GNSO Council Wednesday October 31, 2007 ICANN Meeting - Los Angeles >>AVRI DORIA: We're going to start in one minute, as soon as we get things projecting correctly, so please bear with us. Good morning. I think we're going to start. Need to check on a couple things in terms of people being on the phone, and -- okay. The music did stop. I know we have a phone hookup, before we start, so... Are the people on the phone, can they hear us? Is anybody on the phone? I don't hear you. There are people on the phone, so therefore, I want to make sure as we're starting that the people on the phone can be heard and can hear us. Hello? >>CHUCK GOMES: Tom and Mawaki, can you hear us? >> One second. We're just working out an issue. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we should check to make sure that Rita can hear us as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. I figure it's the same phone call. Hello? Do we have people on the phone? >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yeah, Mawaki is on the phone. >>TOM KELLER: Tom is on the phone as well. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Hi, Mawaki, hi, Tom. Rita, are you on the phone as well? Just to know if you can hear us, so I can know? Okay. Well, in any case, I think now that we have a phone connection. We can start. Good morning. This is the open GNSO meeting, and public comment. We've combined the two into one meeting. It is somewhat experimental, but we'll see how it goes. We have the agenda. We're trying to get the agenda properly displayed at the moment. A morning of technical difficulties. I keep trying to get which computer can actually display the agenda. I'll start going through it, and as we get there, we'll display it. The first thing we had is the roll call of members, so if we can... We need it to show on one of the two. >>DAN HALLORAN: You want to do it on yours? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, if we can. That's not what I wanted. Excuse me. Sorry. We have an agenda it's been on line. Sorry for all the technical duties getting started this morning. Mostly my ineptitude, I believe. The first thing is to do a roll call of the council members and then we'll review the agenda. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Philip Sheppard is absent. Mike Rodenbaugh. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Bilal Beiram. Bilal? Ute Decker. >>UTE DECKER: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Kristina Rosette. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Cyril Chua. >>CYRIL CHUA: I'm here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Robin Gross? >>ROBIN GROSS: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Norbert Klein. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I'm here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mawaki Chango. Mawaki's on the line. I think he's muted, but he's here. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes, I'm here, Mawaki, but I'll be on mute. Okay? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: All right. Thanks. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tony Holmes? >>TONY HOLMES: Yes, Glen. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tony Harris. >>TONY HARRIS: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Greg Ruth. >>GREG RUTH: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Adrian Kinderis. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Here. Good morning, Glen. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Ross Rader. >>ROSS RADER: Good morning. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tom Keller. >>TOM KELLER: Yes, I'm on. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tom is also on the line. Cary Karp? >>CARY KARP: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Chuck Gomes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Edmon Chung. >>EDMON CHUNG: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jon Bing. >>JON BING: Present. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Avri Doria. >>AVRI DORIA: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: And Sophia Bekele. Then from the liaisons, Alan Greenberg? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Here. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: And apologies from Suzanne Sene. >>AVRI DORIA: Do we have a quorum for the meeting? I believe we do. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: We have a quorum for the meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. In terms of the agenda now, basically the first item would be to update any items of interest. I'll go through the whole agenda, and then come back to that. We have several items on the agenda today. We have a break in the middle of the meeting, and what we've tried to do as you'll notice is take in one of the suggestions from last time and basically combine the actions and meeting of the council with the public comment and conversations at the microphone between the council and the community that's attending or that's remote attending. So the first topic we'll go through will be discussion of the intergovernmental organization dispute resolution process issue. We'll basically have a short report on the current state of that issue, then go into the -- we'll basically do a round to see if anyone on the council has anything to say before we start the discussion. We'll have the open discussion. And then we'll come back for a closing council discussion and the vote that's scheduled on it. On domain tasting, we'll basically go through that same process, where there will be a short talk on where we're at at the moment, council members will have a chance to add a comment, we'll go into the open discussions, and then we'll come back to the council and do the vote. We have WHOIS, which I believe is after our break, is that correct? But we'll see how things go timing-wise, but I believe it's after the break. The same process: Start the conversation with an introduction to the topic, go around the council, see if there's any constituency or council comments to add before we start the discussion, go into the discussion, come back to the council discussion, and take the vote that's been scheduled. The IDN ccTLD topic that's listed in here has been amended somewhat, in that we will go through that same process. What is uncertain is we don't necessarily have a vote. We've talked about taking a vote, and so there will be a decision at that time whether we're actually ready to take a vote on that. We may or we may take other steps, so actually that's listed there. It actually had been. We have a topic on registrar transfer, inter-registrar transfer policy. We had an issues report on that. We are scheduled to take a vote on that by the rules in the bylaws, so we'll probably be going through that same process on that item as well, though perhaps in a much shorter time frame. It really depends on how much time we have left at the end of the meeting. And we do have some -- "any other business" -- to deal with at the end. Are there any changes or comments from the members on the agenda? >>CHUCK GOMES: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just one suggestion. I don't believe we've scheduled our future meetings, and we probably ought to talk about that, because we're running into some holidays and things like that coming up. >>AVRI DORIA: Well, we have another meeting tomorrow where I was thinking a lot of the -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Do that there? That's fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: We have a meeting tomorrow afternoon, and so I think thinking that that was a time for many of those housekeeping discussions of when our next meetings are, and all of that. But if we have time today, we could certainly, you know, put that in. So if there are any issues of going with the -- any issues related to going with this agenda? And seeing how much of it we can get done? Hopefully all of it. In which case, okay, we'll proceed with the agenda. I'd like to ask, does anyone have an updated statement of interest they wish to make at this point? Mike Rodenbaugh made one on line previously, and I believe that's already been updated on the Web page, so I don't know -- and made it at the previous meeting, so I think that it's probably done at this point. And anyone else? Okay. In which case we'll proceed with the first item on the agenda, which was the intergovernmental organization dispute resolution process. We had an initial issues report on it that we talked about at the previous meeting. At that time, the council took a vote to ask the staff to produce a draft -- at that time we were calling it a dispute resolution mechanism but what came back was a dispute resolution process which has been published and I don't have the Web pages up at the moment, but those -- but it has been out for discussion for a while. So basically that is the first item of discussion on our agenda this morning. At this point, that's all I'm going to say about it. It was produced by Olof. We've had a conversation on it before. Would you like to give a quick -- okay. Olof would like to make a quick report on it. Let me give you the -- okay. And you already have that plugged in. Good. >>OLOF NORDLING: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Avri, and it seems like the picture has stabilized. It is early morning. And sometimes I feel like the picture did. Anyway, the subject matter is the dispute resolution procedure for IGO names and abbreviations as domain names, and maybe, if I may, to make it very quick, a review of a pretty lengthy background. The protection of IGO names and abbreviations as domain names is a subset of WIPO II recommendations, which date back quite a few years and were discussed 2003/2004, but mainly with a focus on geopolitical names at the time. And well, there were no agreement on introducing any measures at the time, but the subject matter of IGO names and abbreviations has drawn considerable attention from governments and IGOs ever since and there's been discussions with ICANN. And in the context of a new gTLD process, it was discussed in Wellington, in the Wellington meeting, and a drafting group was sent off to see well, how do we approach this as a rather separate track. The subject matter was also included with a request that they be taken care of in GAC principles that were produced for the new gTLDs process. Also, there was a subgroup in the new gTLD process for reserved names, which concluded that, well, that option to make the IGO names and abbreviations as reserved names, that was not appropriate. So that would have to be some dispute resolution procedure in that case. Eventual the little drafting group came back to the council and presented a plan which led to the council asking for an issues report, which was requested on the 24th of May this year, and delivered on the 15th of June. This was discussed in San Juan, and there was plenty of other things on the table for the council, as it always is, and the decision was that in order to advance things a bit further, staff would try to draft a dispute resolution procedure as a first draft. And that draft was delivered the 28th of September, and, well, a few -- let's see. Hello? It's frozen. Do we have issues here? It doesn't advance. Anyway -- okay. Well, if you go back and then advance, then it works. Some highlights of that is that the procedure, as we drafted it from staff's side, it maps the protection as foreseen and requested in the WIPO II recommendation. I want to make that perfectly clear. We haven't tried to do anything else but that. And the drafting text is largely drawn from the work that was previously made by this joint working group in 2004. So from that perspective, it was comparatively easy, one could say, but as a separate dispute resolution procedure, given that there was no support for making any modifications of the UDRP, which was originally foreseen back then. And the procedure, as written, is primarily foreseen for new gTLDs as part of the contractual conditions for the new round. In order to have it predictable, as it should be, it should be ready before then. Although its application to an existing gTLD would most certainly require a GNSO PDP. I want to highlight one procedural difference of importance to the UDRP, and that is that given that IGOs cannot appear in national courts, neither as plaintiff nor as defendant, due to their particular status, well, there was a need to have a special appeals procedure. So in this draft procedure, the appeals can be made to an arbitral tribunal instead of a national court. That's a major difference. Key provisions, there are actually three. Two are more or less two faces of the same coin. That the grounds for objections from an IGO would lean on that there is a connection to the IGO that exists by the use or registration of a particular domain name, or that it misleads the public as to the existence of such a connection. And I want to highlight that that doesn't make it that the outcome is a given, that the IGO always would trump the domain name owner. There should be -- in order to do that, there should be a connection that could confuse the public quite clearly. So that's basically one ground. Another and wholly different ground is what one could call the Red Cross provision. There are IGOs, or at least one -- and that is the Red Cross -- where the use of the name and abbreviation and symbols of that particular organization is prescribed in detail in the treaty, and that would trump any abuse. And that is a specific provision which is totally unrelated to the first one, really. And they appear, all the three, with "or's" in between them. And that's basically the key provisions. And if I just could make a final comment on -- rather than the details here, which we're here to decide on what would be the next step to take, that -- well, the current situation in let's call it the classic world is that the IGOs and their names and abbreviations enjoy a protection that is on a par with trademarks. Even more. In the domain name space there is no such protection for the IGO names and abbreviations, and that void is something that has led to quite some criticism, and it's a reason for concern for particularly governments and IGOs, of course. And that is something we, as an ICANN community, would have to address one way or another. Partly out of enlightened self-interest, if you like that our ICANN processes can deal with this. And perhaps even more importantly, that there are 1.2 billion Internet users out there, and the ultimate purpose is, of course, to protect them from abusive behavior like fake fundraising schemes and other scams that ride on the abuse of the international recognition or reputation of IGOs like UNICEF and World Health Organization and Red Cross. That's all. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Olof. At this point, I'd like to ask if there's anyone on the council that would like to comment. I saw Chuck's hand. Anyone else want to comment before we go? Okay. Robin. Okay. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: OLOF, could you clarify in me why recommendation 3 in the new TLD reports would not address this situation? And for those who might not know right off what recommendation 3 is, it's the recommendation that new TLDs shouldn't infringe the rights of other -- of others that are recognized under international principles of law. >>OLOF NORDLING: It does, but it needs to be embodied in something. Now, I want to highlight that the -- on the top level, this recommendation 3 is primarily foreseen for the top level. But we need to do something on the second level as well. And this is the purpose of this particular procedure. >>AVRI DORIA: Robin? >> ROBIN GROSS: Yeah. I just -- I just wanted to comment on the report. I was disappointed that we didn't really see in the report any particular need for this kind of a mechanism. There's a suggested path to take, but no need has been shown for why we need to be spending our limited resources on this particular project. It seems to me that we've got a lot of important -- very important things on our plate that affect millions, if not billions, of people with IDNs and new gTLDs and the GNSO improvements. It strikes me that since that will affect so many more people, that that's actually a much better place for us to spend our time and energy. And I also have to disagree with you about the idea that there are no existing mechanisms to protect IGOs or -- from abuse. There may not be special protections, like trademark protections, but there certainly are consumer protections in the law and there are existing mechanisms to deal with this. So this just sort of strikes me as unnecessary and sort of a piece of special-interest legislation. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Chuck, and then anyone else? Because I'd like to go -- just a few comments. Okay. I see Kristina and then I do want to go to the microphone, if there are comments from the microphone. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. I just want to refer to a letter from Louie Tuton, ICANN's former general counsel, dated 21 May, clear back in 2001, to the Bank of International Settlements. It is documented on the ICANN correspondence site for the year 2001. And I won't go over very much of the letter but I would like to read the last paragraph. "While we appreciate" -- and this, by the way, was with regard to the introduction of the new TLD dot biz. "While we appreciate the bank's desire to formally assert whatever legal rights it may have, an exclusion of the use of the string biz as a Internet top-level domain is not supported by legal principles and would be contrary to the global public interest. With respect for the proper scope of the bank's rights under Article 6TR, ICANN is proceeding with the introduction of the dot biz top-level domain." And this relates to a similar issue, and people can look at the letter themselves, but I think there is some precedent related to this there. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would actually just note that part of the reason the IPC has requested this is that there is not agreement in international law as to whether there are existing mechanisms for addressing this very specific problem, and I think it would probably be appropriate. And something that the IPC had discussed yesterday was that there may be further work that could be done perhaps in a group headed up by the IPC and composed by, you know, interested, informed stakeholders and members of the GAC to the extent they are interested in participating with a goal of reviewing the draft proposal and, perhaps, coming up with something that would likely to be more acceptable to members of the council, members of the community, with the idea of coming back to the council and reporting back on that not later than February and perhaps at that time we could then decide whether or not to proceed with a PDP. And if we did so, a large portion of the work would frankly already be done. And to a certain extent it would be more of a procedural point at that time. >>AVRI DORIA: So this would be something that you might be offering as an alternative motion when we come to the end of this section? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Olof, you wanted to comment? >>OLOF NORDLING: Very, very rapidly. >>AVRI DORIA: And if people would start coming to the microphone who would like to comment. >>OLOF NORDLING: First to Robin. Well, we did explain the reasons why in the issues report, so there are plenty of examples there, why this is something we need to address. And the leaner way we can find to address it, the better. Of course, hence our volunteering from the staff side to make some drafting. Well, then, we're very grateful for Kristina's comment to try to advance the drafting. Of course, this is the first draft and can certainly be improved, no doubt about that. And, also, back to Chuck's comment about dot biz. Well, yes, quite a few things have happened since. This was 2001. Then we had the WIPO- II recommendation. Then we had lengthy discussions about that. Then we had exchanges of letters and analysis where this ground in international law was pinpointed -- well, which has led to, well, a shift in situation. Things change. >>DAN HALLORAN: May I also respond to Chuck's comment? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, please. >>DAN HALLORAN: This is Dan Halloran. Chuck, just a quick response. Maybe it would be better to do something where more in writing. I can give you cites and links. If you go back and read carefully what you read, that was talking about protection for an IGO name as a TLD. That was saying we weren't going to give protection there. Staff isn't here today we are going to give protection as a TLD. We don't not saying we need a new recommendation 21 to block IGO strings as top level labels. We are talking about second level labels. We are talking about unicef.health or something and protecting that type of cybersquatting. Not at the top level at all. That's not what we're talking about. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I have one person at the microphone. And then I have Ross. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: Just a question in regards to what Olof has presented. It looked like it kind of addressed an issue of new registrations that might be IGO related or could be. But what about existing registrations, many of the IGO strings that I've seen talked about abbreviations or their acronym that is could be pretty common for a number of different businesses or uses and that are probably registered in end use. What would happen with existing strings of that nature? >>OLOF NORDLING: I think -- well, the way I presented it was rather, okay, we need to draft something and have something ready for the new gTLD round or at least have decided because, well, we do have certainly -- there is a need to address this issue for the existing gTLDs as well. That would call for a PDP quite clearly. While for the new TLDs, we do have some agreement of principles like Chuck mentioned on the recommendation 3 which could be used as a basis for finding such procedure and introducing it in the new round. So, basically, this is a drafting that could be used as a basis for a PDP. But we have some matters that we need to address in the rather near future in order to foresee what we should do with the new round because, of course, with the additional many more new TLDs, it exacerbates the potential problem of abuse of IGO names and abbreviations. >>STEVE METALITZ: Hi, I'm Steve Metalitz from the intellectual property constituency. I want to thank Olof for all his work on this and moving the process forward. I agree with him that there is a gap here that should be addressed. And this only addresses it prospectively for the new TLDs. I think that's correct also. On the other hand, I think this particular proposal still needs a little more work because, perhaps, it has gone a little too far in filling the void as Olof put it and, perhaps, we need to adjust it so that entities that might have some legal rights in these characters that aren't intergovernmental organizations would have a way to have their interests considered in this dispute resolution process. So this was discussed at length at the intellectual property constituency meeting yesterday. And as Kristina has already indicated, we would be glad to participate in or help to organize a small and informal group to kind of do a little more work on this draft and then come back to the council in the very near future. But as Olof said, I think there is a good argument for doing something in this area and I think with a little more work, we can probably get the balance right. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I want to go to -- I have Kristina and Jon and then I will go back to the line. Okay, so Jon. >>JON BING: Thank you. Just a small footnote. It is, of course, as stated there, there is no agreement on the protection of the abbreviations or names on the international level. But you should remember, however, that in many translations, it is explicit prohibition to use these abbreviations to confuse with the membership of the nation in the international organizations we are talking about. So these national prohibitions exist and creates, of course, a complication which is exactly one of the reasons why we're trying to avoid it by the dispute resolution procedure. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Mike? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Michael Palage. This is a very difficult subject, as I think Olof and the IPC has recognized. There is a void, and I think the question that this council and this body needs to look at is how do you bridge that or fill that void without necessarily overstepping the protection and potentially interfering with the rights of others. I think that's what Steve had just said before. Chuck, with regard to your comment on that letter, I think the legal advice that Louie gave back in 2001 I think is still applicable and I think in that analysis, although you didn't get a chance to read the whole letter, one also needs to look at the broader context. There were actually multiple challenges to the potential dot biz allocation, and that was just one of many letters that Louie wrote. And in looking at that analysis, he looked at the application, its intended use and other things. It just was not a simple string analysis. That's one of the things, I think, we need to look at kind of in a new TLD when we talk about confusing similarity. That is a legal trademark principle that involves -- there is an analysis of what is the string and how is it intended to be used. I think what we need to look at here if the council does decide to approve or ICANN decides to move forward with any modifications to the UDRP, there needs to be a balance that the protection that would be afforded to the IGOs does not go too far, that there needs to be a balance. Again, I just want to echo the comments of Steve Metalitz that in filling this void, we need to make sure that we do not overstep the protection that IGOs are afforded under international law. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >> MIKE O'CONNOR: Mike O'Connor, speaking as an individual, member of the business constituency. I am quite the newcomer to ICANN proceedings, but I've been following your work for years and wanted to join the theme today. I own a couple of pretty darn good domain names that I got way back in the very early days. And when this proceeding -- when the report was published, many people have padded me on the head and said be calm, Michael, yours are in the dot com space. This isn't really about that. But there is sort of the phenomenon of the nose of the camel entering the tent and that some day these provisions might expand to existing gTLDs. I would just like to join the chorus that's before you to encourage the consideration of moderating this proposal a bit. I would support the IPCs leadership in this. I think they are a great group to lead that effort and hope you would consider that favorably. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. I have Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Like the intellectual property constituency, the registry constituency spent quite a bit of time on this yesterday and there were actually quite a few points brought up, one or two that I've already mentioned. Two things I want to say. One of them is, as I understand it correctly -- and I think several people have made this statement -- is that there is no international agreement in this regard, as Jon pointed out. There are some national ones. So it sounds like we're trying to create a right that's not recognized international law. So that's an issue for -- one of the issues our constituency has. Secondly, there was a working group formed quite some time ago, several years ago, on this whole issue. It was broader than just IGO names. That was just one subset of it and it's documented in the issues report and so forth. But the bottom line was, there was no ability to reach consensus on that particular area including the IGO names. Is there really reason to believe that anything has changed so that we will be able to reach consensus on this issue -- in this issue? It is not clear to us as a constituency that there is. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. Jon? >>JON BING: Thank you. We have several times repeated that there is no international consensus on the protection of these organizations. And I think that is correct but perhaps the nature of that disagreement should be brought out. The nature of that disagreement mainly refers to which organizations should enjoy this protection. And there is a great deal of variance in that respect. But if you asked whether the WTO or the WIPO or the UNESCO enjoyed this, this there would be no doubt it would be protected. >>RITA RODIN: Excuse me, Rita Rodin joins. >>JON BING: The discussion is which circle of organizations should be included weather the most well-known and most reputed organizations should be included. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Trying to get up so that I can have resolutions on the screen. But, Wendy? >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you. Like Chuck, I think I come to this with a very strong sense of deja vous at this meeting, not just for the WHOIS debate but for this one as well. I remember being involved in the discussions several years back where it was concluded that there is no international consensus backing the kinds of protections that are being sought here. I still don't see that international legal consensus, so I still don't see grounds for ICANN to be going off and relying on that. ICANN is on strongest grounds when it is relying on not only the consensus of its stakeholders but on accepted legal principles and to extend protections and exclusions beyond that seems to be going into shaky territory. I'm particularly concerned further when I look at the proposed dispute resolution procedure and see that it goes even further than the UDRP in being unfriendly to the registrant of a domain name. We all know that IGOs are often represented by acronyms that are common words that many people may have registered and used in good faith but good faith and legitimate purpose doesn't seem to be a defense in this draft. So I hesitate to get into details but, rather, suggest that to avoid those details this be stopped in its tracks rather than recycled through the same indecision and ultimately rejection as last time. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. I have Ross and Kristina. >>ROSS RADER: I have a two-part question. The first is administrative, Avri. In the record of our motions on the Wiki page that I am looking at here, there is no -- >>AVRI DORIA: Which I have now put on the screen. >>ROSS RADER: Great, good. It doesn't indicate who's the maker of this motion and I lost track of that. Who put this forward? >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, it is more of a proposed motion. It is a motion that is sort of on the table automatically from -- that we need to consider based on the schedule and the bylaws. We have issues report. We said once we got the draft, we would come back. It actually has not been made. It is a proposed motion. It has not been made by anyone. >>ROSS RADER: There is no seconder for this, therefore, no one to ask to withdraw it based on the commentary we have been hearing from the council and the community. I would propose to withdraw this motion at this time. I'm not seeing, as Wendy has pointed out, any strong consensus to move forward with any further examination of these issues. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>ROBIN GROSS: I'll second that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So there is a motion to withdraw. And this motion -- as I said, I don't believe it was actually specifically made. It's a motion that falls specifically out of the bylaws. Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I was actually hoping for clarification. I am looking at three motions. There is one that's Motion 1, Motion number 2 and the one I just posted, the council list. Which one are we talking about withdrawing? >>AVRI DORIA: I believe Ross was talking about Motion 1 which has no formal motion or seconder, just a procedural motion that we need to consider. Your motion which you just sent in to the list which I've put up there is a motion that, I guess, you're making and would need a second, but I think first we would need to deal with removing the procedural motion from the table. >>CHUCK GOMES: Avri, clarification in this procedural. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: We don't have anything to withdraw. If nobody makes that motion, there's nothing to do. >>AVRI DORIA: That's essentially true. I mean, the motion -- it's one of those things that's being sort of -- in our new attempt to try to follow the bylaws as much as possible to the letter, it is -- >>CHUCK GOMES: And I'm okay with what you did in that regard because it is something that has to be considered. If nobody proposes it as a motion, though, and it gets a second, then we can just move on. >>AVRI DORIA: I think you're right. Does anyone object to that as the way we move on with this one? Okay. Now we have your motion, Kristina. You would still like to have that considered at this point? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Do you have a seconder for that motion? And I'll read the motion or, perhaps, you would like to read it as you've -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm happy to do that. "Whereas, the council has previous requested and received both the 15 June 2007 GNSO issues report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations and the 28 September 2007 staff report on draft IGO domain name dispute resolution procedure; and whereas, the council believes that further work on the draft IGO domain name dispute resolution procedure is appropriate before voting on whether to initiate a policy development process on this issue; and whereas, the intellectual property constituency is willing to create and lead a small ad hoc group to review and consider a proposed draft dispute resolution procedure. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council authorizes the intellectual property constituency to create a small ad hoc group of interesting informed stakeholders and members of the Government Advisory Committee to review and consider the draft IGO domain name dispute resolution procedure set forth in the staff report and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the council with its recommendations not later than 15 February, 2008." >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Is there a seconder for that motion? >>JON BING: I'll second. >>AVRI DORIA: Seconded by Jon. Thank you. I would like to invite discussion on the motion, both from the council members and if there's comment from the floor. Yes, Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Kristina, could you give a little more detail as to what proposed revisions you would consider in the ad hoc group? What the nature of that would be? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I don't really want to specify simply because I think at this point everything is on the table in the sense of, you know, we're not starting from -- the group would not be expected to be starting from the premise of whether or not the draft that's been set forth in most recent report is or is not acceptable. It would, basically, start with that and say, can we live with this and I think it's probably clear what the answer to that is. And then coming up with alternatives that, perhaps, might be more acceptable to not only, you know, the members of the group but the community as a whole. >>AVRI DORIA: Ross? >>ROSS RADER: One of the things that isn't made clear in this motion would be the scope of the issues being considered, the charter and form of that group, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I believe that any group that's put together by this council should have extremely clear, specific, narrow, measurable and bounded goals and objectives before we allow that group to engage. So I would recommend that this motion be amended in some way to take that notion into account before we vote on it. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I guess, I'm just -- the intention was that it would really be limited to looking at the proposed draft dispute resolution procedure, at least that was the initial intent and if that's not clear enough, I think I probably need some guidance from you as to what more specificity you would like to see. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, Mike? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Kristina, perhaps you -- this working group is just the IPC and the GAC or -- could you repeat that again, then? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: That the IPC would create a small ad hoc group of interested, informed stakeholders. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: How about adding the word "representative" in that -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm fine with that. You know, it's not intended to be exclusive in terms of which stakeholder groups. The key is that you've got people that are interested and informed so that the group can hit the ground running. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: And the only reason that I would consider adding that is, I'm just looking at the discussions that have taken place in connection with GNSO review and working groups and -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Sure, yeah. I have no problem with making that change. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Cary. >>CARY KARP: I'm a bit confused. Why does the IPC require council approval of a motion to set up its own working group? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, in large part, because given where we are in the PDP process, it seemed to us that it might be necessary, and as a practical matter, I think it's probably in the interest of the council to indicate ahead of time whether they're going to be willing or not to consider -- to consider the output of the group. And our concern would be that we would bring in members of the community from - - you know, to the -- it doesn't necessarily have to be council members, it doesn't have to be constituency members but, you know, obviously stakeholder groups corresponding to those constituencies and everybody would work really hard and come back in Delhi and then have the council say "We didn't ask for this, we don't want it," I mean that's a waste of time. >>CARY KARP: But it sounds as though you're asking for some sort of a pre-approval about something about which we know absolutely nothing. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm just talking about authorization to create the group, in much the same way that the council authorized the creation of an ad hoc group to look at domain tasting. You know, and the IPC is really just volunteering to take the lead, and if that's what the sticking point is, I'm happy to take that out. [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: Cary, microphone. You shut your microphone off. >>CARY KARP: It might be appropriate to move that the council set up such a group, but if it is the IPC that was to have such a group, by all means, go ahead. You don't need to move it here. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. That's fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Excuse me. So -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'm happy to take that amendment. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. So basically you're recommending is there any objection to recommending authorize the council to create. Or basic -- authorizes the creation of. Is that okay? Is that the amendment you're accepting? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yeah. So that would read, "That the council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested, informed Representative stakeholder"? I don't know -- Mike, does that satisfy your concern? [Speaker is off microphone] >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: No, no, no. I agree with you. But is that where you would -- [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So you're basically amending your motion to read "authorizes the creation" -- and yes, I'll have to fix up spelling -- "of a small ad hoc group of interested, informed and representative stakeholders." >>MICHAEL PALAGE: And the reason I think "representative" is important there is, this would allow, say, domain name holders, if they, in fact, have legal counsel to perhaps participate, so that, again, you have a balanced participants, both existing rights holders and those. So... >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely.I mean, you know, having said that, I think the baseline is that, you know, kind of what I would like to see and what would be intended is that people who would be interested in joining the group would have gone back and read the president's committee report from a couple years back, would have read the request for the issues report, would have -- you know, would really kind of start, you know, not necessarily from Ground Zero in terms of, you know, knowledge base, but I don't -- I don't -- >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thanks. Does anyone object to the -- those changes being made to the motion? Okay. Thank you. Are there any more -- okay. Ross, please. >>ROSS RADER: I think Cary actually brings forward a really interesting idea, or at least evoked an interesting idea in my mind. Whereby the council takes no action on this subject at this time, but instead invites further comment from our community. I think one of the things that's lacking within the GNSO are concrete propositions upon which the community can react to. Certainly Cary -- Cary. Sorry. Certainly Olof's work on creating the issues report has given the council much to think about and consider and is very concrete. I would like to and I would encourage those that are interested in this subject to conduct that work. I'm not sure that they need the authorization of the council, that the council needs to take specific action, but I would hope that the constituency level, that could be much more easily organized and would probably be a much better forum for this work to take place, and when complete, be forwarded to the council as a document or set of recommendations that we can then look at and consider. In other words, let's work from a -- the starting point of some sort of request for comments or document that sets forth a strategy or set of recommendations, and then we can open it up to a larger council consideration. I think that's a perfectly acceptable way of proceeding on this. I'm not sure, though, that at this point making this a council activity is preferable. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Ross. I have Alan and then I'll come to the mic. Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: My comment was already addressed by the previous discussion. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Susan Crawford. I'm a member of the GNSO working group on -- of the Board Governance Committee working group on GNSO improvements. I think the IPC is being quite helpful here. They represent domain name owners as well as they have concerns about dispute resolution for trademark-like rights and domain names, and I want to encourage the idea of a broadly-representative, brief-in-time working group that would go back and address the serious issues about this dispute resolution policy that have been raised. This issue is not going to go away, so you might as well, I think, take the opportunity to have a well-formed, well-led working group do some work on it, and report back. The concern is that if the council doesn't act, this group -- or a group will come back and they'll be carping about who was and who wasn't in the group, and so their results may be rejected on that basis without looking too carefully at the substance. So I just wanted to express some support for the idea that a briefly- scoped working group might be helpful here. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any further discussion on it? We do have a motion so I do believe we have the obligation to vote on this motion. Is there any comment on it before we have a vote? And I'll ask for a voice -- I mean, for an individual polling vote on this? In which case, Glen, could you? And the -- perhaps I should read again the motion that we've got. Whereas, the council has previously requested and received both the 15 June 2007 "GNSO Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations" and the 28 September 2007 "Staff Report on Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure; and Whereas, the Council Believes That Further Work on the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Procedure Resolution Procedure Is Appropriate Before Voting on Whether to Initiate a Policy Development Process on This Issue; and Whereas, the Intellectual Property Constituency Is Willing to Create and Lead a Small Ad Hoc Group to Review and Consider a Proposed Draft Dispute Resolution Procedure, Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved That the Council Authorizes the Creation of a Small Ad Hoc Group of Interested, Informed and Representative Stakeholders and Members of the GAC to Review and Consider the Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure Set Forth in the Staff Report, and Instructs the Ad Hoc Group to Report to the Council with Its Recommendations No Later Than 15 February 2008." Yes. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Just a minor technical change. I think if we're going to have the council authorizing the creation of it, then I think what we probably would be appropriate is in the third "whereas" clause, to have the beginning simply read "intellectual property constituency is willing to lead" as opposed to "create and lead." >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you. And while we're editing it, did that second -- "dispute procedure resolution procedure," that second "procedure" -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: The first one should come out. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. It's the first one that should come out. I knew reading it that... Yes. Thank you. Any objection to those changes? Yes, Ross. >>ROSS RADER: No, I have no objections to the changes. I'm happy to wait for the full answer to that question to come back from council before I make another comment, if you wanted to wait. Do you want me to wait? I don't have an objection at all. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I just question, is there any need, given the changes that we've made, to explicitly mention the GAC? >>AVRI DORIA: I don't know. Ross? >>ROSS RADER: Okay. Kristina, while this has been going on, I've been thinking of how we can best set forth the charter for this group. Would it be an acceptable amendment to have either yourself or your constituency prepare a charter for this working group, a specific statement of scoping, that would be I suppose reviewed or authorized by our chair prior to the implementation of this working group? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would be happy to, but I'm still kind of at the same problem that I was before, that to me it seems to be pretty clear it's -- we're kind of having a meeting of the minds thing, because it seems clear to me and not to you, so I'm not sure that I'm in the best position to do that. >>ROSS RADER: My requirement is not necessarily around what the scope is, but that the scope be made explicit. And I just haven't had enough time to think about what that might look like in the last five minutes, and this is sort of a -- a possible way forward on that. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I agree. I'd really like to see a little more definition about what parts of the report or the procedure the group is intending to look at, some sort of further detail to the scope. I think there was a little bit more detail on this in the domain tasting motion that we passed. I'm suggesting I'm just not quite ready to vote on this motion because it's not detailed enough and I really don't want to spend more council time on it today. And we were just presented with this 45 minutes into the meeting, so... >>AVRI DORIA: Is -- okay. I have Chuck. Did I have Kristina? I wasn't sure whether I saw your hand. Okay. You're pointing. Okay. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: I guess I would extend your comment, Michael a little bit more broadly and say: It's not terribly clear to me that spending more time, whether it's clarifying what tasks the ad hoc group would do or even the work of the ad hoc group is going to bring us to a point where we're really going to change anything. I may be wrong, but I would hate to see us spend time on either one of those if, in fact, it's -- we're just back to where we are today. >>AVRI DORIA: I am not sure I understood whether you were suggesting that we proceed with the vote on this or that you were suggesting that we somehow table it for a later time. I really wasn't sure if you were making a suggestion, what it was. >>CHUCK GOMES: Let me go ahead and suggest that -- call the vote on the motion. Does that help? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. With a vote being called, if we were strictly Parliamentary, we would probably continue with that, but you had a comment. >>ROSS RADER: Yeah. I didn't realize Chuck was moving to close discussion. I just simply wanted to indicate that I'm prepared to support this motion, with some sort of explicit statement of scope, at this meeting. So if you're calling for the question, I think that's great. But that amendment that I requested, I guess, doesn't make it in at this point, does it. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I guess -- I mean, the idea here is to really look at the whole procedure. I mean, to not say -- you know, to basically look at the entire procedure from almost kind of a blank slate and say, "Is this what we want? Is it not what we want?" I think it's fairly clear from the discussions that we had in our last meeting that it's not a proposal that's acceptable to the council, and I can't imagine, frankly, that anybody's going to spend time on a group further refining a proposal that we already know is not acceptable, so I think it's probably safe to assume that that, you know, endorsement of that proposal is not going to be the starting point. So let me just pull it up again. Would it be acceptable to you if I were to change that last "whereas" clause, or at least the last part of it, to read "to lead a small ad hoc group to review, consider, and propose further revisions to"? "the proposed dispute resolution procedure." Would that be acceptable? Okay. I can live with that. And to answer your specific -- your earlier question with regard to the GAC members, I do think it's important to leave that in. In part, because I know that this is an issue that is of quite, you know, significant importance to a number of the members in that community and I want to make it clear that they are explicitly invited to participate, if they are interested in doing so, and if their sponsoring government is willing to authorize that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So if I understand even with a vote called, we have proposed a revision that now reads, in the last "now therefore be it resolved that the council authorizes the creation of a small ad hoc group of interested, informed, and representative stakeholders and members of the GAC to review, consider, and propose revisions to the draft IGO domain name dispute resolution procedure set forth in the staff report and instructs the ad hoc group to report to the council with its recommendations no later than 15 February, 2008." Is that correct? Does anyone object to that change. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: You have a question, Robin? >> ROBIN GROSS: Yeah. I have a -- I have a problem with this change because it seems that we're jumping the gun a little bit. We're deciding that this group is going to propose revisions and it strikes me that we need to decide whether or not revisions are even necessary, first. So I'm uncomfortable with changing this to deciding that we're going to propose revisions when we're not really there yet. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Since there is a sort of discomfort with the amendment, we would either need to vote on the amendment or withdraw it. Yes, Cary. >>CARY KARP: Do we know that the GAC is interested in collaborating with us on this? >>AVRI DORIA: I do not know. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: It is my understanding that they are. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Ross? >>ROSS RADER: Not to pour water on Robin's fire, but I believe -- or on your fire, Avri, but I believe that the amendment I put forward was taken friendly by Kristina and that the proper course now would be to vote on the original motion as amended. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>ROSS RADER: And that those that would have a problem with that or an objection to that would vote against it. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. That has been the procedure that we have been following, that a friendly amendment could just be accepted by the motion, not necessarily approved by the group as would be in a normal or other Parliamentary type. So in which case, I think we have a vote now. Ah, yes, Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: Just a final try to contribute to the drafting, if it's helpful. I don't know. But "and propose revisions as appropriate" because that doesn't say that it necessarily will be any revisions to it, but just in order to accommodate the language. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Does anyone on the council want to recommend amending the amended motion to include the words "proposed revisions as appropriate"? Does anyone -- Cary? >>CARY KARP: Just a grammatically nuance. If I understood the intention of Olof's statement, it should be "if appropriate," because "as" also assumes that we are going to be doing something, making suggestions. >>AVRI DORIA: I think practically they work out the same, but certainly does any -- are you making a motion that it be amended to say "if appropriate"? >>CARY KARP: I'm making an editorial suggestion. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So no one is actually recommending -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'll make the motion. Let's move on. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So you are -- and is it the "as" or the "if"? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: "If." >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Or -- well, actually, I'm going to go with "as" because that's closer to my intention. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I think we had -- we had a vote called. Not that we have a formal procedure for calling votes, but we had a vote called. We have wordsmithed this. I'd like to ask for a roll call vote on this at this point. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: So yes is. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes is supporting the motion made by Kristina and seconded by Jon and amended by many; and no is to not support this motion. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mike Rodenbaugh. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm going to abstain. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Bilal? >>BILAL BEIRAM: Abstain. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Ute Decker. >>UTE DECKER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Kristina Rosette. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Cyril Chua. >>CYRIL CHUA: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tony Holmes. >>TONY HOLMES: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tony Harris. >>TONY HARRIS: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Greg Ruth. >>GREG RUTH: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Robin Gross. >> ROBIN GROSS: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Norbert Klein. >>NORBERT KLEIN: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Mawaki, are you on the line? >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes, I am, and I abstain. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Adrian Kinderis? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Ross Rader? >>ROSS RADER: I, too, vote yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Tom Keller, are you on the line? >>TOM KELLER: Yes. I abstain. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Sorry, we didn't hear. Abstain. Thank you. >>TOM KELLER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Cary Karp. >>CARY KARP: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Chuck Gomes. >>CHUCK GOMES: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Edmon Chung. >>EDMON CHUNG: No. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Jon Bing. >>JON BING: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Avri Doria. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: 12 in favor; 8 no; and 4 abstentions. >>AVRI DORIA: So basically it does not have a majority. Oh, there's 25 votes and it got 12 out of 25 so the motion doesn't pass. If we've counted everything correctly. So, yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Two comments. One of them is this in no way prevents, as far as I can tell, a group of interested stakeholders bringing something back to the council later. So now the second question I have is procedural with regard to the PDP, and I don't know if we need Dan's help on this or not. We have an assignment with regard to the PDP procedures to make a decision on a PDP, and do we -- do we need a formal motion to say we're not recommending a PDP or is it sufficient just not to do so? >>AVRI DORIA: That is a question that I had, and I'm wondering if Dan can provide us... >>DAN HALLORAN: So I was actually just trying to look really quick at the bylaws and I didn't go through the whole thing yet, but I'm actually -- I wonder, you have a quorum here, and if I understood right, you have a 12-8 vote yes, which is a majority -- more people voted yes than no. I think that was an action of the council. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Yes. There are 8 no votes, 4 abstentions and 12 yes votes. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So I guess the clarification is: Normally it is the 12 out of the -- the majority, and as we have a quorum of 25, 12 out of that 25, so we would... because normally our criteria has been against the quorum count. >>DAN HALLORAN: So I'll go back and look at it. I didn't memorize the thing really quick here. I think, though, in practice it doesn't matter a whole lot, because -- well, unless you want to like take a timeout and go look at it. If it -- if it passed, then you've formed this group and if it didn't pass, then I guess by what you said, the group could still kind of form itself and go off and do the same thing anyway. >>AVRI DORIA: No. The question has more to do -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Dan, we're not talking about this particular motion. In the PDP, we have a certain amount of time to decide on whether a PDP will be initiated. My question was, totally independent of this motion, do we need to formally pass a motion that we're not going to initiate a PDP or is it sufficient that we just did not act? >>DAN HALLORAN: Yeah. I think you considered it. You -- this was sort of in lieu of that motion, and you considered that. I mean, otherwise you might run into trouble. What if you -- someone raised a motion saying let's not do the PDP and that couldn't be a majority support. Would you be stuck in an endless loop of -- which I don't think that's the intention. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. So what I'd suggest at the moment is we have the vote, and it was 12 yes to 8 no. It was 12 yes out of 25 quorum. And I'd like to ask you to let us know towards the end of the meeting. >>DAN HALLORAN: I'll go look again. >>AVRI DORIA: What that means. We're rarely this close on something. Okay. I'd like to move on to the next topic, but before doing that, we had -- I guess, in terms of our schedule, let me look at the schedule again. Was that the schedule? Yes, in terms of the schedule -- yeah, I know we're going into domain tasting, but there had been a break scheduled, and I'm certainly not going to take a break on time if we haven't necessarily finished that. In fact, what I'm going to recommend to everyone here, and to the council, unless anybody strenuously objects, is that we've spent more time already on the first things than we planned, that we just continue going through with the meeting, that people will take breaks if they need to, and hopefully not close to a vote point, but that we not actually stop for a half hour in the middle. Does anyone object to doing that, since we already have spent more time on the first thing than was intended? No, hearing no one objecting to it, thank you and I think we'll just keep going. Okay. On domain tasting, basically we had -- following ALAC's request, the GNSO requested an issues report on domain tasting. After receiving the report, the GNSO decided to create an ad hoc group for further fact-finding on domain tasting. This ad hoc group submitted an outcome report. And so today, basically we've scheduled to sort of -- discuss that, and to vote again on -- or at least consider a motion, though in this case we do have a specific motion from Mike Rodenbaugh to actually form a PDP. Terms of reference were recommended in that PDP and just to quickly put forward those, the proposed term of reference for the PDP included review and assess all the effects of domain tasting -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Avri, Avri, I'm sorry, may I stop you but I think that was superseded by a motion. >>AVRI DORIA: That was superseded. You're right. I'm sorry. Let me go to the motion that's on the table. So the motion that was superseded was -- it was a motion on domain tasting proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh: Whereas, the issues report on domain tasting has been released and discussed and, whereas, the GNSO acknowledges the final outcomes report of the ad hoc group on domain tasting are, the council hereby initiates a policy development process, and pursuant to Section 4 and 8 of annex A of the bylaws, the GNSO resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the issues report by staff and the outcomes report by the ad hoc group. Now, there's also a second motion which, contingent on the success of the first motion: Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a policy development process on domain tasting and pursuant to Section 4 and 8 in annex A of the bylaws resolves as follows: To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the issues report by staff and in the outcomes report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a constituency statement to Olof Nordling within 35 calendar days of this resolution. Two, to request that anechoic staff take all constituency statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile and post on the comment site an initial report within 50 calendar days of this resolution. Therefore, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of annex A of the bylaws, in creating a final report for council. Now, I'd like to go to discussion on it, but first I'd like to open up to any council members that wish to make a comment, and I'd like to also give Mike, as the person making the motion, the first option to make any comments, supplementary to those that I've made at this point. Okay. Would anyone on the council like to make a comment before we start? I see Ross. Okay, Ross. >>ROSS RADER: After much consideration of this motion and discussion with my constituency, hearing what the members of the community have had to say on this subject, I very clearly don't support this policy development process at this time. Not because the issue of tasting necessarily is something that doesn't require redress. I don't believe that it is a net positive asset to the community. It is not adding value to what we are seeking to create here. However, I think there are very, very practical steps that we can take that the ICANN staff can take immediately to address the issue of tasting. And I would like to first see those steps taken, see whether they succeed or fail, see how those steps change the landscape, before we implement any sort of a policy development process. I think we need to develop policy where we need policy, where policy is lacking. I believe that there are sufficient policies in place today to deal with this issue. I'm specifically talking about the waiver of fees on domains that are tasted. Were those fees levied by the ICANN staff? I believe that tasting would cease immediately or change so drastically in nature as to not be a problem. I could be wrong on that, but I would like to see the results of that exercise before we actually engage in a very expensive and protracted policy development process on this. So again, I am neither in favor of tasting itself, but I'm not in favor of just implementing a PDP because we can. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I see Mike. Anyone else? And then Robin. Okay. Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So Ross, I got to ask you a question back. Are you saying that staff has the authority to make the 20-cent ICANN fee nonrefundable? >>ROSS RADER: Yes. I believe there's a process by which they can do so today, yes. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Can you elaborate? >>AVRI DORIA: Robin? >>ROSS RADER: Can I elaborate? >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >>ROSS RADER: I could elaborate but I would probably guess wrong. I suspect that perhaps somebody from staff could elaborate as to what the exact process would be better than I could, but yes. >>AVRI DORIA: If someone from staff has had a response to that, please, come up and receipt us know. In the meantime, Robin. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Please start queueing. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thanks. I am of several different minds on this particular report. While I want to. I'm not also a proponent of domain name tasting, this particular report that came out troubles me. I feel like the methodology that was used in the analysis is a bit shaky and there is some inaccuracies with respect to law in there. I am a little bit concerned about going toward with the PDP based upon this report. However, having said that, I'm sympathetic and I'm -- I want to help those who are concerned about domain name tasting. So I'm sort of two minds on this. I could see us doing something but I'm just concerned about what this particular report came out with. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Dan, do you have a response on Ross' point? >>DAN HALLORAN: Yes, Avri, thanks. I was working on the last question but I think I caught the end of Ross' new question about making the fee non-refundable. So if you did ad and deleted with an add grass you would still be on the hook for the 20-cent ICANN fee. I think as how the fee is collected for the ICANN budget, before we can collect it by the registrars it has to be approved by registrars. It could be handled through the budget. It doesn't necessarily require policy but it is not something staff could start doing tomorrow. It would require -- right -- including board and probably registrars. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. Tim? >>TIM RUIZ: I think Dan answered the question. I was just going to point out the way the transactional fee got into the budget in the first place didn't require a PDP so I think making a modification to it would not require it. I think Dan just made that clear. The only other thing I want to say is I agree completely with Ross about it is too bad we are at this point that we need a PDP to try to solve this. I don't think we actually do. I just want to encourage the council to really consider if the PDP does not initiated today, to please consider the second motion and let's avoid a task force. I think enough has been done. We have done two workshops. We've collected all kinds of information. We've had the working group recently. I don't really think a task force is necessary to get this accomplished if a PDP does get initiated today. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes, Michael. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Clearly, my motion originally was, Tim, to avoid a task force. It has been split into two but it is okay. It is just procedural. That's the intent, to move forward with a quick PDP, not something that's really costly and expensive as was suggested earlier. I want to respond to Robin about the substance of the outcomes report from the ad hoc group that I chaired. It wasn't intended, and I don't believe, made any sort of opinions, legal or otherwise. It was intended to be a factual document. This is the feedback that we got. This is the work that we did. That was how it was scoped by the council very clearly, and I tried very hard to make sure that it ended up that way. And I guess I should say that obviously the next step here would be constituency impact statements at which you can challenge anything in the report, put forward your own information and that's the entire intent of the process. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: The budget technique which was just talked about was mentioned in the original issues report, is there any provision for council initiating a PDP but in parallel, strongly suggesting to staff that they -- to ICANN staff that this other method be investigated as a potential solution? I presume if the problem disappears halfway through the PDP, we can stop the PDP or just ignore it or whatever? >>AVRI DORIA: Um, I certainly think that if there were a motion in the council to request that the staff look into something, one could make -- I mean, it certainly wouldn't have force of PDP certainly requests can be made. But Ross? >>ROSS RADER: I don't know if Mike would be open to this or not, but I think it would be entirely appropriate to attach a rider to this motion in the form of a directive request to staff to actually take actions in that direction. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this is something that we can address from a practical perspective. If we can do that in parallel to a PDP, I think that's also very, very appropriate. >>AVRI DORIA: So were you recommending an amendment or Mike? >>ALAN GREENBERG: How are you talking to? >>AVRI DORIA: I guess I was talking to Ross in terms of -- yes, I understood that you kind of requested that something be considered. I believe that Ross spoke of a possibility of an amendment, but I didn't actually understand whether an amendment was being offered. >>ROSS RADER: I would offer that in the form of amendment, yes. And the amendment would be something along the lines of an additional resolved clause that would request -- I'm not sure if we can direct staff, actually. So we would request that the board consider directing staff or something in that form, whatever is the -- I'm not sure -- I don't completely understand the scope of our capability in this regard. But -- the council would strongly encourage staff to take whatever steps are within their means to eliminate this dynamic, the tasting dynamic, the tasting issue, the tasting thing, avoiding the use of the word "problem." >>AVRI DORIA: Right. "Encourages staff to take whatever steps are within their means to resolve the issue," "resolve the domain tasting issue." >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: "To place curbs upon commercial domain tasting." How about -- why don't we be specific, Ross? >>ROSS RADER: Obviously, the specific request I'm making is that staff look to curb tasting through the elimination of the waiver of those fees, either through the budgeting process or other means. >>AVRI DORIA: Take whatever steps are within their means to -- please give me. I type slow. >>ROSS RADER: Just follow the scribe. She is doing a great job. >>AVRI DORIA: I wish I had their skills. "Through elimination of" -- but now I am not going to catch it. >>ROSS RADER: Could you please repeat it. I didn't catch it from the scribe in time to be able to put it in, even though they can scribe much quicker than I can. >>ROSS RADER: "Through the elimination of the waiver of those fees" - - actually, "through the elimination of the waiver of those fees." I don't believe there are other means and I don't want to waste a lot of staff time trying to figure out an open-ended question that I haven't asked. >>ALAN GREENBERG: We could just refer to the suggestions that were in the issues report for budget-oriented means. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. It said "those fees" but "those fees" I didn't really have a reference to. But Alan was suggesting other language, and I don't know if anyone wanted to -- "the elimination of" -- I am really having difficulty on the amendment as sort of an amorphous on words. If someone from the council can help me get the amendment on the text before you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: We're working on it. >>AVRI DORIA: You're working on it before you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Before you do too much on that -- It may not matter. I'm not sure we're talking about elimination of a waiver of a fee. The registrar fee to ICANN has never been applied to the add-grace period, if they're deleted. What we are really talking about would be through the application of the fee to names deleted through the add-grace period; are we not? It may be a moot point, I don't know. It is not as if a waiver has existed for that. It has just never applied there. >>ROSS RADER: Sorry, Chuck, you are absolutely correct. I have been talking about in terms of waiver, but that's absolutely correct. I'm working up some text, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. And I'm waiting. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Avri, we're waiting I will point out if this technique does not eliminate the domain tasting, it will provide a very important data point for use in the PDP. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>ROSS RADER: I think we have a motion -- or an amendment sorry. To encourage ICANN staff to apply ICANN's fee collection to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period. >>AVRI DORIA: I know they probably got it. >>ROSS RADER: And subsequently deregistered. >>AVRI DORIA: So encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections -- you can see how well I type -- to names registered and deregistered during the add grace period. >>ROSS RADER:"and subsequently deregistered." To names registered and subsequently -- >>AVRI DORIA: Of course, thank you. I have actually noticed the one way to keep up with the scribes is to not talk. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: Is this proposed amendment accepted as a friendly amendment? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I suppose it is a friendly amendment to the second motion, correct, as now constructed? So as I understand it, if I accept the friendly amendment, will have the support of Ross at least as to the first motion? >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, I had understood it as being offered to the first motion because it was asking for -- the first motion -- and if I understand the split in the motions -- please correct me afterwards if I get it wrong -- is that the first motion sets up that we are doing something and says what we're doing. The second motion really only deals with the issue of having decided to do something, are we going to use a task force? The task force method as outlined in the bylaws or the not task force method as outlined in the bylaws. Yes, Ross. >>ROSS RADER: Yeah, I just wanted to make it clear, Mike, that the amendment was intended to resolve -- sorry. Intended to address the first motion and not the second motion. >>AVRI DORIA: And I did put it in the first one, correct? Is there any more discussion either from the council or from the floor on this issue, this motion before we take a vote on it? This would be Motion 1 we'd be voting on first. I would like to ask -- >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Avri, I'm sorry, is the text you were just drafting, is that on the Google page somewhere? >>AVRI DORIA: It should be because I am typing into the Google page as we are talking. So do a refresh. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I did that. Hold on. Okay, got it. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, okay. I'm definitely making -- that's so that Mawaki and others who aren't here can also follow the text, though they can also see it there. >>AVRI DORIA: Dan? I wanted to ask before we vote if you had any clue for us -- not that I know how this vote is going to come out, but are we voting on majority against quorum or majority -- or for versus against. >>DAN HALLORAN: I will give the you the 100% answer after the break. It looks like it is members present. So if you have 25 votes of members present, you do need 13 just like you said. I just wanted to double check that. >>AVRI DORIA: That will be the presumption going forward. If we get corrected later, then -- so that would mean that the first motion -- but we will get clarification. Yes, please. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Just a very quick comment. Phil Corwin, Council of the Internet Commerce Association. Just want to be on the record that our association supported the action taken by PIR which effectively eradicated domain tasting on dog org. We've just adopted a member code of conduct which very strongly is opposed to abusive tasting and total eliminate nation of kiting and we support action by council this morning to compel action by ICANN and by registries and whatever else is needed to eliminate abusive tasting and totally eradicate kiting as quickly as possible. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: I want to mention that in response -- and then I will give it to you, Chuck -- that we can compel action on ourself. We can encourage action in others, but we're not in a position at the moment to compel action on ICANN staff. But we certainly by this motion would encourage that action. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Should the procedure for changing the application of registrar fees, should that route seem to be the way to go, I assume that the registrar constituency would have to approve that change because of already existing procedures. Is that correct? >>AVRI DORIA: I think we just asked another Dan Halloran question. Sorry. >>CHUCK GOMES: That doesn't change the motion, but I think it is a fact that's nice to be aware of going into that so that we see what might be necessary. >>DAN HALLORAN: I apologize. Avri, I have two e-mails going now trying to confirm other questions. If you can restate it. >>JON NEVETT: I'll grab it. Jon Nevett, chair of the registrar constituency. The registrar constituency would not have to approve the fees. However, under the agreement we have with ICANN and the RAA, two-thirds of registrars would need to approve any fees that are applied to us. >>CHUCK GOMES: Which is what I was saying. >>JON NEVETT: Essentially, the answer is yes. Not the constituencies, just the individual registrars. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>KURT PRITZ: So I'm Kurt Pritz from ICANN. So I see the mechanism as being that it would be included in the next ICANN budget, which would be, you know, subject to community discussion, subject the registrar -- the registrar fees would be subject to registrar approval and then the budget would be approved by the board. >>CHUCK GOMES: You wouldn't envision applying it sooner? In other words, during the current budget? >>KURT PRITZ: I'm trying to think of the timing. That would still require -- it is a change to the budget, so it would require those two sets of approvals, the registrar constituency and the board. And ICANN is planning to publish an advanced copy of the budget in February which is in the fairly near future for the following fiscal year. >>CHUCK GOMES: I understand that. Obviously, if it happened in this budget cycle, it would happen sooner than if it is in July or whenever all the approvals. >>KURT PRITZ: Correct. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not advocating one way or the other. I was just trying to get us to think through how this might happen. >>ROSS RADER: I have a follow-up for Kurt as well, if I may. >>AVRI DORIA: I have Ross. >>ROSS RADER: Kurt, the intention of this amendment is to get the community to immediate and practical action. So I guess -- I suppose my question for you is, is this something that we could pursue immediately through a -- through the interim or special budgeting process specifically around this very, very narrow collection. >>KURT PRITZ: You know, I think anything's possible. We'll map out - - our take-away, I think, would be to map out that process for the council and attach a timetable to it. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Alan? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'll point out we are trying to look at PDPs that are done in a more timely manner. If this doesn't go into place until late next summer on the next budget cycle, it really isn't an advance, let's try this first and consider the outcome during the PDP process. >>AVRI DORIA: And you had mentioned that as a possibility, that if this came out and there would be, there is certainly no dependency written in this motion or the process that there would be such a weighting. It was just a happy coincidence that may not be there, it sounds like. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And method of addressing -- potentially addressing a problem which the community seems to feel must be addressed sooner rather than later. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the council or the floor before we decide to vote on this motion? Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a question to make sure now. At first I thought the fee issue was just one possible alternative that could happen. And the motion seems to now only talk about consideration of that. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>ROSS RADER: I think -- well, Chuck, there are three solutions that we discussed at our last council meeting -- or that were raised at the last council meeting. First, that there was a clause in the RAA that ICANN could start effectively enforcing. We've received advice from staff that that's not a possibility. It could be too much of a stretch. This would be the second option. The third option, I believe, is outside the purview of this community but I think it would take responsible registries such as yourself to implement some sort of a fee on these tasting things in similar manner to PIR. I'm not shower we can pass policy on that. I would certainly encourage VeriSign to take that step immediately. >>CHUCK GOMES: This is the only one that really applies at our level right now. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Are there any other comments before we vote on this first motion as it was amended? I will read it through. Okay. Whereas, the issues report on domain tasting -- and I have the URL of that -- has been released and discussed and whereas, the council -- the GNSO Council acknowledges the final outcomes report of the ad hoc group on domain tasting, the council hereby initiates a policy development process and pursuant to sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the bylaws. The GNSO resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set forth in the issues report by staff and in the outcomes report of the ad hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add grace period. Okay. In which case I would like to ask again for a roll call vote. >>CHUCK GOMES: Is a roll-call vote really necessary on this one? I wonder if we could just really do -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I would like to have a roll-call vote. I move for roll-call vote. >>AVRI DORIA: I think -- the view I have always taken, as long as one councillor wants a roll-call, we should do a roll-call. So, please? >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Mike Rodenbaugh? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Bilal Beiram. >>BILAL BEIRAM: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Ute Decker. >>UTE DECKER: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Kristina Rosette? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Cyril Chua? >>CYRIL CHUA: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Tony Holmes? >>TONY HOLMES: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Tony Harris? >>AVRI DORIA: We can come back to him. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Greg Ruth? >>GREG RUTH: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Robin Gross? >>ROBIN GROSS: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Norbert Klein? >>NORBERT KLEIN: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Mawaki, are you on the line? >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes, and I vote yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Adrian Kinderis? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Ross Rader? >>ROSS RADER: After taking instructions from my constituency that didn't take into account these amendments, I'm going to have to abstain. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Abstain. Tom Keller? >>THOMAS KELLER: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Did Tom say no? >>THOMAS KELLER: Yes, I said no. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Thank you. Cary Karp? >>CARY KARP: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Chuck Gomes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Edmon Chung? >>EDMON CHUNG: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Jon Bing? >>JON BING: Yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Avri Doria? >>AVRI DORIA: No. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Tony, your vote, please? >>TONY HARRIS: I apologize since there was no program break. My vote is yes. >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Thank you. 18 yes and -- 18 votes yes, five votes no, and two abstaining. >>AVRI DORIA: So, yes, with that this one does pass and so we go on to the second motion. The second motion, basically, is indicating the preference to a non-task force-based activity. Motion on domain tasting, contingent on the success, motion one was successful. "Whereas, the GNSO Council has resolved to initiate a policy development process on domain tasting and pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the bylaws resolves as follows: To request that each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issues presented in the issues report by staff and in the outcomes report of the ad hoc group. Each such representative is asked to submit a constituency statement to Olof Nordling within 35 calendar days of this resolution. To request that ICANN staff take all constituency statements, the two prior reports, and other information and compile and post on the comment site an initial report within 50 calendar days of the resolution. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 of Annex A of the bylaws in creating a final report for council. That's the motion, which is strictly by the bylaws and, Mike, was there a seconder on this motion? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think the motion used to be combined in one and it was seconded by Kristina. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Kristina is fine to assume that you've seconded it as well? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yeah, it's really -- in trying -- it has actually been an interesting exercise to try to follow the bylaws as written which was one of the exercises we committed ourselves to as part of the restructuring effort to truly understand what the bylaws say we have to do. So I would like to open that up to discussion at this point. I see Chuck. I see Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Strictly procedural. Of course, glad to consider friendly amendments, but I think this one we can probably voice vote on. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: I would support that as well. What I wanted to say -- I'm going to support this as well, or as the registries we will. But I want to make, you know, a qualification. In the way the bylaws are worded, the council-as-a-whole-type approach does allow us more flexibility in how we do these PDPs than the task force approach. But I would hope that when we get to any places where some work's needed, that we don't just involve councillors but that we would form some working groups that are opened up to the broader community and that it does not become another exercise where all the council is doing all the work again. That procedure does not scale, and I think that until we get the PDP revised, that this is the best approach to go but I would hope that we would spread the work out to the extent that we run into situations where some work is needed. >>AVRI DORIA: I think that from just conversations -- and hopefully people on the council will say something if it is not the case. But from conversations we've had over the last weeks that, basically, that method of working has sort of been presumed as what we would do. I'd also like to add a comment before we go on is that while the bylaws only require the constituencies to be the ones submitting the reports, I will, as I've done in the past, submit an independent NomCom appointee's view and I'll invite my fellow NomCom appointees to do the same and ask that it be included in the initial report, even though that is not a bylaw requirement that that be done. I had what was -- Mike, you were next? No, we's covered. Sorry, I lost track of the list. It was Alan. Forgive me. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And I assume comments from other non-formally constituents but interested parties would also be accepted? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, I would believe so. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Of course, that's covered in the "and other information" clause that we included. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Olof? >>OLOF NORDLING: May I just simply suggest that you replace my name with the expression "staff manager," because I think it is incumbent upon the ICANN management to appoint the staff manager formally. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: That's fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. So to ICANN staff. Did I get that right? To the -- is it to the ICANN staff manager or to ICANN -- to the. Proper English probably says "the." Okay. And that was accepted as a -- is there any other discussion on this before we start? Before we take a vote on it. Is there an objection from any council member on taking a voice vote of aye in support, nay against, and abstention? Is there any objection to doing that? Okay. There isn't. In which case, I'd like to ask all those who support Motion 2 as written just to please say aye. [Chorus of ayes] >>AVRI DORIA: Is there any -- anyone opposed to that. Please say nay. [Silence] >>AVRI DORIA: Here no nays. Are there any abstentions? [Silence] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. That one has passed. Moving on. Next topic in the agenda is WHOIS. We've done all the hard ones. Now we have an easy one. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Could we just vote right now? No discussion? [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: And I assume you wanted a voice vote and not a poll? >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we have WHOIS. I'm going to give a very short report on WHOIS. We have been talking about WHOIS for a bit of time now. We had a -- let me get my notes up. So we had a task force. The task force produced a recommendation for an OPoC. The council at that time decided not to take a vote, but basically in -- as part of its deliberation procedures, decided to create a working group that would discuss the OPoC implementation and would basically recommend details that would be able to inform on exactly what OPoC's responsibilities and functions were, what the -- what the associated characterizes rights, et cetera. How those things were all dealt with. The working group came back and while it came with decisions on consensus on -- or strong support, at the very least, on many of the issues, there were certain issues that were left open. And issues that -- for which there was not a consensus, and those had to do with features such as responsibility for reveal functions, authorization policies for concealed information, and other issues that were difficult to decide, difficult to reach consensus on, because of some very different views on what needed to happen and what needed protection at what points. So we basically are at a point now where we have on the table before us a task force report which, by a supermajority on the task force, did recommend OPoC. We have a working group report which has suggested some responses to the issues within OPoC but has not satisfied answers to everything to all constituencies and communities' satisfaction. We have a body of commentary and community opinion that basically very much reflects the same set of disagreements and such that we had within the task force, within the working group, that we've had within the council, and we had -- the last discussion we had on this, we devoted a half day on I believe it was Saturday -- seems to long ago now -- on Saturday to basically discussing all of these issues discussing the -- to discussing the commentary, to discussing the comments that we've received by people, and had a very extensive and I think very good discussion where we started to find some of our points of agreement and actually understanding that we do have many. Now, we have at the moment three motions on the table. They've been on the table for quite a while. They were put on the table before the last report was circulated for comment, so that people could comment not only on the issues of OPoC, of OPoC implementation, but would actually have a chance to comment on what we intended to do with all of this before we came to L.A. So having said that, I'll go through the three motions. I understand that there have been various discussions going on about amendments and changes to these motions, so -- to these motions, so once I've read the motions, I'll open up the floor to council to talk about any -- yes, Ross. >>ROSS RADER: If I could just make a procedural suggestion, Avri. Perhaps we could enter these motions as read. They're both very lengthy, involved, and have been subject to discussion for at least a month now, I believe, have been distributed via the Associated Press and other means, so -- >>AVRI DORIA: So basically you're saying I should not read them out loud, we should include them by reference. >>ROSS RADER: Yes, yes. >>AVRI DORIA: All right. Is that -- any objection by anyone to Minot reading through this language that has been here for a long time? I see no one from either the floor or -- I see no one -- okay. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes. Mawaki here. Is the text on the Web site, on the Web page, you forwarded, is it updated? Shall we follow as well? >>AVRI DORIA: The motions that are on the table are -- were included in the report from the staff, as well as being on the work page, though the amendments I don't believe are on the motion page yet, but I'll put them there as soon as they're actually made. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Okay. What do you mean by the Web page of amendments? >>AVRI DORIA: Excuse me, Mawaki. I missed you. Yes, I -- the Web page -- >>MAWAKI CHANGO: What do you mean by -- >>AVRI DORIA: The Web page I'm speaking of is the one that we've been using, the one I sent out the URL to. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: That we've been using for having the ability to work with live text while we were on our telecom calls and since this meeting is partially a telecom, I've been using it. And when I've been editing things here in this meeting, I've been editing directly to the page. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: All right. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: So -- and I sent out the URL, so you should have that, and I sent out a tiny URL, so that anyone that was having trouble with the whole URL could still get there. Okay. So having gone through that, having accepted the motions as read, I'll basically open the floor first to the council members on any amendments. Now, I know that Kristina -- oh, no, it was Ross, you sent out a proposed amendment. Yes, Ross. >>ROSS RADER: Just for my clarity, are we going to address these sequentially or as a writhing mass of motions all at the same time? [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: In terms of discussion, what I was hoping we would do is first we would go through and add any of the amendments that people had been talking about before this. Then we would open the floor to all the motions as a writhing mass and let people comment on whichever of the motions they wished. Then we'll come back. If the -- if the debate between us all has made us look at something different, someone wants to amend a motion, someone wants to withdraw a motion, we'll do that. But my proposal is that once we have the amended motions, we open the floor to all of it. To anything that has to do -- yeah. The writhing mass, as you said. So at this point, I was going to open it to you. I know that you sent the council list an amendment, but I know that Kristina also, in looking at accepting your amendment as a friendly amendment, proposed further amendments to your amendment. And I have Norbert. Yes, Norbert. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I would like -- sorry, my voice is down today. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I would just like to say I am not in agreement with -- because it is not clear to me what the inclusion of the amendment to the amendment would mean, adding the legal community. I say so because law enforcement is a very clear entity, according to different national laws. There are law enforcement entities which can be identified. But "legal community" is a very, very vague term, and I am -- it's not an authority and I'm afraid that this may create confusion. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. What I'd like to do first is get Ross' proposed amendment in, and then talk about the amendment so that we -- so that everyone knows what we're talking about. >>ROSS RADER: This is just by way of introduction, rather than reading through the additional volume of amendments that we've put on the table in the last minute. For the benefit of those that are not on the council mailing list or haven't reviewed this amendment proposal, the purpose of the amendment that I've put forward to the council mailing list yesterday is twofold. (a), which is to conclude explicitly the policy development work of the GNSO on this issue, until such time that we have identified very specific narrow issues, that we can break down into discrete policy development activities, rather than attempting to continue a broad reform of WHOIS. I still believe that the work that went into OPoC is reasonable and implementable. I'm not sure that that view is shared by the community or not, but, you know, we will certainly find out today. But in any event, that there is no consensus on that, certainly we should not continue with an open-ended policy development process as the original motion had proposed. And the second purpose of this amendment is to really focus the study work brought forward in this motion to line up against specific policy areas where we require further information in order to understand the scope of issues. A broad study of the WHOIS will probably be as useful and effective as a broad PDP on WHOIS is. However, a more narrow focus will attempt -- will allow us to bring new information to light, rather than tread ground that we've repeatedly tread over the last few years. So really, that's the intent of the motion that I've brought forward. I believe that they've been accepted with some minor conditions that I'm comfortable with, by Kristina, but I'll allow her to state that. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. I do think that we should probably read it, whether it's you reading it or my reading it. We avoided reading all the other stuff because it had been published for a long -- but I really do believe -- so would you prefer to read it or -- >>ROSS RADER: I'm happy to. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Hello. Can I ask a question, please? This is Mawaki. >>AVRI DORIA: I would read the whole -- >>ROSS RADER: Oh, sheesh. >>AVRI DORIA: I offered to read it for you, you know. >>ROSS RADER: This is a painful lesson in brevity, I guess. I'll be more economic next time I do this. Whereas the GNSO Council has recently -- this is an amendment to the Motion No. 2 as presented by Kristina Rosette. Whereas, the GNSO Council has recently received the WHOIS working group final report and; 2, the GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are -- I'm sorry, my -- I have a pop-up here. 2, the GNSO Council acknowledges that the broad range of stakeholders with interests in this issue has lead to a wide range of views of what the policy issues are and how to best address those policy issues with solutions that can be supported by the consensus of the community and; 3, the GNSO Council observes that the working group has failed to reach agreement on several of the key issues identified in the charter of the working group, and; 4. That broadly, the scope of the issues in this area have evolved substantially over the term of this policy development process since it was originally chartered, and; 5. A comprehensive, objective, and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and; 6. The rights and requirements of natural persons, anticrime, law enforcement, registries and registrars in the areas of privacy, access, enforcement, investigation, consumer protection and research would benefit from future policy development by the GNSO. Therefore, be it resolved that the GNSO Council: 1. Sincerely thanks all of the volunteers, advisors, consultants, staff, stakeholders, observers, and constituency participants who have contributed to the GNSO's examination of WHOIS policy over the last four years, and; 2. Formally ends the policy development process on gTLD WHOIS without making any specific recommendations for policy changes to ICANN's board of directors, and; 3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development in several key areas and will immediately undertake to identify what specific policy development work is required and create a data-gathering and study plan to support this policy development no later than February 15th, 2008. And 4. May initiate policy development activities in this area, as supported by the findings of the data-gathering and study activities upon their completion." >>AVRI DORIA: Right. Okay. I wanted to ask just one question. In 2, you added a "any specific recommendations" to what had been written in the text of the e-mail. Was that an intentional extra -- >>ROSS RADER: I may have verbally editorialized but the text of the motion as written is -- >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I just wanted to check that. >>ROSS RADER: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: So Kristina, does that -- is that accepted as a friendly amendment? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: It is, subject to the addition of a minor further amendment, and I recognize Norbert's question and I'm happy to try and work on some language that would be more specific and acceptable to him, while still accomplishing my intended meaning. And my proposed amendment would be to add into the sixth "whereas" clause - - and, you know, we can put it after "natural persons" and before "anticrime" -- "legal and business communities," recognizing that, you know, those are communities of persons and institutions that do, in fact, currently use WHOIS data and access and, under their current uses, need to have access to WHOIS data. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: So I realize that we can talk more specifically about whether we want to say "legal professionals" or how you want to define it. You know, my initial reaction was the only other amendment that I came up with was one that I knew would be unacceptable, so, you know, I figured that this would be a better way to go. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Could you please repeat that. So it was in 6. We have the rights and requirements of natural persons -- >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: The legal and business communities. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So that was specifically "the legal and business communities." Anticrime and law enforcement -- okay. And it continues. Okay. So at this point, you're accept -- and then I'll get to the list, but at this point, you're accepting that with this change as a friendly amendment so it replaces your previous motion? >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Which had been seconded by Mike, so I will... Okay. So now I've got a queue that has -- I saw Robin -- I saw Norbert -- okay. No, I saw -- I saw Robin. Who else? I've got Ross, I've got Chuck. Please add me in. I'd like to make a comment. Anyone else for that first? Okay. Please. I had Ross and then -- Ross, Robin, Chuck, myself. >>ROSS RADER: I just had a very quick comment that I did not intentionally leave those communities out and I think I'd indicated such to the mailing list, so I completely take that as a reasonable addition. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Robin? >> ROBIN GROSS: Yeah. I'm concerned by that addition because as Norton's point was the fact that a legal community could be very, very broad, including not-so-ethical lawyers who want to send out not-so- legally-accurate cease and desist letters and that sort of thing. Look at the chilling effects project. The Web site is full of them. So we're talking about not only including the legal community would get access to this but now the business community too? So instead of trying to narrow this, we're actually broadening it? I'm not sure how this helps us. >>AVRI DORIA: Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Just like to suggest another friendly amendment, although I haven't devised the wording on it. One of the things we talked a lot about in the registry constituency yesterday was that we shouldn't be just, you know, asking staff to go out and do a bunch of studies that are going to cost a whole bunch of money without knowing what the estimated costs are going to be, so I think it would be helpful if any studies considered that we -- that staff provides a -- some cost estimates of the different elements of those studies and bring it back to the council so that we can kind of estimate where we think the value would be -- would justify the costs and so forth, rather than just an open budget for doing a whole bunch of studies. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. That actually also reflects part of my concern. I had a couple concerns that I just wanted to bring up. I'm not sure I immediately have recommendations. I think that doing the studies -- and we haven't gotten to this. I think that doing the studies would be something that would have to be preceded by a certain amount of work, in terms of defining studies. I also think that when we get the studies, we really have to -- as we noticed from the discussions we had, the scope of studies had gotten so very, very wide, the methodology of studies as it currently stands was also wide, so when I look at that, I sort of see -- if I'm understanding this correctly -- that we would need to work -- and please explain if I'm interpreting this correctly -- that we would need to have understood what it is we're asking them to study by the February date. Not that there would be studies, then, but that any of those studies would be things that we would have gotten to the point of understanding the requirements for the study by then, and then hopefully a professional study/survey management/whatever would be able to take that and move on from there. So in that, I'm sort of also concerned about the -- sort of the word "immediately undertake." There's a lot being done, if we do come to the point of saying we're stopping this PDP now and then we're going to look at what future work needs to be done. How do we sort of get restarted on these studies and such? So that was -- those were my questions and issues, and are you responding to that? And I saw I have Ross' hand up. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: With regard to your latter point first, I would be -- I would be amenable to deleting "immediately" given that it's already date-restricted with regard to February 15th. One of the reasons that we thought that language -- that I think that language might be helpful is: To the extent that there are those in the community who may believe that by ending the PDP, that we're just kind of -- we're done, was to indicate that this will move forward, although albeit perhaps it in more narrow and discrete components, so would "promptly" be acceptable to you? I mean if -- either way t can come out. I would be fine with it coming out, if that would work better for you. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. I -- I'd certainly be more comfortable -- because "immediate" to me means that -- you know, could mean that tomorrow at our Thursday meeting, we immediately sit down to start talking about how we continue WHOIS, and if -- as I've said in a couple committees here, I think if we've reached consensus on one thing at the moment, it's that we need to stop working on WHOIS for a little bit now and then regroup on further work if that's what we're doing, so the immediately to me means we got to start on it tomorrow, and I don't know if there's anyone here that's ready to start talking WHOIS again tomorrow, if this passes. >> KRISTINA ROSETTE: No. I'd be fine with taking that out. And with regard to your first point, I understand your concern, but I think we need to acknowledge that what we may want to focus on is having the council identify what its intended study points are, recognizing that there are certain elements -- it may not necessarily be appropriate to assume that -- although I would very much hope that it can -- that the staff will immediately be able to go out and identify -- you know, identify a study expert and develop the methodology and come back with complete cost estimates and all the rest of it. I mean, I think we just need to recognize that there's only so much of this that's within our control. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Now, I have Robin and Ross. I've got Liz at the microphone. I invite other people that are going to want to comment on this. Liz, was yours in relation to the studies? So I'll take Liz -- >>ROSS RADER: [Speaker is off microphone] >>AVRI DORIA: Excuse me. >>ROSS RADER: I'm sorry. I just -- you'd asked a question that I was looking -- you'd asked a specific question about the motion or the amendment that I was going to respond to. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So then perhaps it's best that I do Ross responding to mine, then Liz, then Robin, if that's okay. And then Chuck. Okay. Thank you. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: The comment I'd make is -- >>ROSS RADER: The purpose of this amendment is not to put off discussion of WHOIS issues, and if I've given anybody that impression, I apologize for that. The purpose of this motion is to kill the open-ended policy development process that we've been engaged in for the last seven years and pick one or two very important aspects of that discussion and move that forward for policy development work. And in my mind, that includes closing off the issue of extending publication exemptions to natural persons, for instance. There are also others that will suggest that that includes formalizing access mechanisms for some parts of the community. I think that these are very natural areas to look into, and it is important that we do this work immediately. >>AVRI DORIA: Right. >>ROSS RADER: Simply continuing with the status quo is not an acceptable answer. It's clear that there's not a consensus around that status quo and we need to recognize that and actively take action. So I'm very much in favor of leaving this amendment as-is, to ensure that everyone is very clear that we have work to do and that we are engaging in that work. >>AVRI DORIA: So you're saying that the "immediately" should stay in and we should start on it tomorrow. Okay. Okay. Liz. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Avri, can you hear me, please? >>AVRI DORIA: Oops. Wrong place for the immediately. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Can you hear me. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Mawaki, I'll put you on the list after Chuck. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Okay. Thanks. >>LIZ GASSTER: I'm Liz Gasster. I'm ICANN policy staff on this topic, and I just wanted to make a suggestion from the staff's perspective in terms of the sequencing of the study activities because I -- from a practical perspective, I share the opinions that have been stated about how broad and undefined at this point the practical aspects of the study are, and appreciate Chuck's comment about being concerned about the costs, and certainly we would be prepared to do some research on costs. But what I would suggest is maybe a two-part approach, where we could receive more specific direction about the scope of the studies first, so that the cost estimates and other scoping response we might give to the council is more accurate and detailed, and then respond to any further comments or direction that the council might have following our submission in terms of estimated costs based on the scoping that the council might initially do to help guide the staff. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Liz, hold on before you go. Just, you know, we did provide more direction on Saturday, but you're suggesting more is still needed. >>LIZ GASSTER: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>LIZ GASSTER: Okay. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We had Robin, Ross -- oh, no. Ross already went. We have Robin, Ross, Chuck, Mawaki, and then we get to Milton. Robin? >> ROBIN GROSS: Thank you. I just wanted to make a proposal for a friendly amendment to this that would address some of our concerns, the noncommercial users constituency concerns, which is basically the privacy rights of natural persons and how they will be studied in the future. So I would like to propose that we amend under -- the No. 3 under the "therefore" such that it would read "3. Recognizes the demand for future policy development in several key areas, including protection of privacy rights of natural persons." That's the part that I want to add there, the including "the privacy" -- excuse me. "Including the protection of the privacy rights of natural persons." So I would just propose that we recognize that in our motion here, that that is a laudable goal, that we are all working towards, and bring some recognizes of that into this motion. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Kristina? Is that something that you would accept? I've got it in brackets at the moment. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I acknowledge Robin's concern but in order to agree to that language, I'd have to have my own language and I just think that frankly -- the short answer is no. >>AVRI DORIA: So that makes it a -- do you wish to make it an amendment that we would vote on before we voted on Motion 2. We're not there. When we get to the point of voting on Motion 2, we could vote on any amendments to Motion 2 that had not been accepted as friendly amendments. So would you like to? >>ROBIN GROSS: Yes, I would. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. I will take it out of there. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Avri, may I speak? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Hold on a second, please. And then it would also need to be seconded at a point. Yes, Norbert. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I would like to ask Kristina to quickly explain why this is a problem, this suggestion by Robin. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I think it is too restrictive. If we are going to do that, I am going to want to add things like appropriate access to data for rights enforcement, for consumer protection, for law enforcement anticrime, for legitimate business purposes such as, for example, facilitating the auctions of domain names at traffic and the like. And I just -- you know, if you all are willing to agree to that kind of language, then we can talk. But I just had kind of assumed that you wouldn't be, so I didn't see the point of going down that road. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I want to go back to the list. I've got that listed as an amendment for voting on later which would be the normal procedure for any amendment that wasn't accepted as a friendly amendment. As I say, it will need to be seconded. Chuck, you've got the floor. You've also got the chair for a few minutes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. Could you scroll down so that three shows fully there, please, on the screen. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>CHUCK GOMES: Sorry about that. >>AVRI DORIA: That's okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Three in the -- >>AVRI DORIA: In the "therefores." >>CHUCK GOMES: I believe so. Yes, thank you. It's not clear to me that we're ready to identify specific policy development work that's required. It seems like whatever studies we might agree to would actually help us get to a point where we could actually do that. So I'm not sure why we're -- giving ourselves a task that I think will be virtually impossible because we haven't been able to agree on these sorts of things anyway. Why are we trying to identify the future policy work that needs to be done before we do any studies? I think we're just going to be in a no- win situation as has already been illustrated by the wording of that. >>ROSS RADER: In the absence of a chair, I will take that as a -- You are the chair. I was just going to say, I will answer the question about the amendment. >>CHUCK GOMES: I forgot for a minute there. Okay. So we have -- I saw Ross and I think I saw Jon first. Jon, would you go ahead. >>JON BING: I just wanted to respond to the reason why it should be justified to mention that the data protection rights or privacy rights of individuals. You have communications from October this year just before this meeting with Article 29 data protection working group asks us -- or asks ICANN to contact them and to continue work on this, and I trust they are ready to discuss on the issue which ICANN feels will be useful in relation to the application of the EU international data protection legislation with respect to WHOIS services. It feels to me that when one item is identified by another group of -- or in the international organization which takes a strong interest in this area, it would be an appropriate signal to tell them that although this is concluded, that this policy development process is concluded, this issue has not been concluded. I think if you do not do that in this recommendation, you have to go back to address how to respond to such an invitation for cooperation around this question separately. Thank you. >>CHUCK GOMES: Ross? >>ROSS RADER: Chuck, to answer your question, I think it is very important that we are asking questions in a specific context. We've had in the last five minutes, if I counted correctly, one suggestion for specific policy development from Robin and about seven from Kristina. And those are the very specific areas that we need to be asking questions for study. Engaging -- and then, therefore, the causality in this amendment is very, very purposeful. I don't believe that we should be studying and then looking to base our policy development on those studies. I believe that after seven years of debate on this discussion, we know exactly what areas of policy development -- what those -- the areas of policy development are and we should be engaging in that work. We simply need to rescope our engagement at this point and that's what the intention of this amendment -- that's what the purpose of this amendment is intended to be. At this point, I am strongly against just engaging in a broad study in the hopes that we will identify further work. Does that answer your question? >>CHUCK GOMES: I think so. And another question for you, though. >>ROSS RADER: Certainly. >>CHUCK GOMES: On the one hand where this amendment -- I am supportive of ending the PDP, but it almost sounds like we're kind of continuing the PDP, although we're not calling it that in what you're suggesting there. >>ROSS RADER: Let me answer that indirectly, first. I'd proposed another motion, which was intended to bring the opposing parties together under some threat -- a vague and distant threat in hopes to allow them to come to some sort of a compromise. In discussing these issues with these parties this week, I believe that there is another way to attempt that without scaring the bejesus out of everyone and that is to engage in very, very narrow and discrete work and to do that in a very conscientious and thoughtful manner. If we turn this into something broader, I fear that we lose that capability and we end up exactly where we are today. Does that answer your question? >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you. That's good. And I -- this isn't a hard issue with me. But the clarity is helpful and I will turn the chair back to you, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I have got Mawaki next on the list. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Okay, thanks. I'm not sure what has happened since the last discussion on these motions. But from what I understand, the current motion seems to be a compromise between the initial two opposing motions, the first one from Kristina or Mike asking for more study and the other one from Ross himself asking for the expiration of the WHOIS policy provision in the registrar accreditation agreement. It seems to be the expiration has been left off, that request for expiration of WHOIS policy has been left off. So my question is, since we agree that there is no consensus on this policy, what is the outcome for the current provision in the registrar agreements? Do we leave it that way or -- and what do we do with similar question from registrars in order to comply with the international (inaudible) to ask for except of that policy. Are we going to address that so that the board can take position within a policy framework? Or are we going to leave it that way so far? And I have another second question. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Let me -- >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Sorry. >>AVRI DORIA: Let me give you a little bit of clarification on the other one, so hopefully -- Ross actually hasn't withdrawn his third motion. I haven't withdrawn the first motion. Or have you, Ross? >>ROSS RADER: To be clear, Avri, that motion only is conditional upon both of these other motions failing. >>AVRI DORIA: I understand. >>ROSS RADER: So it is not that the motion has been made or withdrawn. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. So Mawaki, that motion you were referring to is still on the table if motion one fails and motion two fails, then we get to motion three. It is at that point we can say we have no consensus. Ross also worked in offering a friendly amendment to Motion 2 and that that may mean we don't get to Motion 3 but that remains to be seen yet. In terms of the other question that was, basically, based on our previous decision in 2005 in terms of the relationship between WHOIS and national law which the board already approved, that is ongoing work. There were discussions with the GAC this week on it where, basically, the issue with them was there an unified method for doing this or was it something that was handled on a case-by-case basis. It was something that as of the last time I was engaged when they were talking about this, it was still something that they were working on. They would issue a communique on. But these motions themselves do not relate to that. If WHOIS remains as is, then that still remains something that has been approved and the staff has as a -- has something to work on in terms of implementation. If any of the other motions pass changing either to OPoC or to getting to resolution three, there would still be WHOIS for at least a year, even in the three motions, so this would still pertain. So it isn't really related. Hopefully I have dealt with the first two. Your last question, please. >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Well, what you just said, you mentioned that if the WHOIS remains in place, it is something that has been approved but I'm not sure who has approved that and I'm not sure what consensus policy this current WHOIS policy is a result of. The second question was about the time frame. If we go that way -- I mean, down that path of surveying or making -- doing further studies, do we have -- maybe you mentioned and I missed it. Do we have a specific time frame and clear idea of what we're going to do next with a result of those studies? Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Well, in Motion 2, certainly there was clear plans and instructions that we start working on immediately and have responses on by February 25th, Should that be the way we go. In terms of what happens with the studies in terms of Motion 1 or Motion 3, there are outstanding issues that we'd have to review after those motions passed that I've asked for staff and legal council review on. But I do expect that they would have to come back into the council at the least for scope definition, if nothing else. Okay. I had Mike next. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Actually, I think my comments were overtaken by others. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I had Norbert. Were your comments -- you went in directly. Were your comments in dealt with? I had you on the list. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I would just like to say thank you for the additional remarks by Jon Bing. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay, Milton, thank you for waiting. >>MILTON MUELLER: You're welcome. I walked out of the room for two minutes to get a cup of coffee. I want to make sure you didn't change the part of the resolution that I was concerned about. Can you bring up -- it is in the effective clauses, not the whereases and it is describing, I think, the kind of studies. >>AVRI DORIA: It is in the "therefores." The "therefores" are up there now. I know it is small. You are talking about three specifically. >>MILTON MUELLER: I don't know. Can you move it up. >>AVRI DORIA: Which one? >>MILTON MUELLER: Recognizing demand for future policy development in several key areas. You replaced the laundry list with "several key areas," is that right? >>AVRI DORIA: I don't think we made any specific motion here doing that. I don't know if it happened during the previously discussions. >>MILTON MUELLER: Kristina had inserted something about legal and business communities and you were debating that. >>AVRI DORIA: That was in the -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: That was in the "whereas" clauses. >>AVRI DORIA: Did they really write "whereas"? Yes, they did. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: It is Section 6 of the "whereas" clause. >>AVRI DORIA: It is the rights and requirements of natural persons, the legal and business communities, anticrime and law enforcement. >>MILT