ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

GNSO COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM
FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER 2005
ICANN MEETING, VANCOUVER, B.C.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY, WELCOME EVERYBODY, MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN AND I'M
CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.

THIS MORNING, THE AGENDA THAT'S, I GUESS, BEEN POSTED IN RECENT WEEKS AND
ALSO SEEMS TO BE ON MOST OF THE NOTICE BOARDS AROUND WAS CHANGED EARLIER THIS
WEEK SO THAT THE CURRENT AGENDA FOR THE DAY IS AS IT APPEARS ON THE ICANN WEB
SITE.

, I GUESS, WE'LL CALL THIS DYNAMIC AGENDAS.

SO THIS SESSION IS BASICALLY SCHEDULED NOW AS A PUBLIC FORUM.

WE WILL -- THE FORMAT OF THE PUBLIC FORUM IS ESSENTIALLY SHORT PRESENTATIONS
ON KEY TOPICS.

AND THEN IF ANYBODY WISHES TO ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE COMMENTS ON THOSE TOPICS,
THEY'RE FREE TO DO SO BY THE MICROPHONES ON THE FLOOR.

SO TO KICK OFF THE PUBLIC FORUM, I THINK -- YEP, THERE'S AN AGENDA UP THERE.

SO THAT THE FIRST THING IS TO REPORT ON SOME OF THE MEETINGS THAT HAVE
HAPPENED EARLIER THIS WEEK AMONGST THE GNSO COMMUNITY.

AND THIS WEEK, WE STARTED FAIRLY EARLY, THERE WAS A MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY
AFTERNOON.

AND I'LL HAND ACROSS TO BRET FAUSETT TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW ON THE PURPOSE OF
THAT MEETING AND SOME OF THE OUTCOMES FROM THAT MEETING.



>>BRET FAUSETT: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

WE HELD, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CONSTITUENCY, MANY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES HERE, AND THE COUNCIL AND THE AT
LARGE, HELD AN OPEN FORUM ON THE DOT COM REGISTRY AGREEMENT AND THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT WITH VERISIGN ON TUESDAY.

IT LASTED ABOUT THREE HOURS.

WE RECORDED IT, AND THERE ARE MP3S AVAILABLE.

AND THOSE ARE LINKED FROM THE ICANNWIKI PAGE, ALSO FROM MY WEB LOG.

SO IF YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO IT IF YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD IT AND
HAVE SOMETHING TO LISTEN TO ON THE WAY HOME.

WE USED IT PRIMARILY AS A TALKING SESSION TO COMPARE NOTES AND GATHER
INFORMATION THAT WOULD INFORM THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCY AND AT-LARGE
STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE INDIVIDUALLY FORWARDED TO THE BOARD.

WE STARTED WITH PREPARED PRESENTATIONS FROM VARIOUS GROUPS WHO WANTED TO GET
THEIR THOUGHTS OUT ON THE TABLE, AND THEN WE HAD ABOUT TWO HOURS OF AN OPEN
MIKE SORT OF SESSION WHERE PEOPLE TALKED TO EACH OTHER AND EXCHANGED VIEWS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE PRODUCTIVE.

ROSS RADER WAS OUR -- I WON'T CALL HIM OUR REAL-TIME SCRIBE, BUT HE PREPARED
A MINDJET PRESENTATION THAT GRABBED THEMES THAT HE WAS HEARING AND ORGANIZED
THEM.

AND THAT ALSO IS LINKED FROM THE ICANNWIKI PAGE, ICANNWIKI.ORG.

THERE'S A SETTLEMENT PAGE THERE, AND ALL THE MATERIALS ARE LINKED THERE.

AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A NICE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO COMPARE NOTES.

AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT A LOT OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT HAS NOW FED INTO
THE BOARD VIA VARIOUS CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

THANK YOU, BRET.

I THINK WHAT I MIGHT DO IS START WITH THE CONSTITUENCY REPORTS, AND PERHAPS
THEN GET RESPONSES FROM THE AUDIENCE FOR BOTH WHAT BRET SAID PLUS THOSE
REPORTS, BECAUSE I SUSPECT THERE WERE SIMILAR TOPICS.

THE FIRST OF THOSE IS THE BUSINESS USERS' CONSTITUENCY.

I THINK WE HAVE PHILIP SHEPPARD, IF HE COULD GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE MEETINGS YESTERDAY, ON THURSDAY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE BC MEETING FOLLOWED, AS USUAL, THE CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS.

AND PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUES IN THE IPC WILL PICK UP SOME OF THE USEFUL TOPICS
WE HAD IN THAT MEETING AS THEY WERE KIND ENOUGH TO HAVE ORGANIZED IT THIS
TIME AROUND.

SO IN THE BC MEETING ITSELF, BESIDES AN UPDATE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES AND THE RECENT PROPOSALS FOR NEW PDPS THAT THE COUNCIL WAS
DOING, WE ALSO SPENT A LITTLE TIME TALKING ABOUT WIPO 2.

THAT WAS ALSO RESPONDING A LITTLE BIT TO SOME FEEDBACK WE HAD WITH OUR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD.

AND IT'S SOMETHING, I THINK, THAT THE CONSTITUENCIES DECIDED NOW TO TRY TO
LOOK AT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO SEE WHAT THEY MAY BE ABLE TO DO ON THAT,
BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY A TOPIC THAT INTERESTS VERY MANY MEMBERS OF OUR
CONSTITUENCY.

WE DISCUSSED, OF COURSE, A LITTLE BIT ALSO ABOUT THE BOARD FEEDBACK, AND WE
HAD -- IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING UP TWO DISCUSSIONS WE'D HAD IN THE LAST PART OF
THE CROSS CONSTITUENCY MEETING TO DO WITH THE WSIS, WHERE WE HAD TWO VERY
GOOD PRESENTATIONS IN TERMS OF THE WSIS OUTCOME.

THERE HAD BEEN AN APPEAL MADE DURING THOSE FOR PUTTING -- MAKING INPUT TO THE
UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL IN TERMS OF WHAT PRECISELY WAS MEANT BY THE
OUTCOME THERE, WHAT THE WORK OF THE IGF IS GOING TO BE DOING AND THINGS LIKE
THAT.

AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE INPUT.

AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT APPEAL TO INPUT VERY SERIOUSLY AND SEE IF WE
CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.

WE ALSO HAD AN INTERESTING PRESENTATION ON THE ICANNWIKI.ORG.

AND AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, A GOOD PART OF IT ALSO WAS DISCUSSED IN THE --
DISCUSSING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

AND WE NOW HAVE A FINAL POSITION ON THAT THAT'S BEEN INFORMED A LITTLE BIT BY
DISCUSSION THIS WEEK.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THE KEY POINTS OF OUR POSITION ARE
ON THAT, WITHOUT REPEATING EVERYTHING THAT'S IN OUR PAPER.

BUT, ESSENTIALLY, WE AS THE BC STARTED OFF LOOKING AT THREE BOARD QUESTIONS.

THOSE TO DO WITH PROCESS AND PRECEDENT, IS AN EFFECT ON EITHER THE EXISTING
OR THE FUTURE POLICY DEVELOPMENT ROLE OF THE GNSO IN THESE BILATERAL
SETTLEMENTS.

AND WE THOUGHT, YES, THERE WAS EFFECT.

IS THERE AN IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE OVERSIGHT ROLE OF ICANN.

WE THOUGHT, YES, THERE WAS.

THERE WAS CONCERN THERE.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE IMPACT ON USERS?

OF COURSE, THERE ARE ADVANTAGES IN JUST THE SETTLEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT
ITSELF IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ENDING LITIGATION.

IT WAS -- COST ADVANTAGES, REMOVES UNNECESSARY COST AND DISTRACTION.

WE WELCOMED THE COMMITMENT TO FUTURE PROCESS OF BINDING ARBITRATION, BECAUSE
THIS IS A MEANS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THAT IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH GLOBAL
NORMS.

AND WE WELCOMED STEPS, OF COURSE, TOWARDS THE STABLE FUNDING OF ICANN,
BECAUSE A STABLE ICANN IS AN EFFECTIVE ICANN.

THE FOUR POINTS WHERE WE SAW DISADVANTAGES TO COMMERCIAL USERS ARE THE
FOLLOWING: ONE IS THE INCLUSION OF A DIFFERENT TEXT FOR NEW REGISTRY
SERVICES, WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A DIFFERENCE, GIVEN THAT
THE GNSO HAS POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK IN THIS RESPECT ALREADY.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PRESUMPTIVE
RIGHT OF RENEWAL AND THE LINKING THAT HAS TO THE REGISTRY PRICE.

THIRD, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO DATA AND, AGAIN, LOOKING
AT THE COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF THAT, IS THERE A STEP TOO FAR HERE IN TERMS OF
THE LEVERAGING OF UPSTREAM MONOPOLY, DOWNSTREAM TO MARKETS WHO SHOULD
OTHERWISE BE COMPETITIVE?

AND WE THINK PERHAPS THAT NEEDS LOOKING AT FURTHER.

AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CREATION OF SPECIAL FUNDS IN THE REGISTRY-LEVEL
TRANSACTION FEES INCREASE.

THESE ARE THE FEES THAT ARE PAYABLE TO ICANN. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE IS PROPER AND FULL OVERSIGHT IN THE NORMAL WAY THE ICANN BUDGET
PROCESS WITHIN THOSE.

THIS HAS ENDED UP WITH THE BC MAKING FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO DO WITH THOSE
PARTICULAR ASPECTS.

AND I'LL JUST, FOR THE RECORD, ALSO SAY WHAT THOSE ARE.

SO THE BC SUPPORTS AN AMICABLE RESOLUTION TO THE LITIGATION BETWEEN VERISIGN
AND ICANN.

BUT WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN ITS PRESENT FORM.

THE BC SEEKS THE FOLLOWING FIVE CHANGES BEFORE IT CAN SUPPORT ADOPTION
SETTLEMENT BY THE ICANN BOARD.

NUMBER ONE, ON SERVICES, WE CALL FOR THE DELETION OF THE SECTION ON REGISTRY
SERVICES AND DELETION OF EXEMPTION PERIOD FOR REGISTRY SERVICES FROM THE
SETTLEMENT, AND THE INSERTION OF A REFERENCE TO ICANN CONSENSUS POLICY ON THE
REGISTRY SERVICES INSTEAD.

SECONDLY, ON RENEWAL, WE CALL FOR THE DELETION OF THE PRESUMPTIVE RIGHTS OF
RENEWAL CLAUSE IN THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT, AND FOR THE ICANN BOARD TO CONSIDER
A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON THE WIDER ISSUE IN TERMS OF PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT
ON ANY REGISTRY CONTRACT.

THIRD, ON DATA, WE CALL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT SECTION ON TRAFFIC
DATA, AND ALSO WE BELIEVE THAT THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF DATA
IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT IN A WIDER CONTEXT.

AND FOUR ON FUNDS, WE'RE SEEKING CONFIRMATION THAT ANY SPECIAL FUNDS CREATED
UNDER THIS CONTRACT ARE INDEED EXPLICITLY INCORPORATED WITHIN THE ICANN
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS AND THE ICANN BUDGET REVIEW.

I SAID FIVE POINTS EARLIER.

AND ONE POINT CONCERNED ONE OTHER ASPECT OF THE TOTAL SETTLEMENT PACKAGE
AGREEMENTS.

AND THIS IS TO DO WITH THE ROOT SERVER MANAGEMENT TRANSITION COMPLETION
AGREEMENT.

THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE.

WHERE ALTHOUGH WE SEE IT HAS MANY POSITIVE POINTS, AGAIN IT SEEMS TO BE
SUGGESTING THAT THERE MAY BE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP FOR ONE ROOT SERVER
OPERATOR OVER ALL OTHERS. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEKING THERE IS SIMPLY OVERSIGHT.

SO THE BC ASKS FOR INSERTION OF AN OVERSIGHT CLAUSE WHICH SPECIFIES THE
METHODOLOGY OF THAT OVERSIGHT WHEREBY THE BROADER COMMUNITY INTERESTS WILL BE
REPRESENTED.

SO AS I SAY, THOSE ARE FIVE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BC IN TERMS OF
THE CHANGES WE ARE SEEKING IN THIS CONTRACT BEFORE WE WOULD BE SATISFIED AS A
CONSTITUENCY THAT IT IS, INDEED, A GOOD CONTRACT FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

WHAT I MIGHT JUST DO NOW IS JUST CHECK TO SEE WHETHER WE HAVE ANYBODY --
INFANT COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE PHONE.

OKAY, THEY'RE ACCESSING THIS BY WEB CAST.

>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, LET ME -- LET ME CONTRIBUTE TO INFORMATION ON THAT.

ALICK WILSON IS TRYING TO DIAL IN, AND HE HE IS UNABLE TO ACCESS THE BRIDGE,
AND APPARENTLY CAN'T EVEN SEE THE WEB CAST.

SO I ASSUME GRANT IS ALSO TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING.

CAN WE JUST GET AN UPDATE ON THAT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO SET UP A TELEPHONE BRIDGE.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS BETWEEN THE I GUESS PRESENTED PROGRAM
VERSUS THE ONLINE AGENDA.

SO THE STAFF HADN'T REALIZED --

>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME ASK, THEN, GLEN, WOULD YOU -- I WILL COMMUNICATE WITH
ALICK ONLINE.

LET ME CHECK THE TIME IN NEW ZEALAND AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD CALL OUR OTHER
COUNCILLOR.

BUT LET ME CHECK THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SO WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING, IF WE CAN HAVE A REPORT FROM THE REGISTRIES
CONSTITUENCY FROM MARIA.

>> MARIA ZITKOVA: HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MARIA ZITKOVA.

I AM THE CHAIR OF THE GTLD REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY.

AND I HAVE A BRIEF REPORT FROM THE GTLD REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY.

I SHOULD SAY IN ADVANCE THAT THE REPORT IS MORE OF AN OVERALL UPDATE, BECAUSE
THE CONSTITUENCY MEETS EVERY TWO WEEKS, AND MEETINGS DURING ICANN MEETINGS
ARE A CULMINATION RATHER THAN A SINGLE MEETING OF THE CONSTITUENCY.

DURING THE LAST YEAR, THE CONSTITUENCY HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY.

WE DO HAVE NOW SIX MEMBERS FROM UNSPONSORED TLDS WE HAVE SEVEN SPONSORED TLDS
AND WE DO HAVE THREE OBSERVERS FROM TO-BE-SPONSORED TLDS.

AND THE GROUP HAS GROWN NOT ONLY IN SIZE, BUT ALSO IN DIVERSITY.

WE HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE COURSE OF THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS A SET OF ISSUES
AND PRIORITIES FOR 2006.

AND I FELT THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO GO THROUGH THIS.

IT WILL REFLECT THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD ON THIS ICANN MEETING.

THE FIRST PRIORITY THAT IS ON OUR LIST CONCERNS THE WHOIS PRIVACY ISSUES.

THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS DO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF COUNTRIES
WHERE THEY OPERATE.

AND THERE ARE CERTAIN CONCERNS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CURRENT CONTRACTS
ARE NOT ALWAYS EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE LOCAL LEGISLATION WE HAVE COSPONSORED
THE PRIVACY CONFERENCE ON THIS ICANN MEETING THAT WILL DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.

WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE TOGETHER WITH REGISTRARS ON THE JOINT
REGISTRY/REGISTRAR MEETING.

AND WE HAD INTENSIVE DISCUSSION WITH ICANN BOARD AND SENIOR STAFF.

AS A CONSTITUENCY, WE ARE VERY KEEN TO SEE THIS ISSUE BEING RESOLVED DURING
THE NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR ABILITY TO
CONTINUE PROVIDING THE SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS.

THE SECOND ISSUE OF OUR ISSUES CONCERNS INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

AS YOU KNOW, THE GTLD REGISTRIES ARE VERY INVOLVED IN ALL ACTIVITIES
CONCERNING IDNS.

WE HAVE VERY ACTIVELY COOPERATED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW VERSION OF THE IDN
GUIDELINES.

WE DO INTEND TO COOPERATE VERY MUCH.

WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF IDN.IDN.

AND WE DO WANT TO SEE IT ADDRESSED IN A DELIBERATE MANNER IN A WAY THAT
PRESERVES SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE SINGLE ROOT.

IN ADDITION TO INTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS IN THE CONSTITUENCY, WE HAVE ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATED IN THE IDN WORKSHOP, AND FOR THE NEXT YEAR, WE PLAN TO JUST
CONTINUE BEING VERY INVOLVED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WE HAVE.

THE THIRD AREA OF CONSTITUENCY PRIORITIES CONCERNS ICANN ITSELF, ITS
PLANNING, BUDGETING, AND CONTROL PROCESSES.

WE ALL WANT TO SEE ICANN BEING MORE PREDICTABLE AND BUSINESSLIKE ENVIRONMENT
FOR INTERACTION WITH REGISTRIES.

AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH ICANN ON IMPROVING THE RESPONSIVENESS TO INDIVIDUAL
REGISTRY REQUESTS.

ONE EXAMPLE WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH ICANN BOARD AND SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS AND,
I BELIEVE, DISCUSSED VERY POSITIVELY, IS, FOR EXAMPLE, ISSUING TICKETS FOR
INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW REGISTRIES TO ACTUALLY TRACK OF STATUS
OF REQUESTS.

THE FOURTH PRIORITY, WHICH WAS NOT DISCUSSED TOO MUCH ON THIS MEETING, BUT
VERY MUCH CONCERNS PLANNING FOR NEXT YEAR, IS THE GNSO REVIEW PROCESS.

THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY DOES HAVE ITS OWN ISSUES AND PRIORITIES THAT
CONCERN GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE GNSO.

IT IS ABOUT REPRESENTATIVENESS OF CONSTITUENCIES, IT'S ABOUT FINDING
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PDP PROCESS.

IT'S ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT INTERNET IS VERY
DIVERSE, THERE ARE DIVERSE COMMUNITIES, AND THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
NEEDS TO REFLECT CORRECTLY THE DIVERSITY IN ALL THE COMMUNITIES.

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, AND THIS PROBABLY IN A WAY IS BEING DISCUSSED IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LEVEL OF
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTUAL, OPERATIONAL, AND POLICY MATTERS.

FOR THE NEXT YEAR, WE ARE PLANNING TO COOPERATE VERY ACTIVELY AND PRACTICALLY
PARTICIPATE IN THE GNSO REVIEW PROCESS.

THESE WERE THE FOUR PRIORITIES OF THE CONSTITUENCY.

AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW IS TO READ YOU THE GTLD REGISTRIES
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT CONCERNING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN POSTED AS YET, BUT I WILL DO IT IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING READING THE DOCUMENT.

THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY WELCOMES THE PROGRESS MADE TO DATE BETWEEN ICANN
AND VERISIGN TO SETTLE THE DOT COM LITIGATION AND TO DEVELOP A MORE
CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP FOR THE FUTURE.

THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
THE PENDING LITIGATION.

WHILE THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY DOES NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS POSITION CONCERNING
THE MERITS OF INDIVIDUAL TERMS OF THE PROPOSED DOT COM AGREEMENT, INCLUSION
OF CERTAIN TERMS EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS AGREEMENT AND WITHOUT ANY APPARENT
COMMITMENT BY ICANN THAT SUCH IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE OFFERED TO OTHER
REGISTRIES RAISES A QUESTION.

TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SETTLEMENT COULD AFFORD THE DOMINANT
PLAYER AN UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, ICANN SHOULD COMMIT TO EXTEND CERTAIN
SPECIFIC CONTRACT IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS PRESUMPTIVE RENEWAL, TO SIMILARLY
SITUATED REGISTRY OPERATORS ON AN EQUITABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS.

WHILE THE DIVERSITY OF REGISTRIES PRECLUDES AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF SPECIFIC
TERMS, PRINCIPALS OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS SHOULD GUIDE ICANN'S CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH REGISTRIES.

THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND APPROVED ON THE MEETING OF GTLD
REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY YESTERDAY.

THERE WAS NO VOTE AGAINST THE STATEMENT, AND TWO REGISTRIES PRESENT ON THE
STATEMENT, VERISIGN AND NEULEVEL, ABSTAINED.

THIS COMPLETES MY UPDATE.

THANK YOU, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARIA.

WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTER FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE AND CONNECTION PROVIDER
CONSTITUENCY.

IS ANYONE AVAILABLE TO GIVE AN UPDATE?

TONY?

>>TONY HOLMES: YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT, BRUCE.

THE ISPCP MET YET, AND WE FOUND WE HAD A PRETTY FULL AGENDA, HAVING ATTENDED
THE DISCUSSION ON THE WSIS BEFOREHAND AS WELL.

WE BEGAN WITH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ISPS, WHICH WAS AN UPDATE ON IANA AND
THE WAY IANA IS BEING PROGRESSED WITHIN ICANN, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ISPS.

AND WE VERY MUCH WELCOME THE FRESH APPROACH BEING TAKEN ON THE IANA FUNCTION.

WE THEN HAD A DISCUSSION ON THE WAY FORWARD ON WHOIS, WHICH IS RATHER A
DIFFICULT PATH TO TREAD.

BUT AS A CONSTITUENCY, WE'RE QUITE KEEN TO SEE THE DEADLOCK BROKEN IN THAT
DEBATE.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A RECHECK OF WHERE WE ARE.

AND THAT WAS THE BRIEF THAT WAS GIVEN TO OUR PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE
CONSTITUENCY IN THAT DEBATE.

WITH REGARD TO THE WSIS DISCUSSION, HAVING HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR KARKLINS
BEFOREHAND, WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ISPS ON THE
WAY FORWARD.

AND WHILST IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE OVERALL VIEWS THAT CAME OUT OF TUNIS FROM
THE ISP REPRESENTATIVES WERE PRETTY POSITIVE AND PRETTY GOOD, WE ALSO
RECOGNIZED THAT THE GAME ISN'T OVER AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK HARD TO
MAKE SURE THE NEW FORUM SHAPES UP IN THE RIGHT WAY.

HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE WHICH WE HAD A DISCUSSION ON.

AND WE ARE SEEKING SOME CLARITY ON THIS FROM THE RIRS.

ONE OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES IS GOING TO ATTEND THE MEETING THIS MORNING WITH
THE ASO.

IT'S PARAGRAPH 38 OF THE TUNIS AGENDA FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.

I'LL JUST BRIEFLY READ WHAT IT IS.

IT STATES THAT WE CALL FOR THE REINFORCEMENT OF SPECIALIZED REGIONAL INTERNET
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS TO GUARANTEE THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND
RIGHTS OF COUNTRIES IN THAT PARTICULAR REGION TO MANAGE ITS OWN INTERNET
RESOURCES WHILST MAINTAINING GLOBAL COORDINATION IN THAT AREA.

AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT IF YOU INTERPRET THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH IN
ONE WAY, IT ALMOST MAPS ONTO SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE
ITU FOR DEALING WITH IP ADDRESSES.

NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION, BUT WE CERTAINLY
NEED TO HEAR FROM THE RIRS HOW THAT STANDS UP AND WHETHER THERE IS AN ISSUE
THERE OR NOT.

I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP AN EYE ON.

WE ALSO HAD A REPORT BACK FROM THE ISPCP REPORT ON THE NOMCOM AND AS A
RESULTING ELECTIONS AND BASICALLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE.

AND, OF COURSE, THE OTHER MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE DEALT WITH WAS THE SAME ISSUE,
I THINK, THAT ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES FOCUSED ON QUITE HEAVILY, WHICH IS THE
VERISIGN AGREEMENT, OR THE PROPOSED VERISIGN AGREEMENT.

AND ALONG WITH MOST OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES, WE CERTAINLY WELCOME AN END
TO THE LITIGATION.

I THINK IT'S VERY POSITIVE NEWS FOR ALL OF US.

BUT WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS OVER THIS PROPOSAL.

AND WE HAD ALREADY POSTED AN ISP STATEMENT EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

THAT STATEMENT WAS REVIEWED, AND WITHIN IT NOW WE HAVE ADDED SOME THOUGHTS AS
TO HOW WE FEEL THINGS CAN BE PROGRESSED, SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE BOARD
MAY LIKE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL.

I'M NOT GOING TO STEP THROUGH THEM AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WILL
BE POSTED LATER THIS MORNING.

THE TIME FRAME OF THE MEETING MEANT THAT IT HAD TO BE CIRCULATED TO THE ISPCP
LIST, AND WE HAVE NOW CLOSED THE TIME FRAME FOR COMMENTS, AND THE STATEMENT
WILL BE POSTED LATER TODAY.

BUT WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HEARD, I THINK, FROM
PHILIP SHEPPARD TO THE BC.

WE WANT TO SEE THIS RESOLVED IN AN AMICABLE WAY, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT WE JUST CANNOT SUPPORT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE REPORT FROM THE ISPS. THANK YOU, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY.

NOW, IF WE CAN HAVE A REPORT FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS' CONSTITUENCY, IF
MILTON OR ANYONE IS AVAILABLE AT THAT MEETING IF YOU CAN PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF
WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY IN THE MEETINGS.

>>ROBIN GROSS: HI.

NEVER MIND, MILTON IS GOING TO DO IT.

>>MILTON MUELLER: NO, NO, NO, YOU DO IT.

YOU WANT ME TO DO IT?

CARLOS IS NOT HERE?

OKAY.

WE MET YESTERDAY MORNING, I THINK WE MET FROM ABOUT 9:30 TO 2:30, SO IT WAS A
FAIRLY -- OR 3:30.

WE DISCUSSED MEMBERSHIP GROWTH.

WE ARE GOING THROUGH A TRANSITION.

THE NEW CHAIR OF THE CONSTITUENCY IS CARLOS AFONSO OF BRAZIL.

RITS, INFORMATION FOR THE THIRD SECTOR, AND THEY HAVE VERY AMBITIOUS PLANS
FOR THE CONSTITUENCY.

THEY HAVE ABOUT -- A SUPPORT FROM A FOUNDATION TO DEVELOP MEMBERSHIP, AND
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 50 NEW ORGANIZATIONS JOINING FROM LATIN AMERICA.

WE WERE ALSO VISITED BY PRIVACY GROUPS IN CANADA WHO ARE ALSO PLANNING TO
JOIN.

AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE TWO OR THREE NEW ORGANIZATIONS THERE.

WE DISCUSSED SEVERAL ISSUES.

WE DISCUSSED THE WHOIS ISSUES.

WE BASICALLY -- I'M SURE THAT OUR REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COUNCIL WILL TELL
YOU WHAT WE DECIDED WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

BUT, FUNDAMENTALLY, WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD.

WE THINK THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEBATED.

WE PRETTY MUCH KNOW WHAT THE POSITIONS ARE.

AND THAT THE TASK FORCE SHOULD BE BASICALLY ADOPTING A REPORT REPRESENTING
THOSE POSITIONS AND MOVING IT UP TO THE COUNCIL FOR A VOTE AND THEN UP TO THE
BOARD FOR A VOTE.

DID I FORGET ANYTHING?

OH, WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION WITH LIZ WILLIAMS ABOUT THE GNSO REVIEW AND
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT.

AND WE HAD A VERY INTERESTING EXCHANGE AS REGARDING SOME OF THE NEW TLD
ISSUES, SOME OF THE PROCESS ISSUES SURROUNDING DOT XXX, AND THE INTRODUCTION
OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AS IDNS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTRY CODE TLD
MONOPOLIES.

ANYTHING I FORGOT?

OKAY.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MILTON.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY?

STEVE METALITZ?



>>STEVE METALITZ: THANK YOU.

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY ACTUALLY MET TWICE HERE, IN EFFECT,
BECAUSE WE HAD A SESSION WITH THE BOARD ON TUESDAY MORNING.

AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY THANK THE BOARD FOR THE OUTREACH THAT
THEY HAVE DONE CONCERNING THE DOT COM AGREEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND THE PROPOSED NEW DOT COM AGREEMENT.

AND WE APPRECIATE THEIR SCHEDULING THIS SESSION.

I THOUGHT WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION THERE AND SOME GOOD ACTION ITEMS TO TAKE
AWAY FROM THAT.

AND SO WE HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE A FEATURE OF FUTURE MEETINGS AS WELL.

I'LL JUST HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN OUR MEETING YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON.

THE FIRST ONE WAS THE PROPOSED DOT COM AGREEMENT AND VERISIGN SETTLEMENT.

WE HAD SUBMITTED OUR DRAFT CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT ON THIS JUST ABOUT A WEEK
AGO.

WELL, I GUESS LAST SATURDAY, COMMENDING THE PROGRESS TOWARDS SETTLEMENT AND
RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT, BASICALLY, FOUR ISSUES: THE IMPACT ON ICANN FINANCES
AND BUDGETING, THE CONFORMITY OR LACK THEREOF BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT AND THE POLICY THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY THE COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY
THE BOARD ON NEW REGISTRY SERVICES AND THE PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING THOSE;
THE FATE OF THE COMMITMENT THAT VERISIGN HAS UNDER THE CURRENT AGREEMENT FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT, AND WHOIS IMPROVEMENTS
AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT; AND THEN THE SCOPE OF THE TRAFFIC DATA
EXCEPTION CARVEOUT OF SERVICES BASED ON TRAFFIC DATA FROM THE NEW REGISTRY
SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WE ARE QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT.

WE ALSO DISCUSSED IN OUR MEETING SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY OTHER
CONSTITUENCIES AND THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE WORKSHOP THAT BRET REFERRED TO
AND THAT HE COORDINATED, NOTABLY, THE ISSUE OF PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT OF RENEWAL.

WE'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING THE -- WHAT WE'VE POSTED AND MAKING SOME MORE
CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS, FLESHING IT OUT SOMEWHAT MORE.

AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN OUR MEETING ON -- YESTERDAY.

THE SECOND ISSUE I WANTED TO MENTION IS THE WIPO 2.

THIS IS AN ISSUE RAISED TO US BY THE BOARD, RAISED IN THE CROSS-CONSTITUENCY
DISCUSSION.

AND WE REVIEWED THAT, AND WE TALKED ABOUT AN APPROACH THAT WE MIGHT PUT
FORWARD TO MOVE THE BALL FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE.

I THINK YOU MAY BE HAVING MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS IN YOUR COUNCIL MEETING.

FOURTH -- OR, EXCUSE ME, THIRD, WE DISCUSSED DEVELOPMENTS ON THE WHOIS TASK
FORCE.

WE WERE ALL DISAPPOINTED THAT THE GAC DECIDED TO CANCEL ITS WORKSHOP ON
PUBLIC-POLICY ASPECTS OF WHOIS THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING.

WE DID TALK ABOUT THE TUESDAY AFTERNOON PROGRAM THAT WAS SPONSORED BY TWO OF
THE CONSTITUENCIES. AND, TO ME, THIS -- AND I THINK TO MANY OF US -- THIS
UNDERSCORED THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT THE COUNCIL DID ON MONDAY, WHICH WAS TO
GIVE ITS APPROVAL, UNANIMOUS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT
CAME OUT OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE UNANIMOUSLY ON A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR
DEALING WITH THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NATIONAL LAWS AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
REGISTRY AGREEMENTS OR THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO
WHOIS.

THAT WAS KIND OF THE THEME OF THE TUESDAY PROGRAM.

AND WE HOPE THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION, IF IT'S PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, SHOULD
REALLY KIND OF HANDLE THIS ISSUE, WHICH I NOTE THE -- THE REGISTRY
CONSTITUENCY FLAGGED AS ONE OF ITS TOP ISSUES FOR RESOLUTION.

I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS -- SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR TAKING A VERY BIG STEP
TOWARD RESOLVING THAT ISSUE.

AND, HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL -- THAT RESOLUTION WILL BE COMPLETED VERY QUICKLY.

WE ALSO HAD A PRESENTATION ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND SOME OF THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY-RELATED ASPECTS OF THAT ISSUE, WHICH LED TO A RATHER
WIDER-RANGING DISCUSSION ON NEW TLD ISSUES AS WELL, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS QUITE
USEFUL.

AND, FINALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE GNSO COUNCIL REVIEW, THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT
WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY, AND MADE PLANS FOR RESPONDING TO THAT.

SO I THINK THAT AT LEAST HITS THE HIGH POINTS OF OUR MEETING.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, STEVE.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE REGISTRARS
HERE, SO I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY
MEETING.

THE MEETING COVERED QUITE A RANGE OF ISSUES. WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME
TALKING ABOUT WHOIS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO IMPROVE THAT. WE HAD
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRANSFERS AND THE STAFF GAVE US A BRIEFING ON SOME OF THE
COMPLAINTS AND ISSUES THAT THEY HAD IDENTIFIED, AND THE PLAN THERE OR WHAT WE
HAD SUGGESTED IS THE STAFF DRAFT AN ADVISORY TO CLARIFY MANY OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT THE STAFF RECEIVED FROM REGISTRARS OR REGISTRANTS ON THAT TOPIC.

WE ALSO HAD A PRESENTATION FROM THE ANTI-PHISHING WORKING GROUP, AND THEY
CERTAINLY INDICATED THAT THEY FELT THAT THE ISSUES OF USING DOMAIN NAMES FOR
PHISHING WAS GROWING, PARTICULARLY IN NOT SO MUCH SOME OF THE LARGER
CORPORATES NOW BUT MORE SORT OF MID-SIZED CORPORATES, AND THEY SORT OF USED
THE TERM SPEAR PHISHING TO INDICATE THEY WERE BEING FAR MORE TARGETED IN THE
AUDIENCES THAT THEY WERE AFTER.

AND SO THE SUGGESTION WAS TO TRY TO COOPERATE WITH THE REGISTRARS
CONSTITUENCY TO IDENTIFY MEANS WHERE WE CAN HAVE EARLY DETECTION OF PHISHING
DOMAIN NAMES.

>> HI, ALICK IS ON.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: HI, ALICK. BRUCE TONKIN HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>>ALICK WILSON: HI, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST GOING THROUGH CONSTITUENCY REPORTS AT THIS STAGE.

AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER, I GUESS, MAJOR ITEMS OF DISCUSSION WAS THE .COM
AGREEMENTS. AND I MIGHT JUST SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THE SLIDES. WE HAD
THREE SLIDES THAT WE USED IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD.

I WILL ATTEMPT TO GET THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN.

ESSENTIALLY WE SORT OF BROKE THE TOPIC DOWN INTO FOUR AREAS. ONE IS CLEARLY
WE WOULD HOPE TO SEE THE END OF LITIGATION BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN.

WE DO RECOGNIZE, THOUGH, THAT IN THIS PROCESS THERE IS ALSO A RENEWAL OF THE
CURRENT .COM REGISTRY AGREEMENT TIED UP IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

WE RECOGNIZE OR THAT THE FEELING AMONGST THE REGISTRARS WAS THAT THERE WAS
NOT YET SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION FOR THE .COM REGISTRY IN THE CONTEXT OF
GLOBAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES, AND GIVEN THAT AS A CONTEXT THAT DRIVES SOME
OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

AND FINALLY, WE WANTED TO REASSURE ICANN THAT REGISTRARS CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
ICANN. AND CERTAINLY WE CONTINUE TO PAY FEES TO ICANN. AND WE ALSO
RECOGNIZED ICANN'S NEED FOR A RESERVE FUND.

THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT WE HAD WAS WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE -- AS OTHER
CONSTITUENCIES HAVE MENTIONED, THAT THE BOARD HAD RECENTLY APPROVED THE
CONSENSUS POLICY ON REGISTRY SERVICES, BUT THE CONTRACT SEES THAT STAYING THE
SAME FOR THREE YEARS. AND THAT'S CURRENTLY -- WE HAVE YET TO TEST THAT
PROCESS. AND THE COUNCIL POLICY APPROACH TO THESE THINGS IS THAT WE SHOULD
MEASURE THE IMPACT OF A POLICY WITHIN, SAY, 12 MONTHS, MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS
AS NEEDED.

WE ALSO NOTED IN TERMS OF FUTURE RENEWALS THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A
SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RENEWAL.

WE ALSO FELT THAT THE PROPOSAL PROVIDED THE ABILITY TO RAISE REGISTRY FEES,
BUT THIS WAS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT COMPETITION. SO WE DIDN'T
FEEL IT WOULD JUST BE AN ABILITY, BUT THE REGISTRY FEES WOULD RAISE.

WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED THAT ICANN HAS INCORPORATED A FEE STRUCTURE BETWEEN
ICANN AND VERISIGN. AND AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS POINT, THE CONCERN
WAS THAT THOSE FEES WOULD MOST LIKELY BE PASSED ON TO REGISTRARS AND POSSIBLY
REGISTRARS MAY PASS THOSE ON TO REGISTRANTS AS WELL.

BUT THE KEY ISSUE THERE WAS THAT IN THE PAST, REGISTRARS HAD, EACH YEAR, HAD
A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE FEES AND DISCUSS THOSE WITH STAFF, AND WE FELT THAT
PROVIDED FOR AT LEAST SOME LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY THERE. BUT WE WERE
CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD, IN FACT, LOCK A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN FEES IN
FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS WITHOUT ANY REAL OPTION TO DISCUSSION THAT.

SO WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED WAS DON'T APPROVE THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT UNTIL WE
RESOLVE SOME OF THE POLICY ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AND THE PARTICULAR AREAS
OF FOCUS THERE WERE ON THE RENEWAL PROCESS AND ON THE FUNDING MODELS FOR
ICANN.

AND OUR FINAL POINT ON THAT WAS THAT WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING A POLICY PROCESS
BEFORE INCORPORATING CHANGES INTO THE CONTRACT THAT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON
THIRD PARTIES.

AND SO THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED WITH
THE BOARD YESTERDAY.

OKAY. SO AT THAT POINT I WOULD JUST RAISE, OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF
THE COMMUNITY, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS ON ANY OF THE REPORTS
FROM EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES OR ANY STATEMENTS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
ON ANY OF THOSE REPORTS.

GO AHEAD, MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER: SORRY TO JUST SUPPLEMENT THIS. YOU ASKED FOR A REPORT ON
THE THURSDAY MEETINGS BUT ON TUESDAY, I THINK IT WAS, WE MET WITH THE BOARD
REGARDING THE VERISIGN STATEMENT, SO I DIDN'T REPORT ABOUT THAT.

THE SETTLEMENT, I MEAN.

SO SIMPLY I'LL SAY THE NCUC HAD ADOPTED A STATEMENT ABOUT THAT. IT BASICALLY
SETS OUT FOUR POINTS, SOMEWHAT AGREEING WITH WHAT YOU JUST STATED, BRUCE,
REGARDING THE USE OF POLICY PROCESSES TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. IN PARTICULAR,
WE CALLED FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES ON RENEWAL EXPECTANCY AND ON PRICE
CAPS AND WE ALSO EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WE CALLED THE GAG ORDER ON
VERISIGN. THE AGREEMENT NOT TO CRITICIZE ICANN, WE WERE DISTURBED BY THAT
AND ALSO EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN BUT A DESIRE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ROOT SIGNING AUTHORITY FROM VERISIGN TO
ICANN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MILTON.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE TOPICS?

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR LAST SPEAKER. MILTON, MILTON.
THANK YOU.

>>MILTON MUELLER: YES, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT, AND I AM VERY INTERESTED IN, IF I
MIGHT, ASKING A CLARIFYING QUESTION. AND I WILL HAVE THAT SAME QUESTION, I
THINK, FOR ALL OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND FOR THE REPORTERS FROM THE
CONSTITUENCY GROUPS.

MY PERSONAL ASSESSMENT AFTER PARTICIPATING IN TUESDAY'S SESSION, AND I'LL
JUST MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT TUESDAY'S SESSION, I FOUND TUESDAY'S SESSION
JOINTLY ORGANIZED AND BROADLY PARTICIPATED IN BY THE COMMUNITY AS AN
EDUCATIONAL EFFORT TO BOTH UNDERSTAND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND TO
UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER'S PERSPECTIVES VERY, VERY HELPFUL TO ME AS WE THEN WENT
INTO THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY EXAMINATION.

I HAVE BEGUN TO TRY TO REALLY COME UP IN MY OWN MIND WITH THE TWO OR THREE
POINTS THAT ARE CONSISTENTLY SHARED ACROSS THE VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER GROUPS, IF
I MIGHT USE THAT TERM BRIEFLY.

AND I WANTED TO SEE, SO IF YOU MIGHT COMMENT. I SEE A CONSISTENT CONCERN
EXPRESSED ABOUT THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF RENEWAL, AND FOR THE BC, I THINK THAT
WOULD BE CAVEATED BY THE COMMENT WITHOUT SAFEGUARDS.

AND THE SECOND COMMENT IS THE ISSUE OF THE CREATION OF REGISTRY PRICING.
CREATION OF A NEW REGISTRY PRICING MODEL THAT HAS HAD NO INPUT AND HAS SOME
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND SOME DEPENDENCY IMPLICATIONS.

THE THIRD, I THINK, THAT I AM REALLY TRYING TO STRUGGLE WITH FOR THE BC IS
THE CONCERN ABOUT THE USE OF THE TRAFFIC DATA, THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE TRAFFIC DATA.

THOSE ARE THREE THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT ARE ACROSS SOME OF THE GROUPS.

DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT, DID THE NCUC HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT LAST ITEM, THE
TRAFFIC DATA?

>>MILTON MUELLER: NO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE SHOULD HAVE, BUT WE DID NOT.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS VAST, AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE -- YOU KNOW, WE
WERE WORKING SO HARD ON THE WHOIS ISSUES THAT OUR LEGAL ADVISORS DIDN'T
REALLY HAVE TIME TO FOCUS ON EVERY ELEMENT OF IT AND SO ON.

LET ME JUST SAY WITH RESPECT TO RENEWAL EXPECTANCY, WE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN
WITH RENEWAL EXPECTANCY FOR .COM, PER SE. WHAT WE SAY -- IN FACT, SOME OF
US, SUCH AS MYSELF, BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RENEWAL EXPECTANCY.

HOWEVER, WE THINK IT'S A POLICY ISSUE, AND THAT WE SHOULD RESOLVE THIS IN A
WAY THAT APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL REGISTRIES THROUGH THE POLICY PROCESS.
WHATEVER THE OUTCOME MAY BE, WE THINK THAT IN A FAIR DEBATE, YOU MIGHT FIND
OUT THAT THERE IS A VERY GOOD CASE TO BE MADE FOR A RENEWAL EXPECTANCY OR
THERE MAY NOT BE. THAT'S A DEBATE WE NEED TO HAVE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MILTON.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC? NOT JUST THE .COM AGREEMENT
TOPIC BUT THE BROADER TOPIC OF CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.



OKAY. THE NEXT TOPIC FOR -- SORRY, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.
UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS WSIS ELSEWHERE I WOULD LIKE TO
RAISE IT NOW BECAUSE A COUPLE OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES DID MENTION IT. WOULD
THAT BE OKAY?

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REINFORCE MY PERSPECTIVE AND URGE ALL OF US TO LOOK
REALLY HARD AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE
INFORMATION SOCIETY ON THE INTERNET VERY BROADLY AND ON OUR WORK WITHIN ICANN
VERY SPECIFICALLY.

AS SOMEONE WHO WAS VERY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS ON BEHALF OF
REPRESENTING BUSINESS INTERESTS AND WORKING WITH MANY OTHER STAKEHOLDER
REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE HERE FROM CIVIL SOCIETY AND FROM BUSINESS, I TAKE OUT
OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY THAT WE HAVE
BEGUN A JOURNEY AND THAT IT IS GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE'S VERY ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION. BECAUSE WE MUST ASSESS HOW WE WILL BE CHANGING OUR OWN
INTERACTION WITHIN GOVERNMENTS, WITH GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE ICANN PROCESS IN
RELATION TO ICANN'S WORK.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE AND PARALLEL SET OF ACTIVITIES,
SOME OF WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE ITU AND SOME OF WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE IN
THE NEW FORUM THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY CALLED THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM.
AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A TENSION WHERE SOME PEOPLE AND SOME GOVERNMENTS MAY
WANT TO WORK THE OVERSIGHT ISSUE OF ICANN IN BOTH PLACES. AND I THINK IT IS
-- THE OUTCOME WE REALLY ACHIEVED WAS A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF
GOVERNMENTS, AT LEAST INFORMALLY ON TUESDAY, TO COME TO ICANN TO WORK ON
THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT ICANN.

SO I THINK THAT WE AS THE GNSO HAVE TO DO MORE EXAMINATION OF THAT, NOT
NECESSARILY TODAY BUT WITH OUR CONSTITUENCIES AS WELL, ABOUT WHAT HAS TO
CHANGE IN OUR OWN BEHAVIOR IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ONGOING INTERACTION
WITH GOVERNMENTS IN A POSITIVE AND PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE MANNER AS WE FULFILL
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN DEVELOPING GNSO POLICY.

AS WELL AS CONTRIBUTE TO GO THE LARGER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY,
WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE WAY THAT GOVERNMENTS INTERACT WITH ICANN.

I WOULD EXPECT THIS TO BE A TOPIC AT ALL OF OUR FUTURE WORKING SESSIONS AT
ICANN AND OUR FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS AND ELSEWHERE, PERHAPS JUST UNDER THE
TOPIC OF OUR CONTINUED INTERACTION WITH OTHER SOS AND WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A FAIR
AMOUNT OF WORK THAT COMES OUT OF IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARILYN. AND I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
WHEN WE HAVE SOME MAJOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES UNDERWAY, INCLUDING
THE TOPIC OF NEW GLOBAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN -- OR NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN
NAMES AND THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT, NO DOUBT, MANY IN THE COMMUNITY
WILL HAVE VIEWS ON AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE BEST WAY OF ASSURING THAT
EVERYONE CAN CONTRIBUTE.

OKAY. THE NEXT TOPIC ON THE PUBLIC FORUM, THEN, IS WHOIS. AND I BELIEVE WE
HAVE JORDYN BUCHANAN, THE CHAIR OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, TO GIVE US AN UPDATE
ON I GUESS RECENT DISCUSSIONS AND RECENT WORK IN THAT AREA.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AS BRUCE MENTIONED, I AM JORDYN BUCHANAN. I AM THE CHAIR
OF THE CURRENT WHOIS TASK FORCE.

I JUST WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES THIS MORNING TALKING ABOUT OUR WORK AND
SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON SOME OF THE MOST RECENT WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN
DOING.

JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THIS
QUITE SO CLOSELY, THE WHOIS TASK FORCE IS CHARTERED TO WORK ON FIVE ISSUES,
WHICH I HAVE SUMMARIZED IN FOUR BULLETS HERE.

THE FIRST IS TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS AND THE CONTACTS THAT ARE LOCATED
WITHIN THE WHOIS DISPLAY.

THESE ARE -- WE CONSIDER TO BE SORT OF FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS TO HELP US WITH
THE REST OF OUR WORK, WHICH FOCUSES THEN ON WHAT DATA SHOULD BE PUBLIC IN THE
WHOIS AND HOW SHOULD IT BE ACCESSED, AND THEN HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THE
DATA IN THE WHOIS SYSTEM IS ACCURATE.

THERE'S ONE OTHER ITEM, WHICH IS -- WHICH I THINK STEVEN METALITZ MENTIONED
EARLIER IN THE REPORT FROM THE IPC, WHICH IS THE WHOIS TASK FORCE IS ALSO
WORKING ON A MECHANISM TO RESOLVE CONTRACTS BETWEEN ICANN CONTRACTUAL
REQUIREMENTS ON REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND LOCAL PRIVACY LAWS.

THE WORK ON THAT ITEM HAS ACTUALLY BEEN COMPLETE. THE TASK FORCE CREATED A
REPORT, SUBMITTED IT TO THE COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL I BELIEVE RECENTLY VOTED
TO APPROVE THAT. SO THAT WILL BE HEADING TO THE BOARD TO BECOME A CONSENSUS
POLICY.

THE FOCUS OF THE TASK FORCE RIGHT NOW IS ON ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
I MENTIONED EARLIER AND THAT IS WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE PURPOSE OF
WHOIS. AND WE HAVE MADE QUITE A BIT OF PROGRESS IN THIS REGARD. AND I AM
GOING TO SPEND MOST OF MY TIME TODAY ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIALLY TWO
DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS OF THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS THAT THE TASK FORCE --
DIFFERENT GROUPS WITHIN THE TASK FORCE HAVE DEVELOPED. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT
WE FOUND WITHIN THE TASK FORCE IS THAT THERE ARE TWO SORT OF BROAD SETS OF
VIEWS, EACH OF WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THREE DIFFERENT
CONSTITUENCIES. AND THESE SETS OF VIEWS HAVE ESSENTIALLY BEEN DISTILLED DOWN
INTO TWO DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS OF THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS.

IN MANY WAYS THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR, AND -- BUT THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT
DIFFERENCES AS WELL.

THE FIRST OF THESE TWO FORMULATIONS, AND I WILL READ IT. IF EITHER OF THESE
FORMULATIONS WERE ACCEPTED, THEY WOULD BECOME SORT OF A FOUNDATIONAL PURPOSE
OF WHOIS, WHICH WOULD GUIDE THE REST OF OUR WORK. AND SO THE FIRST
DEFINITION, PROPOSED DEFINITION, WOULD BE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GTLD WHOIS
SERVICE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO CONTACT A RESPONSIBLE PARTY
FOR A PARTICULAR GTLD DOMAIN NAME WHO CAN RESOLVE, OR RELIABLY PASS ON DATA
TO A PARTY WHO CAN RESOLVE, ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE
RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH A DOMAIN NAME WITHIN THE DNS NAME SERVER.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE WHOIS WOULD OUTPUT SOME INFORMATION, CONTACT INFORMATION
THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GET IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE IF YOU HAD AN ISSUE RELATED
TO EITHER THE DNS RECORDS, OPERATION OF THE DNS RECORDS OF A PARTICULAR
DOMAIN NAME.

THIS FORMULATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE REGISTRAR, REGISTRY, AND NCUC
CONSTITUENCIES, AND TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE, THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS FORMULATION
IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NARROW TECHNICAL
MISSION OF ICANN. ICANN'S CORE VALUES, PARTICULARLY THE FIRST THREE CORE
VALUES, AND NATIONAL DATA PROTECTION LAWS WORLDWIDE.

THE THREE ICANN CORE VALUES THAT ARE REFERENCED THERE ARE, NUMBER ONE IS THE
SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET. NUMBER TWO IS -- SORRY. SECURITY
AND STABILITY. YEAH. NUMBER TWO IS RESPECTING THE CREATIVITY AND FLOW OF
INFORMATION BY LIMITING ICANN'S ACTIVITIES TO MATTERS IN ICANN'S MISSION.

AND NUMBER THREE, DELEGATING AND RESPECTING THE POLICY ROLE OF RESPONSIBLE
ENTITIES THAT REFLECT THE INTERESTS OF AFFECTED PARTIES. I'M TOLD THAT
MEANS, IN SOME CASES GOVERNMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THE SECOND FORMULATION IS -- YOU WILL HEAR IT STARTS OFF VERY MUCH THE SAME.
THE PURPOSE OF THE GTLD WHOIS SERVICE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO
CONTACT A RESPONSIBLE PARTY OR PARTIES FOR A PARTICULAR GTLD DOMAIN NAME WHO
CAN RESOLVE OR RELIABLY PASS ON DATA TO A PARTY WHO CAN RESOLVE TECHNICAL,
LEGAL, OR OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE REGISTRATION OR USE OF A DOMAIN NAME.

AND THIS DEFINITION INCLUDES A VARIETY, IN ADDITION TO TALKING ABOUT THE
RECORDS AND THE ZONE FILE, IT TALKS ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, LEGAL ISSUES AND
OTHER ISSUES, AND ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME AS OPPOSED TO
SIMPLY ITS PRESENCE IN THE ZONE FILE.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO.

THIS DEFINITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE IPC, THE ISPCP AND THE BC, OR AT LEAST
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN THE TASK FORCE.

THIS APPROACH IS -- THEY BELIEVE THIS APPROACH IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE BECAUSE,
AND THERE'S THREE REASONS ESSENTIALLY. THE FIRST IS THAT IT'S MOST
CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY OF WHOIS, AND IT FOLLOWS THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION
IN BOTH THE NUMBER OF USERS AND THE IMPORTANCE AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION OF
THE INTERNET. AND I THINK THIS REFLECTS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT --
ACTUALLY, I'LL COMBINE THIS COMMENT WITH THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS THIS
APPROACH IS MOST CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTUAL USES OF WHOIS TO HELP RESOLVE
THESE ISSUES. SO I THINK THIS REFLECTS A VIEW, I THINK, THAT THE WHOIS HAS
BECOME MORE AND MORE WIDELY USED OVER TIME FOR A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT USES,
AND THESE SHOULD, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, BE REFLECTED IN THE PURPOSE.

AND FINALLY, THAT THE FINAL REASON THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS FORMULATION IS
APPROPRIATE IS THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH
ICANN'S MISSION AND CORE VALUES.

JUST TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR, I WANT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE
COMMON GROUND AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.

IF YOU LOOK UP HERE, THE BOLD PART OF THIS SLIDE, I HAVE TAKEN THE FIRST OF
THE TWO FORMULATIONS AND EMBOLDENED THE PART THAT IS COMMON TO BOTH OF THE
TWO DEFINITIONS. SO ESSENTIALLY THE WORDS "THE PURPOSE OF THE GTLD WHOIS
SERVICE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO CONTACT A RESPONSIBLE PARTY
OR A PARTICULAR -- FOR, I'M SORRY, I MISSED AN "F" THERE, FOR A PARTICULAR
GTLD DOMAIN NAME WHO CAN RESOLVE, OR RELIABLY PASS ON DATA TO A PARTY WHO CAN
RESOLVE."

THOSE WORDS APPEAR IN BOTH OF THE TWO FORMULATIONS. SO THAT MUCH, I
ESSENTIALLY, EVERYONE IN THE TASK FORCE AGREES THAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS IS
TO PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR A GIVEN DOMAIN NAME YOU CAN LOOK UP, ENTER THE DOMAIN
NAME, GET BACK IN RESPONSE A SET OF CONTACT INFORMATION. AND EITHER SOMEONE
WHO CAN HELP YOU RESOLVE YOUR PROBLEM OR GET YOU IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE WHO
CAN HELP YOU RESOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.

THE REAL CRUX OF THE DIFFERENCE RELATES TO WHAT TYPES OF PROBLEMS THE
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES BELIEVE OUGHT TO BE RESOLVED OR SHOULD BE ATTEMPTED
TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE WHOIS.

SO JUST TO FURTHER HIGHLIGHT THAT, THERE'S REALLY ONLY TWO DIFFERENCES IN
TERMS OF TEXT. THE FIRST IS THAT THE SECOND FORMULATION, WHICH I WILL CALL
THE BROADER FORMULATION, INCLUDES THE WORDS, IN ADDITION TO SAYING GET IN
TOUCH WITH A PARTY, IT INCLUDES THE WORDS "PARTY OR PARTIES." MY PERSONAL
OPINION IS WE ARE GOING TO RAPIDLY RESOLVE THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I THINK
IT'S ACTUALLY -- IT'S NOT REALLY AT THE CORE OF THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
WITHIN THE TASK FORCE.

THE SECOND DISTINCTION HERE IS WHAT YOU SEE IN RED HERE AT THE BOTTOM, IS THE
SECOND FORMULATION AND ITS TEXT. AND YOU WILL SEE BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCE
IS, IS THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS TO RESOLVE ISSUES RELATED TO THE CONFIGURATION OF
THE RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOMAIN NAME WITHIN A DNS NAME SERVER OR IS IT
TO RESOLVE TECHNICAL, LEGAL, OR OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE REGISTRATION OR
USE OF A DOMAIN NAME.

THAT ESSENTIALLY FORMS THE CRUX OF THE CURRENT CONVERSATION AND DIFFERENT OF
OPINION WITHIN THE TASK FORCE.

AND WE'D LIKE YOUR INPUT IN ORDER TO HELP ADVISE US ON HOW TO MAKE THIS
DECISION. PARTICULARLY, I LOOK FORWARD TO COMMENTS ON THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THESE TWO FORMULATIONS, WHICH ONE IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND WHY.

I THINK ANY INPUT THAT THE PUBLIC -- ANY MEMBER OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY CAN
PROVIDE ON THIS POINT MAY HELP US RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITHIN
THE TASK FORCE.

AND SECONDLY, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NEITHER OF THESE ARE QUITE RIGHT AND THERE
ARE OTHER FORMULATIONS OR THERE ARE MISSING ELEMENTS OF THE FORMULATIONS THAT
WE HAVE COME UP WITHIN THE TASK FORCE.

OF COURSE, ANY OTHER INPUT ON OUR WORK IS WELCOME AS WELL, AND I'LL USE THAT
TO CONCLUDE AND WRAP UP AND ASK FOR COMMENTS.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM THE
FLOOR. IF YOU CAN PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN ASK A QUESTION. GO AHEAD.

>>MATT HOOKER: MY NAME IS MATT HOOKER AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AS SOMEONE WHO
USES THE INTERNET, WHAT WE NEED WHEN WE DO A WHOIS SEARCH IS WE NEED THE WHO
OWNS THAT DOMAIN NAME. WE NEED THE REGISTRANT INFORMATION, WE NEED THEIR
LEGAL ADDRESS SO WE CAN HAVE A LEGAL SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THEM, IF
NECESSARY.

WE NEED DIRECT INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE ACTUAL OWNERSHIP ENTITY AND
WHO THAT IS.

SO I'M OBVIOUSLY IN FAVOR OF FORMULATION NUMBER TWO, THE ONE THAT THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY ADVOCATES.

BUT FURTHER THAN THAT, I THINK THAT THERE'S AN INSERTION IN BOTH OF THOSE
FORMULATIONS THAT THE DATA CAN BE -- YOU CAN GET THE INFORMATION FROM SOMEONE
OTHER THAN THE REGISTRANT WHO CAN PROVIDE YOU OR THEN PASS ALONG THAT
INFORMATION TO THE REGISTRANT.

AND THIS PROBABLY RELATES TO THIS PRIVATE REGISTRATION THAT HAS SOMEHOW BEEN
ALLOWED TO CREEP INTO THE WHOIS, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST AND SAY
I'M NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT WHO ARE THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES LIKE THE LAW FIRM OR THE REGISTRY THAT IS KEEPING THE DIRECT
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION PRIVATE. NO. WHEN I DO A WHOIS SEARCH, I WANT TO KNOW
WHO IS THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT DOMAIN NAME, QUITE
SIMPLY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS. BOTH OF THE TWO FORMULATIONS DO CURRENTLY ALLOW
THIS SORT OF CONCEPT OF AGENCY OR HAVING SOMEONE -- NOT NECESSARILY THE OWNER
OF THE DOMAIN, BUT SOMEONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF RESOLVING ISSUES ON THEIR BEHALF
AS BEING THE CORRECT OUTPUT OF THE WHOIS SYSTEM.

SO YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN. I DON'T THINK THAT ACTUALLY EITHER OF THE
TWO FORMULATIONS NECESSARILY REQUIRES THAT THE EXACT NAME OF THE UNDERLYING
REGISTRANT IS WHAT'S PUBLISHED.

>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM MATT ON HIS CONCERNS SO MIGHT I?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REFLECTED, I THINK IT IS
USEFUL TO GET INPUT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE GONE THE WRONG PATH.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. OR THAT WE YET HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH INPUT INTO
ACCOUNT.

THANK YOU, MATT, FOR SPEAKING ON THAT.

I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THAT YOU HAVE RAISED HAS BEEN A POINT OF DISCUSSION
PREVIOUSLY, AND THAT IS IF AN AGENCY IS USED, IF AN AGENT IS USED OR AN
AGENCY IS USED OF SOME KIND, WHAT IS THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY, WHAT IS THEIR
TIMELINESS? ARE THEY JUST A POST OFFICE BOX? ARE YOU ACTUALLY ABLE TO TAKE
IMMEDIATE ACTION?

YOU MAY BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE TWO GTLDS IN THE SPONSORED ROUND, BOTH OF
WHICH ADDRESSED THE PROVISION OF ANONYMITY FOR THE REGISTRANT WITH THE IDEA,
THOUGH, THAT THERE WOULD BE VALIDATION OF WHO THE REGISTRANT IS, AND THE
ABILITY TO QUICKLY CONTACT THAT REGISTRANT.

SO ADDRESSING THE IDEA OF ANONYMITY VERY DIRECTLY IN SORT OF AN INDIVIDUAL
TLD, BUT THEN ALSO UNDERTAKING AUTHENTICATION, VALIDATION, AND QUICK TURN
AROUND ON RESPONSE.

COULD YOU JUST COMMENT ON THE -- BECAUSE IT SOUNDS YOU TO ME LIKE -- BUT I
DON'T WANT TO INTERPRET. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, OKAY, I
NEED TO KNOW WHO OWNS THE NAME, HOLDS THE NAME -- I GUESS THE ACTUAL CORRECT
PHRASE WOULD BE HOLDS THE NAME, WHO -- AND HOW DO I CONTACT THAT PERSON. AND
THEN THERE IS A SPEED ISSUE ABOUT CONTACTING THAT PERSON. WAS THAT --

>>MATT HOOKER: YEAH, OBVIOUSLY. IN TODAY'S WORLD PEOPLE ARE DOING THINGS
THAT AREN'T ALWAYS LEGAL OR CORRECT ON THE INTERNET. AND IT'S OFTEN THE CASE
WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USER, A CONSUMER, SOMEONE WHO OWNS A SIMILAR
DOMAIN NAME, A TRADEMARK HOLDER, THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT INTEREST GROUPS,
SOMETIMES NEED QUICK AND ACCURATE INFORMATION AS TO WHO IS THE LEGAL ENTITY
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. NOT THEIR LAW FIRM, NOT THE REGISTRAR THAT THEY
REGISTERED THAT DOMAIN WITH, BUT WHO IS THE PERSON THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEAK
WITH ABOUT YOUR CONFLICT, OR IF THEY DON'T RESPOND, WHO ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE
TO SUE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

SO WITH SOME OF THESE PRIVACY REGISTRATIONS AND SOME OF THESE OTHER CONCERNS
AGENCIES, WE ARE NOT GETTING THAT INFORMATION IN A TIMELY MANNER, SOMETIMES
WHEN IT'S NECESSARY. AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, WHEN YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS
WITH SOMEONE OVER THE INTERNET, YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE
ACTUALLY LOCATED, WHERE THE LEGAL ORGANIZATION THAT OWNS THAT -- AND I USE
OWNERSHIP BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE IS -- I THINK THAT WHEN YOU REGISTER A
DOMAIN NAME AND KEEP ON RENEWING IT YEAR AFTER YEAR, YOU ACQUIRE AN OWNERSHIP
IN THAT DOMAIN NAME. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY INTEREST AND EVEN
-- AT LEAST U.S. COURT DECISIONS, THAT SUPPORT THAT THEORY.

SO IT IS LIKE AN OWNERSHIP. PEOPLE ARE SPENDING MILLIONS IF NOT TENS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A DOMAIN NAME, BUILDING WEB SITES AND E-COMMERCE SITES
AROUND THESE DOMAIN NAMES. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE ACCESS NOT
ONLY TO BUSINESS PEOPLE BUT ALSO TO THE INDIVIDUAL USER AND CONSUMER OF VERY
ACCURATE INFORMATION, OF THE ACTUAL LEGAL OWNER OF THE DOMAIN NAME OR THE
LEGAL REGISTRANT. THAT'S ALL. IN A TIMELY MANNER. I MEAN, SOMETIMES WITHIN
A DAY OR TWO. AND YOU CAN'T GET THAT WHEN THERE IS AN AGENCY INVOLVED.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I DO JUST WANT TO SPEND A MOMENT MAYBE TALKING ABOUT THE
RATIONALE OF HOW THE TASK FORCE GOT WHERE THEY ARE, BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE
NOTION THAT -- THE REASON WHY THIS NOTION OF AGENCY OR ALLOWING SOMEONE WHO
CAN HELP GET YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE APPROPRIATE PERSON IS BECAUSE IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU LISTED, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLY THE REGISTRANT, IT MIGHT
QUITE COMMONLY BE THE CASE THAT THE REGISTRANT ISN'T THE CORRECT PERSON TO
RESOLVE A WHOLE -- LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, TECHNICAL ISSUES.

MANY REGISTRANTS ARE NOT VERY TECHNICAL.

AND IF YOU WANTED TO RAPIDLY GET A RESPONSE TO A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY THE REGISTRANT THAT YOU WANT TO BE TALKING TO.

IT MIGHT BE THEIR ISP OR, YOU KNOW, THEIR REGISTRAR OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT.

AND SO I THINK THE GOAL OF BOTH FORMULATIONS IS ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE SURE
YOU'RE GETTING IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE WHO CAN RAPIDLY GET YOU IN TOUCH WITH
THE RIGHT PERSON, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY WHO YOU NEED TO ULTIMATELY BE
TALKING WITH, THEY WILL -- THEIR JOB, ESSENTIALLY, IS TO HELP FACILITATE YOUR
COMMUNICATION WITH WHOEVER THE CORRECT PERSON IS.

>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I THINK I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, SINCE WHAT WE'RE
DOING HERE IS WE'RE TAKING COMMENTS.

WE'RE VERY MUCH HOPING TO LEARN FROM YOU AND OTHERS IN THE ROOM HERE.

LET ME JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE CHAIR OF THE TASK FORCE, IF I
MIGHT.

TODAY, THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF -- THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT TODAY THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES.

AND SO WOULD YOU JUST -- BECAUSE YOUR ANSWER, I THINK, KIND OF PERHAPS MISSED
THAT ASSUMPTION AND WENT TO -- SO COULD YOU JUST ADDRESS THAT?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SURE.

I -- CURRENTLY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT -- WITHIN THE TASK FORCE, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS IS, NOT WHAT DATA SHOULD BE DISPLAYED
OR, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY DIFFERENT CONTACTS THERE SHOULD BE OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.

IT'S JUST AN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF -- SO, YES, I WILL NOTE, THERE ARE --
CURRENTLY ARE REQUIREMENTS TO DISPLAY THE NAME OF THE DOMAIN HOLDER, A
TECHNICAL CONTACT, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT.

AND IN THAT CASE, THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO -- IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE THAT THE
BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS IS FOR TECHNICAL ISSUES, THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN
-- YOU KNOW, YOU LIST SOMEONE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH FOR TECHNICAL ISSUES AND
THERE'S A DIFFERENT PERSON YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF
ISSUES, LEGAL ISSUES.

IT MAY BE EVENTUALLY THAT THE TASK FORCE, AFTER DETERMINING THE PURPOSE OF
WHOIS, YOU KNOW, MAY GET TO A DETERMINATION THAT THAT'S A GOOD -- OUR CURRENT
PRACTICE IS GOOD OR THERE'S A NEW TYPE OF CONTACT THAT'S REQUIRED, OR WHO
KNOWS.

WE'RE SO FOUNDATIONAL AT THIS POINT, JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE IS.

BUT I GUESS YOU WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT THE THINKING IS THAT IN SOME
CASES -- IN SOME CASES, YOU WANT TO GET -- THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH IT'S NOT POSSIBLE JUST TO LIST A PERSON OR A SET OF PERSONS WHO ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF PROBLEMS FOR YOU.

WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IS SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH THE
APPROPRIATE PERSON IF THEY HAPPEN NOT TO BE THE RIGHT ONE.

I THINK THAT'S -- IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DEFINITION, I THINK EVERYONE WITHIN
THE TASK FORCE WOULD AGREE THAT THE POINT IS TO GET YOU IN TOUCH -- IS TO
ALLOW TO YOU RAPIDLY COMMUNICATE AND RESOLVE YOUR ISSUES, I THINK BOTH THE
FORMULATIONS, I THINK, KEEP THAT AS AN IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION.

>>MATT HOOKER: WHAT I REALLY WANT AND WHAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE USING THE
INTERNET REALLY WANT IS BOTH THE INFORMATION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CONTACT
WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ISSUE YOU HAVE, WHETHER IT
BE NAME SERVER, TECHNICAL, OR WHATEVER, AND, PRIMARILY, I WANT THE LEGAL
OWNER'S PRINCIPAL CONTACT ADDRESS, I WANT THEIR LEGAL PHONE NUMBER, AND I
WANT THE LEGAL NAME OF THE ENTITY THAT ACTUALLY OWNS THAT DOMAIN NAME, OR THE
REGISTRANT.

IN ADDITION TO OTHER INFORMATION -- OTHER INFORMATION IS HELPFUL, BUT WE
WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE PRIMARY INFORMATION DISPLAYED IN A WHOIS OUTPUT FIRST.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS.

THAT IS VERY HELPFUL INPUT.

AND WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION.

>>MATT HOOKER: THANK YOU.

>>KATHY KLEIMAN: I CAN'T RESIST.

AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE EVERYONE'S UNLISTED TELEPHONE NUMBER.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO'S BEHIND THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND WHO'S BEHIND THEIR
CHAT ROOM IDENTITIES.

WE HAD A PRIVACY CONFERENCE ON TUESDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF
THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS AND OTHER
TYPES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, WHICH BALANCE PRIVACY AND
DUE PROCESS.

IT BALANCES THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL, A SMALL POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION THAT MAY BE CRITICIZING GOVERNMENTS AND -- OR LARGE
CORPORATIONS, IT BALANCES THE ABILITY TO GET AHOLD OF SOMEONE WHO CAN SOLVE A
PROBLEM, WHO CAN SOLVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM OR A LEGAL PROBLEM, BUT YET
PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

I ACTUALLY COMMEND THE WORK THAT IS AHEAD, I COMMEND JORDYN AND THE TASK
FORCE FOR PUTTING FORWARD THESE TWO DEFINITIONS.

AND I WANTED TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT STEVE METALITZ SAID.

ON MONDAY, YOU PASSED THE NATIONAL LAWS EXCEPTION.

AND THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT FIRST STEP.

BUT IT'S JUST A FIRST STEP.

THE NATIONAL LAWS EXCEPTION, I'VE HEARD SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS SAID ABOUT
IT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE TEXT OF IT TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH WORK IS
REALLY AHEAD.

THE NATIONAL LAWS EXCEPTION, IF YOU LOOK VERY, VERY CLOSELY AT THE TEXT OF
WHAT YOU ADOPTED, IT SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO DEVELOP A POLICY AND PROCEDURE TO
CREDIBLY DEMONSTRATE THAT A REGISTRAR OR REGISTRY IS LEGALLY PREVENTED BY
LOCAL NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS OR REGULATIONS FROM FULLY COMPLYING WITH THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF ITS ICANN CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING DATA.

BASICALLY, WHAT IT SAYS IS A REGISTRAR OR REGISTRY HAS TO BE SUED IN ORDER TO
SEEK PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN THE DOMAIN NAME.

AND THAT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH.

YOU DON'T -- YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING THE REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES TO COME INTO
PROACTIVE COMPLIANCE TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE A PRIVACY LAW AND THAT THEY SHOULD
BE ADOPTING THEIR POLICIES IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

SO WE REALLY HAVE -- YOU HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH.

WE REALLY DO HAVE TO GO FORWARD TO THE VERY, VERY HARD DISCUSSIONS AND
DECISIONS AHEAD.

AND WE PRESENTED TWO DIFFERENT PURPOSES, AND GOOD LUCK WITH THE
DELIBERATIONS.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KATHY.

STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME'S EDWARD HASBROUCK.

I'M A JOURNALIST AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE WHOSE WRITING FOCUSING ON THE USE OF
THE INTERNET BY TRAVELERS.

AND THEY ARE THE BIGGEST USES OF THE INTERNET OF E-COMMERCE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THEIR NEEDS.

I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF PRIVACY FOR WHOIS DATA, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST
FOLLOWING UP ON THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT TWO OPTIONAL FIELDS, OPTIONAL
FIELDS, BE ADDED TO THE WHOIS DATA.

ONE, A FIELD TO SPECIFY THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE REGISTRANT ACCEPTS
LEGAL PROCESS, OR THAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE GOVERNING JURISDICTION FOR THE
USE OF THAT DOMAIN NAME.

AND SECOND, AN OPTIONAL FIELD OR BIT EITHER TO SPECIFY THAT ONE OF THE
EXISTING CONTACTS IS AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT LEGAL PROCESS ON BEHALF OF THE
REGISTRANT OR TO DESIGNATE AN ALTERNATE AGENT FOR THE SERVICE OF LEGAL
PROCESS.

I THINK THOSE SHOULD BE OPTIONAL.

BUT CONSUMERS SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ARE DOING BUSINESS WITH AN INTERNET COMPANY
WHERE THAT COMPANY WHERE THAT COMPANY ASSERTS THAT IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO
JURISDICTION AND WHETHER THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MAKE AVAILABLE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION THAT LEGAL PROCESS COULD BE SERVED ON THEM BY A CONSUMER, SHOULD
THEY HAVE A DISPUTE.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.



>>MARILYN CADE: DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION -- DID YOU WANT TO ASK HIM A
QUESTION?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER: OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT WE SEEM TO BE LOSING FOCUS ON THE CRUX
OF THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS WITHIN ICANN'S
MISSION.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS YOU HAVE IN THE DISCUSSION OF WHOIS IS THAT
PEOPLE THINK OF ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS THAT THEY COULD DO WITH DATA IF WE
COULD JUST FORCE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THIS DATA WHEN THEY REGISTER A DOMAIN
NAME.

SO TO MR. HOOKER, IT'S -- HE WANTS TO KNOW HOW TO SERVE LEGAL PROCESS.

AND ED HASBROUCK WANTS TO KNOW WHAT JURISDICTION PEOPLE ARE IN.

WHAT WE HAVE TO ASK FIRST IS, WHAT IS ICANN'S MISSION.

AND HOW IS WHOIS RELATED TO THAT MISSION?

ICANN IS ABOUT THE COORDINATION OF UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS ON THE INTERNET.

THAT'S ALL.

IT'S NOT SET UP AS AN AID TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF OTHER WAYS THAT THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES CAN TAKE
PLACE.

MANY, MANY OTHER WAYS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF MR. HASBROUCK'S COMMENTS, IT'S PERFECTLY
REASONABLE FOR HIM TO SAY THAT HE WANTS TO KNOW WHERE BUSINESSES ARE SITUATED
AND WHAT JURISDICTION THEY'RE SUBJECT TO.

THAT'S FINE.

IN FACT, MANY COUNTRIES, AS A MATTER OF LAW, REQUIRE COMMERCIAL WEB SITES TO
PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION.

AND THAT IS, IN FACT, A DECISION THAT SHOULD BE MADE BY LEGISLATORS ENACTING
LAWS REGULATING E-COMMERCE.

THIS IS NOT PART OF ICANN'S MISSION.

ICANN'S MISSION IS TO COORDINATE UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS.

AND THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS CAN ONLY FACILITATE THAT.

AND ONCE WE START TRYING TO EXPLOIT THE LEVERAGE OF DOMAIN NAME REGULATION TO
ACHIEVE OTHER PURPOSES, WE'RE ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS THE EXPANSION OF
ICANN'S MISSION AND THE CORRUPTION OF ICANN'S MISSION AND THE SUBORDINATION
AND, REALLY, FORCING USERS OF DOMAIN NAMES TO DO THINGS THAT WE WANT THEM TO
DO SIMPLY BECAUSE WE FIND IT CONVENIENT.

AND THAT IS BOTH UNJUST AND UNWISE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THE FIRST DEFINITION OF PURPOSE REALLY NAILS IT.

IT REALLY GETS IT RIGHT, THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION WE NEED
RELATIVE TO THE CONFIGURATION OF DOMAIN NAME RECORDS.

AND THAT'S ALL.

AND IF YOU WANT OTHER KINDS OF INFORMATION, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF LEGAL
TOOLS THAT CAN BE USED TO GET THAT INFORMATION.

BUT LET'S NOT CORRUPT ICANN AND TURN IT INTO A MECHANISM FOR ACHIEVING THESE
OTHER GOALS.



>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I HAVE A COMMENT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK MARILYN HAS A COMMENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO MILTON HAS -- PROFESSOR MUELLER HAS ELUCIDATED THE
DIFFERENCE OF PERSPECTIVE THAT I THINK DOES EXIST THROUGHOUT THE ICANN
COMMUNITY.

AND THAT IS PERHAPS A -- AT THE -- FUNDAMENTALLY, A DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE
ABOUT ICANN'S MISSION.

BECAUSE TO ME, I BELIEVE THAT ICANN'S MISSION ALSO INCLUDES ENSURING THE
SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.

AND PERHAPS THE DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE HERE COMES DOWN TO HOW BEST TO DO
THAT.

BUT IT IS, IN FACT, THE, PERHAPS, CENTRAL PORTRAYAL OF THE DEBATE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ADD LIGHT AND NOT FIRE TO.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD.

>>MATT HOOKER: I'D LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY RESPOND TO WHAT MR. MUELLER JUST
SAID, BECAUSE HE PARAPHRASED ME.

I AM ACTUALLY NOT LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO SERVE LEGAL PROCESS.

WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS FOR THE REGISTRANT INFORMATION WHICH IS REQUIRED
WHENEVER YOU REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME TO BE ACCURATE.

THAT IS, THERE MUST BE SOMEONE WHO IS OWNING OR REGISTERING THAT DOMAIN NAME.

SO I WANT TO ENSURE THAT WHETHER IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL, SOME KIND OF CORPORATE
ENTITY, OR WHATEVER, THAT THAT'S ACCURATE INFORMATION, THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL
STREET ADDRESS, THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL E-MAIL ADDRESS, AT THE VERY LEAST.

AND, OF COURSE, WHEN YOU HAVE A STREET ADDRESS, YOU HAVE A JURISDICTION.

THAT'S ALREADY INCLUDED IN THAT.

SO THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

THAT ONCE THE REGISTRANT'S INFORMATION IS ACCURATE, THEN THAT WILL ALLOW FOR
SERVICE OF PROCESS, IT WILL ALLOW FOR ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS.

BUT MY MAIN GOAL IS NONE OF THESE OTHER THINGS.

IT'S JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTUAL REGISTRANT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE AS
TO WHO OWNS THAT DOMAIN NAME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I JUST CLARIFY THAT POINT JUST FOR A QUESTION.

THIS WHOIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THE INFORMATION AND THE
WHOIS SERVICES IS THE MECHANISM OF DOING THAT.

THE COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF THE INFORMATION IS A SEPARATE TOPIC.

AND SO REGISTRARS COLLECT THE INFORMATION, AND THEY STORE IT IN A REGISTRAR
DATABASE.

AND REGISTRARS ARE CONSTANTLY BATTLING TO KEEP THAT INFORMATION ACCURATE,
BECAUSE PREDOMINANTLY, THAT'S HOW THEY GET THEIR REVENUE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU ARE SAYING YOU WANT THE ACCURATE
INFORMATION, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU WANT IT DISPLAYED, THOUGH?

BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE KEY.

>>MATT HOOKER: OF COURSE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, SO IT'S NOT JUST ACCURACY; IT'S YOU WANT IT DISPLAYED.



>>MATT HOOKER: I WANT IT OUTPUT IN A WHOIS SEARCH.

EXACTLY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, EXACTLY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I ALSO WILL NOTE, IN ADDITION, AS I NOTED EARLIER, THE
TASK FORCE, AFTER WE GET THROUGH SORT OF THIS METAPHYSICAL PROCESS OF
DEFINING THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS, THEN WE GET DOWN TO SOME MORE CONCRETE ITEMS.

ONE OF THEM IS ACCURACY.

AND IT'S INTENDED THAT WE WILL CONCENTRATE ON IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF THE
DATA THAT'S DISPLAYED BY THE WHOIS SYSTEM AFTER WE -- ONCE WE FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE PURPOSE IS AND IT'S EASIER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DATA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ACCURATE.

>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, AND I JUST WANT TO ADD ANOTHER COMMENT, BECAUSE IT'S
SOMETIMES EASY TO FORGET THIS.

THIS IS THE SECOND WHOIS TASK FORCE.

AND SOME EXTENSIVE WORK WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNDERTAKEN,
INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT BULK ACCESS TO WHOIS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF PUT ON THE TABLE THE IDEA THAT
THERE IS SENSITIVITY WITHIN THE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, AND WITH -- ALSO WITHIN
THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS BROADLY, THAT WE MAY ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT IDEAS OF HOW
TO LIMIT DATA MINING OF THE DATA, HOW TO RESTRICT THE USES OF BULK ACCESS IN
WAYS THAT THEY DON'T CREATE NEW MAILING LISTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR.

WE DID ADDRESS IT IN A PREVIOUS TASK FORCE.

AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME PRETTY UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.

AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO EMERGE AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S JUST NOT THE STAGE WE'RE AT NOW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'LL JUST NOTE, SIMILARLY TO ACCURACY, THAT'S ALSO
INCLUDED IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE TASK FORCE.

WE DO INTEND TO GET TO THAT DISCUSSION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

I'LL TAKE ONE MORE FROM THE FLOOR AND THEN WE'LL NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
TOPIC.

JUST STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN AND --

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANKS, WENDY SELTZER.

I'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCE FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

I'D JUST, TO ECHO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HEARD OF THE LIMITED MISSION OF
ICANN, ALSO WANT TO REFLECT THE LIMITED ROLE OF WHOIS INFORMATION.

IT'S NOT THE SOLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT WEB SITES OR ONLINE ENTITIES
WITH WHOM YOU MIGHT BE DOING BUSINESS.

THAT INFORMATION CAN BE CONVEYED ON WEB PAGES AND THROUGH THE OTHER MEANS
BUSINESSES PROVIDE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM.

AND SO FOR CONSUMERS DOING BUSINESS ON THE WEB, THE WHOIS ISN'T A DATABASE OF
BUSINESS CONTACT INFORMATION, AND CONSUMERS MIGHT RIGHTLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT
DOING BUSINESS WITH AN ENTITY THAT PROVIDED ONLY THE INFORMATION IN ITS WHOIS
AND NO INFORMATION ON A WEB PAGE ABOUT WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLACE TO
WHICH YOU ARE SENDING YOUR CHECK OR YOUR PAYPAL TRANSFER.

BUT THE WHOIS AS INFORMATION THAT IDENTIFIES -- INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED
TO BE PROVIDED ON REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME, SHOULD REALLY BE LIMITED TO
WHAT'S TECHNICALLY REQUIRED, BECAUSE DOMAIN NAMES FACILITATE SO MUCH MORE
THAN COMMERCE.

THEY FACILITATE SPEECH, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN
PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK WITHOUT MAKING THEIR IDENTITIES OR THEIR PRIVATE CONTACT
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, WENDY.

JUST WANT TO JUST MAKE A FINAL COMMENT ON THIS.

AND THAT'S TO SORT OF GET BACK TO WHAT JORDYN WAS SUGGESTING FROM A PROCESS
POINT OF VIEW.

SO THERE ARE TWO FORMULATIONS, AND AT THE SURFACE, THEY LOOK FAIRLY SIMILAR.

AND THERE'S PROBABLY SOME SUBTLE DIFFERENCES.

I THINK WE CERTAINLY WOULD WANT THE TASK FORCE TO TRY AND COMBINE THOSE TWO
DEFINITIONS INTO A SINGLE DEFINITION SO WE DO HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I RECOGNIZE THAT WITHIN THE GROUP ITSELF, IT MAY HAVE
REACHED A POINT WHERE WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD RIGHT NOW.

SO I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU DOCUMENT IT CAREFULLY, WHAT THE TWO FORMULATIONS
ARE, AND THE RATIONALE FOR EACH OF THOSE.

WE THEN PUT THAT DOCUMENT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN THE TASK FORCE CAN
RECONSIDER THAT PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN SEND IT FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D RECOMMEND SOMETHING THAT
VINT CERF RECOMMENDED A FEW DAYS AGO, I THINK, ON IDNS AND SOME OTHER TOPICS.

BUT TRY AND EXPLAIN THE USE CASES, IN OTHER WORDS, TRY AND EXPLAIN SOME
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES AND HOW THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO DEFINITIONS MAY
AFFECT THOSE PRACTICAL EXAMPLES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT IN THE SECOND
FORMULATIONS IS THE LAST COUPLE OF WORDS WHICH SAYS "USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME."

I CAN GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF USES OF THE DOMAIN NAME.

ONE IS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE WEB SITE THAT'S ASSOCIATED
WITH THE DOMAIN NAME, OR THE CONTENT OF AN E-MAIL THAT MIGHT USE A DOMAIN
NAME IN THE "SEND" ADDRESS, IN OTHER WORDS, TO BE ABLE TO SEND TO SOMEBODY.

NOT ALWAYS DO PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CONTENT OF THE WEB SITE WHERE THE
DOMAIN NAME IS POINTING TO.

AND THAT'S INCREASINGLY HAPPENING NOW WITH ADVERTISING WEB SITES, THAT A LOT
OF WEB SITES NOW ARE FUNDED BY ADVERTISING THAT'S DYNAMICALLY GENERATED ON
THOSE PAGES.

AND SOME OF THAT ADVERTISING COULD WELL, YOU KNOW -- MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE FOR
SOME PEOPLE.

SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN WE'RE USING THE TERM "USE OF," ALL THE DOMAIN
NAME DOES IS PROVIDE A LINK AND A MAPPING FROM A NAME TO AN IP ADDRESS.

AND THAT IP ADDRESS, THEN, HAS A WEB SITE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO NEARLY ALWAYS YOU'D NEED TO GO AND LOOK UP WHO'S THE OPERATOR OF THE IP
ADDRESS AND WHO ULTIMATELY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT BEING LINKED TO BY
THAT NAME.

E-MAIL HAS SIMILAR ISSUES.

AND EVEN FURTHER TO THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF PHISHING ATTACKS THAT I
SEE, THE DOMAIN NAME APPEARS IN THE E-MAIL.

SO IT MIGHT HAVE WWW DOT, SAY, BANKOFAMERICA.COM IN THE E-MAIL, BUT THAT
DOMAIN NAME WHEN YOU CLICK ON IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO AN IP ADDRESS AND IT'S
NOT USING THE -- IT'S NOT USING THE DNS TO DO THAT RESOLUTION.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THE OWNER OF THAT DOMAIN NAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT
E-MAIL, NOR HAS ANYTHING TO DO EVEN WHEN THE LINK BETWEEN THE CONTENT AND
THAT E-MAIL AND THE FINAL WEB SITE.

SO WHEN WE SAY "USE OF DOMAIN NAME," ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE NAME OR ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT THE DNS RECORD ITSELF?

AND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE END CONTENT THAT'S BEING USED THERE?

SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE -- I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IN THE FORMULATION OF
THAT WHAT'S MEANT BY "USE," PERHAPS BY SOME EXAMPLES SO I CAN JUST UNDERSTAND
THAT MORE CLEARLY.

BUT THAT APPLIES TO BOTH FORMULATIONS, BECAUSE I'M SURE IN EITHER
FORMULATION, YOU CAN CONSIDER SOME DIFFERENT EXAMPLES AND THEN CONSIDER WHICH
FORMULATION BETTER MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE EXAMPLES.



>>MARILYN CADE: AND, BRUCE, YOU WERE SPEAKING THERE OF WEARING YOUR REGISTRAR
HAT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M JUST SPEAKING FROM -- IN WHICH CONTEXT?

SORRY, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: YOU WERE SORT OF SUGGESTING THAT -- BECAUSE I -- YOU WERE
SUGGESTING AND IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THOSE
COMMENTS MIGHT INCLUDE ILLUSTRATIONS OF --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OF EXAMPLES, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH.

>>MARILYN CADE: WE DID, IN THE INITIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE
I DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE LANGUAGE, INCLUDE SOME EXAMPLES.

AND THOSE, I THINK, GOT EDITED OUT BECAUSE OF LENGTH.

BUT EXAMPLES LIKE NETWORK ATTACKS, PHISHING ATTACKS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

AND WE COULD CERTAINLY GO BACK TO THAT, BUT IT MAKES IT VERY CUMBERSOME TO
HAVE SUCH LANGUAGE.

BUT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, I THINK YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, THAT WOULD BE
--

>>BRUCE TONKIN: (INAUDIBLE).

>>MARILYN CADE: YES.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I JUST NOTE BRIEFLY THAT SOME OF THE CONSTITUENCY
STATEMENTS AND THE CONSTITUENCY VIEWS, I THINK, BRUCE, DO REFLECT A NOTION
THAT THE CONTENT IS -- ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WHOIS -- YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE
TO GET IN TOUCH WITH SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE WHO CAN HELP YOU TALK ABOUT ISSUES
RELATING TO CONTENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK I NEED TO SEEK CLARIFICATION.

SOME OF THE CONSTITUENCIES?

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S -- I THINK IT'S PERHAPS ONE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I ACTUALLY BELIEVE TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES SPECIFICALLY
TALK ABOUT CONTENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY CONTENT, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I BELIEVE ISPS --

>>MARILYN CADE: COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY --

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES PRESENTED CONSTITUENCY
STATEMENTS THAT INDICATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS ENCOMPASSED ISSUES
RELATING TO VARIOUS THINGS, AND THEN THE WORD "CONTENT" WAS SPECIFICALLY USED
WITHIN THEIR FORMULATION OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS WAS.

SO -- I'M JUST SUGGESTING THE WORD "CONTENT" WAS EXPLICITLY LISTED BY THESE
TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SO, CLEARLY, WE WILL NEED TO READ THOSE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.

BUT I THINK IT'S JUST A CASE OF, YOU KNOW, COMING BACK, JUST TO REINFORCE
WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, MARILYN, IT'S NOT JUST A CASE OF SAYING, YES, I LIKE
FORMULATION TWO OR, YES, I LIKE FORMULATION ONE IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC
COMMENT, BUT ACTUALLY EXPLAINING WHY YOU LIKE ONE VERSUS THE OTHER WITH SOME
EXAMPLES.

I THINK THAT'S AS FAR AS WE WISH TO GO ON THIS TOPIC TODAY.

CLEARLY THERE IS, AS THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN ON THIS TOPIC, A LOT OF DIFFERENT
VIEWS.

AND THE MORE INPUT THAT WE GET FROM THE PUBLIC, THE BETTER THE OUTCOME WILL
BE.

SO I THANK YOU, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE TOPIC OF THE RECENT ROUND OF SPONSORED
TLDS.

DO WE HAVE MIRIAM SAPIRO?

JUST TO INTRODUCE THIS TOPIC A LITTLE BIT, THE COUNCIL IS ABOUT TO UNDERTAKE
A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR INTRODUCING NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, IF WE DID DECIDE TO INTRODUCE
NEW GLOBAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES, WHAT PROCESS SHOULD WE BE USING TO
POTENTIALLY SELECT APPLICATIONS?

THE MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE WE'VE HAD WITH THE SELECTION SIDE OF IT WAS FOR
THE RECENT ROUND FOR SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES.

MIRIAM SAPIRO WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THAT ROUND.

AND IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING THAT WORK, SHE'S LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY
CREATING A REPORT DESCRIBING LESSONS LEARNED AND THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER FOR THE FUTURE.

SO AT THIS POINT, I'LL HAND ACROSS TO MIRIAM.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.

AND THANK YOU VERY KINDLY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL THIS
MORNING AND TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE STLD PROCESS THAT IS WRAPPING UP
NOW, FOR WHICH I SERVED AS PROJECT MANAGER.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE BOARD DECIDED IN 2003 TO PROCEED WITH AN INTERIM
ROUND OF SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WHICH WE ABBREVIATED STLDS, BASED ON
THE ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL.

ICANN PREPARED A DRAFT AND THEN A FINAL RFP TO WHICH TEN APPLICANTS
RESPONDED.

THEY WERE ASIA, CAT, JOBS, MAIL, MOBI, POST, TEL, TEL, TRAVEL, AND XXX.

IN ORDER TO MANAGE THE STLD PROCESS IN AN INDEPENDENT MANNER, ICANN THEN
SOUGHT A PROJECT MANAGER TO MANAGE THE EVALUATION, TO SERVE AS A BUFFER
BETWEEN ICANN AND THE APPLICANTS, BETWEEN THE EVALUATORS AND THE APPLICANTS,
AND TO GENERALLY GUIDE THE EVALUATION PHASE TOWARDS COMPLETION.

THE EVALUATORS CONDUCTED THEIR WORK IN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL MANNER,
DILIGENTLY APPLYING THE RFP CRITERIA TO EACH APPLICATION.

THEY ARE FAIRLY -- SOME OF THEM ARE FAIRLY EXTENSIVE CRITERIA, WHICH I'M NOT
GOING TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE OR TO DESCRIBE FOR YOU FULLY TODAY, BUT I'LL GIVE
YOU JUST A FLAVOR.

THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS INCLUDED EVIDENCE OF THE ABILITY TO ENSURE STABLE
REGISTRY OPERATION, EVIDENCE OF THE ABILITY TO ENSURE THE REGISTRY CONFORMS
WITH BEST PRACTICE TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR REGISTRY OPERATIONS, EVIDENCE OF A
FULL RANGE OF REGISTRY SERVICES, AND ASSURANCE OF CONTINUITY OF REGISTRY
OPERATION IN THE EVENT OF BUSINESS FAILURE.

THE BUSINESS PLAN HAD TO DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICANT'S METHODOLOGY FOR
INTRODUCING A NEW STLD AND THE ABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION TO IMPLEMENT A
ROBUST AND APPROPRIATELY RESOURCED ORGANIZATION.

THE FINANCIAL MODEL HAD TO OUTLINE THE FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL, AND OPERATIONAL
CAPABILITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION.

THE SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY VALUE INFORMATION HAD TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION
OF SPONSORED TLD COMMUNITY, EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT FROM THE SPONSORING
ORGANIZATION, APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION AND THE POLICY
FORMULATION ENVIRONMENT.

IN ADDITION, THE CRITERIA OF COMMUNITY VALUE HAD TO BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE
ADDITION OF NEW VALUE TO THE INTERNET NAME SPACE, ALSO BY PROTECTIONS FOR THE
RATES OF OTHERS, ASSURANCE OF CHARTER-COMPLIANT REGISTRATIONS, AND THE
AVOIDANCE OF ABUSIVE REGISTRATION PRACTICES.

THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE EVALUATORS WAS PROTECTED DURING THE PROCESS SO AS
TO AVOID ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE.

THE EVALUATORS' RECOMMENDATIONS WERE THEN PROVIDED TO ICANN, WHICH DECIDED TO
THEN GIVE ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO REMEDY ANY
DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR APPLICATIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE EVALUATORS.

SEVERAL APPLICANTS ELECTED TO DO THIS IN AN EFFORT TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

AND A PROCESS OF PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THEN COMMENCED.

THE PROCESS INVOLVING THE EVALUATORS HAS DRAWN TO A CLOSE, AND ICANN HAS
POSTED AN STLD REPORT DESCRIBING THE STATUS OF EACH APPLICATION, WHICH I
BELIEVE KURT PRITZ WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON WHEN HE PRESENTS TOMORROW
DURING THE BOARD'S PUBLIC FORUM.

ICANN ASKED ME TO CONCLUDE MY WORK AS PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE STLD PROCESS
WITH THE REPORT ON LESSONS LEARNED.

THIS IS AN INTERNAL REVIEW EFFORT THAT'S FOCUSED ON ASSESSING WHAT ASPECTS OF
THE STLD EVALUATION WENT WELL AND WHAT PARTS MIGHT BE IMPROVED WITH RESPECT
TO ANY FUTURE ROUND, I.E., IN OTHER WORDS, WERE THERE LESSONS LEARNED THAT
COULD BE HELPFUL IN A POSSIBLE FUTURE ROUND?

I LEARNED RECENTLY THAT THERE MAY BE A MISPERCEPTION THAT I WAS ASKED TO DO
AN EVALUATION OF THE STLD PROCESS.

I AM NOT, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, INCLUDING THAT I WAS, AS BRUCE SAID, THE
PROJECT MANAGER.

I WOULD NOTE ALSO THAT IT COULD BE CHALLENGING FOR ANYONE TO CONDUCT A FULL
EVALUATION OF THE STLD PROCESS AT THIS TIME WHEN SOME OF THOSE SELECTED ARE
JUST BEING LAUNCHED.

IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO REMEMBER THAT THE GTLD EVALUATION THAT WAS DONE IN 2004
WAS LOOKING AT EVENTS FROM THE YEARS 2000 AND 2001. IN OTHER WORDS, THREE TO
FOUR YEARS EARLIER.

I DO HOPE THAT THE RECENT STLD ROUND, PARTICULARLY THE LESSONS LEARNED, WILL
BE VERY HELPFUL TO THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL AND TO THE WORK OF OTHER ICANN
BODIES AS THEY GRAPPLE WITH THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE SELECTION
PROCESS FOR ANY NEW GTLDS.

IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS
PRESENTATION, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL'S CONSTITUENCIES TO
PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK ON THE STLD PROCESS FROM THEIR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON
WHAT THEY BELIEVE WENT WELL AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE MIGHT BE IMPROVED FOR THE
FUTURE, INCLUDING ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE INTERNAL REVIEW.

AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY SUCH
INPUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MIRIAM. ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE US A SENSE OF WHEN
YOU THINK YOUR PROJECT REPORT WOULD BE COMPLETED BY OR WHEN IT WOULD BE
AVAILABLE?

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: WELL, I -- ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE IT
THIS MONTH. BUT I REALIZE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A REALISTIC TIMETABLE THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SUCH INPUT.

IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO -- ASSUMING IT IS INTERESTED IN
PROVIDING SUCH INPUT, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO DO THIS WITHIN THE
NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, THEN I'M VERY CONFIDENT WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING READY
IN -- I'D SAY BY THE END OF JANUARY, BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAY BREAK. WE'D HAVE
TO DEFER IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS INTO THE NEW YEAR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THE BENEFIT IS GETTING AS EARLY OF INPUT AS
POSSIBLE EVEN IF IT'S NOT A FINAL REPORT. SO EVEN BEING ABLE TO PRODUCE A
DRAFT REPORT AND THEN SEEKING FURTHER INPUT AND COMMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO
RATHER THAN WAITING SEVERAL MONTHS TO GET IT PERFECT, I WOULD SUGGEST INSTEAD
IF YOU HAVE A GOOD FIRST ITERATION, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL INPUT, BUT JUST
MAKE SURE IT IS CLEARLY NOTED IT IS A FIRST ITERATION, AND THAT YOU WOULD
SEEK FURTHER INPUT BEFORE FINALIZING IT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS ON THAT PROCESS, FIRST? PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MIRIAM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU ARE BASICALLY DOING IS
YOU ARE SAYING, OKAY, HAVING DONE THE WORK EARLIER, THIS IS NOW A NATURAL
FOLLOW-UP PROCESS. YOU ARE SAYING, OKAY, WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT TURN OUT LIKE
THIS. THIS IS WHAT WE HAD AND NOW WE CAN GO BACK AND HAVE A QUICK LOOK IN
TERMS OF HOW DID IT REALLY PAN OUT.

AND IS THAT THE ESSENCE OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING?

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: YES, PHILIP, THAT'S A VERY HELPFUL DESCRIPTION. IT'S AN
EFFORT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE CHOICES WERE, WHAT THE CHOICES WE MADE, BECAUSE
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, OF COURSE, TO STRUCTURE AN EVALUATION PROCESS.

AND HOW WELL PEOPLE THINK THE CHOICES WORKED AND WHERE THEY MIGHT BE
IMPROVED.

SO I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH APPLICANTS, WITH EVALUATORS, SINCE THOSE WERE
THE TWO SETS OF PEOPLE MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED TO ENCOURAGE THEIR FEEDBACK.

AND I KNOW ICANN STAFF HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL TO ENCOURAGE
YOUR INPUT AS STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS PROCESS. I'M PLANNING ALSO TO CHECK WITH
THE CCNSO, POSSIBLY EVEN THE ASO, JUST TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WISH TO
PROVIDE ANY INPUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE OTHER THING I WOULD SUGGEST IS WHEN WE FINALIZE THE TERMS
OF REFERENCE FOR THE NEW GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAME PROCESS, IN THE
CONTEXT OF THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE YOU CAN PROVIDE FEEDBACK AS WELL, WHICH
IS MOSTLY AROUND THE QUESTIONS OF HOW TO GO ABOUT THINGS.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: IT'S SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO BUILD ON THE EXPERIENCE THAT ALL OF
US HAVE HAD IN VARYING DEGREES WITH THESE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, SINCE THEY
FIRST CAME UP. AND NOT TO LOSE ANY VALUABLE INSIGHT THAT CAN BE GAINED BY
THOSE PEOPLE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESSES.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY, I JUST NEED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MIRIAM,
BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY SENSITIVE TO THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF ICANN.

I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCE TO THE CCNSO. COULD YOU CLARIFY? IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD, OF COURSE, TO OUTREACH TO THE C-SEC, ET CETERA. I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: I WAS GOING TO CHECK WITH THE CHAIR OF THE CCNSO TO SEE IF
THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE ANY INPUT IN TERMS OF THE TWO
ISSUES I OUTLINED. WHAT DID THEY THINK WENT WELL AND WHAT DID THEY THINK
COULD BE IMPROVED FOR THE FUTURE, SIMPLY IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT TOOK
PLACE ALREADY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND I ASSUME YOU'D ASK THE ASO AS WELL. I THINK WHAT
MARILYN'S MORE GENERAL POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY IN THE CCNSO'S AREA TO
BE LOOKING AT THE GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE ASO AND CCNSO AND THE VARIOUS ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

>>MARILYN CADE: IN PARTICULAR, I THINK IT IS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- IT IS
LEGITIMATELY AND FIRST AND FOREMOST PROBABLY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUE, AND
THEN OF COURSE WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AS SUITABLE TO
THEIR ROLES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. MILTON, GO AHEAD.

>>MILTON MUELLER: HELLO MIRIAM. JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE TLD PROCESS. WHEN
THE RFP WAS ISSUED, WHAT WERE THE APPLICANTS TOLD ABOUT WHEN THE EVALUATION
REPORTS WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW
THAT WAS HANDLED.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: I BECAME INVOLVED AS PROJECT MANAGER AFTER THE APPLICATIONS
WERE FILED. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THAT POINT ON IS THAT APPLICANTS WERE
TOLD THAT THEIR REPORTS, THE EVALUATION REPORTS, WOULD BE RELEASED PUBLICLY
AS SOON AS THE EVALUATION PHASES WERE COMPLETED.

>>MILTON MUELLER: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT DOCUMENT THAT WAS IN OR WHERE THIS
WAS EXPRESSED OR HOW IT WAS EXPRESSED?

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK TO BE CERTAIN. MY RECOLLECTION
IS THAT IT WAS IN A LETTER FROM ICANN TO THE APPLICANTS.

>>MILTON MUELLER: A LETTER FROM ICANN TO THE APPLICANTS. OKAY.

SO, WELL, IT APPEARS THAT THIS ISSUE IS ONE THAT'S REALLY TURNED INTO A HUGE
WRANGLE WITH THE TRIPLE-X APPLICATION, AND I JUST WONDER IF YOU BELIEVE AS
THE PROJECT MANAGER THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THESE EVALUATION REPORTS FOLLOWED
THE PROCESS THAT WAS SET OUT OR WHETHER THERE WERE MISTAKES MADE IN THE
PROCESS THAT LED TO SOME CONFUSION WHICH MAY HAVE COMPLICATED THE TRIPLE-X
CASE.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ICANN STAFF REACHED OUT TO ALL OF
THE APPLICANTS TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THEY RELEASED THE REPORT, ANY INFORMATION
DEEMED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY WOULD BE REDACTED.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT, INDEED, OCCURRED.

BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DIRECT THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY TO ICANN STAFF.

>>MILTON MUELLER: OKAY. THANKS.

>>BRETT FAUSETT: ON THE SAME POINT I NOTICE THAT THE EVALUATION REPORTS ON
THE STLDS -- IS THAT THE ONE YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THE STLDS THAT WERE
JUST POSTED ON NOVEMBER 28? I AM CONCERNED THAT THE EVALUATION REPORTS WERE
POSTED FOR THE PUBLIC AFTER TWO OF THE TLDS WERE ALREADY IN THE ROOT. I KNOW
THAT'S NOT YOUR ISSUE BUT I WANTED TO GET THAT COMMENT OUT THERE BECAUSE
THESE HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE INTERNALLY TO ICANN STAFF FOR SOME TIME. THEY
APPROVE MANY TLDS. TWO OF THEM ARE ALREADY IN THE ROOT, AT LEAST TWO, AND
NOW AFTER THAT APPROVAL PROCESS, WE ARE GETTING THE EVALUATION REPORTS POSTED
VERY LATE IN THE DAY.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: IF I COULD OFFER AN OBSERVATION. THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS
THAT THE EVALUATION SHOULD BE MADE AND THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSE OF THE
PROCESS, AND ALL THE REPORTS WOULD, OF COURSE, BE PUBLISHED BECAUSE IT WASN'T
A COMPETITIVE ROUND IN THE SENSE THAT FOR THE MOST PART THE APPLICANTS WERE
NOT COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER. RATHER, THEY WERE ONLY COMPETING AGAINST
THEMSELVES IN AN EFFORT TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA.

SO ICANN OFFERED THOSE THAT HADN'T BEEN INITIALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE
EVALUATORS A CHANCE TO REMEDY ANY DEFICIENCIES. AND THAT MEANT THAT THE
EVALUATION PROCESS FOR SOME APPLICANTS ENDED UP BEING EXTENDED.

SO AS LONG AS THAT WAS OCCURRING AND THERE WAS STILL EVALUATORS ACTIVELY
INVOLVED IN ASSESSING SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO
PUBLISH REPORTS THAT WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED THEM.

SO I THINK THERE IS A TENSION THERE, AND WE SHOULD DEFINITELY THINK ABOUT HOW
WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT KIND OF ISSUE GOING FORWARD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN I JUST ASK WHEREABOUTS THAT WAS POSTED, MIRIAM?

>>BRET FAUSETT: IF YOU GO TO THE ICANN HOME PAGE ON THE RIGHT THERE IS A LINK
TO STLD -- HOLD ON. I WAS JUST NAVIGATING THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THERE'S A THING CALLED STATUS REPORT ON THE STLD APPLICATION
PROCESS. IS THAT --

>>BRET FAUSETT: IF YOU GO OVER TO THE RIGHT, THERE IS A NEW SPONSORED TLD
APPLICATIONS UNDER CURRENT ISSUES. IF YOU CLICK ON THAT, YOU WILL SEE STATUS
REPORTS ON THE STLD APPLICATION PROCESS. THESE WERE FIRST POSTED ON NOVEMBER
28, EARLIER THIS WEEK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MIRIAM THAT RELATES TO THIS, IF
I MIGHT, THEN WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE MIKE, OBVIOUSLY.

MIRIAM, I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND A COMMENT YOU JUST MADE ABOUT -- IT SOUNDED
LIKE WE WERE PROTECTING THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS. WHY WOULD WE NOT
HAVE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS?

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: I'M SORRY, THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS IS POSTED ALONG
WITH THE REPORTS. THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THEIR IDENTITY SO AS TO
PROTECT THEM AGAINST ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE SO LONG AS ANY OF THEM WERE STILL
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION?

>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEET
MY EXPECTATIONS. BUT THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE'LL JUST GO TO THE FLOOR AND GET COMMENTS, AND THEN
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC.

PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>EDWARD HASBROUCK: EDWARD HASBROUCK, LET ME FIRST SAY THAT THIS IS COMING AS
A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO ME, HAVING MADE REPEATED FORMAL REQUESTS WHICH ARE NOW
THE SUBJECT OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THE EVALUATOR'S REPORT AND THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS I
FIND IT EXCEEDINGLY STRANGE AND UNTRANSPARENT THAT THEY WERE MERELY POSTED ON
AN OBSCURE PART OF THE WEB SITE WITHOUT THE PERSON WHO REQUESTED THEM BEING
NOTIFIED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

BUT MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, I MADE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS IN THE GTLD STRATEGY
DRAFT FORUM. I WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THEM.

LET ME BEGIN BY CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FOOTNOTE IN THE CONSULTANT'S
REPORT ON THE 2001 ROUND IN RESPONSE TO MY COMMENTS IN WHICH THOSE
CONSULTANTS NOTED THAT THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN A LIMITED CHARGE TO ADDRESS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, AND THAT A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF EVALUATION OF THAT ROUND
THAT I HAD RAISED WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR CHARGE AND WOULD NOT BE
ADDRESSED.

IMPORTANTLY, THOSE ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN
EVALUATION OF WHETHER STLD SPONSORS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS
DELEGATED TO MAKE DECISIONS BY ICANN TO ANY OF ICANN'S GENERAL
DECISION-MAKING POLICIES THAT WOULD APPLY TO DELEGATED DECISION-MAKING,
INCLUDING OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN EVALUATION OF WHETHER THOSE STLD SPONSORS HAVE
COMPLIED WITH CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO ICANN TO OPERATE THOSE DOMAINS IN
THE INTERESTS OF THE SPONSORED COMMUNITIES.

THERE HAS BEEN NEVER AN EVALUATION OF WHETHER THOSE STLD SPONSORS HAVE
COMPLIED WITH THEIR CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO ICANN TO PROVIDE MECHANISMS
FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN STLD DECISION-MAKING.

AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY EVALUATION OF WHETHER ICANN HAS, IN FACT, ADEQUATE
OVERSIGHT WITH COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THOSE CONTRACTUAL TERMS. AND IT
APPEARS THAT ICANN DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORMAL OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS FOR
ENFORCING THOSE CONTRACTS, INCLUDING THE TERMS I HAVE DISCUSSED.

SO I WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE EVALUATION PROCESS IS AND WILL
REMAIN INCOMPLETE UNTIL THESE ISSUES ARE TAKEN UP AND ARE EVALUATED.

I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE SPECIFIC QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS ON .TRAVEL, INCLUDING SUCH ISSUES AS WHETHER OR WHEN THINGS LIKE THE
EVALUATORS' REPORT AND THE IDENTITY OF THE EVALUATORS, MUCH LESS THE MEETINGS
THEMSELVES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REVIEWED AND EXCHANGED BACK AND
FORTH WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN MADE PUBLIC, WHETHER THAT PROCESS COMPLIED WITH
ICANN'S TRANSPARENCY BYLAW IS THE SUBJECT OF MY PENDING INDEPENDENT REVIEW
REQUEST, WHICH ASKS THAT THAT BE REFERRED TO AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL
CHARGED WITH DETERMINING WHETHER THAT PROCESS COMPLIED WITH ICANN'S
TRANSPARENCY BYLAW.

MY REQUEST WAS MADE DURING THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING WHILE THE BOARD WAS
STILL SITTING. NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ICANN EITHER TO STAY ITS
DECISION, WHICH I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED, AND I NOTE THAT THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW PANEL HAS AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND A STAY, WHICH WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IF
ICANN DIDN'T STAY ITS DECISION, NOR HAS ANY ACTION BEEN TAKEN BY ICANN TO
REFER MY REQUEST TO AN IRP, NOR HAS ANY ACTION BEEN TAKEN BY ICANN TO EVEN
SCHEDULE A MEETING TO CONSIDER MY REQUEST.

I ASK THE GNSO SPECIFICALLY TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD REFER MY REQUEST TO AN
IRP SO THE IRP CAN CONSIDER WHETHER THE STLD PROCESS ON .TRAVEL COMPLIED WITH
ICANN'S TRANSPARENCY BYLAWS WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF COMPLETING, IF IT IS TO
BE COMPLETED, ANY PROCESS OF EVALUATING THAT STLD PROCESS, SINCE ULTIMATELY,
UNDER ICANN'S BYLAWS, THE EVALUATION SHOULD PROPERLY, IF SOMEONE SO REQUESTS
IT, BE PERFORMED BY AN IRP.

SO I ASK FOR THAT ACTION BY THE GNSO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS HERE. GO AHEAD, PHILIP,
AND THEN MARILYN.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, NOT TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORTANCE AT ALL OF
WHAT I JUST HEARD BUT IN MY CAPACITY AS A PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN OF A SIMILAR BODY
TO THIS I WANT TO REMIND YOU ABOUT TIME KEEPING THAT WE ARE NOW OVER THE TIME
FOR THE GNSO PUBLIC FORUM, AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS, AND GOING INTO THE TIME
ALLOCATED FOR OUR COUNCIL MEETING. SO JUST TO HELP YOU IN TERMS OF THE
ASSESSMENTS YOU NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF JUGGLING THE TOPICS AND ANYTHING ELSE
WE'RE HOPING TO HEAR BEFORE THAT COUNCIL MEETING.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND PERHAPS I'LL MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THAT THOUGHT MYSELF.
I WAS ADVISED WHEN WE PLAN THIS WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AT THE END IF
WE NEED TO RUN OVER, BUT SOME COUNCILLORS MAY HAVE 12:30 TO 1:30 COMMITMENT.

MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY QUITE DIFFERENT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND,
BECAUSE I AM CONFUSED BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, I THOUGHT WHEN YOU STARTED
OUT THAT YOU WERE RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT THE OVERALL PROCESSES IN RELATION
TO THE EVALUATION OF THE SPONSORED ROUND OF TLDS, OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY.

HOWEVER, AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS TO US, IT SEEMED VERY PARTICULARLY ABOUT
.TRAVEL.

YOU HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST IN .TRAVEL OR ARE YOU USING .TRAVEL AS AN
ILLUSTRATION TO US OF ASKING US TO LOOK AT THE BROADER ISSUES IN RELATION TO
THE COMPLETION OF FEEDBACK? AND I WILL JUST NOTE THAT, IN FACT, THE FEEDBACK
PROCESS IS A PROCESS. IT IS NOT A SINGLE EVENT IN TIME. AND WE AS COUNCIL
ARE EXPECTING TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THIS INFORMATION, BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY
GET SORT OF SNAPSHOTS IN TIME GOING FORWARD.

>>EDWARD HASBROUCK: I AM A TRAVEL JOURNALIST, SO THE FOCUS OF MY ATTENTION
AND MY ATTEMPTS TO REPORT ON THIS PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED EXPLICIT REQUESTS
FOR NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS, ANY MEETINGS, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE EVALUATIONS
AND FOR A LENGTHY LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THEM, WERE CONFINED TO
.TRAVEL.

AND MY INDEPENDENT REVIEW REQUEST IS NARROWLY CONFINED TO THE PROCESS THAT
WAS CONDUCTED ON .TRAVEL.

WHETHER THAT IS INDICATIVE OF SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS THAT WOULD ALSO RELATE TO THE
PROCESS FOR THE OTHER DOMAINS I THINK IS A SEPARATE QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY IF
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL WERE TO FIND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT NOT RELEASING
THESE SORTS OF DOCUMENTS AND CONDUCTING MEETINGS OF THE EVALUATORS IN SECRET
WAS A VIOLATION OF ICANN'S BYLAWS WHEN IT WAS DONE FOR .TRAVEL, I PRESUME THE
SAME LOGIC WOULD APPLY TO THE OTHERS AS WELL.

SO MY REQUESTS ARE LIMITED TO .TRAVEL, AND ANYONE IS WELCOME TO TAKE THEM
HOWEVER THEY WISH AS EXEMPLARY OF WHAT MIGHT APPLY IF THE SAME SCRUTINY WAS
APPLIED TO OTHER STLDS AND THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THEREON.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

LET ME JUST CLARIFY, TOO, WHAT THE COUNCIL ROLE IN THIS IS. WE HAVEN'T BEEN
DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE EVALUATION ITSELF. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS CREATE A
POLICY THAT WOULD BE USED TO BUILD A PROCESS INTO THE FUTURE.

AND CERTAINLY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS THAT
SHOULD GO INTO A FUTURE POLICY.

SO THIS ISN'T THE PLACE TO DEBATE THE PROS AND CONS OF ANY PARTICULAR
SPONSORED APPLICATION.

GO AHEAD.

>>BECKY BURR: MY NAME IS BECKY BURR. I AM FROM WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. AND I REPRESENTED SEVERAL OF THE APPLICANTS THROUGH THE
PROCESS. MIRIAM, I SUSPECT IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR TO HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE APPLICANTS WERE TOLD BUT SINCE YOU TOOK A
STAB AT IT I FEEL COMPELLED TO CORRECT THIS.

ICANN TOLD THE APPLICANTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES IN THE NOVEMBER 28TH REPORT THAT
IT TOLD THE APPLICANTS THAT THE REVIEWS WOULD BE RELEASED AT THE COMPLETION
OF THE PROCESS.

NOW, COMPLETION OF THE PROCESS IS A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS, AND YOU COULD TRY,
YOU KNOW, THE COMPLETION OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
BUT THE NOVEMBER 28TH REPORT GOES ON TO SAY, AS THE PROCESS IS COMPLETED FOR
SOME OF THE APPLICANTS, AND ALMOST COMPLETED FOR OTHERS, WE'RE RELEASING
THEM.

I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE APPLICANTS WERE THAT WHEN THE
PROCESS WAS COMPLETED FOR ALL APPLICANTS THEY WOULD BE RELEASED.

NOW, EVEN IF YOU TAKE WHEN THE EVALUATION PROCESS WAS COMPLETED, I THINK I
CAN SAY WITH -- IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THE SPONSORSHIP, AND OTHER ISSUES,
EVALUATION TEAM WHICH IS SORT OF THE SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY DIDN'T MEET WITH
OR DISCUSS THESE THINGS WITH AN APPLICANT FOR THE LAST 12 MONTHS, AT THE VERY
LEAST. THERE WERE NO DISCUSSIONS AFTER THE REPORTS WERE GIVEN TO THE
APPLICANTS IN AUGUST. OR IN THE CASES THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS DONE UNIVERSALLY.

SO THE REPORTS COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED IN -- AT THAT POINT, ALTHOUGH THERE
WERE SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES GOING ON. I THINK THOSE WERE DONE PRETTY SOON
AFTER THAT. SO THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED, SAY, THE FIRST OF JANUARY.
THEY WEREN'T. IN FACT, ICANN DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY TO PROVIDE REDACTED
DOCUMENTS UNTIL FOUR OF THE APPLICANTS HAD APPROVED CONTRACTS.

SO NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT, THE BOTTOM
LINE IS THEY HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS THAT THEY
SET OUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

I THINK WE'LL END THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION POINT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE
STARTING TO GET INTO THE PARTICULAR ROUND ITSELF, AND THAT'S PROBABLY MORE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE GENERAL ICANN FORUM AS DISTINCT FROM THE POLICY ASPECTS
OF NEW TLDS.

BUT WIELDS TAKE ONE MORE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WERE IN THE QUEUE TO BEGIN WITH.
SO GO AHEAD.

>>STUART DUNCAN: HI, BRUCE, STUART DUNCAN FROM ICM REGISTRY WAS THE TRIPLE-X
APPLICANT. I AM NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF OUR APPLICATION AT
ALL, BUT I WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, THIS ROUND HAS GONE NOW FAR LONGER THAN EXPECTED. AND IT'S
UNLIKELY NOW THAT WE AND PROBABLY .ASIA WILL GET SOME SORT DECISION AHEAD OF
WELLINGTON, MAYBE EVEN LATER THAN THAT, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS PROCESS HAS
GONE ON FOR TWO YEARS. AND I THINK THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS THERE FOR
ICANN OF PEOPLE NOT STICKING TO THE PROCESS. GOVERNMENTS AND GAC INTERVENED
WELL AFTER THE OPPORTUNITY WAS THERE FOR THEM TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE PROCESS
AND CAUSED DELAY CERTAINLY IN AT LEAST ONE APPLICATION.

SO I THINK ICANN NEEDS TO CONSIDER HOW IT CAN STICK TO TIMETABLES BECAUSE IT
MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE BIDS LIKE
THIS IF IT DOES NOT.

AND SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT CERTAINLY THE INVOLVEMENTS OF THE
GACS AND THE COMMENTS MADE THIS WEEK BY THE GAC IN OUR PRESENTATION TO THEM
AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE SOME KIND OF EARLY FILTERING PROCESS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT ROUND, I THINK THE APPLICANT SPENT 45,000 POUNDS
APPLICATION FEE BUT SPENT FAR MORE THAN THAT, AND I CAN SPEAK FOR ALL THE
APPLICANTS, I'M SURE, HERE, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT THEY SPENT IN PREPARING
BOTH THE APPLICATION AND GOING THROUGH THE FIRST EVALUATION.

IT MAY BE BETTER, IF THE GAC WANTS TO HAVE A SAY OVER SUCH ISSUES AS PUBLIC
POLICY, TO SPEND $5,000, PUT TOGETHER A QUICK SUMMARY, AND IF YOUR
APPLICATION IS FOR .NAZI, THEN THEY CAN SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT EARLY.
AT LEAST IT STOPS YOU FROM GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTRIBUTION. IT'S VERY HELPFUL.

I'D LIKE TO SORT OF GO ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC, AND I MAKE THIS I GUESS THE
FINAL TOPIC FOR THIS PUBLIC FORUM.

IN THE COUNCIL MEETING WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT TERMS OF REFERENCE
FOR LOOKING AT NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. I DID HAVE A REQUEST FOR A
PRESENTATION FROM A PARTY THAT'S -- THAT BELIEVES THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEW
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO HAND OVER TO
PRESENTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON SUGGESTING DOTBERLIN. AGAIN, LET'S
KEEP THIS TO FIVE OR TEN MINUTES AND FOCUS REALLY ON NOT WHETHER YOUR
SPECIFIC APPLICATION IS VALID BUT WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE ANY TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS AT ALL AND WHAT THE BENEFITS WOULD BE FOR USERS IF WE DID HAVE SOME.

>> THANK YOU, BRUCE, FOR INVITING US HERE AND GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DOTBERLIN AND CITY TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

OKAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M CEO OF DOTBERLIN, AND I'M GOING TO PRESENT
WHY WE WANT TO ENABLE COMMUNITIES' IDENTITY OF BERLIN ON THE INTERNET
BRIEFLY.

I THINK THE BEST IDEAS ARE COMMON PROPERTY, AS SENECA SAID FIVE YEARS BEFORE
CHRIST, AND CITY TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, I THINK, ARE COMMON PROPERTY IDEA AND
DISCUSSED FOR MANY YEARS.

WE ALSO THINK THAT THEY ARE A VERY LOGICAL CHOICE FOR COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE
THEY REFLECT EXISTING COMMUNITIES IN THE WORLD, LIKE THE WORLD COMMUNITIES
HAVING DOT COM, NET, AND INFO, AND REGIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN TLDS,
AND COUNTRIES ALSO, AND ESPECIALLY COUNTRIES AND CITIES BECOME CLOSER,
BECAUSE THEIR COMMUNITIES OFTEN HAVE THE SAME SIZE.

THE BENEFITS OF CITY TLDS LIKE DOTBERLIN OR OTHERS TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY
ARE -- GLOBALLY ARE, THEY OFFER CERTAINTY AND MEANING, AT LEAST BY THE CLEAR
AND DESCRIPTIVE NAME THEY HAVE.

AND FOR SURE THEY WILL ENHANCE COMPETITION AND PROSPERITY ON THE INTERNET,
GIVING THE COMMUNITIES OF THE CITIES A VOICE.

AND THEY WILL INCREASE THE COMMUNICATIVE AND CULTURAL PLURALITY OF THE
CITIES, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CULTURE AND THINGS WHICH
ARE GOING ON IN THE WORLD.

AND TO THE CITIES ESPECIALLY, AND ESPECIALLY TO BIGGER CITIES CALLED
METROPOLIS, THEY CREATE LONG-TERM ADVANTAGE, COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, FOR THE
LOCATION.

AND IMPORTANTLY, THEY SUSTAIN THE CITIZENS' IDENTITY.

AND WE TALK HERE ABOUT CITY TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AS IDENTITY.

AND THEY ALSO SUSTAIN THE CITIZENS' CORPORATE FEELING.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE, THEY SAID CITIES HAVE A CITY
BRAND, AND THEY HAVE AN IMAGE. AND CITY TLDS WILL FOR SURE SUPPORT THESE
BRANDS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

WE ALSO THINK THAT YOU ALL KNOW YAHOO!, GOOGLE, MSN LOCALIZED SERVICE IS
COMING UP, AND CITY TLDS SUPPORT THIS IN A PERFECT WAY, BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT
THE LOCAL BRANDING OF GOOGLE LOCAL, FOR EXAMPLE, LOCAL DIRECTORIES, CITY
MAPS, LOCAL E-MAIL, AND LOCAL E-COMMERCE.

THESE COMPANIES WILL, I THINK, PROFIT IN THE FUTURE.

AND WE HAVE HAD SOME TALKS WITH SOME ALREADY.

COMING TO DOTBERLIN, IT IS ESPECIALLY HELPFUL TO THOSE WHO DIDN'T GET THEIR
DESIRED DE DOMAIN.

THIS NAME SPACE IS GETTING VERY TIGHT, LIKE DOMAINS LIKE ZOO-BERLIN OR
ARENA-BERLIN.

THEY HAVE ALREADY "BERLIN" IN THE SECOND LEVEL, AND THERE ARE OVER 100,000
DOMAIN NAMES WHICH HAVE "BERLIN" IN THE SECOND LEVEL.

AND BERLIN IS THE SECOND CITY WORLDWIDE AFTER NEW YORK HAVING SO MANY
MENTIONING OF A CITY NAME.

INSTITUTIONS ARE -- OFTEN HAVE NO DOMAIN OR DE DOMAIN, IN OUR CASE, FOR
COMMUNICATION.

YOU OFTEN HAVE VERY LONG DIRECTORIES POINTING TO SPECIFIC MAYORS' OFFICES OR
PARTS OF THE CITY.

AND THESE SHORT NAMES WILL CONTRIBUTE TO BETTER COMMUNICATION OF THE CITY.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF TERMS WHICH ESPECIALLY MAKE SENSE TO CITIES LIKE TAXI
OR HOTEL, WHERE YOU DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE A VERY GOOD SERVICE FOR A COUNTRY
CODE OR A GENERIC TLD.

AND WE HAVE ALSO THE CHANCE TO -- NOT TO CONFUSE USERS IN THE FUTURE BY
POOLING DOMAIN NAMES WITH SINGLE AND PLURAL, FOR EXAMPLE.

WE ALSO THINK THAT DOTBERLIN IS WEB 2.0'S LONG TAIL, WHAT IS DESCRIBED BY TIM
O'REILLY.

TODAY WE HAVE BERLIN DE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR ANY CITY, DOT COM, AS SINGLE
IDENTIFIER OF THIS CITY AND ITS INSTITUTION ON THE INTERNET.

BUT TOMORROW, DOTBERLIN OR DOT ANY CITY IS IDENTITY.

AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IDENTITY FOR A LOT OF MILLIONS OF INHABITANTS, FOR
BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE CITY TLDS OPEN UP A MYRIAD OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION OF EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY.

YEAH, TWO MINUTES?

OKAY.

DOTBERLIN IS BASED ON THE COMMUNITY.

WE WILL HAVE 300, AROUND 300 PARTNERS, ASSOCIATIONS FROM CULTURE, FROM
SCIENCE COMPANIES, AND SO ON.

AND THEY ARE -- AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY ARE THE SPONSOR OF THE COMMUNITY,
AND THEY REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S THE STRUCTURE OF OUR COMPANY.

WE WILL HAVE AN ADVISORY BOARD FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
CITIZENS ARE MEMBERS OF THIS.

AND WE HAVE THE MANAGEMENT.

AND WE HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO PLAN A CITY TLD ON A GREENFIELD.

THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING.

AND THE ACTIVE GRASS-ROOTS INVOLVEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
US TO BUILD CITY TLDS LIKE DOTBERLIN ON THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE ALREADY HAVE A COLLABORATION AND A SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE AND
INFORMATION WITH SOME PEOPLE IN NEW YORK.

HERE IS THOMAS LOWENHAUPT FROM THE DIRECTORY BOARD.

AND OUR DEVELOPMENT EFFORT IS TO DEVELOP BEST PRACTICES ON CITY TLDS TO MAKE
IT EASIER FOR NEXT CITIES HAVING THE SAME IDEAS AND JOIN THIS MIND SHARING
AND THIS COLLABORATION.

KEY PRINCIPLE OF DOTBERLIN WILL BE PREALLOCATION OF MANY TERMS, LIKE
CITYHAUL.BERLIN, KINDERGARTEN, TAXI, WEATHER, COMMUNITY TERMS IN WHICH USERS
ARE EXPECTING TO HAVE GOOD CONTENT IN.

AND LET ME SHORTLY SHOW YOU HOW WE WILL PREALLOCATE THE DOMAIN NAMES.

WE HAVE THE RESERVED NAMES SUNRISE, AUCTION, AND LANDRUSH.

THE RESERVE -- SOVEREIGN INTERESTS OF THE CITY AND TOURISM, HOTELS, EVENTS,
CULTURE, AND SOME COMMUNITY INTERESTS LIKE WEATHER OR TRAFFIC.

THESE ARE PREDISTRIBUTED TERMS.

INTUITIVE USAGE IS A KEY VALUE OF DOTBERLIN.

AND WE THINK E-GOVERNMENT, MODERN E-GOVERNMENT, STARTS WITH EASY
COMMUNICATION, AS I SAID BEFORE.

AND CITY TLDS LIKE DOTBERLIN WILL OPEN AN INTUITIVE WAY TO DAILY LIFE
SERVICES AND RESOURCES LIKE E-MAIL SERVICES, OTHER COMMUNITY TOPICS.

ONE OF THE LAST SLIDES.

WE THINK -- AND THAT WAS MENTIONED AT THE LUXEMBOURG MEETING BY MANY PEOPLE
-- CITY TLDS ARE NOT A BOX OF PANDORA BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CITY TLDS
IS GOING ON FOR YEARS.

NO ONE APPLIED SO FAR.

WE WILL BE THE FIRST APPLYING.

AND EVEN JON POSTEL SAID THERE SHOULD BE MANY, MANY TLDS.

WE THINK CITY TLDS WILL SHOW UP SOONER OR LATER SINCE THEY ARE A LOGICAL
CHOICE.

IT WILL BE AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

SO THEY ARE NOT COMING HUNDREDS OF CITY TLDS IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

I THINK THEY WILL COME CITY BY CITY.

AND WE THINK CITY TLDS WILL NOT HARM OTHER CITIES, OTHER TLDS OR THE DNS AT
ALL.

AND THAT'S MY LAST SLIDE.

I'M A DOTBERLINER BASED ON JFK.

THANK YOU.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: VERY GOOD.

THE COUNCIL IS THIS WEEK INITIATING A PROCESS ON LOOKING AT THE POLICY OF NEW
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE NEW TLDS
-- WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE ANY MORE.

AND ONCE WE'VE INITIATED THAT, THE FORMAL PROCESS WILL BE THAT A FORMAL CALL
FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.

AND THIS IS EFFECTIVELY, I GUESS, ONE OF THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THERE MAY BE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SAY THAT -- WOULD EQUALLY PRESENT ANOTHER
STORY, WHICH IS TO SAY WHY THEY DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY MORE NEW
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND THAT'S EQUALLY WELCOME.

SO I THANK THE PRESENTERS FOR, I GUESS, BEGINNING THE PROCESS.

I DON'T PROPOSE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC RIGHT NOW,
BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO GET INTO THE COUNCIL MEETING.

AND THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: BRUCE, THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC ON THIS AGENDA,
AND, YOU KNOW, TO JUST SHUT OFF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON IT.

>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: FROM THE FLOOR, I AM (INAUDIBLE) IN PROTEST.

>>MARILYN CADE: WAIT A MINUTE.

I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO ALLOCATE SOME TIME TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

MAYBE WE CAN KEEP IT SHORT.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT AGENDA ITEMS.

AND I WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE AT LEAST A SHORT SET OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.

BUT PERHAPS WE CAN MAKE IT SHORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: BY ALL MEANS.

GO AHEAD.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS.

I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY NOTE THAT AS THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE TERMS OF
REFERENCE FOR A PDP RELATING TO THE CREATION OF NEW GTLD REGISTRIES, I THINK
IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT AT THIS PHASE THE COUNCIL ALSO CONSIDERS ADDING TO
THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE, A, THE CREATION OF A FRAMEWORK OR A SET OF POLICIES
REGARDING THE ONGOING OPERATIONS OF GTLD REGISTRIES IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS
THE CURRENT GTLD REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION POLICY PROVIDES FOR A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE ONGOING OPERATIONS OF A GTLD REGISTRAR, ITS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS, AND OTHER TYPES OF BEHAVIOR.

I THINK THIS IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT FOR THREE REASONS.

THE FIRST IS THAT I THINK WE'LL SET EXPECTATIONS FOR REGISTRY APPLICANTS SO
THAT WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING, THEY WILL ESSENTIALLY KNOW WHAT SORTS OF POLICIES
AND FRAMEWORK AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS THEY'LL OPERATE UNDER INSTEAD OF
HAVING TO FIGURE THIS OUT THROUGH A PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION AFTER THE FACT,
AFTER THEIR APPLICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

IN FACT, I THINK IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THERE IS A COMMON REGISTRAR
ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CREATE A SIMPLE AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD REGISTRY AGREEMENT THAT ALL REGISTRIES WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY ARE GOING TO SIGN AT THE TIME THEY APPLY FOR A CONTRACT, WHICH WOULD
PROBABLY REMOVE A LOT OF ANGST FROM THE OVERALL PROCESS.

SECONDLY, IT WOULD HOPEFULLY RESULT IN MANY FEWER SURPRISES FOR THE
COMMUNITY, BECAUSE TODAY, THERE IS A LACK OF A GTLD REGISTRY OPERATIONAL
POLICY.

AND AS A RESULT, THE STAFF IS FORCED TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS ABOUT HOW THEY
THINK GTLD REGISTRIES SHOULD OPERATE.

AND SOMETIMES THE STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY, THEIR EXPECTATIONS DON'T REALLY
MATCH.

AND SO I THINK IF THE COMMUNITY WERE TO LAY OUT A CLEAR SET OF EXPECTATIONS,
A GUIDELINE, A FRAMEWORK, POLICIES, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IT WOULD
HOPEFULLY PROVIDE THE STAFF WITH GUIDANCE AND ALLOW FOR A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF SURPRISES THAT WE SEE.

AND THIS REALLY RELATES TO MY THIRD POINT AS WELL, WHICH IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT REASON, I THINK, THAT THE GTLD -- THAT YOU OUGHT TO TAKE THIS UP AT
THIS TIME AS OPPOSED TO DEFERRING IT UNTIL LATER, IS I THINK IT WILL HELP
PROVIDE SOME CERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED DOT COM CONTRACT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S EXPECTATIONS.

LET'S LAY OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE FORM OF A POLICY AND COMPARE THEM TO
THE CONTRACT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY MATCH UP.

I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BOARD CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR
NOT THE STAFF'S DONE THEIR JOB AND HAS ALIGNED THE CONTRACT TO THE
COMMUNITY'S EXPECTATIONS IN TERMS OF GTLD POLICY.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO, JORDYN, JUST BEFORE YOU GO AWAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
I CAN GET THAT DOWN IN ONE SENTENCE.

WE HAVE THE SORT OF FOURTH AREA, IF YOU LIKE, OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE THAT
WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY IS ACTUALLY ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT THAT ISSUE.

AND PERHAPS IT'S NOT WORDED CLEARLY ENOUGH.

BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF -- AND LET ME JUST SORT OF RUN THROUGH, I GUESS,
THE HEADINGS OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.

THE FIRST HEADING IS, SHOULD WE HAVE NEW TLDS, YES OR NO.

SECOND HEADING IS, IF WE DO, WHAT'S THE CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING THOSE NEW
APPLICATIONS?

THE THIRD ONE IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S TWO PEOPLE THAT WANT THE SAME ONE.

AND THEN, FINALLY, WHAT SHOULD THE FORM OF THE CONTRACT BE?

AND THAT'S KIND OF THE FOURTH HEADING.

AND YOU'RE SORT OF SAYING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT
ARE THE CORE POLICIES THAT SHOULD DRIVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONTRACT.

IS THAT --

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: RIGHT.

AND I WOULD FURTHER SUGGEST THAT YOU PROBABLY EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THAT FOURTH
HEADING TO APPLY NOT ONLY -- THIS SHOULD NOT ONLY BE THE POLICY FOR NEW
GTLDS, IT SHOULD BE THE POLICY FOR GTLDS REGISTRIES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

AND SO THE -- I THINK ONE OF THE CONTEXTS THAT WE HAD WHEN WE WERE THINKING
ABOUT THIS WAS THAT THE POLICY THAT GOES TO NEW TLDS, THAT THE EXISTING TLDS
WOULD THEN, I GUESS, WHEN THEY RENEWED OR WHATEVER, WOULD MOVE INTO THAT NEW
CONTRACT FORMAT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CORRECT.

I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THERE'S A PARTICULAR URGENCY HERE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE
ANOTHER PROPOSED CONTRACT ON THE TABLE AND WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO COMPARE IT
WITH WHAT WE THINK IT OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T AGREED WHAT IT
OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE YET.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.

SO A CHALLENGE, I GUESS, IS, WE NEED TO DO THIS PROBABLY IN
AS-SOON-AS-POSSIBLE TIME FRAME, WHICH MEANS WE DO NEED THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF TO REALLY SAY, WELL, WHAT ARE THE POLICIES THAT
SHOULD BE IN THERE, AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS, ONCE WE KICK OFF THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS, THE EARLIER WE CAN GET SOME DETAIL ON THESE THINGS, THE BETTER, IN
TERMS OF GUIDING THE FURTHER WORK.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CERTAINLY.

I JUST -- I GUESS MY MAIN POINT HERE IS JUST TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW WE CRAFT
THAT FOURTH ELEMENT OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND PERHAPS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
IT OUGHT NOT TO BE SEQUENCED QUITE IN THAT ORDER, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME
URGENCY AROUND THAT FOURTH TOPIC. AND I THINK IT WILL APPLY EITHER WAY.

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE NEW TLDS, WE OUGHT TO
HAVE A FRAMEWORK FOR HOW ALL GTLDS OPERATE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

THANK YOU, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: HI, BRUCE.

IT'S ELLIOT NOSS FROM TUCOWS.

YOU SAID THIS NEED BE DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

I WANT TO URGE YOU TO DO IT SOONER.

I WANT TO CONGRATULATE OUR FRIEND FROM BERLIN ON HIS CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION IN THE NAME SPACE.

AND THIS PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS EXACTLY WHY, AT A POLICY LEVEL, DEALING WITH
THESE THINGS ONE AT A TIME DOES NOT SCALE.

WE COULD HAVE SUBSTITUTED ANY OF AT LEAST 100, AND ARGUABLY 1,000, CITIES AND
LOCATIONS IN THE WORLD, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT -- PERHAPS JOHN F. KENNEDY MADE A
VERY SIMILAR PRESENTATION.

JORDYN TIED THIS ISSUE TO THE CURRENT CRISIS AROUND THE VERISIGN/ICANN
SETTLEMENT IN A COUPLE OF WAYS.

I WANT TO EXPLICITLY TIE IT TO THAT CRISIS -- AND I CALL IT A CRISIS -- IN A
COUPLE MORE WAYS.

IN MY VIEW, AND AN AS-FAST-AS-POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT LIBERALIZATION OF THE
INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS DEALS WITH THE TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES
FACING ICANN TODAY.

AND IF WE CAN ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, I THINK THAT ALL OF US WILL BE SPENDING A
SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER AMOUNT OF OUR TIME IN THE CONSTITUENCIES AT A GNSO
LEVEL, AT A STAFF LEVEL, AT A BOARD LEVEL, DEALING WITH THE THINGS THAT WE
SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.

THOSE TWO THINGS ARE, ONE, FUNDING.

AND THAT'S BOTH IN QUANTUM AND VARIETY.

AND, TWO, PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, INSIDE OF THE ICANN PROCESS, THE
THORNIEST, STICKIEST, MOST CONTENTIOUS ISSUES, VIRTUALLY WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
HAVE COME DOWN TO TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF OVERSIGHT -- AND I
DON'T WANT TO USE THAT DREADED "R" WORD, REGULATION -- BUT OVERSIGHT OF THE
OPERATING PROCEDURES OF TLDS.

THEY'RE CHALLENGING ISSUES, AND THEY ALL FLOW FROM THE ARTIFICIAL RESTRICTION
THAT WE HAVE PLACED.

SO, AGAIN, TO TRY AND BE SUCCINCT, TO TRY AND BE SHORT, SIGNIFICANTLY
LIBERALIZED NEW TLDS, ADDRESS FUNDING, AND ADDRESS THE DIFFICULTY, THE
INCREDIBLE DIFFICULTY, IN OVERSIGHT.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THIS GROUP CAN DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE
EXPEDITIOUSLY, IT CAN SIGNIFICANTLY LESSEN THE BURDEN NOT ONLY ON THIS WHOLE
INSTITUTION LONG TERM, BUT ALSO ON THE SHORT-TERM CRISIS WE'RE NOW FACING.

THANK YOU.



(APPLAUSE.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ELLIOT.



>>RAY FASSETT: HELLO, RAY FASSETT.

PERSONAL COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE ON THE -- THE THRESHOLD QUESTION OF WHETHER
THERE SHOULD BE NEW TLDS.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION YOU WANT TO MAKE, BECAUSE I COULD
LOOK AT THAT QUESTION AND REPHRASE THAT AND SAY, SHOULD WE ALLOW THE PRIVATE
SECTOR TO STEP FORWARD AND APPLY FOR NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS?

BECAUSE IF THE QUESTION -- OR IF THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS YOU COME UP WITH
IS, NO, THERE SHOULD NOT BE NEW TLDS, IN EFFECT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU'RE
SAYING THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STEP FORWARD THROUGH
ICANN AND APPLY FOR A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

THANK YOU.



>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, COULD I JUST -- BRUCE, COULD I JUST -- I THINK WE
SHOULD JUST BE CLEAR THAT OUR QUESTION -- AND YOU WOULD EXPECT THOROUGHNESS
OF YOUR POLICY COUNCIL -- IS TO EXAMINE -- AND WE DO NEED TO ASK THE
QUESTION, SHOULD THERE BE, SHOULD THERE NOT BE -- I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD
ASSUME THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION ON OUR PART THAT THERE WILL NOT BE.

BUT IT IS -- AND I WOULD JUST SAY THIS AGAIN -- YOU SHOULD EXPECT
THOROUGHNESS OF YOUR POLICY COUNCIL IN ASKING THAT QUESTION AND IN PROVIDING
THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT ON THAT QUESTION.

AND THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMMITMENT YOU HAVE FROM US THROUGH OUR COMMENT
PROCESS, BRUCE, IF WE MIGHT JUST REINFORCE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: AND I'M SORRY, BRUCE.

YOU KNOW, IF I COULD, AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT COULD BE SUBSUMED IN A
SINGLE PROCESS.

ONE OF THE GREAT FAILINGS OF THIS INSTITUTION IS THAT IT HAS TENDED TO DEAL
WITH ISSUES AFTER THE MARKET AND SITUATIONS HAVE MOVED PAST THE NEED TO DEAL
WITH THOSE ISSUES.

WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME DEALING WITH SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE EDDP, WHICH
BY THE TIME IT WAS IMPLEMENTED, ICANN RIGHTLY CHOSE NOT TO ENFORCE IT,
BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD HAVE BEEN A TRAVESTY IN THE THEN-CURRENT MARKET.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS REALLY BEEN ON OUR TABLE SINCE 1998/'99, AND IS THE
MOST FUNDAMENTAL COMPETITION ISSUE THAT SITS UP AGAINST THE MISSION.

SO, YES, THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

AND THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN A SINGLE PROCESS.

AND IF NOT, AGAIN, I SUGGEST THE MARKET MAY MOVE PAST OUR ABILITY TO DEAL
WITH IT.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ELLIOT.

OKAY.

THE ONE SORT OF FINAL TOPIC THAT'S COME UP IN SOME RECENT COUNCIL CALLS, AND
I'LL JUST, I GUESS, INFORM THE COMMUNITY OF THAT TOPIC, IS, CURRENTLY, THERE
IS A RESTRICTION IN THE GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAME AGREEMENTS ON SOME
CERTAIN DOMAIN NAME STRINGS THAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT REGISTER.

ONE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS IS SINGLE-LETTER DOMAIN NAMES.

THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SAID THAT THEY DON'T
BELIEVE THAT RESTRICTION SORT OF EXISTS ANYMORE, AND, SECONDLY, THAT THEY'D
LIKE ONE.

SO THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED WITHIN THE COUNCIL, AND
WE WOULD BE EXPECTING TO ADDRESS THAT TOPIC AS PART OF NEW TLDS AT THIS
STAGE.

BUT IF ANYONE HAS A BURNING DESIRE TO SAY THAT THEY WANT ONE, THEY'RE WELCOME
TO STEP UP.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE TAKER.

I'M SURE ELLIOT WOULD LIKE, MAYBE, .TU FOR TUCOWS.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A LONG DEBATE.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A STRONG DESIRE IN THIS AREA TO MAKE
THEIR CASE.

>> CHUCK WARREN: THANK YOU TO THE COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS CHUCK WARREN.

I AM WITH OVERSTOCK.COM.

YOU PROBABLY RECOGNIZE US FROM THOSE FUNNY LITTLE "O" HATS OUTSIDE.

WE ALSO HAVE A SUBSIDIARY CALLED WORLDSTOCK.COM WHICH EMPLOYEES 9,000
ARTISANS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

WE ARE INTERESTED IN A SINGLE-LETTER DOMAIN BECAUSE WE ARE INTERESTED IN
USING THAT TO BRAND WORLDWIDE.

AS THOSE OF YOU KNOW IN NORTH AMERICA WE BRANDED AS THE BIG O.

WE DID A BIG MEDIA CAMPAIGN ABOUT IT.

A YEAR AGO WE CAME TO ICANN MALAYSIA AND STARTED INVESTIGATING THIS ISSUE.

THIS IS NOW MY FOURTH MEETING.

AND WE HAVE NOW JOINED AS A MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS A REASONABLE PROCESS THAT RESPECTS TRADEMARKS INTO
RELEASING THE SINGLE-LETTER DOMAINS.

AND BESIDES THAT, WE WANT TO BE A PARTICIPANTS IN ICANN AND STRENGTHEN ANY
WAY WE CAN.

AND THERE ARE OTHER COMPANIES LIKE YAHOO! WHO ARE ALREADY INTERESTED IN THIS
AND WILL BE PARTICIPATING WITH US AND HOPING TO MOVE THIS PROCESS ALONG AT A
FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS MANNER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

YES, GO AHEAD.

>>MATT HOOKER: MATT HOOKER.

I THINK THAT IF SINGLE-LETTER SECOND STLDS OR SECONDARY-LEVEL DOMAINS ARE
ADDED TO EXISTING GTLDS, ONE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE PUT UP FOR AUCTION.

THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLE INTEREST.

THEY SHOULD BE AUCTIONED OFF.

THAT WOULD BE A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR ICANN.

I THINK CAREFUL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THESE ARE THE
LETTERS OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.

AND THERE MAY BE A PREEXISTING RIGHT TO HAVE A WEB SITE THE LETTER "A"
DERIVED FROM SUCH AND SUCH ENTOMOLOGY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THESE THINGS ARE SO BASIC AND THEY'RE SO MUCH IN THE COMMON GROUND AND SIMON
LANGUAGE OF THE ENGLISH COMMUNITY, ENGLISH-SPEAKING COMMUNITY AND ENGLISH
LANGUAGE THAT, AND BELOW THAT, EVEN THE LATIN-BASED SCRIPT, THAT SOMETHING
SHOULD -- WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS THAT THERE MIGHT BE A HIGHER
USAGE THAN GIVING A SINGLE-LETTER SECONDARY-LEVEL DOMAIN ADDED TO EXISTING
GTLDS.

IN SOME CASES.

SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

THAT'S ALL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

AND ALSO, I THINK, WE NEED TO PERHAPS SEPARATE -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ISSUES THERE.

THERE'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE, AND THAT'S -- I THINK MOST PEOPLE FEEL IS
RESOLVED.

THERE'S ALSO THE DIFFERENT GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS HAVE DIFFERENT, I GUESS,
STRUCTURES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A .TRAVEL MIGHT HAVE -- MIGHT DECIDE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC USE
FOR SINGLE-LETTER NAMES, OR A .MOBI MIGHT HAVE A PARTICULAR USE FOR
SINGLE-LETTER NAMES.

AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THEIR OVERALL DISCUSSION WITH THEIR SPONSORING
COMMUNITY.

AND THEN .COM, WHICH IS BY ITS NATURE MORE GENERIC, MORE COMMERCIAL, MIGHT
HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

I THINK A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT JUST GOT COVERED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
MINUTES, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SET OF ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT FOR
NEW TLDS GENERALLY, WHICH IS SHOULD THERE BE, YES OR NO.

THEN WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR SOMEONE APPLYING FOR ONE OF THOSE.

CERTAINLY IN THE PAST, WITH THE LAUNCH OF SOME OF THE NEW TLDS, THERE HAS
BEEN A PROCESS WHERE THERE'S SOME SORT OF SUNRISE OR SOMEONE HAS PRIOR RIGHTS
OR TRADEMARK RIGHTS, SOME SORT OF PROCESS.

AND THEN, NATURALLY, THERE'S SOME MECHANISM FOR DEALING WITH CONTENTION.

AND AUCTION IS ONE OF THOSE METHODOLOGIES FOR DEALING WITH CONTENTION.

IF YOU USE AUCTION, THEN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COMES UP WITH IS WHAT
HAPPENS TO THE FUNDS.

AND, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THEY BE USED IN SOME WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ICANN
GENERALLY OR SHOULD THEY BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT TLD.

SO ALL THOSE ISSUES WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IN THAT PROCESS.

>> CHUCK WARREN: THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP THAT WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT THIS WILL PROBABLY BE
AN AUCTION PROCESS.

AND HOPEFULLY IT'S ONE THAT RESPECTS TO A DEGREE, TRADEMARKS AND SO FORTH.

BUT THERE ARE OVER 20 COUNTRIES THAT USE CCTLDS THAT HAVE SINGLE LETTERS NOW.

SO WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT THE COUNCIL AND ICANN CAN PUT FORWARD QUICKLY A
PROCESS THAT CAN START BEING FOLLOWED.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

ONE MORE ON THIS TOPIC.

AND THEN WE REALLY MUST CONVENE THE COUNCIL MEETING ITSELF.

GO AHEAD.

>> DAVID JOHNSON.

DAVID JOHNSON.

THIS IS REALLY A MORE GENERAL CONCEPT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO REMEMBER THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT LEADS TO A PROPOSED
CONSENSUS POLICY THAT BECOMES BINDING ON REGISTRIES THROUGH THE CONTRACTS,
AND A DISTINCT PROCESS OF GIVING INPUT FOR ANY RANGE OF DIFFERENT LITTLE "P"
POLICIES THAT MIGHT FEED INTO THE ICANN BOARD DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO APPROACH
A PARTICULAR MATTER.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS,
BECAUSE IN THE ONE CASE, THERE'S A SET OF BYLAWS AND CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS
THAT ESSENTIALLY ENABLE ICANN TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN ACTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND
IN THE OTHER CASE, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A WHOLE OPEN SET OF QUESTIONS ON WHICH
THERE OUGHT TO BE MAXIMUM INPUT, BUT AS TO WHICH THE BOARD IS ULTIMATELY
RESPONSIBLE.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S THE CORE OF WHAT JORDYN WAS SAYING EARLIER,
THOUGH, THAT IN MAKING THOSE MICRODECISIONS, IF WE WANT TO CALL THEM THAT,
THAT THOSE SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY SOME POLICY RATHER THAN JUST GOING IN ANY
DIRECTION.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S A FRAMEWORK, A POLICY FRAMEWORK
THAT THEN WOULD GUIDE SOME OF THOSE SMALLER DECISIONS.

ONE -- I'LL HAVE -- ALLOW ONE FINAL SPEAKER, BECAUSE I REALIZE THAT THE OTHER
PARTY THAT HAS BROUGHT THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL IN VARIOUS MANNERS HAS
BEEN YAHOO!

SO PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> MARK RODENBAUGH: I'LL KEEP IT VERY BRIEF.

THANK YOU, BRUCE.

SUFFICE TO SAY YAHOO! IS VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE AND LOOKS
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ICANN, AND PARTICULARLY THE GNSO, IN DEVELOPING A
POLICY THAT WILL FAIRLY AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, QUICKLY, AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE, RESULT IN A RELEASE OF SINGLE-LETTER GTLDS TO THE PUBLIC,
PARTICULARLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE TRADEMARK INTEREST THEREIN.

I WOULD MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT, BUT I WILL REFRAIN, RELATING TO THE MEETINGS
AND THE AGENDA ITEMS AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE DONE AT ICANN.

AS A FIRST-TIME PARTICIPANT, IT HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY DIFFICULT TO EXACTLY FOLLOW
AND KNOW WHEN AND WHERE TO BE.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AT THIS LAST MOMENT.



>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARK.

AND, YES, WE DO APOLOGIZE THAT THE AGENDA FOR TODAY HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT DYNAMIC
DURING THE WEEK.

AT THIS POINT, THEN, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE FORMAL PUBLIC FORUM.

THERE WERE SOME E-MAIL PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED, AND WE WILL PICK THOSE UP
IN OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AND WE'LL MAKE OUR RESPONSES AVAILABLE TO THOSE
THAT SUBMITTED THOSE COMMENTS.

AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO BREAK FOR FIVE MINUTES, AND THEN WE WILL COMMENCE
OUR GNSO COUNCIL MEETING.

(11:12 A.M.)