the Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers. Tony Holmes is a former councillor as well, will make the presentation.
>>TONY HOLMES: Thanks, Jeff.
The ISPCP met yesterday and discussed the following issues. The implementation of the GNSO tool kit for which we were joined by Rob Hoggarth from the ICANN staff. We discussed issues that were to form some of our later discussions with the ICANN board, including ethics and integrity and the gTLD program.
The ISPCP also discussed recommendations from the JAS Working Group and in particular the proposal to reduce the fee.
The ISPCP support the intention to reduce fees for needy applicants, but our concern that the support application review panel will struggle to effectively inhibit gaming of the system.
We continue to support the JAS work, but will be looking to ensure an effective implementation follows once a decision is made to move forward.
However, we are also concerned that failure to effectively implement the JAS recommendations has the potential to delay the gTLD program.
Members of the ISPCP were also brought up-to-date with progress made by the Commercial Stakeholders Group working on the budget, and we discussed the recent announcements by NTIA on the renewal of the IANA contract. Of course, IP addressing is particularly important to ISPs.
We met with representatives from the NomCom to discuss their ongoing activities, and we also discussed motions on the table for the GNSO meeting to ensure our councillors are fully conversant with the views held within the constituency.
We discussed this session today, and the invitation given to us to present to the GNSO Council the results of our meeting. Many of us who have been around a long time remember this process was used in the very early years of ICANN. In fact, in the days of the DNSO. It was a practice that was discontinued, and despite being here today I am reporting the ISPCP are not supportive of resurrecting this practice.
Many of the issues discussed within constituency meetings do not fall under the purview of the GNSO Council and its responsibility for developing gTLD policy. And meetings are open, and anyone can attend.
There's clearly a need for council to fully engage with the broader community during its public meetings but that should be focused on the topics that are currently being discussed by council, and this will provide a much more effective use of the valuable time we will spend together at ICANN meetings.