ICANN | Captioning ICANN Public Forum Part 2

ICANN Meetings in São Paulo, Brazil

Captioning - ICANN Public Forum Part 2

7 December 2006

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the ICANN Public Forum Part 2 held on 7 December 2006 in São Paulo, Brazil. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>>VINT CERF: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SORRY FOR THE DELAY.

WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH THE SOUND SYSTEM.

I'D LIKE TO CONVENE THIS SECOND PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM.

IN THE PREVIOUS SESSION, WE DID NOT COMPLETE ALL OF THE REPORTS, SO WE'RE PICKING UP SOME OF THOSE THAT WE MISSED.

IN ADDITION, THE ROOT SERVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE NEEDED TO LEAVE BEFORE TODAY, AND WE DIDN'T GET TO HER REPORT IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO POST THAT AS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN READ LATER.

I'D LIKE TO CALL ON GEORGE SADOWSKY NOW TO GIVE A REPORT FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE REPORT OF THE 2006 NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO YOU.

A QUICK OUTLINE OF THE REPORT.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COMMITTEE, GIVE YOU THE RESULTS, WHICH YOU PRESUMABLY ALREADY KNOW, MAKE SOME REMARKS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE UNDERGOES, AND THEN FINISH WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT SOME OF WHICH ARE TO THE BOARD.

SO THE COMMITTEE IS LARGE, 23 MEMBERS, 17 OF WHOM VOTE.

THEY COME FROM THE CONSTITUENCIES, THE LIAISON ORGANIZATIONS, THERE'S AN CHAIR AND AN ASSOCIATE CHAIR WHO ASSISTS THE CHAIR.

THEY CARRY NO PERSONAL COMMITMENTS ONCE THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THEY COMMIT TO A CODE OF ETHICS WHICH HAS IN IT PROVISIONS ON INTEGRITY, DECLARING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND ASSURING THAT THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE REMAINS CONFIDENTIAL.

IT -- THE COMMITTEE OPERATES, BY THE WAY, IN PARALLEL WITH OTHER SELECTION PROCESSES.

THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, OVER A THREE-YEAR CYCLE, IS SELECTED BY THE COMMITTEE, AND IT ALSO ADDS A FEW MEMBERS TO EACH OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.

WE FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY OF ICANN.

HERE IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

OOPS.

EXCUSE ME.

MY SOUND IS ON HERE.

I WON'T READ THESE NAMES.

THAT WOULD BE LONG AND BORING.

BUT JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANY MEMBERS OF THE 2006 NOMINATING COMMITTEE WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE TO STAND AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY SO STANDING.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED LONG AND HARD TO PROVIDE THE NOMINATIONS YOU'RE HEARING ABOUT NOW.

I WON'T GO OVER THIS ENTIRE PICTURE.

THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE ON THE WEB, AS OTHERS WILL BE.

BUT THIS IS JUST TO REMIND YOU THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMES FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES TO EACH -- FROM EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES, AND EIGHT OVER A THREE-YEAR CYCLE FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

AND THE FIFTEENTH IS THE CEO.

SO, FOR THE ICANN BOARD, WE HAVE CHOSEN ROBERTO GAETANO, FROM ITALY, STEVEN GOLDSTEIN FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND RAJASHEKAR RAMARAJ FROM INDIA.

MR. RAMARAJ HAD TO LEAVE EARLY.

HIS SON IS BEING MARRIED IN INDIA THIS WEEKEND, AND APPARENTLY INDIAN WEDDINGS ARE A REALLY BIG THING.

SO HE LEFT MONDAY NIGHT TO OFFICIATE AT THAT.

THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE FOR THREE YEARS.

THE GNSO COUNCIL IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE NOMINATES THREE PEOPLE OVERALL FOR THE COUNCIL.

AND THIS YEAR, OUR NOMINEE IS JON BING, FROM NORWAY.

AND DR. BING WILL SERVE A TWO YEARS TERM TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE 2008 ANNUAL MEETING.

THE INTERIM ALAC, AT THE MOMENT, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE NOMINATES FIVE PEOPLE ON A ROTATING BASIS FOR THE ALAC.

THIS IS -- THE APPOINTMENTS ARE REGIONALLY CONSTRAINED.

AND THIS YEAR, WE HAVE NOMINATED ALAN GREENBERG FROM CANADA TO FILL THE NORTH AMERICAN SLOT, AND ANNETTE MUEHLBERG, FROM GERMANY, TO FILL THE EUROPEAN SLOT.

AND THEIR TERMS ARE FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THIS ANNUAL MEETING TO THE END OF THE 2008 ANNUAL MEETING, A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.

AND, FINALLY, THE CCNSO COUNCIL RECEIVES THREE NOMINEES OVER A THREE-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

AND OUR NOMINEE THIS YEAR IS BECKY BURR FROM THE UNITED STATES.

AND SHE SERVES A THREE-YEAR TERM TO THE END OF THE ANNUAL MEETING FROM 2009.

THERE ARE SOME STATISTICS WHICH HAVE BEEN, BY THE WAY, ANNOUNCED A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO ON THE ICANN WEB SITE.

WE LOOK AT THE DISTRIBUTION BY REGION AND BY GENDER YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THIS YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE -- THESE -- I SHOULD MAKE THE COMMENT THAT THESE STATISTICS VARY RATHER WILDLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR, BECAUSE THE GRANULARITY OF THE PROCESS IS SO SMALL, THAT IS, WE CAN IDENTIFY AND NOMINATE ONLY A VERY FEW PEOPLE FOR EACH POSITION.

SO LAST YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WE NOMINATED -- SIX OF THE EIGHT NOMINEES WERE WOMEN.

THIS YEAR, LESS -- 28% OF THE NOMINEES WERE WOMEN.

THE CANDIDATES COME FROM DIFFERENT PLACES, 32 COUNTRIES AND AREAS THIS TIME.

I WON'T READ THESE NAMES.

BUT YOU'LL GET A -- YOU GET A SENSE THAT THE CANVASSING FOR CANDIDATES COVERED THE ENTIRE WORLD.

AND WE ALL -- ALL REGIONS ARE REPRESENTED, AND MANY COUNTRIES WITHIN EACH REGION.

THIS IS TYPICAL OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

THE NOMCOM HAS A TIMETABLE, WHICH STARTED AFTER -- IMMEDIATE AFTER THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF LAST YEAR.

WE MET TWICE FACE TO FACE, ONCE IN WELLINGTON AND ONCE IN FRANKFURT IN THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER TO COMPLETE THE NOMINATIONS PROCESS.

AFTER THE NOMINATIONS PROCESS HAD OCCURRED, THERE'S A PERIOD OF DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE OUR NOMINEES ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE.

AND, FORTUNATELY, THEY ALL PASSED THIS YEAR.

AND THE RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED, AS REFLECTED IN THE BYLAWS, AT LEAST ONE MONTH BEFORE THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.

WE USE THE ICANN FAMILY VERY HEAVILY FOR RECRUITING.

WE TRIED ADVERTISING THIS YEAR, AND IT DIDN'T PAY OFF.

WE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF MEETINGS, BOTH ICANN AND RELATED MEETINGS, AND WERE VOCAL AND PRESENT -- VISIBLE IN ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEADERSHIP WITHIN ICANN.

WE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY A FLIER DESCRIBING THE POSITIONS.

AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE DISCOURAGED CANDIDATE EFFECT WHICH I REPORTED UPON LAST YEAR DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE SURFACED THIS YEAR, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS ONE CAN'T TELL ABOUT THE DISCOURAGED CANDIDATES, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM IF THEY DROP OUT ENTIRELY.

THE EVALUATION PROCESS DEPENDS UPON THREE SUBCOMMITTEES FROM THE NOMCOM.

WE EVALUATED ALL CANDIDATES IN DEPTH, INCLUDING REFERENCES, PHONE CALLS, WHERE NEEDED.

WE USED THIRD-PARTY CONTACTS MORE PROACTIVELY THIS YEAR, UNDER A BLANKET OF CONFIDENTIALITY, TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS VOLUNTEERED BY THE CANDIDATES.

AND WE TRIED SOMETHING NEW, WE HAD TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH SOME OF THE CANDIDATES TO EXPLORE THEIR CAPABILITIES FURTHER.

IT WAS UNFORTUNATE, AT ONE POINT I REFERRED TO THE CANDIDATES WE WERE TALKING TO AS A SHORT LIST, AND IT WASN'T A SHORT LIST IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE OF THE FINAL LISTS; IT WAS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHOM WE FELT WE NEEDED MORE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO DO THE EVALUATION PROPERLY.

I HAVE FIVE CLASSES OF RECOMMENDATIONS HERE: SCHEDULING, PROCESS, RECRUITMENT, EVALUATION, AND, FINALLY, GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION.

WE -- WE BELIEVE THAT ACCELERATING THE FUTURE CHAIR'S INVOLVEMENT, STARTING WITH ATTENDANCE OR PERHAPS TOTAL OVERLAP WITH THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO.

SOME OF THESE -- BY THE WAY, SOME OF THESE CHANGES WILL REQUIRE BYLAWS CHANGES IF THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED.

BUT RIGHT NOW, THE EXISTING CHAIR SERVES AS THE ADVISOR TO THE NEXT CHAIR, WHO COMES IN COLD, AND THE ALTERNATIVE MODEL IS FOR THE NEXT CHAIR TO COME IN AS AN APPRENTICE THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND LEARN, AND THE CURRENT CHAIR TO DROP OUT AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

WE HAVE NOW SUCCEEDED IN ACCELERATING THE FIRST MEETING OF THE NEW COMMITTEE, TO BE HELD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, AND WE'VE ALSO, I THINK, PRETTY MUCH SUCCEEDED IN HAVING PRETTY MUCH EARLY EXCHANGES OF VIEWS BETWEEN THE ENTIRE NEW NOMCOM AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD AND CONSTITUENCIES.

AND THAT'S OCCURRING AT THIS MEETING.

WE ALSO HOPE TO ACCELERATE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RESULTS, WHICH TOOK PROBABLY AN INORDINATELY LONG TIME THIS YEAR.

WITH RESPECT TO PROCESS, WE'RE STILL IMPROVING THE TECHNOLOGY WE USE FOR HANDLING THE INFORMATION WE GET FROM CANDIDATES AND REFERENCES.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO IMPROVE THE WAY IN WHICH CANDIDATES STATE THEIR INTEREST IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

WE NEED TO IMPROVE AND EDUCATE EVERY NOMCOM OF THE -- WITH THE NEEDS OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE ORGANIZATIONS, THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE ROLES IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE SERVE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE BEST POSSIBLE SELECTIONS.

AND WE'RE WORKING TO IMPROVE THE LEVERAGING OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS IN GETTING CANDIDATES.

WE'VE VISITED -- ADAM PEAKE, WHO'S BEEN MY ASSOCIATE CHAIR, THIS YEAR, AND I HAVE VISITED THE CONSTITUENCIES.

AND SOME OF THEM WE'LL BE VISITING, THE REST OF THEM, THIS MEETING, AND TALKING FACE TO FACE SO WE GET A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT WE -- WOULD BE REQUIRED AND DESIRABLE.

WITH REGARD TO RECRUITMENT, IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT.

WE RECRUIT ABOUT TEN TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN PLACE IN POSITIONS.

THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS THAT THE NOMCOM LOSES ITS MEMORY AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

RECORDS ARE DESTROYED.

THERE IS A CARRYOVER OF MEMBERS FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, BUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S PROCESSES ARE NOT REFERRED TO.

WE REALLY NEED TO, I THINK, DEVELOP AN INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT WITHIN THE NOMCOM, RESPECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE APPLICANTS.

WE'VE HAD A BATTLE OVER THE USE OF PROFESSIONAL SEARCH HELP IN THE PAST.

MY SENSE IS THAT STILL SHOULD BE UP FOR REEVALUATION EVERY YEAR.

THE ISSUE OF HOW TO IMPROVE ENTRY POINTS INTO INVOLVEMENT IN ICANN IS AN IMPORTANT ONE.

IF YOU THINK OF ICANN AS HAVING SOMETHING LIKE A CAREER LADDER, IT'S VERY TALL AND NARROW.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET INVOLVED IN ICANN IN A MEANINGFUL WAY WITHOUT REALLY GETTING INVOLVED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.

THERE'S -- THE THRESHOLD IS HIGH.

THAT'S BEEN REMARKED ON BY SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE SPEAKING AT THIS MEETING.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT, BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WAYS OF DOING IT, IF ONLY FOR CANDIDATES -- THE CANDIDATE POOL BECOMING RICHER ENTERING ICANN.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE CLEARLY -- CLEARLY RECOMMEND CONSIDERING ADVERTISING AGAIN, BUT MAYBE IN A DIFFERENT WAY, AND FIGURING OUT A WAY TO INCREASE THE GENERAL AWARENESS OF ICANN AMONG PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT.

WITH REGARD TO EVALUATION, WE PROBABLY SHOULD CONTINUE TO INCREASE OUR SEARCH FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CANDIDATES.

WE NEED -- I BELIEVE SHOULD EXPAND THE USE OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH CANDIDATES, WHERE WE FIND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.

THE MORE WE HAVE, THE BETTER JUDGMENTS I THINK WE CAN MAKE.

AND THIS YEAR'S EXPERIMENT WITH INTERVIEWS ON THE TELEPHONE PAID OFF IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.

AND THEN, FINALLY, AT THE MOMENT, WE EVALUATE ALL CANDIDATES AS A GROUP.

IT'S A FLAT UNIVERSE.

AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT CONSIDERING A TWO-STAGE EVALUATION PROCESS WHERE WE USE LESS DEPTH THAN STAGE ONE AND A GREAT DEAL MORE DEPTH IN STAGE TWO.

FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, THE NOMCOM AT THE MOMENT HAS NO QUORUM REQUIREMENT, IT WAS POINTED OUT BUT NEVER BECAME A PROBLEM, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

THERE IS AN ISSUE OF INACTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, NOT THIS YEAR, BUT LAST YEAR.

AND WE HAVE NO PROCESS FOR CORRECTING THAT QUICKLY ON THE FLY.

THERE'S AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE BUDGET.

THE NOMCOM RUNS FROM JANUARY TO DECEMBER.

THE ICANN FISCAL YEAR RUNS FROM JULY TO JUNE.

WE'VE ALREADY WORKED WITH THE CFO TO GET THE REPORTS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR FOR WHICH THE CHAIR IS RESPONSIBLE.

THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BULLET, THE DISPROPORTIONATE POWER WHEN SITTING CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS SERVE ON THE NOMCOM.

THEY REALLY HAVE MORE ABILITY THAN THE AVERAGE NOMCOM MEMBER OR THE AVERAGE ICANN MEMBER TO INFLUENCE WHO GOES ON THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES.

THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE THIS YEAR, BUT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST IT, AND THERE'S BEEN ESSENTIALLY VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THERE IS ANY KIND OF A BYLAW REVISION, THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

THERE'S AN ISSUE OF A TRAVEL POLICY, WHICH I THINK THE ICANN STAFF IS CONVERGING ON NOW, BUT THE ABSENCE OF A FORMAL STATED TRAVEL POLICY HAS GIVEN US PROBLEMS WITH REGARD TO EQUITY OF TREATMENT OF VOLUNTEERS.

AND, FINALLY, IN BOLD, LAST LINE, WE REALLY -- WE REQUEST THAT THE BOARD INITIATE THE NOMCOM REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH IS MANDATED BY THE BYLAWS, AND GIVEN THE -- WE WILL HAVE -- WE NOW HAVE FOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRENT NOMCOM STRUCTURE AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A FIFTH BEFORE THINGS ARE CHANGED, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS START.

SO THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GEORGE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION THAT GEORGE HAS SERVED IN THIS ROLE FOR TWO YEARS RUNNING, AND WE'VE ASKED HIM AND HE HAS AGREED TO SERVE ONE MORE YEAR AS CHAIR OF THE NOMCOM.

IT'S A THANKLESS TASK, BUT I'D LIKE TO THANK HIM FOR THAT AND FOR THE WORK OF HIS COLLEAGUES IN THE COMMITTEE.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

AND I'M PLEASED TO TELL YOU THAT TOMORROW, ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA, IS A LIST OF -- SCHEDULE OF REVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS PARTS OF ICANN.

ONE OF THOSE WILL BE THE NOMCOM.

IT'S AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

SO WE HAVE HEARD THE NOMCOM'S COMMITTEE AND, OF COURSE, THE BYLAWS REQUIRE THAT WE DO IT IN ANY CASE.

SO LET ME NOW -- UNLESS THERE ARE -- I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT.

DAVID, LET ME ASK YOU TO PRESENT THE REPORT OF IANA.

>>DAVID CONRAD: HELLO, EVERYONE.

I'M DAVID CONRAD, GENERAL MANAGER OF IANA, HERE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF IANA.

OVERVIEW, GIVING A BRIEF UPDATE OF THE CURRENT STATUS, DESCRIBE A BIT OF WHAT'S IMPROVED, WHAT I BELIEVE STILL NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, AND WHAT OUR PLANS ARE.

THE CURRENT STATUS.

IANA SIGNED -- OR A NEW CONTRACT WAS SIGNED FOR IANA FUNCTIONS ON 14 AUGUST OF 2006.

THIS CONTRACT IS A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH FOUR OPTIONAL EXTENSIONS.

RUNS FROM OCTOBER 1ST, 2006, UP TO SEPTEMBER 2011, DEPENDING IF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BELIEVES WE SHOULD GET THE OPTIONS.

IN TERMS OF ROOT ZONE MANAGEMENT, I WAS RECENTLY AT THE CENTR GA MEETING IN TORONTO AND OVERHEARD A COMMENT, "IANA ISN'T THE PROBLEM ANYMORE."

AND I DIDN'T ACTUALLY PAY ANYONE TO SAY THAT.

WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR A PERSON TO FILL THE ROLE OF NAME MANAGEMENT PROJECT SPECIALIST.

AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW ANYBODY WHO HAPPENS TO WANT TO LIVE IN LOVELY DOWNTOWN MARINA DEL REY, PLEASE HAVE THEM CONTACT ME.

IN TERMS OF I.P. ADDRESSING SERVICES, THE GLOBAL IPV6 POLICY WAS EXECUTED.

WE HAVE ALLOCATED /12S TO ALL THE RIRS.

WE'VE ALSO ALLOCATED 32-BIT AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM NUMBERS, THAT'S TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF RUNNING OUT OF THE 16-BIT AUTONOMOUS NUMBERS.

ICANN AND THE RIRS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON AN AGREEMENT THAT DEFINES THE SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS FOR THE IANA, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

AND WE ALSO HIRED LEO VEGODA AS THE IANA NUMBERS LIAISON.

LEO, COULD YOU STAND UP AND WAVE.

THAT'S LEO.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT NUMBERING, ADDRESSING, ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES, FEEL FREE TO HUNT HIM DOWN AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS.

IN TERMS OF IETF REGISTRY SERVICES, WE PROMOTED MICHELLE COTTON TO BE THE IETF LIAISON.

HER JOB IS TO ENSURE THAT THE IETF IS HAPPIER THAN THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.

AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY JUST SIGNED A SERVICE-LEVEL AGREEMENT WITH THE IETF THAT DEFINES THE TIMES AND SERVICES THAT IANA NEEDS TO PERFORM FOR THE IETF COMMUNITY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY MY THIRD ICANN MEETING SINCE BEING AN ICANN EMPLOYEE.

I ACTUALLY STARTED ALMOST EXACTLY A YEAR AGO.

AND JUST A LITTLE RETROSPECTIVE OF THE WAY THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN IANA OVER THAT YEAR.

IN TERMS OF STAFF, WE'VE GONE FROM FIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES TO TEN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.

THE MEDIAN PROCESS TIME AVERAGE ACROSS ALL OF THE QUEUES HAS GONE FROM 82, 83 DAYS DOWN TO EIGHT DAYS.

THE MEDIAN QUEUE DEPTH ACROSS ALL QUEUES, ALL IANA WORK QUEUES, HAS GONE FROM 21 REQUESTS DOWN TO FOUR REQUESTS.

WE'VE SET UP A 24 BY 7 BY 365 HOT LINE SO PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE AN EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT FOR IANA SERVICE CAN CALL.

AND THERE WILL BE SOMEONE TO ANSWER THAT CALL.

AND, IN GENERAL, THE SCREAMS OF OUTRAGE THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST HAVE GONE FROM QUITE A FEW DOWN TO FEWER, AT LEAST IN MY ESTIMATION.

WHAT'S IMPROVED.

MOSTLY, ALL THE SERVICES HAVE GOTTEN BETTER.

WE HAVE HAD SOME BACKSLIDING IN A COUPLE OF AREAS.

BUT, IN GENERAL, ALMOST ALL SERVICES THAT IANA PROVIDES TO THE COMMUNITY HAVE IMPROVED.

AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE SUFFICIENT OPERATIONAL STAFFING.

WE CAN GET BY WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

WE ARE LOOKING TO FILL A COUPLE OF MORE SLOTS.

AS PART OF THE GENERAL THEME WITHIN ICANN, IANA HAS UNDERTAKEN THE FORMALIZATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE 48 PROJECTS IN VARIOUS STAGES OF THAT PLANNING.

SOME HAVE BEEN INITIATED; SOME ARE IN JUST THE STARTUP PHASE.

AND WE'VE ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED ALL OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES TO ONE LEVEL OR ANOTHER, AND WE HAVE COOKBOOKS FOR BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT IANA DOES.

THESE TWO GRAPHS PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE IMPROVEMENT SINCE DECEMBER 2005 OR WHEN WE HAVE DATA AVAILABLE.

WE INITIATED COLLECTING THE DATA WHEN WE MOVED ALL OUR QUEUES OVER TO OUR TICKETING SYSTEM.

IN GENERAL, YOU'LL SEE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE BOARD.

THE ONE OUTLIER IS PROCESSING OF INTERNET DRAFTS.

THE QUEUE DEPTH FOR INTERNET DRAFTS HAS GONE UP SIGNIFICANTLY.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE DRAFTS ARE ACTUALLY WAITING ON EXTERNAL ENTITIES, THE AUTHOR OR THE IESG OR SOME OTHER PARTY OUTSIDE OF IANA.

BUT THAT IS AN AREA OF CONCERN FOR US.

AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE, WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATISTICS.

AND THE -- IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL BE PROVIDING BASICALLY STATISTICS OF THIS FORM, WHERE THERE'S A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE STATS ARE, A GRAPH OVER TIME OF THE -- THE QUEUE DEPTH, THE PROCESSING TIME WITHIN IANA, BROKEN INTO 0 TO 7 DAYS, 7 TO 30 DAYS, AND OVER 30 DAYS, AND THEN A TABLE SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE TIME PERIODS.

THIS IS BASICALLY AN EXPERIMENT TO SEE IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THIS FORM OF DATA.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US.

WHAT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.

THERE IS THE AREAS THAT IANA STILL NEEDS WORK ON INCLUDES VISIBILITY INTO IANA PROCESSES.

WE NEED TO PUBLISH THE STATISTICS AUTOMATICALLY.

RIGHT NOW IT'S A MANUAL PROCESS AND SOMETIMES WE FALL BEHIND BECAUSE OF OTHER PRIORITIES.

WE NEED TO MAKE THE PROCESS DOCUMENTATION THAT WE HAVE, WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE IT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

IANA PROCESSES RIGHT NOW ARE STILL TOO MANUAL, IN MY ESTIMATION. WE NEED TO SIMPLIFY THEM AND NORMALIZE THEM IN THE ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY AUTOMATE THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

WE HAVE SOME PROJECTS UNDERWAY TO AUTOMATE SOME OF IANA'S ACTIVITIES; HOWEVER, THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY TAKING SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER THAN WE ANTICIPATED.

THE OTHER AREA THAT WE REALLY WANT TO WORK ON IS CLEANING UP THE REGISTRY DATA. IANA HAS ABOUT 800 -- 700 DIFFERENT REGISTRIES THAT HAVE DATA OF VARIOUS FORMS, INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION. MUCH OF THAT CONTACT INFORMATION IS STALE, AND WE WANT TO CLEAN THAT UP.

SOME OF THE NEAR-TERM ISSUES THAT WE ARE FACING, THE IETF SLAS ACTUALLY IMPLY A GREATER NEED FOR AUTOMATION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE TO ADDRESS THAT IS TO ACTUALLY BEGIN XML-IZING ALL OF OUR DATA, MAKING IT MUCH MORE COMPUTER READABLE.

AS I MENTIONED, THE REGISTRIES NEED TO BE CLEANED AND CONTACTS VALIDATED. WE HAVE INITIATED A PROJECT, BASICALLY I TAGGED LEO WITH THE JOB OF CLEANING UP THE IPV4 REGISTRY.

ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CONTRACT THAT WE SIGNED IS THAT WE NEED STRONGER AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR IANA SERVICES, AND THAT IS UNDERWAY WITH THE AUTOMATED ROOT MANAGEMENT PROJECT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. WE INTEND ON HAVING A STRONG FORM OF AUTHENTICATION AVAILABLE AS AN OPTION.

WE HAVE BEEN TASKED WITH IMPLEMENTING A COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER SECURITY PLAN, THAT'S AIMED AT IMPROVING THE -- ALL ASPECTS OF SECURITY WITHIN IANA.

WE ARE REQUESTED BY THE IAB TO SIGN DOT ARPA BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. WE HAVE TO DEPLOY THE ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE NEW AND IMPROVED IANA WEB SITE. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE EIANA SOFTWARE.

SO IN SUM, THERE IS A LOT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT THAT NEEDS DONE.

MIDTERM ISSUES. AGAIN, AUTOMATION. WE ARE PLANNING ON DEPLOYING THE ROOT ZONE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SOMETIME NEXT YEAR. AND WE'RE PLANNING ON AUTOMATING THE IETF-RELATED REGISTRY CREATION AND MODIFICATION PROCESSES.

ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IN PART DUE TO THE COMPUTER SECURITY PLAN, BUT ALSO JUST IN TERMS OF ENSURING PROCESSES ARE DONE WELL, IS TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE SINGLE POINTS OF FAILURE THAT EXIST, EITHER WITHIN PERSONNEL OR WITHIN INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN IANA.

INCREASING THE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT IANA, HAVING REALTIME STATISTIC, TICKET STATUS, INTERACTION HISTORY, THAT SORT OF THING. AND ALSO MAKING THE XML AVAILABLE FOR -- FOR THE REGISTRIES AVAILABLE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WRITE PROGRAMS TO ACTUALLY DERIVE INFORMATION FROM THE IANA REGISTRIES WITHOUT HAVING TO APPLY ARTIFICIAL OR REAL INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REGISTRIES SAY.

AND SORT OF ONE OF THE ONGOING THEMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING IS DEALING WITH THE TRANSITION FROM THE CURRENT MODEL, WHICH HAS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ROOT ZONE, MOVING AWAY FROM THAT SO THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS FOR DAY-TO-DAY TYPE CHANGES.

LOOKING FORWARD, SOME OF THE AREAS THAT IANA IS SORT OF -- THE THINGS THAT KEEP US UP AT NIGHT. ROOT DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT. WE ARE WORKING WITH VARIOUS FOLKS, INCLUDING THE SSAC AND THE ROOT SERVER SECURITY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO WORK ON THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES.

THE EXHAUSTION OF THE IPV4 ADDRESS POOL IS AN AREA THAT LEO IS GOING TO BE TASKED WITH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, IF ANYTHING.

ROUTING SYSTEM SECURITY AND STABILITY. SHOULD IANA BECOME INVOLVED WITH THE EFFORTS UNDERWAY CURRENTLY WITHIN THE RIRS REGARDING X.509 ADDRESS SPACE CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES, AND WHAT CAN IANA DO TO HELP CONSTRAIN SOME OF THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH THAT'S OCCURRING WITHIN THE ROUTING SYSTEM TODAY.

BASICALLY IANA WILL BE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ROLE WE HAVE, IF ANY, IN THESE AREAS.

SO CONCLUSIONS. ESSENTIALLY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE CRISIS PERIOD FOR IANA IS OVER NOW. THERE IS STILL WORK TO BE DONE BUT WE NOW HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO INCREMENTALLY IMPROVE THINGS OVER TIME.

MANY OF THE IANA PROCESSES ARE GOING TO BE AUTOMATED, AND THE GOAL OF THAT IS TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE IANA SERVICES. AND ONE OF THE KEY AREAS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON IS IMPROVING THE VISIBILITY OF IANA PROCESSES TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

SO WITH THAT, I HAND IT BACK TO YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT SOFTWARE ALWAYS HAS THE HABIT OF TAKING LONGER -- THE STANDARD MEASURE IS THAT THE FIRST 90% OF THE SOFTWARE TAKES 90% OF THE TIME. THE LAST 10% OF THE SOFTWARE TAKES THE OTHER 90% OF THE TIME TO COMPLETE.

>>DAVID CONRAD: SO TRUE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID.

YES, PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST A QUICK COMMENT. DAVID YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAD HEARD AT CENTR THAT IANA WAS NO LONGER THE PROBLEM.

>>DAVID CONRAD: YES.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: LET ME ADD TO THAT. AT THE CCNSO MEETING YESTERDAY I THINK IT WAS CONFIRMED IN WRITING BY THE CCTLDS, AT LEAST, THAT IANA IS NO LONGER THE PROBLEM.

>>DAVID CONRAD: THAT'S VERY GOOD TO HEAR.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SO CONGRATULATIONS ON MOVING THAT PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT GROUP THAT I KNOW VERY WELL FORWARD ON THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PETER. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON FRANK FOWLIE NOW WHO IS THE OMBUDSMAN -- DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, STEVE? THIS WASN'T NEARLY OPEN MICROPHONE, BUT GO AHEAD.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: I AM TERRIBLY SORRY AND THIS IS OUT OF ORDER, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE I WANTED TO ADDRESS GEORGE AND THE NOMCOM, AND I KNOW THIS COULD SOUND TERRIBLY SELF-SERVING, BUT THE NOMCOM WAS ACTUALLY MY FIRST RE-INTRODUCTION TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH ICANN. AND I MUST SAY THAT I WAS THOROUGHLY, THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY THEY DID THEIR BUSINESS. IT MADE ME FEEL EXCEEDINGLY GOOD ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION.

SO TO GEORGE AND TO THE NOMCOM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SURE WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT, STEVE.

THE INTERESTING OBSERVATION IS THAT YOU WERE SELECTED, WHICH PROBABLY BIASES YOUR VIEW A LITTLE BIT

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>VINT CERF: FRANK FOWLIE IS THE OMBUDSMAN FOR ICANN AND I CALL ON HIM TO GIVE HIS ANNUAL REPORT.

>>FRANK FOWLIE: GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. AS REQUESTED, I HAVE POSTED MY REPORT TO THIS PUBLIC FORUM ON THE WEB. IT'S BEEN UP FOR ABOUT TEN DAYS.

I HAVE ALSO POSTED THE DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT THIS REPORT. SO I WILL ABRIDGE MY COMMENTS FROM THE SCRIPT THAT I HAVE.

MY FIRST DUTY THIS MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL DEPOSIT WITH THE CORPORATE SECRETARY A COPY OF THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF MY OFFICE AS IS REQUIRED BY BYLAW 5. THIS REPORT IS UP AND AVAILABLE ON THE OMBUDSMAN WEB SITE, AND WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE SIX NORMALLY USED LANGUAGES IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

I WON'T REITERATE THE STATISTICS WHICH ARE FOUND IN THE ANNUAL REPORT, BECAUSE THE ANNUAL REPORT PROVIDES BETTER EVIDENCE OF THEM THAN I COULD TO IN TWOER THREE MINUTES OF TIME.

THERE HAS BEEN A RELATIVELY STABLE INTAKE OF COMPLAINTS THUS FAR THIS YEAR. WE ARE LOOKING AT AROUND 300, 325 BY YEAR'S END.

SO IT IS A RELATIVELY BUSY OFFICE.

I HAVE IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS SINCE WE MET IN MARRAKECH, COMPLETED THREE EVALUATION STUDIES FOR MY OFFICE. THESE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

I HAVE COMPLETED A LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON BETWEEN MY OFFICE AND THREE OTHER OMBUDSMAN'S OFFICES. I HAVE COMPLETED WHAT I BELIEVE IS A RELATIVELY CUTTING-EDGE LITERATURE-BASED REVIEW. AND IF I COULD, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING A COMMENT FROM THE EXTERNAL REVIEWER WHO DID THE FACT CHECKING AND INTEGRITY CHECKING ON THAT LITERATURE-BASED REVIEW THAT THE ICANN OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN HAS DEVELOPED AND INITIATED THE SINGLE MOST COMPLETE, DELIBERATE, AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT DEPLOYED IN THE OMBUDSMAN FIELD TO DATE.

THIS PROCESS ALLOWS THE OFFICE TO ACCURATELY DECLARE IT IS STRUCTURED TO AND APPEARS TO FUNCTION AS AN IDEAL EXECUTIVE OMBUDSMAN ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN REGULATED COMMUNITY.

THE THIRD EVALUATION THAT I HAVE COMPLETED IS A CLIENT SURVEY OF ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EACH CONTACTED OR MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICE SINCE ITS INCEPTION. AND IT, AS WELL, CAN BE FOUND ON THE OMBUDSMAN PAGE.

SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MET IN MARRAKECH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TAKEN THE UNUSUAL STEP OF POSTING ONE OF MY REPORTS ON THE ICANN WEB SITE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO GAIN SOME INSIGHT INTO THE PROCESSES OF MY OFFICE, AND I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THAT POSTING HAS BEEN WELL RECEIVED, BOTH BY THE COMMUNITY AND WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALL OF THESE PROCESSES HAS SHOWN ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THAT I THINK THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY, THE BOARD AND THE STAFF, GOT IT RIGHT WHEN THEY ESTABLISHED THE MODEL FOR THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

THE PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE MEAN THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SERVED BY A COST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM AS OPPOSED TO SEEKING OUT MORE TIME CONSUMING, COSTLY, AND FORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS.

AND I THINK, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IS A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT MY REPORT IS. AND AGAIN, IT CAN BE FOUND ON THE MEETING WEB SITE AS WELL AS THE OMBUDSMAN WEB SITE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANK, FOR YOUR BREVITY AND SUCCINCTNESS. I THINK AS WE GO ON WITH THESE PRACTICES OF POSTING THINGS AHEAD OF TIME, THE REST OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY WILL APPRECIATE, AS THEY APPRECIATE YOUR ROLE AS THE OMBUDSMAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANK.

>>FRANK FOWLIE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: I'D LIKE TO CALL ON DENISE MICHEL NOW TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE GNSO IMPROVEMENT PROCESS AND THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW SCHEDULE. THE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW, IS KICKED OFF WITH AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE GNSO OPERATION, AND SO WE ARE BEGINNING NOW A SERIES OF THESE EVALUATIONS, AND DENISE'S REPORT WILL GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO THE LIKELY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

>>DENISE MICHEL: THANK YOU. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. NEW LAPTOP.

I'LL BE COVERING BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AS WELL AS GIVING YOU A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE GNSO IMPROVEMENT PROCESS.

THE ICANN BYLAWS CALL FOR A PERIODIC INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ICANN'S SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION COUNCILS, ADVISORY COMMITTEES, EXCEPT FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

THESE REVIEWS ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF ICANN'S STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS, AND THEY ARE PART OF ICANN'S ONGOING COMMITMENT TO ITS EVOLUTION AND IMPROVEMENT.

THE REVIEWS ARE CONDUCTED IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY BY INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS. THEY ARE DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE BOARD. AND ALSO WITH PUBLIC INPUT THROUGH POSTING FOR COMMENT OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EACH REVIEW, AS WELL AS A POSTING OF THE FINAL REVIEW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE FIRST REVIEWS UNDER THESE BECAUSE WERE CONDUCTED FIRST IN DECEMBER OF 2004, THE REVIEW OF THE GNSO COUNCIL WAS FINALIZED.

AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, THE REVIEW OF THE WHOLE GNSO WAS FILED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE ELEMENTS OF THE GNSO REVIEW WHICH WILL SERVE AS A BASIC TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE REVIEWS INCLUDED ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, AGAIN WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS, ISSUING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR SOLICITING INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW, SELECTING THE CONSULTANT, MANAGING AND PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR THE CONSULTANT'S WORK, AND THEN ARRANGING FOR INFORMATION SHARING AND BRIEFINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE FINAL REPORT.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IN CONSIDERING A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE FOR ALL OF THE REMAINING INDEPENDENT REVIEWS CONSIDERED FOR EACH OF THE ICANN ENTITIES TO BE REVIEWED THE AGE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND ACTIVITIES, AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE COST AND THE OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS FOR BOTH MANAGING AND IMPLEMENTING THESE REVIEWS.

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR EACH REVIEW TO ENSURE THAT THE RESOURCES FOR THE REVIEW MATCHES THE NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS AND OTHER REVIEW ACTIVITIES.

THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE FOR ALL REVIEWS, AND THIS SCHEDULE WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE NEXT YEAR TO ASSESS THE PROGRESS AND MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY FEEL ARE NECESSARY TO THE SCHEDULE.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ALSO AGREED TO ADD A REVIEW OF THE BOARD TO THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEDULE. THIS IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, BUT THE BOARD FELT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE.

SO THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW SCHEDULE IS NOW ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA FOR THEIR AGREEMENT.

THE SCHEDULE THAT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE APPROVED IS THIS. THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WOULD BE NEXT, WITH AN ESTIMATED LAUNCH THIS MONTH, IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

NEXT WOULD BE THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH AN ESTIMATED LAUNCH IN FEBRUARY OF 2007, FOLLOWED BY THE BOARD WITH AN ESTIMATED LAUNCH OF OCTOBER 2007. NEXT WOULD BE THE DNS ROOT SERVER SYSTEM'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH AN ESTIMATED START OF JULY 2007.

THEN THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR JANUARY 2008 START, AND THEN THE CCNSO IN JULY OF 2008, AND FINALLY THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION IN DECEMBER OF 2008.

MOVING ON NOW TO THE GNSO REVIEW, THIS REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BY THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS. THEIR REVIEW WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.

THE REVIEW ADDRESSED THE REPRESENTATIVENESS, EFFECTIVENESS, TRANSPARENCY, AND COMPLIANCE.

IT WAS GUIDED BY TERMS OF REFERENCE THAT WERE POSTED EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, FINALIZED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

THE LSE USED OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS, STATISTICS, QUANTIFYING FOCUS AREAS, MAPPING RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS THEY RECEIVED FROM INTERVIEWS AND CAPTURING AND MAPPING PERCEPTIONS.

THEIR FINAL REVIEW AND EXPLANATORY SLIDES ARE ALL POSTED ON THE WEB SITE AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM REMAINS OPEN ON THIS REVIEW.

THE LSE REVIEW CONTAINED 24 RECOMMENDATIONS IN FOUR BROAD AREAS. THESE AREAS INCLUDED CHANGES NEED TO ENHANCE THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS CONSTITUENCIES. GNSO OPERATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MORE VISIBLE, TRANSPARENT TO A WIDER RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS. THIRD, THE GNSO STRUCTURES NEED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE, ADAPTABLE, ABLE TO RESPOND MORE DIRECTLY TO CHANGING STAKEHOLDER NEEDS IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.

AND THE FOURTH CATEGORY IS CHANGES IN COUNCIL'S OPERATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO ENHANCE ITS ABILITY TO GENUINELY REACH CONSENSUS ON ITS POLICY DEVELOPMENT POSITIONS.

SO THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING THE GNSO IMPROVEMENT PROCESS FOR THE BOARD'S AGREEMENT.

SO THE GNSO IMPROVEMENT PROCESS IS NOT ONLY A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LSE REPORT BUT ALSO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED IN THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE GNSO COUNCIL, AS WELL AS INPUT FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BROADER ICANN COMMUNITY.

THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING APPROACHES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GNSO'S POLICY ACTIVITIES, STRUCTURE, OPERATIONS, AND COMMUNICATIONS. IT'S IN DIALOGUE WITH THE GNSO COUNCIL, CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS, AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY, AND WILL CONTINUE ITS DELIBERATIONS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE BEST APPROACH TO IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GNSO.

I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DENISE. WE WILL COME TO Q&A IN A FEW MOMENTS AFTER WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE REPORTS.

I'D LIKE TO ASK TINA DAM NOW TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE IDN PROCESS, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES. LOTS HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THIS AREA FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MEETINGS, AND ALSO IN BETWEEN WITH SOME TESTING TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF PLACING TOP-LEVEL INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAINS IN THE ROOT ZONE FILE.

TINA.

>>TINA DAM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT GOING ON THIS WEEK, AND ALSO SINCE THE LAST MEETING WHEN IT COMES TO IDNS. I'M GOING TO DO THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN I USUALLY DO, SO WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.

FIRST OF ALL, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW DOMAIN NAMES ARE NOT GENERALLY LANGUAGE EXPRESSIONS. AND WHAT THAT BASICALLY MEANS IS THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE EVERY WORD AND EVERY LANGUAGE IN A DOMAIN NAME. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. DOMAIN NAMES WERE NOT -- AND THE DNS WAS NOT DEVELOPED FOR THAT, AND IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE.

YET WE DO HAVE TO TRY TO GET AS MANY CHARACTERS USABLE IN DOMAIN NAMES AS POSSIBLE.

WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW IDNS CHANGES THE WAY THAT DOMAIN NAMES HAVE BEEN VIEWED HISTORICALLY. THERE IS THE DISPLAYED NAME, AND THEN THERE IS THE STORED NAME. AND THE DISPLAYED NAME IS THE UNICODE VERSION YOU SEE UP THERE, AND THE STORED NAME IS THE XN DASH DASH VERSION OF THAT.

THE REASON FOR IT IS THAT THE DNS CAN ONLY HANDLE ASCII CHARACTERS, AND SO YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE THOSE UNICODE CHARACTERS AND TURN THEM INTO SOMETHING THAT'S ASCII ONLY.

WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW THE PROTOCOL IS REALLY WORKING AND THE FACT THAT IT IS WORKING AT THE APPLICATION LEVEL.

THAT MEANS THAT IT SITS ON THE CLIENT AND IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT INTO ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING WEB BROWSERS AND SO FORTH.

THE PROTOCOL IS WHAT USING THIS PUNYCODE, THE XN DASH DASH VERSION OF THE NAME.

THAT HAS SOME CONSEQUENCES AROUND INCREASED USER CONFUSION, WHEN THE XN DASH DASH VERSION IS DISPLAYED TO THE END USER.

SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T MEAN -- THE XN DASH DASH VERSION DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEANING, AND THAT'S LIKE YOU SEE THE EXAMPLE UP THERE. OTHER TIMES, IT WILL HAVE THE UNFORTUNATE EFFECT OF DISPLAYING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A TRADEMARK OR HAS SOME OTHER MEANING THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO WHAT WAS REALLY REGISTERED IN THE UNICODE VERSION OF THAT NAME.

WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE FACT THAT IDNS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS INTERNATIONALIZING THE INTERNET. THERE IS MANY OTHER THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT SURELY WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IDNS ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE RIGHT -- AND DEVELOPED IN THE RIGHT WAY.

BUT IT'S A SMALL PART OF THE MAIN GOAL, AND THE MAIN GOAL BEING THAT THE INTERNET IS EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE FROM ALL LANGUAGES AND ALL SCRIPTS, SO THAT IT WILL MEET THE GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION OF THE USE OF THE INTERNET.

THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL TESTS UNDERWAY TO HELP OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY WORKING THE RIGHT WAY.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DNS CAN HANDLE THESE IDNS, AND THERE IS SOME TEST DESIGN AND SOME MORE MATERIAL THAT WAS POSTED THIS WEEK FOR COMMENT.

THERE ARE SOME IDNA PROTOCOL REVISIONS UNDERWAY, AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE FIRST VERSION OF THE PROTOCOL WAS BASED ON UNICODE 3.2, AND OF COURSE IT'S NOT VERY GOOD TO HAVE A PROTOCOL THAT IS DEPENDENT ON BEING UPGRADED EVERY TIME THERE IS A NEW VERSION OF UNICODE.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT JUST WORKS, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT CHARACTERS ARE ADDED TO UNICODE. AND WE NEED A PROCESS FOR THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S LOOKING AT SOLVING SOME ISSUES RELATED TO WHAT CHARACTERS ARE BEING USED AND SOME OF THE FUNCTIONALITY IN BIDIRECTIONAL SCRIPTS.

THE IDN GUIDELINES CONTINUE TO BE REVISED. THAT SOLVES SOME OF THE USER CONFUSION THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

IT DOESN'T SOLVE ALL OF IT.

THE REST WILL BE DONE AT REGISTRY LEVEL, AND SOME REGISTRIES OBVIOUSLY ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IMPLEMENTED THAT HELP WITH THIS.

AND THEN WE DO HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT AT SOME LEVEL OF CONFUSION WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THERE. JUST LIKE BEFORE, BEFORE WE HAD IDNS, THE DIGIT 1 AND THE LETTER "L" ARE CONFUSABLE, SIMILAR, AND THERE WILL BE THINGS LIKE THAT WITH IDNS AS WELL.

THEN THERE IS A LOT OF IDN POLICY WORK UNDERWAY, AND IT'S GOING ON SEPARATELY WITHIN THE CCNSO, THE GNSO, AND THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND THERE IS A WIDE VARIETY OF JOINT WORK BEING FORMED ACROSS THE DIFFERENT IDN WORKING GROUPS WITHIN THESE THREE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMITTEES.

ALL OF THIS WORK IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO CONTINUE FORWARD IN PARALLEL.

THE TECHNICAL SIDE AND THE POLICY SIDE.

THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF OVERLAPPING THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO MANAGE, BUT THE GROUPS ARE WORKING, I THINK, FAIRLY WELL TOGETHER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CONTINUES HAPPENING.

AND THAT IS MY PRESENTATION FOR TODAY. I HAVE PUT IN A COUPLE OF LINKS, AND THE SLIDES, OBVIOUSLY, AS USUAL, WILL BE POSTED ONLINE SO THAT THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED CAN GET AN EASY GRASP OF SOME OF THE READING MATERIAL THAT RELATES TO ALL OF THIS WORK THAT'S GOING ON.

THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA. I CAN SAY FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SINCE I AM ON THE MAILING LIST FOR THE IDN TECHNICAL WORK AT THE IETF THAT THIS IS REALLY COMPLEX STUFF.

SO GETTING IT RIGHT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA, FOR YOUR ROLE IN MAKING THAT HAPPEN.

I'D LIKE IT CALL NOW ON STEVE CROCKER TO GIVE THE REPORT OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: LET'S SEE.

IS THIS GOING TO WORK?

NOPE.

ONE SECOND HERE.

THANK YOU.

THAT IS LOUD ENOUGH.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS THE REPORT OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ONE OR TWO OTHER THINGS THAT ARE CLOSELY RELATED HERE.

THIS WEEK, WE HAD A PUBLIC PRESENTATION OF WORK THAT OUR COMMITTEE HAS BEEN DOING.

WE ALSO HAVE A DNSSEC WORKSHOP, WHICH IS NESTLED WITHIN THE -- A NEW PHENOMENON THIS SESSION, THIS ICANN MEETING.

THE CCTLD COMMUNITY HAS ORGANIZED A DAY-LONG TECHNICAL WORKSHOP ON DNS THAT IS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH OUR ACTIVITIES HERE TODAY.

AND OUR USUAL DNSSEC WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING IN PAST MEETINGS IS NOW SCHEDULED -- NESTLED WITHIN THAT WORKSHOP.

AND ON THAT ACCOUNT, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO EXIT FROM HERE AFTER THE BREAK.

SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT I'LL BE AROUND FOR THE QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY.

AND ALSO, IN THE PAST FEW MEETINGS, WE HAVE COORDINATED PRESENTATIONS WITH THE NEW RSTEP PROCESS.

AND LYMAN CHAPIN PRESENTED THE RESULTS OF HIS RECENT ACTIVITIES.

AND I'LL BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THAT HERE.

SO THOSE ARE THE SORT OF THREE MAIN THREADS.

JUST A QUICK REVIEW.

I ALWAYS ENJOY PUTTING UP THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS A VOLUNTEER OPERATION OF EXPERTS WHO ARE FULLY OCCUPIED AND OVERLOADED, IN FACT, IN THEIR USUAL DAY JOBS.

THEY BRING EXPERTISE ACROSS THE FULL RANGE OF ICANN-RELATED EXPERIENCES, REGISTRY, REGISTRARS, ADDRESS REGISTRIES, SECURITY, ROOT SERVER OPERATIONS, AND SO FORTH.

SOME HAVE MULTIPLE CAPABILITIES.

SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALSO ARE MEMBERS OF SEVERAL OTHER CONSTITUENCIES.

WE HAVE SEVERAL ROOT SERVER PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO THIS IS THE -- THE LIST OF PEOPLE.

IT'S BEEN A REAL PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH THEM OVER THE YEARS.

WE REFRESH THIS COMMITTEE ON AN OCCASIONAL BASIS.

WE'RE -- HOW SHOULD I PUT IT? -- UNENCUMBERED WITH A FORMAL SET OF BYLAWS.

THIS HAS NOT FELT LIKE MUCH OF A PROBLEM.

I SUPPOSE WHEN THE REVIEW COMES UP IN ABOUT A YEAR, THAT WILL GET LOOKED AT.

BUT WE MANAGED TO GO ALONG PRETTY WELL TRYING TO STAY FOCUSED ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.

HERE'S A -- ANOTHER SET OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPORTING AND COORDINATING WITH US.

SOME ARE GUESTS.

DAVID CONRAD, THE IANA GENERAL MANAGER, SITS IN ON SOME MEETINGS.

DAVE PISCITELLO, ICANN FELLOW, HAS BEEN ON BOARD FOR A BIT MORE THAN A YEAR, I THINK.

I'VE LOST TRACK.

HAS MADE AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BY PROVIDING CONTINUITY AND CAPABILITY OF WRITING REPORTS AND GETTING THEM OUT AFTER WE'VE HAD DELIBERATIONS.

AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS.

OUR ROLE IS TO PROVIDE SECURITY AND STABILITY EXPERTISE.

WE PROVIDE, AS WE'RE CHARTERED, ADVICE TO THE BOARD, BUT ALSO ADVICE TO THE STAFF, TO THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

WE OPERATE WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF AUTONOMY.

WE'RE VIEWED IN SOME QUARTERS AS AN ORGAN OF ICANN.

BUT FROM OUR OWN POINT OF VIEW, WE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON VIRTUALLY ANYTHING, SORT OF NO MATTER WHERE THE CHIPS FALL.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE WAY WE'RE ORGANIZED IS THAT WE HAVE NO PARTICULAR AUTHORITY EXCEPT THE CREDIBILITY THAT WE BRING TO THE PROCESS.

WE GIVE ADVICE.

IT'S UP TO OTHERS TO ACCEPT OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT ADVICE OR TO INTERPRET IT FOR THEIR PURPOSE.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE WAY THAT WE'RE STRUCTURED.

USUALLY, OUR REPORTS ARE RELATED TO PARTICULAR INCIDENTS OR ISSUES, AND THEN STRUCTURED WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE ALSO TRY, AS BEST WE CAN, WHEN WE WRITE THESE REPORTS TO USE IT AS A BIT OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PARTICULAR TOPIC AND EXPAND THE UNDERSTANDING.

WE TAKE SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE -- IN A BROAD SENSE TO INCLUDE PROTECTION OF REGISTRANTS AND USERS AND END SYSTEMS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S APPLICABLE, WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR AFIELD, BUT NOT JUST TO THE NARROW TECHNICAL OPERATION OF THE MACHINES THEMSELVES, SO TO SPEAK.

I MENTIONED RSTEP.

THIS IS THE REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL.

THIS WAS SET UP TO PROVIDE AN ORGANIZED AND RELATIVELY QUICK RESPONSE TO CHANGES, REQUESTS BY REGISTRIES TO ADD OR CHANGE THEIR SERVICES WHERE STAFF DETERMINES THAT THERE IS A POSSIBLE SECURITY OR STABILITY CONSIDERATION.

THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT OPERATION FROM SSAC, BUT BECAUSE THE TOPIC AREAS OVERLAP, WE MAINTAIN FAIRLY CLOSE CONTACT.

AND, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE ADOPTED AS AN INFORMAL PRACTICE THAT -- TO ALLOCATE SOME TIME WITHIN OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS SO THAT LYMAN CAN PRESENT HIS RESULTS.

AND THIS IS, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WORKING OUT QUITE SMOOTHLY.

THE WORK THAT WE PRESENTED THIS WEEK IS ON TWO PARTICULAR MATTERS, A STUDY ON WHOIS PRIVACY, AND A STUDY OF ROOT SERVER I.P. ADDRESSES.

I'LL EXPLAIN ABOUT THESE IN A MINUTE.

ON THE WHOIS PRIVACY, DAVE PISCITELLO DID A VERY NICE PIECE OF WORK TRACKING DOWN -- GETTING SOME DATABASES OF -- TRYING TO SIMULATE WHAT TARGETED PRIVACY VIOLATIONS MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND HOW EFFECTIVE THEY WOULD BE AND HOW THEY COMPARE TO OTHER MODES OF FINDING OUT INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE.

PART OF THE DIALOGUE IN THE WHOIS DEBATES ABOUT HOW MUCH ACCESS THERE SHOULD BE IS THAT SOMETIMES THERE ARE INCIDENTS OF STALKING OR HARASSMENT, AND IT'S A QUESTION OF HOW IMPORTANT ALL OF THAT IS IN THE OVERALL SCHEME OF THINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE AN OPINION, A STRONG OPINION, ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF VERIFIABLE DATA.

THE -- THE INFORMATION BASED UPON DAVE'S WORK IS THAT, TAKING A CERTAIN SLICE OF ENTRIES AND TRACKING THEM DOWN, TRYING TO FIND OUT IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY FIND HOME ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR INDIVIDUALS LISTED IN THE WHOIS DATABASE, THAT ABOUT ONE IN SEVEN ENTRIES CONTAINED INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE AT THAT LEVEL.

THIS COMPARES WITH CONSIDERABLY MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE THROUGH OTHER COMMON SOURCES.

AS I SAY, WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT IS.

BUT IT'S USEFUL TO BRING THAT DATA TO LIGHT.

THIS REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO -- IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCES AND IN VARIOUS OTHER FORUMS AND WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE PUBLICLY.

IN QUITE A DIFFERENT AREA, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AHEAD AT THE QUESTION OF A COMPLETELY SELF-SUFFICIENT IPV6 INTERNET.

THAT IS, CAN YOU HAVE 100% IPV6 COMPONENTS, END SYSTEMS, SERVERS, TRANSPORT, EVERYTHING.

AND, OF COURSE, WITHIN THAT, ONE NEEDS IPV6 DNS SERVICE.

AND WITHIN IPV6 DNS SERVICE, THE QUESTION FOCUS IS EVENTUALLY TO, IS THE ROOT AVAILABLE VIA IPV6, AND DOES -- AND DO YOU -- WHEN YOU ASK FOR ADDRESSES, DO YOU GET BACK IPV6 ADDRESSES? IT TURNS OUT THAT THE ROOT SERVERS, THE 13 ROOT SERVERS, ARE PARTWAY DOWN THAT PATH, AND FIVE OF THEM TO DATE AND THE REST RELATIVELY SOON, ARE IN FACT ACCESSIBLE OVER IPV6 TRANSPORT.

HOWEVER, THE ADDRESSES, THEIR IPV6 ADDRESSES, ARE NOT YET LISTED IN THE ROOT ZONE, AND, IN FACT, THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE THE ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE AND REQUESTS HAVE GONE INTO IANA.

THE -- THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES INVOLVED.

HISTORICALLY, PACKET SIZES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO 512 BYTES.

THE LIST OF ROOT SERVERS AND THEIR ADDRESSES, WHICH IS WIDELY UNDERSTOOD TO BE LIMITED AT 13, THAT NUMBER, 13, IS RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE PACKET THAT LISTS THEM ALL.

SO ADDING IPV6 ADDRESSES, WHICH ARE CONSIDERABLY LONGER THAN IPV4 ADDRESSES, BREAKS THAT LIMIT QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY.

SO THAT'S SORT OF THE BEGINNING OF A THOUGHT PROCESS.

UPON CLOSER EXAMINATION, IN ADDITION TO THE PACKET SIZE, THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION OF WHETHER OLD SOFTWARE MIGHT BREAK IF IT EVER SEES IPV6 ADDRESSES, AND A MORE RECENTLY RECOGNIZED CONCERN THAT EVEN IF THE REQUESTER, THE LAPTOP COMPUTER OR THE END SYSTEMS, REQUEST IPV6 ADDRESSES AND ARE ABLE TO TAKE VERY LONG PACKETS THAT CONTAIN THEM, AND EVEN IF THE NAME SERVERS CAN SEND THOSE BACK, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT FIREWALLS AND OTHER MIDDLEWARE SITTING IN THERE THAT ARE ATTEMPTING TO BE EXTREMELY CLEVER AND BRIGHT MAY KNOW TOO MUCH BUT NOT CURRENT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT A DNS RESPONSE LOOKS LIKE AND FILTER OUT THESE MORE MODERN RESPONSES.

THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO IS THAT WE TURN ON IPV6 RESPONSES FROM THE ROOT AND A NUMBER OF FIREWALLS THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK FILTER THOSE OUT, MANY THINGS BREAK, AND IT IS NOT THE FAULT -- IT'S THE FAULT PRIMARILY OF MISCONFIGURED FIREWALLS, BUT ICANN GETS BLAMED, SINCE THAT'S THE LAST THING THAT GOT CHANGED.

SO THERE'S A DESIRE TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL IN THIS PROCESS.

THIS PIECE OF WORK IS NOTABLE FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW IN THAT WE'VE CARRIED IT OUT JOINTLY WITH THE ROOT SERVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

A LITTLE WHILE LATER TODAY, BILL MANNING, SUBSTITUTING FOR SUZANNE WOOLF, WILL PRESENT THE RSSAC REPORT.

AND I THINK HE'LL MENTION THIS FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT A SAFE COURSE IS EMERGING, WE'VE BEEN CAREFUL ABOUT THIS.

I HOPED TO HAVE THIS OUT BY TODAY, BUT IT WILL TAKE A WHILE LONGER WHILE WE TRACK THIS AND HAVE ALL THE PIECES.

IT WILL BE OUT CERTAINLY BY LISBON.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT BUT NOT EXTREMELY URGENT MATTER IN THE SENSE THAT THERE'S NOTHING BROKEN RIGHT NOW OR STRONGLY DEPENDENT UPON IT, BUT IT WILL -- IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO GET IN PLACE FOR THE FUTURE.

LET ME MENTION, ON -- LET ME SWITCH OVER TO RSTEP AND MENTION ON LYMAN'S BEHALF, IS LYMAN HERE?

OKAY.

WELL, THEN I'M SAFE HERE.

GOOD.

-- THAT THE -- THE BASIC CYCLE IS THAT WHEN AN ISSUE IS RAISED AND DETERMINED TO REQUIRE RSTEP ATTENTION, A PANEL OF FIVE EXPERTS IS ASSEMBLED OUT OF A STANDING POOL SET FORTH WITH A VERY WELL-DEFINED -- WELL-FRAMED QUESTION AND A 45-DAY CLOCK.

TWO OF THESE PROCESSES HAVE NOW RUN TO COMPLETION.

ONE WAS A REQUEST TO HAVE WILDCARDS IN DOT TRAVEL, AND THE OTHER IS A REQUEST FOR TWO-LETTER SECOND-LEVEL NAMES WITHIN THE DOT NAME.

AND AS THE ARROWS ON THE SLIDE INDICATE, THE SHORT ANSWERS ARE, A RECOMMENDATION AGAINST ON THE FIRST ONE, AND A RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR ON THE SECOND ONE, WITH CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS AND DETAILS TRACKING DOWN DIFFERENT ASPECTS AND DIFFERENT NUANCES IN THESE AREAS, NOT AT ALL SUPERFICIAL.

AND I MUST SAY -- I READ THE FIRST REPORT.

I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE SECOND ONE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM READING THE FIRST REPORT -- AND AS MANY OF YOU WILL KNOW, I HAVE A QUITE STRONG UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE ISSUES, SO I READ IT AVIDLY, WITH A LOT OF INTEREST IN HOW THE MATTER WOULD BE TREATED -- THE QUALITY OF THE WRITING IS QUITE GOOD, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A FAIR AND THOROUGH AND VERY WELL WRITTEN REPORT.

AND I EXPECT EXACTLY THE SAME OUT OF THE SECOND REPORT.

THE DNSSEC WORKSHOP, DNSSEC IS LOGICALLY A SUBJECT THAT FALLS DIRECTLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SSAC.

AND SOME YEARS AGO, IT WAS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY ACTIVITIES.

IT BECAME SO DOMINANT THAT IT ACTUALLY GOT SPLIT OFF AND RUN ALONG A PARALLEL TRACK.

BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE IT FITS WITHIN THE ICANN AMBIT AND WITH RESPECT TO TREATMENT WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS HERE, IT'S A NATURAL PART OF SSAC'S ACTIVITY.

THE WORKSHOP THAT'S TAKING PLACE SHORTLY ACROSS THE HALL, NESTLED WITHIN THIS CCTLD DNS WORKSHOP, WE'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON TOOLS AND ON REGISTRY EXPERIENCE.

AND THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG.

SWEDEN HAS AN A SIGNED ZONE, PUERTO RICO HAS A SIGNED ZONE.

I BELIEVE MEXICO HAS PARTS UP AND RUNNING.

BRAZIL IS GOING TO BE OPERATIONAL WITH AT LEAST PART OF ITS ZONE OPERATIONALLY SIGNED NEXT MONTH.

A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, WE WERE IN A MEETING AT MICROSOFT, AND THEY MADE A FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THEY WILL BE INCLUDING DNSSEC SUPPORT IN UPCOMING PRODUCTS AND COMMITTED TO A PARTICULAR RELEASE CYCLE.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF MOVING THINGS ALONG. SO THAT'S THE BASIC REPORT.

THERE'S MORE ACTIVITY SCHEDULED FOR THE FUTURE.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE.

ALL OF THOSE TOPICS ARE OF CONSIDERABLE INTEREST TO -- CERTAINLY TO ICANN'S MISSION.

SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE HAVE UNDERTAKEN.

WE HAVE SOME TIME NOW TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT ALL THE REPORTS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN OR THE REPORTS WHICH HAVE BEEN POSTED PREVIOUS TO THIS MEETING, FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMITTEE, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, AND THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, AND SO ON.

IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WANT TO COME FROM THE ONLINE COMMUNITY THAT IS PARTICIPATING TODAY, THOSE QUESTIONS CAN BE SENT AS E-MAIL TO SAO PAULO, THAT'S SAOPAULO@ICANN.ORG.

AND THEY'LL BE RELAYED TO ME, AND I'LL TRY TO INJECT THEM INTO THE CONVERSATION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES.

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MIKE PALAGE, FORMER BOARD MEMBER, AS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY THANKING MANY OF THE PRESENTERS TODAY WHO WERE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS ONLINE.

AFTER RETURNING FROM THE HOST EVENT LAST NIGHT, I WAS ACTUALLY ABLE TO GO THROUGH MOST OF THE PRESENTATIONS.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK PARTICULARLY SUSAN YESTERDAY FOR YOUR EVENT ON IMPROVING FUTURE MEETINGS.

I THINK THESE ARE STEPS THAT ARE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND HOPEFULLY WILL CONTINUE.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, THE FIRST TO GEORGE, IF YOU COULD.

ONE OF YOUR SLIDES TALKED ABOUT ELIMINATING DISPROPORTIONATE POWER WHEN SITTING CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS SERVE ON THE NOMCOM.

AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED LAST YEAR DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING BY AMADEU ABRIL CONCERNING COUNCIL MEMBERS SITTING ON A NOMINATING COMMITTEE AND SELECTING, IF YOU WILL, THEIR PEERS.

>>GEORGE SADOWSKY: WHEN SOMEBODY IS ON A COUNCIL, SUCH AS THE GNSO COUNCIL, AND ALSO ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE VOTING DECISIONS REGARDING PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SENT TO THE BOARD.

THAT STRIKES ME AS A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE RELATIVE TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ON A COUNCIL.

THAT'S ALL.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT AS WELL, MUCH AS AMADEU HAD RAISED THAT POINT LAST YEAR.

THE --

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THIS IS -- SORRY MIKE -- THIS IS AN EXCESS OF POWER THAT WE THOUGHT SHOULD COME THIS WAY WHEN WE DESIGNED THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE PROCESS.

SO I AGREE WITH YOU.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: AND, AGAIN, THIS ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE ORIGINAL NOMINATING COMMITTEE, THE ORIGINAL DRAFT BACK IN 2003 ACTUALLY OPPOSED HAVING SITTING BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU WILL, SELECT THEIR OWN PEERS.

AND THE BOARD WAS PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING.

SO, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT GEORGE RAISES, EQUALITY AMONG THE BOARD AND THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THE ONE -- SECOND FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, IF I MAY, HAS TO DO WITH THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE WEB SITE THAT WAS RECENTLY UPDATED, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THE MINUTES FROM THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FROM PAST HAVE SORT OF DISAPPEARED, AND WHAT I WAS HOPING COULD HAPPEN WITH SOME OF THE BOARD COMMITTEES IS MAKING THOSE MINUTES AVAILABLE ONLINE.

AND THE REASON THAT I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PRESENTATION BY DENISE MICHEL WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE WORK IN THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE BEGINNING TO, IF YOU WILL, DWELL DOWN INTO THE EVALUATIONS OF ALL THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, WE ARE -- THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE UNDERTAKING SOME VERY SERIOUS WORK LOOKING AT THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF ICANN.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES ARE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO SEE, BECAUSE I WOULD NOT WANT US TO, IF YOU WILL, START TOWARDS AN ICANN 3.0 THAT IS NOT DONE IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER.

SO, AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A COMMENT I'D LIKE TO RAISE.

THE THIRD POINT HAS TO DO WITH TERM LIMITS.

THIS WAS A TOPIC THAT WAS RAISED BY THE LSE REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE GNSO.

AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD REVIEW THAT IS SUPPOSED TO START NEXT YEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT RE-EVALUATING ITS OWN TERM LIMITS.

AND THE REASON I RAISE THIS QUESTION OR RAISE THIS ISSUE IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO DATE, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN TWO NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ELECTED FOR A SECOND TERM.

THAT WAS VINT CERF AND NJERI RIONGE.

HOWEVER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, THEY GENERALLY HAVE A TREND OF, IF YOU WILL, RE-ELECTING THE SAME PEOPLE.

I MYSELF WAS ELECTED BUT DECIDED TO STEP DOWN.

ALEX, YOU WERE ELECTED MANY TIMES.

PETER AND DEMI WERE RE-ELECTED.

SO I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT FROM A BOARD DYNAMIC STANDPOINT IS, YOU WANT TO SORT OF HAVE SOME EQUALITY.

IF THERE ARE CERTAIN CLASSES OF DIRECTORS THAT TEND TO GET RE-ELECTED TWO OR THREE TIMES, WHEREAS THE OTHER SET OF DIRECTORS ONLY GET ELECTED ONE TIME, THAT MAY CREATE A POTENTIAL IMBALANCE.

SO PERHAPS EVALUATING A REEVALUATION OF TWO TERM LIMITS INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT THREE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S WORTHWHILE.

AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT, IN FACT, THE GAC HAS A TWO-TERM LIMIT ON ITS CHAIR.

THE FINAL POINT HAS TO DO WITH THE GNSO REVIEW.

I THINK THE LSE REPORT HAS PUT FORTH A NUMBER OF POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS, WE COULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT, IF YOU WILL, AN OUTSIDE EVALUATOR.

A NUMBER OF THE POINTS GEORGE RAISED ABOUT PEOPLE BEING INVOLVED IN THEIR OWN EVALUATION, ONE OF THE SLIDES TALKED ABOUT THE BOARD DEALING WITH COUNCIL.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE NEEDS TO BE A COORDINATION WITH COUNCIL IN THE IMPLEMENTATION.

BUT I THINK IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE, INDEPENDENT ENTITY MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO, IF YOU WILL, PROVIDE INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MIKE.

THE SPECIFIC ISSUE ABOUT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES WILL BE NOTED AND WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT.

NEXT QUESTION.

>> BRENTON THOMAS: MY NAME IS BRENTON THOMAS, I'M THE NEW AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATIVE ON GAC.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATIONS.

>> MIKE.

>> BRENTON THOMAS: A BIT CLOSER?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATIONS.

I FIND THEM A WELCOME RELIEF AFTER SOME OF THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE -- GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN.

THEY'RE SHORT AND SHARP AND TO THE POINT.

AND THAT'S A GREAT RELIEF.

MY QUESTION GOES TO STEVE, AND IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF RESEARCH INTO MISUSE OF WHOIS DATA.

I WAS VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME.

I'M WONDERING, THOUGH, WHETHER THERE'S AN INTENTION TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH INTO THIS AREA.

CLEARLY, IT'S AN ISSUE OF CONCERN TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND A GROWING ISSUE OF CONCERN.

AND, IN PARTICULAR, I WONDER IF WE'RE GOING TO START LOOKING AT RESEARCH INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF WHOIS USERS, SUCH AS PEOPLE THAT ARE INDIVIDUALS SIGNING UP AND REGISTERING FOR WHOIS-TYPE SERVICES, OR WHETHER WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO THEN START LOOKING AT QUESTIONS OF COMMERCIAL USERS AND STARTING TO PERHAPS DISENTANGLE THE PRIVACY INTERESTS BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO MIGHT REGISTER AND A COMMERCIAL USER THAT MIGHT REGISTER.

THANKS.

>>STEVE CROCKER: LET ME SEE IF I CAN TRY TO GIVE A SHORT ANSWER.

AT FIRST, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK FOR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHO IS USING THE DATA, WHETHER A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR GOVERNMENT OR SOME COMMERCIAL FIRM WAS LOOKING IT UP.

BUT I TAKE IT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE -- YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHO THE USER IS AND HOW THEY REGISTER?

>> BRENTON THOMAS: YES, YES.

>>STEVE CROCKER: FRANKLY, WE HAVE NOT BEEN TRYING TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THESE KINDS OF THINGS.

AS, YOU KNOW, GOES -- IS OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY, WHOIS HAS BEEN ATTRACTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION.

THERE'S A WHOIS TASK FORCE.

WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE DIALOGUE AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THE PARTS THAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN, THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS, AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PARTS FIT TOGETHER, ARE BEING UNDERSTOOD AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITHIN THE DIALOGUE AND NOT TRYING TO GET IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC-POLICY ASPECTS OF THIS, SIMPLY WANT THAT THE PUBLIC-POLICY DISCUSSIONS ARE GROUNDED AND FRAMED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF APPROPRIATELY SOUND TECHNICAL BASIS.

SO -- AND WE JUST, FRANKLY, HAVEN'T DUG VERY FAR INTO THAT.

I'LL JUST MAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COMMENT, IN THIS AREA AND SOME OTHER AREAS, IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN MY FEELING THAT SOME ORGANIZED RESEARCH, DONE CAREFULLY, WOULD BE MATERIALLY HELPFUL AND CUT DOWN A LOT OF THE BACK AND FORTH AND NOISE THAT TAKES PLACE.

THAT'S A SUBJECT FOR A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT KIND OF DISCUSSION, PROBABLY REQUIRES SOME LUBRICATION AT THE BAR.

>> BRENTON THOMAS: JUST ONE COMMENT ON THAT.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A VERY GOOD IDEA, LUBRICATION AT THE BAR WOULD HELP A LOT.

BUT I THINK GETTING A BASIC FACT BASE ABOUT WHAT THE TYPES OF MISUSE IS WILL GREATLY INFORM BOTH THE PUBLIC-POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THEN, IN SEQUENCE, THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH SOME SORT OF SENSIBLE RESPONSE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT COMES OUT AFTER A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF LUBRICATION IS THAT THE -- THE FAINT CONCERN THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE MAY NOT ACTUALLY WANT ANY FACTS TO INTRUDE INTO THIS, IT'S MUCH MORE FUN WITHOUT THAT.

[ LAUGHTER ]

[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: LET ME -- THANK YOU, STEVE.

WE NEEDED A LITTLE HUMOR IN THE MORNING.

JUST ONE OBSERVATION.

THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS PROBABLY NOT THE PRIMARY PLACE WHERE ONE WOULD WANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU RAISED.

SO IT'S GOOD THAT THIS IS PART OF THE GENERAL RECORD, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE DOING RESEARCH IN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

VITTORIO.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.

I'M VITTORIO BERTOLA FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND I AM ACTUALLY COMMENTING ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

EVEN IF I THINK I HAVE A BROADER COMMENT, WHICH PERTAINS TO DIVERSITY.

IF YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION OF THE NEW BOARD IN TERMS OF GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE WILL BE FIVE PEOPLE FROM NORTH AMERICA, FOUR FROM ASIA-PACIFIC, OF WHICH TWO ARE FROM AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, FOUR FROM LATIN AMERICA, AND ONLY ONE FROM EUROPE AND ONE FROM AFRICA. AND THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE.

IF YOU GO DOWN, I MEAN, DEEPER INTO THE ORGANIZATION TO LOOK AT DIVERSITY, IN GENERAL, UNDER DIFFERENT CRITERIA, IT WILL BE INTERESTING, ACTUALLY, TO HAVE DATA ON -- IN LOOKING BACK AT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, ADVISORY COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES, COMMITTEES, I MEAN, HOW MANY OF THEM WERE CHAIRED BY A NON-NATIVE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE, HOW MUCH WERE CHAIRED BY WOMEN, HOW MUCH WERE CHAIRED BY NON-WHITE PEOPLE.

OF COURSE, THIS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE.

SO I -- I MEAN, IF YOU GO TO THE -- FOR EXAMPLE, TO UNITED NATIONS MEETINGS, THEY USUALLY ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT.

SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF DIVERSITY, BUT SOMETIMES YOU GET PEOPLE DOING TASKS ONLY BECAUSE THEY MEET THE DIVERSITY CRITERIA BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY FIT FOR THAT.

SO, ACTUALLY, I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROBLEM.

BUT I THINK THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE TO EXPLORE HOW TO SOLVE THEM.

UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THAT THE REASON WHY THIS IS STILL HAPPENING IS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DIVERSITY IN THE PARTICIPANTS TO ICANN MEETINGS.

SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM WHICH YOU HAVE TO DRAW THAT IS DIVERSE ENOUGH, THEN, OF COURSE, YOU'RE NOT GETTING DIVERSITY IN THE SELECTIONS.

BUT STILL, I THINK THAT PERHAPS IT DESERVES SOME SPECIFIC -- MAYBE IT'S AN INSIDE REVIEW PROCESS OR MAYBE IT'S A SPECIFIC COMMITTEE OR TASK FORCE, BUT WE SHOULD GET MORE DATA ON THIS AND UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN MAKE SOMETHING PRACTICAL.

THERE MIGHT BE SOME PRACTICAL PROPOSALS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD RAISE FROM ONE TO TWO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DIRECTORS FOR EACH REGION.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO PLAY ON THE SAME TURF AS UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES AND SO ON.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX.

THANK YOU, VITTORIO.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VITTORIO, YOU ARE CORRECT.

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE SOME INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PRESENT STATUS OF GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY, WHICH IS, INDEED, PROBLEMATIC.

AS YOU WELL KNOW, THIS COMES FROM THE COUPLED NATURE OF THE TWO PROCEDURES FOR -- THE TWO CHANNELS FOR DESIGNATIONS TO THE BOARD, AND ALSO FOR THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS. THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE, FOR ALL WE HAVE SEEN, MAKES A HUGE EFFORT, AND GEORGE HAS REPORTED VISIBLY ON THAT TO ENSURE GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY IN THEIR DESIGNATIONS.

THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS DO THE SAME. SOME OF THEM HAVE A VERY STRICT ROTATION PROCEDURE SO THAT A POSITION CANNOT BE OCCUPIED TWICE, FOR EXAMPLE, BY THE SAME REGION IN IMMEDIATE SUCCESSION.

BUT OF COURSE, THE DECOUPLING MAY LEAD TO SITUATIONS LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE AT PRESENT. WE HAVE MENTIONED, FOR EXAMPLE, EUROPE APPEARS TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. I ASSURE YOU THIS IS NOT AGAINST THE EUROPEAN INFLUENCE IN THE ICANN SPHERE IN GENERAL.

BUT THIS WILL OF COURSE IMPLY THAT THE ELECTIONS IN THE UPCOMING YEAR, THE MIDYEAR ELECTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS WILL HAVE TO FACE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY CONSTRAINTS SO THAT THEY CAN COMPENSATE, AND THEN THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WILL BE FACED WITH THAT TASK. WHEN WE DID THE DESIGN FOR THE NOMCOM AND SO FORTH THIS WAS ONE CONSIDERATION, BUT IT WAS NOT ENSURED YOU WILL GET COMPLETE GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY IN SHORT PERIODS.

AND I HOPE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO AND FIX THE BYLAWS AGAIN FROM THE BOTTOM-UP OR FROM THE TOP-DOWN, I MEAN. I MEAN THE BYLAWS, NOT THE PROCEDURE, TO GET THIS COMPLETELY FIXED.

BUT WE CAN LIVE WITH ROLLING ADJUSTMENTS AS LONG AS THE ANOMALIES DON'T BECOME TOO LARGE.

AND I HOPE THAT SATISFIES THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL.

AS YOU SAID, FITNESS FOR THE JOB, MATCHING OF COMPETENCIES FOR THE JOB HAS TO BE A PERMANENT REQUIREMENT. AND WITHIN THAT IS THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO STRIVE FOR GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY. AND THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS FROM THE AT LARGE AND THE BOTTOM-UP PART WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST CONCERNED, OF COURSE, WITH DIVERSITY.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: AND TO BE CLEAR, I WAS NOT BLAMING ANYONE, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD FLAG THE PROBLEM.

>>VINT CERF: I DON'T THINK ANYONE MISUNDERSTOOD THE POINT, VITTORIO.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE AVAILABLE POOL OF PEOPLE. AND SO FINDING WAYS TO REACH OUT TO MORE QUALIFIED PEOPLE IS CLEARLY AN IMPORTANT STEP.

LET'S SEE. CHUCK GOMES.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH, SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LSE REPORT AND MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD.

IT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IS TO DEVELOP A LIST OF AREAS THAT THERE'S AGREEMENT THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT IN THE GNSO. THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE LSE REPORT, FROM PATRICK SHARRY'S REPORT, FROM COMMENTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED, AND FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM.

THAT LIST, THEN, ONCE THERE'S AGREEMENT, AND THAT I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE A HUGE TASK, COULD THEN BE USED AS A MEASURING STICK AS WE LOOK AT POSSIBLE IDEAS, CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE AND SO FORTH TO SEE IF THEY ARE ADDRESSING THE AREAS THAT THERE'S AGREEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT.

SECONDLY, I THINK THAT THERE PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE A DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS, AT LEAST INITIAL COMMENTS. THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR AN ONGOING COMMENT PROCESS ON THIS. BUT I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT SHOULD BE NEAR TERM, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT'S A HUGE REPORT. IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO DEVELOP COMMENTS, SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT SHOULD BE THIS YEAR BUT I THINK SHOULD PROBABLY BE EARLY NEXT YEAR.

AND I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE SOME DIRECTED COMMENTS WOULD BE GOOD.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE -- THE FIRST SUGGESTION I MADE WAS THAT WE FOCUS IN ON WHERE IS THERE AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT AREA OF THE GNSO NEED TO BE IMPROVED? AND SO YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY ON THE COMMENT SITE GO OUT AND ASK THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFIC FEEDBACK IN THAT REGARD, AND THAT COULD THEN BE USED TO GET THE PROCESS KICKED OFF.

FINALLY, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMEONE WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO STAY ON TOP OF THIS AND KEEP IT MOVING FROM THE BEGINNING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES AS THEY GO ON.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHUCK.

ALEX HAD A COMMENT AND SUSAN AS WELL.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX, FOR YIELDING. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WILL YIELD TO YOU AT SOME POINT. WE CAN KEEP BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH.

>>VINT CERF: BE CAREFUL, SUSAN. THAT'S NOW IN WRITING

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I WILL BE VERY CAREFUL.

CHUCK, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT COMMENT.

I THINK THE LSE REPORT IS AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE IN ICANN'S HISTORY, AND I THINK IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE BOARD, AS EXPRESSED IN OUR BYLAWS, TO BE EXERT SOME LEADERSHIP IN RESPONDING TO THAT REPORT.

INDEED, THE BYLAWS REQUIRE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE REPORT TWO MEETINGS AFTER IT HAS BEEN POSTED FOR 30 DAYS. AND I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE FACT THAT THE BOARD IS PUTTING THIS ON ITS AGENDA AND IS THINKING ABOUT IT.

BUT I THINK I'D LIKE TO PUSH YOU SLIGHTLY ON MERELY MAKING A LIST OF OUTSTANDING AREAS AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE THINGS ON WHICH THERE IS IMMEDIATE AGREEMENT.

THERE MAY NOT BE AGREEMENT ON ALL ELEMENTS OF THIS REPORT, OR IT MAY NOT EVEN BE EASY TO MAKE A LIST.

I THINK THE REPORT WAS EXCELLENT IN ITS CAREFUL WORK, CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE GNSO. AND THE REPORTS' AUTHORS TRIED TO PRESENT A PACKAGE OF REFORMS THAT THEY MIGHT ASSIST THE GNSO IN ITS CRUCIAL CONSENSUS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

SO I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE BOARD'S LEADERSHIP HERE. I THINK ALL OF US CAN AGREE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE, THE LSE REPORT SHOWED THAT THE GNSO, THIS CRUCIAL ENGINE FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT, IS SERIOUSLY BROKEN AND THAT THERE IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT THAT WE CAN DO TO ADJUST IT. AND THAT A PLEA FOR STABILITY MAY EVEN GET IN THE WAY OF INNOVATION IN THIS AREA, THAT MAYBE DESTRUCTIVE IN THE LONG TERM TO ICANN'S CREDIBILITY AND SUCCESS.

SO I THINK THE PALAGE SUGGESTION OF AN OUTSIDE FACILITATOR IS AN INTERESTING ONE FOR INDEPENDENCE. YOUR SUGGESTION OF A LIST TO WORK ON AND PROVIDING SOME PROCESS DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, THOSE ARE ALSO VERY GOOD SUGGESTIONS.

BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION'S FUTURE AND THE NEED FOR LONG TERM, FUNDAMENTAL REFORM TO MAKE SURE THIS ENGINE IS WORKING CORRECTLY.

THANKS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH, AND I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO FULL AGREEMENT ON A LIST, BUT IT'S A STARTING POINT. LET'S IDENTIFY WHAT WE WANT TO IMPROVE AND THEN LET'S MEASURE WHETHER WE'RE ACCOMPLISHING THAT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: JUST A VERY SHORT NOTE ON THAT. I THINK WE NOW CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT THERE IS A SHARP DISAGREEMENT IN SOME QUARTERS BETWEEN WHAT THE GNSO'S ROLE IS UNDER OUR CONTRACTS WITH REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS AND WHAT ITS ROLE IS UNDER OUR BYLAWS. AND THAT CENTRAL QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED BY THE BOARD AS PART OF ITS EVALUATION OF THE LSE REVIEW.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX, YOU YIELDED EARLIER SO I GUESS YOU ARE STILL IN QUEUE.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I DID VERY WELL IN YIELDING. I HAVE SO LITTLE TO ADD THAT I WILL SKIP MY CHANCE.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VINT, PETER HERE. CHUCK, I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT AS WELL AND I PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION OF A KIND OF PROJECT MANAGER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AND TAKE CHARGE. WE'LL BE ADDING THAT TO OUR DISCUSSION AS WELL. THANK YOU.

>>GLENN KOWACK: I AM GLENN KOWACK AND I AM WEARING MY HAT AS A MEMBER OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL, THE RSTEP, AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A SMALL BUT I THINK IMPORTANT CORRECTION TO STEVE'S VERY NICE COMMENTS ABOUT THE RSTEP PROCESS, WHICH I SUSPECT LYMAN CHAPIN MIGHT HAVE MADE IF HE WERE HERE. AND THAT EACH RSTEP REVIEW TEAM THAT'S FORMED DOES NOT ACTUALLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, PER SE. IN FACT, IF YOU WILL LOOK IN THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT ON TRAVEL AND GNR, YOU WILL FIND THAT WHAT WE SAY, IN FACT, IS THAT WE EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATERIAL IMPACT ON SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND THEN PROVIDE A STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE AND TO WHAT EXTENT.

BUT WE EXPLICITLY STAY AWAY FROM ANY RECOMMENDATION, PER SE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY IN THE PURVIEW OF THE BOARD. SO IT'S A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT DETAIL THAT I WANT PEOPLE TO HEAR AND TO BE ESPECIALLY MINDFUL OF WHEN THEY READ THE REPORTS.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GLENN. I WILL PRACTICE, REHEARSE, AND TRY TO GET IN STEP WITH RSTEP.

>>VINT CERF: OH, THAT'S TERRIBLE.

>>STEPHEN CROCKER: IT'S EARLY.

>>VINT CERF: DR. SHAHSHAHNI.

>>SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI: HI, I AM SIAVASH SHAHSHAHANI, I AM A MEMBER OF ALAC AND ALSO I RUN THE DOT IR CCTLD.

I AM HERE IN MY SECOND CAPACITY NOW TALKING.

I HAVE A SHORT COMMENT ABOUT ONE OF THE NOMINATIONS OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

WHEN I FIRST HEARD THAT STEVE GOLDSTEIN HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR THE BOARD, I BECAME REALLY CONCERNED BECAUSE I HAD BEEN AT THE RECEIVING END OF SOME OF HIS ACTIVITIES IN 1990S WHEN HE WAS WITH NSF AND THIS INCLUDED THE BLOCKING OF INTERNET TRAFFIC ON NSF FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE THEN.

BUT ON MONDAY WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH STEVE, AND REMINISCED ABOUT THE PAST. AND ALTHOUGH WE STILL DIFFER ABOUT IN OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAPPENED, I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT STEVE SEEMED TO BE ENTIRELY COMMITTED TO ICANN, TO THE FUTURE, ICANN'S FUTURE AS A REALLY INTERNATIONAL, EVEN-HANDED AND AN ENTITY THAT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY COUNTRY.

I WOULD WELCOME ANY COMMENTS FROM HIM.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, DR. SHASHAHANI.

STEVE, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? I DON'T WANT TO FORCE ANYTHING, BUT I THINK THAT WAS A VERY KIND INVITATION.

>>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: YEAH, WELL -- AM I ON?

YES, I AM CERTAINLY GRATEFUL TO DR. SHASHAHANI FOR HIS WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS THINGS OPENLY. I STRESS TO HIM THAT I APPROACH MY SERVICE IN ICANN IN A VERY EVEN-HANDED WAY AND THAT IT'S MY BELIEF THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM I SERVE OR WILL SERVE ON ICANN ALSO HAVE THAT SAME SPIRIT OF EVEN-HANDEDNESS TO NOT ONLY ALL COUNTRIES BUT ALL CULTURES.

SO AGAIN, I AM GLAD THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ON WHATEVER DAY WE HAD IT.

THE DAYS ARE ALL BLURRING FOR ME NOW.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE FRANKNESS AND THE OPENNESS AND YOUR VERY GRACIOUS COMMENTS NOW.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, STEVE.

WENDY.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANK YOU. I WANT TO SECOND SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS' REPORT, REVIEW ON THE GNSO. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS IN THERE. THEY HAVE CLEARLY DONE A GREAT DEAL OF REVIEW OF THE WAY THAT THIS ORGANIZATION WORKS AND OFTEN DOESN'T WORK AND THERE'S A LOT I THINK THAT IS VALUABLE IN THE WAY OF RETHINKING CONSTITUENCY STRUCTURES THAT OFTEN PUT PEOPLE AT LOGGERHEADS RATHER THAN WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUS AND VOTING PROCEDURES THAT OFTEN TEND TO FORCE PEOPLE BACK INTO POSITIONS RATHER THAN OUT INTO CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK TOGETHER.

THE SPECIFIC COMMENT I WANTED TO ADD IS FROM THE POSITION OF ONE WHO HAS BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND TRYING TO WORK WITH THE GNSO AS A NONVOTING LIAISON TO TASK FORCES WHERE I HAVE VERY SPECIFICALLY FELT THAT THE VOTING PROCESS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ADD MEANINGFULLY TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT. SO I WELCOME THE SUGGESTIONS THAT INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS COULD JOIN WITH NONCOMMERCIAL AND CIVIL SOCIETY INTERESTS TO FORM AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF THE GNSO WORK AFFECTS INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS, AND THERE SHOULD BE MUCH MORE DIRECT MEANS FOR INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS TO GIVE INPUT ON ISSUES SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, NEW GTLDS, WHOIS, INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, THAN IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. AND SO I WOULD VERY MUCH WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER AS YOU CONSIDER THIS REVIEW.

THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, WENDY.

>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT, I AM FROM THE -- OH, WAS THERE A COMMENT FROM THE BOARD?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: APOLOGIES.

I THINK IT'S VALUABLE TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF TIME AS A CONVERSATION AND NOT ONLY AS THROWING VOLLEYS AT EACH OTHER SO, WENDY, I HAVE A QUESTION.

DO YOU THINK THE ALAC STRUCTURES, LIKE THE ONE THAT HAS NOW SIGNED ITS MOU FOR THE LAC RALO, ARE USEFUL CONDUITS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USER TO EXPRESS THIS -- SORRY, THESE CONCERNS?

I SEE THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY INFLUENTIAL IN A STRUCTURED AND EFFECTIVE WAY IN ICANN. IT'S MATERIALIZING THE EXPECTATIONS WE HAD WHEN BUILDING IT UP.

>>WENDY SELTZER: I THINK THEY ARE A VERY VALUABLE WAY TO INVOLVE INDIVIDUALS AND GET THEIR EXPERTISE AND THEIR REPORTS.

I HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE WAYS FOR THEM TO CONVEY THAT INTO ICANN.

AT THE MOMENT, THERE ARE NO FORMALIZED WAYS FOR THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THEY ARE ONLY ABLE, AS PART OF THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO OFFER ADVICE IN VARIOUS PLACES TO WHICH IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST THERE HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF THIS DIALOGUE.

I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO CONTINUE DIALOGUE AND TO GIVE THESE LATIN AMERICAN MEMBERS AND OTHERS WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I WILL BE ON THE RECORD DISAGREEING WITH YOU IN THAT A LOT OF THE INPUT THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED FROM THE ALAC IN MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES HAS ACTUALLY BEEN AGENDA SHAPING. IT HAS NOT ONLY BEEN ONE MARGINAL OPINION TO BE CONSIDERED BUT IT HAS TRULY HAD AN AGENDA-SHAPING EFFECT.

>>WENDY SELTZER: I AM VERY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: SUSAN, YOU ASKED FOR A MOMENT.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: JUST VERY BRIEFLY. I DON'T SEE ANY NECESSARY CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT BOTH OF YOU ARE SAYING AND THE LSE REPORT. IT MIGHT BE QUITE POSSIBLE TO HAVE THIS LARGER USERS' CONSTITUENCY THAT KIN CORP OPERATES STRUCTURES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CREATES IN THE RALO FRAME OF THINGS AND ALLOWS FOR A MORE DIRECT POLICY INVOLVEMENT.

I ALSO AGREE WITH ALEX THAT ALAC'S POSITIONS HAVE BEEN LISTENED TO AND ARE VERY INTERESTING TO US.

BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE CONCERN ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO DIRECTLY GET PEOPLE ON THE BOARD FROM THE ALAC.

THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, BRET. THIS IS A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED ARRANGEMENT TO PREVENT YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>BRET FAUSETT: I CAN TELL.

>>VINT CERF: I HOPE YOU APPRECIATE THE SKILL WITH WHICH THIS IS BEING CONDUCTED.

>>BRET FAUSETT: VERY SKILLFUL.

>>VINT CERF: I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTH JUST AMPLIFYING ONE POINT.

FOR SOME YEARS NOW, THREE YEARS, ROBERTO GAETANO HAS BEEN THE LIAISON FROM THE ALAC. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE REST OF THE BOARD THAT HIS INPUTS HAVE BEEN AS WEIGHTY AS ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER. EVEN THOUGH UP UNTIL THAT TIME -- UP UNTIL TOMORROW HE HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO CAST A VOTE, I THINK HIS REASONING HAS INFLUENCED MANY.

ROBERTO, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

>>ROBERTO GAETANO:.

YES, THANK YOU. IT IS NOT A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. IT'S RATHER A COMMENT ON THE REPORT.

I THINK THAT THE INCOMING OF A VIEW OF THE ALAC MIGHT BRING FURTHER ELEMENTS IN ORDER TO OPTIMIZE, I WOULD SAY, THE ACTIVITIES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTICIPATION OF THE USER COMMUNITY.

I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF BEFORE TAKING ANY FUNDAMENTAL DECISION BASED ONLY ON THE LSE REPORT, WE ALSO WAIT FOR THE HIGHLY WELCOME REPORT ON THE ALAC THAT IS DUE TO START IN FEBRUARY, WE JUST LEARNED.

THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT: GOOD MORNING.

>>VINT CERF: BRET, FINALLY YOU ARE ON.

>>BRET FAUSETT: BRET FAUSETT FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, I HAVE BEEN THE ALAC LIAISON TO THE GNSO, AND IN THAT CAPACITY I WOULD LIKE TO ENDORSE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF LSE REFORMS.

AND IF YOU READ THE LSE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT SEVERAL TIMES IN THE REPORT IT'S DESCRIBED AS A COHERENT VISION, A COHERENT PACKAGE.

THERE ARE 24 SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE LSE SAYS THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE SOME OF THEM OR ALL OF THEM, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU CHOOSE ALL OF THEM.

I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE DEFAULT BE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF REFORMS AND THE JUSTIFICATIONS BE MADE FOR VARYING FROM THAT.

I THINK AS THE BOARD STARTS CONSIDERING THINGS AND ESPECIALLY THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOBBIED QUITE HARD BY VARIOUS GROUPS WITHIN THE GNSO TO PICK THIS ONE, DON'T PICK THIS ONE, AND IF EVERYONE GETS TO REJECT THE ONES THEY DON'T LIKE, YOU ARE GOING TO DO DAMAGE TO THE COHERENT VISION.

AND WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO SEE THE LOBBYING EFFORT. YOU ARE GOING TO BE PUSHED. BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE ARE 24 RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THEY ARE INTERRELATED IN IMPORTANT WAYS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THE RECORD OF THIS SESSION WILL HAVE TO BE MODIFIED GRAMMATICALLY. BRET FAUSETT'S STATEMENT HAS TO BE RECORDED FOR A DATE LIKE -- I THINK IT IS MARCH 2006. THE PART THAT SAYS "YOU WILL BE LOBBIED HEAVILY BY DIFFERENT GROUPS TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR SPECIFIC REQUESTS" HAS TO BE ON THE RECORD. IT'S A FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT FOR MARCH 2006. THAT HAS ALREADY STARTED, I THINK.

I HAVE TO GO ON THE RECORD WITH A SERIOUS COMMENT ABOUT THE LSE REVIEW.

THE LSE REVIEW IS INTERNALLY QUITE CONSISTENT, BUT IT HAS SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS THAT CAUSE MORE WORK TO HAVE TO BE DONE THAN JUST BASING OURSELVES ON THE 24 RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT HAS A SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTION ON HOW IT ANALYZES THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER, THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE CONSTITUENCIES IN THE GNSO. DELIBERATELY, AND THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY MEANT AS A NEGATIVE CRITICISM, IT'S A STATEMENT OF FACT.

THE LSE REVIEW DELIBERATELY DECIDED NOT TO ASK A BROADER COMMUNITY OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUENCIES WHETHER THEY FEEL REPRESENTED. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT THEY WANT TO BE CARRIED AND WHETHER THEY EVEN KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEING CARRIED IN THEIR NAME INTO THE ICANN PROCESS BY THE EXISTING REPRESENTATIONS WITHIN THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES.

THAT'S A VERY SEVERE SELF-IMPOSED CONSTRAINT.

AND TO WORK ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REPRESENTATIVENESS CONSIDERATION OF THE LSE REVIEW IS ENOUGH AS A BASIS TO GO FORWARD WOULD BE SELF-IMPOSING THAT SAME KIND OF LIMITATION IN THE WORK THAT IS DONE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE QUALMS THAT I THINK THE BOARD AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE GNSO, WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH IN MOVING FORWARD.

SINCE THIS HAS COME FORWARD AGAIN, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WITHIN THE BGC WE ARE LOOKING AT THE WAY TO PROCEED FORWARD. WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL CALLS LIKE SUSAN'S FOR EXERTING BOARD LEADERSHIP IN STARTING A REDESIGN.

MY RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS AND TO MIKE'S PREVIOUS REQUESTS WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT I COULD FORECAST, I CANNOT PROMISE THIS AS A FACT, BUT I WOULD FORECAST THAT A STRUCTURED DIALOGUE WILL ENSUE AND IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE THE FORM OF POINTED QUESTIONS, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN SUGGESTED HERE. AND PROBABLY A DRAFT THAT'S OUT FOR COMMENTS AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF CYCLES LIKE THAT.

WE DO HAVE A SEVERE CONSTRAINT FROM THE BYLAWS, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED BY SUSAN AGAIN, I WILL QUOTE HER, OF THE NUMBER OF CYCLES AND THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEETINGS THAT WE CAN WAIT FOR HAVING A PROPOSAL THAT CAN BE VOTED UPON.

BUT AGAIN, A PROCESS OF CYCLES OF CONSULTATION IS ABSOLUTELY ASSURED IN THE GENOME OF THE PRESENT BOARD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.

PLEASE.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: GOOD MORNING. I AM BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, I AM THE FRENCH REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GAC.

ON THE LSE REPORT, THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE GNSO IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE ICANN ACTIVITY.

PARTICULARLY IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

THE FACT THAT IT FUNCTIONS WELL IS, THEREFORE, OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE.

IN THAT RESPECT, ON A SIDE NOTE, THE PARTICIPATION OF ACTORS WERE TODAY, I WOULD SAY ON BOTH SIDES, IN AN ADVISOR CAPACITY IN THE ONGOING PROCESS, THAT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND WHEN I SAY "ON BOTH SIDES," I MEAN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ALAC.

BUT BEYOND THAT, THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK, AND PARTICULARLY TO SUSAN REGARDING ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT -- COMMENTS SHE MADE EARLIER, IS THE FOLLOWING. DOES THE BOARD CONSIDER THE LSE REPORT ON THE GNSO AS A BASIS FOR ITS OWN ACTION OR AS A BASIS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF ICANN ON WHAT THE REFORM OF THE GNSO SHOULD BE?

AND IN THAT RESPECT, I WOULD MENTION PUBLICLY AN APPRECIATION FOR THE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE MEETING YESTERDAY ON MEETINGS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF SUSAN THAT WAS BASICALLY ARTICULATING NOT A PRESENTATION BUT A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMUNITY FROM A PRELIMINARY WORK DOES THE BOARD CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF HOLDING THAT KIND OF MEETING ON THE BASIS OF THE LSE REPORT IN FUTURE ICANN MEETINGS?

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU, BERTRAND. I THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION. WE HAVE NOT YET DISCUSSED THIS AS A GROUP AS TO WHAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE. AND YOU ARE HEARING FROM ME A DEEP DESIRE TO SET THAT PROCESS AND MAKE IT AS EFFECTIVE AND AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A STRUCTURED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE LSE REPORT. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD EXERT LEADERSHIP, ACT, VOTE TO RESTRUCTURE THE GNSO IF IT NEEDS TO WITHOUT SEEING THIS AS PURELY A POLITICAL INTERRELATIONSHIP ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT REPORT. BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE FUTURE OF ICANN AS A BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT PETRI DISH, THIS BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT WE HAVE HERE, DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE, CHANGE, ADAPT, AND TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BOARD.

SO I RECOGNIZE I HAVE FAILED IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION BUT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS A BOARD WE TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A VERY EFFECTIVE PROCESS ON THIS REPORT.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:IF I MAY, AS JUST AN ADD-ON. THE BEST WAY TO ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE BOTTOM-UP MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS TO DISCUSS THE MODALITIES OF THIS PROCESS IN A BOTTOM-UP, MULTISTAKEHOLDER MANNER.

THE LEADERSHIP THAT WE EXPECT FROM THE BOARD IS IN ESTABLISHING THIS BOTTOM-UP MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT WILL ENABLE IT TO LATER TAKE THE APPROPRIATE LEADERSHIP DECISIONS.

THANK YOU.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PETER HERE, VINT.

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, BERTRAND.

AND THE ANSWER IS, IT IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT REVIEWS UNDER THE BYLAWS.

WE HAVE NOT ABDICATED THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO ANY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION.

SO THE REPORT FROM THE ALAC DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE JOB.

IT'S AN INPUT INTO THE JOB.

>>VINT CERF: OOPS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.

MARILYN CADE.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.

I'M HOLDING IN MY HANDS A DOCUMENT THAT I WISH TO CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD AS I CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THE LSE REVIEW OF THE GNSO.

I'M GOING TO CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M GOING TO CALL IT STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.

AND I THINK THAT THE REVIEW PROCESS ACTUALLY, AS I'VE ALWAYS SEEN IT, IS A PART OF STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

AND I MENTION THAT BECAUSE, OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY IN A BOTTOM-UP DIALOGUE THAT I HOPE WE THINK OF AS AN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND NOT LOBBYING, ABOUT WHAT'S NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION.

AND LOTS OF THE CONCEPTS THAT THE LATER REVIEW THEN COMMENTED ON IT PREVIOUSLY BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSIONS AND IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING SESSIONS.

AND I SEE SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE OPERATIONAL PLAN.

SO ADDING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, ADDING AN ECONOMIST, ADDING INCREASED STAFF, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE THEN LATER IDENTIFIED IN THE LSE REPORT AS GAPS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE BOARD, AND OTHERS AS NEEDED TO STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE THE GNSO.

AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE, AS WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO EXAMINE INPUT FROM THE REVIEW, I THINK WE ALSO, HOPEFULLY, WILL KEEP IN MIND, AS WE PROVIDE COMMENTS, HOW WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF IMPROVEMENT ALREADY UNDERWAY, THEY'RE ALREADY IDENTIFIED, AND I HOPE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DELAY THOSE KINDS OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS WHILE WE TALK ABOUT OTHER ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED.

I WILL JUST MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IF YOU COME TO WHATEVER NUMBER OF ICANN MEETINGS WE'VE HAD, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY THINK THAT ICANN IS A VERY MATURE ORGANIZATION AND A VERY OLD ORGANIZATION.

BUT IT'S NOT.

IT IS A VERY YOUNG AND EVOLVING ORGANIZATION.

AND THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THE CONCEPT OF THE REVIEWS.

OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A PARTICULAR REVIEW.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT?

A COMMITMENT TO IMPROVEMENT.

SO I HOPE THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HEARING FROM PEOPLE ABOUT DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WON'T CALL THAT LOBBYING; YOU'LL CALL THAT AN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION.

IT MIGHT BE VIEWED AS AN EXCHANGE OF SELF-INTERESTED INFORMATION, BECAUSE CONSISTENT WITH THE PARABLE OF THE NINE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT, SOMEONE'S ONLY TOUCHING ONE PARTICULAR PART OF THE BEAST, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN SHARIL FOR THAT ANALOGY.

AND I HOPE WE'RE ALL GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE 747 WHILE WE'RE FLYING IT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO TURN IT INTO A ROCKET SHIP.

>>VINT CERF: AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY BUT I COULDN'T RESIST BEING IN THE QUEUE WHEN I SAW MIKE, BRET, MARILYN, CHUCK, AND ALL THE REST, BUT, NO, SERIOUSLY, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, ONE ON GNSO AND, YOU KNOW, THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL USERS PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSTITUENCY.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WENDY WITH THE NEED TO ADD, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL VOICES TO THE TASK FORCE WORKING ON THE GNSO WORK.

PERHAPS I DON'T AGREE THAT MUCH IN THE NEED OF CREATING NEW CONSTITUENCIES.

BEING ONE OF THOSE THAT MAY PLEA GUILTY FOR THE CONSTITUENCY MODEL, I THINK THAT IT WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING DESIGNED TO HAVE -- TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VOICES WILL BE REPRESENTED, YOU KNOW, AT THE VOTING LEVEL.

BUT WHAT ICANN NEEDS MORE THAN NEW BOXES, NEW, YOU KNOW, HORDE-GRABBING EXERCISES SOMETIMES, IS HAVING MORE DISCUSSION IN COMMON.

SO THE ONLY PROBLEM FOR -- I MEAN, THE MAIN PROBLEM FOR THE TASK FORCE IS NOT THAT WE NEED A NEW CONSTITUENCY FOR NEW INDIVIDUAL USERS OR SECONDARY MARKET RESELLERS OF DOMAIN NAMES, OR TO THE EXTREME, FAT, BALD, EYESIGHT-IMPAIRED CATALANS, BUT THAT WE NEED TO OPEN THE TASK FORCE BEYOND THE CONSTITUTION -- SORRY, THE CONSTITUENCIES' LOGIC, THAT ONLY IF YOU BUILD THIS POWER KINGDOM WITHIN THE GNSO, YOU WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM.

THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS OR NO INDIVIDUALS THAN JUST HAVING NEW BOXES THAT GO ALONG ALL THE PROCESS.

SECOND, ON THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF NOMCOM, I THINK ALSO PERHAPS NOW THAT THIS IS BECOMING MATURE, WELL, PROBABLY EVEN MARILYN IS ACCEPTING, NOBODY WAS SHOOTING CHUCK GOMES TODAY, FOR INSTANCE, WHICH IS ALSO A NICE IMPROVEMENT.

PERHAPS IT'S ALSO TIME TO BE MORE COURAGEOUS AND LOOK AT THE NOMCOM AND TRY TO BRING ALSO THE CONSTITUENCY-BASED APPROACH THERE, TRY TO MAKE THE NUMBERS FORCING THE GNSO, FOR INSTANCE, TO ELECT PEOPLE NOT BASED ON CONSTITUENCY, BUT ON GNSO AS A WHOLE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, TO PREVENT MORE DIVISIONS AND FORCE BY STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, THE FORMING OF A GNSO AND ICANN OPINION, NOT JUST DEFENDING INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES' OPINIONS, WHICH I THINK IT WOULD IMPROVE.

FINALLY, REGARDING --

>>VINT CERF: AMADEU, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THIS IS BEING TRANSLATED AND TRANSCRIBED.

AND YOU HAVE AN ABILITY TO SPEAK FASTER THAN THOSE PROCESSES ARE ABLE TO KEEP UP.

SO IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SLOW DOWN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YOU MAY ASK, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN TRY.

BUT I WILL.

OKAY.

REGARDING THE STRUCTURES OF THE MEETINGS, I WILL SAY THAT, HAVING BEEN A CRITIC FOR A LONG TIME, THEY HAVE IMPROVED A LOT.

EVEN THE PUBLIC FORUM.

NOW, A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS.

FIRST, THIS SETUP IS AWFUL FOR, YOU KNOW, PROMOTING DIALOGUE.

THE QUEUE, AND THE BOARD AS DEMAGOGUES OUT THERE.

BUT, AS I SAID, IT HAS IMPROVED A LOT.

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD EXTEND A LITTLE BIT THE PUBLIC FORUM.

BUT WE SHOULD CONSIDER A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE WE DISCUSS ISSUES.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ALLOW DIALOGUE, EVEN IF THIS MEANS THAT AMADEU, WHO'S LAST IN THE QUEUE, WILL NOT SPEAK.

SO CONGRATULATIONS FOR IMPROVING THAT.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD DO STILL BETTER NEXT TIME.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, AMADEU.

LET -- BEFORE WE TAKE THE NEXT SPEAKER, LET ME SAY THAT I'M GOING TO END THE QUEUE -- I DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO JOIN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.

THERE WILL BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BECAUSE WE'RE WELL INTO OUR PLANNED BREAK.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO TAKE THE BREAK NOW AND THEN REENTER THIS QUEUE, REESTABLISH THIS QUEUE, AND THEN GO ON TO THE REPORTS THAT ARE DUE.

COULD I JUST GET A GENERAL SENSE FROM THE PARTICIPANTS HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO TAKE A BREAK NOW AND THEN RETURN.

YES.

I SEE SEVERAL.

WELL, I SEE ONE IS FRANTICALLY WAVING, WHICH SUGGESTS HE REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE THE BREAK.

OH, I SEE A BOARD MEMBER, TWO BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO TAKE A BREAK.

THAT MUST CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>VINT CERF: LET ME -- LET ME ASK IF THE THREE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN QUEUE, PLEASE REMEMBER WHERE YOU WERE IN QUEUE, AND RETURN IN 20 MINUTES' TIME, AND WE WILL REESTABLISH THE QUEUE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE'LL TAKE A 20-MINUTE BREAK NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(BREAK.)

>>VINT CERF: WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE'RE RESTARTING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT QUEUE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE ALL THREE OF THE PARTIES WHO WERE QUEUED BEFORE, BUT IF NOT, WE'LL JUST START WITH THE FIRST PERSON WHO IS AVAILABLE, SO WHY DON'T YOU BEGIN.

>>STEVE DEL BIANCO: THANK YOU. I'M STEVE DEL BIANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NETCHOICE COALITIONS, A COALITION OF E-COMMERCE COMPANIES, CONSUMERS.

THIS -- MY POINT OF MY REMARKS IS TO TRY TO DRAW A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE OR BALANCE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD OUT OF ALL THE SPEAKERS BEFORE US, WHERE THE EMPHASIS HAS BEEN HEAVY ON PROCESS REFORM AND STRUCTURAL REFORM, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE IF I CAN BALANCE THAT OUT WITH A PERSPECTIVE ON PERFORMANCE.

THIS IS MY THIRD ICANN MEETING, AND WITH EACH MEETING I GROW MORE AND MORE AMAZED AT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE INITIATIVES, THE BIG HEAVY LIFTING THIS ORGANIZATION IS TRYING TO DO. IF YOU SIT IN ON THE DETAILED PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS, YOU REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON WITH DNSSEC. HARD ENOUGH AT THE ROOT SERVER LEVEL. GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PUSH DOWN TO THE REGISTRY LEVEL.

ON IDNS, THE COMPLEXITY OF IDNS EXPANDS EVERY TIME I SIT THROUGH A PRESENTATION. AND ALSO NEW GTLDS, WHICH ARE LESS TECHNICALLY COMPLEX THAN THE FIRST TWO BUT THEY ADD AN ELEMENT OF CONTROVERSY.

SO EACH OF US HAS GOT TO BE WONDERING, WHEN I SEE THIS COMPLEXITY, CAN I DO IT. AND IT'S A GOOD THING WE'RE CALLED "ICANN." THAT'S HELPFUL. BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD BE CALLED "ISHALL" OR "IMUST," BECAUSE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN SPLITTING OF THE ROOT AND EVEN SUCCESS OR FURTHER DELAY IS GOING TO RESULT IN THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM, WHO REALLY BELIEVE THEY'VE GOT A BETTER WAY.

I WAS THERE AT THE IGF MEETING IN ATHENS A LITTLE OVER A MONTH AGO, AND I DO NOT SHARE THE OPINION OF OTHERS WHO GAVE YOU A REPORT ON MONDAY THAT CHARACTERIZED THE IGF AS A BENIGN GROUP OF CONVERSATIONS THAT COMPLEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO, COMPETE WITH ICANN.

THE WSIS AND IGF STARTS WITH A VERY DAUNTING LIST OF LONG-STANDING PROBLEMS, AND THEY WANT TO LOOK APPROPRIATELY TO THE INTERNET TO HELP SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. AND THERE ARE ALSO LOTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WITH THEIR OWN AGENDAS WHO WANT TO ADD THAT TO WHAT THE U.N. WOULD DO, IF IT WERE HANDED THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE KEYS.

SO THAT LOOMING PRESENCE OF THE IGF SHOULD PROD US IN TWO IMPORTANT WAYS.

FIRST IS TO AVOID MISSION CREEP, AND THE SECOND IS TO EXECUTE ON OUR BIG INITIATIVES.

BOTTOM LINE? WE SHOULD BE TALKING MORE TODAY ABOUT PERFORMANCE THAN ABOUT REFORMING OF PROCESS, OR WE WILL END UP WITH NO PROCESS AT ALL. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I HOPE THAT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THE IGF, BUT I TAKE YOUR POINT.

YES, PLEASE.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MAWAKI CHANGO FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO LEND MY SUPPORT TO WENDY'S COMMENTS ON THE LSE REPORTS EARLIER ON, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL USERS CAN JOIN ALAC, TO TAKE THAT EXAMPLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY A MEMBER OF A USER ASSOCIATION ORGANIZATION, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE RESOURCEFUL ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE BUT MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO JOIN, AS SUCH, AN ORGANIZATION.

SO THOSE COULD BRING IN THEIR INPUTS, DEPENDING ON THE ISSUE AT HAND.

THE SECOND POINT IS THAT I GOT A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY ALEJANDRO'S RESPONSE TO BRET EARLIER ON, ON THE LIMITATION OR THE SELF-LIMITATION OF THE LSE REPORT. I THINK THE REPORT -- THE REVIEW WAS ABOUT THE GNSO, SO LSE COLLECTED INFORMATION AND DATA FROM WITHIN THE GNSO. I DON'T THINK THEY NECESSARILY HAD TO GO OUTSIDE THE GNSO AND COLLECT PEOPLE'S OPINIONS WHETHER THEY FEEL REPRESENTED OR NOT.

NEVERTHELESS, WE ANNOUNCE THE REVIEW PROCESS ON OUR VARIOUS LISTS, AND ANYONE BEING ALREADY A MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUENCY COULD TALK TO THE LSE TEAM. AND SO IF WE -- IF WE GO DOWN THAT PATH, WE ARE ALL SELF-LIMITED BECAUSE EVEN THE ICANN HERE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT ALL THE USERS IN THE WORLD. ONLY THOSE WE MANAGE TO GET HOLD, TO REACH OUT TO, AND ARE INFORMED CAN JOIN THE PROCESS. AND THAT WAS THE SITUATION WITH THE LSE REPORT AS WELL.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THAT NOT -- I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING -- I RECOGNIZE THE AUTONOMY OF THE BOARD TO MAKE DECISION BASED ON VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION. I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING, AS BRET, THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE THE PACKAGE OR LEAVE IT, THE LSE PACKAGE OR LEAVE IT. BUT THESE SELF-LIMITATION ISSUES, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO FOCUS ON THAT BECAUSE LSE GOT TO TALK TO EVERYBODY WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE GNSO PROCESSES, AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS THE OUTCOME OF THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT DATA THEY COLLECTED. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU. AS -- MAYBE SOME OF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT MAWAKI AND I AND PEOPLE IN HIS GROUP HAVE HAD LONG CONVERSATIONS FOR SOME TIME.

MAWAKI, AS A DEGREE STUDENT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, IF I REMEMBER WELL, I'M PARTICULARLY SURPRISED BY YOUR COMMENT. THE LSE REVIEW, IN ALL ITS QUALITY AND ALL THE FLOWERY EULOGY ONE CAN MAKE ABOUT IT, HAS A SELF-IMPOSED LIMITATION THAT I THINK THIS IS, I MEAN, A SERIOUS METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATION. I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THAT IT IS FLAWED OR IT'S WRONG IN ITS CONCLUSIONS, BUT IT'S A SELF-SELECTED LIMITED UNIVERSE TO ASK ABOUT REPRESENTATIVENESS. AND IF YOU ASK THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WHETHER THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THEMSELVES, THEY WILL SURELY SAY YES. IF YOU ASK THEM WHETHER THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOMETHING ELSE, YOU WILL FIND SOME NUANCES IN THAT RESPONSE. REPRESENTATIVENESS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE IN SOME OF THE CONSTITUENCIES. IT HAS TO BE STUDIED RIGOROUSLY. IT'S NOT THE SAME -- I MEAN, THE PARAMETERS CANNOT BE THE SAME FOR, LET'S SAY, THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH IS FORMED BY ALL GTLD REGISTRIES THAT EXIST.

AND CONSTITUENCIES LIKE THE NONCOMMERCIAL OR THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS YOU ARE IN, WHETHER IT'S NONCOMMERCIAL, ALTRUISTIC, NOT-FOR-PROFIT, ET CETERA OR FOR-PROFIT. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THOUSANDS, MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND MAYBE EVEN MILLIONS, OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THE NONCOMMERCIAL USE OF THE INTERNET AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SPECIFICALLY, AND THE COMMERCIAL USE.

AND THE LIMITATION OF NOT GOING OUT AND FINDING OUT WHETHER THEY HAVE ISSUES, WHETHER THESE ISSUES ARE REPRESENTED, WHETHER THEY KNOW ABOUT WHO IS REPRESENTING THEM, WHETHER THEY FIND THE CORPORATE AGGREGATION OF ORGANIZATIONS MODEL THAT WILL HAVE TO REPRESENT THEM AND SO FORTH VALID IS A SERIOUS LIMITATION. AND I MEAN, I'M SURPRISED FROM A STUDENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE THAT -- THAT YOU WOULD NOT FIND THIS -- I WOULD MORE HAVE EXPECTED THAT YOU WOULD TELL US HOW TO SAMPLE THAT IN AN EFFICIENT WAY WITHOUT HAVING TO REDO THE WHOLE STUDY.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: I'M SORRY IF I DISAPPOINT YOU, ALEJANDRO. THE POINT IS, I RECALL -- THE SELF-LIMITATION IS A FACT, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE ARE ALL SELF-LIMITED, AND THE LSE PEOPLE ARE MORE COMPETENT THAN ME IN POLITICAL SCIENCE TO DEAL WITH THAT.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THAT LIMITATION DOESN'T IMPACT THAT MUCH THE OUTCOME OF THESE RESULTS, IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S A GNSO REVIEW AND ALL THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY PART OF THE CONSTITUENCIES IN THE GNSO WERE AWARE ABOUT -- ABOUT THE REVIEW, AND THEY COULD TALK TO -- MAKE APPOINTMENTS IN THE OTHER MEETING IN NEW ZEALAND, FROM THE OTHER MEETING IN NEW ZEALAND, AND ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL TO TALK TO THEM.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE THEIR OUTCOME OR THEIR RECOMMENDATION UNIVERSAL, BECAUSE THERE IS THAT SELF-LIMITATION, BUT YOU CAN'T REALLY BE UNIVERSAL. YOU NEED TO DEFINE YOUR TOPIC AREA OR YOUR ISSUE AREA, AND THAT WAS WHAT THEY DID, I THINK. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: SUSAN, I THINK YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP ALSO.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU. VERY BRIEFLY, MAWAKI, I TAKE TWO POINTS FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'M SURE THERE'S MORE, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN SUMMARIZE.

THAT THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL USERS MAY BE UNDEREMPHASIZED IN ICANN, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS MAY BE OVEREMPHASIZED. THAT THE LSE REPORT MAKES THE POINT THAT IT SHOULD BE EASIER FOR PEOPLE AND ENTITIES TO HAVE AN ENTRY POINT INTO ICANN, TO HAVE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT ENCOURAGE BROAD PARTICIPATION, AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S A VERY VITAL, CENTRAL POINT ABOUT THAT REPORT.

ON THE REPRESENTATIVENESS QUESTION, ICANN COULD NEVER CLAIM TO BE A DEMOCRACY. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO HERE. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE GLOBAL RULES FOR GTLD REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE NEEDED AND BASED ON WHO SHOWS UP, WHO CARES ENOUGH TO SPEAK. AND THE BASIS FOR OUR LEGITIMACY IS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO SHOW UP, NOT TO CLAIM THAT WE'RE PERFECTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. THAT'S WHY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION AND TRANSPARENCY IS SO IMPORTANT.

SO FORGIVE ME IF I'VE MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISCHARACTERIZED YOUR REMARKS. I THINK THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT, AND I DO HOPE THAT WE DON'T OVEREMPHASIZE THE ROLE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS IN THIS EXERCISE. THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, SUSAN. PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: MY NAME IS NAOMASA MARUYAMA WITH JPNIC, BUT I SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF.

NOW, PEOPLE ARE DISCUSSING ABOUT THE GNSO REVIEW AND LSE REPORT, SO I DECIDED TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC, BUT RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OF LSE, I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE GNSO SO FAR.

TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS TOPIC, I WANT TO RECALL TO YOU WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MARRAKECH MEETING. IN THE MARRAKECH MEETING, THE BOARD DECISION WAS LIKE -- I CANNOT REMEMBER THE PRECISE LANGUAGE OF THE BOARD DECISION, BUT IT WAS LIKE THIS: "THE BOARD URGES THE GNSO TO COME UP WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE NEXT MEETING," OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THIS IS THE VERY IMPRESSIVE THING THAT I SAW IN THE LAST MARRAKECH MEETING, BECAUSE I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE -- THESE ICANN MEETINGS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THAT KIND OF DECISION -- I NEVER SAW THAT KIND OF DECISION IN THE PAST, THAT THE BOARD IS URGING THE GNSO. IN THE PAST, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE URGING THE BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION. THAT'S TREMENDOUS CHANGE, I THINK.

AND I FELT THAT IS THE -- SOME TURNING POINT FOR THE ICANN AND THE -- QUITE FRANKLY, MY FEELING IS THAT THE PDP PROCESS OF THE -- DEFINED IN THE ICANN REFORM HAS JUST BEGUN TO PRODUCE FRUIT. SO IT'S -- I THINK OUR PDP PROCESS IS A VERY IMPORTANT TOOL FOR THE DECISION-MAKING IN ICANN, AND IT'S DEFINED IN THE REVISED BYLAWS. I THINK IT'S THREE OR FOUR YEARS OLD. BUT IT'S JUST BEGUN TO PRODUCE FRUIT. JUST LIKE THE ROMAN EMPIRE IS NOT BUILT IN A DAY, THE PDP PROCESS IS NOT BUILT IN A DAY. IT'S NOT ENOUGH JUST STIPULATING THE PDP PROCESS IN THE BYLAWS, BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE TO LEARN HOW TO USE THAT, HOW TO WORK WITH THAT, AND MY FEELING IS THAT THE -- THIS YEAR -- ACTUALLY, THE -- RECENTLY, THE GNSO PUBLISHED THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR ONE PDP AND PROBABLY ANOTHER ONE WILL COME UP SOON, I THINK, AND THIS IS A GREAT JOB DONE BY THE GNSO COUNCILLORS, AND THIS IS THE -- WHAT THE NEW TREE OF THREE OR FOUR YEARS OLD JUST BEGUN TO PRODUCE FRUIT.

SO TO -- I WANT TO -- I WANT TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS AND ALL OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOT TO MAKE DECISIONS JUST UPON THE RATHER LOW PERFORMANCE IN THE PAST, BUT PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE -- IT'S JUST BEGUN TO PRODUCE FRUIT, AND DO NOT CUT THE YOUNG TREE OF THREE OR FOUR YEARS OLD WHICH HAS JUST BEGUN TO PRODUCE FRUIT. IT WILL -- IT MAY PRODUCE VALUABLE FRUIT. THAT IS MY COMMENT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MARUYAMA. PAUL LEVINS?

>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: OF COURSE THERE WILL BE SOME POINT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, OF COURSE, BUT IT SHOULD BE -- PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT HAPPENINGS WHICH HAPPENED IN THIS THREE OR FOUR MONTHS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PAUL LEVINS?

>>PAUL LEVINS: THANKS, VINT. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T MET ME, MY NAME IS PAUL LEVINS AND I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS WITH ICANN. AS YOU'RE AWARE, WE'RE UNDERTAKING A CONSULTATION ON A SET OF MANAGEMENT OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN UNDERWAY SINCE THE 16TH OF OCTOBER.

AS PAUL TWOMEY SAID ON MONDAY, WE'VE EXTENDED THAT INITIAL CONSULTATION PHASE THROUGH TO THE 31ST OF DECEMBER, AND WE'VE ALREADY POSTED A SUMMARY OF COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR ON THE ICANN WEB SITE. YOU CAN READ THOSE THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE SUBMISSIONS TO THAT PROCESS. WE HAVE -- IT'S BEEN MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO US ALREADY IN THIS CONSULTATION PHASE THAT IT'S A PROCESS THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO -- AND CANNOT AFFORD TO RUSH, AND WE WON'T DO THAT. BUT IN ADDITION, I'D BE PLEASED TO -- I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE AT THIS CONFERENCE SO FAR, AND PEOPLE HAVE APPROACHED ME, WHICH HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND I THANK THEM FOR THAT. IN ADDITION WE HAD A VERY USEFUL SESSION, I THINK, WITH THE CCNSO THE OTHER DAY.

BUT AS WELL AS THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE OFFER OF MAKING MYSELF AVAILABLE THIS AFTERNOON FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT HAVE VIEWS THAT THEY WANT TO EXPRESS, AND I'VE BOOKED A ROOM CALLED THE QUITO ROOM -- Q-U-I-T-O -- QUITO ROOM, WHICH IS ON THE LOWER LEVEL, AND I PLAN TO BE AVAILABLE THERE FROM 2:00 TO AROUND 3:00 THIS AFTERNOON, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUE, WHOM MANY OF YOU MIGHT KNOW, PATRICK SHARRY, WHO IS ASSISTING US WITH THIS PROCESS. THANKS, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL. BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT WE ARE WELL OVER TIME NOW TO GET OTHER REPORTS DONE, AND THERE'S ALSO SOME TIME FOR COMMENTS AFTER THAT, SO I'M VERY CONCERNED. I DON'T WANT TO ADD ANY MORE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE QUEUE NOW. I'M CLOSING THE QUEUE. I WOULD ASK EACH OF YOU WHO ARE STANDING RIGHT NOW TO KEEP YOUR REMARKS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> CHANG-HUN LEE: CHANG-HUN LEE FROM IBI.NET. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ICANN BOARD FOR ITS LEADERSHIP EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AND SOLVE THE MANY RELATED ISSUES TO IDN. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF IDN, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ICANN BOARD IF THERE IS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR ESTABLISHING ANY FORMAL LANGUAGE COMMUNITY OR CONSTITUENCY WITHIN THE PRESENT ICANN BODY.

THE TERMS OF LANGUAGE COMMUNITY MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DEFINE. THE REASON IS THAT IDN IS NOT ONLY THE CHANGING OF LANGUAGE SCRIPT FROM ASCII TO NON-ASCII, AS YOU KNOW VERY WELL. THIS WILL BE CHALLENGING FOR THE ENTIRE INTERNET STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY, SO THERE MUST BE WELL THOUGHT OUT CONSENSUS POSITIONED REGARDED TO REGIONAL LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES, CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SENSITIVITY, AND, IN ADDITION, A CERTAIN POINT WHERE LANGUAGE ITSELF SYMBOLIZED THE COMMUNITY'S IDENTIFICATION.

FINALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE IDN REGISTRY SHOULD DEMONSTRATE BROAD-BASED SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL LANGUAGE COMMUNITY IN SELECTING AS IDN TLD REGISTRY. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, AND THAT MIGHT BE A PLACE IN WHICH TO BEGIN.

NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>JAY WESTERDAL: HI. JAY WESTERDAL, DOMAIN TOOLS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT AND SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE ICANN MEETINGS AND VENUES IS THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND MORE HEALTHY FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE A SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS IN MEETINGS AND IN THE HALLS OUTSIDE OF THE MEETINGS AND IN THE ACTUAL VENUE LOCATION.

I CAN RESPECT THAT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES AROUND THE WORLD THAT ALLOW SMOKING IN MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, BUT I THINK THAT WHEN THE ICANN STAFF SIGNS CONTRACTS FOR VENUES, THAT THEY ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO SMOKING INSIDE OF THE VENUE ITSELF. SPECIFICALLY AT LEAST PAST THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: SUSAN, I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN YOUR MEETINGS COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT AND LAST COMMENT IN THE OPEN SESSION RIGHT NOW.

>> BRANDON SANDERS: MY NAME IS BRANDON SANDERS. I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH ICANNWIKI. I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO ICANN THANK YOU FOR THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WEB SITE. THIS IS A GOOD STEP, I BELIEVE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CHATTING WITH PAUL AND OTHERS ABOUT WAYS THAT IT COULD BE EVEN BETTER.

AND ONE OTHER COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS ABOUT THE IGF AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ICANN TO GO AWAY.

I SEE KIND OF RIGHT NOW THERE'S A -- PERHAPS A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE METHODS OF GOVERNANCE BETWEEN THE PYRAMID AS A WAY OF ORGANIZING AND THE NETWORK AS A WAY OF ORGANIZING. AND IF ICANN STAYS KIND OF IN THE PYRAMID SHAPE, I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET OUT-PYRAMIDED BY THE GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE AND ARMIES AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL PARTICIPANTS TO JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO ORGANIZE AS THE NETWORK, BECAUSE THE NETWORK IS NOT JUST NEXT, IT'S NOW.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU. I WAS AFRAID YOU WERE GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD START DEVELOPING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR SOMETHING.

[LAUGHTER]

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE HAVE NOW GOTTEN RATHER LATE TO THE OTHER REPORTS.

THE ONE THAT -- THAT WE DIDN'T GET TO DO RIGHT AWAY WAS TO INVITE OUR HOST FOR THE LISBON MEETING TO COME AND GET US ALL EXCITED ABOUT COMING TO PORTUGAL, SO I'LL ASK PEDRO VEIGA TO COME AND GIVE YOU A PREVIEW OF WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE THERE.

>>PEDRO VEIGA: WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS PED

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers