GNSO Council Meeting 16 March 2011 ICANN San Francisco Meeting >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. Welcome, everybody. We are about to start the GNSO Council meeting for this San Francisco ICANN meeting. So I'd like to welcome you all to this meeting, ask councillors, if they can, to take their seats. And I'm sure you all know that the agenda for this San Francisco meeting has been tough. It's been complex to deal with. So we've had to move rooms and we've had to adapt our own agenda for this meeting. Before we go into the agenda and start with a roll call, I just -- I know this is usually something we do at the end, but I just wanted to give a very warm, if not round of applause, at least, thanks to the staff that have been providing outstanding support for this meeting. As I said, it's been extremely difficult to keep up with all the last- minute changes. And we were still getting some last night. We were still getting some this morning. I will in just a few moments explain that there are going to be further changes to the agenda that we all have in front of us. And I ask you -- I apologize in advance for all this and ask you to bear with us. But I did want to thank all the staff and the outstanding support staff that we have here helping us at the GNSO, because this week has been very, very difficult for them. So if I can just ask you to join with me in a round of applause. [ Applause ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: And while on that topic, I also wanted to thank the vice chairs of the GNSO Council, Mary Wong and Jeff Neuman, who have also been a great help to me this week. So thank you very much, guys. [ Applause ] Okay. So we will start the meeting officially. And, Glen, I see that you've just left, but it would be good if we could do a roll call, please. >>LIZ GASSTER: Liz Gasster with the ICANN policy staff. >>CHING CHIAO: Ching Chiao, Registry Stakeholder Group. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Jeff Neuman, Registry Stakeholder Group. >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: Jonathan Robinson, Registry Stakeholder Group. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Bill Drake, Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Andrei Kolesnikov Nominating Committee appointee. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis, Registrar Stakeholder Group. >>TIM RUIZ: Tim Ruiz, Registrar Stakeholder Group. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Zahid Jamil, Business Constituency. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg, ALAC liaison. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Rafik Dammak, Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Glen de Saint Géry, GNSO secretariat. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Stéphane van Gelder, Registrar Stakeholder Group. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Marika Konings, ICANN policy staff. >>DEBRA HUGHES: Debra Hughes, Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Kristina Rosette, Intellectual Property Constituency. >>DAVID TAYLOR: David Taylor, Intellectual Property Constituency. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Internet Providers Constituency. >>JAIME WAGNER: Jaime Wagner, ISP Constituency. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Olga Cavalli, NomCom appointee. >>JOHN BERARD: John Berard, Business Constituency. >>HAN CHUAN LEE: Han Chuan Lee, ccNSO liaison. >>MARY WONG: Mary Wong, Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: And we have apologies from Rosemary Sinclair, who is not able to be at the meeting at all. She has given her proxy to Mary Wong. Thank you, Stéphane, for the rest. All the councillors and liaisons are here. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Glen. And I take it we have quorum and can start the meeting. Thank you very much. At this point, I'd like to ask if anyone has any statement or disclosures of interest they'd like to make. Glen, do we have some noted on the agenda? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: We have three noted on the agenda, one from Rafik Dammak, one from Ching Chiao, and one from Andrei Kolesnikov. And they have all been posted on the Web site. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. So we will amend -- as I mentioned earlier on, we will amend the agenda slightly in order to take into account the scheduling changes that we're having this afternoon. Just to let you know, that in order to try and deal with all the items that include motions and votes on motions in them, we will move item 8, the item currently described as item 8 on the agenda you have in front of you, to item 4. So we will swap those two items around. And I have been told that Rob Hoggarth, who is the staff person that was due to give us the update on the GNSO tool kit of services, that is item 9, is not available to do that. So I move that we cancel that agenda item and carry it over to our next meeting. So those are all the changes that I wanted to let you know about on the agenda. Does anyone else have any reviews or amendments to the agenda they'd like to make? Seeing none, you had the minutes of the previous meeting that were approved according to our operating procedures, and you have a link provided there on the agenda. And if there are any comments on those, please make them now. Good. So let's move to item 2. And WHOIS studies. And we will -- I will start this off straightaway by asking Liz Gasster to provide an overview of the reports on this. Thank you, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: Thank you, Stéphane. What we're going to cover today are really two activities that are going on with regard to WHOIS. The first are the WHOIS studies that are being considered by the GNSO Council right now. There are four studies. One has been decided to be done. There are three more to be done. I'll go into a little bit more detail about that. We're also going to talk about a report that was completed back in July of 2010 by the staff, called the WHOIS Service Requirements Report. Even though in the agenda here, it says we're going to do the WHOIS Service Requirements Report first, if Stéphane doesn't mind, I think I'll probably do the quick update on the studies first because I think that's the order the slides go in. And then there will be some discussion on the part of the council about the studies in particular, but maybe the requirements report as well. So, again, we'll be talking about both the WHOIS studies and the WHOIS Service Requirements Report. I believe most of you are familiar with the history of the WHOIS studies. These are studies that the council suggested that we consider testing the feasibility and cost to conduct back in March of 2009 because the council felt strongly that we needed a strong fact- finding basis for further policy development, that WHOIS had been debated for many years, that there were lots of good and legitimate concerns from many parties, but there were divergences in those views in that it was really necessary to gather factual data before more policy-making occurred. The council in 2009 identified four categories of studies that they asked the staff to look into. We prepared very detailed RFPs to solicit information from -- particularly from researchers, independent experts who could help guide us on some of the nuances of how to actually conduct studies well. We did this over the course of a year or so using this RFP process and then received responses from various potential bidders on each of the studies. And from that, the staff did a detailed analysis of what the costs and feasibility for all the studies are that the council asked us to look at. I know this is a difficult slide to read. Most of you are probably familiar with it from many previous discussions on this topic. These slides are available on the schedule. So if this is difficult to read, I suggest you look there. I apologize for that. But just very quickly, there are four studies that the GNSO is looking at. The WHOIS misuse study, which actually, the council decided to proceed with back in September of last year -- and I'm just finalizing a research contract with an independent research firm to conduct that study. But we will be launching it within the next couple of weeks. And it will take about a year to complete and cost about $150,000. So that is the one study that the council does not need to decide on. It's already been decided that we would pursue this, and we're just hoping to launch it shortly. The other three studies on this list, which we call the WHOIS registrant identification study, a WHOIS proxy and privacy abuse study, and a WHOIS privacy and proxy relay and reveal study, are the three other areas that the council asked us to look into. We have done detailed feasibility assessments on all three based on input that we received and our get analysis. The information has all been delivered to the council, and it's up to the council now to decide whether these three remaining studies should all be done, whether any particular of those studies should be done, or perhaps whether none of those additional studies should be done. There is a motion today that's been offered that suggests that all the studies be done. And that's been seconded. That will be a motion that will be discussed today. And perhaps some other amendments to that as well. The next topic is this inventory of WHOIS service requirements. This is the report that we completed in 2010, Steve Sheng, who is just up at the mike there in the blue shirt, is a senior technical analyst for the policy group and is the primary author of this report. I'm going to ask him to do a brief overview of it, and then we'll hopefully have the opportunity, I'll turn it back over to the chair to conduct a discussion. But, again, this report was completed in July of 2010. But the council has just not had a chance, really, to discuss next steps on the report. So we took advantage of this time on the schedule today to make sure that report got some discussion. So I'll turn it over to Steve now. >>STEVE SHENG: Thank you, Liz, and good afternoon, councillors. The background of this is the May 2009 GNSO Council resolution that asked the staff to collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the WHOIS service that not only addressed the known deficiencies in the current service, but also include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiative that has been suggested in the past. Next slide, please. So the goal is, when the staff did the work, is, we collect and organize a set of technical requirements for community discussion that includes the current features identified as needing improvement, features to support past policy proposals, and features recommended by ICANN supporting organizations and advisory committees. So we're not -- we're not gathering policy requirements nor recommending policy, but to think, you know -- if some set of policy to be implemented, from the technical perspective, what are those things needs to be there to enable such adoptions. Next slide, please. We re- -- so the initial compilation, we have a list of ten compilations. And we have solicited feedback from the various SOs and ACs. And here's the list of about ten kind of potential requirements. Next slide, please. So there are some general comments from ALAC. The At Large supports all the requirements expressed in the document and believes there is a consensus in the community on this. Regarding that, the Registry Stakeholder Group expresses appreciation for what we believe is a very constructive report. It provides an excellent basis for additional definition of WHOIS service requirements for the future. In the report, the staff did not discuss any next steps. So these are some of the next steps suggested by the community. From the Registry Stakeholder Group, we recommend that any standards work that may be needed be identified, and steps taken to initiate the standards development -- the standards development work as soon as possible. Next slide. And some technical experts from RSSAC recommend the community discuss what services, protocols would satisfy these requirements and how to move forward to make these changes. So those kind of -- that is kind of a quick summary of the report. Here to answer questions. That's all. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Steve. Thanks, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I just want to finish up by saying that there is -- there are some links there on the WHOIS studies, there's really a complete compendium what each one of these studies actually do. And I wasn't able to go into any detail on that today. But I've provided quite a bit of detail in the past of what each of these studies is supposed to do, how they would get done, and the time frame and cost that it would take and what the purpose is, the underlying hypotheses that these studies are intended to test. So you'll see more information on that link. And I just want to note also another event, a discussion that's occurring today that's been an ongoing discussion in the community that's looking at some of the technical issues related to WHOIS. It was as a result of some community interest related to the service requirements report that Steve just reviewed. And so we've provided, basically, just a discussion forum for those in the community that are interested in technical evolution and in directory services related to WHOIS to begin to talk about some of those more technical activities. So I wanted to mention that at 4:00, that group is also meeting today and will be focused on some technical aspects. And I'd like to turn it over now to Stéphane. Thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. So we have two motions today that deal with this topic. And before we go to consider the two motions, I just want to explain that, procedurally speaking, we will look at motion 1 first of all. And dependent on whether that motion passes or fails, we would then look at motion 2. I would also like to just point out to the people in the room that if you wish to comment or speak on these topics, please do so. Just raise your hand, let me know. And there are two mikes in the middle aisle there that you can use. Just please state your name when you do come up to speak or ask a question. We'll try and enable you to participate as much as we can. So on the first motion that is being considered, before we consider it, I just wanted to ask Tim to just introduce that one, and then open it up to discussion before we vote. Thank you. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. Actually, if it's okay also with Wendy, who did second the motion, I would like to withdraw the motion. The information that was asked for was provided by Liz, which I appreciate, and I don't see any further need for the motion. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. Thank you. Tim. So that cuts that one short. So we will now consider the second motion. Jonathan, did you want to speak? >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: Stéphane, this is something we discussed in our stakeholder group. And I think while we appreciate that there's a substantial background to this and a great deal of work that's gone into it, we feel that we would benefit from a delay in the motion being dealt with until perhaps the next meeting if that's at all possible so that we could further refine and scope the work with Liz and other interested stakeholders. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jonathan. Now we have an unwritten rule or a custom to allow any group to request for a deferral for one meeting if it's a new motion that comes up on the agenda. So we will respect that and make a note of the Registry Stakeholder Group's request to defer this motion to the next meeting. Zahid, did you want to say something? >>ZAHID JAMIL: I was just wondering if there was any opportunity, because we are in front of the public at the moment and the community, to have a little bit of discussion on this. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Of course. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Do -- You didn't have a point? >>ZAHID JAMIL: No, I didn't. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Sorry. >>ZAHID JAMIL: I do have a point. And so -- okay. Fine. So I just want to get a clarification, because I wasn't around when these studies were sort of being discussed in the earlier stages. But my understanding -- and I just wanted to discuss this in front of the community -- was that this was a request from the community, and it's not just the GNSO community, but also the GAC, for these WHOIS studies to take place, that there's literally a consolidation, if you will, and that's what the motion says, of various requests for studies regarding WHOIS. And we can either go ahead, and we've had some discussion over the weekend on this, on two different ways of proceeding with maybe developing a PDP on this or not. One would be either we do it on the basis of the hypotheses that were provided a few years ago and not relate that to any facts, and move ahead, if everybody agrees to that. Or have a fact-based policy process where you actually do the studies, get the data, and on the basis of those facts, then we decide what to do with it. If we're not able to do these studies, it has two fallouts, in my view. One, it won't be fact-based. Two, it will not be in accordance with the wishes, I believe, to some extent, of the community. And the third, which I think is the most important -- and we heard this over the weekend -- the GAC request for this information in a letter that they had sent is intertwined into the various data that is supposed to come out of these various studies. Now, if we choose not to go ahead with this, we must be aware that a large part of the question that the GAC has asked for and has said we need data for will not come out. And whether it's cost or whatever else it may be, whether people responded to RFPs or not, if we don't have data, two things, we're not going to move on with the policy-making process based on fact or data. And we're also going to be not responding to the GAC request for information. I think that's fairly serious. And whenever there is motioned next, I would strongly suggest that we all sort of think about whether we really want to not let this move forward. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Zahid. I think you made that point in our -- >>ZAHID JAMIL: One last -- I'm so sorry, Stéphane. In the discussion with the GNSO and the GAC over the weekend, it was interesting to note that the question was put to the GAC chair, and the response was, in one word, the GAC seemed to feel frustrated that this hasn't been done. I'm so sorry to -- yeah, thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I was going to say, you had made that point during the week in meeting with the GAC. I think the point you made, actually, was absent some information that might have helped the GAC realize that there's no intent to not do the studies. The intent is just to have as much information as we possibly can in order to determine what the studies are actually going to cover. I have Jeff next and then Tim. And I saw another hand. Jonathan. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks, Stéphane. Yeah, I just wanted to emphasize the point that the registries are asking for a delay of one meeting not because we do not intend or want these studies to be done. It is specifically to address some of the issues that we raised during the weekend session, and, in fact, to that end, from the Registry Stakeholder Group, Chuck Gomes and Kathy Kleiman have volunteered to work with Liz and anyone else that wants to work on it to help refine the scope so that we do have a motion we can vote on and accept at the next meeting. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. Tim next. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, I don't think it's any news that registrars have not been in favor of the studies for some time. What resulted in the studies is the fact that several years of PDP work on the WHOIS resulted in, you know, being able not to come to consensus on any major changes or issues involved with WHOIS. So the studies were basically done as a way of coming to conclusion, coming to an end by agreeing to look at potential studies. The purpose was, in the end, to provide additional facts and data that might contribute to changing the minds of some of those who were set in one view or another. And so registrars, in looking at the proposals for studies that have been made, don't believe that that data provided will do that. And we certainly appreciate, you know, what the GAC has requested. But, you know, the result is the same. If we spend a lot of time, hundreds of thousands of dollars, collecting data that later really does not move the issue along, we haven't really spent that money wisely. And I think that's what the GAC and the board are doing now. All of the asks or the desires of the GAC in regards to new gTLDs aren't being given to them in a big rollout. They're being discussed very carefully. Some will be agreed to; some will not be agreed to, as with any other stakeholder group within the GNSO. So it's not that, you know, we are just dead-set against any changes to WHOIS. But it doesn't make sense to us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to collect data that won't really change any minds. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Tim. I have Jonathan and Kristina next. >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: Thank you, Stéphane. To me, it's important to just simply emphasize that it should be -- it should be common sense, and I would strongly support that any PDP, to the extent that it can, be based on sound studies and solid evidence. It must be the right way to go. And that should be that any work that forms those studies should be essentially fact-based and value for money. And then to emphasize Jeff's point that the deferral is none other than to in this instance ensure that as best as possible, these studies are fact-based and value for money. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just two points. First, that I look forward to receiving the -- either new motion or friendly amendments that the Registry Stakeholder Group is -- as I understand -- intending to put forward. I do just wanted -- I think we do need to put a marker down that now that the GAC has been reminded of their request for these studies, that probably not later than our next public meeting, and preferably far before that, we need to communicate in some form, whether that's a letter directly to the GAC or a letter to the board that gets communicated to the GAC. But I think we do have an obligation to let them know either, you know, these studies are going forward, these studies are not going forward, but either way, I think we have an obligation to let them know where the process stands. And I think we just need to be mindful of that. You know, certainly to act on within our next few meetings. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Kristina. Can I encourage you to make that point on the list or perhaps get that started on the list so that we don't miss it. Thank you. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Stéphane. Just a quick question for Tim and the Registrars Stakeholder Group, because we were discussing the different studies in our stakeholder group meetings yesterday. When you made the comment earlier, is it that the Registrar Stakeholder Group does not believe that any of the remaining studies should be done? Or in the sense that they should all not be done? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, I think our position had been that the studies should not be done, period. That none of those that have been proposed really add anything to the -- ultimately, to the argument or the discussions that have gone on for years and years. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Tim. Any further questions on this from the council? Okay. Questions from the floor? Steve. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thanks, Stéphane. Steve Delbianco with NetChoice. And I understand the courtesy of allowing the deferral of a vote. But I wanted to address that in two important ways, not to change one's mind about the deferral, since you're set on that, but to make sure that what stays in your mind three weeks from now, in the middle of the night, when you're having that conference call to vote on this motion, is I want you to remember the perfect storm of pressure brought to bear on this topic at this meeting. There really are three factors here: The Affirmation of Commitments WHOIS review is all about making sure that we're complying with WHOIS policies. And that was kicked off just prior to this meeting. They've had a number of sessions here. There's a lot of attention to that. Second element is the KnujOn report that came out yesterday, suggesting that there are a lot of other WHOIS privacy and proxy violations or shielding in their particular instance, a lot of pharmaceutical fraud and the inability of law enforcement to penetrate it. Third element of the perfect storm is that tee shirt that reads, "Mind the GAC," pursuant to the comment that Zahid made on Sunday night, and I know, Stéphane, you took good note of it. But Tim turns and says to all of us that it's not going to change any minds and we only agreed to do the studies to bring closure to a controversy that we had. But you and I were on the WHOIS teams, and the way we wanted to structure every WHOIS study was that the person suggesting the study had to give a hypothesis and had to say what is the utility of the study. In other words, how would it affect policy- making. So we tried to raise the bar so that any study that made its way through the list of all the staff work would have utility and a hypothesis. So I'll just talk about one of the studies you're about to defer, which is the privacy and proxy reveal and relay, and privacy and proxy abuse, which is a combined study of six different studies that were suggested by the community and two that were requested by the GAC. I was one of the community members that put forth study number 3. You say it won't change any minds, but the hypothesis for 3 was, quote, of ICANN-accredited registrars who offer their own proxy services, some are failing to reveal shielded registrant data in accordance with the RAA and their own terms of service. That was a hypothesis. And then I was forced to declare that if the hypothesis were true, well, what would we do; right? So changing minds about what the facts are, I think you concede, is important. It is important to change minds if facts can be brought to bear. But then you asked a really good challenge that says, okay, so if you have the facts, what are we going to do about it? What's the utility? Well, back then in 2008, I wrote, if the hypothesis were verified, then ICANN should improve, what, contractual compliance immediately, for registrars offering proxy services. ICANN's response should be proportional to the quantity of registrars and affected registrants where compliance was found to be deficient. And if noncompliance is confined to a small number of registrars, then we can increase the contract enforcement efforts to be limited and targeted. And I said on the other hand, a widespread lack of compliance could indicate that ICANN should amend the RAA to increase penalties for noncompliance. So we did articulate why new facts, if they verified the hypothesis, should make things matter. And let me close. The third element of the storm was the GAC. I was responsible for taking the GAC's letter from May, April of 2008, and I pulled all of the GAC's request into the process that we were using on council, on GNSO, because the GAC was not particularly responsive and they didn't send anybody to the meetings to pick up a pen. But we did take from their letter. And they made two explicit requests on privacy and proxy. GAC requests, number one was to what extent are the legitimate uses of gTLD WHOIS data curtailed or prevented by the use of privacy and proxy registration services, was their number one question from their April letter. There number 11 question said, quote, "What is the percentage of domain names registered using proxy and privacy services that have been associated with fraud or other illegal activity versus the percentage of domain names not using such services?" The point they are making is the GAC wants to see this, too. We see three elements of a perfect storm. If you kick this can down the road for three more weeks, don't forget the pressure that that storm brings to bear on this topic for the ICANN community. [ Applause ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Steve. >>TIM RUIZ: If I could just respond, Stéphane, quickly. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: I think the issue that we have is that is there -- are there bad guys using proxy and privacy services? Keeping in mind that those are two different things. I don't think there's any question, yes. So why are we -- do we need to really study to what extent? I guess what we're saying, let's sit down and talk about how we can prevent it. Because it doesn't matter to what extent. If it's happening, then maybe something needs to be done. But we don't need a study and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that to get there. That's the thing that we have. We have issues, we have problems. Let's address those but we don't believe the data will tell us anything that we don't already likely know. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Steve, I will ask you to just wait to -- so we can take the queue. I have Jeff next, then Kristina, and whose hand is up there? Steve you are next, and then Andrei. So Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, thanks, Stéphane, and thanks, Steve, for your comments. And the Registry Stakeholder Group does believe that this is important. But I would not misunderstand our request for three additional weeks as something that we intend to kick the can and forget about. I have already said, and I will make the point again, Chuck Gomes and Kathy Kleiman have volunteered to get together with Liz and any other interested stakeholder to discuss what the issues with the specific scope are. I would actually ask that by tomorrow, any other interested stakeholder produce a name or two so they can get talking about this as early as tomorrow's wrap-up session and this week take advantage while people are here. To answer Kristina, there may or may not be an amendment to the motion; that the motion just refers to a paper written by staff, and it is actually in the paper that there are some issues. So, again, the registries have discussed this. We believe it's important. We put forward two names. We look forward to other names being put forth so eight days prior to the meeting we can have a definitive document presented up for a vote. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I hate to put Andrei on the spot but I am going to, because as I understand it, under the bylaws, this motion would have to pass with a 60% -- with a simple majority in each house. And given that, as I understand it, and please, my register stakeholder group colleagues, correct me if I am wrong, but they have already said they are not going to vote in support of these studies no matter what, no matter how the motion is changed. So if Andrei is of a similar view, it seems to me, quite candidly and with respect to what the registry stakeholder group is proposing, the motion will never pass. And in that case, we should just vote on it now and move on. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Well, that's something that I think it would be unfair of us to do because we have had a request to defer and we have always honored those requests. So unless the registries want to withdraw that request, I think we should uphold it. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: That's fine. In that case I would just ask if Andrei knows now how he would vote, that he communicate that because if we're going to reconvene in three weeks and have the same outcome, then -- >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Here is the answer. I will vote in favor. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Excellent. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Steve. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thank you, Stéphane. Jeff, you can put my name down. I will once again come back to the WHOIS well. However, what staff has done in these reports represents the explicit collection of what the GAC and the community came together on. It's hard for me to think how we're going to improve upon or fix that in a series of meetings. But if that's what the price is to get you to take it seriously, Jeff, I'm in. I'm in. And then with respect to Tim. If Tim is willing to stipulate, yes, there is more abuse coming from -- fraud and abuse coming from proxy registered domains than there is from non-- >>TIM RUIZ: No, that's not what I said, Steve. What I stipulate to is bad guys use proxy and privacy services. Period. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thank you for the clarification. If Tim is willing to stipulate -- that's a lawyer's word. I am not a lawyer but I am allowed to use that. He is stipulating that some bad guys, fraud and abuse, is shielded behind privacy proxy. And yet that's clever because if you want to concede that and say we don't need to study it, when it comes down the road when we are actually structuring, what is the appropriate and proportional policy response, I know what will happen, is that I am and anyone here can honestly say, well, look we don't know the extent of this problem. We don't know how much fraud and abuse is happening with privacy and proxy, so we shouldn't take dramatic measures like changing the RAA or embark upon an issues report. There's no justification for that because we don't know how extensive it is. So conceding there's some is a complete misdirection which avoids doing the fact-based study which would then justify significant measures. That's why we need to do the studies. And kicking this can down the road three weeks. I have been on your conference calls. It's hard to generate the amount of emotion and urgency that we have when we are here now. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Steve. I have Andrei, Liz, Zahid and Jeff. And I will ask you to be brief. We are over time for this item as it is. So Andrei next. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Thank you. I strongly against using the monetary terms and volume of money in this argumentation because we don't have the data. We can buy this data for this amount. We should plan to allocate for this research. And we just can't work in the dark. We need to know the figures. We need to know the level of abuse we have. And nobody can call these numbers. Who can just stand up and call the numbers? I mean, that's easy. We'll pay the price of this person and then accept it. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I would just like to explain one thing about the proxy and privacy abuse study because I don't think it's been described very well here today. It's not just a study to look at the amount of abusive registrations using proxy services. It is a comparative study. It's a study that's going to compare the use of proxies and privacies and the abuse rate associated with a bad actor use of privacy and proxy services to a control sample of proxy and privacy use generally and to alternatives like falsified WHOIS data, compromised machines, and free Web hosting, to try to provide at a much more nuanced and sophisticated level the degree to which abusive behavior using proxy registrations are occurring vis-a-vis the broader use of proxy and privacy registrations. So I think that's a really important clarification to make as we talk about the utility of this study. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Liz. Zahid was next. He has deferred to John. I have Jeff and then we will close it off for this item. >>JOHN BERARD: Thank you, Zahid. I will admit to a certain bit of naivete in thinking I was merely collecting up some precious stones that have been strewn about by the council and wrapping them up so we can move forward. I appreciate the energy and the atmosphere. And in fact, those two things are hand in glove. If we can, as Jonathan suggests, begin to build a data-driven platform for our decision-making, then we can take, perhaps, some of what might seem to be a subjective point of view out of the process, which would be fabulous. Because we may find out in doing some of these things that our preconceived notions of danger are overstated, or that there are areas that we have been not seeing outside our peripheral vision that are even more important for us to look at. So I came to this motion thinking that it would be noncontroversial. So for that, I apologize. But I don't apologize for thinking it is an appropriate area of inquiry, and, further, that any opportunity that I can get to cast my vote in favor of data to help drive better decision-making, you have my vote on those motions. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I just wanted to again kind of address a comment that Steve raised, because it almost makes it sound like because the GAC and others have put pressure on -- and that the paper by staff was some culmination of GAC activity and other's activity it, doesn't mean that the paper is exactly right and there are no details in there that could be tweaked that would make the studies more accurate and more appropriate. I will give an example. In WHOIS study two, it is a feeling of the registry stakeholder group, and we said this on Saturday, that it seems like there is an assumption based in there, at least an implication, that commercial domain name registrants or anyone who is not an individual is not entitled to privacy within the WHOIS system. And it's simply not true. In the commercial arena there are new companies or companies with products or services that will often proxy their services. So there are other legitimate services in there that need to be taken into consideration and we don't feel that's adequately reflected in the staff paper. I feel there are some easy tweaks we could do to make sure that's covered, but I think that's the kind of thing we are looking to. So please don't take this as any kind of political statement or any statement other than what it is. We volunteer two people. We look forward to apparently, now, Steve you have volunteered. It would be great for others. We will get it done in the next week and a half, and hopefully the registries will be in a position to vote for it. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Jeff. I have asked for this agenda item to be closed. I would like to move on to the next one now, which is part of the work that's been ongoing for the past couple of years on restructuring the GNSO and, more specifically, one of the two Steering Committees that was set up to do this, the PPSC, Policy Process Steering Committee, which has been working on some guidelines for working groups. And we have a motion on this topic to consider at this meeting as well. But before we do, I'd like to ask the staff person in charge of this, Marika Konings, to give us an update. Thanks. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Thank you very much, Stéphane. Liz, if you could maybe move the slides. So just a very little bit of background. As I think most of you know here, this is part of the GNSO improvements work. The board recommended for the GNSO to adopt a working group model. For those of you who might be new to the GNSO, in the past the GNSO actually used task forces which were small legislative bodies where decision-making was primarily based upon voting. And the working groups are actually intended to be more open and inclusive, allow for broader participation, using the consensus-based model of reaching agreement. So the PPSC tasked a work team to develop appropriate principles and rules and procedures for working groups. Move to the next slide. So I am not going into the complete history of how they were developed, because I think we have covered it in previous meetings. Just over -- what happened in the last couple of weeks. So the PPSC submitted their proposed working group guidelines to the council on the first of January. The council decided, like it has done with other work products from the GNSO improvements effort, that these should be first put out for public comments. So they were put out for a 21-day public comment period following which two public comments were received. In addition, a statement from the ALAC was received that was sent directly to the council in relation to this document. The council then decided it would be appropriate for the PPSC to actually look at those comments and decide whether further changes would need to be made to the opportunity. And so they did. So they made a couple of changes, which I will briefly cover in the next slide. And they submitted this updated version of the GNSO working group guidelines to the council on the 8th of March. So very briefly, the changes that were made. You can see we also sent out a red-line, so you can see for yourself the changes that were made. I think they are all relatively minor changes. One related to encouraging one-to-one outreach when working groups are formed to make sure that the broadest participation is achieved, and experts are approached. This is in response to the comment that was submitted by the ALAC. We eliminated the references to the disclosure of interest which were in there from previous references as a result of the comment that was made by the registry stakeholder group. We also clarified the voting procedures for the election of the chair, basically making them more general, because as it was written now, it specifically referred to the GNSO Council voting procedures and the intent of these working groups guidelines is as well that they can be used beyond the GNSO if deemed appropriate or useful by others in the ICANN community. The PPSC also clarified that the liaison must fulfill the liaison role in a neutral manner and leaving thereby open the possibility as well that the liaison can speak in other capacities. And the updated report also captured the minority viewpoint that was expressed by Avri Doria and which will be submitted to the standing committee on GNSO improvements, which is currently being created or being -- the charter is being developed. And that point relates to the fact whether chairs of working groups should be able to be council members or not, and our viewpoint is that shouldn't be allowed. But there was no consensus on that point in the PPSC, so it was decided that that should be further reviewed in due time by the standing committee. So I won't go through all the different parts of the guidelines. I think we had a detailed presentation on this in Cartagena, and as I said only very minor changes were made. So just to briefly mention, it deals with the roles and responsibilities of working groups, different elements related to the norms, decision-making, appeal process. Has provisions in relation to logistics and requirements. The products and outputs that working groups are supposed to produce. And then it also deals with charter guidelines. It provides an overview of the different elements a charter can contain that the council or drafting teams can use when they actually charter working groups. So again, I encourage you to review the report in further detail. And Liz, if you can move the slides to the slide of the next steps. So the next step, assuming that the council will adopt these working groups guidelines, the guidelines would then be incorporated in the council operating procedures probably as an annex so these can be easily extracted as well for other parts of the community, if they would like to use those. Just for you to note as well that, for example, ALAC members have been active in developing these GNSO working group guidelines, and I think would like to use those in the future, possibly, as well. The guidelines would be subject to board oversight, so we'll submit them for further review. But they are not subject to board approval. The minority viewpoint that I spoke about before will be submitted to the standing committee for its consideration as soon as it has been chartered. And based on an earlier discussion on the working group guidelines, the council will also task staff to develop a summary of the guidelines for use by working group members. And that's it. I don't know if there are any questions. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Marika. Before we start to discuss this, I'd just like to ask Jeff, who made the motion, the motion was made by Jeff and seconded by me, to read the motion, perhaps just the resolved clauses in the interest of time. Thanks. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Sure. So I am reading off the paper version I have which I think is the most current. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO working group guidelines as proposed by the PPSC, and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO working group guidelines into a new version of the GNSO operating procedures, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. Resolved that each working group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO working group guidelines. Resolved, to the extent practical and feasible, each existing working group shall incorporate these working group guidelines into their activities. Resolved further that the GNSO Council here expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the working group work team and the PPSC for their dedication, commitment and thoughtful recommendations. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. So let's open discussion on this topic. Does anyone from the council want to make any comments on this? Wolf. >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Thanks, Stéphane. Don't worry, I don't have an amendment. I am fully in line with that motion. And I would like to make reference to what is discussed over the last days with regards to other type of working groups coming up, because -- community working groups, and that there might be some more work to be done with regard to guidelines of that group. And I wonder if we should make reference, maybe in the minutes, to that work which is to be done in the future. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Wolf. I have Zahid next. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you, Stéphane. Zahid from the B.C. I just wanted to make the point that the B.C. read through the guidelines, and we were particularly interested in clause 3.2, which deals with representativeness. And basically, what it says is that sufficient action shall be taken to ensure that there is a broad representation on the various working groups, to ensure that, you know, all views are really there. And I think that's important for us to reiterate while we're passing this so that that expectation rests with our constituency that that will be the case for all future working groups. And I just wanted to make that point. Thank you very much. And we support this. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Zahid. Any further comments from the council? Any comments from the room? Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Just with regard to what Wolf said, the current resolved does say any work groups formed by the council, and I wonder, is the intent that that says that if there are joint working groups that they must follow these rules? Or are we talking about pure council working groups? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: You are asking me? Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: The intent of the motion is for only GNSO working groups, since we really can't control the setup, necessarily, of cross-working groups as they involve other advisory committees or supporting organizations. So we really can't pass a motion making things mandatory that are semi out of our control. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I am glad that's the intent. I will say, however, that the ALAC fully participated and fully supports these working group rules and it's likely we will adopt them also. But I don't want any conflicts in the future because of the wording in the resolution. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah, thanks. I actually did miss the end of your question. But yes, we are obviously only voting on the GNSO improvements. Tim, did you have your hands up? Your hand up? >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, I was just going to mention that certainly other advisory committees and supporting organizations, if they found them useful to some extent, certainly encourage you to take a look at them and use them. And as far as the cross-community working groups, if that was being referred to, that's an ongoing discussion we are having and this will certainly play a role in our discussion there as well. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Tim. Any further comments from anyone? Yeah. >>JAIME WAGNER: It's Jaime Wagner. The GNSO cannot charter a group to come up with this sort of procedures for a cross-community working group, but we could just say that this is a necessary step to have, and invite other ACs to join this effort of giving a similar approach as was done with this motion that we are now to approve, to do this same work in a similar way with the cross-community working groups. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Jaime. Any further comments before we go to a vote on this? Okay. Would anyone object to a voice vote on this? Glen, could you please do a voice vote. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Yes, I will, Stéphane. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. >>MULTIPLE VOICES: Aye. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Anyone who is not in favor of the motion, please say nay. Are there any abstentions? The motion has passed unanimously, Stéphane. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Glen. And we will now move on to the next agenda item. And as you will recall, I explained at the beginning of the meeting we will swap agenda item 4 for agenda item 8. So we will now deal with the agenda item on the RAA, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. And we have two motions to consider today. We will once again consider motion 1, which is called -- motion 4, sorry, motion 4, the first motion on this. And if that motion does not carry, we will then consider motion 5. So before we start discussions on this, I will just ask Mary Wong, who made motion 4, to read the resolved clauses from that motion, and then we can begin discussing it. Thank you. >>MARY WONG: All of them? Did you want the background as well or just read the resolved? Because this was a carryover from a previous meeting. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah, sure. >>MARY WONG: So for those who haven't been keeping track, the motion I'm go to read is part of a motion that was not voted on in the December meeting in Cartagena. So essentially, for the RAA motion in Cartagena, this is the part that revives what was not voted. And the resolved clauses read: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN staff adopt the process specified as process A in the final report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report. Process A states, 1, a prior advertised list of topics goes to the GNSO Council. Staff and the council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. 2, negotiations begin with a negotiation group consisting of staff, the registrars as a whole, not individually, and certain observers representing the interests of affected nonparties to the agreement. 3, during negotiations, if staff and registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session, meaning excluding observers, then reporting back to the full negotiation group regarding progress. 4, the negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC or to the public periodically, such as monthly, on status and progress. The negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text and all agreed items available for public comment and feedback. 5, negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeats step 4 as necessary. 6, the staff and registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. 7, the GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments, and votes on approval of the RAA. A GNSO supermajority vote is to be obtained in favor of the new form. 8, if the council approves, the new RAA goes to the board for approval. 9, if council does not approve, we go back to the negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration and repeat from step 6. Sounds like a cake mix or something. Resolved further that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. Whew. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks very much, Mary. Sorry to have put you through that, and remind me not to come and eat at your house if that's the way you make cake. [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Is there any discussion around this? Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks, Stéphane. And I actually was selected by the registry and registrars to make this statement. I think it's the first time the contracted parties have actually made a unified statement, which will show you how strongly we feel about this. The registry and registrar stakeholder groups are voting no on this motion. I'll explain the rationale behind this vote, address the perception of contracted parties by the noncontracted parties, and offer a way forward on issues of concern. The ICANN community established clear processes for developing policy, and they need to be counted on. We rely on these for our own stability and to set expectations with our customers. This motion undermines those processes. Rewording it will not cure that problem. With regard to the RAA, there is a picket fence that sets out what areas can be addressed by the consensus policy process. The rest may only be done through a contract amendment negotiated between the contracted parties and ICANN. None of this prevents communication between the contracted parties and the community regarding possible amendments. These expectations are not adjustable because they don't accommodate a particular agenda or time line. In cases of pressing need, there are alternative ways to approach contracted parties with a request for assistance. It is unfortunate that perceptions in the community about the role of contracts have become as distorted as they have. However, the GNSO Council is neither a contract administrator nor an interpretation authority where some points of view adopted on why and how contracts should be updated, in theory, agreements could be amended at any time by the GNSO Council by a motion and vote. That is not an appropriate expectation. Contracted parties agree the community, where appropriate, needs a voice in policy matters. In fact, the community has a voice, and with regard to the RAA, has exercised it enthusiastically. The friction, we believe, that exists today comes from misperceptions of the role of the GNSO Council and from expectations of how the community's interests will be considered through negotiations. The argument that impacted parties deserve a place in negotiations is unpersuasive. All of us in this room are impacted by agreements of all kinds every day as we conduct our businesses and live our lives. Were that logic carried forward, each of us would be full-time contract negotiators with airlines, telecommunications service providers, highway authorities, construction companies, appliance manufacturers, office landlords, and hundreds of others. If the suggestion is that others deserve a place at the table because the last round of contract negotiations didn't produce satisfactory outcomes, the implication is that third-party participation is the only avenue to satisfaction. This is a prescription for needless complication. We are aware of the desire of the community to maintain momentum and are willing to cooperate toward that goal so long as that is done in the proper manner. First, the integrity of the process and the ability for everyone in the community to rely on them must remain sound. Second, keep in mind that the full implementation burden, financially and operationally, of proposals are borne by contracted parties. Some proposed RAA amendments are not currently operational or commercially feasible. The fastest and most effective way to assist the community with its many agendas is to engage first with the contracted parties and propose policies second. Making proposals without an understanding of whether or not they're operationally or commercially feasible is irresponsible. Contracted parties have been able to reset expectations of some. In late February, we met with international law enforcement authorities in Brussels. Law enforcement had made 12 proposals for RAA amendment. But after discussion with registrars on each one, they understood which were practical and which were wholly impractical, which could be addressed by contract amendment, and which should be addressed through a PDP or voluntary cooperative model. That discussion would have been far more productive 18 months ago versus wording amendments without discussing with registrars, seeking and receiving endorsements, and then running into the, quote, "Here's why the idea can't really be done" discussion. The registrars are working with ICANN staff to identify a predictable manner to amend the RAA. Reaching clarity on that issue should be the highest priority. Further, registrars will be examining the issues identified by the community in the RAA Working Group's final report and will evaluate those from an operational and commercial perspective. For those that are not operationally or commercially feasible to implement, registrars will offer its rationale. Our request to the community is this: Open a dialogue with relevant contracted parties on the concerns you have. The contracted parties have made outreach efforts to many in the community. While many are willing to have a dialogue with us, others, regrettably, and puzzlingly, have refused. Regardless, our leadership that is committed to 100% openness to the community. We'll help the community understand what is feasible and collaborate on prioritization and an appropriate method to reach mutually desired outcomes. Thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Jeff. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Jeff, and the registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups for this statement. I think we all tried to follow as best as we could. So here are some immediate responses, which obviously have not been vetted by my stakeholder group, but based on the discussions we've been having on this issue, I believe are fairly representative of the views within our group. I think the fundamental question here, as I said in the Saturday session, is -- well, not a question, but the basis is, we're talking about observers, not active negotiators, not active participants. We're talking about a process where those impacted by the outcomes can provide feedback in a timely and efficient manner so that the processes that you spoke of in your statement will be something that the whole community can support at the end of the day when the amended form comes back to the council for its approval. I don't believe that this motion puts the council in a position of being a contracts administrator. Although, ultimately, the form does have to come back to the community. So, having observers as part of the process, and, again, not as active participants, not as negotiators, surely that must make the process go much better so that we have a better form in the end. And the last I saw, I don't think that the airlines were actually a bottom-up, multistakeholder organization such as ICANN is. And so since ICANN is a representative organization of all of us and is the other party to this negotiation, I think many in the community believe that does set us apart from the airlines. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Mary. I have Zahid next, then Tim, -- is that Andrei? Bill, anyone else? Kristina. Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. I would like to echo what Mary has just said. In fact, consensus policy-making changes in contracts is also something that doesn't happen necessarily in airlines or other industry areas. So this is a unique situation. And we shouldn't necessarily try -- you know, it's apples and oranges. With regard to one-on-one negotiations, there are problems. One, how do you make sure that everybody or all registrars, et cetera, do it? That's one. Second, if you were to have a one-on-one discussion with just law enforcement, for instance, and explain it to them, what stops that understanding being created in a working group? If I remember correctly, the RAA Working Group had registrars and registries represented within it, maybe as individuals providing their feedback, but they were there. That was probably a very good place to try and iron out those maybe misconceptions, as -- I think -- that's the way I interpret what you said. Now, here's the problem: This is supposed to be bottom-up, multistakeholder organization. And it produces a report. The working group sat, put this together, put a lot of effort into it. And its being told now that its majority process, A, and its minority process, B -- and again I repeat, registrars/registries part of it -- is not going to be acceptable. So the question that will be asked by many people from my constituency members will be, well, then what's the point of us doing any of this? If, for instance, we take the example of the fake renewal notices, which does plague consumers -- and ICANN is -- one of its roles is consumer protection and trust -- we heard from Pam Little from compliance that she cannot do anything when it comes to third-party issues because the RAA does not incorporate that. And unless and until there are some changes made, they can't be -- law enforcement organization, they cannot enforce against those fake renewal notices to third parties. So these are real problems that need a solution. I think the whole purpose of the bottom-up process and having working groups work is so they can come and bring the solutions to ICANN. And I just wanted to make the point, this is not an administrative exercise that is taking place where the council is sort of dictating the RAA agreement. What's happening is that ICANN is being told that this is what the community wants. Go ahead and negotiate it. You can walk out of the room when the negotiation takes place. It still doesn't change the fact that you have that authority to do that. Because you are an independent party. So this is not a dictation as such, and it shouldn't be seen as much, either. Just a point I wanted to make. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Zahid. I have Tim next. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, Mary, just to respond to some of your questions, you know, there's no intention that we don't believe that their part of our agreement is subject to consensus policy. It clearly is. And for those areas that are subject to consensus policy, then that certainly is a community issue. In fact, there has been consensus policies that have applied to RAA and were actually incorporated in the last new version of it. So we fully recognize that. But, clearly, there's -- the very fact that it addresses consensus policy in those areas that are covered by it indicates that there are areas that are not, that there's parts of the RAA that are not open to consensus policy and subject to community input and discussion. So those are the parts that we're talking about wanting to be a one-on- one negotiation between us and ICANN. And any of those areas that have been requested in the list of, you know, topics for amendment that are open to consensus policy, you know, those fully could go through that process and would be open to the community as a whole. I just want to make sure that that's clear. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Tim. I have Andrei, Bill, Kristina, Chuck, and Adrian. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Okay, it's my turn; right? Okay. I think that the terms and amendments for the RAA should be equal and -- is it my turn? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yes, Andrei. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Because, in fact, ICANN function is a monopoly. And the way of negotiation, if the bodies, contractual parties were entering into negotiations with ICANN having an ability to negotiate special deals, this is probably not good. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Bill. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Thanks. I guess to me, the interesting reaction concerns the notion of affected nonparties. I -- which is a wonderful term, actually, if you think about it. This is supposed to be a self-regulatory, self-governance body; right? And the registrars are not the only selves here. All of the other parties are directly impacted. Your contracts are law, in effect. They shape what everybody else can do, how the whole environment is configured. To suggest that merely having observers there to be able to have some sense of what's going on would in any way undermine, you know, your position or be completely illegitimate is, to me -- it's puzzling. When I listened to your statement, it was a very nicely written statement, but, I mean, I don't have the -- I don't know who you're actually referring to when you talk about all the kind of mistrust, misperceptions, things like that. I can only speak for the conversations we have among the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group. There isn't this profound mistrust or whatever else. There's simply a notion that there are fundamental concepts of accountability and transparency that ICANN is supposed to be living according to, particularly now. And having this kind of, like, big carve-out from that and saying that there can't be any kind of observer, and bear in mind, the observers can be tossed out of the room, according to the language, if there's a particularly sensitive issue at stake. It just seems -- it seems to me like a bit of an overreaction. Nobody wants to manage the contracts. Nobody wants to, you know, usurp your authority. Nobody wants to tell you how to do everything. We simply are suggesting that the community should have some ability to have some idea of what the heck is going on. I think that's reasonable. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Bill. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm going to reserve my original comment and just say at this point that I completely agree with Bill. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you for being so brief. Chuck, can I just go through the councillors and then go -- is that okay? So Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Stéphane. I'm just having trouble understanding. With respect to the signing the contract with ICANN and being an observer, the right to be an observer to that process, if I'm understanding Mary's question or response correctly, it's that you should have the ability to be an observer in every contract that ICANN signs. That would include all staff contracts. It's -- it's the same logic that's applied here. You're talking about the fact that ICANN is a bottom-up multistakeholder organization. Because of that, we must be able to sit in on a contract of a contracted party. And so staff are contracted parties. And as are the lease that ICANN signs. So we must -- can we sit in on that, on that negotiation. So just -- it's not so cut and dry. And I reject the notion that observers should be present. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Adrian. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Stéphane. And just a quick response to Adrian first. I can see the slippery slope argument. And that's always dangerous at the best of times. I think all I can say now is that is certainly not the motion on the table at this point. I am not proposing a motion for future meetings that we look in on other staff contracts, so everyone -- staff around the table, you can relax for the time being. But what I was saying earlier is that is one reason. And there were a number of reasons that the group went through in coming up with this report. But I was responding to a specific statement in the joint statement. So that's just one reason. My comment was really, again, a response to Tim. And I totally understand your comments. And this is really also more for the benefit of those in the room who may not have been following the processes as closely. Bill's already alluded to this. Essentially, the process A in the motion that I proposed already builds into it the possibility of some confidential negotiations between the registrars and staff. And there is an accountability mechanism that requires that to be reported back to the full group. So, again, I'd like to emphasize the difference between an observer and an active participant. And all we're asking for is to be an observer during the negotiations so as to bring forward a form that is acceptable to everybody, that's not going to be problematic down the road, but to contribute in a manner as positively as we can. I don't think we're asking to sit in the room to be troublemakers. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Mary. Just to let you know that we have 15 minutes left on this agenda item if we are to keep time. Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: A very important distinction. A staff contract is not part of ICANN's core mission. It doesn't have a regulatory impact. And it has no consumer protection fallout. I would try not to distinguish that. So, one. Second, we're looking at new gTLDs. We're looking at RAA contracts, which are going to impact that. We're looking at situations, as I mentioned, fake renewal notices and other malicious abuse. And if, basically, the idea is that there's going to be no movement on this, then what is the new gTLD process going to look like? And, you know, I'd be concerned. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Zahid. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I just want to for the record also state that, you know, the issues were not only on observers, but there were also issues with this motion and the next motion with the implication that somehow the GNSO Council can decide what is and is not inside the picket fence. That's also a very, very large issue to the registries and the registrars. And, you know, while maybe Adrian's example of staff, you know, you don't find that acceptable, but, you know, do you guys have a say in the contracts or the memorandums of understanding that the ccTLDs have with ICANN or the root server MOUs? There's plenty of this bottom-up process that the community does not sit at the table for these negotiations. And I just also want to bring you back, when we all entered into these contracts, the registries and registrars, we had certain expectations. And those expectations cannot be changed or should not be changed by third parties. We had the expectation that there is a picket fence of topics that could be addressed by consensus policy and changed through that very rigorous process. The notion that everything else outside of that consensus policy process can be changed by a discussion of people who are not impacted in the same ways is just something that we, as registries and registrars, cannot accept. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. I have in the queue John, Allen, Tim, and Jaime. I'd like to close it there after that so I can go to the two gentlemen standing in line patiently. Okay. John. >>JOHN BERARD: (off mike). I have a question for Jeff. Has there been a request or an attempt by groups other than law enforcement to -- to take advantage of that model? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I would say many times every year, there are requests by a number of different groups to change parts of the registry and registrar agreements, yes. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Allen. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'd like to go back and remind people of a little bit of history. The last revision of the RAA was negotiated in private between ICANN and registrars. We were then told that due to the far-from-clear provisions in the RAA, for the contract to be put in place, the GNSO had to pass it by a supermajority, even though it had not been involved in the process. The GNSO did not pass it initially. There was a lot of back-room negotiations and discussion, part of which led to the group being formed which created these recommendations. And eventually, the GNSO did pass that -- that previously negotiated RAA. The terms in the RAA were -- on how to change the contract were not changed at that point. Therefore, I assume they still stand. Therefore, I assume ICANN legal counsel will again tell us after the private negotiations the GNSO Council must pass by a supermajority for the board to be able to put it in place. That's what's driven this request for involvement for other people in the discussions, at least as observers, because unless legal counsel has taken a different position, it will come back again to council, and council will probably reject it again. And that's just not a way to go forward. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Jaime, you're last from the council, and then we'll move to the room. >>JAIME WAGNER: I don't understand kind of an offended tone I perceived in the position that Jeff read. And I can't understand that this is related to the observer part of the motion, because there are aspects that are not subject to observation. This is contemplated in the -- in the motion. So I don't -- I do not know why the general tone is of kind of an offended tone. I think the point that is behind is that there are many instances where the registrars or representatives of them were requested to provide some input, and this was not -- just was not -- it was like washing hands, saying this was not in the agreement, or this could not be enforced, this is what is behind. And I think everybody, including registrars, have the willingness to solve these points. And the presence of an observer is not to put things under suspicion, but to indicate ways of early warning where this could be effected and resolved prior. And that's what I think. And I would like to understand why the offended tone is present. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Jaime. I'm not sure there's -- people are offended. They're just passionate, which is probably good. But let's go to Chuck. Maybe he can explain it. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, I appreciate your letting me go last after the council, so I can then add to my list. It was great. I really do appreciate being on this side of the table. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: But I also appreciate the good dialogue that's going on. Let me start off with just a quick response to Allen's comment. And that is that I think, Allen, what you said there illustrates the problem of the council being involved in contractual issues, except with regard to consensus policy. Half of the council, or the majority of one house, is made up of contracted parties. That in itself creates a problem. But I don't want to spend time on that. I'm going to go back to Mary's and Zahid's comments, initial comments, where you pointed out we're in a bottom-up process, a community that -- it's a multistakeholder community. Totally agree with you, and that's critical in our environment. And that's why the registry agreements and the registrar agreements provide for a specific bottom-up process involving all stakeholders. And that's the consensus policy clauses in both registry and registrar agreements. So I totally agree with you, that's important, and that is provided for in those contracts, as others, including Tim, had pointed out. But notice that that doesn't include negotiations. Now, I'm not arguing at all that there shouldn't be input. And I'll come back to that. The bylaws clearly define the council's role. And it's a policy management role. And, of course, that means managing consensus policy development. But I don't think it means approving negotiations, whether ICANN staff ask for that or not, or approving an agreement, whether ICANN staff has asked for that or not. I challenge anybody to show me where it says that. And those protections were built in there for a reason. Because contracted parties, whether they be registries or registrars or new registries in the future, are coming in and they're signing an agreement. And they're saying, "We will implement any policies that are developed according to a bottom-up process that follows these procedures and where there is consensus." Sight unknown, we're going to implement those if it's approved that way and ultimately approved by the board. That's the one protection that we have so that we're not just saying, "Yeah, we'll implement anything that's said." And so that's a very important principle to remember. Now, historically, all contracts that ICANN has approved have always had a comment period and input. And I'm certainly supportive of comment periods a lot earlier in that process. And I think that's been offered here. And we need to, I think, work together, all of us, to develop better ways of making that happen. But any compromise to the specific contractual protections that are in there right now I think is very challenging and impacts the whole model that's been created in this that has been in operation for a long time. Thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Chuck. Jim, you're next. This is clearly an important point and an important item that probably deserves running over slightly. So, councillors, if you want to come back in afterwards, I will just add your name to the queue. I think it's important to get all the discussion around this out. And I'm sure you'll agree. Jim. >>JIM BASKIN: My name is Jim Baskin. I wanted to address the expectations that we all have for the future of ICANN. And I'm not getting off the subject of these contracts. But I want to couch it in terms of expectations. We heard from the contracted parties -- some of the contracted parties that they have expectations, when they signed their original agreements, when they came in, they had expectations, and they need to have some kind of stability -- I don't remember the exact words -- in what's going to happen. And -- but you have to look at the whole picture of everybody's expectations. It's not just the contracted parties that had expectations when this whole thing started. When ICANN came together, it was all the parties with expectations. Now, we are looking at one group saying that, well, our expectations have to remain -- you know, be honored because we entered into them many years ago. Well, the expectations of the users, the registrants, also need to be considered. And if we look at our goals, at where we want to be, I think we all have to be more open in everything that's done, especially since the contracted parties are at the core of what ICANN does. Not only are they at the core; they are 50% of the GNSO. And it's very difficult to do some of those things that you say, "Oh, yeah, all you have to do is come up with a consensus policy, and we'll implement it." And then we have a very difficult time coming to any consensus, because it's so easy to avoid consensus and end up with nothing. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. Allen, Bill, Jeff. And I would ask you to be as brief as possible. We have two motions to consider possibly. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Thank you, Stéphane. Just a couple of comments on what Chuck said and to make my own position clear. I strongly support the position of observers in the RAA negotiation. That being said, part of Mary's motion has to do with the process we went through last time of going to the council for approval afterwards. Some of us were very surprised at the last go-round that council needed to approve. We thought it was just going to go to the board once ICANN the registrars had finished negotiations. We were told that was not the case. As I understand it, registrars have now -- now believe that that was an error, an incorrect reading of the RAA, and it does not need to go to council for approval after the negotiations. If ICANN counsel believes that also, then someone should tell us and we will save an awful lot of breath here. Least at least we will know what it is we are debating. I think this is a not a futile discussion without knowing what ICANN thinks. If ICANN is agreeing with what the registrars are now saying and it doesn't go to council, it will make our discussions a lot different. And I think we are wasting our time without knowing that for a fact. And I deeply regret we have spent this much time talking in circles Stéphane Van Gelder thank you. Bill. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: I don't think we are talking in circles. I think this is useful. These are seems that don't get aired enough. There are large chunks of the ICANN world that are just sort of like withdrawn from the public dialogue, it seems, in important respects. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Good discussion but with fact first. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Fair enough. I guess I just want to reiterate, the way this is being talked about, when Chuck says, well, council's role is not approving agreements and Jeff says, you know, it's not -- you guys are not here to change our agreements, I didn't understand anybody is, like, suggesting these kind of roles. I really didn't. I didn't see it as an adversarial thing. I see it as a desire to have a partnership where you have dialogue, and if any issues -- you know, an observer can bring to your attention things that you might not have considered adequately. And perhaps by virtue of them doing that, you might think, okay, on my own steam, I think it would be useful to maybe tweak something. It's not about an external imposition on you. It's about giving you more a fuller basis to anticipate community concerns, perceptions when going about this. So in a way, I think that this would put you in a stronger position politically. It would build support within the community. It would drain possible misperceptions based on people feeling like they are locked out and can't know what's happening, et cetera. You end up in a stronger position. That's not the first time something like that has happened, in my view. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Bill. Let me interrupt this discussion for five send for a few housekeeping matters. Because we are running over, we have to make up time somewhere. There is an agenda item which is listed as number 4 which we have swapped for this one, which was on the board resolution on consumer choice, competition, and innovation. Rosemary Sinclair is tasked with leading that. She is not here at this meeting and we have not had an update from her. We also heard during our weekend meeting with the board that there was no urgency to this from the board. We did not hear that the board would not like the GNSO Council to consider it, but it is not necessarily something that we need to consider at this meeting. So I would propose that we delete this agenda item from this meeting. Would anyone be opposed to that? Good. And I would propose another change, which is that because we need to -- these are possibly short -- >> (Off microphone). >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Delete it from this meeting. So delete it from the agenda from this meeting. It doesn't mean we just put it in a hole or whatever. Is that okay? Jaime. >>JAIME WAGNER: It will be for the next call, it's okay, yeah, that will happen in three weeks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: In three weeks. What we're supposed to do on that, just as a reminder, on that item is to work on a possible response to the board. And as Rosemary is leading that effort, I think it is also possibly not useful for us to look at it today, but it is a deferral for one meeting. Also, I would propose that we move item 6 and item 7 to -- as the next agenda items, because we are dealing with joint groups, and they -- we are expected to provide a definitive list of GNSO candidates to those groups. This is probably not something that will take us much time. So that would probably help streamline our agenda. If there's no opposition to that, then I suggest we go back to the queue. And I had Jeff next. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks. Jim Baskin from Verizon, I think he is still here, made a comment about expectations of registrants. And I am kind of scratching my head going how could it be the expectation of registrants? When ICANN was set up, they already had these contracts. Or the very first thing they did was enter into these contracts with Network Solutions slash VeriSign with this consensus policy process built in. So where did those expectations come from? The other point I want to make is an important part of the ICANN community are the ISPs, and I would love for the ISPs, like Verizon and others, to agree to a consensus policy process so that things like Fast Flux, DNSSEC and others could be imposed on them as well. Because without them in the ecosystem implementing these things, it really can't be. So, you know, it's interesting, and there's a fundamental disagreement between the contracted and noncontracted parties' house here on agreements. And I would urge us to stop focusing on changing agreements. Let's focus on changing policies. Let's go through the appropriate mechanisms that are set up in the agreements, which is the policy development process which we're all working to reform. I will give a little plug: Comments due on April 1st. We are all working to reform that process. That is the way we should be doing it. Let's stop focusing on agreements. Let's focus on policy. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Well, if you are not going to change the RAA and make amendments, how is Pam Little going to enforce under clause 3.1-2 against resellers? It's going to be difficult for her because that's what her opinion to the GNSO was, and I'm sorry, I just cannot do this under the current framework of the contract. Well, I may be misunderstanding something here. There is a parallel being drawn between consensus policy and what is being suggested here. But I understood them to be different. Consensus policy is unilateral change. If ICANN goes through a consensus policy process and declares consensus policy, it goes straight into the contract. That's fine. That's unilateral. What we are suggesting with the RAA is something totally different. It's not consensus policy. It's not unilateral. It is not a dictation from the community. It is saying these are our proposed amendments to which we would like ICANN staff to get into a room, with the registrars, and attempt a negotiation as the parties may agree, which is very different from trying to compare that to C.P., or consensus policy. So I am very confused about why that is there. The bottom line or what I understand this is doing is saying we don't want a transparency with regard to these negotiations, which to me, and in the community seems a bit strange because we want this to be a transparent body. We want to have transparency about how these contracts will affect the community. So that message, to me, seems a little disconcerting. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Zahid. Kieren, did you want to speak to this? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Just very briefly with regard to Jeff saying where did the expectation come from that people -- the multistakeholder model could get involved in the RAA. It was RegisterFly. That was why. It was the RAA didn't work. A lot of people were very, very badly affected. ICANN and Paul Twomey said we need to have a review of the RAA, and we are going to use the multistakeholder model to do that. And that's what we did. So that's where it came from. Let's not forget the reason why people want to get involved with it is because it didn't work. It broke down. And it caused a lot of people a lot of hurt. That's why. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Kieren. As you can probably expect, Jeff wants to respond. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Kieren, thank you for bringing that up. And it seems like every day I throw someone under the bus; right? So I guess I will do mine today. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Don't forget to reverse. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Don't forget to reverse. [ Laughter ] >>JEFF NEUMAN: Sorry, that's an inside joke. Look, I know Paul Twomey said that. And I have had this discussion with ICANN staff and General Counsel's office before. I think there were mechanisms in place during that whole RAA fiasco that could have been addressed under the existing RAA. They chose not to, for whatever reason. I am not going to question it. But I will say NeuStar was one company that alerted ICANN staff very early on, months and months before this whole RAA debate, about the problems and why we thought that RegistryFly was not adhering to the then existing Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Maybe it was -- for whatever reason Paul Twomey made that speech and said it and set this whole thing in motion, but there were existing mechanisms and there are existing mechanisms under the RAA and the registry agreement to handle behavior like that. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: I think in addition to that, you know, regardless of what we felt about whether there were tools in the RAA to deal with the problems that RegisterFly had or not, I think what we did was try to work with staff to put some things they felt they needed in there. And it's kind of come around to backfire on us, is kind of the way I feel about it. But what registrars have done is we did agree that we would entertain a list of amendments that the community feel that they desire. That list has been put together, and we have committed to looking at that and discussing that with staff. In fact, just personally speaking for myself, I think there are things in there that are really good that we would like to work on. We also agreed that we would look at suggested next steps that the community wanted to suggest. And we actually agree probably with 90% of those next steps. All we are saying is that observers is the aspect we are not agreeing to. That we want to engage in those negotiations one-on-one with ICANN, but that given the concerns over transparency, concerns over community input, et cetera, that we would come back periodically and review what we have been discussing, what we have agreed to up to that point, get community feedback, and then go back to the table with that. That's what we have said we would like to do. All we are asking is give us an opportunity to get on with that and see if we can't produce something that the community is going to be happen with. And I think that we very well can. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks. Zahid, and then perhaps we can close this off and go to the vote. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. I just want to pick up Tim's point. So the real objection is having observers in the room, and if they weren't in the room and there were periodical feedbacks and reports, that would be okay. If I read the second motion that is made, it seems to me that that's basically what it does. It just takes the observers out, and this is -- as what Tim is suggesting. Maybe I have misunderstood and maybe someone will clarify. Hopefully this will move forward if that is the only thing that is an objection. >>TIM RUIZ: If I can just respond. That -- you know, I would have to look at that motion again, because there is a lot in it but I'm not sure that's exactly what that says. But regardless, I think the other issue that we have, and as was, I think, clearly articulated in the statement that Jeff read, is that the GNSO Council is not contract administrating body and we don't believe it's their responsibility to be voting on the process under which these negotiations will take place. We want to move forward under the conditions we talked about. But not that it's the council's place to decide how that should happen. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Tim. Jeff, and then perhaps we can vote. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Right. Just to echo what Tim said, the issue is not only observers. It's also the council's role in determining what is and what is not inside the picket fence, plus even in the second motion, there's an implication that if the registrars don't agree with the community's view on certain amendments that the registrars have to keep going back to negotiating -- keep going back to the negotiating table until both parties are satisfied, creating the implication that the registrars were never justified in the first place for saying no. So there are fundamental issues like that that are in both versions of the amendment, and I just want to make sure that's in the record. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, everyone. I suggest we move to vote on the first motion, which is Mary Wong's motion which she read out at the beginning. Is anyone opposed to a voice vote on this? Please speak up now. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes, I would like to request a roll call vote, please. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Glen, can you please organize a roll-call vote on this motion, please. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: I will, Stéphane. Jonathan Robinson. >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Zahid Jamil. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: John Berard. John? >>JOHN BERARD: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben. Wolf-Ulrich? >>WOLF-ULRICH KNOBEN: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Andrei Kolesnikov? >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: David Taylor. >>DAVID TAYLOR: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Jaime Wagner. >>JAIME WAGNER: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Jeff Neuman. >>JEFF NEUMAN: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Rafik Dammak. >>RAFIK DAMMAK: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Ching Chao. >>CHING CHAO: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Adrian Kinderis. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Kristina Rosette. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Debbie -- Rosemary Sinclair is not here. And, yes, Mary? >>MARY WONG: I am Rosemary. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Yes, you are Rosemary. >>MARY WONG: For today. Do I get to vote as Rosemary? >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: You get to vote. >>MARY WONG: Yes, please. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Stéphane Van Gelder. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Debbie Hughes. >>DEBRA HUGHES: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Olga Cavalli. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Wendy Seltzer. >>WENDY SELTZER: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: Tim Ruiz. >>TIM RUIZ: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: William Drake. >>WILLIAM DRAKE: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: And Mary more Mary. >>MARY WONG: Yes. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. While Glen is adding up the score, I will just remind that we are working to the standard default threshold for this motion, which means that it requires a simple majority of each house to pass. >>GLEN DE SAINT GÉRY: The results are the noncontracted party house, there are 13 votes in favor, and for the contracted party house, there are six votes against and one vote in favor. So it does not get a simple majority. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So the motion does not pass, which means we will move to consider the second motion we have on this agenda item which is Kristina Rosette's item. Kristina, maybe I don't -- perhaps you can read the resolveds. I know it's a long read but I think that will be useful. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I think technically it needs to be seconded first. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Apologies. I thought it had been. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Zahid just has. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Zahid has seconded the motion, so can you do that? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: All right. So starting with the first resolved. That the GNSO Council recommends that staff adopt an amended version of the process specified as process B in the final report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report. As amended herein, process B entails, 1, the prioritized list of topics as set forth in the final report is sent to the GNSO Council and ICANN staff for identification of any topics that would require consensus policy development rather than RAA contract amendment. This step shall be completed not later than 60 days after the date of this resolution. 2, ICANN staff will schedule a public consultation to be held at the first ICANN public meeting that occurs after completion of the review in step 1, to provide members of the ICANN community with the opportunity to articulate their support of and/or objection to the high and medium priority topics described in the final report. 3, within 30 days after the public consultation described in step 2, negotiations begin with the negotiating group consisting of ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group as a whole. 4, the negotiating group shall provide for public comment written reports monthly on the status and progress of the negotiations. Such reports shall include proposed text under consideration and identify items and text agreed upon by the negotiating group. The monthly report shall identify, a), topics identified in the final report as high or medium priority and that were not determined in step 1 as requiring consensus policy development, and, b), proposed amendments put forth by the stakeholder group constituency and/or advisory committee, if any, that have been rejected by the negotiating group. And I am just amending because I had a phrase in there incorrectly. And those will be referred to collectively as the rejected topics and amendments. The negotiating group reviews public comments received and continues negotiations as necessary. Steps 4 and 5 shall repeat as necessary, provided, however, that the full final draft of the new RAA must be posted for public comment not later than September 17, 2012. Subject to the date requirement in step 5 -- we're on step 6. Apologies -- ICANN staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group shall determine when the full final draft of the new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. The full final draft of the new RAA that is posted for public comment shall be accompanied by a detailed written explanation, approved by both staff and the Registrar Stakeholder Group, that sets forth the basis for the rejection of all rejected topics and amendments. 7, the GNSO Council shall review the full final draft of the new RAA, and then my copy is cut off -- consider public comments, and vote on approval of the draft new RAA. A supermajority vote of the GNSO Council is required to approve the new RAA. 8, if the GNSO Council approves the new RAA, the new RAA goes to the ICANN board for approval. 9, if the GNSO Council does not approve the new RAA, the new RAA is sent back to the negotiating group with appropriate feedback for reconsideration and the process is repeated from step 7. Resolved further that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much, Kristina. I don't know if there's any need for further discussion. Apparently so. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I just want to reenter or reiterate the comments that we raised for the last one and make sure that those are reflected in the minutes for this motion as well. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Certainly. And to the extent that there may be a misunderstanding, and I haven't had a chance to actually read the written text of the statement, but I would just note that this amended process, which is based on the process, be put forth by the Registrar Stakeholder Group members of the amendments drafting team specifically excludes observers. There is no reference to them. There is no intention that they be included. And further, it's also the intention, as was intended to be set out in the very first action item, that staff and council determine what of the proposed high and medium priority are consensus policy. And then those would be carved out and not subject to any negotiations, and could at that point be the subject for whatever PDPs would be deemed appropriate. So there would be a narrow scope. And it may be -- and, frankly, we won't know until that analysis is done, what the scope of potential negotiation topics would be. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Jeff, and then Tim. And we do have to keep things brief. We should really be closing this item now. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yes. If I could just respond to that. It actually points out something I have raised many times before in any working group, and the implication that Kristina made was that because the individuals who happen to be registrars on that group made a certain statement, the implication is that the registrars approved it. And again, it's a complete danger and it's exactly the reason why comments I have on cross-working groups. Those were individuals. Whether or not they accepted it or not has nothing to do with the group that they are from, and cannot be attributed to the group that they are from. So I find it's okay to say while the individuals approved it, it is not okay to create the implication that the registries and registrars at the time approved it. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. I was in that group, and so I know -- you know, I'm fairly clear about what was going on and what was said by registrars. And one of the things I encouraged is that we allowed the community to put together the list of their desires and not try to get into some debate with them about what they were asking, because that would be easy to do. I don't know if we made that as clear as we should have or if that got adhered to as well as it should have but that was the case. The idea was the community was to put together their list of the things that they would like to see changed in our RAA. Then we would look later at those that were consensus policy issues. They would go that direction. The others that clearly needed to be changed in the RAA in order to be addressed would go under negotiation between registrars and ICANN. That was our intent. If anyone presented anything else as being the intent, again, that was not with the consent of the registrars constituency as a whole. And again, we did discuss ways forward, trying to inject some realistic ideas about how registrars would be willing to move forward. And so, you know, we did present a suggestion, various steps as a way forward. And Kristina said the second motion was based on that. Very loosely so. There was no timeline included in that. We didn't try to inject one. Not knowing exactly what the amendments were going to entail, it would be almost impossible to do so, and the same way here. And it also didn't include any agreement that the council should vote on this two-thirds vote and if they rejected it it would come back. All that is something that Kristina came up with, or her constituency came up with. That was not part of what registrars suggested. But again, we never suggested that while this was the way that we felt it would work best for us to move forward with, we never suggested that this was something that our registrar stakeholder group had signed off and we were ready to commit to. Beyond that, again, as stated before, regardless of the motion or steps forward here that are laid out, the idea -- or the issue is that we don't believe that the council should be in a position to vote on this or to dictate or to spell out how this negotiation should take place when we're talking about items outside of consensus policy. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Tim. After Zahid, I would like to close it off and go to a vote. >>ZAHID JAMIL: I wasn't part of the working group, but what I'm looking at is the final report on the proposals for improvement of the RAA. And at page 172 there, there is a statement by the registrars stakeholder group basically thanking groups subtask A and B for their hard work. It makes no reference of no support, so forth. It appreciates and thanks them for the effort. So I am confused. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Kristina wanted to address one point specifically that Tim made, and then I would really like to vote. Thank you. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Sure. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the process B as put forward in the drafting team report did in fact call for the council to approve the new RAA by a supermajority and did in fact indicate that if it did not get approved it would go back to the negotiating team for reconsideration. That's clearly indicated in the red line that I posted to the council list. And with regard to it dates, I would be happy to consider friendly amendments. >>TIM RUIZ: But then again, that was not a Registrar Stakeholder Group statement. Again, this is something we were trying to let the community come up with. We were trying to make suggestions about how we felt it should move forward, the registrars that were participating. None of this was a registrar stakeholder group consensus agreement to anything. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: In the interest of fairness, Andrei, you had your hand up. >>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV: Yes. My only concern, that the process which is described in this motion is very complicated. It has endless loops. That's my only concern. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. So I move that we go for a vote on this motion. Once again, I will ask if anyone is opposed -- >>MARY WONG: This is revenge for you making comments on my baking ability. You know that. But I do have something serious to say. [ Laughter ] >>MARY WONG: Besides the fact that I think I make rather good cakes. On behalf of the noncommercial stakeholder group, we would like to request that this alternate motion be tabled based in large part on the statement that was read out by the registries and the registrars today, which was not available to us before today, following discussions yesterday and constituency day and some of the discussions in public comment that we heard today that illuminated some of the reasons and some of the continuing concerns over the RAA. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: In your cookbook, does tabled mean deferred? >>MARY WONG: No matter whether you convert from imperial to metric or the other way, in this room it very definitely means that. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So we will defer to the next meeting the vote on this motion and move on to the next agenda item. And once again, I would like to thank you all. This is a very cramped meeting. It's also a cramped room, but we are not having a break, for example, which is not the way we usually do things. So I want to thank you all once again for the hard work that you are putting in to make sure this meeting runs smoothly. So let's go to item 6, which is an item referring to the joint DNS security and stability working group. And if I can just read out for the benefit of everybody the introduction to this item. At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting, ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledge the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end, these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS security and stability working group, which is acronym'd DSSA-WG. There is a draft charter. The ccNSO, which is leading this effort, has asked the GNSO to agree to a maximum of 12 volunteers. That number has been chosen to ensure that each group has an equal number of volunteers, and at the moment, I believe we have slightly more volunteers than that, but I will count them. So I make that 14. So the idea of this agenda item is just to finalize the list that we can submit to the ccNSO and select a co-chair for the working group from that list of volunteers or suggest one, at least. So can I ask any groups that have more than three volunteers if they're willing to withdraw one? >>ZAHID JAMIL: Hi. Zahid Jamil for the BC. We have -- in the interest of making sure that there is balance, we will be withdrawing one name, that will be mine, Zahid Jamil, from that list. And just wanted to make a short statement with that. The expectation would be that -- two points, basically. That looking forward, we would know in advance what the limitations would be. We didn't know the limitations in advance. So our constituency wanted to know that, one, in advance. And second, to ensure that there would be -- according to clause 3.2, what we just passed today -- a certain degree of representativeness on every working group. Thank you. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Zahid for getting that going. None of us knew what the expectations were. So we're just working to deal with that. The other stakeholder groups that have more than three are the registrars, the registries. At the moment, that's -- yeah. So are the registrars willing to remove one name and the registries? >> (off mike). >>JEFF NEUMAN: Registries only have three. Unless my counting is off. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Sorry. It's me. I'm seeing double. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So it's just the registrars. I'm obviously trying very hard to be neutral on this one. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And, sorry, also, just for the record, there's still four from the Commercial Stakeholder Group, there are three Business Constituency, and one IPC. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So could the business constituency examine possibly withdrawing one? I mean, I'm not sure these are crucial decisions to be making. I mean, I'm sure that the people who will still be on the working group will be able to communicate what they're seeing and allow you to follow the working group. >>ZAHID JAMIL: We'll have to get back to you on that. Sorry. I was willing to take myself off. But I would have to talk to my constituency about that if you want to take off more names. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: The corollary is, we're trying to get this started. And we've been waiting for more than a month. I'm not trying to put pressure, but is this crucial? Let's give you five minutes to work through that. We have the same problem on the next agenda item. So perhaps I can just read that out. That's an agenda item on this -- it's a study group on the use of names and -- of countries and territories. This is a ccNSO-led group as well. And the ccNSO has asked the GNSO to limit their number of volunteers to eight volunteers. And currently, we have 12. So there again, it would probably be useful if we could cut that number down to an equal number from each stakeholder group. So perhaps we can -- this would be a good opportunity to just take a five-minute, very short break, let people discuss and reconvene in five minutes. Thank you. (Break.) >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. Let's start again, please. Can I have the councillors at the table, again, please. We'll start again. Thank you very much. Councillors at the table, please. So let's pick this up again, please. And can I ask the registrars if they have made a choice on whom they would withdraw from the list of current volunteers to the DSSA working group. Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: The DSSA. Yes, so we will withdraw Matt Serlin, without him knowing. [ Laughter ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's the way we do things. Okay. So, Glen, I think we have 12 volunteers for that group. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I think there was -- I think there was one person from the Commercial Stakeholder Group that -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You got 13? Oh, there's one person from the Business Constituency maybe that's -- Zahid, if -- do you want to join us? >>ZAHID JAMIL: Stéphane, we have a deadlock at our end, so -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: What? >>ZAHID JAMIL: We have a deadlock at our end. We have a deadlock at our end. We don't have any names we're taking off yet. If Mike Rodenbaugh maybe -- >>JOHN BERARD: I would propose the Serlin rule and take Mike off the list. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I've waited so long for someone to say that. That was a joke, Mike. I don't know where you are. Okay. Thanks. Just bear with us five seconds. >>JOHN BERARD: Please feel free to let him know I did that. [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So we're fine on that, and we just need to select a co-chair. But perhaps the group can do that now that we have a definitive list of volunteers, perhaps the group themselves can select a co-chair. So, Glen, can we set that in motion? Can you communicate that to the group, please. Is everyone in agreement with that? You're going for? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: (off mike). >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: The next one? Yeah, please go ahead. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. With regard to the geographic and territories group, I would just like to request that if any of the existing volunteers would be willing to step down, we only have one CSG participant on that group, and I have learned since the call for volunteers was closed that the IPC actually has a member who is a law professor whose area of expertise is in this area. And I think given the volume of research that she's done, she could probably be extraordinarily useful to you all. But with the current constitution, there isn't room for her. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Stéphane, can I jump in? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: No, because Adrian wants to jump in. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I have a gift. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So does Adrian. And he just keeps on giving. >>JEFF NEUMAN: If I could, just give me a minute. The Registry Stakeholder Group will yield its second representative to the IPC if they would like. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Thank you very much. I'm afraid what the pay- back is, but I'll take it. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Kristina, before you accept, the Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to give -- [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Kristina, it's Christmas. I hate to see what boxing day is going to look like. Plus drinks tonight in the bar. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: You know, it -- Thank you, Adrian. I appreciate it. But Jeff got there first. >> First come, first served. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Jeff, he stole your place in the queue. Who's the guy -- yeah, we know. Who's the guy whom you're taking off? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm not. We only had one. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Oh, yeah, Ching. So, Ching, you're withdrawing? >>JEFF NEUMAN: No, we have allocated two, 'cause it's two from each one. And we're giving our second one away. So it's not taking anyone off. We're just saying -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Oh, so it's an empty gift. Okay. Okay. [ Laughter ] >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: No surprise there. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: In that case, Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Kristina, that deal was for a limited time. [ Laughter ] >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: So at the moment, we're losing Krista Papac, an excellent staff member, to the AusRegistry. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Who does she work for? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's AusRegistry folks. Thanks. And we will get back to you shortly with our second that we will take. Because we've got to take off two; right? >>JEFF NEUMAN: (off mike). >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: No. We've got three, so we need to take off two. >> Two for stakeholder group. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Could we nominate someone, like we did with Matt? Let's just give ourselves five minutes on that, move to the next item. Carlos, you -- >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: That's easy for me. Thank you. >>CARLOS AGUIRRE: Thank you, Stéphane. The block of homeless want to propose Carlos Aguirre from this working group, yeah, study group. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Can -- perhaps we can work this the same way that we did the previous one, which is to just let the group decide. Perhaps we don't -- the council doesn't need to give directions there. And you've just volunteered for the chair role; is that correct? >>CARLOS AGUIRRE: No, no. Not chair role. (off mike). >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I can't hear you. >> Microphone. >>CARLOS AGUIRRE: Sorry. I -- it's my first meeting. I think -- not chair. I want to participate and collaborate, but I think not chair. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So what are you saying? You're already on the list. You want to stay on the list? You want to withdraw? >>CARLOS AGUIRRE: (Nod of the head.) >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. Thank you. Yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Under advisement from a fellow colleague and -- he was last in line, Alexei Sozonov, unfortunately, will be dropping off. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: That is great. Thank you very much. We have what's needed for both of those groups. Thank you very much for working through that. Sorry, I miscounted. We have nine for that group. Because I crossed Ching off, and he's actually not crossed off. So perhaps we need to find out who Garth Miller and Jothan Frakes are, which group they're affiliated with, Glen. So just put forward the list of volunteers that are affiliated for the moment, and we will find out from them whom they're affiliated with and deal with it that way, which means we're putting forwards seven -- >>JOHN BERARD: I would very much like to find a spot for Chris Chaplow, who runs a business in Malaga, Spain. Is he -- but I don't -- who else is from the Commercial Stakeholder Group? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just Tony Harris, as far as I can tell. >>JOHN BERARD: So two per group? So can I add Chris to that list? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: We're not going to add. What I've just said is that JOTHAN Frakes and Garth Miller have not declared their affiliation. So we will ask them. So far, we're taking them off. We will ask them, and dependent on their affiliation, we will take your request into consideration. As mentioned, there need to be two from each stakeholder group. So that's no problem. >> Stéphane, in the previous e-mails forwarded either by Glen or yourself, is that I volunteered for the liaison for the GNSO to this study group. So I would just like to make sure that this still stands. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I think that's still the case, yeah. Thank you. Okay. So we'll move forward with that. Glen, please provide to the ccNSO the list of candidates that we have confirmed. Thank you, all, for working through this so quickly. And we will then move to the next agenda item, which is item number 5 -- on the previous? >>ZAHID JAMIL: Yes, if I'm not mistaken, and I may be confused about this. There is no representative except for Tony Harris from the CSG on this list anymore. That's my understanding. I'm looking at the Wiki right now, and on the Wiki, Chris Chaplow's name is there. So I'm a little confused. And that could be wrong, I guess. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: The list I'm working from is the one that I had written down. But Kristina has added a name, so my count is that the CSG has two. Okay. So let's go to item 5, which is following up on the RAP recommendations. We have an update from Liz Gasster on this. Thanks for bearing with the previous two items and, Liz, over to you. >>LIZ GASSTER: I am going to start off quickly and then Margie is going to continue. I just wanted to note, first of all, that there were two action items coming out of the registration abuse recommendations that are now action items for the staff. The first is to write an issues report on the general state of the UDRP. Margie Milam's been assigned to do that. The second thing is to work on a best practices discussion paper on things that registrars and registries may be able to do to reduce registration abuse. And Marika Konings and Steve Sheng will be working on that. I do not have due dates to provide you with for when this work will be completed. Most of you have probably been aware that an issues report typically under the bylaws, staff is given 15 calendar days to complete that issues report. In the case of the UDRP, as Margie will explain, it's a much more complicated topic. There's quite a bit to cover. So under the best of circumstances, 15 days would not be possible. But also, the council and the council -- staff supporting the council are extraordinarily above capacity with existing projects and activities that are quite lengthy and extensive. And so we are looking for some help from the council in trying to adjust that load so that we can take on this additional work or allow us to continue that -- to complete those items before we actually work on this in earnest. So at this point, I'm reluctant to commit to a due date for those other than to say that we are trying to begin working on them, along with everything else that we have, because we recognize their importance. I would just encourage the council to consider this further, if you think that it's urgent to get this work done, to pursue further what work we might be able to modify to do this. Margie is going to talk a little bit about the details of what she is engaged in and the next steps. But I just wanted to set the stage by saying that we're really struggling and trying to make a kind of valiant effort to work on this in addition to other work that's pending, and anything we can try to do to adjust the priorities so that we can manage all of them well is something that, collectively, we and the GNSO are working on trying to address. Thank you. >>MARGIE MILAM: And I think many of you were in the room on Saturday when we were talking about this. So I'm not going to go into the big presentation that I gave on Saturday. But there were just a couple of things I wanted to highlight with the council to see if there's any way to get clarification from the council. And what I have posted on the slide here is the resolution that the GNSO Council passed in February. And, essentially, this is the question as I draft the issue report, I have questions regarding how broad or how narrow to draft this issue report. If you take a look at the resolution that's posted, it essentially says that the issue report, which should be on the current state of the UDRP, and then it also says that the effort should consider how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date and any insufficiencies or inequalities associated with that process. And then there's a second bullet about whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent in the UDRP needs to be reviewed or updated. So as the staff person tasked with writing this report, you know, these are really broad issues. And I highlighted a whole bunch of topics in the session. And I'm not going to go through them. But if there's any way to get guidance from the council as to what the intent was before I embark on drafting this report, it would be greatly appreciated, because there's different ways of reading that resolution. And if we take the broader approach, which is really, you know, touching upon all the issues that are associated with the UDRP, you know, we see that as something that would require extensive community resources, both, you know, volunteer and the staff, and, really, would have difficulties in figuring out how to proceed and how to best manage a PDP if the issue report were to lead to that. So that's really all I wanted to raise with the council at this point. And I'm not going to go into further detail other than to suggest that if there's a way to get clarification on the resolution where perhaps, you know, the issue report could focus only on the aspects of the -- you know, that really require a PDP, something that maybe focuses purely on the policy itself as opposed to all the other issues that may be associated with it, you know, that may be something that the council could think about. Another suggestion might be to allow for a public session at the next ICANN meeting to invite, you know, the public and experts in the UDRP to really help identify how these issues could be narrowed. This is something that's consistent with the recommendations that are in the new PDP report that the working group has been working on, the suggestion that public comment might be, you know, solicited before the issue report gets written. And so these are all suggestions that the councillors should think about. So with that, I'll leave it and you can ask some questions. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Margie and Liz. Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks. I think we should probably address the staffing and the prioritization issue probably tomorrow at a wrap-up session. I don't think we should spend time talking about that right here. With that said, you know, I think that we tend to send staff into a silo to draft these issues reports. So I would recommend possibly, if the council would be agreeable, is to put together maybe small teams to assist staff in drafting these issue reports or a discussion paper for the best practices, in order to help them along, give them ideas, so that they're not just kind of drafting everything on their own and going through the immense amount of material. So I'd ask the council to consider that. The second thing is, I'd like to actually endorse the idea of, at least for the UDRP, is to do a webinar or seminar, but not as late as Singapore, but, actually, if we could propose something to happen in the month of April so that, hopefully, we can have some sort of issue report by the Singapore meeting, I think, would be a good thing, and actually show the community that we can -- we have momentum that we can actually move things along. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Jeff. Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: I was thinking since our role is as a policy manager, this is a report, this came out of the RFP working group, would it be possible or would it be even efficient to send it back to the RFP to answer some of the questions and clarifications if that was one of the possible ways to go about this? Because they're the ones who dealt with this, they're the ones who communicated it to us. They're probably the best place to clarify some of the questions. I'm particularly looking at sort of the UDRP aspect. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Marika. >>MARIKA KONINGS: This is Marika. I think that the working group itself not really in existence anymore. I think most of them -- they wrapped up their work. And they did have extensive discussions. So there's -- and Margie is aware of that, because she was part of those elaborations, especially relating to the definition of cybersquatting, which is one of the items. So I'm not really sure at this stage that they would be able to give more clarity, because they focused on that specific item, the cybersquatting question and the other item that they identified in their charter. But I think the question that Margie is asking, whether it should just be limited to those items identified by the working group or whether it should go broader. And I don't think that the working group probably has a particular view on that, as they were specifically tasked to look at the cybersquatting item. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. I have Kristina next. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I support Jeff's suggestion that we have at some point in the near future some kind of webinar that could address the very broad topic and solicit input from the community as to what topics should be incorporated and if it's possible to come up with any meaningful and, more importantly, effective and efficient, way to group those up. I personally suspect that, ultimately, what we're going to end up with is something along the lines of the interregistrar transfer PDP where it's broken down into components. And I think going into that with the recognition that's probably going to happen will make it easier for us to figure out how to group them. To the extent, however, that I understood Jeff to suggest that members of the community should help draft the issue report, I, frankly, am opposed to that. I personally have always viewed the issues report as being neutral. And I think given the -- frankly, the divisiveness of how strongly people feel about the UDRP, for and against, I think it's going to be very difficult to do that. And I would rather just not even go down that road. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So to clarify, you had a he just like the issues report to be drafted by staff as usual. Thank you. Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah, I like the idea of the webinar as well. That might help kind of categorize some of these things. But I also think perhaps, you know, a committee of interested councillors to look at some of the questions and concerns that Margie has raised might be effective also. And then just going forward, I think -- and I'm not sure if this is the -- necessarily the best approach, but I think in some way, we need to, as a council, perhaps spend a little more time not to slow things down, but to be more thorough at looking at these reports before we move them on. So if that's perhaps having this committee idea up-front, that takes a look at this report, perhaps discusses it with staff as potential motions are drafted and that kind of thing, so that some of these issues can be kind of identified and pulled out prior to us, you know, approving them and moving them on, so that maybe we can get some of these things kind of resolved before we ask for an issues report or ask for some work from staff. But I think at this point, with this one, though, I think, you know, some committee that may look at some of the concerns that Margie has raised is probably -- would be effective. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Tim. Jaime. >>JAIME WAGNER: It seems to me that the best way to go would be, as Zahid said, to turn the specific questions to the working group and not to create a new group of interested parties. And I would like to ask Margie if there are a set of specific questions or just general concerns. If there is a set of -- And I think the council should require this from staff in order to pass this along to the former working group. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah. Once again, the group doesn't really exist anymore. And I think the request was from -- for the council to provide some sort of guidance. But -- >>JAIME WAGNER: (off mike) not new ones. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So I have Marika next, then Jeff, then Mary. >>JAIME WAGNER: Is there a set of specific questions? >>MARGIE MILAM: Well, I can -- if you recall my presentation -- I mean, I didn't want to bore the council with the same thing from Saturday, but I had a list of I'd say 40 items that could possibly be addressed. I could -- I mean, I could come up with some questions to help narrow the scope, if that's useful. Just let me know what would be appropriate. I can take that offline and send it to the list. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: That might be useful, yeah. Thank you, Margie. Marika. >>MARIKA KONINGS: This is Marika. I mean, referring to Kristina's point on how the IRTP was handled and maybe that's something to consider for the UDRP, instead of now trying to write an issue report that covers everything, is maybe to try to come up with a listing and then maybe have a public comment period that adds to the listing of everything -- if anything has been missed, then do a grouping, and then based on that, have a separate issues report for those specific items. That's how the IRTP was done, where no overall issue report was written for all the issues identified, but they were first listed in the very basic sense, like, these are the issues we've identified. We think these belong together. And then on the basis of that, separate PDPs were initiated, each with their separate issue report, which would then dive deeper into the specific items. And -- 'cause I think looking at the issues -- list of issues that Margie has, I think she can basically write a book on that probably. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, I think -- I want to -- even though I brought it up, I agree with Kristina about the actual drafting of the issues report. That should be a neutral activity. I was just thinking more as a committee to kind of help with clarifying what the issues are, not with the drafting of the report itself. I do want to say that I'm not convinced that this should be separated into parts like the IRTP, simply because I think you -- I think you probably want to take an overall picture of the entire UDRP and not want to change one part this year or one part of it next year. I think that would -- if there are any changes. I think that would be really confusing and I think that just -- especially with the UDRP, to have different parts changed one at a time every year, that's probably something that's not going to go over so well. But, I mean, it remains to be seen. Maybe there is a logical grouping where that won't happen. But, you know, I do -- the other thing is, on the existing group, on the RAP group, even the fact that it doesn't exist anymore, the people that I know the registries put on that groups may not be experts on the UDRP, so I'm not sure I'd want those people addressing the same issues. I think each -- you know, if we were going to create some sort of committee to help with this, I think that it may actually be different people with the expertise. So I want to say that. Thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Stéphane. So I guess first, I was going to try to answer one of Margie's questions, but it's probably the least helpful one. With respect to the scope of the resolution, I think what I certainly did as a councillor when voting for this was, my assumption -- and I think that's borne out by the final report -- was that it reflects the wording that was chosen or that was used in the RAP Working Group final report. I'm looking at Marika right now. And similarly, I think when we were working on the RAP drafting team, it was the same submission. So certainly my vote on the council was based on that. Leading me to the suggestion which actually is the same as Jeff's. I think it should not be postponed to Singapore, but if we can do something online sooner rather than later to have a call to talk these out. And my suggestion there would be not to throw it back to the working group or to reconvene the working group or have all of them there, but perhaps to invite representatives. And I thought maybe the chairs of that group, if they're available, to at least give us on that call some sense of what the group had in mind when coming up with the final wording, and some sense perhaps of some of the issues that might have been particularly troubling or particularly critical that may not have been fully reflected in the final report. I think certainly as a community member and as a council member, I would find that very helpful. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you. I know there's people in the queue. Just to get a sense of what support there would be for that way forward, which sounds from an administrative viewpoint reasonable. It would be interesting to know, just to invite some of the working group members to explain what they had in mind. Is that something that people would be okay with? >>MARY WONG: And just a brief follow-up. On the IRTP process, I think that might also help us decide whether or not at some point that kind of breakdown is more appropriate or not appropriate as the case may be. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: So I had Margie next, then Wendy, then Kristina, or David. David? Kristina, David, Tim. Margie. >>MARGIE MILAM: Yeah, I wanted to agree with what Jeff was saying about both issues about if you break it up into -- my inclination is that if you break it up into the IRT thing, IRT approach, I'm not sure how you implement some versus having an overall thing. So I do agree with what you said. And I also agree with the observation that the expertise needed, probably, to address these issues are different than what's reflected on the drafting team that originally came up with those recommendations. It's pretty technical legal stuff, and there's people who know the nuances of these issues really well that might be helpful. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Wendy. >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks. I'd like -- I think, as we mentioned in our earlier meetings, I think speed on this is important to get these UDRP issues out and investigated before we initiate new processes in the URS. On precisely how we do it, I would not recommend inviting the RAP back, or even individuals from the RAP back into formally addressing the council, because I think council needs to be able to conclude a working group, and it's now ours to work with. If we, as individuals and constituencies and stakeholder groups, want to caucus with members who participated in the RAP, I think we should feel free to do so, and, indeed, will do so, but I don't think we need to get any of the individuals back for formal presentations. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you very much. That's duly noted. Margie, your suggestion earlier was to provide some points to the list, to send some points to the list. That might help start this off, also. I do tend to agree with the suggestion that the council should be able to make determinations like this. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just very briefly. First, it seems to me, although I could be wrong, that there seems to be some support coalescing around the idea of having a Webinar to try to identify the issues considered most important to the community. And if so, we could probably use the list to figure out how that format could work most effectively. Second, with regard to the problem that Jeff had raised about having the groups working serially, one thing we haven't tried, and this may be an issue that lends itself to that, would be to have them working in parallel. I think it would be incredibly important that you have effective communication across them. But that would seem to solve the problem that Jeff has noted. And finally, I would also -- I guess three times in one night -- agree with Jeff that I wouldn't kick this back to the RAP working group. I think all of the folks in that group had good expertise in different areas, and they all work very hard, but I think given the endeavor we're about to embark on, we need to make sure that we have a sufficiently broad and deep range of expertise, and I just don't think that group had it. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Kristina. Can I just ask you gentlemen at the front to -- Thank you. David. >>DAVID TAYLOR: Thanks, Stéphane. I'm jumping on the bandwagon of agreeing with Jeff here. And following on from Kristina, I do think it's critically important that we have the right people looking at this. So as I said on Saturday, what I thought was important is to have people like WIPO involved in it and actually panelists. The domain name panelists that have looked at these 30,000 decisions -- I'm sorry -- that have looked at these 30,000 decisions are the ones who really know the nuances in and out of it. So I would certainly look to panelists not just from WIPO but CAC and NAF, and those are the people we want included to discuss these issues. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, David. Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: I think there's a lot of very good ideas, but what I am concerned about is come April we will meet again to teleconference and we won't be any further than we are today. And that's why I would just again suggest that if we could have a small group of councillors take on these suggestions, work on this, perhaps with some input that they might need from staff or, again as was mentioned, caucus with some of the previous RAP members or chairs, so that perhaps by April we could begin seeing some sort of formulation of how to move forward or how to deal with this thing going forward. But I am just afraid if we continue to try to deal with it entirely as an entire council, it's going to take much, much longer. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Tim. Would there be support for that? Just a small group of volunteers, and then we could call for volunteers on the list and move forward that way? Just looking around the room, just to again get some measure. It seems like there might be. So let's work with that idea. Jaime. Your hand was still up in Adobe. Okay. Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: I would just like to say I like Mary's idea about the chairs basically being asked to sort of share their views and also combining in that David's point about having WIPO and other experts. Maybe we could have a range of a few people come and speak to us. I think that may be a good way to start. We would support that. I know there are certain members of our B.C. who were chairs and they would be very willing to volunteer for that kind of role. Thanks. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Jeff. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yeah, so I think having a small committee to kind of help plan this Webinar with staff would be a really good idea, and plus maybe some people here know the panels to contact and people from other groups to contact to bring them in as opposed to just cold call. I know, David, you know a bunch of people, and I know Mary and Wendy, you know a bunch of people. So I think that's probably a good idea to get a small committee to do that and plan the Webinar. What I want to caution is this Webinar should not be a bunch of speeches about why the UDRP is good, about why the UDRP is bad. I think we should go in there -- maybe that small committee can help prepare an initial set of questions that would help narrow down the focus of the issues that could be addressed on the Webinar, as opposed to just, you know, speeches and things. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks. I would add that my expectation would be that this group would be councillors only, obviously. Otherwise, we'd just go back to the working group. Mary. >>MARY WONG: Yeah, and I think a lot of what I was going to say has been covered by Zahid and Jeff. I think just to clarify that my point about asking perhaps the chairs was really not for a formal presentation of any kind or to rehash ground that the working group has already covered; that they would be participants on the call as the councillors -- or the interested committee of councillors would be participants so that if we did have questions as to, well, why did the working group choose this word or what were they thinking or what happened, they would be there to answer that specific question but not give formal presentations as such. And secondly, in terms of to the extent that we are going to have the structured call, I think a set of questions would be very helpful. I also think that, again, it shouldn't be a set of formal presentations but that those who are asked to respond to those questions would be specific responses perhaps representing a broad swath of experiences with this identified problem. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Okay. Any further discussion on this? In which case, I suggest and will ask Glen to put out a call on the list for a small group of volunteers to take this forward. Okay. Thanks, everyone. It looks like we have come to the end of our agenda for today, bar the open microphone session where we invite anyone that wishes to address the council and ask us questions or make comments. And I just want to thank you once again for bearing with us through this often re-worked agenda and through the scheduling issues that we have had. So are there any comments from the floor at this stage? Any further comments from the council? In which case, I believe we are adjourned. Thank you very much, and we will see you tomorrow for the wrap-up. Thank you very much.