GAC Meeting with the ICANN Board (Open) Tuesday, 30 October 2007 ICANN Meeting - Los Angeles >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So, Mr. First Vice Chairman of the board, Mr. President, honorable members of the board, allow me, on behalf of the GAC, to warmly welcome you all in the GAC premises. As you see, for many reasons this year, this time, GAC is well represented. And that's why I would suggest not to go through the formal introduction of GAC members. On my count, on my count, we are around 35, 40 this meeting. >>VINT CERF: I'm sorry. This is just a complicated day. Apologies. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: This is a traditional event, and we really appreciate the possibility to discuss with the board issues which are of our common interest. From our side, I would like to suggest that we would raise three topics: One would be the GAC working methods. Like any other supporting organization and advisory committee, we are from time to time revisiting our working methods. And during this meeting, it was the case. And I would like to inform what conclusions we reached as a result of our discussions. Then another topic would be deployment of IDNs in CC space. And follow-up to the topic we discussed last time, accountability definition. So these would be three topics I would like to raise from the GAC side, and see what would be -- very interested to hear what would be topics from your side. >>VINT CERF: Okay -- >>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, at least for myself, Chairman, I would have something about the strategic plan. Also some issues potentially between the new gTLD process and issues emerging. The management operating principles, which might well factor into your discussion on accountability. And there's also something there I want to share with the board -- the GAC about dashboards and public reporting. So that's probably related. >>VINT CERF: Not sure that we'll have time to get to all of this, but I would add the -- briefly, IPv6 and DNSsec, just a couple of grace points. May I ask whether the board members who are arriving and will be seated at the end of the Friday meeting, have they already been introduced? And if they have not, may I do so? Let me ask Jean-Jacques Subrenat, who is back there. Also Harald Alvestrand. Is Wendy Seltzer here? I didn't see her. Oh, there you are. Wendy is in the back. These are three new board members who will be joining us officially at the end of the Friday meeting. Oh, Dennis. Excuse me. Where is Dennis? Hiding again. Yes, I apologize Dennis. These members will be joining us at the end of Friday, so I want to make sure you know who they are. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Vint, for introducing new board members. Let me briefly inform the board on the results of our internal discussion on the challenges GAC is facing. >> Use the microphone, please. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think I'm almost swallowing it. The discussion of the -- or periodical review of the GAC is nothing new. And we have done this -- we went through this process several times. All the time, we are facing more or less the same challenges, and depending on the situation, we try to readjust or remind ourselves what needs to be done in order to keep up with the speed of developments surrounding the GAC. Uncontestably, the GAC has become a visible player in -- amongst other organizations, supporting organizations, advisory committees, and has become more involved in policy development processes. And already, from the very beginning, and IDN deployment, IDN in CC space deployment is the most recent example where GAC has been involved. At the same time, we do not have sufficient resources to -- in order to address these issues. And, therefore, the prioritization of activities is essential. This time, we agreed to try out the new method. Instead of having working groups with several issues on the agenda permanently, we would concentrate on issues. And we would have discussion groups on certain issues. And only when discussion on the issue would become sufficiently mature to produce a document, whether that would be a GAC principle or a formal advice to the board, then we would create an ad hoc working group with the one objective to produce a document. And once the document is ready, this working group would cease to exist and would -- and function of appearance of new themes, what we need to discuss, a discussion group would be created and the discussion leader would be selected from the GAC members. Certainly, we feel that there is increasing workload and increasing activities which take place simultaneously. If we look in this meeting, we have new gTLDs, we still have WHOIS policy, we have IDNs in CC space, we have IDNs in G space, we have transition from IPv4 to IPv6, we have DNSsec. And the enormous amount of information we are receiving is very difficult to digest. And we hope that we will be able to get support from ICANN in terms of synthesis papers, like executive summaries. And I think that that would be very useful assistance from staff in our work. We certainly need to remind ourselves on timelines of submission of documents, because what we witness is that documents are coming very close to the meetings, and it's difficult to cope with that information load. At the same time right after the meeting or in between meetings, the information flow is relatively slow. So maybe we can find a way to optimize this information flow that we have it more or less in the same way. Some GAC members raised the issue of languages. Like elsewhere, use of one language sometimes is a challenge, especially when we are reaching out now. And I want to tell you that, myself, I sent out about 50 letters to ministers of communications in Africa and Asia- Pacific, informing them with with process the GAC and inviting ministers to nominate representatives of their countries to the GAC. But then we're facing the situation that new members come here, they don't fully understand the language, and also issues are not the simplest ones we're addressing. And maybe we can ask you to see whether that would be possible to help us with the interpretation. And I don't know how much that would cost, whether there is money available for these kind of things. But certainly we would be pleased if you would give some consideration to that issue, as well as translation of key documents that we are working on. Maybe not the GAC documents, but particularly these summaries or executive summaries, what we may receive from ICANN. So this is, briefly, what I recall from our discussions. And so if you have some reactions or comments or that, or GAC members would like to add something to my sum-up. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Janis, and first of all, can I say formally hello to all of the members of the GAC. Can I just make an observation before we start, Chairman, that when I was sitting in your chair some years ago, we used to have meetings in Los Angeles, and we tended to have very well-attended L.A. meetings. At that time, I was informally told that the reason was the shopping was good in Los Angeles. I would assume those sorts of reasons would no longer apply and that nobody would be watching the exchange rate in their trips. So I assume nobody's come here to go shopping. But, nevertheless, it used to be a major characteristic. Can I just say on the points you've raised just two things. First of all, if you're looking for additional assistance and additional assistance in preparation, quite valid, now is the appropriate time to feed it into the strategic planning process so that we can actually take that point and incorporate it into financial and financial planning for the coming year. Now is the appropriate time to tell us that in the strategic plan and be quite clear what you're looking for. The second point, on timing, I just want to manage expectations. This issue of timing will not necessarily be solved by more ICANN staff. Because a lot of the work is actually done by other constituencies who are volunteers. And even with the amount of support they have, the meetings are a natural milestone to which they work. So it's not always going to be feasible, unfortunately, to say, well, now that we've got more staff, we can spread the workload out evenly for the next 12 months, because it's very dependent on work done by others. I think additional resources will go some distance, but please do not expect that they're going to solve the entire problem, because there is a system dynamic here for all of the constituencies around the role meetings play instead of being milestones for work to be achieved. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: In absence of requests for the floor, shall we move, then, to the next item. It's IDNs. We had a very useful internal discussion on the list of issues which the ccNSO Council and the GAC submitted to the attention of the board during the last meeting. We worked on potential answers. There are a big deal of convergence of views on issues in -- on issues raised in the paper. There are some areas where we need still further work and further thinking. We are -- we hope that we will be able to feed in our preliminary reactions to this list of issues by the Paris meeting, in June. And I think that this feeds well in the planned advancement of policy development process in ccNSO. At the same time, we had exchange and discussion on the fast track. And we had this discussion in -- jointly with the ccNSO Council. And it needs to be stressed here that GAC feels very strongly about the issue of deployment of IDNs in CC space, feels that this question is -- has a very strong dimension of public policy. And I can reassure you that we will show a lot of interest and will work very closely with ccNSO Council in developing both policies, the PDP and fast-track modalities. As well, we will follow the fast-track application once it will become -- will become reality. So this is a strong point. This is not just an issue of ccNSO Council, but this is an issue also for the GAC. And that should be understood and taken into account. We -- I had the feeling that, listening to all these discussions, that there is some kind of confusion among GAC members on the modalities of these two processes. And we are trying to understand that these are completely two separate issues. And the fast track is the one that we are trying to synchronize with the launch of new gTLD applications in order to avoid any misuse of what potentially can occur if there is a distance or there is no synchronized approach to new gTLD application process and IDN CC application process. So we think that these things should be synchronized and both should come to realization at the same moment. And most probably that is the Paris meeting, June 2008. So we think that the modalities, the proposal which we will submit for consideration of the board to create a working group, so it will come later, but this is something that we discussed, and we think this would be a right thing to do to synchronize these things, and we're committed to work together with ccNSO to develop modalities of this fast-track deployment. >>VINT CERF: So I want to respond to that. In the course of discussions today with the ccNSO and the registry operators in the gTLD space, there was a very clear desire on both parties to be assured that if IDNs are introduced at the top level and if there isn't synchronization for some reason, that both parties are protected, that is to say, that the gTLD operators don't discover that a ccTLD IDN top-level domain is somehow interpretable as a kind of commercial identification as opposed to something related to the area associated with the ccTLD, and vice versa, that the ccTLD operators wanted to make sure that there wasn't an either deliberate or accidental choice of an IDN in the gTLD space that in some way reflected on the names associated with territories that they're responsible for. I understand the rationale for synchronization. I would suggest that we might wish to allow each of those processes to go forward at the pace that they are capable of going forward and try to put in safeguards. The other alternative, I think, would be to argue that synchronization eliminates some of the risks. It doesn't eliminate all of them, because whatever happens, there will still need to be checks and balances in the selection of the strings so that the ccTLD and the gTLD members are -- feel -- both feel adequately protected. What I would like to ask, though, is whether, through the ccNSO, for example, we could begin generating collections of potential IDN expressions so that we begin to have some idea of which of them might create difficulties among any of the interested parties in advance of actually starting the allocation process. So are there steps that we could take, that we are going to have to take eventually anyway, in particular, getting some names, that we could begin doing just to get an assessment of potential reactions? I don't know if that helps, but I'm looking for ways to cause things to happen before we -- we've already done that? Well, I know we've sent out this survey. So that is the beginning. But should we formalize that by creating lists? Are we maintaining that list at IANA, things like that? >>PAUL TWOMEY: I think let's wait until the working group process and the work that's being done between the GAC and the ccNSO, I think there's some coordination, a very fine choreography, which I think has been appreciated in terms of working that through together. Just on the question of working groups, which is coming through, I do think in terms of setting expectations for the fast-track process, there should be an expectation that there will be a role for technical experts with knowledge of IDN, IDNA, who will have to be important advisors to that process. And the rationale and reason for that is, if we are moving forward with a fast track, we are, quotes, dealing with -- it's very hard to roll back a fast track. This is not an experiment. So for the rest, there's a two-year process at least of policy consideration. But if we're having a fast track, we're actually preempting that, and, more importantly, we're preempting a process which has to deal with not 37 characters in the root zone, but literally tens and tens of thousands of characters in the root zone. In that consideration, I think it's going to be very valuable in the fast-track process to include at some stage technical advisors when it comes to string consideration because of their understanding of these sorts of collision issues, which will be important if we're going to have confidence that the fast-track process doesn't destabilize, you know, the long-term outcome of the IDN initiative. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I'm looking around the table. Does anybody want to join this discussion? From the board? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Chairman, just a question about you mentioned a working group. Is this -- on this issue. Is this the same working group that we've already heard about from the ccNSO that's going to include members of the GAC and the technical advisors? It's the same working group. Thanks. >>VINT CERF: Sounds like we're moving ahead on that. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Can I just say, as president, I particularly would like to note and say thanks both to your role, Janis, as chair of the GAC, and to Chris as chair of the CCs -- the role you've played in helping to coordinate this. We appreciate it enormously. I think this has been very carefully done. We are being told that there's a need for us to be clear about process and communication of process in key parts of the world so that people understand what's going to occur and that will need to be done. But I think this careful steps forward has been very useful. I also personally would like to say particular thanks to Demi Getschko. And the reason I'm doing that, at least at a board level, Demi has been probably the father of the idea of the path we are presently on. And so it was -- there's been quite a germination of this process. So I wanted to particularly thank him for the role he played 18 months ago in thinking about these issues. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So they can we can move to the next issue from our side. That is accountability definition. And we had discussion already last time. And we committed to provide input on accountability definition. And I would like now to ask Bill Graham to -- who is our -- is a cheerleader or scribe on this issue, to present on behalf of the GAC the result of our internal discussion on this subject. Bill, if I may ask you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Janis. Yes, we had a good discussion, I think, this morning on this issue. And as you suggested, I think I'll go through the paper that we've come up with. I want to flag a caveat here that this is -- this has some revisions in it after our discussion from this morning, and we will have to finalize it tomorrow. So you will get a paper copy after the GAC has had one more chance to review it. I'm quite confident it won't change dramatically. The GAC feels there are several possible ways to look at the definition of accountability, and each has its own implications when applied to ICANN. This paper represents current GAC thinking on the issue. There are several ways of looking at the issue. First, accountability in the public sphere. In the public sphere or governmental sphere, GAC has a wealth of experience. And our experience is relevant to the extent that ICANN can be seen as performing a public trust function, which seems to be an assumption consistent with the corporation as defined by article III of the articles of incorporation. But it's not reasonable, we think, to suggest holding ICANN to the same standards of accountability that would apply to government officials, who, in democratic societies, are held to a very high standard of accountability to the political level, and through them, to the population. On the other hand, government's definitions of accountability might prove useful for consideration of this topic, and in that light, GAC offers the following definition. And I hope this goes some way, Paul, to answering your question. Accountability is the obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility for performance in light of commitments and expected outcomes. Governments often have mechanisms in place to assure the public that they have behaved responsibly, including mechanisms for reconsideration of decisions. This can take the form of audits or evaluations, usually performed by independent officers, such as an auditor general. Others use outside auditors. These are integral to a system of checks and balances. As outlined in the draft management operating principles, GAC -- >>VINT CERF: Excuse me for interrupting. The people who are transcribing are not quite keeping up with you. >>BILL GRAHAM: Oh, thanks. >>VINT CERF: So could I ask you to slow down just a little bit. >>BILL GRAHAM: Thanks, Vint. I'll do that. As outlined in the draft operating principles, ICANN does have review mechanisms, the board Reconsideration Committee, the Independent Review Panel, and the ombudsman, for example, but these are somewhat circular in that they all return back to the board for a final decision. The ultimate external accountability mechanism is succinctly stated. ICANN can be taken to court. While this is true, the cost of undertaking a court action against ICANN is prohibitively expensive in both cost and time. Another aspect of accountability in the government realm can be referred to as a culture of accountability. For example, it's possible for an organization to have a good definition of accountability and good bylaws, but the culture of accountability is an important element that can determine to a large degree how these are implemented. It's useful to think about how ICANN interprets and implements its existing mechanisms. Good policies can fail if appropriate enforcement is not provided, as recent experience has shown. More can be done in that respect. The definition of Internet governance in the Tunis agenda mentions both development and application of regimes. The application part covers both implementation and enforcement. Looking, for example, at the ICANN ombudsman, he cannot overturn decisions and can be fired by the board, yet his role is intended to assure ICANN stakeholders that their problems will be addressed. A quick look at the 26th of October ombudsman's report shows that some recommendations were and some were not acted upon. In at least one country in the GAC, which has an ombudsman, similar limitations exist, but there, the government has always complied with ombudsman recommendations and has never dismissed an ombudsman. ICANN might consider responding more vigorously to the ombudsman's recommendations and increasing the profile of the ombudsman as a way of demonstrating its commitment to accountability. The second model we looked at was accountability in membership organizations. In the realm of membership organizations, accountability is to the members. Pretty obvious. That's usually thought of in two ways. First is fiduciary accountability, ensuring the appropriate and responsible handling of funds. The second is political accountability, whereby the members have an expectation that the executive performs functions in line with the wishes of the membership. The first, again, is usually affirmed by auditors. The second is usually accomplished through elections, whose results can be affected by what is said by the auditors. Of. This is difficult in the ICANN context, where there is no membership. But there are stakeholders, participants, and affected communities, some of whom have expressed a desire to see political accountability mechanisms in place in addition to the fiduciary mechanisms. But in a context where there's no defined membership, it's more challenging to find an appropriate mechanism for that political accountability. However, the GAC is not 100% persuaded by the argument that one difficult election experience rules out the possibility of any election mechanism being more successful. However, we do recognize more work is needed. A PDP or other open process may be the appropriate mechanism to ask stakeholders of all types to state precisely what they believe is missing from ICANN's political accountability. The GAC notes that the current reviews of the board and of the NomCom are likely to attract useful comments on these topics. The third model we looked at was accountability in nonmembership organizations. In the realm of those kinds of organizations, there should be accountability to an incorporating body. Thinking in terms of NGOs and not-for-profit entities, these are usually incorporated in some jurisdiction. Accountability is usually of the fiduciary type, ensuring that the funds flowing into and out of the organization are handled in a manner appropriate to the charter, mission, and aims of the organization. ICANN is obviously this type of organization, and it has fairly conventional mechanisms for ensuring fiduciary accountability. Like most nonmembership organizations, ICANN also holds annual general meetings and issues a public annual report. The issues and debates around accountability seem to be framed by the expectations of some participating individuals and communities. The issue for the ICANN board seems to us to be whether or not to attempt to find new ways to address the demands or desires of those individuals and communities. We also addressed a few other considerations about accountability. For example, business entities also have accountability mechanisms. Often, those are a mix of the ones we mentioned above. With regard to fiduciary accountability, there is almost always a requirement that finances be managed in a manner appropriate both for the proprietors or investors and for the state, which usually has expectations related to taxation, compliance with laws, and in some sense, with ethical norms of behavior. Sometimes a political mechanism is used to ensure fiduciary responsibility, for example, shareholders' meetings or board elections. Sometimes a more administrative approach, such as appointed boards, annual meetings, annual reports, et cetera, are used. This environment should perhaps be examined to see if any models can be found that would have lessons for ICANN. But the fundamental difference between the imperatives of for-profit businesses and not-for-profit organizations may muddy the waters. The fact that ICANN's responsibilities for naming and numbering have significant economic import for business entities suggests at least that some consideration should be given to accountability mechanisms in a business environment. In this respect, ICANN needs to be accountable to the community and to anyone materially affected by its decisions. The point of looking at these different models is to provide a framework for GAC to use in looking at accountability and transparency of ICANN. From the perspective of the GAC, ICANN has been making good progress on transparency issues. As we -- sorry. Nonetheless, we believe a few issues remain to be dealt with. Making information more easily and readily available is just one part of the process. Other important elements involve making certain the information is succinct, usable, and placed in context. The purpose of particular postings or deliberative processes must be made clear, and sufficient time has to be allowed for the submission of comments. Once comments have been submitted and reviewed, the results of the review need to be written up and explained to facilitate a clear understanding of the premise and scope of whatever decision was taken by the board. Thinking through the framework above, it became clear that the issue of accountability for ICANN is difficult. By many measures, ICANN seems to have a reasonable set of mechanisms in place to assure accountability in a non-member organization, recognizing that improvement is always possible. The question the GAC would like to pose in this paper is whether ICANN's board is satisfied that the organization is doing as well as possible, not only to meet the requirements of its articles of incorporation and related official requirements, but also to answer the needs vocally being expressed by individuals and communities interested in the organization. These questions will no doubt be addressed through the mechanism of the upcoming 2007 review of the ICANN board for which terms of reference are posted -- were posted with comments due a couple of weeks ago. The draft terms of reference clearly opened the door to consideration of the issues outlined above. Similarly, concerns around accountability and how the board is selected will be the subject of ongoing deliberations through the review of the Nominating Committee. The review report will be submitted to the board and posted for public review and comment. Looking at accountability in these three different environments, it's possible to draw some points that are common to all of them which can extend discussions. For example, no matter how defined accountability can be assessed and measured in terms such as the processes by which decisions that affect the broader community are developed and adopted, mechanisms by which the inputs and rationales for such decisions are explained, including explanations of what inputs are used in a process and why some inputs received via public consultation may not have been used, and process by which stakeholders can raise concerns and seek redress. The GAC also wants to point out that in some senses, ICANN's mandate puts it in a situation where it needs to be responsible to the entire global community. An annual report is a useful mechanism to report on its stewardship, but the organization should take care to show its sensitivity to the interests of the whole international community. The GAC's message to ICANN is that they may need to look for mechanisms to increase political accountability. This should be a consideration in the work of the President's Strategy Committee, including their consideration of expanded internationalization. In conclusion, the GAC believes that ICANN has made progress in its efforts to improve transparency and accountability, but the GAC also believes this will have to be an ongoing process. As government representatives, we are committed to continuing to work with ICANN and its communities in this ongoing work. >>VINT CERF: Thank you very much, Bill. A couple of thoughts, and I think Paul may have some as well. On the election side, I struggle with trying to imagine how one could validate the electorate, if it were, in fact, all the users of the Internet, 1.2 billion now, maybe 3 billion by the end of 2010. Many of them will have mobile phones. Maybe there's a technical hope there that you could do an authenticated vote that way. But qualifying the electorate is a really tough challenge. So I have not held up much hope for that, a direct election process would actually work. And I am not suggesting you are proposing that. It's just one of the potentials that strikes me as being unlikely. With regard to comments about ombudsmen, I do have one question. What happens, what is the Latin expression? Who will watch the watchers? It's conceivable that someone in a position of trust will fail that trust. And so there has to be some way to deal with that problem. It wasn't clear from the comments in the text that you made that there was any recommendation as to how one would deal with that case. Right now, the way that is dealt with is that a supermajority of the board would have to conclude that an ombudsman was not satisfactorily functioning for the organization. But the supermajority is substantial. I think it's 75%. If there are other alternative means of coping with that problem, of course it would be helpful to point them out. And finally, with regard to the general question of satisfaction with respect to our various appeals mechanisms, I think there is room for improvement. And a gap analysis that could say under what circumstances do our mechanisms not provide some kind of recourse so we could understand where we are short in the process. Would be a useful step. I'm assuming that -- well, let me ask. Is it your intent that this document will continue to live and that more material will be produced, more specific recommendations or ideas will be generated? And if so, that will be very helpful. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Vint. I think that our understanding is that this document will be a contribution to the ongoing reflection on accountability. It is very clear that one thing is to establish the accountability framework, and another thing is, which is equally challenging, is to implement this framework on the constant basis. And this is certainly what we expect, that this will be an ongoing process which will never end. But that's life. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Perhaps I'll pick up from there, Janis. And Bill, thank very much to you and the government of Canada for the preparations and the dialogue that we have had. Taking that position about this particular paper, then, is it feasible for us to consider this to be part of the input that we're looking for in terms of these management operating principles that are actually appearing presently on the left-hand side of the screen which has been a process of consultation now for many months, since September last year, actually, the beginning of the work on this. And which it is the intention of the board to bring to some initial conclusion, admitting they will keep reviewing, initial conclusion in December. So this is a very -- If this is an input, this is a very valuable input. We appreciate it very much. It probably means most of my responses don't need to be quite so strident, because we can take it on board and respond. And we'd like to do that and consider this as part of the ongoing work on the operational principles. It does strike me there are actually provisions in the principles, presently in the draft, that relate to the points you are raising. Can I also ask the question on the ombudsman, because you seem to make a significant emphasis upon that. At least in my home country, ombudsman and independent commissioners, while being independent necessarily of the executive, are normally accountable against some parliamentary committee. And so if there is an ombudsman who -- and there is an incident in the Australian state government recently where an ombudsman is considered, by the committee, to have gone considerably beyond his or her remit or even judgment which has resulted in that person resigning. And the same thing apply in commissions. So it did strike me, at least in my experience, that ombudsman were not quite as completely independent as you had described in the paper. But perhaps it's a question for ongoing discussion. The part of the point to make is the distinction between parliamentary and executive -- legislative and executive government is difficult to put in place in a corporate structure. To a degree, it's seen in the corporate structure, the control of the board has over the CEO and the staff, and the CEO being the executive, the staff being the legislative but it's not exactly true. That's not an equal match. So it's kind of a yes, but. I want to point out that you talk about accountability, accountability to an external party at one stage here. It's not clear, personally, in the managing operating principle draft, for reasons I don't quite understand, but with our present incorporation as a public benefit, nonprofit corporation in California, we also have an accountability to the Attorney General of California. And that's not just a fiduciary. This is a more general sort of sense of accountability to that. So there is actually some external. But we can reflect that. Just one last comment about putting forward reasons backwards and forwards for taking decisions. The board has moved to putting more detail in its board decisions. And we'll move forward even further with that in terms of showing inputs that were received. However, I just want to again set expectations. There are some specific cases where it would be a severe breach of fiduciary obligations for the board to always say why or why not, in a particular case. Sometimes they are because quite naturally there is expected litigation and you have to be very careful if you are expecting litigation not to put the corporation at risk in what you publish. But the one that we most take -- And we make judgments on that and different boards have made different standard judgments on that. But the one we most worry about is in delegation/redelegation issues in terms of the zone file, where you will notice we tend not to be quite so coming forth until the thing is completed. I have said here before, I will repeat here before, we have on a fairly regular basis, have to deal literally with life and death issues on occasions. We have issues when it comes to some redelegation request where people's lives or safety has been put at risk. For that reason, we make a general case that we do not talk in detail about redelegations or process until the whole thing is completed. Just for sharing. >> Janis, over here. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Sorry. Please, Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill, could I say also thank you for the detailed work. I look forward to receiving that and going through it very carefully. Can I just pick up two points. First of all, as co-chair of the President's Strategy Committee we will take account of those points that you have made directed at us. Thank you for that. And secondly, in relation to the ombudsman and the other mechanisms, just to let you know that the board has directed the Board Governance Committee which looks into these things to do a review of the current mechanisms which include the ombudsman, independent review and reconsideration, to make sure those are functioning in the way that they are intended. Now, echoing Janis's earlier problem, we, too, are caught up in this deluge of material and the Board Governance Committee in particular is currently in catch-up mode. We are required under the bylaws to conduct review of all of the different parts of ICANN, and as you will know, there's work going on in the GNSO review, there's the NomCom review, the ALAC review, and there's about to be the board review. So the Board Governance Committee hasn't yet started on the review of those three accountability mechanisms. But just to reassure you that we haven't lost sight of it. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. Bill. >>CANADA: Yes. If I could just respond briefly. I would really like to emphasize that we see this response as being largely positive. If we have not mentioned, the document that you had on the screen there is obviously very detailed. Speaking personally and not as the raconteur (rapporteur) for the group, I found it educational and useful. And absolutely, some of the things mentioned in this principles document are dealt with to some degree. We still felt that for a public consumption document, it was useful to draw out these various aspects. So please don't hear this as being predominantly critical at all. It really is offered in a sense of collaboration and helpfulness. >>VINT CERF: I'm sorry, this is the -- My problem is my last name is Cerf, and the famous family member is Bennett Cerf and he can't resist a pun. Some wonderful mistranscription just happened. I don't know how many of you caught it. But apparently you have a new function here. Normally one would expect a rapporteur, however, Bill, you are apparently the raconteur for this committee and I think it's delightful and I think I am going to initiate a similar idea for the board. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, I appreciate that feedback, Bill, and we take it in that spirit and again, it's incredibly valuable. We appreciate it. I think the question we asked at our last face-to-face meeting, what do you mean by accountability. I think you have come back and given us three headings and very useful, and I think we will probably take the document away and again look at the way that we have cut the data and look at it and say here are three headings for us to consider, and let's use those headings as ways of addressing. I think that's been very valuable. >>VINT CERF: Slow down. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I've got your disease. Can I just point out to the members of the GAC something that you will expect to see finalized by December. Another one of the things that we are moving on December, but I wanted to show you now. On the left-hand of the screen is an illustration of -- and this is not sort of -- This is real. This is actually the real database. It is a part of an ICANN dashboard that will be made available in December through the ICANN Web site, which will provide real-time statistical information on all series of transactions, and then will move not only to transactions but also to business project reporting for ICANN's operations. The particular page in front that you can see is actually on -- is part of the IANA dashboard, and it is in real time. It's a bit hard to see, I admit. The top one is a cumulative on IETF reports. The one on the bottom is cumulative on root zone reports. And Roman, our new head of I.T. is here beside me, so just to give you an example is it's something -- can we go behind this report. >> On the details? >>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes. >> No. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Normally there will be drill-downs on this but it's not here at the moment. We will have a range of these available for transactions. They will be up constantly. Some will be updated on a sort of daily cycle, some will have a monthly cycle, some will have a weekly cycle, but it will be a way of real-time reporting on all sort of the operational part of what ICANN does. And will expand as we bring more of this online, and we can particularly expect to see that in place by December. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Paul. I think that this is one thing that I forgot to mention at the beginning when I was reporting on our discussion on the improvement of our performance and methods of work. We would like to ask ICANN's support in updating our GAC Web site. It seems that we have reached the point that this should be done expeditiously, because it is outdated. The information there is not well represented and search engine is slow and we cannot find information what we need and we see information that we certainly don't need there. So we would like to ask ICANN's support in updating and upgrading our Web site. >>VINT CERF: Just a question for clarity. Is that request simply to change the existing information or are you looking for some assistance in the layout of the Web site as well and the nature of the content? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah. Also to the layout and the nature of content. I think we cannot any longer work with the Web site which was created when you were in this chair. So it's more or less like 15 years. >>VINT CERF: In Internet time, yes. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I think that we had a very, very interesting exchange, and I want to see whether there are any other questions that GAC members or members of the board, members of the community would like to raise. Bill Dee, European Commission. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thanks, yeah, there's a couple of questions I had, and I think maybe they are ones Vint has already alluded to in terms of subjects he wanted to talk about. One was about the public request now being made for ICANN signing the root or for IANA to have the keys for relating to signature of the root and what your reactions might be to that. And the other issue I would welcome any initial reaction you would give on is IPv4 and IPv6 situation, and the possible emergence of a secondary market. This is something that we have just had a very interesting discussion with the NRO on, but I would appreciate any reactions you might have. Thank you. >>VINT CERF: On the first point, a subject I was going to bring up anyway so thank you for raising it. DNSsec is a pretty important element in improving the ability of the domain name system to resist some forms of abuse. So I'm strongly in favor of moving ahead with DNSsec, and I'm very pleased to note that at least four of the ccTLDs are already signing their zone files. The way that Harald Alverstrand put it earlier today is that many people are saying, "Will someone please sign the root now?" And I think the answer is we should try to move ahead with that program. We have to make sure we have all the technical pieces in place, but it is very clear that if you want to have a fully validated and -- what's the right word? I don't want to say "accredited." I want to say something about the integrity of the data that you get back from the "any query requires that there be digital signatures all the way down to the edges of the net. So my sense is that we should be moving ahead at ICANN to prepare our own ability to sign that system. We already have test signatures -- capabilities in place, but it's not formalized. So I'm -- as you know, of course, I'll be departing from the board in a couple of days, but one of my legacy recommendations is to move ahead with that process. With regard to IPv4 runout, as you will know, Geoff Huston, in Australia, has suggested that the runout point where we are allocating the last box is somewhere in 2010, and that the exhaustion of whatever we are able to put out at the end might come as early as 2011. It's almost inescapable that a secondary market would develop, and in fact, in some quarters, it's believed that it is already there. The consequences of that are twofold. First of all, it has a potential impact on the efficient operation of the routing system and the routing tables. When they get bigger, that's not necessarily a good thing. This motivates me, anyway, to be very strongly in favor of introducing IPv6. Many people use the term transition to IPv6 as if to say at some point you will throw a switch and IPv4 will go away. I'd like to suggest to you that that won't happen and that what needs to happen is that we run both of these address systems in parallel. There are consequences of having to do that. It's a more complex environment to have two different addressing structures, two different routing tables. Algorithms running concurrently with both address spaces. Software that doesn't break when some parties are interacting with version 4 and some parties are interacting with version 6. Network management systems that aren't surprised when error messages come from both -- labeled from both address spaces. So this is a nontrivial exercise. On the other hand, if we do not accelerate the pace of IPv6 introduction, then we will both encourage awkwardness at the run-out of IPv4 and we will compress the time needed to get the v6 in operation so that we can continue to expand the Internet. So I'm a very big proponent of getting v6 in place. Frankly, the principal blockade is -- and I don't mean by this a pejorative at all. Some of the Internet service providers are quite understandably saying, "I'm not sure why I should turn this function on. No one is asking for it." So if there is a message in all of this it is to explain to the users that they really do need to ask for IPv6 address space if they expect the ISPs to provide it. And that we need to educate them that if they fail to do that, that they may, themselves find themselves unable to expand their own operations for lack of addressing. So once again, you will find me emphasizing that. And with my other hat on at Google, I have been encouraging rapid efforts to understand how to do that in our own company. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Bill, I wonder if I can also have a go at answering your two questions. To follow up on what Vint has said, at staff level, we have been dedicating resources specifically to build the softwares in the systems so that the signing certainly of the zones that ICANN itself operates have potentially even signing of the root would be feasible if people called upon us to do so. That work is not yet completed, but has certainly been underway, and stakeholders have been aware of that work being undertaken. The issue of who and how is a matter obviously of stakeholder discussion. But we have at least been doing the software work in preparation for - - so that the capabilities are in place if that is what stakeholder would like to see happen. On the second issue on v4, v6, can I make the following observation. First of all, the illegible bar graph on the bottom right-hand corner there is actually the real-time IPv4 address unallocated pool at the IANA which presently shows 83% is allocated and 17% is not. So that will be a page you can keep track of at the time to see how that's moving towards deletion. Can I just make the sort of following observation. The ICANN community, especially -- and it's the way it's structured it partly is another echo, Bill, of issues around accountability, have thought a lot and have a lot of experience as to how to live out a public trust function in helping to ensure a marketplace takes place while avoiding all the risk of anti-competition law. So ICANN itself is very carefully structured and has withstood some number of antitrust actions in the courts, specifically which are a key part to the role it plays in hoping to establish market conditions for the operation of markets, particularly in the domain name space and generic top-level domains. So in terms of the question you asked, at least I would say we feel that we have some experience and learning that we can share with whoever might be appropriate as if those markets are going to emerge. >>VINT CERF: One very important point. The graph that shows 83% allocation is from the IANA perspective. This means that we've given blocks to the RIRs. They have not exhausted them yet. So the 83% is not indicative of the current state in the wild, as it were. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. There is a request from Norway. And Vint is asking to excuse himself. He has another obligation. We will excuse you, Vint. And we will see you in, what, in two hours? >>VINT CERF: In a couple of hours. Thank you very much, though. See you this evening. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Please. >>NORWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Ornulf Storm, from Norway. We just wanted to flag some concern regarding something that came up during the GNSO workshop on new gTLDs. We just wanted to make the point of the proposed reserved name list by the GNSO. Also referring to the point 2.2 in our GAC principles on new gTLDs regarding avoiding territorial country and place names. We feel that should possibly be addressed to possibly include country names on a reserved list. Also, in light of countries, of course, there's some suggestion to taking care of that problem, whether dispute resolution procedure or other mechanism. But in light of other countries not participating in the ICANN community dialogue, they would possibly be excluded from making or raising their concern. So that might be a suggestion. But, of course, we haven't sort of concluded this in the GAC. But we just wanted to raise the concern. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ornulf, for raising this question. Do you have a reaction, Paul? >>PAUL TWOMEY: We are hearing similar sorts of issues being raised by the ccNSO and others. So we are conscious of the concern being voiced, yes. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I see Peter, please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question. You'll be aware that there's a considerable amount of attention being focused in the GNSO this week on WHOIS. And I wonder if you could give an indication as to whether or not you'll be indicating in your communique the GAC position in relation to the advice that we asked for about compliance with national laws. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Indeed, we had the discussion on this issue. And the conclusion, in essence -- it will be more explicit in the communique and the letter -- but, in essence, was the following: That the approach to data protection and legal regimes in different countries are different, and therefore it is almost impossible to establish a universal approach to the question. And, therefore, the preliminary advice which was formulated in San Juan would be reaffirmed as a permanent thing, that the issue should be addressed case-by-case basis. So this is the thrust of our discussion and conclusion. I see Suzanne. Please. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Janis. If. I could just add a brief comment. Janis has, of course, accurately captured the essence of our discussions. I think we realized it would be exceedingly difficult to arrive at a common GAC-wide consensus position. One of the reasons we found we could not was that we did not fully understand and believed it was important for us to try to better understand and certainly would urge ICANN staff to help us understand and undertake the legal research necessary. But that these questions raise some very fundamental jurisdictional issues that we are not able to sort ourselves, but we are very mindful in attempting to think through how a common procedure could apply. In thinking through examples, test cases, it struck us that there were some very significant jurisdictional questions that most of us are not international legal experts around the table. Apologies to my colleagues who are. But most of us don't seem to be. So I just want to flag that, in addition to the advice that you will get from us, which is, hmm, one size does not fit all, we think a case- by-case approach. Even the case-by-case approach is going to raise jurisdictional questions. Thank you. >>PAUL TWOMEY: The staff welcomes all the communities and constituencies reports this week calling upon the staff to do more reports. [ Laughter ] >>PAUL TWOMEY: And the staff asks all constituencies to please make this clear in the strategic planning process. Such things will appear in the budgeting process. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If I may, to thank you for that gracious invitation and to simply confirm that whether you would need to see from us something other than points in our communique. Are you seeking, for example, some additional submission that probably we could manage through a cut-and-paste job? But since you are offering opportunities for us to target things that need to be funded, I think I would want to flag something that we did not take up with you, which is the GAC's recommendation included in the WHOIS principles for a study on the uses and abuses of WHOIS data, and will probably make a reminder suggestion that that be implemented, with some suggestions that we might like to be consulted on the terms of reference for that study. So if I may add that to the laundry list of things with dollar signs, in addition to the translation and others. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Suzanne. I think that we have reached the point when we could wrap up the session, unless there is a request for the floor and desire to raise another issue. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, in the spirit of information, and not in the spirit necessarily of putting something before the GAC for consideration, but considering that the GAC does ask for information and understanding of issues, I preface this very carefully, for information purposes, not for request for action, you should just be aware that in the process that's underway presently around the new gTLD process, there is an emerging issue about -- emerging in the discussions amongst a number of the constituencies -- about potential market structures that might exist or potentially ownership structures that might exist in a five-year period as is an evolution which might well take place with new applicants applying for new gTLDs, and that that's potentially something the board itself might just question. Now, I'm making is very clear, this is not putting it in front of the GAC as an issue, but just that you might pick this issue up this week, and that it's going to be something that is -- that all -- a number of constituencies have raised and are talking about today, just that you're aware of it just to say that the board is aware of it, and this will be an item. There's no conclusion to be drawn from it. It's just that it's an issue that's emerging on the table. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Another issue which is emerging is tonight's gala dinner. And I would like to invite those who are going to dinner to take an extra sweater with you, because the event will be outside. There will be some heaters provided, but there will be -- the event itself will be outside. So, therefore, since I need all of you back tomorrow in this room in good health, please take an extra sweater with you. I would like to thank board members for taking time and coming here. I would like to thank GAC members for participation in this discussion, as well as all those representatives of different constituencies who showed interest by being present in the discussion. Thank you very much. And I -- I'm sure that we will see each other again Tuesday of the meeting in New Delhi. Thank you, and this meeting is adjourned. At 8:30, I would like to invite vice chairs and convenors of working groups, those who are part of the GAC planning committee, to come to the room to discuss the indicative agenda of New Delhi meeting. Tomorrow at 8:30, planning committee, and GAC meeting at 9:00. (6:15 p.m.)