GNSO Council Rio de Janeiro Meeting on 25 March 2003 - Captioning

Proposed agenda and related documents

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030325.GNSORiomeeting-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. (Remote participation by telephone)
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC
Ken Stubbs - Registrars' constituency
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars' constituency
Thomas Keller - Registrars' constituency
Jeff Neuman- gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD (Remote participation by telephone)
Cary Karp - gTLD (Remote participation proxy to Jeff Neuman)
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests .
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Interests C. - (Remote participation, proxy to Laurence Djolakian)
Milton Mueller- Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies

Thomas Roessler- Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC) (non voting)

Wendy Seltzer - Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC) for matters relating to gTLDs (non voting)

12 Council Members physically present,
4 Council members participated by telephone

Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Charles Shaban - CBUC replacement for Philip Sheppard during elections, remote participation for 10 mins. since no ratification of the vote for Board seat 14

Steve Metalitz - WHOIS Task Force representative for Intellectual Property Interests C. remote participation by telephone.

 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I'LL GET STARTED AND I'LL STOP AT SOME STAGE AND GET FEEDBACK TO SEE WHETHER YOU CAN HEAR AND SEE, CARY AND JORDYN AND CHARLES.  IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE COUNCIL ON THE CALL?

>>GRANT FORSYTH:  GRANT FORSYTH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GOOD.  THANK YOU, GRANT.

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I AM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GOOD.  THANKS J. SCOTT.

>> BRUCE, THIS IS  STEVE  METALITZ.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  LET'S GET STARTED.  WHAT I MIGHT DO IS JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AND PEOPLE IN THE LINE JUST STATE WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT CONSTITUENCY YOU REPRESENT.  SO MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN.  I REPRESENT THE REGISTRARS CONSTITUENCY, AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.

   PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  HELLO, IT'S PHILIP SHEPPARD HERE, WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, REPRESENTING EUROPE.

>>MARILYN CADE:  THIS IS MARILYN CADE, AND I AM WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

>>TONY HARRIS:  TONY HARRIS OF THE ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.

>>GREG RUTH:  GREG RUTH FROM ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.

>>CHUN EUNG HWI:  CHUN, REPRESENTING NON COMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  MILTON MUELLER REPRESENTING THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  JEFF NEUMAN REPRESENTING THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  THOMAS ROESSLER FROM THE ALAC AS A NONVOTING LIAISON.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN REPRESENTING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY, LAURENCE, WHETHER YOU ARE HOLDING ANY PROXIES.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  YES, I AM HOLDING THE PROXY FOR ELLEN SHANKMAN.

>>WENDY SELTZER:  WENDY SELTZER, NONVOTING LIAISON FROM THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SPECIFICALLY ON THE GTLD ISSUES.

>>KEN STUBBS:  KEN STUBBS, REGISTRARS' CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS KELLER:  TOM KELLER, REGISTRARS' CONSTITUENCY AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  AND I THINK AT THIS STAGE I'D JUST LIKE TO WELCOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.  WE HAVE JEFF NEUMAN, WHO'S REPLACING ROGER COCHETTI.  THOMAS KELLER HAS REPLACED PHILIP GRABENSEE.  MILTON MUELLER HAS REPLACED HAROLD FELD FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY.  AND GABRIEL PINEIRO HAS REPLACE ERICK AHON.

GRANT FORSYTH HERE

BRUCE TONKIN:  THANKS, GRANT.

   I SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE OTHER.  AND CARY, I BELIEVE.

>>CARY KARP:  CARY KARP FOR THE GTLD REGISTRIES CONSTITUENCY

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND JORDYN?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  YEAH, JORDYN BUCHANAN,REPRESENTING THE  REGISTRY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND CHARLES SHABAN IS STANDING IN FOR PHILIP, IF NECESSARY.

CHARLES SHABAN  I WILL LEAVE THE CALL IF THERE IS NO RATIFICATION OF THE VOTE>>
BRUCE TONKIN:  YES, UNDERSTOOD.

   OKAY.  I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A FULL ‑  AND WAS J. SCOTT ONLINE AS WELL?

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  HE CERTAINLY IS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT'S GOOD.  WELL, WE HAVE THE ENTIRE COUNCIL EITHER HERE PHYSICALLY OR ON THE CALL, WHICH IS GOOD.

   THE FIRST THING IS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.  AND I GUESS THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THE AGENDA THAT WAS PUBLISHED.  FIRSTLY, ITEM 4, WHICH IS RATIFY THE E MAIL VOTE, WE WON'T BE RATIFYING THE VOTE AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE THE VOTE HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO A PROTEST, AND MY INTENT IS TO SCHEDULE ANOTHER COUNCIL CALL PROBABLY IN 14 DAYS' TIME, WHERE, HOPEFULLY, WE CAN ADDRESS THE COMPLETION OF THAT PROCESS.

   THE OTHER ELEMENT IS ITEM 8 AND 9.  THEY WILL BASICALLY BE ‑  THERE WILL BE A COMBINED DISCUSSION ON THE PRIVACY TOPIC.  AND THERE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ON THE ACCURACY REPORT.

   THAT'S ‑  AND I GUESS ITEM 12 SHOULD PROBABLY READ, UNDER GNSO BUDGET, IT'LL BE A DISCUSSION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.  SO THOSE ARE, I GUESS, MY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA.

   ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?

>>MARILYN CADE:  I WOULD ‑  MAY I?

   I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A RESOLUTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THE COUNCIL TO RECOGNIZE STUART LYNN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  WE MIGHT ADDRESS THAT UP FRONT SO I DON'T FORGET IT.

   YES, WHO WAS THAT?

>> THAT'S J. SCOTT.

   PERHAPS I MISSED MAILING ON THE LIST RECENTLY, BUT I THOUGHT THE LAST MESSAGE WAS WE WERE GOING TO RATIFY THE VOTE.  HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE THAT I JUST DIDN'T SEE COMMUNICATED TO THE MEMBERS?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I'M COMMUNICATING THAT CHANGE NOW, BASICALLY.

   THERE HAS ‑  WHAT HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ‑  CERTAINLY THE GNSO, AND IT'S ON THE GNSO WEB SITE, IS SOME INTERIM RESULTS THAT RESULTED FROM E MAIL.  AND IT WAS ALSO CONVEYED THAT THOSE RESULTS WERE SUBJECT TO PROTEST.

   AND I BASICALLY DRAFTED THIS AGENDA PRIOR TO HAVING THAT INFORMATION.

   SO AT THIS STAGE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REVISING THE AGENDA.  SO THAT'S    DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  WELL, I ‑  I SUPPOSE SOMEWHAT.  I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I SAW E MAIL FROM YOU POSTED TO THE ENTIRE LIST SAYING THERE WOULD BE A CONFIRMATION OF THE VOTE.  BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAD LOOKED INTO THE EFFECT OF THE PROTEST, THAT IT HAD NO EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, THAT THEREFORE WE WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RATIFY IT.  I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION COMES FROM.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH, LOUIS TOUTON, THE ICANN SECRETARY, CLARIFIED THAT I DID, ACTUALLY, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT INITIAL POSTING, THERE WAS A POSTING FROM MARILYN CADE RAISING FURTHER CONCERNS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, I SUGGESTED THAT WE WOULD NOT BE RATIFYING THE VOTE AT THIS MEETING HERE IN RIO.

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  OKAY.

>> EXCUSE ME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES, GO AHEAD.

>>CHARLES SHABAN:  YEAH, THIS IS CHARLES SHABAN.  FOR THE BOARD, I THINK I WILL LEAVE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU, CHARLES.  MILTON, YOU HAD A POINT.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  JUST AS AN AGENDA ITEM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHAIR OF THE UDRP TASK FORCE HAS RESIGNED.  AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE DON'T HAVE REAPPOINTMENT OF A NEW ONE ON THE AGENDA.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  MILTON, I THINK THE REASON WHY IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA IS JUST THAT THERE'S A LIMITED TIME FRAME TO COVER EVERYTHING.

   YOU'LL NOTICE ON ITEM 14 OF THE AGENDA, I HAD SUGGESTED THAT THE UDRP, THE AGENDA TOPIC FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE AT THE NEXT MEETING, THAT WE REVIEW THE UDRP TASK FORCE, POTENTIALLY REVIEW THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND REVIEW THE MEMBERSHIP AND THE CHAIR, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.  OKAY.  ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE AGENDA?

>>J. SCOTT EVANS:  BRUCE.  I WOULD LIKE TO DISCONNECT AND PASS MY PROXY TO LAURENCE.

>>CARY KARP:  I WILL ALSO HANG UP THE PHONE.  AND WHEN NEEDED JEFF NEUMAN HAS MY PROXY

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, CARY.

   WAS IT LAURENCE WHO HAD SOMETHING?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  JUST ONE THING REGARDING THE RATIFICATION.  COULD YOU SPECIFY WHETHER WE WILL BE ABLE TO RATIFY THE VOTES IN THE NEXT ‑  WELL, IN WHICH TIME LINE?  BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW THAT WE DON'T SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS TOO MUCH, AT LEAST.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I MIGHT JUST GET THE ICANN SECRETARY TO COMMENT ON THIS, BECAUSE HE IS ACTUALLY HANDLING THE PROTEST, AND THE TIMING OF THAT IMPACTS THE TIMING THAT I CAN RATIFY, ESSENTIALLY.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  YES, LAURENCE.  THE PAPERS CONCERNING THE PROTEST ARE, I THINK, IN NOW.  I EXPECT THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO RESOLVE IT SOMETIME ‑  GIVE AN OPINION ABOUT IT SOMETIME NEXT WEEK.  AND IF THE COUNCIL SHOULD SCHEDULE A MEETING TO ACT IN LIGHT OF MY ADVICE, AT LEAST, AT WHATEVER TIME AFTER THAT, AND I THINK BRUCE HAD SUGGESTED IN ABOUT 14 DAYS FROM NOW WOULD BE HIS PREFERENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH, I THINK THE ANSWER IS REALLY STAY TUNED ON THAT.  BUT WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO RESOLVE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

   OKAY.  DO WE NOW HAVE AGREEMENT ON THE AGENDA?

   EVERYONE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GREAT.

   THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THEN, IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING.

   DO I HAVE SOMEONE THAT WOULD PROPOSE THAT MOTION?

   KEN STUBBS.

>>KEN STUBBS:  YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  I SECOND.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  LAURENCE.  OKAY.  ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ANY AGAINST ACCEPTING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING?

   ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?  MILTON HAS ABSTAINED.  PROBABLY DUE TO HIS NOT BEING ON THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME.  WE'LL NOTE THAT ABSTENTION.

   AND THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING ARE APPROVED.

   ITEM 3 I'VE ALREADY COVERED.  THE ORIGINAL ITEM 4 WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COUNCIL.

   ITEM 5 IS DISCUSSING THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROCESS.  WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE AT THIS STAGE, CURRENTLY, THE COUNCIL ARCHIVE HAS BEEN CLOSED WHILE WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS.  THE ELECTION PROCESS, I GUESS, IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD.  I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE FIRSTLY THAT WE OPEN THE COUNCIL LIST AGAIN TO THE PUBLIC ARCHIVES SO PEOPLE CAN SEE THE POSTINGS.

   AND SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST WE CREATE A SECOND MAILING LIST PURELY FOR DISCUSSION OF THE ELECTION PROCESS.  AND THAT MEANS THAT MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT CHOOSE TO PUT THEMSELVES AS CANDIDATES FOR AN ELECTION WOULD BE ‑  WOULD NOT BE MEMBERS OF THAT LIST, BUT THEY MAY REMAIN MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL LIST FOR DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES.

   IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT PROPOSAL?

   OKAY.  SO I'LL MOVE A MOTION, THEN, THAT THE COUNCIL ARCHIVE BE OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT A SEPARATE MAILING LIST BE CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANAGING ELECTIONS GOING FORWARD.

>>KEN STUBBS:  I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND YOUR MOTION, BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, KEN.

   ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ANYONE AGAINST?

   ANY ABSTENTIONS?

   OKAY.  I'LL MOVE THAT MOTION PASSED.  AND PHILIP SHEPPARD WILL, OF COURSE, BE REINSTATED INTO THAT COUNCIL MAILING LIST AT THE SAME TIME.

   OKAY.  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PRESENTATION FROM THE CHAIR OF THE INTERIM AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO, REALLY, JUST BRIEF THE COUNCIL ON THE PURPOSE OF THE ALAC.  AND I HAVE SCHEDULED 15 MINUTES.  SO I'LL JUST INTRODUCE VITTORIO BERTOLA.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO PROJECT IT.  I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT.

   BUT, BASICALLY, IT'S THE SAME PRESENTATION I HAVE BEEN GIVING THROUGHOUT THIS DAY.  SO SORRY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN WATCHING IT.

   I WOULD LIKE TO BE MUCH SHORTER THAN 15 MINUTES, BECAUSE WHAT WE JUST WANTED TO DO TODAY IS INTRODUCE WHAT OUR COMMITTEE IS AND WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE CAN DO TOGETHER, BASICALLY.

   SO PRESENTLY, THE COMMITTEE IS FORMED BY 10 MEMBERS.  AND IT'S STILL AT AN INTERIM STATUS, SO NOT FINAL.

   I THINK SOME OF THE MEMBERS ARE HERE.  OF COURSE, YOU ALREADY HAVE SEEN TWO OF OUR MEMBERS, WHICH WE SENT TO YOU AS LIAISONS.  AND I WILL JUST ASK THE OTHERS IN THE ROOM TO JUST STAND UP.  I SEE SEBASTIEN AND ‑  IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ‑  I MEAN, I THINK YOU KNOW THEIR FACES, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO OPERATE IN A RATHER DISTRIBUTED MODE.  SO PERHAPS PEOPLE IN EACH REGION WOULD FIND IT USEFUL TO SPEAK WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE SAME REGION IN THE COMMITTEE.

   SO THEN WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR FIVE MORE MEMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.  SO I GUESS WE WILL SEE THEM IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS FROM NOW.

   SO THE MISSION ‑  THE COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE NEW BYLAWS.  SO WE WERE ONLY CREATED TWO MONTHS AGO.  SO WE ARE VERY YOUNG.  WE JUST STARTED TO WORK.  AND THE MISSION IS TRY TO GIVE A VOICE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USERS IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS.  SO TO TRY TO BRING ADVOCACY FOR THE USERS AT THE POLICY MAKING TABLE.

   SO THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO BUILD A SORT OF USER PRESENTATION TO THE ORIGINAL AT LARGE PLANS IS WE ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BUILD A SYSTEM FOR REPRESENTATION OF MILLIONS OF INTERNET USERS.  BUT WHAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO DO IS TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE ‑  THAT MORE LIMITED OF USERS WHO ALREADY ARE ACTIVE AND THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY ACTIVE IN THIS FIELD AND GIVE THEM A WAY TO PARTICIPATE AT THE POLICY MAKING TABLES AT AN EARLY STAGE.

   BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY THINKS THAT THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO ACHIEVE BETTER POLICY IN THE END.

   SO WE ARE TRYING TO IDENTIFY THOSE ACTIVE USERS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND STILL WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN ICANN.  AND THERE'S A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM.

   AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE TRYING TO PARTICIPATE AND TO SEND LIAISONS.  SO, I MEAN, THE BYLAWS GIVE US SOME WAYS TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS.  AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LIAISONS AND DELEGATES.  WE HAVE ALREADY SENT 5 VOTING DELEGATES TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.  AND I GUESS YOU ALREADY KNOW THE NAMES.

   WE ACTUALLY CONSIDER THEM DELEGATES.  SO, ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WE SENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACTIVE IN ANOTHER CONSTITUENCY FOR A LONG TIME.  SO WE DON'T CONSIDER THEM REPRESENTATIVES, BUT WE REALLY CONSIDER THEM DELEGATES.

   WE WILL HAVE A NONVOTING BOARD LIAISON WHEN THE NEW BOARD WILL BE FINALIZED.  AND WE HAVE ALREADY SENT LIAISONS TO OTHER BODIES.  ONE IS THOMAS ROESSLER, WHICH IS OUR OTHER LIAISON WE SENT TO YOU.  AND WE THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING, OF COURSE.

   AND WE ALSO HAVE BEEN SENDING PEOPLE TO THE TASK FORCES, SUCH AS WENDY AND (INAUDIBLE) ON THE UDRP.

   I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE THE FINAL STRUCTURE OF THE AT LARGE MECHANISM NOW.  BECAUSE IN THE FINAL STRUCTURE, WE WILL STILL HAVE 5 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.  BUT THE OTHER 10 WILL BE APPOINTED, TWO PER EACH REGION, BY WHAT WE CALL THE REGIONAL AT LARGE ORGANIZATIONS.  SO THESE ARE SORT OF NEW ORGANIZATIONS THAT STILL HAVE TO BE CREATED AND THAT ARE EXPECTED TO ACT JUST LIKE A COORDINATING POINT FOR THE REGION.

   SO THEY WILL BE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ALL THIS LIST OF VERY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS AND THE COMMITTEE.  AND IN TURN, THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO USE THE CHANNEL TO CREATE LOCAL FORUMS, SO TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH PEOPLE IN LOCAL LANGUAGES AND IN WAYS THAT SUIT THE LOCAL CULTURES AND GET THIS INPUT AND BRING IT TO THE POLICY MAKING TABLES THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND THE LIAISONS WE HAVE.

   SO AT THE FINAL LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE, WE HAVE THE SO CALLED AT LARGE STRUCTURES, WHICH IS REALLY A GENERIC TERM THAT MEANS ANY INTERNET USER ORGANIZATION.  AND THE ONLY CONDITION WE HAVE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUALS.  SO NOT ON OTHER INTEREST GROUPS, BUT IT SHOULD BE PRIMARILY BE MADE OF INDIVIDUALS.

   BUT IT COULD BE FOCUSED ON A SUBSET OF INDIVIDUALS.  SO WE CAN ACCEPT ISSUE BASED ORGANIZATIONS; WE CAN ACCEPT NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.  SO IN GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS.  THE IDEA IS REALLY TO TAKE AS MANY DIFFERENT INPUTS AS WE CAN REACH AND PUT THEM TO CONFRONTATION AND LET THEM ‑  EACH OF THEM TALK TO THE OTHERS, THEN DISCUSS AND COME TO IDEAS, POSSIBLY COMMON IDEAS, BUT POSSIBLY NOT.  AND THEN BRING THESE UP TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN LET THE COMMITTEE BRING THESE TO ‑  INTO ICANN POLICY MAKING PROCESS.

   SO OF COURSE THERE WILL BE A SORT OF ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUALS.  BUT WE DON'T EXPECT TO BE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON THIS.

   SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COME TO THE ‑  TO WHAT WE ARE DOING.  AS I WAS TOLD BEFORE, WE HAVE JUST STARTED TO WORK.  BUT ‑  AND OF COURSE WE HAVE TO COPE WITH A NUMBER OF STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT WE THINK WE WILL OCCUPY FOR THE NEXT MONTH.

   SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CREATION OF THE ‑  OF THESE REGIONAL AT LARGE ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE INDEPENDENT FROM ICANN.  SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF ICANN.  THEY ARE GOING TO BE SEPARATE AND SELF SUSTAINING.

   BUT, OF COURSE, WE ARE EXPECTED TO FORESTALL THE CREATION TO PERHAPS PROPOSE DIFFERENT MODELS FOR SELF ORGANIZATIONS AND TO MAKE THIS ACTUALLY HAPPEN.  AND, OF COURSE, WE ALSO HAVE TO DO SOME OUTREACH.  WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO CONDUCT, FOR EXAMPLE, BRAZILIAN ORGANIZATIONS HERE, WE HAD A MEETING ON SUNDAY.  WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS IDENTIFY ORGANIZATIONS THAT ALREADY ARE THERE AND CAN PARTICIPATE AND SUPPORT THE PROCESS.

   AND, OF COURSE, WE ARE INTRODUCING OURSELVES TO OTHER PARTS OF ICANN.  BUT WE REALLY WANT TO BE ACTIVE AT THE POLICY LEVEL BECAUSE WE THINK ALL THESE MECHANISMS WILL HAVE A POSITIVE OUTCOME ONLY IF THE POLICY IS ACTUALLY GOOD.  SO IF WE CAN PARTICIPATE TO THE POLICY MAKING TABLES AND HELP PRODUCE BETTER POLICY.  AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO SEND LIAISONS AROUND AND TO SAY THINGS ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES.

   OF COURSE, THE ONES WE HAVE NOW ON THE TABLE ARE THE ONES THAT EVERYBODY HAS ON THE TABLE.  SO WHOIS AND NEW GTLDS AND WE SAW ENUM THIS MORNING, AND DELETES AND TRANSFERS.

   AND I WILL NOT ENTER INTO DETAILS ON OUR IDEAS ON THIS BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THOMAS, WHICH IN FACT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME.  AND SO HE IS OUR LIAISON.  AND HE WILL SAY WHAT THE COMMITTEE THINKS WHEN IT'S NECESSARY.

   BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO BE THERE BECAUSE WE THINK WE CAN BE USEFUL TO YOU, WE CAN HELP YOU IN GETTING ONE MORE VOICE AT THE TABLE.  AND WE THINK THAT THE MORE VOICES ARE HEARD, THE BETTER THE RESULTING POLICY IS.

   SO THANK YOU.  THIS IS ALL.  DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR....

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, VITTORIO.

   I GUESS ONE COMMENT I WOULD MAKE AS CHAIR IS THAT WE CERTAINLY VERY MUCH WELCOME THE PARTICIPATION OF THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.  AND I GUESS WE'D LIKE PARTICIPATION AT THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF THE ‑  AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTING THE TASK FORCE AND PROVIDING INPUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT'S MOST VALUABLE, WHEN ALL THE ISSUES CAN BE PUT ON THE TABLE AND WE CAN DISTILL, HOPEFULLY, WHAT THE CONSENSUS POSITION IS, RATHER THAN TAKING AN APPROACH OF WAITING UNTIL THERE'S A FINAL REPORT AND THEN RAISING ISSUES THAT ARE OFTEN HARD TO DEAL WITH AT THAT STAGE.

   BUT IT'S JUST A GENERAL COMMENT THAT I WOULD MAKE TO THE ALAC.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  YES.  AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE LIAISONS AT THE POLICY MAKING LEVEL AND NOT JUST AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

   SO, OF COURSE, BOARD POWER, LET'S CALL IT THIS WAY, IS IMPORTANT.  BUT I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING IDEAS AND OPINIONS.  BECAUSE IF WE SUCCEED IN BRINGING INTELLIGENT IDEAS, I THINK THEY WILL BE SUPPORTED BY EVERYONE.

   SO WE EXPECT TO SEE OUR IDEAS SUPPORTED WHEN THEY ARE GOOD.  AND I THINK THIS IS THE IMPORTANT POINT WHERE YOU CAN MEASURE WHETHER WE ARE USEFUL OR NOT AND WHETHER THERE IS ANY REAL SPACE FOR USERS IN ICANN OR NOT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU.  ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?  MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN ORGANIZATIONS ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY WERE FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUALS.

   WHAT IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUALS AS OPPOSED TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS FOCUSED ON SOMETHING ELSE?

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  WELL, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DEBATE ON THIS ALSO BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN REFINEMENTS OF THE BYLAWS RECENTLY.  SO THERE HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SHOULD ONLY ACCEPT ORGANIZATION THAT ONLY HAVE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, OR WE COULD ALSO ACCEPT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AS MEMBERS.  AND, OF COURSE, IT'S A DIFFICULT PROBLEM, BECAUSE TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE CHAPTERS OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY, WHICH I THINK IN MOST COUNTRIES ARE PERHAPS THE ONLY ONE OR THE BEST SUITED INTERNET USER ORGANIZATIONS.  BY THE WAY, WE ARE NOT GOING SO STRICT.  WE WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE ORGANIZATION PER NATION.  BUT I THINK THAT REALISTICALLY, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THEY ARE GOING TO BE A GOOD PART OF OUR INITIAL MEMBERSHIP.  IF YOU TAKE THEM, YOU WILL DISCOVER THAT MOST OF THEM ACTUALLY HAVE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS, WHICH WE NEED TO BRING FUNDS HOME AND MAINTAIN THE WHOLE THING.  SO IF YOU EXCLUDE THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE ALSO ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS, YOU WILL POSSIBLY END UP WITH NO ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATING.

   SO, OF COURSE, IT'S A MATTER OF BALANCE.  SO WE ARE WORKING, ACTUALLY, ON THE CRITERIA AND THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT WILL HAVE TO BE APPLIED, IT WILL HAVE TO BE USED TO ACCEPT ORGANIZATION, THE MECHANISMS.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  AS A FOLLOW UP, I GUESS SOME EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED SINCE I WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF AT LARGE WAS THAT IT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUALS.

   SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SHIFT TOWARDS ORGANIZATIONS HAS TAKEN PLACE, OR WHAT THE RATIONALE OF IT IS UNDER THE REFORM STRUCTURE.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  WELL, I THINK THAT THE RATIONALE IS THAT MOSTLY THAT THOSE ‑  I MEAN, NOT MILLIONS, BUT PERHAPS HUNDREDS OF USERS WHO ALREADY ARE ACTIVE AND WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO SELF ORGANIZE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IN ORGANIZATIONS.  SO THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY YOU HAVE TO REACH THEM AND BRING THEM IN.

   NOW, THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING NOW IS WHETHER, FOR EXAMPLE, DECISION MAKING AT THE REGIONAL AT LARGE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL SHOULD BE BASED ORGANIZATIONS, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE ORGANIZATION, ONE VOTE.  OR SHOULD BE BASED ON INDIVIDUALS.

   OF COURSE, WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL ANSWER ON THIS.  AND WE ARE EXPECTING TO LEAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO THE REGIONS.  SO EACH REGION CAN CHOOSE WHICH IS THE BEST MODEL FOR THEM, WHICH BETTER SUITS THEIR CHARACTERISTICS.

   BUT, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IN THE END, IT COULD BE INDIVIDUALS RULING AND MAKING THE DECISIONS AND VOTING ON THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL AT LARGE ORGANIZATIONS.  AND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REGIONAL AT LARGE ORGANIZATION ARE GOING TO SELECT OR ELECT, HOPEFULLY, THE MEMBERS OF THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  OKAY.  I PROMISE THIS IS THE LAST FOLLOW UP.  BUT I'M STILL CONFUSED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DEBATING THE ALAC.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  IT REALLY IS QUESTIONS.  I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE ISSUE IS HERE.

   IT SEEMS TO ME VERY SIMPLE TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS JOIN THE ALAC.  I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RALOS HAVE TO BE ORGANIZATIONS.  BUT THEY ARE SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THEIR REGIONS.  I DON'T UNDER  ‑  WHEN YOU GET INTO ORGANIZATIONS JOINING, THEN YOU TALK ABOUT ACCREDITATION.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUALS JOINING AT THE AT LARGE ORGANIZATION LEVEL, WHICH IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE HAVE.  PERSONALLY, PERHAPS, THE ONE I PREFER.  BUT, OF COURSE, THERE'S STILL TO DISCUSS ON THIS.

   THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE ALSO WANT TO BE PRACTICAL.  WE WANT TO MAKE STEPS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SUPPORT AND THEN CAN ACTUALLY BRING SOMEONE TO HAVE TIME AND RESOURCES TO COME TO ICANN MEETINGS AND ACTIVELY SPEAK RATHER THAN JUST DISCUSSING THE PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  WE DO HAVE A BUSY AGENDA.  I HAVE MARILYN IN THE QUEUE AND THOMAS IN THE QUEUE.  AND IF WE CAN MAKE IT FAIRLY BRIEF.  AND IF WE NEED TO DO FOLLOW UP, WE WILL BE SCHEDULING THAT AS A SEPARATE MEETING.

>>MARILYN CADE:  THANK YOU.  VITTORIO, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S REALLY TERRIFIC TO WELCOME THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ‑  FORMALLY TO THE FIRST OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS.  WE HAVE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HAD THE PARTICIPATION OF MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN OTHER ROLES AND MY COCHAIR AND I FOR THE WHOIS TASK FORCE WERE WELCOMED BY THE COUNCIL TO COME ‑  WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO COME AND TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE.  AND I WANT TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR THAT.

   ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM VERY IMPRESSED BY THE INTEREST AND ENTHUSIASM OF THE MEMBERS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO JUMP INTO GETTING INVOLVED IN POLICY EVEN WHILE THEY ‑  YOU ARE CONTINUING TO DO THE WORK OF BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE, PRAGMATIC, AND WIDE REACHING PROCESS THAT PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE IN WIDELY.

   AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE ANY CONTACTS ACROSS THE WORLD THROUGH ANY BUSINESS CONTACTS THAT I HAVE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT I COULD INTRODUCE ANY OF YOU TO, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.  AND I'M SURE THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COUNCIL WOULD ALSO WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEND THEIR INTRODUCTION AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.

   THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERY BRIEF REMARK ON MILTON'S QUESTIONS.

   TWO THINGS.  FIRST OF ALL, THIS COMPLICATED STRUCTURE IN A WAY COMES MOSTLY INTO PLAY WHEN DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE.

   NOW, FOR MANY OF THE KEY ACTIVITIES OF THE ALAC, WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS MORE ABOUT ADVOCACY, AS VITTORIO SAID, THAN ABOUT REPRESENTATION.  AT THE SAME TIME, THIS MEANS THAT THE NEED FOR ELABORATE DECISION MAKING PROCESSES TO BE APPLIED IN DEVELOPING OPINIONS FOR THIS ADVOCACY, THAT THIS NEED IS NOT SO LARGE.  SO I WOULD NOT ‑  WELL, YOUR CONCERN THAT THIS IS TOO COMPLICATED DOES NOT REALLY ‑  AND MAY IMPEDE ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY APPLY, I THINK.

   WE WILL TRY TO BE VERY PRAGMATIC IN ACTUALLY WORKING ON THINGS AND ALSO TRY TO GET INPUT FROM INDIVIDUALS.

   AND, FINALLY, ONE LAST POINT ABOUT THE EXISTING ORGANIZATION.  WHAT WE ARE TRYING IS TO REALLY TAP RESOURCES, EXPERTISE, AND ENTHUSIASM WHICH EXISTS ELSEWHERE.  WE DON'T WANT TO GO AND BUILD EVERYTHING FROM SCRATCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, THOMAS.  THANK YOU, VITTORIO.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA:  THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE DELETES TASK FORCE.

   IN THE LAST, I GUESS, 48 HOURS OR SO, THE LATEST TASK FORCE REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED.  AND I'D LIKE TO GET JORDYN, IF HE'S ABLE TO DO IT OVER THE TELECONFERENCE PHONE, I GUESS IF YOU COULD PROVIDE PERHAPS A SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS.  AND I'M ASSUMING THE INTENT WOULD BE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING THAT WE'D BE MOVING TO VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS.  BUT I'LL HAND OVER TO JORDYN IF HE CAN PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF ‑  OR AN UPDATE ON THE DELETES TASK FORCE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  RIGHT.  THE DELETES TASK FORCE BELIEVES THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR CURRENT ROUND OF WORK.  WE'VE SUBMITTED A FINAL REPORT FOR ‑  WHICH WE HAVE TRANSMITTED FOR PUBLICATION AND TO THE NAMES COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.

   I'LL RUN THROUGH THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS BRIEFLY, AS WELL AS THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT.

   I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, SO I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT RELATIVELY QUICK.

   FORTUNATELY, THE NUMBER OF CHANGES FROM THE INTERIM REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED APPROXIMATELY A MONTH AGO, A LITTLE MORE THAN A MONTH AGO, ARE NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT.  WE DID MAKE CHANGES, SOME MINOR CHANGES, TO THE RECOMMENDATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH CERTAIN COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD.

   ONE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES TO THIS REPORT, ACTUALLY, IS THAT WE HAVE INTRODUCED RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.  THERE ACTUALLY WAS NOT AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER.  SO WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE AN EXPLICIT RESPONSE TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE.

   THE ‑  AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS CALL, THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR AREAS THAT THE TASK FORCE WAS CHARTERED TO LOOK AT.  THE FIRST IS CONSISTENCY OF THE DELETION PROCESS AS HANDLED BY REGISTRARS.  THE SECOND IS THE CONSISTENCY ‑  OR THE DELETION PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO DELETION ON ‑  AND ACCURACY OF WHOIS, WHOIS DATA.

   THE THIRD AREA IS CONSISTENCY OF   CONSISTENCY OF PROCESS FOLLOWING A ‑  OR BY REGISTRY.

   AND THE FOURTH AREA IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE A RENEWAL UNDO COMMAND.  THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DELETE AND THE UNDO COMMAND.

   THE TASK FORCE ACTUALLY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW POLICIES IN ONLY TWO OF THESE AREAS.  THE FIRST AND WHAT MOST OF THEM ARE INTERESTED IN IS DELETION PRACTICE WITH REGARD TO REGISTRAR POLICY.  AND THE SECOND RELATES TO PRACTICE WITH REGARDS TO THE WHOIS PROCESS.

   AND IN REALITY, I WILL COVER THE SECOND ONE FIRST.

   THE WHOIS PROCESS, BY AND LARGE, WE THOUGHT WAS WELL HANDLED AND COVERED PRIMARILY BY THE WHOIS TASK FORCE.  AND, IN FACT, OUR ONLY RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARDS TO WHOIS IS ACTUALLY, I THINK, ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH AN EXISTING RECOMMENDATION ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE NAMES COUNCIL, BY THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, INDICATING THAT IF A NAME IS DELETED DUE TO A COMPLAINT BY WHOIS, WHOIS ACCURACY, THAT THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD SHOULD APPLY TO NAMES.  HOWEVER, THE NAME SHOULD NOT BE REDEEMED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE REGISTRAR WAS PREPARED TO INDICATE THAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY VERIFIED THAT THERE WAS UP TO DATE AND VERIFIED INFORMATION WITHIN THE WHOIS DATABASE.

   WITH REGARDS TO THE CONSISTENCY OF DATA, OF THE DELETION PROCESS BY REGISTRARS, WE BROKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS INTO TWO GENERAL AREAS.

   THE FIRST IS JUST THE GENERAL UNIFORM PRACTICE AFTER DOMAIN NAME EXPIRY BY REGISTRARS.

   THE SECOND, SPECIFIC CASE OF WHAT HAPPENS TO A NAME THAT MAY BE SUBJECT  TO A URDP DISPUTE AT THE TIME OF OPERATION.

   WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST AREA, THE GENERAL CASE OF NAMES NOT SUBJECT TO URDP DISPUTE, MOST OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR REGISTRANTS.

   SO CURRENTLY, IT'S NOT CLEAR ONCE THE NAME IS EXPIRED WHEN OR IF IT MAY BE DELETED BY REGISTRARS.

   ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT WE LAID DOWN, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS POLICY, IS THE REGISTRAR OUGHT NOT TO DELETE NAMES BY THE END OF THE GRACE PERIOD, WHICH CURRENTLY IS A 45 DAY PERIOD, IF THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PAID RENEWAL BY THE REGISTRANT.

   SO THIS COULD ALSO BE COVERED ‑  THIS LANGUAGE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE SO RESTRICTIVE THAT A REGISTRAR HAD SOME SORT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH A REGISTRANT THAT HAS ALREADY AGREED TO AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF THEIR NAME BY NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR AND THE REGISTRANT; THAT IT WOULD PRECLUDE THERE.

   BUT THERE MUST BE SOME INDICATION THAT THEY WILL RENEW BY THE END OF THE GRACE PERIOD.

   SIMILARLY, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRANT CAME TO AN END, WHETHER TERMINATED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES, THERE WAS A REASON IT CAME TO AN END.

   THE DOMAIN NAME MUST BE DELETED WITHIN 45 DAYS OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, UNLESS A NEW AGREEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRANT.

   THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT REGISTRANTS HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN THE NAMES HAVE BEEN DELETED SO PEOPLE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN REGISTERING THE NAME THAT'S CURRENTLY HELD AT SOME FUTURE DATE WOULD KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE NAME IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE RETURNED TO THE POOL OF NAMES.

   BUT SIMILARLY, WE HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE THAT EXISTING REGISTRANTS HAVE SOME CERTAINTY ABOUT THE RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR THE REGISTRAR OF THEIR DOMAIN NAMES.

   SO WE WANT REGISTRARS TO PROVIDE DELETION POLICIES AS WELL AS ANY OTHER POLICIES THEY HAVE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND MUST HAVE IT IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THEIR WEB SITE.

   AND THIS POLICY MUST ALSO INCLUDE EXPECTED TIME IN WHICH NON RENEWED DOMAIN NAMES WILL EXPIRE IN REGARD TO THEIR REGISTRATION DATE.

   SO REGISTRARS ARE ABLE TO SET THE DAY OR RANGE OF DAYS, AS LONG AS NOT TOO BROAD, AS TO WHICH DAY THEY'RE GOING TO DELETE THE NAME AND WHETHER THAT BE ZERO OR ONE OR 45 DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION IS UP TO THE REGISTRAR, BUT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE REGISTRANT PRIOR TO ‑  BOTH AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND ON THEIR WEB SITE SO REGISTRANTS HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE LIKE.

   ALSO, A LARGE NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE RECEIVED RELATED TO THE REDEMPTION GRACE PERIOD AND REGISTRANTS NOT FEELING LIKE THEY WERE GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION ABOUT THIS PROCESS.

   SO WE ALSO INDICATE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE FEES.

   SO WE ALSO INDICATE A REGISTRAR SHOULD PROVIDE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THEIR WEB SITE THE FEE FOR REDEMPTION OF DOMAIN NAMES.

   SO THIS WILL PROVIDE SOME SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER TRANSPARENCY FOR REGISTRANTS.

   THE SECOND AND FINAL AREA OF POLICY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE IS WITH REGARDS TO NAMES THAT ARE SUBMITTED DURING THE URDP.

   AND QUITE A LARGE NUMBERS OF BOARDS, BUT I CAN SUMMARIZE BY SAYING WE RECOMMEND THE URDP PANEL OR PROVIDER ACTUALLY, SORRY, INDICATE TO THE BOTH THE CLAIMANT AND THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE DOMAIN NAME THAT THE NAME IS SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION IS LIKELY TO EXPIRE DURING URDP.

   THEN THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF PAYING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE NAME.

   AND IF FOR SOME REASON THE REGISTRY, THE EXISTING HOLDER DID NOT PAY TO RENEW THE NAME, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE THE NAME WOULD BE DELETED DURING THE COURSE OF THE COMPLAINT AND RETURNED TO THE POOL AND POTENTIALLY BE REGISTERED BY A THIRD PARTY NOT INVOLVED WITH THE COMPLAINT.

   IF NOT INVOLVED WITH THE COMPLAINT PERIOD, THE NAME WOULD BE PLACED ON REGISTRAR HOLD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE.

   OR IF THEY WERE RESOLVED IN A MANNER THAT REQUIRED THE COMPLAINANT AND THE TRANSFER WOULD BE PERFORMED AT THAT TIME.

   THAT IS THE SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE AND POLICY.

   TWO OTHER AREAS OF DISCUSSION WE THINK ARE RELEVANT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, AND WE NOTED IT IN SECTION 4 OF OUR REPORT.

   THE FIRST ‑  I THINK THERE'S ONLY TWO.

   THERE ARE.

   FIRST IS ‑  ACTUALLY, THERE'S THREE.

   FIRST IS DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING.

   DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING CAME UP IN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS, AND THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WAYS REGISTRANTS MIGHT HAVE DOMAIN NAMES THEY REGISTERED THEMSELVES ON BEHALF OF REGISTRANTS, AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

ONLY ONE OF THE THREE MECHANISMS OF DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING THAT WE IDENTIFIED ACTUALLY SEEMED TO FALL IN THE PURVIEW OF OUR CHARTER.

   AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD ‑  OUR FIRST POLICY RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED REQUIRING REGISTRARS TO DELETE NAMES BY THE END OF THE GRACE PERIOD DEALS TO A LIMITED EXTENT WITH DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING.

   BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS IT CAN OCCUR THAT WE DO NOT DEAL WITH BUT WE FEEL THERE MAY BE SOME NEED FOR ATTENTION IN THE FUTURE.

   WE REFER THAT BACK TO THE NAMES COUNCIL.

   SECONDLY, THE BROAD SUBJECT OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS CAME UP.

   WE HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HOPE WILL BE ENFORCED AND WE THINK THERE DOES NEED TO BE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN PLACE.  AND WE BELIEVE THESE ARE NOT ‑  OFTEN THEY WILL NOT BE A (INAUDIBLE) WHERE ACCREDITATION IS THE CORRECTED RESPONSE ON THE FIRST INFRINGEMENT OR SECOND.

   THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN PLACE.

   WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS IN THE SCOPE OF OUR CHARGE.

   THAT SHOULD BE COORDINATED BY THE NAMES  COUNCIL AND ICANN  WHERE RELEVANT SO THERE CAN BE A CONSISTENT

PROCESS ACROSS ALL FUTURE TASK FORCE WORK.

   AND THE THIRD AREA FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE NAMES COUNCIL I THINK IS WITH REGARDS TO THE CONSISTENCY WITH REGISTRY HOLD POLICY.

   THERE'S A FURTHER ISSUE OF REALLOCATION.

   ONCE A TIME IS DELETED AND ABOUT TO BE DROPPED INTO THE POOL FOR RE REGISTRATION, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN THERE, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE JUST PLACED IN FOR ALL TO TRY TO GRAB AT AS CURRENTLY OCCURS OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OR SOME OTHER MECHANISM HAS NOT YET BEEN IMAGINED.

   IT'S A SUBJECT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO COME TO A QUICK DECISION ON.

   WE BELIEVE THAT SOME ‑  IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO SEE THE RESULTS OF SOMETHING LIKE WLS AND TO HAVE SOME FURTHER QUESTION ON IT, AND POSSIBLY RECHARTED AT A TASK FORCE OR A REALLOCATION TASK FORCE FOR FOCUSING EXPLICITLY ON THIS SUBJECT, WHICH WE BELIEVE REQUIRES QUITE A BIT OF FURTHER THOUGHT.

   THOSE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE REPORT.

   I'D BE GLAD TO HANDLE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, JORDYN.

   I THINK AT THIS STAGE WHAT WE'LL NOTE IS ACCEPT YOUR REPORT, AND NOTE THAT FOR THE NEXT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING IN APRIL THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING THIS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT, UP FOR VOTE BY THE COUNCIL.

   AND WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO IN THE MEANTIME IS PLACE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COUNCIL LIST FOR JORDYN TO RESPOND TO, AND CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO READ THE REPORT THOROUGHLY AND CONSULT WITH THE MEMBERS OF THEIR CONSTITUENCIES PRIOR TO THE VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

   NOW, IS THERE ANY QUICK QUESTIONS BEFORE WE FINISH ON THIS ITEM?

   OKAY.

   SORRY, YES, CHUN.

>>CHUN EUING HWI:  I THINK THAT THIS IS SOME KIND OF SERIOUS CONCERNS.

   IN READING THIS FINAL REPORT, I FOUND SOME PROBLEMS THAT THIS TASK FORCE HAS FACED.

   THEN I THINK THESE PROBLEMS COULD   WILL HAPPEN EVEN AFTER THIS TASK FORCE WAS.

   WITH REGARD TO REALLOCATION PROCESS HERE, THIS REPORT IS REFERRING TO THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY WAITING LIST SERVICE.

   THERE COULD BE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE REALLOCATION PROCESS THAT ARE RELATIVELY FAIRER AND LESS RESOURCE INTENSIVE THAN THE CURRENT REALLOCATION MECHANISM.

   UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT NECESSARILY WELL DEFINED, AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE WITH ANY REALLOCATION MECHANISM.

   SO THE TASK FORCE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MAKE SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO DATE.

   THIS IS A VERY TECHNICAL PROBLEM, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE TASK FORCE COULDN'T WORK MORE EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE OF LACK OF RESOURCES.

   THEN IN THAT CASE, HOW CAN WE SORT OUT THESE PROBLEMS?

   IT'S VERY, VERY GENERAL PROBLEMS, AND IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH FINANCIAL ISSUES OF OUR TASK FORCE WORKS.

   HOW CAN WE SORT OUT THIS ONE?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  I THINK I CAN MAKE A BROAD ASSUMPTION.

   I THINK THE COMMENTS ARE NOT RELATED TO THE TIME PUT IN BY INDIVIDUAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS.

   IT WAS SIMPLY JUST GIVEN THE TIME FRAME INVOLVED, WE WERE CHARTERED UNDER THIS NEW (PDP) POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT HAVE THE STAFF SUPPORT THAT SHOULD COME ASSOCIATED WITH THE GNSO.  AS A RESULT, WE TOOK SOMEWHAT LONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL PROCESS.

   AS A RESULT, THE TIME FRAME INDICATED BY THE URDP AREN'T ACTUALLY ACHIEVABLE

   IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, SIMPLY WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH, AND I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE, IN ORDER TO EVEN HAVE A FULL RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT CHUN, IT IS A VERY TECHNICAL PROBLEM.

   AND WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW A TECH BOARD POSITION LIKE THE IETF APPROACHES PROBLEMS, THEY LIKE WORKING CODE FIRST.

   AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CURRENT MECHANISM, THERE'S NO WORKING CODE OUT THERE, SO IT WOULD BE VERY HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AT THIS TIME FOR US TO COME UP WITH A NEW REALLOCATION POLICY THAT NO ONE HAD EVER IMPLEMENTED BEFORE.

   THIS IS THOUGHT TO BE THE NEW CONSISTENT PROCESS ACROSS ALL REGISTRIES.

   THE TASK FORCE WAS PREMATURE TO DO THAT AT THE TIME AND THE FUTURE ONE  SHOULD DEVOTE ALL THEIR EFFORTS ON THIS.

   I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY WE DO NOT HAVE TIME TO BROADEN OUR SCOPE TREMENDOUSLY, SO I THINK ‑  I WANT TO SAY GENERALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE, THEY INVESTED A LOT OF TIME, AND AS YOU CAN SEE WE ACTUALLY HAVE DELIVERED A REPORT RELATIVELY ‑  WE RETURNED FROM SHANGHAI AND NOW TO HAVE THE FINAL REPORT DONE AT THIS POINT I THINK IS VERY COMMENDABLE

   I'D LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE.

   THEY WERE ALL EXTRAORDINARILY HELPFUL, AND IT WAS DEFINITELY PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER IN A VERY USEFUL MANNER.

   RESOURCES WERE NOT REALLY ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ACHIEVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS POINT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, JORDYN.

   I'LL NOTE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON THE TELEPHONE, WE ARE CONVERTING YOUR VOICE TO TEXT IN REAL TIME HERE.

   WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE EXTREMELY GOOD AT SCRIBING, AND JORDYN, YOU DO SPEAK A BIT FAST.

   SO WHAT I SUGGEST, JUST AS A SORT OF COMMENT FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW TO CHUN IS I THINK WHAT WE'RE FINDING WITH WHOIS, WITH DELETES, PRETTY MUCH ANY ISSUE THAT GNSO LOOKS AT, ONCE YOU START ANALYZING THE ISSUE, IT ACTUALLY RAISES MORE ISSUES.

   AND WE JUST NEED AN ONGOING PROCESS WHERE WE EVOLVE AT ANY SINGLE POINT, WE WILL NOT HAVE THE ISSUE COMPLETELY SOLVED.

   WE'RE MAKING STEADY PROCESS, AND I THINK THE DELETES TASK FORCE HAS IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS NOW, AND ALSO IDENTIFIED AREAS WHERE WE NEED TO DO FURTHER WORK, AND I THINK IN ANY POLICY DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED TO HAVE A PROCESS OF REVIEW SO THAT WE REVIEW THE OUTCOMES OF THE POLICY IN SAY, SIX , 12 MONTH TIME FRAME, AND THEN WE SCHEDULE QUITE NARROWLY DEFINED TASK FORCES TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC ISSUES FURTHER AS AN ONGOING ROLLING PROCESS.

   SO THAT'S REALLY JUST A PROCESS COMMENT.

   BUT AT THIS STAGE, I'LL THANK JORDYN FOR PROVIDING A VERY DETAILED REPORT, AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB IN A PERIOD WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BEING FOCUSED ON TRANSFERS AND WHOIS TO, IN PARALLEL, MANAGE TO GET A WELL WRITTEN REPORT IN THE SPACE OF A FEW MONTHS, WHICH INCLUDED THE CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR BREAK AS WELL.

   I'D THEN LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY LISTED AS 8 AND 9.

   AND THE DELETES TASK FORCE WAS THE FIRST PROCESS WHERE WE ATTEMPTED, WHERE WE COULD, TO FOLLOW THE NEW PDP PROCESS AS IN THE BYLAWS.

   AT THE TIME WE CREATED THE TASK FORCE, THE NEW BYLAWS WEREN'T YET IN EFFECT.

   THE NEW BYLAWS ARE IN EFFECT, AND SO OUR PROCESS FOR MOVING THE ISSUES ON ACCURACY AND PRIVACY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US WILL FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.

   AND WHAT I WANT TO DO BEFORE WE ENTER INTO THE DISCUSSION ON THE REPORTS AS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL, THAT WE JUST REVIEW WHERE WE ARE IN THAT PROCESS.

   FOR THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT HERE IN PERSON, AND FOR THOSE ON THE TELECONFERENCE, I'M REFERRING TO ANNEX A OF THE ICANN BYLAWS, WHICH RELATE TO THE GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

   WE'RE CURRENTLY AT ITEM 1 IN THAT PROCESS WHICH IS CALLED RAISING AN ISSUE.

   WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED.

   WE HAVE THREE, I GUESS, DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RAISING AN ISSUE.

   WE HAVE TWO DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RAISING THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY.

   AND WE HAVE ONE DOCUMENT THAT'S RAISING THE ISSUE OF ACCURACY.

   WE ARE RAISING THIS ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF COUNCIL INITIATION, SO WE ARE AT 1.B STATES:  (READING 1.B ALOUD).

   WHICH IS CREATION OF THE ISSUE REPORT WHICH STATES WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A PROPERLY SUPPORTED MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL, THE STAFF MANAGER WHICH IS ‑  IT'S A FINE TERM, BUT ESSENTIALLY MEANS A MEMBER OF THE ICANN STAFF, WILL CREATE A REPORT WHICH WILL CONTAIN THE ISSUE RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION, THE PARTY SUBMITTING THE ISSUE, HOW THE PARTY IS AFFECTED BY THE ISSUE, SUPPORT FOR THE ISSUE, AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHETHER THE COUNCIL SHOULD INITIATE THE POLICY FOR THIS ISSUE.

   AND THEN STATE WHETHER IT'S WITHIN SCOPE OF ICANN'S MISSION, IS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE SITUATIONS, IS LIKELY TO HAVE LASTING VALUE, WILL ESTABLISH A GUIDE FOR FUTURE DECISION MAKING, OR AFFECTS AN EXISTING ICANN POLICY.

   NOW, THIS PROCESS HAD ENVISAGED A 15 DAY PERIOD TO CREATE THE STAFF REPORT.

   I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE ICANN SECRETARY, AND THE VIEW IS THAT AS ICANN IS NOT YET INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT HAS BUDGET FOR ENGAGING ADDITIONAL STAFF UNTIL THE NEW BUDGET FOR THE 2003/2004 YEAR IS APPROVED, THAT THE STAFF RESOURCES ARE LIMITED, AND THAT THE ADVICE WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD TAKE A 45 DAY PERIOD TO CREATE THAT ISSUES REPORT.

   I'M NOTE THAT IF WE ASSUME THAT ISSUES REPORT IS CREATED AND WE MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE WOULD THEN VOTE ON THAT ISSUES REPORT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO GO AHEAD WITH POLICY DEVELOPMENT, AND IF WE DID THAT, WE'D THEN HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE AS TO APPOINTING A TASK FORCE AND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THAT TASK FORCE.

   SO THE COMMENTS I WOULD MAKE, JUST AS A PROCESS COMMENT, IS WE WILL DISCUSS THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

   WE WILL THEN VOTE ON THOSE ISSUES.

   AND THE VOTE WILL BE TO INITIATE THE PROCESS, AND THE FIRST STEP OF THE PROCESS IS A STAFF REPORT.

   NOW, GIVEN THAT THAT STAFF REPORT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO PRODUCE, I'D RECOMMEND THAT, IN PARALLEL, THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL CONSULT WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES REGARDING POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE, IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO CREATE ONE, SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY   BECAUSE A LOT OF THE TIME, CERTAINLY WITH THE DELETES TASK FORCE, THE FIRST MONTH OR SO WAS SPENT TRYING TO APPOINT AND FIND PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT TASK FORCE.

   SO WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE STAFF REPORT, IT WOULD BE ONE WAY OF SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS TO HAVE SOMEBODY STANDING BY AT LEAST TO PARTICIPATE IN A TASK FORCE IF THE COUNCIL CHOSE TO CREATE ONE.

   SO JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL CONTENT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS?

   OKAY.

   NOW LAUNCHING INTO THE CONTENT.

   I THINK WHAT I'LL DEAL WITH FIRST IS THE ISSUE RAISED WITH RESPECT TO ACCURACY THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MARILYN CADE, AND THEN I'LL FOLLOW THAT BY A DISCUSSION, FIRST MARILYN CADE'S SUBMISSION ON PRIVACY AND THEN GET A BRIEFING FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY ON THE ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE RAISED IN REGARDS TO PRIVACY.

   SO FIRST IF WE COULD START WITH ACCURACY.

>>MARILYN CADE:  THANK YOU, BRUCE.

   AND I WOULD LIKE TO, AS CO CHAIR OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, RECOGNIZE MY CO CHAIR ANTONIO HARRIS, AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, SOME OF WHOM I THINK ARE ON THE CALL WITH US TODAY, AND ONE OF WHOM IS HERE AT THE TABLE WITH US, LAURENCE, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE AS WELL.

   I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE IN DEVELOPING ‑  IN THE ISSUES REPORT ON ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES, AND THEN IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO LET SOME OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS RESPOND.

   STEVE METALITZ IN PARTICULAR WAS THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUES REPORT, SO MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

   WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO IN THE ISSUES REPORT THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED IS TO PRESENT A NEUTRAL, BROAD, VISION OF WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.

   AND WE HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO REPEAT THE PAST DOCUMENTATION, THERE'S EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, PRESENTATIONS AND WHITE PAPERS AND REPORTS FROM THE TASK FORCE, ALL OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE.

   SO WHAT WE REALLY ARE TALKING TO HERE IS JUST THE ISSUE REPORT ITSELF.

   THE ISSUE REPORT ON ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOUS FINAL REPORT WHICH ADDRESSED SOME OF THE ACCURACY ISSUES AND MADE CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

   WE'VE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL ISSUES, AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THEM.

   AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUES REPORT, THE TASK FORCE NOTES THAT BECAUSE MOST OF THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED PRESENT PRACTICAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND PROPOSALS FOR GATHERING FURTHER INFORMATION, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT IF A GROUP IS CHARTERED TO WORK ON THEM, SUCH A GROUP WOULD INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT REPRESENTATION FROM REGISTRARS, AND TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE EFFECTED DIRECTLY, REGISTRIES, AS WELL AS, OF COURSE, OTHER INTERESTS.

   SO IF A GROUP IS CONSTITUTED; THAT IS IF THE COUNCIL DETERMINES TO GO

FORWARD WITH A PDP PROCESS ON THE FURTHER ACCURACY ISSUES, WE WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING PARTICULARLY BROAD PARTICIPATION OF REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS, IS INCORPORATED IN THIS.

   THAT IS NOT TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER INTERESTS, BUT JUST NOTING THAT PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE.

   THE ISSUES THAT WE ADDRESS IN BRIEF SUMMARY ARE THE 15 DAY PERIOD.

   BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE DETERMINED AS A TASK FORCE IS WE DON'T THINK IT'S A PRIORITY TO CONSIDER MODIFYING THIS PARTICULAR PRESENT POLICY, BUT WE DO SAY IN THE ISSUES REPORT THAT IT COULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE REGISTRARS AND THE STAFF OF ICANN TO BEGIN TO GATHER SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL PRACTICES ARE, AND THEN PRESENT A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL.

   AT THAT TIME, IF ANY ACTION IS NEEDED, COUNCIL COULD THEN DETERMINE THAT.

   THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF THE HOLD PERIOD, AND WE BASICALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FINAL REPORT THAT WE PRESENTED, SO WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S ANY FURTHER ACTION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED THERE.

   THE THIRD ISSUE IS EXPLORATION OF AUTOMATED MECHANISMS TO SCREEN OUT INCORRECT CONTACT DATA.

   AND OUR BELIEF IS THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO EXPLORE WHETHER, IN FACT, THOSE MECHANISMS ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE, ARE USABLE, ARE AFFORDABLE AND IMPLEMENTABLE, AND AGAIN WE WOULD NOTE THE IMPORTANCE OF INCLUDING REGISTRARS IN PARTICULAR, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE IMPACTED, REGISTRIES IN ASSESSING BOTH THE AVAILABILITY, THE COST, THE RELIABILITY, ET CETERA.

   WE ALSO SUGGEST IN ISSUE 4 THAT IT MAY BE IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE THE CONSOLIDATION OF COMPLAINTS ON FALSE CONTACT DATA.

   IN CERTAIN EGREGIOUS SITUATIONS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF INDIVIDUALS.  IT IS RARELY, IN OUR VIEW A CORPORATION, BUT INDIVIDUALS WHO REPEATEDLY SUBMIT FALSE CONTACT DATA.

   AND THE TASK FORCE SPOKE IN PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS ABOUT THEIR VIEWS OF THE RANGE OF REASONS THAT FALSE DATA IS PRESENTED, ALL THE WAY FROM A CONCERN ABOUT PRIVACY TO, ON THE OTHER EXTREME, PERHAPS LAZINESS OR MISTYPING, OR PERHAPS EVEN FRAUDULENT REASONS, BUT THERE IS IN FACT A RANGE

   ONE OF THE TOPICS WE DISCUSSED AS AN ISSUE IS THE EXPLORATION OF CONSOLIDATING COMPLAINTS ASSOCIATION IF A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ARE RECEIVED, SUCH AS 12 OR 20 OR HUNDREDS, THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER CONSOLIDATING THOSE COMPLAINTS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THEM.

   THE FIFTH ISSUE, SPECIFIC REVIEW AND VALIDATION PROCEDURES FOR WHOIS DATA.

   WE BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY ADDRESSED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FINAL REPORT.

   AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING FURTHER WORK IS NEEDED THERE.

   ON ITEM 6 WE SUGGESTED AN EXAMINATION OF SPOT CHECKING A SAMPLE OF CURRENT REGISTRATIONS OR ACCURACY AND CURRENCY.

   WE BELIEVE THIS CONCERNS POSSIBLE POLICY ACTION BUT WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN DETAIL.

   ITEM, GRADUATED ON INTERMEDIATING SANCTIONS.

   THIS TOPIC WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN A PREVIOUS REPORT AND DID RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN FROM REGISTRARS AND WAS MOVED FROM A RECOMMENDATION ON CONSENSUS POLICY INTO THE ISSUES REPORT SO THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION AND EXAMINATION COULD BE UNDERTAKEN.

   THE CONCERN WITHIN THE TASK FORCE INCLUDED A CONCERN THAT SINCE ACCURACY IS A PRESENT POLICY, THAT IT COULD BE ‑  A SITUATION COULD EMERGE WHERE A REGISTRAR COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF INACCURATE REGISTRATIONS AND COULD BE PUT IN THE POSITION OF LOSING OR THREATENING THEIR ACCREDITATION AND THE VIEW OF THE TASK FORCE WAS THAT IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER GRADUATED SANCTIONS RATHER THAN PUTTING AN ACCREDITATION AT RISK.

   THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT ANGST EXPRESSED AT THIS, AND LISTENING TO THIS, THE TASK FORCE FELT THAT SUCH DISCUSSIONS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN MUCH MORE BROADLY AND FULL CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE PROS AND CONS BEFORE MOVING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION FOR CONSENSUS POLICY.

   WE DO NOT ASSIGN A HIGH PRIORITY TO THE RESOLUTION OF THESE ITEMS, BUT DO SUGGEST THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXAMINED, THOSE THAT REMAIN FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION, THAT THEY SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN   BASED ON THE PRIORITIES OF THE COUNCIL AND THE PRIORITIZATION IN PARTICULAR IN RELATION TO THE ISSUES RELATED TO PRIVACY AND WHOIS COULD BE CONSIDERED BUT SHOULD NOT BE PUT AHEAD OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRIVACY AND WHOIS ISSUES.

   .

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.

   SO IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY, YOUR POSITION AT THIS STAGE IS WE WOULDN'T GO FORWARD TODAY TO START A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND GET A STAFF REPORT PRODUCED.

   YOU'RE NOTING THESE THINGS FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE STILL NEED TO CONSIDER PRIVACY FIRST, PERHAPS, BEFORE WE DO FURTHER WORK ON ACCURACY, BUT THAT ALSO, ONCE THE ‑  IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE ‑  IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO ACCURACY TOMORROW, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, PERHAPS IN SIX MONTHS' TIME, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE RECOMMENDATIONS TAKE EFFECT.

   THAT WE COULD THEN EVALUATE THE   WHETHER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE HAD IMPROVEMENT, AND THEN COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS DOCUMENT AS PART OF THAT REVIEW PROCESS.

   WOULD THAT BE CORRECT?

>>MARILYN CADE:  EXACTLY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.

   THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

   KEN, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE.

   ANYONE ELSE?

   JEFF.

   ANYONE ELSE?

   HANG ON, I JUST HAVE TO GET THE QUEUE IN ORDER.

   I HAVE KEN, JEFF ‑  WAS THAT LAURENCE?

   AND WAS IT JORDYN?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  THAT'S CORRECT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY, KEN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

>>KEN STUBBS:  JUST ONE COMMENT.  THE LAST STATEMENT THERE WITH REGARDS TO REGARDING THE ISSUES HERE AS HIGH PRIORITY, I BELIEVE THAT THE REGISTRARS AS WELL AS MANY OF THE USER REPRESENTATIVES I TALKED TO WOULD TAKE SOME UMBRAGE WITH ITEM NUMBER 1, A 15 DAY PERIOD.  WE FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WORK DONE ON THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

   FRANKLY, THERE IS PRETTY UNIFORM AGREEMENT AMONGST THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY THAT A 15 DAY PERIOD JUST ISN'T ADEQUATE IF AN E MAIL ADDRESS IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.

   I BELIEVE THOMAS HAD ALSO SPOKEN TO THAT AS WELL, BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  WHAT I WANT TO JUST DO ON THAT ‑ 

>>KEN STUBBS:  I'M HOPING WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ON THAT POINT, I MIGHT ASK LOUIS TO COMMENT ON THE MEANING OF THAT.  I THINK THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED SINCE.  IT'S NOT A HARD DEADLINE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  YES.  THE 15 DAY PERIOD THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO RELATES TO THE TIME AFTER WHICH, IN AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCE, A REGISTRAR HAS THE ABILITY TO CANCEL A REGISTRATION FOR INVALID DATA.

   ONE CAN CERTAINLY IMAGINE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOW DELIBERATE ACTIVITY IN WHICH A REGISTRAR SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY   DELIBERATE ACTIVITY COMBINED WITH ONGOING HARM, IN WHICH THE REGISTRAR SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION.

   THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CURRENT POLICY THAT REQUIRES A REGISTRAR TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT IN ANY FIXED TIME.  INSTEAD, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE REGISTRAR ACT REASONABLY TO CORRECT THE DATA.

>>KEN STUBBS:  SO, IN EFFECT, I GUESS THE OPERATIVE THING IS "SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY," IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK, KEN, WHAT ‑  AND I'LL JUST PUT MY INTERPRETATION ON THIS.

>>KEN STUBBS:  SURE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ESSENTIALLY, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE   THE REGISTRAR HAS THE RIGHT TO DELETE AFTER 15 DAYS.  BUT THE REGISTRAR HAS DISCRETION AS TO EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.  THAT'S DISTINCT FROM SAYING THAT THE REGISTRAR MUST DELETE THE NAME AFTER 15 DAYS.

>>KEN STUBBS:  YEAH.  THE ONLY CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS, I'D HATE TO HAVE THAT AS A VALUE JUDGMENT IN WHICH REGISTRAR GETS IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEONE WHO FEELS THEY'RE AN AGGRIEVED PARTY WHO IS EITHER ‑  LITIGATES TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE ‑  AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO I'M NOT ‑  I'M JUST EXPRESSING CONCERNS THERE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  LET ME JUST ADDRESS THAT A BIT MORE.

   THE FORMER WHOIS ‑  THE WHOIS TASK FORCE THAT HAS BEEN WORKING DID LOOK AT THESE ISSUES TO SOME LENGTH.  THE ‑  AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION IS THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INACCURATE WHOIS DATA OF DIFFERENT SEVERITY.  AND THERE COULD BE SOME THAT YOU MIGHT TOLERATE A VERY, VERY LONG TIME BEFORE CORRECTION, AND OTHERS THAT MAY BE MUCH MORE SERIOUS SO THAT I UNDERSTAND THE REGISTRAR'S NATURAL DESIRE NOT TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.  BUT AT LEAST THE WHOIS TASK FORCE'S VIEW FROM THE CALLS I WAS ON SEEM TO BE THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE REGISTRAR'S FUNCTION OF DEALING WITH CUSTOMERS, PART OF THE BUSINESS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO.  PERHAPS MARILYN OR TONY COULD COMMENT FURTHER.

>>MARILYN CADE:  OR STEVE.  YEAH.

   AND LET ME JUST ‑  I APOLOGIZE FOR OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT, OF COURSE, KEN WAS A LONGSTANDING MEMBER OF OUR TASK FORCE AND VERY ACTIVE IN IT.  AND, KEN, I APOLOGIZE WHEN I WAS GLANCING AROUND, I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE YOU.

   WE DID DISCUSS THIS IN DETAIL.  AND I THINK THAT, ORIGINALLY, IN OUR INTERIM REPORT, THE TASK FORCE WAS CONFUSED AND THOUGHT THAT THE 15 DAYS, ALL OF US WERE CONFUSED.  WE THOUGHT THAT THE 15 DAYS WAS A HARD AND FAST PERIOD.

   FORTUNATELY, WE CONSULTED THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND WERE ABLE TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION.

   AND SO I BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THE   THE ‑  IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE INTERIM REPORT AND THEN LOOK AT THE FINAL REPORT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE REGISTRAR TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IS IN FACT IN PLACE.

   AND I ‑  THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE DECIDED AS A TASK FORCE THAT IT IS NOT ‑  THERE WAS NO NEED TO ‑  TO FIX IT EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BECAUSE THERE IS A 15 DAY PERIOD, BUT IT ONLY IS EXERCISED BY THE REGISTRAR AFTER CERTAIN OTHER THINGS HAPPEN, AND THERE'S STILL THE APPROPRIATE FLEXIBILITY THAT IS NEEDED IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU.

>>KEN STUBBS:  I APOLOGIZE, THEN, FROM THAT STANDPOINT.  I GUESS IT'S BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE HAD REGISTRARS APPROACH ME STILL ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT.  I JUST FEEL THAT IT'S ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT'S RIGHT.  AND THAT'S ALSO WHY I ASKED THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO RESPOND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ANALYZED TO SOME DEGREE, YEAH.

   I THINK I'LL MOVE ON.  BUT WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL IS PERHAPS POSTING SOMETHING TO THE REGISTRARS LIST.  I MIGHT ASK LOUIS TO JUST DRAFT A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS TO CLARIFY THAT.  BECAUSE I HAVE ALSO ‑  IT'S ONE OF THOSE MISCONCEPTIONS THAT JUST KEEPS FLOATING AROUND.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  YES.  AND I ‑  FROM THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, THERE PROBABLY SHOULD BE A REGISTRAR ADVISORY PREPARED.  I SEE DAN HAS GONE FROM THE ROOM.  HI, DAN.

   AND ‑  BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONFUSION OVER THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  NEXT IN THE QUEUE IS JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  THANKS, BRUCE.

   MY VOICE IS A LITTLE SHOT, SO I'LL TRY TO SPEAK AS LOUD AS I CAN.

   I'M GLAD YOU, BRUCE, MADE THAT CLARIFICATION EARLIER ON PRIVACY.  AND MARILYN AS WELL.

   THE GTLD CONSTITUENCY, AS IT HAS SAID IN PAST MEETINGS, BASICALLY BELIEVES THAT EXCEPT FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SENT UP TO THE BOARD, THAT THESE NEW ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED UNTIL THERE IS A FINAL REPORT ON PRIVACY.

   NOW, WHETHER THAT MEANS THAT THE PDP SHOULDN'T BEGIN ON THESE ISSUES UNTIL THAT IS DONE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE CONSIDERED.  BUT I JUST WANTED FOR THE RECORD TO KNOW THAT ANY NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES ON THESE ACCURACY ‑  ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES NEED ‑  THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEM, IN OUR VIEW, NEEDS TO WAIT UNTIL THE PRIVACY ISSUES ARE SORTED OUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, JEFF.

   LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  THANK YOU.

   WELL, REGARDING THIS ISSUES REPORT ON ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT IT SEEMED VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY TO GO AHEAD, IN FACT, AND WE BELIEVE THAT ‑  AND ‑  AND SURE THAT WE CAN BE EFFICIENT.

   WE BELIEVE THAT, AND IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE ISSUES REPORT, THAT SOME ENTITY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS ON INCREASED ACCURACY.

   WE ALSO HAVE NO OBJECTIONS WITH HAVING STRONG REPRESENTATIONS OF REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES WITHIN THE GROUP.  OF COURSE, WE WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THE GROUP.  BUT I THINK THEY ARE VERY   I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME VALID QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION.

   FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUES REPORT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE SAME TIMETABLE AS THE PRIVACY ONES, AND THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY FURTHER DELAYS.

   I SPEAK ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  CAN I CLARIFY, THEN, LAURENCE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD INITIATE POLICY WORK ON ACCURACY NOW?  IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  I THINK THE REPORT ON ACCURACY WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY AGREED, WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH THAT FOR THE ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE REPORT THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD TOMORROW, YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THAT REPORT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND NOT WAIT FOR THE PRIVACY RECOMMENDATIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I NOTE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVED AT THE LAST MEETING.  SO THAT IS ACTUALLY FORMALLY THE COUNCIL POSITION.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  OKAY.  I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU.

   MARILYN, YES.

>>MARILYN CADE:  CAN I JUST CLARIFY ONE POINT.  BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE   BROADLY, THE TASK FORCE IS CONCERNED, BECAUSE THERE WE CALLED FOR A SIX MONTH REVIEW, I DON'T THINK THAT WITHIN THE ‑  THERE IS A ‑  I DON'T WANT TO REALLY CALL IT A SPLIT, BUT THERE'S NOT UNANIMITY WITHIN THE TASK FORCE ABOUT THE TIMING ON WHEN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEPS ON ACCURACY.

   I THINK, SPEAKING AS A COCHAIR, I THINK IT IS REASONABLE TO THINK THAT BECAUSE PRIVACY ‑  THE ISSUES WORK ON PRIVACY NEEDS TO BECOME THE PRIORITY, THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT THE SIX MONTHS SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND THAT THEN THE COUNCIL SHOULD LOOK, WITH THE FEEDBACK ON THE SIX MONTHS, THAT WE SHOULD SCHEDULE TO LOOK AT THESE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES, SO THAT EVEN IF PRIVACY IS MOVING FORWARD, WE SHOULDN'T JUST CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE ACCURACY ISSUES ARE ON THE TABLE AND DESERVE ANOTHER EXAMINATION AT THAT TIME.

   AND I THINK THAT WAS JUST ONE CLARIFICATION THAT I BELIEVE IS A BETTER EXPLANATION OF WHAT, BROADLY, THE TASK FORCE WOULD AGREE WITH, REALIZING THAT STILL WOULD LEAVE US TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO INITIATE A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.

   WHAT I MIGHT DO AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION IS HAVE A GO AT DRAFTING A STATEMENT OR, I GUESS, A RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNCIL JUST SO THAT WE'RE COMPLETELY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE AGREEING TO.

   BUT I'LL FIRST GO TO JORDYN, WHO'S NEXT IN THE QUEUE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  I BELIEVE QUITE STRONGLY, ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT THERE ARE REAL PRIVACY ISSUES FACING US TODAY.  AND I THINK THAT THE EXISTING PROVISIONS IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS  BEFORE THE BOARD WITH REGARD TO BOTH ACCURACY AND PRIVACY. I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.

   BUT I THINK THAT'S NO REASON TO DELAY IMMEDIATELY INITIATING PDP WITH REGARDS TO PRIVACY ISSUES.  I THINK THAT THE PRIVACY ISSUES THAT EXIST TODAY DON'T GO AWAY AS A RESULT ‑  I CAN'T IMAGINE A SCENARIO IN WHICH THE ACCURACY  PROVISIONS WOULD ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT.  IF ANYTHING, THEY WOULD MAKE IT ‑  THERE'S SOME SMALL POTENTIAL DANGER MAKING SURE WE HAVE MORE ACCURACY THAN THE PRIVACY SITUATION BECOMES WORSE AS TIME GOES ON.

   AND, QUITE HONESTLY, ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JORDYN, YOU JUST NEED TO SPEAK A LITTLE SLOWER, PLEASE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  OKAY.  SORRY.

   THE EXISTING SITUATION IS  PRIVACY BUT FROM AN ACCURACY AND USABILITY PERSPECTIVE ON WHO IS, THE LACK OF PRIVACY HAS SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERMINED THE CREDIBILITY OF WHOIS.  WITHOUT BEING VERY LONG WINDED, I REMEMBER VERY LONG AGO WHEN I WAS A REGISTRY OPERATOR, I USED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE WHOIS SYSTEM AND GET USEFUL INFORMATION OUT OF IT ABOUT WHO I MIGHT CONTACT.  AND THESE DAYS, THE BEST I CAN GET IS A POST MASTER ADDRESS AND A HELP NUMBER.  THIS WOULD TAKE ME AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE.  ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF WHOIS, WHICH IS TO ALLOW FOR TECHNICAL ‑  RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATING TO DOMAIN NAMES IS NOT BEING SERVED AS A RESULT OF LACK OF PRIVACY.  AND I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THAT.  AND IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHILE WE DELAY THAT ‑  I CAN SEE WHY WE WOULD DELAY FURTHER WORK ON ACTION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE EXISTING RECOMMENDATIONS, I SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO MOVE AHEAD DIRECTLY ON PRIVACY RELATED ISSUES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  WE'RE NOT DEBATING  ON PRIVACY YET, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD MARILYN'S COMMENTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  NO, NO.  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ‑  YES, THAT'S RIGHT.  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL WORK ON ACCURACY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  OKAY.  AND I APOLOGIZE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT'S OKAY.

   MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.  AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES.  YOU MOST CERTAINLY MAY.  I WAS GOING TO HAVE A GO AT IT MYSELF.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I MOVE WE TABLE INITIATION ON A PDP ON ADDITIONAL ACCURACY FOR SIX MONTHS OR UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PDP ON PRIVACY, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  UNTIL ‑  ALL RIGHT.  DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?  FIRST WE HAVE A SECONDER FOR THE MOTION, I SUPPOSE, IS THE ‑ 

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  I'LL SECOND THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.

   I HAVE JEFF IN THE QUEUE.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  CAN I MAKE A ‑  I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT.

   IT WOULD BE ‑  I WOULD ASK FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOUR ‑  I GUESS IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE MOTION ‑  BUT ASSUMING THE BOARD APPROVES THE FOUR CONSENSUS POLICIES IN THE CURRENT REPORT THAT'S AT THE BOARD, I WOULD ASK IT BE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RATHER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE SENSE OF WHAT I HAD SUMMARIZED EARLIER, I THINK, IS THAT IT'S SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RELATE TO ACCURACY.  THAT THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THERE COULD BE SOME DELAY IN, YOU KNOW, ALTERING CONTRACTS AND ACTUALLY GETTING THAT WORK IN PLACE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  ARE WE TALKING ‑  JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, ARE YOU COMMENTING ON THE MOTION OR ARE YOU WANTING TO ADJUST THE MOTION, MARILYN?

>>MARILYN CADE:  I'D LIKE TO ADJUST THE MOTION OR COMMENT ON IT, WHICHEVER ONE THE CHAIR ALLOWS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  GO AHEAD.

>>MARILYN CADE:  I PRESENTED THE CONCEPT OF OUR WAITING FOR SIX MONTHS, AND I CONCUR COMPLETELY WITH THE CONCEPT OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACCURACY ‑  THE PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS.

   BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE REVIEW BY THE COUNCIL OF THESE ISSUES ALONG WITH THE INPUT OR REVIEW OF THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREVIOUS REPORT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AND DISCUSSED SIX MONTHS AFTERWARD.  NOT POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF THE WORK ON PRIVACY.

   WE WILL GET INTO THIS VERY SHORTLY.  BUT PRIVACY IS A COMPLICATED, COMPLEX, AND, I HOPE, AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE WILL ALL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO PUT OUR PERSONAL EMOTIONS ASIDE AND TO WORK ON BEHALF, BROADLY, OF THE INTERNET.  AND I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT PRIVACY ISSUES ARE RELATED MERELY TO WHOIS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES AND QUESTIONS RELATED TO PRIVACY IN OTHER DATABASES IN THE DNS THAT I THINK WE WILL WANT TO EXPLORE.

   WE COULD HAVE A YEAR AND A HALF LONG OR A TWO YEAR LONG SET OF PROGRAMS ON PRIVACY.  I THINK WE WOULD BE DOING A DISSERVICE TO NOT EXAMINE THESE QUESTIONS, REGARDLESS.

   SORRY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I THINK YOU'RE AGREEING WITH THE AMENDED MOTION.

>>MARILYN CADE:  NO, I'M NOT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK YOU MIGHT BE.

   PERHAPS IF I JUST GET MILTON TO RESTATE THE MOTION AS AMENDED BY JEFF.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WHAT I HAVE IS I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE INITIATION OF A PDP ON THE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRENT WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD OR UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PDP ON PRIVACY, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SEE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST IS THE KEY BIT IN THERE.  BECAUSE IF YOUR COMMENT IS THAT PRIVACY WOULD TAKE TWO YEARS, IF THAT HAPPENED, THEN THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION COMES FIRST, WHICH IS, IT WOULD BE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF WHOIS.

   SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ‑  YOU....

>>MARILYN CADE:  I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM LAURENCE AND FROM OTHERS ON THE COUNCIL ABOUT THEIR VIEWS OF THAT AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES.  WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE MOTION.

   BUT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THE MOTION FIRST.

   SO I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT THE MOTION BEFORE US.  AND NOW IT'S OPEN FOR ‑  WE ALSO HAVE THE ICANN SECRETARY.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  YES, ACTUALLY, IF I COULD INTERVENE ON A POINT OF ORDER.

   THE MOTION IS IN THE NATURE ‑  THE MOTION IS IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO TABLE A REQUEST TO INITIATE A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WHICH CAN BE INITIATED BY A 25% VOTE.

   MAY I SUGGEST THAT THAT'S A COMPLEX WAY TO DO THIS, WHICH RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT VOTE IT TAKES TO PASS THIS MOTION.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  NOT ACCIDENTAL.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  AND PERHAPS THE BETTER COURSE IS TO FRAME IT IN TERMS OF NOT INITIATING A PDP AND THEN TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN THE COUNCIL FEELS IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO AGAIN TURN TO THIS MATTER.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I COULD EXPLAIN.

   MY POINT WAS THAT A TABLED MOTION WOULD PASS BY A MAJORITY AND A MAJORITY COULD EFFECTIVELY BAR THE 25% FROM INITIATING A PDP.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  THE GENERAL COUNSEL WOULD NOT CONCUR WITH THAT VIEW.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WELL, ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER WOULD.

   SOMETHING IS TABLED, IT'S TABLED.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  YES.  THIS MOTION MAY BE TABLED.  BUT THE SAME MOTION WOULD BE BROUGHT THE NEXT INSTANT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I ‑  YEAH.  I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, REALLY, IS A PROCEDURAL MOTION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHEN DO WE DEAL WITH THIS AS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO INITIATE.  AND WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, IN TERMS OF OUR PRIORITIZATION OF THE POLICY WORK IN THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE THERE'S MANY THINGS WE CAN DO POLICY WORK ON, AND CERTAINLY THE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE CAN DO ADDITIONAL POLICY WORK, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, REALLY, IN TERMS OF PRIORITIZATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL.  AND THAT IS IN THE SPIRIT IN WHICH I AM TAKING MILTON'S MOTION, WHICH IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE ALSO HAVE BEFORE US TODAY A DISCUSSION ON PRIVACY.  I THINK WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION, AND WE'LL NEED TO VOTE ON THIS, BUT THAT THE PRIVACY WORK WILL BE INITIATED.

   WE ALSO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BEFORE THE BOARD TO APPROVE TOMORROW, WHICH IS TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE AREA OF WHOIS ACCURACY.  AND I THINK THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL IS THAT WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL TWO THINGS.  AND THEY START TO OCCUR IN PARALLEL.  THAT WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS OF ACCURACY IS THE FIRST.  AND, SECONDLY, WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE EFFECT OF OUR CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON ACCURACY.

   SO THAT'S, I GUESS, WHERE I SEE THINGS PROCEDURALLY.

   YES, JEFF.

   AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO....

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I JUST WANTED TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF OUR RATIONALE, AND MAYBE I'M NOT ‑  ONE OF THE REASONS I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NO ‑  THAT THERE'S NOT YET CONSENSUS ON A NUMBER OF THESE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES IS BECAUSE OF PRIVACY ISSUES.  AND IF WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE PRIVACY ISSUES, THIS MIGHT BE THE OBVIOUS, STATING THE OBVIOUS, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

   SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IF WE DON'T ADDRESS THE PRIVACY OR WE'RE NOT WELL INTO THE PROCESS, I CAN'T IMAGINE THERE BEING CONSENSUS ON THESE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND I THINK WHAT ‑  AND PERHAPS IF ‑  I JUST GO BACK TO THE MOTION AGAIN IF MILTON CAN READ IT AGAIN.  AND MAYBE WE VARY IT SLIGHTLY.  BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIORITIZATION IN SCHEDULING HERE.

   CAN YOU JUST STATE THE MOTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I JUST SENT IT TO YOU BY E MAIL.  AND IF YOUR COMPUTER IS LINKED TO THE  

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH.  I THINK IT'S JUST TURNED ITSELF OFF BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN TOUCHING IT FOR A WHILE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I'LL READ IT.

   I MOVE TO TABLE INITIATION OF A PDP ON ADDITIONAL ACCURACY FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRENT WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS OR UNTIL COMPLETION OF A PDP ON PRIVACY, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADJUST THE FIRST SENTENCE TO "I MOVE TO SCHEDULE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC."

>>MILTON MUELLER:  OKAY.  I MOVE TO SCHEDULE ‑ 

   I HAVE TO SAY "SHEJULE"?

   I MOVE TO SCHEDULE INITIATION OF A PDP ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  IT IS SPELLED SCH, IN MY, ‑ 

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WHEN I GO BACK TO "SHOOL," I'LL TELL EVERYBODY THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

   LAURENCE, YES.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  JUST A QUESTION.  I'M A FRENCH SPEAKER, SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ALL THAT, I CAN TELL YOU.

>>KEN STUBBS:  WHATEVER YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE SAYING FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS AS WELL.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  SO YOU CAN IMAGINE IT'S WORSE FOR ME.

>>KEN STUBBS:  IF YOU WANT TO ASK FOR RECLARIFICATION  

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  I WANT RECLARIFICATION.

   NO, I MEAN, IF I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE MOTION, WE ARE GOING TO DELAY THE WORK ON THE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES UNTIL PRIVACY IS DEALT WITH?  DO I UNDERSTAND WELL OR NOT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  IT'S A COMBINATION.  THERE'S TWO POINTS IN THE MOTION, LAURENCE.  IT SAYS THAT WE NEED ‑  TWO THINGS ARE HAPPENING IN PARALLEL.  ONE IS FURTHER WORK ON PRIVACY.  AND THE OTHER IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS.  AND WHAT MILTON'S MOTION SAYS IS THAT WE CONSIDER THIS TOPIC ON THE EARLIER OF EITHER THE PRIVACY ‑  EITHER WE'VE COMPLETED WORK ON PRIVACY OR WE HAVE SIX MONTHS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS.

   SO THE MINIMUM TIME THAT COULD OCCUR COULD BE NEXT WEEK, BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING INCREDIBLY FAST ON PRIVACY AND HAVE IT INVOLVED IN A WEEK, AT WHICH TIME ‑ 

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  FOR SURE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:    YOU COULD HAVE IT DONE.  AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD IS SIX MONTHS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CURRENT ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  I AM ‑  I CANNOT HIDE ‑  I AM NOT CLEAR ON WHY WE WANT TO DELAY THE WORK, SIMPLY THE WORK, NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION, THE WORK ON THESE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE, ONE, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY WORK ON PRIVACY, NONE AT ALL, REALLY.  AND, TWO, WE HAVEN'T GOT ANY EXPERIENCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD I'M MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY MARILYN'S REPORT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DELAYING WHAT WE'VE GOT BEFORE THE BOARD.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  BUT EVEN ON THESE ADDITIONAL ISSUES, THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST CREATE ‑  I MEAN, WORK IN A COMMITTEE, IN A GROUP TO SEE HOW TO ‑  TO FIND AN AGREEMENT, IN FACT, AND TO GO AHEAD WITH THE WORK RATHER THAN LEAVING THEM ASIDE AND ‑  THAT'S WHAT ANNOYS ME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  I WILL JUST TAKE THAT AS YOUR POINT.

   ANY OTHERS WANT TO SPEAK?

   I GUESS YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, THEN.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  IF I UNDERSTAND WELL THE MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT'S OKAY.

   WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON   EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION?

>>MILTON MUELLER:  JUST TO RESPOND TO LAURENCE'S POINT, I THINK THAT YOU CANNOT DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THESE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY ISSUES ARE WORTH PURSUING UNTIL YOU HAVE A POLICY RELATED TO PRIVACY.

   AND, ALSO, IF THERE ARE ‑  IF EFFORTS TO CREATE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY WILL PRODUCE PROBLEMS, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THOSE PROBLEMS, AND THEREFORE WE MAY, YOU KNOW, BY ASSUMING WE CAN GO FURTHER WITH THIS ACCURACY ENFORCEMENT, MIGHT IN FACT BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BASED ON WHAT WE DISCOVER THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST PHASE.

   SO IT'S SIMPLY A CAUTIOUS WAY OF SAYING LET'S DO THIS IN AN ORDERLY MANNER THAT MAKES SENSE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK ‑  I MEAN, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IN THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO DISCUSS ACCURACY.  IT'S JUST THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF FORMALLY INITIATING FURTHER WORK ON ACCURACY AT THIS STAGE, I DON'T THINK WE COULD MEET ‑  REALISTICALLY MEET WITHIN A TIME FRAME OF THREE MONTHS TO DO THAT NOW.  SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING, THERE'S NOTHING MORE STOPPING YOU IN TERMS OF ACCURACY, IN TERMS OF DISCUSSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS GROUPS AND TALKING ABOUT IT WITHIN YOUR CONSTITUENCIES.  BUT THE POINT THAT WE ACTUALLY KICK OFF THIS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, YOU HAVE TWO MONTHS TO GET OUT THE REPORT, THEN IT GOES TO A VOTE, AND ANOTHER TWO WEEKS BEFORE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS.  AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION TO DO THAT ON THE ADDITIONAL ACCURACY.  AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MUCH MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS.  BUT MARILYN OR TONY.

>>TONY HARRIS:  I JUST, LIKE YOU SAY, AGREE WITH YOU BRUCE.  AND AT LEAST FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY'S POINT OF VIEW, WE MAY HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES TO ADDRESS SO MANY THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS:  I'M NOT ASKING FOR A COMMENT.  I WANT A RECLARIFICATION ONE MORE TIME.  I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE UNDERSTAND.

   WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE INITIAL REPORT AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON AND VOTED ON BY THE COUNCIL WILL BE MOVED TO THE BOARD.  THE ADDITIONAL SIX ITEMS THAT ARE THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES ARE THE IMPLEMENTATION OR THE WORK ON THOSE ADDITIONAL ISSUES IS THE SUBJECT OF MILTON'S PROPOSAL.  I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP WHAT WE'VE DONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BUT ONLY WE'RE WORKING ON THE SIX ISSUES.

   IF THAT'S THE CASE, BEING CLARIFIED.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT IS CORRECT, KEN.

   NOW, I WANT TO PUT THIS TO A VOTE NOW SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE MUCH MORE CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC.

   SO WHAT I'LL DO IS JUST GO AROUND THE TABLE AND WE CAN EITHER VOTE FOR OR AGAINST MILTON'S MOTION, AS SECONDED BY JEFF AND AMENDED BY JEFF.  I'LL START WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MARILYN CADE.

>>MARILYN CADE:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY HARRIS.

>>TONY HARRIS:  I VOTE FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GREG RUTH.

>>GREG RUTH:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY HOLMES.

>>TONY HOLMES:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  CHUN.

>>CHUN EUNG HWI:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MILTON?

>>MILTON MUELLER:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JEFF?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  I ABSTAIN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  AND YOUR PROXIES?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  THEY ABSTAIN AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  WE HAVE THREE ABSTENTIONS.

   KEN STUBBS.

>>KEN STUBBS:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THOMAS KELLER.

>>THOMAS KELLER:  FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ON THE CALL, WE HAVE ‑ 

   DID I MISS JEFF?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I VOTED FOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  IS CARY THERE?

>>CARY KARP:  YEAH.  ALSO IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.

   THE MOTION IS PASSED.  I DON'T THINK I HAVE FORGOTTEN ANYONE ON THE LINE OR PHYSICALLY.

   AND WE HAVE THREE ABSTENTIONS.

   SO I'M NOT ‑  I'LL LET GLEN COUNT UP THE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR, BUT IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE 21 FOR AND 3 ABSTENTIONS, IF MY COUNTING IS ACCURATE.

   YEAH.  OKAY.  THE MOTION IS PASSED.

   THE SECOND TOPIC NOW IN THE AREA OF RAISING ISSUES IS IN THE AREA OF PRIVACY.  AND THERE ARE TWO QUITE EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTS, AND I HOPE THAT THE PRESENTERS WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE MAIN POINTS RATHER THAN READ THEM LINE BY LINE.  BUT I'LL FIRSTHAND OVER TO MARILYN TO PRESENT HER ‑  THE ISSUE THAT SHE HAS RAISED.

>>MARILYN CADE:  THANK YOU, AND I WOULD AGAIN RECOGNIZE THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE AND NOTE THAT THE ISSUES REPORT DOES NOT REPEAT THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION AND WORK.

   THE ISSUES REPORT LISTS EIGHT ISSUES, AND SEVEN OF THEM ARE PRESENTED AS ISSUES WITH SOME DISCUSSION OF THE POSITIONS THAT THE TASK FORCE CONSIDERED, AND THE EIGHTH ISSUE IS ACTUALLY A RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR HOW IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING, DATA GATHERING, AND COLLABORATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE PRIVACY ISSUES IN WHOIS.

   SO WHAT WE'VE DONE AGAIN IS TO TRY TO PRESENT A VERY NEUTRAL, NONADVOCACY ORIENTED LIST OF ISSUES, AND TO EXAMINE A BIT ABOUT WHAT COULD BE LOOKED AT IN THE EXAMINATION OF THAT ISSUE.  ISSUE ONE ASKS THE QUESTION ‑  AND LET ME JUST SUGGEST THAT THE TASK FORCE DID EXTENSIVE WORK OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF TO SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THAT IN LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, BUT OUR FEELING WAS THAT EVEN MORE WORK IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES SHOULD INCLUDE AND INCORPORATE OTHER ENTITIES WHO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN PARTICIPATING.

   SO, FOR INSTANCE, WE BENEFITED FROM INPUT AND ADVICE FROM THE STABILITY AND SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT OUR FEEDBACK TO THEM WAS WE COULD HAVE USED MORE.  AND YOU'LL SEE IN ISSUE EIGHT THAT WE SUGGEST THAT THAT COMMITTEE'S PARTICIPATION WOULD BE ESSENTIAL.

   SINCE THE INITIAL WORK OF THE TASK FORCE, THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS BECOME ACTIVE, AND IS AVAILABLE AS A RESOURCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT STAGE OF EXAMINING THE ISSUES.  I WON'T LIST THE ADDITIONAL FOLKS, BUT LEAVE IT TO YOU ALL WHO CAN LOOK AT ISSUE 8 AND SEE SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE LISTED.  I MIGHT MENTION THE FACT THAT THE BOARD IS MENTIONED, AND SO IS THE GAC OR PARTICIPATION FROM OTHER ENTITIES WITH EXPERTISE SUCH AS THE OECD OR PARTICULAR AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENTS.

   ISSUE ONE ASKS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHOIS DATA COLLECTION FROM REGISTRARS, FROM REGISTRANTS, AND TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACTS TODAY.  WHAT ARE THE USES AND WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS USERS.  WE'VE PROVIDED IN OUR PREVIOUS WORK SOME INFORMATION ON THAT.  IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THAT DESERVES A COMPLETE EXAMINATION.

   SOME PEOPLE MAINTAIN THAT THE USE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONLY WHAT ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE IS, WHILE OTHERS BELIEVE THAT THE DATA IN THE WHOIS DATABASE, BECAUSE THE INTERNET HAS CHANGED, THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DATA SHOULD BE USED AND COULD BE USED HAS CHANGED AS WELL.  WE THINK THAT DESERVES AN EXAMINATION.  AGAIN, THE USERS HAVE CHANGED.

   THE INTERNET, AS ALL OF US KNOW, HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.  THE NUMBER OF USERS HAS CHANGED, THE SCOPE HAS CHANGED, THE RESOURCES WE'RE ABLE TO ACCESS VIA THE INTERNET HAVE CHANGED.  AND CERTAINLY THE DEPENDENCY OF THOSE WHO USE THE INTERNET AND THOSE WHO NEED TO TRUST THE INTERNET AND THE EXPERIENCE THEY HAVE ON IT IS NOW REALLY BROADENED AS THE INTERNET IS TOUCHING EVERYONE'S LIFE.  SO WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT DESERVES A COMPLETE EXAMINATION.

   ISSUE 2 SAYS THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE NEEDS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO REGISTRANT DATA.  TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT DATA DUE TO INTERNET STABILITY ISSUES, CONSUMER PROTECTION CONCERNS, POLICING OF TRADEMARKS, AND INVESTIGATING COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS, AND ISP AND NETWORK OPERATOR TECHNICAL CONCERNS.  GIVEN THESE LEGISLATE ANYTIME CONCERNS, HOW CAN THESE NEEDS BE MET?

   IT COULD BE THAT IN THE EXPLORATION OF THIS THAT THERE WILL BE SOME WHO CHALLENGE THAT THESE ARE LEGITIMATE NEEDS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS.  BUT IN THE PREVIOUS WORK OF THE TASK FORCE, WE HAD TAKEN THE POSITION IN OUR SURVEY AND IN THE ANALYSIS OF OUR SURVEY THAT THESE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS, AND WE SUGGEST THAT THIS SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN FULL.

   THE THIRD ISSUE IS AN ISSUE THAT MAY LEND ITSELF TO BE PULLED OUT AND ADDRESSED IN A NEAR TERM PDP PROCESS.  MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE FORWARD ALL OF THE ISSUES TO THE STAFF FOR PREPARATION OF AN ISSUES REPORT, BUT I WISH TO MENTION THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

   DURING THE COURSE OF OUR WORK, WE HEARD EXTENSIVE COMMENTS FROM REGISTRARS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ABUSE OF PORT 43.  AND ALTHOUGH WE IDENTIFIED THAT AS A PROBLEM, WE DID NOT MAKE A CONSENSUS BASED RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD DIRECTLY ADDRESS IT.  OUR FEELING WAS THAT THERE MAY BE PRIVACY ISSUES IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO WHOIS, VIA PUBLIC ACCESS, VIA PORT 43, AND, THIS MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL, VIA OTHER PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS DEVELOPED BY THE REGISTRAR INVOLVING THIRD PARTIES THAT THE REGISTRANT MAY NOT BE AWARE OF.

   OUR VIEW IS THAT THAT COULD BE EXAMINED AND CONSENSUS POLICY COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THAT VIA A SEPARATE PDP PROCESS.  IT MAY BE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL DETERMINE IT'S BETTER TO LEAVE ALL OF THESE ISSUES TOGETHER, BUT NOTING THE STRONG CONCERNS FROM THE REGISTRARS WE FELT THAT THIS WAS IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY AS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

   3.A, THE CURRENT POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDES FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIRD PARTY ‑  THAT A THIRD PARTY REGISTERS A DOMAIN NAME ON BEHALF OF THE ACTUAL REGISTRANT AND MAKES INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL REGISTRANT AVAILABLE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN EXAMINATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE KINDS OF SERVICES, AND TO WHAT EXTENT THAT THEY MAY CONTRIBUTE TO ADDRESSING ANY IDENTIFIED PRIVACY CONCERNS.

   ISSUE 4, FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRIVACY OF THE REGISTRANT, PRIVACY CONCERNS OF ORGANIZATIONAL, COMMERCIAL, OR INSTITUTIONAL REGISTRANTS WHO CONDUCT COMMERCE OR COMMUNICATION OF SOME KIND WITH THE PUBLIC COULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THOSE PRIVACY CONCERNS OF THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED AS INDIVIDUALS.

   WE ASKED THE QUESTION, IF THAT IS A GOOD IDEA, HOW WOULD THOSE DIFFERING CATEGORIES BE DEFINED, HOW WOULD ABUSES BE ADDRESSED?  AFTER DOCUMENTATION IS IDENTIFIED, WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN STATUS.  AND WE THINK THAT DESERVES LOOKING AT.

   LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE WHAT HAVE THAT LAST POINT MEANS.

   WE ALL HEAR THAT MANY PEOPLE PROVIDE INCORRECT ‑  MANY INDIVIDUALS PROVIDE INCORRECT DATA IN THE WHOIS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO DISPUTE THAT ASSERTION.  I WILL, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S DOCUMENTATION, THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGE IN FRAUD PURPOSELY PROVIDE INACCURATE OR INCORRECT DATA AS WELL.

   I WOULD ‑  I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TREAT A FRAUDSTER OR A CRIMINAL IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE TREAT A LEGITIMATE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS USING INCORRECT DATA AS A WAY OF PROTECTING THEIR PRIVACY.  AND THAT WAS THE EFFORT TO SORT OF IDENTIFY HERE THAT THERE COULD BE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN ABUSES, AND THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

   ISSUE 5, THE CURRENT POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDES THE POSSIBILITY OF THIRD PARTY REGISTRARS AND MAKES INFORMATION ABOUT THE REAL ‑  EXCUSE ME.  I THINK I'VE REPEATED.  YES, SORRY.

   OH, THANK YOU.

   THE CURRENT POLICY PROVIDES FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT A THIRD PARTY REGISTERED DOMAIN NAME ON BEHALF OF THE ACTUAL REGISTRANT AND MAKES INFORMATION....

   I BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY, BRUCE, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS THAT IS NOW 3.A AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A DUPLICATE.  I THINK WE MAY BE WORKING FROM A PREVIOUS VERSION.  WE MOVED 5 INTO 3.A, SO WE WILL NEED TO CORRECT THIS.  5 IS A COMPLETE DUPLICATION OF 3.A.  I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

   ISSUE 6, IF CHANGES IN PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WHOIS RESOURCES ARE MANDATED BY POLICY CHANGE, WILL THERE BE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CHANGE?  IF SO, HOW SHOULD THAT BE FUNDED?  CERTAINLY WE RECEIVED EXTENSIVE COMMENTS FROM REGISTRARS AND FROM THE REGISTRIES THAT CHANGES IN PUBLIC ACCESS MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT COST.  AND RATHER THAN DEBATING THAT, I THINK THE TASK FORCE FELT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT WHAT THE COST WOULD BE, BUT THAT THIS IS A LEGITIMATE EXPRESSED CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND DESERVES TO BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD AND WOULD NEED TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT PARTICIPATION FROM REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING IT.

   ISSUE 7, SHOULD THERE BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH WILLFUL PROVISION OF INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE DATA WOULD NOT BE GROUNDS FOR POSSIBLE DELETION OR OTHER ADVERSE ACTS?  IF SO, WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOW CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED AND WHAT ARE THE SAFEGUARDS THAT COULD EXIST TO PREVENT ABUSE?

   DURING THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, THE NONCOMMERCIAL PARTICIPANTS AND OTHERS IN THE TASK FORCE NOTED THAT IF, IN FACT, INDIVIDUALS ARE WILLFULLY PROVIDING INCORRECT DATA BUT NOT MALICIOUSLY   I USE THAT TERM SORT OF IN ITALICS AND IN QUOTES HERE ‑  THAT IT WOULD BE TOO ONEROUS TO CAUSE THEM TO LOSE THEIR REGISTRATION, AND THAT PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE OTHER STEPS TAKEN RATHER THAN CANCELING THE REGISTRATION.

   SO THE ‑  WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THIS ISSUE IS TO SAY WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT'S CLEARLY WILLFUL BUT THERE WAS NOT AN INTENT TO HARM SOMEONE ELSE OR NOT AN INTENT TO LEAD TO FRAUD.  AND THEN WHAT COULD BE DONE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT'S THE DEMONSTRATION, AND IF THERE ARE ABUSES, WHAT ARE THOSE ‑  WHAT ARE THE SAFEGUARDS?

   IN IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES, THEN, THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO REALLY ENGAGE IN AN EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF ‑  AND DATA GATHERING.  ISSUE 8 IDENTIFIED A WAY IN WHICH THAT FURTHER EXAMINATION MIGHT HAPPEN.

   THE TASK FORCE IN ITS INTERIM REPORT SUGGESTS THAT IT COULD BE IMPORTANT AND USEFUL TO HAVE AN EXTENSIVE SERIES OF WORKSHOPS, PERHAPS CONDUCTED IN A DAY, A LONG MEETING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ICANN MEETING WITH A WIDE NUMBER OF PRESENTATIONS TO BETTER INFORM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS AND POSSIBLY OTHERS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.  WHAT I'LL NOW DO IS MOVE ON TO A PRESENTATION FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY ON THE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE RAISED, AND THEN WE'LL CONSIDER THE TWO TOGETHER IN TERMS OF WHETHER WE WISH TO INITIATE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

   SO IF I CAN CALL ON ONE OF THE MEMBERS FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY TO GO AHEAD.  MILTON, PLEASE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  OKAY.  I UNDERSTAND I HAVE 15 MINUTES.  I MAY NOT NEED ALL OF THAT.  I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO BUT IF I GET CLOSE WILL YOU LET ME KNOW WHEN I HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I CERTAINLY WILL, YES.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I'M SURE YOU'LL DO THAT ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WE SUBMITTED THIS PRIVACY REPORT, THIS PRIVACY ISSUES REPORT, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT PRIVACY AND ACCURACY ISSUES NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEPARATED IN THE INITIAL POLICY PROCESS.

   WE BELIEVE THAT WAS A MISTAKE, A BAD MISTAKE, AND THAT'S WHY WE DISSENTED FROM THE FINAL WHOIS TASK FORCE REPORT.

   I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME PROCEDURAL CONFUSION IN OUR INTERVENTION IN THAT TASK FORCE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.  IT HAD TO DO WITH TRANSITION IN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED FROM OUR CONSTITUENCY.  BUT OUR CONSTITUENCY IS VERY UNIFIED BEHIND THE CONCEPT THAT WE ARE APPROACHING WHOIS IN THE WRONG MANNER.

   WE ARE TRYING TO HAMMER A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE.  WE'RE TRYING TO TURN WHOIS INTO SOMETHING THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE AND CANNOT EVER REALLY BECOME WITHOUT IMPOSING ENORMOUS COSTS ON THE INDUSTRY AND ON THE USERS.

   WHOIS WAS A TECHNICAL RESOURCE.  NOW, IN THE INITIAL FLARE UP OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DOMAIN NAMES, IT BECAME OPPORTUNISTIC TO USE WHOIS AS A RESOURCE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SERVICE OF PROCESS.

   WE ‑  THE FURTHER WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, THE MORE PROBLEMS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.  AND BY WARPING WHOIS WE VIOLATE PRIVACY AND UNDERMINE WHOIS'S FUNDAMENTAL TECHNICAL FUNCTION.  WE ALSO IMPOSE GROWING COSTS ON REGISTRARS AND POSSIBLY REGISTRIES.

   THAT'S WHY WE THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A PRIVACY PROCEEDING.  IDEALLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO THE ACCURACY PROCEEDING, BUT SINCE IT'S NOT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IMMEDIATELY.

   A SIMPLE FACT THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DISPUTE IS REQUIRING ACCURATE WHOIS DATA WITHOUT HAVING APPROPRIATE PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.  THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR INCENTIVES FOR PLACING INACCURATE DATA INTO THE WHOIS IS, OF COURSE, PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITIES.

   IF YOU WANT THE IDENTITY OF A FRAUDULENT WEB SITE OR FRAUDULENT BUSINESS USING AN E MAIL ADDRESS, I JUST HAVE TO FUNDAMENTALLY QUESTION WHY YOU WANT WHOIS TO BE THE BASIS FOR FINDING OUT WHO THIS PERSON IS.  I THINK WE'VE BEEN PROCEEDING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHOIS IS THE TOOL THAT WE MUST USE.  BUT WHY?  WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT WHOIS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT IS EASY TO USE AND IT'S THERE?

   IF EVERY REGISTRAR HAS SOME KIND OF AN ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE PAID FOR DOMAIN NAMES AND THEY KNOW AT SOME POINT WHO THE PERSON IS, AND THERE MAY BE BETTER WAYS OF GETTING THE DATA ABOUT WHO THAT PERSON IS RATHER THAN REQUIRING IT TO BE POSTED IN WHOIS.

   WHAT WE'VE DONE IN OUR ISSUES REPORT IS TO TRY TO USE AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD TO ASSESS THE DEGREE TO WHICH WHOIS IS PRIVACY RIGHTS INTERSECT.  WE BELIEVE THAT ACCURACY WOULD BE GREATLY AIDED BY PROPER PRIVACY PROTECTION BECAUSE A NUMBER OF STUDIES DO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHEN NO SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE, INDIVIDUALS WITHHOLD LOTS OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.  AND AGAIN, THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION OF HAVING NO ACCESS TO WHOIS AT ALL AND RELYING ON LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO GET THAT INFORMATION IN SOME OTHER WAY.

   AT ANY RATE, OUR REPORT SIMPLY AS A FRAMEWORK USES THE OEC PRIVACY GUIDELINES TO ASSESS THE PRIVACY ISSUES RAISED BY WHOIS.

   THESE GUIDELINES REFLECT A BROAD CONSENSUS ABOUT HOW TO SAFEGUARD AND CONTROL THE USE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET IN PARTICULAR.

   SO THERE ARE, LET'S SEE, ABOUT EIGHT DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES THAT THEY SET FORTH.  I WILL NOT REPEAT THEM HERE.  THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS LIKE LIMITING THE DATA YOU COLLECT TO WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO DO A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ENSURING THE QUALITY OF THE DATA, SPECIFYING THE PURPOSE AND LETTING THE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE DATA KNOW WHAT THAT PURPOSE IS, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'RE NOT REALLY DOING NOW.  LIMITATION OF USE, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE CANNOT DO WITH OPEN ACCESS TO WHOIS.  SECURITY SAFEGUARDS, AND SO ON.

   THERE REALLY IS NO ‑  THESE TWO REPORTS HAVE BEEN SET UP IN A WAY THAT MAY APPEAR AS IF THEY'RE COMPETITIVE, BUT THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT.  WE ARE INITIATING A PRIVACY POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND THE CONCERNS AND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT MARILYN REPRESENTS IS JUST AS LEGITIMATE AS THE ONE THAT WE REPRESENT.  SO I SEE NO REASON TO VIEW THESE TWO REPORTS IN ANY WAY AS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THEY ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE WAY TO GO ABOUT HAVING A POLICY PROCESS ON WHOIS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PRIVACY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MILTON.  THAT'S PRETTY MUCH MY ASSESSMENT AS WELL.  I THINK WE CERTAINLY HAVE AN ISSUE, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE HAS OBVIOUSLY DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK IN DISCUSSING POINTS THAT RELATE TO PRIVACY AT VARIOUS STAGES.  AND I THINK MARILYN HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN COLLECTING SOME OF THOSE POINTS OF VIEW IN ONE DOCUMENT.

   I THINK THE DOCUMENT FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY, PERHAPS ITS MAJOR CONTRIBUTION IS A FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO CONSIDER PRIVACY AND I THINK THE OECD IS AN EXCELLENT FRAMEWORK TO CONSIDER THE DISCUSSION.

   I WILL JUST BRIEFLY COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF FACTUAL THINGS WITHIN THAT REPORT JUST FROM A REGISTRAR POINT OF VIEW.  ONE IS THE PRIVACY PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTION LIMITATION.  THERE'S A COMMENT HERE, WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO COLLECT THE TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS?  IT'S CERTAINLY NECESSARY BECAUSE E MAIL ADDRESSES AGE VERY QUICKLY AND IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT A MECHANISM OF CONTACTING THE REGISTRANT, THEY WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE THEIR NAME.  SO THAT'S JUST PERHAPS A COMMENT ON A REASON WHY THE INFORMATION IS COLLECTED AS OPPOSED TO WHETHER THE INFORMATION IS DISPLAYED.

   IN TERMS OF CONSENT OF THE SUBJECT, I THINK THERE IS CONSENT IN THE SENSE THAT SOMEBODY IS SIGNING UP TO A REGISTRATION AGREEMENT, WHICH IS PART OF THE ICANN STRUCTURE.  PERHAPS PROBABLY THE ISSUE THERE IS WHETHER IT'S INFORMED CONSENT, AND I THINK THE POINT RAISED IN THE REPORT IS PROBABLY RIGHT IN THE SENSE THAT MANY REGISTRANTS PROBABLY ARE NOT AWARE THAT WHEN PURCHASING A DOMAIN NAME THAT THEIR INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.  SO IT'S PERHAPS WHETHER THE INFORMATION OF WHETHER THEY'RE INFORMED WHAT HAVE THEY'RE AGREEING TO OR NOT.

   THE COMMENT ABOUT DATA QUALITY I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT ACTUALLY I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IS WHAT THE ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS DEAL WITH.  IT SAYS COLLECTED DATA SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO A PURPOSE, BE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, AND UP TO DATE.  AND I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE ACCURACY RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN DOING.  ONE OF THE CRITICAL THINGS REGARDING TO COLLECTION OF DATA IS THAT THE REGISTRANT HAS THE ABILITY, TO ONE, MAKE THE DATA DIRECTLY AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPDATE THAT DATA AND KEEP IT ACCURATE.

   SO I THINK CONTRARY TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT THAT POINT, I THINK THAT ACTUALLY IS IN SUPPORT OF ACCURACY, NOT AGAINST.  JUST THAT STATEMENT ON ITS OWN.

   THE PURPOSE FOR COLLECTING DATA SHOULD BE SETTLED AT THE OUTSET.  I THINK SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT COMES DOWN TO PERHAPS THE INFORMED CONSENT AND PRIVACY POLICY.  AND CERTAINLY WITHIN AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATION NOW YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY SAID STATE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU'RE COLLECTING THE DATA.  AND THAT CERTAINLY, I AGREE, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PREVALENT WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.  AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE INDUSTRY IS EVOLVING AND THAT THESE ISSUES ON PRIVACY ARE RELATIVELY RECENT.  THE LAW THAT REGARDS THIS IN AUSTRALIA WAS ONLY PASSED IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR.  SO CERTAINLY AS AN AUSTRALIAN REGISTRAR, WE'RE GETTING OUR HEAD AROUND THE MEANING OF THAT LAW.  I KNOW IN EUROPE THERE HAVE BEEN LAWS PASSED IN PROBABLY LESS THAN TWO YEARS THAT RELATE TO PRIVACY AND I THINK BUSINESSES IN THAT ENVIRONMENT ARE TRYING TO RELATE TO WHAT THAT MEANS.  AND AGAIN, BEHAVIOR WILL VARY DUE TO OUTSIDE LEGISLATION OUTSIDE ICANN, BUT CERTAINLY I THINK ICANN ITSELF CAN LOOK AT THE PROCESSES IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE PRIVACY LAWS.

   THE NEXT ONE THERE IS SECURITY SAFEGUARDS.  NO, USE LIMITATION.  THE DATA SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ONE PURPOSE AND OUGHT NOT TO BE USED FOR OTHERS.  THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD OR STARTING TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SENSE OF WHETHER THE DATA SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING PURPOSES FOR BULK ACCESS.  AND THAT'S ONE OF THE ANSWERS TO THAT, AND I THINK CERTAINLY THERE NEEDS TO BE FURTHER WORK ON THAT TOPIC.  BECAUSE AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH LAW, SPEAKING AS AN AUSTRALIAN, WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE THE DATA TO ANOTHER PARTY FOR ANOTHER USE WITHOUT GETTING PERMISSION FROM THE REGISTRANT.  THAT WILL VARY AGAIN BY LEGAL JURISDICTION.

   THE SECURITY IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT REGISTRARS HAVE.  AND I'LL GIVE PERHAPS A BEER DRINKING ANALOGY TO THIS WITH WHOIS DATA.

   WE DON'T ACTUALLY SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO DATA BETWEEN BULK ACCESS AND PORT 43 ACCESS.  THEY'RE ACTUALLY BOTH THE SAME, EXCEPT IN INTERPRETS OF BEING ABLE TO RETRIEVE ALL THE DATA.

   THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT BULK ACCESS IS WHERE THE LEGITIMATE PEOPLE ARE ACCESSING OUR INFORMATION AND THEY'RE GENERALLY FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMUNITY.  AND PORT 43 IS THE BULK ACCESS MECHANISM FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

   AND TO USE A SIMPLE ANALOGY, IF I WAS TO GO INTO THIS HOTEL BAR, I WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE SOME ALCOHOL.  THE EQUIVALENT OF THE CURRENT WHOIS SITUATION IS, HOWEVER, THAT THE BACK DOOR IS COMPLETELY OPEN AND ALL THE KEGS OF BEER ARE SITTING THERE AND ANYONE CAN JUST BACK UP THE TRUCK AND COLLECT THE BEER ANYTIME THEY WANT.  AND IN FACT, WITH OUR WHOIS SYSTEM, WE HAVE A CONSTANT CONVOY OF TRUCKS OUT THE BACK COLLECTING ALL OUR WHOIS DATA, EXCEPT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PEOPLE ARE KIND ENOUGH TO PAY US FOR THE BEER.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS:  BOY, YOU'RE A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW, I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW.

   I APOLOGIZE IF I'M BEING REDUNDANT HERE, BUT I HOPE WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM ALL THE PERSPECTIVES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED HERE IS THE INITIAL NEED FOR HOPEFULLY ISSUES THAT COULD BE TAKEN FORTH IN MONTREAL.  I'D LIKE TO HOPE THAT ICANN WOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MAKING THE PRIVACY ISSUES A PARAMOUNT ITEM IN THAT CONFERENCE.  I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES WITH THE IDEA OF ARRIVING AT A RESOLUTION THAT MAKES SENSE ACROSS A RELATIVELY BROAD SPECTRUM.

   THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES, BUT AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO TRY TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF METHODOLOGY TO DEAL WITH THESE CONCERNS.  AND AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AT LEAST MYSELF, I THINK MOST OF US HAVE JUST VERY, VERY MINIMAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE OVER THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS.  AND I'D LIKE TO HOPE THAT IF WE CAN EDUCATE PEOPLE, UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BECAUSE I HEAR ABOUT WHOIS PRIMARILY FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES, AND IT'S USUALLY AT BOTH ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.  THE PERSON WHO IS WORRIED ABOUT THE STALKER AND THE PERSON WHO IS WORRIED ABOUT THE FRAUDSTER.  BUT THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF ISSUES IN THE MIDDLE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE.  SO I HOPE THEY'LL TAKE THAT TO HEART.  THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ANY OTHER ‑  PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I'D LIKE TO SAY I SEE A GREAT COMMONALITY IN THESE TWO PAPERS THAT MARILYN AND MILTON HAVE TAKEN.  THEY BOTH DESCRIBE PRECISELY THE CONCERNS HERE.  I APPEAL TO MILTON TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO SHARE EVERYTHING YOU SAID IN TERMS OF THE CONCERNS AND WHERE WE ARE.  BUT BECAUSE TODAY WE ALLOW INACCURACY TO BE SORT OF A FUDGE IN TERMS OF A SURROGATE FOR PRIVACY, IT'S A VERY BAD SOLUTION TO A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

   AND WE JUST NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM IN A MUCH MORE CLEAR WAY WITH PRECISELY THE IDEAS YOU LAID OUT IN YOUR PAPER.

   AND I JUST SEE IT AS A QUESTION OF PRAGMATISM MOVING FORWARD, LET'S TRY TO DO THIS IN BITE SIZED PIECES AND WE TRIED TO CHOP IT UP IN A CERTAIN WAY AND IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY IDEAL, WHATEVER WAY YOU DO IT.  BUT WE NEED TO DO IT IN PIECES.  AND I THINK THE WAY WE'RE GOING IS PERHAPS THE LEAST HARMFUL, IF YOU LIKE, TO PERHAPS ANY OTHER APPROACH WE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN.

   SO I DO SEE COMMONALITY, AND I SEE ALL YOUR CONCERNS BEING SHARED AND ALL OF US WANTING TO ADDRESS THOSE NEXT, I SUPPOSE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  RATHER THAN RESPONDING, I THINK I'D LIKE TO LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR COMMENTS AND THEN YOU CAN RESPOND TO THEM PERHAPS COLLECTIVELY SO EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

   I THINK I'VE GOT JEFF.  WHO ELSE?  LAURENCE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  BRUCE, WHEN I GET A CHANCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY, JORDYN.  ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE?  OKAY.  JEFF NEUMAN.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  THANKS, BRUCE.  I THINK THIS COUNCIL, I THINK WE COULD TALK ALL DAY ON THE SUBJECT AND PROBABLY ANOTHER SIX MONTHS ON THE SUBJECT.  AND PROBABLY LONGER THAN THAT.

   I THINK BOTH OF THESE PAPERS ARE EXCELLENT.  I THINK BOTH THE WHOIS TASK FORCE AND THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY DID A GREAT JOB IN SUMMARIZING A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

   WITH RESPECT TO ONE ISSUE, ISSUE NUMBER 8 IN THE WHOIS REPORT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET INPUT FROM THE GAC AND THOSE OTHER GROUPS THAT ARE MENTIONED.  THE LAWYER IN ME WANTS TO CHANGE THAT FROM ENSURE GET INPUT TO PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO GIVE INPUT BUT THAT'S THE LAWYER IN ME.

   THAT BEING SAID I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PDP AND GET AN ISSUES REPORT THAT COMBINES THESE TWO PAPERS INTO ONE ISSUES REPORT AND START AS SOON AS WE CAN TO COMMISSION A BRAND NEW TASK FORCE TO START WORKING ON THESE ISSUES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANKS, JEFF.

   LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  THANK YOU.  I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE BY PHILIP EARLIER.  I THINK THAT'S JUST SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE PERHAPS MORE PERSONAL COMMENTS.  I DON'T ‑  WELL, BUT I THINK I CAN SPEAK, YES, FOR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY ON THE REPORT OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.

   I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S ‑  THAT THE CONSTITUENCY MADE AN IMPORTANT WORK.  I ALSO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, A LOT OF CONCERNS, IN FACT, AND I WON'T GO TO THESE CONCERNS NOW, BUT WOULD LIKE TO ‑  I MEAN, THIS REPORT REFERS TO LEGITIMATE USE, FOR INSTANCE, AND IT'S TRUE.  I THINK THERE ARE LEGITIMATE USES, AND WE NEED TO MAKE ‑  TO SEE HOW TO DEFINE THAT, WE NEED TO BE AWARE THAT SOME USES ARE LEGITIMATE, AND THAT IS NOT ONLY FOR ‑  PEOPLE WHO USE NOT ONLY DATA FOR BAD THINGS WITH BAD PURPOSES, BUT THAT THERE ARE LEGITIMATE PURPOSES.  AND ALL THE DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS REFER TO THIS NOTION OF LEGITIMATE USES.

   SECONDLY, I REGRET THAT ‑  IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF WORK, IT'S CLEAR, BUT I REGRET THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC SOLUTION TO THE QUESTIONS OF ENFORCEMENT, ACCESSING TO DATA FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.

   THERE ARE CRITICISM ‑  AND IT'S VERY EASY TO MAKE CRITICISM, AND WE SAW THAT WITHIN THE TASK FORCE.  WE ALL HAVE OUR CONCERNS.  BUT IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS.  AND THIS IS ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS.

   FINALLY, I WOULD BE VERY ‑  I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH MILTON ABOUT THAT, TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE WHY THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONLINE AND OFF LINE.  IN THE REAL WORLD, WE'VE GOT SOME SHOPS IN THE STREET, THEY ARE VERY HAPPY TO BE IN FRANCE, FOR INSTANCE N WHAT WE CALL THE YELLOW PAGES, TO HAVE THEIR DATA AVAILABLE OR SOME OF THEIR DATA AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IT WILL BE VERY USEFUL FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE, BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO ACCESS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THEM AND SHOW THE ACTIVITIES THAT THEY ARE DOING.

   WHY WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT IN AN ONLINE ENVIRONMENT?  SOMEONE NEEDS TO.  EXPLAIN ME THAT.

   QUESTION.  BUT STILL, I NEED TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THAT.  AND I THINK WE ‑  WE GET A LITTLE BIT PARANOID ABOUT PRIVACY AS WELL.  AND WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH, THANK YOU, LAURENCE.  I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, THAT WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND LEARN HOW THE LEGAL STRUCTURE IS TODAY ELSEWHERE SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THINGS IN A VACUUM.  AND I THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE   IF A TASK FORCE IS CREATED, TO ACTUALLY GET ALL THOSE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.  AND AS YOU'VE STATED, YOU KNOW, THE NONCOMMERCIAL HAVE A PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE, AND THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WILL HAVE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE.  AND WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS TRYING TO TAKE BOTH THOSE PERSPECTIVES, LEARN WHAT THE ISSUES ARE FROM EACH OTHER AND MOVE FORWARD.

   I WILL JUST MOVE ON NOW TO JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  THANKS, BRUCE.

   FOR THOSE THAT MAY IN THE FUTURE BE READING THE TRANSCRIPT IN A NONLINEAR MANNER, I'D JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY SAY THAT YOU CAN LOOK BACK ON THIS TIME (INAUDIBLE) COMMENTS DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE ACCURACY ISSUE FOR MY GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE INITIATION OF THE NEW PDPS AND THE NEW TASK FORCE FOR THE ISSUE.  THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, JORDYN.  THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY COME BACK TO WHAT LAURENCE JUST SAID.

   OF COURSE, PUBLICATION OF DATA IS A USEFUL THING TO HAVE FOR A BUSINESS.

   THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO FORCE THAT BUSINESS TO PUBLISH THE DATA IN A WHOIS SYSTEM THROUGH AN ICANN POLICY.  THEY WOULD JUST DO IT VOLUNTARILY.  SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR THING REALLY POINTS TO ANY REAL NEED FOR IMPOSING OBLIGATIONS THROUGH POLICY.

   THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS DIRECTED AT WHAT JEFF ‑  JEFF'S PROPOSAL TO GO FOR THE NEW POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

   AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THE GNSO IS ABLE TO TACKLE PRIVACY AND PRIVACY OF WHOIS SYSTEMS WITHIN SOMETHING LIKE 90 DAYS PLUS THE ADDITIONAL PERIOD ICANN STAFF MAY NEED TO PREPARE AN ISSUES REPORT, I DOUBT THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE POSSIBLE.

   SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE SOMETHING LIKE A WISH LIST TO THE COUNCIL.

   THIS COUNCIL SHOULD TRY TO FIND TODAY A WAY TO INITIATE WORK ON WHOIS PRIVACY WHICH GUARANTEES THAT THE WORK IS NOT DRAGGED ON INFINITELY, WHICH GUARANTEES THAT THE ISSUES ARE, INDEED, BEING HANDLED IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BUT WHICH AT THE SAME TIME MAKES SURE THAT THE ISSUES FED IN THE NEW PDP TASK FORCES HAVE THE RIGHT SIZE AND CAN INDEED BE TACKLED THERE.  THIS IS NOT EASY, I SUPPOSE.  AND WE MAY NEED TO THINK FURTHER ABOUT IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, THOMAS.  YEAH, I THINK CERTAINLY WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BREAK PRIVACY DOWN INTO SOME COMPONENTS AND WORK ON SOME OF THE COMPONENTS IN PRIORITY ORDER.

   TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS BELIEVE THAT THE PORT 43 WHOIS AND BULK WHOIS REALLY NEED TO BE UNIFIED IN THE CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE WE ‑  AT THE MOMENT, WE HAVE AT LEAST SOME PROVISIONS TO PROTECT BULK WHOIS IN THE SENSE THAT THE BULK ‑  THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT SOMEBODY MUST SIGN TO OBTAIN BULK WHOIS.  AND UNDER THE NEW PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD TOMORROW, THAT THAT BULK WHOIS AGREEMENT SPECIFIC STATE THAT THE DATA IS NOT TO BE USED FOR MARKETING.  HOWEVER, WE HAVE A COMPLETE HOLE IN THE SECURITY IN THAT PORT 43 IS COMPLETELY OPEN, WHICH WILL TOTALLY BYPASS THAT POLICY RECOMMENDATION.  SO WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW ‑  AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, I GUESS THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WE PERHAPS NEED TO MOVE FORWARD ON AS SOON AS WE CAN, WHEREAS THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER AREAS OF PRIVACY THAT WE RECOGNIZE MAY TAKE A YEAR OR TWO YEARS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.

   SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO INTO A PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE.  AND I HOPE THAT IF WE AGREE TO INITIATE A STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF REPORT MIGHT PERHAPS GIVE US A STRUCTURE THAT THEN WHEN WE INITIATE THE ‑  POTENTIALLY INITIATE A TASK FORCE, WE CAN FOCUS THE ORDER IN WHICH SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED.  PARAGRAPHS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AT THIS POINT IS JUST ASK FOR A FINAL RESPONSE FROM BOTH MILTON AND MARILYN ON THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR.  AND THEN I WANT TO PUT IT TO A VOTE THAT WE MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND SEEK A REPORT FROM THE STAFF ON   FROM THE STAFF MANAGER IN A TIME FRAME OF 45 DAYS, AND THAT ALSO THE CONSTITUENCIES GO BACK WITH THEIR MEMBERS AND CONSIDER, AT LEAST HAVE SOMEBODY STANDING BY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TASK FORCE IF IT'S FORMED.

   I'LL FIRST GO TO MILTON AND THEN I'LL GO TO MARILYN.  MILTON, IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF, JUST A RESPONSE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I JUST WANT TO RESPOND MAINLY TO THE OLIVE BRANCH HELD OUT BY PHILIP.  I THINK IT'S TRUE THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT ACCURACY, THAT IS, FRAUD AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO BE ABLE TO TRACK DOWN.

   WHAT WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THE FOCUS ON WHOIS AS THE TOOL FOR DOING THIS.

   WHAT I'M AFRAID OF IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHOIS RESPONDS TO A CERTAIN SET OF INCENTIVES.  AND IN OUR ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT INTO AN ACCURATE TOOL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOVE ALL ELSE, WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT HARSHER AND HARSHER MEASURES.  THE WHOLE IDEA THAT YOU CAN LOSE YOUR DOMAIN NAME IN 15 DAYS BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACCURATE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING THERE IS YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE OF THE ONE IN 5,000 OR 10,000 CHANCE THAT THIS PERSON MIGHT BE A CRIMINAL, WE'RE GOING TO YANK HIS DOMAIN NAME OUT FROM UNDER HIM IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.  AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO IMPOSE, YOU KNOW, VERY HEAVY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ON REGISTRARS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THAT SMALL CHANCE.

   AND I JUST THINK WE'RE LOSING SENSE OF OUR PRIORITIES HERE, THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO GET THAT DATA AND THAT WHOIS MAY NOT BE THE PROPER TOOL, AND CERTAINLY REPRESSIVE AND HARSH ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS THAT BEAR NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE COST AND BENEFITS.  SO THERE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE.  BUT CERTAINLY I WANT TO EXPRESS MY TOTAL AGREEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO TRACK DOWN CRIMINALS OR FRAUDSTERS WHO ARE USING INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES IS AN IMPORTANT THING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MILTON.

   JUST TO CLARIFY, THE 15 DAYS, AS WE'VE HEARD EARLIER, IS NOT COMPULSORY.

   AND SECONDLY, JUST FROM AN ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, WHOIS IS KIND OF A DISPLAY SERVICE, IF YOU LIKE.  AND WE NEED TO SEPARATE THE WHOIS AS A DISPLAY SERVICE FROM THE ACTUAL COLLECTION OF DATA.  AND THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.  AND ACCURACY, TO MY MIND, DEALS WITH THE COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF DATA, AND CAN BE KEPT QUITE SEPARATE FROM HOW THAT DATA IS DISPLAYED.  SO THE POINT BEING LET'S SAY IF WE TURN WHOIS OFF TOMORROW AND WHOIS DISAPPEARS COMPLETELY WE STILL NEED ACCURATE DATA, AND WE STILL AS REGISTRARS NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT AT TIME OF RENEWAL AS AN EXAMPLE.  AND ALSO LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES HAVE A LEGITIMATE NEED IN THE CASES OF WHERE A DOMAIN NAME IS BEING ABUSED.

   MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE:  THANK YOU, BRUCE.  I THINK YOU'VE ACTUALLY TOUCHED ON SOME POINTS THAT THE TASK FORCE BROADLY WOULD MAKE.

   WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO RIGHT NOW IS TO SAY THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE TASK FORCE TO THE COMMUNITY, TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE.

   I THINK THAT TONY AND I HAVE SAID BEFORE THIS TASK FORCE ACTUALLY GREW OUT OF WORK THAT WAS DONE AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, LED BY PAUL CANE, WHO MADE A TERRIFIC CONTRIBUTION IN HELPING TO BEGIN TO LAUNCH THE LEARNING EFFORT.  WE WORKED VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.  AND WE HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL.  BUT WE HAVE BENEFITED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE VERY VALUED CONTRIBUTIONS NOT JUST OF THE TASK FORCE AND THROUGH THE TASK FORCE, THE CONSTITUENCIES, BUT THE BROAD COMMUNITY.  PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY GENEROUS WITH THEIR TIME AND HAVE BEEN VERY THOUGHTFUL.  AND I THINK THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY THE TASK FORCE, FROM THE BEGINNING, RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF PRIVACY, BUT RECOGNIZED AND TRIED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VERY BROAD PERSPECTIVE ABOUT HOW WHOIS FITS INTO THE BROADER SET OF ISSUES.

   IT IS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER WORK BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE NOW.  THE TASK FORCE WILL BE COMING TO A CLOSE AS A ‑  AS A TASK FORCE.  BUT I THINK WE ALL REMAIN VERY COMMITTED TO TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THE NEXT STAGE OF WORK, WHATEVER THAT IS, IS SUCCESSFUL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.

   NOW I'D LIKE TO PUT IT TO A VOTE THAT WE ‑  THIS IS A VOTE TO INITIATE THE NEXT STEP IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THAT NEXT STEP BEING TO ASK THE STAFF MANAGER TO PRODUCE AN ISSUES REPORT ON PRIVACY WITH A 45 DAYTIME LINE.

   AND WE ALSO REQUEST THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO CONSULT WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES FOR A TASK FORCE.

   DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION?

   JEFF SECONDS THE MOTION.

   AND I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IT TO A VOTE.  I'LL START FIRST WITH PHILIP.

>>CARY KARP:  POINT OF ORDER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SORRY, CARY.

>>CARY KARP:  YOU PUT AN "AND" AFTER THE MOTION.  SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE MOTION?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THE MOTION IS THAT WE MOVE ‑  I'LL HAVE ‑  I HAVEN'T GOT THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

   THE MOTION IS THAT WE MOVED TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS TO REQUEST THE STAFF MANAGER TO PRODUCE AN ISSUES REPORT ON PRIVACY.  THAT WE REQUEST THAT REPORT BE PRODUCED WITHIN 45 DAYS.  AND THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CONSULT WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF A FUTURE TASK FORCE.

   JEFF HAS HIS HAND UP.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  JUST A CLARIFICATION.  IF YOU CAN ADD IN THERE THAT THE STAFF MANAGER VIEWS NEEDS TWO DOCUMENTS AS A BASIS TO MOVE FORWARD.

   I THINK THAT WAS IMPLICIT IN WHAT YOU SAID.  BUT I ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH.  I THINK IT'S ‑  THAT'S ‑  GO AHEAD, MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE:  YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST QUICKLY LOOK AT THE PDP.  I BELIEVE, JEFF, THE PDP ACTUALLY COMMENTS ON THAT.  AND I BELIEVE IT SAYS SOMETHING ‑  I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.  I THINK IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE FORWARDED.  BUT IT MAY BE THAT THE STAFF MANAGER WOULD NEED ‑  COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION.

   SO MAYBE WE CAN PULL IT UP REAL QUICKLY.  CAN SOMEBODY WHO'S ONLINE DO THAT?

   AND THEN MAYBE, JEFF, WE CAN AMEND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PDP LANGUAGE, THESE DOCUMENTS AND IF IT SAYS IN THE DOCUMENT ANY OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, THAT WE CAN JUST REFERENCE THOSE.  THAT WOULD MEET YOUR OBJECTIVE WOULDN'T IT?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I DIDN'T MEAN SOLELY BASED ON IT.  IT JUST WAS A CLARIFICATION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO OVERCOMPLICATE THIS MOTION.  I THINK WE CAN ACCEPT THAT THE STAFF MANAGER IS QUITE SMART AND CAN PROBABLY USE THE AGENDA OF THIS MEETING AND THE DOCUMENTS THERE AS A STARTING POINT.

   SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO LEAVE THE MOTION AS IS, WITHOUT TRYING TO DIRECT, YOU KNOW, THAT AT 10:00 IN THE MORNING, HE SHOULD RING SUCH AND SUCH A PERSON.

   THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION.

   AT WHAT ‑  WELL, I'M ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, TOO.  SO ON THE TASK FORCE, THERE'S STILL ONE DRAFT DOCUMENT FLOATING AROUND WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE FINISHED AFTER THE PRESENT MEETING.

   SO DEPENDING ON HOW THIS COUNCIL IS GOING TO DEPOSE OF OR NOT DEPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE ITSELF, THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM IN GETTING THIS DOCUMENT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.  AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE SURE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE AND GOING TO HAPPEN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  HOW ABOUT WE JUST VOTE ON THIS MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL RAISE THAT AS ANOTHER ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH WHOIS.

   SO I'D LIKE TO PUT THE MOTION NOW TO THE VOTE.

   AND ASK FIRST PHILIP SHEPPARD TO REGISTER HIS VOTE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE:  I'M IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY.

>>TONY HARRIS:  I VOTE IN FAVOR.

>>GREG RUTH:  IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY HOLMES.

>>TONY HOLMES:  IN FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  CHUN.

>>CHUN EUNG HWI:  FAVOR.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  WHO'S NEXT?  LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND YOUR PROXIES, LAURENCE?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  YES, YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  KEN?

>>KEN STUBBS:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TOM?

>>THOMAS KELLER:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND ON THE CALL WE HAVE JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN:  AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND CARY?

>>CARY KARP:  YEAH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GRANT SHEPHERD ‑  GRANT FORSYTH.  SORRY.  MY APOLOGIES.

   OKAY.  WE HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THAT MOTION.

   NOW WE MOVE TO OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH IS REALLY THE BUSINESS OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE.

   MY GENERAL VIEW IS THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE NEEDS TO MOVE TO COMPLETION.  BUT I THINK YOU ARE RAISING THAT THERE'S ONE PIECE OF WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE COMPLETE.  AND I MIGHT JUST REFER TO THE CHAIRS FOR THEIR COMMENT.

>>MARILYN CADE:  WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TO TRY TO JUST CONSOLIDATE INTO A DOCUMENT WHAT WE'RE CALLING A BACKGROUND DOCUMENT THE ISSUES REPORT AS IT IS WITHOUT CHANGES INCORPORATED IN T

   IT'S IN DRAFT FORM.  IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE TASK FORCE TO SPEND PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO WEEKS FINALIZING IT.  IT PULLS TOGETHER SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, HAS LINKS TO ADDITIONAL MATERIALS WE'VE RECEIVED.  IT IS NOT A DOCUMENT THAT WOULD INFLUENCE POLICY, BUT IS INTENDED TO BE ‑  WE CALL IT A BACKGROUND DOCUMENT.

   MY RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK TONY, AS CO CHAIR, AGREE WAS ME, THAT WE SHOULD SCHEDULE THE CLOSE OF THE TASK FORCE WITH AN AGREEMENT, IF THE COUNCIL AGREES, THAT WE SHOULD CONCLUDE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS, PERHAPS KEEP THE LIST OPEN FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN AT THE NEXT CALL BE ABLE TO REPORT TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE TASK FORCE IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED.  AND THEN WE WILL, OF COURSE, EXPECT A ROUND OF CHAMPAGNE AND APPLAUSE FROM THE COUNCIL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JUST TO CLARIFY, THE WHOIS TASK FORCE IS COMPLETING FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH, I GUESS, CREATING A PUBLIC RECORD FOR USE IN FUTURE WORK OF THE COUNCIL.  THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE LIST WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THAT ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IS COMPLETE.  AND WHAT TIME FRAME DO YOU SEE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE WORK BEING COMPLETED?

>>MARILYN CADE:  I WOULD LIKE FOR TO US DO IT IN TWO WEEKS.  I KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE UP THIS JOB.  BUT PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST ASK THOMAS TO COMMENT ON WHETHER HE THINKS TWO WEEKS IS FEASIBLE?

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  IT'S FEASIBLE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.

   SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS, THEN, WE'LL ‑  THE WHOIS TASK FORCE WILL BE CLOSED AS OF THE 1ST OF MAY.  LET'S JUST PUT A DATE ON IT.  SO THE WHOIS TASK FORCE WILL CLOSE ON THE 1ST OF MAY, WHICH IS MAY DAY.  AND IF I CAN JUST HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION.

>>MARILYN CADE:  I SECOND IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR JUST NEED TO SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ALL THOSE AGAINST?

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SEEMS LIKE MILTON WANTS TO CONTINUE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  I WANT IT TO GO ON FOREVER AND EVER.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ANY ABSTENTIONS?

>>CHUN EUNG HWI:  ABSTAIN.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SO I THINK WE HAVE 23 ‑  22 IN FAVOR, ONE AGAINST, AND ONE ABSTENTION.

   OKAY.  WHAT ARE WE UP TO NEXT?

   REPORT FROM THE GTLD COMMITTEE.

   AGAIN, I THINK IF WE CAN ‑  THIS IS JUST A REPORT ON PROGRESS.  PERHAPS, PHILIP, IF YOU CAN GIVE A QUICK SUMMARY OF PERHAPS THE TIME LINE FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON AND THE PROGRESS MADE SO FAR.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE.

   JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, WE WERE CHARGED AS THE COUNCIL BY THE BOARD TO ANSWER TWO ESSENTIALLY SIMPLE QUESTIONS, WHETHER TO STRUCTURE THE EVOLUTION OF THE TOP LEVEL NAME SPACE, AND SECONDLY, IF THERE SHOULD BE STRUCTURING, HOW TO DO THAT.  OUR RESPONSE WAS TO COMMISSION A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, THAT IS, ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLUS OUR LIAISONS.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A LIAISON FROM THE AT LARGE, WENDY SELTZER.

   AND WE SET A SERIES OF MONTHLY MEETINGS, MONTHLY TELEPHONE CONFERENCES.  THE FIRST WAS ON 6TH OF FEBRUARY, SECOND ON 6TH OF MARCH.  THE NEXT ONE IS 10 APRIL.

   WE ASKED FOR CONSTITUENCIES TO SUBMIT PAPERS OR WRITTEN COMMENTS.  WE HAVE TO DATE RECEIVED THAT FROM THE BC, FROM THE NONCOMMERCIALS, AND FROM THE IPC.  AND I WOULD WELCOME VERY MUCH ANY OTHER INPUT IN WRITING FROM THE REMAINING CONSTITUENCIES.

   ON THE SECOND CALL, WE USED AS A BASIS THE PAPERS RECEIVED SO FAR, PULLING OUT SOME POINTS OF COMMONALITY BETWEEN THEM AND THEN TESTING THOSE WITH THE MEMBERS ON THE CALL TO SEE WHERE THAT COMMONALITY HAD RESONANCE.

   I PULLED OUT FROM THAT THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH I HAVE LISTED ‑  THERE'S A PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE DNSO WEB SITE, WHICH I CATEGORIZED UNDER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT HEADINGS.  FIRSTLY, FIVE CONCLUSIONS UNDER GOALS OF EXPANDING THE NAME SPACE, SORT OF THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE BY DOING SO.

   I HAD THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, THREE CONCLUSIONS UNDER DRIVERS OF EXPANSION, THINGS LIKE SHOULD IT BE BOTTOM UP, DEMAND DRIVEN, A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION, AND A COUPLE OR SO ADDRESSING THE POSSIBILITY OF REGISTRY OR SPONSOR FAILURE.

   ON THE NEXT CALL, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THOSE CONCLUSIONS TO SEE IF THERE IS FULL ENDORSEMENT BY THE PEOPLE ON THE CALL SO THAT WE CAN THEN GO FORWARD AND DEVELOP SOME OF THOSE AND ADD TO THEM.

   AND ALSO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM LEFT IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THE NAME SPACE UNDER A HEADING OF SEGMENTATION DIFFERENTIATION AND COMPETITION.  THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF SEGMENTATION.  AND WE WANTED TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WHERE DIFFERENTIATION CAN WORK TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL, BUT ALSO BEING AWARE OF ANY IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCK IN OR FOR THE CREATION OF LOCAL MONOPOLIES, ET CETERA.  SO JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS ‑  TO SEE WHETHER THOSE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED.

   AS I SAY, THE NEXT CALL IS 10TH OF APRIL.  AND I WOULD HOPE FOR WIDE PARTICIPATION FROM ALL OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS.  THANK YOU.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANKS, PHILIP.  ONE ‑  WE'VE HAD THE BENEFIT OF, I'VE NOTICED, FROM ‑  TO HAVE RESPONSES FROM THE LEARNED ACADEMIC COMMUNITY ON ASPECTS OF ALLOCATING GTLD NAMES.  IT'S OBVIOUSLY A TOPIC OF GREAT INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY.  HOWEVER, I'D ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL COMMITTEE OUTCOMES RATHER THAN ON ANY INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCY'S PROPOSALS.  BECAUSE I FIND THAT SOMETIMES YOU END UP WITH DISCUSSION ABOUT A POINT THAT HAS ‑  WAS MADE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, AND THE PARTICULAR GROUP INVOLVED HAD MOVED FORWARD FROM THERE, BUT THE DISCUSSION IN SOME PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY IS STILL SORT OF THREE MONTHS BEHIND.

   SO JUST ENCOURAGE THOSE MEMBERS OF THE OUTSIDE COMMUNITY THAT ARE FOLLOWING THIS AREA OF INTEREST TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE COMMITTEE OUTCOMES ITSELF RATHER THAN COMMENTING ON ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL'S COMMENTS.

   SO THANK PHILIP FOR THAT AND JUST NOTE, AGAIN, THIS ISSUE IS REALLY JUST IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FOR ADVICE FROM THE ICANN BOARD ON WHETHER THE GTLD NAME SPACE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED OR NOT.  AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY OTHER POLICY ISSUES THAT MIGHT RESULT FURTHER FORWARD IN TIME SUCH AS PROCEDURES AND SELECTION CRITERIA AND SO ON.  AND WE'RE NOT YET AT THAT STAGE.  WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CONSIDER THOSE ISSUES YET.

   THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE GNSO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I JUST MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS TO THE REPORT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES, GO AHEAD.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  FOR THE MOST PART, THAT IS VERY GOOD SUMMARY OF WHAT I SEE AS GENERAL POINTS OF AGREEMENT.  BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, PHILIP, HOW YOU GET TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT THE NAME SPACE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED.  I THINK THAT'S A VERY MISLEADING STATEMENT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT STRUCTURING A NAME SPACE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE OR ELSEWHERE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURING ‑  YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAXONOMIC STRUCTURES OR SOME KIND OF A STRUCTURE.  AND I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ALL AGREED THAT THAT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO READ THE FULL SENTENCE THAT YOU MAY BE QUOTING FROM THERE.  AND WHAT I SAID IN THE PREAMBLE TO THOSE POINTS OF COMMON AGREEMENT WAS THE FOLLOWING, PARTICIPANTS HAD IN SOME MEASURE OR OTHER ‑  THIS IS PARTICIPANTS ON THE CALL ‑  HAD A ‑  IT WAS AGREED THAT A FUTURE EXPANSION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN SUCH A WAY THAT WAS DEMAND DRIVEN AND BOTTOM UP AND IN A WAY THAT INCREASED COMPETITION WHILE AVOIDING NET USER CONFUSION AND DECEPTION.

   TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE OBJECTIVES OUTLINE THE NEED FOR CRITERIA, IT WOULD SEEM THERE IS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT THE FUTURES NAME SPACE SHOULD BE STRUCTURED.  THE CHALLENGE FOR THE COMMITTEE GOING FORWARD IS TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THAT STRUCTURING.

   SO I'M USING "STRUCTURE" HERE IN A VERY LOOSE ‑  INTENDED IN A VERY LOOSE WAY.  BUT REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT WE HAD A RANGE OF IDEAS IN TERMS OF HOW THE NAME SPACE SHOULD BE IN SO MUCH AS THAT WAS THE CASE, THEN SOME SORT OF STRUCTURING SEEMED TO BE IN MANY PEOPLE'S MINDS.  AND THEN WE GO ON TO LIST IN THE REST OF THAT SUMMARY WHAT THAT IS.

   I TAKE YOUR POINT, THOUGH, THAT IN TERMS OF HOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF TAXONOMY OR TOP DOWN AND ALL THAT, TO MY MIND, ARE MERELY OPTIONS WITHIN THAT WIDER CATEGORY.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE JUST AS ACCURATE, GIVEN WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEMAND DRIVEN AND BOTTOM UP, TO SAY THAT:

     "TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE OBJECTIVES OUTLINE THE NEED FOR A CRITERIA, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THERE IS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT THE FUTURE GTLD NAME SPACE SHOULD BE UNSTRUCTURED."

   I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE.  AND KNOWING WHAT I KNOW ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD WAS DEBATING WHEN THEY SENT YOU THIS REQUEST, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ANSWER THEY ARE ASKING IS, WE REALLY ARE ANSWERING IT UNSTRUCTURED.  WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING A TAXONOMY OR A SPECIFIC FORMAT FOR TLD ADDITION.  WE ARE SAYING DEMAND DRIVEN AND PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANTS.  THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE MEAN BY UNSTRUCTURED.

>> CAN I SPEAK, PLEASE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GO AHEAD, CARY.

>>CARY KARP:  GIVEN THE INCREDIBLY RIGID STRUCTURED NATURE OF THE DNS, I FEEL QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE EVEN CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING NO STRUCTURE (INAUDIBLE) WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SUGGESTING NEW LEVELS OF STRUCTURE BEYOND THOSE THAT ARE DICTATED BY THE RFPS (INAUDIBLE).

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I SENSE WE ARE PERHAPS TALKING SEMANTICS ON THE WORD "STRUCTURE," AND PERHAPS IN THE FINAL REPORT, WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT.  AND OBVIOUSLY GET INPUT FROM MILTON AND OTHERS IN EXPLAINING THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  BUT I THINK WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THE SEMANTICS OF THE WORD "STRUCTURE." .

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  BRUCE, I CONCUR COMPLETELY.  I WOULD HOPE THAT BY THE FINAL REPORT, A CLARITY OF DEFINITION WOULD BE POSSIBLE.  YOU WILL APPRECIATE WHY I HAVE HESITATED TO MAKE ONE AT THE START OF THIS PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THAT'S RIGHT.

   BUT, I MEAN, I CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE CONSTITUENCIES, AND I DID SO IN THE REGISTRAR'S CONSTITUENCY YESTERDAY, TO READ THE CURRENT DRAFT THAT PHILIP HAS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THE COMMITTEE WORK SO FAR.  AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY TRY AND GET THE WORDING RIGHT.  BECAUSE IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

   JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  THE GTLD CONSTITUENCY HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, I GUESS IT WAS YESTERDAY.  WE APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GETTING OUR CONSTITUENCY POSITION IN EARLIER.  BUT WE WILL BE GETTING TO THE COMMITTEE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS OUR POSITION, OUR STATEMENT.  AND I'M NOT GOING TO ‑  WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS, IT SAYS HERE "POINTS OF COMMON AGREEMENT AND FUTURE DEBATE."  I'M NOT SURE WE NECESSARILY ‑  WE MAY AGREE ON CERTAIN THINGS AND HAVE AGREED ON CERTAIN THINGS ON THE CALL.  I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE STATED THE WAY IT WAS AGREED.  BUT YOU'LL SEE THAT IN OUR COMMENTS.  AND, HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET A GOOD, CLEAR REPORT OUT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES.  I THINK WHAT PHILIP'S ATTEMPTED TO DO IS ‑  HE'S ONLY REALLY HAD TWO FORMAL SUBMISSIONS, ONE FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND ONE FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY.  AND THE REST HAS REALLY JUST BEEN VERBAL DISCUSSION.  AND I THINK HE WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM GETTING FORMAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM ESPECIALLY THE REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, OBVIOUSLY, THAT HAVE A FAIR DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ‑  IN THE AREA OF CREATING TOP LEVEL DOMAINS.  AND CERTAINLY THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY WOULD HAVE INPUT IN RELATION TO TRADEMARKS AND OTHER THINGS.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  IN FACT, I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ALREADY SENT A WRITTEN PAPER TO PHILIP.  SO THE IPC HAS ALREADY SENT A POSITION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, LAURENCE, FOR BRINGING ME UP TO DATE ON THAT.

   TONY FROM THE ISPS.

>>TONY HOLMES:  JUST A BRIEF COMMENT, BRUCE.

   THE ISPCP CONSIDERED ITS POSITION 4 FOR A RESPONSE.  AND WE WILL BE FORWARDING THE FINAL VERSION WITHIN THE NEXT DAY OR SO.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT APPROVING ANYTHING.  IT'S JUST PART OF A COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.  AND, EVENTUALLY, WE WILL BE BRINGING IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.

   SO NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT THE INPUT INTO THE PROCESS FOR PHILIP.

   THE FINAL ITEM TODAY IS MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE IN REGARDS TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GNSO ITSELF.  AND PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, ROGER COCHETTI, CHAIRING A COMMITTEE OR A SUBCOMMITTEE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.  AND THAT COMMITTEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE BUDGET FOR THE GNSO AND MANAGING EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF THAT BUDGET.

   AS WE MOVE FROM MANAGING THE FINANCES DIRECTLY OURSELVES AT THE GNSO LEVEL, THE SECOND HALF OF THIS YEAR, ICANN ITSELF WILL BE PROVIDING THE FUNDING DIRECTLY AND MANAGING THE ‑  I GUESS THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO INDIVIDUALS AND SERVICES USED BY THE GNSO.

   SO WHAT I HAD SUGGESTED AT THIS STAGE IS THAT IN THE INTERIM REMAINING THREE TO FOUR MONTHS THAT MR. ROGER COCHETTI HAD VOLUNTEERED AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  HE'S NO LONGER A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, AND HE WOULD NOT BE DOING THIS REPRESENTING HIS EMPLOYER MORE REPRESENTING THE CONSTITUENCY OF WHICH HIS EMPLOYER IS A MEMBER.  BUT AS AN INDIVIDUAL, ROGER WOULD BE PREPARED TO CONTINUE TO CHAIR THAT COMMITTEE, AND HE'D BE RESPONSIBLE MAINLY FOR OPERATING WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, OPERATING WITHIN THE DELEGATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR THAT COMMITTEE.

   THAT COMMITTEE IS ONLY DELEGATED TO AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE UP TO $5,000 ON ANY INDIVIDUAL ITEM.  ANY MORE THAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE COUNCIL ITSELF TO APPROVE.  AND JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, MOST OF THE ACTIVITY ON A SORT OF, I GUESS, A DAILY BASIS IN THAT COMMITTEE IS RECEIVING INVOICES FOR SMALL AMOUNTS THAT MIGHT BE RELATING TO A TELECONFERENCE COST OR A ROOM HIRE OR A ROUTINE INVOICE FROM ONE OF OUR SERVICE SUPPLIERS RELATING TO MANAGING THE WEB SITE.

   AND SO THAT COMMITTEE IS REALLY JUST RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT INVOICES ARE CORRECT, THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO ACTIVITIES THAT THE COMMITTEE IS ‑  THAT THE COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED, AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED.

   SO I'D FIRST LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL   WELL, REALLY, I GUESS I CAN OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION FIRST, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT PROPOSAL.

   KEN IN THE QUEUE.  ANYONE ELSE?  MARILYN.

   GO AHEAD, KEN.

>>KEN STUBBS:  IT'S NOT MUCH ‑  AS MUCH OF A COMMENT AS IT IS I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT ROGER, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS LEFT THE COUNCIL NOW, BUT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS HE ‑  I'D LIKE TO THANK HIM FOR THE COMMENDABLE WORK THAT HE'S DONE IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.

   ALTHOUGH THERE ISN'T MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMITTEE'S WORK, I THINK HE'S PUT IN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND A LOT OF EFFORT.  AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD EXTEND OUR DEEPEST THANKS FOR THE EFFORTS HE'S PUT FORTH TO DATE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, KEN.

   MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE:  BRUCE, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND MY THANKS, I'M SURE EVERYONE ON THE COUNCIL DOES, FOR THE WORK THAT ROGER DID IN HIS ROLE AS ‑  WHEN HE WAS ON THE COUNCIL.  AND TO NOTE THAT HE WILL BE MISSED, ALTHOUGH WE ARE PLEASED TO OF COURSE WELCOME JEFF IN REPRESENTATION OF THE CONSTITUENCY.

   I WOULD, HOWEVER, WHILE I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT I ACTUALLY THINK WE SHOULD STEP BACK FOR JUST A MINUTE AND THINK PERHAPS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU PROPOSED.

   WHAT I HEAR YOU PROPOSING IS AN INTERIM, WHICH REALLY EXTENDS A PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL THE COUNCIL CAN APPOINT A NEW BUDGET COMMITTEE AND DETERMINE SORT OF WHAT THE WORK PROCESSES WOULD BE.

   WHILE I'M HAPPY TO EXTEND THAT, I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO CONSIDER IT A PRECEDENT THAT NON COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD NORMALLY PLAY THIS ROLE.

   WHAT MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS IS I THINK WE MAY NEED TO TWEAK YOUR LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT SORT OF SOUNDED LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEER, NOT REPRESENTING HIS CONSTITUENCY NOR REPRESENTING HIS EMPLOYER, WAS OVERSEEING THE BUDGET OF THE COUNCIL.  SO PERHAPS WE MIGHT KIND OF WORK ON THAT LANGUAGE JUST A BIT, BECAUSE I SUPPORT THE INTENT AND THE TIME FRAME, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF THINK A BIT ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  PERHAPS I SHOULD BE SPECIFIC IN THE TIME FRAME THAT THIS IS ‑  THIS OFFER HAS BEEN EXTENDED FOR 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE FIRST OF JULY WHEN THE PROCESS IS MEANT TO HAND OVER.  AND THE ROLE IS PURELY IN THE CONTEXT OF APPROVING INVOICES RELATING TO THE CURRENT BUDGET AGREED FOR THE YEAR FINISHING 30TH OF JUNE, 2003.

   HOWEVER, AS MARILYN POINTS OUT, SEPARATELY WE NEED TO CREATE A COMMITTEE WITHIN THE COUNCIL WHICH WILL NEED TO BE ADVISING ICANN ITSELF ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GNSO INTO THE FUTURE IN REGARDS TO STAFF SUPPORT, MUCH THE SAME AS OTHER PARTS OF ICANN HAVE COMMITTEES THAT PROVIDE ADVICE TO ICANN IN REGARD TO THE ICANN BUDGET AS A WHOLE.  AND THAT'S A SORT OF ONGOING, MORE OF A STRATEGIC BUDGET ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO A DAILY, DOES THIS INVOICE MATCH WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO.

   DID YOU WANT TO SUGGEST SOME WORDS, MARILYN?  I'VE KIND OF FORGOTTEN WHAT MY INITIAL WORDS WERE.  I THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN CLEAR BUT ‑ 

>>MARILYN CADE:  I THINK WHAT I WAS JUST NOTING IS WHAT WE ENDED UP SAYING IS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND NOT REPRESENTING THE CONSTITUENCY, WHICH MAKES IT APPEAR THAT WE HAVE ‑  EVEN THOUGH THIS HAPPENS TO BE AN EXTENSION, PERHAPS WE CAN JUST LINK THE LANGUAGE VERY CLEARLY TO PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER; THAT THIS IS A SHORT TERM EXTENSION.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YES, IT IS A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER.  YES, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO.

   JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MENTION WHETHER SOMEONE WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER OR NOT.  LET'S JUST APPOINT ROGER COCHETTI TO BE INTERIM WHATEVER.  YOU DON'T NEED TO REFER TO THE COUNCIL; REFER TO HIM AS A PERSON.  SO WE WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT ROGER COCHETTI TO THIS INTERIM BUDGET COMMITTEE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK WHAT MARILYN IS SAYING IS WE JUST NEED TO LINK IT ‑  MAY NOT NECESSARILY ANYONE THE MOTION BUT CAN BE IN THE MINUTES THAT GO WITH THE MOTION, IS THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS IT'S AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ARRANGEMENT AND THAT EXISTING ARRANGEMENT RELATED TO THE DNSO, I GUESS, BUDGET PROCESS, WHEN THE DNSO SET THAT BUDGET.  AND AT ONE STAGE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO END AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AS IN THE 30TH OF DECEMBER, AND THEN THAT WAS EXTENDED TO SAY THAT WE NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER GNSO CONTROL UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR WHEN THE NEW BUDGET WAS SET.

   SO I THINK I'D RATHER HANDLE IT BY MINUTING THE CONTEXT, AND THEN AS JEFF SAYS, WE CAN HAVE A VERY SIMPLE MOTION, WHICH IS REALLY JUST, FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, WE'VE GOT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT WE ARE LEGALLY ‑  WE HAVE DELEGATED TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE TO LEGALLY SIGN OFF ON INVOICES THAT ARE PAID BY ICANN, AND WE NEED TO CERTAINLY FORMALIZE THAT FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.

   OKAY.  IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, THEN PERHAPS IF I CAN GET A SECONDER FOR THE MOTION.  JEFF.

   AND IF WE CAN PUT IT TO A VOTE.  ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>>:  AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?   ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?  .

   OKAY.  I'D LIKE TO PERHAPS ASK ROGER IF HE MIGHT COME TO THE MICROPHONE TO JUST GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE GNSO IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE.  HAVE WE INVOICED THE CONSTITUENCIES, WHERE WE ARE IN THE BANK, JUST A QUICK SUMMARY.

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  HELLO?  THANKS.

   I'LL BE BRIEF ON THE BUDGET REPORT.  FIRST, THANKS TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR DECISION.  AND AS BRUCE KNOWS, I'VE AGREED TO CONTINUE THIS FOR 30 DAYS PAST THE JULY 1ST CUTOVER, AND THERE IS A COMPLETELY NEW SET OF ISSUES I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DEAL WITH LOOKING FORWARD, AND THAT IS WHAT BUDGETARY INPUT IT WANTS TO PROVIDE TO ICANN MANAGEMENT.

   BUT FOR THIS INTERIM PERIOD, TO CLOSE OUT THE SELF SUSTAINING PORTION, THIS IS A REPORT.

   FIRST, TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT AT YEAR END '02, THE DNSO AND NOW THE GNSO OPERATES IN A CALENDAR YEAR, UNLIKE ICANN WHICH OPERATES ON A JULY 1ST FISCAL YEAR.  SO AT THE END OF THE GNSO'S 2002 CALENDAR YEAR, THERE WAS A CASH BALANCE OF ABOUT 36 , $37,000 OF FUNDS THAT HAD NO OBLIGATION ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

   THE COUNCIL AGREED IN ITS DECEMBER MEETING FOR A BUDGET TO RAISE APPROXIMATELY $30,000 FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF '03 THROUGH CONSTITUENCY DUES OF $4,950 EACH FOR EACH CONSTITUENCY.

   THE DUES INVOICES ‑  GLEN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THE DUES INVOICES HAVE NOW BEEN SENT OUT.  AS OF YESTERDAY, OR AS OF TODAY THE REPORT I HAD WAS NONE OF THE CONSTITUENCY DUES PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED SAFE ONE, AND CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ISP CONSTITUENCY, WHICH FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THIS AREA KNOW THAT FOR SOME YEARS WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY DUES PAYMENTS FOR THE ISP CONSTITUENCY, BUT THEY SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND THANKED FOR BEING THE FIRST AND ONLY CONSTITUENCY WHO HAS THUS PAID ITS DUES THIS YEAR, AND I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE ACTUALLY PAID MORE THAN THE DUES AMOUNT.  IF THEIR PAYMENT WAS $5,000, THE DUES ARE $4,950.  SO THEY HAVE A $50 SURPLUS, WHICH WILL, OF COURSE, BE CREDITED TO THEIR BACK YEARS' AMOUNTS OF DUES THAT WERE NOT PAID.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS NEVER FORGIVEN PAST DEBTS OF DUES.  THEY GO ON FOREVER.

   THE PAST YEARS HAVE ONLY BEEN ABOUT $5300.  THIS ONLY REFLECTS A LAG BETWEEN THE TIME COSTS WERE INCURRED.  THE SPENDING THUS FAR FOR THE COUNCIL THIS YEAR HAS BEEN ABOUT $20,000, PROBABLY BETWEEN 20  AND $25,000.  THAT COMPARES WITH A CASH BALANCE THAT WAS CARRIED OVER OF 36,000.  SO THAT THE TRUE BALANCE FOR THE GNSO AT THIS POINT IS SOMETHING IN THE ORDER OF ABOUT $10,000.

   THAT IS MUCH LOWER THAN IT SHOULD BE AT THIS POINT AND REFLECTS THE FACT THAT CONSTITUENCIES HAVE NOT MADE THEIR PAYMENTS, SO I'LL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS BY REMINDING EVERYBODY THAT THE TIMELY PAYMENT OF CONSTITUENCIES' DUES IS CRITICAL TO THE COUNCIL NOT RUNNING INTO A CASH PROBLEM, WHICH IT WILL WITHIN THE NEXT PROBABLY ABOUT 45 DAYS IF OTHER DUES PAYMENTS ARE NOT RECEIVED.

>>KEN STUBBS:  BRUCE, DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE TO HAVE A BAKE SALE AT THE END OF THE MEETING HERE?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  YEAH, WE NEED TO SELL SOME OF THAT BEER THAT'S GOING OUT THE BACK DOOR.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>KEN STUBBS:  YES.

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM; OTHERWISE, THAT'S THE REPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ROGER?  MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  ROGER, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT ICANN HAD MADE SOME KIND OF A COMMITMENT TO FUND THE GNSO AND THAT WE WERE NO LONGER RELYING ON DUES.

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT BUT THE ICANN COMMITMENT BEGINS JULY 1ST, THE BEGINNING OF THEIR FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS A HALF YEAR BUDGET FOR THE GNSO WHICH IS DESIGNED TO SORT OF CONCLUDE BY JULY 1ST, WHICH IS WHY THIS COMMITTEE AND ITS FUNCTIONS AND MY CHAIRMANSHIP OF IT EXPIRE 30 DAYS AFTER THAT JULY 1ST CUTOVER.

>>KEN STUBBS:  LEGITIMATE QUESTION.  GLEN, DID THE INVOICES GO TO THE SPECIFIC CONSTITUENCIES?  AND HOW ‑  HAVE WE RECEIVED ‑  I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SEEN ONE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK KEN IS ASKING BECAUSE HE'S BASICALLY CURRENTLY ACTING AS THE TREASURER IN REGARD TO THE REGISTRARS'S CONSTITUENCY.  ABOUT A MONTH AGO, APPARENTLY.

>>KEN STUBBS:  OKAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK THE REGISTRARS INTEND TO PAY WHEN THEY FIND THEIR INVOICE.

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  IF THERE'S ANY CONSTITUENCY THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN INVOICED OR CAN'T FIND ITS INVOICE, PLEASE LET GLEN KNOW RIGHT AWAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  SAME WITH YOU, JEFF?  SO WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH INVOICES, YEAH.

   AT THAT POINT, I'LL THANK ROGER FOR HIS REPORT, AND THANK HIM FOR VOLUNTEERING TO CONTINUE FOR THIS TRANSITION.  I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT ROGER HAS A GREAT DEAL OF HISTORY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUDGET OF THE GNSO, AND I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A BIT OF OVERLAP THERE AND THANK HIM FOR VOLUNTEERING FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF DECISIONS MADE IN REGARD TO PAYMENTS OVER THE THREE YEARS.

   (APPLAUSE).

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  ROGER, THE IPC APPARENTLY HAS NOT RECEIVED THE INVOICE, IN FACT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  IT SEEMS PRETTY MUCH NOBODY BUT THE ISPS HAVE RECEIVED THE INVOICE.

>>KEN STUBBS:  THE DOG ATE THE INVOICE, YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AS A SEPARATE MATTER IN REGARDS TO THE BUDGET, AND THIS IS AN ADJUSTMENT TO WHAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AGREED IN TERMS OF PAYMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE GNSO SECRETARIAT, IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST THREE TO FOUR MONTHS, WHICH HAVE BEEN VERY INTENSIVE FOR THE GNSO COUNCIL IN REGARDS IT HAS BEEN VERY HEAVY WORK BEING DONE BY THE TASK FORCES IN WHOIS AND TRANSFERS, THERE WAS THE TRANSFERS IMPLEMENTATION AND WHOIS IMPLEMENTATION WORK THAT WAS GOING ON, FOR EACH OF THOSE THERE WAS ABOUT TWO CALLS PER WEEK.  AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS PROBABLY ABOUT TWO CALLS PER WEEK ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, AND THEN THERE'S COLLECTING ALL THE MATERIALS AND MINUTES IN SUPPORT OF THOSE MEETINGS.  I CAN SEE THE SAME THING GOING ON FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS.  IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOES TO BE A LOT OF WORK IN THE AREA OF PRIVACY GOING FORWARD.  THERE IS ‑  THERE'S WORK COMING UP IN DELETES, THERE'S WORK COMING UP IN URDP.

   WE HAVE GOT A VERY HEAVY WORK PROGRAM.  AND MY BELIEF FROM MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT NEEDS TO SPEND MORE TIME TO SUPPORT THOSE ACTIVITIES, AND IN FACT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT HAS REALLY BEEN DOING A LOT OF THE WORK ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS.  AND I'VE ALSO SOUGHT SUPPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT TO HELP PUT TOGETHER RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE GNSO.  AND ITEM 11 OF THE AGENDA IS REALLY JUST TO SAY THAT GLEN HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO COMBINE THE ICANN BYLAWS AND THE PREVIOUS NAMES COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE INTO ONE UNIFIED DOCUMENT.  AND THAT WILL BE ‑  NEED TO BE EVENTUALLY APPROVED BY ICANN BY THE END OF THE ‑  I THINK IT MIGHT BE JULY OR BY JULY, SO THAT'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK COMBINING THAT MATERIAL.  AND I RECOMMEND COUNCIL MEMBERS READ THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THAT SO THAT WE CAN START MOVING FORWARD TO FINALIZE THOSE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

   SO IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER FAIRLY LARGE PIECE OF WORK THAT THE GNSO SECRETARIAT HAS BASICALLY DONE ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS.

   SO I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND AS CHAIR THAT WE A JUST THE REMUNERATION FOR THE SECRETARIAT FUNCTION FROM U.S. $3200 PER MONTH TO $4500 PER MONTH, WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE FIRST OF APRIL FOR THE DURATION OF THE GNSO ITSELF TAKING OVER THAT FUNCTION.

   AND PERHAPS INVITE PERHAPS COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER CHAIRS OF THE TASK FORCES THAT HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE GNSO SECRETARIAT'S TIME.  PERHAPS IF TONY OR MARILYN MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT.

>>MARILYN CADE:  I AM PLEASED TO COMMENT.  AND I MUST SAY, TONY MAY WANT TO COMMENT AS WELL, AS THE CHAIR OF THE TRANSFERS TASK FORCE AND AS THE CO CHAIR OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE, WE MANAGED TO CONSUME TWO CALLS A WEEK, TWO HOURS AT A TIME FOR EACH OF THOSE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF DEMAND ON GLEN'S TIME FOR COORDINATION, TAKING OF MINUTES, HELPING US AND HELPING TO SORT OF ENSURE THAT WE WERE PRODUCTIVE AS A TASK FORCE.  WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS JOB WITHOUT HER, AND I WILL SAY THAT THE RELIANCE WE HAVE ON GLEN IN TAKING MINUTES AND HELPING US TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE WORK, SHE'S BEEN A CRITICAL PART OF THE TEAM.

   I WANT TO LEND MY VOICE TO A RECOGNITION, NOT JUST OF THE WORK SHE'S DONE BUT OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS SUCH A CRITICAL PART OF THE TEAM THAT I WOULD LIKE, AFTER OTHER COMMENTS, TO SUGGEST THAT THE COUNCIL LEND A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GLEN AND THE CONTRIBUTION THAT SHE'S MADE TO OUR SUCCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, MARILYN.

>>ANTONIO HARRIS:  CAN I ADD TO THAT?  I THINK FROM THE WHOIS PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE PROBABLY SHORT ON YOUR NUMBERS.  I THINK IT WAS CLOSER TO SIX CALLS A WEEK.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>ANTONIO HARRIS:  AND THE MINUTES FROM THOSE SIX CALLS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I'M GLAD I WASN'T ON THE TASK FORCE.

   (LAUGHTER).

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

   KEN, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO ADD.

>>KEN STUBBS:  YEAH, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH GLEN OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS RECOGNIZE THAT SHE'S ALWAYS ONE WHO HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY.  AND HAS REALLY MADE OUR JOBS ‑  OUR REALLY HAS PROVIDED US WITH AN ENVIRONMENT THAT MAKES IT SO MUCH EASIER FOR US TO OPERATE MORE EFFECTIVELY.  AND I JUST NEED TO THANK HER AGAIN AND STRONGLY SUPPORT HER, AND BRUCE I THINK I'D LIKE TO SECOND YOUR PROPOSAL.  I THINK YOU NEEDED THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, KEN.  I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK ROGER COCHETTI IF HE'S STILL IN THE ROOM, ROGER, CAN I JUST GET A READ FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WHETHER THIS AMOUNT WOULD BE WITHIN THE BUDGET, I GUESS, OF THE OVERALL GNSO ASSUMING WE GET THE DUES PAYMENTS?

>>ROGER COCHETTI:  YEAH, THERE'S NO QUESTION, $3600 THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE PASSAGE OF THIS RESOLUTION IS WELL BELOW THE $10,000 IN MISCELLANEOUS THAT WAS ALLOCATED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

   SO THIS WOULD TAKE UP ABOUT A THIRD OF THE MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS PREVIOUSLY PRESERVED.  AND THEN FOR THE COUNCIL'S ‑  JUST FOR THE COUNCIL'S BENEFIT, IN ADDITION TO THE MISCELLANEOUS, THERE WERE ALSO CASH CARRYOVER, A CASH RESERVE BUILT INTO THE BUDGET.

   SO THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUDGET, AND AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT CONSTITUENCY PAYMENTS TAKE PLACE, NOT IN ANY WAY ‑  BUT IF THERE IS A SHORTFALL OF CONSTITUENCY PAYMENTS, THE EXPENSE LEVEL COULD BE MAINTAINED WITH AS MANY AS TWO CONSTITUENCIES NOT PAYING.  BUT IF MORE THAN TWO DID NOT PAY, YOU WOULD THEN HAVE A CASH ISSUE THAT COULD ARISE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU, ROGER.  SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE STILL OPERATING WITHIN THE GNSO BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER.  AND THIS IS A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION FOR EXPENDITURE ON A SPECIFIC ITEM.  AND THAT IS THE GNSO SECRETARIAT COSTS.

   SO KEN HAS SECONDED THE MOTION.  I'D JUST LIKE TO GO AROUND.  I'D LIKE FORMALLY TO VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AUTHORIZING PAYMENT.

   SO FIRST TO PHILIP SHEPPARD.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  FULLY IN SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE:  IN SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY.

>>ANTONIO HARRIS:  IN SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  GREG.

>>GREG RUTH:  I SUPPORT IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TONY HOLMES.

>>TONY HOLMES:  I SUPPORT IT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  CHUN.

>>CHUN EUNG HWI:  SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER:  WE SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JEFF?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  CARY KARP IF YOU'RE STILL ONLINE?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'LL TAKE HIS PROXY AND SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JORDYN, ARE YOU STILL ONLINE?

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'LL TAKE HIS PROXY TOO AND SUPPORT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU.  LAURENCE.

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  AND YOU'RE VOTING PROXIES?

>>LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  KEN STUBBS.

>>KEN STUBBS:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TOM?

>>THOMAS KELLER:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  LET ME SEE IF I GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME.  GRANT FORSYTH?

>>GRANT FORSYTH:  YES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU.  WE HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THAT MOTION.

   THE FINAL ITEM RELATED TO BUDGET IS IN TERMS OF THE GNSO SUPPORT THAT WE NEED FROM ICANN.  THE ICANN BUDGET CURRENTLY HAS PROVISION IN THE DRAFT BUDGET OR PRELIMINARY BUDGET THAT WAS PUBLISHED RECENTLY FOR ABOUT ONE AND A HALF PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GNSO.  THAT WAS ON THE BASIS OF ONE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT IN RELATION TO POLICY, WHICH I GUESS EFFECTIVELY WOULD BE THE STAFF MANAGER IN TERMS OF THE BYLAWS, AND THE OTHER WAS A HALF TIME ROLE FOR PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT.

   MY BELIEF BASED ON THE RECENT ACTIVITY OF THE LAST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AND CERTAINLY THE ACTIVITY I CAN SEE ON THE HORIZON IS THAT THAT'S INSUFFICIENT AND THAT WE SHOULD BE REQUESTING ICANN FOR A FULL TIME ADMINISTRATOR AND A FULL TIME POLICY OFFICER.  AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION BASED ON MY RECENT EXPERIENCES, BUT I INVITE COMMENT FROM THE COUNCIL TO SEE WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

   PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I THINK YOUR ANALYSIS, BRUCE, IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE HAD FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME HAS BEEN FOR STAFF SUPPORT TO MAKE THE FUNCTIONING OF THIS SO WHAT IT IS DESIRED TO BE.  WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE NOW SEE IN THE NEW BYLAWS, BUT I THINK IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FUNCTION IN THE WAY THAT WE ENVISAGE, A REQUEST IN TERMS OF BASICALLY TWO PEOPLE FULL TIME SUPPORTING US IS UTTERLY REASONABLE GIVEN THE BALANCE OF OTHER PERSONNEL, ET CETERA, THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE MIX IN THE ICANN BUDGET.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, PHILIP.  ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT?  TONY AND THEN JEFF.

>>TONY HOLMES:  YES, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AS WELL AND THINK THE RIGHT LEVEL NEEDS TO BE HAD TO SUPPORT US IN THE FUTURE SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JEFF.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  I THINK WE NEED THAT SUPPORT.  I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION FROM THE ICANN BUDGET OR WHAT THE EFFECT ON THE ICANN BUDGET, IF ANY, WOULD BE OF INCREASING THAT HALF OF A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  IN RESPONSE, I THINK THAT WOULD INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE LEVEL SLIGHTLY BY HALF OF A SALARY PLUS OVERHEAD FOR AN EMPLOYEE.  THAT THEN WOULD TRAIL DOWN, SINCE WE'RE ON A COST BASED BUDGETING, INTO AN INCREASE IN THE REVENUES REQUIRED AND A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THOSE WHO FUND ICANN, CURRENTLY PRINCIPALLY THE REGISTRARS, CONDITIONALLY THE REGISTRIES AS WELL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  OF COURSE ASSUMING YOU DON'T SAVE MONEY ELSEWHERE.  SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A CONCLUSION YOU CAN MAKE, I THINK.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  CAN I FOLLOW UP, BRUCE?  CAN I FOLLOW UP?   THAT BEING THE CASE, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MAKE A MOTION BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PAUL OR STUART OR WHOEVER IS MAKING THE BUDGET PUT THAT IN AND SEE WHAT IT WOULD BE.  IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE BUDGET.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I THINK, JEFF, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT THE GNSO COUNCIL BELIEVES IT NEEDS TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION.  WE ARE NOT APPROVING THE ICANN BUDGET.  WE ARE JUST MERELY STATING WHAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT WE THINK IS NECESSARY.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  RIGHT.  BUT WITH THAT, I WOULD SAY WE'D NEED FIVE.  BUT YOU HAVE ‑ 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  TRYING TO BE CONSERVATIVE, YES.

>>JEFF NEUMAN:  AND I DO THINK WE NEED MORE SUPPORT, BUT REALLY YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THAT IN THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET.  BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN, ALL I WOULD BE DOING AT THIS STAGE IS STATING TO THE ICANN, I GUESS, BUDGET COMMITTEE THAT WE BELIEVE WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF TWO PEOPLE.  THERE WILL BE OTHER REQUESTS, OBVIOUSLY, THAT GO INTO THAT, AND THEN A NEW DRAFT.  AND IN FACT THERE WAS A ‑  AT A BREAKFAST MEETING THIS MORNING, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER DRAFT OF THE BUDGET PRODUCED, AND OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO ‑  IN TERMS OF BEING ONE OF THE ENTITIES THAT WILL END UP PAYING, AS WILL YOU, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL BE WANTING TO CONSIDER THAT.

   I THINK WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM   LOUIS, YES.

>>LOUIS TOUTON:  LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THE BUDGET PROCESS A BIT MORE.  IT WON'T TAKE LONG.

   THE ‑  A PRELIMINARY BUDGET HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEB SITE.  ONE OF THE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE PUBLIC FORUM TOMORROW IS TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THAT PRELIMINARY BUDGET.

   IF THE GNSO COUNCIL WERE TO PASS APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS GIVING SOME SPOKESMAN THE AUTHORITY, A VIEW COULD BE EXPRESSED ON THE NEED FOR THESE PARTICULAR RESOURCES TO BE DEVOTED TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.

   SUBSEQUENT TO TOMORROW'S PUBLIC FORUM AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OF THE BUDGET GROUP WHICH AS YOU KNOW CONSISTS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THOSE WHO FUND ICANN'S BUDGET, AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ONLINE, A PROPOSED BUDGET WILL BE PREPARED AND POSTED ON OR SHORTLY BEFORE MAY 15TH FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD AT ITS MEETING IN MONTREAL.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, LOUIS.

   DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL?  OKAY.  JUST TO FORMALLY STATE THE MOTION, THEN, THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL REQUEST TWO FULL TIME RESOURCES FROM ICANN TO SUPPORT THE GNSO ACTIVITIES, AND THAT I WILL, AS CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL, FORWARD THIS REQUEST TO ‑  INTO THE ICANN BUDGET PROCESS.

   DO I HAVE A SECONDER FOR THAT MOTION?

   KEN.

   I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY JUST VOTE THIS BEEN EFFECTIVELY A SHOW OF SUPPORT.

   SO IF I CAN ‑  ALL THOSE IF FAVOR OF THAT PROPOSAL?  SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?

   ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?

   CHUN AND MILTON HAVE ABSTAINED.

   OKAY.  WHAT ARE WE UP TO NEXT?

   I THINK WE'VE PRETTY MUCH GOTTEN THROUGH EVERYTHING.

   I'D JUST LIKE TO FINALIZE, PICK UP SOMETHING THAT MARILYN RAISED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO FORMALLY THE COUNCIL THANKING STUART LYNN FOR THE CONTRIBUTION THAT HE HAS MADE WHILE ‑  AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICANN IN MAKING A REALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO REFORM ICANN AND MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT.  AND CERTAINLY THE GNSO SUPPORTS THAT REFORM PROCESS AND IS HOPING TO TRY AND FOLLOW THAT REFORM AS BEST WE CAN, BUT CERTAINLY WE NEED TO NOTE ‑  IT IS JORDYN WHO HAS NOTED A LOT OF THESE POLICY ISSUES ARE VERY DIFFICULT AND DO TAKE SOME TIME.

   PERHAPS WE SHOULD FORMALLY, AGAIN, PASS A MOTION, THEN, TO FORMALLY THANK STUART FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION.  AND THEN I WILL CONVEY THAT TO THE BOARD TOMORROW.

   WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT?

   KEN.

   I CAN ALWAYS RELY ON KEN TO SECOND ALL MY MOTIONS.

   IF ‑   ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY "AYE."

>> AYE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  ALL THOSE AGAINST?

   ANY ABSTENTIONS?

   OKAY.  NOW, IS THERE ANY OTHER FINAL ITEMS OF BUSINESS?

   THOMAS, YES.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER:  WELL, SINCE I COULDN'T SAY "AYE" IN THE VOTE, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THAT MOTION HAS MY SUPPORT, TOO, FOR THE MINUTES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  THANK YOU, THOMAS.  WE'LL NOTE THAT.

   THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.  I THINK WE'VE ONLY GONE ABOUT 10 MINUTES OVERTIME.  THAT'S NOT TOO BAD.

   SO I THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING.

   AND THANK YOU ALL THOSE ON THE TELECONFERENCE, YES.

   (5:10 P.M.)