GNSO Council Transcript

GNSO MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 2:00 P.M.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S PROBABLY TIME WE GOT STARTED AND WE CAN FINISH OUR AGENDA QUICKLY TODAY. THE FIRST COMMENT ON THE AGENDA IS THE SUMMARY OF THE LAST MEETING. AND IF I COULD HAVE A PROPOSER TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, PLEASE. THANK YOU, KEN. THANK YOU, JEFF. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE FOR THE MINUTES.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? GOOD. THANK YOU. THE MINUTES ARE PASSED. NEXT ITEM IS TO WELCOME THE THREE NEW MEMBERS SELECTED BY THE ICANN NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE GNSO COUNCIL. WE HAVE WITH US TODAY DEMI GETSCHKO FROM BRAZIL, IF YOU WOULD JUST WANT TO RAISE YOUR HAND. AND ALSO ALICK WILSON DOWN AT THE OTHER END FROM NEW ZEALAND, APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE. THE THIRD PERSON APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS CURRENTLY SITTING ON THE BOARD FOR THIS MEETING. AND THAT'S AMADEU ABRIL. FOLLOWING THE BOARD MEETING THIS WEEK, HE WILL THEN BE JOINING THE COUNCIL ONCE AGAIN AS A MEMBER OF THE GNSO COUNCIL. THE NEXT TOPIC ON THE AGENDA IS TO RATIFY AN E MAIL VOTE ON THE GNSO COUNCIL CHAIR. AND I'LL JUST HAND OVER TO PHILIP SHEPPARD TO MANAGE THAT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE. WE HELD AN ELECTION FOR CHAIRMAN. OUR CURRENT CHAIRMAN, BRUCE TONKIN, WAS RENOMINATED. HE ACCEPTED THE NOMINATION DULY STOOD FOR NOMINATION. YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE POSTED RESULTS FOR THAT ELECTION, WHICH ARE AN ELECTORATE OF 18 PERSONS, HAD 0 VOTES AGAINST BRUCE TONKIN, ONE ABSTENTION FROM THAT VOTE, WHICH WERE THE DOUBLE VOTING POWER ABSTENTION WAS PARTICULARLY TWO. AND 17 VOTES FOR BRUCE TONKIN, TWO OF THOSE WITH DOUBLE VOTING, 12 ON SINGLE VOTING, 22, A TOTAL OF 24 VOTES CAST. THEREFORE, THE BALLOT RESULT IS SAYING BRUCE TONKIN WILL BE ELECTED. AND WE NEED TO RATIFY THAT WITH A PHYSICAL MEETING OF THIS COUNCIL. SO I WOULD ASK FOR YOU NOW ALL TO PLEASE AFFIRM YOUR VOTES ARE CORRECT AND TO SO RATIFY IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION. LOOKING AROUND, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DISCUSSION. OKAY. THOSE IN FAVOR OF RATIFYING THAT VOTE AND THEREFORE ELECTING BRUCE AS OUR CHAIRMAN, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THOSE AGAINST PLEASE SAY NO. THOSE ABSTAINING PLEASE SAY ABSTAIN.

>> ABSTAIN.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE ABSTAINED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT ITEM IS OVER. AND I PASS THE CHAIR BACK TO YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THANK YOU, PHILIP. AND THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL. THE NEXT ITEM, I GUESS, IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE POLICY ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION TODAY. AND THAT IS THE DELETES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAD A DRAFT REPORT PRESENTED TWO MEETINGS AGO BY TELECONFERENCE TO THE GNSO COUNCIL. AT THAT TIME WE HAD SOME INPUT FROM THE ICANN STAFF SUGGESTING THE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS NEED TO BE LOOKED INTO FURTHER. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WAS FORMED WITH REPRESENTATION FROM REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AS WELL AS REPRESENTATION FROM THE DELETES TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP. THAT IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE COMPLETED ITS REPORT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DELETES TASK FORCE MET AGAIN AND REVISED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. JORDYN BUCHANAN WAS THE CHAIR OF THE DELETES TASK FORCE. AND SO IF I CAN ASK JORDYN TO JUST TAKE US THROUGH THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DELETES TASK FORCE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IF I CAN GET THIS MICROPHONE OVER HERE. THANK YOU, BRUCE. AS THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, WE ACTUALLY PRESENTED OUR WHAT WE THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS A FINAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL AT THE RIO DE JANEIRO MEETING. AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF ICANN RAISED SOME CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THE REPORT. IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THOSE CONCERNS, WE REFERRED THE REPORT TO AN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE COMPOSED PRIMARILY OF REGISTRIES AND REGISTRAR REPRESENTATIVES, BUT ALSO OF SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TASK FORCE AS WELL, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE TASK FORCE THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE COMPLETED ITS WORK SOME WEEKS AGO AND MADE SOME, I THINK, REVISIONS THAT STAYED WELL WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE INITIAL TASK FORCE'S GOALS BUT DEALT WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE OVERALL PRACTICALITY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, PARTICULARLY BY REGISTRARS, WHERE MOST OF THE POLICY REQUIREMENTS FELL. TO THAT END, WE ENDED UP MAKING SOME EDITS TO THE REPORT. BUT BEFORE I WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE, LET ME JUST ONCE AGAIN REMIND THE COUNCIL AND THE AUDIENCE OF THE FOUR AREAS THAT WE ORIGINALLY CHARTED TO DISCUSS. THOSE WERE UNIFORM DELETE PRACTICE, AFTER DOMAIN NAME EXPIRY BY REGISTRARS. SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A NAME HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE DELETED OR DELETED BY A REGISTRAR, HOW IT ACTUALLY GETS RETURNED, DELETION AS ENACTED BY THE REGISTRAR. AND A SPECIAL CASE WITHIN THAT SCENARIO WAS CONSIDERED IN WHICH WHAT HAPPENS TO NAMES WHEN THEY ARE UNDER A UDRP DISPUTE AT THE TIME OF THEIR EXPIRY OR DELETION. SECOND, THE DELETION FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT ON WHOIS ACCURACY. LET ME JUST NOTE THAT WE ALTHOUGH WE DID SOME MADE SOME INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS POINT, WE ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THAT THE WORK THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE HAD PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY END UP MAKING ANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS POINT. THE THIRD IS WITH REGARDS TO THE REGISTRY DELETE PROCESS. AND, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON THIS POINT, THE FEELING OF THE TASK FORCE WAS THAT THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD ADDED ENOUGH STABILITY AND CERTAINTY TO THE TO REGISTRANTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE ABILITY TO REASONABLY EXPECT WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEIR NAME OR BE ABLE TO CORRECT IT IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRY PROCESS. AND SO NO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE HERE. HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE THAT A PORTION OF THE REGISTRY DELETE PROCESS ISSUE RANGE THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ISSUES REPORT DID POINT OUT THAT ONE SUBJECT TO BE CONSIDERED WAS REALLOCATION OF NAMES AFTER THEY'VE BEEN DELETED AND ARE GOING TO BE RETURNED TO THE AVAILABLE POOL OF NAMES. THE TASK FORCE FOUND THAT THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN EXPLORING THIS TOPIC FURTHER, BUT FOUND THAT IT COULD NOT PRODUCE A RESULT IN THE TIME FRAME AND SCOPE OF THE TASK FORCE, AND RECOMMENDED IF THE NAMES COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS FURTHER THAT LIKELY A NEW TASK FORCE OUGHT TO BE CHARTERED IN ORDER TO FOCUS ON THIS ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE. WE DO THINK THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN HAVING A UNIFORM REALLOCATION POLICY, BUT AT THIS POINT, THERE IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH DATA IN ORDER TO ENACT SOMETHING, SO THERE IS PROBABLY SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF POLICY THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE ON THAT POINT. BUT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE WITHIN THE REPORT. AND THE FOURTH POINT IS REVERSAL OF RENEWAL TRANSACTIONS. AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THAT SOME REGISTRARS RAISED THE CONCERN THAT ALTHOUGH THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY UNDO THE ADDITION OF A DOMAIN NAME BY DELETING IT, THAT SAME PROTECTION DOES NOT WORK VERY WELL FOR THE RENEWAL OF A DOMAIN NAME, BECAUSE OFTEN, DELETING A DOMAIN NAME TO UNDO ITS RENEWAL IS NOT A VERY GOOD WAY TO ALLOW THE REGISTRANT TO KEEP IT AND SIMPLY ROLL BACK THE RENEWAL. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TASK FORCE FOUND WHILE THIS IS PROBABLY AN ISSUE OF CONCERN, IT'S LARGELY A TECHNICAL MATTER. NEITHER THE EPP OR RRP PROTOCOLS THAT REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES USE TO CONTROL TODAY HAS THE SUPPORT FOR AN UNDO COMMAND. WE SUGGESTED THIS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN A TECHNICAL FORA TO ADD THE CAPABILITY AS OPPOSED TO IN A POLICY FORA. THIS ACTUALLY BRINGS ME, HAVING REVIEWED AT THIS HIGH LEVEL, THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE TASK FORCE. THESE WERE ALL MADE IN REGARDS TO THAT FIRST POINT, THE UNIFORM DELETION PRACTICE AFTER DOMAIN NAME EXPIRY BY REGISTRARS. AND THE LENGTH OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE ACTUALLY GROWN QUITE LONG, ALTHOUGH I THINK THE CONCEPT IS FAIRLY SIMPLE. AND IT IS BASICALLY THAT IF A DOMAIN NAME EXPIRES, BY THE END OF THE RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD, WHICH, I BELIEVE, FOR ALL OF THE REGISTRIES TODAY IS 45 DAYS, SO 45 DAYS AFTER A DOMAIN NAME EXPIRES, THE REGISTRAR MUST DELETE THE DOMAIN NAME UNLESS A CERTAIN SET OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS MET. SO WE AND WE ACTUALLY LIST OUT WITHIN THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY THEY'RE QUITE LONG, THE SPECIFIC EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE A VALID BASIS FOR FAILING TO DELETE THE NAME PRIOR TO THE END OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE RENEWAL GRACE PERIOD. WE ALSO DO OPEN UP BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK WE'RE NECESSARILY THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, WE DID OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE NOT THOUGHT OF SOMETHING AND ALLOWED REGISTRARS TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC PERMISSION FROM ICANN IF THEY THINK THERE'S ANOTHER TYPE OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE NOT CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT. THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE IS THAT, BASICALLY, VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, BUT WITHIN 45 DAYS OF A REGISTRATION AGREEMENT, EXPLICITLY TERMINATED BY EITHER THE REGISTRAR OR THE REGISTRANT, THAT THE NAME SHOULD BE DELETED. SO, BASICALLY, THIS GOES TO THE POINT, LARGELY, IF A REGISTRANT WANTS TO NO LONGER HAVE A NAME REGISTERED AND INFORMS THE REGISTRAR OF SUCH, THE NAME OUGHT TO BE DELETED IN A TIMELY MANNER. THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION BASICALLY INDICATES THAT THESE POLICIES OUGHT TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THEIR ADOPTION, OR IMPLEMENTATION, SORRY, LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE. AND THAT THE THE FINAL TWO POINTS JUST GO TO NOTICE OF POLICY. BASICALLY, THAT REGISTRARS NEED TO PROVIDE REGISTRANTS WITH DETAILS ABOUT WHAT THEIR DELETES AND AUTO RENEW POLICY IS WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THE REGISTRATION. IF THE REGISTRAR OPERATES A WEB SITE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING PERFORMING REGISTRATIONS, THEN THEY MUST PROVIDE THESE THIS NOTIFICATION ON THEIR WEB SITE IN A CLEAR PLACE. AND ALSO THAT REGISTRARS MUST PROVIDE SOME NOTIFICATION ABOUT A CHARGE FOR A LET ME MAKE SURE I'M RIGHT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT ANY FEE CHARGED FOR THE RECOVERY OF A DOMAIN NAME DURING THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD. LET ME JUST NOTE THAT THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD FOR REGISTRARS AND ANY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY WITHIN OUR CHARTER. BUT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WE RECEIVED A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMENTS REGARDING THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD. AND WE THOUGHT SIMPLY ASKING REGISTRARS TO PROVIDE A NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A FEE TO ALLOW REGISTRANTS TO BE AWARE OF IT WAS IMPORTANT. AND I WILL NOTE WE DO MAKE ONE OTHER REQUEST OF REGISTRARS, WHICH IS THAT IF THEY DO MAKE MATERIAL CHANGES TO THEIR DELETION POLICY DURING THE COURSE OF A REGISTRATION, THAT THEY OUGHT TO MAKE SOME EFFORT TO INFORM THE REGISTRANT OF THAT. SO THOSE THAT'S THE FIRST SET OF POLICIES THAT RELATE TO THE DELETION. AND THEN THERE IS, AS I MENTIONED, A SPECIAL CASE OF UDRP DISPUTES. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE HERE IS WE HAVE PARED IT DOWN QUITE A BIT. BUT THE GENERAL IDEA IS THAT THE REGISTRAR OUGHT TO GIVE THE COMPLAINANT IN THE UDRP DISPUTE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER RENEW OR PAY TO RESTORE IT USING A REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD RESTORATION ON THE SAME TERMS THAT THEY PROVIDE TO A TYPICAL REGISTRANT THAT WOULD NOT BE A COMPLAINANT. THIS ALLOWS A COMPLAINANT TO AVOID A SITUATION IN WHICH A NAME MIGHT LAPSE DURING THE COURSE OF A DISPUTE, BE DELETED, THEN REREGISTERED BY A THIRD PARTY AND HAVING TO INITIATE A UDRP DISPUTE ALL OVER AGAINST. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE REPORT. AND I WILL JUST MENTION, WE DID HIGHLIGHT TWO OTHER AREAS THAT WE THINK ARE WORTHY OF FURTHER NAMES COUNCIL OR POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK BUT THAT WERE NOT THAT WERE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR CHARTER. AND THOSE WERE DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING AND ALSO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR NOT JUST THIS DELETE POLICY BUT A VARIETY OF OTHER WHOIS AND TRANSFER POLICY THAT ICANN HAS ADOPTED. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT AT SOME POINT THE NAMES COUNCIL EITHER TAKES UP THOSE ITEMS OR ASSIGNS TASK FORCES TO DO SO. I WILL NOTE ONE FINAL POINT, WHICH IS THAT IN THE REPORT DISTRIBUTED TO YOU, THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE VOTE BY THE TASK FORCE IS NOT INCLUDED. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT PRIOR TO TRANSMITTING TO THE BOARD, WE DO MAKE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THIS TO INDICATE THE FINAL VOTE, WHICH IS LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I GO BACK TO MY NOTES HERE WHICH IS, THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTATIVES WERE IN FAVOR OF THE REPORT: THE IPC, THE ISPCPS, NONCOMMERCIAL, REGISTRARS, REGISTRIES, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. THE CCTLD REPRESENTATIVE VOTED AGAINST THE REPORT. AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT VOTE. SO I GUESS WE'LL CALL THAT AN ABSTENTION. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WILL SUBMIT THIS REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION, RECOMMEND THAT IT BE TRANSMITTED TO THE BOARD WITH THE ADDITION OF THE TEXT REGARDING THE VOTE. THAT IS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE GLAD TO ENTERTAIN THEM AT THIS TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT REPORT? OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS? MILTON, GO AHEAD.

MILTON MUELLER: I JUST HAVE SOME INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONS. I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS STUFF PROPERLY. ON THE WHOIS DELETION, YOU SAY THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE HAS DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PRIOR WHOIS TASK FORCE OR THE ONE THAT WAS JUST BEING FORMED, THAT IS GOING TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS? >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: RIGHT. SO I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE RECENTLY COMPLETED WHOIS TASK FORCE THAT HAS ALREADY TRANSMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD. THAT BASICALLY SAY THE EXACT SAME THING THAT WE WERE, THAT IF A NAME GETS DELETED BECAUSE OF WHOIS INACCURACY, THAT YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO USE THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD, BUT NOT UNLESS YOU FIX YOUR WHOIS INFORMATION FIRST. THAT'S, ESSENTIALLY, THE SAME POINT THAT THE DELETES TASK FORCE WAS MAKING SO IT WAS REDUNDANT, BUT WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE SO IT COULD BE EVER SO CONFUSING IF THERE WERE TWO VERY, VERY SIMILAR POLICIES TO THE SAME POINT.

>>MILTON MUELLER: OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE UDRP DISPUTE. JUST TELL ME IF THIS SCENARIO IS CORRECT. I'M INVOLVED IN THE UDRP DISPUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M GOING TO WIN SO I DON'T RENEW THE NAME WHEN IT EXPIRES. IN THAT CASE, THE COMPLAINANT CAN REGISTER THE NAME AND THEN IF I WIN THE CASE AND THE COMPLAINANT LOSES, THEN THE COMPLAINANT HAS WASTED THEIR MONEY AND I GET THE NAME BACK OR WHAT? OR I CAN REGISTER UNDER REDEMPTION GRACE AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE DOMAIN AND WHERE IT WAS IN ITS LIFE CYCLE AT THAT POINT. BUT, BASICALLY, THE COMPLAINANT IS OFFERED ON THE SAME TERMS THE ABILITY TO EITHER THIS WILL DEPEND ON REGISTRAR POLICY OF WHETHER IT'S A RENEWAL OR REDEMPTION. IF THE NAME GOES SO FAR AS TO BE DELETED AND THEN THE COMPLAINANT REALIZES THEY DON'T WANT THE NAME TO BE DELETED, THE COMPLAINANT CAN ACTUALLY PERFORM A REDEMPTION ON THE NAME AT THAT POINT AND PAY WHATEVER THE REGISTRAR FEE FOR THE REDEMPTION IS. AT THAT POINT, WE ACTUALLY USED TO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS THAT LET ME JUST REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSTATING THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO, BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ONE. I THINK YOU RIGHTLY POINT TO IT. YEAH, SO IF THE NAME WERE IF THE COMPLAINT WERE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT OF THE EXISTING DOMAIN HOLDER, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THE COMPLAINANT WILL HAVE WASTED THEIR MONEY NOT ONLY ON THE REDEMPTION, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE ALSO WASTED THEIR MONEY THROUGHOUT THE UDRP PROCESS BECAUSE PRESUMABLY THEY HAD AN INVALID CLAIM. THE THE AT THAT POINT, THE NAME HAS BEEN RESTORED AND IS ACTIVE. SO THE ORIGINAL REGISTRANT WOULD PRESUMABLY CONTINUE TO HAVE IT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF ITS NEW REGISTRATION.

>>MILTON MUELLER: I'M STILL NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE YOU SAID THE NAME IS EXPIRED. AND THE REGISTRANT HAS NOT RENEWED IT. BUT THEN AFTER THEY'VE WON THE CASE, IT'S IN SOME KIND OF LIMBO IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS REGISTERED IT BUT THE ONCE IT'S KNOWN THAT THEY'VE LOST THE CASE, THE RESPONDENT CAN THEN HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS TO REGISTER IT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS IF I CAN JUST COMMENT ON THAT FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION POINT OF VIEW. I THINK THERE ARE TWO PARALLEL PROCESSES AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A NORMAL PROCESS THROUGH WHICH A REGISTRANT CAN RENEW THEIR NAME. AND THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY UDRP PROCESS. SO A REGISTRANT CAN RENEW THEIR NAME WHEN IT EXPIRES. THERE'S A GRACE PERIOD AFTER EXPIRY. AND THEN IF THE NAME HASN'T BEEN RENEWED AT THAT POINT, THEN THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER FURTHER BACKUP, WHICH IS THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD. IF THE UDRP DISPUTE WAS CARRIED OUT DURING ANY OF THOSE PERIODS OF TIME THIS IS REALLY DEFINING WHAT HAPPENS THERE. IF THE UDRP DISPUTE WENT BEYOND THE, IF YOU LIKE, THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD AND THE REGISTRANT ITSELF HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO RENEW THE NAME, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NAME WOULD THEN BE DELETED, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN RENEWED BY THE REGISTRANT

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, AND, ACTUALLY, I THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY RECOMMENDATION IS INTENTIONALLY SOMEWHAT VAGUE HERE, TO GIVE REGISTRARS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH THE PARTICULAR CASE THAT MAY HAPPEN. KEEP IN MIND, THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT PAYING TO REGISTER THE NAME ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT. THE COMPLAINANT IS PAYING TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE REGISTRATION. THE COMPLAINANT DOESN'T GAIN ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS. THEY'RE, ESSENTIALLY, JUST FUNDING THE REGISTRATION IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING DELETED. >>MILTON MUELLER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF, DID YOU HAVE >>MILTON MUELLER: THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THAT WAS MY POINT IF JORDYN HADN'T MADE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER LOUIS.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I'LL JUST SPEAK LOUDLY. I HAD A QUESTION, JORDYN, JUST ABOUT THE LANGUAGE

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE MICROPHONE.

>> MICROPHONE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: A QUESTION, JORDYN ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 3.2.1, WHICH IS BEING DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN. TELL ME WHEN YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YES.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: OKAY. THE FIRST PART OF IT SAYS: "IN THE EVENT THAT A DOMAIN WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A UDRP DISPUTE IS DELETED." SUGGESTING THAT IT'S ALREADY PAST THE DELETION POINT. AND THE REMAINDER OF THAT SENTENCE SPEAKS ABOUT THE OPTION TO RENEW. AND I'M WONDERING HOW TO SQUARE THOSE CONCEPTS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK YOU'VE JUST FOUND A TYPO. WE ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY, THE DRAFT WAS WRITTEN BY THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SUCH THAT THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO RESTORE. AND I DON'T THINK, ACTUALLY, THIS THAT PARTICULAR VERB HAD BEEN UPDATED. SO PROBABLY THE LANGUAGE SHOULD PROBABLY BE SAY IT IS DELETED OR EX EXPIRES OR IS DELETED SHOULD BE THE, PROBABLY, CORRECT LANGUAGE THERE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: SO THE INTENTION IS THAT A DOMAIN THAT PASSES ITS EXPIRY DATE, THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY IN THE UDRP DISPUTE WOULD BE OFFERED THE OPTION TO RENEW IT TO PAY FOR >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THE INTENT IS THAT'S THE OPTION OF THE REGISTRAR. THEY COULD ALLOW THEM TO RENEW IT AT THAT TIME OR WAIT UNTIL IT'S DELETED AND ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESTORE. BUT AT SOME POINT THROUGH ITS CYCLE, THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING RETURNED TO THE POOL OF AVAILABLE DOMAIN NAMES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT I SUGGEST WE DO, JUST TO FROM A WORDING POINT OF VIEW, AND I THINK IT WAS JUST, AS JORDYN SAID, AN INADVERTENT WORDING, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE PRACTICE AFTER DOMAIN NAME EXPIRY. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THE WORDING BE "IN THE EVENT THAT A DOMAIN WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A UDRP DISPUTE IS PAST ITS EXPIRY DATE OR PAST DOMAIN NAME EXPIRY."

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WOULD SAY WHAT I DID TO LOUIS. I THINK IT EXPIRES OR DELETED WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE LANGUAGE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: AND JUST TO ADD A LITTLE FLESH TO THAT, I THINK WHAT JORDYN IS GETTING AT IS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF DELETION ALSO, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD SOME CASES WHERE UDRP RESPONDENTS, OUT OF FOR TACTICAL REASONS OR OUT OF SPITE, WILL DELETE A DOMAIN NAME BEFORE ITS EXPIRY. AND I THINK THE INTENTION OF THIS IS THAT THE COMPLAINING PARTY COULD PICK IT UP IN THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD AFTER THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO, LOUIS, CAN YOU JUST GIVE SOME WORDS? BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT WE GET THEM RIGHT.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: OKAY. I THINK JUST IT SHOULD READ IN THE EVENT THAT A DOMAIN NAME WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A UDRP DISPUTE IS DELETED OR EXPIRES. . SO IT SHOULD ADD THE WORDS "OR EXPIRES." .

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. DEMI.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: ALSO JUST A QUESTION OF LANGUAGE. I SUPPOSE IF WE CAN ADD TO THE GLOSSARY WHAT IS EXACTLY THE MEANING OF EXPIRED AND DELETED. I HAVE A DOUBT ABOUT WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE DOMAIN NAME NOT RENEWED, AFTER THE RENEW GRACE PERIOD BUT BEFORE THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD? IT'S EXPIRED BUT NOT DELETED; IT'S ALSO DELETED IN THIS REDEMPTION PERIOD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THE EXPIRY DATE WOULD REALLY BE THE EXPIRY DATE THAT'S PRESENT IN THE REGISTRY, I GUESS, THE AUTHORITATIVE EXPIRY DATE. SO WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS IS A REGISTRY OPERATOR AUTO RENEWS THE NAME, SO AT THAT POINT IT WOULD SHOW A NEW EXPIRY DATE. AND A REGISTRAR MAY, AS PART OF ITS REGISTRAR AGREEMENT, STATE THAT IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE SOME PERIOD OF TIME, THE REGISTRAR HAS THE OPTION TO DELETE THE NAME, AND THEN THEY'RE NOT CHARGED THE RENEWAL RATES. THE ACTUAL BUSINESS PROCESSES GET QUITE COMPLICATED TO GO INTO DEPTH HERE. JORDYN, YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, IN 3.1.1 WE HAVE MUCH CLEARER LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE CASE IS, WHICH IS IF THE REGISTRANT FAILS TO RENEW, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT SORT OF DATE MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THAT, I THINK, IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR THAN BASICALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS THE REGISTRANT HAS TO EITHER HAVE A CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR CONTINUING TO RENEW THE DOMAIN OR THEY HAVE TO EXPLICITLY COME TO THE REGISTRANT AND PAY THEM FOR RENEWAL IN ORDER FOR THE NAME TO THE TO BE DELETED. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK WE HAVE SLIGHTLY MORE PRECISE LANGUAGE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE OF 3.2.1, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY INTENDED TO BE SLIGHTLY VAGUE IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE REGISTRAR FLEXIBILITY IN HOW TO IMPLEMENT THEIR EXACT POLICY WITH THE OVERARCHING INTENT BEING COMPLAINANTS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO PREVENT THE NAME FROM BEING RETURNED TO THE POOL OF AVAILABLE NAMES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT IF THE GNSO COUNCIL ACCEPTS THIS POLICY AND THE BOARD, IN TURN, ACCEPTS THE POLICY, IT THEN GOES TO THE ICANN I GUESS, ESSENTIALLY THE GENERAL COUNCIL TO LOOK AT MODIFYING THE AGREEMENTS. AND CERTAINLY THE FINAL TEXT WOULD BE TEXT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITIONS AND TEXT IN THE ACTUAL REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY AGREEMENTS. SO FROM A GNSO COUNCIL POINT OF VIEW, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY TRYING TO DRAFT THE LEGAL TEXT AT THIS POINT. WE'RE TRYING TO BASICALLY GET A POLICY RECOMMENDATION WHICH THEN SUBSEQUENTLY GOES THROUGH A STEP OF DEFINING THE LEGAL WORDING IN THE CONTRACTS. WAS POINTING OUT THE DELETES TASK FORCE GENERALLY DOES NOT CONSIST OF LAWYERS. JEFF, GO AHEAD.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS. I WANTED TO MAKE AN OVERALL, GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THE REPORT. I THINK THE REPORT WAS AN EXCELLENT DRAFT. I THINK I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS GONE FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END AS FAR AS IN THE NEW ICANN 2.0. AND I THINK THAT JORDYN DID AN EXEMPLARY JOB, AND I THINK THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE DID A FABULOUS JOB AS WELL. WE SUPPORT THE REPORT, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AND TO GIVE JORDYN OUR THANKS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WELL, CERTAINLY, JEFF, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE KIND WORDS, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT'S NOT A PERSON THAT MADE THIS REPORT HAPPEN; THAT WE HAD, I THINK, AN EXEMPLARY GROUP OF PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER AS PART OF THE DELETES TASK FORCE. AND I THINK PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ALL COMMITTED TO ACTUALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE REACHED CONSENSUS AS OPPOSED TO PUSHING FOR PARTICULAR IDEOLOGIES OR ANY PARTICULAR AGENDA. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, IS THAT PEOPLE WERE WORKING FOR THE GOOD OF THE OVERALL COMMUNITY AND IT SHOWS THAT WHEN PEOPLE GET TOGETHER AND DO THAT, WE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE TOGETHER, I THINK, QUITE RAPIDLY. AND I THINK IT DOES SHOW THAT THE ICANN PROCESS CAN WORK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT WORK MANY MORE TIMES AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS? . OKAY. I'D LIKE TO, THEN, PUT THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO A FORMAL VOTE. BECAUSE WE ARE FOLLOWING THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I WILL ASK EACH PERSON TO INDIVIDUALLY VOTE. AND IF THEY'RE CARRYING A PROXY, TO ALSO REGISTER THE VOTE

>>MILTON MUELLER: POINT OF INFORMATION. IS CHUN ON THE LINE? >>STEVE CONTE: NO, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY ON LINE YET.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS, GLEN, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHO ON THE COUNCIL WAS CARRYING PROXIES?

>>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN HAS GOT A PROXY FOR ELLEN SHANKMAN AND FOR LYNDA ROESCH. AND MILTON HAS GOT A PROXY FOR CHUN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM GABRIEL?

>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: WE HAVE NOTHING FROM GABRIEL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. FIRST, I'LL STOP WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.

>>MARILYN CADE: I VOTE YES.SYTH. >

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FOR

>GRANT FORSYTH: I VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.

>>CARY KARP: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN BUCHANAN. YOU CAN USE YOUR WAND IF YOU WISH. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'M IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.

>>TONY HARRIS: I VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.

>>TONY HOLMES: I VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.

>>GREG RUTH: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON MUELLER?

>>MILTON MUELLER: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND YOUR PROXY FOR CHUN?

>MILTON MUELLER: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN STUBBS. >

>KEN STUBBS: VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MYSELF, BRUCE TONKIN, I'LL VOTE YES. LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ON BEHALF OF ELLEN?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN: ON BEHALF OF ELLEN, YES, ON BEHALF OF LYNDA, YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND ALICK.

>>ALICK WILSON: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WE'LL RECORD THAT MOTION CARRIED. IT IS RECORDED AS A CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BOARD WITH THE CHANGES THAT LOUIS HAD SUGGESTED. SO NOW THAT THE COUNCIL HAS, IN FACT, ACCEPTED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, I WILL REINFORCE ALSO JEFF'S THANKS TO JORDYN AS CHAIR, WHICH IS ALWAYS A TIME CONSUMING ROLE, AND ALSO THE FULL MEMBERSHIP OF THE DELETES TASK FORCE. IT WAS A GOOD JOB. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS TO BE AN ISSUES REPORT ON UDRP. I MIGHT GET LOUIS, AS GENERAL COUNSEL OR PERHAPS THE STAFF MANAGER, I'M NOT SURE WHICH HAT YOU'LL BE WEARING, TO COMMENT ON THAT.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I'M SPEAKING NOW AS GENERAL COUNSEL. WE ARE UDRP ISSUES REPORT WHICH WAS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL IN RIO DE JANEIRO IS OVERDUE AND I DO APOLOGIZE SINCERELY FOR THAT. ONE OF MY GOALS BEFORE LEAVING THE OFFICE FOR THE LAST TIME IS TO GET IT TO YOU. AND I EXPECT I WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ACTIVITIES AT ICANN LATELY, AS MANY OF YOU MIGHT SURMISE. AND I'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN LOTS OF MEETINGS, TELLING PEOPLE LOTS OF THINGS THAT I TRY TO DREDGE OUT OF MY MIND. AND SIMPLY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THAT REPORT IN A SATISFACTORY FASHION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, LOUIS. AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, THE BOARD, AT ITS LAST MEETING, ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO WHOIS, AND I BELIEVE THE FIRST ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS GONE THROUGH, I GUESS, THE FINAL PROCESS AND REGISTRARS HAVE BEEN FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THAT NEW RECOMMENDATION. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT ARE STILL TO BE COMPLETE. THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COUNCIL ACCEPTED THOSE, I BELIEVE THE BOARD ACCEPTED THE TRANSFER POLICY IN APRIL. CAN YOU PERHAPS PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO THE GNSO COUNCIL ON WHAT THE STATUS OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS IS AND YOUR EXPECTATIONS OF WHEN THEY WILL BECOME PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES?

>>LOUIS TOUTON: CERTAINLY. WITH RESPECT TO THE WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE FORWARDED BY THE COUNCIL TO THE BOARD IN FEBRUARY, THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD AT ITS MEETING IN RIO DE JANEIRO END OF MARCH. WE'VE BEEN WORKING THERE ARE FOUR CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT. THE FIRST ONE RELATED TO NOTIFICATION OF BY REGISTRARS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS OF THE WHOIS THAT'S ON RECORD AND REMINDING THEM THAT THEY SHOULD UPDATE IT. WE HAVE BEGUN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR THAT IN A DOCUMENT. IT WAS POSTED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, SETTING FORTH THE ICANN'S SECOND CONSENSUS POLICY EVER CALLED THE DOUBLE UDRP, STANDING FOR THE WHOIS REMINDER WHOIS DATA REMINDER POLICY. THERE WE GO. SORRY. THAT POLICY WILL BE PHASED IN OVER ESSENTIALLY THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR TO OCTOBER 1ST OF NEXT YEAR WITH THE NOTION THAT THE REMINDERS WOULD OCCUR ROUGHLY AT THE RENEWAL DATES OR ANNIVERSARY DATES OF CREATION OF REGISTRATIONS. THE SECOND ASPECT OF THAT WAS ONE SIMILAR TO ONE THAT JORDYN MENTIONED THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE FINAL REPORT OF THE DELETES TASK FORCE RELATING TO CIRCUMSTANCES OR HANDLING OF NAMES THAT ARE DELETED DUE TO INACCURATE WHOIS DATA IN TERMS OF THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD. BASICALLY, IT PROVIDES IF THEY GO INTO THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD, THEY CAN BE RESTORED BY THE REGISTRANT BUT CANNOT BECOME ACTIVATED THAT IS, TAKEN OFF OF REGISTRAR HOLD BY THE REGISTRAR UNTIL THE DATA IS RECTIFIED. THAT POLICY I EXPECT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. IT HAS BEEN HELD UP BECAUSE WE WERE, FRANKLY, WAITING TO SEE WHAT MAY HAPPEN OUT OF THE DELETES PROCESS SINCE THEY HAD A SLIGHTLY VERY SIMILAR, BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT POLICY, AND WE WERE WAITING TO SEE WHICH ONE WE WOULD BE ASKED ULTIMATELY TO IMPLEMENT. THE LAST TWO RELATE TO PROHIBITIONS ON LET ME BACK UP. IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND POLICY, IT WILL BE DONE MOST LIKELY IN COORDINATION WITH THE REGISTRIES IN TERMS OF THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRARS WHO RESTORE NAMES UNDER THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD. THAT IS, ONE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT A REGISTRAR ACCEPTS WHEN PLACING A RESTORE ORDER IS IT WILL PUT THE NAME ON REGISTRAR HOLD UNTIL THE DATA IS CORRECTED IF IT WAS ORIGINALLY DELETED FOR INACCURATE DATA PROBLEM. THE THIRD AND FOURTH ONES RELATE TO BULK WHOIS. THEY WILL LIKELY BE RESTORED ALSO WITHIN THE NEXT THREE TO I MEAN, THEY'LL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR WEEKS. INVOLVES PROHIBITION OF MARKETING SOLICITATIONS BASED ON THE BULK WHOIS, IT'S OBTAINED UNDER THE BULK WHOIS ARRANGEMENT. SO I EXPECT THAT WILL BE DONE SHORTLY. WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFERS, THERE IS A LIST OF 29 RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE, FOUR OF WHICH THERE'S FOUR ASPECTS OF THAT WHICH REQUIRE SOME OR IT'S RECOMMENDED THERE BE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY OR TASK FORCE CONSULTATION IN TERMS OF THINGS LIKE THE FORM OF THE STANDARD NOTICE THAT GOES OUT IN THE CASE OF A TRANSFER FOR AUTHORIZATION AND SO FORTH. WE'RE ABOUT AGAIN, PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO FORM A GROUP OF PROVIDERS TO HELP ON A NEUTRAL NOTICES AND SO FORTH. AND THEN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT PROCESS. IT'S SOMEWHAT MORE COMPLEX BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM THAT WE NEED TO TAKE SOME CARE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THEM ALL PROPERLY AND ENFORCEABLY IMPLEMENTED. I WOULD SAY THAT THIS ILLUSTRATES ONE PARTING CAUTION I WOULD GIVE YOU AS A COUNCIL WITH RESPECT BOTH TO YOUR OWN WORK AND ALSO THE WORK OF THE STAFF, IS IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THINGS RIGHT, AND THAT WILL REQUIRE SOME PRIORITIZATION OF NECESSARILY LIMITED RESOURCES OF EVERYONE. AND WE ALREADY HAVE RUN INTO THIS IN A WAY WITH THE WHOIS ISSUE PAPER THAT I PREPARED; THAT THERE COULD BE THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS YOU COULD TALK ABOUT, LOTS OF THINGS YOU COULD DEVELOP. THEY ALL REQUIRE EFFORT, AND IT'S BEST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU AND TO TRY TO PRIORITIZE THOSE, AND IT'S ALSO TRUE AT THE STAFF LEVEL. BUT DUMPING 100 THINGS TO IMPLEMENT ON STAFF AT ONCE IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO THEM BEING IMPLEMENTED IN QUICK ORDER. THANK YOU. >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, LOUIS, ALTHOUGH I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE HAD AT LEAST TWO YEARS NOTICE WITH THE WHOIS AND TRANSFERS WORK. AND I GUESS AS PART OF THE NEW POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IF WE DID ACTUALLY STICK TO THAT PROCESS AND ITS FAIRLY TIGHT TIME LINES, YOU WOULD EXPECT THINGS TO BE DROPPING OUT OF THAT PROCESS, SORT OF PERHAPS ONCE EVERY MEETING OR ONCE EVERY COUPLE OF MEETINGS. SO THE ICANN STAFF NEED TO BE AT LEAST RESOURCING, IF YOU GO BACK TO QUEUING THEORY, YOU DO NEED A CERTAIN SURFACE RATE TO THE QUEUE. >>LOUIS TOUTON: NOT TO DRAG THIS DISCUSSION ON, BUT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S WITHIN THE EXPECTATION. WHAT BROUGHT IT TO MY MIND WAS THAT AT THE LAST I BELIEVE AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, BY TELEPHONE, WE TALKED ABOUT A MECHANISM FOR TRYING TO SPREAD OUT, FIGURE OUT ULTIMATELY WHAT THE IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE AND WHOIS IS BREAKING THEM UP INTO DIVISIBLE PARTS. WHAT BROUGHT IT HOME TO ME IS WHAT ABOUT THE UDRP REVIEW, WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS? AND IF YOU JUST OPEN THE FLOODGATES AND HAVE A POLICY REVIEW PROCESS, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT IT FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND DIFFICULT FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BECOME EDUCATED ON THE ISSUES. >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR THE ADVICE. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA, REALLY, JUST TO REMIND THE COUNCIL ON THE PROGRESS ON THE WIPO 2 RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS COUNCIL WAS ASKED BY THE BOARD TO PROVIDE ADVICE. THE COUNCIL DID PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE BOARD STATING THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS NEEDED FURTHER ANALYSIS, AND WE'VE RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRESIDENT CONSIDER CREATING A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AROUND THOSE BEFORE ANY VOTING OR RECOMMENDATION COULD BE PROVIDED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BOARD DID MEET AND BASICALLY STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD FORM A WORKING GROUP, AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD CONTACT THE CHAIRS OF THE GNSO AND THE ALAC AND THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FORM THAT STEERING GROUP, OR WORKING GROUP. I CAN JUST REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ONLY BRIEFLY SPOKEN TO ME ABOUT THIS, AND I EXPECT THAT THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL OCCUR IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS ONCE HE CAN FORMALLY EXPLAIN TO ME HOW MANY REPRESENTATIVES THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE AS THE GNSO COUNCIL, AND I'LL CERTAINLY BE IN CONTACT WITH THE COUNCIL ONCE I, IN TURN, LEARN ABOUT IT. THE NEXT TOPIC ON THE AGENDA IS THE GTLD COMMITTEE REPORT. THE ICANN BOARD REQUESTED THE ADVICE OF THE GNSO COUNCIL ON WHETHER THE NEW GTLDS SHOULD BE STRUCTURED IN SUCH A WAY THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS A PREDEFINED LIST OF NAMES AND THAT ENTITIES COULD POTENTIALLY BE PROPOSED TO OPERATE ONE OF THOSE NAMES; OR ALTERNATIVELY, ORGANIZATIONS THAT WISHED TO CREATE A NEW TLD COULD PROPOSE ONE OF THEIR OWN. THE OUTCOME OF THAT PROCESS WAS A SHORT RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WHICH BASICALLY STATED THAT THE NAMESPACE SHOULD BE MARKET DRIVEN AND THAT ORGANIZATIONS WERE FREE TO PROPOSE NAMES THAT THEY BELIEVED WOULD BE OF USE TO USES OF THE DNS. THEN THERE WAS A MORE DETAILED FOLLOW UP REPORT THAT RAISED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IF OR WHEN, I GUESS, WHEN ICANN CHOOSES TO OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW GTLDS. THERE WAS MINIMUM CRITERIA. FIRST I'LL HAND OVER TO PHILIP TO JUST GO THROUGH THAT REPORT THAT FORMS THE COMPLETION OF OUR ADVICE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE. AS COUNCIL WILL RECALL, BASED ON EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE REPORT, WE MADE SOME PROPOSED CHANGES AT OUR LAST MEETING WHEN WE ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION. AND IN PARTICULAR, FOR CLARITY, THE FINAL REPORT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU HAS DIVIDED UP WHAT WE DESCRIBED ESSENTIALLY AS OBJECTIVES IN EXPANSION OF THE NAMEPACE WHICH WERE A SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE THEN NAMES COUNCIL OR THE BOARD, AND WHAT WOULD INDEED BE SUBJECT TO A FUTURE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE CRITERIA TO FOLLOW. AND IT LISTS THE CRITERIA, A TOTAL OF SIX OF THEM, WHICH COVERS AREAS SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING OF ICANN CONSENSUS POLICIES SUCH AS UDRP AND WHOIS; THE AVOIDANCE OF CONFUSION, AVOIDANCE OF FRAUD, THE FACT THAT THE NAME SHOULD ASSIST INTERNET USERS TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NAME AND ITS STATED PURPOSE, AND ALSO A STATEMENT TO DO WITH CONTINUITY IN THE EVENT OF BUSINESS FAILURE. AND FINALLY, A CRITERIA TO DO WITH COMPETENCE RELATING TO TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL COMPETENCE. THERE WAS THEN A SHORT LIST OF ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WERE ALSO RELEVANT TO TAKING PART IN DISCUSSION AND WHICH MAY THEMSELVES ALSO HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT IN GREATER DETAIL. THE REPORTS ITSELF, CHANGES EDITORIAL AND SUGGESTIONS MADE DURING OUR LAST MEETING AND SUBSEQUENTLY IT'S BEEN WITH YOU NOW FOR THE LAST MONTH OR SO, AND IT'S FOR YOU TO ADOPT TODAY AS A COMPLEMENT TO THE RESOLUTION WE ADOPTED LAST MONTH. . >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ON THAT REPORT? MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER: IT'S A QUESTION AND IT'S NOT ONE PHILIP NECESSARILY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANSWERING BUT I'M WONDERING HOW THE STAFF PLANS TO USE THIS REPORT. CAN WE INVOKE LOUIS AGAIN BEFORE HE GOES AWAY? AND I'M WONDERING WHAT ROLE THIS REPORT WOULD PLAY? I HAVE A SPECIFIC REASON FOR ASKING THAT, BUT LET ME HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. >>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS JUST BEFORE LOUIS ANSWERS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COUNCIL WAS ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO THE BOARD, FIRSTLY. AND THEN PRESUMABLY THE BOARD WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTION. BUT I'LL LEAVE LOUIS TO PERHAPS RESPOND AS WELL.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I IS THIS OKAY. THIS, I BELIEVE, IS ONE OF MANY INPUTS TO A PROCESS OF EVALUATION OF WHERE WE STAND NOW ON GTLDS AND WHAT ALTERNATIVES THERE ARE FOR HANDLING THEM IN THE FUTURE, GIVEN A GENERAL FEELING, I BELIEVE ON THE BOARD AND IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT QUITE RIGHT YET. AND I THINK THAT PROCESS, AS I UNDERSTAND, WILL BE MOVING FORWARD FAIRLY AGGRESSIVELY OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, AS WILL BE PRESENTED TOMORROW AFTERNOON AT THE PUBLIC FORUM. THERE IS ONE TOPIC ITEM ON, GENERALLY, NEW TLDS, GETTING SOMETHING IN PLACE TO EVALUATE WHERE WE STAND SO THAT WE HAVE THE DATA WHICH CAN FORM THE BASIS FOR INFORMED DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES IN AN AREA THAT, AS I SAY, IMPROVEMENTS ARE WIDELY DESIRED. >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, LOUIS.

>>MILTON MUELLER: IN THAT CASE I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR THE FORBEARANCE OF THE COUNCIL. THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCIES CONTRIBUTION TO THIS REPORT WHICH IS NEAR THE END IS BASICALLY A CRITIQUE. IT WAS WRITTEN LATE IN THE YEAR. IT WAS A CRITIQUE OF THE BC PROPOSAL WHICH WAS INVOKED BY STUART LYNN'S ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR OUR ADVICE. AND WE'D LIKE TO REPLACE THAT WITH A PAPER THAT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL, WITH A MORE CONSTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL, WHICH IS THE WHITE PAPER THAT WAS DEVELOPED BY MYSELF AND ANOTHER PROFESSOR AT SYRACUSE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY; I HAVE A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. THIS SAYS A NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY DOCUMENT, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME HAVE BEEN REVIEWED THOROUGHLY BY THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY AND AGREED TO, WILL NOW, AFTER THIS REPORT IS FINAL, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A REPORT WRITTEN BY YOURSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER PROFESSOR FROM SYRACUSE. HAS THAT ALSO BEEN REVIEWED BY THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY AND ENDORSED AS THE OTHER POSITIONS WILL, OF COURSE, HAVE BEEN? >>MILTON MUELLER: THE PAPER HAS CERTAINLY BEEN REVIEWED, AND IT COULD BE ENDORSED IF WE WANTED TO. THE POINT IS THERE'S NO POINT IN CRITIQUING THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY PROPOSAL NOW SINCE IT'S BEEN COMPLETELY SET ASIDE BY THE ORIGINAL COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION.

>>MARILYN CADE: MILTON, I MIGHT WELCOME YOUR NOT CRITIQUING THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY'S REPORT, AND EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN A PUBLIC FORUM. THANK YOU. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE POINT HERE, AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THAT. THE POINT, THE QUESTION IS STILL, I THINK, A VALID QUESTION. THE POSITIONS THAT ARE ATTACHED, AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM, WERE INTENDED TO BE THE APPROVED POSITIONS OF THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES. AND I DO THINK THAT IF THERE'S A SUBSTITUTION, PERHAPS THERE'S A DIFFERENT APPROACH, IF IT'S NOT AN APPROVED POSITION. BUT IF IT'S PRESENTED AS A POSITION PAPER BY THE CONSTITUENCY, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL CONSTITUENCIES THAT POSITIONS ARE AGREED TO. I DON'T MEAN TO DRAG THIS OUT, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE CONVEY THIS TO THE BOARD, THE BOARD WILL BE LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING, OH, HERE ARE THE ATTACHMENTS AND THIS IS AN APPROVED POSITION CONSTITUENCY BY CONSTITUENCY. SO I DO FEEL MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ATTACHMENTS IS THAT THEY'RE APPROVED POSITIONS. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT FOR THE ATTACHMENTS. IF IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH FOR THE PAPER, THEN PERHAPS THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AS WELL.

>>MILTON MUELLER: WELL, AGAIN, I JUST I THINK THAT IF WE WERE GIVEN A WEEK, WE COULD APPROVE THE PAPER THAT I'M PROPOSING TO SUBMIT AS A CONSTITUENCY. BUT THE POINT IS WHAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING FOR IF THE BOARD IS LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE GOING FORWARD, THEN WHAT WE HAVE IN THERE IS REALLY NOT SAYING TO THE BOARD WHAT WE WANT TO SAY AS A CONSTITUENCY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT, GO AHEAD.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: THANK YOU, BRUCE. I THINK WE'RE JUST CHALLENGED HERE WITH PROCESS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PROCESS WHICH THE FINAL REPORT, WHICH IS BEFORE US FOR ADOPTION, REALLY SETS OUT IS A PROCESS WHERE ALL CONSTITUENTS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE, NOT ONLY THROUGH THEIR OWN REPORTS BUT THROUGH DISCUSSION, ET CETERA, AND IN CRAFTING OF THIS FINAL REPORT. AND PART OF THAT CRAFTING IS WHERE THEY CHOSE THEIR OWN PARTICULAR INPUT, AND THAT IS WHAT ALSO WENT THROUGH THE NONCOM. I THINK AS THE GENERAL COUNCIL KNOWS IS THIS IS BUT ONE OF A RANGE OF INPUTS THAT THE BOARD WILL SEEK AND TAKE TO GUIDE IT AS IT GOES FORWARD ON THIS MATTER. MY SUGGESTION IS SIMPLY THAT YOU, MILTON, EITHER IN YOUR OWN CAPACITY OR IF YOUR NONCOM CONSTITUENCY WOULD WISH IT IN ITS CAPACITY, FORWARD THE REPORT, THE PAPER THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN SUCH AN INVITATION IS EXTENDED TO THE PUBLIC. BUT AS FAR AS THIS BOARD IS CONCERNED, FOR THIS COUNCIL, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE SEEK TO CONCLUDE THE WORK BY ITS ACCEPTANCE. >>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF. >>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS, BRUCE. I JUST WANT TO, I GUESS, PRESERVE THE RECORD, EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF PART OF THIS REPORT, WHICH SAYS THAT ALTHOUGH THESE ARE ADDITIONAL THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, THAT THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD THESE BE EXPLORED ANYMORE, THAT THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A NEW POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. YOU KNOW, BUT I DO SUPPORT PUTTING THIS REPORT TO BED FINALLY. BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHEN IT DOES GO TO THE BOARD, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONSIDER OR IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT ALTHOUGH THESE ARE SOME IDEAS THAT WERE FLOATING AROUND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE VERY FIRST PART OF THE REPORT, THE REST OF IT WERE JUST IDEAS. IT WAS BRAINSTORMING, AND THEY ALL NEED FUTURE ANALYSIS.

>>MILTON MUELLER: I'LL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MILTON. DID CARY WANT TO

>>CARY KARP: PERHAPS THIS IS A QUESTION TO LOUIS. AND PERHAPS THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO ASK IT. THE RFP POSTED EARLIER TODAY AND THE REFERENCE MADE IN IT TO THE BOARD INITIATING A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THIS, HOW DO THESE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS MAP INTO EACH OTHER? >>LOUIS TOUTON: THE THIS IS I ACCEPT THE QUESTION COMPLETELY. AND, CARY, YOU'VE ASKED IT AT THE RIGHT TIME. THE PLAN FOR ACTION THAT THEN PRESIDENT STUART LYNN PRESENTED LAST YEAR, LATE LAST YEAR, CALLED FOR THREE ELEMENTS. FIRST, ASKING THE GNSO COUNCIL A QUESTION WHICH HAS ENDED UP CONSUMING EVERYONE FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT STRUCTURING OF NAME SPACES AS AN ADDITIONAL DATA POINT. SECONDLY, FOR PROCEEDING VIGOROUSLY ON A PLAN FOR EVALUATION OF NEW TLDS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT YOU WORK WITH AND OTHERS. AND WE HOPE THAT ALL OF YOU WILL BE ALL OF THE NEW TLD REGISTRIES WILL BE QUITE COOPERATIVE WITH SEBASTIEN, WHO IS HEADING UP THAT STUDY AND WILL BE MOVING FORWARD, WE HOPE, VERY QUICKLY ON IT. AND, THIRD, IN MOVING IN PARALLEL ON A LIMITED NUMBER OF SPONSORED TLDS IF SUITABLE PROPOSALS CAME FORWARD THAT MET THE EXISTING MODEL FOR SPONSORED TLDS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT STUART REFERRED TO AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PROOF OF CONCEPT. AND THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS POSTED TODAY, WAS IS FURTHER WORK ON MOVING FORWARD ON THE RFP BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT RIO AND IN WRITING SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT. I EXPECT THAT THERE'S THAT THE SECOND ELEMENT, THAT IS, THE STUDY, WILL OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT THE NEW TLD EVALUATION PROCESS PLANNING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED WILL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY VARIOUS OTHER INPUTS, INCLUDING PERHAPS PAPERS SUCH AS MILTON MENTIONED THAT CAN BRING GOOD LEARNING TO WHAT HAS PROVED HISTORICALLY TO BE A DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO REACH CONSENSUS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, HOW BEST TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, LOUIS. I THINK JORDYN WAS NEXT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SINCE MILTON'S WITHDRAWN HIS SUGGESTION, I THINK MY COMMENT'S LARGELY IRRELEVANT. BUT I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT THAT >>MILTON MUELLER: YOU'LL MAKE IT ANYWAY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SINCE THIS IS A COLLECTION OF I THINK THE REPORT IS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE JUST A COLLECTION OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES. SO CERTAINLY THE NONCOMMERCIALS SHOULD BE FREE TO WITHDRAW THEIR CONTRIBUTION AND MAKE ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION TO THE BOARD AT A LATER TIME IF THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND JEFF?

>>JEFF NEUMAN: I WOULD JUST ASK THAT BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SUBJECT, IF WE COULD MAYBE HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE RFP OR BUT I'LL WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE VOTE ON THIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I PROMISE I WILL BE QUICK. BUT I DO JUST WANT TO NOTE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF, I THINK, SOMEWHAT CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSION ON THIS. IN TRYING TO FORMULATE THIS REPORT, I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY DIFFICULT TO GET SOME TEXT THAT EVERYONE WOULD AGREE TO. AND I WANT TO COMMEND PHILIP FOR FINALLY BEING ABLE TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF OUR VIEWPOINTS AND PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENT THAT EVERYONE COULD BE HAPPY WITH. THANK YOU, PHILIP.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, JORDYN. SO, BASICALLY, THE COUNCIL

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY SLIGHTLY FACETIOUSLY, IT IS INDEED ONE OF THE MOST WISHY WASHY REPORTS I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE TO REPORT. BUT PERHAPS, INDEED, IN THE SPIRIT OF CONSENSUS, I ACCEPT YOUR WORDS, JORDYN, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, PHILIP. AGAIN, I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE EARLIER IS THAT WHAT WE'RE RESPONDING TO FIRSTLY IS JUST A REQUEST FROM THE BOARD ON WHETHER THE TOP LEVEL NAME SPACE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED. AND I BELIEVE WE'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. WE HAVE ALSO, IN ADDITION, PROVIDED SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT WE BELIEVE NEED FURTHER WORK. AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ACTUALLY THAT A FURTHER PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS BE CARRIED OUT USING SOME OF THOSE INITIAL THOUGHTS AS A STARTING POINT BEFORE THE THE NEW TLD PROCESS IS COMPLETED. SO I THINK THERE WILL CERTAINLY BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR EACH CONSTITUENCY TO PROVIDE FURTHER INPUT DURING THAT PROCESS. AND I THINK WHAT LOUIS HAS SAID IS THAT WE ARE CERTAINLY STARTING ON QUITE A LONG PROCESS HERE. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS, I GUESS, COUNCIL ADVICE TO THE BOARD TO THE VOTE. WE AND PERHAPS I'LL JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE AGAIN. IT'S PROBABLY EASIEST. AND SEE HOW EACH PERSON VOTES. STARTING WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I VOTE YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.

>>MARILYN CADE: I VOTE YES.

>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTHE.

>>GRANT FORSYTH: I VOTE YES

>>JEFF NEUMAN: YES.

>>CARY KARP: YES.

>JORDYN BUCHANAN: ALSO YES.

>>TONY HARRIS: YES.

>>TONY HOLMES: YES.

>GREG RUTH: YES.

>>MILTON MUELLER: YES AND YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I PRESUME THE SECOND "YES" IS (INAUDIBLE) AND I ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE GABRIEL ON THE PHONE? NO ONE'S DIALED HIM? KEN STUBBS.

>>KEN STUBBS: YES.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR. LAURENCE?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN: YES, YES, AND YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.

>> WOW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES.

>>ALICK WILSON: YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WE'LL NOTE THAT ADVICE TO THE BOARD IS NOW FORMALLY APPROVED, FINALLY. YES, JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: IS IT IS NOW AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR ME TO ADDRESS THE RFP?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS WE'LL LEAVE THAT TO OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH WE'RE COMING TO SHORTLY.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE FINAL TOPIC THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA WAS REALLY IMPROVING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ICANN BOARD AND THE GNSO. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON THE LIST REGARDING POTENTIALLY HAVING BOARD MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS. THE ADVICE I HAD WITH THAT IS THAT BOARD MEMBERS, OF COURSE, CAN LISTEN IN AND EITHER TO THE RECORDINGS OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS, SO THEY CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS ARE. BUT WHAT I SUGGESTED IS THAT AT VARIOUS TIMES, WE COULD INVITE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL WHERE WE CAN PERHAPS GIVE THEM A SPECIFIC BRIEFING ON ANY TOPIC OF CONCERN TO THE COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL ITSELF COULD SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM THE BOARD REGARDING ITS PROCESS OR CONSIDERATION OR WHAT ADVICE IT WAS SEEKING FROM THE COUNCIL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT? I THINK WE HAVE LOUIS. THANK YOU.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I I'M REACTING MORE TO THE MESSAGE ON THE SCREEN RATHER THAN TO WHAT THE CHAIR HAS JUST SAID. IT STARTS FROM A FALSE PREMISE, AND THAT IS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BOARD. IT DOES NOT. IT SELECTS TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT SIT IN PARALLEL WITH ALL OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME DUTIES AS ALL OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, AND THAT IS A DUTY GENERALLY TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND TO ICANN. I HAVE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO THE COUNCIL PERIODICALLY REQUESTING INTERACTIONS OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER WITH BOARD MEMBERS. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE JUST TO THE TWO BOARD MEMBERS YOU SELECT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, LOUIS. JEFF. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I GUESS 'CAUSE IT WAS MY FALSE PREMISE, I'LL SPEAK NEXT. THE POINT OF THE E MAIL, AND, LOUIS, YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT WHAT I WAS THINKING OF WAS MORE OF A LIAISON FUNCTION FROM THE BOARD TO THE GNSO COUNCIL. IT JUST SEEMED NATURAL AT THE TIME THAT I WROTE THAT THAT IT WOULD BE IT COULD BE ONE OF THE TWO THAT WE HAD SELECTED. THE REASON THIS CAME UP, IT RELATES TO THE REPORT THAT WE JUST APPROVED IN WHICH WE SAT AROUND FOR SEVERAL MONTHS ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CALLS TRYING TO INTERPRET EXACTLY WHAT THE BOARD MEANT WHEN THEY SAID THE WORD "STRUCTURED." IT WAS VERY INEFFICIENT. IT WAS TOOK UP A LOT OF OUR TIME AND MAYBE COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A LOT EASIER AND QUICKER HAD WE HAD SOMEONE FROM THE BOARD ABLE TO SPEAK TO US TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE, OBVIOUSLY, NOT WITH SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO THE REAL PROPOSAL IS TO MAYBE HAVE A LIAISON FUNCTION FROM THE BOARD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS SO THAT IF THOSE QUESTIONS WERE TO ARISE, WE DON'T HAVE TO STOP THE CALL AND THEN WAIT ANOTHER MONTH OR SO UNTIL THE ANSWER UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWER. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PREMISE, AND NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE GNSO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL HAVE MARILYN AND KEN.

>>MARILYN CADE: LOUIS, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT WAS CERTAINLY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOING BACK QUITE A LONG TIME, ACTUALLY, TO I BELIEVE WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE BOARD. ONCE A BOARD MEMBER IS ELECTED, OF COURSE, HE OR SHE REPRESENTS THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO SORT OF A CONCEPT OF ENSURING THAT WE ARE IN FACT BROADLY ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE FULL BOARD. I THINK THAT, IN FACT, IT IS COMMUNICATION WITH THE BROAD BOARD THAT IS NECESSARY. NOT A SINGLE BOARD MEMBER, AS WONDERFUL AND INTERESTED AS HE OR SHE MIGHT BE, FOR REALLY THE SORT OF REASON THAT JEFF HAS JUST IDENTIFIED, INTERPRETATION OF WORDS OR MEANINGS, I BELIEVE, ARE ACTUALLY THE FUNCTION OF THE COUNCIL. AND, OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE AN ADDED ADVANTAGE HEADED OUR WAY AT SOME POINT OF HAVING ADDITIONAL STAFF SUPPORT TO THIS GROUP. SO I'M NOT REALLY TOO WORRIED ABOUT A PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, BREAKDOWN OF THAT NATURE. I THINK EVEN THE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, JEFF, THAT YOU USED ILLUSTRATES THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY SINGLE BOARD MEMBER TO HAVE ACTUALLY INTERPRETED WHAT THE CEO MEANT BY THE USE OF THAT WORD OR WHAT THE BOARD RESOLUTION MEANT. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK, THOUGH, TO SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF A BROAD INTERACTION FROM TIME TO TIME WITH A BROAD NUMBER OF THE BOARD AS A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEEPEN AND ENRICH THE UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF COUNCIL AND ON THE PART OF THE BOARD OF COUNCIL'S PARTICIPATION AND INTEREST. >>BRUCE TONKIN: ANOTHER THING THAT MAYBE COULD BE USEFUL IS A MEETING BETWEEN COUNCIL AND THE BOARD AT ICANN MEETINGS AT APPROPRIATE TIMES SO THERE IS RATHER THAN RELYING ON PERHAPS ONE INDIVIDUAL INTERFACING BETWEEN THOSE COMMITTEES. KEN, YOU WERE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THEN JEFF.

>>KEN STUBBS: YES. THIS IS MORE OF AN OPEN APPEAL TO THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. HAVING BEEN ON THE NAME COUNCIL FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS NOW, THE ONE THING THAT'S ALWAYS FRUSTRATED ME IS THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE NAMES COUNCIL HAVE HAD FOR INTERACTION WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS. WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD TO HELP TRY TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT MAKES IT MORE EFFECTIVE FOR YOU TO OPERATE AND FOR YOU TO HELP ARRIVE AT DECISIONS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY AND ICANN AS WELL. WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS DIRECT COMMUNICATION AND EXCHANGE OF VIEWS, THEN WE END UP GUESSING AND YOU END UP GUESSING. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIND SOME SORT OF A BASIS FOR WORKING A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY WITH EACH OTHER. WHAT I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO DO WOULD BE TO TRY TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF METHODOLOGY TO ALLOW OR TO ASSURE YOURSELVES THAT MEMBERS ARE PARTICIPATING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD EITHER IN MONITORING OR INVOLVING THEMSELVES IN THE NAMES COUNCIL AND THE GNSO SESSIONS. WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS INTERACTION. IT HELPS BUILD EFFICIENCY. WE'VE ALL BEEN STARVING OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS FOR RESOURCES. ONE OF THE BIGGEST RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE TO OPTIMIZE IS OUR TIME. AND I'M HOPING THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN SEE MORE PARTICIPATION. I RECOGNIZE YOU'RE ALL BUSY. I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE OBLIGATIONS AND EFFORTS. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER, TOO. AND WE'D REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THAT'S JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: IT'S AMAZING THAT ONE LITTLE E MAIL HAS SPARKED SO MUCH CONVERSATION. ONE OF THE THINGS I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH KEN AND WITH SOME OF THE POINTS THAT MARILYN HAS RAISED. THE ONE THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS WITH WHAT MARILYN HAD SAID, THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE STAFF TO RELY ON, BASICALLY, TO IN ALMOST TO INTERPRET THE WORDS OF THE BOARD. I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THAT IS THE WAY THAT WE WORKED IN THE PAST; I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SOME OF THE RELIANCE OFF OF THE STAFF TO PASS ON THE WORD FROM THE BOARD, WOULD RATHER, IF POSSIBLE, HAVE A LIAISON TO TRY TO CONVEY SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE BOARD, SINCE THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO LISTEN TO. AND THIS WOULD, I THINK, HELP TO WHEN WE DO GET A QUESTION FROM THE BOARD, TO FUNCTION MORE EFFICIENTLY. SO....

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY, THANKS, JEFF. MILTON. >>MILTON MUELLER: JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US, THAT IT IS COULD I MOVE, THEN, THAT WE, AS A FORMALITY, ISSUE A REGULAR INVITATION TO ANY TWO BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND OUR MEETINGS AND OUR TELECONFERENCES?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I GUESS I'D PROPOSE, AND IT'S UP TO MILTON WHETHER HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE RESOLUTION OR NOT. BUT I GUESS I'D PROPOSE SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, AND THAT IS THAT THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. THE PURPOSE WAS TO DISCUSS HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COUNCIL. THERE'S A NEW BOARD COMING IN. I WOULD MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE JUST TO OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO OUR CHAIR TO ASK HIM TO TAKE THE SENSE OF COUNCIL OF INTEREST IN A WAY TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE CHAIR AND ASK OUR CHAIR TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PAUL AS THE PRESIDENT AND CEO, AND TO COME BACK AND DISCUSS SOME APPROPRIATE APPROACHES, AND WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT, THEN, ON A CONFERENCE CALL. THAT'S, I THINK, A FRIENDLY, NEUTRAL, AND OPEN WAY TO DO IT, AND ONE THAT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE NEWNESS OF EVERYONE COMING IN, MIGHT BE AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WAY. BUT GIVING A SENSE OF THE INTEREST OF COUNCIL IN AN ONGOING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE.

>>MILTON MUELLER: I'D ACCEPT THAT AS A TOTALLY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. JUST TAKE THAT PARAGRAPH ABOVE WHEN SHE STARTED RAMBLING A BIT AND MAKE THAT INTO A MOTION, THAT BRUCE GOES OFF AND TALKS TO THE BOARD ABOUT HOW TO HOW TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATION AND TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME SPECIFIC PROPOSALS THAT ARE SUITABLE TO THE BOARD AND TO THE COUNCIL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK YOU CAN TAKE THE SENSE OF THAT.

>>MARILYN CADE: BUT, OF COURSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPEAL TO YOU TO DELETE THE "RAMBLING A BIT" COMMENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS IF I CAN SIMPLIFY THAT TO BEING BASICALLY THE COUNCIL REQUESTS THE CHAIR TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE ICANN PRESIDENT TO SEEK SOME MECHANISMS FOR IMPROVING THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COUNCIL.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN MY E MAIL, IN MY RAMBLING. I'M KIDDING. YEAH, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF OF THE E MAIL AND THE REQUEST. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND LAURENCE?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN: I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THAT. I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE SUGGESTION. AND LET'S KEEP THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES I'D LIKE TO DEAL WITH UNDER "ANY OTHER BUSINESS." JEFF WAS JUST, I THINK, REQUESTING SOME CLARIFICATION, THE RFP FOR, I GUESS, SPONSORED TLDS. THERE'S ALSO A WHOIS STEERING GROUP THAT'S BEING FORMED AT THIS MEETING. I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT TWO NOMINATING COMMITTEE APPOINTEES TO THE GNSO COUNCIL HAVE ALSO AGREED TO JOIN THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE, WHICH IS GOOD. AND I THINK THAT STEERING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO THAT STEERING COMMITTEE WILL MEET TOMORROW MORNING FOLLOWING THE WHOIS PRESENTATION, AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL COMPLETE AROUND 12. SO WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 12:00 OR WHEN THOSE PRESENTATIONS COMPLETE. AND GLEN WILL JUST SEND OUT AN E MAIL REMINDER FOLLOWING THIS COUNCIL MEETING. IT WAS INITIALLY SCHEDULED FOR 6:30 P.M. IT'S JUST BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. THE MATTER I BELIEVE MARILYN WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE CCNSO? JEFF?

>>JEFF NEUMAN: IF WE HAVE TIME, I'D LIKE TO ADD AN ITEM ON THE PAPER THAT THE GTLD REGISTRIES HAD SET FORTH TO THE COUNCIL, NOT FOR ACTION BUT JUST FOR DISCUSSION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT PAPER IS IN?

>>JEFF NEUMAN: THE PAPER ON I BELIEVE IT WAS CALLED FILTERING OF NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS BY THE ISPS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO YOU'RE JUST ADDING THAT UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS"? >>JEFF NEUMAN: (NODS HEAD.).

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL JUST ASK FOR A HOPEFULLY BRIEF UPDATE FROM MARILYN ON THE CCNSO.

>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, BRUCE. I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE COUNCIL ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND AS ON OUTSIDER OF THE CURRENT STATUS BECAUSE OF COURSE MANY OF THE CONSTITUENCIES AND COUNCIL AS A WHOLE HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CREATION OF THE CCSO. I DID ATTEND AND I THINK SEVERAL OTHERS DID AS WELL THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD ALSO THAT WAS OPEN. I ALSO ATTENDED A MEETING THAT WAS OPEN, ALONG WITH OTHERS HERE, BETWEEN THE CC'S AND MEMBERS OF THE ERC. SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE TWO MEETINGS EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION HAS GONE ON ABOUT REVISION OF THE BYLAWS THAT ARE PRESENTLY IN DRAFT FORM AND ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL. MY LATEST UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MANY OF THE DIFFERENCES THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE BETWEEN THE ERC AND THE CC'S, BOTH BROADLY AND NARROWLY, ARE BEING ADDRESSED AND THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY WORKING ON LANGUAGE, WHICH IS LOOKS QUITE HOPEFUL THAT THERE WOULD BE A VERY BROADLY SUPPORTED CCNSO WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF CC'S WHO WOULD BE COMING INTO THE SO AND THAT WE COULD BE ACTUALLY IF THOSE IF THAT STAYS IN PLACE AND THE DISAGREEMENTS AND MIS SORT OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUES ARE WORKED OUT, THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SEE A SO SEATED BY THE TIME OF THE NEXT ICANN BOARD MEETING. AND GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THE CC'S HERE WITHIN ICANN, BECAUSE OF THE CONTRIBUTION THEY MAKE TO THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY WELCOMED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARILYN. JEFF, YOU WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE RFP? AND THIS IS NOT TO BE USED AS A FORUM TO, OF COURSE, PUT IN A PROPOSAL TO THE RFP, BUT MERELY TO ASK PROCESS ISSUES

>>JEFF NEUMAN: NO; THE ONLY THING I WOULD NOTE IS THERE IS A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD TO COMMENT, AND JUST A QUESTION TO THE OTHER DNSO OR GNSO, EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER WE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT AND TRY TO HAVE A JOINT COMMENT OR WHETHER IT WAS IT'S OKAY TO PROCEED INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL, BUT JUST KIND OF TO EXPLORE. THERE ARE SOME NEW THINGS IN THAT RFP. I ADMIT I HAVEN'T READ IT COMPLETELY YET. IT'S FAIRLY LENGTHY. BUT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN THAT RFP THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, OR HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN THIS FORUM. AND MAY BE ONES THAT WE, AS A GROUP, WANT TO TAKE UP OR INDIVIDUALLY

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN THIS RFP YET, BUT PERHAPS, LOUIS, CAN YOU JUST RESPOND ON THE PROCESS SIDE? IS IT OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? IS IT? FOR HOW LONG, IF IT IS?

>>LOUIS TOUTON: YES, THERE'S A USUAL YELLOW BOX ON THE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU CAN CLICK TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE ALSO WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY AT TOMORROW'S PUBLIC FORUM TO SPEAK TO THIS. THIS GROWS, AS I MENTIONED, OUT OF CRITERIA THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN RIO DE JANEIRO AND VARIOUS WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED SUBSEQUENTLY, INCLUDING BY MR. NEUMAN, AND ONE OF THE AREAS WAS ACTUALLY ADDRESSING HIS COMMENT CONCERNING HOW TO BEST DEAL WITH ASSURANCES IN CASES OF REGISTRY FAILURE OR SPONSOR FAILURE IN THE CASE OF SPONSORED TLDS, TO GIVE REASONABLE ASSURANCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE REGISTERED THEIR NAME THAT THEY WILL HAVE CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND SO ON. SO THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TOMORROW. I EXPECT THAT WOULD BE THE BEST TIME TO GIVE INPUT. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG WRITTEN COMMENT WILL BE PROVIDED. I DON'T THINK IT SPECIFIES IN THE DOCUMENTS. BUT THE SOONER THE BETTER THE BOARD IS ANXIOUS TO EITHER DECIDE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS OR TO DECIDE NOT TO, I THINK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I THINK THE SENSE OF THAT IS THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TIME TO FORM A, PERHAPS, GNSO CONSENSUS. IT'S PROBABLY BEST IF THE INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES, AT LEAST, COULD PUT TOGETHER SOME COORDINATED COMMENTS, BECAUSE THAT MAY WELL BE POSSIBLE, AND SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL HAVE TO GET TOGETHER TONIGHT TO FORMULATE THAT COMMENT. AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH I'VE GOT ONE OTHER ITEM OF OTHER BUSINESS, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO RAISE? YES, JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: SORRY; I KNOW EVERYONE WANTS TO LEAVE. THE GTLD REGISTRY REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY HAD PUT FORTH A PAPER CALLED THE FILTERING OF NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAINS TLDS BY THE ISPS. SUBSEQUENTLY WE'VE AND I WILL NOTE THAT THAT PAPER IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE RFP, WHICH WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO SEE. I WILL NOTE THAT SINCE SINCE THEN, WE'VE RECEIVED VERY FEW COMMENTS, IF ANY. WE'VE SENT OUR NOT ONLY HAVE WE SENT THE PAPER TO THE COUNCIL BUT WE'VE SENT IT TO ICANN AND STAFF AND WE'VE ALSO SENT A COPY TO THE ISP CONSTITUENCY, WHO IS THE PERSON LISTED MARK MCFADDEN ON THE WEB SITE. I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A RESPONSE BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO IS MAYBE ENCOURAGE A WAY THAT WE COULD WORK TOGETHER TO MAYBE ADDRESS THIS SITUATION AND SEE IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN COORDINATE TO HAVE A JOINT EFFORT TO TRY TO GET ISPS OR APPLICATION PROVIDERS TO AT LEAST SPREAD THE WORD OF NEW TLDS, BOTH THE NEW ONES IN 2000 AS WELL AS THE NEW ONES THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED LATER ON THIS YEAR. I WILL NOTE THAT THE WORD OF THAT THE WORD THAT WE USE, "FILTERING," THERE HAS BEEN A COMMENT ON THAT AND WE WILL TAKE THAT BACK AND PROBABLY CHANGE THE WORD FILTERING TO "SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORTING OF TOP LEVEL DOMAINS." WE DO UNDERSTAND WITHIN THE CONSTITUENCY THAT THIS IS NOT JUST THIS IS NOT AN ISP PROBLEM, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT JUST AN ISP PROBLEM. IT IS ALSO AN APPLICATION PROBLEM, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY AFFECTS THE BUSINESSES NOT JUST OF THE SPONSORED TLDS BUT ALSO OF SEVERAL OF THE UNSPONSORED TLDS. AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE COULD COORDINATE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COMMENT THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "FILTERING" HAS BEEN CERTAINLY MISLEADING IN THIS SITUATION. IT ISN'T A CASE OF ISPS FILTERING THE INFORMATION AT ALL. AND THAT LED US TO TAKING SOME ACTION TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND ESTABLISHING QUITE FIRMLY, AS FAR AS WE COULD GET ANY INFORMATION, AND IT WAS QUITE EXTENSIVE, THERE ISN'T FILTERING GOING ON. SO THAT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THE ISSUE IS THE WAY THE NEW DOMAIN NAMES ARE LOOKED AT WITHIN THE RESOLVERS AND THE WAY THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN. SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS HELPFUL THE WAY THIS WAS PITCHED. WE ARE KEEN TO CERTAINLY WORK TO OVERCOME THIS PROBLEM, AND IT'S A NEW PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED, AND I ACCEPT THE COMMENTS MADE THAT IT ISN'T PARTICULARLY AN ISP PROBLEM. I DO THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF THE ISP CONSTITUENCY HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT THE COMMENT FROM THE OTHER CONSTITUENCY WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RFP AS WELL, BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY LODGED THERE AS ADVICE TO ISPS, YET WE WERE GIVEN NO PRIOR WARNING THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE INCLUDED. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS ISSUE ADDRESSED AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN ANY ADVICE IS INCLUDED FOR ANY CONSTITUENCY, THAT CONSTITUENCY NEEDS TO BE ADVISED AND TO HAVE SOME DIALOGUE BEFORE THAT ACTION IS TAKEN. .

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I CAN DO AS GNSO COUNCIL CHAIR IN THE PUBLIC FORUM TOMORROW, JUST REPORTING ON THE GNSO COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS, IS THAT I CAN CERTAINLY MENTION THAT THERE HAVE BEEN, I GUESS, TECHNICAL PROBLEMS SURROUNDING THE USE OF NEW TLDS THAT ARE BEYOND THREE CHARACTERS AND THAT NEEDS INVESTIGATION. I MIGHT ADD, AND I'M A TECHNICAL PERSON MYSELF, THAT THIS IS ALSO A SIMILAR ISSUE WITH IDNS, AND MERELY ESTABLISHING A STANDARD FOR IDNS MEANS IT DOESN'T WORK FOR EVERYBODY, JUST AS MERELY CREATING A NEW TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DOESN'T MEAN IT NECESSARILY WORKS EVERYWHERE AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WILL HAVE TO EVOLVE AS GROWTH AND PRACTICE OCCURS. AS THE INTERNET IS EVOLVED ITSELF. PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, I THINK I'D CERTAINLY ENDORSE THAT AS A WAY OF TAKING THIS ISSUE FORWARD. THIS ISSUE CAME UP ALSO AS A RECOGNIZED BUSINESS PROBLEM DURING THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY MEETING YESTERDAY. AND SO I CERTAINLY ENDORSE, I THINK, MAKING THE COMMUNITY AS AWARE AS POSSIBLE THAT IT IS A PROBLEM. SO A LOT OF IT IS GETTING ADVICE OUT THERE SO THINGS CAN CHANGE. AND I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS JUST MADE BY THE ISPS THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO GET THE LANGUAGE CLARIFIED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I BELIEVE WE HAD A COMMENT FROM THE FLOOR. I'M HAPPY FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT IF YOU'D LIKE.

>>: MARK MCFADDEN: JUST ABOVE THE FLOOR. I'M THE MARK MCFADDEN, ON THE WEB SITE, SECRETARIAT FOR THE ISP CONSTITUENCY AND I WAS VERY HAPPY TO RECEIVE THE INPUT AND I WAS ACTUALLY THE PERSON WHO TOOK ACTION ON IT. I SURVEYED 15 ISPS IN NORTH AMERICA AND FIVE ISPS IN EUROPE AND FOUND NO INSTANCES OF FILTERING. AND THEN WE TOOK THIS AND MADE THIS AN AGENDA ITEM IN THE ISP CONSTITUENCY MEETING WHERE WE ASKED THE MEMBERS WHO WERE PRESENT AND THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF FILTERING GOING ON THERE. SO WITH THAT WORD FIRST OF ALL, TO BE CLEAR, I TOOK ACTION WHEN I GOT YOUR NOTE, AND WE MADE IT A CONSTITUENCY AGENDA ITEM IMMEDIATELY. ANOTHER THING TO KNOW HERE IS THERE IS WE CAN'T FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL DELIBERATE FILTERING GOING ON, AND IN FACT, INSIDE THE ISP INDUSTRY, IT'S AGAINST OUR BETTER INTEREST TO DO FILTERING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE OVERHEAD THAN JUST SIMPLY PASSING THE DNS REQUEST UP FOR RESOLUTION, EVEN IF THE RESOLVERS ARE GOING TO RESPOND WITH NOTHING. SO IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUENCY, AND THE CONSTITUENCY DID TAKE ACTION, AND WHILE THERE IS CERTAINLY AN AWARENESS AND OUTREACH THING THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO HAVE TO DO HERE, I THINK THE FILTERING ISSUE IS SORT OF A MISUNDERSTANDING. AND AT LEAST OUR CONSTITUENCY HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THAT TAKING PLACE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR THAT UPDATE. CARY AND THEN JEFF.

>>CARY KARP: GIVEN THAT THERE MAY BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OF TERMINOLOGY, RESIDENT EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES, THERE NONETHELESS IS A PROBLEM. IT WOULD BE EASY ENOUGH FOR US WHO REPRESENT THE NEW TLDS TO RELATE INCIDENTS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS IN UTILIZING THE SERVICES EVERYBODY EXPECTS TO BE RESIDENT ON THE NET. SO THE QUESTION IS IF THIS COUNCIL, OR WHATEVER OTHER FORUM MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH DISCUSSING THIS, GIVEN TERMINOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WE NEED TO GET PAST. SO IT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY THE PROBLEM WAS DESCRIBED THAT SEEMS TO BE THE DIFFICULTY. I HOPE YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THE PROBLEM ITSELF DOESN'T EXIST.

>>: MARK MCFADDEN: I'M SUGGESTING THE PROBLEM I WAS SENT DOESN'T EXIST. I'M NOT DENYING THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLICATION OF NEW DOMAIN NAMES WITH SMALL ISPS UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LENGTHS IN TOP LEVEL DOMAINS. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THOSE ARE PROBLEMS. THE PROBLEM THAT WAS DIRECTED AT ME WAS BASED OUT OF AN INTERNET DRAFT AND IT TALKED ABOUT FILTERING FOR THE PURPOSES OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF BOGUS DNS RESOLUTION REQUESTS. AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHAT I TOOK FORWARD, AND THAT'S NOT GOING ON.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK I'LL COMMENT PERHAPS THAT THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS OF ICANN IN THAT THE CONSTITUENCIES DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE ISSUES AND COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER. SO THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY OBVIOUSLY IS IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM WITH ITS CUSTOMERS, ITS REGISTRANTS, AND IS TAKING THAT PROBLEM TO THE ISP CONSTITUENCY TO GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE RESPONDED. AND I WILL CERTAINLY MENTION THE ISSUE TOMORROW. I'LL DO JEFF AND THEN MARILYN, AND THEN LOUIS.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH, AGAIN, I WANT TO JUST ECHO THE WORDS OF CARY. AND I REALIZED, YOU KNOW, LIKE AS BRUCE SAID, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE FEEDBACK, BUT THE PROBLEM EXISTS. IT'S NOT FILTERING, BUT TO RESTATE THE PROBLEM, THERE ARE SOME ISPS AND OTHER APPLICATION PROVIDERS THAT USE INCOMPLETE DOMAIN NAME LISTS FOR SUPPORTING E MAIL AND URL ADDRESSES, AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THEIR SYSTEMS DO NOT INCLUDE OR DO NOT CHECK AND UPDATE THE CURRENT VALIDATION LIST OF TLDS PUBLISHED BY IANA. THAT'S THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM AND SO I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. TAKING OUT THE WORD "FILTERING" AND PUTTING BASICALLY THE WORD "SUPPORTING" IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, AND I HOPE GOING FORWARD THAT THAT IS THE WAY THE ISSUE IS FRAMED AND THAT WE CAN GET COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

>>: MARK MCFADDEN: JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT, IF I COULD. IF THERE ARE INDEED, AND I CAN'T SEE THE MINUTES ANYMORE, BUT THE STATEMENT WAS THAT THERE ARE ISPS AND APPLICATION PROVIDERS, AND I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR WORDS, JEFF, AND YOU WERE READING THEM SO MAYBE IF I DO THEM AN INJUSTICE, I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. THEREFORE ISPS AND APPLICATION PROVIDERS WHO ARE DEMONSTRABLY USING INCOMPLETE LISTS OF TOP LEVEL DOMAINS. IF YOU COULD FORWARD THOSE TO THE ISP CONSTITUENCY FOR US TO FOLLOW UP ON. WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IS FIND EXAMPLES OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MORE GENERIC PROBLEM, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE'D BE WILLING TO DO. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND IN OUR WORK, WERE EXAMPLES OF ISPS WHO WERE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY AM QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROBLEM AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK WITH ANYONE AFTERWARD ABOUT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES. AND I DO ACTUALLY I DID ACTUALLY MAKE THE POINT TO SOME OF THE FOLKS WHEN I SAW THIS THAT, IN FACT, IT WASN'T JUST THE USE OF THE WORD "FILTERING" WHICH CREATED A CHASE DOWN THE WRONG RABBIT PATH, BUT, IN FACT, SOMETHING WHICH WAS MISSING IS IT IS A SERIOUS IT'S IMPORTANT WE UNDERSTAND IT, IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE RANDOMNESS OF IT, AND WHERE TO GO TO TRY TO PROVIDE EDUCATION AND AWARENESS SO IT CAN BE ADDRESSED. BECAUSE WE ARE IDENTIFYING THIS PROBLEM IN THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW GTLDS. WE IDENTIFIED IT VERY EARLY, ACTUALLY, AS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. I THINK THIS IS IT'S GOOD THAT IT'S COME TO LIGHT. WE SHOULD TAKE THIS WE SHOULD BE INTENT OF TAKING THE LEARNING OF WHAT IT TAKES TO EDUCATE BROADLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THOSE WHO ARE NOT JUST ISPS BUT MAY OPERATE CORPORATE NAME SERVERS WHO MIGHT ALSO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE I'M FESSING UP TO THAT, AS CARY KNOWS, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER TABLES OR LOOK UP MECHANISMS OR RESOURCES THAT ARE RELIED ON ARE CURRENT AND UP TO DATE AND WE MAKE SURE THE INTERNET RESOLVES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MARILYN. LOUIS.

>>LOUIS TOUTON: JUST A PROCESS COMMENT. THE STLD RFP HAS BEEN POSTED IN DRAFT FORM AND AS JEFF MENTIONED AND TONY MENTIONED, EXHIBIT E TO THAT DOCUMENT IS THE PAPER THAT THE GTLD REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY PROVIDED TO MANY IN THE COMMUNITY. THE PURPOSE FOR INCLUDING IT IN THE RFP IS TO ALERT POSSIBLE APPLICANTS TO THE REALITY THAT SIMPLY GETTING A TLD INTO THE ROOT DOESN'T MAKE THE THING WORK EVERYWHERE IN ALL PLACES AND IS FELT TO BE A MEASURE OF FAIRNESS TO THE APPLICANTS IN THEIR ASSESSING HOW TO PROCEED. IF THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY WISHES TO AMEND THE PAPER BY REMOVING THE WORD "FILTERING," I'D ASK THEY DO IT PRETTY QUICKLY SO THAT IT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED INTO THE FINAL VERSION OF THE RFP.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, LOUIS. TONY.

>>TONY HOLMES: WELL, I VERY MUCH ENDORSE WHAT LOUIS HAS SAID AND REQUEST THAT, BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED I THINK FAR TOO LENGTHY NOW, THE ISSUE WAS OVER THE WORDING. ASK WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN TO THE RESULT SOMEWHAT QUICKER IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THAT. SO LET'S CORRECT IT NOW. AND WE WILL DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION GO FORWARD TOO MUCH. BUT GO AHEAD.

>>JEFF NEUMAN: TONY, I ACCEPT THAT. AND WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON IT. AND, IN FACT, IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP US ON REWORDING THAT, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT, SO IT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE RFP. THE OTHER COMMENT I WILL NOTE IS, IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE POLICY AND BUSINESS COLLIDE. THE POLICY IS, YES, THIS IS A LESSON LEARNED AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN AN EVALUATION. THE REALITY IS, IF WE CAN MOVE QUICKER ON IT BECAUSE IT IS AFFECTING PEOPLE'S BUSINESSES TODAY, THEY MAY NOT BE AROUND BY THE TIME THE EVALUATION IS DONE. AND THAT'S A REALITY. SO IF WE CAN ADDRESS IT SOONER THAN LATER. THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JEFF. SO THE ACTION THAT I'LL TAKE OUT OF THIS MEETING IS I WILL MENTION TOMORROW THAT A TECHNICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME PROBLEMS WITH RESOLVING SOME OF THE NEW TLDS, JUST AS THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS IN THE ROLLOUT OF IDNS AS WELL, WE'RE AT VERY SIMILAR SITUATIONS. THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER HOW TO IMPROVE AWARENESS AS WE DO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES AT THE CORE OF THE DNS, HOW WE INCREASE THE AWARENESS OF THAT AMONGST THE PARTIES TO DEAL WITH JEFF'S ISSUE, WHICH IS THAT IT IS AFFECTING THE VIABILITY, I GUESS, OF SOME OF THESE NEW REGISTRIES. AND THEN, FINALLY, THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE COMING OUT OF THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW TLD PROCESS. AND IT'S BEEN A PITY THAT THAT EVALUATION HAS BEEN SOME TIME IN COMING. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IF WE GO BACK IN THE HISTORY, IS THAT WE CREATED THE SEVEN NEW TLDS TO AS AN INITIAL EXPERIMENT BEFORE WE CREATED MANY MORE. AND THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF AN ISSUE THAT HAS ARISEN IN THAT PROCESS THAT PERHAPS WASN'T FORESEEN INITIALLY. AND AS WE CREATE NEW TLDS, WE NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNCIL TODAY, AND THAT IS TO THANK LOUIS TOUTON AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF ICANN FOR THE SUPPORT THAT HE HAS PROVIDED THE BOTH THE NAMES COUNCIL AND THE GNSO COUNCIL. LOUIS'S ANNOUNCED FAIRLY RECENTLY THAT HE WILL BE LEAVING ICANN. AND CERTAINLY HE HAS PROVIDED ENORMOUS SUPPORT. HE'S AVAILABLE AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING FOR SOME OF THE TELEPHONE CALLS FOR THE GNSO, AS WELL AS AVAILABLE ON SUNDAYS WHEN I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ON MONDAY. SO HE HAS MADE HIMSELF AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL WELL BEYOND PROBABLY THE AVERAGE CALL OF DUTY FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL. AND I'D LIKE TO FORMALLY THANK HIM FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR HIS DEDICATION AND THE WORK THAT HE HAS PUT INTO ICANN. DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: AYE ANY AGAINST? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU, LOUIS. (APPLAUSE.)

>>LOUIS TOUTON: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY RECIPROCATE BY THANKING YOU, BOTH THE NOW DECEASED DNSO NAMES COUNCIL AND THE GNSO COUNCIL, FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS AND CONSTITUENCY GROUPS THAT A GENERAL COUNSEL HAS TO DEAL WITH, THERE CERTAINLY WERE SOME THAT CAME FROM THE GNSO ARENA. BUT I THINK WE ALWAYS HAD A GOOD HEALTHY DIALOGUE AND ENGAGEMENT AND TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE PROBLEMS TO HELP THE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. AND I'M VERY GRATIFIED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH YOU SINCE 1999. (APPLAUSE.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. WELL, AT THAT POINT, I'LL THEN CLOSE THE COUNCIL MEETING. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING. (3:45 P.M.)