ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
IT'S TIME WE GOT STARTED.
THIS IS THE MEETING OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
AND WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL HERE IN PERSON.
AND I BELIEVE ON THE PHONE WE HAVE JORDYN BUCHANAN.
IS THAT CORRECT?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IT IS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND ALSO I GATHER WE HAVE BRIAN DARVILLE FROM ONE OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCES.
IS THAT CORRECT?

>>BRIAN DARVILLE: THAT'S CORRECT, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREAT.
GLAD YOU COULD JOIN US.
OKAY.
JUST TO -- WE HAVE DONE -- IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE?
NO.
OKAY.

I'LL JUST INTRODUCE MYSELF AND WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE AND INTRODUCE OURSELVES.
AND WHAT CONSTITUENCY WE'RE FROM.

MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN.
I'M AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY, AND I'M ALSO CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: PHILIP SHEPPARD FROM BELGIUM, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>MARILYN CADE: MARILYN CADE FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: GRANT FORSYTH FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>TONY HARRIS: TONY HARRIS, ISPCP.

>>TONY HOLMES: TONY HOLMES, ISPCP.

>>GREG RUTH: GREG RUTH FROM ISPCP.

>>ALICK WILSON: ALICK WILSON, NOMCOM APPOINTEE FROM NEW ZEALAND.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I'M AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL, NONCOM APPOINTEE.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: DEMI GETSCHKO, NONCOM.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: KIYOSHI TSURU, IPC.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: NIKLAS LAGERGREN, IPC.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: LUCY NICHOLS, IPC.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: MARC SCHNEIDERS, NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.

>>ROSS RADER: ROSS RADER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY.

>>CARLOS AFONSO: CARLOS AFONSO, NON-COMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.

>>CARY KARP: CARY KARP, GTLD REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY.

>>KEN STUBBS: KEN STUBBS, GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO I CONFIRM IF ANYONE IS HOLDING PROXIES FOR JISUK WOO.
MARC SCHNEIDERS.
OKAY.
OKAY.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS HELD ON THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY.
THOSE MINUTES HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE ONLINE AND ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
KEN --

>>KEN STUBBS: I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS FILED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KEN.
AND PHILIP SECONDS?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'LL SECOND.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHAT IT THESE MINUTES OR ANOTHER SET THAT WERE POSTED IN WHICH THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT MADE?
IT WAS THESE MINUTES.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE AMENDMENT WAS.

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: THE AMENDMENT --

>>KEN STUBBS: I BELIEVE, PHILIP, THAT WE -- A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE DEFERRED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES BECAUSE THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT MADE AND WE DIDN'T HAVE EITHER A QUORUM OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE, AND WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND JUST DEFER THE APPROVAL.
I MAY BE WRONG, THOUGH.

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: IN THESE MINUTES, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT MADE BY ALEJANDRO PISANTY.
HE SENT ME THE EXACT LINE TO AMEND THE MINUTES WITH, WHICH WAS PUT INTO THE MINUTES.

IF YOU LIKE, I'LL READ IT TO YOU.
IT'S IN ALEJANDRO'S STATEMENT, TOWARDS THE END.
AND THE SENTENCE THAT HE SENT ME, WHICH HE APPROVED AFTER I HAD REVISED IT IN THE MINUTES, TOO, IS "GOING FORWARD WITH THE FULL INCORPORATION OF ICANN, WITH THE FULL INCLUSION OF THE RIRS AND THE START OF OPERATION OF THE CCNSO."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK, ESSENTIALLY, THE ITEM IN THE MINUTES WAS THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, ALEJANDRO GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO A VOTE FOR THE ICANN BOARD SEPTEMBER 13.
AND I BELIEVE THAT ALEJANDRO WAS MERELY CORRECTING A STATEMENT HE HAD MADE.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY INCONSISTENCY THERE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M HAPPY TO SECOND.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: NOW, THANKS.
A COUPLE OF THINGS.
FIRST, A QUESTION OF ORDER.

HERE IT SAYS IN THE AGENDA, IT TALKS ABOUT THE 22ND (INAUDIBLE) MINUTES, WHEN, IN FACT, MY RECOLLECTION WAS THE MEETING WAS THE 19TH OR 20TH OF FEBRUARY, DEPENDING WHERE YOU WERE IN THE WORLD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: UP ON THE SCREEN, IT ACTUALLY SAYS THE 19TH.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
AND THE SECOND THING IS, I WOULD SAY THAT I WILL ABSTAIN BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THE SECRETARIAT'S JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE DATE ON THE MINUTES HAS GOT THE DATE WHEN THE MINUTES WERE MADE AVAILABLE, AND THAT THE MINUTES THEMSELVES ARE OF THE MEETING OF THE 19TH OF FEBRUARY.
WE MIGHT JUST CLARIFY THAT, PERHAPS, ON THE WEB SITE, THAT THAT DATE REFERS TO THE PUBLICATION DATE OF THE MINUTES, NOT THE DATE OF THE MEETING.
OKAY.

WITH THAT CHANGE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND, APPROVING THE MINUTES.
OKAY.
ON THE PHONE, SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS?
AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION FROM AMADEU.
OKAY.

WE'LL THEN NOTE THAT THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN PASSED.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON -- OR A BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROGRESS FROM THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, AND IN PARTICULAR, A SUMMARY OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE MEETINGS THIS MORNING.
SO I'LL FIRST HAND OVER TO JEFF NEUMAN, WHO CHAIRED THE FIRST TASK FORCE, TASK FORCE 1 ON WHOIS.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS, BRUCE.
GOOD AFTERNOON FOR EVERYONE.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE THERE THIS MORNING, I THINK TASK FORCE 1, WE HAD AN EXCELLENT BACK AND FORTH DIALOGUE WITH EVERYONE THAT WAS THERE.
WHAT WE DID IS GAVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND, MORE THAN THAT, A BACKGROUND OF HOW WE CAME INTO BEING, GOING OVER THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS.

IN ADDITION, WE WENT OVER THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WE HAD SENT OUT.
AND I THINK EACH OF THE THREE TASK FORCES HAD MADE THE POINT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OUT, AND SO WE USED THIS MEETING AS A WAY TO ASK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND I THINK WITH RESPECT TO OUR TASK FORCE, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, IS RESTRICTING -- TALKS ABOUT RESTRICTING ACCESS OF WHOIS INFORMATION, WE HAD A GOOD DIALOGUE NOT ONLY OF THE NEEDS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHOIS INFORMATION, BUT ALSO ON THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN ACCESS VIA PORT 43 VERSUS ACCESS VIA THE WEB.

WE ALSO STARTED A DISCUSSION ON WAYS IN WHICH CERTAIN REGISTRARS HAVE IMPLEMENTED MECHANISMS TO, IN ESSENCE, PUT WHAT'S KNOWN AS SPEED BUMPS INTO THE PROCESS.

AND ALSO A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTED BY THOMAS ROESSLER ABOUT TIERED ACCESS AND AUTHENTICATION.
ALL IN ALL, VERY VALUABLE DATA, PROBABLY THE MOST VALUABLE DATA WE'VE GOTTEN TO DATE.
AND IT WAS A GREAT EXCHANGE.

AND FROM HERE, WE ARE EXPECTING CONSTITUENCY POSITIONS BY MARCH 19TH I BELIEVE IS THE DATE.
AND TAKING THOSE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS, TRYING TO FORM POLICY IN A PRELIMINARY REPORT THAT IS DUE ON APRIL 9TH FOR A 20-DAY COMMENT PERIOD WHICH WILL END APRIL 29TH, AND WITH THE GOAL OF GETTING OUT A FINAL REPORT IN MID- TO LATE MAY.
THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JEFF.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAIR OF THE FIRST TASK FORCE FROM THE COUNCIL?
OKAY.

I'LL HAND OVER TO -- THE CHAIR OF THE SECOND TASK FORCE IS JORDYN BUCHANAN, WHO'S ONLINE.
BUT I MIGHT, WITH YOUR APPROVAL, JORDYN, HAND TO TOM KELLER, WHO ACTUALLY CHAIRED THE SESSION THIS MORNING FIRST, AND THEN PERHAPS ALLOW YOU TO MAKE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PROGRESS OF THE TASK FORCE.
IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU, JORDYN?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, THAT'S CERTAINLY FINE.
AS EVERYONE CAN SEE, I'M NOT THERE RIGHT NOW AND WASN'T ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING THIS MORNING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANKS, JORDYN.
TOM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUMMARIZE THE MEETING THIS MORNING.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YES, THANK YOU, BRUCE.
WE, AS WELL, HAD A VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE MEETING TODAY.
AND, I GUESS, A LOT OF PEOPLE RESPONDED TO --

>> WE CAN'T HEAR.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YOU CAN'T HEAR.
IS THAT BETTER?

WE HAD A GOOD AND RESPONSIVE MEETING TODAY, SAME AS THE TASK FORCE 1.
A LOT OF POINTS WERE MADE.
AND WE ALL GOT THEM SCRIBED DOWN.
AND I GUESS WHAT IS LEFT TO DO IS TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE ANSWERS WE RECEIVED TODAY AND KIND OF INCORPORATE INTO OUR DATA FINDING MATERIAL.

SO THAT'S VERY MUCH WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IN THE MEETING.
I WILL HAND IT OVER JORDYN TO GO OVER THE GENERAL DETAILS WE HAVE IN OUR TASK FORCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, TOM.
JORDYN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON WHERE YOU'RE UP TO SO FAR IN THE PROCESS AND WHAT INPUTS AND WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE FOR THE SECOND WHOIS TASK FORCE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SURE, I'D BE GLAD TO.
WE ARE ACTUALLY TRACKING ON A VERY SIMILAR SCHEDULE TO ALL OF THE OTHER TASK FORCES.

BRUCE AND THE OTHER TASK FORCE CHAIRS AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING IN ORDER TO KEEP THE SCHEDULES AS CLOSELY COORDINATED AS POSSIBLE.

SO I THINK JEFF'S HIGH-LEVEL THOUGHTS ARE CORRECT.
AND WE FACE SIMILAR CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF THE LACK OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES THAT WE HAVE SENT OUT SO FAR.

ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE DID ARISE, HOWEVER, WHICH WAS THAT OUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WE HAD POSED TO THE GAC, WHICH WE INITIALLY THOUGHT, AND I THINK RIGHTLY SO, MIGHT BE ONE OF THE SLOWER RESPONDENTS, JUST GIVEN THE ADDED CAREFULNESS THAT GAC PARTICIPANTS TYPICALLY ENGAGE IN IN TERMS OF PUTTING TOGETHER RESPONSES, IS THAT OUR GAC QUESTIONNAIRE DID NOT GET DISTRIBUTED QUITE AS WIDELY AS WE HAD HOPED EARLY ON, AND MOSTLY DUE TO JUST SOME LOGISTICAL DIFFICULTIES BOTH IN TERMS OF HOW WE GOT THE INFORMATION POSTED ON THE WEB SITE AND SO ON.

AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE EXTENDED THE DEADLINE FOR THE -- FOR GAC RESPONSES TO SUCH A POINT THAT WE'RE PROBABLY UNLIKELY TO REASONABLY BE ABLE TO EXPECT CONSTITUENCY RESPONSES IN THE TIME LINES THAT WE HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AS A GROUP.

I THINK THAT WE CAN VERY TIGHTLY ADHERE TO THAT.
AND THE GOAL OF HAVING SOME ACTIONABLE ITEM FOR THE BOARD BY KUALA LUMPUR IS PROBABLY STILL ACHIEVABLE.
BUT I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY TEN DAYS BEHIND THE MAJOR MILESTONES DUE TO THIS EXTENSION THAT WE HAVE MADE FOR GAC RESPONSES.

BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD STILL GIVE US TIME TO HAVE A WORK PRODUCT COMPLETE FOR THE COUNCIL TO ACT UPON IN JUNE AND FOR THE BOARD TO ACT UPON IN JULY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN.
ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCE 3, WE HAVE BRIAN DARVILLE ON THE PHONE.
AGAIN, I MIGHT FIRST HAND OVER TO ROSS RADER, WHO CHAIRED THE MEETING THIS MORNING, TO PROVIDE SOME IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK ON THE OUTCOMES OF THAT WORKSHOP, AND THEN I'LL HAND OVER TO YOU, BRIAN, TO TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL ISSUES AND TIME FRAMES FOR THE TASK FORCE.

>>BRIAN DARVILLE: THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ROSS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD.

>>ROSS RADER: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

I WOULD CHARACTERIZE OUR SESSION AS VERY INFORMATIVE AND PRODUCTIVE FROM THE TASK FORCE PERSPECTIVE.
I ALSO GET THE SENSE IT WAS USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY IN ATTENDANCE.
FOR THAT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY.

WE VIEWED THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY -- THE TASK FORCE VIEWED THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KICK-START THE DIALOGUE AROUND OUR DATA-GATHERING EXERCISE.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN RECEIVING RESPONSES BACK TO OUR INQUIRIES REGARDING THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO PROBE.

SO THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE MICROPHONE WERE ABLE TO GET US STARTED DOWN THE ROAD TOWARDS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

WE ALSO HAD AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION FROM THE -- FROM CIRA, THE CANADIAN INTERNET REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, WHO DOCUMENTED SOME OF THEIR PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES WITH DATA VERIFICATION IN A CCTLD REGISTRY CONTEXT.
AND IT WAS ALSO VERY USEFUL.

SO OVERALL, I THINK WE HAD SOME EXCELLENT INPUT FROM ALL QUARTERS.
WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO BE TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT TO START TO -- YOU KNOW, AS THE AGENDA NOTES WERE TO ASSESS THE CURRENT LEVEL OF CONSENSUS, IT'S PROBABLY PREMATURE FOR THAT, ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE AN INTERIM REPORT THAT DEALS WITH THAT A LITTLE MORE IN-DEPTH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ROSS.
BRIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE TASK FORCE OVERALL AND WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE FOR THE TASK FORCE.

>>BRIAN DARVILLE: I'D BE HAPPY TO.
AS ROSS MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE AN INTERIM REPORT THAT IS POSTED ON THE ICANN WEB SITE WHICH PROVIDES DETAILS ON THE METHODOLOGY WE'VE USED TO DATE.

WE HAD NOT RECEIVED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESPONSES, AND I THINK WE'LL BE CONTINUING TO PROD THE GROUPS WE'VE SURVEYED TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MORE SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES IN.
WE WILL BE WORKING FROM THE INTERIM REPORT AND THE PROGRESS AT THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING -- AND PRESUMABLY WE'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVING CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS ON MARCH 19.

AND SO I DO THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ON APRIL 9, AND THEN SHOOTING, AFTER A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, TO GET THE FINAL REPORT IN, I BELIEVE THE DATE IS MAY 20.

SO WE ARE TRACKING THE SAME SCHEDULE THAT TASK FORCES 1 AND 2 ARE PURSUING.
I THINK THE BIG QUESTION MARK IS GOING TO BE THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES WE GET.
AND WE'LL BE REPORTING ON THAT PERIODICALLY AS WE GO FORWARD.
BUT I DO THINK WE'LL SHOOT TO STICK WITH THE CURRENT SCHEDULE AND SEE HOW WE -- WHAT KIND OF PROGRESS WE CAN MAKE, AND HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A SUBSTANTIVE FINAL REPORT BY THE MAY 20 DEADLINE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
THANK YOU, BRIAN.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

I'LL JUST MENTION SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN HERE IN ROME.
AND THAT IS, OBSERVING, AND PARTICULARLY FOR MYSELF, I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCES, BUT I'VE BEEN JUST REVIEWING SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GNSO COUNCIL'S POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

ONE OF THE FIRST PARTS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS GETTING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE.
AND WHAT WE'VE FOUND IS THAT WE'VE -- WE GET VERY FEW PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.

WE FIND THAT ONCE YOU ACTUALLY MAKE SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION DOWN THE TRACK, THEN YOU GET COMMENTS ON THAT RECOMMENDATION, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST.

BUT WE HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY IN GETTING PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS TRYING TO GET SOME INITIAL IDEAS AND INPUT TO HELP GUIDE THE PROCESS.
WHAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCES HAVE DONE IS, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GET MUCH IN THE WAY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, THEY THEN TRIED TO STRUCTURE A SET OF QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HELP THE TASK FORCE IN ITS DECISIONS.

AND THOSE QUESTIONS WERE AROUND GETTING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO OPINIONS.
WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF WHOIS WORKSHOPS IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS OF ICANN, AND THERE ARE MANY OPINIONS AROUND THE ROOM.

AND I THINK ALL OF US ARE ACROSS WHAT SOME OF THOSE OPINIONS ARE.
BUT WE'VE GENERALLY HAD A LACK OF FACTS.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY SEEKING AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS IS SOME ANSWERS TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT THE TASK FORCE HAD -- TASK FORCES HAVE ASKED, BECAUSE THAT WILL HELP IN THE PROCESS.
HAVING SAID THAT, THE TASK FORCES CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT MONTHS TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEY DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND WE ARE PRIMARILY RELYING ON THE CONSTITUENCIES USING THEIR EXPERTISE TO DEVELOP A POSITION STATEMENT THAT ADDRESSES THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND FROM THOSE POSITION STATEMENTS, WE CAN ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION.

SO, AGAIN, I URGE THE CONSTITUENCIES AND THE REPRESENTATIVES ON COUNCIL TO MEET WITH THEIR MEMBERS IN THE COMING WEEKS SO THAT BY THE 19TH OF MARCH, WE HAVE SOME WELL-THOUGHT-OUT CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS.
ANOTHER OBSERVATION ON THE PROCESS IS THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE WHETHER WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

AND LAST YEAR, WE PASSED, AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, A NUMBER OF NEW POLICIES.
BUT WE HAVEN'T CLEARLY DEFINED HOW WE'RE GOING TO MEASURE WHETHER THOSE NEW POLICIES ARE SUCCESSFUL.
AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE CONSTITUENCIES TO THINK ABOUT, ONE, HOW WOULD THEY MEASURE AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE POLICY AREA THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, BECAUSE THAT WILL HELP WHEN WE COME TO IMPLEMENTATION, WE CAN ESTABLISH A BENCHMARK AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION THAT MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF ACCURACY MEASURE, MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF MEASURE OF THE NUMBER OF QUERIES THAT ARE HITTING AN ANONYMOUS WHOIS WEB SITE.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MEASURES YOU CAN COME UP WITH.
BUT WE CAN ESTABLISH A BENCHMARK SO THAT THEN AFTER WE'VE IMPLEMENTED A POLICY, WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WERE SUCCESSFUL.
AND I THINK WHOIS WILL BE ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT WILL BE CHANGED FREQUENTLY OVER THE COMING YEARS AS PUBLIC POLICY CHANGES REGARDING ISSUES SUCH AS PRIVACY AND PUBLIC ACCESS, THAT THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEEDS OF WHOIS WILL CHANGE.

SO WE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT TRYING TO SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS IN THIS PROCESS.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT MAKING A CHANGE AND BEING ABLE TO MEASURE WHETHER THAT CHANGE WAS SUCCESSFUL AND THEN MOVING FORWARD SO THAT WE THEN IN SIX MONTHS' TIME OR 12 MONTHS' TIME CAN FURTHER CHANGE THE POLICIES AND FURTHER GET IMPROVEMENT.
SO THOSE ARE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS.

AND, AGAIN, I INVITE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF THEY WISH TO, TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS, WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE.
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT COUNCIL SPEND SOME TIME THINKING ABOUT EVALUATING AND MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF POLICY AS WELL AS DEVELOPING POLICY.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO FACTOR THAT INTO OUR WORK TOGETHER.
I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE THAT TODAY'S WORKSHOPS I THINK WERE AN EXCELLENT WAY TO BE ABLE TO TAKE INPUT.
WE HAVE OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO WITHIN THE THREE TASK FORCES.

WE HAD AN EXCELLENT COUPLE OF WORKSHOPS IN MONTREAL WHERE PEOPLE MADE VERY RICH PRESENTATIONS.
AND THOSE PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

WE -- IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'VE HAD TWO SOURCE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO US, ONE FROM THE OECD, WHICH ADDRESSES THE STATUS OF PRIVACY LAWS IN THE OECD NATIONS, AND ONE FROM EPOC, WHICH PROVIDES A -- I DON'T KNOW QUITE HOW TO CHARACTERIZE IT, BUT SORT OF A SURVEY OF PRIVACY LEGISLATION IN A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES.

WE HEARD TODAY ABOUT SOME OTHER PRESENTATIONS, AND I THINK, TOM, WE'RE GOING TO GET FOLLOW-UP ON A COUPLE OF PRESENTATIONS AND SURVEYS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

SO I THINK WE MAY ACTUALLY FIND THAT ALTHOUGH WE HAVEN'T HAD AS MANY ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONNAIRES, THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME OTHER RICH RESOURCES THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE AND INCORPORATE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MARILYN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS?
OKAY.
THE NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR AN APPROVED PROCESS FOR GTLD REGISTRY CHANGES.

THAT WAS THE FIRST OF THE WORKSHOPS THIS MORNING.
WE RECEIVED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.
WE HAD ONE REGISTRY OPERATOR, NEULEVEL, PROPOSE IN THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT A POSSIBLE PROCESS FOR USE WITH APPROVAL.

WE HAD A -- THE CEO FROM TUCOWS, A REGISTRAR, MAKE THE POINT THAT MANY OF THE IMPACTS OF CHANGES ARE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE REGISTRY, AND THAT A REGISTRY THAT HAS WIDE IMPACT ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE IF A CHANGE IS MADE, THAT WILL HAVE A WIDE IMPACT ON INTERNET USERS, SO THAT THE SIZE OF THE REGISTRY DID HAVE SOME BEARING.

WE ALSO RECEIVED SOME INPUT FROM THE ALAC AS WELL ON THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON REGISTRY SERVICES.
WE THEN PROCEEDED TO START LOOKING AT THE PROCESS -- THE APPROVAL PROCESS ITSELF.

THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES HAVE ALREADY MADE STATEMENTS, AND WE RECEIVED THIS MORNING A STATEMENT FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH COMPLETES OUR SET OF STATEMENTS.

LOOKING AT THOSE STATEMENTS, SOME OF THE STATEMENTS ADDRESSED PERHAPS THE DECISION POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND THE TIME LINES, AND SOME OF THOSE STATEMENTS ADDRESSED THE CRITERIA THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED AT THOSE DECISION POINTS, AND OTHERS STATED SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE ICANN MISSION ITSELF AND NOT GOING BEYOND IT, SO THAT WE HAVE A QUITE LIMITED MANDATE WITH RESPECT TO APPROVING CHANGES, AND THAT THOSE CHANGES SPECIFY -- WHERE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED, IS SPECIFIED IN THE REGISTRY AGREEMENTS.

WHAT WE ARE HOPING TO DO OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS TO FURTHER DEVELOP A FLOWCHART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND ATTEMPT TO REACH CONSENSUS ON THAT FLOWCHART.

AND THAT WILL THEN FORM THE BASIS OF AN INITIAL REPORT, WHICH WILL THEN GO OUT FOR FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT ANY OTHER MEMBER OF COUNCIL WISHES TO MAKE?
OKAY.

SO THAT, THEN, BRINGS US ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS TO START CONSIDERING THE PLANNING FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR FOR 2004.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES UNDERWAY.
WE HAVE THREE IN THE AREA OF WHOIS AND ONE IN THE AREA OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE TASK FORCES WOULD BE COMPLETE BY THE -- IN TIME FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE OUTCOMES IN THE JULY MEETING IN KUALA LUMPUR.

WE NEED TO START PLANNING NOW FOR WHERE OUR PRIORITIES ARE FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS.
AND I WILL PERHAPS REMIND COUNCIL THAT IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, WE DISCUSSED SOME PRIORITIES, AND THERE WERE ISSUES AROUND THE APPROVAL PROCESS, ISSUES AROUND WHOIS, ISSUES AROUND NEW GTLDS, ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACTS, AND UDRP.

AND THERE'S ALSO A COMING ISSUE THAT THE DOT NET TLD MAY WELL BE, DEPENDING ON THE CURRENT CONTRACT COULD WELL BE PUT OUT TO TENDER AT SOME POINT SOON, AND WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN?
AND IF IT IS, HOW WILL THAT TENDER PROCESS BE MANAGED?
SO THAT WAS SORT OF WHAT WE WERE THINKING IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

TO THINK ABOUT WHERE WE GO FORWARD, WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE ICANN STAFF HAS LIMITED RESOURCES AND THE COUNCIL IS RELIANT ON ICANN STAFF BOTH TO ASSIST WITH THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE ALSO REQUIRE THE ICANN STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICIES THAT WE DO DEVELOP.

AND BOTH OF THOSE ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE RESOURCED, AND THE ICANN HAVE MANY PRIORITIES, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WOULD BE USEFUL AT THIS STAGE WOULD PERHAPS BE TO GET A BIT OF A FEEL FROM, PERHAPS PAUL VERHOEF IS WILLING, AND I'LL ASK PAUL TO STATE HIS ROLE AND GIVE A SUMMARY, IF HE'S WILLING TO, OF AN OVERALL ICANN ASSOCIATION, WHAT SOME OF THE PRIORITIES OR ISSUES SEEM TO BE FOR THE NEXT YEAR, AND THAT WILL HELP PLACE INTO CONTEXT THE ISSUES THAT THE GNSO WISHES TO PRESENT?

>>PAUL VERHOEF: HERE?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: EITHER.

>>PAUL VERHOEF: I WILL DO THAT HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. IT IS MY PLEASURE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO ADDRESS YOU IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE COUNCIL.

AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE COME ABOARD ICANN ONLY TWO MONTHS AGO. MY TITLE IS VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT. I WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO LEAD THE TEAM WHICH IS GOING TO ASSIST THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE COMMITTEES IN THEIR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND MAKE SURE THAT NECESSARY CROSS LINKS ARE PUT IN PLACE AS LONG AS IT IS NECESSARY BETWEEN THEM.

WE HAVE, AS BRUCE SAID, INDEED A PROBLEM OF RESOURCING AT THE MOMENT. THIS WOULD NOT SURPRISE YOU, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT AND WE NEED TO SOLVE.

IN ADDITION, WE HAVE, -- AS YOU KNOW, THE CCNSO IS ABOUT TO START UP, AND WE HOPE THAT THE ASO WILL START AT SOME POINT SOON AS WELL, SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, WORKING IN PARALLEL.
THE GNSO IS AHEAD OF THE GAME, I GUESS, IN SENSE OF EXPERIENCE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY USEFUL ALSO IN CROSS-FERTILIZING HOPEFULLY TO SOME OF THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON THOSE MATTERS.

IN TERMS OF PRIORITIES, I HAD HOPED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU A FEW SLIDES WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE HIDDEN IN THE COMPUTER OF PAUL TWOMEY, AND HE IS IN HIS MEETINGS. AND LUCKILY, NOBODY HAS HIS PASSWORD. LUCKILY IN THE GENERAL SENSE, BUT UNFORTUNATE IN THIS PARTICULAR SENSE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

YOU KNOW WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF ISSUES ON OUR PLACE AT THE MOMENT. WE HAVE JUST IMPLEMENTED A COMPLETELY -- OR COMPLETED A NEW MANAGEMENT TEAM, MYSELF AND A FEW COLLEAGUES ARE THE LATEST -- I'M SUPPOSED TO USE THIS ONE. GOOD.

ARE THE LAST ONES ON THAT.
WE HAVE -- LET ME SEE. I JUST MADE A LIST IN TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT PAUL TALKED ABOUT. I WANT TO KEEP IT COHERENT, SO THERE'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF A MISMATCH WITH WHAT PAUL TOLD YESTERDAY AND WHAT I HAVE IN MIND BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT THINGS ON OUR PLATE. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST REMAINS THE STABILITY OF THE DNS AND THE FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, MEANING THE FUNCTIONING OF IANA AND THE IMPROVEMENT ON THAT FRONT, WHICH IS IN THE INTEREST OF MANY CONSTITUENTS, AND OBVIOUSLY A HIGH LEVEL ISSUE FOR US AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO IMPROVE THAT.

AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, EITHER LIKE OURSELVES WITH A FULL PROGRAM OR OTHERS STARTING UP. THIS WILL REQUIRE OUR ATTENTION.

WE FEEL IT IS NEEDED TO START COMMUNICATING IN A BETTER AND MORE LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE WITH OUR COMMUNITY AND SHARE SOME OF THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IN A WAY THAT WE CAN GET YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT AND AGREE WITH YOU ON THE PRIORITIES AND HOW WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON SPECIFIC DETAILS.
THIS IS BEING, AT THE MOMENT, BEING PUT TOGETHER SO THAT WE CAN START CONSULTING YOU ON THAT.

A BIG ISSUE IN FRONT OF US IS SECURITY, WHICH HAS STARTED UP AROUND THE WORLD AS A BIG DISCUSSION IN A MUCH LARGER SENSE THAN ONLY THE DNS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE DNS IS CONCERNED FOR THAT.

I DON'T HAVE TO MENTION TO YOU THAT WE ARE FACING A NUMBER OF LITIGATION ISSUES, WHICH ARE GOING TO KEEP US BUSY.
WE HAVE, IN PARALLEL, ONGOING EFFORT OF THE MANAGEMENT TO INTERNATIONALIZE. I MYSELF AM, I GUESS, A LIVING EXAMPLE OF IT BOTH IN TERMS OF MY NATIONALITY AND MY LOCATION IN BRUSSELS OFFICE WHICH WE HAVE STARTED UP IN THE MEANTIME AND CONSIDERING HOW WE WOULD MOVE FURTHER ON FROM THERE.

AND LASTLY, THERE IS THE MORE GENERAL PROCESS IN THE WORLD SUMMIT ON INFORMATION SOCIETY WHICH IS GOING TO RESULT IN THE SECOND SUMMIT IN TUNIS NEXT YEAR WHICH HAS A NUMBER OF INTERNET-RELATED ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION AND NO DOUBT THE DNS IS PART OF THAT AS WELL.

SO THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A COMPLETE PICTURE OF EVERYTHING WE HAVE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME MAIN INPUT AND AVENUES WHICH WE HAVE TO JOINTLY WALK THROUGH. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY BE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON THAT. AND CERTAINLY MYSELF IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY, I HOPE TO MEET EVERY ONE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND WE'LL NO DOUBT INTERACT QUITE A BIT OVER THE NEXT TIME.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PAUL. JUST BEFORE YOU STEP ASIDE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS FOR PAUL, OR WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT?

ROSS? ANYONE ELSE? THEN GRANT. GO AHEAD, ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT, PAUL.

I WAS JUST WONDERING, OUT OF THE EFFORTS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR 2004 IF THERE IS ANY LOWER-LEVEL DETAILS YOU WANT TO SHARE MAYBE AROUND SOME SPECIFIC INITIATIVES IN THE STABILITY, SECURITY. THESE ARE VERY HIGH LEVEL INITIATIVES AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANYTHING OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE THAT WOULD BE OCCUPYING THE ATTENTION OF HIGH PRIORITY THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DELVE INTO A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE US A BETTER SENSE.

>>PAUL: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. THIS IS, I MUST ADMIT, A BIT OF A DIFFICULT QUESTION FOR ME. I'M JUST GETTING MY FEELING OF GETTING MY FEET UNDER THE TABLE, SO TO SPEAK.

I WOULD SAY FROM WHAT I PERSONAL SEE, SO I WILL GIVE YOU SOME VERY PERSONAL REMARKS ON THAT SO I DON'T TAKE ANY INTERFERENCE FOR THIS FROM MY COLLEAGUES, BUT ONE THING I SEE IS THE FUNCTIONING OF IANA AS IT CURRENTLY IS WHICH IS A BASIC FUNCTIONING OF THE FUNCTIONAL MECHANISM AND OUTPUT OF THE ORGANIZATION. AND PEOPLE EXPECT IT TO RUN SMOOTHLY. THERE IS A LOT OF CONCERN THAT IT DOESN'T. AND OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE STATEMENTS, UNDERSTANDABLE STATEMENTS, "WELL, IF YOU CANNOT EVEN DO YOUR BASIC THING, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT ON SOMEWHAT MORE COMPLEX THINGS IN FRONT OF YOU?"

SO I THINK WE ARE GOING THROUGH THAT. AND OBVIOUSLY WE ARE HAVING TO KEEP A NUMBER OF BALLS IN THE AIR, BOTH THE MORE COMPLEX ONES AND BOTH THE SUPPOSED MORE SIMPLE ONES.

AND IN ADDITION, YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A MEANING OR AN OPINION ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD DO THOSE THINGS. ALSO, THE SIMPLE ONES. AND THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT LOTS OF THOSE OPINIONS HAPPEN TO BE DIFFERENT AND THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT.

SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH THAT STEP BY STEP AT THE MOMENT, THROUGH ALL THESE ISSUES. WE'RE TRYING TO POSITION THEM. WE WANT TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THEM IN A STRUCTURED WAY SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THINGS STAND, AND WE'LL MOVE ON THAT.
SECURITY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS A TOPIC ON ITSELF. I DON'T FEEL, AT THIS POINT, QUALIFIED TO TALK TO THAT. BUT OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH WILL OCCUPY ALL OF US, PRESUMABLY, FOR QUITE A BIT OF TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. GRANT.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: THANK YOU, BRUCE.
PAUL, WELCOME TO YOUR ROLE AND TO YOUR VERY IMPORTANT ROLE OF SUPPORTING THE WORK HERE OF THE GNSO.
JUST BEFORE I COME BACK TO THAT, CAN I JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION BY WAY OF QUESTION.

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION RAISED BY ROSS, YOU MADE SOME OBSERVATIONS VIS-A-VIS THE OPERATION OF IANA AND OTHER ISSUES TO DO WITH SECURITY, ET CETERA.

ALL ISSUES WHICH I THINK WE AS MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT IN.

I'M PRESUMING THAT YOU'RE FORTUNATE; THAT YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE SIDETRACKED INTO THOSE VERY WORTHWHILE BUT, I'M SURE, COMPLEX ISSUES GIVEN THAT YOUR ROLE, BEING THE V.P. OF POLICY SUPPORT.

AND MY QUESTION COMES BACK TO GIVEN YOUR ROLE, MY QUESTION IS HAVE YOU, AS YET, APPOINTED THE STAFF THAT YOU WOULD WISH TO HAVE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT BOTH THIS COUNCIL AND THE OTHER COUNCIL, POLICY COUNCILS, OF ICANN?
AND THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HEARD FROM PAUL THAT GIVEN SOME OF THE LITIGATION, ET CETERA, THAT ICANN IS FACING, IT HAS UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO DIVERT SOME OF ITS BUDGET. AND THEREFORE, NOT BEEN ABLE TO STAFF UP IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE AND OTHERS HAD ENVISAGED. SO MY QUESTION IS QUITE SELF-CENTERED FROM A GNSO COUNCIL POINT OF VIEW.

>>>: PAUL VERHOEF: I THINK THIS IS FAIR ENOUGH A QUESTION. JUST TO RECAPITULATE WHAT PAUL SAID IN OTHER FORA HERE, WE HAD TO SPEND A FAIR AMOUNT ON LITIGATION HERE OVER THE PAST YEAR AND WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, THIS IS PRESUMABLY NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

THE RESULT IS WHAT PAUL MENTIONED, I THINK AT THE MOMENT THERE IS TEN STAFF POSITIONS WHICH ARE NOT OCCUPIED.
IN TERMS OF THE GNSO COUNCIL, THE SITUATION IS RELATIVELY GOOD. WE HAVE TWO POSITIONS. THEY'RE BOTH OCCUPIED. WE ARE GOING THROUGH WITH YOU HOW WE HANDLE THAT IN MORE DETAIL. OBVIOUSLY THE POSITION OF ONE OF THE PERSONS AT THE MOMENT IS ON A CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL BASIS, SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT AS WELL. WE ARE IN DISCUSSION WITH BRUCE IN PARTICULAR TO SEE HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE NEXT PHASE ON THAT.

ON THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, THE SITUATION ISN'T QUITE CLEAR BECAUSE THE CCNSO ISN'T FORMATED AS SUCH. OBVIOUSLY THIS WILL TAKE A BIT OF TIME BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT.

SO WE ARE IN A BIT OF A DIFFICULT SITUATION IN GENERAL WITH STAFF. GIVEN THE SITUATION, WE'VE CERTAINLY BEEN GIVEN ALL THE BALLS WE NEED TO KEEP IN THE AIR. SO I BELIEVE PAUL AND KURT AND I HAVE A CONCERN THAT OUR BASIC FUNCTIONS, BASIC MANDATES, IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME THE WORD, ARE PROPERLY COVERED BY STAFF, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO COVER SOME OF THE MORE HIGH ENERGY THINGS, IF I CAN EXPRESS IT IN THAT WAY, WHICH ARE THROWN AT US. AND THIS IS QUITE A BALANCING ACT WE ARE HAVING TO PERFORM AT THE MOMENT. I CERTAINLY WILL NOT DENY THAT. BUT I THINK THE GNSO, CONSIDERING ALL, IS RELATIVELY WELL OFF, BUT THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED AND THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS ONGOING AT THIS POINT IN TIME ON HOW EXACTLY WE COULD BEST DO THAT.

SO THAT IS OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TO US AND GRANTED IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PAUL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR PAUL?
OKAY. THANK YOU, PAUL.

>>>: PAUL VERHOEF: THANKS. I WOULD JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION AND THAT IS THAT WE HAD TALKED QUITE A BIT ABOUT RESOURCING IN THE -- SOME OF THE PREVIOUS BUDGET PERIODS AROUND THE SUPPORT FOR ICANN. ONE AREA WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IS THE RESOURCING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SIDE OF POLICIES. AND THE IMPLEMENTATION SIDE OF POLICIES HAS A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS TO IT.

ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS IS THE STRAIGHTFORWARD, "WHAT CONTRACTS DO WE NEED TO CHANGE TO MAKE A NEW POLICY ENFORCEABLE?"

THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THAT IS DURING THE ENFORCEMENT ITSELF, AND THAT HAS BEEN AN AREA THAT THE COUNCIL HAS CONCERNS OVER IN TERMS OF THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE CONTRACTS AND HOW WE WOULD ENFORCE CHANGES TO THOSE CONTRACTS, BECAUSE THEIR BELIEF IS UNLESS WE HAVE A WAY OF ENFORCING CHANGES, THERE'S NO POINT IN MAKING POLICY CHANGES.

THEN THE OTHER ELEMENT OF THAT IS THEN HOW DO WE RESOURCE THAT TASK OF IMPLEMENTATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ALSO PERHAPS MONITORING, WHICH IS MORE TO DO WITH IS THE POLICY EFFECTIVE.
AND I THINK WE'RE IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF THAT DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE ICANN STAFF, AND I THINK IT WILL BE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ICANN BUDGET PROCESS.

BUT ALSO, WE NEED TO CONSIDER IT IN OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT ITSELF SO THAT WHEN WE ARE DEVELOPING A POLICY, WE KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, WE KNOW HOW IT COULD BE ENFORCED, AND WE COULD THINK ABOUT SOME SORT OF COST MODEL. IT MAY EVEN BE A REVENUE MODEL THAT GOES ALONG WITH A NEW PROCESS OR A NEW POLICY THAT IS ABLE TO FUND THE ENFORCEMENT WORK REQUIRED.

SO THOSE ARE JUST SORT OF GENERAL COMMENTS AS ICANN AS AN ORGANIZATION MATURES. AND JUST PICKING UP ON PAUL'S COMMENTS THAT WE NEED TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE THAT THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUES TO MOVE ON, CONTINUES TO CHANGE AND DOESN'T GET ENTIRELY DIVERTED BY EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO TAKE OVER DOMAIN NAME POLICY; THAT THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN AN ONGOING THREAT FOR ICANN AS AN ORGANIZATION. BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T JUST USE STAFF TO DEAL WITH THAT THREAT; THAT WE ALSO USE MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY THEMSELVES, THE VOLUNTEERS, TO ALSO HELP DEAL WITH SUCH THREATS.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS HOW TO DEAL WITH ISSUES OF LITIGATION. AND I THINK THAT WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE MAKE SOME -- MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESS AND CHANGES, MUCH OF THE LITIGATION HAS REALLY BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH UNCERTAINTIES AND LACK OF CLARITY AROUND EXISTING PROCESSES. AND HOPEFULLY IF WE CAN IMPROVE ON THOSE, WE WILL THEN DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF LITIGATION THAT OCCURS.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING NOT JUST ON THE SYMPTOMS, THE SYMPTOMS BEING THE CURRENT LITIGATION, THE CURRENT THREATS FROM OUTSIDE, BUT ALSO FOCUS ON THE CAUSES, WHICH ARE WHY DOES LITIGATION OCCUR, WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE OUR PROCESSES, AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE THE ORGANIZATION RUN EFFECTIVELY. AND THEREFORE, IN ITSELF, STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION AGAINST THREATS FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WANTING TO TAKE OVER THOSE ROLES.

SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.
IN REGARDS TO THE GNSO PLANNING PROCESS ITSELF, WE DRAW ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE TOPIC AREAS. WE ARE LOOKING AT REGISTRY SERVICES, WE ARE LOOKING AT WHOIS, SO THE NEXT TWO -- THREE THAT WERE ON THE LIST WERE NEW GTLDS ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, WHICH AS I POINTED OUT, I THINK NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE -- EACH POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ITSELF, NOT NECESSARILY TREATED ON ITS OWN, AND ERDP. AND I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL ON WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS BELIEVE THE PRIORITY SHOULD BE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THIS YEAR, SO THAT WE CAN COMMENCE SOME DEGREE OF PLANNING.

YOU WISH TO SPEAK, MARILYN?

>>MARILYN CADE: (INAUDIBLE).

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU WISH TO -- YES, YES, GO AHEAD.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO CALL FELLOW COUNCILLOR'S ATTENTION TO THE ITEMS THAT LISTED HERE UNDER THE PARAGRAPH THAT READS "NOT THE FOLLOWING RANKED LIST OF PRIORITIES WAS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING OF 29 OCTOBER, 2003. ONE, REGISTRY SERVICES, 2, WHOIS, 3 NEW GTLDS, 4, 5.

I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON NEW GTLDS FOR A MOMENT AND ASK FELLOW COUNCILORS TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC BRIEFLY OR PERHAPS NOT SO BRIEFLY, BUT I THINK THAT ALL OF US ARE VERY AWARE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE INTRODUCTION OF IDNS AND THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS YET TO BE EXAMINED.

I HESITATE TO USE THE WORD "CONCERNS." I WANT TO TREAT THIS MORE AS THERE ARE MORE FACTS TO BE GATHERED, THERE'S MORE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN UNDERSTANDING HOW IDNS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BOTH WITHIN THE CCTLDS, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, BUT HOW THEY MAY BE IMPLEMENTED AS WELL WITHIN THE GENERIC SPACE.

THERE'S BEEN SOME WORK DONE TO DATE, BUT I THINK THAT WE GENERALLY, AS COUNCILORS, ARE NOT YET FULLY ADVISED AND BRIEFED UP ON THE RANGE OF THESE TOPICS, AND THAT IT'S CRITICAL, AS I WORK IN OTHER FORA AND I HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED BY BOTH USERS AND GOVERNMENTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, THE DISCUSSION AT A VERY SIGNIFICANT AREA OF INTEREST IS HOW WILL IDNS BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE TLD SPACE.

SO I MUST SAY THIS HAS RAISED AN AWARENESS ON MY PART TO THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR CONSIDERING HOW WE LEARN MORE AND EXAMINE WHAT OUR ROLE IN PROVIDING POLICY IS IN THIS SPACE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN, GO AHEAD.

>>KEN STUBBS: FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT MARILYN'S COMMENTS THERE. I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, BECOME INCREASINGLY MORE EDUCATED IN THIS AREA. I'M GOING TO ASK ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE NEXT MEETING, THE LOCALE OF THE NEXT MEETING, IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE ICANN STAFF WOULD CONSIDER POSSIBLY -- HOW DO I PUT IT POLITELY? -- CREATING SOME SORT OF A WORKSHOP TO DUMB DOWN THE TECHNICAL PART AND BRING IT DOWN TO A LEVEL WHERE A BUSINESS USER, HOW DO I PUT IT? A MAN ON THE STREET CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. AND I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE, IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IMPETUS CREATED BY THE INTERNET COMMUNITY TO GET THE IDN OUT IN A WAY IN WHICH IT CAN BE EASILY UNDERSTOOD AND EASILY USED.

I'M SITTING HERE TODAY PLAYING AROUND WITH A PLUG-IN EARLIER THAT HAS JUST RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED BY ISC, AND I'M FRANKLY STILL A LONG WAY FROM REALLY HAVING A GOOD GRASP ON THIS, AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING -- OR DEVELOPING POLICY AND WORKING IN DEVELOPING THIS SPACE AND PROVIDING INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, THEN WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT PUNYCODE AND, YOU KNOW, EXCEPTION TABLES. OH, I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER HALF THE TERMS THAT THEY USE BECAUSE I JUST DON'T HAVE A CLEAR GRASP ON IT.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (INAUDIBLE).

>>KEN STUBBS: VERY. AND I THINK THAT AMADEU WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT THE BOARD HAD SOME BASIC BRIEFINGS ON THIS OVER THE LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ON THE BOARD, BUT FRANKLY, I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE MORE -- A LITTLE LESS TECHNICAL, A LITTLE BIT MORE DEPTH SO THAT WE CAN BE MORE INFORMED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, KEN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT ISSUE?
ROSS RADER.

>>ROSS RADER: I'D JUST LIKE TO BOTH SUPPORT MARILYN AND KEN'S VIEW OF THINGS. I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME TREMENDOUS POLICY IMPLICATIONS HERE THAT WE HAVEN'T EXPLORED, ESPECIALLY AS TO HOW IT RELATES TO THOSE OUT IN THE FIELD RIGHT NOW. AND ANY EDUCATION WE CAN TAKE OR OUTREACH TO BRING SOME OF THAT EXPERIENCE INTO THE GNSO WILL BE VERY USEFUL AS WE CONSIDER THE POLICY SPACE GOING FORWARD.
SO I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT ADDING THIS TO OUR FOCUS OF 2004.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, ROSS.
KIYOSHI.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: I JUST WANT TO SECOND MARILYN AND KEN'S PROPOSAL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW WITH RESPECT TO PERHAPS CLARIFY THIS FOR THE AUDIENCE A LITTLE BIT AS WELL. THAT WITH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, THERE'S CURRENTLY WORK GOING ON AT INTRODUCING THEM AT THE SECOND LEVEL OF SOME OF THE GTLDS. SO VERISIGN AND COM AND NET ARE MOVING TOWARDS A SPACE OF INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES. DOT INFO IS LOOKING AT INTRODUCING THEM AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM LIAISONS WITH THE CCTLDS, THAT SOME CCTLDS ARE BEGINNING TO CONSIDER OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF INTRODUCING IDNS ON THE SECOND LEVEL OF CCTLDS.

SO THE ISSUE, THEN, BEFORE US, WHICH IS WHY IT COMES UNDER THE TOPIC OF NEW GTLDS, IS THE IDEA OF INTRODUCING INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL. IN OTHER WORDS, INTRODUCING THEM IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE.
WHAT I SUGGEST IS THAT THAT DISCUSSION SHOULD REALLY HAPPEN JOINTLY BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE NEW CCNSO, BECAUSE REALLY, WE ARE BOTH SHARING THAT FILE, AND THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO POLICY DETAILS AS TO HOW WE MANAGE THE OPERATION OF A NEW INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME GTLD, IF WE JUST DEAL WITH IT PURELY AS KEN SAYS, AT THE LEVEL OF REQUIRING A BRIEFING, I THINK THAT MANY IN THE CCTLD AND CCNSO WILL HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERTISE, AND IT MIGHT BE USEFUL TO CONSIDER FOR THE KUALA LUMPUR MEETING A JOINT MEETING OF THE NEW CCNSO AND THE GNSO SPECIFICALLY ON THE TOPIC OF INTRODUCING INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES OR INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES INTO THE CENTRAL ZONE FILE. AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, THEN CLEARLY THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENT APPROACHES WITHIN THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO.
CARY.

>>CARY KARP: AS A DABBLER IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THIS AND AS AN OPERATOR OF A GTLD WHERE THE OPERATION OF MULTI LANGUAGES OF OUR TLD IS SIGNIFICANT, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT THE POLICY ISSUES REGARDING IDN IMPLEMENTATION ON THE TOP LEVEL JUST UTTERLY ECLIPSE ANY TECHNICAL DETAIL THAT MIGHT APPLY TO WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT.

SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COHERENT EVENT, EVEN. THAT IF KEN AND MARILYN ARE TALKING ABOUT RENDERING THE TECHNICAL ISSUES UNDERSTANDABLE, THAT IN FACT IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE, OH, BOY, YOU CANNOT IMAGINE POLICY ASPECTS OF CLONING OUR TLD STRINGS IN A MULTI-LINGUAL ENVIRONMENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: I AM THINKING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST IN A JOURNEY. FIRST STEP IN A JOURNEY. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THERE AND SOME OF THE POLITICAL SENSITIVITIES THAT WE MUST BECOME MORE AWARE OF. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THEM A BIT, BUT I THINK WE MUST BE MORE BRIEFED AND MORE COGNIZANT OF THEM AS WE EXAMINE THIS, CARY. I AGREE FULLY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF I CAN CLARIFY, CARY, WERE YOU SAYING YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD OR A BAD IDEA TO DO SOME OF THOSE BRIEFINGS JOINTLY?

>>CARY KARP: I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THIS COUNCIL TO IMMERSE ITSELF AS DEEPLY AS IT POSSIBLY CAN IN THE INTRICACIES OF ALL OF THIS AND ALSO TO DO SO IN THE CLOSEST POSSIBLE CONTACT WITH SIMILAR ENTITIES THAT ARE ADDRESSING SIMILAR THINGS. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PROCEED -- BOY, I HATE TO HEAR MYSELF SAY THIS -- WITH ALL DUE CAUTION BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT LIE BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE TECHNICAL INTRICACIES OF IT THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SET OUR SIGHTS ON THAT IMMEDIATE GOAL FIRST. WHEN WE BELIEVE OURSELVES ALL TO BE UTTERLY CONVERSANT, THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THE POLICY. BUT WE SHOULD WAIT FOR THE SECOND THRESHOLD UNTIL THE FIRST IS CROSSED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT KEN WAS SAYING AS WELL, THAT HE WAS STILL UNCLEAR ON WHAT THE TECHNICAL ISSUES AND ASPECTS OF IT WERE.
PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I SUPPORT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED. I JUST HAVE AN OPEN QUESTION, REALLY. WE HEARD OR WERE REMINDED YESTERDAY THE MOU CALLS FOR ICANN TO PRODUCE A CERTAIN PROCESS OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS IN A GIVEN TIME FRAME, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IS BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.

WE KNOW THAT THE CURRENT ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS ARE A CRITERIA BASIS, WHEREBY IF YOU MEET A CRITERIA, YOU GET THE TLD.
AND I JUST WONDER WHERE THE FIT IS BETWEEN THE INTRODUCTION OF IDNS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A CRITERIA-BASED SYSTEM FOR GTLDS IN THE FUTURE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WELL, I THINK MY COMMENT IS PROBABLY JUST TO REITERATE WHAT CARY SAID, THAT THERE'S DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE TECHNICAL ISSUES ARE, AND THEN THERE'S THE POLICY ASPECTS THAT GO ACROSS THAT.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTRODUCING NEW TLDS AND THE CRITERIA OF THE CHANGES FOR THAT, THAT WORK COULD PROCEED IN PARALLEL WITH THE ISSUE OF HOW WE ACTUALLY DO INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.

I THINK THEY ARE QUITE SEPARATE POLICY ISSUES.

>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY -- BRUCE, I AM -- I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT A BIT MORE AS A COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE REALISTIC CHALLENGE OF RESOURCES, OF OURSELVES AS VOLUNTEERS, OF THE ICANN STAFF RESOURCES, AND SO FORTH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOU HAS LAID OUT A CRITERIA.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO, AT THE EARLY STAGES, THINK THROUGH WHAT OUR PRIORITY SCHEDULE CAN BE AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THE PRACTICALITIES ARE IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO OURSELVES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE THAT PHILIP RAISED WAS, HOW DO WE RECONCILE THE ISSUE RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR INTRODUCING NEW TLDS.
BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN RECENT ICANN MEETINGS AROUND THAT, REALLY, IN THE SENSE OF WHAT ARE PERHAPS THE BUSINESS CRITERIA OR TECHNICAL CRITERIA FROM THE SPECIFIC TOPIC OF IDNS.

YOU ARE THEN RAISING THE TOPIC THAT CAN YOU WORK ON BOTH OF THOSE AT ONCE FROM THE RESOURCE POINT OF VIEW.
AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE -- IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY, I WOULD THINK.

BUT I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, AND ALSO SEEK FEEDBACK FROM THE GNSO COMMUNITY MORE GENERALLY AS TO WHAT THE GNSO COMMUNITY BELIEVES SHOULD BE THE (INAUDIBLE) FOR THE COUNCIL, AND SEEK THAT INPUT FROM THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES THEMSELVES.

AND AS I SAID, DERIVE IT MORE FROM THE CCTLDS WANTING TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE ZONE FILE COMPARED TO GTLDS, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CROSS WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS AREA AND HENCE MY SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS A CLASSIC AREA FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TWO SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT PRIORITIES AND AREAS THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT?
PHILIP.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BRUCE, IT'S JORDYN.
CAN I JUMP IN THE QUEUE?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I'LL PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE AFTER PHILIP SHEPPARD.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, THE LIST FROM OCTOBER, 2003, WE MENTIONED UDRP.
AND IN RELATION TO THAT, WE HAVE, AS YOU KNOW, THE WIPO-2 PROCESS.

THAT PROCESS SO FAR IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DISCUSSION GROUP HAS YET TO COMPLETE ITS WORK AND IS ENDEAVORING TO DO SO BEFORE KUALA LUMPUR.
IT WILL THEN MAKE A REPORT TO THE BOARD, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THE BOARD WILL THEN DO WHAT IT WISHES WITH THAT.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS MAY BE A REFERENCE TO THE GNSO.

SO I'M JUST FLAGGING THAT WE MAY NEED THE WIPO-2 PROCESS AUTHORIZED AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ON THE WIPO-2 FRONT, I BELIEVE THERE'S A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON THAT TOPIC, AND I HAVE YET TO SEE A REPORT ON THAT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT'S THE COMMITTEE I REFERRED TO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

WELL, CLEARLY, IT SEEMS THAT NEW TLDS AND THE TWO ASPECTS OF THAT BEING HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH PERHAPS ASCII-BASED TLDS AND WHAT ARE THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH INTRODUCING INTERNATIONALIZED TLDS WILL BE SEEN AS IMPORTANT IN THE NEXT 12 TO 18 MONTHS' TIME FRAME.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN I --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: NO PROBLEM.

I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY DOUBLE BACK ON THE COMMENT THAT YOU HAD MADE ABOUT ENFORCEMENT EARLIER, WHICH -- AND I THINK IT IS QUITE IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF VARIOUS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.

BUT ONE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD IN THE DELETES TASK FORCE, AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PREVIOUS -- I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS THE PREVIOUS TRANSFER OR WHOIS TASK FORCE, RAN INTO AS WELL WAS SORT OF TRYING TO -- THERE ISN'T A LOT OF ENFORCEMENT DETAIL IN THE EXISTING CONTRACT STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE.

AND I THINK A GENERALIZED PRINCIPLE AND STRUCTURE OF HOW -- OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT SORT OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE OTHER THAN THE DEATH PENALTY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEEN EVEN CONTEMPLATED IN THE PAST, AND AS A RESULT, IT'S VERY RARELY USED, BECAUSE CONTRACTUAL TERMINATION IS SUCH --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN, YOU MIGHT NEED TO CLARIFY FOR NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKERS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IS TERMINATING THE CONTRACT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YES.
YEAH.

SO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS OTHER THAN A COMPLETE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT HAVE BEEN HARD TO COME BY.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE HAVING SOME SORT OF STRUCTURE WHERE MORE NUANCED ENFORCEMENT IS POSSIBLE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND OUGHT TO BE DECIDED AT A GLOBAL LEVEL RATHER THAN ON A POLICY-BY-POLICY BASIS.

AND THEN INDIVIDUAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES CAN PLUG IN AND DECIDE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, CLASS C PENALTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR DOING THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF THING, OR PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT, BASICALLY, RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY CHOICE IS EITHER TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OR ALLOW THE BAD BEHAVIOR TO CONTINUE, OR, I GUESS, COMMUNITY SHAMING IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.

BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING PARTICULARLY WELL IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT BEING ABLE TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED WITH VARIOUS MORE NUANCED MECHANISMS OF ENFORCEMENT AT A HIGH LEVEL WOULD ALLOW OTHER POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES AND -- TO EXPLORE, YOU KNOW, HOW TO APPLY THOSE IN A MANNER THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY GET ENFORCEMENT OTHER THAN LITIGATION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, GETS BACK TO THE ISSUE, I THINK, THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO POINT TO EARLIER.
WE HAVE BETTER WAYS TO COPE WITH -- IF WE HAD BETTER WAYS TO COPE WITH SOME OF THIS STUFF, WE MIGHT NOT SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN THE COURTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, THANK YOU, JORDYN.
I THINK THAT'S ALSO BROADLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY MADE SOME COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING ON THOSE TOPICS, THAT WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT, IN THE GENERAL SENSE, WHAT SORTS OF MECHANISMS MIGHT WORK.

THE DIFFICULTY, OF COURSE, IS INTRODUCING SUCH MECHANISMS INTO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
IT'S EASY TO DO IT MOVING FORWARD FOR NEW REGISTRARS OR NEW REGISTRIES, AND MORE DIFFICULT, UNLESS IT'S VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE, TO ADD SOME OF THOSE INTO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE IS CORRECT, THAT AS A POLICY DEVELOPMENT BODY, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE A (INAUDIBLE) ENFORCEMENT POLICY.

OKAY.
AT THIS POINT -- NIKLAS, YES.

>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: MAY I JUST ADD TO THAT THAT I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ENFORCEMENT IS NOT A POLICY ISSUE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE.
BECAUSE YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

AND DURING A MEETING WITH PAUL TWOMEY, HE USED THIS IMAGE THAT I FOUND VERY GOOD OF ICANN HAVING REACHED SOME KIND OF PLATEAU, AND THAT, BASICALLY, IT WAS PERHAPS TIME TO REFLECT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, OF COURSE, ICANN SHOULDN'T MOVE, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF WORK ON THE PLATE.

BUT I THINK REACHING THIS PLATEAU, ENFORCEMENT NOW BECOMES A HUGE PRIORITY.
BUT FINDING WAYS OF ENFORCING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONTRACTS SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS A POLICY ISSUE.
IT'S AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE.

AND THE WHOLE LEGITIMACY OF ICANN DEPENDS ON THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THERE'S TWO ASPECTS OF THAT.
YES, THERE IS THE IMPLEMENTATION.

AND, IF YOU LIKE, WHAT WOULD BE INTERESTING IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TERMINATION OF CONTRACT IN SOME CASES MAY BE ENOUGH TO MAKE SOME TANGIBLE CHANGES THERE IN THE BEHAVIOR OF SOME OF THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS.
BUT I THINK WHAT JORDYN'S POINTING OUT IS THAT YOU HAVE IN A CONTRACT MECHANISMS, AND THE POLICY SIDE OF THEM MIGHT BE WHAT SOME OF THOSE MECHANISMS MIGHT BE IN THE CONTRACT.

AND THEN THERE IS, OF COURSE, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE MECHANISMS.
SO I THINK THERE'S STILL A DISTINCTION.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT.
DURING THE ORIGINAL WHOIS TASK FORCE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EXAMINATION OF STAGES OR STEPS.

THE POLICY THAT WOULD GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH ALTERNATIVES, I THINK, IS WHAT WOULD BE POLICY RESPONSIBILITY, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL MANAGEMENT OR SORT OF POLICING THE WORLD AT LARGE, GETTING THE COMPLIANCE, DEALING WITH IT, TRACKING IT, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PRIORITIES?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THIS IS JORDYN.
CAN I JUST JUMP IN, MAKE ONE MORE --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, JORDYN.
AND THEN AMADEU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK, YOU KNOW, BRUCE AND MARILYN, YOU'VE CAPTURED MY THOUGHT EXACTLY.
BUT I DO JUST WANT TO GIVE A CONCRETE EXAMPLE.
THERE IS ONE PLACE I CAN THINK OF IN THE EXISTING CONTENT STRUCTURE WHERE THERE IS A BIT OF AN ENFORCEMENT

MECHANISM, AND THAT IS THE REGISTRY CONTRACTS HAVE SLAS IN THEM.
AND IF THE REGISTRIES DO NOT PERFORM TO THE SLAS, THEN THEY OWE A FINANCIAL PENALTY TO REGISTRARS AS A RESULT.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THOSE ARE VERY RARELY PAID OUT BECAUSE THE REGISTRIES GENERALLY DO AN EXCELLENT JOB OF LIVING UP TO THEIR PERFORM OBLIGATIONS.

BUT I WOULD IMAGINE PART OF THE REASON THEY DO SUCH A GOOD JOB IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THERE IS CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC PENALTIES ATTACHED TO IT, WHEREAS MANY OTHER ICANN POLICIES ARE NOT TIED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR SPECIFIC PENALTIES IF YOU DON'T ACHIEVE WHAT THE POLICY OUTLINES.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF THING THAT I THINK MIGHT HELP MOTIVATE A LOT MORE COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES AND MIGHT HELP, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, GET SOME OF THIS STUFF OUT OF THE COURTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN.
AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE, BECAUSE IT ALSO IS SOMETHING THAT IS MEASURABLE.

THOSE SERVICE-LEVEL AGREEMENTS, THINGS LIKE NUMBER OF MINUTES OR HOURS THAT A REGISTRY IS UNAVAILABLE, IT'S A DIRECTLY MEASURABLE NUMBER.

YOU EITHER MEET IT OR YOU DON'T.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE FEW EXAMPLES THAT WE HAVE WHERE WE HAVE A MEASURABLE OBJECTIVE AND OUTCOME.
AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YEAH, IT'S SOMEHOW TANGENTIAL TO THE LIST OF PRIORITIES, BUT SOMETHING RELATED TO THAT.
FIRST, REGARDING IDNS, WELL, YES, WE SHOULD DISCUSS ABOUT THESE AND ALL THE OTHER ISSUES.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE.
THERE ARE THINGS WE DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE; THEY'RE PURELY POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
LET ME GIVE ONE OR TWO OR THREE EXAMPLES OF THAT.
ONE IS A QUESTION I HAVE BEEN ASKING SINCE NOVEMBER 2000, AND I STILL HAVE TO FIND SOMEONE WILLING TO DISCUSS THAT WITH ME EXCEPT VERISIGN.

THE QUESTION IS WE HAVE SOME TEST BED AND REGISTRANTS PARTICIPATING IN A TEST BED WHICH IS NOT FOR THE ZONE FILE.
WELL, POLICY DEVELOPMENTS INCORPORATED OR NOT, CAN WE GRANDFATHER THESE NAMES, THAT SIMPLE.
OR WE SHOULD START WITH THE USUAL PROCESS WE HAVE, WHEN WE HAVE NEW TLDS, BECAUSE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS IS A NEW TLD OR NOT.

WE CAN ACCEPT ANY ANSWER.
BUT THIS IS A POLICY QUESTION THAT BOTH THE BOARD AND THE GNSO COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT, YOU KNOW, (INAUDIBLE), PUNYCODE, UNICODE, OR WHATEVER.

OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALSO POLICY QUESTION IS ONE PURELY CONTRACTUAL THING.
WHAT ARE WE ADVISING THE BOARD OR THE REGISTRY, REGISTRAR TO PUT IN THE CONTRACT.
WHAT'S THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION, THE PUNYCODE OR THE VISUAL TRANSLATION INTO THE LANGUAGE.
ANOTHER ONE, IT'S RELATED TO THE UDRP.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS CONSIDER (INAUDIBLE) REGARDING THE NOTION OF IDENTICAL, CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR WHEN WE HAVE IN THE GTLDS, IVNS FOR MANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND MANY DIFFERENT VISUAL APPEARANCES AND MEANINGS, AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING REGARDING WHAT WE INTENDED TO SAY, OUR POLICY, FINALLY, ICANN'S POLICY.

THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES.
NOW MY REAL QUESTION IS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT?
AND I HAVE A SMALL COMPLAINT AND A SMALL REQUEST.
THE COMPLAINT IS THAT -- IT'S A VERY GRAPHICAL THING.

AT THE VERY BEGINNING, I WAS IN THE REGISTRAR'S CONSTITUENCY. AND THE SECOND OR FIRST DAY OF ICANN MEETINGS WAS VERY SIMPLE.
I WAS SITTING THERE.
THEN IT CAME TO THE BOARD.
AND NOW, BEING A NONCOM APPOINTEE, THE CONSTITUENCIES TODAY TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SHOULD I DO.
I AM RUNNING FROM ROOM TO ROOM AND IF I DON'T PLAN MY DAY CORRECTLY, I RISK, FOR INSTANCE, LISTENING TO THE ICANN CEO EXPLAINING THE SAME THINGS IN FIVE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.

BUT IT'S NEVER THE SAME THING.
IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THE SAME THING IN FIVE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.
IS IT WORTH ENOUGH?
I MEAN, IS THE CONSTITUENCY'S MEETINGS OF 10 PEOPLE THERE, 12 HERE, FIVE THERE AND 20 ON THE OTHER SIDE REALLY REQUIRED AFTER ALL THESE LONG TRIPS?

SHOULDN'T WE USE MORE OF THIS FULL GNSO FORMAT NOT JUST FOR INTER-COUNCIL DISCUSSION, BUT INTER-COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON THINGS LIKE IDN, SITE FINDER, UDRP, OR WHATEVER?

I REALLY THINK THAT SOME OF THE STRUCTURE WE ARE USING IS BECOMING OBSOLETE AND THAT WE NEED TO REINFORCE THE GNSO AS SUCH, NOT REPLACING THE CONSTITUENCIES, BUT PERHAPS DIVIDING BETTER WHAT'S REALLY CONSTITUENCY MATTER AND WHAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THIS FORUM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL JUST COMMENT QUICKLY ON THAT, AMADEU, ON THAT LAST POINT.
I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH DID THAT THIS MORNING BY HAVING THE STRUCTURED GNSO WORKSHOPS.
AND I THINK WE SAW THAT MANY MEMBERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES WERE IN FACT PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSION.

SO I THINK THAT'S A STEP TOWARDS THAT, AS YOU SAY.
JUST A COMMENT ON TEST BEDS.
AND I'LL USE A COUPLE OF ANALOGIES HERE, BECAUSE I THINK THE TERM IS CONFUSED.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF TESTS, IN MY VIEW.

THERE IS A MARKET TEST OF SOMETHING, AND THERE IS A TECHNICAL TEST OF SOMETHING TO SEE WHETHER IT WORKS.
IF WE LOOK AT THE -- SOME DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES, IF WE LOOK AT THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, IF YOU TEST A DRUG, THAT'S STRICTLY MANAGED AND YOU ARE CERTAINLY NOT ALLOWED TO TEST IT ON THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
THERE IS A VERY TIGHT, CONSTRAINED TEST PERIOD WITH CONSTRAINED SUBJECTS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE.
CONTRAST THAT WITH, SAY, A COMPANY LIKE COCA-COLA WANTS TO TEST A NEW FLAVOR OF COKE.
THAT'S A MARKET TEST.

AND I THINK THAT WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS, WE HAVE TENDED TO MERGE THOSE TWO SEPARATE THINGS, AND IN THE CASE OF IDNS, WE ACTUALLY -- WE'RE DEALING WITH A MARKET TEST, BECAUSE WE WERE TESTING THAT ON THE ENTIRE MARKET.
SO THAT'S A MARKET TEST.

WHEREAS A MORE CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO A TECHNICAL TEST CONSTRAINED TO A FEW PEOPLE TO SEE IF IT WORKS.

IF IT DOES, THEN WE'RE GOING TO ROLL IT OUT TO THE MARKET.
TWO VERY SEPARATE THINGS.
AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION CREATED BY USING THE TERM "TEST BED."

I THINK THE SECOND POINT ABOUT MISLEADINGLY SIMILAR AND SO ON RELATED TO IDNS WOULD COME INTO PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE ON THE TOPIC OF THE (INAUDIBLE).
PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: JUST TO REASSURE AMADEU, ONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS I THINK WE REACHED IN THE BC, THE IPC AND THE ISPS WAS, INDEED, THERE WAS A COMMON TIME WHEN WE WERE BEING BRIEFED OR WANT TO BE BRIEFED BY THE SAME PEOPLE.
FOR THAT REASON, NOW IN MANY MEETINGS, WE HAVE ARRANGED THE MORNING MEETING AS THE CONSTITUENCY DAY, TO BE A CROSS-CONSTITUENCY DAY, WHERE MEETINGS AND BRIEFINGS EXACTLY LIKE THAT DO HAPPEN, FOR EFFICIENCY REASONS.
INDEED, THIS TIME, WE ALSO HAD A JOINT SESSION WITH THE REGISTRARS.

SO I THINK THESE DO HAPPEN, BUT, CLEARLY, THEY ARE AN ADDITION TO CONSTITUENCIES MEETING TOGETHER, BECAUSE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE FOR THESE PHYSICAL MEETINGS THREE TIMES A YEAR IS TO MEET AND DISCUSS FACE TO FACE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE REASON WHY, PERHAPS, THE CEO LIKES TO MEET EACH OF THE FORUMS IS IT ALLOWS IT TO BE A BIT MORE INTERACTIVE THAN THE CEO TRYING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH A ROOM OF 200 PEOPLE AT ONCE.
AND I THINK HAVING THE SMALLER ENVIRONMENTS IS ALSO USEFUL.

SO I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO AWAY, NECESSARILY, WITH SMALLER GROUPS OF INTERESTED PARTIES DEALING WITH THEIR PARTICULAR GRIEVANCES SEPARATE FROM WORKSHOPS WHICH ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH A BROADER ISSUE.
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME ALSO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF, I THINK, A MESSAGE THAT AMADEU WAS GIVING THAT I CERTAINLY RESONATE TO.
AND THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE OF ICANN HAVING A EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ASPECT TO IT AS WELL.

WE CAN ALL REMEMBER BACK TO THE EVENT ON SECURITY WHICH WAS ORGANIZED BY MIKE ROBERTS AND WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND INFORMATIONAL TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE WILL HAVE A TWO-HOUR WSIS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP ON -- I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SNEAK MY INVITATION TO IT THIS WAY.
THE POINT IS, THERE SHOULD BE, AS A PART OF OUR COMING TO ICANN, PERHAPS A PROGRAM AROUND INFORMATION WHERE THE BROAD COMMUNITY COULD LEARN AND COULD SHARE.

AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE AN ASPECT THAT WE COULD THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE, TALKING WITH THE OTHER SOS AND SEEING IF THERE'S SOME SIMILARITY OF INTEREST IN ORGANIZING SESSIONS SIMILAR TO THE ONE DONE ON SECURITY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 6.
PHILIP?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: JUST BEFORE WE LEFT IT, VERY BRIEFLY, I DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE WHAT IS YOUR SECOND BULLET POINT THERE, WHICH WE HAVEN'T PARTICULARLY AIRED HERE, WHICH IS YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS FROM POLICY WORK.

AND EXAMPLES MIGHT INCLUDE ESTABLISHING A BASELINE FOR CURRENT NUMBER OF TRANSFER COMPLAINTS TO ICANN, AND SEEKING TO REDUCE THAT BY SOME PERCENTAGE, OR ESTABLISHING A BASELINE FOR WHOIS DATA ACCURACY, AND SEEKING TO IMPROVE THAT.

PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, AND I'M SURE IT'S SOMETHING WE ALL SHARE.
AND IF WE ARE TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL RECORD OF OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE COMING YEAR, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT VERY MUCH AS A PART OF THEM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK -- THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO INCORPORATE WITHIN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, PARTICULARLY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION SIDE OF IT.
AND I THINK WE'VE STARTED THAT DIALOGUE.
UNDER ITEM 6, ANY OTHER BUSINESS?

DOES ANYONE WISH TO RAISE ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
GRANT FORSYTH.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WISH TO RAISE A MATTER OF WLS.

AND I'LL SAY IT SLOWLY ONCE AND THEN SLUR IT FOR THE REST OF MY PRONUNCIATION.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WLS IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE BOARD.
AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND PROVIDED ADVICE TO THE BOARD, AS REQUESTED, ON THE MATTER OF WLS, THAT GIVEN THE BOARD WAS OR IS GOING TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AGAIN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A BOARD OF MANY CHANGED MEMBERS SINCE THE LAST TIME WE COMMUNICATED WITH THEM ON THIS MATTER, AND ALSO WE HAVE A COUNCIL OF SOME NEW MEMBERS, THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO REITERATE ITS COMMUNICATION TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.

AND I HAVE HAD COPIED OFF -- THANK YOU, GLEN -- A SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE BOARD.
AND THE DATE THAT IT WAS COMMUNICATED OR AGREED WAS AT A COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 24TH OF JULY, 2002, NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO.

AND AT THAT MEETING, THE COUNCIL OF THE DAY PASSED THE REPORTED THAT BEEN PRODUCED BY THE THEN-TRANSFERS TASK FORCE IN WHICH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE INCLUDED.
AND THAT RESOLUTION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DAY WAS PASSED BY 15 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REPORT AND 3 MEMBERS OF COUNCIL VOTING AGAINST IT AND 1 ABSTAINING.

SO I THINK IT WAS JUST BY -- THE REASON I PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION IS JUST TO COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMUNITY AND YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS THE DEGREE OF SUPPORT THAT THESE RESOLUTIONS HAD AT THE TIME.
I AM, OF COURSE, FOCUSING ON THE THREE MAIN BULLET POINTS THAT WERE COMMUNICATED IN THAT REPORT TO THE BOARD.
AND IF I MIGHT JUST READ THEM.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT "THE ICANN BOARD MOVE WITH ALL HASTE TO IMPLEMENT AND ACTIVELY ENFORCE THE PROPOSED REDEMPTION/GRACE PERIOD FOR DELETED POLICIES AND PRACTICE.

THE SECOND IS THAT THE ICANN BOARD REJECTS VERISIGN'S REQUEST TO -- AND THE THIRD IS THAT THE ICANN BOARD REJECTS VERISIGN'S REQUEST TO TRIAL THE WLS FOR 12 MONTHS.

THIS NEW REGISTRY SERVICE THAT VERISIGN IS SEEKING TO INTRODUCE AND, AS I UNDERSTAND, SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY HAVING THE ICANN STAFF WORK WITH VERISIGN TO PROGRESS THE INTRODUCTION OF WLS, AS I KNOW IT, THE MATTER IS NOW BACK ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA, SO I JUST PUT THAT FORWARD FOR THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION AND SUGGESTION OF REITERATING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, GRANT.
IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR SUGGESTION, YOU SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS DURING THE PUBLIC FORUM WHERE THE GNSO COUNCIL GIVES ITS REPORT, WHICH I WILL BE GIVING AS CHAIR, THAT WE REFER THE BOARD TO THE PREVIOUS OUTCOMES AND GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THOSE OUTCOMES AS YOU'VE LAID OUT?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: YES.
CERTAINLY FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, WE WOULD SEE THAT AS BEING A DESIRABLE COMMUNICATION TO THE BOARD.

AND AS I SAID, I'D LIKE TO PUT IT FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL FOR OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO SUPPORT THAT INITIATIVE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OF THAT?
ALICK.

>>ALICK WILSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE A VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS COMMUNICATION AT THIS POINT?
OR WHAT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T BELIEVE I NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE MERELY REFERRING TO A MOTION THAT IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD OF THE GNSO.
SO IT IS, IN FACT, ALREADY A GNSO DECISION.

IT'S REALLY MERELY REFERRING THE BOARD TO THAT PREVIOUS DECISION.

>>ALICK WILSON: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE CONCRETE SENSE OF THAT.
I WOULD SUPPORT IT, BUT THE ONLY THING I HAVE AS A QUESTION IS THAT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COUNCIL SENT TO THE BOARD WERE DEPENDENT ON THINGS HAPPENING AND SOME SUBSIDIARY POSSIBILITIES. SAY, DON'T DO THAT BEFORE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD, YOU KNOW, (INAUDIBLE) SO MANY TIMES. SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. SO AT LEAST THIS PART DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE; CORRECT?

SO SENDING IT AS A WHOLE, PERHAPS, IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, GRANT?

>>GRANT FORSYTH: IF I JUST -- TO TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AMADEU, I GUESS BY RISING ABOVE THE SPECIFIC OF YOUR QUESTION TO, I GUESS, THE INTENT. MY INTENT IS TO, AT THIS TIME, REAFFIRM AND REITERATE THE COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION TO THE BOARD, AND AS I NOTED, THAT WAS BY WAY OF A REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE REPORT OF WHICH THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE EXTRACTED RESOLUTIONS.

SO I'M SORRY, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION WITHOUT GETTING TOO SPECIFIC, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN STUBBS.

>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IN THE LAST MINUTE OR SO, THE WORD "REAFFIRMED" CAME IN. A REAFFIRMATION WOULD APPLY THAT WE'RE PASSING ON THE -- ON THIS ISSUE THAT WAS DEBATED ON AND IN WHICH WE HAVE PROPER CONSULTATION WITH CONSTITUENCIES TWO YEARS AGO.

I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD IS MORE THAN ADEQUATELY BRIEFED IN TERMS OF MAKING WHATEVER DECISION THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE, AND I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT THE -- BOTH THE COUNCIL AND STAFF HAS GONE INTO SIGNIFICANT DEPTH SURROUNDING THE BACKGROUND OF THE POSITIONS THAT WERE TAKEN AT THE TIME THAT THE ORIGINAL VOTE WAS MADE.

I DON'T REALLY FEEL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NECESSARY TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT WE DID SOMETHING TWO YEARS AGO, BECAUSE I'M SURE THEY'RE AWARE OF IT ALREADY, AND I THINK IT COULD BE IMPLIED THAT THE COUNCIL WAS, IN FACT, RATIFYING A POSITION THAT IT HAD TWO YEARS AGO.

HONESTLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT, AT LEAST PERSONALLY, MYSELF, I WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO AFFIRM OR TO EVEN CONSIDER RATIFYING THIS POSITION WITHOUT GOING BACK TO MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENCY AND DISCUSSING IT WITH THEM.

I THINK IF THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN BROUGHT OUT ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS RATHER THAN THE LAST MINUTE HERE WE MIGHT HAVE HAD THE TIME YESTERDAY TO VETTE IT WITH OUR CONSTITUENCIES IF, IN FACT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHAT YOU SAID, A REAFFIRMATION OF A POSITION THAT WE HAD TWO YEARS AGO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU AND THEN ROSS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND BRUCE, COULD YOU ADD JORDYN TO THE QUEUE AS WELL?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YOU'RE WRONG IN TWO FACTUAL CONCEPTS. FIRST, NEVER ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS WELL INFORMED ENOUGH TO SPEAK. ESPECIALLY IN ICANN. ESPECIALLY ON THE BOARD. NO.

I WAS THERE AT THE (INAUDIBLE) IN JULY 2002, AND NO, IT WAS NOT THE CASE. BUT IN ANY CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE TODAY. ONLY THREE PEOPLE WERE SITTING THERE IN JULY 2002 WERE ON THE BOARD. ALL THE REST ARE NEW.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS I FEEL ALSO COMFORTABLE WITH YOU JUST RESENDING SOMETHING THAT CORRESPONDS TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE.

SO IF WE HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, I WOULD PERHAPS NEED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ATTACH THAT FOR INFORMATION, BUT THEN WE SAY WHAT WE THINK TODAY OR WE EXPLAIN WHAT WE THINK TODAY. BUT JUST SENDING AS AN ATTACHMENT SOMETHING THAT I REPEAT, IT DOESN'T CORRESPOND TO TODAY'S LANDSCAPE, I THINK IT WOULDN'T HELP THAT MUCH.
IN GENERAL, I AM STILL AGAINST THE (INAUDIBLE), IF THAT'S THE QUESTION, AS I VOTED AGAINST IN THE BOARD. I WAS THE ONLY ONE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, ROSS.

>>ROSS RADER: YOU KNOW, I'LL HAVE TO PREFACE MY REMARKS UP FRONT BY STATING AS A COMMERCIAL PROVIDER I'M INHERENTLY CONFLICTED ON THIS. IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT MY POSITION ON WLS HASN'T CHANGES OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. I'M FIRMLY WITH AMADEU ON THAT COUNT, EITHER OF WHICH IS REALLY RELEVANT FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION.

I THINK I'D REALLY HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT KEN IS SAYING HERE. WE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE TWO YEARS AGO. WE COMMUNICATED OUR WISHES TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD HAS ACTED UPON THOSE. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS THE END OF THAT PROCESS.

AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED AT THE WASTEFULNESS, I GUESS I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS, OF A LAST-MINUTE CONSIDERATION THAT'S REQUESTING THE BOARD TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO ISSUE THEIR FINAL DECISION. AND IF WE AGREE WITH THAT, WE AGREE WITH THAT. IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT I THINK, WE AS A COMMUNITY HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO LET MISTAKES HAPPEN.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO FIRMLY SIDE WITH KEN ON THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN, GO AHEAD.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, BRUCE. I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE, I GUESS, WHAT ROSS AND AMADEU AND KEN HAVE SAID TOO MUCH, BUT I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT I THINK THE BOARD, ALTHOUGH, PERHAPS DID NOT AGREE ENTIRELY IN SUBSTANCE WITH -- OR DID NOT CORRELATE ITS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ENTIRELY WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME TWO YEARS AGO, THEY CERTAINLY DID TAKE NOTE OF THE PROCESS AND I THINK THEY DID IMPOSE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS UPON WLS AS A RESULT. AND PROBABLY AS A RESULT OF ITS CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNCIL.

SO I THINK IT'S NOT THAT OUR THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY DISREGARDED, BUT I GUESS I'M ACTUALLY SAYING -- THAT'S A BIT OF MISSTATEMENT. I WAS NOT ON THE COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO, A AND I THINK ACTUALLY THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT WERE NOT ON THE COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR SUCH A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE TO SIMPLY REAFFIRM SOMETHING WITH THE LANDSCAPE CHANGE, WITH VERISIGN, I THINK, HAVING MADE A REAL ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE BOARD THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME. AND TO SIMPLY SAY IT WAS THE SAME AS IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO I THINK IS A CURIOUS THING TO SAY AND NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL TO THE PROCESS.

AND LASTLY, I THINK THAT -- WELL, WELL, I THINK THAT WAY THIS PROCESS HAS DEVELOPED HAS ESSENTIALLY ALLOWED A POOL OF REGISTRARS, TO USE A DOUBLE ENTENDRE TO HAMMER AT A SERVICE PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRARS AT NO COST. AND ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE A TRAGEDY OF A COMMENTS PROBLEM WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY MUCH, MUCH MORE EFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS AT THE REGISTRY LEVEL BUT WE'RE SO CAUGHT UP IN THE POLITICS OF THE SITUATION. I UNDERSTAND WHY. THERE'S DOLLARS AT STAKE. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONCERNS OF THE REGISTRARS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED LAWSUITS AND START TAKING POSITIONS AT THIS TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN. I WILL, PERHAPS, JUST MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN LEAVE THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY TO SORT OF REPLY TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS MADE AS THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY HAD PUT FORWARD THE PROPOSAL.

FIRSTLY, I THINK THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNCIL TO RATIFY A PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S LIKE A PARLIAMENT REPASSING A LAW THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED. WE'RE EITHER CREATING A NEW POLICY, AS AMADEU WOULD SAY, OR WE'RE NOT.

IN RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY IN ITS MEMBERSHIP AND THE COUNCIL HAS ALSO CHANGED IN ITS MEMBERSHIP IN THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD, I THINK IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO MERELY REPORT TO THE BOARD AS A REMINDER THAT THERE WAS A DECISION TAKEN BY COUNCIL IN THE MEETING IN JULY 2002, BUT TO PREFACE THAT, THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THEN. BUT I THINK THERE WAS A FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE REPORT, AND I THINK THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY FIND IT USEFUL TO REVIEW THAT REPORT AS PART OF THE MANY INPUTS THAT THEY HAVE.

THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IN TERMS OF THE HERE AND NOW AND COMMENTS REGARDING THE HERE AND NOW, IS THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN STATEMENTS TO THE BOARD, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT SOME CONSTITUENCIES MAY WISH TO MAKE STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CONSTITUENCY AS A WHOLE, IF THEY HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT, AND I KNOW THE REGISTRARS PASSED A RESOLUTION IN THEIR MEETING ON -- YESTERDAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY WOULD PROBABLY CONVEY THAT TO THE BOARD AS PART OF THE PUBLIC FORUM. AND I THINK ANY OTHER CONSTITUENCY WOULD BE WELCOME TO DO THAT.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THE COMPROMISE IS TO MERELY INFORM THE BOARD THAT A DECISION WAS TAKEN IN 2002, ITS EFFECT, AND IT'S UP TO THE BOARD WHETHER THEY WISH TO REVIEW THAT OR NOT. AND I WOULD INDICATE THAT CLEARLY, THEY WOULD NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THAT POSITION WAS MADE IN 2002. AND OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PUBLIC FORUM TO CONVEY ANY RESOLUTION THAT THEY MAY HAVE PASSED WITHIN THEIR MEETINGS YESTERDAY. AND OF COURSE INDIVIDUALS ARE FREE TO EXPRESS THEIR ANYONE THE PUBLIC FORUM. SO WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK YOU'VE CHARACTERIZED REASONABLY WELL THE INTENT OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S SUGGESTION. AND IF I MIGHT JUST FIRSTLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT KEN RAISED WITH REGARDS MY USE OF THE WORD REAFFIRM. IF THAT'S PROBLEMATIC, AND I UNDERSTAND IT MIGHT BE, LET ME JUST RETRACT THAT AND REVERT TO MY PREVIOUS USE OF THE WORD TO REITERATE, WHICH I THINK IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE CHAIR HAS INDICATED FROM A PROCEDURAL POINT OF VIEW, IS IN KEEPING WITH A MESSAGE NOT DEPENDENT UPON REVISITING A MATTER WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN WELL VISITED AND REPORTED ON TO THE BOARD.

I ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE THE COMMENT THAT AMADEU MADE WITH REGARDS TO THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND ALSO NEW MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THAT IS A REALITY, AND THAT REALLY, I THINK, UNDERPINS THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S MOTIVATION FOR THIS SUGGESTION. I ALSO NOTE THAT THE VOTES THAT WERE TAKEN WERE TAKEN IN SUPPORT OF THE PREVIOUS POLICY ADVICE, WERE TAKEN ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENCIES, NOT ON BEHALF OF INDIVIDUALS.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY A MATTER AS TO WHETHER I WAS HERE OR WHETHER I PERSONALLY WAS NOT HERE. THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY PARTICIPATED IN THAT PROCESS AND ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES WHO DID, AT THAT TIME, ARE STILL REPRESENTED HERE TODAY.

I'LL JUST FINISH BY SAYING, AS I SAY, THE INTENT IS TO OFFER THAT COMMUNICATION. NOT ANY SORT OF RESOLUTION; JUST A COMMUNICATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD. AND REALLY TO GIVE SOME -- THE NEW BOARD, I GUESS, A HISTORICAL CONTEXT WHEN THEY COME TO CONSIDER THE MATTER. AS I SAY, I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE GOING TO AGAIN.

SO THAT WAS THE INTENT. AND SIMILARLY, AS THE CHAIR HAS NOTED, INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES AND INDIVIDUAL PERSONS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN STATEMENTS TO THE BOARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHATEVER THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL DOES. SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT TIME. THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK.

>>ALICK WILSON: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT IS, IN MY VIEW, THE POSITION OF THIS COUNCIL HAS NOT CHANGED BECAUSE IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE POLICY OR, I BEG YOUR PARDON, TO RECOMMEND POLICY TO THE BOARD. WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TWO YEARS AGO. I WASN'T PRESENT. BUT IN MY VIEW, ALTHOUGH THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED, THE RECOMMENDATION STILL STANDS.

NOW, IF THE BOARD THINKS THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED SO MUCH THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS NO LONGER VALID, THEN -- AND IF THE MATTER IS, THEREFORE, STILL ON THE TABLE, I SUGGEST THAT THEY SHOULD RECOMMEND -- SORRY, THAT THEY SHOULD PASS IT BACK TO THIS COUNCIL AND ASK THAT WE REASSESS THE MATTER WITH A NEW RECOMMENDATION, TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE NEW LANDSCAPE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ALICK. AND AGAIN, I WOULD INVITE YOU, IF YOU WISH TO MAKE YOUR OWN -- TO REPEAT THAT STATEMENT, IF YOU WISH N THE PUBLIC FORUM ITSELF, THAT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS? MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE TO MY FELLOW COUNCILORS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO ALERT YOU TO A COMMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THIS TO YOU, THAT YOU LEND YOUR SUPPORT TO A RECOGNITION STATEMENT TO RECOGNIZE ELISABETH PORTENEUVE.

MANY OF YOU, LIKE MYSELF, HAVE KNOWN ELISABETH FOR SOME YEARS, AND SINCE SHE WILL BE CHANGING HER JOB ASSIGNMENT, AND THIS IS PROBABLY HER LAST ICANN MEETING, AND SHE HAS BEEN A PART OF THE PREVIOUS BODY AND LENT HER SUPPORT, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE LENT SOME RECOGNITION.
SO I'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT, AND THEN IF COUNCIL AGREES, PERHAPS WE CAN HAVE THIS PROVIDED TOMORROW, BRUCE, IN YOUR REPORT.

IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF ELISABETH PORTENEUVE, ON THE OCCASION OF HER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HER CHANGE OF JOB, AND DISCONTINUATION OF HER ROLE AS CC LIAISON TO THE GNSO COUNCIL. A FEW FACTS THAT ILLUSTRATE THE DEPTH AND NATURE OF ELISABETH'S CONTRIBUTION TO ICANN'S DNSO, AND MORE RECENTLY, GNSO.

ICANN -- ELISABETH PARTICIPATED AS A CC REPRESENTATIVE IN THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE WHITE PAPER IN 1998. THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON THE WHITE PAPER WAS THE PROCESS WHICH LED TO THE CREATION OF ICANN. SHE ATTENDED THE FOUNDING MEETING OF THE CCTLD CONSTITUENCY OF THE DNSO IN 1999 AND CONTRIBUTED TO ITS ORGANIZATION AS ONE OF THE SEVEN FOUNDING CONSTITUENCIES OF THE DNSO.

SHE PROVIDED THE FIRST SECRETARIAT SERVICES TO THE DNSO. SHE MANAGED THE FIRST ELECTION PROCESS FOR THE DNSO, WHICH INCLUDED DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOM SOFTWARE AND MANAGING THE ELECTION OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS WITHIN A TWO-WEEK PERIOD. SHE PARTICIPATED IN THE IDN WORK WITHIN ICANN AND LENT HER EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE TO THE DNSO'S UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND AFTER THE CC MANAGERS WITHDREW FROM THE DNSO, AS THEY FOCUSED ON BUILDING THEIR OWN SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, ELISABETH BOTH LENT HER ENERGY AND LEADERSHIP WITHIN THAT WORK AND YET CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THE NEW GNSO AS A LIAISON FROM THE CCS. WE WISH HER WELL, WE THANK HER FOR HER FRIENDSHIP, GUIDANCE, AND PARTICIPATION WITH US AS WE ALL WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE ICANN'S SUCCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: DO YOU NEED A SECOND?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS IF WE CAN JUST HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS THAT WE SUPPORT THAT RESOLUTION.
(HANDS RAISED).
(APPLAUSE.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND I'LL CERTAINLY --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I SECOND THAT EVEN THOUGH I BELIEVE THAT'S MISPLACED BY SOME YEARS. I DON'T BELIEVE ELISABETH IS LEAVING ICANN.

(LAUGHTER.)

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: MR. CHAIRMAN, PERHAPS I SHOULD TAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AND WE COUNT ON OUR ROADS CONTINUING TO CROSS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE THE CASE, AND CERTAINLY IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAMES AREA, I THINK ELISABETH IS VERY GOOD AT CONVEYING SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE PROBLEM IN THAT AREA.
OKAY. AT THAT POINT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER BUSINESS, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE MEETING AND THANK THOSE FOR PARTICIPATING ON THE CALL, JORDYN AND BRIAN. AND FOR THOSE ATTENDING. THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANK YOU.

>>BRIAN DARVILLE: THANKS.

(5:45 P.M.)