Site Map    |    Site Index    | 

Quick Links: Select A Link Below About ICANN Accountability and Review Accountability and Transparency Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Announcements Annual Report Articles of Incorporation At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Blog Board Meeting Minutes Board of Directors Budget Bylaws Calendar of Events Committees - Other Committees - Advisory Committees - Board Committees - Past Contact Information Contracts Contractual Compliance Newsletter Contractual Compliance Program Corporate Documents Correspondence Country Code TLD Managers - Information for Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Country-Code Top-Level Domain Agreements Country-Code Top-Level Domain Board Materials Country-Code Top-Level Domain Listings Current Topics Dashboard Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Documents Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies Employment Opportunities Factsheets Fellowship Office Financial Information First-Time Visitors Former Directors Frequently Asked Questions GNSO Improvements Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Program Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLDs) Life Cycle Generic Top-Level Domain Information (gTLDs) Global Partnerships Glossary Governmental Advisory Committee IANA Agreement IANA ccTLD Reports IANA ICANN Info IDN Glossary IPv6 Policy Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures InterNIC Internal Procedure for Conflicts with Privacy Law Internationalized Domain Names Links Litigation Documents Major Agreements Maps Meetings Mission Monthly Magazine Monthly Registry Reports News Newsletters & News Alerts Newsletters Archive Nominating Committee Ombudsman Operating Plan Organizational Chart PGP Keys Participate in ICANN Partnership Memorandums of Understanding Payments to ICANN Photos Planning Process Policy Area Policy Issue Briefs Policy Update Presentations President and CEO President's Strategy Committee Press Resources Public Comment Public Participation Site Publications RSS Feed Registrants Information Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Registrar Accreditation Overview Registrar Advisories Registrar Agreements Registrar Complaints Registrar Data Escrow Program Registrar Information Registrar Problem - Get Help Registrars - Accredited Registry Agreements Registry Information Registry Listings Registry Monthly Reports Registry Services Evaluation Process Report Inaccurate Whois Information Resources Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Speeches Sponsored Top-Level Domains Staff Strategic Plan Supporting Organizations Technical Liason Group Transfers Translations Transparency Travel Support Universal Acceptance of All Top-Level Domains Video Vint Cerf's Legacy Letter to ICANN Community Website Enhancement Whois Information Whois Search

Search:

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

  |  Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts  |  ICANN Blog  |  Public Comment

• Home
• About
• Policy
• Current Topics
• Processes
• Documents
• Video
• Contact

^ Home

> Meetings

ICANN PUBLIC FORUM, PART II
THURSDAY, 30 MARCH 2006
WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND

>>VINT CERF: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM.
WE HAVE QUITE A FEW THINGS TO COVER THIS MORNING, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO MOVE THINGS SWIFTLY ALONG.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED BY ALEJANDRO PISANTY, THE VICE CHAIR OF ICANN.
ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN -- SINCE OUR LAST MEETING IN VANCOUVER, HAS BEEN INTERACTING MOSTLY BY E-MAIL AND HERE IN A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE FIRST OF THEM IS FOR MEETING PREPARATION.
WE HAVE -- WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO THE BOARD TODAY TO ANALYZE A PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION NEEDED FOR BOARD MEETINGS, WHICH WILL PROPOSE THAT 21 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD CALLS THE BOARD TO PROPOSE -- BOARD MEMBERS TO PROPOSE AGENDA ITEMS AND DISCUSS -- START THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGENDA.
SINCE THE BOARD IS NOT VERY -- IT'S NOT A GOOD USE OF THE BOARD'S TIME TO SPEND A LOT OF HOURS AND E-MAIL EXCHANGES IN DISCUSSING THE AGENDA FULLY, WE WILL HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, AND THEN WE'LL LEAVE FOR THE -- THE PROPOSAL WILL ASK FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO HAVE A CALL SPECIFICALLY ON THE AGENDA AND DECIDE WHAT WILL BE THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING.
AND TEN DAYS -- THAT WILL BE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MEETING.
AND THEN FOUR DAYS LATER OR FIVE DAYS LATER, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT, -- APOLOGIES -- THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLISHED WITH ITEMS.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE ITEMS, THE STAFF SUPPORT DESIGNATED, IF THERE IS ANY, AND THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS.
AND THERE WILL BE A CALL FOR RESOURCING THIS WORK APPROPRIATELY IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLY FULFILLED.
THIS SOUNDS VERY NICE AND GOOD, AND AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY, WE WILL WOULD HAVE TO START DISCUSSING THE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO THIS IS ABOUT THE REALISM OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL.
BUT WE BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BEGIN TO STICK TO.
ABOUT REPORTS FROM MEETINGS AND MINUTES, WHICH HAVE BEEN A VERY, VERY VEXING QUESTION, THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT REAL OFFICIAL MINUTES CAN ACTUALLY ONLY BE PUBLISHED AFTER THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE FULL BOARD.
SO THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE US ON A ONE-MONTH TYPE OF SCHEDULE FOR PUBLISHING THE MINUTES.
SO WE ARE WORKING ON THE ADEQUACY OF PRELIMINARY REPORTS THAT WILL TELL THE COMMUNITY THE MAIN RESULTS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND POSSIBLY THE THINKING -- AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OF THE THINKING THAT WENT INTO THEM.
AND ALL OF THIS IS SUBJECTED TO A LIABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH IS STILL IN DISCUSSION.
DIFFERENT WAYS TO REPORT THINGS ARE SHOWN TO CAUSE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF LIABILITY.
SOME OF THEM WE ARE ALREADY TESTING.
SO WE WILL BE STUDYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE.
THE NEXT ONE.
THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE POPULATION OF COMMITTEES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN TASKS OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
WHAT WE'LL BE PROPOSING FOR DISCUSSION IN THE COMING DAYS OR HOURS, DAYS, OR WEEKS, WILL BE THE DESIRABILITY OF DEADLINES FOR COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR A DIRECTOR WHO ENTERS THE BOARD ANEW, WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A DEADLINE THERE OR IS THAT MICROMANAGEMENT.
BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO DO COMMITTEE WORK AS THEY JOIN THE BOARD ARE ASSIGNED TO AT LEAST ONE COMMITTEE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROCEDURES FOR POPULATING THE COMMITTEES.
AND THERE WILL BE SOME MORE ONGOING.
BUT, BASICALLY, THE MESSAGE WILL BE, STICK TO THE PROCEDURES AND TRY TO DO THIS WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS.
THE FINAL POINT THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION FOR THE LAST WEEKS WAS COMMITTEE REPORTS.
THESE ARE ALSO DESIRABLE BEFORE THE MEETINGS, LIKE THIS -- THE ONE I AM PRESENTING NOW ON THE MORNING WE HAVE WITH COMMITTEE REPORTS, ONE WOULD WISH -- WHAT WE FIND DESIRABLE IS TO HAVE A SIMILAR TIME LINE FOR BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR -- FOR COMMITTEE WORK AS THE AGENDA WE'RE PROPOSING FOR ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE -- OF THE BOARD.
WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL INSTANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS HAD SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE IT'S ONLY ABLE TO PRODUCE A REPORT TO THE BOARD THE SAME DAY IT MEETS.
AND THAT MAY EVEN BE THE SAME DAY THE BOARD IS ALREADY MEETING.
BUT THIS COMES TOGETHER WITH A CALL FOR MORE WORK TO BE DONE BY COMMITTEE AND LESS BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND THE BOARD, TRY TO PUBLISH -- WELL, NEXT POINT IS THAT WE WILL TRY TO PUBLISH TO THE BOARD AT LEAST, AND, IF POSSIBLE, AND RELEVANT, PUBLICLY, FOR WHAT ARE THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE'S TASKS ITSELF.
THE COMMITTEE HAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN ADVANCE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THEM TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
SO WE WILL TRY TO HAVE THE TIME LINE FOR THIS YEAR.
AGAIN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THE DESIRABILITY OF ASSIGNING SPECIFIC TASKS, AND, IF NECESSARY, OTHER RESOURCES, FOR EACH OF THE COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD.
THIS IS ALREADY DONE, IN FACT, IN MANY WAYS.
I MEAN, THE COMMITTEES GET A LOT OF SUPPORT.
BUT IT WILL BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE THIS ASSIGNED IN MAYBE MORE SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT WAYS.
THAT'S MY REPORT, SIR.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.
I DON'T SEE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE -- OR FROM THE BOARD.
SO LET'S MOVE ON NOW.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM SUSAN CRAWFORD, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE.
SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE BOARD COMMITTEE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MET ON THE 28TH OF MARCH HERE IN WELLINGTON.
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE -- OF THIS COMMITTEE ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE WERE ALL PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
WHAT WE HAD DONE IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING IS TO CALL FOR ALL OF THE DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS TO FILL OUT A RATHER DETAILED FORM EXPLAINING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, AFFILIATIONS, AND WHAT BEARING ANY OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS HAD ON THE WORK THAT ICANN CARRIES OUT.
WE COLLECTED THAT INFORMATION.
AND DURING THE MEETING ON THE 28TH, WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS AND DISCUSSED THEM.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE DISCUSSED THE QUESTION WHETHER DIRECTORS WHO CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS, AS REQUIRED BY OUR BYLAWS, SHOULD ALSO REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN RELATED BOARD DISCUSSIONS.
THIS QUESTION HAS NOT, I SUGGEST, BY FINALLY RESOLVED.
THERE'S A DIVIDE OF VIEWS ON THIS QUESTION.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT.
WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE DIRECTORS' OBLIGATION NOT TO VOTE ON A MATTER IN WHICH THEY HAVE MATERIAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST.
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SERVES AS A SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, LOOKING OUT VERY CAREFULLY FOR THOSE SORTS OF CONFLICTS WHEN THEY ARISE AND BEING ABLE TO DISCUSS THEM WITH RELEVANT DIRECTORS.
AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD TAKE THESE ISSUES EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
WE WERE ALSO BRIEFED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT GOING THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS.
AND WE ARE SUPPORTING HIM IN HIS EFFORTS TO DO THAT AND ALSO WILL BE PERSONALLY AVAILABLE TO WORK THROUGH THIS SET OF QUESTIONS WITH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE RICH AND VARIED DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE AT ICANN, THAT THE TAPESTRY OF AFFILIATIONS BE KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGING IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUSAN.
I APPRECIATE THE BREVITY AND CLARITY OF YOUR REPORT.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
HAGEN, I WONDER IF I COULD ASK YOU TO PRESENT THAT.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: READY FOR TAKEOFF.
FIRST OF ALL, APOLOGIZE, MY LITTLE RUSTY VOICE.
WE ARE REALLY SAVING MONEY AND WE ARE NOW SAVING THE WATER FOR THOSE BEING ON THE BOARD.
THAT'S ONE RESULT OF GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS MORE OR LESS CONTINUOUSLY ACTIVE SINCE THE LAST REPORT IN VANCOUVER.
MYSELF BEING THE CHAIR, I WAS IN CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE WITH MELANIE KELLER, OUR CFO.
AND THE OTHER MEMBERS WERE ALSO INFORMED, ESPECIALLY IN A CONFERENCE CALL WHICH I WILL MENTION IN A FEW MINUTES.
THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, MOUHAMET DIOP, MYSELF, JOICHI ITO, AND MIKE PALAGE.
WE MET FOR A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON MARCH 9TH WITH, LET'S SAY, A KIND OF DENSE AGENDA, REVIEWING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS HAVING STARTED IN 1ST JULY LAST YEAR AND COMPARED REVENUES AND EXPENSES AGAINST WHAT WE HAVE BUDGETED.
WE REVIEWED THE CASH FLOW AND ANALYZED IT AND MADE PROJECTIONS FOR THE WHOLE FISCAL YEAR BASED ON THE NUMBERS IN THE FORECAST PROVIDED BY THE CFO.
WE REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY REVENUE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007, AND ALSO ANTICIPATED, LET'S SAY, SOURCES OF REVENUE, INCLUDING ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE CURRENTLY GOING ON.
WE DISCUSSED THE OPERATING PLAN AND EXPENSE -- AND THE RELATED EXPENSE BUDGET FOR THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- WE TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PLAN.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, AS THE CEO HAS REPORTED ALREADY YESTERDAY.
AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT A DRAFT ON OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES, WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF MAJOR OBJECTIVES TO BE SEPARATELY BUDGETED.
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ALWAYS A CONSIDERATION COMING FROM YOU TO US.
SEPARATELY BUDGETED AND MANAGED.
THIS IS A PART OF THE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING.
WE ALSO HAD OBJECTIVES EXPLICITLY LINKED TO KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHERE AND WHY WE SPEND THE MONEY WHICH IS COMING FROM OUR CONSTITUENCIES TO US.
AND WE IDENTIFIED THE, LET'S SAY, RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THIS.
NEXT, PLEASE.
THE MEETING DURING THIS VENUE HERE IN WELLINGTON WAS ON TUESDAY.
WE REVIEWED THE CCTLD CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE STATUS OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CCNSO THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD WITH CCNSO YESTERDAY.
WE REVIEWED AND IDENTIFIED THE RISKS AND REVENUE PLAN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
WE REVIEWED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE EIGHT MONTHS, ONE MONTH MORE AGAINST THE OTHER MEETING OF EARLY MARCH, WITH COMPARISON OF REVENUES AND THE EXPENSES AGAINST BUDGET.
AND AS USUAL, THERE ARE VARIATIONS.
WE DISCUSSED THE OPERATING PLAN AND EXPENSE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
WE HAD A STATUS OF FEEDBACK TO DATE OF THE OPERATING PLAN THROUGH THE ONLINE FORUM AND THE SCHEDULED CONSULTATIONS IN WELLINGTON.
WE AGAIN TALKED ABOUT STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
THAT IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE REGARDING FINANCES.
AND WE DISCUSSED THE TIMETABLE FOR POSTING A REVISED OPERATING PLAN, FOLLOWED BY THE PROPOSED BUDGET ON OR POSSIBLY BEFORE 17 MAY, AS REQUIRED BY THE ICANN BYLAWS.
NEXT.
THE SUMMARY IS, REGARDING EXPENSES, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A RESPONSIBLE CASH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYED BY THE ORGANIZATION TO MAINTAIN OR, LET'S SAY TO START TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE CASH RESERVES.
YOU REMEMBER THAT WE STRESSED THIS SITUATION, AND WE SHOULD FIND WAYS FOR LONG TERM, WE SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE CASH RESERVE.
THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS OF THE 12-MONTH YEAR, ARE UNDERRUNNING BY ABOUT 22%.
THE SAVINGS ARE BALANCED AMONG TRAVEL, PERSONNEL, AND ADMINISTRATION LINE ITEMS.
ACTUALLY, HIRING SPENDING WAS UNDER PLAN, BECAUSE ON MANAGED AND INTENTIONALLY, MANAGED DELAYS THROUGH DECEMBER UNTIL REVENUES WERE SECURED FOR REGISTRAR BUDGET APPROVAL.
YOU REMEMBER WE HAD A KIND OF DELAY OF SIX MONTHS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO DELAY THE HIRING, SO WE WOULD NOT POSSIBLY RUN INTO A, LET'S SAY A CASH PROBLEM.
EXPENSES ARE ALWAYS BEING TAILORED TO MATCH THE REVENUES.
THAT'S A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, CAUSING THESE DELAYS IN HIRING WHICH I JUST MENTIONED.
YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT 36% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES IS RELATED TO HUMAN RESOURCE, TO PERSONNEL.
NEXT, PLEASE.
KIND OF SUMMARY, REVENUE AND CASH FLOW.
THE REGISTRAR INVOICING COMPLETED FOR FIRST HALF OF FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006, FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF BUDGETED REVENUES AFTER THE VANCOUVER MEETING IS UNDERWAY AND HAS DONE WELL.
THE REGISTRAR APPLICATION AND ACCREDITATION FEES ARE OVERRUNNING THE BUDGET.
APPLICATIONS AND RELATED REVENUES SHARPLY INCREASED IN JANUARY 2006.
FROM A REVENUE POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S GOOD.
WE HAVE TO SEE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS.
AND ICANN CONTINUES TO PURSUE THE -- LET'S SAY FURTHER DIVERSITY OF REVENUE SOURCES BY TALKING ABOUT THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE RIRS, BY A POLICY FOR ICANN FUNDING DEVELOPED BY THE CCNSO, AND BY THE FRAMEWORK OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THE CCTLDS.
AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE OTHER, LET'S SAY, FUTURE PERSPECTIVES WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAGEN.
I DON'T SEE QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL GO ON.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE.
AND I'LL CALL ON MIKE PALAGE TO GIVE THAT REPORT.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEMBERS OF -- ACTUALLY, WE HAVE THE ICANN BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THERE YOU GO.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DON'T -- WHEN I DO THIS EARLY IN THE MORNING.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, NOT THE FINANCE.
AND, HAGEN, I WILL GIVE YOU FULL COPYRIGHT.
THIS IS A DERIVATIVE WORK OF YOUR SLIDES.
ACTUALLY.

>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, THIS IS THE COMMITTEE THAT HELPS SPEND THE MONEY THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE PRODUCES.
SO THERE'S A CONNECTION.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: HAGEN, I KNOW A GOOD COPYRIGHT LAWYER IF....

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: OKAY.
ONE OF THE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE IS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH OF THE ICANN REGIONS, WHICH MAKES SCHEDULING TELECONFERENCES A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO DO SINCE OUR MEETING IN VANCOUVER IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ALL OF OUR, IF YOU WILL, DISCUSSIONS, DIALOGUES, VIA E-MAIL.
SO WE THINK THE USE OF ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATIONS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN VERY POSITIVE.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE POINTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO CONVEY TO THE COMMUNITY REGARDING OUR ACTIONS SINCE THE VANCOUVER MEETING.
FIRST, ICANN HAS SELECTED SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, FOR ITS ANNUAL MEETING, SCHEDULED FROM DECEMBER 2ND THROUGH DECEMBER 8TH, 2006.
THE SECOND ACTION ITEM IS THAT THE ICANN BOARD WILL CONVENE A BOARD RETREAT MAY 18TH THROUGH THE 20TH IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.
THE THIRD ACTION ITEM, ICANN HAS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED ITS FIRST QUARTER 2007 REGIONAL MEETING FOR MARCH 26TH THROUGH MARCH 30TH IN 2007.
THIS IS TO BE HELD IN EUROPE.
BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE IETF MEETING, ICANN STAFF IS EVALUATING THE OPTION OF POTENTIALLY SHIFTING THIS REGIONAL MEETING TO MINIMIZE THE INCONVENIENCE OF PARTICIPANTS THAT WILL ATTEND BOTH THE IETF AND ICANN MEETING.
AND A POINT TO PETER, YOU'LL NOTICE HOW FIRST QUARTER, AS OPPOSED TO SPRING.
I'M NOT HEMISPHERICALLY CHALLENGED.
MOVING ALONG, STAFF, THE ICANN STAFF, HAS UNDERTAKEN A FOLLOW-UP VISIT TO THE MARRAKESH VENUE AND IS WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE HOST AND SPONSOR, AND STEPS ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL MEETING.
THE ICANN MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS ALSO DISCUSSING POTENTIAL 2008 MEETING DATES.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE TO HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ACTION BY MAY 10TH, 2006, THOSE DATES THAT WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE 2008 CALENDAR YEAR.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, BYLAW METRICS, OR WHAT I CALL THE NJERI RIONGE SLIDE.
WHAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE DID WAS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE BYLAWS AND SEE HOW WE'RE MEASURING UP TO WHAT THE BYLAWS REQUIRE US TO DO.
ONE OF THE POSITIVES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THE ICANN SECRETARIAT HAS, IF YOU WILL, BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN POSTING ON THE ICANN WEB SITE ALL OF THE MEETING DATES FOR THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR, SO THAT THERE'S OPEN AND TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHEN THE BOARD WILL BE MEETING.
THERE HAS BEEN PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOARD'S AGENDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE III, SECTION 4.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS HAS BEEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGIONAL MEETINGS, WHERE THE AGENDA GENERALLY GETS POSTED ONE OR TWO DAYS BEFORE.
SO WE'RE SORT OF WORKING ON THAT.
THE -- A THIRD POINT HERE, AND THIS REALLY GOES TO SORT OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, BUT WE'VE FALLEN A LITTLE SHORT IN THE POSTING OF THE MINUTES.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE ALEJANDRO HAD SPOKEN TO THIS ISSUE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS REPORT.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, THE BOARD, ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE.
AS FAR AS ACTION ITEMS, THERE WERE TWO ACTION ITEMS THAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN HERE DURING OUR MEETING IN WELLINGTON.
THE FIRST IS THAT WE'VE DIRECTED THE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLICATION OF AN RFP FOR THE 2007 MEETING VENUES, AND WE'VE PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING TIME LINE.
WE INTEND TO HAVE THIS RFP PUBLISHED BY MAY 1ST, WITH A DEADLINE OF JUNE 15TH FOR THE RECEIVAL OF PROPOSALS.
STAFF WILL BE CIRCULATING THIS AMONG POTENTIAL PARTIES OF INTEREST, CCTLD ADMINISTRATORS, PREVIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD SUBMITTED PROPOSALS TO THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.
SITE VISITS WILL BE CONDUCTED AMONG POTENTIAL APPLICANTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MOROCCO, MARRAKESH, MEETING, WITH A DECISION TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD AT ITS AUGUST 16TH, 2006 TELECONFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARCH AND JUNE 2000 [SIC] MEETINGS.
THE SECOND ACTION ITEM IS THAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED STAFF PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PROGRAMS COMMITTEE.
THIS WILL BE USED TO INCORPORATE STAKEHOLDER INPUT INTO INCREASING THE FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF ICANN'S MEETINGS.
EACH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WILL BE ASKED TO PROVIDE A REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH WILL BE COORDINATED BY DIANE SCHROEDER ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN STAFF.
IN THE PAST, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS TRIED DIFFERENT MECHANISMS -- SURVEYS, TALKING TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, SOLICITING INPUT -- AND THIS IS SORT OF OUR ATTEMPT TO BE MORE PROACTIVE TO MAKE THESE MEETINGS MORE PRODUCTIVE FOR FIRST-TIME ATTENDEES AS WELL AS, IF YOU WILL, THE HARD-CORE ICANN ATTENDEE.
AND JUST ONE FINAL NOTE.
ACTUALLY, AND THIS IS A PERSONAL NOTE OUT TO AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL. AMADEU PRIOR TO THIS MEETING HAD A PERFECT ATTENDANCE RECORD. 24 STRAIGHT ICANN MEETINGS. THIS IS ACTUALLY HIS FIRST WHERE HE HASN'T ATTENDED, SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE AN UNBROKEN RECORD OF ATTENDANCE?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: NO. I MISSED THE VERY FIRST ONE, SINGAPORE, I MISSED ACCRA BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE SHOTS IN TIME. AND THEN I WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THE EMERGENCY AMSTERDAM MEETING DURING THE EVOLUTION REFORM. SO 22 OUT OF 25.

>>VINT CERF: NOT A BAD RECORD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL.
I WANT TO ESPECIALLY ENDORSE THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE IDEA. AND I PARTICULARLY HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE HERE IN THIS AUDITORIUM AND THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AND THOSE WHO ARE PART OF OUR GENERAL COMMUNITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR INPUTS ON THE NATURE OF LENGTH, DURATION, CONTENT, FORMAT OF OUR MEETINGS.
MICHAEL, IS THERE GOING TO BE PLACE FOR SOME SORT OF PUBLIC INPUT TO THE PROGRAMS COMMITTEE?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THAT'S, IF YOU WILL, TO BE DETERMINED.
AS I SAID, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HERE HAD SOME DISCUSSION. DIANE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT SHORTLY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT, AND I'M SURE YOU WOULD AGREE, TO HAVE THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETING MAKE THEIR INPUTS AS WELL.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL.
THE NEXT REPORT IS FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. I'LL CALL UPON VANDA SCARTEZINI TO MAKE THAT REPORT. VANDA.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
WELL, I'M AFRAID THIS WILL TAKE MUCH MORE TIME THAN THE PREVIOUS REPORTS, BUT I BELIEVE DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS MATTER, IT'S WORTH THE TIME.
SO SINCE MY ENGLISH SOMETIMES SOUNDS AS NOT A LANGUAGE IN SOME WORDS, I WILL HAVE THE HELP OF SOME SLIDES, AND YOU READ THE MINUTES.
SO THE FIRST ONE WAS WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION. AND THIS IS OUR ANALYSIS.
ON 10 MARCH 2006, JONATHON NEVETT, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF POLICY COUNSEL FOR NETWORK SOLUTIONS, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF 19 REGISTRARS A JOINT REQUEST THAT ICANN RECONSIDER ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE APPROVING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT.
THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THE ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION/NETWORKSSOLUTIONSREQUEST.
ON 16 MARCH 2006, THE PARTIES SUBMITTED AN AMENDED RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, ADDING 4 ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR PARTIES TO THE REQUEST.
SEE AGAIN IN .ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION.
THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY ASKS THAT THE BOARD STAY THE DECISION AND RE-VOTE AFTER RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE DOJ, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS WELL AS OTHER EXPERTS ON COMPETITION AND SECURITY ISSUES.
THERE IS A LOT OF -- IN THIS WEB SITE, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE GROUNDS FOR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THOSE. THAT'S MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE ON COMPETITION. ALSO, THE REQUEST PROVIDES NO SEARCH MATERIAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD.
SO JUST PASSING THROUGH, THERE IS A LOT OF GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION. AND I GO, PASSING THROUGH, ANOTHER SLIDE. OKAY.
SO LET'S GO TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS.
SO FIRST, MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE REQUEST REFERS TO WAS PRESENTED TO AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AT LENGTH PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE.
ONE, THE BOARD SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING VERISIGN'S MARKET POSITION AND THE RATIONALES OF FAVORING -- FAVOR OF AND IN OPPOSITION TO ICANN'S ROLE AS A PRICE REGULATOR GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO VERISIGN, INCLUDING WHETHER VERISIGN SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE THE PRICE OF .COM NAMES OR -- AND IN WHAT AMOUNT.
THE BOARD WAS INFORMED OF STAFF DISCUSSION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE EARLY DRAFT OF THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
THE BOARD DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE RENEWAL PROVISION OF 2001 .COM AGREEMENT AND COMPARED THEM TO THE RENEWAL PROVISIONS OF THE NEW AGREEMENT.
SECOND, AT LEAST SEVEN OF THE PARTIES JOINTLY SUBMITTING THE REQUEST PROVIDED ESSENTIALLY THE SAME OR SIMILAR INFORMATION TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE VERISIGN AGREEMENT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON WWW.ICANN.ORG/CORRESPONDENCE/REGISTRARS-TO-CERF14FEBO6 PDF.
THIRD, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, HOW ANY OF THE INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MATERIAL TO ITS DECISION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE REQUESTING PARTIES DO NOT, ONE, PROVIDE ANY ALLEGED KEY FACTS ABOUT VERISIGN'S MARKET POSITION. REQUEST, PAGE 2.
TWO, PROVIDE AN ALLEGED MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE ON COMPETITION.
THIRD, STATE WHAT ECONOMIC THEORY THE REQUESTING PARTIES RELY ON TO SUPPORT THEIR STATEMENT THAT "WELL-ESTABLISHED ECONOMIC THEORY PREDICTS THAT VERISIGN WILL RAISE PRICE AS LONG AS THOSE PRICE INCREASES ARE PROFITABLE."
FOUR, STATE THAT WHAT INFORMATION THEY POSSESS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM THAT IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE REGISTRANTS WOULD CONTINUE TO PAY SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PRICES TO MAINTAIN THEIR .COM NAMES INSTEAD OF SWITCHING TO LESS DESIRABLE TLDS.
AND FIVE, PURPORTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS MARKET DYNAMICS.
AND FINALLY, AND FOR OUR GROUP, THE MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, WHY THE REQUESTING PARTIES COULD NOT AND DID NOT BRING THIS INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.
TO THE CONTRARY, THE REQUESTING PARTIES HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, INCLUDING THE TWO PUBLIC NOTICE PERIODS THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON THE OCTOBER 2005 VERSION OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND THE JANUARY 2006 VERSION OF THE SAME AGREEMENT.
THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT THE REQUESTING PARTIES STATES THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE WAS THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON PRICING.
BUT THESE VIEWS, TO THE EXTENT AVAILABLE AND RELEVANT, WERE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD AND THE ISSUES WERE, IN FACT, DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
SO, TAKING IN ACCOUNT ALL THOSE STATED BELOW, ABOVE, OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE IS THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS TO PROCEED AS EACH OF THE GROUNDS WAS EITHER, ONE, ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OR, TWO, COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO 28 FEBRUARY 2006 APPROVAL.
MOREOVER, THE REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED FOR THE ADDITIONAL REASON THAT MUCH OF THE REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL, LET ALONE DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PURPORTED INFORMATION IS MATERIAL.
THE SECOND ONE -- THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION -- WHERE IS THE OTHER? I AM WAITING FOR HELP WITH THE SLIDES.
SO I START TO READING.
BACKGROUND.
ON 17 OF MARCH 2006, DANNY YOUNGER, A .COM REGISTRANT, SUBMITTED A REQUEST THAT ICANN RECONSIDER ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE APPROVING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT. SEE THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION/YOUNGER-REQUEST-17MAR.
SPECIFICALLY, MR. YOUNGER ASKS THAT THE BOARD AWAIT A FORMAL RESPONSE FROM THE GAC ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY THE ICANN-VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER.
ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS. SO WE HAVE ALSO A LOT OF THE SAME GROUNDS.
SO THE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS, FIRST, THE REQUEST IS STATED POLICY CONCERNS ARE NOT PROPER TOPICS FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2.2 OF ICANN BYLAWS. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ONLY APPROPRIATE TOPIC OF RECONSIDERATION OF AN ICANN BOARD ACTION OR INACTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER MATERIAL INFORMATION IN REACHING ITS DECISION.
THE REQUEST'S STATED POLICY CONCERNS DO NOT PRESENT ANY MATERIAL INFORMATION, AND THUS DO NOT MEET THIS STANDING REQUIREMENT.
SECOND, NEARLY ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS PRESENTED BY THE REQUEST WAS PRESENTED TO AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AT LENGTH PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE IN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IN PARTICULAR, THE BOARD HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON ICANN'S WEB SITE REGARDING THE ICANN-VERISIGN SETTLEMENT. INDEED, A SUMMARY OF ALL COMMENTS WERE ANALYZED, POSTED ON ICANN'S WEB SITE, AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD.
IT'S ALL IN OUR PAGE, TOPICS/VERISIGN SETTLEMENT COMMENTS SUMMARY.
THE BOARD WAS INFORMED OF AND CONSIDERED THE GNSO POLICY DISCUSSIONS, AS PART OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS LEADING TO AND DURING THE 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE.
THE BOARD WAS ALSO INFORMED OF AND CONSIDERED WRITTEN AND/OR VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BOTH THE GNSO AND THE GAC REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
AGAIN, IT'S POSTED ON OUR ICANN.ORG/TOPICS/
VERISIGN-SETTLEMENT COMMENTS-SUMMARY 2006.
THIRD, WHILE THE REQUEST CLAIMS THAT THE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER, I QUOTE, "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE OF EITHER THE GNSO OR THE GAC," THE REQUEST DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, HOW "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" WOULD MATERIALLY ADD TO OR DIFFER FROM THE STATEMENTS ALREADY EXPRESSED BY THE GNSO, THE GAC, OR ANY OTHER STATEMENT BY THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO THE BOARD.
AND FINALLY, AND MOST SIGNIFICANT, THE REQUEST FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY MR. YOUNGER, OR THE GAC OR THE GNSO, COULD NOT AND DID NOT BRING THE INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY VOTE.
TO THE CONTRARY, THE ICANN COMMUNITY HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ALL INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, INCLUDING THE TWO PUBLIC NOTICE PERIODS THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 2005 AND JANUARY 2006.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A PUBLIC FORUM DECEMBER 2005, ICANN MEETING IN VANCOUVER, CANADA, DURING WHICH ICANN DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
ICANN ALSO HELD SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL OF ICANN'S ORGANIZATIONS, COMMITTEES, CONSTITUENCIES, AND ADVISORY GROUPS.
AGAIN, IT'S ALL POSTED IN OUR WEB SITE.
THE FACT THAT THE GNSO, ALAC, CCNSO, AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCY GROUPS EACH PROVIDED WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE SETTLEMENT, FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE, DEMONSTRATES THAT SUFFICIENT TIME EXISTED FOR ALL ICANN COMMITTEES AND ORGANIZATION TO BE HEARD, AND THAT THE ICANN BOARD DID NOT ACT IN HASTE IN APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT.
AGAIN, TOPICS/VERISIGN-SETTLEMENT IN OUR WEB SITE.
THE REQUEST'S POSITION THAT ICANN IS REQUIRED TO WAIT TO ACT ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT UNTIL THE GAC PROVIDES "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE BYLAWS.
INDEED, SUCH A READING OF THE BYLAWS WOULD ALLOW THE GAC TO THROTTLE, OR PERMANENTLY STALL, ANY VOTE BY THE ICANN BOARD THAT INVOLVES PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES BY ENCOURAGING GAC TO DELAY ANY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
SO THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION IS THE FOLLOWING.
FOR THE ABOVE REASON, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST RC 06-2. THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS TO PROCEED, AS EACH OF THE GROUNDS IS EITHER, ONE, NOT AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR RECONSIDERATION. TWO, ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. THREE, COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO 28 FEBRUARY 2006 APPROVAL.
MOREOVER, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE GNSO OR THE GAC "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" WOULD MATERIALLY ADD TO THE VOLUMINOUS STATEMENTS ALREADY EXPRESSED TO THE ICANN BOARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VANDA. I'M SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT AN EASY MEETING OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO -- YES, I SEE YOUR HAND UP, RAIMUNDO.
I WANT TO JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION. PETER, I SEE YOUR HAND AS WELL.
I WON'T TRY TO GUESS ALL OF THE MOTIVATIONS THAT LED TO THOSE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT SOME OF THE CONCERN EXPRESSED IN THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR MITIGATED BY SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER INFORMATION COMING FROM THE BOARD ABOUT ITS RATIONALE FOR REACHING CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE VERISIGN.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: AND THAT -- THAT IN ADDITION TO ACCEPT- -- OR AT LEAST RECEIVING THE ADVICE OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, THAT WE READ THESE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AS AN INDICATION OF GREAT INTEREST IN BETTER TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICULARLY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BETTER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE.
SO EVEN IF THE BOARD ACCEPTS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, I HOPE WE WILL ALSO TAKE TO HEART THE ORIGINS OF SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. AND AS THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY REPORTED, IMPROVEMENT IN OUR ABILITY TO REPORT ON OUR THINKING AND OUR ACTIONS WILL BE WELL RECEIVED.
LET ME ASK RAIMUNDO, AND THEN PETER TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.
RAIMUNDO.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANK YOU, VINT. I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THAT THE -- I AM A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND I DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR. I ABSTAINED IN THE VOTE OF THIS RECONSIDERATION RESOLUTION.
I DIDN'T SPECIFY IN THE COMMITTEE THE REASONS WHY I WAS ABSTAINING, AND I WON'T MAKE IT HERE EITHER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I SAID IN MY STATEMENT DURING THE VOTE ON THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE DOC AND DOJ, WHICH I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, WHICH WAS TO APPROVE ALL THE WORDS IN THIS RESOLUTION.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, VINT. JUST A PERSONAL COMMENT FIRST. THERE'S SOME DELICIOUS IRONY THAT IN HAVING VOTED AGAINST THIS, AS MANY OTHERS ON THE BOARD DID, HAVING VOTED AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THIS REQUEST, I THEN HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST A RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THIS WAS THE MATERIAL THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS PROPERLY DEFINED AND MADE AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE.
I JUST WANT TO PICK UP A POINT THAT WAS MADE IN GROUND "A" OF THE NSI REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERING, WHICH WAS A COMPLAINT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE LACK OF PUBLICATION OF THE MINUTES.
AS FAR AS RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE PRIMARY GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION IS THAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT WE COULD HAVE GOT AND THAT, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT FOR RECONSIDERATION WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED. IT'S NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WE HAVEN'T TOLD YOU WHAT WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT.
BUT AS THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS REPORTED AND AS THE BGC, AS THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS REPORTED, SO, TOO, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS NOTED AND IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MINUTES.
WE DO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE BYLAWS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS SORT OF MATERIAL, UNDER THE GENERAL TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATION, AND OUR COMMITTEE IS ALSO DETERMINED THAT MINUTES WILL PROMPTLY BE PUBLISHED.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.
AND THANK YOU AGAIN, VANDA, FOR THAT REPORT.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, SO LET'S MOVE ON.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM NJERI RIONGE, AND IT IS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S REPORT. SO I WILL CALL ON NJERI TO REPORT THAT.

>>NJERI RIONGE: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE TWO NEW MEMBERS ON THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DURING THIS PERIOD, AND THE TWO MEMBERS, TWO NEW MEMBERS ARE SUSAN CRAWFORD AND PETER DENGATE THRUSH. THE REST OF THE MEMBERS REMAIN THE SAME.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THE LAST MEETING HELD IN VANCOUVER, CANADA, AND FARTHER TO THE ACTION POINTS IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS. IN THIS WELLINGTON MEETING WE HAVE REVIEWED AND UPDATED THE SCHEDULES OF THE DELIVERABLES WITH DEFINITE TIME LINES IN ORDER TO MEET ICANN'S EXPECTATIONS SET WITHIN MANDATORY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
FIRSTLY, THERE'S THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND 2005 AND ITS DELAY.
AND THE AUDIT FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED IN DECEMBER 2005 BY THE NEW AUDITORS, MOSS ADAMS.
HOWEVER, THE WRAP-UP OF THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT HAVE BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE SCHEDULING OF CONFLICTS, AND THE INITIAL WINDOW FOR THE COMPLETION BY MOSS ADAMS WAS DECEMBER 2005.
UNFORTUNATELY, DURING DECEMBER, THE PRIORITY FOR ICANN FINANCE STAFF WAS RESOLUTION OF CASH FLOWS RELATED TO PROJECTS SUCH AS THE VERIFICATION OF REGISTRARS AND REGISTRY INVOICING.
FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER WINDOW, TIME ALLOCATION BY MOSS ADAMS HAS BEEN DIFFICULT GIVEN STAFF'S COMMITMENTS TO OTHER AUDIT ENGAGEMENTS AND RELATIVE SIZE OF THE ICANN AUDIT. NOT TO MENTION THAT WE ALSO HAVE A CHANGE OF MANAGER BECAUSE THERE IS A HAND-OVER PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY TOOK OVER BETWEEN DIANE SCHROEDER AND MELANIE.
AND DURING THIS MEETING, WE ALSO HAVE THE -- THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE HAD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH MOSS ADAMS TO DISCUSS AUDIT DELAYS AND AGREE SPECIFIC COURSES OF ACTION FOR COMPLETION OF THE 2004-2005 AUDIT, AND IDENTIFY ANTICIPATED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE THE TIME LINES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEXT AUDIT ENGAGEMENT.
ALTHOUGH THE AUDIT HAS BEEN DELAYED, MOSS ADAMS INDICATED IN OUR TODAY'S TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT THEY STILL ANTICIPATE A CLEAN OPINION.
TIMING FOR COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN AGREED WITH MOSS ADAMS FOR EARLY MAY 2006.
THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT WILL THEN BE CIRCULATED TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION TO THE ICANN BOARD.
WE HAVE ALSO COMMITTED AS A COMMITTEE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THROUGH THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE MAY 2006 DEADLINE.
IN REFERENCE TO THE INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR 2005-2006, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THE RECOMMENDATION BY ICANN STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ENGAGEMENT OF MOSS ADAMS TO PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.
UPON CONCLUSION OF THE 2004-2005 AUDIT REPORT, MANAGEMENT WILL NEGOTIATE AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MOSS ADAMS.
A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WILL BE HELD BETWEEN MOSS ADAMS AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 2006, AS MICHAEL ALLUDED THE BOARD WILL ACTUALLY BE IN MARINA DEL REY FOR THE BOARD RETREAT. AND JUST BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD RETREAT, THE COMMITTEE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WITH MOSS ADAMS.
AND WE HAVE AGREED THAT WE WILL ENSURE A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE AUDIT 2005-2006 AUDIT.
ICANN STAFF HAS IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PROCESSES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THE REGULAR MONTHLY GENERAL ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, CLOSE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING SCHEDULES, AND INTERIM AUDIT WORK AND PLANNING TO BE COMPLETE BY MOSS ADAMS BY JUNE 2006 PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE YEAR FIELD WORK.
THE PBC, WHICH IS THE PREPARED BY CLIENT, LIST OF REQUIRED AUDIT SCHEDULES REFINED AND TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO ICANN FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE FIRST YEAR'S FIELD WORK BY MOSS ADAMS, AND THEN ALL THE PBC REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AUDIT WORK IN AUGUST 2006.
AND AN INCREASED STAFFING PROPOSED TO ALLOW ADEQUATE DEDICATION TO FINANCE PERSONNEL TO THE AUDIT TEAM WITHIN THE FIELD WORK COMMENCEMENT.
THERE ACTUALLY IS A CAPACITY ISSUE WITHIN THE FINANCING ENVIRONMENT WITHIN ICANN IN TERMS OF RESOURCES, AND SO WE HOPE THAT THEY WILL HAVE INCREASED THE PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS AUDIT.
THE AUDIT TIMING SPECIFICALLY AGREED AND SCHEDULED WITH MOSS ADAMS TO ALLOW FOR ENSURANCE OF FINAL AUDIT REPORT OCTOBER 31ST IN 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS.
IN REFERENCE TO THE FINANCIAL -- THE NEXT -- YEAH. REFERENCE TO FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND BANKING, THE NEW CFO HAS IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL ENHANCEMENTS TO FINANCIAL CONTROLS IN THE AREAS OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, TRAVEL EXPENSES AND REIMBURSEMENTS. MONTHLY CLOSE PROCEDURES, INVOICING, AND SEGREGATION OF DUTIES WITHIN ADDITIONAL STAFFING AVAILABLE.
FURTHER IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS IN FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND INTERNAL PROCESSES CONTINUE, AND SUCH ENHANCEMENTS WILL BE DOCUMENTED IN THE FORM OF CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO THE PROCESS AND THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL POLICIES WITHIN THIS ENVIRONMENT GOING FORWARD.
IN REFERENCE TO BANKING, ICANN STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THEIR CURRENT BANKING PARTNER TO EFFECT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND FEE REDUCTIONS, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO FOREIGN CURRENCY. PAYMENTS TO MORE FULLY SUPPORT ICANN'S CONTINUED INTERNATIONALIZATION.
PROGRESS HAS BEEN ENCOURAGING AND THE CFO RECOMMENDS ICANN CAPITALIZE ON THIS EXPANDING RELATIONSHIPS TO ENHANCE CASH MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND ENSURE CONTINUED BANKING COOPERATION. AND WITH THIS VIEW, WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY INTENDING TO CHANGE THE BANKERS AT THIS STAGE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A PROPOSAL PREVIOUSLY TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE THE BANKER FROM AMERICAN BANK.
IN CONCLUSION, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE ACTION PLANS FOR THE COMING YEAR, 2006/2007, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL OFFER ICANN BOARD AND STAFF AND COMMUNITY AT LARGE THE PROPER SUPPORT AS PER THE ICANN BYLAWS.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NJERI.
NOT SEEING QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
SO, PAUL, ARE YOU PREPARED NOW TO OFFER THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC REPORT, WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO GET TO YESTERDAY?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SORRY, CHAIRMAN.
I SEEM TO BE -- IN A TRANSFER TO A MACINTOSH, I SEEM TO BE CONTINUALLY CHALLENGED.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY AN UPDATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE.
THE BOARD WILL RECALL THAT THERE WAS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD IN VANCOUVER WHICH IT'S WORTH GOING THROUGH IN SOME DETAIL.
THE FIRST WHEREAS REINFORCES THE ICANN MISSION.
THE SECOND WHEREAS REINFORCES THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD, AND VERY CAREFULLY, IT SAYS THAT, THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD, ARE COMMITTED TO THE BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING, DRAWING ON THE INPUTS OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
AN IMPORTANT PROVISION FOR THIS, BECAUSE THERE'S NO INTENTION OR REALITY TO UNDERMINE IN ANY WAY WHAT'S BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFULLY WORKED-THROUGH PROCESS OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS OR MORE TO HAVE A GOOD BOTTOM-UP PROCESS ON STRATEGIC PLANNING.
BUT WHEREAS THE COMMUNITY WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE ADVICE OF A GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STRATEGIC ISSUES FACING ICANN, THESE OBSERVATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
SO HAVING A GROUP WHO CAN ACTUALLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THINKING THROUGH STRATEGIC ISSUES, AND, IMPORTANTLY, NOT NECESSARILY BEING -- BEING A MIX OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH REGULARLY INSIDE THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO SOME WHO ARE NOT, BUT MORE OUTSIDE IN THE BROADER ASPECTS OF THE -- OF OUR ARENA.
THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT IS CORRECTED TO APPOINT BY THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY A PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD ON STRATEGY ISSUES.
IF I CAN SHARE WITH YOU SOME SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN APPROACHING PEOPLE FOR SUCH A COMMITTEE.
AND IT IS A MIX OF A NUMBER OF THINGS.
IT IS A BROAD EXPERIENCE OF THE ICANN EXPERIENCE AND HISTORY.
SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP.
THE OTHER ONE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ISSUES OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THIRD IS STRONG COMMITMENT TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
AND THAT INCLUDES, OBVIOUSLY, GOOD UNDERSTANDINGS OF ISSUES FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF CIVIL SOCIETY, THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, THE WHOLE MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH THAT WE HOLD SO DEAR.
BROAD EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY BUSINESS IN THE INTERNET SPACE, SO THE TECHNOLOGY SPACE WHICH IS DRIVING ISSUES SURROUNDING THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE DNS.
TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING, AND INFLUENCE WITH KEY DECISION-MAKERS.
THE PROCESS OF APPROACHING PEOPLE TO BE PART OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN, FIRST OF ALL, JUST, OBVIOUSLY, VERBAL DISCUSSION, THEN VERBAL AGREEMENT, AND THEN WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
I NEED TO REPORT TO YOU THAT THAT PROCESS IS STILL UNDERWAY.
AND THAT I WILL BE -- GOING TO GO THROUGH ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP.
BUT IT IS NOT COMPLETED.
THE MEMBERSHIP DOES NEED TO BE REASONABLE IN NUMBER.
SO THERE'S AN IMPORTANT THING HERE ABOUT BEING EFFECTIVE AS WELL AS HAVING A BROAD RANGE.
BUT IT IS NOT LIMITED.
AND THE CHAIRS, IN DISCUSSING THE COMMITTEE, HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ENGAGE KEY FIGURES IN THE COMMUNITY ON SPECIFIC TOPICS WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO PUT THOSE KEY FIGURES ALWAYS INTO THE COMMITTEE ITSELF.
FOR INSTANCE, IT WAS RAISED BY MEMBERS IN DISCUSSION THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE ROLE STEVE CROCKER PLAYS WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ONE.
WE'D WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO A STEVE CROCKER IN DISCUSSION.
SO REINFORCEMENT OF THE ROLE OF KEY FIGURES IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE KEY -- IN THE DISCUSSION WAS AN IMPORTANT PART.
SO TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO DATE, PETER DENGATE THRUSH IS A CO-CHAIR.
THE FORMER SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER, CARL BILDT, HAS AGREED TO BE A CO-CHAIR.
MYSELF, THE CHAIRMAN, IS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER; ADAMA SAMASSEKOU, WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE FIRST PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY; AND JANIS KARKLINS, WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE SECOND PREPARATORY COMMITTEE; THOMAS NILES, FROM -- DEPUTY CHAIR OF THE USCIB; MARILYN CADE, KNOWN TO MANY OF US, HER BACKGROUND.
THERE ARE TWO SENIOR BUSINESS FIGURES, VERY SENIOR BUSINESS FIGURES IN THE UNITED STATES WHO HAVE VERBALLY AGREED TO BE A MEMBER.
BUT AS OF TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THEIR OFFICES, SO I CAN'T ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THEIR NAMES, HAVE AGREED TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO DATE.
AS I SAID, WE DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE AN -- THE FINAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT WE'RE ALSO WANTING TO BE SOMEWHAT CAREFUL ABOUT THE SCOPE OF IT.
AND WE'RE ALSO -- SO YOU CAN EXPECT TO HEAR ABOUT MORE APPOINTMENTS.
BUT WE ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO START ITS WORK FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES TO DATE FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, WHICH ACTUALLY LED UP TO THIS DISCUSSION IN VANCOUVER, IS THAT THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY COULD VALUE THE ADVICE OF SUCH A GROUP ON ISSUES, FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS IMPORTANT THIS YEAR.
BROADLY, INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
AND, OF COURSE, THAT'S RELATED TO THE IGF.
AND I THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY COMING FROM THE VERY SENIOR BUSINESS PEOPLE THAT WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING TO, NONGOVERNMENT -- DESCRIBED AS NONGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES FOR THE INTERNET AND HOW THEY MAY IMPACT ON ICANN'S MISSION.
THEY EMPHASIZE, OF COURSE, THE BUSINESS TECHNICAL ASPECTS, WHERE'S THE BUSINESS GOING IN THE INTERNET, AND THE IMPACT OF THAT.
BUT I THINK ALSO -- WHAT DOES IT MEAN ALSO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, WHERE'S THE CUSTOMER GOING, HOW WE WOULD SAY, I SUPPOSE, THE CONSUMER OR THE USER.
AND SO I THINK I'VE TRIED TO SUMMARIZE THAT AS NONGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES THAT HAVE SOME IMPACT, SOME UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU LIKE, FROM MORE BROADLY OUTSIDE HOW THEY MAY INFLUENCE.
THE METHODOLOGIES OF THE COMMITTEE ARE VERY SIMILAR, I THINK, TO THE METHODOLOGIES OF OTHER COMMITTEES WE HAVE, OR ADVISORY COMMITTEES WE HAVE.
VERY OCCASIONAL FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY VERY, VERY BUSY PEOPLE, SO WE DO NOT EXPECT TO BE MEETING FACE TO FACE VERY OFTEN AT ALL.
ONLINE WORKING.
REPORT COMMISSIONING, IF NECESSARY.
IF IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE SOME REPORTING ON PARTICULAR TOPICS, THEN THAT WILL BE DONE.
COMMUNITY PUBLIC FORUMS, SIMILARLY, IF NECESSARY, AND I SUPPOSE THE "IF NECESSARY" IS A LITTLE HARSH THERE, BUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE MEETINGS LIKE THIS, A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE PEOPLE WOULD TAKE INPUT, ASK QUESTIONS, BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO INPUT.
AND PUBLIC PROVISION OF ADVICE, WHERE NECESSARY.
AND I SUPPOSE THIS IS SOMEWHAT VERY SIMILAR TO -- I SUPPOSE, TO THE SSAC MODEL OF THE COMMITTEE MAKING A JUDGMENT WHEN IT THINKS IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE SOME ADVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I WANTED TO REINFORCE THE PRIORITY OF ESTABLISHED PROCESSES.
THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT REPLACE THE BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
ITS OBSERVATIONS OR ADVICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PROCESS.
AND ITS OBSERVATIONS OR ADVICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY AND BOARD DISCUSSION OF ISSUES.
THIS IS NOT SOME SECRET STAR CHAMBER PROCESS AT ALL.
THIS IS A CHANCE TO TRY TO REINFORCE AND BRING SOME FOCUS ON SOME ISSUES TO BRING INTO THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY OF SOME OF THESE TOPICS.
I THINK THAT'S THE TOTAL PRESENTATION.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I WANT TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS -- BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, KEITH DAVIDSON ASKED ME TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO YOU.
AND I HAVE TO FIND HIS MESSAGE.
SO KINDLY.... APOLOGIES.
THERE'S SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH E-MAIL.
HERE WE GO.
THIS IS FROM KEITH DAVIDSON, WHO IS ONE OF OUR HOSTS.
ALL OF THE DELEGATES ARE REMINDED THAT THEY RECEIVED A FEEDBACK FORM IN THEIR DELEGATES PACK.
AND IT WOULD BE MOST USEFUL TO THE HOSTS IF THE FEEDBACK FORMS COULD BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO THE HOSPITALITY DESK IN THE FOYER TODAY AND TOMORROW.
SECOND, THE ICANN BAR WILL OPEN EARLY THIS AFTERNOON, AT 4:00 P.M.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE BEST WAY TO GET THE FEEDBACK FORMS WOULD BE TO OFFER A FREE BEER IN EXCHANGE FOR TURNING IN YOUR FEEDBACK FORM.
THAT MIGHT LEAD TO BALLOT BOX STUFFING, HOWEVER.
SO MAYBE IT'S NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA.
INTERNETNZ AND CATALYST WILL BE OFFERING SPECIAL ICANN -- A SPECIAL ICANN COCKTAIL TODAY AT THE BAR, AND ADDITIONAL CATERING AND A DIFFERENT THEME WILL APPLY, AND THE HOSTS URGE DELEGATES TO ENJOY A FINAL EVENING OF KIWI HOSPITALITY.
SO THAT'S FOR TODAY.
AND THAT'S KEITH'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
SECOND, I HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR 32 ONLINE LETTERS WHICH I HAVE HERE PRINTED OUT.
I ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE IF I DID NOT TRY TO READ THESE ORALLY INTO THE RECORD.
THEY WILL BE POSTED.
BUT, BASICALLY, THEY ARE A LETTER FROM EDWARD HASBROUCK, WHICH REPEATS MOST OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT DOT TRAVEL AND THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
AND THE OTHER 31 OR SO LETTERS ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT URGING THAT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BE UNDERTAKEN.
MR. HASBROUCK CONTINUES TO BE CONFUSED, I THINK, OR AT LEAST APPEARS NOT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN BOARD HAS, INDEED, DESIGNATED THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS ITS INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS OPERATOR.
ON 19 APRIL 2004, UNDER BOARD RESOLUTION 4.33, THE BOARD DID IN FACT NAME ICRD ITS IRP OPERATOR.
SO IF MR. HASBROUCK IS CONCERNED THAT WE HAVEN'T OFFICIALLY DONE THAT, THAT'S THE CITATION THAT SHOULD PUT THAT UNCERTAINTY TO REST.
FINALLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO STRONGLY RECOMMEND IN RESPONSE TO MR. HASBROUCK'S E-MAIL IS THAT HE DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
THE METHOD FOR INITIATING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW IS, IN FACT, TO DEAL WITH -- DIRECTLY WITH THE OPERATOR OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT GENERAL COUNSEL HAS SUPPLIED TO MR. HASBROUCK POINTERS TO THE ICRD.
BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THOSE AREN'T AVAILABLE TO HIM OR THEY'VE BEEN LOST, I'M SURE THAT GENERAL COUNSEL CAN SUPPLY THAT AGAIN.
FINALLY, JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO -- OF USERS TO INITIATE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, THE STAFF IS WORKING WITH ICRD TO DEVELOP A WEB FORM WHICH CAN BE USED TO PRESENT A REQUEST FOR AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
THAT WEB FORM IS INTENDED TO HELP THE PARTY REQUESTING THE REQUEST -- REQUESTING THE REVIEW TO FILL IN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE ICRD REQUIRES IN ORDER TO CONDUCT SUCH AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
SO THAT'S JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED OVERNIGHT, AND PERHAPS ONE THIS MORNING, WILL BE POSTED IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN POSTED, AND THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED HERE IN THE RECORD.
BUT FOR LACK OF TIME, I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORALLY.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THAT THAT COVERS ALL OF THE INTERVENTIONS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE BEFORE I OPENED UP FOR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SO FAR, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, FINANCE MEETINGS, RECONSIDERATION, AND AUDIT, AND THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT ON STRATEGIC PLANNING.
SO IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR, I'LL TAKE THEM NOW.
OR FROM THE BOARD, FOR THAT MATTER.
VITTORIO.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: IT IS ON.
YEAH, OKAY.
OKAY, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE QUESTION I WANT TO MAKE, BUT I GUESS I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE.
SO WHAT'S THAT?
WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO DO?
I MEAN, WHAT IS IT?
WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
DID IT COME FROM THE BOARD, WHAT IS IT INTENDED TO BE?
AND WHERE DOES IT FIT IN ICANN'S PROCESSES?
I MEAN, THERE'S NO MENTION OF IT IN THE BYLAWS OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
SO WHY IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO CREATE IT?
AND ESPECIALLY I WAS -- WELL, I'M QUITE HAPPY, BY THE WAY, THAT YOU ARE INVOLVING (INAUDIBLE) WHO IS REALLY AN EXCEPTIONAL PERSON, SO I'M QUITE HAPPY IF HE STARTS COMING TO THESE MEETINGS.
BUT APART FROM HIM AND JANIS, I WOULD SAY, ALL OF THE REST OF THEM ARE WHITE MALE ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLE, AND SO I --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MARILYN CADE WILL BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR HERSELF DESCRIBED --

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WE CAN DISCUSS MARILYN'S GENDER, BUT --
[ LAUGHTER ]

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: SORRY.
BUT -- YEAH.
NO.
BUT I GUESS THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR.
I MEAN, WHY DO WE NEED THIS?
I MEAN, WHAT IS THIS FOR?
WHY DOESN'T IT INVOLVE PEOPLE FROM ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, ALL THE GROUPS, ALL COUNTRIES?
ESPECIALLY I AM AFRAID OF THIS SORT OF LACK OF DEFINITION OF ITS ROLE IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, GROUPS THAT DON'T HAVE A ROLE CAN BASICALLY DO EVERYTHING AND YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND.
I SUSPECT THAT PAUL MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT AS WELL.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE STRATEGIC PROCESS -- STRATEGY PROCESS WANTS TO BE AS BROADLY CONSULTATIVE AS POSSIBLE.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD OBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION FROM THESE PARTIES.
PAUL SURELY IS ABLE TO CONSULT WITH ALMOST ANYONE THAT HE THINKS IS HELPFUL IN THE FORMULATION OF STRATEGIC PLANS.
AND, OF COURSE, WE HAVE A WHOLE PROCESS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION INPUT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU OBJECT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO CONSULT FURTHER OR THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE TO MAKE INPUTS INTO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING?
I'M JUST PUZZLED -- AS PUZZLED AS YOU WERE ABOUT PAUL'S REPORT, I AM EQUALLY PUZZLED BY WHATEVER RATIONALE LED YOU TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: IF YOU DON'T ESTABLISH THIS KIND OF COMMITTEE, THEN YOU IMAGINE THAT YOU CAN ASK EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY.
BUT IF YOU DO, OF COURSE, YOU IMAGINE THAT THESE WILL BE THE PEOPLE LEADING THIS SORT OF PROCESS.
SO NOW -- THEN YOU CAN SAY, OF COURSE WE WILL CONSULT EVERYONE ELSE AND THAT.
BUT ONCE YOU ESTABLISH A FORMALLY EXISTING COMMITTEE FOR THAT, I MEAN, EVERYONE STARTS TO THINK THAT THIS WILL BE LEADING THE EFFORT.
AND IF YOU ESTABLISH THIS COMMITTEE, I AM ASKING, WHY CAN'T IT BE DIVERSE, AS ALL THE REST OF THE ICANN GROUPS AND COMMITTEES AND....

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I THINK PAUL PROBABLY WANTS TO RESPOND.
AND THEN MICHAEL.
WERE THERE OTHER HANDS UP?
PETER AS WELL.
OKAY.
SO LET'S TAKE PAUL, MICHAEL, AND PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PERHAPS TO HELP US A LITTLE BIT, THIS HAS BEEN QUITE SOME TIME COMING AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.
IT REALLY IS LARGELY AN OUTGROWTH OF THE FOCUS ON STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT STARTED 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS AGO.
AND THE LACK OF AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
SO I STARTED CALLING FOR A STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD TO START, FIRST OF ALL, FOCUSING ON INSTALLING STRATEGIC PLANNING CONCEPTS AND ALL OF THE INTERNAL PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION, TO LEAD INTO AN ORGANIZATIONAL OPERATIONAL PLAN, A BUSINESS PLAN, ET CETERA.
WE'VE SORT OF BEEN GOING THROUGH THAT AT THE SAME TIME AND BUILDING THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, ET CETERA.
SO THAT -- WE ARE SORT OF SATISFIED THAT WE NOW HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS LEADING TO THAT.
BUT THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT, WHAT THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO FOCUS ON FIRST, IS THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL, OFTEN CALLED THE THREAT ANALYSIS, THAT YOU NEED TO DO FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY.
AND I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT WE FACE A CONTINUATION OF THE WSIS ENVIRONMENT, THE IGF, THE END OF THE MOU, OR WHATEVER IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE MOU, THE IANA REBID.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS FOCUS ON WHERE DOES ICANN SIT IN THE WORLD.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS LARGELY DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE COMPETING --

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANKS, VINT.
PERHAPS, BEING ON THE ALAC BOWLING TEAM LAST NIGHT, I CAN POSSIBLY RELATE BETTER TO THESE CONCERNS.
I THINK IT'S -- IF YOU WILL, IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE ACTING AS A SUBSTITUTE.
I THINK RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF SENSITIVITY IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE NOT HEARD.
AND IF THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE A SUBSTITUTE AS OPPOSED TO ENHANCING IT, THAT, I THINK, IS -- THAT'S THE CONCERN.
NOW, I AGREE WITH WHAT PETER SAID.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING.
AND TO USE THE PHRASE, "TRUST US," AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
YES.
PETER, WHO, IF YOU WILL, HAS CHAMPIONED THIS PARTICULAR INITIATIVE, I THINK IS HAS A GOOD IDEA.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IS WE WERE ORIGINALLY LOOKING AT A BOARD COMMITTEE.
THE PROBLEM WITH BOARD COMMITTEES IS, ONLY PEOPLE ON THE BOARD CAN SERVE WITH IT.
SO THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE WAS TO PROVIDE SOMETHING OF, IF YOU WILL, A LITTLE MORE INTERACTION.
I WILL TELL YOU, IT -- I DON'T VIEW THIS AS A SUBSTITUTE.
I VIEW THIS AS AN ADDITIONAL, IF YOU WILL, DATA POINT.
SO, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO TRUST US AND THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T GIVE US A LOT OF, IF YOU WILL, CREDENCE IN THAT BANK DEPARTMENT.
BUT, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT PETER IS SAYING IS THE TRUTH, AND THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: BUT EVEN IF IT IS A GOOD THING, THE MEMBERSHIP IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
SO....

>>PAUL TWOMEY: PERHAPS, VINT, I CAN TALK TO THAT -- TALK SPECIFICALLY TO THE MEMBERSHIP.
THERE'S TWO PARTS -- I WANT TO REINFORCE ALL THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID TO DATE.
AND I WANT TO REINFORCE THE NON- -- IT HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE BOARD AS BOTH A -- ONE PART OF IT IS, AT LEAST THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS A SUBGROUP OF THE BOARD WHO ARE PUSHING ON THE FORCES AROUND STRATEGIC PLANNING.
BUT THE SECOND PART IS TO BE SURE WE HAVE SUPPLEMENTARY INPUTS IN THAT PROCESS FROM PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ALWAYS ATTEND THE MEETINGS BUT WHO HAVE INTERESTING PERSPECTIVES WE SHOULD BE HEARING AND WHO THEMSELVES HAVE INTERESTING PERSPECTIVES.
IT'S AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE.
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO DON'T HAVE REGULAR INTERACTION WITH THIS ORGANIZATION, AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, ARE NOT LIKELY TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS.
THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT BALANCE AND IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE WHO SHOULD ADDITIONALLY BE ON THAT.
AND WE'RE CERTAINLY INTERESTED TO HEAR THE PERSPECTIVES.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT -- I'M VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE VERY POINT YOU RAISE.
THESE MEMBERS ARE MOSTLY EUROPEAN.
IT'S EUROPEAN, NORTH AMERICAN, AND AFRICAN.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A KEY SOUTH ASIAN FIGURE WHO SAID NO.
SO THERE HAS BEEN FURTHER -- THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME EAST-ASIAN FIGURES.
I TRIED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT NONGOVERNMENT BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY TYPE OF THINGS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A CONCERN THAT WE DON'T JUST TRY TO REPLICATE THE STRUCTURE OF ICANN INTO THE STRUCTURE OF A COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE IT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE VERY IMPACT THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT, IT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE IT'S A REPLACEMENT OR SOME SORT OF ELITIST GROUP OF THE SAME STRUCTURE.
SO WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED IN THE STRUCTURE TO TRY TO NOT BE SEEN TO BE REPLACING ANYTHING OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN ICANN BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH THOSE, IF THAT CAN MAKE SOME SENSE.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD NOT -- IN NO WAY SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO BE ANYTHING ELSE BUT AN INPUT TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS IN ICANN TO CONSIDER THE, YOU KNOW, THEIR STRATEGIC THINKING.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
RAIMUNDO ALSO --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU HAVE PARTICULAR NAMES OR THOUGHTS, WE SHOULD CERTAINLY KEEP TALKING.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I ASSUME THAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN BE EXPANDED.
THERE'S NOTHING RESTRICTING YOU FROM DOING THAT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT -- WE CAN.
THAT'S BEEN -- AND THAT'S BEEN THE CASE FOR OTHER KEY COMMITTEES WE HAVE FOR THE BOARD.

>>VINT CERF: RAIMUNDO HAD A COMMENT.
AND THEN MOUHAMET.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: WELL, I DO SHARE SOME OF VITTORIO'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT, PERSONALLY, I VOLUNTEERED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I DO HAVE A LARGE EXPERIENCE IN STRATEGIC PLANNING.
I WAS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICER OF A LARGE TELEPHONE COMPANY IN CHILE AND IN SPAIN.
AND I DO REPRESENT A REGION WHICH IS NOT IN THE COMMITTEE.
AND I DO SPEAK ABSOLUTELY FLUENT IN TWO LANGUAGES WHICH ARE NOT REPRESENTED THERE, FRENCH AND SPANISH.
AND OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS ATTENDED ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING IN ENGLISH, IN FRENCH, AND IN SPANISH.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU, RAIMUNDO.
OF COURSE, AS A BOARD MEMBER, YOU SHOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT IS DONE IN ANY CASE.
MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT.
I THINK THAT THE -- THE CONFUSION COMES A LITTLE BIT FROM THE FACT THAT THE STRAT PLAN IS A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED FOR THE INTERNAL PROCESS AND THE EXTERNAL PROCESS.
AND I THINK THAT THE CEO OF ICANN HAS SOME ROOM TO DECIDE IF HE NEEDS -- I MEAN, IN ORDER TO EXERCISE BETTER THE OBJECTIVE AND THE GOALS THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS STATED FOR HIM, TO CREATE AS MANY PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEES AS HE WANTS.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS MORE DEDICATED TO A POSITIONING OF ICANN AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT REALLY -- THE ASPECT OF THE STRAT PLAN THAT IS INTERNAL EFFORTS.
BECAUSE TO COME BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD YESTERDAY ABOUT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE AND ALL THIS STUFF, I THINK THAT WE'RE LACKING TO GET -- WHENEVER WE HEARD AND WE SEE THAT THERE WAS SOME CRISIS, THAT TO HAVE SOME OTHER COMMITTEE, LIKE IT MIGHT BE A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE.
WE SEE THAT WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, IT'S JUST LIKE A WHOLE -- MANY CONSTITUENCIES LOOK A LITTLE BIT UNHAPPY WITH WHAT YOU ARE FEELING.
I THINK THERE IS A PROCESS THAT CAN BE SET UP BY THE PRESIDENT, THE CEO OF ICANN, TO SEE, OKAY, THIS IS AN INTERNAL PROCESS.
WE WANT TO KNOW, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, WHAT CAN WE DO IN ORDER TO -- I MEAN, TO HAVE AN INTERNAL STRATEGIC PROCESS TO BETTER THE ORGANIZATION.
AND THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING THAT WHEN WE -- WHEN WE TARGET AN OBJECTIVE OF, WE WANT ICANN TO BECOME INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, AND WE SEE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VERY STRONG EXPERIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION OF THIS GROUP, IT'S MUCH MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE A STRONG KNOWLEDGE AND A STRONG PARTICIPATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR REGARDING EACH COMMITTEE WE'RE SETTING UP WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE.
AND IT WILL BE EASIER FOR US TO ACCEPT THE MANDATE THAT WE GIVE THAT GROUP.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, COME BACK AND LOOK AT, INTERNALLY, IF THERE'S ANY SAME STRAT PLAN, OF COURSE, THAT WE CAN HAVE AND GET ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES BEING INVOLVED TO SEE HOW WE CAN BETTER THESE THINGS.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
I SEE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE LINED UP.
CAN I GET A GENERAL SENSE FOR HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LINING UP TO SPEAK?

>>ELLIOT NOSS: IT LOOKS LIKE THREE, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: IS IT THREE?
OKAY.
I'M COUNTING MORE THAN THREE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING SOME OF THEM ARE NOT IN LINE?

>>ELLIOT NOSS: I ONLY SEE THREE.

>>VINT CERF: ELLIOT, GO AHEAD.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: TWO COMMENTS.
ONE FIRST ON THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND THE COMMITTEE.
AND THE SECOND ON RECONSIDERATION.
I WILL SAY THAT AS I WAS SITTING AND WATCHING THAT COMMITTEE AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, I WAS REALLY STRUCK AND SCARED, FRANKLY, IN RELATION TO SOME OF MY COMMENTS YESTERDAY THAT THIS LOOKED LIKE, TO ME, MORE OF A GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE.
AND I WILL SAY I WAS VERY HEARTENED BY PETER'S COMMENTS TO FIRST GROUND IT, AND THEN MOUHAMET'S, WHICH I THOUGHT DID A GREAT JOB OF PUTTING, POTENTIALLY, THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE IN PERSPECTIVE.
I WOULD REALLY URGE THAT -- THAT THAT CLEAR SETTING OF OBJECTIVES BE DONE. AND TWO OTHER NOTES THERE, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD EXERCISE, BUT I WOULD REALLY -- AND MOUHAMET, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, AND I REALLY WANT TO BE IN DEFERENCE TO THIS, I BELIEVE YOU SAID IN THE REGISTRARS' MEETING LAST WEEK THAT ENGLISH WAS YOUR FOURTH OR FIFTH LANGUAGE.
FOR ME IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE USE THE WORD GLOBAL, NOT INTERNATIONAL, WHEN TALKING ABOUT ICANN'S ROLE. I THINK IF WE USE THE WORD "INTERNATIONAL," WE CHANGE THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE INTO SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT.
BUT I'D REALLY URGE YOU TO FOCUS -- EITHER FOCUS THE OBJECTIVES AND THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE OR TO REALLY LOOK AT BROADENING ITS PARTICIPATION IN SOME OTHER WAY.
BUT WITH THAT FOCUS, I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.
SORRY, BY ALL MEANS BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE TO A COMPLETELY SEPARATE TOPIC. SO IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT....

>>VINT CERF: NO. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: WHEN I WAS COMING TO WELLINGTON, I PROMISED MYSELF THAT I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, AND I REALLY LIKE TO, IN AN ICANN CONTEXT, I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT DISCIPLINES THAT I HAVE TO IMPOSE ON MYSELF IS TO NOT LOOK AT THE PAST BUT TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE.
THAT RECONSIDERATION REPORT REALLY, THOUGH, CALLED OUT AN ITEM THAT I FEEL THAT I HAVE TO PUT ON THE TABLE HERE.
SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS MUCH REFERENCE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DID NOT CONTAIN A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC HEADS OF ECONOMIC DATA.
AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE REGISTRARS' DISCUSSION AROUND THAT, I FOUND THAT INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. AND I WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC HERE.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE FOLK WHO DID ALL THE HARD WORK ON THAT RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, OF WHICH I WASN'T ONE, ALTHOUGH I SUPPORTED IT AND ALL OF THAT. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT HARD WORK. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING, THOUGH.
WHEN IT CAME TO THAT ECONOMIC DATA, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION PUT IN BY US AS TO WHETHER WE WANTED TO RETAIN AN ECONOMIST AT GREAT EXPENSE, AND TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES SPOKEN TO. AND EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE TO WRITE THE CHECK.
AT THAT POINT, THOUGH, I WAS SOMEBODY WHO OPPOSED THAT, AND I OPPOSED IT FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RETAIN AN ECONOMIST TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE WORK DONE TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE INCREASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WE DON'T KNOW VERISIGN'S BUSINESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ASSUMPTIONS WERE TABLED, EITHER BY STAFF OR BY VERISIGN, IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
WE WERE NOT PRIVY, AND STILL ARE NOT, TO THE DISCUSSIONS WITH DOJ OR DOC IN THAT REGARD.
SPECIFICALLY, I ASKED STAFF ON A PUBLIC PHONE CALL IF WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT MATERIALS WERE PREPARED, AND THAT WE NEEDED THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE EXACTLY THE TYPE OF RESPONSE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
NOT ONLY WOULD THOSE MATERIALS NOT BE PROVIDED. STAFF WOULD NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHETHER MATERIALS WERE EVER PREPARED. YOU KNOW, IT WAS AS IF I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME GREAT STATE SECRET.
SO THERE'S ONE OF TWO THINGS THERE. EITHER THERE WERE MATERIALS AND THEY WEREN'T MADE AVAILABLE TO US, IN WHICH CASE WE COULDN'T POSSIBLY RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES APPROPRIATELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, OR THERE WEREN'T MATERIALS. AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
AND AT THAT POINT -- IT'S THAT REVERSING OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT IS SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING THERE.
FOR ME, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT BOARD AND STAFF TRANSPARENCY AS IT RELATES IN GENERAL TO ICANN'S CONDUCT.
THIS IS JUST A PERFECT EXAMPLE, TO ME, OF THE TYPE OF ITEM THAT, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, IT MAKES IT SO DIFFICULT AND SO CHALLENGING TO NOT FEEL ANYTHING BUT INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ELLIOT. AS ALWAYS, YOUR ELOQUENCE IS IMPRESSIVE. I'M SORRY YOU ARE SO FRUSTRATED.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU AND I BOTH DIDN'T COUNT VERY WELL, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S MORE THAN THREE PEOPLE.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: HE CAME AFTER I COUNTED.

>>VINT CERF: HE DOESN'T COUNT, YOU SAY?
[ LAUGHTER ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VINT, PETER HERE, CAN I RESPOND TO THIS?

>>VINT CERF: YES GO AHEAD.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS SUGGEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. THAT IS SHUTTING THE DOOR AFTER THE HORSE IS LONG GONE. REALLY THAT SORT OF INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN THE VANCOUVER MEETING OR SOMETHING EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. ONCE IT'S LATE --

>>ELLIOT NOSS: TO BE CLEAR, PETER, THIS WAS DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
SO IT WAS DURING THAT PERIOD AND DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN ACCESS TO THAT. AND I SAID AT THAT POINT, LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON AN ECONOMIST'S REPORT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A BUNCH OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT OR THINGS THAT WE CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR.
WE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND. WE WEREN'T MADE -- WE WEREN'T PUT IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ANALYSIS THAT WENT INTO JUSTIFYING THE PRICE INCREASE.
SO IT WAS WELL WITHIN TIME AND THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE FOR US TO MAKE THE REQUEST. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL YOU AT HOME AND ASK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION, PETER. WE DEALT WITH STAFF ON THAT, VERY SPECIFICALLY ON A PUBLIC CALL. PAUL WASN'T ON THE CALL BUT JOHN JEFFREY AND KURT PRITZ WERE. I REQUESTED IT AND REQUESTED IT REPEATEDLY.
AND I STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST. AND AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, I WAS NOT ONLY -- NOT ONLY WAS THE INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHETHER INFORMATION HAD BEEN GATHERED.
IT WAS AS -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE OBTUSE, OPAQUE ORWELLIAN SORT OF EXCHANGES THAT CAN'T LEAVE ANYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT FEELING ANYTHING OTHER THAN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED AND HELPLESS.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: SO NOW I'M -- NO, NO, ELLIOT, I WASN'T TRYING TO GET YOU BACK. UNLESS YOU ARE QUEUING UP AGAIN.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE NOW QUEUED UP? BECAUSE EVERY TIME I ASK, YOU ARE SELF-REPRODUCING OUT THERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

>> WE RAISED OUR HAND BEFORE.

>>ROB HALL: LAST TIME YOU ASKED, VINT, PEOPLE SEATED RAISED THEIR HANDS.

>>VINT CERF: HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE QUEUED UP? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. IS THAT IT? FIVE, SIX?

>>ROB HALL: THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR, FIVE IN THE AUDIENCE.

>>VINT CERF: I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS AND THE PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS TO COUNT THE OTHER PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS.

>> MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL TO THE MIKE.

>> MANY.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S NOT GOOD EITHER.
WE HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT I AM TRYING, ANYWAY, TO HELP GET THROUGH BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER REPORTS TO GET DONE. SO I AM TRYING TO GET A SENSE FOR HOW MUCH TIME THIS IS LIKELY TO TAKE.
I AM COUNTING FIVE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. IS THAT A CORRECT COUNT?

>> I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE TEN.

>>VINT CERF: I WOULD LIKE TO CUT OFF THIS LIST OF QUESTIONS AT SOME POINT SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS.

>> THIS IS WHAT WE COME HERE FOR.

>>VINT CERF: SO I WILL TAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING IN THE AISLE NOW. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS. AFTER THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO ON.
LET'S GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>>WERNER STAUB: MY NAME IS WERNER STAUB. I SPEAK FOR THOSE, INCLUDING CORE, WHO BRING IN NEW TLDS AND OF COURSE EXISTING TLDS.
I WANT TO ASSURE THAT I ALSO WANT TO GO FORWARD AND I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE ICANN WANTS TO LOOK FORWARD AND NOT TO THE PAST.
AND THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECTS OF, YOU KNOW, OUR DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HOW THE DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT OR REGISTRATION CONCEPTS HAVE EVOLVED.
AND ONE OF THOSE SIDE EFFECTS AND ACTUALLY VERY CLOSELY LINKED TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD YESTERDAY ABOUT THE ICANN BUDGET. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE ICANN BUDGET IS NOT WELL SPENT. I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S PROBABLY OKAY. BUT WE HAVE AN UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECT THAT IS VERY, VERY POTENT, AND PROBABLY ONE THAT STIFLES INNOVATION.
WE HAVE COME TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS, SO TO SPEAK, A TAX PER DOMAIN NAME. AND THIS IS SLOWLY BECOMING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED, THOUGH ERRONEOUS, CONCEPTION THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A TAX APIECE FOR EACH DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED, NOT EVEN DELEGATED.
I FOLLOWED DISCUSSIONS FOR THE NEW CONTRACTS AND THIS WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE BOARD. IT WAS ICANN STAFF AND LAWYERS, BUT THEY SEEM TO GENERALLY ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A CHARGE PER ENTRY IN THE DATABASE.
NOW, I JUST LIKE YOU TO IMAGINE FOR A SECOND THAT IN A NEW TLD, A GROUP OF IDEALISTS GET TOGETHER AND GET SOME FUNDING TO DO A PROPOSAL AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY GIVE AWAY DOMAIN NAMES FOR VERY GOOD REASON. BE IT BLOGGING OR CHATTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEY ESTIMATE THAT THEY WOULD BE GIVING AWAY MAYBE 30 MILLION DOMAIN NAMES THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE USED PRODUCTIVELY.
SHOULD THEY PAY 25 CENTS APIECE VIA THE REGISTRARS, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW MUCH THAT MAKES IF YOU TALK ABOUT JUST 10 MILLION DOMAINS. SHOULD THAT BE 2.5 MILLION DOMAINS TAX FOR ICANN? OR WORSE, SHOULD, IN THE EVENT OF SUCCESS, THE ENTIRE PRINCIPLE, THE ENTIRE CONCEPT BE, SO TO SPEAK, LIMITED BY A PURELY ARTIFICIAL THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE PER DOMAIN.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM ABOUT ANY DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY, ANY REGISTRANT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE, BUT YOU CANNOT TREAT ALL THE DOMAIN NAMES IN THE SAME FASHION.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS WE HAVE, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT .COM, WE FORGOT THAT THINGS COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

>>VINT CERF: SO THANK YOU FOR THAT OBSERVATION.
I GUESS THEIR PROBLEM ALWAYS IS FINDING SOME FAIR WAY OF ALLOCATING THE COST AND THAT WAS ONE METRIC THAT WAS POPULAR BUT THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
ANNETTE.

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: WELL, I THINK THIS COMMITTEE ISSUE, IT'S ABOUT DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND TRANSPARENCY.
AND I THINK EITHER YOU JUST INCLUDE AT-LARGE OR THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SETS UP A STRATEGY COMMITTEE EVERYONE IS FREE TO JOIN.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, I GOT DISTRACTED HERE. YOU SAID INCLUDE --

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: IT'S SAID IT'S ABOUT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. I MEAN, IT JUST GOES ON AND ON LIKE THIS. THIS IS OUR ISSUE, AND YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS INCLUDES THE ALAC AND ALL OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD.
IF YOU IMAGINE THAT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT PAUL DESCRIBED IS DOING ALL THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, THEN I COULD EASILY UNDERSTAND EVERYONE WANTS TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
IF IT'S AN ADJUNCT TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, IT'S ADDITIONAL INPUT PLUS ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO WITH THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, THEN I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE LOGIC.

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: WELL, VITTORIO ALREADY POINTED OUT WHAT IS THE SORT -- OR HOW DO YOU GET THE MEMBERS, WHAT IS IT ABOUT AND HOW DO YOU SET IT UP, AND HOW DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY OF THESE PROCESSES. THIS IS NOT CLEAR.

>>VINT CERF: HAGEN.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: ANNETTE, I SHARE THE CHAIRMAN'S VIEW. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL THAT ALAC SETS UP A STRATEGY COMMITTEE. WHY DON'T YOU DO IT? AND MAYBE THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE OF ALAC FEEDS INTO THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE. THAT'S HOW THIS ORGANIZATION WORKS.
SO NOTHING IN THE WORLD PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU HAVE JUST CONSIDERED. JUST DO IT.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: DOES NIKE GET A ROYALTY ON THE "JUST DO IT"?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: LET'S TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT OVER A GLASS OF WINE.

>>VINT CERF: SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: JUST VERY BRIEFLY. I THINK THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PERCEPTION AND CONCERN THAT IN AN ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH CUSTOMER SERVICE, OUTREACH, COMMUNICATIONS SEEMS TO BE GOING POORLY TO FOCUS ON A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE AS GETTING SPECIAL ATTENTION FROM THE PRESIDENT AND CEO MAY BE TROUBLING.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT PAUL SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK TO WHO HE WANTS TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL GROUP THAT WILL BE LISTENED TO SPECIALLY.
I THINK THERE IS SORT OF A DISCONNECT IN THE CONVERSATION HERE.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT THE DISCONNECT IS OCCURRING ABOUT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CEO DRIVES ALL OF THIS. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE BOARD FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT WAS AN EVOLUTION OF A BOARD STRATEGY COMMITTEE AND THEN A BROADER COMMITTEE FOR THE NEED BOTH TO DRIVE STRATEGY BUT ALSO THE SENSE OF THE BOARD OF ENSURING THAT ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ICANN AND THE DNS AND CONCERNED WHERE IT WAS GOING BUT WHO DO NOT PARTICIPATE, THERE ARE PERSPECTIVES NOT REGULARLY ATTENDING THE MEETING, THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS WOULD VALUE FROM HEARING THAT PERSPECTIVE AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE VERY CLEAR PROCESS WE HAVE FOR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S NO EXCLUSION OUT. IT WAS -- THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL WAS SORT OF A TWOFOLD ONE. THE BOARD WANTED TO KEEP A FOCUS ON STRATEGY, AND WE HAD QUITE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ALL THROUGH LAST YEAR. I THINK THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS HAS BECOME CLEARER. IT'S WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH AND PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. THERE'S NO WALKING AWAY FROM THAT. BUT PART OF THE OTHER DISCUSSION WAS A LITTLE BIT OF LET'S BE CAREFUL OF THE THINGS WE DON'T KNOW WE DON'T KNOW, IF YOU LIKE.
AND LET'S BE CAREFUL WHEN WE ARE THINKING -- IF YOU LOOK AT THAT STRATEGIC PLAN, A LOT OF MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY FOCUS A LOT ON -- I THINK HAVE BEEN FOCUSING AT THE END PART OF IT AT THE MOMENT AND HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THE FIRST PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS WAS FOCUSING A LOT ON THOSE, WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES WE FACE IN THE FUTURE? REMEMBER THERE'S A FIRST PAGE OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT HAS THE CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE, WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES WE ARE FACING. AND THERE WAS A BIT OF A CONCERN I THINK AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHERS LET'S MAKE CERTAIN WE HAVE A GOOD WAY OF CAPTURING ADDITIONALLY -- LET'S TRY TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE NOT JUST -- WE'VE GOT PERSPECTIVES THAT CAN ACTUALLY GIVE RICHNESS TO THAT UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES FACING US THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A STRATEGY IN THE CONTEXT OF.
AND THAT'S THE ORIGIN OF THESE SORTS OF PEOPLE.
AND I SUPPOSE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THERE AT THE MOMENT ARE NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE OF THE WSIS PROCESS HAS GONE OUT AND BECAUSE WE HAVE AN MOU PROCESS GOING OUT SO THERE IS A GOVERNMENTAL OR POLITICAL AS SPEC TO IT. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS AS WELL THAT ARE OPEN TO ATTEND. BUT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO REPLACE THE STRATEGIC PLAN INSIDE.

>>VINT CERF: LET'S MOVE ON.

>>ROB HALL: I HAVE A SPECIAL QUESTION ABOUT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. I WILL SAVE MY COMMENTS ON THE .COM FOR LATER SO YOU CAN GET THROUGH THIS LINE.
I WONDER IF YOU CAN PUT THE REPORT OF JONATHON NEVETT'S RECONSIDERATION UP BECAUSE THERE IS A SPECIFIC POINT I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT.
WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE FOR, I THINK, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS CLEARLY OUTLINED WHAT FACTS THEY ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR IN A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST. AND I'M SURE THE FUTURE REQUESTS WILL NOW CONFORM MORE TO THE ISSUES YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
MY QUESTION GOES TO -- IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET IT UP. I'M SORRY? IS THAT POSSIBLE OR NOT?

>>VINT CERF: THEY ARE WORKING ON IT.

>>ROB HALL: MY QUESTION GOES TO, AND WHEN I SEE THE EXACT WORDS, PERHAPS WE CAN CLARIFY THEM. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE POINTS WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JON WAS SAYING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE -- SORRY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD NOT YET BEEN HEARD ON THIS, AND THE FOLLOWING POINT HE CAN PRESSED THE BOARD HAD, IN FACT, HEARD THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND I'M WONDERING IF THE BOARD CAN CONFIRM THAT THEY HAVE, IN FACT, HAD APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES ON THIS AGREEMENT.

>>VINT CERF: NO, WE DIDN'T HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: SORRY. HAD A VIEW FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THIS AGREEMENT.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAD A VIEW CONVEYED TO US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE --

>>ROB HALL: NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS WAS REFERRED.

>>VINT CERF: -- WHO HAD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CONSULTED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE, VINT, BECAUSE THE WORDING OF THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST REFERRED I BELIEVE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND I BELIEVE THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS JUST SAID THEY HEARD A REVIEW FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
SO IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE HEARD THAT VIEW.

>>VINT CERF: NO. WHAT WE HAVE IS A VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WHO CONSULTED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
WE WEREN'T PARTY TO ANY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE DOC AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT YOU HAVE RULED AGAINST THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN PART BY SAYING YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHICH IS PART OF THE --

>>VINT CERF: FIRST OF ALL, LET'S BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEXT HERE, WHICH, YOU KNOW -- SO THE FACTS ARE --

>>ROB HALL: ANOTHER PAGE FORWARD, PLEASE. ONE MORE.

>>VINT CERF: THE FACTS ARE THAT WE HEARD --

>>ROB HALL: ONE MORE. I'M SORRY. ONE MORE.
AGAIN. NEXT PAGE. AGAIN. ONE MORE. THERE. THE LAST POINT. THE SECOND TO LAST POINT SAYS, THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE THE VIEWS OF THE DOJ ON PRICING, AND THE LAST POINT SAYS THAT THE VIEWS WERE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD AND WERE, IN FACT, DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. IS THAT A FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

>>VINT CERF: I NOW SAID THREE TIMES, ROB, THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ARE CLEARLY SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, VINT, BUT --

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THEN WE WILL REPAIR THAT APPARENT INACCURATE STATEMENT.

>>ROB HALL: ARE YOU WAITING FOR VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

>>VINT CERF: NO.

>>ROB HALL: BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WAS SUGGESTING.
AND I'LL LET JONATHON NEVETT SPEAK TO THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK WE ARE WAITING FOR COUNSEL.

>>ROB HALL: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE VERY CLEAR. IT SEEMS ROB IS ASKING FOR CLARITY AND WE WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS SO LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.
WE DID CONSULT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THEIR REQUEST, WHILE THEY WERE CONDUCTING THEIR PROCESS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE ONLY RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
LE ME BE QUITE PRECISE. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVICE IN THE PROCESS ALSO. AT THE MOMENT, SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTED WITH US IN THEIR PROCESS, SO WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM THE QUESTIONS THEY HAVE ASKED, BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -- ANY COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THIS PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO QUESTIONS, ANY COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED ARE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NOT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT, PAUL, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION IN PEOPLE I TALKED TO THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SOMEHOW APPROVED THIS WHEN IN FACT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE. AND I THINK YOU ARE NOW SAYING THERE HASN'T BEEN COMMUNICATION YOU FROM THEM DIRECTLY TO YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK LET'S BE CLEAR ON THIS. THIS HAS BEEN -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALSO CAUSED -- ONE OF THE NATURES OF THE SHIFTING SANDS OF THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT THERE WAS -- THAT INITIAL PROCESS OF SEEKING ADVICE TOOK PLACE EARLY. WE THEN HAD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. WE HAD, AS YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSIONS, RENEGOTIATIONS. THE PARTIES WERE ABLE TO PUT BACK A RENEWED AGREEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGAIN. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGAIN HAS BEEN DOING A FOLLOW-ON PROCESS OR DOING AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS. AND THEN IT SEEMS TO BE COMING THROUGH.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL -- FINAL COMMUNICATION TO US FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ON THE FINAL AGREEMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS A DRAFT AGREEMENT THAT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COMPLEX.

>>ROB HALL: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. ALEX HAS HIS HAND UP, AND WE HAVE A GROWING LIST OF PEOPLE HERE. SO BEFORE ALEX MAKES HIS COMMENT, I AM GOING TO DO TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I AM SKIPPING THE BREAK TODAY. IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK, FEEL FREE TO LEAVE THE ROOM. THAT GOES FOR THE BOARD AS WELL AS ATTENDEES. AND SECOND I MAY HAVE TO REMOVE SOME THINGS FROM THE AGENDA IF I AM NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THE SESSIONS AS SCHEDULED.
ALEX AND THEN BRET.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VINT, I JUST WANT TO STATE A VERY SPECIFIC DISCOMFORT, AND WE MAY NEED TO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL AS WE PROCEED HERE WITH ANY TYPE OF REPLY. AND WE MAY NEED TO RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO REPLY LATER TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING FROM -- BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING FROM PARTIES THAT ARE SUING US OR THAT STAND TO GAIN FROM LAWSUITS THAT ARE BEING MADE. AND WHILE RELATIVELY OPEN DISCLOSURES ARE AVAILABLE FROM SOME OF THESE PARTIES, I REALLY FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BEING IN FOREIGN TERRITORY UNDER A LAW THAT'S NOT THE ONE IN MY COUNTRY, HAVING TO RESPOND TO THINGS THAT ARE VERY MUCH WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE WILL ALSO BE THE REQUEST OF THE POSITIONS IN AN INTERROGATION BEFORE A COURT OR DISCOVERY PROCESS OR WHATEVER.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT SHORTCUTTING OR SHUNTING AROUND ANY OF THOSE LEGAL PROCEDURES OR THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE CAREFUL NOTES AND THEN SEE WHAT USE CAN BE USED OF THESE INFORMAL, CHATTY KIND OF RESPONSES WE CAN PROVIDE FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FOR WARM, CONTINUOUS COMMUNICATION.
AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE COME HERE FOR. THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE TRAVEL FOR. PEOPLE IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY TRAVEL TO ICANN MEETINGS FOR BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE DIALOGUE.
WE TRY TO PROVIDE GOOD, PROMPT, CLEAR RESPONSES. BUT BY DOING THAT IN PROCESSES THAT ARE ALSO ENTANGLED IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, WE MAY REALLY BE WALKING INTO DANGEROUS TERRITORY.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SURE, ALEX, THAT OTHERS SITTING HERE HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS.
I WOULD NOTE, MR. FAUSETT, THAT YOU ARE PARTY TO ONE OF THOSE SUITS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>BRET FAUSETT: I AM NOT A PARTY. I AM NOT SUING ICANN. I AM COUNSEL FOR A PARTY WHO IS SUING --

>>VINT CERF: YOU ARE COUNSEL FOR A PARTY. THANK YOU. THAT DOES INVOLVE YOU IN SOME WAY, DOES IT NOT?

>>BRET FAUSETT: ABSOLUTELY. BUT IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY I AM A PARTY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SORRY, BRET. IN MY ORGANIZATION -- THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION. IN MY COUNTRY, ON MANY OF THOSE THAT I KNOW, IF I WENT OUT AND DID SOMETHING THAT DAMAGED THE CAUSE OF MY EMPLOYER, I WOULD BE -- WELL, SINCE MY EMPLOYER IS FUNDED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS, ASSIGNED DIRECTLY BY CONGRESS IN MEXICO, I AM ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO A LAW THAT WILL DEBILITATE ME FOR 20 YEARS OR PUT ME IN JAIL IF I DID SOMETHING TO JEOPARDIZE THE SUCCESS OF MY INSTITUTION. AND I WON'T IMAGINE THAT YOUR LAW FIRM WOULD NOT TAKE LIGHTLY IF YOU DID SOMETHING NOW THAT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUCCESS OF THE LAWSUITS THEY ARE CARRYING.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS JOE SIMS HAS STOOD AT THIS MICROPHONE AND TOLD EVERYONE HE WAS SPEAKING IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. SO I EXPECT THE SAME COURTESY THAT YOU GIVE TO YOUR OWN LAWYERS.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: SO I SHOULD MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAWYERS THAT ARE SUING ME AND THE ONES THAT ARE DEFENDING ME. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE, BRET. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LAUGH.
GO AHEAD.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I WANT TO MAKE TWO QUICK POINTS IN DEFERENCE TO THE LONG LINE BEHIND ME.
I APPRECIATE THE REPORT FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. LISTENING TO IT, IT WAS HARD NOT TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL ROADS LEAD TO "WE WERE RIGHT."
INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE CUT-OFF WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED. INFORMATION THAT CAME IN AFTER WAS TOO LATE.
YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU MAKE DECISIONS IN THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE? I THINK IT WOULD HELP THOSE OF US WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE BOARD OR THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE WILL VIEW THINGS IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I COULDN'T QUITE NAVIGATE HOW TO ADDRESS WHAT WOULD BE A -- AN ADEQUATE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED TODAY.

>>VINT CERF: DO YOU WANT TO -- JUST A -- PETER WANTS. GO AHEAD, PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK I CAN HELP WITH THAT BECAUSE AS I SAID I WAS IN THIS POSITION OF HAVING VOTED AGAINST THE DECISION.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RULES OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, THEY ARE VERY NARROW. IT'S NOT AN APPEALS PROCESS. IT'S NOT -- MOST OF THOSE RECONSIDERATION APPLICATIONS HAD THE APPEARANCE OF AN APPEAL, SAYING YOU THAT WE DON'T LIKE THE DECISION YOU HAVE MADE, YOU HAVE GONE WRONG IN MAKE YOUR DECISION, PLEASE COME TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION. RECONSIDERATION IS NOT AN APPEALS PROCESS. WAS THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE? WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, LARGELY, YES. THIS COMMUNITY WENT INTO A GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE TO MAKE ALMOST ALL OF THAT MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO US.
SO WE HAD THAT MATERIAL. THOSE MUCH US WHO WERE ON THE BOARD ATTEMPT TO GO PERSUADE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST IT WERE USING THAT MATERIAL TO DISCUSS THE MATTER.
SO RECONSIDERATION IS NOT THE AVENUE FOR GETTING US TO CHANGE OUR MIND ONCE WE'VE MADE A DECISION YOU DON'T LIKE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY OF TELLING YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND WHEN WE THINK YOU'RE WRONG.
AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND THAT.
BUT LET ME GO TO MY SECOND POINT.
AND THAT IS, GOES BACK TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST POINT I MADE YESTERDAY.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A BOTTOM-UP ORGANIZATION.
AND I THINK ICANN NEEDS TO BE AWARE THAT EVERY PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING, IDNS, WHATEVER, CREATES AN IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE GOING TOP-DOWN, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPECIAL ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT.
AND I AGREE WITH SUSAN, YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO WHOMEVER YOU WISH.
BUT PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEES GIVE A TOP-DOWN IMPRESSION.
AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK HARD TO CORRECT THAT AND MAKE IT REALLY WORK THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO, BOTTOM-UP.
THANKS.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE TO THAT.
IN FACT, THIS IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IN DISCUSSING THIS EARLY ON WAS THAT THE CORPORATION WAS SPENDING A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY WITHOUT A VERY CLEAR STRATEGY THAT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED IN RESPONDING TO THE WSIS.
NOW, WHAT THIS WILL DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE -- TAKE PLACE WITHIN A FORMAL STRUCTURE WHICH CAN BE BUDGETED AND WHICH WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WILL WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY AROUND THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE?
WILL THEY DO THEIR WORK ONLINE AND IN PUBLIC?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE SIMILARLY TO THE OTHER COMMITTEES WE HAVE.
THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS -- IS, I THINK, A GOOD MODEL.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT STEVE OR ANYBODY ELSE INTO TRYING TO DEFEND THE WAY THEY RUN THEIR COMMITTEE.
BUT WE HAVE A MODEL OF THERE WILL BE ONLINE DISCUSSION, BUT THERE'LL BE A MODEL WHERE WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC PROCESSES AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- I MEAN, IT'S MY EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC CONSIDERATION, PUTTING THINGS OUT FOR COMMENT, PUTTING ANY ADVICE THAT COMES, WHICH IS MORE THAN JUST A CHAT ON THE LINE, BE PUT OUT.
THAT'S MY EXPECTATION.
I THINK IF WE WERE TO SAY ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT THESE PEOPLE OR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE WANTS TO SORT OF DISCUSS ON AN E-MAIL IS AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY TO READ, I EXPECT THAT WOULD BE DYSFUNCTIONAL.
BUT THAT'S MY VIEW.
CAN -- BRET, CAN I JUST SAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I ACTUALLY SHARE YOUR SAME CONCERN.
YOU AND I PROBABLY WOULD NOT END UP WITH THE SAME SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM, LIKE THE LAST ANSWER PROBABLY INDICATES, BUT I ACTUALLY ALSO SHARE YOUR CONCERN.
I'M ALSO, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, UNCOMFORTABLE.
WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEES, AS A DISTINCTION FROM A BOARD COMMITTEE.
WHAT TENDS TO MOVE AROUND, IT LOOKS TOP DOWN.
AND ME PERSONALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M A COMPLETE MEGALOMANIAC.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT VIEW, OF COURSE. AND I ALSO SHARE THAT DISCOMFORT.
AND SO I AM LOOKING -- AS THE PRESIDENT, I AM LOOKING FOR TOOLS AND ADVICE PEOPLE HAVE OF BEING POTENTIAL MODELS FOR COMMUNICATION.
I MADE A COMMENT YESTERDAY ABOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION WHICH I NOTICE YOU'RE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC -- I KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE VERY DEDICATED TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO REINFORCE THE SAME CONCERN.
I PERSONALLY HAVE THE SAME CONCERN THAT YOU JUST EXPRESSED.
SO....

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON NOW.
THANK YOU.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANK YOU.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH A LOT OF THE -- I APPRECIATED THE REPORT FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THIS IS VERY, VERY NARROW, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE, THAT, AS I WAS LISTENING TO THE REPORTS AND THEN LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS, IT SEEMS LIKE A CATCH-22.
THERE'S NO WAY TO GET AN EFFECTIVE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN.
BUT IT REFLECTS THE TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS PROBLEMS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL THEY NEED TO FILE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AS THEIR ONLY ROUTE TO HEAR THAT THEIR COMMENTS MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE CONSIDERED.
IF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE TELLS US THAT INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND WAS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN HEARD, FOR MANY PEOPLE, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY HEAR THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD THEIR COMMENTS.
AND MORE OPENNESS THROUGH THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION WOULD HELP TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
I UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE COURSE OF A LITIGATION, ONE IS CONSTRAINED IN HOW OPEN ONE CAN BE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS AND THE OPENNESS, IF YOU WILL, OF A LITIGATION PROCESS MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE FEEL IMPELLED TOWARD LITIGATION.
IN LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES, WE HAVE NOTICE PLEADING.
IF YOU SET OUT A BARE COMPLAINT WITH A SET OF FACTS THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DISCOVERY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND WHETHER REQUESTS WERE, IN FACT, CONSIDERED PROPERLY.
IF THEY WERE -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE FORMALIZED IN THE SAME WAY IN THIS ORGANIZATION.
BUT IF THERE WERE MORE WAYS TO FIND OUT THAT INFORMATION SUBMITTED WAS, IN FACT, CONSIDERED IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING, THEN PERHAPS FEWER PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THE NEED TO USE THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS AS AN APPEAL MECHANISM.
AND FEWER PEOPLE PERHAPS WOULD FEEL THE NEED TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE ICANN PROCESS IN LITIGATIONS IF THEY COULD WORK WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION.
AND I JUST WANT TO FURTHER REITERATE THE POINT MADE BY SOME OF MY AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLEAGUES ON THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE, YES, IT'S TRUE THAT -- OR I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE FROM THE STRUCTURE THAT AT LARGE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ITS OWN INPUT WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE.
BUT WHEN WE PROVIDE OUR OWN INPUT, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN THE PAST, WE OFTEN DON'T GET A RESPONSE.
AND SO WHEN A COMMITTEE IS OPENED UP WITH A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND YET THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOESN'T SEEM TO GET THAT SAME DIRECT LINE, WE FEEL THAT WE NEED TO ASK FOR SPOTS ON THAT COMMITTEE.
AS ANNETTE HAS SAID, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP OUR OWN STRATEGY DISCUSSIONS, AND WE VERY MUCH HOPE THAT ANYONE WILL FEEL FREE TO JOIN US AND, FURTHER, THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE ABLE TO ENGAGE AS MUCH OF THE STAFF AND BOARD'S ATTENTION AS THESE SPECIALLY SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
VENI, YOU WANTED TO RESPOND, I THINK.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: ACTUALLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT WENDY IS SAYING KIND OF STRIKES ME THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN READING, I WOULD EASILY SAY, THOUSANDS OF PAGES, MAYBE EVEN MORE, SOME OF US, OF INFORMATION WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO US THROUGH A NUMBER OF CHANNELS: PUBLIC FORUMS, DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, WHATEVER.
I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY -- I DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR "WE," BUT I CAN SAY FOR MYSELF, I SPENT ENDLESS NUMBER OF HOURS JUST READING.
AND I DON'T COUNT THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN KIND OF ABSORBING WHAT'S BEING SENT.
AND WE -- THE BOARD, I BELIEVE EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, WE DON'T TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FEELINGS OR JUST ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SOMEBODY, BE THAT STAFF, BOARD CHAIR, OR SOMEBODY ELSE.
I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THE DISCUSSIONS WERE SO LONG, THAT WE WERE -- WE AGREED TO POSTPONE DECISIONS ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, THAT ACTUALLY IS A SIGN.
AND MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT.
MAYBE WE HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

>>VINT CERF: JOI.
AND THEN PROFESSOR QIAN.

>>JOICHI ITO: I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE TRANSPARENCY ARGUMENT.
I THINK THAT IF WE HAD TRANSCRIPTS OF OUR BOARD CONVERSATIONS, THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
AND I -- BUT I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS, WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
BUT I DO KIND OF HAVE SYMPATHY FOR WENDY'S POSITION.
AND I DON'T THINK, PERSONALLY, THAT ASSERTING THAT WE'VE READ THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WE'VE SPENT IS ENOUGH FEEDBACK ABOUT WHETHER SOMEBODY'S COMMENTS WERE CONSIDERED.
AND SO IF WE AREN'T GOING TO GIVE DETAILED TRANSCRIPTS, I DO THINK IT IS THE OBLIGATION ON OUR PART TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS.
WE HAVE BEEN POSTING -- I REALIZE WE'VE BEEN POSTING COMMENTS, WE'VE HAD BOARD OPINIONS DURING THE VOTE.
BUT I STILL THINK THAT IF WE CAN SIT DOWN AND TRYING TO THINK OF A CLEVER AND MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO COMMUNICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DISMISS IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT.

>>VINT CERF: OH, IN FACT, WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT.
I'M SORRY, PROFESSOR QIAN, TO INTERVENE.
ONE THING THAT CAME UP IN SEVERAL OF OUR EARLIER DISCUSSIONS THIS WEEK IS THE NOTION THAT WE, IN MAKING A MAJOR DECISION LIKE THE VERISIGN ONE, WOULD BE TO SUMMARIZE THE RATIONALE FOR THAT DECISION.
WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF THAT BY HAVING EACH BOARD MEMBER SAY SOMETHING.
BUT PERHAPS A MORE THOROUGH PROCESS OF SHOWING THE ANALYSIS AND THE RATIONALE LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO TRY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY THAT WE CAN -- ARE ABLE TO OFFER TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
PROFESSOR QIAN.

>>HUALIN QIAN: OKAY, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PAC, PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE SHOULD -- TO PUT THIS ISSUE IN TWO PARTS, ONE IS WHETHER WE NEED THIS COMMITTEE.
THE SECOND ONE IS HOW WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS COMMITTEE, I MEAN, WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, HOW TO FORM THIS COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAS BEEN DISCUSSED MANY, MANY TIMES, FORUMS, WORKSHOPS, AND OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR YEARS.
SO I DON'T THINK -- THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE EFFICIENCY, THEY ARE CONTRADICTIONAL.
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT BOTH OF THEM.
WE CANNOT DO THINGS ENDLESS, LAST A VERY LONG TIME.
SO, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, A PAC IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE FOCUSED ON THEM THINKING ABOUT THAT, THAT WE HAVE GOOD EFFICIENCY TO PUT FORWARD OUR WORK.
AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS HOW TO -- AS VITTORIO AND ANNETTE, THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP.
THAT'S A TRUE QUESTION.
SO I THINK THIS SHOULD BE A DIVERSITY OF MEMBERS FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, FROM DIFFERENT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
AND SO I -- MAY I SUGGEST THAT TO FORM THIS COMMITTEE, WE NEED SOMEBODY TO RECOMMEND CANDIDATES FROM DIFFERENT PARTS, AND THEN THEY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO THAT'S -- MAYBE WE STILL CAN HAVE OPINIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM EVERYBODY TAKEN INTO THIS COMMITTEE, AND TO GIVE THE RESULT TO THE PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PROFESSOR QIAN.
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE REPORTS.
AND THOSE REPORTS COULD PRESUMABLY BE SHARED SO THAT EVERYONE WOULD, IN FACT, SEE WHAT THE ADVICE WAS THAT CAME FROM THAT COMMITTEE.
AND, OF COURSE, THAT ADVICE WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PRODUCTION OF A FINAL STRATEGIC PLAN OR OTHER STRATEGIC DOCUMENT.
MR. TURCOTTE.

>>BERNARD TURCOTTE: THANK YOU, VINT.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THE CONCERN ABOUT THE MINUTES.
AND I DON'T HAVE A LOFTY QUESTION.
I JUST HAVE A VERY SMALL PRACTICAL QUESTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
WILL THE MISSING MINUTES BE PRODUCED?

>>VINT CERF: ABSOLUTELY.

>>BERNARD TURCOTTE: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY.
MICHAEL IS LEVITATING OUT OF THE CHAIR.
GO AHEAD.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THE BYLAWS DO PROVIDE THAT THERE ARE SOME MINUTES THAT WILL NOT BE PRODUCED, REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE ARE, INDEED, SUBJECT TO THOSE CONSTRAINTS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER, MIKE.
BUT MOST OF THE MINUTES I THINK BERNIE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAD SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH ALL OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS, NOT ABOUT PERSONNEL MATTERS.
BUT THANKS FOR THAT REMINDER.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>COLIN JACKSON: THANK YOU, VINT.
I'M COLIN JACKSON.
I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND I'M NOT SUING ANYONE.
I'M PRESIDENT OF INTERNETNZ, THE LOCAL HOST AND THE NEW ZEALAND CCTLD MANAGER.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>COLIN JACKSON: YOU'RE VERY KIND.
THANK YOU.
AS AN OPEN MEMBERSHIP, NOT-FOR-PROFIT SOCIETY, WE REPRESENT THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE .NZ REGISTRANTS.
LIKE .CA, .NZ CONSIDERED THAT WE HAVE SUPPORTED ICANN VERY STRONGLY BOTH WITHIN THE INTERNET AND BEFORE OUR GOVERNMENT AND BEFORE GOVERNMENTS IN GENERAL THROUGH THE WSIS PROCESS AND SUCH LIKE.
MY PURPOSE IN MAKING THIS COMMENT IS JUST TO PLACE ON RECORD INTERNETNZ'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND THAT.
PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE VERY STRONGLY AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT.
AND, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO WHAT A MEETING SAYS, BUT YOU DO NEED A VERY GOOD REASON.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE REASONS THAT THE BOARD HAS MADE THIS DECISION.
BOARD MEMBERS MADE THIS VERY CLEAR IN THE STATEMENTS THEY HAVE PUBLISHED.
BUT SOMEHOW, THOSE REASONS DON'T SEEM TERRIBLY ADEQUATE TO MANY PEOPLE IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.
AS THE WORLD IS FULLY AWAY, .NZ STANDS FOR OPEN COMPETITION IN INTERNET PROVISION.
AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION HERE IS ALLOWING AN ORGANIZATION THAT ALREADY HAS SIGNIFICANT MARKET POWER TO INCREASE THAT POWER, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY BE IN NOBODY'S INTEREST BUT ITS SHAREHOLDERS.
SO INTERNETNZ REGRETS THAT A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS LIKE ICANN'S CAN ARRIVE AT A DECISION LIKE THIS.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COLIN.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: I THINK THIS IS, I'M SURE, EXPRESSING A POPULAR VIEW, BASED ON THE APPLAUSE.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERY USER OF THE INTERNET IS THAT EVERY SYSTEM THAT IS PART OF THE INTERNET'S OPERATION OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND OPERATE RELIABLY.
AND SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF, I WAS PERSUADED BY THE MATERIALS PRESENTED THAT VERISIGN PROPOSALS WERE, IN FACT, CONSISTENT WITH THAT VIEW AND THAT THE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT WAS STRUCTURED WAS INTENDED AND, IN FACT, DOES SUPPLY STABILITY FOR THE USERS OF THE DOT COM AND DOT NET DNS TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FORGET THAT IF ALL THE PIECES OF THE INTERNET DON'T EFFECTIVELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES, THEY WILL GO AWAY.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT SERVES ANYONE'S INTEREST.
PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
I WONDER IF I CAN ALSO RESPOND, IF YOU DON'T MIND, ON THAT SAME TOPIC, JUST TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION.
NOW I'M SPEAKING AS A BOARD MEMBER.
THERE ARE SOME OF US ON THE BOARD HERE WHO WERE ON THE BOARD WHEN THE SITE FINDER INCIDENTS STARTS.
AND THERE ARE SOME OF US WHO WERE NOT.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR BOARD CHANGEOVER.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS -- IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN SO INCREDIBLY FOCUSED ON WAS ENSURING THAT THAT SORT OF WALK AWAY -- WALK AWAY, COMPLETELY WALK AWAY FROM THIS SORT OF SYSTEM, DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY COMPANY, AND VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY NARROWLY DEFINE WHAT A REGISTRY SERVICE AGREEMENT IS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT PART FOR ME IN THE DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO DEAL WITH WHAT THE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE WAS AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, FREEDOM TO DO THINGS THAT HAD NO PURVIEW AT ALL.
I RECOGNIZE ALL THE ISSUES PEOPLE HAVE RAISED.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM.
BUT THAT JUST STRIKES ME IN THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST MONTH OR TWO THAT THAT PARTICULAR POINT DOESN'T SEEM TO GET DISCUSSED VERY MUCH IN THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.
SO I THINK THAT'S VERY ONE POSITIVE OUTCOME.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, REINFORCEMENT OF A VERY WIDE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE, WE DON'T THINK IT'S A WIDE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE.
REINFORCEMENT OF A DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE THAT WE THINK IS APPLICABLE AND WHICH ENSURES THAT THAT SORT OF UNILATERALISM HAS GOT -- YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN SORT OF PROMETHEUS HAS BEEN BOUND.
SO I JUST WANT TO NAUGHT ON THE RECORD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
SPEAKING OF PUTTING THINGS ON THE RECORD, I HAVE AN ONLINE INPUT WHICH HAS COME IN FROM A MAN NAMED JEFF FIELD.
HE RAISES A QUESTION FOR ME.
AND I'LL READ THIS TO YOU.
"MY NAME IS JEFF FIELD.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN, VINT CERF.
YOU'RE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY GOOGLE, WHICH IS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN ICANN AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR.
IN THE RECENT VOTE TAKEN BY THE BOARD TO SETTLE THE LONGTIME DISPUTE BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN, WHICH INCLUDED A SET OF AGREEMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS A NEW REGISTRY AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF THE DOT COM REGISTRY, AN AGREEMENT THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS REGISTRARS, YOU DID NOT ABSTAIN FROM VOTING, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT YOUR "YES" VOTE IN THIS INSTANCE WAS PRESUMABLY DETRIMENTAL TO GOOGLE'S REGISTRAR BUSINESS AND THEREFORE ARGUABLY PROVIDES SOME SORT OF ETHICS COVER.
IF YOU DID NOT FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS PARTICULAR VOTE DUE TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH AN ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRAR, WHAT SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NEED TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ABSTAIN FROM FUTURE VOTES ON MATTERS THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT REGISTRARS."
LET'S SEE.
FIRST OBSERVATION IS, GOOGLE IS INDEED AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR.
SECOND OBSERVATION IS, IT DOESN'T REGISTER ANYTHING.
THIRD OBSERVATION IS, THE REASON IT'S A REGISTRAR IS SO THAT IT CAN GET ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT DOMAIN NAMES THAT ARE BEING DELETED.
THE FOURTH OBSERVATION IS, THE PURPOSE FOR THAT IS TO TRY TO REMOVE FROM THE INDEXES THAT GOOGLE CREATES INFORMATION WHICH IS PROBABLY NO LONGER CORRECT BECAUSE ONCE THE DOMAIN NAME TRANSFERS OR EXPIRES, ALL OF THE WEB SITES THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DOMAIN NAME MAY NO LONGER BE REACHABLE, OR, IN FACT, WORST CASE, IF THEY ARE REACHABLE, THEIR CONTENT MAY HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY, IN WHICH CASE RESCANNING OF THE -- RECRAWLING OF THE WEB SITES SUPPORTED BY ANY NEW USERS OF THAT DOMAIN NAME IS INDICATED.
IT WAS MY BELIEF, AND I CONSULTED WITH THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE, THAT THIS DIDN'T CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IN PARTICULAR, THERE IS NO INCOME ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGISTRATION OR WITH THE REGISTRAR -- WITH GOOGLE'S POSITION AS A REGISTRAR, NOR DO I HAVE ANY DIRECT BENEFIT FROM THAT OTHER THAN SIMPLY BEING A PAID EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE.
IF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE WISHES TO REVIEW THIS AGAIN, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ASK THEM TO DO SO.
BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A MATERIAL CONFLICT.
AND THAT'S MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
SO, SHALL WE GO ON NOW, IF WE CAN, TO REPORTS?
I'M GOING TO -- IT'S NOW 11:20.
WE NOMINALLY WERE SCHEDULED TO GO THROUGH 12:30, INCLUDING SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY FROM THE FLOOR.
I'M PREPARED TO HAVE THIS SESSION GO BEYOND THE 12:30 TIME.
WE'LL HAVE TO LET SOME PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFLICTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT.
BUT LET'S SEE HOW WE DO IN TERMS OF PACING.
TO GO BACK TO THE REPORTS NOW, THE ASO REPORT WOULD BE NEXT.
AND IF SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA IS AVAILABLE, I WOULD INVITE HIM TO MAKE THE ASO REPORT.
I SEE HIM COMING -- OH, IT'S -- RAUL IS GOING TO GIVE THE REPORT INSTEAD.
SO APOLOGIES FOR GETTING THE NAMES WRONG.
DID HE GIVE UP?
OR YOU'RE JUST THERE TO REPLACE HIM?

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: HELLO.
THANK YOU, VINT.
AND NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONFUSION.
IN ORDER TO BE CONFUSED WITH MY FRIEND, SEBASTIAN.
THIS IS -- I WILL SPEAK ABOUT THIS -- SORRY.
IT'S OKAY.
I WILL SPEAK QUICKLY ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NRO AND THE ASO, AS I WILL GIVE STATUS ON THE INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATISTICS, AND I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE POLICY DISCUSSION THAT IS BEING HELD IN THE RIRS.
SO LET ME SPEAK ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION.
LOOK THAT WE ARE SPELLING THE WORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL STANDARD.
THE NRO IS THE ORGANIZATION COMPOSED BY THE FIVE EXISTING RIRS.
IN TOTAL, THE FIVE RIRS SERVE MORE THAN 8,000 NATIONAL REGISTRIES, LOCAL REGISTRIES, AND ISPS WORLDWIDE.
AND DUE TO THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN THE NRO AND ICANN IN OCTOBER 2004, THE NRO FULFILLS THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ICANN ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL CO EXISTS DUE TO THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE NRO NUMBER COUNCIL.
THIS NUMBER RESOURCE POLICY ADVISORY BOARD.
THIS COUNCIL IS COMPOSED BY 15 MEMBERS, THREE FROM EACH REGION.
AND THOSE THREE MEMBERS FROM EACH REGION, TWO OF THEM ARE ELECTED AT LARGE BY THE COMMUNITY, AND ONE OF THEM IS APPOINTED BY EACH RIR BOARD.
IN THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, ALSO PARTICIPATE OBSERVERS FROM THE RIRS AND FROM ICANN.
THE MEMBERS SERVE FOR THREE YEARS, OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL SERVE FOR THREE YEARS.
WHAT THOUGH IS ADVISE ICANN BOARD ON I.P. ADDRESSES AND A NUMBER OF RESOURCE-RELATED ISSUES.
SELECT TWO BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE ICANN BOARD, AND SELECT ONE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ICANN NOMCOM.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY COMPOSED BY THOSE 15 PERSONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE SLIDE.
THE CHAIR CURRENTLY IS SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA FROM ARGENTINA, WHO IS HERE IN THE ROOM.
CURRENTLY, THE TWO BOARD MEMBERS OF ICANN THAT HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, WHO WILL SERVE ON THE ICANN BOARD UNTIL MAY OF 2007, AND MOUHAMET DIOP, WHO WILL SERVE UNTIL JUNE 2006.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE PERFORMING AT THIS MOMENT ARE APPRISING ICANN STAFF OF GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL STATUS; INTERNAL PROCESSES; AND THE SELECTION OF ICANN BOARD MEMBER.
AT THIS MOMENT, THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTING THE PERSON THAT WILL SERVE ON THE ICANN BOARD SINCE JUNE 2006 FOR THE TERM OF THREE YEARS, REPLACING MOUHAMET DIOP.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL MEETS MONTHLY BY TELEPHONE AND TWICE A YEAR FACE-TO-FACE MEETING.
THIS YEAR, THE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN ISTANBUL, VERY SOON, IN THE LAST WEEK OF APRIL, DURING THE RIPE 52 MEETING; AND THE SECOND MEETING WILL BE HELD IN DECEMBER 2006 IN SAO PAULO, TOGETHER WITH THE ICANN MEETING.
THIS IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF IP ADDRESSES,