Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Voting Transcript of Board Meeting

10 May 2006

ICANN
10 May 2006
Special Meeting of the Board
Telephonic Meeting

(Meeting commenced. 1:06 p.m.)

(Roll call taken.)

Approval of Board Minutes

(Discussion on minutes.)

>>VINT CERF: Since we've now gotten the motion on the table, we'll start transcribing now the vote for the minutes for April 18th.

All those in favor of the minutes for April 18th, please say "aye."

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any opposed?

Is there any abstention?

>>NJERI RIONGE: Abstention, Njeri.

>>VINT CERF: On the grounds that you were not at the meeting, Njeri?

>>NJERI RIONGE: That's correct. I was not present for that particular meeting.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, the minutes of April 18 are approved.

We'll go off the record now.

(Discussion on minutes.)

Review of .TEL Agreement

(Discussion on .TEL.)

>>VINT CERF: We're on the record.

I'd like to call for a motion to place the .TEL contract approval on the table for consideration.

>>NJERI RIONGE: I move.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: Veni seconds.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Is there any further discussion -- Let me make sure it's clear what the proposed motion is. It would be to authorize the president to take such actions as are appropriate to implement the proposed agreement with dot -- with Telnic for the .TEL top-level domain. The action has been in process since the 28th of June 2005. The proposed motion relates the various dates at which actions took place.

Are there any amendments or comments or questions on this motion?

In that case, let me --

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Vint, Alejandro Pisanty here.

>>VINT CERF: Yes, Alex.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I would like to hear more about the .mobi objection or concern.

>>VINT CERF: .mobi wrote to ICANN and expressed concerns on several points, one of which had to do with the pricing structure that .TEL proposed.

Staff acted to explain what that arrangement was and that .mobi apparently had misunderstood the specifics.

I think also there was a question of the business model that .TEL had. And it was clear that their business model did not involve, for example, NAPTR records, which would be in conflict, for instance, with ENUM.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I saw those and the response that Kurt gave us from them.. But I think Susan has introduced a new element about .mobi here.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: No. It's incorporated in the .mobi concerns.

I just wanted a little more atmosphere about the communications with .mobi. And Kurt has been very helpful and has provided that.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thanks.

>>VINT CERF: Is that satisfactory, Alex?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Vint, this is Raimundo. I don't have in front of me the text of the resolution.

If there is not a wording recalling what the board said at the proper moment about the ITU, could we include it again, recall it, especially in the -- in the resolution?

>>VINT CERF: Let me suggest that my -- at least my understanding is that that information is actually in the text of the contract.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I know, I know.

>>VINT CERF: The constraints on the use -- constraints on the use of all numeric identifiers, constraints on the use of NAPTR records, are within the contract itself. So I hope it's sufficient to have drawn attention to that in these recorded minutes as opposed to having to put them, in addition, into the resolution.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Well, because it was especially to the staff to negotiate that issue in the contract. So it seems to me it's better to recall it again in the -- in the resolution.

>>VINT CERF: Perhaps, Mr. Secretary, we can add -- we can add an amendment which says, roughly, that, whereas the staff has responded to board recommendations to incorporate constraints in the proposed agreement with regard to all numeric number -- all numeric registrations and with regard to the use of NAPTR records, these modifications are reflected in the contract.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: So noted.

>>VINT CERF: If that's acceptable to you, Raimundo, we'll add that.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Yes. Yes, it is.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any other comments on this proposal?

In that case, I will call for a vote. And I'm going to do a roll call.

Alex Pisanty.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Vint, are we on the record now?

>>VINT CERF: We are on the record. We've been on the record since we put the motion on the table.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Okay.

>>VINT CERF: And how do you vote on the .TEL resolution?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Veni Markovski?

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Hagen Hultzsch?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Vint Cerf votes in favor.

Njeri Rionge?

>>NJERI RIONGE: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Paul Twomey?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Mouhamet Diop?

Mouhamet?

I think Mouhamet may not be on the call.

Hualin Qian?

>>HUALIN QIAN: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Raimundo Beca?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Vanda Scartezini?

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Peter Dengate Thrush?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Joichi Ito?

>>JOICHI ITO: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: Demi Getschko?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: In favor.

>>VINT CERF: And Susan Crawford?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I vote in favor.

Vint, I want to note that the .TEL application does raise substantial concerns about the merits of continuing to believe that ICANN has the ability to choose who should sponsor a particular domain or, indeed, that sponsorship is a meaningful concept in a diverse world. And I hope that we will explore this question in the future.

>>VINT CERF: I'm sure we will, Susan, especially with regard to this process, which is still under way, as you know.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Absolutely.

Nonetheless, I do vote in favor of the application.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, the motion passes unanimously, with one exception. Mouhamet Diop was not available to record his vote.

All right. Thank you.

We're off the record now.

(Discussion on .XXX.)

Review of .XXX Agreement

>>VINT CERF: Okay, we are on the record.

We are going to be calling for placing a resolution on the table concerning the proposal by ICM for a top-level domain of .XXX.

The matter has been discussed at length. The contracts have been placed in public -- for public comment, have been amended and re-placed on the public Web site. We've had inputs from many sources, some in favor, some not in favor.

We've had advice coming from the -- from the Governmental Advisory Committee, both in the form of its communiqué and also specific communications coming from individual members of the GAC. And, by and large, the communications coming from governments have been -- have expressed concerns about compliance or the ability of ICM to achieve compliance of the behavior of the registrant. Other entities have been very clear in their opposition to this top-level domain.

The community that makes up the adult entertainment market itself has expressed different views. Some are in favor and some are not. So it's plainly a controversial matter.

I'll call for a motion to place the resolution on the table.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I move.

>>VINT CERF: That was Vanda.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Is there a second?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: What's the resolution?

>>VINT CERF: The resolution is to approve -- The resolution would be to approve that the contract with ICM should proceed to implementation, that we approve that staff go forward to implement.

So is there a second?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Peter can second that.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Peter.

It's been moved by Vanda, seconded by Peter.

Is there any further discussion of this particular resolution?

And let me remind you that in addition to any discussion that you choose to have on the record, you also have the right to make a statement at the time that you place your vote, which might be in place of further discussion.

But is there any further specific discussion at this point?

Hearing none, I'm going to begin a roll call vote on the ICM proposal.

Alex Pisanty, how do you vote?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I vote against (inaudible) with the agreement.

>>VINT CERF: Do you wish to say anything more about it?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I have expressed during the meeting and -- that I don't find that the agreement as stated has in-built structural guarantees that the conditions and representations made by ICM can be fulfilled. Many of them are not so because of any fault of ICM itself, but because of the complexities of developing them further in an international, multilingual, and multicultural environment.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Alex.

Veni Markovski, how do you vote?

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I vote in favor.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Hagen Hultzsch?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I vote against. And the reason is that the (inaudible) negotiations didn't produce the required and expected results.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

This is Vint Cerf. I vote against this resolution.

My reason for voting against it is that I no longer believe it's possible for ICM to achieve the conditions and recommendations that the GAC has placed before us as a matter of public policy and that the terms of the contract do not assure any of those -- the ability of ICM to provide the protections that are requested.

Njeri Rionge, how do you vote?

>>NJERI RIONGE: I vote against it.

And I will vote against it because we don't currently have substantial information to allow for us to be able to vote in favor. So I'm just basically saying at this stage, I'm voting "no."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Paul Twomey, how do you vote?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I'm voting "no."

Having been ill and not been a participating member of the ICANN board that looked at this issue of sponsorship during the meeting in Mar Del Plata -- I was a member of the board, but I wasn't in attendance -- I've always held concerns about the sponsorship test for this particular application.

More input into this recently, particularly opposition from significant members of the online adult entertainment community makes me further doubtful about the sponsorship aspect.

Probably more importantly, the contractual terms put forward by ICM to meet the sorts of public-policy concerns raised by the Governmental Advisory Committee in my view are very difficult to implement, and I retain concerns about their ability to actually be implemented in an international environment where the important phrase, "all applicable law," would raise a very wide and variable test for enforcement and compliance. And I can't see how that will actually be achieved under the contract. The letter from the UK is an indication of the expectations of the international governmental community to ensure enforcement of these contractual terms as they each individually interpret them against their own law concerning pornographic content. This will put ICANN in an untenable position.

I retain high regard for the efforts of the applicant and have a strong sense of good faith in what ICM has tried to put forward. I just think the problem has become too complex.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Paul.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Vint?

Vint, just a moment. Mouhamet has been dropped from the call.

>>VINT CERF: Yes. Thank you. We saw that.

Alex Pisanty said he's on Skype with him, says that he could relay his vote if we can't get him back on the call.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: We would need him to be able to hear the call as well.

>>VINT CERF: I see.

All right.

So we'll -- Can we try to get --

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Mouhamet has heard the call from the point that the vote started.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: He needs to be in two-way communication with us at the point that he votes.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Okay.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: We'll try to reach out to him again while the vote continues.

>>VINT CERF: We'll continue.

We'll skip past Mouhamet for now.

>>VINT CERF: And, Joi, also you wanted to make a statement. You should make the statement, unless it's terribly long, in which case pasting it into the board room --

Let me go to Hualin Qian.

Hualin Qian, are you there? And how do you vote?

Hualin Qian, are you there?

>>HUALIN QIAN: Yes, yes.

Okay. I vote against, because I think with the culture and the (inaudible) about the content of this kind is very, very different from different countries.

So the commitment made by ICM is not very easy to implement. I don't see any -- not clearly seeing that this can be implemented.

So against.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Hualin.

Raimundo Beca, how would you vote?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I vote "no."

And I want to make a statement.

>>VINT CERF: May I suggest that in addition to the statement, Raimundo, if you have a text, that you also supply that to the transcribers so as to be sure that we capture it correctly?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I will send it afterwards.

>>VINT CERF: Okay.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: My statement reads as follows:

"Even though, given that the GAC didn't have the opportunity to submit an advice on the specific ICM agreement proposed and that hence I would have preferred to postpone this vote, not being so I vote anyway against for the following reasons:

Number One: My evaluation is that the proposed agreement doesn't comply entirely with the GAC's advice expressed in the Wellington Communiqué; and Number Two: My evaluation is that the proposed agreement doesn't comply either entirely with the requirements raised by the Board on its September 15 meeting".

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: Mouhamet is back on the call.

>>VINT CERF: Mouhamet, can you hear us?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: Yes.

Yes, Vint.

>>VINT CERF: Would you like to vote now on the .XXX proposal?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: Yes, I can vote, even if I miss part of the discussion.

I vote in favor.

>>VINT CERF: Okay.

Do you have any other statements that you want to make? You don't have to, but you're free to do --

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: Well, the -- even if it is a very controversial issue, my statement is, the whole process was very heavy and very hard .

I'm only concerned about the core value , we are fighting for (choice, competition, representation...), as an organization with different sensitivities and different communities and our mission is to serve fully with consistency the communities.

We have gone through a decision and we ask for provision to allow this TLD to start operations. I truly believe that both decision going forward or stepping back will lead to a very controversy situation but less damage will come from allowing to move forward with the contract and try to make effective the guideline and the safeguards.

Changing our position after all that process will weaken more the organization that it will help it.

That's why I vote in favor.

If we vote against, we will open the door to a process that we will never come back again.

Any group of pressure will see itself able to make us change everything on any issue .

I'm only concerned about what will strengthen ICANN and make us remain strong, survive and serve communities.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Vanda Scartezini is next on my list.

Vanda, would you like to vote now?

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Yeah.

Well, I have been in favor during all this process. I'm not sure anymore, because the contract language did not come with the guarantee that I have expected. So in that occasion, I will vote against.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Vanda.

Peter Dengate Thrush.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I vote in favor. And in doing that, I note that there are two major issues in relation to that application.

One of them is sponsorship from the appropriate community. And in the end, I'm satisfied that there is sufficient support in the local community. But I think that that's an issue that we need to address in terms of defining that. And I look forward to more clarity about sponsorship conditions, if this kind of application is to continue, from the GNSO process on new applications.

My concern here is, what is the impact. I'm happy to deal with situations where not all of the community is actively supporting a particular application. I don't see that as being required. We haven't had before, though, situations where members of that target community are actively opposing an application. And I'm interested in resolving that.

But in this case, I think that this applicant has met sufficiently the sponsorship conditions that were imposed upon it.

The second issue is in relation to compliance with the contract.

And the first point about that is, I think it's unfair on this particular applicant to attempt to ask it to build a complete and working compliance model before it's allowed to start. That hadn't been imposed on any other applicant, and I don't think it could be or should be imposed on this one.

Secondly, I think the sort of issues of compliance that are being raised really are reflections of the difficulties that ICANN has in compliance with all of its contracts. And, again, I think it's unfair and inappropriate to require those problems to be solved in relation to this particular application.

In relation to this particular application, where concrete issues have been raised, it seems to me this applicant has gone as far as it can in providing answers to those particular things. And contracts themselves are never going to be guarantees of good behavior. What we need to do, I think, is let -- be satisfied, as I am, that this one meets the sufficient threshold, allow it to proceed, but then to make sure that ICANN has appropriate compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions so that if there are difficulties that emerge with this, or with any other application, they can be dealt with in that framework. So to require perfection, as it seems to me some board members are, in relation to this one is unrealistic.

Saying again, I think this application has met sufficiently for the present purposes those threshold requirements. So I'm voting in favor of it.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Peter. So recorded.

Joichi Ito.

>>JOICHI ITO: Hi, Vint.

You can hear me; right?

I will vote in favor.

And my statement, which I E-mailed, is:

Although enforcement and compliance issues have been raised with this agreement, they are mostly general issues that should be addressed in the framework of ICANN's ability to enforce agreements generally. ICANN is not in the business and should not be in the business of making judgment on content. Each country has the ability to legislate and enforce its laws to control content inside of that country.

I believe ICM has followed the process put forth by ICANN and has addressed concerns from the community in a reasonable way and I vote in favor of the resolution. >>VINT CERF: Thank you for that clear statement.

Demi Getschko, how do you vote?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: I vote against.

And to make it short, I share the concerns raised by Alejandro Pisanty about this contract.

Thank you.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Susan Crawford, how do you vote?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Vint, I vote in favor.

And I have sent a statement to the list. I am happy to read it here if you would like.

>>VINT CERF: If it's not terribly lengthy, please do.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: It's just one page.

We're being asked today to approve a draft registry contract with ICM, who is proposing to run a top-level domain. The string chosen by ICM and proposed by them (inaudible) .XXX.

ICANN's mission is to coordinate the allocation of --

>>JOHN JEFFREY: Susan, could you repeat the last sentence, just to make sure the transcription got it, because there was some background noise.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Sure.

We are asked today to approve a draft registry contract with ICM Registry, who is proposing to run a top-level-domain. The string chosen by ICM and proposed by them to ICANN is "xxx".

ICANN's mission is to coordinate the allocation of domain names and numbers, while preserving the operational stability, reliability, and global interoperability of the Internet. The vision of a non-governmental body managing key (but narrow) technical coordination functions for the Internet remains in my view the approach most likely to reflect the needs of the Internet community.

ICANN's current process for selecting new gTLDs, and the artificial scarcity this process creates, continues to raise procedural concerns that should be avoided in the future. I am not in favor of the "beauty contest" approach taken by ICANN thus far, which relies heavily on relatively subjective and arbitrary criteria, and not enough on the technical merits of the applications. I believe this subjective approach generates conflict and is damaging to the technically-focused, non-governmental, bottom-up vision of ICANN activity. Additionally, both XXX and TEL raise substantial concerns about the merits of continuing to believe that ICANN has the ability to choose who should "sponsor" a particular domain or indeed that "sponsorship" is a meaningful concept in a diverse world. These are strings we are considering, and how they are used at the second level in the future and by whom should not be our concern, provided the entity responsible for running them continues to comply with global consensus policies and is technically competent.

We need to adopt an objective system for the selection of new gTLDs, through creating minimum technical and financial requirements for registries. Good proposals have been put forward for improving this process, including the selection of a fixed number annually by lottery or auction from among technically-competent bidders.

In the meantime, I am not persuaded that there is any good technical-competency or financial-competency reason not to enter the draft registry agreement between ICM and ICANN that has been posted for public comment. I therefore vote "Yes" on the motion to approve the draft agreement.

Additionally, ICM is saying that it will establish elaborate registration requirements for second level domains using this top-level-domain string, will comply with the promises it has made as an applicant, and will, among many other things, "create automated tools to monitor registrant compliance with registry policies related to labeling and the prohibition of child pornography." I have carefully reviewed the concerns raised by the Governmental Advisory Committee in its 28 March 2006 communique, and have compared them to the draft contract, and I am satisfied that these concerns have been addressed by this draft contract. Indeed, I believe we may have gone too far in addressing these concerns. Policies as to the use of domain names, as opposed to the registration of domain names, are not appropriate subjects for ICANN decisionmaking. By keeping such a short leash on ICM's development of its policy organization, which will in turn make decisions about the use of names at the second level, ICANN may be getting into dangerous territory. We should not run the risk of turning ICANN into a convenient chokepoint for the content-related limitations desired by particular governments around the world. Governments have many powers within their territories, and are free to use them there.

Thank you, Vint.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan.

Veni Markovski wanted to make a statement earlier.

So, Veni, are you ready to do that?

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: Yeah.

Did everyone vote?

>>VINT CERF: Everyone has now voted.

The vote is nine against and five in favor.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: And one is missing.

>>VINT CERF: Excuse me?

>>JOHN JEFFREY: Michael's seat remains vacant.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: You see, I am forgetting things already.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that I would like to see ICANN taking positions on new TLDs in general and not wait another five years researching reasons to not approve a new TLD.

So maybe the attempt of ICM to meet all the conditions asked for by different governments, by ICANN, by the ICANN community, the stakeholders, is enough to prove that they are taking seriously this issue. And running away from the reality and the problems will not help ICANN, will not help in the ICANN community, and will not help the users.

(inaudible)

That's my little statement.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Veni.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's clear that the resolution did not pass. And despite the diversity of views -- and we are clearly quite polarized on this question -- I hope that the board will, as a whole, stand behind the decision of the board in this meeting.

We need to move on now to -- We go off the record now.

Approval of Board Member's Expenses

(Discussion on approval of financial expenditures.)

>>VINT CERF: All right. So let's go on the record.

This is submission number 14-2006, requesting the board to approve travel expenses for directors in various meetings, ranging from the middle of 2005 to early 2006.

So I'll ask for this to be placed on the agenda.

Is there a motion?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Vint, Peter. I'll move that.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Peter.

Is there a second?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Second.

>>VINT CERF: That was --

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: That was Susan.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Is there any discussion of this -- further discussion of the motion to re- -- to reimburse travel expenses to Suzanne Woolf, Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf, Alex Pisanty, and Hagen Hultzsch for travel taken during the period of time in question?

All those --

(Multiple people speaking simultaneously.)

>>VINT CERF: Sorry, Peter. Go ahead.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yeah, we can hear you, Njeri.

Vint, I'm going to vote in favor of this motion. But I am concerned that we don't seem to have a clearly articulated policy on reimbursement of expenses that might, for example, differentiate between directors and liaisons or directors going on different kinds of business.

And I'd like to call on the Finance Committee, unless the Executive Committee is the more appropriate body, to publish a statement of expenses policy.

>>VINT CERF: Okay. We can take that up as an action.

>>NJERI RIONGE: Vint, I also want to make a comment. I think I muted earlier when I was trying to say something.

I really believe that we also need to address the issue of making sure that we have all reimbursements actually done within the fiscal year of the expenditure itself.

>>VINT CERF: Well, that, of course, is a problem if the amounts -- if the receipts are not submitted in a timely way. So we can only ask --

>>NJERI RIONGE: Yeah.

So I think -- I think the help of the policy would actually bring that to sort of -- some sort of order. Because we -- it's important that we actually get all the requirements or get all the requests on board before the fiscal year is actually coming to a closure.

>>STEVE CROCKER: And how much time after the close of the fiscal year? For travel that's near the end of the fiscal year, what is your plan?

>>VINT CERF: I'm sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, I need to interrupt this discussion.

I'm very concerned. We're way over time. You asked me to be -- to do the best I could to contain discussion so we could get through all of the agenda. We're not succeeding by having this general discussion on a specific matter.

I wonder if we could postpone that discussion, perhaps carry out some of it in E-mail, so that we could get this particular matter out of the way?

May I ask you for that?

>>NJERI RIONGE: We can do that.

>>VINT CERF: So I would like to call for a vote on reimbursement for the directors whose expenses have been submitted.

All those in favor, please say "aye."

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any opposed to this resolution?

Are there any abstentions?

Thank you. And for not abstaining because you were a recipient of payment. That would be unhelpful.

All right. So, Mr. Secretary, expenses have been approved.

Discussion of Approval of Attorney's Fees

(Discussion on financial expenditures.)

>>VINT CERF: Go on the record asking for a vote.

We're on the record now, looking at submission 13-2006, a request to authorize payment for legal services during the period November 2005 to March 2006. The total amount of this expenditure is $830,074.16.

Do I have a motion to place this resolution --

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Motion. This is Hagen.

>>VINT CERF: Second?

Sorry. Is there a second?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: Demi seconds.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

If you vote in favor of this, you will be authorizing payment to Jones Day in the amount stated.

Are we ready for the vote?

>> Yes.

>>VINT CERF: All those in favor, please say "aye."

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any opposed?

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, Mr. Secretary, the authorization to pay Jones Day is approved.

And we are now off the record again.

Review of GNSO Recommendation regarding Process for Potential Conflicts between WHOIS Obligation and National Privacy Laws

(Discussion on GNSO Report on potential conflicts between WHOIS obligations and national privacy laws.)

>>VINT CERF: All right.

So we're now on the record again, looking at submission number 9-2006, recommendation from the GNSO on a procedure for potential conflicts between WHOIS requirements and privacy laws in the context of contractual negotiations that staff undertake with our contracting parties.

I'll ask for a motion to place this resolution on the table.

Alex, are you moving?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Is there a second?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Hagen seconds.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Hagen.

Is there any further discussion of the resolution, which, if you adopt it, will give guidance to the staff as to how to incorporate concerns with regard to conflicts between national privacy laws and contractual provisions in the WHOIS context?

If you vote in favor of that, it will represent guidance to the board, adopted upon recommendation by the GNSO council.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Vint, I would like the opportunity to make a brief comment here.

>>VINT CERF: Yes, go ahead.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: There are two points here that I would like to emphasize.

One of them is that we have, as you know, established the joint working group between the board and the GAC that has been looking at developing further the relationship on working methods, among other things. We had a teleconference yesterday of the full joint working group, that means both board and GAC parts were there. It has been signaled that WHOIS is a significant issue that will be programmed for extension for the coming maybe even couple of years, two or three years, for this joint work between the GAC and the board. And it has been seen as something really worthy of attention for a public-policy issue.

I believe that the recommendation as stated is compliant with the expectations that this joint working group on both sides can have of this collaboration between the GAC and the board, paying particular attention to these issues. So I'm ready to vote in favor of it.

That's number one.

But it means I am not only explaining why I am in favor of the proposal, bringing into the context of the present discussions, so there's no surprises, there's complete transparency here.

And, number two, the vote against this particular recommendation in the GNSO Council was almost unanimous. The one vote against was by Ms. Avri Doria. And she has made also a very significant statement there in saying that she doesn't believe that the recommendation as it stands protects privacy enough.

Personally, I will vote, leaving on the record a statement that, in my opinion, that protection of privacy as far as possible within the framework of the recommendation is still a plus and, in all cases possible, should be enhanced.

>>VINT CERF: Okay. Thank you, Alex.

We have a motion on the table. It's been seconded. Are we ready to vote?

I'll take a roll call on this vote, if only because there appear to be some statements of interest.

So let me start with Alex. How do you vote on this?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I vote "yes." And I plea that the statement I just made go on the record.

>>VINT CERF: Veni Markovski, how do you vote?

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: I'm sorry, Veni. I can't hear you.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Hagen Hultzsch, how do you vote?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: I vote "yes." And I follow Alejandro's arguing.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Vint Cerf votes "yes."

Njeri Rionge?

>>NJERI RIONGE: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Paul Twomey?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Mouhamet Diop?

Mouhamet, are you on?

I don't hear Mouhamet, so I'll skip past for now.

Hualin Qian, how do you vote?

Hualin Qian, are you on?

>>HUALIN QIAN: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: How do you vote on this matter?

>>HUALIN QIAN: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Raimundo Beca?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Vanda Scartezini?

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Peter Dengate Thrush?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Joichi Ito?

>>JOICHI ITO: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Demi Getschko?

[Technical problem noted]

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Susan Crawford, how do you vote?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I vote "yes."

I want to say briefly that based on the recent GNSO Council vote, it is not clear that there is still a consensus in support of the current WHOIS portion of our standard contract. And I look forward to the final view on that question being presented to the board.

To the extent the proposal before us now is viewed as a guideline, a recommendation for staff to follow, I support it.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you, Susan.

Can we get Mouhamet Diop back?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: Yes.

>>VINT CERF: Are you on, Mouhamet?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: Yes, yes, Vint.

>>VINT CERF: How do you vote on this measure?

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

What about Demi Getschko?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: I vote "yes."

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, the vote is unanimous on this measure.

Thank you.

Appointment of Chair of Meetings Committee

(Discussion on the Board Governance Committee's Recommendation for Appointment of Meetings Committee Chair.)

>>VINT CERF: Let's go to a vote.

We're on the record. We're going to introduce a resolution to appoint

Veni Markovski as chairman of the Meetings Committee.

And so put this onto the table.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: Motion from Hagen.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Seconded, Pisanty.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you.

Is there any further discussion of this motion from the Board Governance Committee?

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: No.

>>VINT CERF: All those in favor, please say "aye."

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

So thank you very much for accepting to take this chair up again.

Approval of Reconsideration Committee's Recommendation on Reconsideration Request RC 06-03

(Discussion on Board Reconsideration Committee.)

>>VINT CERF: All right. In that case, I'd like to go on the record again for the board to consider the recommendations of the Reconsideration Committee.

We are on the record.

At the reconsideration recommendation RC-06-3, concerning a request by Marilyn Cade to reconsider general counsel's recommendation and interpretation of the bylaws which would bar her from election as a board member during the period of time that she served on the Nominations Committee, that period of time including the period up to the end of the annual meeting, which would take place at the end of 2006.

So let me ask that we place this --

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Vint?

>>VINT CERF: Yes.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: Vint, just to add that in -- the request is just a request for to stay the process for GNSO. And we see no reason to respond to this stay request since we decide there are no grounds for the reconsideration in this -- the reasons that John Jeffrey has raised.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much for that clarification, Vanda.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: Would it be appropriate for me to read the Reconsideration Committee's recommendation into the record?

>>VINT CERF: Yes, it would.

>>JOHN JEFFREY: The recommendation from the Reconsideration Committee reads as follows:

For the above reasons, the Reconsideration Committee recommends that the board take no action on reconsideration request RC06-3:

"The committee concludes that there are no grounds for reconsideration, as Article VII, Section 8, is clear that Ms. Cade cannot, under any circumstances, become eligible to fill the current midterm vacancy on the ICANN board without a change to the applicable bylaws. Moreover, Article VII, Section 8, does not allow flexibility to consider," quote, "'exigent circumstances,'" end quote, "under any situation. Finally, the request does not demonstrate any reason sufficient to stay the contested action."

And there is a full analysis, for which final wording is being worked out by the Reconsideration Committee, that will be posted on the ICANN Web site in response to the reconsideration request.

>>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, John.

Are there any further discussion items on this resolution?

All those in favor, please say "aye."

>> Aye.

>>VINT CERF: Are there any opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Yes. Raimundo Beca abstains.

>>VINT CERF: You abstain. So --

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I abstain.

>>VINT CERF: It's unanimous, Mr. Secretary, with the exception of Raimundo, who abstains.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: Let me explain why.

>>VINT CERF: Please go ahead.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: I abstain on the same grounds I abstained on one of the points on the -- in the Reconsideration Committee, is because the Article VII is ambiguous in one point and leaves room for flexibility, because it speaks that the -- that anyone who serves, no one -- not one who served in the past.

>>VINT CERF: Okay. Thank you, Raimundo.

(Off-the-record discussion.)

(Meeting concluded at 3:06 p.m.)

Stay Connected

  • News Alerts:
  • Newsletter:
  • Compliance Newsletter:
  • Policy Update: