ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE BOARD, ARE YOU NOW READY TO BEGIN?
APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY IN STARTING.
THIS IS THE BOARD MEETING OF THE WELLINGTON CONVENING OF THE ICANN MEETING.
IT'S THE 31ST OF MARCH, 2006.
WE ARE ABSENT OUR VICE-CHAIRMAN, ALEJANDRO PISANTY, WHO SAYS HE WILL BE LATE.
I AM GOING TO DELAY THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE CCNSO MATTER, UNTIL ALEX IS HERE, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS -- AT A MINIMUM, TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD TO HANDLE THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
AND I WANT TO HAVE FULL BOARD SEATED.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE ICM REGISTRY STLD APPLICATION.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK VENI MARKOVSKI TO INTRODUCE THIS MOTION.
VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU, VINT.
WHEREAS, ON 1ST OF JUNE, 2005, THE ICANN BOARD AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICM REGISTRY LLC RELATING TO PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL TERMS FOR THE .XXX SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
WHEREAS, ON 9TH OF AUGUST, 2005, THE PROPOSED .XXX SPONSORED TLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT WAS POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, AND THERE IS A URL ON THE SCREENS.
I HOPE I DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT.
>>VINT CERF: NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THAT.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: AND SUBMITTED TO THE ICANN BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
WHEREAS, ON 15TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2005, THE ICANN BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS OR MODIFICATIONS FOR INCLUSION IN THE .XXX REGISTRY AGREEMENT, TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE EFFECTIVE PROVISIONS FOR REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES IN THE ICM APPLICATION, AND TO RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, OR ADVICE.
WHEREAS, DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ICANN AND ICM REGISTRY HAVE CONTINUED AND ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INPUT HAS BEEN RECEIVED CONCERNING THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED STLD AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, ON 30TH OF MARCH, 2006, ICANN'S GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUED A COMMUNIQUE IDENTIFYING PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES RELATING TO THE ICM REGISTRY APPLICATION, AND AGAIN I REFER TO THE SCREEN FOR THE URL, RESOLVED, THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO ANALYZE ALL PUBLICLY RECEIVED INPUTS, TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICM REGISTRY, AND TO RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH ANY RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED STLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY TO ENSURE THAT THE TLD SPONSOR WILL HAVE IN PLACE ADEQUATE MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS ANY POTENTIAL REGISTRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE SPONSOR'S POLICIES.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VENI.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION?
HAGEN HULTZSCH SECONDS.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS MEASURE.
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO RECALL THAT BOARD MEMBER RAIMUNDO BECA MADE A VERY STRONG POINT THAT THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH ICM AS IT STOOD IN SEPTEMBER DID NOT ADDRESS MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THIS MOTION REFERENCES, IN PARTICULAR, THE MATTER OF RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR BY REGISTRANTS IN THAT NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN, AND STRONGLY ARGUED FOR ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE.
AND SO THE STAFF WAS SENT BACK TO SPEAK WITH ICM ON THAT QUESTION.
OF COURSE, IN THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING AT WELLINGTON, THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS ALSO RELAYED ITS CONCERNS, SOME OF WHICH SURROUND THE SAME ISSUE.
SO I WANT TO THANK RAIMUNDO ESPECIALLY FOR HAVING TAKEN THE STRONG POSITION ON THAT POINT.
THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, I BELIEVE, WILL ALLOW THE STAFF TO WORK WITH ICM TO STRENGTHEN THE AGREEMENT.
THE BOARD WILL -- AT THE CLOSE OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, THE BOARD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MEASURES TAKEN OR MEASURES PROPOSED ARE ADEQUATE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS RESOLUTION BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT?
I DON'T SEE -- YES, RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANKS, VINT.
YOU EXPLAINED BETTER THAN MYSELF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, SO I THINK THAT I AM FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR WORDS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
I CERTAINLY DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT ANY WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
BUT I WAS MUCH TAKEN BY WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY TO THE BOARD IN THESE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS RESOLUTION, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12.
ALL THOSE AGAINST, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ARE THERE ABSTENTIONS?
I SEE TWO ABSTENTIONS, THREE ABSTENTIONS.
OKAY.
SO WE HAVE 12 FOR -- YOU CAN PUT YOUR HANDS DOWN NOW.
THANK YOU.
12 FOR; THREE ABSTENTIONS.
AND NO AGAINST.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: YES, MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: FOR THE RECORD, THE BASIS OF MY ABSTENTION, I HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON THIS IN THE 2000 ROUND, AS WELL, AFILIAS IS PROVIDING BACK-END SERVICES FOR THIS.
SO I'D LIKE THE RECORD TO NOTE THE BASIS FOR MY ABSTENTION.
>>VINT CERF: IT WILL SO NOTE.
THE OTHER PARTIES ABSTAINING, DO YOU WISH TO STATE ANY REASONS FOR THAT?
>>HUALIN QIAN: THE REASON FOR ME TO ABSTAIN IS THAT IN JUNE, 2005, I VOTED "NO."
AND THEN THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD APPROVED THIS.
AND SO I PAY RESPECT TO THE BOARD DECISION.
AND THE REASON I DON'T LIKE TO (INAUDIBLE) THESE KIND OF THINGS.
SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T ABSTAIN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I SHOULD REMIND THE BOARD THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AN ABSTENTION, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO DO SO.
ALEX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT?
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: MIKE.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL SORT OF LET GENERAL COUNSEL FILL IN, BUT IF A DIRECTOR DOES HAVE A MATERIAL FINANCIAL INTEREST OR ALLEGED, ONE MUST DISCLOSE THAT DURING THE ABSTENTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANKS.
THAT NOT BEING MY CASE, I THINK THAT THERE ARE FOR ME SOME LOOSE STRINGS THAT WOULD MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE SUPPORTING -- VOTING IN FAVOR.
IT MUST BE KNOWN THAT WHATEVER DECISION THE BOARD MAKES LATER ON ON TRIPLE X I'LL SUPPORT FULL-HEARTEDLY.
>>VINT CERF: IT IS WORTH POINTING OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THIS VOTE MERELY SENDS THE STAFF OFF TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS.
THE BOARD STILL HAS TO LOOK AT THE FINAL CONTRACT AS PROPOSED AND TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE BOARD'S -- TO THE BOARD'S SATISFACTION THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE LAID BEFORE THE STAFF.
LET'S MOVE ON -- LET'S GO BACK NOW TO THE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT THERE WERE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS COMING FROM THE CCNSO COUNCIL AS TO ITS BYLAWS, THE CCNSO BYLAWS, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD TO ALTER THEM.
THE BOARD IN FACT ACCEPTED MOST OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT, HOWEVER, HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH ONE OF THEM, SPECIFICALLY, RECOMMENDATION 3, IN THAT SET OF SOME SIX OR SEVEN.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING A PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION THAT HAD SOME EFFECTS ON NOT ONLY THE CHANGE IN BYLAWS -- THE CHANGE IN BYLAWS HAD SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REST OF THE ORGANIZATION.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK PETER DENGATE THRUSH IF HE WOULD INTRODUCE THIS MEASURE, BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN SO CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CCNSO OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
SO, PETER, IF YOU WILL MAKE THIS INTRODUCTION, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES.
THANK YOU, VINT.
THE RESOLUTION READS: WHEREAS, THE CCNSO COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHICH ARE UNDERSTOOD TO STAND IN THE WAY OF A NUMBER OF CCTLD MANAGERS JOINING THE CCNSO.
WHEREAS, THE CCNSO COUNCIL RESOLVED ON 28 MAY 2005 TO INITIATE A CCNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO ICANN BYLAW ARTICLES IX, BRACKETS, COUNTRY CODE NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, CLOSE BRACKETS, ANNEX B, CCNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, CLOSE BRACKETS, AND ANNEX C, BRACKETS, THE SCOPE OF THE CCNSO, CLOSE BRACKETS, TO ADDRESS THE MATTERS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPHS A TO M OF SECTION 3.2 OF THE ISSUES REPORT AS PUBLISHED ON 7 JUNE 2005.
WHEREAS, THE CCNSO HAS CONDUCTED THE CCPDP IN ACCORDANCE --
>>VINT CERF: PETER, MAY I INTERRUPT YOU.
I APOLOGIZE.
THE SCRIBES ARE TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH YOU, AND YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING A LITTLE FASTER THAN THEY CAN MANAGE.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND MODERATING YOUR PACE, THEY WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SORRY.
I WAS ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE IT WAS -- THE TEXT WAS ALSO UP, THAT I COULD MOVE MUCH FASTER THAN I USUALLY DO.
>>VINT CERF: YOU CAN.
BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY STILL TYPING EVERYTHING YOU SAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MY APOLOGIES TO OUR BELOVED SCRIBES.
WHEREAS, THE CCNSO COUNCIL RESOLVED ON 2 DECEMBER, 2005, TO APPROVE THE BOARD REPORT CONTAINING EIGHT CCNSO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO IMPROVE AND CLARIFY THE ICANN BYLAWS ON THE CCNSO AND THE CCPDP IN THE INTEREST OF THE CCNSO MEMBERSHIP, THE CCNSO COUNCIL, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
WHEREAS, THE ISSUE MANAGER HAS SUBMITTED THE BOARD REPORT -- AND THERE'S A URL -- TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON 2 DECEMBER 2005.
WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED CCNSO BYLAW CHANGES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ICANN WEB PAGE -- AND, AGAIN, A URL -- FOR OVER 21 DAYS, AND ONE COMMENT CONCERNING RECOMMENDATION 3 WAS RECEIVED.
WHEREAS, RECOMMENDATION 3 SUGGESTED THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION 3 TO THE BYLAWS, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT "ANY CHANGE OF THIS ARTICLE IX SHALL BE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD BY THE CCNSO BY USE OF THE PROCEDURES OF THE CCPDP AS STATED IN ANNEX C TO THESE BYLAWS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOARD," UNQUOTE.
WHEREAS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAS ADVISED THE BOARD THAT ADOPTING THE CCNSO RECOMMENDATION 3 MAY RAISE ISSUES REGARDING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND MIGHT ADVERSELY IMPACT ICANN'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
WHEREAS, THE BOARD BELIEVES THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE BOARD MAINTAIN ITS ROLE OF INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT OF THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS BYLAWS, AND THAT THIS INDEPENDENCE IS ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS WHICH MAKES ICANN FREE FROM CAPTURE BY ANY PARTICULAR INTERESTED PARTY OR INDUSTRY SECTOR.
RESOLVED, AND THERE'S AN 06 REFERENCE NUMBER TO BE INSERTED, THAT THE BOARD HEREBY REJECTS BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE THE CCNSO RECOMMENDATION 3 AND DIRECTS STAFF TO COMMUNICATE TO THE CCNSO THAT IT IS AMENABLE TO RECEIVING FURTHER INPUT FROM THE CCNSO THROUGH ITS PROCESSES FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GOOD FAITH NOTICE AND CONSULTATION BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF ANY PROVISION OF ARTICLE IX OF THE ICANN BYLAWS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION?
I SEE MIKE PALAGE SECONDING.
PETER, IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE IS A TEXTUAL PROBLEM IN THE RESOLUTION ITSELF.
YOU READ PRECISELY WHAT YOU HAD.
HOWEVER, IT TURNS OUT THE TERM "SUPERMAJORITY" IS MISUSED HERE.
COUNSEL HAS ADVISED THAT WE SHOULD STRIKE FROM THE TEXT IN THE RESOLUTION THE PHRASE "BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE."
LET ME EXPLAIN.
A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE GENERALLY IS IN REFERENCE TO THOSE SEATED BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESENT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IN ORDER TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION, IT IS REQUIRED THAT TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE BOARD, WHETHER VOTING OR NOT VOTING, HAS TO BE PASSED.
SO THE TEXT AS AMENDED WOULD SIMPLY READ THAT THE BOARD HEREBY REJECTS THE CCNSO RECOMMENDATION 3.
AND IF WE VOTE AND WE FAIL TO MEET A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THE SITTING BOARD, THEN THIS RESOLUTION WILL NOT PASS.
SO I WOULD -- AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT -- SUGGEST THAT WE STRIKE THE "BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE" LANGUAGE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AS THE MOVER OF THE MOTION, I'M HAPPY WITH THAT AMENDMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
PETER, I THINK IT WOULD ALSO BE VERY HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE WITH US OR ONLINE, OR WHO WILL BE READING THE TRANSCRIPT LATER, TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS ANY KIND OF -- THERE'S NO ANIMOSITY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RESOLUTION, AND THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE.
BUT PERHAPS YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, THE POINT OF THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO PUT THE CCNSO BYLAWS UNDER THE VETO POWER OF THE CCTLD ORGANIZATION.
AND THAT'S PARTLY DRIVEN BY THE CONCERN OF SOME OF THE CCTLDS THAT THEY MAY WAKE UP ONE DAY AND SUDDENLY FIND THAT THE BYLAWS WHICH WE'VE CRAFTED SO LONG AND SO CAREFULLY TO CREATE A BALANCE OF POWERS WOULD SUDDENLY ONE DAY BE DESTROYED, TO THEIR SURPRISE.
FIRST OF ALL, MOST OF THEM TAKE A VIEW ABOUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT.
BUT THERE IS A CONCERN.
SO THE SUGGESTION CAME FORWARD THAT THE CCNSO SHOULD HAVE A VETO POWER OVER CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS AFFECTING THE CCNSO.
THE LEGAL AND BUSINESS AND POLITICAL REALITY IS THAT THE BYLAWS OF THE CORPORATION CANNOT BE HELD TO THAT KIND OF RANSOM BY ANY ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE CCNSO.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S GIVEN LEGAL ADVICE AND THE REST OF THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THAT IT NEEDS TO RETAIN ITS ABILITY TO REACT FOR THE GOOD OF THE CORPORATION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO FOR THOSE REASONS, THAT APPROACH HAS BEEN REJECTED.
AND IT MAY SEEM ADVERSARIAL TO SIMPLY DECIDE TO REJECT THE MOTION.
BUT, IN FACT, THE WAY WE CAN MOVE TO THE OBVIOUS NEGOTIATION OF THIS ISSUE WITH THE CCNSO, TO BEGIN THAT NEGOTIATION, WE ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO FIRST REJECT THE MOTION THAT THEY PUT FORWARD.
AND THEN AS THE RESOLUTION REFERS, THERE IS A SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION WHICH WILL COME FROM THE CCNSO WHICH CAN BE NEGOTIATED.
AND I'M SURE IT WON'T SURPRISE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP THAT THE BOARD HAS WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CCNSO THAT INDICATIONS ARE THAT THAT NEGOTIATION IS LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT NEVERTHELESS MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE TERMS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.
THIS IS A PROCEDURAL STEP IN ORDER TO ALLOW EXACTLY THAT DISCUSSION TO TAKE PLACE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS RESOLUTION BEFORE I CALL FOR A VOTE?
YES, ALEX.
OH, I'M SORRY, PAUL HAD ONE.
YES, PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: (INAUDIBLE).
CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE -- I THINK IT'S THE MEETING OF THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO CHECK THAT -- ON THE MEETING OF THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY, THE BOARD APPROVED THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CCNSO, RESOLUTIONS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 WERE APPROVED.
AND IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE WHEREASES IN THIS RESOLUTION.
SO I THOUGHT IT'S WORTH PUTTING ON THE RECORD.
>>VINT CERF: YES, THANK YOU.
I MADE ALLUSION TO THAT IN MY OPENINGS REMARKS.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRECISION ON THE 28 OF FEBRUARY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
YES, ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VINT, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU AND PAUL HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THE MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF THE OUTPUT OF THE CCPDP THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BY THE BOARD.
AND I THINK PETER HAS BEEN VERY ELOQUENT ON THE VERY SPECIFIC POINT THAT WAS WRONG WITH THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE WHOLE BOARD.
WE CONTINUE -- I MEAN, PERSONALLY, BUT I THINK I SPEAK FOR MANY -- WE CONTINUE TO BE COMMITTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CCNSO, TO ITS FULL DEVELOPMENT, AND TO VERY INTENSE INTERACTION AND CONSTRUCTIVELY TRYING TO DO WHAT VERY SPECIFICALLY IS THE LIMITED RANGE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CCNSO AND BOARD JOINT WORK.
IT SHOULD BE -- THERE SHOULD BE NO READING, NO ANIMOSITY, NO READING THAT WE FAIL IN OUR COMMITMENT IN ANY WAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION.
IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR, WE WILL RETURN THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE CCNSO TO EVOLVE A BETTER OR ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION TO REPLACE THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED RESOLUTION.
SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
SO, MR. SECRETARY, YOU CAN RECORD THAT AS A UNANIMOUS BOARD VOTE.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA HAS TO DO WITH THE RECEIPT -- LET ME SEE IF I GET THIS RIGHT -- YES, THE RECEIPT OF THE STABILITY -- SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE TLD NAMES.
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK ALEX PISANTY TO INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: GLADLY, VINT.
THANK YOU.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE SSAC REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE TLD NAME SYSTEMS AND ROOTS.
THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IS: WHEREAS, ON 30 MARCH 2006, ICANN'S SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SSAC, SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ENTITLED ALTERNATIVE TLD NAME SYSTEMS AND ROOTS: CONFLICT, CONTROL, AND CONSEQUENCES.
THE REPORT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A VALUABLE WORKSHOP PRESENTED BY THE SSAC AT THESE MEETINGS IN WELLINGTON.
WHEREAS A THE SSAC REPORT DESCRIBES THE OPERATIONAL MODELS AND THE TECHNICAL MECHANISMS ALTERNATIVE TLD NAME SYSTEMS AND ROOT OPERATORS EMPLOY TO PROVIDE NAME RESOLUTION AND REGISTRATION SERVICES AND CONSIDERS THE IMPACT ON INTERNET USERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS, PARENTHESES, ISPS, DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS, AND REGISTRIES THAT OPERATE UNDER AGREEMENT WITH ICANN.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION, RESOLVED FIRST THE ICANN BOARD HEREBY ACCEPTS THE REPORT AND THANKS SSAC CHAIR STEVE CROCKER, SSAC FELLOW DAVE PISCITELLO, THE MEMBERS OF SSAC, AND ALL OTHER CONTRIBUTORS FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN THE CREATION OF THE REPORT.
RESOLVED SECOND, THE ICANN BOARD DIRECTS STAFF TO FORWARD THE REPORT TO ICANN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEES, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE IDN TLD POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
SO MOVED.
>>VINT CERF: MAY I HAVE A SECOND FOR THIS RESOLUTION?
HAGEN HULTZSCH SECONDS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION?
I HAVE SOME.
FIRST OF ALL, STEVE, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES VERY, VERY MUCH FOR THE EFFORT PUT INTO THIS REPORT.
I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE SSAC HAS WAYS OTHER THAN TO DELIVER ONLY TO US THESE REPORTS.
IT'S CLEAR THAT WE WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO WIDELY PUBLICIZE THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE, BOTH OPERATORS AND USERS ALIKE, ARE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND SIDE EFFECTS.
IS THERE AN SSAC WEB SITE TO WHICH WE CAN MAKE REFERENCE AND TO WIDELY RECOMMEND TO PEOPLE TO EXAMINE THAT?
>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE -- SO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS -- FORMALLY, WE'RE TRANSMITTING THIS REPORT TO THE BOARD.
BUT THERE IS, INDEED, AN SSAC PORTION OF THE ICANN WEB SITE.
IT'S RECENTLY BEEN UNDERGOING A REVAMPING IN ORDER -- PRECISELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT MORE EFFECTIVE FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW.
THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHEN IT WAS STRUCTURED AND PUT TOGETHER, ONE OF THE CONCERNS, ALMOST UNIFORMLY OF THE VOLUNTEERS WHO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE, WAS THAT THEY BE ABLE TO SPEAK FROM A FAIRLY NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, NOT ONLY TO GIVE USEFUL ADVICE TO THE BOARD AND TO THE ICANN STAFF AND TO THE CONSTITUENCIES, BUT ALSO TO SPEAK BROADLY TO THE COMMUNITY ON THOSE MATTERS.
SO WE HAVE MADE IT A PRACTICE TO RELEASE REPORTS GENERALLY WITHOUT CONSTRAINT.
THERE ARE ALSO PUBLICITY IN THE FORM OF PRESS RELEASES AND INTERVIEWS AND SO FORTH.
AND TO TRANSMIT REPORTS DIRECTLY TO WHOEVER MIGHT NEED IT.
VERY OFTEN, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES THAT WE REPORT ON HAVE A CERTAIN TIMELINESS, THEY ALSO HAVE A CERTAIN CONTINUITY, A CONTINUATION IN LIFE AND ALSO COME BACK AROUND, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A POINT IN THE VERY NEXT THING WHICH WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS HERE.
AND IF I MIGHT JUST TAKE A SECOND.
DAVE PISCITELLO IS IN THE AUDIENCE. THERE HE IS RIGHT -- STAND UP.
AND PAINT A BULL'S EYE RIGHT ON YOUR -- NO.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>STEPHEN CROCKER: DAVE CARRIES THE BULK OF THE WRITING RESPONSIBILITIES AND HAS MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN OUR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE AND TAKE ON WORK. AND I HAVE JUST BEEN VERY PLEASED THAT WE HAVE CREATED THE POSITION AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE DAVE FILL IT.
THANK YOU.
[ APPLAUSE ].
>>VINT CERF: ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: TALKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE NAMING SYSTEMS, WE STILL SEEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO AGREE WHETHER WE'LL CALL DAVE PISCITELLO OR PISHATELLO (PHONETIC). WE HAVE PRONOUNCED IT AND WRITTEN IT DIFFERENTLY DURING THIS SESSION. SO WE WILL CERTAINLY CONSIDER HIM AS A TRUE SOURCE.
I WOULD THAT THE MENTION OF OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS RESOLUTION MEANS A VERY, VERY BROAD SPECTRUM INCLUDING ALL THE CERTS, ALL THE COMPUTER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS, OTHER SECURITY AND STABILITY INTERESTED PARTIES. AND THE READING MAY BE UNFORTUNATE IN THE SENSE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE IDN TLD POLICY.
IT CERTAINLY IS NOT ONLY FOR THAT KIND OF CONSIDERATION, BUT FOR A VERY, VERY BROAD SET OF USERS FOR WHOM THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE NAMING SYSTEMS, FORCED PLUG-INS AND SO FORTH MAY LEAD TO A VERY FUNDAMENTAL RISK OF FRAGMENTATION OF THE INTERNET.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ALEX.
NOT TO PROLONG THIS TOO MUCH, BUT THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT THE NOTION OF DISSEMINATING VALUABLE INFORMATION I THINK IS WORTH OUR TIME.
SHARIL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SINCE THE GAC IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND IT WILL OFFICIALLY RECEIVE A COPY OF THE REPORT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS ACTION, ASSUMING THE BOARD AGREES, CAN WE CONCEIVABLY THINK OF GAC AS A TWO-WAY MECHANISM AND THAT BY CONVEYING THIS TO THE GAC MEMBER COUNTRIES, IMPLICITLY, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO PROPAGATE THIS FURTHER INTO WHATEVER TARGETS MIGHT MAKE SENSE, COUNTRY BY COUNTRY?
SORRY, YOU DON'T HAVE A MICROPHONE. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK, SHARIL; ONLY LISTEN.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>VINT CERF: PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: YEAH, THE GOVERNMENT GUY IS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE, SPEAK, OR SAY ANYTHING. I UNDERSTAND.
I THINK THAT'S A USEFUL SUGGESTION, VINT. WHAT WE HAVE ALSO BEEN TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS WAS MECHANISMS AND METHODS THAT HAVING MORE EARLY WARNING OPPORTUNITIES, HAVING BUY-IN FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS EARLY ON. SO I THINK THAT'S A USEFUL SUGGESTION.
MAYBE THE MECHANICS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK OUT.
I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ONE IN MIND AT THE MOMENT, BUT WHAT YOU HAVE SUGGESTED SEEMS TO BE ALONG THE RIGHT TRACK. THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: WE ENCOUNTERED A SIMILAR DISCUSSION, BY THE WAY, IN THE COURSE OF THE BOARD'S MEETING WITH THE ALAC. AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT THIS COULD BE A TWO-WAY MECHANISM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE IDEAS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS RESOLUTION BEFORE WE VOTE?
ALL RIGHT. I'LL ASK FOR A VOTE ON THIS. IF YOU AGREE WITH IT, WE'LL ACCEPT STEVE'S REPORT AND PROPAGATE TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
PUT YOUR HANDS DOWN NOW. THANK YOU.
MR. SECRETARY, THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. AND STEVE, WE'RE CLEARLY VERY PLEASED TO RECEIVE THIS REPORT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK HAGEN TO INTRODUCE THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ANOTHER REPORT FROM THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO HAGEN, WOULD YOU PLEASE DO THAT.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS ALL OF US ARE AWARE, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND STABILITY, IS ONE OF OUR MAJOR MISSIONS AND TASKS. AND I AM VERY GLAD TO PRESENT THIS NEXT RESOLUTION WHICH IS ALSO -- WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN PREPARED BY STEVE CROCKER AND SUZANNE WOOLF WHO IS AS WELL ON THIS BOARD AS AN ADVISOR. AND ALSO THE TEAM WHICH HAD BEEN MENTIONED ALREADY.
AND I AM NOW READING THE RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS, ON 30 MARCH 2006, ICANN'S SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL -- SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBMITTED A SECURITY ADVISORY ON DNS DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. THE ADVISORY WAS THE SUBJECT OF A VALUABLE WORKSHOP PRESENTED BY THE SECURITY AND -- SSAC AT THESE MEETINGS IN WELLINGTON.
WHEREAS, THE SSAC ADVISORY DESCRIBED RECENT INCIDENTS, IDENTIFIES THE IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDS COUNTERMEASURES THAT TLD NAME OPERATORS CAN IMPLEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM RELIEF FROM THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THESE ATTACK.
AND NOW THE RESOLUTION.
THE ICANN BOARD HEREBY ACCEPTS THE REPORT AND THANKS THE SSAC CHAIR STEVE CROCKER, SSAC FELLOW DAVE PISCITELLO, THE MEMBERS OF SSAC, AND ALL OTHER CONTRIBUTORS FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN THE CREATION OF THE ADVISORY.
AND SECOND PART. THE ICANN BOARD DIRECTS STAFF TO FORWARD THE REPORT TO INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OPERATORS, TO ICANN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
AND THIRD. THE ICANN BOARD URGES INTERESTED PARTIES TO CONSIDER A STRATEGY TO ENCOURAGE THE BROAD ADOPTION OF BCP 38, RFC 2827, NETWORK INGRESS FILTERING, DEFEATING DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS WHICH EMPLOY IP SOURCE ADDRESS SPOOFING AND SSAC004, SECURING THE EDGE TO REDUCE OR MITIGATE ENTIRELY NOT ONLY THE THREATS POSED BY DNS DENIAL -- DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS, BUT OTHER SIMILAR DDOS ATTACKS AS WELL.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAGEN.
VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I SECOND.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. YOU WERE AHEAD OF ME. I WAS ABOUT TO ASK FOR THE SEC.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I HOPE YOU DON'T EXPECT ME TO DISCUSS THE RESOLUTION.
>>VINT CERF: NO. ACTUALLY, I WAS GOING TO ASK STEVE CROCKER IF HE WOULD HELP US FULLY APPRECIATE THE BCP 38 REFERENCE. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?
>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT. AND IN ADDITION I WOULD LIKE OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE SUZANNE WOOLF TO ALSO COMMENT.
THIS MATTER IS QUITE SERIOUS, IS GETTING QUITE A LOT OF ATTENTION, THESE DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS, AND CROSSES SOME IMPORTANT BOUNDARIES.
I RATE DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS AS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THREAT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO SPECIFIC HIGH-VALUE INSTALLATIONS AROUND THE NETWORK.
THE -- IT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT HAS A SINGLE AND WELL-ORGANIZED VENUE. THERE IS NO SINGLE PLACE WHERE SUCH ISSUES CAN BE DEALT WITH AND SHOULD BE DEALT WITH.
ICANN'S PURVIEW IS THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, THE ADDRESSING SYSTEM, AND ALL THE ATTENDANT STRUCTURES THAT GO WITH THAT.
WE HAVE BROUGHT IT UP IN OUR COMMITTEE BECAUSE IN THE CURRENT EXAMPLE, NAME SERVERS WERE USED AS A PART OF A MORE VIRULENT FORM OF ATTACK, AND OTHER NAME SERVERS WERE PART OF THAT ATTACK SO THAT SORT OF BROUGHT IT CRISPLY WITHIN OUR PERSPECTIVE HERE.
BUT THE GENERAL FORM OF THIS ATTACK IS MUCH BROADER AND NOT SPECIFIC TO THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
IN LOOKING AT HOW TO PREVENT OR AMELIORATE THESE FORMS OF ATTACK, THERE ARE BOTH SHORT TERM AND LONGER, MORE SYSTEMATIC AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT ARE POSSIBLE.
IN THE SHORT RUN, ONE CAN TRY TO REPEL THESE ATTACKS BY QUENCHING THE TRAFFIC OR REFUSING TO ACCEPT TRAFFIC FROM VARIOUS SOURCES.
THIS IS NECESSARY AS PRACTICAL MATTER, AND RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS OF THEIR SYSTEMS TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES THEY HAVE TO, BUT VERY OFTEN THESE HAVE SIDE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARE NOT SO GOOD.
AND FURTHER, THEY ARE NECESSARILY TEMPORARY IN NATURE AND LEADS TO A KIND OF ARM'S RACE OF THE OTHER SIDE FIGURING HOW TO MAKE A MUCH BIGGER ATTACK.
FROM A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE ONE CAN LOOK AT THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE ARE STRUCTURAL CHANGES ONE COULD MAKE IN THE WAY THE NETWORK IS OPERATED, THE PROTOCOLS AND SO FORTH.
SOME TIME AGO, ONE OF THE ASPECTS THAT WAS FOCUSED ON IS WHAT'S CALLED SOURCE ADDRESS SPOOFING. WHEN A PACKET IS SENT INTO THE INTERNET, IT CONTAINS, OF COURSE, THE ADDRESS OF WHERE THAT PACKET IS INTENDED TO GO, AND IT ALSO CONTAINS THE ADDRESS OF WHERE IT'S JUST COME FROM, WHERE IT ORIGINATED.
IT IS -- PERHAPS ONE COULD VIEW IT AS A FLAW IN THE DESIGN OF THE NET THAT THERE IS NOT A STRONG CONTROL ON MAKING SURE THAT THAT SOURCE ADDRESS, THE ADDRESS THAT IT ORIGINATED FROM, IS, IN FACT, ACCURATE.
SO ONE OF THE VULNERABILITIES IN THE CURRENT NETWORK IS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO INSERT A PACKET INTO THE NET WITH AN INCORRECT SOURCE ADDRESS. YOU ORIGINATE IT FROM ONE POINT BUT YOU SAY THAT IT CAME FROM POINT B. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT AT THE POINT OF ENTRY THAT THAT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE ISP THAT ACCEPTS THAT PACKET KNOWS WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
BUT IF THAT ISP PASSES ALONG THAT PACKET WITH THE INCORRECT RETURN ADDRESS OR SOURCE ADDRESS, THEN IT'S NOW NO LONGER CLEAR TO ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT ISPS OR TRANSIT CARRIERS WHERE THAT PACKET ORIGINATED FROM.
AND IT'S THAT FORGED SOURCE ADDRESS THAT IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT IN A NUMBER OF ATTACKS, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT WE DESCRIBE HERE.
AND THE ADVICE THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE A WHILE AND THAT IS CODIFIED IN BEST COMMON PRACTICES DOCUMENT 38, WHICH IS ALSO PUBLISHED AS RFC 2827, AND WHICH WE DEALT WITH A WHILE AGO AND REINFORCED WITH OUR REPORT NUMBER 4, SAYS THAT ISPS AND OTHERS SHOULD MAKE A POINT OF NOT ALLOWING PACKETS INTO THEIR NETWORK THAT COME FROM ADDRESSES THAT THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY ORIGINATE AT, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THAT NETWORK.
WE REITERATE THAT ADVICE HERE. AND I THINK THE MAJOR TAKE-AWAY OR POINT FOR THE ICANN COMMUNITY IS THAT THIS IS THE KIND OF PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE SOLE ACTOR WHERE YOU CAN SAY IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM, AND INSTEAD IT'S GOING TO TAKE AN EVIDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND CONCERTED EFFORTS AND CONSORTIUM EFFORTS.
AND IT'S PERHAPS TIME, TO THE EXTENT THAT ICANN HAS THE AVAILABLE ATTENTION CYCLES BEYOND ITS REGULAR IMMEDIATE DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS, TO WORK WITH OTHERS, TO WORK WITH OPERATORS, TO WORK WITH VENDORS, TO WORK WITH OPINION MAKERS, TO WORK WITH OVERSIGHT BODIES AND GOVERNMENTS TO FOCUS SOME ATTENTION ON ALL OF THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT IS EMBODIED IN BCP 38. IT IS A SOMEWHAT TERSE DOCUMENT THAT'S WRITTEN FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVELY IN THE FIELD. I THINK SOME OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO MAKE THOSE ISSUES CLEARER TO A BROADER SET OF PEOPLE. THIS IS ONE STEP ALONG THAT PATH, BUT I THINK THERE'S MORE THAT'S NECESSARY.
IF I MIGHT, LET ME CALL UPON SUZANNE WOOLF WHO IS THE LIAISON FROM THE ROOT SERVER OPERATOR COMMUNITY. THE ROOT SERVERS ARE FREQUENTLY A TARGET OF THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: SURE. THANK YOU, STEVE.
WOW, IS THIS MICROPHONE LIVE? I GUESS SO.
>>VINT CERF: YOU ARE ON.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU STEVE.
THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE BECAUSE THE ROOT SERVERS ARE AMONG THE INFRASTRUCTURE AT RISK FROM THIS KIND OF ATTACK.
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS HERE IS THAT THE SSAC ADVISORY DOES CONTAIN ADVICE FOR ROOT AND TLD OPERATORS ON HOW TO MITIGATE THE IMMEDIATE ISSUES AROUND THESE ATTACKS.
IT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK IS SUCH THAT MOST OF THE RESOURCES INVOLVED ARE USED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE NETWORK OPERATORS AND DNS ADMINISTRATORS INVOLVED, WHOSE RESOURCES ARE BEING USED.
IT'S NOT BASED ON BUGS OR MISCONFIGURATIONS. IT'S BASED ON LEVERAGING USEFUL FEATURES IN THE NETWORK.
FOR THAT REASON, EDUCATION AND PUBLICITY TO THOSE NETWORK OPERATORS AND DNS ADMINISTRATORS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO MAY BE BEARING THE COST OF MAKING CHANGES, AND BASICALLY TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, EDUCATION AND PUBLICITY ARE KEY IN REDUCING THIS RISK, AND THE SSAC REPORT IS A VALUABLE STEP TOWARDS THAT GOAL.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE.
SHARIL, I THINK YOU ASKED TO MAKE A COMMENT.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: YES, THANK YOU, VINT.
THANK YOU, STEVE, FOR PRODUCING THIS REPORT.
AS YOU ALL MAY KNOW AND MAY BE AWARE OF, GOVERNMENTS ARE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE NETWORK.
AND A REPORT SUCH AS THIS IS HELPFUL. BUT IF I CAN MAKE A CONSTRUCTIVE AND FRIENDLY SUGGESTION ABOUT TECH SPEAK, NORMAL SPEAK AND GOVERNMENT SPEAK.
IF WE COULD, PERHAPS, IT WOULD BE, I THINK, VERY USEFUL, VINT, IF YOU ARE SENDING THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE GAC TO BE AWARE OF, PERHAPS IF IT CAN COME WITH A ONE-PAGE COVER NOTE EXPLAINING IN NORMAL LANGUAGE WHAT THIS MEANS. BECAUSE IT IS NOT EVERYONE IN GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DDOS.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: STEVE, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SSAC, MAY I TASK YOU, AND PERHAPS DAVID, WHO WILL BE THE RECIPIENT OF YOUR DIRECTIONS, TO COMPOSE SUCH A DOCUMENT FOR USE BY THE GAC AND OTHERS?
>>STEPHEN CROCKER: I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO DO THAT.
ALREADY -- DAVE TELLS ME HE HAS ALREADY CRANKED OUT ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION.
WE'LL WORK DIRECTLY WITH SHARIL AND TRY TO GET SOMETHING THAT -- AND BRING THESE TWO RATHER DIVERSE BODIES OF GOVERNMENT SPEAKERS AND TECH SPEAKERS TOGETHER.
ONE HAS A MENTAL IMAGE ABOUT NORMAL PEOPLE HERE AND TECH SPEAKERS OVER THERE AND THE GOVERNMENT SPEAKERS OVER THERE AND TRYING TO FIND SOME WAY TO BRING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK THE OTHER PHRASE SOMETIMES IS GEEK SPEAK.
PETER HAD HIS HAND UP AS DID ALEX, SO LET ME TAKE PETER'S COMMENTS FIRST.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I KNOW THAT WHEN STEVE CROCKER AND SUZANNE WOOLF, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SSAC AND RSSAC, SAY THIS IS A MAJOR THREAT THAT IT MUST BE A MAJOR THREAT.
SO WE DO NEED TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. I, FOR ONE, WILL BE TAKING THIS MESSAGE BACK TO THE CCTLD COMMUNITY THAT I HAVE ROOTS WITH, AND I ASSUME THAT MOST OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WILL ALSO BE USING THEIR OWN NETWORKS TO GET THIS MESSAGE OUT.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE REPORT OR THE PAPER THAT YOU HAVE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING.
BUT I WONDER, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ELSE THE CORPORATION SHOULD BE DOING BY WAY OF FUNDING OR STAFFING TO GET THIS MESSAGE OUT.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK WE WILL DISCOVER A BIT MORE OF THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO I'M GOING TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION OF THAT PARTICULAR POINT UNTIL WE GET THERE. BUT THE POINT IS, INDEED, WELL TAKEN.
ALEX, AND THEN HAGEN.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: TO FACILITATE THE TASK PUT FORWARD BY SHARIL TO COMMUNICATE THIS EFFECTIVELY TO MANY ENTITIES WITHIN THE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES AND TO SUPPORT THIS COMMUNICATION THROUGH GOVERNMENT INSTANCES, IT'S USEFUL TO REMEMBER THAT THE INTERNET COMMUNITY HAS BUILT A HUGE SET OF ENTITIES THAT CONNECT AS FACILITATORS HERE AND WHO, IN MANY CASES, ARE ALREADY VERY ACTIVE IN IMPLEMENTING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. (INAUDIBLE), SO TO SPEAK, HAVING ORIGINATED IN THIS COMMUNITY. IT CERTAINLY INCLUDES THE CCTLD MANAGERS, IT INCLUDES THE OUTREACH CAPACITY OF THE RIRS, AND IT INCLUDES THE -- BECAUSE THESE ARE ALSO POINT OF CONTACT WITH THE ISPS. IT INCLUDES THE CERT AND FIRST NETWORKS, THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS, AND HUGE COMMUNITIES DEDICATED TO SECURITY ON THE NETWORK.
AND I'M SURE WE WILL BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE VERY WELL IN A MANY-PRONGED EFFORT HOW TO GET THIS MESSAGE THROUGH.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ALEX.
HAGEN.
>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: REFERRING TO THE COMMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, WE MAY WANT TO DO ONE THING TO, LET'S SAY, OVERCOME THE PROBLEM OF OUR GLOBAL SOCIETY THAT WE MORE AND MORE HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN OUR DECISION PROCESSES WITH TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN PURE ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES.
AND THAT'S WHY THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AND WE MAY CONSIDER TO SET UP A SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO GIVE, TO PROVIDE SOME TRAINING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THESE INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND STABILITY ISSUES, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL WITH THE APPROPRIATE KNOWLEDGE. YOU MAY CONSIDER TO DO THAT, AND I'M SURE THAT STEVE WOULD FIND APPROPRIATE VOLUNTEERS TO RUN SUCH A WORKSHOP.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HAGEN.
WELL, WE HAVE CERTAINLY TALKED ABOUT THIS AT SOME LENGTH.
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE TIME NOW TO DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THIS REPORT.
SO UNLESS -- OH, I'M SORRY, PETER. DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>VINT CERF: SO UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THIS RESOLUTION, I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
THANK YOU.
MR. SECRETARY, THE VOTE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
AND MR. CROCKER, WE THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SSAC IN THIS MATTER.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA HAS TO DO WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF AND APPROVAL OF ICANN'S STRATEGIC PLAN, SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR MANY MONTHS NOW.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PROCESS OF TAKING ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN, FOLLOWING WHICH WE DEVELOP AN OPERATIONAL PLAN TO MATCH ITS OBJECTIVES.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON THE CEO, PAUL TWOMEY, TO INTRODUCE THIS MEASURE.
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
IF I MAY JUST READ THROUGH THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
WHEREAS, ICANN'S 2006-2009 STRATEGIC PLAN IS BASED ON MANY ROUNDS OF CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY THROUGH WORKSHOPS AT ICANN MEETINGS, THROUGH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND THROUGH PUBLIC FORUMS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.
WHEREAS, THE 2006-2009 STRATEGIC PLAN GIVES A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ICANN IS LIKELY TO FACE IN THE NECK FEW YEARS, AND OUTLINES FIVE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FOR THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN THE PLAN WILL FORM THE FRAMEWORK AROUND WHICH THE 2006-2007 OPERATIONAL PLAN IS CONSTRUCTED.
WHEREAS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH THEIR TIME AND THE BOARD APPRECIATES THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE.
IT IS RESOLVED THE BOARD APPROVES THE 2006-2009 STRATEGIC PLAN, AND DIRECTS THE PRESIDENT AND STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMUNITY-BASED OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS BASED ON THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION? I SEE PETER SECONDS. IS THERE A DISCUSSION OF THIS? MICHAEL.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DURING THIS WEEK WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE GNSO HOW THEY ARE ON-SITE VISITS HAVE BEEN VERY CONSTRUCTIVE. THEY HAD ONE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY HAVE A FACE-TO-FACE WORKING SESSION HERE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THOSE TYPES OF FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS, MY READING OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN DOES PROVIDE FOR A POTENTIAL ALLOCATION OF THOSE FUNDS IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT WILL BE COMING FORTH LATER THIS YEAR.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE LOOK TO THE GNSO AS THE, IF YOU WILL, THE BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS DRIVING ARM OF THIS ORGANIZATION IN CONNECTION WITH GTLDS THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND FUND IT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ENDORSING MIKE'S COMMENT ABOUT FUNDING. I THINK THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE ARE EXPECTING THOSE COUNCILLORS TO DO, AND GIVEN THAT SOME COUNCILLORS, BECAUSE THEY ARE APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, ALREADY GET FUNDED BUT OTHERS DON'T, CREATES AN ANOMALY. AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCILLORS TRAVELING TO THOSE MEETINGS GET AT LEAST THEIR EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL PAID.
I WAS PLEASED TO SEE OVER THE WEEK GENERAL COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE PLAN AND THE DEPENDENT PLANS THAT FLOW FROM IT, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THE BUDGET.
THERE SEEMS TO BE GOOD COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
AND JUST TO MENTION ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC PLAN AS BEING THE FORMATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING, WHICH WILL HAVE A FOCUS ON THE STRATEGIC ASPECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT, EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT, THAT ICANN LIVES IN. AND THIS IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE STRATEGIC ADVICE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE BOARD, AND WILL FURTHER ENHANCE FUTURE STRATEGIC PLANS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE STRATEGIC PLAN?
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
PERHAPS IT'S A STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE TABLE MY PERSONAL APPRECIATION TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE BEEN SO INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH A TWO-YEAR PROCESS NOW OF DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC PLAN, GONE THROUGH A BIG LEARNING EXPERIENCE, I THINK, OF ACTUALLY BEING AN ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS A STRATEGIC PLAN, HOW TO DEVELOP ONE, HOW TO PUT THE IDEAS INTO THE ARENA, HOW TO DISCUSS IT, HOW TO DEVISE IT.
AND I THINK IT'S BEEN NOW QUITE A GOOD OUTCOME.
I THINK I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK MEMBERS OF STAFF WHO HAVE ALSO HELPED IN THAT PROCESS.
AND I WOULD REALLY EXHORT PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
I THINK ONE OF THE -- IT'S RELATIVELY EASY, I THINK, WITH THESE PROCESSES, TO A DEGREE, TO, ONCE THEY'RE UP AND ESTABLISHED AND YOU'RE GENERALLY COMFORTABLE, NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE DETAIL.
AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IS EXACTLY THE PLACE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE DETAIL.
AND WE HEARD SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT PRIORITIES YESTERDAY IN FEEDBACK TO THE BOARD.
EXACTLY THOSE SORTS OF CONCERNS ABOUT PRIORITIES NEED TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
THE SORT OF THING THAT MIKE'S TALKED ABOUT, THAT SORT OF FEEDBACK IS IMPORTANT NOW FOR -- TO INCORPORATE IN THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
SO I'D ASK PEOPLE TO REMAIN COMMITTED NOW AND LOOK AT THOSE PROJECTS AND LOOK WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING AND HELP THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WORK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE BUDGET, WHICH WILL BE RELATED WITH THAT OPERATIONAL PLAN.
>>VINT CERF: SO I WANT TO NOW COME BACK TO SOMETHING THAT PETER HAD ORIGINALLY -- YES, I SEE YOUR HAND, RAIMUNDO, THAT PETER WAS MENTIONING IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE EARLIER RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SSAC REPORT, THAT PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONAL PLAN HAS TO DEAL WITH IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS IN, LITERALLY, ALL DIMENSIONS, AMONG THE VARIOUS PARTS OF ICANN, COMMUNICATIONS TO ENTITIES OUTSIDE OF ICANN.
SO I THINK THAT -- AND CERTAINLY GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IN THE COURSE OF THIS WEEK ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS IN GENERAL, THIS SHOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE -- BOTH THE STRATEGY AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.
SO I HOPE THAT AS THE PLAN DEVELOPS IN MORE DETAIL THAT WE FOCUS VERY CAREFULLY ON EXACTLY THOSE VERY IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS ELEMENTS THAT IT CAN PROVIDE TO US.
LET'S SEE.
I HAVE RAIMUNDO, VENI, AND MOUHAMET.
RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANK YOU, VINT.
IN MAR DEL PLATA, I WAS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE STRATEGIC PLAN AT THAT MOMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT REALLY A SUFFICIENT INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THE TEXT WHICH WE HAD AT THAT MOMENT.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE NOW.
ONE YEAR AFTER, WE HAVE HEARD THE COMMUNITY.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERLINE THAT WE HAVE HEARD IT ALSO IN OTHER LANGUAGES, IN PARTICULAR, IN FRENCH AND IN SPANISH.
AND THIS WAS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT EXERCISE, AND I THINK THAT THE TEXT WE HAVE NOW REFLECTS MUCH MORE THE WILLS OF THE COMMUNITY THAN THE ONE WE HAD IN MAR DEL PLATA.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU, VINT.
I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS PUBLICLY MY SUPPORT FOR THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES LISTED IN THE PLAN AND TO SAY THAT ALL OF THEM ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT, AND I CANNOT SAY WHICH ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT, BUT I'M EXTREMELY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THERE IS A PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE PUT ON ACHIEVING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE IN OPERATIONS AND IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS COMING FROM BULGARIA, I ALSO FIND THE OBJECTIVE FOR INCREASING INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION IN ICANN AS ONE OF -- I MEAN, FOR ME, THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS IN ICANN, AND I WANT TO PUBLICLY SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN SHOULD FIND A WAY TO ENCOURAGE INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION, ESPECIALLY FROM THE COUNTRIES WHERE THE INTERNET IS JUST BEGINNING OR IS SPREADING AT MUCH HIGHER RATES THAN IN THE WEST, NORTH PART OF THE WORLD.
AND I AM REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT ALL OF THE -- WELL, MOST OF THE -- I GUESS MOST OF THE REMARKS THAT WERE MADE DURING THIS PROCESS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO FORM THIS -- THESE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, AND I AM FULLY SUPPORTING THEM.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
MOUHAMET.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT.
IT'S -- I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE APPRECIATE THE JOB THAT HAS BEEN DONE OF THAT STRAT PLAN ELABORATION.
BUT I WANT ALL THE GOOD MEMBERS TO REMEMBER THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS STRATEGIC PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.
I THINK THAT THE CORE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN INITIATED IN THE CONTEXT WHERE THE BUDGET WAS A LITTLE BIT (INAUDIBLE) AND THERE WAS MANY CORE OBJECTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT REDUCED.
AND I THINK THAT WHEN THE PERSPECTIVE CHANGED AND THE ORGANIZATION AT THAT TIME WERE MORE FOCUSED ON EXTERNAL THREAT THAN INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE NOT TO BE FEAR OR TO BE AFRAID OF TRYING TO MAKE THE RE-ENGINEERING PROCESS.
EVEN IF WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED STRONG IMPROVEMENT IN THESE DOCUMENTS, I STILL, I MEAN, ECHO OTHER VOICES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD.
AND I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR THE PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGE, WE HAVE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS.
WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO TAKE US IN TIME, IN ENERGY, AND IN RESOURCES, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY CONSCIOUS WITH THE EXPECTATION OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
SO THAT'S JUST A REMINDER FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
I RECALL SOMETHING THAT ELLIOT NOSS SAID DURING THE COURSE OF THE WEEK.
HE SUGGESTED TO US THAT WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER USING THE TERM "GLOBAL" INSTEAD OF INTERNATIONAL.
AND I THINK HIS MOTIVATION MAY HAVE BEEN TO SEE THIS AS A COHERENT WHOLE AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY A COLLECTION OF PARTS.
IN ANY CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN AS WELL.
IF THERE ARE -- ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT?
ALL RIGHT.
IF THERE ARE NONE, THEN I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
IT IS UNANIMOUS ADOPTION, MR. CEO.
AND I HOPE THAT YOU REALIZE, OF COURSE, THAT THIS MEANS THAT HAVING ADOPTED THE STRATEGIC PLAN, YOU NOW HAVE THE TASK OF FULFILLING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN WHICH THE COMMUNITY HAS CONVEYED.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS ONE THAT CONSUMED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION DURING THE COURSE OF THE WEEK.
THESE ARE TWO OF THE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE, 6.01 AND 6.02.
THEY ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM DEALT WITH THE SAME CONCERN, AND THAT WAS EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST AND CONCERN ABOUT OUR DECISION TO ADOPT THE VERISIGN PROPOSAL FOR DOT COM AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THESE TOGETHER.
AND AS VANDA IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK VANDA TO INTRODUCE THE RESOLUTION.
>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I OUR REVIEW OF RECONSIDERATION 06.01 AND 06.02 OF THE BOARD'S RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, ON 28 FEBRUARY 2006, THE BOARD APPROVED A SET OF AGREEMENTS TO SETTLE THE LEGAL DISPUTES BETWEEN VERISIGN AND ICANN.
WHEREAS, IN REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION RC06-1 AND 06-2, VARIOUS PARTIES REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD DECISION; WHEREAS, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AND HAS SUBMITTED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD, AS POSTED AT ICANN.ORG COMMITTEE, RECONSIDERATION, RECONSIDERATION-06-1 AND 06-2.
RESOLVED, 06, THAT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION RC 06-1 IS ADOPTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND, TWO, RESOLVED THAT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION RC 06-2 IS ADOPTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT RECOMMENDATION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE YESTERDAY, THE COMMITTEE RAISED A DIFFERENT TERMINATION ABOUT THE MEANING OF THIS RECONSIDERATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK PETER IF MAY TRY TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
AND PLEASE, PETER, SLOWLY.
>>VINT CERF: PETER, I WOULD CONCUR WITH VANDA'S REQUEST, NOT -- I MEAN, SPEAKING SLOWLY TO HELP THE SCRIBES.
BUT IF YOU CAN HELP ARTICULATE THE NARROW GROUNDS THAT RECONSIDERATIONS ARE CONSIDERED, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, I'M HAPPY TO DO BOTH THINGS.
I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THE SAME THINGS THAT I SAID WHEN THIS CAME UP IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, SO, IN SUMMARY, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT A GREAT DEAL OF WORK WENT INTO PREPARING THESE APPLICATIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION.
BUT THEY TURNED ON MATERIAL THAT REALLY WASN'T RELEVANT OR WASN'T HELPFUL IN AN APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS RAISED, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS THE QUESTION OF THE INABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO POST MINUTES TO KNOW WHY THE BOARD HAD DONE WHAT IT HAD DONE.
NOW, THAT'S A PERFECTLY VALID COMPLAINT ABOUT A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRANSPARENCY BYLAWS IN GENERAL, BUT IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION.
WE'VE ALL TAKEN NOTE OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THAT UNDER THE HEADING OF TRANSPARENCY AND PROCESS ELSEWHERE.
AND WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT ON THE AGENDA.
BUT IT'S NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION.
PRIMARY GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND THE ONE THAT THESE WERE SET TO BE PROCEEDING ON, WAS THAT RELEVANT INFORMATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD.
AND THE OBVIOUS POINT IS THAT ONCE WE'D BEEN GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, WE WOULD THEN COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
THAT IS A VERY LOGICAL GROUND FOR A RECONSIDERATION PROCESS.
THE POINT HERE, HOWEVER, WAS THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS SAID TO BE INFORMATION THAT WASN'T IN THE HANDS OF THE BOARD IN FACT WASN'T.
IT WAS A RESTATEMENT OF, IN THE MAIN, THE MATERIAL WHICH WE HAD HAD AND CONSIDERED AND DEBATED IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL.
NONE OF IT WAS ACTUALLY NEW INFORMATION THAT HAD NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AND COULD HAVE BEEN.
SO THAT MAY WELL LEAD TO THE FACT THAT PEOPLE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT RESTRUCTURING THAT AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AN APPEALS PROCESS COMES FORWARD WHEN -- WHICH IS WHAT THESE REALLY WERE.
THESE WERE APPEALS TO THE BOARD TO CHANGE ITS MIND. AND THAT MAY WELL BE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY MAY WISH TO HAVE A LOOK AT.
BUT AT PRESENT, IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THE BOARD, YOU HAVE INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO GO AND REVIEW AGAINST THE BYLAWS.
RECONSIDERATION IS A RELATIVELY NARROW SET OF RULES WHICH SAY, "HEY, YOU'VE MADE A MISTAKE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WHERE THIS REALLY USEFUL AND RELEVANT BIT OF INFORMATION.
WE DIDN'T HAVE IT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.
IT'S NOW COME TO LIGHT.
HEY, THINK ABOUT THIS."
SO RECONSIDERATION JUST NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THAT LIGHT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
I THINK THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY SEVERAL OF US.
AND ROBERTO, I THINK, HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITHIN, I THINK, THE ALAC CONTEXT.
IT MIGHT BE USEFUL, ROBERTO, TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE.
IT WILL TEACH US SOMETHING, AGAIN, ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: WELL, ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT THIS TIME, PETER WAS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR ALSO FOR THE NONLAWYERS IN THE AUDIENCE.
BUT, YEAH, MY EXPERIENCE, EVEN WITHIN THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT ALSO TALKING TO PEOPLE IN THE CORRIDORS, IS THAT THIS RECONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN WELL UNDERSTOOD.
I HAVE SOMEHOW THE IMPRESSION THAT IT IS MISTAKEN FOR A PROCESS THAT WILL ALLOW EVERYBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH A BOARD DECISION TO APPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION.
I THINK THAT IF WE TAKE THIS PATH, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WILL ONLY CREATE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
SO I WOULD INVITE THE COMMUNITY ALSO TO FILE RECONSIDERATION -- TO FIGHT FOR THE RECONSIDERATION ONLY WHEN THERE IS A BASIS FOR THE RECONSIDERATION.
BECAUSE, IN ANY CASE, THE APPLICATION WILL BE REJECTED ANYWAY.
BUT IT WILL CREATE THIS ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
BUT I THINK THAT -- WELL, PETER HAS EXPLAINED IT FAIRLY COMPLETELY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ROBERTO.
WE DO HAVE THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH WE'VE NOT YET EXPERIENCED, ALTHOUGH WE MAY HAVE THE FIRST INSTANCE OF THAT COMING, IF THE -- IF MR. HASBROUCK'S INDEPENDENT REVIEW GOES FORWARD.
THAT WILL BE USEFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THAT PROCESS SERVES IN THE FASHION THAT PETER WAS DESCRIBING, MORE LIKE AN APPEALS PROCESS.
UNTIL WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH OUR OWN MECHANISMS, WE WON'T KNOW.
RAIMUNDO, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: YES.
THANK YOU, VINT.
AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, I'M A MEMBER OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, AND I DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR.
I ABSTAINED WHEN THIS RECONSIDERATION WAS -- THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS ADOPTED.
I DON'T THINK -- I DON'T THINK THAT THE -- BOTH RECONSIDERATIONS ASKED -- HAVE GROUNDS TO BE ACCEPTED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
BUT THE REASONS WHICH ARE INDICATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, I DON'T SHARE ALL OF THEM.
AT THAT MOMENT, I ABSTAINED.
BUT NOW, AS THIS IS DRAFTED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, I WILL VOTE AGAINST FOR THE REASONS I WILL INDICATE IN THE MOMENT OF THE VOTE IN A STATEMENT.
THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE RECONSIDERATION MATTERS BEFORE US?
ROBERTO.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: ACTUALLY, CAN I JUST MAKE A PROPOSAL?
THIS IS -- I THINK THAT IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IS COMING TO MY MIND RIGHT NOW.
WE HAD A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE FEEDBACK AND ALSO ABOUT THE WAY WE PUT THE MATERIAL AND THE FACT THAT THE WEB SITE IS NOT EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE AND THE MATERIAL IS NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE.
I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AN EFFORT IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE IS A PROCEDURE IN PLACE, THAT THE CONDITIONS ARE FAIRLY CLEAR, BECAUSE WHEN RAIMUNDO HAS MENTIONED THE HASBROUCK CASE, I THINK THAT REMINDED ME THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESSES ARE.
AND MAYBE WE COULD DO AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT CLEARER.
>>VINT CERF: THIS IS, AGAIN, BACK TO -- I'M SORRY.
RAIMUNDO, DID YOU NEED TO RESPOND?
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I'VE NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT THE HASBROUCK CASE.
I HAVEN'T SPOKEN ABOUT THAT.
VINT MENTIONED IT.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: SORRY.
>>VINT CERF: I THINK ROBERTO'S COMMENT IS APPLICABLE, I THINK, IN GENERAL.
IT PROBABLY ISN'T SPECIFIC TO WHAT RAIMUNDO WAS RAISING AS AN ISSUE.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ITEM OF DISCUSSION TOWARDS THE END OF OUR AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS, MINUTES, AND OTHER KINDS OF THINGS.
SO WHY DON'T WE RESERVE THAT TIME TO FURTHER EXPLORE WHAT ROBERTO IS SUGGESTING.
IN THE MEANTIME, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THE TWO RECONSIDERATION MOTIONS, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED TO A VOTE ON THOSE.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS UP, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING BOTH OF THESE RECONSIDERATION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
I COUNT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11, 12, 13, 14.
ALL THOSE AGAINST?
I'M SORRY.
PETER, YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO VOTE TWICE, DID YOU?
OKAY.
RAIMUNDO VOTES AGAINST.
AND I THINK NO ABSTENTIONS.
SO, MR. SECRETARY, THE TWO RECONSIDERATION MOTIONS HAVE PASSED.
RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: READ A STATEMENT.
CONSIDERING NUMBER ONE, THAT ON FEBRUARY 28, I MADE A STATEMENT SPECIFYING THE REASONS WHY I VOTED AGAINST THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
NUMBER TWO, THAT IN THIS STATEMENT, I MAINLY EXPRESSED THAT, [SIC], "THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE DOC AND THE DOJ IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN CLARIFIED TO THE BOARD."
NUMBER THREE, THAT THE RESOLUTION WE ARE VOTING NOW QUOTES RECOMMENDATION 06-1 OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, WHICH AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE I DIDN'T SHARE.
NUMBER 4, THAT SPECIFICALLY, THIS RECOMMENDATION STATES THAT, [SIC], "THE BOARD WAS INFORMED OF THE STAFF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DOC AND THE DOJ REGARDING THE EARLIER DRAFT OF THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT."
NUMBER 5, THAT THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE VERISIGN AGREEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT ABOUT THE LACK OF CLEAR INFORMATION TO THE BOARD CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC ROLE PLAYED BY THE DOC AND THE DOJ IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT.
TO THIS EXTENT, I HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
LET ME ALSO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHEN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SESSION IS AVAILABLE, THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ CAREFULLY THROUGH THAT TEXT AND ASSURE THAT IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY RENDERED.
I TAKE IT THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.
SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION OF INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
THIS COULD EASILY TAKE US FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN EXCUSE TO STAY IN WELLINGTON FOR A WHILE LONGER.
BUT THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT FOR US, ESPECIALLY AS 2006 UNFOLDS, THAT I THINK IT'S USEFUL TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WHERE WE ARE HEADED AND WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE.
I KNOW, MOUHAMET, YOU HAVE BEEN AMONG THE MOST VOCAL TO PRESS AHEAD WITH IDNS.
AND SO HAS PROFESSOR QIAN.
SO LET ME BEGIN BY ASKING YOU, MOUHAMET, TO OPEN UP THIS DISCUSSION.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I THINK THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT ABOUT THE SITUATION OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE EXCHANGE ABOUT THE -- ONE OF THE CORE VALUES OF ICANN TRYING TO -- TO IMPROVE THE INTRODUCTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPETITION AND CHOICES FOR COMMUNITIES, LEAD THE WHOLE ICANN ORGANIZATION TO FIND A BETTER WAY TO IMPLEMENT AND A FASTER WAY TO IMPLEMENT THE IDN, WHILE SECURING AND NOT HURTING THE CORE OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LONG ROAD DOWN.
THE IDEA HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE.
WE HAVE THE FIRST IDN COMMITTEE, 2000.
SOME TEST BEDS HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE PAST.
BUT IT WAS NOT SO INCLUSIVE FROM ALL PARTIES.
AND THE -- ALSO, THE STANDARD WAS NOT READY IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT IMPLEMENTATION WELL DONE.
SO NOW, IN 2005, WE HAVE A NEW COMMITTEE THAT IS A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE, WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PERSON TO THIS ORGANIZATION WHO ARE WILLING TO BRING THEIR EXPERTISE AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
WE HAVE ALSO INTERNAL WORKING GROUP WITH THE REGISTRIES, ESPECIALLY, AND THE CC AROUND.
AND I THINK THAT WE ARE REALLY CLOSE TO HAVE A CLEAR ROADMAP TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE NEXT STEP ON THE IDN.
AND I THINK THAT MOROCCO WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE A CLEAR TIMETABLE, BECAUSE UP TO NOW, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE IMPLEMENTATION, HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE TEST BED, WHAT ARE THE BORDER THAT WILL HELP US HAVE SOMETHING REALLY SUCCESSFUL IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTATION.
BUT I REALLY RECALL THE ORGANIZATION THAT IF WE FOCUS ON WHAT ICANN HAS BEEN AND WHAT IS THE CORE MISSION OF ICANN, I THINK THAT IDN AND THE DNS EXPANSION WILL CONSUME AT LEAST MORE THAN 80% OF THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION TIME, ENERGY, AND THOUGHT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE TO RETHINK THE BUDGET PROPOSAL AND THE IMPLICATION OF MORE RESOURCES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE CORE MISSION OF ICANN.
SO I WILL NOT STAND SO LONG ON THE MIKE, AND LET OTHER PEOPLE TRY TO GIVE MORE INPUT ON THE IDN ISSUE AND WHAT THEY THINK SUBSTANTIALLY IS GOING TO HELP THE CEO AND ALL THE STAFF TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDN A VERY SUCCESSFUL ISSUE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU, VINT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MOUHAMET.
ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT?
PROFESSOR QIAN.
>>HUALIN QIAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THE IDN ISSUE IS VERY IMPORTANT, AS MOUHAMET HAS INDICATED.
THAT I THINK THERE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE COIN.
ONE SIDE IS THAT THE COMMUNITY VERY URGENTLY NEEDED THE IDN TO USE, EXAMPLES, IN MANY ASIAN COUNTRIES, THEY ALREADY EMPLOY SOME OF THIS AND MADE SOME PROGRESS.
THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THE SYSTEM STABLE AND RELIABLE.
SO THAT'S A BIGGER ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR DIFFERENT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT, AND ALSO FOR ICANN, AS MOUHAMET SAID, SHOULD PUT MORE RESOURCES ON IT.
TECHNICALLY, NOW, THE DNAME -- PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL FOR DOING IDN, NOT ONLY FOR -- GOOD FOR EXISTING REGISTRIES, NOT ONLY FOR GTLDS, BUT ALSO FOR CCTLDS, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE MULTIPLE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, THEY CAN ALSO USE DNAME.
SO THIS IS A TOOL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE AGAINST IT OR IN FAVOR OF IT ONLY.
BUT I THINK BOTH THE NS RECORD AND THE DNAME SYSTEM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE IN MANY CASES, DNAME CANNOT BE USED PROPERLY; IT WILL CAUSE SOME AMBIGUITY.
SO NS RECORD ARE INEVITABLE, SHOULD BE USED.
SO THAT'S A TECHNICAL POINT.
AND ALSO, THE DNAME SYSTEM, WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH IT.
ALTHOUGH IT'S STANDARD, RFC STANDARD, BUT NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE USING IT.
SO WE HAVE A LACK OF EXPERIENCE.
SO WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL TO DO EXPERIMENTS, TO DO TESTS.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE POLICY ISSUE IS -- I THINK IT'S MORE SENSIBLE TO EVERYBODY THAT THE GTLDS, GNSO, CCNSO, GAC, AT LARGE, EVERY GOVERNMENT, EVERY COMMUNITY ARE VERY SENSITIVE.
SO THAT'S, I THINK, A LOT OF BURDEN FOR US TO DO THAT.
BUT -- SO I THINK FOR THE PARSE ISSUE, WE SHOULD TAKE BROAD INPUT FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES, NOT ONLY GNSO, CCNSO, BUT ALSO GAC, ALAC, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
YEAH, THAT WOULD BE FAIR, AND WE WILL GET A PROPER RESULT FROM THAT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PROFESSOR QIAN.
I'D LIKE TO ADD A COUPLE OF REMARKS.
AND I'LL CALL UPON DEMI AFTERWARDS.
ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE DO HAVE TESTS PLANNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.
THESE ARE TECHNICAL TESTS USING BOTH NS RECORDS AND DNAME IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT EFFECT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THESE TWO TLD MECHANISMS WILL ACTUALLY HAVE IN THE LIVE SYSTEM.
BUT THE POINT THAT PROFESSOR QIAN MADE ABOUT CANVASSING WIDELY FOR INPUT ON THE INTRODUCTION OF TLDS IS, I THINK, ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN JUST THE TECHNICAL ABILITY TO PUT A TLD UP IN AN IDN FORMAT.
ALL OF THE BUSINESS-RELATED AND CUSTOMER-SERVICE-RELATED AND RECORD-RELATED INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTRATIONS, WHOIS AND THE LIKE, ALL OF THOSE VARIOUS MECHANISMS ARE PART OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. AND WHEN WE START INTRODUCING THE IDN TLDS, THEY WILL HAVE SOME IMPACT ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME USE AND BUSINESS.
SO THE PARTIES WHO ARE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN AND COMMITTED TO INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS NEED TO THINK THROUGH WHAT THE SIDE EFFECTS ARE GOING TO BE AND TRY TO ALERT US AS A POLICY-MAKING GROUP AND THE OPERATORS AND OTHERS AS TO WHAT HAZARDS THEY MIGHT ANTICIPATE SO THAT WE CAN, IN FACT, DEFEND AGAINST THEM BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR INTO THIS.
THE OTHER THING WHICH I FIND ABSOLUTELY COMPELLING IS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR SIMULATING WHAT LOOK LIKE TLDS, BUT WHICH ARE NOT, BY USING PLUG-INS AND OTHER KINDS OF MODIFICATIONS TO DNS SERVERS, RESOLVERS, IS FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIAL FOR AMBIGUITY.
AND MOVING INTO A REAL IDN TLD STRUCTURE IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO HAVING FRAGMENTED EFFORTS TO PRODUCE WHAT LOOK LIKE SIMULATED TLDS.
SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF MOVING AHEAD WITH ALL OF THIS.
DEMI, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: THANK YOU, VINT.
MUCH OF WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS SAID ALREADY, BUT JUST TO STRESS SOME POINTS. I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS IDN APPROACH IN A LAYERED WAY.
I THINK THERE IS A ROLE FOR MANY PLAYERS ON THIS, NOT JUST, SAY, PROFESSOR QIAN, CCNSO AND GNSO, BUT ALSO THE GOVERNMENTS AND AT LARGE.
I URGE ICANN TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, I SUPPOSE WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DEFINING WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, WHAT ARE SCRIPTS OR NOT, WHAT'S CONVENIENT FOR SOME COUNTRY OR REGION OR NOT.
AND IN SOME WAYS, THERE ARE SO MANY SIDE EFFECTS IN IDN DEPLOYMENT THAT I SUPPOSE IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH MANY OF THEM AND RESOLVE IT.
BUT WHAT I AM STRESSING HERE IS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A LAYERED APPROACH AND TRY TO DISTRIBUTE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THROUGH THESE LAYERS. AND BE REALLY THE STEWARD OF THE ROOT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEMI. ALEX HAD HIS HAND UP AND THEN MOUHAMET.
I SEE ALEX HAS YIELDED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MEXICO HAS YIELDED THE FLOOR TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM SENEGAL.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, DEMI, AND THANKS VINT.
I JUST WANT TO ADD TWO MORE COMMENTS ON THIS.
THE FIRST ONE IS IF WE LOOK AT THE SUBJECT AND THE INTERNATIONAL KEY PLAYERS WHO ARE JUST TRYING TO MOVE AROUND JUST TO SHOW THE INTEREST OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, I THINK THAT UNESCO HAVE MADE A STRONG INVOLVEMENT IN THAT ISSUE.
AND EVEN IF YOU REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS A YEAR OF LANGUAGES SOME YEARS AGO WHERE THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LANGUAGES WORLDWIDE. AND IF YOU RECALL THE NUMBER OF LANGUAGES WORLDWIDE, SOMETHING LIKES 6,700 LANGUAGES AND ONLY 250 HAVE BEEN IN THE UNICODE REGISTRATION. AND THEN ONLY 3% OF THE WHOLE WORLD REPRESENT 97% OF ALL THE WHOLE LANGUAGES.
SO WE HAVE A HUGE CHALLENGE INSIDE ICANN. I'M NOT SAYING WE WILL BE ABLE TO COVER ALL THE EXPECTATION FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, BUT AT LEAST WE NEED TO SHOW THAT AND DEMONSTRATE THAT WE ARE ON THE ROAD TO MAKE IT.
AND WE HAVE NOT TO BE SURPRISED TO SEE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ITU AND UNESCO DOING JOINT EFFORTS TO SHOW THEIR INTEREST IN THE MULTILINGUALISM ENVIRONMENT AND ON THE IDN IMPLEMENTATION.
BUT AT THE END, I THINK IT'S ICANN'S ROLE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE MORE RESOURCES AND ADEQUATE PROGRAM, A STRONG COMMITMENT IN TERMS OF RESOURCES. AND TO BE HONEST, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE IN ICANN HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO THAT JOB, IT'S LIKE WE DID NOT PUT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO AND TINA IS DOING A GREAT JOB. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT HAVE TO BE DONE ON A DAY-TO-DAY, IT CANNOT BE MIXED WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE TIMETABLE THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED DURING TINA'S REPORT REGARDING THE IDN THING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE REGISTRARS, THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE REGISTRIES AND ALL THE ASPECT ABOUT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT THING, A PERSON CANNOT HANDLE IT AS A WHOLE PROCESS.
IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK, AND I THINK THAT AT THE END IF ICANN DID NOT HAVE MORE PHYSICAL RESOURCES DEVOTED TO THAT JOB, I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPECT THE TIMETABLE WE HAVE SET UP FOR THIS.
AND TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, I THINK THAT WE HAVE STATED THAT THERE WERE TWO (INAUDIBLE) WE WERE GOING TO DO FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS A TEST IS A TEST. IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESULT IS GOING TO BE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE TEST.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ALSO TO BE AFRAID ON WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN DURING THE TEST BECAUSE WE WANT TO LEARN AND WE ARE GOING TO LEARN. AND IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT THAT MAKING THE IDN PROCESS BE IN PARALLEL WITH INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLD IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO GIVE A STRONG SIGNAL TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND OF TLD, WE WERE IN THE PROCESS TO LEARN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE -- WHAT WILL BE THE RATIONALE ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOMAIN NAME. WE LEARNED SOMETHING. SOME OTHER THING HAPPENED. AND THIS DOES NOT PREVENT US EVEN TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER TRIP TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE DNS EXPANSION.
SO THIS IS REALLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING FROM ICANN, IS TO BE LIKE AN EXPERIMENTAL -- A CONTINUOUS EXPERIMENTAL ORGANIZATION WITH A VERY STRONG CAPACITY ON ENGINEERING WITHIN ITSELF, AND THIS IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ACHIEVE THE STRONG EXPECTATION OF THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
I THINK PAUL WANTED TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AND THEN I WILL TAKE ALEX AND SUSAN.
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE RESOLUTION TALKS TO THE GTLD PROCESS, BUT WE'RE NOW TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE IDN PART, SO PERHAPS IT'S WORTH -- THE IDN PART.
>>VINT CERF: RESOLUTION? WE DON'T HAVE A RESOLUTION ON THIS MATTER. THIS IS JUST A --
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION. MY APOLOGIES.
>>VINT CERF: THIS IS JUST DISCUSSION.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: JUST SAY TO THE -- ON THIS POINT, WE ARE PRESENTLY -- FIRST OF ALL, THE POINT THAT MOUHAMET IS MAKING ABOUT RESOURCES I THINK IS SOMETHING WHICH WE HAVE, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, BEEN IN AGREEMENT ON AND HAVE SPOKEN QUITE A LOT ABOUT. IT COMES BACK TO, I THINK, MY POINT ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE IDN PROJECT, AS IT'S DESCRIBED IN THE OPERATIONAL PROCESS, IS SUFFICIENTLY PROPERLY SCOPED. WE HAVE TO ENSURE IT'S GOT SUFFICIENT STAFF OR EXPERT OR OTHER RESOURCES REQUIRED. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY DETERMINES ITS PRIORITIES WITH OTHER PROJECTS.
SO I THINK WE HAVE AN INSTRUMENT TO ACHIEVE THE CONCERNS THAT MOUHAMET AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE RAISED.
WE NEED TO REVIEW THAT, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND GIVE IT THE PRIORITY.
SO I SUPPOSE I THINK THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE PROCESS WORKING.
I THINK TO COME TO THE ISSUE OF THE TEST ITSELF, AND I AM NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON, BUT IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO ME THAT WE DO NEED TO DO AND TO BE SEEN TO BE CONDUCTING A SCIENTIFIC TEST IN THE ROOT ZONE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF PUTTING THIS IN, BOTH IN DNAMES AND IN NS RECORDS.
I THINK WE NEED, IN DOING THAT, TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN OUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THAT TEST. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE DETERMINE A PROPER STRING FOR THAT TEST. I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PERHAPS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE ENGLISH WORD "TEST," BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER STRING.
THE SECOND THING WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THERE IS NO ECONOMIC VALUE BEING CREATED IN THIS TEST. THAT THE STRING ITSELF IS MERELY TO TEST -- I KEEP USING THE SAME WORD -- IT'S MERELY TO TRIAL OR TEST THE IMPACTS ON THE VARIOUS LAYERS OF THE INTERNET'S PROTOCOLS OF PUTTING IN THE -- PUTTING IN IDNS AT THE ROOT ZONE.
IT NEEDS, I THINK, A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN I THINK THE STRING ITSELF NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE ROOT ZONE.
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT FOR THIS TEST, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY DO NOT THINK WE ARE HAVING A PROXY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHO GETS A TLD IN IDNS. THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS TEST, IT DETERMINE WHO GETS A TLD IN IDNS.
SO PEOPLE SHOULD NOT LET THEIR FEARS RUN AWAY WITH THEMSELVES ABOUT WHAT THIS TEST IS ABOUT.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE POLICY DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE ABOUT JUST SUCH ISSUES AND BROADER ISSUES NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE IN PARALLEL, AND PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THE TEST NEED TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN KEEP PUTTING THEIR INPUT INTO THAT POLICY DISCUSSION.
AND I WOULD APPLAUD THE WORK THAT THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO HAS DONE THIS WEEK TO CONTINUE TO SEND THAT SIGNAL TO SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMITTEES AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S IDN ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO ARE HERE. THAT'S EXACTLY THE SORT OF INPUT THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL IS LOOKING TO HARVEST.
WE DO, I THINK, NEED TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR SENSE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT NEW GTLDS WILL RAISE, INCLUDING IDNS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A VERY COMPLEX ARENA.
BUT PERSONALLY, I TOO AM TAKEN WITH THE THINKING THAT I KNOW HUALIN QIAN AND DEMI HAVE MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES OF A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH IN INTRODUCTION OF IDNS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO SEE THE POLICY WORK WORKED THROUGH ON THAT.
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY IN MANY RESPECTS MANY OF THE ISSUES MOUHAMET WAS RAISING I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH.
I THINK WE NEED TO ENSURE WE ARE COMMUNICATING CLEARLY, BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RESOURCING THROUGH THE OPERATIONAL PLAN. AND THERE IS A NEED TO CONTINUE TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT THIS TECHNICAL TEST IS NOT A PROXY FOR OTHER BATTLES.
>>VINT CERF: ALEX, I HAVE YOU NEXT IN THE QUEUE, AND THEN SUSAN.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THE PRESENT EFFORTS AND THE STAGE ACHIEVED IN WELLINGTON, IN THIS ICANN MEETING IN WELLINGTON, ON IDNS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. THIS YEAR CONTINUES TO WITNESS HEIGHTENED INTEREST IN MULTILINGUALISM AND MULTILINGUALIZATION EFFORTS ON THE INTERNET. IDNS, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, ARE A VERY SPECIFIC, SMALL PART OF THE EFFORT THAT THE WORLD HAS TO DO IN INTRODUCING LANGUAGES, SCRIPTS, ALPHABETS, KEYBOARD MAPPINGS AND SO FORTH. ALL THE SPECIFICS THAT GO BEYOND ASCII USE AND THE RELATIVELY DOMINANT USE OF ENGLISH.
WITHIN THIS VERY SPECIFIC SPACE THERE ARE POLITICAL BATTLES BEING FOUGHT. PAUL HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THEY SHOULDN'T ALL BE BROUGHT TO THIS SPACE, BUT WE ARE SURE SOMETHING WILL BE PLAYED HERE.
I THINK THAT WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE CAN READ THE OFTEN AUTHORED SENTENCE THAT THE ONLY THING MISSING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDNS IS POLITICAL WILL. AND TO READ THAT SENTENCE AS AN URBAN LEGEND.
ANYONE IN THIS MEETING, ANYONE PAYING HALF ATTENTION IN THIS MEETING WILL HAVE REALIZED THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL WORK AND POLICY WORK WITH EXTREME TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE PERFORMED CAREFULLY. ONE OF THE BREAKTHROUGHS IN THIS MEETING FOR IDNS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHING PARAMETERS AND A TIME LINE FOR THE TEST, BUT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THIS IS GOING TO BE A TEST PERFORMED LIVE ON A PRODUCTION SYSTEM WHICH GLOBAL INTEREST TO ALL USERS OF THE INTERNET. IT WILL BE PERFORMED VERY PRUDENTLY AND IT HAS TAKEN SOME TIME AND HUGE EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM WITH THIS ENORMOUS IMPLICATION.
ANOTHER THING THAT'S CLOSE TO A BREAKTHROUGH HERE IN THIS MEETING, AND DEMI HAS MENTIONED IT VERY WELL, IS THIS LAYERED APPROACH WHERE WE UNDERSTAND MORE AND MORE WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO WHILE WAITING FOR THINGS TO BE RESOLVED IN OTHER LAYERS OR IN SMALL FRACTIONS OF THOSE OTHER LAYERS.
THERE'S, FINALLY, IN THE LIST OF BREAKTHROUGHS THAT I TAKE NOTES FROM THIS MEETING, A VERY APPLIED AND PRACTICAL FORM OF WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED THE ENHANCED COOPERATION IN THE WSIS CONTEXT AMONG MULTIPLE MANY STAKEHOLDERS. THESE STAKEHOLDERS REALLY ONLY COME TOGETHER IN ICANN. THIS IS NOT THAT ICANN IS COMPETING FOR THIS SPACE. IT'S THAT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE CCTLD MANAGERS, GTLD MANAGERS, TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, ROOT SERVER OPERATORS, ISPS AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WILL HAVE THEIR HANDS ON AND PROBABLY ARE IN THE RISK OF BURNING THEIR FINGERS ON THIS TEST ON EVOLUTION, THE ONLY PLACE THEY REALLY COME TOGETHER FOR THIS KIND OF WORK IS IN ICANN.
AND WE SEE THESE THEN AS, YOU KNOW, (INAUDIBLE) WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO RESOLVE HAS TO HAPPEN WITH THE ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN ALL THESE STAKEHOLDERS. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING FOR IDNS HERE.
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ITU AND UNESCO ARE VERY ABLE TO RAISE THIS ISSUE FOR AWARENESS RAISING AND FOR BRINGING TOGETHER PEOPLE FROM SPHERES THAT USUALLY DO NOT CONVERGE IN THE ICANN ENVIRONMENT, BUT WHO ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONES ABLE TO MOVE THE THING FORWARD.
SO IT'S A WELCOME LANDSCAPE IN WHICH THINGS HAPPEN HERE, AND ARE EXPLAINED ELSEWHERE.
WE ARE ALSO DOING AND HAVE TO DO A LOT MORE OF THE EXPLAINING, TRAINING, TEACHING, AND EDUCATING FOR THE USERS.
I THINK THAT AS MUCH AS CYBERSECURITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD OR UNDERSTOOD IN WAYS THAT FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN ENVIRONMENTS LIKE THE ITU AND SOME OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL FORUMS, SAME IN COMPREHENSION APPLIES TO IDNS, AND I THINK THAT ONE OF OUR EFFORTS WILL BE TO MAKE THOSE FORA MUCH MORE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND, AND, THEREFORE, TO WORK WELL WITHIN THE ROLES.
MOUHAMET, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THE UNESCO. IT SHOULD BE REMINDED -- IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT ICANN HAS APPROACHED UNESCO REPEATEDLY, AND WE SEE THE VERY SPECIFIC ROLE THAT IS STILL TO BE FILLED BY UNESCO AND THE PEOPLE IT MOVES TOGETHER FOR IDNS WHICH WILL BE IN STABILIZING THE CODINGS OF SOME OF THE ALPHABETS AND LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS.
AND IN FINDING THE AUTHORITIES THAT CAN PROVIDE SINGLE OR STABLE OR USABLE VERSIONS OF THOSE.
FINALLY I AM NOT COMPLETELY CONVINCED OF WHAT MOUHAMET HAS SAID IN THE SENSE OF THE LIMITED RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE APPLIED. WE SURELY HAVE TO APPLY FOR RESOURCES FROM THE ICANN MANAGEMENT AND STAFF SIDE. WE HAVE TO APPLY MORE RESOURCES FOR MEETINGS AND EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND SO FORTH. BUT THIS COMMUNITY ALTOGETHER HAS ALREADY APPLIED THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF CONCENTRATED, FOCUSED, RATIONALLY ORGANIZED RESOURCES THAT ARE APPLIED TO IDNS THE WORLD OVER.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ALEX. SUSAN, I HAVE YOU NEXT IN THE QUEUE.
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU. MOUHAMET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST? I SEE YOUR HAND. OR I'LL GO AHEAD.
WE'VE HAD VERY FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS THIS WEEK ACROSS THE COMMUNITY AND FOR SOME TIME ABOUT IDNS, ALSO AT THE BOARD LEVEL.
BUT I SENSE ON THE PART OF PARTICULARLY MY COLLEAGUE MOUHAMET SOME FRUSTRATION, A DIPLOMATIC FRUSTRATION BUT FRUSTRATION NONETHELESS, AT DELAY.
IT'S A WELL-KNOWN SAYING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE THE PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
I THINK THAT APPLIES PARTICULARLY IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR ICANN.
THE TEST IS CLEARLY VERY IMPORTANT AND TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE POLICY PROCESSES ARE OPERATING IN PARALLEL HERE.
THESE TWO APPROACHES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DNAME AND NS RECORDS, ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. WE COULD EXPERIMENT MOVING FORWARD WITH ONE OR ANOTHER OF THESE APPROACHES IN ANY PARTICULAR TLD. WE WON'T, I DON'T THINK, BE MAKING A GLOBAL POLICY FOR ALL TLDS. MANY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ARE OUT THERE.
AND THE NEW GTLD PROCESS THAT THE GNSO IS WORKING ON SO HARD INCORPORATES DISCUSSIONS OF IDN IN IT. LOOKING HARD AT THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITY OF NEW TLD REGISTRIES TO OFFER IDN SERVICE.
CERTAINLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REGISTRIES HERE HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NET NOT BREAK, AND THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE HAPPY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DEVOTE THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO BEGIN, SOMEHOW, ROLLING OUT A SET OF IDN POLICIES WITHOUT TRYING TO GET IT A COMPLETELY UNIFORM SOLUTION RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. THANKS VERY MUCH.
>>VINT CERF: MOUHAMET AND THEN ROBERTO.
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT. MAYBE THIS WILL BE MY LAST COMMENT, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING, IS THE FIRST ONE IS ON THE TECHNICAL TEST. EVERYBODY HEARD HERE THROUGH THE REPORT THAT WE WILL GO THROUGH TWO TESTS. ONE WILL BE DNAME. THE OTHER ONE IS NS RECORD.
AND WE -- WITH THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE WITH THE DNS EXPERT AND THE ROOT SERVER EXPERT WHO ARE HERE AROUND THE TABLE AND WE HAVE A CHANCE TO GET SOME OF THE BOARD, THE DNAME WILL REQUIRE SOME IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE ONLY ONE OF THE EXISTING ROOT SERVERS SUPPORT IT. IT MEANS WE ARE NOT DOWN THE ROAD AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET THAT IMPLEMENTATION DONE AT THE ROOT SERVER LEVELS. IT MEANS WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO GET READY TO DO THE TEST WITH THE DNAMES. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW HOW LONG IT GOING TO TAKE IT.
THE SECOND THING IS THE BUDGET IMPLICATION. SO COME BACK BEFORE I MOVE. SAY WE HAVE TWO TESTS WE WANT TO DO. THE FIRST ONE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO BE READY. THE SECOND ONE WE KNOW THAT WE CAN START IT TOMORROW.
WHY WE ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THE ONE THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE US TO ACHIEVE IT AND THEN FOCUS ON THE ONE THAT WE -- I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE ME SENSE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TWO EXPERIMENTS IN PARALLEL, BUT BEING REALLY CLEAR THAT THE ONE THAT IS TECHNICALLY READY TO BE IMPLEMENTED DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ONE THAT WE ARE NOT READY AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE IT TO BE READY.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT BUDGETARY IMPLICATION OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT MEANS IF WE ASK FOR THE REGISTRY HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TO UPDATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR TO DO, THIS IS GOING TO BE A FINANCIAL IMPLICATION. WE DID NOT HAVE DONE YET THIS EVALUATION IN THE PAC COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
WITH EACH CONSTITUENCY, THE DETAILS OF THE WORK THAT HAVE TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TEST READY IS TREMENDOUS. AND I'M SORRY TO SAY IT AGAIN. IT'S NOT A JOB OF ONE PERSON. IT'S NOT A JOB OF HALF-TIME PERSON LIKE THE BOARD MEMBERS. I'M SORRY, WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN JOB, OUR DAY-TO-DAY JOB.
SO THE TIME WE ARE USING TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS IS NOT SUFFICIENT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS A CORE BUSINESS OF ICANN.
IMAGINE IF THE LAWYER OF ICANN ARE NOT THE FULL EMPLOYEE OF ICANN, THEY ARE JUST SPENDING ONE HOUR OR HALF HOUR A DAY TO DEAL WITH THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT DOESN'T WORK.
IDN IS PART OF THE CORE MISSION OF ICANN. IT'S JUST THE SAME THING LIKE THE GTLD EXPANSION.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE A HALF-TIME JOB FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. WE CANNOT AFFORD ALSO TO HAVE ONLY ONE PERSON DEDICATED TO THAT JOB.
I WILL BE REALLY DELIGHTED TO SEE FIVE MORE PERSON, ONE DEALING WITH THE -- ALL THE ISSUE REGARDING THE REGISTRANT INTERFACE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT EVEN FOR THE REGISTRAR, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG IT GOING TO TAKE THEM OR HOW MUCH IT TO TAKE THEM TO GIVE AN INTERFACE WITH IDN ON THEIR LANGUAGE. WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO GO WITH IDN TESTS? IT'S GOING TO COST THEM IMPLEMENTATION. WHO IS GOING TO FUND IT FOR IT? IS IT ICANN OR IS IT COMING FROM THEIR OWN POCKET?
I THINK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS RELATED TO OUR CORE BUSINESS. IT IS TO ICANN TO FUND THE EXPERIMENTATION AT EACH LEVEL: REGISTRY, REGISTRAR, COMMUNICATION, INTERFACE TO THE REGISTRANT.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THESE WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS CAN BE ALREADY -- I MEAN, ACHIEVED WITH JUST ONE PERSON. I'M REALLY SORRY. WE LOVE TINA. SHE IS AN EXCELLENT EXPERT AND I KNOW SHE WAS NOT SLEEPING AT ALL BECAUSE WE GIVE HER HEADACHE WITH ALL THESE PROBLEM WITH IDN. BUT I THINK THAT SHE NEED MORE SUPPORT FROM STAFF TO ACHIEVE THE ROLE WE ARE EXPECTING FROM ICANN.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE IN QUEUE.
LET ME ACTUALLY TAKE PAUL NEXT, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, AND THEN ROBERTO AND THEN PROFESSOR QIAN.
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. I WAS JUST CHECKING. THE ACTUAL STAFF ALLOCATION FOR THE IDN PROJECT AT THE MOMENT IS DUE TO RAMP UP.
PRESENTLY, IT'S TENUOUS AND PART TIME, WITH -- MORE THAN PART TIME -- WITH PART-TIME SPOKESMEN AND OTHER PEOPLE. THE PRESENT PROJECT TEAM IS FOUR. AND THAT'S OUR EXPECTATION. WE WOULD BE RAMPING UP BY JULY, WHICH IS INTO THE NEW FINANCIAL YEAR.
IF WE NEED TO DO MORE -- THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE SORT OF ISSUES MOUHAMET IS RAISING NOW, IT'S ABSOLUTELY KEY THAT THE COMMITTEE HELPS US DETERMINE WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THOSE DEMANDS, AND THAT WE HAVE THE PROPER DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT SUPPORT. FOR INSTANCE, I'M SURE HE WON'T MIND IF I PUT -- SAY IT, BUT DR. GOVAN FROM THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT LAST NIGHT WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO SAY HOW MUCH THE INDIANS WOULD SUPPORT THE IDN ISSUE. ALONG THE WAY THE ISSUES MOUHAMET IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT LOCAL LEVEL WITH LOCAL SCRIPT AND SCRIPT SUPPORT.
AND SO I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE CONTRIBUTION.
I WONDER IF I COULD ALSO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, ADDRESS SUSAN'S CONTRIBUTION.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE QUICKLY. I AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK IT NEEDS -- HOWEVER, I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE, IF I CAN ACTUALLY REPEAT THE WORDS OF A MEMBER OF OUR COMMITTEE WHO IS NOT AN ICANN PERSON BUT VERY INTERESTED IN THIS, ICANN IS ABOUT THE NON-ASCII WORLD PARTICIPATING IN THE DNS. THIS IS THE WAY THIS PERSON SEES IT.
AND WE DO NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL, AS WE GO FORWARD WITH IDNS, THAT ICANN IS NOT SEEN AS A WHOLE IN OUR ROLE AS BEING AN INSTRUMENT THAT GIVES ARBITRARILY, WITHOUT POLICY, ARBITRARILY MOVES TO GETTING INVOLVED IN A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THE ASCII WORLD IS TAKING OVER THE NON-ASCII WORLD OR VICE VERSA. AND THAT'S WHERE IT WILL ALL GO VERY, VERY QUICKLY.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE SEEN TO BE MUTUALLY RUNNING TESTS FOR CERTAIN TECHNOLOGIES AND THAT WE LET THE GNSO COUNCIL WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE POLICY ISSUES I THINK THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF.
AND I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT AND I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT SUSAN HAS EXPRESSED BUT I ALSO WANT TO REINFORCE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LISTENED TO THIS DEBATE WHO ARE NOT NORMALLY PART OF THE ICANN DISCUSSION WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IDNS THAT WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO A CAREFUL TESTING, AND THEN ALSO THE POLICY ISSUES WHICH COME TO SOME OF THESE DEBATES.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
ROBERTO I HAVE NEXT, AND THEN PROFESSOR QIAN.
>>ROBERTO GAETANO: YES. WE AS ALAC, WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON THE IDN THAT WAS VERY WELL ATTENDED. AND THERE WERE SEVERAL -- WE REALLY HAD THE FEEL THAT THIS PROGRAM IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE USER COMMUNITY.
ONE OF THE POINTS THAT CAME OUT IS THE FACT THAT, AS ALREADY MOUHAMET HAS BROUGHT UP, THERE ARE CERTAIN SOLUTIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK THAT A REQUEST FROM THE USER COMMUNITY IS, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE INTEROPERABLE.
SO, OF COURSE, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO UNDERGO A PHASE OF TESTING, THAT THE TEST -- THAT THE SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE PROPOSED FOR THE TEST IS SOMETHING THAT WILL MAINTAIN THE INTEROPERABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
HOWEVER, IF AT ONE POINT IN TIME ONCE THE TEST IS PROGRESSING AND IS SATISFACTORY, WE FIND THAT CERTAIN SOLUTIONS ARE IMMEDIATELY APPLICABLE FOR SOME PARTS OF THE INTERNET -- WE HAD AN INTERVENTION FROM THE CHINESE NIC, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING -- I THINK THAT IT WILL BE WRONG TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING, UNTIL WE HAVE THE PERFECT SOLUTION IN ORDER TO DEPLOY SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PART -- THAT IS GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY.
ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE DISCUSSION IN THAT WORKSHOP THAT REALLY STICKS TO MY MIND WAS EXACTLY THE CASE OF THE CHINESE COMMUNITY IN CHINA THAT ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF USERS THAT ARE INTERESTED BY THE DEPLOYMENT OF A SOLUTION INTERNAL TO CHINA FOR WHAT IS THE .CN IN CHINESE, FOR INSTANCE.
AND SOME OBJECTION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SOME CHINESE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T KNOW, IN NEW ZEALAND, A -- THE .NZ ALSO ACCESSIBLE WITH CHINESE CHARACTERS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THE DEPLOYMENT OF WHATEVER NAME DOT NZ IN CHINESE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE FAR MORE COMPLICATED TO DEPLOY.
AND I DON'T THINK, PERSONALLY, THAT THE DEPLOYMENT OF AN EASIER SOLUTION LIKE THE .CN IN CHINESE HAS TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE SOLVED ALL THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND FIGURED OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE THINGS IN THE BROADER ARENA.
NOW I WILL TAKE MY AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAT OUT AND MAKE A PERSONAL CONSIDERATION THAT I DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE THE AT-LARGE IN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WHAT I'M SAYING.
I THINK THAT THE IDN.IDN IS, BY FAR, THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM THAT -- WITHIN ICANN'S REACH THAT THE USER COMMUNITY HAS.
AND I THINK THAT IT WILL HAVE, BY FAR, WIDE IMPLICATION ONCE IT'S SOLVED THAN SOME OF THE FAVORITE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND PICKED UP IN THE PROCESS, LIKE EVEN THE VERISIGN AGREEMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ROBERTO.
I THINK MANY PEOPLE WILL SHARE YOUR SENSE THAT THIS IS, INDEED, A MOST CRITICAL ELEMENT FOR US TO DEAL WITH.
PROFESSOR QIAN, I THINK I HAVE YOU NEXT IN THE QUEUE.
>>HUALIN QIAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THE POLICY ISSUE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE VERY WELL PREPARED.
I THINK THE POLICY ISSUE IS NOT ONLY TO DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO RUN WHOIS, HOW TO DEPLOY AND THESE THINGS, BUT ALSO WE NEED HOW TO PROTECT OUR USERS.
THE USERS HAVE TWO -- TWO DIFFERENT USERS.
ONE IS THE REGISTRANTS.
THE OTHER IS THE NORMAL USER WHO IS TYPING IN THE DOMAIN NAME.
FOR PROTECT THE REGISTRANTS, IT'S THE OBLIGATION OF THE REGISTRARS.
WHEN THEY REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME, THEY SHOULD PROTECT THEM FROM ALL THE VARIANTS COMBINATION.
BUT IN THIS WEEK, WHEN I WAS SITTING IN THE GNSO, ESPECIALLY THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY AND THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, THEY ARE NOT VERY WELL PREPARED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF PROTECTING THE REGISTRANTS AND THE USERS, BECAUSE THIS SHOULD BE -- IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, IN DIFFERENT CHARACTER SETS, THE METHOD TO PROTECT THOSE THINGS ARE VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.
AND TO PROTECT THE REGISTRANTS, IT SHOULD BE THE REGISTRARS' JOB.
TO PROTECT THE USERS' RIGHTS, IT'S THE REGISTRIES' JOB.
SO THAT'S VERY COMPLICATED FOR DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND CHARACTER SETS.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE VERY WELL PREPARED.
WE ARE THINKING ABOUT -- THOUGHT ABOUT NOT YET.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD AND THE CEO OF THE STAFF AND THE IDN PAC MEMBERS, WE SHOULD PAY FULL ATTENTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE RFC3643, IT'S ONLY FOR CJK.
BUT IT'S VERY, VERY USEFUL, I THINK, FOR OTHER CHARACTER SETS, FOR OTHER LANGUAGES, TO REFERENCE, BECAUSE THE METHOD THAT THEY ARE DOING AS A GUIDELINE IS VERY USEFUL, ESPECIALLY FOR REGISTRARS AND THE REGISTRIES.
SO WE SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THOSE POLICY ISSUES, NOT JUST SEEKING FOR THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PROFESSOR QIAN.
THIS HAS CERTAINLY BEEN A WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSION.
WE'RE NOW APPROACHING A LITTLE OVER HALF AN HOUR, A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF AN HOUR'S WORTH OF THIS PART OF OUR BOARD MEETING.
AND I THINK I NEED TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC.
BUT I WANT TO THANK ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO INTERVENED.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE RECALLING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MOUHAMET WAS SUGGESTING.
WE PROBABLY NEED TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL NOT TO BECOME A VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY FUNDING DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE FOR THE REGISTRARS DIRECTLY, BUT I THINK CERTAINLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE DOING EXPERIMENTS, TESTS, AND OTHER SORTS OF THINGS, ALL OF THE RESULTS OF THAT SHOULD CLEARLY BE MADE WIDELY AVAILABLE.
IF THERE'S OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE WHICH IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, DNAME, IF WE CAN FACILITATE ITS AVAILABILITY, AGAIN, IT SEEMS A REASONABLE TASK FOR ICANN TO UNDERTAKE.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN.
I CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO AN UPDATE ON THIS SUBJECT WHEN WE GET TO MOROCCO, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO ANY TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THAT TIME.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN ACTION TO APPOINT LYMAN CHAPIN AS CHAIRMAN OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL.
I'D LIKE TO ASK PROFESSOR QIAN IF HE WOULD INTRODUCE THIS PARTICULAR MOTION.
PROFESSOR QIAN, DO YOU NEED A TEXT OR DO YOU HAVE IT AVAILABLE?
THANK YOU.
>>HUALIN QIAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THE PROPOSAL -- THE RESOLUTION IS THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF LYMAN CHAPIN AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL.
WHEREAS, ON 8 NOVEMBER 2005, THE ICANN BOARD APPROVED THE CONSENSUS POLICY ADOPTING A PROCESS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, THE URL.
WHEREAS, ACCORDING TO THE CONSENSUS POLICY, THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A STANDING PANEL OF EXPERTS COORDINATED BY A CHAIR "WHO IS AGREEABLE TO BOTH ICANN AND THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION THEN RESPONSIBLE FOR GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN REGISTRY POLICIES."
WHEREAS, ICANN AND THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY OF THE GNSO HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT THAT LYMAN CHAPIN IS AN OUTSTANDING CANDIDATE FOR THE CHAIR POSITION.
WHEREAS -- WHEREAS LYMAN CHAPIN APPEARS TO BE EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO TAKE ON SUCH A POSITION.
RESOLVED, THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH LYMAN CHAPIN TO UNDERTAKE THE DUTIES OF CHAIR OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL TAKE THAT AS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND?
I SEE TWO SECONDS.
MR. SECRETARY, I SAW VENI FIRST.
MY APOLOGIES, ALEX.
ANY COMMENTS?
MICHAEL, PETER, AND ALEX.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
TWO BRIEF POINTS.
THE FIRST IS, I THINK THIS WILL GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUNNEL PROCESS WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE REGISTRY CONTRACTS, AS WELL AS PROVIDING THE PREDICTABILITY THAT REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, AND STAKEHOLDERS CAN RELY UPON.
THE SECOND POINT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR SELECTION OF LYMAN IS, AS THE LIST OF ALUMNI RANKS, THE ALUMNI OF THE ICANN BOARD GROWS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK TO WAYS TO TAP UPON THIS INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE BASE.
AGAIN, I LOOK TO PEOPLE LIKE JONATHAN COHEN, WHO WAS HERE AT THIS MEETING, EUGENIO, WHO IS PROVIDING A KEY ROLE IN THE NOMCOM, TRICIA DRAKES, AMADEU, KEN FOCKLER, PINDAR WONG.
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ICANN BOARD MEMBER, SLASH, ALUMNI, THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS ICANN'S CONTINUED FUNCTIONS.
SO THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, ECHOING MIKE AGAIN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS POSITION AND THE QUALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR ALUMNUS IN FILLING IT.
I JUST WANTED TO TELL THOSE OF YOU WHO DIDN'T APPRECIATE THIS THAT THE REASON THAT LYMAN CHAPIN IS SO SUCCESSFUL IS HE'S SPENT QUITE AN EARLY -- IMPORTANT PART OF HIS EARLY CAREER TRAINING HERE IN WELLINGTON, AND IT'S ONLY FITTING THAT ANOTHER ONE OF OUR QUALIFIED PEOPLE HAVE GONE ON TO GREATER THINGS.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER.
IS LYMAN IN THE ROOM?
THERE HE IS.
HE'S WALKING DOWN THE HALL NOW.
AND SO, LYMAN, WE'RE JUST ABOUT TO DECIDE WHETHER YOUR FATE WILL BE DETERMINED HERE.
SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE PREPARED EITHER TO ESCAPE FROM THE ROOM INSTANTLY OR SIGH WITH RELIEF.
ALEX, YOU HAD -- WERE IN THE QUEUE NEXT.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VINT, BESIDES JOINING MIKE'S STATEMENT ABOUT MAKING GOOD USE OF THE EXPERTISE THAT'S CREATED IN ALL OF THE YEARS IN SPECIFIC MATTERS DURING BOARD WORK, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ALSO TO REINFORCE THE VALUE OF THIS -- THE CREATION OF THIS SPECIFIC EVALUATION PANEL, AS IT MEANS MORE AND MORE EMPHASIS IS MADE IN ICANN ON THE TECHNICAL COORDINATION FUNCTION BY APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC RESOURCES.
THIS IS NOT ONLY THE FULFILLMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OR A POLICY DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT GOES A LONG WAY IN MAINTAINING TECHNICAL COORDINATION WORK OF ICANN STRONG AND AGILE.
AND FURTHER STATEMENT IS THAT THERE IS A CALL BEING MADE FOR ALL THE TECHNICAL COORDINATION BODIES WITHIN ICANN TO MAINTAIN A COORDINATION AMONG THEMSELVES.
THIS HAS BEEN SHORT IN THE WAY THE RESOLUTION WAS CRAFTED AND THE SELECTION OF LYMAN AND THE CREATION OF THE PANEL.
BUT IT CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL THESE DIFFERENT LIAISON GROUPS, PANELS, AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO MAINTAIN STRONG COORDINATION AMONG THEMSELVES.
.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ALEX.
VENI, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP ALSO.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: YES.
I WANTED JUST TO SAY -- JOINING, OF COURSE, WHAT MICHAEL SAID, AND THINKING THAT THIS IS REALLY A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR ANY WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE -- I KNOW LYMAN SINCE HE WAS ON THE ISOC BOARD AS -- I BELIEVE HE WAS A FOUNDING, ACTUALLY, MEMBER OF THE ISOC BOARD.
AND I CAN SHARE THE FEELING THAT IT'S A GOOD CHOICE.
I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO LOOK INTO THE DICTIONARY TO SEE WHETHER "APPEARS" IS THE WORD WHICH IS MENTIONED, WHEREAS LYMAN CHAPIN APPEARS TO BE QUALIFIED, IS THE RIGHT WORD, OR WE SHOULD REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING WHICH SAYS HE IS QUALIFIED.
>>VINT CERF: BUT THIS WAS PROBABLY DRAFTED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT LATER COME BACK TO BITE HIM.
THERE'S CERTAINLY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT LYMAN IS WELL-QUALIFIED FOR THIS POSITION.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TECHNICAL SERVICES OR REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL AND THE MORE GENERAL ACTIVITY THAT STEVE CROCKER HEADS IN THE SSAC.
AND SO I WANTED TO JUST POINT OUT SEVERAL THINGS, AND PERHAPS STEVE WILL WANT TO AMPLIFY.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE -- THIS TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL IS CALLED INTO OPERATION ONLY IN THE CASE OF A REGISTRY SERVICES PROPOSAL WHICH NEEDS EVALUATION BEFORE IT CAN BE ADOPTED.
SECOND, I THINK THAT IN THE COURSE OF THAT EVALUATION, THE PANEL WHICH LYMAN WOULD CHAIR IS -- SURELY HAS ACCESS TO ALL POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT AND RELEVANT INPUTS, AMONG WHICH I WOULD INCLUDE ANY PARTICULAR COMMENTS THAT MIGHT COME FROM SSAC.
AND, FINALLY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LYMAN ALREADY HAS A CLOSELY LIAISON WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
SO TO CONFIRM THAT, I'D LIKE TO DOUBLE-CHECK WITH THE HEAD OF SSAC, STEVE CROCKER.
>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YES, INDEED, FIRST OF ALL, ON A -- THERE'S MULTIPLE LEVELS HERE.
DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, PREPARATION FOR THIS, LYMAN AND I HAD A NUMBER OF CHATS.
AND LYMAN, OF COURSE, IS EXTREMELY FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMUNITY, HAVING SERVED ON THE BOARD HERE, AND BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.
SO WE HAVE A FAIRLY LONG, RICH HISTORY TOGETHER, AND QUITE A COMFORTABLE RELATIONSHIP.
WHATEVER UNCERTAINTIES THERE MIGHT BE ABOUT HAVING TWO COMMITTEES THAT HAVE SOME RELATIONSHIP WITH SECURITY MATTERS, OUR GENERAL ORIENTATION IS TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER AND WORK OUT WHATEVER ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP.
AND AS A -- AS A STRONG, CONSTRUCTIVE STEP IN THAT DIRECTION, WE'VE INVITED LYMAN TO BE A PERMANENT GUEST ON OUR SSAC MAILING LIST, SO THAT WHATEVER SET OF ISSUES WE'RE DEALING WITH HE'S FAMILIAR WITH OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND, IN GENERAL, THE COMMUNICATION PATH IS WIDE OPEN.
AND I PERSONALLY AND ON BEHALF OF SSAC AM EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING LYMAN TAKE THIS ROLE.
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE SOMEBODY BOTH MORE QUALIFIED AND MORE APPROPRIATE FROM A PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL POSITION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, STEVE.
I WANT TO TAKE VENI'S COMMENT EARLIER AND SUGGEST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS TEXT.
I THINK VENI'S QUITE RIGHT, BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE JUST HEARD, THAT "APPEARS TO BE QUALIFIED" SEEMS DIM PRAISE AND IT'S INACCURATE.
THIS SHOULD READ, "WHEREAS LYMAN CHAPIN IS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED."
SO I SUBMIT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PROFESSOR QIAN'S MOTION.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I SECOND IT.
>>VINT CERF: AND THERE'S A SECOND.
DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO THAT?
VENI, THANK YOU FOR DRAWING ATTENTION TO THAT.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
YES, VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: IN THE MEANTIME, I CHECKED ON THE WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, SO I WAS RIGHT IN ASSUMING THAT THE TRANSLATION IS "SEEM TO BE TRUE, PROBABLE, OR APPARENT."
I MEAN, THIS KIND OF "SEEM TO BE TRUE," IS NOT VALID.
>>VINT CERF: THERE'S A TERM IN ENGLISH CALLED, "DAMNING BY FAINT PRAISE."
AND THIS ONE PROBABLY FALLS CLOSE TO THAT.
SO WITH APOLOGIES TO LYMAN FOR OUR POOR CHOICE OF LANGUAGE, THE AMENDED RESOLUTION IS BEFORE YOU.
I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE NOW.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE -- I SEE UNANIMOUS -- AND APPLAUSE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>VINT CERF: NOW, ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE POSITION MAY HAVE JUST DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF, BUT THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT.
ALL RIGHT.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A RESOLUTION WHICH SUSAN HAS PUT ON THE TABLE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.
SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK SUSAN TO INTRODUCE IT.
AND THAT'S FINE, SUSAN.
I HAVE A FEW SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD.
BUT, SUSAN, WHY DON'T YOU INTRODUCE THIS RESOLUTION FIRST.
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE'VE HEARD THIS BEAK THE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS BEING MADE BIT THE GNSO COUNCIL IN WORKING ON POLICY GUIDELINES FOR A NEW GTLD PROCESS, INCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITY TO OFFER IDN.
IT IS A CORE VALUE OF ICANN TO PROMOTE COMPETITION AND TO COMMUNICATE.
AND THIS RESOLUTION IS DESIGNED TO ATTEMPT TO SERVE BOTH OF THESE GOALS.
IT WILL TAKE TIME FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PARTICULARLY NEW ENTRANTS TO THIS MARKETPLACE TO PULL TOGETHER THE PERSONNEL, INFRASTRUCTURE, IF THEY NEED IT, CAPITAL RESOURCES, TO PREPARE A BID FOR A NEW GTLD.
AND THESE TWO RESOLUTIONS ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE ADVANCED NOTICE TO SUCH PEOPLE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE NEW GTLD PROCESS AND TO SERVE AS A SORT OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING FOR THE ENTIRE ICANN COMMUNITY ABOUT THE NEED TO COMMENT ON AND FOCUS ON THE GNSO'S WORK.
ALL PARTS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY WILL BE INVOLVED IN THIS, INCLUDING THE GAC, ALL OF OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND, OF COURSE, THE BOARD.
SO I'D LIKE TO READ THIS RESOLUTION TO YOU.
WHEREAS, ON THE 8TH OF NOVEMBER, 2005, -- OOPS.
TURN THIS AROUND.
WHEREAS, ICANN'S CORE VALUES SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION AND PROMOTION OF CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN THE REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES WHERE PRACTICABLE AND BENEFICIAL IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND WHEREAS ICANN'S GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, GNSO, HAS LAUNCHED A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC MECHANISMS FOR THE ADDITIONAL INTRODUCTION OF NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, GTLDS, AND WHEREAS CONSISTENT WITH THE TIME LINES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIED IN ICANN'S BYLAWS, THE GNSO SHOULD COMPLETE ITS INITIAL REPORT ON NEW GTLDS BEFORE ICANN'S NEXT PUBLIC MEETING IN MARRAKESH, MOROCCO, IN JUNE 2006.
IT IS RESOLVED THAT ICANN STAFF IS AUTHORIZED AND INSTRUCTED TO POST A NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADVANCE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW GTLD PROCESS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, STATING THAT ICANN INTENDS TO ADVANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW GTLD PROCESS ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST OF JANUARY, 2007.
THE NOTICE SHOULD INSTRUCT INTERESTED PARTIES TO MONITOR AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC PROCESS NOW UNDERWAY IN THE GNSO.
AND RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD ASKS THE GNSO TO MAKE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO COMPLETE ITS INITIAL REPORT ON NEW GTLDS AT OR BEFORE ICANN'S NEXT PUBLIC MEETING IN MARRAKESH, MOROCCO, SO THAT THE GNSO'S REPORT CAN BE POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THE REST OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY, AND IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS WITH SUFFICIENT TIME TO ALLOW FOR ADVANCEMENT OF A NEW GTLD PROCESS ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST OF JANUARY 2007.
AND, FINALLY, RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD ASKS THE CHAIR TO COMMUNICATE THIS ACTION TO ICANN'S SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUSAN.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS RESOLUTION?
VENI HAS HIS HAND UP FIRST.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD?
I JUST WANT TO THANK SUSAN FOR PRESSING AHEAD WITH THIS.
GETTING CLEAR INTENT OF THE BOARD TO MOVE AHEAD ON NEW TLDS, I THINK, IS ANOTHER THEME WHICH WE'VE HEARD FROM MANY IS IMPORTANT TO THEM, AND SO, THEREFORE, IS IMPORTANT TO US.
IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS FURTHER ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, I'M GOING TO INSTRUCT THE BOARD TO USE AN UNUSUAL METHOD OF SHOWING THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THIS RESOLUTION.
IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO MOVE YOUR BODY BACK AND FORTH LIKE THIS (INDICATING).
NOW, THIS IS -- I'LL EXPLAIN THE PJ LATER --
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I APPRECIATE THE SITUATIONAL HUMOR ENORMOUSLY, VINT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>VINT CERF: WE WILL HAVE TO WATCH CAREFULLY TO FIND OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE MOVING IN THAT WAY.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I PROPOSE A WAVE.
PAUL, START IT OFF.
>>VINT CERF: A WAVE.
ALL THOSE --
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: START THE WAVE.
START THE WAVE.
>>VINT CERF: GO AHEAD.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
THERE WE ARE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>VINT CERF: HAGEN -- OH, YOU'RE NOT VOTING -- OH, THERE!
ALL RIGHT.
IT'S UNANIMOUS.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HAD A RESOLUTION PASSED BY WAVE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUSAN.
PAUL, I THINK YOU HAD A COMMENT THAT WAS RELATED TO THIS WITH REGARD TO TLDS IN GENERAL.
SO LET ME INVITE YOU TO MAKE THAT COMMENT.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
I THINK THIS IS PERHAPS AN APPROPRIATE TIME IN THE AGENDA TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE AT THIS MEETING THAT THERE ARE TWO VERY ACTIVE SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NEGOTIATIONS WHICH ARE PROGRESSING TOWARDS THEIR COMPLETION.
WE HAVE CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS WITH TELNIC, "WE" BEING THE STAFF, ON DOT TEL.
AND WE'LL BE POSTING A PROPOSED STLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT TO THE ICANN WEB SITE FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
I WISH TO STRESS THAT, OF COURSE, THIS STLD IS NOT APPROVED UNTIL IT HAS COME TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION.
SO THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF APPROVAL, BUT IT IS -- THE CONTRACT ITSELF HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND WILL BE UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE WEB SITE BY THE COMMUNITY.
ALSO, FOR DOT ASIA, WE ARE AT THE FINAL STAGES OF DISCUSSIONS ON THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THIS PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO POST IT FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.
SHARIL.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: OBVIOUSLY, SOMEBODY FIXED THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE MICROPHONES SO THAT I HAVE DIFFICULTY TRYING TO SPEAK.
>>VINT CERF: THIS WAS DEFINITELY DELIBERATE, SHARIL.
WENT TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE SEATED EXACTLY IN BETWEEN TWO INACCESSIBLE MICROPHONES.
>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO PICK UP ON WHAT PAUL MENTIONED.
INSOFAR AS -- THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE NEW GTLDS ARE VERY ENCOURAGING.
BUT I THINK AT THE SAME TIME, THERE ARE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE NOT YET WORKED THROUGH, IN PARTICULAR, FOR EXAMPLE, GEOGRAPHIC TLDS.
I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THESE KIND OF ISSUES AND PLACE A MARKER, BECAUSE THERE ARE CONCERNS, OF COURSE, FROM GOVERNMENTS ABOUT ANY POTENTIAL ABUSE OF PLACE NAMES OR FAMOUS NAMES IN RELATION TO GEOGRAPHIC-TYPE TLDS.
I WOULD, HOWEVER, SAY, THOUGH, THAT WE HAVE NOTED WITH SOME DEGREE OF COMFORT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE DOT ASIA INITIATIVE HAVE TAKEN STEPS FOR EARLY ENGAGEMENT WITH ASIAN GOVERNMENTS.
SINCE MAR DEL PLATA, THEY'VE HAD A MEETING WITH ASIAN GOVERNMENTS AT ALMOST EVERY ICANN MEETING TO TRY AND WORK OUT WHAT ARE SENSITIVE LISTS OR SENSITIVE ISSUES OR SENSITIVE NAMES FOR GOVERNMENTS.
I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S THE WAY FORWARD, BUT I'M JUST SORT OF SHARING THAT WITH THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SHARIL.
ALL RIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO -- OH, I'M SORRY, PETER.
YES, GO AHEAD.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT THESE CONTRACTS ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SCRUTINY BY ME, AT LEAST, IN RELATION TO THE ISSUES OF ENFORCEMENT THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN RELATION TO THE EARLIER GTLD APPLICATION, JUST IN CASE ANYBODY THINKS THAT THAT EARLIER APPLICATION WAS SOMEHOW BEING SINGLED OUT IN RELATION TO THE PERFORMANCE ISSUE.
THE PERFORMANCE ISSUE, THE CONTRACTUAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE IN RELATION TO ALL OF THESE TLDS, IS OF CONSIDERABLE CONCERN TO THE BOARD.
>>VINT CERF: IN FACT, JUST TO AMPLIFY ON THAT, BOTH THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND, I EXPECT, THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, WILL PAY SOME ATTENTION TO THE GENERAL NOTION OF COMPLIANCE TO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ICANN AND OTHERS, SOMETHING WHICH WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING TO ACCOMPLISH, GIVEN LIMITED RESOURCES.
AND I HOPE THAT AS THE NEW FISCAL YEAR OPENS OUT THAT WE'LL BE IN A POSITION TO DO A BETTER JOB THERE.
WELL, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS TO INVITE A DISCUSSION WHICH IN SOME SENSE HAS ITS ORIGINS IN THE BGC, BUT IT HAS A CONSIDERABLE, LET'S SAY, TIMELINESS WITH REGARD TO MANY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD DURING THIS WEEK AND PRECEDING LEADING UP TO THIS MEETING.
IT HAS GENERALLY TO DO WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE BOARD ITSELF WORKS, THE WAY IN WHICH IT PREPARES ITSELF OR WHICH STAFF HELPS TO PREPARE IT FOR BOARD MEETINGS, AND THE WAY IN WHICH WE REPORT THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK.
SO, ALEX, I'D LIKE YOU TO BEGIN THIS DISCUSSION, AS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
BUT I INVITE ALL BOARD MEMBERS NOW TO CONSIDER HOW WE CAN PREPARE OURSELVES BETTER FOR OUR MEETINGS AND TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR CONSTITUENCIES MORE FULLY HOW WE ARE MAKING OUR DECISIONS AND UPON WHAT BASIS WE ARE MAKING THEM.
SO, ALEX.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, VINT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION AND GIVEN THE TIME AND ATTENTION AVAILABLE FOR IT, I WILL ONLY MENTION TWO ISSUES.
ONE OF THEM IS MEETING PREPARATION.
AND THE OTHER IS MINUTING AND REPORTING.
THEY ARE BIG ENOUGH THAT WE COULD TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS HERE.
PREPARATION FOR MEETINGS, AS MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION FOR THE -- ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, WE ARE MOVING INTO A SCHEME OF PREPARATION FOR MEETINGS IN WHICH WE WILL HAVE 21 DAYS' ADVANCE START FOR ESTABLISHING THE AGENDA FOR EACH MEETING TO MAKE SURE EACH MEETING HAS A WELL-DEFINED AT LEAST PRELIMINARY AGENDA, FOR WHICH IT IS DIFFICULT TO MOVE AWAY ITEMS OR TO BRING THEM IN.
THIS WOULD BE SPARKED BY CHAIR, BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD ASKING FOR AGENDA ITEMS 21 DAYS BEFORE EACH MEETING.
WE WOULD ASSIGN SEVEN TO TEN DAYS FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
THEN 14 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WOULD PROBABLY MEET BY TELECONFERENCE OR RESOLVE BY E-MAIL, WHICHEVER SUITS THE EX COM BEST, TO FINALIZE THE AGENDA, HAVE IT PUBLISHED.
AND IN TEN DAYS ADVANCE BEFORE THE MEETING, EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE KNOWN TO HAVE AN OWNER, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT'S OWNING THE ITEM, OR A MEMBER OF STAFF THAT'S HEADING IT.
IN ALL CASES, STAFF SUPPORT PERSON THAT'S ASSISTING WITH THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND SUBSEQUENT FOLLOW-UP OF WHATEVER IS RESOLVED.
AND, IF APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, DOCUMENTS WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE DOCUMENTS -- WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE A NATURE -- WHERE THE SUBJECT IS OF A NATURE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PUBLIC, THEY WILL BE MADE PUBLIC.
AND IF THIS IS A PERSONNEL MATTER OR DRAFTS UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT AFFECT THIRD PARTIES OR SO FORTH, THEY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE MADE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE UNTIL THEY ARE VETTED BY THE FULL BOARD.
FOR PHYSICAL MEETINGS, THIS IS IMPORTANT. AS WELL AS IT IS FOR TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS.
FOR PHYSICAL MEETINGS, OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT THERE IS MASSIVE CHURN IN THE POSSIBILITIES OF ACTUALLY PERFORMING SOMETHING. WE ARE MET WITH SURPRISES OR SOMETHING THAT SEEMED LONG-TERM BECOMES VISIBLE IMMEDIATELY.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FIND THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION WHERE THE INTENSIVE INTERACTION WITH THE COMMUNITY SHAPES THE DECISIONS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY ARE BETTER MADE WITH INTAKE OF THESE FURTHER INPUT. SO THEY MAY MOVE OUT OF THE AGENDA.
BUT STILL, PETER DENGATE THRUSH HAS EMPHASIZED VERY WELL THAT BEFORE TRAVELING TO MEETINGS PEOPLE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S BASICALLY IN THE AGENDA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO PREPARE. THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE EMPLOYED OR THOSE PEOPLE WITH WIVES AND HUSBANDS TO ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE GOING FOR. UNLESS THERE ARE WIVES AND HUSBANDS TRAVELING TOGETHER FOR THE MEETING, WHICH IS SOMETIMES THE CASE. THEY MAY LIKE MORE ADVENTUROUSLY GOING INTO THE UNKNOWN.
FOR THE SECOND PART OF THIS WHICH IS MINUTING AND REPORTING, THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION WITHIN THE BOARD AS THERE HAS BEEN OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, AND THERE IS IDENTIFIED A STRONG POLARITY BETWEEN THE NEED TO INFORM AND THE LIABILITIES THAT MAY ENSUE FROM PARTIAL, INCOMPLETE OR UNTIMELY INFORMATION.
THE TWO POLLS OF THIS DISCUSSION, THEN, IS THE UNDENIABLE NECESSITY OF PROVIDING MINUTES, BUT THEN MINUTES HAVE TO BE APPROVED AND THE EARLIEST THAT YOU CAN USUALLY HAVE MINUTES IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING, WHICH WILL BE TYPICALLY ONE MONTH LATER THAN THE RESOLUTIONS ARE MADE.
AND FOR OTHER FORMS OF REPORTING. AND THE FEARS AND THE LIABILITIES STUDIED ARE THAT DISCUSSIONS MADE IN DRAFT FORM OR REPORTED IN DRAFT FORM MAY BE USED PARTIALLY OR OUT OF CONTEXT AND SO FORTH TO CONSTRUE LAWSUITS OR OTHER INTONATIONS OF ICANN'S DECISIONS WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT PROPER SOLID BASIS.
INTONATIONS, NOT (INAUDIBLE) NOT IN THIS CASE.
THAT, I WOULD SAY IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE POLLS OF THIS DESCRIPTION, AND I WOULD LEAVE IT TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO EXPAND.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX. ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ON THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF PREPARATION AND REPORTING?
PETER. I SEE LOTS. PETER, MICHAEL NEXT.
PETER, GO AHEAD.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES. THIS IS BEING DEALT WITH BY THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE COMMITTEE, AS ALEX SAYS, THAT DEALS WITH THE WAY THE BOARD WORKS.
THE FOCUS IS BECAUSE OF THE EMPHASIS THAT WE HAVE HEARD IN THE LAST THREE OR FOUR DAYS AND PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY IN OUR PROCESSES, AND THIS CAME TO GREAT PROMINENCE IN RELATION TO THE .COM AND VERISIGN SETTLEMENT.
FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE, TRANSPARENCY IS NOT ONLY AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE BYLAWS BUT ALSO A MOST EFFECTIVE WORKING PRINCIPLE. IT'S ACTUALLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CORPORATION NOT TO OPERATE TRANSPARENTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO STOP EVERY NOW AND THEN AND LET EVERYONE CATCH UP. IT ALSO FUNCTIONS TO MAKE THE BOARD MORE EFFECTIVE IF WE HAVE PROPER NOTICE OF WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE AGENDA WITH COMPLETE PAPERS, AND DEPRIVES BOARD MEMBERS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ASK FOR MORE DELAY IF THEY ONLY GET PAPERS A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING. IF THEY GET THE PAPERS 14 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, THEN IT DEPRIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DELAY. AND I DISTINGUISH THAT FROM THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE DELAY BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE MATTER.
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT ALEX HAS OUTLINED.
ONE IS A MORE STRINGENT PROCESS THAT ALL BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AGREED THEY WILL WORK TO. WHERE THERE IS AN EARLY CALL FOR PAPERS, A CLOSE-OFF DATE AFTER WHICH MATERIAL -- THE AGENDA WILL NOT BE ADDED TO EXCEPT IN CASES OF AN EMERGENCY, AND A FULL SUPPLY OF PAPERS FOR THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, WHAT'S COMING UP, WHO IS TALKING ABOUT IT, WHO THE STAFF ARE INVOLVED AND WITH LINKS TO ALL OF THE OTHER PAGES ON THE WEB SITE SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GET TO GRIPS WITH THESE ISSUES BEFORE THEY GET TO THE MEETINGS. THAT ALSO TAKES DISCIPLINE BY THE COMMUNITY IN FOLLOWING THAT, AND IT WILL TAKE DISCIPLINE BY THE BOARD BUT WE HAVE THAT UNDERTAKING FROM EVERYBODY.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING IN THAT KIND OF MUCH MORE ORDERLY, INFORMED, AND PROGRESSIVE ENVIRONMENT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER. MICHAEL, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I FULLY SUPPORT WHAT PETER SAID.
>>VINT CERF: JOI ITO.
>>JOICHI ITO: JUST A BRIEF COMMENT ECHOING SOME OF WHAT PETER SAID, BUT I THINK THAT OUR WEB SITE THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON IS SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED TO NAVIGATE. AND A LOT OF TIMES I THINK THE COMMUNITY FEELS LIKE THEIR COMMENTS HAVEN'T BEEN CONSIDERED IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS.
I WOULD URGE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS OR THINGS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD TO CHECK THE AGENDA AS THE BOARD PREPARES TO MEET, WHERE WE WILL TRY TO PROVIDE LINKS TO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED. AND ALSO TO LOOK AT THAT AGENDA, BECAUSE THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO READ ALL OF THAT MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL TIME.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME RECONCILE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, JOI. I THINK ALL OF US PROBABLY APPRECIATE, I THINK AS PETER SAID, HAVING ONE PLACE TO LOOK WHERE ALL OF THE MATERIAL WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE USING AS INPUT TO A DECISION CAN READILY BE FOUND.
VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU, VINT.
ACTUALLY, A COUPLE OF DAYS EARLIER WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE DISCUSSING THE -- ESPECIALLY THE .COM AGREEMENT AND HOW MANY HOURS AND DAYS WE SPENT READING MATERIALS AND DISCUSSING THEM, I REALIZED THAT IT'S, INDEED, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BROADER ICANN COMMUNITY TO FIND OUT THAT THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED UNLESS WE SHOW, SOMEHOW, EITHER BY MINUTES OR THE WAY JOICHI IS SUGGESTING AND WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT, TO PUBLISH ON THE WEB SITE ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ALL THE PARTIES SO THEY KNOW WE HAVE READ THEM.
AND I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS. I'M VERY MUCH ALSO IN FAVOR OF THINKING OF AND CONTINUING TO DISCUSS OTHER DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF PUBLISHING MINUTES, WHETHER THAT WILL BE THE MINUTES WE HAVE PUBLISHED SO FAR -- IN THE FORM OF THE MINUTES WE HAVE PUBLISHED SO FAR OR A DIFFERENT FORM.
BUT DEFINITELY, THIS LACK OF COMMUNICATION -- THIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY READING AND WE ARE ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING BETWEEN EACH OTHER AND WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES ON THE ISSUES WE DISCUSS HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.
AND I'M ALL FOR IT, AND I HOPE WE WILL HAVE A KIND OF PERMANENT SOLUTION IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
>>VINT CERF: SO I'D LIKE TO INTERVENE AT THIS POINT WITH ONE OBSERVATION.
IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE AND TEMPTING TO CHOOSE A SIMPLE PATH FOR TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS TO SAY, SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WELL, JUST RECORD ALL OF THE BOARD MEETINGS AND THEN PUBLISH THE TRANSCRIPTS.
THE THING WHICH I WOULD LIKE BETTER THAN THAT, FRANKLY, WOULD BE TO CONVEY IN A CONSIDERED WAY THE RATIONALES FOR REACHING VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS IN AN ORGANIZED PRESENTATION.
DISCUSSIONS, EVEN THIS ONE, ARE INFORMAL. THEY WANDER AROUND. THERE ARE INTERVENTIONS THAT GO OFF IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AND IN SOME WE EXPECTS, THAT'S NOT A VERY COGENT WAY OF EXPLAINING HOW WE REACH VARIOUS AND SUNDRY CONCLUSIONS.
AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REGARDLESS OF THE TIMING OF PRESENTATION OF THAT MATERIAL, BEING BALANCED BETWEEN THE QUESTION OF EARLY PUBLICATION AND POTENTIALLY POORLY PHRASED CONTENT VERSUS LATER PUBLICATION BUT MORE CAREFULLY PREPARED MATERIAL, THAT WE SERIOUSLY LOOK AT HOW TO CONVEY THAT INFORMATION IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION.
WE'RE NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ARE NOT IN THE SAME POSITION AS A JUDGE MIGHT BE IN TRYING TO RENDER A DECISION, WHICH IS FREQUENTLY DOCUMENTED WITH REFERENCES AND CITATIONS AND THE LIKE.
BUT I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE COMMUNITY TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND HOW WE REACHED OUR DECISIONS AND WHAT MATERIALS WERE AVAILABLE TO US AND WHAT THE RATIONALE AND LINE OF REASONING WAS.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY, WE WILL HAVE OVERCOME AT LEAST SOME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE INTERFERED WITH OUR OPERATION IN THE PAST.
SO I JUST PUT THAT ON THE TABLE AS ANOTHER POSSIBLE FORMAT IN WHICH TO CONVEY THIS KIND OF INFORMATION.
SUSAN.
>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: ON THE MEETING REPORT PART OF THIS, THERE MAY BE AN ANSWER THAT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT. THIS IS NOT MY IDEA. BUT A WAY TO HAVE NOTES QUICKLY TAKEN OF OUR CONVERSATIONS AND MADE AVAILABLE TO US TO EXAMINE THAT DON'T REPORT EACH INARTICULATE LINE THAT WE STATE BUT RECORD SOMETHING LIKE MR. DENGATE THRUSH AGREED, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE BALL BOUNCING ALONG THROUGH THE CONVERSATION IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION WITH BULLET POINTS FOR ACTION ITEMS.
IF THAT KIND OF MEETING REPORT COULD BE PREPARED RELATIVELY QUICKLY FOR OUR REVIEW, AND THEN PUBLISHED, I THINK THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS SORT OF INCREMENTALLY EXPLAINING OUR RATIONALES WITHOUT BOILING THEM DOWN INTO AN OFFICIAL AGREED STATEMENT, BUT REALLY SHOWING HOW WE ARE DOING OUR WORK.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT REPORT, IF EVEN MORE QUICKLY OUR DECISIONS COULD BE MADE KNOWN, THAT WOULD BE A SECOND DOCUMENT.
BUT THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO ME. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE RAISED THIS IDEA.
>>VINT CERF: PETER, RAIMUNDO, AND VENI.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, IT WILL BE NO SURPRISE THAT I HAVE BEEN PUSHING -- TO HEAR THAT I HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR THAT KIND OF REPORT FOR A WHILE. I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE EASILY. WE HAVE A JUNIOR POLICY OFFICER SITTING IN THE MEETINGS TAKING NOTES AND GETTING IT OUT WITHIN A FEW HOURS OF THAT.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE IT STRIKES ME AS A WASTE OF RESOURCES, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT RESOURCES MAY BE CONSTRAINED, TO HAVE GENERAL COUNSEL PREPARING THESE MINUTES AS CURRENTLY HAPPENS. I THINK GENERAL COUNSEL SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF ACTIVITY.
OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL HAS TO REVIEW MINUTES AND THINGS BEFORE THEY ARE PUBLISHED, BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A REPORT OUT OF THAT VERY QUICKLY.
NOW, THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS ONE, AND THAT IS THE ONE THAT VINT AND OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED AND THAT'S THE LIABILITY QUESTION.
PEOPLE WILL TAKE THESE STATEMENTS AND USE THEM, AND THERE'S A CONSTANT OR REASONABLY STEADY STREAM OF LITIGATION AGAINST THE CORPORATION.
MY SOLUTION TO THAT IS SIMPLY TO INCREASE THE INSURANCE. THAT IS THE PRICE -- AND TO PUT THAT TO THE COMMUNITY AS A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION.
IF YOU WANT GREATER TRANSPARENCY, AND I THINK WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY DO, HERE IS THE PRICE. AND IF THEY ARE PREPARED TO PAY THAT PRICE, THEN I THINK THAT MAKES IT PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. I HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO HOLD ON TO IT BECAUSE THERE IS RAIMUNDO AND VENI HERE STILL IN THE QUEUE.
GO AHEAD, RAIMUNDO.
>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I'M SURE THAT WE CAN DO BETTER THAN HAVE THE MINUTES PUBLISHED IN JUST -- JUST AFTER A -- OR ONE MONTH AFTER A MEETING. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN DOING SINCE IT WAS CREATED IN 1999. ONE MONTH AFTER THE MEETING, THE MONTHLY MEETING, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED IN THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN PUBLISHED, AND IT'S WORKING AT THAT. THE SECRETARIAT OF THE ASO MAKES THE MINUTES, IT CIRCULATES BY MAIL DURING THE MONTH, AND THEY ARE PUBLISHED.
I THINK THAT WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT. BUT FOR THE TIME, THE ONLY THING THAT I ASK IS WE SHOULD DO THAT AND WE ARE NOT DOING THAT.
THE LAST MINUTES OF -- EXCEPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING, THE LAST MINUTES THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD WERE IN JUNE -- FOR MINUTES OF JUNE 2005. THIS IS ALMOST ONE YEAR OLD.
WE HAVE VERY IMPORTANT MEETINGS WHICH THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE -- THE MINUTES OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND WHO SAID WHAT IN THOSE MEETINGS.
I AM REALLY SURPRISED A LOT OF DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD THESE DAYS ABOUT IMPROVING, RECORDING THE FULL, BUT WE ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM.
AND THIS IS REALLY -- I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE FROM THIS MEETING A COMMITMENT OF THE BOARD TO TAKE OUT THOSE MEETINGS OF THE LAST ONE YEAR, AT LEAST, IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAIMUNDO. I THINK YOU ARE EXPRESSING -- THE UTILITY OF THIS IS TWOFOLD. ONE, OBVIOUSLY THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY ASKING WHAT TAKES PLACE IN OUR MEETINGS. BUT ALSO THE BOARD SOMETIMES FORGETS WHAT IT DID.
AND HAVING THE MINUTES AVAILABLE WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL.
VENI.
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: THANK YOU. JUST ONE POINT. I THINK THE LAST MINUTES FROM LAST YEAR WERE FROM THE 28TH OF JULY. NOT THAT IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, ONE MONTH. IT'S THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD.
MY ISSUE IS ACTUALLY THAT I HAVE -- I HAVE A LITTLE -- TWO CONCERNS. FIRST, IT'S GOOD WE ARE NOT TALKING ANY MORE ABOUT AUDIO RECORDING, SOMETHING WHICH REALLY BOTHERS ME A LOT. BUT THAT'S MY PROBLEM, I GUESS. MY HISTORY, AND THE PART OF THE WORLD I AM COMING FROM.
THE SECOND ISSUE IS I WOULDN'T MIND IF WE CAN PUBLISH MINUTES WHICH COULD BE TAKEN THE WAY PETER AND SUSAN AND OTHERS ARE DESCRIBING.
IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT APPROVED, THEY CAN BE USED FOR NOTHING ELSE BUT JUST THIS -- AS SOMETHING WHICH -- I MEAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THE LEGAL -- WE HAVE LAWYERS HERE, OUR DISCLAIMER, WHAT SHOULD BE THE PROPER WORDING.
AND THEN HAVE OFFICIAL MINUTES WHICH WE CAN APPROVE AND CAN GO INTO THE WEB SITE OFFICIALLY.
AND THEN THEY CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER PURPOSES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO USE THEM.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M SURE THAT IF THERE ARE ISSUES WHICH ARE TO BE DISCUSSED AND WHICH ARE DELICATE, EACH OF US CAN PREPARE A WRITTEN STATEMENT. WE HAVE SEEN RAIMUNDO DOING THIS ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS IN THE LAST MONTH. SOME OF US DID IT FOR THE .COM VOTE. AND I BELIEVE WRITTEN STATEMENTS ARE MUCH BETTER THAN JUST SPEAKING OUT OF -- YOU KNOW, OUT OF YOUR MIND FOR SOMETHING WHICH YOU ARE HEARING.
I PREFER TO TAKE THE RISK OF WRITING SOMETHING WHICH THEN CAN BE USED AGAINST ME, EVEN. BECAUSE I AM SURE THAT I WROTE SOMETHING, I HAVE SOMETHING IN MIND, AND I CAN TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.
NOW, WHEN WE SPEAK, EVEN THE OTHER DAY WHEN WE HAVE THE MEETING WITH THE REGISTRARS, I MAKE SOMETIMES STUPID MISTAKES IN ENGLISH. AND THIS IS HAPPENING NOT ONLY TO ME.
AND OF COURSE WE HAVE THE OTHER THING THAT WHOEVER TAKES THE MINUTES HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE OF UNDERSTANDING AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHOSE ENGLISH IS NOT REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND EVEN FOR THE -- FOR THE SCRIPTORS. THAT'S PAUL TWOMEY, AND PETER DENGATE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>VENI MARKOVSKI: SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IF THE SCRIPTORS CANNOT UNDERSTAND THEM, I -- HEY, I'M GIVING UP.
>>VINT CERF: OKAY. LET'S SEE. I SAW JOI ITO, SO PLEASE, GO AHEAD, JOI.
>>JOICHI ITO: I THINK PETER MENTIONED IT, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN HOLDING BACK SOME OF THE DISCLOSURE IS THE LIABILITY. I THINK THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LIABILITY. LIABILITY TO ICANN AND LIABILITY TO INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS.
AND I THINK AT LEAST AT THE LEVEL OF LIABILITY TO INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS, WE ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT APPETITE FOR THE LIABILITY.
I DIDN'T JOIN THIS BOARD TO DODGE LIABILITY. MY LAWYER ADVISED AGAINST IT. I'M HERE TO TAKE RISK IN ORDER TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD. I THINK SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT APPETITES.
SO IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A METHOD, AND I THINK PART OF IT IS GOING TO BE A WAY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ALLOW US TO EDIT OR AT LEAST MODIFY OR DELETE COMMENTS FOR CLARITY SO THAT WE END UP ON THE RECORD SAYING WHAT WE MEANT. AND IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A WAY THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ME TO INCREASE THE LIABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION BUT JUST POSSIBLY INCREASE MY OWN LIABILITY FOR THIS EXCHANGE THAT I THINK I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO, WHICH IS TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE RECORD TO CLARIFY MY POSITION.
>>VINT CERF: SO I WOULD OBSERVE THAT IN SOME LEGISLATIVE BODIES RECORDS ARE FORMALLY KEPT, AND ESPECIALLY IN A SPOKEN TESTIMONY. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO EDIT REMARKS FOR CLARITY.
SO THAT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE THING.
NOW, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, GIVEN YOUR OBSERVATION THAT YOU JOIN THE BOARD IN THE EXPECTATION ACCEPTING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LIABILITY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL STATEMENTS THAT I MAKE IN THE FUTURE AS A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
WITH REGARD TO PETER'S SUGGESTION ABOUT INCREASING THE LIABILITY INSURANCE, I MUST CONFESS TO YOU MY IMMEDIATE KIND OF KNEE-JERK REACTION TO THAT IS WHETHER THAT WOULD INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE WOULD BE SUED BECAUSE WE WOULD INCREASE THE POTENTIAL REWARD TO THE PARTY WHO SUCCESSFULLY PRESSES THE SUIT. I'M SURE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE LOGIC, BUT I HAVE TO SAY IT DID OCCUR TO ME THAT THAT MIGHT BE A SIDE EFFECT.
THE LARGER THE TARGET, THE MORE POPULAR IT IS TO SUE.
I DON'T, HOWEVER, THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND UNDER-INSURANCE FOR ICANN. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO SATISFY THE EXPECTED RISK.
LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT.
IF NOT, WE HAVE ONLY ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, AND WE'LL COMPLETE THESE AHEAD OF THE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE.
LET'S SEE. THESE ARE REALLY TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT YOU ALL -- THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH BOARD MEMBERS KNOW THAT WE ENGAGE IN AT THE END OF THE BOARD MEETING, AND THAT'S SPECIAL THANK YOUS.
I HAVE ONE TO MAKE, AND THEN I AM GOING TO ASK PETER DENGATE THRUSH TO MAKE A FINAL ONE.
SO LET ME START WITH THIS RESOLUTION WHICH I WILL ASK THE BOARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE BY ACCLAMATION.
IT'S THANKS TO THE SCRIBES, THE SPONSORS, AND THE STAFF.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>VINT CERF: WAIT A MINUTE. I DIDN'T GET TO READ IT YET. YOU HAVE TO LET ME READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
IT'S THE ONLY SHOT I HAVE HERE AT PRETENDING ELOQUENCE.
THE BOARD WISHES TO THANK THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND FOR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO HOSTING THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND MOST PARTICULARLY TO THE HONORABLE DAVID CUNLIFFE AND THE HONORABLE WINNIE LABAN FOR OPENING THE ICANN MEETING IN WELLINGTON.
THE BOARD EXTENDS ITS THANKS TO ALL SPONSORS OF THE MEETING, INCLUDING PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY, AFILIAS, AUDA, MELBOURNE IT, VERISIGN, CITY LINK, AND ESPECIALLY ANDY LINTON WHO HAS MANAGED THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS FOR THE HOST FX NETWORKS AND ASIANETCOM FOR INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH, ICMP, DOMAINZ, CATALYST, STATE SERVICES COMMISSION, LOGIC BOXES, SKENZO FABULOUS DOMAINS, AUSREGISTRY, OVERSTOCK, INTERNET USERS SOCIETY OF NIUE.
SPECIAL THANKS GO TO LAURA VIRGO AND THE TEAM, THE CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS, CONFERENCE ONLINE.
WE'D ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORT MADE BY THE STAFF OF THE WELLINGTON CONVENTION CENTER TO MEET ALL OF OUR MANY REQUESTS. AND THE BOARD PRESSES ITS GREAT APPRECIATION TO THE ICANN STAFF WHO ARE PRESENT HERE IN WELLINGTON; LAURA BREWER AND TERI DARRENOUGUE, AND THE REST OF THE ICANN STAFF FOR THEIR DEDICATED EFFORTS IN ENSURING THE SMOOTH OPERATION OF THE MEETING. AND I ASK YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS BY ACCLAMATION.
[ APPLAUSE ].
>>VINT CERF: AND FINALLY, I'LL TURN THE LAST ITEM OF THE AGENDA OVER TO PETER DENGATE THRUSH.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MY GREAT PLEASURE NOW TO INTRODUCE A MOTION OF THANKS TO THE LOCAL HOSTS.
AND IT READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, ICANN HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ITS 2006 MEETING IN WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND, IT IS RESOLVED, THE ICANN BOARD EXPRESSES ITS DEEP APPRECIATION AND THANKS ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PARTICIPANTS, TO THE .NZ REGISTRY SERVICES, THE OFFICE OF THE DOMAIN NAME COMMISSIONER, AND INTERNETNZ. SPECIAL THANKS GO TO INTERNETNZ'S COLIN JACKSON, PRESIDENT, DAVID FARRAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHAIR OF THE ICANN MEETING COMMITTEE, AND KEITH DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF INTERNETNZ.
I WONDER IF I COULD INVITE DAVID, COLIN, AND KEITH, IF THEY'RE IN THE ROOM, TO COME UP.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND WHILE THEY'RE COMING FORWARD -- THANKS VERY MUCH.
AND WHILE THEY'RE COMING FORWARD AND BEFORE I INVITE VINT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, LET ME SAY, AS A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, IT WAS A FANTASTIC TEAM, DID A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK FROM A LONG TIME OUT.
AND, OF COURSE, SPECIAL THANKS TO THE MEMBERS OF INTERNET NEW ZEALAND THAT THESE ARE THE OFFICERS REPRESENTING.
VINT.
>>VINT CERF: I WANT TO JUST AGAIN EXPRESS THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD AND STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT EACH OF YOU HAS DONE TO MAKE THIS MEETING SUCH A PLEASURE FOR US.
YOU EVEN MANAGED TO GET RID OF THE TERRIBLE WEATHER AS WE CLOSE THIS MEETING, AND PERHAPS ALL OF US WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GO OUT AND ENJOY THE PRETTY WEATHER OUT THERE.
THESE MEETINGS ARE NEVER EASY TO ORGANIZE.
I KNOW YOU'VE SPENT ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF TIME AND ENERGY TO MAKE THEM HAPPEN.
SO I HOPE YOU WILL CONVEY OUR APPRECIATION TO ALL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO WELL TO A REALLY REMARKABLE EVENT.
SO THANK YOU EACH ONE OF YOU AGAIN.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>MOUHAMET DIOP: VINT, CAN YOU MAKE IT HERE FOR THE -- VINT --
>>VINT CERF: COME ON OVER HERE.
WE CAN GET IT WITH ALL THIS STUFF IN THE BACK.
THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA.
ALL RIGHT.
HERE WE GO.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>VINT CERF: WELL, I THINK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT NOW COMPLETES THE BOARD MEETING.
SO I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
VENI MOVES.
IS THERE A SECOND?
HAGEN SECONDS.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE CLAP.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THUS DROWNING THE OPPOSITION, IF THERE WAS ANY.
>>VINT CERF: SO SEE YOU ALL IN MARRAKESH.
(11:25 A.M.)