- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Test of Adobe Connect during BC members call
by Chris Chaplow July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011

Dear Members, As you know there is a members call in one hours time. I am hoping that as many members as possible will be able to dial to the call in the usual way according to the details sent out by Bene a few days ago. As part of the Toolkit of services, ICANN have just released to the BC an Adobe connect room for use on an any of our future Members calls or other BC team calls. Many of you will be familiar with Adobe Connect but some will not be so. I want to beta test it on the call this Morning/Afternoon. Any member who wants to help test it and can be on line during the call may go to http://icann.adobeconnect.com/busnsconst/ and log in as a Guest with your name. I want to underline that it is not necessary to join the BC Adobe Connect room to participate in the call, and that there is no audio broadcast in the room so it will be necessary to dial in by telephone as usual. Any feedback following the call will be gratefully received so that I can offer clear instruction to members not familiar with Adobe Connect on our future calls. Looking forward to speaking shortly. Best regards, Chris Chaplow

1 0

Agenda for BC Members Call - July 14th 2011, 10am EST
by Benedetta Rossi July 13, 2011

July 13, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming BC members call taking place tomorrow, July 14th 2011 at 10am EST (2pm UTC). Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat AGENDA, BC Members Call, 14 July 2011 Review of Council TopicsPlanning for Dakar MeetingDiscussion of WHOIS and UDRP CommentsAOB

1 0

ATRT Implementation Work -- Next Steps and Webinar
by Marilyn Cade July 3, 2011

July 3, 2011

BC Members Two items: first, you may wish to bookmark the link below so that you can easily access the ICANN information on the ATRT. These kinds of announcements do not appear on the front page [similarly with WHOIS Review Team; SSR Review Team, etc.] and some members have expressed concern with the lack of visibility afforded the work, due to that approach to publishing information. I did speak with the ICANN staff and was assured that this is a challenge with the present approach to the ICANN home page. However, staff has now provided the following annoucement regarding the ATRT implementation plan [see below], with associated links. Status on the expected ATRT Report: As you will recall, the BC had tried to track the ATRT,as the improvements in Accountability and Transparency are of critical importance to ICANN's success, and legitimacy. We had all expected a fuller report to be posted for public comment prior to Singapore ICANN 41. It turned out that the Boarddid not receive fully updated reports prior to Singapore meeting, and that the progression of work was in any case not viewed as still open to public comment, but in the 'implementation' phase. I was surprised by this, since I had understood that implementation of the Recommendations would still include public comment. However, in rereading the Board's minutes and in discussing with Board members, they understood that implementation would be undertaken by staff under the direction/guidance of different Boardcommittees. During the ICANN 41 meeting in Singapore, I provided feedback on public participation in the public session, and in particular askedabout the ATRT recommendations. When it became clear that there is a considerable gap of understanding between many the community [e.g. expectations for an extensive and detailed implementation report available for discussion during Singapore] and the approach being taken, I proposed to Denise Michel that staff provide a webinar during July. She was quite supportive of the idea, as were several Board members, including in particular, Thomas Narten and Michael Silber. They, Ray Plzak, and Cherine Shalaby noted in particular they were interested in the challenges that the stakeholders face in trying to effectively follow and understand to the work on ATRT. The information provided is extensive, but I cannot yet comment on it, since it is just being published today. Many BC members have filed individual comments throughout the work of the President's Strategy Committee, and the development of the Affirmation of Commitments, and the work of the ATRT. If you have a particular interest in being able to participate in the proposed webinar, we can provide that information to ICANN staff. Please email Benedetta off list, if you are particularly interested in the upcoming Webinar. Best Regards Marilyn CadeBC Chair Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 18:29:02 -0700 Subject: [soac-discussion] ATRT Implementation Work Dear Community Leaders: I would like to draw your attention to the Board's action in Singapore on ATRT implementation work. The ATRT implementation status report (http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/atrt-report-25jun11-en.pdf) and the "Accountability & Transparency" webpage (http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm) are available for your information and will be updated regularly. In addition, there will be a webinar, later this month, to provide more in-depth updates and answer questions. Dial-in details will be available shortly.

1 0

BC Comment - FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT
by Chris Chaplow June 28, 2011

June 28, 2011

Please find attached comments on the The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT submitted on behalf of the Business Constituency by Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair for Finance and Operations. Best regards, Chris Chaplow

2 1

stepping back for a while...
by Mike O'Connor June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011

hi all, this is a quick note to let people know that i'm resigning from all ICANN working groups effective at close of business tomorrow, Thursday. the reason for the goofy timing is because i'm on deck to run a DSSA meeting tomorrow morning and i'm pretty sure my fellow co-chairs would kill me if i left them high and dry like that. the other nice thing about this timing is that it wraps up the "Launch" phase of the DSSA effort and also coincides with the end of my commitment to serve as the interim GNSO co-chair to that working group (i volunteered to serve through the first 3 meetings of the group in order to give people time to get to know each other better before selecting their "real" GNSO co-chair). basically the equation kinda looks like this. i get to spend hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours working on deliverables that are provided to a Council that can then selectively pick and choose to approve/rewrite portions of our work and forward the stuff they like on to the Board. oh, and i get to spend thousands of dollars of family lunch-money to get to the meetings to watch this happen. can you spell "self-funded volunteer professional staff?" but wait, there's more… let's not forget the perfect adherence to the bottom-up policy process that happened during the VI working group. in that case the pain ranged through the GNSO all the way up to the Board. yum! i know, i know. the policy points that are causing me to boil over *today* are in fact incredibly minor. ask anybody in the IRTP working group, or the BC about those. that's not why i'm so grouchy. it's the pattern in the way in which policy outcome are arrived at that frosts me. either working-groups are the place in the bottom-up process where policy gets formulated… or not. looks like "not" from here. not being too smart, it took me three or four times through this to finally get the message. kinda like having your hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer. fortunately, i'm trained now. there's an old joke that might bear repeating in this circumstance. Descartes walks into a bar. the bartender asks "the usual, sir?" Descartes replies "i think not" and disappears. so i think i'll disappear, at least for a while. a little breather. on the plus side of the ledger, i've made a boatload of ICANN friends and, through the miracle of Facebook, i hope you'll stay in touch. and i hope to share a glass with some of you this evening at the Gala. i'm still a huge fan of ICANN and what we do. it's just a little too expensive (financially and emotionally) for me to stay in the game right now. thanks! mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 1

ICANN Meeting 2012 Costa Rica and Prague
by Chris Chaplow June 26, 2011

June 26, 2011

Dear Members, http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-24jun11-en.htm#1.11 Part of the consensus motions for last Fridays board meeting that was not read out (strangely to me) an on the fast scroll up of the minutes I mis read as Puerto Rico. Resolved (2011.06.24.14), the Board accepts the proposal of the Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Costa Rica and approves that the ICANN 2012 Latin America Meeting shall be held in San Jose, Costa Rica from 11-16 March 2012, with a budget not to exceed US$2.29M. Resolved (2011.06.24.15), the Board accepts the proposal of CZ.NIC, Czech Republic and approves that the ICANN 2012 Europe Meeting shall be held in Prague, Czech Republic from 24-29 June 2012, with a budget not to exceed US$2.268M Rod has previously blogged that the October meeting will be in Toronto, Canada. Looking forward to see you there. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

ATRT Page -- helpful location information
by Marilyn Cade June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

Dear BC members, The new practice in ICANN is to have dedicated pages for certain topics, such as ATRT and SSR. That makes the materials a little hard to find, and some materials on ATRT were posted only on Saturday or Sunday, however, to help members keep on top of the ATRT, please bookmark this link and you will be able to find all future relevant updates [we are promised that we will see lots of forthcoming materials for comment and input. Many of the ATRT elements will influence issues that the BC members are very concerned about related to ICANN governance, as well as the policy work of the GNSO. http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/atrt-status-10jun11-en.htm I am optimistic that the Board Committee welcomed the suggestion of a briefing webinar, and if that happens, we will have an improved opportunity for those interested in getting a better sense of how ICANN is implementing the ATRT recommendations. It was disappointing to us to learn that so little substantive work has actually been done. But, from sitting in the various Board Committee working sessions when the ATRT assigned elements were discussed, I believe that the Board members are fully committed to the successful implementation, so let's expect a lot of upcoming work.

1 0

GAC Communique
by Marilyn Cade June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

At the request of some members in transit, I am posting both the actual language of the communique, and providing it as an attachment. It is on the GAC page, of course, but I respect that this is going to be easier for some members who are in transit, returning home from Singapore. BC members will note that the Communique has several areas of interest to BC concerns. ============================================================================= Governmental Advisory Committee Singapore, 23 June 2011 GAC Communiqué – Singapore The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Singapore, during June 18 - 23, 2011. Forty nine Governments participated in the meeting: 47 present and 2 by remote participation. The GAC expresses warm thanks to the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for hosting the meeting and ICANN for supporting the GAC meeting. II. New gTLDs The GAC notes the Board’s 20 June decision to launch the new gTLD programme. The GAC appreciates the potentially beneficial opportunities provided by new gTLDs. However, the GAC is concerned that several elements of its advice on important public policy issues, including issues set out in the GAC's letter to the Board on 18th June (annexed), were not followed by the Board prior to the approval of the gTLD programme. The GAC acknowledges, however, that other advice was followed, and that the Board has provided a draft rationale for its decision to reject GAC advice. The GAC has the expectation that the implementation of the new gTLD programme will respect applicable law in order to avoid detrimental consequences to parties involved, in particular to applicants. The GAC expresses its willingness to continue to work constructively with the whole ICANN community on the new gTLD programme. The GAC also notes the commitment of the Board to reply in writing to the European Commission and the US government on the recent letters they have sent to ICANN related to competition issues. III. GAC-Board Joint Working Group The GAC-Board Joint Working Group (JWG) on the Role of the GAC within ICANN reviewed amendments to its draft report that address the recommendations from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team pertaining to the GAC (ATRT Recommendations #9-14). The JWG agreed to finalize the report for public comment, after which the GAC expects to collaborate with the Board to implement the recommendations included in the JWG report. I. Introduction The GAC also re-states its strong support for the timely implementation by the Board of all of the ATRT Recommendations. The GAC will monitor the development of the implementation closely. IV. Advancing Law Enforcement Objectives to Mitigate DNS Abuse The GAC, together with representatives of law enforcement agencies (LEAs) from several GAC members, engaged with the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Registrar Stakeholder Group on the status of LEA efforts to advance a “code of conduct” or “agreed best practices”, and reinforced the critical importance of demonstrating concrete and effective support for LEA objectives to include a timetable of implementable actions. The GAC welcomes the registrars’ offer to identify any substantive implementation issues with any unresolved LEA recommendations, for further dialogue with the GAC. The GAC recalls its endorsement of LEA recommendations for due diligence and amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement in June 2010, and urges the Board to support actions necessary to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency. V. Meeting with the At-Large Advisory Committee The GAC met with the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) on 19 June to further advance cooperation, and particularly to discuss how the two Committees could support the work of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group. The GAC is encouraged by the reference to the ongoing work of JAS-WG in the resolution of the ICANN Board in the launch of this new round of gTLD expansion. The GAC advises ICANN to provide the necessary resources required to evolve the JAS work towards implementation, including provision for legal, logistical, and authoring timely support of a universally accessible “Needs-Assessed Applicant Guidebook”. VI. Meeting with Security and Stability Advisory Committee The GAC held an informative and valuable meeting with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) that focused on the SSAC’s recently released report on the effects of blocking of top-level domains on the security and stability of the DNS system. The GAC was particularly interested in the possibility of determining and developing means to identify and measure the specific harm of blocking of top level domains and possible incremental increase in harm when multiple top level domains are blocked on a wide scale. The GAC expressed its interest for more research and analysis into these issues. It also suggested having the SSAC report published in languages other than English in order to raise awareness across the wider Internet community. The GAC expressed its interest in further dialogue with the SSAC. VII. GAC-Country Code Names Supporting Organization joint session The GAC exchanged views with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) on the following issues: the value of identifying shared priorities; the ccNSO’s perspectives on the ICANN operating plan and budget; the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) dealing with delegation and redelegation; an update on the Names of Countries and Territories Study Group; an update from the ccNSO on ICANN security and stability; and the impact of new territory or geographic TLDs on ccTLDs. The GAC indicated its strong interest in participating in the FoI WG, which will hold its first face to face meeting on June 23 and looks forward to receiving a more detailed project timeline from the ccNSO regarding specific issues for the GAC’s attention. VIII. Meeting with the WHOIS Review Team The WHOIS Review Team provided the GAC with a summary of the review's progress. The GAC identified and discussed:    concerns about privacy and proxy services; the potential benefits of WHOIS data validation; and the need for effective compliance activities, noting that legitimate users of WHOIS data are negatively affected by non-compliance. The GAC strongly supports the WHOIS Review Team's efforts, and looks forward to continued constructive engagement as the review progresses. IX. Meeting with Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team The GAC met with the Security Stability and Resiliency (SSR) Review Team. In acknowledging the Team’s mandate and scope of work, the GAC noted that the SSR Review is an opportunity to describe shortfalls in current plans, compliance and preparedness to address potential and actual threats. The GAC supports the Review Team proposal to review areas within the scope of ICANN's technical mission, while aiming to strike a balance to ensure that ICANN's SSR related activities are taken seriously and also recommending whether the criteria would need to be modified as the Internet evolves. The GAC looks forward to continued engagement with the SSR-RT. X. Meeting with the Number Resource Organization The GAC met with the Number Resource Organization (NRO), who provided useful insights into the position of the numbering space following the final allocation of the /8 IPv4 address blocks. The GAC discussed with the NRO about the IPv4 exhaustion, legacy space, competition concerns, IPv6 allocation and actions to facilitate the transition to IPv6. The GAC noted the need to develop national initiatives to promote the technological update of the systems to ensure the communications infrastructure, public services and applications of the governments are compatible with IPv6, and to ensure that content is accessible from both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. *** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Singapore. The GAC will meet during the period of the 42nd ICANN meeting in Dakar, Senegal. Singapore Communiqué Annex Governmental Advisory Committee Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush Chairman of the Board of Directors ICANN RE: GAC communication on new gTLDs and Applicant Guidebook Dear Mr. Dengate Thrush, The GAC recognises that the most recent version of the Draft Applicant guidebook includes several changes which address some of the GAC's outstanding concerns but notes that there remain several substantive issues which require resolution before the launch of the new gTLD application process. These include: - competition concerns, in particular those resulting from changes to registry-registrar cross- ownership rules; - the demonstration of use requirement for trademark holders wishing to avail themselves of the propose trademark protection mechanisms; and - removal of references in the gTLD Guidebook that attempt to specify that future GAC early warnings and advice must contain particular information or take a specified form, as these references are inconsistent with the GAC operating principles and the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC would advise the Board that these issues involve important public policy objectives and, until resolved, also risk gTLD applications being made that conflict with applicable law. The GAC is of the view that the potential for this conflict with applicable law would operate to the detriment of gTLD applicants. Accordingly, the gTLD Guidebook should be amended to reflect these outstanding concerns. The GAC draws the Board's attention to previous advice :  on appropriate and timely support that should be provided to developing countries in implementing the new gTLD process; Singapore, 18 June 2011.  on appropriate protections that should be offered to the Olympic, Olympiad and Red Crescent/Red Cross names  contained in the 26 May letter conveying the GAC's comments on the April 15 version of the Applicant Guidebook. The GAC awaits the ICANN Board's response to this advice, and an explanation of how the advice will be considered before any decision on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook. The GAC advises the Board that where the gTLD Guidebook attempts to specify that future GAC advice must contain particular information or take a specified form, these references should be deleted as they are inconsistent with GAC operating principles and the Bylaws. To this end, and notwithstanding the GAC's wish to avoid any further delay in the new gTLD process, the GAC would advise the Board to ensure that all remaining public policy concerns are properly addressed and adequately respected before the new gTLD application procedure is finalised. The GAC regards the ICANN Board's willingness and ability to respond to the GAC's views and to provide a rationale for its decisions is an important demonstration of the effectiveness of the ICANN multistakeholder model. Sincerely, Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee Senior Advisor to the Government of Canada

1 0

Fw: New ICA Webpost from Singapore re: UDRP Reform
by Phil Corwin June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011

FYI, BC members who were not at yesterday's session on UDRP reform may find my remarks of interest. Feedback, as always, is welcome. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 2025598597/Direct 2025598750/Fax 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 06:28 AM To: Phil Corwin Subject: New ICA Webpost from Singapore re: UDRP Reform http://www.internetcommerce.org/node/277 ICA on the Record in Singapore on UDRP Reform Submitted by Philip Corwin on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 09:19 On Wednesday, June 22nd a session was held at the Singapore ICANN meeting regarding “The Current State of the UDRP”, including the recently issued Preliminary Issues Report on the UDRP which is open for public comment until July 15th. That Report generally recommends that a Policy Development Process (PDP) should not be initiated on the UDRP -- but that if the GNSO determines that further inquiry is desirable, it should be confined solely to procedural and administrative matters, and the next steps should be undertaken by UDRP “experts”. While ICA plans to file a formal comment on the Report, ICA Counsel Philip Corwin twice publicly addressed members of the panel conducting this session on behalf of ICA’s members. The main points made in his remarks were: • The coming proliferation of new UDRP providers, along with hundreds of new gTLDs, requires that ICANN enter into a standard agreement with all UDRP providers in order to assure that the application of the UDRP remains uniform and that new providers do not encourage forum shopping by complainants. • Most of the important procedural and administrative issues of concern to registrants will naturally be addressed in the development of such a standard agreement. • The development of such a standard agreement is unrelated to the new rights protections developed for new gTLDs and therefore need not and should not wait on experience with their use. • The URS policy developed for new gTLDs should be regarded as a substantive aspect of UDRP policy and its application to incumbent gTLDs like .Com should not be considered until there has been substantial experience with it and an objective analysis undertaken and published based on that experience. Therefore, any consideration of imposing the URS on incumbent gTLDs should be deferred until at least summer 2016 – five years after the Singapore meeting. • Any further steps on this matter must be open to participation by the entire ICANN community and not just confined to a small group of “experts”. A transcript of his remarks, edited solely for accuracy and clarity, follows. The full transcript of the session as well as associated materials can be found at http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24551 -- >>PHILIP CORWIN: Thank you very much, Mary. I am Phil Corwin. I am counsel with the Internet Commerce Association. Speaking on their behalf, our members own or manage about 20 million domains, about one out of every ten domains currently registered, so we have a significant interest in this topic. I will be quite brief. The UDRP is pretty good, but there is nothing that can't stand to be improved, and there's nothing that should be forbidden to be looked at after a dozen years of use. I think there's a big issue being ignored here, which is the most important word in UDRP, which is "uniform." We are entering a new world of not just proliferating gTLDs but proliferating UDRP providers. There have been applications not yet acted on during the last two years, one from a group in India, one from a group in Jordan. There will be more. The WIPO-NAF duopoly that has existed over the last dozen years is going to continue to erode and the only way to assure uniformity in the UDRP process is to establish a standard agreement between ICANN and the providers. And that is not only needed to assure uniformity, but it's also just unconscionable that ICANN empowers entities with the power to extinguish, suspend, or transfer valuable, intangible assets that deserve as much consideration as trademarks without any agreement that sets -- that both gives them the power and sets limits on the power and sets procedural rules for the exercise of that power. So we believe that that -- Let's not get into a substantive discussion of changing the substance of the policy, because we all know that's going to immediately bog down and be nonproductive. Most of the issues that people are concerned with, administrative and procedural issues, can be addressed in the context of developing a standard agreement. Finally, I want to mention the URS. It's our view that we think -- I don't want to say hypocrisy, but we see a great inconsistency of statements, certain IP interests saying you can't consider any substantive change in the URS, yet twice in the last two months -- on the dot net renewal and on relaxing vertical integration for existing gTLDs -- we have seen IP interests say that should be accompanied by imposing the URS on dot com and dot net and on the 110 million domains registered at them. We believe adding URS -- it may be a supplement to the UDRP, but it is a major substantive change in the structure, so we would suggest that a good time to discuss adding the URS to the UDRP would be at this meeting, the midyear meeting of ICANN, in 2016. That's five years from now, and I will tell you why. We won't see any new TLDs, gTLDs, added to the root until the beginning of 2013. The initial six months are going to be sunrise and all of that. We won't see URS even begin to be used until late 2013. We need at least two years of experience with it, and then an objective study. And then we can have that discussion after that study, which would be 2016. >>JONATHAN COHEN: Thank you very much. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Thank you very much. >>JONATHAN COHEN: I understand all these positions -- >>PHILIP CORWIN: My question is what do you think of that? >>PHILIP CORWIN: Yes. Thanks again. I thought Kristine had an excellent formulation for how to generally decide what's substantive and what's procedural, which is, if it changes the policy, substantive. If it deals with the rules, procedural and administrative. And I think the type of thing I've been advocating, which is a standard agreement on the procedural and administrative side, there is no need to wait for experience with the new RPMs. It's a separate issue. Not only is it unrelated to however the new RPMs turn out, but there is, as I said, a need -- I remember looking at the application last year from the group in Amman, Jordan, and looking at the background of their preliminary panelists. Many of them had no prior experience with the UDRP. We're not just going to see new providers but new panelists. That's why we need something from ICANN to the providers that empowers them, that sets limits to their authority, and that provides enforcement mechanisms if they exceed their authority. Because, frankly, my members are concerned that new providers will try to gain market share by encouraging forum shopping by complainants by taking a more favorable approach in certain cases. I think this is good for WIPO, too. WIPO, clearly, as NAF defers to WIPO on the panelists guide, that is the starting point for consistency and uniformity in providing the UDRP and a contract should talk to WIPO's not preeminent but lead role in this whole area. The one other thing I would say is that, if anything is done going forward, what's been done so far by experts is great. But the suggestion that anything going forward should be just experts, that's not the ICANN way. We need experts involved. We need experts providing the base knowledge and experience. But it has to be open to the entire community. That's the way we should continue to operate. Thank you. >>JONATHAN COHEN: Thanks, Phil. That was good. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

GNSO Councilor statements on IRTP-B resolution
by Steve DelBianco June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Council unanimously passed a resolution on IRTB (including deferred consideration of two items). Congratulations to BC members Mikey O'Connor, Chris Chaplow, and Berry Cobb. Zahid Jamil and others also recognized importance of respecting the product and process of Working Groups: JEFF NEUMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE REQUEST OF ICANN STAFF TO FOLLOW SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SO WHEN THEY'RE DRAFTING THEIR FINAL REPORT THAT GOES TO THE BOARD, IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL OR, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUP COULD SEE SO THEY CAN BLESS THAT BEFORE YOUR REPORT -- YOUR STAFF REPORT GOES TO THE BOARD. IN THE INTEREST OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY, IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY RUN IT BY THAT GROUP. AGAIN, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THAT GROUP, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN DO IT, THAT FOLLOWED NOW SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING IF THAT COULD HAPPEN. I. THANKS, JEFF. ZAHID. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT IS FANTASTIC THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT A CONSENSUS POLICY HERE AND EVERYBODY IS BEING SUPPORTING IT, INCLUDING US IN THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY. HOWEVER I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED AND URGED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF MY CONSTITUENCY WHO WERE ACTUALLY ACTIVELY PART OF THE WORKING GROUP HERE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE CHALLENGES THAT ARE NOW FACED WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE OF THE GNSO. THE EVENTS OR CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS ONLINE SORT OF UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT IN THIS NEW MODEL, CONSTITUENCIES AND STAKEHOLDER GROUPS KEEP A VERY CAREFUL HAWKEYE, IF NECESSARY, ON WORK AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DRAFTING TEAMS AND THE WORKING GROUPS, SO THAT WE CAN AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE POLICY MANAGERS MAY HAVE TO, AT TIMES, TINKER OR CHANGE CERTAIN DECISIONS OR TAKE DECISIONS CONTRARY, SOMETIMES, TO WHAT THE WORKING GROUPS COME UP WITH, ESPECIALLY IN THIS BOTTOM-UP POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SUCH AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE RAA AND NOW THE POSSIBLY -- EVEN THOUGH I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'VE JUST DEFERRED IT -- IN THIS RESOLUTION. AND IF WE DON'T, WE RUN THE RISK OF DISINCENTIVIZING VOLUNTEERS WHO SPEND HEARSE OF HOURS OF THEIR PRECIOUS TIME WORKING ON THESE EFFORTS, SO I'M GLAD THAT IN THIS RESOLUTION WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AT LEAST JUST DEFERRED SOME OF THE -- COUPLE OF MOTIONS THERE AND I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN SAY THAT IT IS FANTASTIC TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HARD WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP HAS COME TO FRUITION, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SORT OF AGAIN UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF US KEEPING A CAREFUL EYE ON THE WORK TEAM'S WORK. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: THANKS, ZAHID. I DON'T WANT TO SAY TOO MUCH, BUT I JUST -- I DO -- I MEAN, THE MENTAL IS VERY CLEAR. IN THIS INSTANCE, I ACTUALLY FAIL TO SEE WHY THE MESSAGE IS NECESSARY. I THINK AS TIM EXPLAINED EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT BY THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAS COME UP FROM THE WORKING GROUP. IT'S JUST WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES TIME TO CONSIDER DIFFERENT THINGS IN DIFFERENT WAYS. BUT I KNOW JEFF WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS, AND THEN I'LL PASS IT BACK TO YOU. >>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH. I MEAN, I -- YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SAID A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IN THIS INSTANCE I DON'T THINK WE'VE REWRITTEN ANYTHING, AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL DISAGREES WITH, PROBABLY IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND WE SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTING OUR OWN OPINION FOR THAT OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT'S PUT IN A LOT OF EXTRA TIME ON THESE ISSUES. AND SO I GUESS I AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANKS. AS I SAID IN THE CLOSING AND ALSO IN THE BEGINNING, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE WAS A DEFERRAL HERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF DOING SOMETHING OTHERWISE. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I POINT OUT THAT THE WORKING GROUP, SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE FEELING A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, SO THAT IS SOME OF THE CONCERN. I WANTED TO ALLAY SOME OF THOSE FEARS AND I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING BY DEFERRING AND NOT CHANGING ANYTHING THERE, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES WHEN THINGS ARE BEING DONE AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL, BY THE TIME THEY GET TO THE COUNCIL, CONSTITUENCIES MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES NOT REALIZED WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT AND JUST THAT WAS THE STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE. BUT I AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN THE RIGHT DECISION BY NOT CHANGING THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS AND INSTEAD JUST SAID OKAY, WE'RE DEFERRING THIS. THANKS. >>TIM RUIZ: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE TODAY WAS TO UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPT EVERY CONSENSUS POLICY RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THIS WORKING GROUP, SO I DON'T WANT TO -- DON'T WANT US TO -- THAT TO BE OVERSHADOWED AND THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE, AGAIN, APPLAUDED AND THANKED FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE PROCEEDED, SO THAT WE HAVE NO QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSENSUS THAT EXISTED IN THESE POLICIES. >>JONATHAN ROBINSON: YEAH. AND I HOPE THIS IS -- THIS IS AT THE RISK OF OVER-EGGING THE SITUATION BUT TO ME WHAT THIS UNDERLINES AND EMPHASIZES THE PARTNERS OF THE WORKING GROUPS AND SENDS A VERY CLEAR MESSAGE OUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO INFLUENCE THE POLICY, GET INVOLVED IN THE WORKING GROUPS AND DO THAT AND WE WILL TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

4 4