Site Map    |    Site Index    | 

Quick Links: Select A Link Below About ICANN Accountability and Review Accountability and Transparency Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Announcements Annual Report Articles of Incorporation At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Blog Board Meeting Minutes Board of Directors Budget Bylaws Calendar of Events Committees - Other Committees - Advisory Committees - Board Committees - Past Contact Information Contracts Contractual Compliance Newsletter Contractual Compliance Program Corporate Documents Correspondence Country Code TLD Managers - Information for Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Country-Code Top-Level Domain Agreements Country-Code Top-Level Domain Board Materials Country-Code Top-Level Domain Listings Current Topics Dashboard Documents Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies Employment Opportunities Factsheets Fellowship Office Financial Information First-Time Visitors Former Directors Frequently Asked Questions Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLDs) Life Cycle Generic Top-Level Domain Information (gTLDs) Global Partnerships Glossary Governmental Advisory Committee IANA Agreement IANA ccTLD Reports IANA ICANN Info IDN Glossary IPv6 Policy Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures InterNIC Internal Procedure for Conflicts with Privacy Law Internationalized Domain Names Links Litigation Documents Major Agreements Maps Meetings Mission Monthly Magazine Monthly Registry Reports News Newsletters & News Alerts Newsletters Archive Nominating Committee Ombudsman Operating Plan Organizational Chart PGP Keys Participate in ICANN Partnership Memorandums of Understanding Payments to ICANN Planning Process Policy Area Policy Issue Briefs Policy Update Presentations President and CEO President's Strategy Committee Press Resources Public Comment Public Participation Site Publications RSS Feed Registrants Information Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Registrar Accreditation Overview Registrar Advisories Registrar Agreements Registrar Complaints Registrar Data Escrow Program Registrar Information Registrar Problem - Get Help Registrars - Accredited Registry Agreements Registry Information Registry Listings Registry Monthly Reports Registry Services Evaluation Process Report Inaccurate Whois Information Resources Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Speeches Sponsored Top-Level Domains Staff Strategic Plan Supporting Organizations Technical Liason Group Transfers Translations Transparency Travel Support Universal Acceptance of All Top-Level Domains Vint Cerf's Legacy Letter to ICANN Community Website Enhancement Whois Information Whois Search

Search:

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

  |  Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts  |  ICANN Blog  |  Public Comment

• Home
• About
• News
• Policy
• Current Topics
• Events
• Structure
• Processes
• Resources
• Documents
• Contact    

^ Home

> Meetings

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TRY TO GET STARTED IN ABOUT TWO MORE MINUTES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WE'RE READY TO START THE FIRST HALF OF THE PUBLIC FORUM.
WE WILL GO UNTIL 6:00 P.M. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK.
THAT'S A FAIRLY LONG TIME TO GO WITHOUT ONE.
SO IF I COULD ASK YOU TO TAKE YOUR SEATS IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE YOUR CONVERSATIONS -- I GUESS I CAN'T TELL.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING ARE THE ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURTAIN.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURTAIN.
ALL RIGHT.
SO OUR FIRST REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM COMES FROM PAUL TWOMEY, THE PRESIDENT OF ICANN.
SO, PAUL, I CALL YOU TO THE LECTERN AND ASK YOU TO MAKE YOUR REPORT.
YOU.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT.
TAKING THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR THE PROCESS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD FOR STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING, I HAVE DEVISED THIS REPORT TO TRY TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT SOMETHING AS A PERFORMANCE AGAINST ANNUAL OBJECTIVES.
IT'S NOT PERFECT WHAT I'VE GOT TO TAKE YOU THROUGH AND IT'S NOT IN THE PERFECT FORMAT.
THAT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
BUT SEEING PARTICULARLY THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR SOME, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IN MAR DEL PLATA, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR SOME REPORT BACK ON HOW WE GOT ON PROGRESS ON VARIOUS OBJECTIVES, I'D LIKE TO THANK MY STAFF AND OTHERS WHO HAVE HELPED PUT THIS TOGETHER.
WE'VE GOT SOME ATTEMPT HERE THAT I WANT TO GO THROUGH ABOUT PERFORMANCE.
AS I SAID, IT'S NOT THE STANDARD I WOULD WANT US TO DO NEXT YEAR.
I THINK THERE'S -- MORE DETAIL WOULD BE REQUIRED.
BUT AT LEAST I HOPE IT'S USEFUL FOR THE OPERATIONAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH.
SO LET ME START WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST ANNUAL OBJECTIVES.
THE ANNUAL OBJECTIVES FOR THE PRESENT FISCAL YEAR WERE ACTUALLY FORMULATED BY A PROCESS OF CONSULTATION, THEN STAFF PUT IT TOGETHER AND THEN IT WAS TAKEN TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP.
AND WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SO THERE WAS INTERACTION BEYOND JUST THE STAFF, BUT IT WAS FORMULATED IN THAT FORMAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE OBJECTIVES WERE NOT -- FOR THIS YEAR WERE NOT ESTABLISHED THROUGH A -- THE SORT OF BOTTOM-UP PROCESS THAT WE HAVE STARTED AS OF YESTERDAY FOR THE COMING YEAR OF STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL PLANNING.
AND THE MAJOR OBJECTIVES ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED BUDGET, IN THE PROSE OF THE PROVED BUDGET.
AGAIN, TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS.
WE'LL HAVE A CLEARER SEPARATED OPERATIONAL PLAN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A BUDGET.
AND FOR ICANN'S HISTORY, THOSE TWO OBJECTIVES HAVE TENDED TO BE MERGED INTO THE SAME ENTITY.
AND THE OBJECTIVES CAN BE GROUPED AROUND THE FOUR AREAS OF FOCUS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE FOUR AREAS OF FOCUS IN THE WHITE PAPER, OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES, CONTRIBUTING TO THE ONGOING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
AND IF I CAN MAKE THIS OBSERVATION, WHAT I'M ABOUT TO REPORT ON IS, ACTUALLY, IF YOU'D LIKE, THE OPERATIONAL OR EXECUTIVE STAFF FUNCTIONS OF ICANN.
ICANN'S AN UNFORTUNATELY TERM.
WE USE IT FOR MANY PARTS OF THE SAME THING.
SO I'M NOT REPORTING AGAINST ALL THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY, ALL THE WORK OF THE BOARD, AS NECESSARILY -- NOR THE POLICY WORK.
I'M ACTUALLY REPORTING HERE AGAINST SORT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY STAFF, IF I CAN BE THAT CLEAR.
SO THIS IS CONTRIBUTE TO THE ONGOING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, PROMOTING CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE, PARTICULARLY IN GTLDS, PROVIDING A FORUM FOR THE BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IN THE DNS, AND ENSURING, ON A GLOBAL BASIS, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ICANN PROCESS BY ALL INTERESTED PARTIES.
AND I WOULD LIKE NOW TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE AND TAKE YOU THROUGH THE SUBOBJECTIVES AND HOW -- SOME IDEA OF PERFORMANCE.
BUT IF YOU WILL EXCUSE ME A MINUTE, I HAVE A COLD AND I NEED TO GET A CLASS OF WATER.
OKAY.
SO THE FIRST OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE THE ONGOING OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.
IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS DOCUMENT DIDN'T PROPERLY GET SPELL-CHECKED.
SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOUR INDULGENCE AS I GO THROUGH IT.
THE STAFF IS TO LIAISE WITH THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
SO SOME OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED UNDER THIS OBJECTIVE WAS THE INTRODUCTION OF IPV6 GLUE INTO THE ROOT ZONE, PARTICIPATING IN THE GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OCCURRING IN THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY POLICY FORUMS, WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY ON OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR IPV6 ALLOCATION, WORKING WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY PROCESS.
STAFF SUPPORT FOR IDN DEPLOYMENT.
AND WORKING WITH THE DNSSEC COMMUNITY ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
ON PROVIDING STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DATA ESCROW COORDINATION, WE HAVE THE PLAN OUTLINED WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE NOT YET ACQUIRED.
THAT'S AN AREA OF FURTHER DETAIL WHICH WE NEED TO WORK ON.
IMPLEMENTING THE TRACKING MECHANISMS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES IS ONE OF THE OPERATIONAL PLANS, PART OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED A TICKETING SYSTEM FOR INTERNAL USE AS A TEST BED.
WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT FAST ENOUGH.
BUT IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
WE HAVE DONE IT FOR THE COORDINATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE INQUIRIES, AND WHEN I SAY "CUSTOMER SERVICE" HERE, IT'S A RANGE OF THING, REGISTRAR INQUIRIES, REGISTRY INQUIRIES, A LOT FOR US WHICH WE TRY TO DEAL WITH PRETTY QUICKLY, OUR CONSUMER INQUIRIES, WE GET MANY, MANY CONSUMER INQUIRIES, ALSO INQUIRIES FROM THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE A TICKETING SYSTEM IN USE AS A TEST BED IN USE FOR SOME PARTS OF IT.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE AND NEED TO MOVE ON IS A SIMILAR MECHANISM FOR COLLECTING ISSUES THAT TEND TO OCCUR SIMPLY THROUGH RANDOM E-MAIL AS OPPOSED TO COMING THROUGH PARTICULAR ADDRESSES.
SO THERE'S WORK FURTHER TO BE DONE THERE.
DEVELOPED PROCESS MAPS FOR SEVERAL OF THESE TASKS AROUND THAT.
AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AND TESTING A WORK FLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTERNALLY.
THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING I HAD HOPED TO HAVE COMPLETED BY THIS FINANCIAL YEAR, AND WE HAVE NOT.
IT IS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE TO COMPLETE OVER BETWEEN NOW AND VANCOUVER.
THE IANA PERFORMANCE, MOVING ON TO ENSURING SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, I THINK THE IANA PERFORMANCE STORY IS A PATCHY ONE, AND ONE WHICH WE NEED TO DO A LOT OF WORK.
WE HAVE DONE WORK ON -- THERE'S WORK THERE ON STREAMLINING EXISTING PROCESSES AND IMPROVING THE REQUEST TRACKING SYSTEM.
SOME OF THE SUBTHINGS THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED THIS YEAR, WE HAVE HIRED AND TRAINED ADDITIONAL STAFF, BUT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE DIFFICULTIES IN IDENTIFYING AND TRAINING -- IDENTIFYING AND HIRING KEY STAFF.
AND WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO ASSISTANCE AND HELP FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO HELP US IDENTIFY SUCH STAFF.
AND ONE OF THE ISSUES WE CERTAINLY ARE WORKING ON IS SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS WE HAVE OF THE LOS ANGELES LABOR MARKET.
SO -- BUT THAT'S AN AREA WHERE THERE'S BEEN A DIFFICULTY, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS FELT THAT.
AND THAT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING.
AND IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONCLUDE IS THAT HIRING PROCESS.
WE HAVE INTRODUCED NEW SYSTEMS ON TICKETING AND WORK FLOW, BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF SOME PARTS OF THE INTERACTION WITH THE IANA PROCESS BEING AUTOMATED IN WAYS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE -- WITHOUT PUTTING IDENTIFICATION, AUTHENTICATION, AND RISK CONTROL AT RISK.
THAT IS IN PROGRESS.
THAT, AGAIN, HAS NOT BEEN PUSHED FAST ENOUGH.
THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK FORWARD VERY MUCH TO INTERACTING WITH THE COMMUNITY IN A SENSE OF STEWARDSHIP TO HELP DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT.
SO I WANT TO REINFORCE THAT.
SOME PROCESS MAPS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT AND THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF INTERNAL WORK ON NONVALUE-ADDED STUFF THAT'S BEEN CUT OUT OF THE PROCESSES.
OVERALL, WE HAVE IMPROVED REPORTING IANA STATISTICS.
ON THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, SOME -- THERE'S A GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT IN CYCLE TIMES IN SOME AREAS, BUT IT IS VERY LUMPY.
WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WHICH I THINK ARE REALLY SOMETHING THAT ARE SERIOUS AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, WHICH IS THE PHENOMENON OF CYCLE TIMES DECREASING AND SOMETIMES -- SOMETIME IN THE YEAR INCREASING FOR A PARTICULAR REQUEST AND OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR.
THAT'S NOT A SATISFACTORY OUTCOME.
WE KNOW THAT'S NOT A SATISFACTORY OUTCOME.
AND SO THAT'S A MAJOR ISSUE.
THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE, IS THAT WE HAVE, I'D SAY PATCHY AND OFTEN POOR HANDLING OF NON-STANDARD ISSUES.
AND THERE IS MUCH WORK TO BE DONE HERE.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF REQUESTS AND WE LOOK AT THE WAY IT'S BEEN HANDLED, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE TOO MANY OUTLIERS SITTING, YOU KNOW, ONE OR TWO OR WHATEVER STANDARD DEVIATIONS OFF FROM THE MEAN, SO THAT, OVERALL, WE GET SOME IMPROVEMENT ON SOME CYCLE TIMES, BUT WE'RE HAVING SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS ON WHAT I WOULD SAY IS NONSTANDARD ISSUES, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE THERE.
AND OUR PERFORMANCE HAS TO INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY.
IT'S JUST NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY.
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT STAKEHOLDER TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND JUST SO ALL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNICATION AND A LOT OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION, INCLUDING A LOT OF ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS OF VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY AROUND THE IANA ENVIRONMENT.
I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
WHEN IT FITS IN WITH THE PROBLEM OF HIRING ADDITIONAL STAFF, IT'S -- AT THE MOMENT, IT'S A GREAT CHALLENGE.
AND WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE STAFF ALLOCATED TO DOING THE FUNCTIONAL WORK THAN NECESSARILY DOING THE TRAVELING.
AND THAT'S A BALANCE WE UNDERTOOK WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
A KEY PART OF THIS IS ABOUT HAVING A SERVICE MENTALITY TO THE PEOPLE THAT WE ARE SERVING.
AND PART OF THE SERVICE MENTALITY IS TO LISTEN AND PART OF IT IS ENSURING THAT YOU DO THINGS ON TIME AND PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT THAT.
AND I THINK THAT BALANCE IS BEING UNDERMINED PARTLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENTLY RESOURCES PRESENTLY ACTUALLY DOING WORK AND PARTLY I THINK WE JUST NEED TO REBALANCE.
SO WE TAKE THAT -- THAT'S SOMETHING, I THINK, WE REALLY NEED TO IMPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY.
I WOULD BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE SEEN A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN REQUESTS, PARTICULARLY A DEMAND FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRY REQUESTS AND DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND DEMAND FOR INTERACTION, WHICH IS NOT JUST TAKEN UP BY THE STRICT IANA STAFF IN MARINA DEL REY, IT'S TAKEN UP BY A LOT OF THE OTHER MANAGEMENT TASKS.
I KNOW I MYSELF FIND MYSELF IN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD AROUND THESE ISSUES WHERE, INVARIABLY, THE REQUEST -- THE CONVERSATION TURNS AROUND PRETTY QUICKLY TO ISSUES AROUND COUNTRY CODE MANAGEMENT IANA REQUESTS, THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES.
I JUST WANT TO REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SEE THAT -- A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THOSE.
AND MAYBE BECAUSE -- NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE AREAS HAVE -- SOME OF THESE CASE STUDIES, CASES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HANDLED EARLIER THIS YEAR, SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES, I THINK WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASE IN DEMAND COMING FROM SOME OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SO THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A DIFFERENT CYCLE AT THE MOMENT, I THINK, IN HAD TERMS OF ATTENTION TO CCS.
AND A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE NOT -- THEY'RE NOT EASY AND THEY'RE NOT QUICK.
SO THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FLAG TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE SEEING A SLIGHT SHIFT IN THE TYPE OF DEMAND THAT -- OVERALL WHICH IS COMING INTO THE IANA.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WHILE SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, THERE IS A VAST MUCH MORE TO BE DONE.
AND HAVING THESE TRAINS RUN ON TIME IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO FOCUS ON.
WE, THE STAFF, GOING FORWARD.
IF I GO TO COMPLETING THE MOU PROCESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ASPECTS IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE MOU PROCESS WITH THE DOC.
18 OF THE 25 DELIVERABLES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN TERMS OF MILESTONES.
THERE IS SOME WORK STILL TO BE DONE ON FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THEM.
16 OF THE 16 TIMED REPORTS ARE SATISFIED, INCLUDING THE ONGOING REGULAR REPORTS.
ALL DELIVERABLES ARE DUE SEPTEMBER 2006.
AND SO THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK PROGRESSING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, TO BE TRUTHFUL.
ENSURING THE FUTURE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM.
OBVIOUSLY -- THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE WORK DONE WITH L ROOT AND THE WORK OF OTHER MANAGERS.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE ALSO DISCUSSION AMONG ROOT SERVER OPERATORS ABOUT ASPECTS OF NOT ONLY HOW THEY OPERATE, BUT POTENTIAL COORDINATION. AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS COMING TO FRUITION.
WORKING WITH THE REGISTRIES AND MULTILINGUAL COMMUNITY ON INTRODUCTION OF IDNS.
THERE'S BEEN CREATED A DEDICATED IDN TEAM FROM STAFF AND FROM NONSTAFF.
WE ARE SUPPORTING THE REWRITING OF THE CRITERIA AND PROVIDING A ROADMAP FOR IDN IMPLEMENTATION.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON IDN.
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF CONSULTATION ON THAT.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED THE LIST AND WE EXPECT TO ISSUE THE INVITATIONS VERY SHORTLY FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH AN INITIATIVE.
THERE IS A CONTINGENCY PLANNING UNDERWAY.
WE HAD DEVELOPED A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO PROVIDE CONTINUATION OF OPERATIONS IN THE EVENT OF NATURAL DISASTER OR BUSINESS FAILURE.
THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED AND PUT UP, OR ASPECTS OF IT HAVE ABOUT.
THERE IS STILL SOME CAPITAL ASPECTS OF THAT PLAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CONCLUDED.
PARTLY BECAUSE IT WAS A NECESSITY -- I SHOULD MAKE THE POINT HERE, ALTHOUGH THE BUDGETED -- THE BUDGET FOR THE 2005/2006, IT WAS ABOUT THE $16 MILLION MARK, THE -- BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BUDGET -- REGISTRARS ACTUALLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AND THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE, IT WASN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER THAT IT WAS FINALIZED IN THE FIRST SORT OF PART OF THE NEW REVENUE MODEL CAME INTO EFFECT THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAD A DELAY IN THE PAYMENT PROCESS THROUGH THAT.
LET ME MOVE ON TO CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE.
STRENGTHEN CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE.
WE PUBLISHED THE COMPLIANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
WE DEFINED AND FURTHER DEVELOPING THE STAFF REQUIREMENTS.
AND THERE ARE JOB POSITIONS, I THINK ABOUT 14 JOB POSITIONS PRESENTLY UP ON THE WEB SITE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK AT.
AGAIN, ANY APPLICATIONS GRATEFULLY RECEIVED.
AND WE'VE -- WE'VE PUT IN PLACE A TRANSFER POLICY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.
AND, OBVIOUSLY, A FOLLOW-UP BEHIND THAT HAS BEEN THAT YOU WILL DISCUSSION, THINGS LIKE IN THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, ASPECTS OF DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, ET CETERA.
WE NEED IN THE OPERATIONAL PLAN CALLED FOR US TO ADD STAFF TO PERFORM CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.
WE HAVE HAD TO RELY ON OUTSIDE COUNSEL IN THE SHORT TERM.
AND WE HAVE A RECRUITMENT PROCESS UNDERWAY AT THE MOMENT NOW THAT WE HAVE THE IMPROVED CASH FLOW.
SIMILARLY, ON THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION STAFF, WE HAVE AUTOMATED THE ACCREDITATION RENEWAL PROCESS FOR REGISTRARS, AND WE HAVE ADDED ADDITIONAL LEVEL STAFF.
ON IMPROVING CHOICE AND COMPETITION FOR THE MARKETPLACE, IMPROVE WHOIS ACCURACY, THERE ARE VARIOUS REPORTS TO THE DOC WHICH I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO.
WE HAVE RESTRUCTURED THE WHOIS DATA REPORT PROBLEM SYSTEM TO IMPROVE ITS EFFICACY.
AND THE LAST ANALYSIS INDICATES THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF REPORTS RESULTED IN CHANGE, SUSPENSION, OR DELETION OF WHOIS INFORMATION.
THE PREDICTABLE PROCESS AND PUBLISHED GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, WE CONTRIBUTED TO THE GNSO PDP.
WE USED THE GNSO WORK TO DATE TO DEVELOP A MODEL WHICH WAS USED IN DOT NET, DOT JOBS, AND DOT TRAVEL PROPOSED AGREEMENTS.
IT'S IN THOSE AGREEMENTS.
THE SAME MODEL WAS ALSO USED IN DOT NET.
AND THAT IS, OBVIOUSLY, A HOT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING.
BUT IT WAS BASED ON THE WORK ON THE GNSO PDP TO THAT DATE.
AND ALSO, WE'VE BEEN, OBVIOUSLY -- THERE'S AN OPERATIONAL PLAN ITEM THAT SAYS "MANAGE LITIGATION."
AND ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS, WE ARE DEFINITELY ONGOING MANAGING LITIGATION.
EFFICIENT -- ONE OF THE OPERATIONAL PLANS IS TO EFFICIENTLY INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS TO INCREASE COMPETITION IN THE DOMAIN NAME SPACE.
THERE WAS A STRATEGY OUTLINED IN SEPTEMBER LAST YEAR, THERE WAS CONSULTATION PUT OUT IN THAT STRATEGY.
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE RESPONSE TO THAT CONSULTATION.
WE ARE NOW CONSULTING WITH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND OTHER GROUPS TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION.
YOU'LL KNOW THERE'S A PAPER OUT FOR THAT PURPOSE NOW.
WE'RE SOLICITING -- WE'VE BEEN SOLICITING TECHNICAL ADVICE AND ECONOMIC STUDIES.
WE RECEIVED SOME.
AND THE BOARD IS STILL CONSIDERING -- CLEARLY, ITS CONSIDERATIONS OF WHERE TO GO IN THE PROCESS STEPS ON THE GTLD.
BUT THE POINT, I WOULD SAY, IS WE ALSO -- THE STLD ROUND VERY MUCH INFORMED THE GTLD PROCESS.
IN TERMS OF STRENGTHENING SERVICE TO GTLD REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, WE'VE HIRED A CHIEF REGISTRAR LIAISON.
AND WE'VE HIRED THREE REGISTRAR LIAISON ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE STAFF.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING THOSE OFFERS AT THE MOMENT.
OKAY. SO THAT'S ALL THE WORK ON COMPETITION AND CHOICE. THE OPERATIONAL PLAN CALLED, UNDER THE FORUM FOR BOTTOM-UP DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY, STAFF SUPPORT FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS POLICY DEVELOPMENT. SO WE HIRED A GNSO STAFF SUPPORT POLICY OFFICER, A CCNSO STAFF SUPPORT POLICY OFFICER, A MANAGER OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, AS A VISAGE, AND WE'VE MADE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR INTERIM SUPPORT AS THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY SUPPORT LEFT US AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING FOR THAT AND WE FOUND THE RESPONSE BY THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO AND OTHERS INTERESTING AS TO HOW THAT RECRUITMENT SHOULD PROCEED. ADDING STAFF TO RESPOND TO AND ASSIST INDIVIDUAL USERS. WE HAVE ADDED ADMIN LEVEL STAFF TO RESPOND TO PHONE AND E-MAIL CHOIRS AND WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER TO BE HIRED IN 2005-2006. WE DON'T GO LOOKING TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER. THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AND THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE. WE DO GET A L!
OT OF INQUIRIES AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY OF DEALING WITH THEM. I WOULD MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT AT VARIOUS TIMES IN THE YEAR WE GET INCREASING -- WE GET QUITE A LOT OF REGISTRAR REDIRECTED INQUIRIES. OFTEN, I THINK FOR SOME PEOPLE IT'S EASIER TO SAY "RING ICANN," IN SOME ASPECTS AND WE GET A LOT OF THAT. AND WE DO WORK WITH THE REGISTRARS TO FIX THAT SORT OF INADVERTENT OR ADVERTENT REDIRECTION.
IN TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GLOBAL PARTICIPATION, WE PARTICULARLY LOOKED AT AUGMENTING STAFF TO COORDINATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICIES. I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE GLOBAL PARTICIPATION, INTERNATIONALIZATION. WE RETAINED THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES. WE'VE RETAINED AN OMBUDSMAN AND PROVIDED APPROPRIATE LOGISTICAL SUPPORT. WE'VE TAKEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN GTLD CONTRACTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, A COMPULSORY ARBITRATION FORUM, AND ARE QUITE AWARE OF THE NEED TO CONTINUE INTERNATIONALIZED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.
ENHANCE THE WEB SITE FOR BETTER EDUCATION OF CONSUMERS. THERE IS SOME IMPROVEMENT MADE THROUGH LINKS, CHANGES TO IANA AND GNSO SITE. THERE'S SOME TRANSLATION. WE'VE GOT SOME VERY GOOD STAFF NOW HIRED.
WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT SOME FURTHER SUPPORT IN THIS AREA. BUT I DO THINK THE WEB SITE IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT AGAIN THIS YEAR IN TERMS OF ITS EFFICACY AND ASSISTANCE TO THE VARIOUS USERS TO ALL THE USERS OF IT.
WSIS, THE WORKING GROUP FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY PUT A LOT OF ATTENTION AND HELP INTO THAT, AS HAS THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY INVOLVED A LOT OF MANAGEMENT ATTENTION, COMMUNITY ATTENTION, AND ASPECTS OF EXPENSE DIRECTED TOWARDS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE, AND I'LL LET THE COMMUNITY MAKE JUDGMENTS AS TO HOW EFFECTIVE THAT HAS BEEN AS THE REPORT COMES OUT AND AS WE PROGRESS.
IN TERMS OF ACTIVELY PROMOTING CONSUMER INTERESTS THROUGH INFORMATION AND SERVICE, WE'VE DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED LITERATURE NOW IN 17 LANGUAGES. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, I THINK WE STARTED IN TWO. WE STARTED CONDUCTING MULTILINGUAL SESSIONS IN THIS LUXEMBOURG MEETING. WE HAD TRANSLATION FOR PART OF OUR ACTIVITIES IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS. AND WE STARTED CREATING AND DISTRIBUTION EDUCATIONAL MATERIALLY THE OMBUDSMAN. SO THAT'S ACTIVITY UNDERWAY.
SO THAT'S, CHAIRMAN, A LONG BUT A CONCISE -- I HOPE IT'S CONCISE. I'M AFRAID I DON'T THINK IT'S THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OR PROPERLY TABULATED REPORT TO THE BOARD. WE SHOULD IMPROVE FOR NEXT YEAR BUT IT'S SOME SORT OF REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY ON PROGRESS.
I HAVE THREE OTHER QUICK POINTS TO GO THROUGH, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I WANT TO GIVE JUST AN UPDATE ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES THAT NOW HAVE STARTED.
AND IF I MAY MAKE A PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR WHAT I THINK WAS REALLY THE FANTASTIC FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN 2005. 2004-2005.
I THINK IT'S INEVITABLE IN ANY ENTERPRISE, AND PARTICULARLY IN SUCH A WIDESPREAD MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENTERPRISE, THAT IT TAKES US QUITE SOME TIME TO FIND THE RIGHT PATTERN AND MODEL FOR STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING. WE STARTED THE PROCESS OFF THIS YEAR. I THINK IT HAD SOME PROS, IT DEFINITELY HAD SOME CONS. SOME PEOPLE I KNOW WERE REASONABLY COMFORTABLE, SOME PEOPLE WERE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. THAT WAS GREAT. WE UNDERSTOOD THAT AND WE LEARNED FROM THAT AS TO WHAT TO DO FOR THIS COMING YEAR. AND SO THIS COMING YEAR PROCESS IS ONE OF RUNNING A SERIES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS. THEY'RE UNDERWAY PRESENTLY HERE. THEY'RE ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE, CONNECTING MULTIPLE CONSULTATIONS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. AND WE'VE POSTED A STRATEGIC PLANNING CALENDAR AND QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OPEN TO FURTHER AMENDMENT, CHANGE AND SUGGESTION FROM THE COMMUNITY. BUT I'D REALLY DIRECT EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION TO THAT CALENDAR.
AFTER INITIAL ROUNDS OF CONSULTATION, THERE WILL BE THE PUBLICATION OF AN ISSUE STATEMENT FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW AND COMMENT, WHICH WILL BE SORT OF A DISTILLATION OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. AND AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT, IT MOVE TOWARDS SOME MOVEMENT TOWARDS DRAFTING A STRATEGIC PLAN. AND THE AIM OF THAT WILL BE HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR FULL CONSULTATION AT THE MEETING IN VANCOUVER AND THE TIME SOMETHING TO HAVE THE STRATEGIC PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN JANUARY. SO WE CAN MOVE TO A SIMILAR PROCESS -- OR A PROCESS FOR THE OPERATIONAL PLAN IN THE FIRST HALF OF 2007, AND THE PRESIDENT IS CERTAINLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE ADVICE OF THE BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP, AS WELL AS OTHERS, ON THE PROCESS FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THAT OPERATIONAL PLAN AND -- THE OPERATIONAL PLAN AND BUDGETING PROCESS.
THIS -- THE 2005-2006 BUDGET PROCESS PROVIDES IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET A DESCRIPTION OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS. IT OUTLINES OUR OPERATIONAL PLAN. TIED OUT TO THE PRIORITIES SET OUT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
NOW, WE APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS SOME DISCOMFORT WITH THE FACT THAT THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS NOT YET APPROVED AND THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS -- THERE ARE ISSUES IN THAT THAT PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS WITH.
WE HAVE JUST TIED IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACTUALLY SOME SORT OF ASPECTS OF THAT OPERATIONAL -- YOU KNOW, JUST TO HAVE A FRAMEWORK ON WHICH TO BUILD THE OPERATIONAL PLAN WITHOUT NECESSARILY ANY IMPLIED APPROVAL PROCESS AROUND THE STRATEGIC PLAN ITSELF.
AND I APPRECIATED THE SESSIONS THAT WERE BEING HELD HERE EARLIER IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, GOING THROUGH THE OPERATIONAL PLAN POINT BY POINT AND GETTING FEEDBACK IN THAT PROCESS. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE SPENDING PLAN AND REVENUE GOALS AND SOURCES OF REVENUE.
I THINK THE ELEMENTS OF THE BUDGET PROCESS ARE QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD THERE.
WHAT'S PRESENTLY THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE COMING YEAR INCLUDE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, IMPROVED REGISTRATION SERVICES, IANA PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS. I'M A BIT FRUSTRATED THAT THAT'S SITTING THERE AGAIN WHEN IT WAS SITTING THERE LAST YEAR, SO THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY SHORT TERM AND MAJOR PRIORITY. FOSTERING COMPETITION AND CHOICE THROUGH MANY INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES. A COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLANS. GLOBALIZATION, INCLUDING WORKING TOWARDS EFFECTIVE REGIONAL PARTICIPATION.
FULFILLING THE FINAL OBJECTIVES SET OUT IN THE MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. MANAGING EXTERNAL RISKS TO THE COMPANY. I THINK THAT'S MY GENERAL COUNSEL'S NICE LANGUAGE FOR WHAT HE DOES.
AND INTERNATIONALIZATION, PARTICULARLY MULTILINGUAL COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION.
THESE ARE THE KEY ELEMENTS, CHAIRMAN, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH IN QUITE A LOT OF DETAIL OVER THE LAST DAY OR MORE IN OPEN SESSION.
I'LL FINISH UP WITH -- THERE IS SOME ITEMS HERE ON THE TLD PROCESS.
I JUST WANT TO REMIND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT THE BOARD OF ICANN IN NOVEMBER 2003 AGREED ON A TWIN-TRACK PROCESS TO DEAL WITH INTRODUCING MORE CHOICE TO REGISTRANTS IN THE GTLD MARKETPLACE. HAVING HAD A TEST BED ROUND IN 2001.
AND THAT TWO-PART TRACK WAS OPEN A ROUND FIRST, SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, NOT NUMBER DELINEATED, SET AGAINST AN RFP AND THEN TO BE EVALUATED. AND THEN A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE REALIZED WERE AWARE TO PUT IN PLACE A STRATEGY FOR LETTING THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFY ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WOULD LET THEM DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE TO HAVING A MORE -- SET OF AN OPENING OF THE GTLD NAMING PROTOCOL, IF YOU LIKE. AND IF SO, ON WHAT TERMS.
THE STLD ROUND IS NOW COMING TO ITS CONCLUSION. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF LEARNING OUT OF THERE, LOTS OF ISSUES THAT THE BOARD AND OTHERS HAVE LEARNED, WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED IN.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF -- WHAT'S COME OUT OF THAT IS THERE IS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY AROUND INTRODUCING NEW GTLDS, THERE ARE LOTS OF ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE IS A PAPER UP ON THE WEB SITE NOW, OUTLINING WHAT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE, WITHOUT SAYING THAT THAT'S A FULL LIST OR IT'S COMPLETE. THERE IS ALSO SOME INDICATION OF WHAT SORT OF GROUPS MIGHT HAVE VIEWS ON IT, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ALSO INCOMPLETE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK.
THE PROCESS FOR HOW THAT IS TAKEN FORWARD IS A MATTER OF DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING.
AND SO THE BOARD IS ACTUALLY HAVING CONSULTATIONS AND TALKING TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THE PROCESS FOR GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE THINGS IS STILL -- I CAN'T SAY WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS AS THE CONSULTATIONS TAKE PLACE DURING THIS WEEK.
BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY RECOGNITION BY THE BOARD OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT POLICY.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL POINT ON COUNTRY CODES, IF I MAY.
IT IS THE VIEW, I KNOW, OF THE BOARD, IT IS CERTAINLY THE VIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT AND IT IS THE VIEW OF IANA TRADITIONALLY THAT, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COUNTRY CODES BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE FOR OUR LINKAGES WITH THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES, ALSO WITH IETF, THAT WE SHARE A JOINT STEWARDSHIP RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STABILITY OF THESE UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS.
WHEN I COME TO COUNTRY CODES, PART OF THAT JOINT STEWARDSHIP INCLUDES BOTH BEING VERY RECEPTIVE, IF YOU LIKE, TO A CUSTOMER, BEING SORT OF CUSTOMER FOCUSED AND BEING ABLE TO SERVE WELL, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THE SORTS OF RISKS AND SORTS OF OBLIGATIONS JOINT STEWARDSHIP MEAN FOR ENSURING A SINGLE GLOBAL INTEROPERABLE INTERNET WHERE EVERYBODY GETS THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE.
WE DON'T VIEW IN ISSUE AS BEING ONE WHERE, IF YOU LIKE, IT'S CAVEAT EMPTOR. IF DID YOU KNOW CODE ZZ, MAKE SOMETHING UP, DECIDES THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, THAT'S FINE, AND CAVEAT EMPTOR, TAKE THE RISK, OUR VIEW IS IT'S FOR THE BILLION USERS OF THE INTERNET AS A WHOLE AND THOSE PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN GETTING TO .ZZ DOMAINS AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE FROM .ZZ WANT TO GET TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
THAT'S A PART OF OUR STEWARDSHIP.
ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THAT IS ALSO IN HAVING SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT, FRAMEWORK, THROUGH WORKING WITH EACH OTHER, BUILDING ON THE ONES THAT EXISTED IN THE PAST. AND WE'RE LOOKING TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE STABLE SORT OF AGREEMENTS, ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS IN THIS ARENA.
AND THE CCNSO HAS FORMED A WORKING GROUP TO PROPOSE A SET OF PRINCIPLES RELATING TO SUCH A FRAMEWORK. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING THAT WORK AND TO START THAT DISCUSSION.
AND TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY, JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION ABOUT THESE SORT OF THINGS, THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS AND HAVING THESE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN US AS TO HOW WE IMPLEMENT OUR JOINT STEWARDSHIP IS NOT TIED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER TO REQUESTS FOR REDELEGATIONS. THAT'S NOT THE POLICY. THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT, THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN E-MAIL COMMUNICATION ABOUT THAT. I WANT TO PUT THAT FIRMLY ON THE TABLE THAT IS NOT THE POLICY. THERE IS NO TIE BETWEEN ANY REQUESTS FOR A REDELEGATION AND THE ENTERING INTO ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT QUITE CLEAR BECAUSE THAT SOMETIMES DOES EMERGE AS CONFUSION, SOME OF IT GENERATED FROM OUTSIDE, SOME OF IT GENERATED FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S A LONG BUT COMPLETED STATEMENT.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL. THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS A BIT LATER, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT REPORT.
I THINK IN FUTURE, WRITTEN MATERIAL WILL BE AVAILABLE -- I HOPE WILL BE AVAILABLE SO MORE DETAIL WILL BE IN OUR HANDS WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO WALK US THROUGH IT ORALLY.
LET ME NOW MOVE ON TO THE FIRST OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION REPORTS. IF BRUCE TONKIN IS AVAILABLE, I WOULD INVITE HIM TO MAKE THE REPORT FOR THE GNSO. AND THERE HE IS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WAS GOING TO STALL FOR TIME WHILE YOU ASKED PAUL TWOMEY SOME QUESTIONS, AND IT WAS GOING TO GIVE ME TIME TO SET UP.
>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY; NEXT TIME WE'LL HAVE TO COORDINATE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I --
>>VINT CERF: YES, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I WONDER ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF SAVING ALL COMMENTS TILL THE END, AND I SHOULD HAVE RAISED THIS EARLIER. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO SAY THAT ARE NICE ABOUT THE CEO'S REPORT, AND I'LL HAVE FORGOTTEN THEM BY THE TIME WE GET TO IT AT THE END OF THE DAY. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A BRIEF PERIOD AFTER EACH REPORT WITHOUT FORECLOSING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN TO IT AT THE END OF THE DAY?
>>VINT CERF: WE CAN TRY. WHILE BRUCE IS TRYING TO PLUG THINGS IN, LET ME INVITE YOU TO SAY SOMETHING NICE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE, DO YOU WANT SOME HELP? I CAN GET A LAWYER TO COME PLUG YOU IN.
>>VINT CERF: PLEASE GO AHEAD, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I WANTED TO SAY TO PAUL, THANK YOU FOR A REPORT THAT CONTINUES THE TREND OF LINKING THE ITEMS IN THE REPORT TO THE OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES IN THE MOU BY NUMBER. AND AGAIN, AS WE SAW WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING OPERATIONAL PLAN, AS SOON AS WE GOT AN OPERATIONAL PLAN WITH NUMBERS IN IT, IT JUST MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER TO TRACK PROGRESS AGAINST CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE GOALS. SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IN RELATION TO THE NEW GTLDS, I JUST WANT TO RECORD MY VIEW, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT ANYBODY DISAGREES WITH IT, THAT IT'S THE PRIMARY ORGANIZATION THAT SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IS THE GNSO. BECAUSE ARTICLE X-1 OF THE BYLAWS, AND I'M SORRY TO TAKE OVER MIKE'S ROLE OF REFERRING TO THE BYLAWS, BUT ARTICLE X-1 MAKES IT THE GNSO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND REFER THEM TO THE BOARD. AND I'VE ASKED THE GNSO AT THEIR CROSS-CONSTITUENCY MEETING TO TELL US HOW THEY WOULD MANAGE THIS -- THIS PROCESS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, BRUCE. ARE YOU READY TO ROLE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: , YES, THANK YOU, VINT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE GNSO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD POLICIES RELATING TO TOP-LEVEL NAMES. FOR QUITE A WHILE, THAT LIST HAS STAYED FAIRLY CONSTANT, BUT I'M PLEASED TO SAY IT'S GROWING AND WE NOW HAVE JOBS AND TRAVEL ON THE LIST. I'M SURE OTHERS WILL SHORTLY JOIN.
IN TERMS OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK, IN THE WHOIS AREA, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COUNCIL WHICH RELATES TO IMPROVING INFORMATION FOR REGISTRANTS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CONTACT INFORMATION THEY PROVIDE TO PUT IN FIELDS LIKE ADMIN AND TECHNICAL CONTACT IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE WHOIS SERVICES. AND WE'RE CURRENTLY WAITING FOR SOME DRAFT LEGAL TEXT FROM THE ICANN STAFF SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ON REGISTRAR AGREEMENTS.
WITH RESPECT TO THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR CHANGES TO GTLD AGREEMENTS, OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE SORT OF PROCESS FOR APPROVING NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, THERE'S A FINAL REPORT CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COUNCIL, AND WE HAD A BRIEFING AT THIS MEETING FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL ON THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE .NET AGREEMENT ON THAT PROCESS. AND CERTAINLY ONE OF THE SENTIMENTS, I GUESS, IS THAT WE MAKE THAT PROCESS CONSISTENT, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, ACROSS ALL OF THE GTLDS.
IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS WITH THE WHOIS WORK, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER A WHILE IS THERE'S OFTEN LOTS OF DEBATES ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE AND HOW SHOULD IT BE MADE AVAILABLE. AND TO REALLY ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION NEEDS REFLECTION ON WHAT THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS IS WITH RESPECT TO THE MISSION OF ICANN. SO THERE IS WORK CURRENTLY UNDERWAY TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SUCCINCT DEFINITION OF WHOIS PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ICANN SECURITY AND STABILITY AND OTHER ISSUES.
ALSO, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO CUSTOMERS OR TO PEOPLE THAT REGISTER NAMES WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIOUS CONTACTS ARE. CURRENTLY WE HAVE, REGISTRANT, ADMIN, TECH AND BILLING. USUALLY IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE. IN MANY CASES IT'S THE WRONG INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR ALL FOUR OF THOSE, AND IN SOME CASES YOU SEE SOMEONE HAS ASKED THEIR FRIEND TO REGISTER THE DOMAIN NAME AND IT'S THEIR FRIEND'S NAME IN ALL THOSE FIELDS. SO THE PERSON WHO THINKS THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THE DOMAIN NAME HAVE ACTUALLY NO LEGAL TIE TO THE DOMAIN NAME AT ALL.
SO ONCE WE HAVE THOSE PURPOSES VERY CLEAR, THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION WE COLLECT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, HOW MUCH OF THAT SHOULD BE PUBLIC, AND OF THE BITS THAT AREN'T PUBLIC, HOW SHOULD ACCESS TO THAT BE PROVIDED. AND WE CERTAINLY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS EARLIER THIS WEEK WITH THE WORKSHOP WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW DATA IS CURRENTLY USED AND HENCE WHICH DATA WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO STILL REMAIN PUBLIC, AND IF IT'S NOT PUBLIC, WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THOSE THAT NEED IT.
OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT BEFORE IS TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR CORRECTING DATA AND HOW TO MANAGE CONFLICTS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE LOCAL LAWS RELATED TO MAKING INFORMATION PUBLIC AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S METHODS TO MANAGE THAT.
IN TERMS OF NEW ACTIVITIES, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW GTLDS. THAT'S BEGUN, I GUESS, AFTER THE RECENT PUBLICATION OF THE LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT THE STAFF HAVE PRODUCED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE GNSO COMMUNITY NOW, AFTER WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT TLDS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND MANY PEOPLE WEREN'T AROUND IN SORT OF 2000 AND BEFORE THAT, IS TO REALLY CONFIRM WHAT ACTUALLY IS A STATEMENT OF CURRENT CONSENSUS POLICY FROM ICANN AND DETERMINE WHAT NEW POLICIES ARE REQUIRED TO ASSIST STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY.
WE ALSO, AS WE HAVE NOW STAFFED UP WITHIN ICANN, THE ABILITY TO DO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACTS IT SIGNED CAN REGISTRARS. THAT THE MECHANISMS NEED TO BE MORE THAN JUST BASICALLY A CASE OF IF YOU DON'T FIX THIS PROBLEM, WE'LL TERMINATE YOUR AGREEMENT, AND MORE TOWARDS MAYBE FINES OR SOME OTHER MECHANISMS TO ENCOURAGE REGISTRARS TO FIX THE LITTLE THINGS.
WE HAD A WORKSHOP TODAY ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, AND SO CERTAINLY THE GNSO WILL BE LOOKING AT REVIEWING THE OUTCOMES OF THAT WORKSHOP AND MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON THAT TOPIC.
WITH RESPECT TO DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, THERE WAS A RECENT REPORT ON THAT AND AGAIN THE GNSO WILL NEED TO CONSIDER THE OUTCOME OF THAT REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NEXT STEPS.
THIS REALLY BRINGS US TO GNSO PLANNING. AND THAT'S TRYING TO SAY, WELL, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS WE COULD WORK ON. WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE ICANN STAFF IN AGREEING THE PRIORITIES, CERTAINLY FOR THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT DO WE NEED TO GET DONE BY VANCOUVER.
WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING OVER A 12-MONTH PERIOD. AND THOSE, I GUESS, LIST OF THINGS TO DO SHOULD ULTIMATELY FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE ICANN OPERATING PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY SECTION.
AND WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT OUR STRATEGY FOR THE GNSO COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AND ESPECIALLY STRENGTHENING PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTITUENCIES, BECAUSE WHILE NATURALLY THERE'S A LOT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ICANN, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING PARTICIPATION FROM INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AROUND THE WORLD, BUSINESSES, NONCOMMERCIAL USERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY USERS. SO I THINK THE GNSO AS ON ORGANIZATION NEEDS TO IMPROVE IN THIS AREA.
FINALLY, INDEPENDENT REVIEWS. WE'VE HAD A REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF AND THE OUTCOMES OF THAT REVIEW WILL FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE OPERATING PLAN AND STRATEGY PLAN, AND CERTAINLY WE NEED TO REVIEW PERHAPS THE NEXT LEVEL DOWN, LOOK AT DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT STRUCTURE FOR THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT PARTICIPATION.
WE PROPOSE THAT REVIEW WOULD BE HAPPENING NEXT YEAR SOMETIME.
WITH RESPECT TO VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, IN RECENT TIMES WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ROLE HAS TENDED TO BE SPLIT, REALLY, BETWEEN DOING POLICY WORK BUT ALSO DOING A LOT OF OUTREACH. AND WE FEEL THAT THEY REALLY ARE ALMOST TWO FULL-TIME ROLES. SO WE HOPE THE POLICY ROLE FOCUSES ON THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND WORKING WITH THE ICANN OPERATION STAFF TO GIVE BETTER DATA TO THOSE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ON PROBLEMS THEY NEED TO SOLVE.
AND SEPARATE OUT THE ROLE WHICH IS OUTREACH INTO ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NOT YET PART OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO BRING THEM IN AND PARTICIPATE.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO DO A LOT MORE REGULARLY IS TRY AND REPORT TO THE BOARD AND THE WIDER ICANN COMMUNITY THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN CONSTITUENCIES OVER THE PAST TWO DAYS. IT TURNS OUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A CLEAR PROCESS ON HOW TO DO THAT, AND, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REGISTRARS' MEETING, THE REGISTRARS MEETING DECIDED THEY WANTED TO COME UP WITH A STATEMENT, BUT THE FORMAL PROCESS FOR THE COMING UP WITH THE STATEMENT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS TO BE CALLED A CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT.
SO INSTEAD, THE REGISTRARS GOT A LIST OF REGISTRARS INDIVIDUALLY TO AGREE TO A STATEMENT, AND THAT TURNS OUT TO BE A LARGE NUMBER.
AND LIKEWISE WHEN WE CAME UP TO THE COUNCIL YESTERDAY, WE HAD SOME DEBATE ABOUT HOW WE COULD PASS A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW ME TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD SOME OF THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE MEETINGS.
SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE FORMALITY OF THIS A BIT FURTHER, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY REPORT ON WHAT I HAVE HEARD.
SO A COUPLE OF -- TWO KEY THINGS SEEM TO COME OUT OF DISCUSSIONS I HAD HEARD IN PRESENTATIONS FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES YESTERDAY. THAT IT DOES SEEM THERE'S A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, AT LEAST, THAT BELIEVE THE CURRENT DOCUMENT CALLED STRATEGY PLAN DOES NOT YET REPRESENT A CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE GNSO COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY SURPRISING BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE A WHILE ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LOOKING AT A THREE-YEAR STRATEGY, IT TAKES A WHILE FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES TO CRYSTALLIZE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND REALLY PUT THAT INTO A PLAN. SO CERTAINLY WE HOPE THAT WE CAN DEVELOP A STRATEGY PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR THAT DOES HAVE CONSENSUS REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY.
THERE'S ALSO A VIEW FROM THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS THAT THE FINAL .NET AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THE BOARD APPROVED IT, AND CERTAINLY IN THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY THERE WAS GREAT SURPRISE AS SOME OF THE CHANGES, AND I THINK OTHER PARTS OF THE GNSO, LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHANGES, BUT MORE CONCERN THAT THEY AT LEAST KNEW THAT THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE REGISTRARS TOLD THEM SO AND THEY ALSO FELT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE THE CHANGES EXPLAINED AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.
THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO DO GOING FORWARD IS TRY AND REALLY PRESENT SOME OF THE OUTCOMES FROM THE PUBLIC COMING AND SPEAKING IN THE GNSO FORUM. AND I'LL TRY AND DO THAT A LOT MORE FORMALIZED IN THE FUTURE BY COLLECTING THOSE COMMENTS AND ACTUALLY EXPLAINING HOW THE GNSO IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT ONES. BUT HERE IS A COUPLE THAT DID COME UP. AND IT'S COME UP BEFORE, OF COURSE, WHICH IS IMPROVING EDUCATION AND AWARENESS OF ISSUES WITH NEW TLDS AND PRESUMABLY INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AS WELL, AND SUPPORT IN APPLICATION SOFTWARE. AND SOME SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS THERE WAS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE HAVING A CLEAR PLACE IN THE WEB SITE THAT HELPS PEOPLE FIND INFORMATION ON WHAT THE TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS ARE OF THOSE NEW TLDS FOR APPLICATION DEVELOPERS. AND ALSO WHEN WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS ON A NEW TLD, SO WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT SAYING WE JUST CREATED .TRAVEL, THAT ANNOUNCEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LINK TO THE MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT EXPLAINS SOME OF THE ISS!
UES WITH TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES THAT MIGHT HAVE MORE THAN THREE CHARACTERS AND SO ON.
WE ALSO FOUND THAT WE HAD LEGAL EXPLANATIONS FROM ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO COMMUNITY ON WHAT THE NEW CHANGES TO THE DOT NET AGREEMENT MEANT.
NATURALLY, THEY WERE DIFFERENT, AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO AGREEMENTS, IT WOULD HELP IF WE HAD AN EXPLANATION, I GUESS, FROM THE ICANN ITSELF ON AT LEAST WHAT IT BELIEVED THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGES WERE AND WHAT THOSE CHANGES MEANT.
NOW, SOME BROUGHT UP WHAT I THINK IF HE FELT TO BE VERY NEGATIVE, SO IT IS GETTING BETTER.
JUST THAT WE HAVE AN OPERATIONAL AND A STRATEGIC PLAN, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF US THING THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT YET OPTIMAL, AT LEAST WE HAVE THEM, AND BEFORE WE DIDN'T.
AND I THINK THIS IS SHOWING THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS MATURING, AND IT'S PLEASING TO SEE THAT WE ARE STARTING TO FORMALIZE OUR PROCESSES, AND WE RECOGNIZE WE CAN DO BETTER.
CERTAINLY AS A REGISTRAR, WE'RE SEEING THE -- STARTING TO SEE THE BENEFITS OF THE ADDITIONAL STAFF.
AND I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN BETTER MANAGEMENT OF COMPLIANCE IN RECENT TIMES.
AND I DO KNOW THAT ICANN IS PLANNING TO PUT MORE RESOURCES IN THERE.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY POSITIVE, TOO.
AND I'M JUST PICKING A COUPLE OF GOOD THINGS HERE.
THERE'S MANY OTHER GOOD THINGS THAT STAFF ARE DOING.
SO WE'RE ALL WORKING HARD.
AND LET'S BE CLEAR, FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER, AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THEY'RE PROBABLY SPENDING 20 HOURS A WEEK IN ADDITION TO, LET'S SAY, THEIR 40-HOUR-A-WEEK NORMAL JOB.
FOR THE CHAIR, WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING 40 HOURS A WEEK IN ADDITION TO THE 40 HOURS A WEEK OF THEIR NORMAL JOB.
AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, ASK MY WIFE.
SO LET'S MAKE SURE WE SELECT THE RIGHT THINGS TO WORK ON AND ENSURE WE STICK TO THE PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY AND DIALOGUE AS WE DO SO.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, I ATTENDED ONE OF THE MEETINGS WITH THE REGISTRARS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WAS A CANDID MEETING, BUT IT WASN'T VITRIOLIC AND THERE'S SOMETHING WONDERFUL ABOUT CANDOR IN THE ABSENCE OF VITRIOL.
AND I APPRECIATE OUR VERY MUCH KEEPING THAT AM MIND.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO REACT TO IN RELATION TO BRUCE'S COMMENT IS WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO LET PROCESS INTERFERE WITH COMMUNICATION SO LET'S NOT GET TRAPPED, BRUCE, EVEN IN YOUR OWN RULES IN THE GNSO, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE, PLEASE FIND A WAY TO DO THAT AND DON'T ALLOW YOURSELF TO GET YOUR SHOELACES TANGLED UP, EVEN IF IT'S AN INFORMAL COMMUNICATION.
YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN NOT ENJOYING FULL CONSENSUS, I CAN TELL YOU IT DOESN'T ENJOY FULL CONSENSUS IN THE BOARD, EITHER.
SO THIS IS A MATTER OF CONTINUING DISCUSSION.
IN KEEPING WITH PETER'S REQUEST, IF THERE ARE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE GNSO REPORT, I'LL TAKE A FEW BRIEF ONES NOW, IF THERE ARE ANY.
AND, OF COURSE, PETER HAS ONE.
OKAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I HAVE TO WATCH OUT.
BRUCE, I'M JUST -- THIS STRAT PLAN AND THE COMMENTS THAT IT DOESN'T ENJOY CONSENSUS SUPPORT I DON'T FIND TERRIBLY HELPFUL.
CAN I ASK TO YOU BE A LITTLE MORE EXPLICIT TO THAT.
BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR TO ME FROM THE COMMENTS FROM YOUR COMMUNITY THAT MUCH OF THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTABLE.
THERE WERE MANY, MANY PARTS OF THAT PLAN THAT WERE QUITE ACCEPTABLE.
I SEE YOU NODDING TO THAT.
AND, OF COURSE, WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005 WAS ALWAYS REDUNDANT BECAUSE IT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT YEAR, WHICH WAS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING EQUIVALENT FOR THAT YEAR.
SO THAT -- WE CAN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT PART OF IT.
WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THE BUDGET FOR 2005-6, SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT INDEPENDENT OF WHAT'S IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO I GUESS WE'RE HONING DOWN ON THE THIRD YEAR OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
IT WOULD HELP ME IF YOU COULD JUST ITEMIZE THE BITS IN THAT THIRD YEAR THAT ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE YOUR GROUP'S CONSENSUS, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT ALLOW US, FOR EXAMPLE, TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT WITH THOSE BITS STRUCK OUT OR WITH A CLAUSE IN IT TO SAY "SUBJECT TO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE CLAUSES," JUST A BLANKET "WE DON'T LIKE IT" DOESN'T HELP TERRIBLY MUCH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
THE POINT OF THE STATEMENT IS TO MAKE -- IS TO BE CLEAR THAT IF WE'RE PRESENTING THIS PLAN FROM THE ORGANIZATION, SO IF ICANN GOES AND TALKS TO THE MEDIA TOMORROW, I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN HAS THE FULL CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY.
SO THAT'S REALLY, I GUESS, THE POINT OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
I CAN ACCEPT IT IS A PLAN, AND CERTAINLY, AS YOU SAY, FOR MOST PEOPLE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH 80% OF THE PLAN, OR HIGHER.
WHERE YOU'LL GET DISAGREEMENT, I GUESS, IS ON THE REMAINING 20%, BECAUSE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE PLAN THAT CONCERNS THEM.
I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO DO IS PROBABLY ARRANGE IT FROM 80% AGREEMENT, PERHAPS, TO 95% AGREEMENT.
I THINK WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO THE 100 POINT.
BUT I THINK WE CAN DO A BIT BETTER THAN WE ARE TODAY.
SO LET'S TRY AND GET IT FROM 80 TO 95 OR MAYBE WE'RE NOT EVEN THAT HIGH, MAYBE WE'LL TRY AND GET IT FROM, SAY, 70% UP TO 85 AND ACCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE SOME DIFFERENCES AROUND THE EDGES.
BUT I DON'T THINK I COULD CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A PROCESS AMONGST THE GNSO TO BRING THOSE DIFFERENCES FORWARD.
SO SOME PARTS OF THE CONSTITUENCY MIGHT BE A LOT MORE DEVELOPED IN THEIR THINKING THAN OTHERS.
BUT AS CHAIR, I CAN'T REALLY REPRESENT TO YOU THE SPECIFIC AREAS, WEARING MY HAT AS THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO.
I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO YOU PERSONALLY AND OFFLINE SAYING, YOU KNOW, SENTENCE NUMBER 5 OUT OF THE THOUSAND SENTENCES I DON'T LIKE.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SENTENCE COMPARED TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND THE DIFFICULTY IS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT ARE THE COMMON AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND THE COMMON AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT GOING FORWARD WITH DOING PLANNING IS THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT AT LEAST IDENTIFIES THOSE AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT, AND WE DON'T YET HAVE THAT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VERY QUICK SUPPLEMENTARY, IF I MAY.
DON'T YOU FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT AND BEFORE COMING FORWARD AND COMPLAINING, THAT YOU REALLY DO -- THE OBLIGATION MUST BE ON YOU TO IDENTIFY THOSE.
BUT WHAT ARE WE TO DO ABOUT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO, I ACTUALLY COMPLETELY AGREE.
ONE COMMENT, I SHOULD SAY, AS AN AUSTRALIAN EXPRESSION IS, PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES.
AND CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK THE GNSO IS WELL-DEVELOPED IN ITS OPERATING AND STRATEGIC PLAN PROCESSES TO SAY TO THE BOARD, GEE, YOU GUYS ARE DOING A TERRIBLE JOB.
YOU COULD COME BACK TO ME AND SAY, "WHERE'S YOUR PLAN?"
AND I'D SAY, "I HAVEN'T GOT IT YET."
SO WE'VE GOT TO BE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO BETTER.
AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND DOING BETTER MEANS HAVING A PROCESS WHERE WE IDENTIFY BOTH -- AND YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, I'LL PUT IT BACK ON THE GNSO.
BUT I THINK WE WOULD COMMENT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT EARLIER IN THE PROCESS WHEN THAT PLAN WAS PRODUCED.
AND HENCE YOU DIDN'T GET OUR BUY-IN IN THAT EXERCISE.
>>VINT CERF: PETER, LET ME REINFORCE THIS LAST COMMENT, BECAUSE IF OUR PROCESS IS ACTUALLY WORKING WELL, WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL -- ENOUGH FEEDBACK TO HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS, OR AT LEAST SOME CLARITY AS TO WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.
SO PART OF THIS ISSUE IS MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC PLAN WORKS BETTER THAN IT DID THIS LAST TIME.
MY GUESS IS THAT IF ANYONE SAID 80% AGREEMENT ON THE PLAN, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET THAT SAME STATEMENT FROM TEN PEOPLE, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 80%.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S RIGHT.
>>VINT CERF: ALEX, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: BRUCE, IT WOULD ADD INCREDIBLY TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE COMPLAINTS TO HAVE A SUMMARY THAT GIVES US ANY MEASURABLE IDEA OF HOW DIVERSE AND BROAD-BASED THE CONSENSUS AND THE DISSENT ARE ON THE SPECIFIC POINTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE WEEKS OF DISCUSSION, OR MAYBE MONTH OR MORE, THAT WENT ON BEFORE THE -- WHAT WAS CALLED THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING, IN THE TIME FROM MAR DEL PLATA TO HERE COULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED MORE THAN GRUMBLINGS.
WHAT YOU'RE REPORTING IS -- AFTER YOUR REPLY TO PETER, I THINK THAT YOU CAN ONLY REPORT ON GENERALIZED GRUMBLINGS, NOT ON SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ANYTHING TO THE CREDIBILITY OF PUTTING FORWARD THIS COMPLAINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'LL JUST ANSWER IT QUICKLY IN THAT YOU'RE RIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE REPORTING A LOT MORE DETAIL.
AND AT THIS STAGE, I GUESS I'LL PUT IT TO THE PUBLIC FORUM FOR PEOPLE THAT HAD THEIR OWN VIEWS.
BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS, AND YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT, FOR ME TO REPORT AT THAT LEVEL.
>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.
NOW, PETER, THIS IS THE TROUBLE YOU'VE GOTTEN ME INTO.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WILL TAKE TWO MORE COMMENTS, BRIEF ONES FROM MIKE AND THE FLOOR, AND THEN THIS TOPIC IS OVER.
I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR, BUT NOW I HAVE TO MOVE ON.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: I'LL LET GRANT SPEAK, BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN'T HEAR YOU, GRANT.
COME UP HERE.
>>GRANT FORSYTH: OKAY.
WE'RE UP NOW?
IT'S GRANT FORSYTH.
VINT, JUST SO AS NOT TO ENTIRELY DERAIL YOUR PROCESS, LET ME JUST RESTRICT MY COMMENT TO THE FACT THAT I THINK THIS DISCUSSION WE'VE JUST HAD DOES A GREAT DISSERVICE TO, FIRSTLY, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE PROVIDED SPECIFIC COMMENTS, AS REQUESTED, AND ALSO THE MAJORITY POSITION THAT WAS REACHED IN COUNCIL.
AND I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THE STATEMENT WHICH BRUCE CONVEYED VIA HIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD TAKE A GREAT DEAL MORE STRENGTH FROM THAT STATEMENT.
AND THE STATEMENT IS TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS TO ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS AS OPPOSED TO ACCEPTING THE DOCUMENT AS IT IS AT THE MOMENT.
SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS, BECAUSE I THINK A NUMBER OF THE BACK-AND-FORWARDS DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD HERE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THOSE WHICH I AND OTHERS, I'M SURE, WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE PERHAPS LATER ON IN THE FORUM.
>>MICHAEL PALAGE: AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, VINT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE EFFORT THAT THE GNSO HAS DONE THROUGH THE AMSTERDAM CONSULTATION, THE EFFORTS, THE OUTREACH.
AND, AGAIN, JUST AS A REFERENCE BENCH POINT, THIS ORIGINAL STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RELEASED DURING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET CYCLE, AND IT WAS NOT, IN FACT, RELEASED UNTIL LAST NOVEMBER.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THE GNSO AND THE OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB.
IT'S NOT PERFECT.
BUT, AGAIN, I -- I'M JUST TRYING TO SORT OF SIT THERE AND LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE HERE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.
THANK YOU, BRUCE.
MY GUESS IS THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE SPENT TIME WORKING ON A NEW STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE FUTURE RATHER THAN RETROFITTING WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, LOOKING BACKWARDS IN THE PAST.
BUT CERTAINLY THE DOCUMENT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS IS A GOOD SOURCE OF INPUT TO ANOTHER STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE.
LET'S MOVE ON NOW TO CHRIS DISSPAIN AND THE CCNSO REPORT.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON.
THE CCNSO HAS PRODUCED A BRIEF REPORT OF ITS COUPLE OF DAYS' WORTH OF MEETINGS.
I DON'T PROPOSE TO READ IT.
IT'S AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE SOON.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW KEY COMMENTS ON A FEW KEY ISSUES FOR US.
THERE ARE REALLY TWO KEY ISSUES RUNNING AT THE MOMENT, ONE OF WHICH PAUL HAS ALREADY MENTIONED, AND THAT'S ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS.
AND I'LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME CHANGES TO THE CCNSO BYLAW AND ANNEXES IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE AN INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE CCNSO.
GENERALLY, ON THAT SCORE, WE ARE STARTING -- I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY WE'RE STARTING TO WORK -- TO COALESCE AND TO WORK AS A GROUP.
WE'VE HAD GREAT SUCCESS IN ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT CAME UP IN BART BOSWINKEL'S ISSUE REPORT.
AND THERE HAS BEEN MUCH PARTICIPATION IN THE DEBATE.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT IF YOU JUDGE -- IF YOU CHOOSE TO JUDGE THE SUCCESS OF THE CCNSO BY THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE LESS SUCCESSFUL IF YOU JUDGE IT BY THE LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION, BECAUSE IT'S VERY HIGH.
WE WILL BE -- THERE IS A TIME LINE FOR THE PDP, AND IT'S ON THE WEB SITE.
WE'LL BE PUBLISHING A SECOND REPORT RELATIVELY SOON.
ON THE TIME LINES, SPECIFICALLY, THAT ONE HAS BEEN, AS I SAID, IS SET OUT ON THE WEB SITE AND THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE TO INVOLVE THOSE MEMBERS OF ICANN STAFF AND THE BOARD IN THE NECESSARY DISCUSSIONS.
AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT TIME LINE, WE WILL GET THE -- WE WILL HAVE THE RESULTS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO THE BOARD IN TIME FOR EITHER BEFORE OR AT VANCOUVER.
BEFORE I MOVE ON TO ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, JUST BRIEFLY, ON IANA, CAN I THANK PAUL FOR HIS OPEN AND FRANK ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION WITH IANA.
I DON'T PROPOSE TO COMMENT ANY FURTHER ON THAT.
THE CCNSO'S POSITION ON IANA IS IN OUR REPORT.
AND THANK YOU.
ON ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS, WHICH I KNOW IS A VEXED ISSUE, AT THE JOINT CCNSO COUNCIL/ICANN BOARD BREAKFAST, WHICH I THINK WAS YESTERDAY, ALTHOUGH TIME -- YEAH -- VINT ISSUED A CHALLENGE THAT WE COMPLETE THE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK WORK BEFORE VANCOUVER.
WE ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE -- WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE WITH THE ICANN STAFF SO THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE CHALLENGE.
SO WHAT WE WILL BE DOING SHORTLY IS COMING TO YOU WITH A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO GET SOME GUIDANCE AND INPUT ON SO THAT WE CAN GO AWAY AND GET THE CONSENSUS THAT WE NEED TO SAY, "THIS IS NOW ACCEPTABLE AS A GUIDELINE."
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, IT IS COMPLETELY POINTLESS FOR US TO GO THROUGH A TORTURED PROCESS OF COMING ONE CONSENSUS ONLY TO DISCOVER THERE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FROM YOUR SIDE THAT WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF.
SO WE'RE DOING THAT.
AND THE POINT I WANT TO STRESS HERE IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS, AND IT'S NOT A ONE-WAY STREET.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE STAFFING ISSUES THAT ICANN HAS.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COMPLETELY.
BUT WE NEED YOU, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF, TO GIVE THESE ISSUES TIME AND ATTENTION.
IT'S MORE THAN IMPORTANT; IT'S CRITICAL.
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF DR. CERF.
FINALLY, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH BRUCE, IT'S DEFINITELY GETTING BETTER.
AND PROGRESS IS BEING MADE.
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OR THERE'S DISCUSSION.
>>VINT CERF: LET ME ASK IF THERE IS ANYTHING FROM THE BOARD.
OR THE FLOOR.
I DON'T, EXCEPT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THAT CHALLENGE, CHRIS, IT'S REALLY MUCH APPRECIATED.
AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO VANCOUVER IN THE HOPE THAT I WILL SEE AT LEAST A DOCUMENT THAT IS -- LAYS OUT ALL THE ISSUES AND LAYS OUT RECOMMENDATIONS, EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORKS YET.
SO THANK YOU ON MY BEHALF AND THANK THE CCNSO ON THAT.
NEXT UP IS HANS PETTER HOLEN GIVING THE ASO REPORT.
>>HANS PETTER HOLEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HAVE CONNECTED MY COMPUTER, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS A SIGNAL ON THE SCREEN.
AH.
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS HANS PETTER HOLEN.
I AM CHAIR OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IN THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.
THIS REPORT IS TO DESCRIBE A BIT OF THE WORK THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS DOING.
WE ON THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DO NOT REPRESENT THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRIES DIRECTLY.
WE ARE, IN MAJORITY, ACTUALLY, ELECTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT BY THE RIRS.
HOWEVER, AFTER THE LAST MOU, THREE OF THE -- OR ONE MEMBER FROM EACH REGION IS ACTUALLY ELECTED BY THE BOARD OF EACH RIR.
THE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COUNCIL ARE NOT NECESSARILY RIR MEMBERS.
I, FOR ONE, IS NOT CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE RIRS.
I AM MERELY WORKING FOR A COMPANY NEEDING INTERNET SERVICES.
IN THE PROCESSES WE HAVE IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY OPEN TO ALL PARTICIPANTS.
IN THE NEW MOU, IT'S CLEARLY SPECIFIED WHAT THE ROLES OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS.
IT'S PARTLY GIVING THE BOARD ADVICE IN THE PROCESS OF RECOGNIZING NEW RIRS.
IT'S ALSO ELECTING SOME MEMBERS TO THE ICANN BOARD.
IT'S TO PROVIDE THE ICANN BOARD ADVICE ON POLICY ISSUES.
AND IT'S PURELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER OF DEVELOPING PROCEDURES FOR OUR OWN.
THE FIVE RIRS HAVE SINCE -- OR OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS DEVELOPED THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION TO BE ABLE TO ACT IN CONCERT.
IN THE PAST, THEY WERE TRULY INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, BUT THEY HAVE NOW CREATED THIS NUMBER RESOURCE ORGANIZATION BOTH TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL ON THE GLOBAL LEVEL, BUT ALSO TO BE ABLE TO MAKE FORMAL CONTRACTS WITH, FOR INSTANCE, ICANN.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST YEAR IS THAT, AS YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE POLICY FOR I.P. VERSION 4 ALLOCATIONS TO THE RIR AND THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT THE MAR DEL PLATA MEETING.
THE REASON FOR MENTIONING THIS IS THAT THE NEXT ITEM THAT IS COMING UP IS ACTUALLY THE IPV6 GLOBAL POLICY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DISCUSSED IN ALL THE REGIONS.
IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS, THE STAGE OF THIS POLICY IS NOT AT THE SAME POINT FOR THE MOMENT.
IN SOME REGIONS, THEY HAVE COMPLETED MOST OF THE PROCESS; IN SOME REGIONS, THERE ARE STILL DISCUSSIONS GOING ON.
SO I WOULD FORESEE THAT THIS COULD ACTUALLY COME THROUGH THE PROCESS THIS YEAR, OR AT LEAST VERY EARLY NEXT YEAR.
I'M ALSO HAPPY TO WELCOME AFRINIC ON THE COUNCIL.
AND SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AFRINIC HAS ACTUALLY ELECTED THREE MEMBERS TO THE COUNCIL THROUGH THEIR NEW PROCESS, TWO OF THEM ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ONE OF THEM APPOINTED BY THE AFRINIC BOARD.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE, I'VE INCLUDED HERE A LIST OF MEMBERS FOR YOUR REFERENCE, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT.
I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THAT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SECRETARIAT TO SUPPORT OUR WORK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY LACNIC, BUT THIS IS ON ROTATION BETWEEN THE RIRS.
AS YOU PROBABLY ALSO KNOW, ONE OF OUR TASKS IS TO ELECT BOARD MEMBERS.
AND TWO OF THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, RAIMUNDO BECA, AND MOUHAMET DIOP, ARE ACTUALLY ELECTED BY THE ADDRESS COUNCIL.
THE WAY THE AC CONDUCTS OUR BUSINESS IS PARTLY ON THE MAILING LIST, OF COURSE.
BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE FORMAL RESOLUTIONS, WE DO HAVE BIMONTHLY TELEPHONE CONFERENCES.
WE ALSO HAVE -- IN THE PAST HAVE AT LEAST ONE WORKSHOP EACH YEAR.
THIS YEAR WE HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE TWO WORKSHOPS.
WE HAD ONE DURING THE AFRINIC MEETING IN MOPUTU, AND WE HAVE DECIDED TO HAVE THE SECOND PHYSICAL MEETING OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL DURING THE ICANN MEETING IN VANCOUVER.
SO WE WILL DEFINITELY MEET AGAIN THEN.
AND WE ARE ALSO, OF COURSE, DOING OUTREACH ON THE RIR POLICY MEETINGS, OF COURSE.
AND WE ARE ALSO INCREASING OUR PRESENCE AT ICANN MEETINGS, AS YOU WILL SEE.
RECENTLY ON THE AGENDA OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN A RESPONSE TO THE ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT.
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THAT BY NOW.
WE HAVE ALSO DONE SOME WORK ON FEEDBACK TO THE WGIG WHERE WE APPOINTED ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT OUR STATEMENTS TO THE WORKING GROUP.
AND WE HAVE ALSO SENT SOME COMMENTS BOTH IN THE PUBLIC FORUMS AND IN -- WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF, TO THE ICANN PROCEDURE ON HOW TO HANDLE ASO POLICY PROPOSALS SO THAT WE, IN FUTURE, CAN WORK VERY CLOSELY AND BE VERY PREPARED BEFORE A GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL REACHES THE BOARD.
ON THE NEW AGENDA, FORTHCOMING AGENDA FOR THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, WE HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE ICANN BOARD TO GIVE SOME FEEDBACK ON THE NEW GTLD STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION.
AND WHAT WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR IS IF THERE ARE ANY I.P. ADDRESSING ISSUES IN THIS PROPOSAL, OR ANY CONCERNS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
THAT'S OUR SCOPE.
AND WE HAVE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO GIVE ADVICE TO THE ICANN BOARD ON THE PAPER CIRCULATED ON COMPETITIVE I.P. VERSION 6 ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT POLICIES.
AND WE HAVE CREATED A WORKING GROUP TO DO THAT AND WE WILL COME BACK WITH A FORMAL REPLY LATER ON.
AND WE ARE FOLLOWING CLOSELY DEVELOPMENT OF THE IPV6 GLOBAL POLICY, AND READING FROM THE MOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO ASSURE THAT SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINTS OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED IN THIS PROCESS.
AND WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITHIN THE COUNCIL ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND THAT WAS ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HANS-PETTER.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ASO REPORTER?
PAUL.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: VINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK HANS-PETTER FOR ATTENDING AND FOR MAKING THE PRESENTATION.
AND THAT I KNOW SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND I THINK THE STAFF, WITH RESPECT TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE APPRECIATE HAVING THE ADDRESS COUNCIL OF THE ASO PRESENT AND BEING ABLE TO TALK FURTHER.
>>HANS-PETTER HOLEN: HANS PETTER HOLEN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HANS-PETTER.
WE HAVE -- OH, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>>WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: I HAVE ONE SHORT QUESTION CONCERNING THE COMPETITIVE I.P. VERSION 6 ALLOCATION POLICIES WORKING GROUP.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL DEAL WITH THE ITU PROPOSAL.
AND COULD YOU BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC AND DO YOU HAVE A TIME LINE WHEN YOU CAN DELIVER A REPORT?
>>HANS PETTER HOLEN: THE ADDRESS COUNCIL HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE BOARD TO PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS, OR OUR COMMENTS, ON THAT PROPOSAL, NOT THE ITU PROPOSAL, BUT THE PROPOSAL BY MILTON, WHO WAS PRESENTED OR PUBLISHED A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO PROVIDE OUR ADVICE TO THE BOARD ON THAT MATTER.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, HANS-PETTER.
THANK YOU, WOLFGANG.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TIME NOW FOR MORE OPEN COMMENTS, SPECIFICALLY, HOWEVER, ON THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND THE VARIOUS SUPPORT ORGANIZATION REPORTS.
SO IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTION THAT ANYONE WANTS TO RAISE, NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT.
I SEE VITTORIO BERTOLA COMING.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.
I'M SORRY TO REOPEN THE USUAL CAN OF WORMS, BUT I HAD A COMMENT ABOUT BRUCE'S PRESENTATION ON WHOIS.
AND THE COMMENT IS THAT -- WELL, I WAS A BIT SCARED TO SEE THAT ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT THE GNSO THINKS IT HAS TO DO ABOUT WHOIS, IT IS ALSO TO DETERMINE WHICH DATA SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AND WHICH DATA SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC, BECAUSE MY PERCEPTION OF THAT IS THAT, I MEAN, WE HAVE AN ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THE YEARS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DATA PROTECTION AND THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
SO I THINK THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE AND THE GNSO SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL AND ICANN AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO ENTER INTO A VERY PROBLEMATIC FIELD OF TRYING TO REPLY TO THE INTERNATIONAL PRIVACY STANDARDS.
ACTUALLY, WELL, I THINK I CAN ANTICIPATE, BY THE WAY, THAT THERE WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHOIS ALSO IN THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
AND -- BUT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU MIGHT IMAGINE IT WAS THE ICANN PEOPLE WHO -- I MEAN, RAISED THE PROBLEM.
BUT, IN FACT, IT WAS ONE GOVERNMENTAL PERSON WHO I THINK WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ICANN.
AND EVEN IF HE NEVER -- PERHAPS HE WAS NEVER EVEN AWARE OF ALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAD HERE, BUT HE KNEW ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF PRIVACY AND THE WHOIS DATABASES.
SO I THINK WE HAVE -- I MEAN, ICANN AND ALSO THE BOARD HAS TO PUT EXTREME CARE IN ENSURING THAT ICANN DOES NOT GO BEYOND ITS MANDATE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, VITTORIO.
I THINK WHAT I TOOK AWAY FROM THE COMMENTS THAT BRUCE MADE -- AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION, BRUCE -- THAT WE MIGHT BE HEARING WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE IN THE PUBLIC -- AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS STILL SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP.
BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW WHY SOMEONE THOUGHT SOMETHING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WARNING NOT TO ADOPT A POLICY THAT MIGHT GET US IN TROUBLE.
PLEASE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: THOMAS ROESSLER.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PAUL.
IN MARCH 2003, THE BOARD ESTABLISHED A PRESIDENT'S STANDING COMMITTEE OF -- ON PRIVACY.
I SEE IT STILL HAS A WEB SITE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE THING OTHER THAN THAT?
>>PAUL TWOMEY: IT'S BEEN QUIET.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: DISAPPOINTING.
>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WAS TEMPTING TO SAY IT'S BEEN PRIVATE, BUT I DIDN'T --
>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS UP OR PEOPLE AT THE MICROPHONE, UNLESS IT'S MIKE.
NO.
OKAY.
IN THAT CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ACT- -- ALMOST MADE IT.
>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH.
IS THIS A GENERAL COMMENT PERIOD OF ANY OF THE PRESENTATIONS OR JUST THE ONE?
>>VINT CERF: IT'S A GENERAL COMMENT ON THE FIRST PRESENTATIONS.
>>CHUCK GOMES: EXCELLENT.
I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD "CONSENSUS" WITH REGARD TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
AND I WAS GLAD TO HEAR SOME MODIFICATIONS OF THAT.
BECAUSE BY MOST DEFINITIONS OF "CONSENSUS," WHETHER IT'S 75% OR ON UP, IT COULD VERY EASILY BE A RECIPE FOR PARALYSIS.
NOW, IF WE CAN DEFINE IT ON A LESSER LEVEL, WHICH SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED, THEN YOU'VE GOT -- THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IT.
AND WE HAVEN'T PUT TOOLS IN PLACE TO MEASURE WHAT LEVEL OF CONSENSUS THERE ARE ON PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
NOW, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THROUGH THE PROCESS THESE PAST SIX MONTHS OR SO ACTUALLY SUGGESTED SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE -- IF WE WANT TO PUT A -- SOME LEVEL OF AGREEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY ON IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT.
FROM THE SUBJECTIVE INPUT -- AND I'M NOT MINIMIZING THE SUBJECTIVE INPUT.
I HAVE MADE SOME OF THAT AS WELL -- THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR, HOW DO YOU REALLY DETERMINE WHETHER YOU'VE REACHED ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL, HOWEVER WE MAY DEFINE THAT.
SO FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE TO DEFINE IT.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE A LEVEL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE IT.
THERE'S BEEN TREMENDOUS FEEDBACK AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF PROCESSES ON THAT.
BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE KEEP THOSE THINGS IN MIND.
WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE PARALYZED.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, WHATEVER WE DEFINE THAT TO BE, AND WE CAN'T GET THERE.
I THINK ALL OF US AGREE THAT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THERE'S NOT AGREEMENT.
THAT'S GOOD.
LET'S WORK ON THOSE AREAS.
BUT LET'S BE CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING THE BAR SO HIGH THAT WE'RE PARALYZED.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT POSITION.
BRUCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST AS A SUGGESTION, CONSENSUS IS SUCH A LOADED TERM IN THE AGREEMENTS, ALWAYS ANOTHER TERM AND JUST SAY "BUY-IN," AND THEN MOST OF THE OTHER COMMENTS ARE THE SAME.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH, BRUCE.
I THINK WE CAN TAKE A BREAK NOW.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, COULD WE TRY TO BE BACK BY 3:45, AND WE'LL START UP AGAIN WITH THE DISCUSSION FROM OUR UPCOMING VANCOUVER MEETING HOSTS.
SO WE'LL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 3:45.
(BREAK.)
>>VINT CERF: WELCOME BACK. KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.
ACCORDING TO MY SCHEDULE -- COULD -- THOMAS, MR. NARTEN, MR. NARTEN, THOMAS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A PRESENTATION FROM OUR VANCOUVER HOST, BUT I SEE THEY WERE EXPECTING TO START AT 4:15 AND WE'RE ACTUALLY EARLY. THEY MAY NOT BE HERE. ARE THEY HERE? ARE YOU READY TO ROLE? GRAB IT.
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: HELLO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING ICANN, IN PARTICULAR THE ICANN MEETINGS COMMITTEE, FOR SELECTING VANCOUVER AS THE HOST OF THE NEXT MEETING. ON BEHALF OF LEADING EDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CIRCLE ID, I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU ICANN VANCOUVER 2005.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: THE MEETING WILL BE HELD FROM NOVEMBER 30TH TO DECEMBER 4TH OF THIS YEAR, AND QUITE OFTEN WHEN WINTER IN CANADA IS MENTIONED, ESPECIALLY TO PEOPLE FROM WARMER CLIMATES, THEY AUTOMATICALLY THINK OF SNOWSTORMS AND FREEZING TEMPERATURES. SO I'M HERE TO ASSURE YOU THAT THE WINTER WEATHER IN VANCOUVER CAN BE SURPRISINGLY PLEASANT. AND BY PLEASANT, I DON'T MEAN THAT KIND OF PLEASANT.
THE MEETING WILL NOT BE IN A GIANT IGLOO AND YOU WILL BE ASSURED TO BE GREETED BY VERY FRIENDLY STAFF, BUT HE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
VANCOUVER LOOKS LIKE THIS. EVEN IN WINTER DAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEEING A LITTLE MORE SNOW ON THE MOUNTAINS.
IN THIS PICTURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTHERN PART OF DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER, ADJACENT TO STANLEY PARK.
AND THE LOCATION OF THE VENUE.
HERE IS A QUICK OVERVIEW OF VANCOUVER. VANCOUVER IS LOCATED ON THE WESTERN -- ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF CANADA IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. CLIMATE IN WINTER IS -- AVERAGE IS AROUND FIVE DEGREES CENTIGRADE OR 41 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, VANCOUVER IS THE LARGEST CITY IN THE PROVINCE. AND HAS A TWO MILLION POPULATION.
VANCOUVER IS LAWRENCE SOLUM HOSTING THE 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES, AND BRITISH COLUMBIA HAS THE HIGHEST CONNECTED JURISDICTION IN NORTH AMERICA. OVER 72% OF HOUSEHOLDS CONNECTED TO INTERNET, 56% HAVE HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND CONNECTION.
VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PROVIDES ACCESS TO MANY CITIES IN THE WORLD. IT'S ABOUT 30 MINUTES DRIVE FROM THE VENUE. WE'LL HAVE A VARIETY OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, INCLUDING, SHUTTLES, BUSES, TAXIS, LIMOUSINES, RENTAL CARS.
AND THE VENUE, THE VENUE IS LOCATED AT THE WESTIN BAYSHORE, AND THERE ARE ROOMS AVAILABLE FOR DISCOUNTED PRICES.
WE'LL ALSO BE PROVIDING YOU WITH OTHER HOTEL OPTIONS AT VARYING PRICES NEAR THE VENUE. WE'LL HAVE THEM POSTED ON THE WEB SITE VERY SOON. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE ICANN VANCOUVER WEB SITE IS NOW LIVE AND THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE THERE INCLUDING SOME USEFUL LINKS. THE ADDRESS IS ICANNVANCOUVER.CA. THIS WEB SITE IS SET UP TO BE UPDATED FREQUENTLY WITH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES FOR THE VANCOUVER MEETING. THE BEST WAY TO STAY UPDATED IS BY USING THE E-MAIL ALERT OR RSS SERVICES PROVIDED ON THE WEB SITE.
I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENTS POSTED ON THE SITE ARE LICENSED UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE ANY OF THE POSTINGS WITH YOUR RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES AND WEB LOGS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.
I HAVE A SATELLITE TOUR OF VANCOUVER FROM HERE TO LUXEMBOURG. DO WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES? YEAH?

COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH.
THIS SHOULD BE -- IT LOOKS A LITTLE MORE ROUNDER ON MY SCREEN. SORRY FOR THE -- EARTH HAS BEEN STARVING A LITTLE BIT SO IT'S GONE A LITTLE THIN.
SO THIS SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY USEFUL FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF NORTH AMERICA.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO NOW DOWN TO LUXEMBOURG WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO FLY TOWARDS THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA, MORE SPECIFICALLY CANADA. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE HOVERING DIRECTLY OVER CANADA, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE WEST TOWARDS BRITISH COLUMBIA, SO WE'RE IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NOW WE'RE DIRECTLY OVER THAT PROVINCE. AND VANCOUVER IS JUST NEAR THE BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THERE AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE YVR, VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. AND THE PURPLE LINE IS THE ACTUAL ROUTE YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKING FROM THE YVR TO THE VENUE, AND THIS WILL BE THE ROUTE YOU'LL BE TAKING WHETHER YOU TAKE A SHUTTLE OR TAXI. SO WE'RE GOING TO START GOING TOWARDS THE VENUE NOW. SO THIS IS THE FIRST BRIDGE YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS. IT'S OVER FRASER RIVER, SO WE'RE GOING TO CROSS THAT AND ENTER GREATER VANCOUVER IS WHAT THEY CALL IT. SO WE'RE NOW MOVING OVER GREATER VANCOUVER, PASSING ALL THE LITTLE MUNICIPALITIES AND NOW WE'RE RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER. WE'RE GOING TO PAS!
S A SECOND BRIDGE, AND NOW WE'RE ENTERING DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER AND THAT'S JUST A FEW OF THE LANDMARKS, JUST SO WE DO SOME SIGHTSEEING WHILE WE GO IN THERE.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE BC PLACE STADIUM RIGHT NOW, AND ON YOUR RIGHT IS ACTUALLY WHERE THE OLYMPIC 2010 VILLAGE IS BEING BUILT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE MAIN STREETS IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT BECAUSE IT'S WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE VENUE. AND YOU SEE CANADA PLACE WHICH IS A LANDMARK OF VANCOUVER AND WE MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALA DINNER THERE. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR ROUTE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE WESTERN BAYSHORE NOW RIGHT NEAR THE WATER, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE BACK A BIT AND SHOW YOU QUICKLY ALSO THE FAMOUS STANLEY PARK WHICH IS RIGHT ADJACENT TO THIS VENUE.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY VENUE IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER THAT HAS A DOCKING STATION FOR IT.
SO HERE WE ARE. ON YOUR RIGHT IS THE -- IT'S A LITTLE DARK, BUT IT'S THE FAMOUS STANLEY PARK WHICH IS WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE VENUE.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE COME BY AND SEE MYSELF OR KATHERINE. WE HAVE A BOOTH, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS -- BEHIND THESE CAN YOU REMEMBER CONTINUES HERE AND IT'S BOOTH NUMBER 7. WE HAVE LOTS OF MAPS, BROCHURES, AND WE HAVE SOME NEW BOOKLETS THAT HAVE JUST ARRIVED, SO FEEL FREE TO COME BY AND PICK THEM UP.
COMPANIES INTERESTED IN SPONSORSHIP, WE HAVE INTERESTING PACKAGES AVAILABLE. PLEASE COME BY AND ASK US SO WE CAN SEND YOU A PACKAGE.
THE OTHER NIGHT AT LUXEMBOURG'S GALA DINNER WE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WITNESSING ONE OF THE -- A VERY STRONG MAN LIFTING PEOPLE WITH HIS TEETH AND BENDING STEEL RODS. WELL, VANCOUVER IS NEXT. SO IF THERE IS ANY TALENTED MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE, WE MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR A JOB.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: WE LOOK FORWARD TO WELCOMING TO YOU VANCOUVER.
>>VINT CERF: WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING THERE. NOW, THE LAST COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT THE STRONGEST MAN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT HE'S GOING TO LIFT VANCOUVER WITH HIS TEETH?
>>ALI FARISCHIAN: I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF HE'S GOING TO TEAR THE YELLOW PAGES, IT'S GOING TO BE THICKER SO HE MIGHT HAVE MORE CHALLENGING WITH THAT ONE
(LAUGHTER.)
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO THIS.
WELL, WE SEEM TO BE RUNNING EARLY HERE, BUT I SEE THAT VITTORIO BERTOLA IS HERE. VITTORIO, ARE YOU ABLE TO BEGIN YOUR REPORT ON THE ALAC? AND THEN LET'S KEEP GOING. I'LL BE PLEASED TO HAVE MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS OR ENDING EARLIER TODAY, DEPENDING ON WHICH COMES FIRST.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY. THANK YOU, AND I AM ACTUALLY VERY HAPPY TO TAKE THE FLOOR AFTER VANCOUVER, SINCE WE'VE HEARD THAT VANCOUVER IS THE HOST OF THE 2010 OLYMPIC EVENTS. AND MY HOME TOWN, TORINO, IS THE HOST OF THE 2006 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES SO WE'RE JUST BEFORE THEM IN THE SCHEDULED OLYMPICS. SO I WILL BE GIVING YOU MY PRESENTATION ABOUT THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I'M STARTING JUST BY THE USUAL CAPITULATION OF THE COMMITTEE. AND WE HAVE BEEN CREATED IN 2003 AFTER THE ICANN REFORM, AND BASICALLY WE HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH A DOUBLE PURPOSE. OUTSIDE OF ICANN, WHICH I DO OUTREACH TO REACH USER GROUPS AND TO INFORM THEM ABOUT ICANN AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN ICANN, AND INSIDE ICANN WE FOCUS ON THE INTERESTS OF THE END USER OF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE REGISTRANTS.
BASICALLY, THIS IS A SHORT DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN MAR DEL PLATA. SO WE USUALLY HOLD REGIONAL MEETINGS AND WE HAVE HAD TWO HERE, ONE FOR EUROPE AND ONE FOR ASIA-PACIFIC. WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN SOME EVENTS AROUND THE WORLD. WE DO THE USUAL ACTIVITIES, SEND NEWSLETTERS, AND WE HAVE STARTED VERY IMPORTANT WORK ON A NEW WEB SITE. SO WE WANT TO CREATE A NEW WEB SITE FOR THE COMMITTEE THAT SHOULD BE TARGETED SPECIFICALLY TO INTERNET USERS AND BE A LITTLE MORE APPEALING THAN THE ONE WE HAVE NOW.
AND OF COURSE WE CONTINUING IN THE PROCESS OF RECEIVING APPLICATIONS IN THE PARTICIPATION OF ICANN BY USER GROUPS AND ACCREDITING THEM. SO MORE ON THAT LATER.
AND FROM THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW, OF COURSE WE PARTICIPATE IN THE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES, FOR INSTANCE IN THE GNSO WHOIS TASK FORCE, AND IN OTHER POLICY MAKING GROUPS. AND HERE WE HAVE BEEN ORGANIZING A WORKSHOP ON SUNDAY ON NEW GTLDS WHICH WAS WELL ATTENDED AND I THINK QUITE INTERESTING, EVEN FOR NON-USER CONSTITUENCIES.
AND OF COURSE WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THE WSIS ENVIRONMENT SO WE ALSO HAD TO ORGANIZE THE WSIS WORKSHOP AS USUAL. WE'RE HOLDING PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE STRATEGY PLAN PROCESS, AND WE ARE RELEASING SOME STATEMENT ON POLICY ISSUES, AND MORE ON THAT LATER AGAIN.
ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GETTING ORGANIZATIONS ACCREDITED, SINCE MAR DEL PLATA WE HAVE A NEW ONE. SO WE ARE WELCOMING ISOC NETHERLANDS IN THE LIST OF ACCREDITED AT-LARGE STRUCTURES. AND WE ARE JUST HOLDING VOTES ON SIX MORE SO WE MIGHT ANNOUNCE A FEW MORE ACCREDITATIONS LATER THIS WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK. AND WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING MORE APPLICATIONS, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY UP TO 32. 20 ACCREDITED, AND 32 HAVE APPLIED. SO I WILL NOT REPEAT THE HIGHLIGHTS I ALREADY HAD IN MAR DEL PLATA, BUT THE COMMITTEE IS AT A CRITICAL STEP IN ITS LIFE BECAUSE WE AIM TO CONCLUDE THE PROCESS OF STARTING UP REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND YET THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE PERHAPS A BIT MORE COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY EXPECTED. AND ONE PARTICULAR CHALLENGE THAT WE ARE FACING NOW IS THAT THE COMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY IN THE INTERIM STAGES AND TEN OF ITS MEMBERS WERE APPOINTED BY THE BOARD ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO, TWO YEARS AND A HALF, AND SO WE THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO HAV!
E A DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD ABOUT -- I MEAN, WHETHER THEY SHOULD CONTINUE, AT LEAST THEY SHOULD BE REAPPOINTED, OR IN ANY CASE, BE GIVEN MORE LEGITIMIZATION TO CONTINUE WORKING BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO STAY FOREVER APPOINTED AS AN INTERIM MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE.
SO I DID THIS VERY QUICKLY, BECAUSE THIS TIME I WANTED TO READ YOU SOME OF THE STATEMENTS WE ARE RELEASING. WE USUALLY DO THAT IN THE OPEN MICROPHONE IN THE SECOND PART OF THE OPEN FORUM, BUT SINCE THE HOUR OF TIME, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME ACTUALLY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T TIME AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC FORUM SESSION. WE THOUGHT IT BETTER TO READ THEM NOW.
SO....
OKAY. THE FIRST ONE IS A VERY SHORT STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD, AND IT IS ABOUT THE ICANN BUDGET, BUT IT SAYS A VERY IMPORTANT THING SO I WANTED TO READ IT.
IT SAYS ALTHOUGH REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ARE THE PRIMARY CONDUITS THROUGH WHICH ICANN FEES ARE PAID, THE MONEY PAID TO ICANN EACH YEAR ULTIMATELY COMES FROM DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT IT SHOULD HAVE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION ON THE ICANN BUDGET ADVISORY GROUP AND ASKS THE PRESIDENT OF ICANN TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES OF ALAC TO THIS IMPORTANT ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE COMING YEARS.
AND THE NEXT STATEMENT IS -- WELL, IT IS A STATEMENT ADDRESSED I GUESS TO THE BOARD BUT ALSO TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING OURSELVES BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING WE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THEM YET.
SO -- BUT I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY NEEDS TO CONSIDER IN THIS MOMENT.
SO WE HAVE A STATEMENT ON TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND WE WILL OF COURSE PROVIDE COPIES TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
SO THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM THE OVERARCHING IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING OPEN AND INCLUSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE ICANN PROCESS, THROUGH THE ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND THROUGH PRACTICAL MEASURES AIMED AT MAKING MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS POSSIBLE. THE NEED FOR INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD REPEATEDLY AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL IN THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY PROCESS. THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME MEASURES THAT ICANN CAN PROMPTLY ADDRESS.
THE ICANN REFORM CONDUCTED IN 2002 CONTEMPLATED THE CREATION OF AN IMPORTANT NEW STAFF POSITION ENTITLED MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. THE ROLE OF THE MANAGER OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WAS TO MANAGE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR ICANN ON ALL SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS AND TO SOLICIT, RECEIVE AND REPORT TO THE BOARD ON ALL PUBLIC INPUT MATTERS PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WHILE THE POSITION HAS BEEN COVERED ON AN INTERIM BASIS BY THE ICANN'S PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF PERSON, IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FILLED ON A PERMANENT BASIS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT VITAL ROLE WITHIN THE ICANN PROCESS, AND THE ALAC ENCOURAGES THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD TO FILL THE POSITION WITH A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE WITH SUPPORT STAFF AND OTHER RESOURCES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT HIS OR HER RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVELY AS SOON AS A SUITABLE, QUALIFIED CANDIDATE CAN BE LOCATED.
EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT IN PERSON MEETINGS LIKE THIS ONE IN LUXEMBOURG IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN PARTICIPANTS ARE ABLE TO PREPARE FOR TOPICS UNDER DISCUSSION WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING ITSELF. WE ENCOURAGE ICANN AND ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES TO MAKE A STRONG EFFORT TO PUBLISH AGENDAS, DOCUMENTS, AND MEETING TIMES AND PLACES WELL IN ADVANCE AND KEEP THOSE AGENDAS CURRENT. WE ENCOURAGE ICANN TO CREATE A NEW COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF MEMBERS OF ICANN STAFF AND THE ICANN COMMUNITY, TO COORDINATE AND PLAN THESE IMPORTANT MEETINGS. THE ALAC WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ON THIS COMMITTEE AND TO SERVE ON IT.
ALSO, EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY TIMELY, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT ICANN'S WORK. TO THAT END, THE ALAC WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE NEED FOR PROMPT PUBLICATION OF ICANN'S DOCUMENTS AND OF THE BOARD'S RESOLUTIONS AND MINUTES AND THE NEED FOR A BETTER WEB SITE, WHICH MORE EFFECTIVELY APPRISES REGISTRANTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF ICANN'S ACTIVITIES. THE STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES REGARDING THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE PROMPTLY IMPLEMENTED AND THE ALAC WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH ICANN STAFF TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A MORE EFFECTIVE WEB SITE.
MULTILINGUALISM IS ALSO A KEY ISSUE IN ENHANCING POSSIBILITIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE EFFORTS THAT ICANN HAS BEEN MAKING TO THIS EXISTENT, THE VISION OF MULTILINGUALISM AS ONLY AFFECTING INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE PUBLIC ASK REDUCTIVE AND, IN OUR OPINION, WRONG. IT IS THE INTERNAL CULTURAL AND OPERATING PRACTICES OF ICANN THAT HAVE TO BECOME MULTILINGUAL, NOT JUST ITS LEAFLETS AND WEB SITE.
REAL-TIME TRANSLATION OF MEETINGS AND ADVANCE PREPARATION OF PRINTED TRANSLATED DOCUMENTS FOR DISCUSSION SHOULD BECOME REGULAR PRACTICE AND COVER AT LEAST SOME MAJOR LANGUAGES; CORE DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS THE STRATEGIC PLANS AND THE POLICIES SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE IN AS MANY LANGUAGES AS POSSIBLE. WHILE THE COSTS OF THESE PRACTICES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT, WE THINK THAT THEY ARE NECESSARY TO GRANT LEGITIMACY TO ICANN'S ROLE. THEY ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ITS MANDATE.
TO FURTHER THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE AND OTHER SUGGESTIONS AND THE DEFINITION OF A SET OF CLEAR AND IMPLEMENTABLE ACTIONS TO REACH THESE OBJECTIVES, WE SUGGEST THAT ICANN CREATES A TASK FORCE ON TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PERHAPS, INCLUDING THE APPROPRIATE STAFF OFFICERS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS FROM THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WITH THE MANDATE TO PROPOSE A PLAN OF ACTION FOR DISCUSSION AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING AND SUBSEQUENT IMPLEMENTATION BY THE WELLINGTON MEETING.
SO THANK YOU, AND THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.
(APPLAUSE.)
>>VINT CERF: THOSE ARE ALL VERY HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY CONCRETE AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
I CAN'T MAKE PROMISES THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM BUT EACH OF THEM IS GOING TO GET SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP A MOMENT AGO?
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES.
>>VINT CERF: GO AHEAD.
>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I JOIN VINT IN HIS EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT AND WELCOMING FOR THESE STATEMENTS. I THINK THAT WE STILL NEED TO WORK A LOT ON THE AT-LARGE TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE AND TO CREATE A PROCESS FOR EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT A NUMBER OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE RELATED TO ICANN DO NOT ATTRACT MASSIVE ENOUGH ATTENTION AND HOT ENOUGH ATTENTION IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD BECOME MEMBERS OF THE AT-LARGE. SO WE HAVE A WHOLE CHAIN OF THINGS THAT NEED WORK.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN MANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE WSIS AND WGIG AND DIAGNOSTICS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OF MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A CLAIM TO BE PART OF THE UNIVERSE OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE, ONE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT ICANN IS DEALT WITH IN THESE STUDIES IN MORE DETAIL THAN ANY OTHER. IT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT THERE ARE MORE PARAGRAPHS SUBSTANTIATING THE FACT THAT ICANN COMPLIES VERY WELL WITH THE WSIS CRITERIA OF MULTISTAKEHOLDER, TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION. WHEREAS, FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, A PARAGRAPH OR TWO SUFFICE TO SHOW THAT THEY DON'T. STILL DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD ONLY CONCENTRATE ON REFORMING GOALS OR WHOEVER IS INTERESTED SHOULD BE REFORMING GOALS TO COMPLY WITH THE WSIS CRITERIA.
BUT ALSO, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE COMPLACENT IN ICANN AND THINK THAT BECAUSE WE ARE RELATIVELY HIGH ON THE SCALE, ON THE GRADING SCALE, WE CAN REST ON OUR LAURELS. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO HERE.
I AM PERSONALLY SUBSCRIBING VERY MUCH THE POINT YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WAYS -- MAYBE NOT EXACTLY AS PROPOSED, BUT STARTING ON THE PROPOSAL, TO STUDY THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND, PARTICULARLY, THROUGH THE AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR THE AT-LARGE PUBLIC. THIS IS EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
>>VINT CERF: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VITTORIO, WERE YOU ADVOCATING THE FORMATION OF WHAT SOME OF US HAVE BEEN CALLING A PROGRAM COMMITTEE FOR THE SEATING OF THE AGENDAS FOR THESE REGULAR MEETINGS? WAS THAT PART OF YOUR REPORT?
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: YEAH, THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS, AT LEAST TO GOVERN SOME -- MORE OR LESS THE AGENDA OF THE MEETINGS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A BROADER LOOK AT THE ENTIRE WAY THE PUBLIC AND CONSTITUENCIES INTERACT WITH ICANN AND THAT IS JUST ONE PART OF THE PICTURE.
IF I MAY RESPOND TO ALEX, I WANT TO SAY ONE THING. I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT AS A SUPPORT OF ICANN, I AM ACTUALLY HAPPY THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LOT OF SCRUTINY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN COMPETITIVE EVOLUTION. SO THE MORE SUGGESTIONS WE GET TO BECOME BETTER, I MEAN THE BETTER ICANN BECOMES. AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON'T RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS WILL NEVER BECOME GOOD ENOUGH TO CONTINUE EXISTING.
>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, ONE OTHER QUESTION. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF EXPERIENCE YOU HAD TRYING TO STIMULATE INTEREST IN CREATING THESE REGIONAL AT-LARGE ORGANIZATIONS. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR AN INSTANTANEOUS RESPONSE, BUT I AM WONDERING WHAT PEOPLE SAY. AND IF THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE INTERESTED, DO THEY EVER SAY WHY? THIS MIGHT HELP US UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT HOW WE ARE VIEWED IN THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO STIMULATE.
>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WELL, I THINK IT REALLY VARIES DEPENDING ON THE REGION OF THE WORLD AND ON THE TYPE ORGANIZATIONS YOU ADDRESS AND SO ON. BUT ONE COMMON PROBLEM WE ENCOUNTER IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT ICANN IS AND WHAT IT DOES. SO WE DON'T JUST HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN ICANN, BUT FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS.
AND OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT REASONS. SOME DEAL WITH THE OLD STORY OF THE AT-LARGE ELECTIONS; OTHER ENTER THIS WORLD OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS SITE AND MAYBE THEY HAD DIFFERENT MISCONCEPTIONS OR WHATEVER. OTHERS DON'T SEE ANY COMPELLING REASON. USERS USUALLY STAND UP WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT GOES REALLY WRONG. SO WE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST AFTER .NET PROCESS OR SITEFINDER, BUT NOT IN ADVANCE.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. THAT'S A LITTLE TERRIFYING TO THINK THAT IN ORDER TO GET INTEREST IN STARTING REGIONAL GROUPS WE HAVE TO MESS THINGS UP MORE SO THAT THEY WILL BECOME UNHAPPY ENOUGH TO START A GROUP.
I HOPE WE DON'T GO DOWN THAT PATH.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VITTORIO.
I'M VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE SCHEDULE AND PROBABLY ARE NOT GOING TO ARRIVE UNTIL THEIR SCHEDULED TIMES.
SO SHARIL, I THINK -- WHERE IS SHARIL? HE'S NOT HERE. THERE YOU ARE.
I TAKE IT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE REST OF THE GAC MEMBERS CAN BE HERE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF GEORGE SADOWSKY IS IN THE ROOM AND WOULD BE PREPARED TO START EARLY OR NOT.
NO. OKAY.
IN THAT CASE, LET ME ASK WHETHER WE COULD GET THE ROOT SERVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT FROM SUZANNE, WHICH IS QUITE BRIEF, OR IF SHE'S NOT HERE EITHER BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T KNOW THAT SHE SHOULD BE.
I'M I DROVE -- OH, THERE YOU ARE. EXCUSE ME, SUZANNE. I'M LOOKING OUT IN THE WRONG PLACE. DO YOU HAVE TIME TO DO THAT NOW?
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: BOTH BRIEF AND EARLY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE SLIDES TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME TODAY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD IN FACT CLOSELY RESEMBLE WHAT I PRESENTED IN MAR DEL PLATA. MORE ON THAT IN A MOMENT.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW. RSSAC WAS ONE OF THE INITIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES CREATED BY ICANN. COMPRISED OF THE OPERATORS OF THE DNS ROOT SERVERS AND INVITED OBSERVERS INCLUDING INTERNET REGISTRIES AND LIAISON FROM GNSC, SSAC AND SO ON. ADVISES RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL SIDE OF MAINTAINING THE DNS ROOT AS WELL AS SUPPORT OF IPV6.
RSSAC MEETS SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR, GENERALLY AT IETF, AS MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS ARE INVOLVED WITH IETF BY CUSTOM. THE BREVITY AT THIS OF THIS REPORT IS PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE RSSAC HAS NOT MET SINCE THE ICANN MAR DEL PLATA MEETING. WE MEET NEXT IN PARIS IN TWO WEEKS. WE'RE CONTINUING ON THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS FROM THE REPORT AT THE PREVIOUS ICANN MEETING. WE'RE WORKING ON A RECOMMENDATION TO IANA REGARDING THE NEXT PHASE OF IPV6 DEPLOYMENT IN DNS, WHICH IS IPV6 RECORDS FOR THE ROOT SERVERS THEMSELVES.
WE HOPE TO SEE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSED IN PARIS.
WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH IANA, SSAC, THE IETF DNS OPS WORKING GROUP AND OTHERS ON DEPLOYMENT OF DNSSEC.
IT'S A LARGE PROJECT WITH MANY FACETS, AND INDIVIDUAL OPERATORS ARE INVOLVED IN VARYING WAYS. BUT THOSE OF YOU WHO ATTENDED THE DNS SECURITY WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY GOT SOME SENSE OF THE BREADTH AND COMPLICATION OF THIS DEPLOYMENT PROJECT.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF RSSAC HAS BEEN MOSTLY IN ANALYZING THE ISSUE OF SIGNED DATA IN THE DNS ROOT. SOME INDIVIDUAL SERVERS ARE READY TODAY; OTHERS ARE UPGRADING SOFTWARE AND POLICIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR NORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES.
IN THE AREA OF TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS, MUCH OF THE DIFFICULTY WE FACE IS IN ASSURING THERE ARE NO UNEXPECTED DANGERS TO OLDER SOFTWARE FROM PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. IN THE CASE OF BOTH DNS SECURITY AND IPV6, MODERN SOFTWARE SUPPORTS THE NEW TECHNOLOGY BUT MUCH OF THE SOFTWARE IN THE OPERATING INTERNET IS NOT MODERN. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY CAN'T USE THE DNS ROOT UNTIL THEY UPGRADE THEIR SOFTWARE.
SO A GREAT DEAL OF OUR WORK IS ON BEST PRACTICES AND TEST AND ANALYSIS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED ANYTHING AND THAT THE CHANGES WE ARE PROMOTING ARE, IN FACT, BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE.
I HAVE TO SAY I'M ALWAYS HAPPY WHEN I CAN BE BRIEF UP HERE BECAUSE IT MEANS THINGS ARE WORKING WELL. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THE OPERATIONS FOLKS AS CONTRIBUTES HERE. SEVERAL OF US WERE IN THE DNS WORKSHOP, IN THE IETF, AT IIR MEETINGS AND SO ON. BUT RIGHT NOW I'M PLEASED TO RETURN THE FLOOR UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: HOW DID I KNOW?
>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE BEEN BEGINNING TO GET STATISTICAL INFORMATION FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE ICANN OPERATION, LIKE FROM IANA. DO THE ROOT SERVERS CAPTURE STATISTICS THAT MIGHT BE SAFE TO SHARE PUBLICLY? FOR EXAMPLE, THE NUMBER OF ANYCAST ROOT SERVERS IN AGGREGATE? NOT NECESSARILY WHERE THEY ARE, BUT JUST HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? AND IS THAT TREND LINE GOING UP, DOWN, OR STAYING STABLE?
ARE WE SEEING A TREND IN THE DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION GOING UP OR DOWN? ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE US A KIND OF SENSE FOR HOW THE ROOT FUNCTION, ROOT SERVICE FUNCTION IS DOING, HOW IT'S BEHAVING, HOW THE NETWORK DEMAND IS CHANGING?
I ADMIT TO YOU THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS OF VITAL CONCERN BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO JUST HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE NETWORK. AND SO JUST SPEAKING AS AN ENGINEER WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CURIOSITY ABOUT IT, I WONDER IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE ROOT SERVER GROUP TO SHARE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IF THEY COLLECT AND MAINTAIN STATISTICS OF THAT KIND.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IT'S VERY NOISY OUT THERE. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO TELL WHEN YOU STOPPED SPEAKING. SORRY.
FIRST OF ALL, ON THE SPECIFICS, ANYCAST, THE ACTUAL RATE OF DEPLOYMENT OF NEW ANYCAST HAS SLOWED AS WE GO INTO THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACES WHERE ANYCAST HELPS.
THERE ARE STILL INCREASING NUMBERS OF ANYCAST NODES IN SERVICE. WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT SOMEWHAT OVER 80 DIFFERENT ANYCAST SITES IN THE WORLD. THERE IS QUITE A FEW OF THEM AND WE PASSED, EARLY LAST YEAR, ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR, MORE OF THEM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES THAN IN, WHICH IS ADDRESSING -- WHICH IS REDRESSING A HISTORICAL ANOMALY WHICH SHOWS THAT WE'RE MOVING ALONG WITH THE GROWING INTERNET.
IN GENERAL, A NUMBER OF THE SERVERS DO -- MAKES VARIOUS SUBSETS OF THEIR OPERATIONAL INFORMATION PUBLIC. ONE GOOD PLACE TO FIND THAT IS WWW.ROOT-SERVERS.ORG.
THERE IS NOT A SHARED PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE COORDINATING THAT KIND OF STATISTICS. IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN PUT TO THE OPERATORS AS POSSIBLY OF INTEREST. BUT THAT DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUZANNE. I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONVEY TO YOUR FRIENDS IN THE ROOT SERVER GROUP IS JUST TO THINK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY STATISTICAL THINGS THAT WOULD BE WORTH HAVING YOU REPORT TO US IN EACH OF THESE MEETINGS AS A WAY OF HELPING EDUCATE US ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM. IT'S NOT A DEMAND BY ANY MEANS; THAT'S SIMPLY A REQUEST AND I'LL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THE THOUGHTS ARE.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IT MAY WELL BE THAT WE HADN'T CALIBRATED THE LEVEL OF INTEREST IN THAT LEVEL OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO CONVEY THAT.
>>VINT CERF: RICHARD THWAITES HAD HIS HAND UP.
>>RICHARD THWAITES: THANKS.
SUZANNE, YES, I WAS INTERESTED IN ONE POINT THAT YOU MADE THAT THE NEED TO MAINTAIN BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RELATIVELY ANCIENT SOFTWARE STILL BEING EMPLOYED IN THE ROOT SYSTEM IS A CONSTRAINT ON WHAT YOU DO.
I WONDER IF YOU COULD GIVE US SOME IDEA OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT CONSTRAINT, I MEAN, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO HAVE A PLAN WHICH WOULD MOVE THE SOFTWARE FORWARD IN A PLANNED WAY, WHETHER IT BE FOR SECURITY REASONS OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF IMPROVEMENT OF SERVICE.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE FOR THE SERVICES THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR?
AND THEREFORE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT ANY FORM OF COORDINATED POLICY ABOUT TRANSITION OR UPGRADING OF THE SOFTWARE PLATFORM OVERALL?
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: FIRST OF ALL, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN, BECAUSE I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS ON THE SERVERS THEMSELVES.
THE SERVERS ARE RUNNING MODERN SOFTWARE, YOU KNOW, COMPETENTLY MAINTAINED BY NORMAL OPERATIONAL PRACTICE THAT SUPPORTS FULLY MODERN EXTENSIONS TO THE DNS PROTOCOL.
THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE INSTALLED BASE OF CLIENTS.
AND, YES, IT'S A PROBLEM.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE SIZE OF RESPONSE PACKET THAT CAN BE SENT TO A QUERY THAT, IN MODERN SOFTWARE, IS -- HAS BEEN REMOVED.
MODERN SOFTWARE WILL NEGOTIATE THE SIZE OF THE RESPONSE IT WILL ACCEPT.
THE INSTALLED BASE STILL HAS A GREAT DEAL OF OLD SOFTWARE THAT IF IT SEES A LARGER RESPONSE THAN IT EXPECTS, WILL DISCARD THE ANSWER.
AND IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO GET PEOPLE TO INCUR THE COSTS AND EFFORT OF UPGRADING THE BASE TO THE POINT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT, BESIDES NATURAL ATTRITION, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE FUNDAMENTALS OF MILLIONS -- LITERALLY MILLIONS -- OF CLIENTS INSTALLED IN PEOPLE'S HOME PCS AND PEOPLE'S ENTERPRISE NETWORKS TODAY.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUZANNE.
THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD CAUSE -- STIMULATE THE CHANGE WOULD BE TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE THE REST OF THOSE OLDER SERVERS TO BREAK.
AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT IS NOT OUR OBJECTIVE.
SO PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA.
>>SUZANNE WOOLF: AS A SAID, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION WE'D CONSIDER.
>>VINT CERF: GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SUZANNE?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SINCE OTHERS ARE STILL NOT QUITE READY FOR THEIR REPORTS, STEVE CROCKER, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD GO EARLY?
THIS IS THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.
>>STEVE CROCKER: FANTASTIC.
ALL RIGHT.
IT IS NOISY IN HERE.
I'M STEVE CROCKER.
I CHAIR THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE'RE AN EXTERNAL COMMITTEE OF VOLUNTEERS, ALL TECHNICAL IN OUR VARIOUS FIELDS.
I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.
BUT FIRST, I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT A RATHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OUR OPERATION.
WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BRING ON BOARD A ESSENTIALLY FULL-TIME STAFF PERSON, DAVE PISCITELLO, IN THE ROLE OF A FELLOW, WHICH IS A SENIOR POSITION FOR A VERY EXPERIENCED PERSON, AND WE HAVE FOUND PROBABLY THE ULTIMATE PERFECT CANDIDATE.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER DAVE IS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.
NOPE.
WELL --
>>VINT CERF: HE'S WORKING.
>>STEVE CROCKER: HE IS, IN FACT, WORKING.
HE JOINED US MAY 31ST, ABOUT FIVE WEEKS AGO.
WE THREW HIM INTO THE ONGOING EFFORT THAT WE HAD TO GET A REPORT OUT ON DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING.
THAT REPORT CAME OUT YESTERDAY AND IS ON THE WEB SITE.
AND WE PRESENTED IT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
AND I'M EXPECTING A CONTINUING SEQUENCE OF OUTPUT AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE -- THE COMMITTEE'S BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT THING THROUGH THINGS AND ABOUT IDENTIFYING ISSUES.
AND IT'S A GREAT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEN RUNS OUT OF GAS IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GENERATE A LOT OF OUTPUT, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL BUSY WITH OTHER ASPECTS.
SO THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE FOR US.
AND THAT IS BIG NEWS.
HE'S VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE, HAS GOT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.
VINT AND I BOTH HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S ALSO AN EXCELLENT WRITER.
AND SO I THINK I'VE SAID THE REST OF THAT.
ON DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, THERE WERE A SERIES OF WELL-PUBLICIZED INCIDENTS.
PERHAPS THE MOST HIGHLY PUBLICIZED WAS THE HIJACKING OF PANIX.COM IN MID-FEBRUARY.
AND PERHAPS OTHERS WHEN WE LOOKED AROUND.
OUR FOCUS WAS NOT ON THE MALFEASANCE OF ANY PARTICULAR PARTY, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS THE BAD GUYS WHO DID THE HIJACKING OR THE BREACHES IN PROCEDURE BY INDIVIDUAL REGISTRARS OR RESELLERS, BUT MORE ON THE SYSTEM ASPECT OF HOW THE PARTS ARE PUT TOGETHER AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE WEAKNESSES THAT WOULD BE LIKELY TO BE EXPLOITED OR FALL APART IN THE FUTURE.
SO IN -- BY WAY OF ANALOGY, ONE COULD COME ALONG AT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AT AN INTERSECTION AND SAY, "BOY, SOMEBODY SCREWED UP, SOMEBODY RAN A RED LIGHT OR DROVE POORLY."
BUT IF THERE'S A SEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTS AT THAT SAME INTERSECTION, IT'S TIME TO STAND BACK AND SAY MAYBE THE ROAD NEEDS TO BE REENGINEERED A LITTLE BIT.
SO THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE.
WE MADE A SERIES OF I THINK TEN FINDINGS AND TEN RECOMMENDATIONS.
I COMMEND THE REPORT TO YOU.
IT'S ONLINE.
LET ME BACK UP.
THE URL IS THERE.
SO IT'S A SORT OF LONG URL.
BUT YOU CAN FIND IT FROM GOING TO THE FRONT PAGE OF THE ICANN WEB SITE.
BUT AMONG THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS, THE ONES THAT I THINK STAND OUT ARE THAT THERE ARE AVAILABLE MECHANISMS FOR LOCKING DOWN A DOMAIN NAME AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR REGISTRANTS.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VISIBILITY AND SOMETIMES THESE ARE TOO HARD TO USE, BECAUSE THEY'RE PRESENTED IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS BY DIFFERENT REGISTRARS AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE HIDDEN COMPLETELY.
SO THAT'S ONE WHOLE AREA WHERE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS POSSIBLE RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARDLY.
ANOTHER ASPECT THAT EMERGED FROM LOOKING AT THIS IS THAT WE HAVE VERY ELABORATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS WHERE THERE ARE CONTRACTUAL TYPE PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE NO COMPARABLE MECHANISMS IN PLACE WHERE THERE IS AN URGENT OPERATIONAL PROBLEM, AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW.
WHEN SOMEBODY LOSES A DOMAIN NAME IN AN ABRUPT FASHION, IF THEY'RE AN ONLINE BUSINESS, THEN THEY'RE OUT OF BUSINESS, AND THE DAMAGE IS LARGE AND IMMEDIATE AND OFTEN CATASTROPHIC.
SO THIS IS MORE AKIN TO YOU HAVE A FIRE AND YOU WANT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU'LL SORT OUT THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUES LATER.
BUT RIGHT NOW YOU NEED TO GET THAT FIRE TAKEN CARE OF.
SO THAT'S OUR WORK ON THERE.
WE GAVE A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THIS IN MAR DEL PLATA, AND THIS FINISHES OUR ACTIVITY HERE.
WE WILL BE TRANSMITTING THIS, SENDING THIS WITH -- WE'VE TRANSMITTED IT, BUT WE'LL BE SENDING A FORMAL LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD, ALONG WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR WHICH PARTIES SHOULD TAKE WHICH ACTIONS OR FOLLOW UP.
ANOTHER VERY BROAD ACTIVITY IS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DNS SECURITY PROTOCOL, DNSSEC, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.
ICANN PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE, OF COURSE, BUT IT'S JUST ONE PLAYER AMONG THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
THERE HAS TO BE BROAD-SCALE DEPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE ZONES, STARTING WITH THE ROOT AND THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, WOULD GO THROUGH THE ENTERPRISES, AND THEN ALSO THROUGH THE RESOLVERS.
WE HAD -- LET'S SEE.
YEP.
WE HAD A WORKSHOP HERE YESTERDAY MORNING AND COVERED A LOT OF ACTIVITIES WITH SOME EMPHASIS ON THE REGISTRIES.
LET'S SEE.
I WANT TO -- I'M SLIGHTLY OUT OF ORDER HERE.
SO WE HAD THIS FIRST WORKSHOP HERE.
IT WAS IN MANY WAYS A FOLLOW ON TO THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD IN MAR DEL PLATA.
AND WE PLAN TO CONTINUE THE SERIES WITH ANOTHER WORKSHOP UPDATING WHERE THINGS ARE AND ALSO FOCUSING RATHER SPECIFICALLY ON THE REGISTRARS THIS TIME.
AND IT'S NOT JUST AT ICANN, BUT MANY OTHER FORUMS THAT THESE KINDS OF WORKSHOPS AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS EXIST.
AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DEPLOYMENT EFFORT.
LET'S SEE.
UNDERNEATH THE COVERS, THE MAIN DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE EXPECT TO SEE OVER THE COMING YEAR AND A HALF, THE END OF THIS YEAR AND THROUGHOUT NEXT YEAR, ARE THE GETTING THE ROOT SIGNED, GETTING THE EARLY ADOPTER TLDS UP IN OPERATION, AND HAVING SOFTWARE THAT IS WIDELY AVAILABLE AT THE RESOLVER END TO MAKE USE OF THIS.
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AND QUESTIONS.
THERE IS AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER DNSSEC AS CURRENTLY DEFINED MAKES IT EASIER TO FIND THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A ZONE THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED ZONE WALKING.
THERE IS A SMALL TECHNICAL CHANGE IN PROCESS TO THWART THAT EFFORT, TO THWART THAT CAPABILITY AND ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ZONE-WALKING.
THERE IS OPEN ISSUES AS TO WHAT THE PERFORMANCE PENALTIES ARE IN MEMORY SIZE, BANDWIDTH, CPU USAGE.
MEASUREMENT IS UNDERWAY.
MY GUESS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP IN THE -- BROADLY IN THE FACTOR OF TWO TO FACTOR OF FIVE.
THAT MAY SOUND TERRIBLE, BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT ALL THAT SERIOUS IN MOST CASES.
ANOTHER AREA THAT IS -- GENERATES A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AND EMOTION IS MANAGEMENT OF THE KEYS AND HOW MUCH PROCEDURE AND PROTECTION THERE IS AROUND THAT VERSUS MAKING IT EASY TO DO.
AND THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION GETS PARTICULARLY POINTED WITH REGARD TO THE VERY TOP-LEVEL KEY, THE ROOT KEY.
SO THAT'S THE BASIC PICTURE OF WHERE WE ARE.
LET'S SEE.
I CAN OFFER UP ONE MORE THING HERE, WHICH IS HERE'S A PICTURE -- WELL, IN DIFFERENT RESOLUTION, IT ALL FIT ON ONE PAGE.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE REPORT THAT I MENTIONED ON HIJACKING.
THIS IS A PDF FILE THAT IS, IF I RECALL, ABOUT 40 PAGES.
48 PAGES.
AND AS I SAY, AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE.
I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS, IF YOU WANT.
OR, VINT, MANAGE THE TIME.
>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS, STEVE.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND YOU AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE SSAC ON THAT TERRIFIC REPORT ON HIJACKING.
I FOUND IT QUITE EYE-OPENING TO SEE HOW CREATIVE THE INIMICAL ELEMENTS OF THE INTERNET ARE AT MANAGING VARIOUS STEALTH HIJACKINGS OF DOMAIN NAMES.
I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE PERSONALLY GIVEN ENOUGH CREDIT TO THE BRILLIANCE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MEAN YOU WELL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STEVE EITHER FROM THE FLOOR OR FROM THE BOARD?
>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU.
>>VINT CERF: IN THAT CASE, STEVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STEVE CROCKER: YEP.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: VINT.
>>VINT CERF: OH, BRET FAUSETT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: JORDYN BUCHANAN, ACTUALLY.
>>VINT CERF: BEG YOUR PARDON.
OKAY.
CERF NEEDS A BRAIN TRANSPLANT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE ARRIVAL AT THE MICROPHONE.
I DID HAVE TO (INAUDIBLE).
STEVE, I WOULD JUST -- I THINK THAT MANY OF THE CONCEPTS EXPRESSED IN THE HIJACKING REPORT ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
I WOULD JUST EXPRESS ONE NOTE OF CONCERN, WHICH IS, I THINK THE SOLUTION SUGGESTED, VERY VALUABLE OF HAVING, FOR EXAMPLE, AN EMERGENCY CONTACT CHANNEL IS A GREAT IDEA.
IN FACT, I THINK REGISTER.COM, WHICH I'LL MENTION IS THE COMPANY I WORK FOR, IS GOING TO UNDERTAKE TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING JUST LIKE THAT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO OTHER REGISTRARS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY BROADER POLICIES TAKE PLACE IN THE MEANTIME.
HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT IN SOME CASES, A HIJACKING MAY DO -- MAY BE DUE TO A FAILURE ON BEHALF OF THE GAINING REGISTRAR TO COMPLY WITH ICANN'S POLICIES RELATING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PROPER AUTHENTICATION OF -- OR AUTHENTICATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE INITIAL TRANSFER REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROPERLY AUTHORIZED BY THE EXISTING REGISTRANT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S LIKELY IF A REGISTRAR IS NOT COMPLYING WITH ICANN'S RULES WITH REGARDS -- WITH REGARDS TO PERFORMING THAT FUNCTION, IT MAY BE THAT THOSE SAME REGISTRARS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE UNLIKELY TO SET UP THESE EMERGENCY CONTACT CHANNELS.
SO YOU MAY WIND UP IN A SITUATION WHERE THE REGISTRARS THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE CAUSING PROBLEMS IN SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE THE CURE AVAILABLE.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON HOW THAT SITUATION MIGHT BE AMELIORATED.
>>STEVE CROCKER: SURE, I'D BE HAPPY TO COMMENT ON IT.
AND LET ME, IF I MIGHT, JUST PARAPHRASE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT IN AN INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER -- AND SOME TRANSFERS TAKE PLACE WITHIN ONE REGISTRAR OR EVEN WITHIN ONE RESELLER, YOU HAVE A GAINING REGISTRAR AND A LOSING REGISTRAR, AND THERE IS ACTION THAT TAKES PLACE PARTLY AT ONE AND PARTLY THE OTHER.
AND THE PLACE YOU'RE SHINING YOUR LIGHT IS, SUPPOSE THAT THE GAINING REGISTRAR DOES NOT OBEY ALL THE RULES.
AND LET ME BREAK THE SITUATION DOWN INTO TWO IMPORTANT SUBCASES.
IT COULD BE THAT THERE IS A -- AN INCIDENTAL BREACH, ONE OFF, THAT'S NOT A PATTERN, OR IT COULD BE THAT THERE'S A PATTERN.
AND I THINK THE SITUATIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
IF THERE IS A PATTERN, THEN IT'S TIME FOR A SERIOUS CHAT WITH THAT GAINING REGISTRAR, WITH THAT REGISTRAR.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO POINT OUT IN THE REPORT IS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO REVISIT WHAT THEY ARE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE MORE VISIBLE SO THAT THEY HAVE A PUBLIC IMPACT WHEN THEY HAPPEN.
SO THAT'S ONE AVENUE THAT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO LOOK AT.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE SYSTEM OF WHO NOTIFIES WHAT AND WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKEN.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE OWNER OR THE HOLDER OF THE DOMAIN NAME HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CURRENT REGISTRAR, WHICH IN THE CASE OF AN UNINTENDED TRANSFER BECOMES THE LOSING REGISTRAR.
THAT'S WHERE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS.
AND IF A REGISTRAR AND HIS -- WELL, IF A REGISTRANT AND HIS REGISTRAR ARE BOTH AWARE, ALERT, AND USING THE AVAILABLE MECHANISMS, THEN THEY'RE FAIRLY IMMUNE TO BEING HIJACKED. AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT SHOULD HAPPEN THERE, INCLUDING, AS WE SUGGEST, THAT NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE EXTENDED NOT OPTIONALLY, BUT IN A REQUIRED WAY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT MISBEHAVIOR OF GAINING REGISTRARS.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE INCIDENTS THAT WE LEAD OFF WITH IN THE REPORT CERTAINLY INVOLVED A REGISTRAR ON THE GAINING SIDE WHERE THAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, AND YET WHEN YOU LOOK UNDERNEATH THE COVERS, IT'S A MIXED BAG, BECAUSE THE REGISTRAR ITSELF WAS EXTREMELY COMPETENT AND ATTEMPTED TO BE VERY CONSCIENTIOUS.
BUT THEY HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY RESELLERS, AND SO IT'S A KIND OF LEAKY SIEVE.
AND SO THAT REQUIRES NOW LOOKING AT HOW THAT WHOLE SYSTEM OF REGISTRARS AND RESELLERS IS MANAGED.
THERE ARE 150 REGISTRARS THAT ARE DEALING WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF REGISTRANTS ON A CONTINUING BASIS AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW HUNDRED THAT ARE BUYING THREADS TO POUND ON REGISTRIES.
BUT WHICHEVER OF THOSE NUMBERS YOU TAKE, 150 OR 500, THEY ARE VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBERS COMPARED TO THE 10,000 RESELLERS.
AND SO THE NUMBERS GAME MAKES IT A VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM IN TERMS OF MANAGING BEHAVIOR.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.
THANK YOU.
MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, SO YOU MENTIONED -- AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT -- THAT THE EXISTING REGISTRAR OF A DOMAIN NAME PROBABLY HAS AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO VALIDATE THAT THAT REQUEST TAKES -- IS -- THAT THE TRANSFER IS DULY AUTHORIZED.
>>STEVE CROCKER: RIGHT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND CURRENTLY, THE REGISTRAR ONLY HAS FIVE DAYS IN ORDER TO TRY TO ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT.
IF THEY'RE ON VACATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DO SO.
DID YOUR -- DID THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE GIVE ANY THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER THAT FIVE-DAY PERIOD SHOULD BE EXTENDED IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXISTING REGISTRAR TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT?
>>STEVE CROCKER: YEAH, SO WE DID NOT DRILL DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT NOTIFICATION PERIOD SHOULD BE FIDDLED WITH.
THAT WOULD REALLY BE A LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT I THINK, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HIGHLIGHT THIS, THIS SHOULD BE LEFT INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEALING WITH THIS EVERY DAY.
IT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR ME TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE VIEW OUR ROLE AS AN ADVISORY ROLE TO OPEN UP A TOPIC, MAKE SENSIBLE SUGGESTIONS.
WE'RE NOT JUST TRYING TO THROW RANDOM HAND GRENADES AROUND.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE AN ACCEPTANCE PROCESS.
AND THAT ACCEPTANCE PROCESS IS A SERIOUS EXAMINATION AND DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT FITS.
I'LL ALSO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD THAT THAT IS AN IMPORTANT KIND OF LAST PROTECTION IN THE EVENT THAT YOU HAVE NOT LOCKED OR USED AUTH INFO.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO ON VACATION FOR FIVE DAYS, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOUR DOMAIN NAME WERE LOCKED.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS.
>>VINT CERF: THANKS VERY MUCH, STEVE.
I THINK THAT DOES IT FOR THE SSAC.
NOW WE CAN COME BACK TO PARTIES WHO HAD BEEN SKIPPED OVER EARLIER.
LET ME ASK IF, SHARIL, YOU'RE READY FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT.
LET ME ASK YOU TO TAKE THE LECTERN.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, VINT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ALL.
MY NAME IS SHARIL TARMIZI.
I AM WITH THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ICANN.
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION, THE ICANN GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET IN LUXEMBOURG FROM THE 9TH TO THE 12TH OF JULY THIS YEAR.
GAC PARTICIPANTS COMPRISED OF 38 MEMBERS AND THREE OBSERVERS.
THE GAC HAD SEVERAL SESSIONS TOGETHER WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY, FOUR ROUNDTABLES ABOUT THE ROOT SERVERS, I.P. ADDRESSING, CCNSO, AND ALAC, TWO HALF-DAY WORKING SESSIONS ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AND WHOIS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE GAC ALSO HELD A SPECIAL SESSION WITH WGIG MEMBERS.
IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN OUR DIALOGUE WITH THE ICANN BOARD, THE GAC WELCOMES THE DIALOGUE WITH THE ICANN BOARD ON VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH ICANN IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING.
THE GAC REAFFIRMS THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING DIALOGUE BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND NOTES THE VARIOUS CHANGES IN PROCESSES THAT THE ICANN BOARD IS CURRENTLY CARRYING OUT.
ON NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, THE GAC NOTES FROM RECENT EXPERIENCE THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS CAN GIVE RISE TO SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES, INCLUDING CONTENT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE GAC WELCOMES THE INITIATIVE OF ICANN TO HOLD CONSULTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN STRATEGY.
THE GAC LOOKS FORWARD TO PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE PROCESS.
THE GAC ALSO ENCOURAGES THE BOARD TO ACTIVELY CONSULT ALL CONSTITUENCIES WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS STRATEGY.
ON COUNTRY CODE -- CCTLDS -- SORRY, THE CCNSO PDP, THE GAC NOTES THE DECISION BY THE CCNSO COUNCIL TO CALL FOR A REPORT TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY CENTR AND SOME INDIVIDUAL CCTLDS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY THE CCNSO ON 5TH JUNE TO INITIATE A CCNSO PDP.
THE GAC WELCOMES THE CCNSO'S INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH THE PDP PROCESS.
THE ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENTION OF THE CCNSO TO ACT AS AN INCLUSIVE BODY REPRESENTING THE NEEDS OF THE FULL CCTLD COMMUNITY.
THE GAC CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THIS APPROACH.
THE GAC LOOK AT THIS FORWARD TO THE PDP PROCESS, FULLY EXAMINING ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE CONSULTATION PERIOD.
THE GAC WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS OF THE CCTLD COMMUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCESS IN A CONSTRUCTIVE IN RESPONSIVE MANNER, WITH A VIEW TO THE CCNSO FURTHER BROADENING ITS REPRESENTATION.
ON THE IANA PROCEDURES, AT THE LAST GAC MEETING IN MAR DEL PLATA, GAC ASKED ICANN TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT CODIFIED THE POLICIES AND