GNSO Working Session

 Thursday, 1 November 2007

 ICANN Meeting - Los Angeles

 

 (Meeting in progress.)

 >>ROSS RADER:   If I understand your request correctly, you're looking 
for prepublic comment on implementation, staff implementation details 
after we have made our policy recommendations?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   I'm not sure, but I'd love to see the draft RFP 
in a draft-based contract.

 >> That's what it sounds like you said, Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I'll speak with hardware hat I'm currently wearing.  I 
just don't think that's appropriate for the Address Council to do.  
This is a policy-making body, not a management committee or staff 
committee or anything like that.  And those details are really not 
within our purview, jurisdiction, or anything.

 So while we would want to comment on them as part of the public, those 
details are not --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Can I ask a question?

 I certainly agree that we shouldn't be commenting on the 
implementation plan as an implementation plan.  But one of the things 
that I was concerned with is that during the public commentary period 
is the first time that the staff hears the comment from us, "That isn't 
what we minute."

 And that's the comment.

 Not that, "Yeah, that's what we meant, but now that you've 
implemented, it looks brain dead, and we should do something 
different."

 It's more the staff doesn't get the comment that we don't think 
they've implemented what we wrote the policy on.  If that's when it 
happens, that's when it happens.  But halves my concern with kind of 
that early (inaudible).

 >>ROSS RADER:   I think kind of the practical (inaudible) official 
answer is we have to be really careful how we write the policy.  The 
practical answer is that, you know, you probably cross the bridges when 
you come to it and I think the staff has always proven to be very good 
at following up on areas where there's question.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I agree with that.

 Anyone else wish to comment more on new gTLDs?

 New gTLD workshop?

 I suppose we can move on from that for at least the moment.  I'm sure 
we'll be back to the topic of new gTLDs many times over the next year.

 Okay.  Debrief on open meeting.

 There were certainly some interesting comments that came up.  And I 
wonder who would like to start first with their favorite interesting 
comment.

 I understand -- we are?

 I understand that -- I had announced at the beginning that we weren't 
being scribed.  And I now we are.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Did you mean the open council meeting or the 
board meeting this morning?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think either.

 Let's do either.

 But I actually meant this morning.

 But, yeah, it's a good point to bring up both.  And I invite the two 
topics here.  One is open GNSO and one is open forum.

 And, yeah, I think -- I did get one comment from someone -- and I'll 
repeat it before they need to themselves, and I'm sure they can go into 
it -- that one of the things that we lost in our experiment in the open 
GNSO meeting is that we lost the open forum mike part of our meeting.  
That, basically, while it was open to people on a topical issue, 
because we had an overloaded meeting, we didn't even finish the agenda 
we had in front of us, we never got to the essential everybody standing 
at an open mike with anything they wanted to say to us, whether it was 
a topic on the agenda or not.  We missed that.

 Yeah, Mike.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   I liked the format.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You should use the we do have a passed around mike.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   I thought -- I liked the format.  I thought it was 
-- it flowed well.  The ability for a speaker to get up and interject.

 One of the problems I had with the old bifurcation -- thank you.

 One of the problems --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   No, we can hear you.  It's just that it's for 
recording and others.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   One of the problems with the old bifurcation is 
there would be a public forum, people would get up and talk, the 
council would really not interject.  Then there would be a council 
meeting after and then there would be a substantive dialogue.  It just 
didn't flow well.

 And although you ran out of time yesterday, I thought the flow of how 
the event went was much better than in previous meetings.

 And having been to 27, 27 different formats, I would say that was, you 
know, one of the better -- I liked it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  Thank you.

 One of the recommendations I have gotten, and I'll give it in a 
second, one of the recommendations I had gotten was doing this was 
good, but we should make sure that we leave time, even if that means 
for asking for a little bit more time for our meeting.

 Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I think I may be at least one of the people who 
talked about that, so let me explain my point.

 I did like the format of being able to have interaction relevant to 
the topic you were talking about.  But what we missed, and, you know, 
you as the council may decide you don't want to continue this, but we 
did previously, as a council, take a look at the topics that were going 
to be on the board's public forum and make sure we also took some input 
related to those topics.

 So let me just give you two examples that you might have been 
interested in hearing about from the public, even if it were briefly.  
That is the accountability and transparency principles or the strat 
plan, particularly the strat plan, because there are significant 
implications for the GNSO, not just the council, the GNSO, to put 
forward suggestions that will have direct relevance to budgeting for 
resources.

 And so one idea people could consider is that you have -- you know, 
you limit the open mike to topics that aren't relevant, that are just 
about the board's agenda that you want to hear comments on and then 
really prescribe the amount of time you provide to it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 Thank you.

 Yeah, Chuck, and anyone else that I missed.  Okay.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I have a couple logistical suggestions, and I already 
shared these with Avri.

 One of them is that I think that it would be much better to have 
probably a staff person doing the drafting rather than the chair.

 The chair needs to be able to concentrate -- and I appreciate how 
diligently Avri worked at that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You just don't want to see my misspelling anymore in 
public.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Yeah.

 But it's just that it's very difficult, and it puts -- when you have 
pressure on you to keep a meeting going and running properly and you're 
trying to draft, it doesn't really work well.  And it's going to create 
more of your spelling errors, not that you don't already have enough.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I'm working to have more.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   So, you know, the board does that.  Of course, they 
have a secretary.  And when they're modifying motions, they have 
somebody that's not on the board doing that.  And I definitely think 
that should happen.

 The second logistical thing -- and this is kind of a pet peeve at all 
ICANN meetings for me -- and that is that anything that's going to be 
displayed, whether it be a presentation or a previously existing 
document or anything, should be controlled from one centralized 
location so that it's very quick and we don't waste time plugging in 
computers and running into technical problems and everything else.

 Now, that takes some advanced preparation.  And there may be 
exceptions sometimes.  But they should really be minimized, because 
that detracts from the efficiency of a meeting.

 And then what Avri already said, I think we need at least, for an open 
meeting, we're going to need at least a four-hour block of time, not 
three and a half.  And ideally, you know, there needs to be a little 
break in there.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Sorry about that, but it's the first thing I always 
eliminate is the break.

 Anyone else want to comment on the open GNSO before we go to the open 
forum this morning?

 Okay.  On the open forum this morning, we certainly heard some 
interesting things.  For example, there was the comment on reserved 
names for a very large list.

 And if I understood correctly, it was -- and somebody can correct me 
if my memory is wrong.  But it was for every name on the ISO list and 
its appropriate abbreviations in every script, slash, language, and 
that that was what was being asked for as a reserved name for 
countries, territories.

 Did I understand that correctly?

 >> I think so.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So it was -- so it was basically -- it's not a list.  
I don't even think we could build such a list physically.  It's 
basically an implicit list by -- defining it by rule.  So that's one.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   I don't think we have a position on it, but I 
have a question.  I don't think -- this is the first I've heard the 
suggestion, so I'm sure we don't have a position on it.

 So would that mean that the two-letter TLDs could be opened up that do 
not correspond to a country code?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think that there would be objection to that.

 I think we actually currently do have a position on this, that the 
reserved names group took as, no, we don't have such a list.  But it 
was left open.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   The -- and I think you're right in the way you 
characterize it.

 It actually came from two sources, the ccNSO and the GAC.  Okay.

 And, actually, it's consistent, what they're asking for is consistent, 
although we weren't that specific, with our comments on the ccNSO/GAC 
issues paper, where we said, if, for example -- in fact, it's even in 
one of our executive summary points that we went over on the weekend, 
that if either G's or C's go first, that there probably needs to be 
some coordination so that we don't preempt one another.  And it's a 
particularly obvious situation with regard to the ccTLDs.  And I think 
they have a legitimate concern.

 They're going to probably pick country names and IDN versions of 
those, IDN script versions.

 But if they're not -- if they haven't done that by the time we 
introduce our round of new gTLDs, including IDNs, it's a problem.  So I 
think it's just something where we cooperate with that community.  It's 
not as if we're setting something in stone, 'cause that would be 
contrary to what we recommended in the reserved names.  But until they 
get up and running in their policies and done something like that, that 
may be a very appropriate thing to do.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   One thing I do want to mention.  One of the issues 
that they brought up was that, well, not every country belongs to 
ICANN, and therefore they don't -- and that was specifically one of the 
reasons that the committee included the GAC as someone that could raise 
the objection.  So, therefore -- and anytime something came through, 
the other point -- and if I remember, the implementation -- not the 
implementation, but the policy recommendations correctly -- was that 
when it was a geographical or territorial-type name, ICANN staff 
processing applications would inform the GAC that there was a 
geographical name being considered, and so therefore it wasn't just 
that, there may be countries that aren't here that need protection.  It 
was, yeah.  And that's why the GAC has been included among those that 
can raise an objection.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Yeah, I heard they didn't like that idea very 
well, because, like you said, a lot of countries don't participate.

 I know also that we've pressed as a council to -- with another 
principle in our executive summary was that if any ccTLD IDNs ought to 
correspond directly to a country name or country code.  So it seems to 
me consistent that our gTLD policy ought to have -- actually prohibit 
anybody from applying for same.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   All right.  So -- and when you think --  Okay.  Just 
one question.

 You would have included all reasonable abbreviations for the name as 
well?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Only if they're two letters.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   In ASCII.  Well, there's a variety.  gTLD, I 
mean, that's really hard to imagine.  How would -- how would that give 
any clarity to applicants?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   We have to be careful there.  Some countries do have 
a reasonable abbreviation that they use and probably not a two-
character one in many cases.  So I think it's just -- I don't think 
it's something that you can just nail down.  But we may need to work 
with them to define what that list is.

 I don't think there's one rule that's going to fit every situation.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right, we have, like, U.S.A., United States of America 
--

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   But we can work on a list like that with them, I 
think.  Because they're going to want them to be shorter, if they can.  
In some cases, it really doesn't work to be shorter, depending on the 
script.

 But they would probably like them to be shorter, too.  So just to say 
it can't -- only if it's a two-character -- two-character doesn't even 
work for some scripts, you know.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   Just, I think, I apologize, I wasn't at that 
particular session.  But it sounds like Chuck raised one of the things 
that I wanted to mention about, which is a list.  Would they be 
comfortable creating a list or creating a list together with us?  
Because that is really the biggest issue when we went down the 
discussion of the geographic names.

 And I feel -- I don't feel that they would be comfortable coming up 
with a list with all the country names and in all the different 
scripts.  That is precisely why the ccNSO is -- I wouldn't want to use 
the word "stuck," but, you know, in their particular process right now 
to try to create a way to generate those, quote, unquote, proposals, I 
guess, for the string.

 So -- but without the list, it seems like if I heard it correctly, 
that the question was why didn't we have a list.  But, you know, where 
do we find the list?  And if nobody's willing to create that list, 
where do we end up with, except for what we proposed, actually, in our 
policy.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Well, I think that what they're -- and I've got Jon 
next.

 But I think what they were looking for was not a list, but a rule that 
basically says, "Any country name or appropriate reservation in any 
script or language is reserved."

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   I think in that case, it seems like a possible thing 
that we can look into.

 I don't know whether we did -- I guess in the reserved name group, did 
this specific item get discussed?  And what was the....

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I don't think so, not directly anyway.

 And we obviously recommended that it not be -- there not be any 
geographic identifiers reserved.

 But I think the rule might work as long as it's a temporary situation, 
so it doesn't go against our general recommendation.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Jon.

 >>JON BING:   Thank you.

 I just wanted to emphasize what Avri said in my place.  That you 
cannot.  It is not a question of resources, but it is in principle 
impossible to establish such a list in advance.

 There is too many variations, too many ways a country's name will be 
spelled or pronounced in the different languages.  Not only the 
languages officially in that country.  Just think of English uses names 
for countries, which the countries do not recognize themselves.

 My own country in generally known in five or six completely different 
spellings and pronunciations.

 So you cannot establish in advance.

 I think one can establish like the two-letter code list in advance, 
and that will cover a large, probably 80% of the instances.  But you 
won't find any way of covering the last 20%.

 So you need, as Avri said, to have a rule.  You need to have a rule 
and you need to have associated that rule a very simple procedure that 
can work fast and cheaply.

 And if you have that, you have solved the problem.

 But if you try to solve the problem by substantive rule, you will not 
find a solution.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.  You were next, yes.

 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:  This is Jordi wearing the hat of a sponsored 
TLD.  I would like to say that I think we should think about an 
exception process for that. 

 I think at least for sponsored TLDs, we might find that certain words 
for countries might really be having a meaning in a another language, 
so an exception process needs to be provided here.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.  Okay.  I had Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   You know, I don't know -- I guess it's more of a 
question.  And maybe you have dealt with this already, probably, more 
often than you would probably like to have.

 But the GAC here is offering advice.  It's really kind of undefined.  
It says we should just avoid country names.

 But what I gather is there might be some resistance to helping us 
create a list of those to avoid, and it doesn't really sound like it's 
very tenable to try to create a rule that could be all encompassing to 
avoid.

 So I'm just -- I'm a little bit puzzled about where we would go next.

 I don't see how the list or the rule is really going to work.

 The GAC obviously just wants to give us a principle and not really 
assist us with trying to figure out how we're going to avoid country 
names.  And yet if we leave it to an objection mechanism, they are 
concerned because not all countries are going to avail themselves of it 
because they won't be aware of it so we are in a catch 22 sort of 
thing.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I just want to comment that in this short five-minute 
cycle I think we just went through what the reserved name groups on 
geographical names went through.  And sort of we did a quick loop of 
yeah, you do this, this and then you end up here.

 And that was why.  And the last step which wasn't part of the reserved 
names group is and that's why the GAC can raise the objections, too, 
standing in as the representative for all.

 You want to correct that statement?

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   No, no.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You don't have the microphone so I will get back to 
you when you do but I have two people before you.

 You are next and then I will get you after Mike.

 Eric, please.  I'm pointing and not saying names, and it's very crass 
of me.

 >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS:   Thank you, Avri.  I wanted to observe that 
we -- there's the possibility of normative reference creep here.

 We have as a normative reference ISO 3166-1.  And no one is saying it, 
but the expansion of string space to three characters and more and the 
correlation between names and meanings suggest that ISO 3166-2 may be 
snuck in.  And we should be sure about how we go about expanding the 
normative references we use.

 Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thanks.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   I think what was being said, it seems to me that in 
terms of the policy that we've created from the reserved working group 
and ultimately, it seems to be somewhat appropriate at this point.  And 
perhaps one of the things that could be addressed is in the 
implementation part where there is a rule, you know, where there is in 
the implementation part that says this is one of the things that you 
are not supposed to propose.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thanks.

 Michael.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   Just a couple of points.

 As the chair of the subworking group on geographic reserve names or 
geographic names, we recognize that this is going to be problematic, 
and in our recommendations, not only did we note that the GAC has a 
mechanism to oppose -- would likely have a mechanism to oppose during 
the application process, there is nothing stopping the GAC from coming 
forward during the time of, if you will, contractual negotiations.

 The GAC has the ability to comment on at any time.

 And that's one of the things we tried to note for, if you will, future 
applicants of geographic terms that the GAC basically has two bites of 
the apple.  That it is something potentially very problematic.

 So that was specifically referenced in our recommendations in the 
reserved names working group.  Just to highlight to applicants what 
they were doing and what they were getting into so there would not be, 
"Oh," sticker shock or something like that.

 The second point dealing with how names have been reserved, in 
connection with my work with Afilias, I have sort of overseen the 
initial reserve list that ICANN and the GAC approved back in 2001.

 That list has generally provided a basis for other registries to use.  
However, the flexibility of the current ICANN registry contracts has 
allowed for certain TLD operators to expand, where necessary, the 
protections that they like.

 So, for example, in dot cat, they expanded into, I think, some 
different languages.  There also was, if you will, an expansion of that 
list in connection with dot Asia.

 So part of the thing that I think is appropriate is to just recognize 
there is flexibility in the contracts for a registry operator to 
customize that reserve list to the sensitivities of where they operate.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thanks.

 Liz.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   For the scribes, it's Liz Williams.

 A question of clarification.  Yesterday when I was speak to go Chris 
Disspain, he was quite -- admittedly, it was at the bar so that could 
have been the problem, but Chris was quite categorical about the idea 
of the geographic names being for one script, one string, agreement of 
the government.

 It seems to me that this conversation falls very, very squarely in the 
provision of a reserved names list that potential gTLD applicants would 
not be allowed to provide for.

 So first of all, is that correct?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think that's -- remember, they've got the two 
tracks.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   The fast track.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   The fast track.  They are actually calling it fast 
track?  Even though I have been told not to use those words.

 But in the fast track, I think that is the case, and we're already 
seeing a certain amount of resistance to that.

 I think in the long track -- that's it, short track and long track 
like skating.

 In the long track, that notion is not there.  It's a full ccNSO PDP on 
names, and the other one is definitely a GAC position.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   That was just a question of clarification, first of 
all.

 And the second part of it is, if there are to be instructions for 
applicants and then there are to be instructions for evaluators to 
resolve contention or disputes, then presumably there could be a 
baseline list produced in conjunction with the ccNSO and the GAC, that 
follows the rule of the fast track one string one script.

 So when I was listening to commentary about -- it was Jon's comment 
that Norway is written in a variety of different ways in a variety of 
different languages.  If the Norwegian government chose to have one 
script and one name for the rendering of the country that is 
represented as Norway, then that's a fairly straightforward process.  
Then it strikes me that there's a huge problem with respect to a 
reserved names list being published that applicants would be able to 
refer to prior to the application process starting.

 So clearly there needs to be some quick stuff done to provide at least 
a first pass of a reserved names list that governments who are already 
involved in the GAC or in the ccNSO as registry services operators, 
that will be able to provide that and make it an iterative list.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Olof.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   I think we should, first of all, recall a number of 
papers and things out there.  Okay, the GAC advice, or rather, the 
principles, where they have their statement.  And then we have the 
ccNSO recently adopted a resolution on requiring that country and 
territory names be reserved and not used for gTLDs.

 And then we have the CC PDP.  And I would like to go back to this 
reserved list.

 They have contemplated that at length in the ccNSO on the possibility 
of making an inclusive list of all they would like to have reserved, or 
what they should use.

 And that is possibility part of the PDP, and it's not anything that 
can be done quickly.

 So I think the only solution would be to see this as a rule, like Jon 
mentioned, in order to have any possibility of using it in a practical 
sense.

 And then some kind of process to follow, just to double-check what it 
may be.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   Is the -- this list that they were talking about with 
the one script, one string does that exist on its own or is that in 
conjunction with the ISO list that Eric referred to with the two 
character, three character and the short names?  Is that also assumed 
to be reserved or would this other list be "the" list in addition to 
it?

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   That was a question, I reckon.

 Well, what they do is -- Well, the basis the territories that are 
covered by the 3166/1 list.  That's clearly it.  And for those 
territories, it's a matter in the first track -- in the fast track that 
they will have one -- that's the proposal, at least -- one IDN string 
per territory or country, as it may be.

 So that obviously will become reserved but there won't be any 
limitation as to the length of it.

 And so the ISO 3166 list is only used as a reference to identify the 
territories which would have that particular right.

 Does that respond to the question.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   Probably.  Maybe I am just getting a little confused 
because I was thinking that they would have to make a choice between 
ASCII or English and their IDN.  They could only have one or the other.

 Because the ISO lists are all ASCII; right?

 So there's a two-letter code, a three-letter code, I believe, and then 
there's at short name all in ASCII.

 So my question is are all those automatically reserved?

 And then on top of that, then they get one script, one string and an 
IDN of their choice.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   I think when we now come to the proposal -- or, 
rather, the resolution from the ccNSO.  I think they, by inference -- 
they haven't explicitly mentioned it, but they would like to reserve 
the three-letter code, alpha code, as well.  It sounds like that.

 They don't limit the resolution only to IDN, if you have seen it.

 They mention IDN but the way it's phrased but it covers ASCII as well.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I have a couple of people.

 >>JORDI IPARRAGUIRRE:   I am new here so I might be missing a lot of 
background information, and if has already been discussed, we just 
forget.

 The point is the following.  I don't really understand.  I mean, I may 
understand their point, they are a country and they have certain rights 
on the code, that's fine.  But on the other side, what happens when you 
have new countries?  For instance, let's imagine Belgium split into two 
countries, who was the owner of that name?  Imagine you have 
flanders.com, Flanders whatever, and it becomes independent, who owns 
the right, then?  So it doesn't really make sense that Flanders dot 
whatever, FL, is the real one and the rest is just, well, whatever, or 
the domains.

 It doesn't really make sense to keep and to reserve all the names on 
all the possible domains in all different IDNs, possible IDNs.

 So I see we are moving around the same question again and again and 
again so maybe one possible question could be what's the reason of 
that?  Why do they want that?  And why we may think otherwise.  Because 
the country code maybe decides, but the rest, it's quite complex.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Take a couple of more comments and then I am going to 
recommend we stray off this one.

 One of the things I would note is we will get to have to answer 
something officially, so we will have to come back to this and spend 
more time.

 Yes.

 >>JOHN SCHNIZLEIN:  What I think I heard was that -- and I wasn't so 
much focused on what was said by the GAC representative but from ALAC, 
that the user doesn't want to be confused by some other organization 
running what appears to be the country's domain.

 So the principle here is if they see dot Holland at the top level or 
they see dot Netherlands at the top level, they are not tricked into 
thinking that that's the domain of the government of that country.

 And so it's not simple to pre-specify all those things, set aside all 
the scripts.  But the idea is to protect the user from being fooled.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Chuck and then (inaudible) and then I would like to 
stop on the topic if it's okay with people.  We'll come back to it.  I 
have Chuck and Werner, and....

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Mine is going to be very brief.

 It seems to me that a very reasonable way forward would be to form a 
joint working group.  It doesn't have to be very big, but get a couple 
people from the GNSO, a couple people from the ccNSO.  We can invite 
somebody from the GAC.  It's not always clear that they'll have anybody 
that will participate, but we could at least invite them to flesh this 
out a little bit further.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Werner.

 >>WERNER STAUB:   I'm a little bit concerned in this context that all 
the time we seem to be confusing several different subjects, such as 
IDN ccTLDs, second level, first level, and fast track and IDN and so 
on.  Because whenever we talk about geographic names, when the 
discussion starts, in any discussion I have seen, about three minutes 
into the discussion we talk about another subject because it's so 
difficult to keep apart.

 And it is even worse when you look in the GAC, things, gTLDs, ccTLDs 
were confused all the time.  And the most important thing that got many 
people confused, and I think it happens to us again here, what is a 
philological research into names of countries in various countries and 
languages, and you just basically figure out what it's called, and 
there's maybe several names and you basically have a list that you can 
consult, on one hand.

 On the other hand is trying to set the standard as to what is supposed 
to be the name of a given country or given abrogation of the country 
and which is going to be acceptable for what.  That's a total different 
job.

 So I would say indeed, in ICANN we can try to facilitate some 
philological research in terms of having a matrix of country names in 
various languages.  This can be consulted and would actually be managed 
by scientific people, and I would suppose.

 But from there to go and say this is standard and this is the list is 
extremely dangerous.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.  I would agree with most of you what said 
but I don't actually think the conversation was all that confused.

 Robin, I have you as the last one on this one now so we don't use all 
the time on this topic.  I'm sure we are come back here.

 Robin.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:   Yeah, I just wanted to say that it struck me that the 
policy that we came up with in the new gTLD process that would prevent 
against consumer confusion or similarity of strings would deal with 
this issue with respect to country names.

 So I don't know we would necessarily need a specialist because I think 
we've got a mechanism for preventing against confusion and similarity.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   One last thing I would like to bring up on it is I 
just remembered when you said that, one of the things -- it's buried in 
the reserved names recommendations on the geographical and other 
controversial, is that whenever a name went through that, it would be 
added to this list of here is a historical list of names that went into 
dispute processes as a warning to future applicants that here be 
dragons, and to basically let them know that you look at this list and 
you see all these names on it, you know better than to apply for one if 
you want an easy path through the process.

 And I do remember that recommendation was in the reserved names list.  
It wasn't brought all the way top, but we sort of said the work done by 
the reserved names group is sort of included by -- it's included by 
inclusion, actually, not even by reference.

 But okay.

 Unless someone objects, I'd like to sort of move on from this.

 I think the idea for a joint working group is probably good.

 We should probably talk about it some more after people have had a 
chance to think about it and see whether we want to propose such a 
thing.

 One thing that I'd mention is that the short-term process that the 
ccNSO, the fast track, does recommend that there be two members of the 
GNSO that would participate in this short-term group.  Once that is 
formalized, then we'll have to come back as a council and figure out 
are we fine with just two?  He did say -- By the way, when he said "no 
one complained," I did complain.  I said "only two when everybody else 
can have more?"  But I guess the complaint fell on deaf ears.

 But I did bring up that two seemed small.

 But once it is formalized, we need to figure out who our two should be 
in this group.

 But no sense doing that now.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Question.  Are you talking about --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Their group.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Their group, not our group.  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   But there may be similarities between the group you 
are talking about --

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Got it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   -- and the fact that they are already suggesting 
putting together a group.

 We should make sure that there isn't an overlap before we actually try 
and do something.

 That's all I really meant to say.

 Okay.  Next thing I had was to start talking about some of the 
processes we've got coming forward.

 We have got domain tasting where we're now in a PDP process.  We're 
going out to the constituencies.  Each constituency needs to appoint a 
representative to collect a constituency statement and bring it back.

 One of the things that I'm proposing doing is notifying ALAC that this 
is happening even though they will have seen it through their liaison.

 One of the things that ALAC asked me when they were talking is please 
make sure that you let us know when something is going on.

 And that they can -- because the rules on the PDP says constituency 
statements and other materials can get included in that first document 
that goes out for community review, so that if ALAC has a statement 
that they want to produce on the same time frame as the constituency 
statements, to basically let them know get it in on time and it can be 
considered.

 And I don't know if anyone would object to that sort of invitation.

 Employees let me know if you do because then I'll bring it up for a 
vote.

 But -- at another meeting.

 But I think as part of the assumed improvements that the board working 
group is asking for of the better contact and the liaisons, it seemed a 
small thing.

 So anyhow, we've got that.  We'll be doing the constituency 
statements.  And then that report that collects all of those will be 
going out for community review.

 It then comes back to us for deliberation.

 At that point, we need to decide do we have -- Are we ready to make a 
decision on this based upon what we have collected?  Or do we need to 
do something more?

 If we need to do something more, I believe kind of the assumption has 
been that then we'll work with creating one of those open working 
groups with a charter, with a specific focus, maybe even more than one 
if there's more than one issue, to basically resolve whatever it is 
that, at that point, we feel needs resolution.

 That's sort of how I have been looking at the process.

 The first part of the process, constituency and community comment, is 
defined in bylaws.

 Then we get to council deliberation, which is not defined in bylaws.

 And doing a working group within the deliberative process is very much 
what we did on new gTLDs, for example.

 We had multiple working groups during that process.

 This is nowhere near that big, but it is a process we have followed in 
the past.  It's just that we got so big we lost track of that's what we 
were doing.

 Yes.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Sorry, I tried to get T maybe I missed it.  And 
this also follows up on a question that Jon Nevett has posted to the 
registrar list.  It's in relation to Olof's e-mail with reference to a 
committee of the whole.

 Jon would like, and I am trying to glean from what you were saying and 
I'm not sure I can answer, when you say committee of the whole, does 
that mean only councillors will be on the panel?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 We don't actually have -- All right.

 At the first instance of council deliberation -- in other words, once 
we get all that stuff, it is the council.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Stuff from the --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   In other words, we get the constituency statements and 
we've gotten the community and the initial report has been assembled.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   At that point, then it comes to the council.

 At that point, the council decides what to do with it.

 Now, if we do a committee of the whole as we did with the new gTLDs, 
and I'm not sure I recommend that, then we figure out what the 
membership of that committee of the whole is.

 What we did with the --

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Just that it says in e-mail, the PDP will be 
conducted with a committee of the whole.  And now you're saying you're 
not recommending we do that.  Maybe --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And I did read the message, and before Olof sent it, 
and so --

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Liz --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   -- so that I don't leave Olof just dangling high and 
dry.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   No.  I think we should -- it's a dichotomy here.

 You do it with a task force.  That's one option.

 If you don't do it with a task force, the -- well, then we have used 
the expression "the committee of the whole."  And I put it in inverted 
commas, because that can probably be modeled in various ways, because 
as recently in the new gTLD and in very many working groups, we have 
taken as standard procedure to invite observers.

 So that was added as well.

 That said, I think the -- so from that perspective, the -- there are a 
number of options on how to proceed.  But we don't do a task force.  
That's what I say.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right, right.

 And, basically, the way I viewed it is, there's a decision point.  
We've gotten the initial report.  And at that point, the council has a 
decision point.  Do we need more work to do or can we decide now?

 If we can decide now, then that's the end of it.  As a council, we 
take our vote and we're done.

 If the council does not feel that it can decide now, then it has to 
decide how it proceeds.

 Now, my recommendation is that we try to follow the working group 
model.

 We could also follow the committee of the whole model that we used 
with the new gTLDs, where each constituency picks a number of 
representatives that participate in this committee, and then that kicks 
off working groups.

 I'm not suggesting that.  We're certainly not there yet.

 What we are at the moment is we're in the first part of the PDP that 
says, "Constituency statements, public comment, initial report, council 
deliberation."

 So the first thing is, it's all done within a short amount of time of 
that.  We meet, we've read it.  Constituencies have discussed it.  And 
then we decide, are we done?  Can we make our decisions now without any 
further information?  In which case we do.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   So --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Use the mike, please.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Just on that point, I just want to say 
Transylvania, and then when I go to do a search for the -- through the 
transcribe of this, I'll be able to find where that is to point it to -
- no one else will say the word Transylvania when I do a word find.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   I was trying to think of a word that no one would 
say.  I will be disappointed if there's a representative of 
Transylvania here.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:   I'm Romanian.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   So the -- so the gist of this right now is that what we 
need to focus on is the constituent statement.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   The constituency statements.  We'll get that and then go 
forward.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Everything comes back to the council and then from 
there we figure out what we do next.

 So that's what's happening on domain tasting.

 IGO issues report, what next.

 My reading of the bylaws -- I can confirm this with legal counsel, I 
haven't yet -- says that we've got to vote.  Basically, we have an 
issues report.  We have to vote.

 The IPC had sort of offered a possibility that because, you know -- of 
doing some work first and then coming to that voting point.  In other 
words, of taking the draft report that was there and doing some other 
work.

 We decided that we did not want to do that as a council, which leaves 
us at the point of needing to vote on the PDP as it currently stands.

 So --  And I'll confirm this with legal to make sure that my 
interpretation is correct.

 If there is an issues report, we must vote, unless it came from the 
board, in which case there's no need to vote because it tells us what 
to do.  And, yes, we have -- there's the other issue on whether we 
initiate.  But that's a different one.  We'll get to that one in a 
second.

 So I'm suggesting that I will bring this up for a vote at our next 
teleconference, that, you know, we will vote on the PDP on the IGO DRP.  
And I don't know if there's any comments on that.  I don't know if 
anyone wants to offer any other suggestions.  But at the moment, that's 
all I see in the process for us to follow through to.

 Yes.

 >> PATRICK JONES:  Isn't there another option to come back at a later 
date?  Couldn't it be delayed?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   According to the -- I mean, yes.

 According to the bylaws, we need to vote.

 Now, we've taken a position before that we can vote to delay voting.  
And so we can vote and say -- and if somebody brings up that motion, 
then we'll do that before actually voting on the PDP.  Someone could 
say, "You know, I think something might happen within the next couple 
months, and therefore, even though it's not anything that the group is 
doing, we think that, you know, someone else is going to go off and do 
some work.  So let's wait until date such and such to actually vote."

 We could take a vote on that.

 >>PATRICK JONES:   Because the suggestion might be to wait to see what 
the base contract looks like, the draft base contract for a new gTLD 
before taking further action on this one.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  Anyone else want to comment?

 Yes, Chuck.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I would just say, obviously, we could vote to not 
start a PDP right now.  That would not in any way limit us from 
initiating one later.  So --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Well, we wouldn't be voting to not start.  We'd be 
voting to start.  And if we got less than 33%, or, you know, 33% or 
less, we would not start.

 I other words, the motion is to start a PDP.  And one of the things I 
need to get clear is, do we need someone to move a motion -- and it's 
something I haven't been clear on -- when a motion is mandated by the 
bylaws, does it actually need someone to move it?  And if it needs 
someone to move it, is it adequate for me to move it because the bylaws 
said we've got to do it.  And those are things I need to get 
straightened out.  I need to understand whether people care whether, 
for example, if I see that a motion is required by the bylaws, I move 
it, do I need to convince someone else to move it?  Do we automatically 
have a moving of a bylaws-required motion?  Those are issues that have 
come up recently that I don't quite have an answer on, because they're 
more like, you know, bylaw process issues.

 Yes, Jon.

 >>JON BING:   Thank you.  Let me say that's fascinating for a lawyer 
to hear so much discussion of procedure.

 But -- and you'll excuse me for being completely on different part of 
the playing field.

 It seems to me that I am right, am I not, that we're now discussing 
the IGO names and abbreviations and this possible --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We're discussing just that -- yes.

 >>JON BING:   And it's extremely difficult for me not to see very 
close relations to the issue that we just left, the geographical 
issues.  

 It seems to me that both of them will probably be handled in the way 
that these things, by experience, are handled:  Establishing a short 
list, establishing a general rule, and establishing of a resolution 
mechanism that is as cheap and fast as possible.

 And, therefore, in my opinion, one which consider whether these two 
things shouldn't also find a procedural solution that could be -- could 
be coordinated.

 Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.

 Do I have someone next to speak on all this?

 Okay.

 Yes.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   Just to follow up on Patrick's track, and also on 
the proposal that was narrowly defeated yesterday on formally 
instigating an ad hoc group for advanced drafting.

 Now, unfortunately, Kristina isn't here right now, but somebody else 
from the I.P. constituency, is it still -- because I think we should 
consider this before we bring it to a vote on a PDP -- if it's still so 
that the option of pursuing this in an informal manner -- is that -- I 
would like to ask the IPC representatives here whether that's still on 
the table or not.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Thank you, Olof.

 And thanks for pointing out that this motion was very narrowly 
defeated.

 Yeah, I do think this was a motion that can also be -- you know, in 
terms of its gist, be pursued in an informal way, and from an IPC point 
of view, that is certainly on the stable.

 I was just looking at timing and when the next council call will take 
place.  I think that it's going to be on the 20th of November.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We haven't quite gotten there.  And that's when we're 
suggesting in the calendaring.  But yeah.

 >>UTE DECKER:   And it does seem to me that we might, in that council 
call, discuss timing and next steps.  And then I would think it is 
likely that we'd have to push it back a tiny little bit in terms of 
time to make some progress in the meantime before, I don't know, the 
end of the year.  Yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   My -- what I was basically saying is, I plan to put it 
on the agenda.

 I would suggest that if there is a motion to delay because there is a 
volunteer effort going on, that it would be a food time to bring up 
that motion, and we could vote on the delay.

 Anyone else want to comment on this before we go to IRT policy?

 I stumble over (inaudible).  

 I won't trip on that.

 Okay.  Now, the issue on this one is, we had it on the agenda to vote 
on, but we didn't get to that part of the agenda due to, as I said in 
the meeting this morning, having talked a bit too much about WHOIS.

 My belief is that we still need to vote on initiating the PDP 
according to the bylaws.

 There seems to be a strong recommendation.  I have the impression that 
there's not a whole a lot of objection to it, but just formally, we 
need to take that vote.

 There's been an argument made and there's a request into the legal, 
again -- ask them a lot of questions on process these days -- on if an 
issues report is initiated by the council, do we really need to have a 
separate vote to initiate a PDP?

 I believe we do.  But others disagree with me.

 >>ROSS RADER:   Yeah, there really is a procedural distinction.  But 
the question I'm asking is, do they need -- is there timing 
significance or can the boat precede the creation of the issues report, 
as it has in this case?  That's the question that I asked.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  Well, that would be a different thing, because 
I didn't understand the vote we had to create a PDP, but to create an 
issues report.

 >>ROSS RADER:   (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 I didn't understand that.  Because I didn't think we could do both at 
the same time, so that's why it never occurred to me that that's what 
we were doing.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Are you saying that when we requested the issues 
report, we also initiated the PDP?

 >>ROSS RADER:   Yes.  I can -- if you want -- give me a sec.  I'll 
pull up --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Excuse me.  Okay.  I've got -- anyone want to comment 
while Ross is looking for that?

 My assumption that we are either taking a vote on creating this PDP at 
the next meeting or we're going to be informed that we've already done 
so.

 Now, the second vote, which we definitely didn't take, even if we have 
created the PDP, I'm not sure that we've taken the to task force or not 
to task force vote.  And so, in any case, we'll have to go through the 
same thing.

 The vote -- the way it's written in the bylaws is to vote for a task 
force.  If that doesn't succeed by a majority, then we're in the "not 
task force" mode, which is collect constituency statements, community 
review, council deliberation.  And I would recommend if people didn't 
want to do a task force that we would follow that same procedure, get 
to that same point of getting the council deliberation, looking at what 
we've got in hand in terms of the initial report, and deciding at that 
point whether we need to go further or not based upon the initial 
report.

 Anyone want -- did you have something you wanted to add at this point?  
No.  Okay.

 >>ROSS RADER:   (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Excuse me?

 >>ROSS RADER:   (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  If you want to read the motion that we pass so 
that --

 >>ROSS RADER:   I'll loosely paraphrase it because I think we're all 
motion-weary from yesterday still, so blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  
Pursuant to --

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Oh, but, of course, you're right.

 >>ROSS RADER:   Pursuant to ICANN's bylaws that the council initiate 
the formal GNSO policy development process by requesting issues and an 
issues report, et cetera, et cetera, evaluating the issues raised by 
the working group document.  And then moving on to the clause -- but 
that was the salient part.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  So I see how one could certainly, in a 
philosophy class, interpret it as being both.  But, yeah.

 So we'll get back the response from counsel.  And either we've done it 
already or we need to do it.  And we shouldn't take that much time on 
it one way or another.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Okay.  And either way, then we have to make the 
next vote as to whether to do a task force or --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.  We have that vote in any case.

 So I don't want to get too -- part of the reason we're really trying 
to follow the bylaws is, if you remember a couple weeks back, I asked 
us to ask the board to exempt us from following the bylaws so strictly, 
and we made a decision that, no, let's see how they work.  Let's try to 
follow them.  Let's all vote for exceptions to them when we need to so 
that when it comes to discussing these things, we've actually tried to 
live by them and know where they don't fit and where they fit because 
we've tried.

 So that's why I'm trying to be very strict about trying to understand 
the bylaws as opposed to functioning in the very flexible way we had 
before I tried to make flexibility the rule.

 Okay.  Next one was meta discussion on WHOIS.

 We've -- just to recap where I think we are is -- I mean, I said in 
the morning, we have voted down OPoC.  We have indicated that not only 
did we vote down OPoC, but we really believe that the PDP should be 
dead.  We're telling the board that they shouldn't -- not only should 
they not come back to us on OPoC, but they should really accept that 
this PDP is dead, that we have basically started talking about the next 
step -- and I don't remember whether the word "immediately" stayed in 
there or not, but this is fairly immediately.  This is what immediately 
started to me, is that we start today.  That we basically were talking 
about the survey, slash, studies, and basically starting to talk about 
what studies we need, what are the scope, what are the methodologies.  
We had several points in there.  You know, first of all, we have to 
understand what our priorities are in terms of studies.  Then we have 
to sort of figure out what is the scope of a particular study, a 
methodology, is there one study, are there many studies, is there one 
study done first and then second and third studies, et cetera.

 So we've made that decision.

 And then we also defeated the notion of recommendation of a sunset for 
WHOIS.

 So that's where we're at at the moment.

 The next thing, I think, that is on our plate is to start talking 
about surveys and studies and such to meet our February obligation.

 One thing that came up in Chuck's mail was he thought that we had 
committed to do more things by February than I thought we had committed 
to do.  I think it's great if we can get more done in that time.  I'm 
really skeptical, especially since the two-week period between thanks- 
-- the two-work-week period between Thanksgiving and New Year's is upon 
us, that I'm really not sure how much we will get done between, you 
know, now and February, because, just my experience in almost every 
group, once, you know, U.S. hits Thanksgiving and the rest of the world 
hits just before Christmas, we don't get that much done until sometime 
in the next year.  It just doesn't happen.

 So, okay.  Tim, you had your hand.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   All right.  So we've -- the WHOIS PDP has been closed 
and we haven't initiated another one.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   Right?  With that motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   No, not -- almost.

 >>TIM RUIZ: But we recognized that there was other policy work that 
may need to be done.

 So will -- is the intent that the council will then prioritize that 
work itself?  Or will we -- or is that what we're talking about, trying 
to figure out how to --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think that's part of what we're talking about.  
There's no one else to prioritize it.  The only other priority that can 
come is if one of the advisory groups, advisory committees or the board 
issues an issues report, requests an issues report, then that starts to 
push on our priorities.

 That is, if the board looks at our WHOIS thing and says, "You know, 
okay, they've stopped it, but we would like to see such and such 
happen," and they request an issues report, then they've set a priority 
for us.

 In the meantime, if -- we're working on setting our own priority, you 
know,.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   And any PDP would be just initiated by a vote of the 
council?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   If we went for a PDP.  If we're just going for 
studies, we don't need a PDP to do the studies.  So we could work with 
the staff on defining studies.  The studies could be done.  The 
information from the studies could be (inaudible).  That could be used 
to create issues reports for new PDPs.

 Yes, Olof.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   Just acting as a bad conscience here, there is a 
little hangover.  It's not dead yet, the PDP.  We need to produce a 
board report.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   And as I mentioned yesterday, it calls for, since 
there was no supermajority vote, it calls for a position statement from 
each and every one of the councillors, ha-ha.  Sorry.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you for reminding me.  I'm really glad you 
reminded me.  Because I guess one of the things we need to set is by 
when we have to get all of our statements in.

 Now, I understand you have how many days to get this done?

 >> LIZ GASSTER:  Right.  I think it's five calendar days from 
yesterday.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You have five calendar days from yesterday to get the 
-- to get the final report written with all of our viewpoints.

 Yes.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I'm going to ask a clarifying question, having been 
on the council for an exceedingly long time and perhaps proposed 
options in the past that might have extended certain things.

 Hmm.  I think we need to figure out whether or not we have the 
ability, given that we are still in a meeting, to start the clock on 
the five days after the meeting starts.  Do we have that flexibility, 
Olof?  Do you know?

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   Five days.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   A whole week is one day?

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   Today, what we're doing here doesn't count, well, 
in a formal sense.

 But --

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Olof, can I just offer something clarifying?  I'm 
not actually protecting staff.  I'm trying to protect my own 
constituency from the five-day deadline.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   Right.  No.  But five days, I think that's five 
calendar days.  And it starts -- the counting started yesterday, then.  
I mean, they're -- is there any other interpretation one could do?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   No.  And since we declared that we can't vote on -- in 
this meeting, we don't have any way to sort of vote to postpone this at 
this point.

 But --

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   It does say five calendar days very specifically.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It says five calendar days from when we made our 
decision; right.

 Yes, Alan.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   I find this discussion rather surreal.  The issues 
report on domain tasting was issued, I believe, in June, and we had 15 
calendar days on which to vote for a PDP or not.  Why is this five days 
so different from those 15 days?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Because since then -- and I think we'll probably end 
up being late.  But since then, we made a decision to try and live by 
the rules as much as possible so that when we complained about them, we 
would understand exactly what we were talking about.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   Well, I think we need to declare we tried.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.

 Liz, will you be terribly upset if we -- I mean, how do you feel we 
should handle this, since we're not voting on anything at this point, 
and, basically, as the staff manager on WHOIS, the report is really in 
your hands.

 I mean, you can theoretically, I think -- nothing in that actually 
says that we have to hand in the opinions.  I actually do believe that, 
as staff manager, you can collate our opinions from what we've said.

 >> MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Can I have a clarifying question?

 I understood that what we were supposed to provide was a brief 
statement from each councillor as to the basis for their vote, not a 
constituency statement.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Not a constituency.  It's from the councillors.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And so --

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   The bylaws are pretty specific about a clear 
statement of all positions held by council members, and that each 
statement should clearly indicate the reasons underlying each position 
and the constituencies that held that position.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So I guess if anyone -- I mean, since I believe that 
you're going to try to get this done within your five-day limit.

 I would suggest that anyone that doesn't want Liz to basically use 
what we've said, which I guess is available, since it's all there in 
transcript, that we should get it to her by the time we leave tomorrow.  
Yes, Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I actually find the bylaws confusing on this subject, 
and I'll tell you why.

 It's very clear that the statement of positions held by the council 
members is to be provided within a specific period of time.  But it 
goes on to talk about the constituencies that held the position.  So I 
understand why I voted the way I did.  I understand the position that I 
put forward.  I understand the position of my constituency, et cetera.

 What's very unclear is what it means in B.2, which is -- what it means 
by the constituencies that held the position.

 Is that the -- is that simply direction to the staff for them to 
indicate who voted on what and how?  Is that....  Or is that something 
I have to write into my little explanation of why I held up my hand on 
yea or nay?

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   My impression is that each councillor submits a clear 
statement and that that statement should clearly indicate the reasons 
underlying each position and the constituencies that held that 
position.

 I mean, I, too, find the bylaws confusing, because it also goes on in 
C. to say an analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency.  
And it's not clear to me whether that's something I do or something 
that the constituencies do.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That's something you should already have from the 
constituency statements.  Because constituency statements require that 
--

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   That's right.  But I don't, for example, have 
constituency statements from every constituency.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   As an example.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And, basically, I think that almost the best is, I 
really believe that as the staff manager, you've got what we said as 
the information to build that.  And I think if we want to give a 
slightly more polished statement, we get to make it.  I don't know.  
Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I understand.  I will forward the position that I held 
at the time that I held the vote.  I'll send that to Liz and she can 
then incorporate it into that report and do exactly what it says here.  
It all makes sense now.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And I recommend that every council member do it and I 
recommend that every council member do it before the end of tomorrow.

 Is that reasonable, if we get it before the end of tomorrow --

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   Yes, that's wonderful.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That's good enough?

 --

 >> MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.  
Please, please, please.

 Does it say that our comments are due five days later or your report 
is due five days later?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Her report is.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Aye-aye-aye.

 >> (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Well, for her to produce the thing within five days, 
our comments need to be in enough time -- (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That is implied.  I think our comments need to be in 
by tomorrow for her to have any chance of doing this.

 Yes, Alan.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   And it should be the voting -- sorry.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   May I echo a comment that was made by staff when 
they delayed the domain tasting issues report by a week or two, saying 
we believe we need to delay to do a good job?  Staff comment.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.  Staff hasn't said that yet.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:   No.  But they might now.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   This is such a significant issue and the board is 
really looking for some guidance, I think, from us on this.  Can we 
take maybe a few extra days and have our voting statements in to you 
but Tuesday, Wednesday, you get your board report done by Friday?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Olof.

 >>OLOF NORDLING:   If I may say so, I think it's really within that 
kind of decision is something that all the council can agree on, that 
the staff would sit there and dictate this, that and the other.

 So it has happened before, even though we may suggest it, but you may 
also suggest it yourselves.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, we could.

 >> I'm suggesting it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  We were very specific about -- Yes.

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   I have a suggestion.  What if we required the 
councillor comments to me by oh-oh-B Monday morning Eastern time so 
people had over the weekend, essentially, to get their comments in.  
Because as long as I have everyone's statements, I don't think there's 
a lot of drafting for me to do.

 So how would that be?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It's fine with me.

 Is anyone really serious object -- I mean, we -- Yeah.  

 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Just one clarifying question.  This is the council 
that voted.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right, the councillors that voted.  And it's a 
statement from each of the people that voted.

 Yes, Norbert.

 >>NORBERT KLEIN:   There were three things to vote on so three 
statements from everybody?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I would say one statement should be sufficient for a -
- because this is kind of a cover to the whole report.  So I would say 
include all three points that you want to discuss, but I would say one 
estimate.  I don't see a reason for three separate statements.

 It's of the whole global issue.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I think it would be very helpful if an e-mail was 
sent out to all councillors making very clear what was expected and the 
deadline.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Excuse me?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   So end of weekend?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yeah, virtual Friday.

 Yes, the end of the weekend.

 Okay.

 And so how we work on moving forward with the rest of the studies I 
think is something that we'll have to start discussing in our council 
meetings.

 I don't see that we're going to get a lot done on that today.

 I think at that point people will need to basically start suggesting 
what needs to be studied, why, why something should be a priority, what 
would be the scope and methodology of those studies.

 I know one thing that I plan to look for in just anything that we 
suggest is a certain amount of scientific and statistical rigor in any 
of these studies so that when we've got information, it's something 
that we feel comfortable actually using.

 And so that means really understanding what it is we're asking to be 
studied.

 Anyone else want to say anything else?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   And also the reasons behind the study that we're 
proposing.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That seems reasonable, yeah.

 And I don't know, I'm just sort of thinking, it might be a good idea 
to sort of come up with perhaps a semi-template for anybody that's 
suggesting that we take a particular study direction to actually write 
in the template and maybe we can talk about how you would create that 
template so then council as a whole could look at the studies and make 
suggestions and then we could discuss them and prioritize them.  That 
might be a good way to get the discussion started.

 Yes, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Avri, can we just clarify, I know you talked about 
this before.  You have a comment from the GAC which I understand and I 
was out during this time, but I understand it's reiterated, so they 
made it in their meeting with the council.  They then reiterated it in 
their meeting with the board.

 They then, I believe, put it into their -- or intended to put it into 
their communique as a reference, stating that they wished to be 
consulted on the terms of reference.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Mm-hmm.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   So but for what you are proposing in the approach 
you are taking, that also allows the possibility of going back to them 
and allowing GAC to provide comments on the terms of reference; is that 
right?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Certainly it's a good idea and of course, I think we 
should.

 The one thing that I'm a little cautious about is certainly I have 
absolutely no issue, and I'm not sure anyone on the council does with 
giving them -- asking them for feedback.  Same thing with ALAC, and 
including them in the discussion on the terms of reference.

 I'm not sure about how people feel on the council about deadlines that 
include their normal working methods, which means we wait until the 
next meeting for responses.  But that's where there may be some issue 
between GAC that away ask them and say we're working on terms of 
reference over the next two to four weeks.  We need answers.  And they 
come back and say "We couldn't possibly give you an answer before 
Paris," then....

 (Interruption).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.  We sort of got through it and decided to follow 
it.  Because what we were working on was just to ask the question.

 We have been going through all sorts of things, but the bylaws, we 
were trying to understand.  The bylaws say five days from the day we 
made a decision, the board report needs to be done.

 >>AMY STATHOS:  Right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And then the question is, it also asks for the 
councillors' positions to be included in that.

 >>AMY STATHOS:  Right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   One assumes that's within the five days, getting 
those.  We get to submit statements.

 So we understood it all correctly.

 >>AMY STATHOS:  Okay.  Well, then --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Is that true?

 >>AMY STATHOS:  Yeah.  The bottom line is in terms of --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I should probably get you to talk into the microphone 
because we have transcribers.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   In terms of whether you get to present statements, I 
wasn't really looking at it with that view.

 My view was just in looking at the plain language of this.

 And I just understand that each council member has to identify the 
reasons for the position that they took.

 And I would say that if, in the report, if five council members say no 
for the same reason, it only has to state, "No, because of this reason, 
and these are the five councillors that said it."

 I don't know that each one of them has to specifically identify, 
unless it's a different reason for voting no or yes, or abstaining.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   Probably landed at the same place you all landed.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Probably.  But I actually hadn't thought about that 
option.  Edmon.  You had a question.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   Just a clarification question.  As I read the bylaws, 
it isn't clear to me whether the statement needs to be from the 
councillor.

 So if the councillor selects not to submit a statement, then staff 
would -- the staff manager would present the statement from the 
councillor as the staff manager would see; right?

 Because we'll start this particular clause saying the staff manager 
will present, blah, blah, blah, and then in B, if it's not reached a 
clear statement of all positions held by council members, but it 
doesn't say from council members.  

 >>AMY STATHOS:  Right.  I think that's true.

 I think I would clarify, however, that to the extent that the staff 
member needs to try and figure out your position, I would recommend 
that people present to the staff member their positions and the 
rationale behind those positions.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   Yeah, I understand that.

 I'm just saying in the case -- we were talking about the situation 
where we were -- if we were late or whatever, we were unable to provide 
that particular statement.  That doesn't mean that the council has not 
done any particular work.  The staff would still continue with the 
work.

 But if we do want to submit a later -- If we were ultimately late, 
then it's up to the staff manager whether it takes into consideration 
those statements; right?

 >>AMY STATHOS:   Except I would say that if you have a particular 
position that may be unique, I would suggest that you provide that to 
the staff manager, yes.

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   In the absence of that, am I to assume that a 
constituency statement mirrors the exact opinion of each councillor 
that is a member of that constituency?  

 In other words, for example, not only did I not get a statement from 
the registrars, but I think there might be one or two other -- the or 
NomCom numbers that --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   NomCom is allowed to send something, but there's no 
requirement.  NomCom don't really count in that respect.

 >>LIZ GASSTER:   Thanks.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   I personally wouldn't assume any position.

 If you don't know the position and somebody hasn't given it to you and 
you are unable to obtain it on your own, I would suggest identifying in 
the report that you have been unable to obtain the position of that 
individual or that constituency.  

 >>LIZ GASSTER:  Just for clarification.  Should I then assume that if 
I have a constituency statement from the overall constituency that that 
councillor is a member of, that that is that councillor's position?

 >>AMY STATHOS:  I wouldn't do that either.  I would say the councillor 
has to, under the bylaws, provide the position,.

 If.

 You have to make sure it is the council member's position.

 Sure, please.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I think we may be using terminology that experienced 
councillors are just so used to.

 A constituency statement is something that is developed by the 
constituency and submitted at a particular time while a councillor's -- 
well, this is a totally different thing.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   Right.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   And I think that's something we probably need to -- 
Because we're not asking.  I was confused by this initially.  I thought 
we were going to go back and ask the constituencies to update their 
statements, and I was panicked by the five days.  But that clearly is 
not what we're doing.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   Right.  Okay?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   And I assume that three councillors, if they so 
desired, could submit a joint statement.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   I think that's right.  If it's based on the same 
positions and rationale behind it, I don't see a reason why it couldn't 
be done that way.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Anyhow, thank you.  This is all part of our effort to 
try to live strictly by the bylaws to see if they fit.

 >>AMY STATHOS:   Well done.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We don't think they do.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 Where were we?  We were on -- We were still on WHOIS?  Had we finished 
talking about WHOIS?

 Yes.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   We were talking about terms of reference, but I had 
gotten a lit lost about what the terms of reference were for.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   In other words, for any study.

 If we're going to do a survey or a study properly, then it would 
strike me that there would be terms of reference defining the scope, 
the methodologies, the whatever.

 That's what I was thinking.

 Yes.

 >>UTE DECKER:   It strikes me that the success of this exercise will 
to some degree depend on a structuring of the process for this, even 
for the first step.

 And I was just wondering between now and the next call, are we invited 
to send you ideas on how to go about step one, provide additional 
definitions regarding the potential data gathering and study 
requirements?  Or are we actually supposed to send you input on those 
requirements and data points?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think at this point, we're still at the point of 
figuring out what kind of process we want to follow.

 So, I mean, I think always on the list people can do what they want.  
But yes.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Can I get a clarification on "we"?  Whom is we?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We as council.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   So we as council are -- your statement from 
earlier --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I'm not sure what statement you are talking about.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Isn't we any councillor or constituency who might 
want to propose any sort of study?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Tim, please, use the microphone.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   I guess, yes, if you believe that further policy work is 
needed for the study you are asking for.

 Why would we do a study if you didn't really believe that you really 
wanted to see policy work go forward in that area.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Yeah, I concur with Tim.

 And also, what role does the staff play in -- I was under the 
impression that the staff were going to go away and I could well be 
wrong.

 But I was under the impression that staff were going to go away, look 
at what studies that needed to be done from the work done already, what 
further study was needed and we as a group could pick and choose which 
ones of those studies we thought were worth going forward with.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I suppose --

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I suppose that.

 >>ROSS RADER:   That's why we voted against this.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   That's why I voted no.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I thought that actually we were going to clarify, we 
had already left it that we were going to clarify on -- because at the 
moment, what we've given the staff in terms of a study is so broad in 
scope and so methodologically unclear, or we can come up with some 
notions of what do we think is unclear.

 It's up to us as a council as to how we want to proceed.  If we want 
to ask the staff to do that, I suppose we could.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   I'm not saying -- I'm sorry, Craig.

 But I'm open to anything.  I am just trying to get clarification.  
That was just my understanding, if that's not and consensus is such we 
don't want to go down that road, then I am fine with it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Ute.  

 >>UTE DECKER:  I think it will be a collaborative effort.  In terms of 
what we agreed, the council would take the first step and then staff 
would come back with budget figures and then council will decide again, 
and then whatever is decided will be carried through.

 But given that staff is already working to some degree on it, I think 
we have to look at what the material that we already had in Liz's 
presentations and there would be no reason not to make use of that work 
that has already been done.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think I understood it the same way.

 Yes, Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   Yeah, I guess maybe I wasn't paying very good attention 
when this resolution -- not that it would have mattered.  I wasn't 
voting.

 But I guess I just understood it to be more do some work on -- 
preliminary work on what kinds of studied might we need to do, what 
kind of costs might be involved, but that we're not really pursuing any 
study unless someone comes up and says we're going to -- for some 
reason we initiate or see a reason to initiate policy development.

 That we say that the resolution says -- we're foreseeing a demand for 
future policy development, but unless it occurs, we're not really going 
to do the studies, but we are going to do some groundwork to be 
prepared.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I guess -- I think there's a good similarity there, 
and you will correct me, except for the last part.  It's we can decide 
as a group after we have gotten to a certain point that there is good 
reason to continue on one of them.

 I don't know that someone external has to come after this groundwork 
has been laid, but you wanted to respond.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   So you are saying that we would then decide to initiate?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We could then decide to initiate one of the studies.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   So this might proceed without a policy development 
process being --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   They could be contained within an issues report, it 
could request for a study, it could go in various different ways.

 In other words, I don't think a study needs to commit us to the PDP 
that might depend on what information the study brought back.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Actually, I think there might be benefit in thinking 
about further policy development work on the basis of studies rather 
than doing that work first and then have the studies taking place at 
the same time.

 I think that's part of the benefit that we are expecting from these 
studies, to have a better basis of any further decisions on any policy 
work.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   But it still seems that the assumption would be that if 
the IPC wanted to ask for a study, then the IPC should be -- I guess, 
in my mind, it's saying we believe we may need policy development work 
in this area so we want this study done.  We are requesting an issues 
report.

 If you don't really believe or you are not convinced policy work needs 
to be done there, why would we ask for a study to be done and spend the 
time, like we are looking for more work?

 Especially in an area where we know there's no consensus in the first 
place.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I actually had the impression that we were sort of 
working on the notion that people would, as it were, championing 
various studies, and that was the whole idea of trying to collect.

 If you think a study would be useful on X, well then write up what you 
think is important, what's useful.

 We then talk about it as a group to try to make sure we all understand 
it, flesh it out.  And then we ask the staff to say, okay, what kind of 
costs would be involved in this kind of study, what kind of time would 
be involved, is this....

 And then it would come back to us and then we would say, well, there's 
been a recommendation for study A would cost this much, would have -- 
the person asking for it would think it has -- and B and C.

 As a council, do we believe any of these are worth proceeding in?  Do 
we not?  And moving on from there like that.

 And so there was a -- first someone asks for a study in a particular 
shape.  We get an estimate on it.  And then we see if there's a reason 
to proceed, which I think is similar to what you're saying, but not the 
same.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   I just think that the statement that's made in the 
resolution that, you know, we foresee a demand for future policy 
development, I think that's probably true.  I don't think we need to go 
and look.  I think it's going to come to us.  And it would seem that 
the -- any studies that are done should be based on, you know, what 
comes to us.

 And to go out looking for it, you know, we may initiate a study in an 
area that isn't what's of primary concern at the moment, and something 
else may come up instead.

 So that's why it makes sense to me to think about what studies we 
might need to do in these areas we're aware that could come up, but to 
not initiate anything until, you know, there's evidence that there's 
concern or demand in the community for work in that area.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.  But I guess since -- the only thing I would 
add is that part of that concern in the community may come from some 
constituency within the council.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   Right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And that's why we're here.  And it'll bring it up, and 
then we'll talk about it.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   That's what I'm saying that anyone requesting the study 
is under the belief that policy work needs to be done in the area.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Is under belief that it's possible.  They may find out 
what's being gotten in the study that it really isn't needed.  I mean, 
there's a possibility that you might have a question that you think 
there's a possibility policy work needs to be somewhere, but the study 
might show that you're wrong.

 I don't know if that matches what you're saying.

 So, you know, someone might think that there's, you know -- for 
example, the example I like to use, which I'm sure is not your example, 
is that one of the things that was said was that the market has solved 
the privacy issue with proxy services.  So someone could come up for a 
suggestion for a study is, does this really work to protect privacy?  
And construct a study that way.  And, basically, then, that person 
would champion such a study within the council, would get a bid on how 
much such a study would cost, what it would tact.  Is it practical, is 
it impractical?  And then the council would look at it, talk about it, 
see what had to happen next, if anything.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   What my concern clearly is, just to put it on the 
stable, that I'm afraid some reports are going to be asked for, some 
study's going to be asked for in order to preempt possible policy work 
in an area that they don't feel is really needed.  So they're going to 
be looking for, you know, research, information, data that says, yeah, 
see, this isn't really needed.

 And that could possibly backfire.  So I'm just saying that, you know, 
if we're going to ask for reports or studies in certain areas, we 
should have a fairly good feeling that we believe there needs to be 
policy work done in it.  Because that's likely what's going to happen.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I believe that that probably is the case.

 Any more meta discussions on WHOIS?

 We've got basically a half hour to this what seemed like a long 
meeting and how could we possibly fill it.

 Is there anyone else that wants to say anything else on WHOIS before 
we move on?

 Okay.  The next thing was -- and I suggest we talk about these, except 
for maybe proxy voting issue, I don't know, but advanced work on 
restructuring tasks, you know, discussion of GNSO as a council, GNSO 
Council making a response to the restructuring.  Is that appropriate?  
And if appropriate, is it something we want to do  We talked about 
strat plan commentary, and especially the topic of including in the 
strategic plan that council member travel, et cetera, has to be 
subsidized to some extent.  And also, I guess I would add the notion of 
whenever we decide that an interim meeting is required, there's always, 
"But that's exceptional budget."  So does the strat plan or does this 
need to include the notion of, you know, periodic interim meeting 
possibilities, maybe one a year, two a year, whatever?  We've pretty 
much been doing one or two a year.  Is that something that, you know -- 
anybody have comments?

 And the proxy voting issue is slightly different, I think.

 Yes, Marilyn.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I'm going to make a comment just about the strat 
plan planning because I think I may have some experience in that.

 I also, some of you know, both pioneered the original face-to-face 
meetings and did the budget for them.  And just by circumstances.

 I think what you need to do in terms of thinking about the travel 
funding, I think what you might want to do is what was proposed by 
Norbert and by Robin, and that is, separate out what you might need as 
an interim travel request to -- because you know that the longer -- 
some things will take a longer period of time.  So develop an interim 
travel request for perhaps your Indian meeting.  And then that would 
give you more time -- at least your Indian meeting, maybe even the 
Indian and Paris meeting, Avri, because of the budget cycle.

 Doug has instituted, as he said publicly to all of us, a per diem 
approach.  So you might want to actually check with the staff and, you 
know, put together a request that's very bounded to deal with travel, 
and then incorporate your longer-term planning.  And there you would be 
able to estimate that you're going to at least have one or two face-to-
face meetings.

 If you don't put them in the budget at least as contingencies, I think 
you may have difficulty getting it added in, whereas if you don't use 
it, it could be carried over.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   When does -- do you know also when this needs to be 
done by?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   The 20th.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   The 20th of this month?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Bingo.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Bingo month.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Well, the short stuff does.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  So that's why you're suggesting separating.

 I'm wondering, is there a group of people of the constituency that 
want to work on making this sort of proposal and following it through 
and being responsible for it within our grouping here?

 >> We're talking about strat plans?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   At the moment, we're talking about immediate input 
into the immediate budget plan by the 20th of November.

 So someone that can -- I'm in a bad position to track that.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   First of all, there's no input into the budget plan 
right now.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   It's the topic.  It's getting the topic --  
Remember, we were asked to get the topics into the strat plan so that 
they could be taken into account for planning.  So we don't have to do 
anything detailed.  But we need to get the topics into the strat plan 
comments.  And that, I think, is relatively quick and short to do.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And it needs to be done by the GNSO as a whole?  It 
can be done singly?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Comments can be done by individuals to the strat 
plan.  And, you know, I am happy to -- I intend to put a personal 
statement in about the need to have funding for travel for the council.  
I've said that in the microphone, and I intend to do that.

 I'm happy to -- I just checked with Mike, and I'm happy to work with 
anyone else.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  I think I'm starting to understand.

 So you're suggesting that I and others should basically make comments 
into the strat plan about the need for interim travel, the need for 
that, and I should really just write something that says that.

 Do I need to know -- I'm not real great at budget stuff.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   No, no.  I think if you -- as an individual, any of 
us can make a comment.  But you obviously wouldn't make a comment as 
the chair of the council unless you were --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Unless we have the council --

 >>MARILYN CADE:   -- unless you're speaking as an individual.

 You could say the topic -- and this is not a new topic to the council.  
It maybe new to some of the new councillors.  But we have raised the 
question before, put forward the budget request.  We've had meetings 
with the staff.

 So, really, I think you're on very firm --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And we've never gotten anywhere with it.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Yes, you did.  You got funding for one person per 
constituency to all the interim meetings.  So you got an interim 
approach.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I thought each time, that was sort of an ad hoc thing 
that we got, that that is never actually in the plan or the budget.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   That's the point.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It always came as manna from heaven.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   That's the point.  That's why you're trying to get 
it into the plan as a topic.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Has the council ever requested it?

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Yes.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Or has it always been individuals?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   As a council --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Perhaps could we dredge up the council requests 
that we submitted before and submit them again?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I would actually -- we should probably dig it up for 
reference sake, if we can.  But I would recommend -- I would actually 
ask if there's someone from the council that would perhaps -- perhaps 
one or two people that could actually work on putting together 
something.  We could vote it as a motion at the next meeting.  And 
then, basically, I could present as the chair of the council something 
that the council had, indeed, voted on requesting this, if, indeed, 
that's what the council is willing to vote on.

 So can I have -- are there any volunteers from a couple of the 
constituencies to take responsibilities for coming up with is such a 
motion?  You'll work with Mike and Norbert?

 Marilyn and Norbert?  Okay, so, Norbert, you'll put in the motion in 
time for the next meeting so that we can then vote on it and I can pass 
it on as a -- will I have time with the next meeting?  Yeah.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   Avri.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   Up here.  There's a lot of historic information 
available around preparation for all the gTLD stuff in Amsterdam, in 
Brussels, in you name it.  And that can be dug out very simply.  Bruce 
had that --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   But that was the ad hoc requests.

 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:   But there were serial requests.  I can see what 
you're trying to do.  You're trying to put it all together in a 
consolidated form so it has a proper budget line item so it's 
predictable, everyone knows what they're doing, they can maker their 
preparations.  A quick word to Bruce about where he put it would be 
really simple.  But a troll through the GNSO Council archives for more 
than two years ago will give you all that information.

 (No audio).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   Sorry.

 I will send you the history on that, the requests that Denise has 
made, which I think are pretty substantial, for each meeting, where we 
actually laid down a certain policy that she said would be followed.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Mm-hmm.  No, I remember those.  But as I say, it was a 
new one each time.  Okay.

 Now, we say we need this by the 20th.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I don't think you need the amounts.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We need a statement.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   You need a statement and probably want to be able to 
reference, you know, sort of the history of the dates.  But Glen's 
going to provide the dates.  It'll have the estimated money.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   No.  I was actually more worried about whether us 
having a meeting and being able to get a vote of the GNSO so that it 
was a council request as opposed to an individual request.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Sure.  So let me just ask a question of you, Avri.  
I think if you -- the details would be something like this, I think 
that we would work on.  It would be, here's the history, which 
establishes the need.  Here's what's been done before, with examples of 
the cost.  And the council recommends that this item be incorporated in 
the strategic plan in keeping with the statement that's in the new -- 
the GNSO improvement plan, and the -- we can't give definite costs, but 
we estimate these categories.

 And then you're -- the council would be approving a framework, I 
think.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.  No, I understand that.

 I was just trying to figure out, with it being due on the 20th, when I 
would be able to get a vote out of the council to endorse it.

 Now, if you looked at the bottom stuff, which we'll probably get to 
fairly soon, since it's almost 5:00, in terms of meetings, I had 
recommended a meeting for the 20th.  So, coincidentally, I would be 
able to ask for a vote on it in time to send it in that day, assuming 
that their deadline is not, you know, unreasonable.

 Okay.  We'll get to the meetings in a second.

 Any other comments on this?  Or at this point, should we save these 
discussions for later?

 With nobody having any comments on them now, they're just -- they're 
obviously things that are on.  

 Do we want to talk about -- why don't we talk about the calendar, and 
then if we can go back to proxy voting.  Is that okay?  Or do you want 
to talk about proxy voting first.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   We still have 20 minutes, because it really 
relates to the next issue, particularly with Delhi being the next 
meeting, it might be difficult, especially if we don't get travel 
expenses, for too many folks to go.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  The proxy issue, as I understood -- first of 
all, we got the answer from legal, which I sent to everyone, which 
basically giving their reasons why they did not believe that the bylaws 
allowed it at the moment, that, basically, the bylaws required us to be 
-- that anytime that voting occurred, the voting person could 
communicate directly to the others their position.

 So that was -- I'm paraphrasing a legal statement.  But that was 
essentially, if you want, I can dig it up and we can read it.  But, 
basically, the recommendation from legal counsel was, no, the bylaws 
say no.  If you want it, you need to make a request to the board for a 
bylaws change.

 So -- and the other thing I had gotten was that the restructuring 
report might say something about it, but it didn't.

 So we're therefore at a point that if it's something we want, we need 
to make a request.  We need to basically craft a request, vote on it, 
and send it to the board.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   All right.  I don't know if this is a fair 
question to ask, because I know we're not voting.  But are any of the 
other councillors present opposed to the idea of somebody drafting such 
a motion or just the concept of proxy voting?  Just trying to get a 
temperature on that.

 Are there councillor that are opposed to the notion of doing some sort 
of proxy voting that would allow that?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I have -- I have reservations about the method of 
proxy, but not about proxy itself.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I would probably say something similar.  I think that 
we need it.  I think it needs to be controlled.  It shouldn't be as 
loosely used as we've done in the past.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I have Tim and Ross.  Tim, you had your hand up first.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   I forgot that I did.

 I was just curious about the timing of -- I mean, if we decided to 
move forward with one or the other, what would be the timing of going 
to the board at the request and getting them to approve a change in the 
bylaws versus maybe making a comment for a request and change in the 
GNSO restructuring plan.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 I don't know.

 My gut feeling is that while they were voting on restructuring, they 
would just postpone any bylaws change until they did them all at once, 
but I'm only guessing.  That's what I would do.

 But I don't know.

 That would just be my guess.

 Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   Yeah, I would just encourage council going forward to 
consider this in the context of the reform work to make sure that the 
I's are dotted instead of crossing the I's and dotting the T's.  You 
don't want to mix the two and have to go back and reverse it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You said were you going to defer to Tim from now on.

 Yeah, okay.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 Any other?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Transylvania.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It's a good thing we have only got 20 minutes left.

 >> Strike that from the record, please.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Does anybody -- And this kind of fits into some of the 
things we talked about before, a discussion on GNSO restructuring and 
response.

 Did we want to start looking together putting together a set of 
responses that we would send onto the committee as GNSO 
recommendations?  Now, a personal opinion, I think that if we try to 
get into things like structures of stakeholder groups and 
proportionality and things like that, we're asking for endless 
discussions that we could never resolve here.

 I think it's good for the constituencies to state their own issues on 
those things.

 But I think that if we have comments on, you know, things like working 
groups, things like proxy voting, things like where the bylaws are, 
things about transition plan timing and such like that, I think it 
probably reasonable for us to put together something that we can say we 
as, hopefully, a supermajority, as a consensus, even, think that these 
are considerations.

 Yes.

 >>TIM RUIZ:   I think that makes sense.

 I was wondering, too, if maybe, if we wanted to do it individually or 
should we put it together a collection of clarifying questions?  
Because when we've had discussions I know within our constituency, 
there's been a lot of questions about some of the nuances of what's 
written there.  And being able to understand that clearly in order to 
come up with a constituency position or councillor views would be 
helpful.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yeah.

 >>CYRIL CHUA:   I feel that the more senior members of the council 
should take the lead in this because they will be able to offer 
valuable guidance from their experience throughout the years.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Ute.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Avri, I agree I think there are only very few items 
that will lend themselves to a council position.  And I would think at 
this stage, the working group will look from the council for input.  
And there's two areas that spring to mind.  You mentioned working 
groups, and then of course the improvement of the PDP is something that 
people who have participated in PDPs would be particularly 
knowledgeable about and that might be something where we could actually 
come to a common position as a council.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Anyone else want to comment?

 I think a way to go forward would be for someone to try, or several 
someones to try writing up something that would be suggested to the 
rest of the group and we would talk through.

 Yes?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   I guess we also need to consider the issue of 
timing, when that would be.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It would have to be real soon now.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   I thought it might depend on what the board did 
with this tomorrow.  Based on my interaction with Vint at the mike 
today, it sounded like it's pretty unclear what was going to happen 
tomorrow.  And then unclear what the next steps are in this process.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I do think you're right, it's unclear.  I do get the 
impression from Roberto and the committee that they want to move 
quickly.

 Vint won't be the factor past sometime tomorrow morning.  And so we 
don't know the date, but I'm still willing to bet it's real soon now.

 Yes, Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I can't see any -- I think the council has got real 
consensus around this particular point of proxy.  You don't have 
agreement on the details, but I would see no reason why you couldn't 
communicate this consensus to that committee directly in that form and 
allow it to move forward on that basis.  No?  That's a suggestion.

 >>AVRI DORIA: That basically I individually write to them and say we 
think proxy voting should be allowed but we think that the issue of the 
rules and regulations around it are something that need to be 
discussed?

 >>ROSS RADER:   Just say this has been a longstanding issue for 
council, we have had repeated requests for clarification, blah, blah, 
blah, we would like to see this picked up in the reform.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I could certainly write a note on that basis to them 
and say that, unless someone objected to my saying it.

 I could float the note on the list first to see if anybody objected to 
it, just to make sure I wasn't saying something that anyone....

 So I'm certainly more than willing to say that there's interest.  I'm 
not willing to get into any details about proxy would work because I 
know there are disagreements among us on how proxies would work.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Avri, I am getting confused.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Me too.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Are we now thinking of raising the proxy voting point 
in the context of the GNSO reform discussion?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I think that was the suggestion.

 >>UTE DECKER:   I do not agree with that suggestion at all.  I very 
much disagree with mixing those two issues.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Likewise.  We need to deal with the proxy issue 
as soon as we can before the next meeting.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Avri, if I might just make a comment about that.

 You know, one thing you might consider, given that Delhi is a 
challenge for travel, and you already know that, you could consider in 
asking for an interim approach for Delhi and asking staff to help 
explore what the options are.

 In previous discussions, the question that has been raised, and it's 
been raised on the board as well, because the discussion about proxy 
voting came up on the board when Louis was the general counsel.  And 
the lengthy discussion had to do with the fact that there was concern 
that the party who voted take place in the robust deliberations about 
the vote.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   So maybe you guys could consider checking out 
whether you could have a interim solution for Delhi since you think you 
might have lots of problems with people traveling, and deal with it 
separately.

 >>UTE DECKER:   Yeah, I think the more we can circumvent it and the 
clearer we can make it that this is just for -- that we are not seeking 
to go back to where we used to be and that this is all based on the 
assumption that everybody is actively participating and following the 
debate very closely, I think that would help.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  I had Jon.

 >>JON BING:   There's probably a history here which I fail to grasp.  
But otherwise I think we would be a master on procedure to a sufficient 
degree to make a decision on how to have the proxy voting in the, for 
instance, in the next meeting.  Perhaps even in more general way.

 Because it doesn't really require an amendment to the regulations or 
bylaws as long as the bylaws don't regulate this.  It's sort of filling 
it out by a concrete decision.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   According to legal counsel, the bylaws do prohibit it 
and legal counsel has said we must have a bylaws change in order to do 
it.

 >>JON BING:   Sorry; I said I don't know the history.

 >>AVRI DORIA: We do not control our own fate when it comes to the 
bylaws.

 There are a bunch of hands, yes.  Ross.

 >>ROSS RADER:   Just because it's funny, I'm going to quote Jordyn 
yesterday when he mentioned that the council was being silly.  And I 
think borderline in that, pushing up on that same boundary, simply 
because there is going to be a lot of work in the next three to six 
months around how council votes and what council votes on and all of 
these things.

 So to instruct staff to go out and amend the bylaws or ask the council 
if they can instruct the staff to go out and amend the bylaws and then 
do it again a few weeks later, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense 
to me.

 We've had meetings in remote areas before.  We had one recently this 
year.

 But we seem to have them every year.

 I'm not sure that the meeting in Delhi is going to be all that 
different from the meeting we had in Morocco in that sense.

 I just think it's energy that the council could better use to focus on 
the general reform and not the specific issues of proxy at this time.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I would also like to point out that all the meetings 
are in a remote area to someone.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   You just stole my thunder.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Sorry.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Especially coming from Melbourne, Australia, 
right?

 But I also want to remind you that Delhi, if I may quote the gentleman 
that got up on stage, is a happening place.

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yeah.  Why would -- okay.  At the moment, I'm actually 
confused as to what the council would want me to do.  Actually, I think 
there's two things.  I think one thing, it's fairly certain that 
whether we get it in the current bylaws or not, we would like to make 
sure that we had a proxy vote in the restructured vote.  I don't think 
anyone is disagreeing on that.

 The question is whether I'm actually asking for a bylaw change at this 
point before restructuring.

 And I would do that if the council voted that it wanted that done.  I 
won't do it based on this particular conversation.

 If somebody wants to bring up a proposal that we vote on at the next 
meeting saying, "We as a council want the bylaws changed now for proxy 
voting in this way," and we have at least a majority on it, then I'll 
gladly take it.

 But with the conversation the way it's going at the moment, I just 
don't feel comfortable saying -- I feel very comfortable saying we want 
proxy changes in the restructured council.  I have no qualms about 
saying that that's an issue.  About asking for a bylaw change before 
the restructuring, I -- if I have a majority from the council telling 
me to go do it, gladly.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   So you just leave it for somebody to come up with 
a motion.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Come up with a motion.  We approved it by a majority.  
Then I'll go ask, with a motion in my pocket saying, "This is" -- and I 
would actually ask that the motion include how you want that proxy to 
work.  So we're telling them, "We want this particular change in the 
bylaws now."

 And I'll do that.

 And Ross won't be there to say it's silly.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I'll be there.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You'll be there to say it's silly.

 >>ROSS RADER:   I didn't say silly, but....

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  Now there's only four minutes left.

 Schedule.

 Oh, you can barely read it.  I have to make bigger print.  But, 
anyhow, this is a terrible thing to say, but it really occurs to me 
that we may have enough to do that we need to think about meeting every 
two weeks.  Which I must say, I feel bad about, because --

 >> (inaudible).

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Thank you.

 Anyhow, I can't --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   How about every three weeks?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That was the second choice, if I couldn't get people 
to agree to two weeks.

 Okay.  So at the moment -- first of all, I believe we have to have a 
meeting fairly soon.  If -- and it looks like having picked the 20th of 
November was fortuitous, because if we want to put something in the 
strat plan that has a council vote on it, that's the latest we can meet 
to approve it.

 So the first meeting we were proposing was the 20th of November.  And 
it's really difficult when you start looking at the calendar for the 
end of the year, finding weeks that aren't a holiday.  You know, the 
20th -- you know, because next week -- well, we never do it the next 
week.  The following week, I know that neither -- unfortunately, but 
neither Chuck nor I can actually be available to chair it.  I'm in Rio 
at the IGF.  I think some of you are also in Rio at the IGF.  And 
Chuck's doing something else.  So there's no one to chair it.  So that 
makes the week after the 20th.  Now, waiting until that Thursday 
doesn't work, because that's Thanksgiving.

 And so for all the U.S.ans among us, they probably won't want to have 
a meeting in the middle of the afternoon on Thanksgiving.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   What about the 8th or something like that?  Maybe 
the 8th and the 27th?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So the 8th of November?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   In other words, next week?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   The 20th is not --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Too soon?  I thought we wanted to do something 
before the 20th because of the strategic plan issue.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.  Well, we could have the work done on the 20th, 
all we need to do is approve it in time on the 20th to get it in and 
say that it's from the council.

 I can't do the 8th.  I don't know if you can do the 8th.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   8th looks okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Right.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   I guess I'm not sure -- will we have enough work 
to do on the 8th?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Most of the time we've basically sort of said the week 
after the meeting is a little too soon for people.  They've got the 
rest of their world to catch up with.  And --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   But this year we have IGF in the way and then 
Thanksgiving, so....

 >>AVRI DORIA:   True.

 I was going to say, I'm fine with the 8th.  I don't know that I can 
make it.  I might be able to.  I don't know.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   But if you're planning on the input from me and 
Norbert by then, I don't see us being ready by then.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.

 So, yeah, having enough to be done by then.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Does the 20th not work for anyone?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And the 20th, if everything is ready for the strat 
plan except for having voted on it, then it's trivial to basically send 
it in right after the meeting, saying we voted on it, yes.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   But let's be clear.

 What we're giving you is an insert that has to do with budget request 
and planning.  You guys made a decision, I think -- I'm trying to 
summarize this -- that constituencies will be submitting their own 
comments on the more complex, perhaps less consensus-based elements of 
the GNSO review, et cetera.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   But that's a different issue.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   I understand.  But we will just be referencing the -
- I just want to clarify this.  There will be a very brief sentence 
which says, "The need for this kind of support was referenced in the 
GNSO review," because I'm assuming that is not a controversial --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Oh, no, that's not controversial.  Right.

 I didn't realize (inaudible).

 Okay.  So meeting on the 20th.  No issue?  We can do a meeting on the 
20th?

 Fantastic.

 How about the 6th of December, two weeks later?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   What time are the meetings?

 >>AVRI DORIA: 15:00 UTC, the standard time?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   It's 7:00 Pacific, 10:00 eastern.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Although, will time have changed by then?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Everywhere in the world?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   I only looked it up on the 20th. 

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Well, after that, it's -- 

 15:00 UTC --

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   That's 2:00 in the morning for me.  I'm happy to 
do that, but I'll be drunk.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   What else is new?

 >>AVRI DORIA: Eww!

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   I'm 0 for 7, I think.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   You are.  You left yourself open.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So, now, -- having you all the time at 2:00 a.m. seems 
wrong.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Actually, on the 6th, I'll be in Dubai, so that's 
workable easily.  That's 7:00 in the evening.  But whenever I'm in 
Melbourne -- the 20th, I'll be in Melbourne.  But if it's only one 
person, I can --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   2:00 a.m.

 >> Limit yourself --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So it's 7:00 a.m. in California.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Can we make it a little less painful?  Can you 
move it a little?

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   Otherwise, we did what Bruce did, and that was 
make it at 6:00 in the morning for him, 6:00 for you, and for us in 
Europe, it is 8:00 in the evening.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   And it's in the middle of the day for most --

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   And it's in the middle of the day for 
everybody else.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So is 6:00 in the morning more palatable to you than -
-

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   I'll be hung over, but --  No, that's fine.  I 
appreciate the accommodation.  But it doesn't always have to be that 
way.

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   What time was that UTC?

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   UTC, that is, I think, 18 hours.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   No, three hours -- it would be four hours later.  
Yeah, it would be four hours later, obviously, 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   19 hours.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Now, do people have a problem with not always being at 
the same time?

 >>UTE DECKER:   I do have a problem with it in that case on Thursdays, 
because I can never make Thursday evenings, I could never be on any 
call.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  This is a Tuesday one that we have just 
changed.  That's okay?

 >>CHUCK GOMES:   Thursday, that would be --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Well, Thursday, you said you didn't care.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   I beg your pardon?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You said the next one you didn't care because you will 
be in Dubai.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Yes, Dubai.  That's fine.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   You are the only Australian we've got; right?  And we 
don't have any other time zone?

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   Thankfully.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I just wanted to make sure we weren't making 
assumptions.

 >>CYRIL CHUA:   It's 5:00 a.m.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   That's right.  Where are you?  Singapore.

 >>CYRIL CHUA:   It's all right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   This one time, because otherwise it would be 1:00 a.m. 
for you the other way; right?  1:00 is better for you.

 You're also Singapore?  You're not, but same time zone.  That's what I 
have to keep track of is what time zones we've got.

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   You are in the same time zone?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Same as you.

 So we have got Hong Kong, Singapore.

 Okay.

 (Multiple people talking at once.)

 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:   There's two of them, though.  I would rather do 
it by numbers.  If you are going to do it by numbers, do it by the 
lower amount.  You can't do 4:00 in the morning for those guys.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   It was 5:00.  What happens if we move it to 20 UTC?  
You get 7:00, you get 6:00, Europe it's only 9:00 instead of 8:00.  So 
it's still reasonable hours.  Is 7:00 okay for you?  Because if we go 
to 7:00 or 8:00 but then we start getting too late for Europe.

 While we're going through times --

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   20th of November.  What time did you say, 
Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Looking at possibly making it later to either 20 or 21 
UTC.

 >> This is on the 20th?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yeah.  You are in what time zone?

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   Hong Kong would still be 4:00 in the morning.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   Because there's a time change.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I know, but we've got to -- no, it's not impossible.  
You get as close as you can.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   That's 20th of November.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  So do we want to make it an hour later, 20 or 
21?  21 for Europe makes it, Stockholm -- that's not too late for me if 
I am in Sweden.  But we've got other Europeans.  How late can you 
stand?

 >>UTE DECKER:   I can call in late but this time, 20 or 21 UTC on 
Thursdays will never work for me.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I was thinking about the Tuesday one at this time.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Jon, 21 hours, is that all right?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   I'll let you run this one.

 First of all, have we sort of half accepted the notion of every two 
weeks?  It's that many meetings between -- just wanted people to notice 
that every two weeks gives us six meetings between now and New Delhi.

 Which is not a lot.

 Only six meetings.

 Are any of these dates, forgetting the times, are any of these dates 
impossible?

 So I was going to say, Mike, you suggested every three weeks.

 At every two weeks we only have six meetings between now and New 
Delhi.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   That's not very many.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Three weeks there would be three meetings.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Avri, but you have occasionally had a three-hour 
call when you have needed to in order to make up the extra --

 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.

 So okay.

 So we'll leave these dates and then we have to figure out what the 
right time is.

 If people are comfortable with the time moving, and as I have been in 
some groups where people wanted the same time all the time and they 
couldn't deal with a movable schedule, it was too confusing.

 But if people are willing to deal with moving times, then my 
suggestion is that we share pain and that we move it around and, you 
know, deal with that.

 But that makes sort of Glen's job of figuring out whose job it is to 
share pain an interesting challenge.

 >>ROSS RADER:   It's good by me.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Yeah, I'm sure.

 I've got to say that after 3:00 or 4:00 a.m, I am really kind of 
useless.  But I can't see me chairing something at 3:00 a.m.  But other 
than that....

 I somehow think we should try to avoid anybody meeting between 2:00 
and 5:00 a.m.  That seems like something we should try really hard to 
avoid.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:   Not very possible.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   In which case it should happen as rarely as possible 
to everyone so that it's a once in a rare thing and that it moves.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   21 hours UTC?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Okay.  That works.  That doesn't work for Ute on 
Thursdays.  But nothing later than what works for you on Thursdays?

 >>UTE DECKER:   I'm happy with any time of the week other than the 
small little time slot between 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. UTC.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So basically evening UTC on Thursday.

 That Tuesday is fine and then for these others we can still work on 
the time.  We don't need it now.

 So our next meeting is 20 November at 21 UTC.

 And the rest of them, those are the days, and Glen will work with us 
on the e-mail list to try and figure it out.

 Does anybody object to Glen trying to balance the pain so that we all 
take turns at the outrageous hours?  Because I really hate that anyone 
-- I spent a year -- and it's personal.  I spent a year living in 
Korea, and I always had the 2:00 a.m. meeting and I hated that.  So I 
can understand someone hating always having the 2:00 a.m. meetings.

 You can never go to a party.

 Right, you're always drunk

 [ Laughter ]

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So, actually, I was a couple times.  But anyway, I 
wasn't chairing.

 Anyhow, I think we've covered -- we have used all our time.  Nobody is 
kicking us out of this room but I don't know if anybody has got energy 
to keep doing this.

 And I think we call it done.

 Anyone object to calling it done?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Did we only do the 20th?

 >>AVRI DORIA:   We will have the rest of the dates but Glen is going 
to work on a formula that balances pain.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:   Cool.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   So we've learned that we have to balance unhappiness 
in motions and we balance pain.  What a joy the GNSO is.

 And with those words, thanks.  It's been great spending a lot of time 
with you all this week.

 And safe travels.

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   Can I say one word about India?  Apparently I 
have been told that the rooms will be terribly expensive, $500.  That's 
not exactly correct.  They will be more expensive than here, but ICANN 
is definitely working to get the best price possible.  And we'll do the 
same thing as we've done up to now, and that is take a block booking 
and then you let me know as soon as possible about your traveling 
times, because it's going to be more complicated in India.  We will be 
in different hotels, and in order to get the GNSO plus our meetings, 
plus our people, plus staff in the same hotel, it will be a good thing 
if we could, you know, work on that now.

 So as soon as you know, more or less, please let me know.

 >>MARILYN CADE:   Did I hear you say there's an option, -- there are 
multiple hotels.  Will some of them be less expensive than the venue 
hotel?

 >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY:   That's quite doubtful, Marilyn.