It is my intent to be on the call. I also want to ask some questions now of the Council so that we can have a productive discussion on the WHOIS policy discussion on "notice". First, I am part of the TF, so I own some of the responsibility for having brought the Council the proposed policy. However, I think we are in the process of an important consideration and I need some more clarification in order to advise my vote. It is my view that the question I am asking should be directed to ICANN staff, who should normally be the experts and provide the facts on interpretations of existing requirements. I have noticed a tendency on our part to not turn to the legal staff for such interpretations, and that may be the situation for tomorrow's call, however, in the future, I strongly urge that ICANN staff need to be the definitive word on RAA requirements. IF not the assistant GC, then that might entail having the registrar liaison on the relevant call in the future. I don't expect that to happen for tomorrow, given the short notice. Thus, I am asking this question of the next best experts: the registrar reps: I would like to start the discussion with a factual description of the relevant RAA requirements. The next relevant question to ICANN staff is: Are the registrars complying? That is a factual question and one that should be provided by the relevant ICANN staff. It is possible they don't know. In that case, they should determine what it takes to advise on that. I think we asked that question to ICANN staff. The study that we asked Maria to do is helpful, and should help to inform the discussion, so I ask that we discuss the findings of that survey, high level as it is. And, Maria is probably the best person to explain what the survey shows in terms of whether the registrars include a description of the gathering of data and what is shown in WHOIS. I would also like to have my interpretation of consensus policy verified. Again, normally, we used to invite Louie Touton, or Dan Halloran, onto the call, to give us "instructions" on such items, but this can probably be supported by the ICANN staff. Consensus policy requires a 2/3s vote. Less than that creates a policy recommendation that is not binding and cannot modify the registrar agreements. I suggest that the goal of the Council should be, to the greatest extent possible, to achieve consensus policy. Consensus policy still isn't a 100% supporting vote; I understand that. I hope, though, that all of us will consider the opportunity to achieve consensus policy. I have seen some compromises that seem promising as possible ways forward, and I would like to discuss those compromises in the call tomorrow. Finally, is the chair of the WHOIS TF on tomorrow's call? I hope he can be. It seems important to include him in this discussion to respond to questions.