don't think it's a very optimal solution. But, on the other hand, I don't have another one. >>RON ANDRUFF: Wolf-Ulrich, Wolf, if I may, it's Ron. That's not what we were saying. What we were saying is the chair will check for quorum at the start of the meeting to allow the meeting to begin. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. >>RON ANDRUFF: If someone leaves during the meeting it's irrelevant because a quorum was present to start the discussion. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Okay. >>RON ANDRUFF: Now, the discussion can continue. But if, in fact, quorum is now failing for a vote, then no vote will be taken but otherwise the full discussion is allowed to continue your respective of the fact that quorum is no longer because someone has left the room. >>JULIE HEDLUND: This is Julie. If I might, then, ask this question: the way I have it written now I say in order for the GNSO Council to conduct a meeting a quorum must be present but if you're saying that's really just to initiate a meeting but a meeting can continue then I think we'd probably need to change that. Ray, what did you think about that? >>RAY FASSETT: My thoughts are really close in line with Wolf where it's not practical that, you know, a quorum can be present at all times during a call to conduct a meeting. Now, to initiate -- so then the threshold question becomes simply to initiate the meeting, should we be requiring a quorum, the minimum number of people on the call or at the meeting, and I -- I'm not sure. But that is the question. I think we're pretty clear on what it takes for a vote. >>ROBIN GROSS: But we have to remember, though, now that we have electronic voting, that you don't have to be present on a call to vote so let's think about that. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, that's -- ability now to vote after the fact, you know, such as through e-mail, et cetera, that's something recently adopted by the council, I believe. I'm not overly familiar with it, but I know that mechanism has been put in. >>ROBIN GROSS: Exactly. >>RAY FASSETT: Again, that deemphasizes the need for a quorum on the call for the vote. But that -- but that's almost a separate issue. What we're talking about now is simply to hold the meeting, are we going to require a quorum, that is the question to initiate a meeting. >>TONY HOLMES: I don't think we should break -- it's Tony here -- I don't think we should break with the existing protocol and we have to do that now. I see no reason to change that. >>RAY FASSETT: And what is it now, Tony, can you tell us? >>TONY HOLMES: You have to have a quorum to initiate a meeting. >>RON ANDRUFF: I support that, this is Ron. >>TONY HOLMES: You're asking me a question I'm struggling to answer. >>RAY FASSETT: I wasn't necessarily putting you on the spot, does anybody know what quorum is defined as now by the council? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yeah, it was what was in the current rules of procedure. >>RAY FASSETT: Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Right. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: I understand. As Tony was saying, so to initiate the meeting, so then -- it would be fine for me, I think so. Just an issue doesn't mean okay, it has to be a quorum at any time, the entire meeting, but when it comes to vote, it's different, yeah. >>JULIE HEDLUND: So since -- for the benefit of Ray and Wolf- Ulrich, should I go ahead and read the language that we have right now? Because those of us who are here can see it on the screen but I don't think you've seen -- you can't see what we've typed here. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, please go ahead, Julie, I'd appreciate it. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Okay. It says "In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a meeting a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members which includes one member of each stakeholder group and only voting members, not liaisons or nonvoting members, can make up a quorum. At the time of a vote, there must be a quorum." >>RON ANDRUFF: I would make a friendly amendment -- >>RAY FASSETT: That's pretty good. Any thoughts. >>RON ANDRUFF: Just a friendly amendment to that. I'd say at least one member of each stakeholder group, that way we're covered. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Okay. >>ROBIN GROSS: I would suggest another friendly amendment. I don't know if we need the bit about liaisons and others don't -- not making up a quorum because they're not voting members to begin with so maybe it's a little redundant to say that. >>RAY FASSETT: Right, yeah, and we'll review this language, you know, we don't have to make a decision today this is the final language. But I'm just looking to see if we've captured it and it seems that that does capture the spirit of what we're saying. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Okay so I'll read it again just because I've made a few changes. In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a meeting a quorum must be present. A quorum is a majority of voting members which includes at least one member of each stakeholder group. At the time of a vote a quorum -- I'm sorry -- at the time of a vote, there must be a quorum. >>ROBIN GROSS: I wonder if we want to qualify that a little bit more, maybe we say a voice vote because we can do electronic votes now anytime. And so just to... >>RON ANDRUFF: Would you mind expanding on that, so what's the difference between a voice -- voice vote and a electronic vote for those of us who don't understand that. >>ROBIN GROSS: Yeah, it's something new that the GNSO Council just came up with a few months ago whereby, you know, in the past we've always voted, you know, aye, nay, a voice vote, and then we had problems because people had to be on airplanes or they couldn't make the meeting and they weren't able to vote and there was a very important vote scheduled and thus their constituency wasn't going to be represented if we couldn't come up with some mechanism to allow them to vote even though they couldn't be at the meeting. So now we've come up with a proposal, and it passed, whereby -- it basically would be like an e-mail with Glen where Glen would send you an e-mail, an electronic vote and you would vote and then send it back and so if you couldn't make the meeting you can still vote. So the quorum we're talking about here doesn't apply to electronic votes, as I understand it, but correct me if I'm wrong. >>RAY FASSETT: No, I think you're correct, Julie, it would not apply to electronic voting. This only applies to being able to physically -- or being present at the meeting. >>RON ANDRUFF: I'm -- this is Ron. I'm not sure, this needs a little more thought just because a vote is a vote. And I'm not sure whether the voice vote -- the voice vote is obvious. It's when we're having face-to-face meetings, I assume not on telephone. >>ROBIN GROSS: Telephone. >>RON ANDRUFF: Telephone voice votes as well. And then electronic votes is to cover an individual who can't meet -- so it's almost putting a proxy in place, here's my vote and you're holding my proxy, they send it to Glen, Glen says I've got three proxies, they vote -- not proxies, but as an example -- >>RAY FASSETT: No. >>TONY HOLMES: No, it doesn't work as a proxy. What happens is that for those who don't attend the meeting, she sends them out to them with a set period to respond in which they can vote. And if they don't vote, then it's recorded. So it isn't really the same as a proxy vote. >>RON ANDRUFF: But there's a quorum from, when that vote happens? >>TONY HOLMES: There's a quorum. >>RON ANDRUFF: That's what I'm getting at you still have -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: (Speaker off microphone). >>TONY HOLMES: I don't really see a reason to differentiate. >>RAY FASSETT: So we would still require the quorum at the time of the voice vote and then -- >>JULIE HEDLUND: Or I think Tony's point was, ray, we don't need to say voice vote. At the time of vote there needs to be a quorum and when we deal with the voting section, then we will have to write in this new procedure that allows for electronic voting, and that is so that people beyond the quorum that was there for the vote have the opportunity to record their votes, as far as I know. >>RAY FASSETT: Right, I think Tony's correct, you don't have to call out the voice vote. That's a good point. Okay, any other comment on this particular section ()that was Philip Sheppard up there (. >>JULIE HEDLUND: No comments here. >>RAY FASSETT: That took longer than expected, but I think it was a good discussion. Because just getting an understanding of what quorum is for, I think we've done pretty good on that. And Julie, you've got some draft language now. And now off- -- you know, offline let's look at that and offer any other friendly amendments to it as it gets published. Do we have time -- we have the OSC coming in in, what, five minutes? The next section we were going to talk about was votes which, of course, this ties right into. Do we want to try to go into that section now or not? >>RON ANDRUFF: I would suggest that based upon the fact that everything's moving on slower time here, people are arriving slower, I see one other member from the OSC, two, actually, Tony was already in here. Why don't we get started on that and we can adjourn at that point, at that point, as the OSC arrives we move forward to OSC discussion. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. So, you know, I'm just going to read from the documents that Julie has prepared. "Acts by a majority vote by the GNSO Council members present at the meeting in which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council unless otherwise provided herein." Then we've got all these exceptions, all right, that come after that. One thing I just want to say at a high level is one of the things we're trying to do here, I think, is deemphasize voting. So, you know, why do I raise that? I raise that because, you know, how -- I think we should always be mindful of how is the council going to perform where it's almost like votes are the last resort, right? I mean, we want consensus to be discussed and reached and -- in a manner that doesn't necessarily fall back on boy, that's one of the things that we're trying to sort of correct from the present system, if I understand it correctly and I'm just throwing this out, by the way, for discussion. So one of the things we're trying to correct is too much emphasis on voting. Does anybody have any comments on that as it pertains to this section? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, this is Julie. It's not a comment per se and I know that Ron does have a comment but I just wanted to point out that since, as you mentioned, we are looking at the GNSO Council as the -- more as the manager of the policy development process, we should all keep in mind that there are several sections within the procedures that deal with votes in the context of policy-making. And that section is being dealt with by the PPSC work teams, and you're absolutely right, I think they are looking at deemphasizing the -- you know, the role -- or changing the role of the GNSO Council in that expect. And I'm sure that they will be rewriting the sections that have to do with votes on policy-making. This section on votes is the nonpolicy voting section because the votes that are taken on policy-making is all in the policy- making section so this would be all other business as far as my understanding goes. >>RON ANDRUFF: This is Ron. I sat in this morning on the PDP operating steering committee discussions and I raised this issue of voting. And no surprise we've got a myriad of different answers, a lot of the different members had different views on vote but ultimately what I was able to sort of retain from the discussion was, along with what Julie just said, but basically councillors will vote on all working group recommendations. And effectively all issues that are brought before the council, even in terms of developing PDP work groups and so forth will ultimately be voted on at the end of the day, whether the vote is that we agree and we send this to the board for passing this or whether it gets kicked back, they vote to kick it back to the working group and so forth. So voting while being deemphasized on the whole will continue in the same manner as it is today in many ways. That's my understanding of it. So therefore, in a development of this document of real procedure, we have to make sure we address the aspect of voting, however, much or little we think may happen in the future my take-away from the meeting will be voting will be very much a part of the council's regular activities. >>RAY FASSETT: I think that's a very useful comment, Ron, to our work. So to me that definitely gives me the thinking that a green light, if you will, that we definitely want to concentrate hard on this section to, you know, identify, you know, how the -- procedurally how these votes go. The reason I raised that was simply because the concept of deemphasizing voting has been brought to our attention but from what I'm hearing is, yes, it is going to be deemphasized but the procedure of having to vote is still absolutely going to be part of the process and therefore we've got to spend some time on this. >>PHILIP SHEPARD: And ray, it's Philip here, just to clarify, I think in the ideal world, we'll see a working group coming out with a coherent policy and a set of recommendations and council will look at that. And it may be a simple vote as council notes the outcome, thanks, the working group for its hard work and recommends its report to the board. That would be I think the ideal system and if there's any variation based on that, if the working group outcome is less clear. >>RON ANDRUFF: So -- >>RAY FASSETT: Thanks, Philip. >>RON ANDRUFF: So this is Ron again. So one of the other points I just sort of put on the table for the working group is that because we have this rules and procedures document in front of us it doesn't necessarily mean we need to change this issue of voting other than correct language. So just want to be very clear that the rules of procedure -- our job as a work team is to review these things and to make sure that they are up to date and they address the issues of the new GNSO going forward. So from my point of view, apart from any language changes or cleanup that might be done, I think that we're pretty close to having this 3.6 section done. I mean, I don't think we need to modify it, or the work team needs to be spending too much time trying to modify this as much as just making sure that the language is clear, thank you. >>RAY FASSETT: I don't disagree with that. Anybody else have any comments? >>JULIE HEDLUND: There's no other comments from this end and just so you know, Ray, we are starting to get some of the OSC members here. We probably want to wait just a bit more and have a few more people join us but just want to let you know that. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. Well, on this, on my page, my document that you sent, Julie, page 15 of 45, it's -- I suppose it's the third full paragraph down it says "initially, each member of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD registry stakeholder group or the registrar stakeholder group shall be entitled to cast two votes and all other members, including those selected by the nominating committee shall be entitled to cast one vote," that changed, didn't it? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Well, I think that that -- the reason I left it that way is that's something we do need to discuss on this team is what we want those numbers to be. 'Cause I think they probably do need to change. And didn't want to make an assumption as to what they would be. >>RAY FASSETT: Right, right, fair enough. Fair enough. So my understanding is I don't think any particular stakeholder group is going to have two votes, is that correct, Rob, or anybody else. >>RON ANDRUFF: Rob left the room but that was his comment and actually, Chuck is now here so he can clarify that, perhaps. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, nobody gets two votes in the new structure, in the new bicameral structure, but instead, the way it happens is is all votes are taken in both houses. And the criteria for passing is defined always on a level for both houses. So there's no need to do a two -- a two-vote for anybody. >>RON ANDRUFF: Absolutely and I don't think that was intended, what Rob had stated was there were 22 council members and each one has a vote, if I'm not mistaken, if I got that right. >>CHUCK GOMES: We don't even -- we don't even look at total council votes anymore. You're always looking at a vote in each house. And the parameters, then, for passing are based on, you know, a simple majority of both houses or a super majority of both houses, et cetera, like that, so, does that make sense? >>RAY FASSETT: Yes, it does. So, you know, under the new bicameral structure there are two houses. In order for a vote to be an approved vote, if you will, in total, each of the houses has to have some threshold identified, whether it's a majority or super majority in order for the total vote to be accepted. Everybody understand that? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Any comments here. >>RON ANDRUFF: I would, Julie. That's what I was referring to in the -- in my comment, was that the language, in terms of the number of votes cast, and so it just needs to be cleaned up to meet the standard that is there today so as Chuck just described it I'm sure it's written somewhere so what I was recommending is staff come back to us with the revised language if it's not been drafted already -- it's not been drafted, Julie. >>CHUCK GOMES: It's, yeah, actually, we've been working on that, the council will be probably voting on Wednesday on the changes to the bylaws. Included in that will be thresholds that we agree now so we should know after Wednesday at least where the council -- ultimately the board has to approve that but that -- yes, that is -- the data's all available in terms of what the thresholds are because we agreed on that as a council quite some time ago. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Right. And I hadn't put that in here because of the fact that it hadn't gone to a vote. But I would suggest that I could go ahead, since it's going to be something that's going to be voted on this week, I can then amend this accordingly. >>RAY FASSETT: I think that's a good idea. Anybody disagree? Okay. Now, with that said, we're basically -- is there enough OSC attendants now, Julie, there, as my eyes and ears to start that part of the meeting? >>JULIE HEDLUND: I think so. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. So before we do, I just want to leave off next action steps on this is review the draft language we came up with a 3.5 quorum, if we could review that and if possible comment and list any friendly amendments, if any. Let's review the new language that comes in for 3.6, reflecting a new bicameral structure and anything else we can identify to update under the new structure, and now what we did not get to today is -- unless we can very quickly -- is identify other sections of this rules of procedure that have been outlined within, that we can work on to focus our attention on next. So I'm going to suggest -- well, I'm going to throw out there real quick, how do we want to approach that? I could ask Julie to talk with Rob to talk with maybe some members of OSC to maybe head us into the direction of those items that are more urgent than items that are less urgent and come back to us? Or do we want to try and do that now? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, this is Julie. Actually, I had made some suggestions with respect to that but that was a couple of weeks back, when I had consulted with Rob and with Ken Bour. Why don't I go ahead and suggest that again. It was -- the first top items are those that we've dealt with today and that is quorum and votes and then there were some other sections that were -- that had to do with conducting council meetings that were not dependent on actions on the bylaws or on the PDP work teams. And I'll go ahead and send those around again, as a suggestion to the team, if that's okay with you. >>RAY FASSETT: I like that suggestion. Anybody disagree? >>RON ANDRUFF: No, I agree with it -- I agree also with that, this is Ron. But what I was also thinking might be a good way forward is, as I mentioned a moment ago, a lot of the language in here doesn't necessarily need to be changed but just to be reviewed, so maybe we might want to just knock off a block of that text that, you know, all of that stuff that we -- is non-- you know, it's just enough that we need to look at and say, yeah, that still makes sense and that may whittle down the workload if we can start to focus on that and I see Julie nodding. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Actually, Ron, that was really what I was going to propose, is the suggestions I was going to suggest next are the ones that have to do with conducting meetings that largely are -- you know, we can decide are probably very good and don't need to be changed and there might be some things that we might need to update with respect to sort of e-mail list and that sort of thing and I can consult with Glen on that as well. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. Very good. This is Ray. Let's move on to the next part of the meeting which involves an update from the OSC and also feedback from the OSC on various work products that we've done up to now. The first item on that agenda is the kite document that has to do with sending out a document to constituencies that pertains to the separation of duties amongst GNSO Council members, identifying that as a high-level principle. And whether the substance of that document is something we want to receive broader feedback from, this document has been sent to the OSC, to Chuck who disseminated it amongst the OSC members, and the first agenda item here is: Is there any feedback from the OSC members on the kite document and our sending it out for broader community feedback? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Any feedback here from the OSC members? >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you talking about the structural document? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yes, I'm sorry. The document being referred to is the draft GNSO ops proposed structural. >>CHUCK GOMES: Everybody has it, right? Well, I'd like to -- >>RAY FASSETT: Brief background real quick, Chuck -- sorry to interrupt -- is, what we were not able to achieve consensus on ourselves as a work team is sending out this document for broader community feedback. So we're specifically looking -- hopefully the OSC members have had an opportunity to review this document and we're just simply looking for advice or guidance on whether or not to send this document out for broader community feedback. >>CHUCK GOMES: So Ray, let me get a clarification, then. Are you just looking for the OSC to weigh in, in terms of whether it should be sent out for public comment, or are you looking for feedback on the ideas, or both? >>RAY FASSETT: I think the two are interrelated, Chuck. The two are interrelated. If the OSC is of the opinion that they are not interrelated, then that could affect the feedback that we get back. So I don't want to say that they are, but I think I just did. I think I did say they are interrelated. So what we're looking for primarily is guidance from the OSC, is should we send this document out, the structural document, for broader community feedback. >>JULIE HEDLUND: And Ray, you can't see this but we have a couple people in queue here, we have Tony and we have Ron. >>RAY FASSETT: Okay. Tony, go ahead. >>TONY HOLMES: I'll just refer to Ron, if I may, I think he may have a similar point. >>RON ANDRUFF: Tony, you're reading my mind from across the room. No, all I wanted to do is just to shed a little broader light on what this document is about. The sole purpose of this document is simply to get, for the work team to understand if the community likes to go left or right. This document is not intended to be anything more than a kite, that's what we call it, that's what we refer to as a kite, so we get a sense from the community at large, does the community feel that a two-legged GNSO is stronger than a one-legged GNSO as it stands today. So that's what we're trying to achieve with this. And the question was whether we just -- it's not going out for public comment as a public comment status would be with ICANN, it's just going to the various current constituencies to ask them to circulate it to their members to get some feedback from the members, do they like this or that. We have no, as a working group, we have no vested interest one way or the other. It's only to find out which way we should go with this, as I understand it. >>JULIE HEDLUND: And Tony I think has a response to that. >>TONY HOLMES: Yeah. Ron did answer my question at the end but I think it's worth clarifying. When we talk about sending it out for broad community input, it was clearly just to existing constituencies. It isn't broader than that. >>RON ANDRUFF: You're exactly right. >>CHUCK GOMES: So I come back to my question: Do we want to take time here for any feedback on the document from the OSC or just focus on the question of whether it should be put out for public comment to constituencies? >>JULIE HEDLUND: And I should note, too, that I saw that Vanda had her hand up. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Yeah, my question is most of the checklist. And I have some comments on the structural ideas, but just think about to circulate and open up, it's okay. Let's do that first and we can comment during this period, okay? >>RON ANDRUFF: That is how I saw it, Vanda, that every person in the community will comment, I would hope, one way or the other. But it's certainly open for discussion with OSC. As Wolf-Ulrich pointed out, that's why we actually have asked the OSC to sit in on this meeting, that when we come as a working team to a position where we can't find consensus under our bylaws, we bring it to the OSC. So we're bringing this up to the OSC to say can we send this up to the community at large, that was how I saw it, but I leave it to others to put their comment on. >>CHUCK GOMES: And before I comment let me ask the other members of the OSC to share their view, like Vanda just did, so that they will feel free to give their viewpoint before they hear mine. >>RAY FASSETT: This is Ray. I want to interject here real quick. We understand that we can send it out. It's not like we're seeking permission. Okay? The issue here is the document speaks to structural -- how the GNSO Council is going to be structured, two-legged, one- legged, however we want to call it. Okay? And the issue is whether that will draw confusion to the broader community that we're looking to change the structure or propose a structural change to the GNSO Council. We know we can send the document out. It's within our rights to do that to send it to different consistencies. The question is should we, based on the content of the document? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: It's Wolf speaking. Can I? >>RAY FASSETT: Yes, please, Wolf. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: We have just a half hour left. I would say why shouldn't we get right now the feedback of OSC members, the other OSC members here. Also maybe in their capacity as being members or representatives of their constituency. I suppose they may have already discussed, some of them within some groups, maybe not officially within their constituencies. But they may have discussed it with other members. So it may be helpful to get a response from some other bigger issues on the document, what could be the direction and where to go. So I think that would be helpful as well. Not only to hear okay, just hand it out and ask the community also to get a feeling here within our group what are OSC members thinking, maybe in their capacity as being constituency members. >>RAY FASSETT: I think that's reasonable, Wolf. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Philip has a comment. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think -- >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Chuck, I would like to have that to you as OSC chair and also representative of the constituency what you're thinking about looking at. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Before Chuck answers that, it's Philip here. Two comments, one on the question of the broader question of sending it out. I think it's -- we need to be clear, I think, when we -- in general as any GNSO body or part of it consults in terms of expectation or responses and the -- shall I say, the awareness level at what we generate, interest level we generate by consulting. I think it's -- we do have a certain consulting fatigue, I think, on a number of issues particularly on reform issues. I think we need to be aware of that. And so, when we do go and consult, it's better to consult on more ready- made proposals than ones that are sort of ideas in the air perhaps. And that maybe that they're better suited for discussion in groups, in different groups first. So I think that -- there's that sort of general point. And then, secondly, I have a stroke in a moment about my own take on some of the issues that were raised here. But perhaps I'll let Chuck respond first because you asked a question of him. >>CHUCK GOMES: The -- I didn't understand the question totally. Can somebody repeat it for me? Wolf, can you restate it? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes, Chuck. It's very simple. So I think we should not only talk about, okay, whether we should send out the document or not to the constituencies. I would like to take the opportunity to hear from the OSC members as being constituency members present, some, let me say -- something about maybe bigger issues they have with that document. That's only to get feeling so just -- you may have already discussed it some points of that within your constituency or other members of your constituencies, I suppose, so it would be fine if you could hear something about that. >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure, that's what I was trying to clarify at the beginning whether you wanted to hear from the OSC members in that regard. I'm perfectly comfortable for us doing that. And is the rest of the committee okay with that? Tony has something. >>TONY HOLMES: Yeah. Just to make it absolutely clear, I think when I introduced it, we said it's a document we haven't actually got consensus on within the group. And that's for sure. So one of the ways to test this if it's viable is to send it to the broader community. But, if we do that, one of the things we need to do is make sure that the document is totally explanatory, that it would be well understood. Because there's nothing worse than sending something out and getting back a load of comments that really don't help us at all. So one of the tests that we could actually do is to get the advice from the OSC as to whether they have clarity of what this document's about and to say how it sits with them before we undertake that part of the exercise. So feedback from the OSC is a step along that path. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. That's helpful. And so can we take the time right now to get feedback from those members of -- it looks like Vanda is ready. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I do have some comments on that. And just a few comments. That one is how to get more easily feedback from the community. Because what I see in this design is everything goes up. And it's all decided in the top. So I should suggest that we could have some dash lines between these two councilors, round design council back constituents, 1 to 2 representatives. They need to have some opportunities to get together sometime to get more feedback from the community. That's -- you know, just talking about the design that the - - how they will work in such a way. That's my point on that. The most important one. The other is just to think about that, if each constituents will choose this own process to elect the head representatives, we may have imbalanced people sitting in those groups. So I believe we should have some general direction on how to choose that representatives. Is just that. Thank you. >>RON ANDRUFF: Vanda, if I may respond, because I was a lot of the architect of this. You're referring, I think, to figure one, the suggested GNSO structure, just for purposes of those who are on the phone. This diagram was only to try to depict what an executive committee would look like and how it would be tasked or filled out or fleshed out. And the idea of two councilors per constituency making up the GNSO policy council and one to two representatives as determined -- obviously, all of this is determined by the GNSO approving it -- would make up then the -- would report to the administration side. Point being it's really to try to explain that here's how the council or how the GNSO executive team would work. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: And, once you send this back to the open community, it's not clear enough to people to read that and understand how they will work. >>RON ANDRUFF: Okay. Absolutely. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: So that's the idea to make some better, you know, design about that. >>RON ANDRUFF: Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Olga. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. My -- I just received this document. And I would like to -- you to know that I just quickly reviewed it. I would like to have more time to review it in more detail. But I have two or three questions come to my mind in the same sense that Vanda pointed out. And being GNSO council members appointed by NomCom, I don't work within a constituency almost for two years. Which would be the dynamic of this 5-people chair -- two chairs and one chair and -- I -- I don't imagine that. And, which is the advantage of having this new structure in between GNSO? And which would be the role of NonCom appointees in this new upper structure of three chairs and five people? That's my comment. But, again, I would like to have the chance to review it in detail. And perhaps in two or three days provide you some comments either online or personally. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Philip? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I did have a chance to look at it earlier. I have some concerns in terms of where it takes us. I think my more general concern is we seem to be adding some complexity to an organization that's already rather overly complex, in my view. I think the good thing about the document is the careful analysis it makes between the historic position of the different policy roles and the sort of coordination admin roles. And they've always been mixed in the past on council. And that has sometimes just been tedious for those of us involved in council. And I think that division is useful to recognize. But I'm not convinced it makes the right call in terms of where we should be going forward having made that analysis. And I think part of it and part of the work that happened in the past was because we had inadequate staff support. So in early days, you know, there wasn't even a Glen in terms of administration. You know, we did that ourselves. And then Glen, indeed, was something that we paid for ourselves. And, as things have gone on, we now have a whole team of paid policy staff and admin staff who are there to support us. And I think that a lot of the roles we've identified in terms of coordination admin that historically council was involved in, I think, council increasingly should be less involved in. Because we should be trusting staff to get that right. And, if they're not getting it right to our satisfaction as council or as members of the broader GNSO community, then it's an issue to take up with ICANN management to say, look, you're spending your 100 million rather badly and not providing support in the way that we want it and this is the way that we want it. And, if you look at some of the specific functions that we're suggesting that the admin side could do, sort of outreach and program planning, Web site enhancement travel, I mean, to my mind, they're all separable issues for which ad hoc groups can be set up by staff, if consultation is needed. Indeed, some of those already have ad hoc groups where that consultation is taking place, which exists at time for that issue and then go away. And their results are implemented by staff. And my final concern, I think, is just looking at availability of people. We know that, even in a constituency as broad as a BC, we have challenges in finding volunteers for the policy-related work. Trying to find volunteers to do coordination and admin work, which to my mind is providing in a free management time to an organization of a hundred million budget strikes me as a very odd thing to be doing. And, certainly, my own interest in participating in ICANN has always been policy. And the bad stuff has been the admin and the coordination. I've been delighted at each time we've had improvements in staff who can take some of that away. Sure, it's not perfect. But I think our job should be working with staff to make that better, not trying to replicate a structure to do what staff should be doing for us. So I'm afraid I have personally some fundamental concerns with the outcome. But I think the analysis of the document is very good. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tony, did you want to add some comments there? >>TONY HOLMES: Well, I'll say a few things. I feel a little awkward here because I sit on both sides of the fence here. But there's some good things already that have come out of the dialogue with you guys. Because I personally share a lot of the same points, the same concerns that Philip brought forward. When I looked to this originally, I thought it would be an excellent way of making the existing council more efficient. And I don't particularly share all of Philip's remarks about the role of staff. I still think there are some admin things that have been pointed out in this document which will still be done by the GNSO. But the position I took on this was that under the new working arrangements, the load that would be carried by the GNSO both as a policy council and an admin council should actually reduce because the onus is moving towards working groups. So I personally didn't share the view or become convinced that splitting it in this way and requiring more resource was necessarily the right way to go. That's just a personal view. The good thing about this conversation is that the points that have been picked up by the people who have commented so far really say that I think we've done a fairly good job in producing a document to get some feedback on. And I would very much support the view that it's worthwhile putting this out to the community to see what the broader view is and whether it's something that should be supported and progress more or whether there are enough issues to suggest maybe we go back and have a rethink. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think that covered everything except myself, and I'll comment now. Let me ask a question, first of all. Ray, I distributed some -- my initial thoughts on this. Were those distributed to the full team? >>RAY FASSETT: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. Good. So you're going to hear some of the same things. I won't go over all of that. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: This is Wolf speaking. I don't remember. >>RAY FASSETT: I'm sorry, Wolf. That was the comment when we originally decided as a work team to send it out to the small group of people. And some of those people responded with their comments. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Okay. >>RAY FASSETT: That was one of those. And the comments were then distributed to the work team members. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Okay, good. >>CHUCK GOMES: The first thing I would say is a very simple thing. The focus in the document is on constituencies. And I think that it needs to be on stakeholder groups. That can include a focus on constituencies as a subset there. But I think it will create a little bit of confusion since we're moving to a model -- the council representatives that we're talking about in the future will be from stakeholder groups probably not from constituencies, although we're still debating that with staff, right? The council has pretty much unanimously disagreed with the staff approach in terms of assigning council seats on that. Now, the board will ultimately determine that. But I think it's quite reasonable that it will be a stakeholder group process rather than a constituency process. So that would be a simple edit that I think, if you agree -- because keep in mind, as a working team, you don't have to do everything we suggest. We'll give our guidance and suggestions. But it's up to you to make your decision. I have a question for the team. Does the -- because one of the things that I found in here is there seems to be an assumption that the council has some management task related to constituencies and stakeholder groups. Am I getting that correct? Do you think -- I don't think historically that the councils had a role of managing constituencies and, of course, in the future of the stakeholder groups. Does the committee think the council should have a role like that? >>RON ANDRUFF: This is Ron. No, Chuck, just to respond to that. The -- under the purpose of the document in the first sentence, it finishes with the word "constituency." And in footnote number 2 we can beef that up. Because at the very bottom it says, "It's well understood by the work team that pursuant to BGC recommendations, stakeholder groups rather than constituencies is the way forward for ICANN." It's the footnote there, number 2. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, I see it. >>RON ANDRUFF: So that needs to be brought up into the body of the copy. So we are quite aware of that. And, reflecting back on your second point, no. The view of the work team is that the policy council will be doing work with all of the working groups. So we try to define that in the -- in I guess it's page number 4 policy councilors and explains the different things that we'll be doing. And that list is a list of examples of some of these things. So we're talking about, you know, developing policy development and coordination. Policy development meaning the overall policy has to get developed. So who's going to do that? Well, the council is going to work with the working groups to do it. And they're going to do it in these kinds of activities. So we're trying just to give some sense of what that means. But clearly that needs to be fleshed out. >>CHUCK GOMES: Good. All right. Anybody else have a comment? That's fine. Now, when I read this -- and I may be wrong on this. But it seemed to me or at least I couldn't tell how this fits in the board recommended structure that we have. It seems to almost require revisiting starting all over on the council structure that's recommended in the bicameral approach that came out. Am I missing something there? How would this work without changing the board's recommendations in terms of structure? I don't understand that. >>TONY HOLMES: Shall I try that one. It's Tony. My take on that was -- and maybe that's something that isn't clear in the document -- that what's actually proposed here in terms of administration is a peer body to the policy council. So it's almost an adjunct that is separate to the board's recommendations. In other words, it's another peer body that would be having the function of trying to improve the administration process. Not impacting back on the core decisions taken by the board or what was set out in the bicameral approach. >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, so let me pursue that a little bit. So what you're saying is that administrative body would not be part of the council? >>TONY HOLMES: Correct. >>CHUCK GOMES: Correct. I didn't pick that up in there at all. >>RON ANDRUFF: That's why we're talking about this diagram was to try to clarify that exactly point. So it's not -- the policy council is 22 individuals. And they continue to do policy activities. And the administrative group is concerned with outreach and development and those kinds of things to broaden the base of people participating and doing those kinds of activities. They do not interact on the policy development side. Policy councilors do policy council work. Administrators just do administration work to further the development of the organization. >>TONY HOLMES: It could be something that needs -- well, it is something that needs to be made clearer. But it could be a totally separate set of people from those who are on policy council. And I think that also tends to answer maybe the problem about NonCom representatives. I don't see any reason why, if we go down this path, they couldn't be part of the administration arrangements. But, specifically, we didn't build in the same structure because it is a separate peer body. >>CHUCK GOMES: That really helps. You can tell I was way off base on that. So I suspect other people may do a better job of picking that up than me. But I would still suggest you make that clearer. >>RON ANDRUFF: Chuck, you're a veteran of this stuff. And I know that you read. And most people don't read. They just scan things. But I know that you read. And I appreciate that was lost on you because we've really tried to make that clear. So, obviously, there's work that needs to be done on that. Now, another thing that hit me, as I'm reading this. There's several places where it really sounds more like the council -- and you're referring to it as a policy council. By the way, calling it a policy council and then you have this other council, administrative council, whatever, that probably leads to the impression that they're all part of the council. So just to let you know on that. My perception anyway. But there's a lot of wording that makes it sound like the -- what you call the policy council is a policy development body. And it's important -- the board's recommendations are quite clear, in my opinion, that it's a policy management body and those are different things. I know you guys understand that but I'm just sharing this in terms of the document, that's an area. By the way, I want to come back to Philip's comments. I -- I agree with probably most everything he said that -- and so I think he made some good comments there with regard to this. It did appear -- it appears that we need even more resources. That's one thing I'll follow up on in this model than we already have need of. And we know the challenge in that regard. But maybe there are ways of dealing with that. I also thought -- and now this has been corrected -- that it would be harder to find -- if you're looking for people on the council that have administrative skills and other people that have policy skills, I start thinking my goodness, how are we going to do this? We have enough trouble meeting geographic diversity and everything else. So that clarity helped me there. My first read -- and you've revised it since then. But my first read of it I thought this really added a lot of bureaucracy. Maybe it doesn't. And I also made some suggestions at the end that actually you could accomplish a lot of your objectives maybe without what appears to be a structural change to what the board has recommended. I don't think there's any chance that we're going to be able to go back and get the board to change their recommendations. So that would be a fundamental assumption. You guys have my written comments, so I think I've said enough. Let me -- I'd like to provide opportunity for the -- if it's okay, for the other OSC members to see if they want to add anything there. >>RON ANDRUFF: If I could just respond to your comments, Chuck, just a couple before we do that with everyone's blessing. The point is that, with regard to the concern about needing more people and how this will work, the view that we're trying to -- we've been kicking around within the work team and to try to understand this better, is that in the first instance, we're now 10 years old as a body as ICANN. And we're moving into a new era of significantly larger number of domain names and so forth. So there's -- without any doubt outreach and getting more people actively involved and engaged in this process is absolutely critical to the organization. Otherwise we won't be meeting the mandate of what we should be doing. So the idea here is that councilors continue to focus on council activities. Administrative people step up and say, you know, let me work on outreach. As an example, here we have within the BC a outreach program that will happen on Monday or Tuesday. And Liz Williams has been very active in that and working in that along with a couple other people within our organization. So they've picked up the ball, and they've just been very active in getting together a group of business leaders from the region to come and participate with us to learn more about ICANN. This is a core activity that really has to be as important as policy development, in my view personally. Because we have to build a structure that can support an organization that's going to grow significantly. I don't know if we're going to have five new TLDs or 5,000 new TLDs in the coming 5 years, 10 years. But our view of the working team is we have to create a structure that can support those kinds of activities. So the argument about not enough people maybe in the beginning it's going to be all of us carrying a little more load. But, as time goes by, the hope is we're developing the group. We're developing a lot larger participation in the organization. So I think it's really critical to understand that the logic here is not to deconstruct anything that was there but, rather, the GNSO today, most people think the policy council is the council. But it's -- in fact, there's a group of people that work as policy councilors. And then there's the GNSO. So what we're trying to do is just flesh out that GNSO to be a stronger, more robust organization to provide for the needs of the larger and large community that we hope to see in the future. So this is kind of the base point that we're working from to really expand the organization on -- as a whole. And from within that we'll find the people to fulfill the roles. That's the hope. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks. I would just point out that the bylaws don't call it a policy council. But the mission of the council is to develop policy. And I would back up to what Philip said. I guess I side with him on the fact that I think staff is helping us tremendously in terms of a lot of administrative duties. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to volunteers within the GNSO who would want to work on those issues. So that concept could be developed further. I'm not opposed to that at all. But I do believe -- and I -- as vice chair of the council and as -- in working groups that I've chaired, I fully appreciate all of the support -- administrative support we get from staff. So I think that does alleviate a lot of that need. But there's still -- you identify some good administrative tasks in here. So I would say that. Does anybody else on the committee want to talk before I see if any other OSC people have -- I know we have one more document to look at. >>RAY FASSETT: Yeah, this is Ray, I would like to make one comment. >>CHUCK GOMES: Robin did too, Ray, just to let you know. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Just a little comment about what is going on on at-large structure in -- a lot, because more and more -- less, more than 100 people, 100 groups or people are now working in policy issues and they are more and more interested in participating on those new gTLDs. And so I believe that, you know, with the time, we could really outreach more people for many regions to work on those kind of things that we don't find the interest till now. But what I'm seeing now, it's a very, very huge participation on the people around the world on -- focused on this new gTLDs issues and probably we can go further and get more help from them. >>CHUCK GOMES: Ray, you want to go next or do you want Robin to go next? >>RAY FASSETT: Robin, go ahead. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thanks, I just wanted to go back to something we were talking about a few minutes ago and just get a clarification on what it is we want to do. On the figure one, the suggested GNSO structure and then the little green circles at the bottom. >>RON ANDRUFF: They're not colored on their copies. >>ROBIN GROSS: Okay, the circles on the bottom that talk about the number of people -- representatives per constituency. So we talked about how that's confusing people because we're moving to the stakeholder group model so are we going to reword this so it says two councillors per stakeholder group, is that what we said? Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood that, thank you. >>RAY FASSETT: This is Ray. I just want to make the high-level comment that our work team members did not reach consensus that this is a structure that we think or are recommending would be, so this isn't a product here that we all said, yeah, we think this is a good idea of how the structure should be, let's go now, see if the community agrees with us. Instead, we were qualifying quite clearly upfront not to read it that way, that that is not what we're saying, that we're not saying this is what we think it should be. I just wanted the OSC members to understand that when we say this is a work team product, that we were not ourselves able to reach consensus on this structure. >>TONY HOLMES: I just had a comment on the document that we should probably note may be directed towards Ray and Ron. If this is going to go out for comment, one of the other changes I think to make clear is in the administration box, the involvement of the representatives in that function doesn't require any geographic diversity, it's probably something we should state. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, I didn't express my opinion in terms of this going out for broader comment from constituents. I'm perfectly okay with that. I think you'll get a lot better feedback if you address some of the things that those of us on the OSC suggested and some of the things that you've discovered U. Otherwise it may create some confusion -- some confusion and not get back what you want and I think Tony mentioned that himself. So I'm okay with that. Does anybody on the OSC think that's -- think differently? Okay. So feel free, if that's what you -- if that's what you'd like to do. I would recommend that you be as clear as possible in terms of what type of feedback you want. Otherwise you'll get people all over the page. >>RON ANDRUFF: I smile, Chuck, because this important notice for consideration of this document that's on the very front, I guess we should make it in capitals and in red but it says very clearly that "to be clear, the work team is asking you two questions: Do you think the proposed separation of responsibilities would better serve the stakeholder groups that make up the current and future GNSO or not"? The second question is "if your answer to one is negative why, if your answer to one is affirmative, you know, is there anything we're missing?" My point is, we struggle ourselves trying to make it more clear. We went with bold language, we went with red language, we put it in a box. So we will -- we take your comment wisely and we will go back and rework it but it's a struggle when you've used every color and capital letter we can but we'll do that and certainly clean up the language. And I guess what we're hearing from the OSC to take out anything that says "constituency" and move everything to stakeholder. Put it in future tense as opposed to the current tense, does that make sense? Okay, thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Also you, in your first question, when you ask about separation of responsibilities, without having the context of -- this administrative thinking is not really part of a council, there's going to be the impression that you're dividing the council into two areas of responsibility. So probably, I don't know how you deal with that as an upfront page because they need to see the explanation later but -- but that's it. So anything else on this document before we go to the interest policy? Is that the next, item, Ray. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yes. >>RAY FASSETT: There are two items remaining. That is one of them. And the other one is just an input from the OSC members on the progress of the other work teams and how that progress may interrelate with our work as well whichever one we want to take there Chuck. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, this is Julie. I do want to point out that we've got another work team meeting follow shortly and there will be people who are waiting to get on that call. Olga, I'm sorry, remind me, I don't have my schedule up, what time does that start. >>OLGA CAVALLI: It's 3:15. The issue is that there are people calling from abroad. >>CHUCK GOMES: So can we spend maybe five or eight minutes on the interest statement. >>RON ANDRUFF: I would recommend we do exactly that. Because we who are here, Ray, are actually going to the other meetings and gathering notes and will report that back as much as we can with regard to what the other work teams are doing, thank you. >>RAY FASSETT: That's great, thanks, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Now, I have some pretty blunt comments on that one, but I defer to the other -- if others have comments on that. Did -- anybody like to go before me? I don't want to set the tone. Okay, if nobody does, I'll just jump right in. First of all, I think your approach is way too complex. Now, let me qualify that by saying that I'm -- I'm sharing my own personal bias. And I'll explain that. I believe that all of us in the GNSO have conflicts of interest. Or we wouldn't be participating here if we didn't have certain interests that we're supporting. And I think that those should be brought forward, we should communicate those. But when I read this document -- and I got further into it, I could see us in the GNSO spending half or more of our time managing conflicts of interest. To me let's try and be upfront, let's post them, let's update them, but if it ends up that we spend so much time focusing on possible conflicts and then disciplining people if they don't, and I don't know how we determine that, I just -- again, that's my personal bias. I think that an interest policy needs to be clear, it needs to be consistent and uniform for everybody that's doing it. But the -- I see this process as terribly time consuming and complex and we'd spend half of our time managing on that and not working on the policy development that we need. Now I told you that I'd be blunt. [ Laughter ] >>RON ANDRUFF: And we appreciate your frankness, truly, we really do, much better than walking around the point. The logic behind the SOI-DOI agreement, documents, was not to add burden, more for clarity. What's happening now, as you've quite rightly stated, Chuck, everyone's conflicted. But it's really important, if we're going to be a transparent organization going forward, that we make sure, as individuals, we make our statements of interest and our declarations of interest, perhaps this document is also not clear but to the critical issue from our point of view on the work team was that the chairperson just make a request, does anyone have a declaration of interest or statement of interest to update with regard to this topic that we're talking about today. And look around the room and she enters it, and she enters it in and the Chairman enters it into the record, there was no changes. Now, if something comes out after the fact where -- it was an important discussion and someone, actually, was working for someone else but yet sitting at the microphone and advocating an idea as an individual or coming from a different position, what we were trying to do is to put some kind of measures in there, and the measures are really measures of embarrassment. There's really very little -- there's no teeth in this thing but it's really kind of being brought up on this thing and now you have to explain yourself. And I certainly, as one, would not want to be embarrassed in front of the community like that, and I don't think you would either. So it was really more about that. We're not trying to add layers of administration but just to have the chairperson ask the question or someone's on the conference call, I would say, Ron Andruff, R & A Partners, and we may be looking at new top-level domains, however, I'm speaking now in an individual capacity or as a member of the BC or however but I'm declaring that interest because what's happening now within the community is many people are involved in many different things, they're not declaring their interests and it's really not being very forthright. If we as the GNSO councillors and representatives of the community and so forth don't -- aren't upfront and aren't transparent, how can our organization be. >>JULIE HEDLUND: I saw two other comments here, Philip and Vanda. >>PHILIP SHEPARD: Thanks. I think -- I mentioned conflicts of interest is an extraordinarily difficult task in general. In ICANN, it is a extraordinary organization in that it was almost constructed upon conflict of interest. I would go as far as to say that if ICANN had chosen to be housed in the European union, we would have been greeted by now by the EU competition authorities because of the nature of the work that we do here. And I'm insufficiently briefed as to why that hasn't happened in the United States of America. The way we manage it in the -- up to now has been to have declarations which are made upfront and updated. But indeed, those are done remotely, they're posted somewhere, and they're not made (inaudible) to the time that people are speaking. And I think we all do ourselves as an organization much better if precisely, as the suggestion makes, that there is continuous reference to conflicts as conversations happen so there is clarity as to what is there. I disagree with the statement generally that everybody is conflicted. There are certainly members of different constituencies who will be conflicted at different times and I think it's precisely those differences that is interesting to note at the time that they take place. Even in an organization as pure as the driven snow like the BC, we do have members who are very interested in the concept of new TLDs. And they make that known to us and I think it's very important that they make that known also as they're speaking within the BC or outside where that is the case, and this sort of policy would help that. So I think this is going, actually, in the right direction. It shouldn't be burdensome, it can be done quickly and quite easily. But it does make life much clearer as the issues are made and I think it is that clarity of declaration of the timing which is missing at the moment which this proposal seems to be making. >>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Yeah, just remember, this is the most difficult task I had in my life, be the ahead of the conflict of interest inside the board. That's because most of the people really have one. And I do agree with Philip that what we need is make the statement timely, to be transparent. It's just that. Because conflict of interest is the base of this community. We all are here because we are -- we have interests on these issues. So it's very hard to talk, especially when you talk in the different frame -- legal frameworks around the world. For the Latin framework for instance, there is a lot of conflict of interest that is not touched in the American legal framework or, I don't know, Germany or somewhere. So it's -- the most important issue, in my idea, is to make statement during the process, just that, that's my point, thank you. >>JULIE HEDLUND: I also -- also I saw Eric had his hand up and Tony. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Eric Brunner-Williams from CORE. Initially I thought the point of this part of the exercise was just California and federal tax status. However, the layering of interests pointed out by Ron appears to be increasing in part due to what I'll call present starvation and also in part due to what I'll call anticipated feast. So I -- if I was correct initially -- and it is possible I was not -- that the point was merely to meet the California and federal tax status requirements, I would say that the need for this is now larger than those formal requirements for tax status for ICANN. Thank you. >>TONY HOLMES: I had a question for Chuck, really, because I noticed when Ron was explaining the intent of this document, you seemed to be nodding your head agreeing with the principles that Ron was explaining. So my question is: Do you see a difference between those principles that were being explained and what is actually written in this document? Because you appeared to have a problem with the document itself. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, when Ron explained that, you know, it's a great explanation, and I think it should be the primary focus. I heard Philip and I heard Vanda say the same thing. Timely declaration, I think, is a beautiful principle that's very applicable and would recommend that that be your focus. When I read through this, that didn't stick out at me, although I can go back now and see that, okay? Because of the -- it seemed like a very elaborate process, one that was going to require a lot of effort. Philip said that it shouldn't be overly burdensome and that's what I was really getting at. When I read this it came across as overly burdensome and going to take a lot of time and I don't think that's your intent and that's why when I was hearing Ron's explanation, that's good. I think that's important, to be -- to make clear in your proposal there. I totally agree with the timely -- timeliness of declaration. And -- and that is a great principle for this. And so I think probably it just, you know, part of the reason I was reading this on my flight over here, right? So the -- >>RON ANDRUFF: Reading? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, I did a lot of reading. So anyway, good, I'm glad you pointed that out, that's very true. >>RON ANDRUFF: If I may just come back quickly to Eric's comment. I'm not sure what draft, Eric, you're looking at but that was -- in the early draft, there was this statement of Section 5227 of the California Not-for-profit Public Benefit Law. We had asked staff to remove that. I'm not sure if it got removed. But we were talking about putting this on international law basis so that it is not a U.S./California issue. We've asked for that, I'm not sure what draft you may be looking at. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ron, I think we have removed all of the sort of legal language. Eric, please. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Nevertheless, a requirement exists for the 501(c)(3) incorporate in California to be responsive to the question. >>RAY FASSETT: If I could make a quick comment. We drew a distinction between conflict of interest and statement of interest. We understood the board, for example, would need to have a more formal, legally sound conflict-of-interest policy. We went with a statement of interest and the other part being the declaration of interest which is the point-in-time aspect. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yes, Philip, please. >>PHILIP SHEPARD: I think for me the point is the California requirement is wholly inadequate for our requirements. >> (Speaker off microphone). >>RON ANDRUFF: We're trying to raise the bar. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Ray, I think I would like to suggest that we may have to adjourn this. We do have people waiting on the phone for the constituency and stakeholder group operation team. Did you want to wrap up? >>RAY FASSETT: Yes, I think we should adjourn, stop the recording, and certainly thank the OSC members for joining us today and their very sound feedback to us. I think we have -- excuse me -- our action steps on the structural document and also some good, solid feedback on the SOI-DOI documents. So with that, unless there's any other business or any other reason to not adjourn the meeting, let's please adjourn. >>RON ANDRUFF: Thank you very much. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Ray. >>RAY FASSETT: Bye-bye. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you for joining us on a Sunday. Is someone else on the phone? >>SS KSHATRIYA: I think Mark, I heard. I did hear his name. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I cannot hear you very well. Did you say Mark? Mike? Okay. >>SS KSHATRIYA: Maybe Mike. Yeah. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Someone else on the phone? Okay, if someone else is joining on the phone, please, just let us know. interrupt us once you get connected. And thank you everyone in the room and those on the phone for joining us on a Sunday. I appreciate that very much. Luckily, I have my computer because that Wiki there is so far away. I cannot see what it says. But okay. So we're -- for you, SS, we're not here. But our screen is quite long for my eyes, which are not very good. So I'm lucky I have the Wiki open on my computer. Thank you very much for joining us this Sunday. We just had a few minutes delay because there was another meeting here in this room. So I apologize for that. But we were already in this room before starting. And sorry for letting you waiting there, SS, on the phone. >>SS KSHATRIYA: Doesn't matter, Olga. It's only 10 minutes. It's Father's Day here and some celebrations. Just to wish all the fathers who are there and would-be fathers to this Father's Day. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Oh, it's Father's Day. You're right. We're so much immersed in this meeting that I forgot. So for those fathers here in the room, have a good day. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes, I want you to know, SS, that I received a call from my youngest granddaughter and my daughter wishing me a happy Father's Day just a few minutes ago. >>SS KSHATRIYA: Whole morning I've been talking to my children and grandchildren. I have quite a few of them. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, SS for reminding me that. Okay. So we -- we have our group here. SS once you have to leave, just do that. And appreciated your joining us even that it's Father's Day and you're far away and on a Sunday. Okay. Thank you. >>SS KSHATRIYA: (Inaudible) Even after I leave it. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I cannot understand what he says. Okay, we start. Thank you for joining. I sent the agenda a few days ago. I hope that you have received it. Anyway, Julie uploaded it into our Wiki page. I would like to make presentation or what you think? They present? Okay. Who is joining with us today and in the room? Perhaps we can start with Tony. >>TONY HARRIS: I don't have too much detail to report today other than the fact that we have a meeting scheduled with Julie Hedlund and Krista Papac. You're in front of me. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Tony, you present yourself so we know who's in the room. And then we'll ask what you have to do and what you have achieved. >>TONY HARRIS: I thought you wanted my report. Okay. I'll backtrack then and rewind. And my name is Tony Harris. I'm from Argentina, Argentine Internet Association. >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes from the U.S. and here as a member of the team. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Olga Cavalli from Argentina. NomCom appointee. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Julie Hedlund, ICANN staff. >>RON ANDRUFF: Ron Andruff, business consistency and member of the GNSO operations work team. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Chris Chaplow from the business constituency and communications work team. >>CLAUDIO DiGANGI: Claudio DiGangi, member of the IPC. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Michael Young, member of the registry constituency. >>KRISTA PAPAC: Krista Papac member of the registrars constituency. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much. Okay. We'll start with the agenda that I sent. If someone wants to add something to the agenda, please let me know. The first point that I wanted to review with you, it's a result of a Doodle poll that Julie sent in relation to which procedure we want to follow about staff informing us about board activities. And, Julie, could you please make the update about this Doodle poll? >>JULIE HEDLUND: Right. So we had eight responses to the Doodle. And there were three options. It was whether or not to add the -- add a report on relevant activities as a standing agenda item, whether to make the report as there are new developments available or whether or not to make the report prior to each meeting. The poll, there were five votes in favor of making the report prior to each meeting and there were three votes in favor of making the report as new information is available. >>OLGA CAVALLI: So the idea would be -- so we have five for provide reports prior to each meeting. So, if there are new things coming from the board, you -- you staff would make an update to the group? That's the idea? >>JULIE HEDLUND: That certainly would be fine. And I would just note that in some cases we might have to say that there was nothing new to report. But we could certainly do that prior to each meeting. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. Any comments about these changes we are doing, improvements that we're doing to our meetings? Okay, Julie. Thank you very much for the Doodle. Rafik is sending me an e-mail that he's on the phone. Rafik, are you on the phone? >>RAFIK DAMMIK: Yes. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Great. Thanks for joining us on Sunday. In a call that I couldn't attend because I was traveling and that Michael was so kind to chair, you -- and I heard the MP3 recording -- you decided to change some ideas about best practices in relation with the functioning of constituencies. As far as I know, I haven't, as a chair, received any feedback from you. I would like to know if there was a some misunderstanding of this task that was agreed in a call, if there is something that will be sent soon, if -- I would like to know the comments of the group about this. Because we extended -- we even extended the time frame for the due date in our last call. But I don't recall receiving any feedback from any of you. So I would like to bring this point. Because I'm a little concerned about the feedback we're receiving from constituencies and U.S. representatives. So I open the floor if you want to comment about this. Chuck, you want to go first? >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. I wouldn't be alarmed. It's just been a couple weeks since we sent it out to the constituencies. And I know in the case of the registry constituency we're going to talk about it in our meeting on Tuesday. And -- >>OLGA CAVALLI: Sorry, Chuck. We're talking about a different issue. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm sorry. >>OLGA CAVALLI: There was a call on the 5th of -- I was traveling. I was in Europe. And Michael chaired the call. It was at the beginning of May. I think it was the 8th of May. And you agreed to exchange in between one or two weeks some best practices. >>CHUCK GOMES: You're on best practices. My apologies. >>OLGA CAVALLI: We had first one deadline for exchange of ideas. And we extended it two weeks more. But, as far as I know, I haven't received your comments. This is what I was wondering if we could exchange some comments about. No comments. Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not the lead of our team. So I'm confused what you're waiting for. >>JULIE HEDLUND: This is Julie. With respect to task four, we had confirmed with Olga that the best and worst practices didn't apply because there isn't currently a toolkit procedure or toolkit available to constituencies. This is really a new concept. So the best and bad practices applied to whether or not we could pull out some ideas from reviewing the constituency and stakeholder group charters to see what might be recommendations we might want to make as far as things to do or not to do related to our work plan. That was my understanding. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Michael, perhaps you can share with us what was the genesis of this idea. Because I didn't participate in this call. And maybe hearing the MP3 and the minutes of this meeting, I'm missing something. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: I'm trying to recall exactly how we ended up on the subject. But the idea came out of some general conversation. I think we were at the time talking about or one of our favorite subjects, and that was the staff reviews of the charters at the time. And because we were talking about these proposed charters that were coming in and comments were coming back, we evolved into a thought that maybe there would be some gains to looking at these new proposed charters and this work that was submitted to see if there were any elements that we thought were good that we could extract and use them as potential recommendations across the board for all groups. So, if one particular constituency or stakeholder group had come up with a really good idea that we thought was usable across the community, then, you know, why not use it rather than try and invent it absolutely from scratch? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yeah. I understand that. But we are not receiving a lot of feedback. So I propose the following: Let's keep this idea of exchanging best practices principles and let's review our work plans and the things to produce as outcomes and see if we can merge these two things and forget about the deadline we had for this exchange of ideas about good and bad practices. Any comments about this? No? Okay. I would like to review with you now our work plans. We have some dates there. We have some -- could we put this in the Wiki? I have it open in my computer. Please remember that we agreed about task one and the different subtasks which are one, two, three, and four. We divided ourselves in subteams, and we agreed in doing and developed different things. We had subtask one. We had a team led by SS with Victoria, Rafik, and Claudio. We have subtask 2. We had Victoria. Victoria is not on the call, right? I haven't heard about her. Julie, she's not on the call? Okay. No problem. We have subtask 3. Krista and Tony. And then we have Julie and Chuck in subtask 4. I would like to exchange comments with the different leaders of the subtask, if you have improved, if you have difficulties in doing your job, if you have achieved something. And it is another point in our agenda how are we going to make outcomes of our work and our analysis. Please remember we have very useful information in two documents produced by Julie. By the way, I would like to again thank Julie. I have said this to her yesterday. But I would like to point my thanks to her because she has been extremely helpful in all this work that we have done in our working group. We have those documents produced by her that already have comments from some members of the working team. And, SS, are you on the line? Okay, SS is not here. Claudio, have you worked with SS maybe? Maybe you can give us some update about subtask 1. How are we? Do we need help? Do you -- could you review the documents that Julie prepared? Could you give us some feedback about it? Because we have a deadline of June -- 20 June that it's already past. Thank you. >>CLAUDIO DiGANGI: We -- as far as I know, I have not -- I am not sure what work SS has put forward on this one or task 2. I mean, I saw that the work that Julie circulated. And I think those are great starting points. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. SS sent already some interesting analysis about your document. Not exactly sentences or recommendations but some analysis that he already did. So maybe we could exchange with him some ideas that we have thought for how to move forward. We have another team led by Victoria. Unfortunately, she's not on the call. She already did a very detailed analysis about the documents that Julie produced. (Speaker off microphone.) Sorry? Krista and Tony. Now, Tony, you have the chance. Sorry it was confusing how I started the meeting. Can you tell us what you have done? I know that you have arranged some meetings during this Sydney meeting to -- in order to review your subtask 3 about the database for constituency members. >>TONY HARRIS: Well, actually, I think I should defer to Krista. I'm the alternate here. But would you like to say something? Or -- okay. Fine. So, basically, we thought, you know, rather than try to do this by e-mail or phone calls since we were all going to be here in Sydney, we have scheduled a meeting for tomorrow with Julie and with Krista to look at this -- at this subject of the database. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Actually, the meeting will also include Ken Bour on the ICANN staff who is quite knowledgeable on the -- on information services within ICANN and will be able to speak to the issue of the membership database. And Rob Hoggarth will join us as well. That will be at 10:00 tomorrow morning. And I have secured a reserved room for us, and I'll send that around to you. >>TONY HARRIS: Yes. I think I did express on one of the phone calls a little concern I have over this -- the whole idea because I remember the days of the general assembly in ICANN in the initial two or three years. And the idea of really ample and sort of open participation in mailing lists and discussing everything, developed into a bit of a nightmare of submissions particularly from some people who had nothing else to do with their lives, I think. I'm not sure if that will produce a lot of productive outputs for what's intended. And then, of course, the matter of privacy was also raised when you're talking about a database. But, anyhow, we'll have a chance to discuss that and report back when we've had our meeting tomorrow. >>KRISTA PAPAC: The other thing I would just add is we -- I'm also scheduled to talk with the chair of the registrar constituency. And, you know, we need to also think about talking to the other constituencies about how they currently manage their member list, which is sort of one of the other tasks on here to again gather their practices and see what challenges they've had. I know privacy comes up in a number of areas in the ICANN space. And I'm, you know, guessing it's going to come up here. But at least we can gather that information and then decide how helpful it is in addressing this subtask. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes, Chuck. Go ahead. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a comment. And I know both of you know this very well. But just remember that members are defined very differently in different stakeholder groups. And so you're probably not only talking about a member list but maybe membership delegates. For example, in the case of the registries, it's registry operators that are members of the registry constituency, not individual people. And probably what we're talking about here is delegates from those members in the case of us. And it may be the same for ISPs. I don't know. So, just a caution, to remember to make that distinction when you're looking at this issue. >>KRISTA PAPAC: So meaning -- clearly, I understand what you're saying as far as the member is in the registry case of VeriSign or dot mobi or NeuStar. But I think also you're going to have a primary contact that's associated with that. And you're saying just to be clear that you have the member and then the primary contact as -- >>CHUCK GOMES: And it doesn't just necessarily have to be primary contacts either, depending what you decide to do or recommend or something. The point is, whereas, I might be a contact and Michael is a contact for Afilias, that's probably more what you're looking for here than Afilias and VeriSign as who are literally the members. The companies are the members. >>KRISTA PAPAC: I think we want both though, right? >>CHUCK GOMES: Probably and possibly. That's something that's going to have to be decided. Keep in mind this is an idea that was put out there. Tony has already communicated some reservations there. And we could -- you know, you guys could decide to come back and recommend to this full working team that, you know, we don't think this is a good idea, or we think it should be controlled this way, or here's how we should handle privacy or something. So don't think this is -- and, Julie, correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think this is one of the absolute board recommendations. This is an idea -- one idea that was put forward as a possible fulfillment of a board recommendation. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yeah. Chuck, that's correct. I mean, it's developing recommendations for creating and maintaining a database. Those recommendations might be very minimal. Or perhaps, you know, it could be a different way to address that particular recommendation that I think has just more to do with knowing -- being able to access constituent members and being able to access constituency members. Stakeholder group members too as well. >>CHRIS CHAPLOW: Chris Chaplow, if I could just drop in. From reading the LSE documents and so on, there was one thing that did stand out. I know it was only a recommendation, but I think it was quite an important one. Thanks. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I personally find it -- sorry, Krista, I just have one comment -- I personally find it useful. But I know that there are some concerns about databases. And people that really experienced as Tony already has pointed this out, so perhaps we reach to the idea that it must be limited or not necessary. Krista, I'm sorry I interrupted you. >>KRISTA PAPAC: No worries. Coming back even around to what you're saying, Chuck, I mean, there's a number of reasons I think you are making that distinction, but is it less challenging from a privacy perspective if it's a company that we're naming off rather than a person, meaning it's VeriSign rather than Chuck Gomes or -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I think it is. >>KRISTA PAPAC: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think it is less challenging. >>KRISTA PAPAC: I'm just closing the circle of thought in my own head. >>CHUCK GOMES: The intent of my statement, though, was -- be careful how we word it. You're talking about more than a membership roster. You're talking about a membership roster and member delegate roster, probably, I don't know what the best term is to call it, but that's all I was saying, okay? I noticed even in -- in one of the things that this group has done is to review the -- staff reviewed our charters, proposed charters and so forth, and one of the things that they said was, is that the registry constituency charter, or that the registries did not publish a list of their members. Well, that was an inaccurate statement. We do. But they were looking for people names, they weren't looking for company names who are our members so... >>KRISTA PAPAC: Okay, thank you. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay, thank you very much. And then we have seas (inaudible) -- Julie, I understand that this letter about the ICANN staff support was already sent to the constituencies. We're still waiting for some feedback. Could you give us some comments about that. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Yeah, we did send it out to the constituencies and I think that Chuck was addressing this earlier and I can refer to him on this but there have been a lot of activities going on recently and so it's perhaps not that surprising that we haven't gotten responses from the constituencies to our request concerning the tool kit. And I guess I would wonder whether or not it's worth to wait until sometime after Sydney and send a reminder or just assume that maybe people will get back to this after Sydney. Chuck, do you have any suggestions? >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, first of all, keep in mind I think we gave a deadline at the end of July. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: So there's no need for alarm right now. Like I told you with regard to the registries and maybe other constituency representatives here today can give us a quick update in terms of their area, but it's on our agenda for our meeting Tuesday. And we -- I briefly mentioned it in our call a couple weeks ago for the registry. So -- and it may be, because keep in mind, staff did a good survey on this and it may be that people don't have many additions to it, that's a possible outcome. But I think maybe after you give people a little time to settle down after these meetings that it would be very good to send a reminder. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Great idea. So we can send a reminder after the meeting. Any other comment about subtask four, Julie, that you could give us. >>JULIE HEDLUND: Okay I don't have, I have anything more add but we can wait after Sydney for a reminder after we've given people time to settle back into their offices. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much Julie. And any comments, any comments from people on the phone, Rafik, something to comment? >>RAFIK DAMMIK: No. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. So I would like to share some ideas that we've been talking about with Julie and with Michael about how to move forward and I would like to refer -- this is point five of our agenda -- I would like to refer to the charter that we that we approved and we agreed to do is that we should develop proposals for council consideration, recommendations for improving inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency of the GNSO constituency and stakeholder group, operations and their interactions with other GNSO structures. Outreach efforts, broader participation, you remember our charter. What we did some -- a while ago, please remember, we started in Mexico at the end of -- February? We have been working for three months. And we should start to build these sentences, to find these recommendations, to build our outcome. So we have exchanged some ideas and Julie did a great job. We -- I sent it to the list maybe two hours ago. Some examples of how we could go through the document that she prepared and try to extract some sentences that are relevant for trying to set up these recommendations that we should do. Let me try to find this e-mail I sent to you, for example, in subtask one which is develop recommendations for a set of participation rules and operating procedures, so it's really related with participation and constituencies and stakeholder groups, stakeholder groups develop recommended framework for participation, what Julie did, she went through the document and she extracted some -- some sentences that are relevant to all the charters that are reviewed in the document. Which, for example, the constituency stakeholder groups should provide guideline rules, participation in the constituency and stakeholder group including participation, qualification, recognition, structure, rights and responsibilities such as participating in policy development and elections, publicly available information about membership, eligibility requirements, application procedures, application decisions, clear avenue appeal for application rejection including reviewing by a neutral party, a consensus-building mechanism for policy development including procedures for recording minority -- mi- -- oh, minority positions -- sorry for my English -- did you receive this document I sent two hours ago? This is an example of what I think that we could start doing, sincerely talking to you, I think this division in smaller work teams and this work plan is not moving forward. I don't see outcomes. So I would propose that we restart our work having this idea in mind, trying to find, going through the document that Julie prepared, trying to find sentences for building our draft document about recommendations. Perhaps we could again review who is in charge of which part of the document, who is in charge of which subtask and try to find the sentences in reviewing the documents that she prepared. Is this a good idea, do you think this is feasible, do you think it's a way to move forward? Tony, go ahead. >>TONY HARRIS: Well, first of all, I'm not quite sure which document this is. >>OLGA CAVALLI: It's an e-mail I sent to the list two hours ago. >>TONY HARRIS: I got your e-mail but when you're referring to the Julie because I have several from Julie. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Julie prepared two documents, I have hard copies here, if you want I can share them with you. Maybe we can give copies to the -- >>TONY HARRIS: That will be very useful because I'm not too sure what it is. >>OLGA CAVALLI: I think they are very useful documents. They are two big tables. She went through all the charters of the different constituencies and so she prepared a table with -- with the task and subtask that we should write about and make our recommendations, and then each of the columns refers to a different constituency. But she went further than referring only the charters. She also did something which I think it's very useful in referring the subtasks that she's talking about, she says that if it fits the criteria or if it doesn't fit the criteria. So she made a first yes or no analysis, of course, from her perspective and we are here to discuss if we want to enhance or change this, it's just a food for thought, this document is just the beginning of our discussion. So I would recommend that we should go through this document and try to find the sentences for perhaps each of these boxes, each of these rows in this table and try to identify these different principles that we should find. What I would like to stress is the value -- thank you, thank you so much, Julie. The value of you that work in different constituencies because you have the experience, you have the -- you know which is the dynamic of your working groups, of your constituencies, so this feedback is relevant. If I review the charters that I don't work specifically in any constituency and I've been involved in the GNSO for maybe one year and a half, I may not find just using my common sense useful information as an outcome. So I would rather work with you but not leading this work because it could not make a real outcome. So how do you suggest to proceed. Any comments? Any ideas? How could we divide this task that we have to face? >>CHUCK GOMES: Olga, which task in particular are you talking about? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Something that we have been discussing with Julie and also with Michael today and yesterday is that we should start to define some sentences, some text that is related with the outcome that we should produce which is these recommendations that we describe in our charter. Maybe I'm wrong. This is why I'm bringing this issue to you and exchange some ideas. Am I clear, Chuck, or did you receive the e-mail I -- that I sent two hours ago? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Olga, maybe I should try and -- >>OLGA CAVALLI: Please go ahead. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Yeah. I will -- perhaps not diplomatically enough but I'll cut to the chase, really, with this. You know, we try to organize our work around these subtasks. And to provide leadership for each subtask. And in a couple of the subtasks we've had progress and people have made headway. And I think that that's really great to see. In a couple of the subtasks -- and I'm not sure we have any answer at this group right now why -- we've made little or no progress whatsoever. In fact, one of the leaders of the subtask groups isn't on the call right now. So that makes it very difficult to understand what's going on there. At some point we're searching for an answer to how to move forward to move forward on those subtasks that we're not making progress on and I think that's where our concern is. One idea, just to push the progress forward, is to ask -- and I don't know if this is the subtask leaders because we haven't necessarily had enough leadership from those subtask leaders in some cases, or progress, and I'm not questioning why they haven't progressed, they may have very good reasons why not that I'm not aware of, I'm just noting that we haven't progressed, we need to progress. We're not making distance here. We're going to end up slowly down this entire process unnecessarily and the suggestion is really that we start to get some recommendations down for the -- within the subtasks and even if they are frankly pulled out of other charters, out of proposed charters, out of people's raw ideas, that's fine, we need to get something down on paper in these -- within these subtasks so that we can, as a group, start reviewing them commenting on them and start building some real recommendations. Really what we're talking about is just draft recommendations. For each of these elements say, for example, take subtask one we would expect in each of these bullet points a minimum of three raw recommendations. And then that starts a discussion point. They can be taken from proposed charters, they can be taken from other people's best practices, it really doesn't matter where they come from as long as they're applicable and useful. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. And the reason I was somewhat confused is because this is coming across as a task for all of us and I was wondering which task you're talking about. It seems to me -- I mean, what you're saying is absolutely right. We need to track progress and make sure people are making progress. But wouldn't it be more effective to suggest what you're suggesting to the leads of the individual subtasks rather than talking to the whole group as a whole? You know, do we have subtask leaders that aren't going to be able to do it? We should find out whether they're going to be able to do it and at the same time give them some suggestions like you're doing. See, I was listening to it, okay, so Julie and I are working on a task and I'm trying to figure out, okay, now, how does this relate to me? Because you're at a high level. It probably helps to communicate the message that I now am understanding from both of you to the subtask leads and see, now, has their ability to do that changed? If so, we need to regroup. If not, here's some ideas that can help -- does that make sense? >>MICHAEL YOUNG: I think that makes perfect sense, Chuck. And, you know, we've tried to reach out to everybody who has deliverables. And in some cases, you know, the answer is I'll have to shift the date. And I don't know at what point we can start saying as a group, well, we can't keep shifting dates so can we delegate or transfer that responsibility to somebody else? I don't know. But we need to do something. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Chuck, if I may, I'm so sorry, I didn't meant that your subgroup didn't do the job. By the way, it's all done and perfectly achieved. Just a general concern that we, Julie, Michael and myself have shared. And the idea of bringing it to the whole group is just to exchange ideas because maybe I'm making some mistakes in proposing some ideas and perhaps you think this is not right and there are other ways to face the issue, the task that we have to do. So -- but I agree with you that the leaders should say if they are going to commit to the task that they have agreed or not. Any other comments from the group? >>CHUCK GOMES: Just this -- and I think that you and Michael as chair and cochair, vice chair, you know, it's okay for you to make a decision that if you're getting unresponsiveness from some work team members, to, you know, just be a little bit aggressive in terms of, okay, if you can't do it, just let us know and if they're still not responsive then I think it needs to be brought back to this group to see, okay, can we get some other volunteers for this or something. So if you have to get, you know, do more on your part, I think it's okay for you to do that if it becomes -- if it looks like we're just not making any progress in some area 'cause I understand the awkwardness of your situation. That's the problem with volunteer-type groups, right? But feel -- I would encourage you, to the extent that you judge necessary, to go ahead and, you know, suggest some changes if you're not getting anything back. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. I'm thinking about two different issues. One, if -- is -- just let me tell you that Michael and myself already sent e-mails, personal e-mails, to all the leaders, so we have gone through that process somehow. Maybe we should insist more. So one thing would be if the leaders have the time and maybe they want, really, to commit to this task that they have to do, and other thing is sharing -- and this, I would like your feedback -- if you think that this -- the revision of this document that Julie prepared, having in mind, trying to find this general principles and sentences that are relevant for each of the constituencies, you think it's -- it's a way to start preparing our -- some outcome from our working team, this is something I would like your feedback and sharing with you this idea, maybe you have another idea or some other way to do it, this is something I would like to -- your comments. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, first of all, it depends on the particular subtask. But I think you have to be careful. Our task, as a working team, is not to recommend elements of charters. So first of all, we need to understand that it's not our role to evaluate charters. Now, that said, we should still -- I mean, there are elements in these that are good practices, that's why we were doing the best practice things and things that we may want to recommend aspirins, as best practices or whatever, but specifically related to the board recommendations. So we should always be working from the specific board recommendations in terms of what we pull out of there. It's not just enough -- it's really easy to get confused with a document like this that, okay, let's evaluate whose charter's right and whose charter's wrong, that's not our role. But there are things in here that are good, that might be good principles for the whole -- you know, to recommend. Now, we always have to understand that each stakeholder group, each constituency's going to have its own variations and that's healthy, that's not bad. But there are areas of common interest and to the extent that we can find those as they relate to a specific board recommendation, which we organized our tasks by, right, is -- is good. I don't know if that's helpful or not. >>OLGA CAVALLI: It is, at least for me, very much helpful. Yeah, the idea of reviewing the different charters was not to repeat things that are in the charters but to try to find this information that comes from the context of the working dynamic of each constituency. That's the idea, I think, that we should work on. Well, how could we achieve this? Should we still keep this task, subtask structure, should we change it? Should we go to each leader and subleader of the different subtasks and see and get some feedback from them if they're going to achieve something or -- this is something I would like to share with you. Michael, perhaps you have some idea to share with us? >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Well, listening to what Chuck has said, and thank you, Chuck, for the support, I really -- we really appreciate that. And considering that, you know, I'm looking at this subtask structure and in terms of dividing up work, it's logical, it's rational. I think that's why we did it in the first place. I think the problem is that we haven't had the responsiveness we wanted to see on all four subtasks. We've got two lagging behind, frankly, and rather than change the whole work structure or the plan that we've done we should address the real problems Chuck said and we'll go to the individual subtask leaders and if they can not make the dates that the group feels is reasonable for the work then we'll ask for other volunteers. I think that's a reasonable approach. And, you know, I -- it's nothing to be said for, as I said, the subtask leaders that maybe have not proposed what we had hoped to, everybody has day jobs, everybody is well intentioned here. And there may be actually work surrounding this we're not aware of that has slowed them down so that's something for us to clarify one last time. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much, Michael. So we have four different work plans. And what we're referring specifically is subtask one and two so we could contact Victoria and SS and check with them, we could do that, Michael and Julie, with private e-mails, not going through the list, and see if they can catch up with the -- with what they committed to. Chris and Tony, is that okay, if you keep working with your subtask three, is that find for you. >>KRISTA PAPAC: I'll speak for Krista, I'll let Tony speak for Tony, but I will be sort of forthright where I'm one of the people that has lagged and I had some -- took on a little more than I can handle but I will also say that I feel like between the meeting we have set up tomorrow and some of the other things I have going on this week that I think we're going to go from zero to, you know, 75 much -- in a very short period of time and we might have started slow but I think we're going to get caught up and -- at least that's my intention and looking forward to Tony's help and if he agrees with that. >>TONY HARRIS: Yeah, I think that's exactly what I feel. We'll catch up tomorrow. How's that sound? Is that too far in the future? [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, could you speed it up? >>MICHAEL YOUNG: That works for us, yeah. Krista, I thank you for that. The point is you're commuting that and I think a few weeks when you were trying to wind up some items I think in your schooling you were quite straightforward about it and the group understood and I think you communicated when you're able to apply for time to it. That's a meaningful thing, we can work with that, it's when we don't know what's going on that creates the problem. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Tony and Krista. Let's do the following. We will contact Victoria, SS and the rest of the volunteers for the subtask one and two and see if we -- if they are going to commit their work or if we perhaps talk with the group if we need to find some other volunteers or perhaps constituencies good, perhaps pointe some other people working in the work team to do these tasks, which is not easy, Tony looks at me like what are you asking for, Olga, this is kind of difficult. But, okay, let's do that. And after Sydney, after we return to our homes, or maybe during this week, what do you think, Julie, could we do this, talking -- sending e-mails to SS and to Victoria or do you think it's after, after Sydney? >>JULIE HEDLUND: I think, I mean, I think it's most appropriate, of course, to have the e-mail message come from you and from Michael. I'm certainly happy to assist with that. And this week, if you would like. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. I don't know, we are all very busy this week. And we'll see. We can check. If we are able to do this week, the e-mail is fine. If not, we can do it once we return to our regular jobs. >>CHUCK GOMES: Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a question, maybe a comment. Have you been getting responses to e-mails? And then I lead into the comment. If not, you may at some point want to make a phone call. Now, I know that's hard with the different time zones. But we deal with that all the time in this world. So if you're not getting responses back on the e-mail, it might be good to just do one of you, probably don't have to be both of you, if you want it to be both of you and can do conference calls that's fine but at some point it might take -- if you're not getting e-mail responsiveness -- now, there can be some special circumstances going on, too, so all you want to know is communicate with us, let us know if that's the case. So I just would suggest, e- mail's great, some of us really use it really well and effectively, some people don't. So... >>MICHAEL YOUNG: That's a very good point. Thank you, Chuck. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. And we'll do that. First an e- mail and then maybe a phone call. And I agree with Michael that Krista was very clear that she had some commitments and thanks to urgent and very important in her life and that's fine but she communicated and she has started working so that's the kind of feedback that we need so we know how to plan our work. So we will do that e-mail and if not a phone call. I can draft that with Michael and perhaps we need some -- we'll request some help from you Julie or not, we will see. Any comments about this? Any other ideas of -- this revision of the document prepared by Julie is my idea, really. Maybe you have some other ones. How to exchange experience about your dynamics of the constituencies, how some other ideas that you have to start writing some of our outcome text. No problem. If you think that you have any idea you can share it with us in our list. But please feel free to criticizes me, if you don't like the way that I think maybe you didn't like it and it's fine, tell me, "Olga, you're wrong, and we think it should be done another way." What I would like to do is just to bring ideas to move forward. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Okay. Any other comments? Any other business? Great. I think we're done. >>TONY HARRIS: I'd just like to thank Olga and Michael for being so patient and being so perseverant, and I think you'll see some better results now. And I think your suggestions here were good, by the way. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you very much, Tony. Thank you for being here on Saturday -- Sunday and on Father's Day. And we keep in touch through the list. Remember to check the Wiki and remember that we are able to change the Wiki. We have edit rights, right? So if someone is so courageous to change the Wiki, just do it, change dates or put some information. I use Wikis a lot with my students. I find them really very useful, but not everyone likes to work with Wikis. So thank you very much and we'll see you around.