GNSO Council Meeting
 ICANN Meeting
 San Juan, Puerto Rico
 27 June 2007
 
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I think the council's up here and it's now 15 minutes after the scheduled start so we should start because we really do need to end on time.
 So therefore, I'd like to call to order the GNSO Council meeting.  
 The first thing we will do is do a roll call of council members present or participating remotely.  And I guess I'll start with myself, since I'm already talking.
 My name is Avri Doria.  I'm a NomCom appointee to the council.  And Maria?
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis.  I'm an appointee of the registrar constituency.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes.  And while we're going through, I'd like to take this moment to welcome Adrian to the council, as this is his first meeting with the council.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Baptism of fire.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm Mike Rodenbaugh with the business constituency.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Philip Sheppard with the business constituency.
 >>TONY HOLMES: Tony Holmes with the ISP constituency.
 >>GREG RUTH: Greg Ruth, ISP constituency.
 >>TONY HARRIS: Tony Harris, ISP constituency.
 >>SOPHIA BEKELE: Sophia Bekele, GNSO NomCom.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Mawaki Chango, noncommercial user constituency.
 >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg, ALAC liaison.
 >>ROBIN GROSS: I'm Robin Gross with the noncommercial users constituency.
 >>NORBERT KLEIN: Norbert Klein from the noncommercial users constituency.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Chuck Gomes from the registry constituency.
 >>CARY KARP: Cary Karp, registry constituency.
 >>EDMON CHUNG: Edmond Chung, registry constituency.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Kristina Rosette, intellectual property constituency.
 >>JON BING: Jon Bing, NomCom appointee.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  I'd like to ask, is there anyone on -- from the council on the phone line at the moment?  No?  Okay.
 The next item on the agenda, and then we'll actually review the rest of the agenda, is to ask if any of the councillors want to update statements of interest.  I know that an updated statement of interest, including Adrian's, just went up on the site.  Does anyone else need to do any other updates at this time?
 Okay.  In which case we'll proceed.
 Going through the agenda, we've done items 0 and 1 as posted up there and I guess people can see it, I hope.
 So then there will be an update on the GNSO Council vice chair nominations and elections.  We'll do that shortly.  There will be a report on WHOIS working group status.
 Then there will be discussion/consideration of the task force report, policies for contractual conditions, existing registries.  There will not be a vote at this meeting but there will be discussion and consideration.
 Then there will be next steps on the issue of report on domain name tasting, where we'll have to take a vote on how to proceed.  There will be an issues report on dispute handling for IGOs, where we'll have to take a vote on how to proceed.
 There will be a discussion of how we're proceeding on new gTLDs.  And then there will be any other business and Chuck will have an item under that one.
 Are there any changes needed, or recommended to this agenda?  Okay.  In which case, we'll proceed with this agenda, which means the next item is the update on the GNSO Council chair.
 A formal nomination period for the election of the GNSO Council vice chair for the period running concurrently with the GNSO Council chair until 31 January 2008 was opened for two weeks from Wednesday, 13 June 2007, at noon UTC, to Wednesday, 27 June, at 12 UTC, so this period closed as of yesterday.  Oh, today.  Today's the 27th and 12 UTC passed.  Excuse me.  It is closed, however.
 There were two nominations.  Chuck Gomes was nominated by Tom Keller and accepted his nomination, and it was seconded by Sophia.  And Chuck Gomes did provide a position statement in response to his nomination.
 Ross Rader was nominated by Mawaki Chango.  However, he did not accept the nomination, so we have one candidate for the election process at this point.
 So the next step would be to proceed with a full two-week election process.  Yes, robin.
 >>ROBIN GROSS: Yes.  I'd like to propose that we do a vote of acclamation today at this meeting, just because there's only one nomination and we've got a lot of work to do.  We -- we desperately need a vice chair in the next few weeks, so I'd like to propose that we just go ahead and vote today on that by acclamation.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you for that.  Is there a second?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'd second that.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  The motion for an immediate vote of acclamation for Chuck as vice chair has been made and seconded.  All those in favor?
 [Chorus of ayes]
 >>AVRI DORIA: Was anyone opposed?
 [Silence]
 >>AVRI DORIA: Was there any abstention?
 >>CHUCK GOMES: I'd like to abstain because I don't want to be accused of being masochistic.
 >>AVRI DORIA: You'll get the CAC sayings anyhow for accepting the nomination, but thank you and welcome to the vice chair.  I am --
 [Applause]
 >>AVRI DORIA: I must say how grateful I am, having Chuck as a vice chair.
 Okay.  Proceeding, the next item is the WHOIS working group status report by Philip.  Let me bring you the cord.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you very much, Avri.  So this is a progress report, because we have work in progress, from the WHOIS working group.  By myself as chairman of that group.
 Just a reminder that this group inherited a baseline proposal which was known as OPoC, for operational point of contact, which, in essence, I think, sort of broadly had an objective in terms of the protection of data privacy, it continued to suggest the collection of all existing WHOIS data, also collect data for the OPoC, and it would display a limited set of this data.
 And it was felt, I think, by council, that that proposal was interesting but incomplete, and therefore, council chartered a new group in April 2007 with three items, which will be three of the following:
 First, in terms of what an OPoC should be and look like, defining its roles, responsibilities, requirements, answering the question, "What if there's noncompliance by the OPoC to those roles, responsibilities and requirements?"
 The second question, in terms of tiered access for repeated access, et cetera, determining how and which third parties may repeatedly access the full data.  And thirdly, the question:  Was there any merit in exploring the issues to do with data display as a function of the nature of the registrant.
 We set up a working group.  Much discussion has been about the merits of working groups.  We still have a working group as a mixed group or roundabout sort of 60 or so participants.  A working group, of course, as you all know is wider than the normal GNSO constituencies and for this working group in particular, we made explicit outreach to certain groups who we felt could help with their expertise in this, and in particular, that involved both law enforcement and government to help factor in public policy issues.
 The work plan for that group, because we had three items initially, we thought it would help expedite our work if we -- if we first split into a few subgroups and did a scoping of the options.  Not recommendations in the subgroups, merely a scoping of the options that related to those first three categories or first three tasks of the group itself.  And that was done essentially just during the month of May.  It resulted in three reports, which are subsequently integrated into one draft report at the beginning of this month, in June.
 Our preliminary findings, so far, was that it is both possible and useful to distinguish between legal and natural persons.  Legal persons being things like companies, corporations; natural persons being real people.  In the case of legal persons, general agreement so far in the group that full data, as we see today in WHOIS, should continue to be the default.  In the case of natural persons, the limited set of data as foreseen in the OPoC proposal should be the case going forward.
 And in particular, that distinction had resonance with the broad thrust of most international data privacy laws, so there was some good sense of coherence in making that distinction based on the privacy concerns which a lot of the premise of this entire proposal had been laid.
 In looking at what the OPoC could and could not be, it was fairly rapidly realized that the OPoC could, of course, of course, be the registrant themselves.  They could happily be the registrar.  Or indeed, they could be any third party.
 What the OPoC should do came out also as a set of three, with an objective again which was typically looking at issues to do with bad faith and [inaudible] as to what may be the usual reason why you may be asking the OPoC to do something.
 The first of those roles was relay.  That is relaying information to the registrant, the registrant whose detail we don't see anymore, because it's shielded for that category of registrant.  And then under certain specified conditions, there would be a requirement then to reveal the shielded data to the requester.  And there was discussion of -- of a remedy.  Do you want to do particularly things about that.
 And it was felt that there may be certain circumstances where the OPoC would also be the communicator, but not necessarily actor of action to prevent harm, and that is subject to further discussion in terms of specifying exactly what that should be.
 One significant question, of course, came out:  Well, this all sounds great.  What happens if the OPoC merely fails to respond?  And there is so far also, I think, general agreement that we need to have some criteria as to what that would be.  And if the OPoC fails to perform in a certain time limit, that would then kick off a process whereby the requester could contact the registrar and the registrar was then obliged to take certain actions and the nature of those actions discussed were, again, with an objective to prevent harm.  Could be things like suspension of the domain name records of DNS or locking the domain.  And probably within that, we need some sort of appeals process for fairness, just in case the reasons for our failure to respond were bona fide.
 A separate group, and almost a separate issue, but nevertheless one that we were charged with, is a whole issue in terms of tiered access by certain parties to full data records, and after some discussion, we really realized this is almost separate to any role the OPoC themselves would have because it really relates to the -- a relationship between the requester, for those full data records and probably the registrar?  And we recognize that based on the early agreement in terms of how that relates to legal persons, there's probably no change to what we're currently doing today in relation to legal persons.
 Such a -- a means of access, though, would, therefore, be required in terms of what we do for natural persons.  And it was recognized both in the case of law enforcement and private sector, there were categories of legitimate reasons why both those sectors, the public and the private, would need to make a request for tiered access to full data records and indeed for making multiple requests for such access.
 Issues recently resolved.  "Resolved" may be in inverted comments.  We have so far produced a set of reports where we have made suppositions and tried to take the temperature of the -- of the discussion, either in person or by -- you know, or on-line and we'll be testing that as we improve the reporting just to clarify that, indeed, there was support there.  So I'm giving you my -- my sense of feeling as opposed to certainty as to whether or not we're coming up with these.
 But on these issues, we discussed, in fact, just during this week was one to do with what should be the legal status of the OPoC.  There were discussions about whether or not OPoCs should be accredited in the same way registrars are, et cetera, and are there schemes for that.  And I think finally we realized that was perhaps overcomplicating it, and that the legal status of the OPoC should be no different really, to the legal status of any other agent.  In this case, it's an agent acting on behalf of the registrant.
 The second question was also to do with the actor for remedy.  Should the OPoC somehow be involved in any of the remedies we may wish to engender, and we thought that probably typically -- and typically is something that is still under discussion -- that should not be the role for the OPoC but that would relate to subsequent activity.  There may be something that then becomes a relationship between the requester and the registrar.
 And thirdly, there was some discussion -- and a little confusion -- as to the relationships between OPoC and the existing various means of proxy services, and I think we probably reached a little clarification there, in that typically proxy services means that a party -- probably related to the registrar, not necessarily the registrar -- is standing as a proxy for the registrant.  And I think we have come to the conclusion that probably when that is the case, and there should be an OPoC, then those two, for simplicity and clarity should simply be the same, rather than having layers of remoteness away from that.
 Issues under discussion.  Earlier issues were also looking -- when we looked at the concept of differentiation by type, also looked to distinction by use for the domain name.  And one thing we looked at was distinction between commercial versus noncommercial.  And I think fairly early on, we realized that that was quite a significant type of distinction between that -- that idea versus legal/natural persons.  Legal/natural persons is a distinction that is a historic fact that exists about the registrant even before they are a registrant.  Distinction by -- about commercial and noncommercial is something that has to do with the future use of the domain name for which they are, at that point, only becoming a -- an applicant for, and then finally a registrar for.  And it's actually to do with the -- how they use that in terms of how it's used on the -- as a Web site.
 And so I think probably -- while I'm summarizing it on the slide as being basically problematic is where we've come out with that.  There are some people, I think, who want to explore this issue further and we are welcoming any input they can give us, but I think the feeling from many of the group is that it may not be a productive furrow to plow.
 Second issue under discussion is a significant issue to do with the need, and if so, how to do verification of parties requiring some form of tiered access.  I think, frankly, what I'm summarizing here is probably where we are in the group, in that despite aspirations as to, yeah, it's a good idea, yes, it's necessary from some, no, it's not necessary from others, et cetera, we have actually not received, within the group and within our discussions any practical suggestion to date beyond the self-declaration of how that could be done.  And that, therefore, is why it continues to be an issue under further discussion.
 What are next steps?  Well, our target, according to our charter, is to -- is to have a new report out probably by about 6 July.  Staff is working on that now.  We may be having something like three more telephone conferences with a target to have a final report to council roundabout 27th of July.  This is -- I'd say this is basically charter deadlines at the moment.  If that is adopted, we guess start with then looking at implementation proposals, which we hope they would defer back to council.  So progress is being made.  Not every issue is resolved.  But I think certainly we have made some significant steps to making an OPoC-type world possible, and it will be up to council to decide if that possible is also desirable.  Thank you, chairman.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Philip.  I want to open it up to questions from the members of council, not necessarily discussion, but I want to remedy one omission on my part before I do that, and I've noticed that on the phone we do have Chua, and I hope I pronounced the name correctly, from the IPC constituency, who is new to the group and I wanted to welcome Cyril to the group.  Could you hear me?  Can we hear you?  No.  Well, in any case, it shows up on the conference participant list.  He shows up there as being there, and I did neglect to welcome him to the group, though I may have mispronounced the name.  In which case, I apologize and will wait to be taught the proper pronunciation.
 And now I'd like to open it up to questions on this.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Phil, just a quick question on tiered access.  Can you define tiered access for me, please --
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: -- just because -- sorry?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No.
 [Laughter]
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Because to me, it seems like an all-or-nothing.  You know, "tiered" sometimes implies a little bit to --
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah.  The group itself discussed what they categorize as various types of tiered access, which could either be sort of a one-off inquiry from the requester to the registrar.  I think sort of multiple, you know, ongoing access and even the -- sort of the idea of bulk access where you get everything.  So they looked at all those -- all those categories.  Having done that analysis, my take on that was that's all terribly interesting but it doesn't help us any further because we are unable to make any particular distinction as to what that nature of difference should mean in terms of how access needed to be verified or could be verified, as I said earlier.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: And was there talk of tiered access as in tiering the amount of data?  And the substance of that data?  Was that applied as well?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No.  I think the assumption here is that it is access to the full data record in each case.  Yeah.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thank you for the clarification.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Does anyone else have any questions?  And also, I've been suggested that I ask Cyril again if he can hear us.
 >>CYRIL CHUA: I can hear you.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, and we can hear you now too.  Welcome.
 >>CYRIL CHUA: Great.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Does anyone else have any other questions before Philip before we move on?  Okay.  Thank you.
 The next item on the agenda is the consideration of the task force report policies for contractual conditions, existing registries, so in other words, PDP Feb 06 as it's been known up to now.
 Now, at this point, as was discussed earlier, it's not up for voting at this meeting, though I would like to put it up for a vote at the next meeting.  Hopefully we will have -- and I was given the expectation that we would have the general counsel's report on its appropriateness, if that's the right word.  So I'd like to open up, though, the discussion on Feb 06 at this point.  I'll take a queue.  I've got Chuck.  Anyone else?  Okay.  Chuck.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: My question is not so much about the report as it is when you say "up for a vote next time," what do you mean by that?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Well, basically --
 >>CHUCK GOMES: What would we be voting on.
 >>AVRI DORIA: -- by the bylaws, we -- council needs to vote on its approval of this, and see if we've got the supermajority before sending it to the board for consideration.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Is our only option to send the report to the board?
 >>AVRI DORIA: I believe so.  Perhaps general counsel could -- could tell me otherwise, but I believe the bylaws say that when we've had a task force, we then need to vote on it as a council, and -- and send it on.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: And it's voting on the report as a whole?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Mawaki.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Are we going to integrate this part of the PDP?  I believe this PDP was -- has been up from the PDP December '05, so --
 >>AVRI DORIA: No, this is the Feb 06 one we're speaking of.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes.  Are we going to consider it separately or integrated to the new gTLD PDP?
 >>AVRI DORIA: I believe we were going to consider it separately.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Okay.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I haven't thought of it otherwise, and I'm not quite sure procedurally how we would consider them together.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: All right.  Thanks.  So are there any discussions on the substance of the report?  Adrian?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Well, one more -- just following up on Mawaki there, I mean, I'm not sure what he's suggesting but it seems to me it could make sense.  I mean, this -- these -- these decisions of the group were meant to recommend various contractual conditions and existing TLD registry agreements.  Why would those not also apply to new TLD registry agreements and contractual terms that were -- that we're hoping to see from staff in that regard?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just a quick clarification, Dan.  Oh, Dan's there.  Sorry.  Dan.  Do you want to speak to that?  I didn't see you.
 >>DAN HALLORAN: Go ahead.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The new TLDs PDP and the Feb 06 PDP are two separate exercises, but of course in practice it would be sensible if we were being consistent across the two, but there's no intention to integrate them both.  And I think when we do the implementation analysis that Dan and I have been speaking about and come back for the discussion in the next meeting for the -- prior to the next meeting for the vote, then that will set out some suggestions for a way forward.  That's a better way of doing it.  But Mike, you're right, we're not looking for inconsistencies.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  So in other words our --
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: They're two separate things.
 >>AVRI DORIA: So in other words, your implementation word for also new gTLDs, assuming these things have gone through, would include these considerations.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yep.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay.  Thank you.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Adrian, you had a --
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah.  I'm just trying to -- it's a follow-on from my question during the public form with respect to recommendation 5.  And the use of registry data.
 I'm just trying to get some clarity of the recommendation itself.  And I know Liz has cited that she'll bring me up to speed on this, but it says, "In order to determine whether there is a need for a new consensus policy on the collection of -- and use of registry data" yet in reading the further detail on page 22 of the report, the registry constituency states quite clearly that they do not believe that this is appropriate.  Could I have someone from the registry constituency maybe explain the position on that and -- as to why -- and I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but just to get some clarity on that, please?  Do we want -- do we want to look into registry data or not, I guess is the question.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: I was not anticipating this question.  I don't have our response in front of me, but let me try to recall the exact rationale for their -- repeat the question, Adrian, please.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sure.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: And with reference to what you're talking about, so that I make sure I'm responding to what you need.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Sure.  Yeah.  And as I say, I hope I'm not putting you on the spot here, but effectively it's -- recommendation 5, with respect to registry data including traffic data, and when you go on to read the further detail on page 22, it talks about the registry -- I'm talking about the need to potentially go out and do an exhaustive public study using an outside agency and the registry constituency said that "the gTLDs registries constituency votes no on the proposed resolution to conduct a study by an independent third party on the data collected by registries and the uses to which it is put."  I just would like to get some further clarification on that, if possible.  And maybe that's --
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, one of the things, first of all, that we're concerned about, this seemed to be a search for a problem that as far as we know doesn't exist.  We're not aware of any -- any problems here in it, and so it seems to be an anticipation of some hypothetical thing, some hypothetical problem that I don't think there's any record for.  The registries are bound in our agreements, in all of them, to protect personal data, and we fulfill those requirements, and -- nor are we asking that those requirements change.
 So isn't that what it's really all about?  We want to make sure that there's not an abusive use of personal data and we agree with that.  So where is this going?
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yeah.  I think that -- well, if that's the case, and I agree with you, if you're contractually bound by that, potentially the use of this is for -- can you use the data for commercial, you know, registries -- registries have access to data that, you know, no one else outside the registry has with respect to traffic and so on and so forth, and are we trying to restrict registries from not using that commercially.
 If that's not the case, and we are not trying to restrict registries from doing that, I don't see any need for Recommendation five.  I agree with you.  This recommendation here, it seems to me to speak to exactly the point you are talking about the registries are contractually bound by it, let's get rid of the recommendation.  Why is it there?  What's the point of the recommendation?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Would anyone else like to comment on it at this point?
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Madam Chair, I can say that members of the public trying to make comments but I don't know if you allow that.  Just raising your --
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Not at this point.  So I'd like -- is there someone, though, in the council at the moment who's prepared to speak on the reasons for why their constituency may have --
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  The business constituency item that seemed to make a comment in the document, that's against that.  I am just wondering why it's there if there is no need.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I was not involved in this working group but, I think, that we saw a need to at least look at the issue and how the registries were using the data and then decide, perhaps, whether restrictions could be appropriate on commercializing that data because, as you recognize, it's data which only the registries would have.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Just one minor correction on that.  Some of the data you are talking about is some of the data registries have.  That's not all of it.  There are certainly both categories.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Correct, that's why I asked for clarification on traffic data.  It could be said that registries only have that when name servers that manages globally have access to that same data.  
 I guess, if I can bring this to a point, I just wanted to know what the purpose of Recommendation 5 was.  We've had some explanation on that and whether we need to keep it in the document.  If everybody concedes that we need to further investigate the use of this data, then fine.  But, otherwise, I don't see any purpose for it.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I would suggest we continue to discuss that on the list while we are awaiting the general counsel's comments on this before we put it to a vote, come to a resolution.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Great.  If it promotes discussion, then great.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  You've got further comment?
 >>TONY HOLMES:  Just to comment.  I think there was considerable discussion about this during the process.  Is that better?
 Thank you, yes.  
 There was considerable discussion about this during the process, and I think it would be wrong to take a decision here to remove it.
 I understand what you're saying in terms of duplication, but it may be the way to suggest it would be the best way to do that, we need to follow up on this and look at it again.  At the moment I would be reluctant to say let's remove it.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  Sorry, guys.  I can see you're struggling with -- I'd prefer if we could not have a moving target for the general counsel to comment on.  The recommendation has been posted.  The task force has completed its work.  The final report is completed.  Could you, instead of having further discussion on the list while the report is and the task force work is completed and it is now in the lap of the counsel, would you mind letting Dan and I come back to you with the report that we would give you and then discuss it at that point?  Because we'll create another moving target.
 The recommendation as it stands was a majority-supported recommendation within the task force.  The different question is what advice does the council need to make a decision about accepting those recommendations as they stand.
 If you reopen the discussion, it will make it impossible -- not impossible, it will make it rather more difficult for Dan and I to complete the implementation impact of that and I can work with Dan on how we can do that better for you.  But at the moment, the report is fixed and has been finished since whatever the date on the front of it is.  It is the 20th of April.
 If that's acceptable, that's a better, perhaps, way of going.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I don't think we were actually -- I know there was sort of a question as to why it was in there, but there wasn't a motion at the moment to edit the report.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I am not talking about striking it.  It was more so I could understand and better know where the recommendation is coming from.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I would like to add a little bit to the discussion we've had.  The discussion in the group went on as to what were the reasons and it was not only what is the data and how it is used, but what are the reasons for the question.
 One of the things that was never quite clear within the group was the full extent and understanding of the questions that people had about the data.  So the way the recommendation was written is that any study would explore not only the data and its uses but would also explore the various reasons for why that was needed.
 So in terms of framing a terms of reference for any study, it may be something that would come out in two stages, as what are the questions and issues that pertain here because during the task force, many different reasons were brought up for why people might want to need to know, some of the extent of the reasons, the background of the reasons and sometimes even the validity of the reasons was challenged.
 In coming up with the recommendation and the way in which the recommendation got, you know, support and agreement was that the review would be asked to review both the extent of understanding why one would need to know this, what are the reasons, what are the possible problems that people are referring to and their full extent and then that would sort of -- if there was sufficient motivation in those reasons, one would then have the motivation for what data and how it was studied.
 Philip, you had wanted to --
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just as sort of a brief clarification.  I apologize, I haven't been involved in the depth of the discussions of this particular group.  But I think the essence of the B.C. position here as it has been elsewhere, I think, is just concern about commercial use of data for purposes other than that which it was expected to be collected.
 Now, if our implementation in terms of that sort of study or whatever is inadequately framed, we can try to correct that.  But that certainly is our objective to understand that issue better.  There's a perception that exists out there, and we'd like to know if that perception has a standing or not.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So, that's why in the second paragraph, you had "to cover analysis of the concerns," not only the data but of the concerns themselves and such.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Thank you.  That helps clear it up.  Thank you very much.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Any other comments on this issue?  Yes, Jon.
 >>JON BING:  Just a brief emphasis of the close relation to the basic principles of data protection and the consequences of the European Data Retention Directive for storing traffic data on both use that can be made of that.
 I don't know if that has been -- the impact of that has been studied, but it seems to be in the appropriate element in the report to be produced.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So if I understand correctly, that might be one of the concerns that this overall report would look into?
 >>JON BING:  Yes, I guess, that's some of the -- some of the operators will be concerned if it emerges an obligation to store all traffic data in detail with treaties, for instance, (inaudible).  That might be looked upon as a burden that was unwelcomed.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Chuck?  Anyone else in the queue?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Avri, totally at your discretion here, if I can ask a registry representative of the task force to respond more fully than what I was able to do just from memory, if you so wish.  It is not a person on the council, though.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I would actually prefer to hold off those discussions and, perhaps, once we've seen the further reports outside discussions and bring it in sort of need to look at making these meetings sort of open meetings where we're -- sort of concerned about doing that, although it seems like in some ways a really good idea.  Having a fairly full schedule, once we allow -- once we bring in one person, I've got absolutely no reason not to bring in just about everyone that would want to comment.
 Any other issues that people want to bring up that, you know, need to sort of affect the decision that will be made at the next meeting at this point?  Okay.  Then, I guess, we can close this one for now.
 So basically before the next meeting we should clarify any of the open reasons and discussions that there are, make sure that everyone is sort of satisfied that they understand the issues and what's related and have the general counsel's report on that and before we go on with it.
 Okay.  So moving on to the next item on the agenda, it is consideration -- Oh, no.  We already did that.
 It's next issues -- next steps in the issues report on domain name testing -- tasting.  I don't know why I always mispronounce that.  Does anyone want to open the discussion on -- What basically we are looking at is we need to basically take a vote on the initiation of a PDP and in that consideration we need to basically consider what we also want to do, and if it is not a PDP, then how do we proceed with it;  If it is a PDP, how do we proceed with it.
 So basically it's a discussion now to look into how we want to provided with the issues report and domain name tasting.  But, first, are there any comments or questions or discussion on it?
 Chuck.  Who else do I have on a queue?  Okay, so, Chuck, go ahead.  Oh, and Sophia.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you, Avri.  The registry constituency discussed this at length yesterday, and not only from our discussion yesterday but also from the session that was held Sunday afternoon, it's our opinion that we think it would be best to do a little bit more data gathering and defining of the issues before a PDP is actually considered.
 For those of you that sat in the session on Sunday, there were obviously varying opinions and different understandings of the problem and so forth.  We're not suggesting a long period but we do think that, for example, the questions that ICANN identified in the issues report would be good ones to attempt to get answers to before a PDP is actually started.
 Often we jump into PDPs when we're not fully prepared and so then a lot of time in the PDP is spent on making sure we're all on the same page.
 Now, it may be that some of the questions aren't easily answerable in a short period of time.  We're not suggesting that it should be delayed for situations like that, but some good data gathering, information gathering from key parties like registrars and registries and users that are impacted by this would be very helpful and then if we decide to initiate a PDP, we've got a sounder basis for moving forward.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, so if I understand, that would sort of be a proposal to not start a PDP at this time but to sort of postpone or reconsider a PDP after some specific bit of work was done and then we would define some sort of group and set of items for that group?  Would this be a working group-type of or --
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  We didn't specifically talk about a working group.  It may be a staff responsibility to gather information, if the council thinks a working group is the way to do, very specific task working group.  I don't think we're opposed to that, but let's make sure we have all of our facts gathered.
 There is a lot of information already available.  We think there's more that will become available in the near term and the questions that ICANN identified should be answered.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thanks.  We had Sophia.
 >>SOPHIA BEKELE:  I think I fully agree with what Chuck said.  Basically, I've looked at the report and while it is comprehensive, I think we need to probably get a lot of input from outside opinions, collect information from the users and actual people that are impacted so we could be able to make a decision if we should do a PDP because a PDP, as we all know, is a very existing process.  Once we start in it, it is going to be a long-term to identify issues as we go along.  So I think it is better if we get a whole comprehensive view of what it is on a report before we move on, so I would vote for that, if I had to.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So you're basically recommending a similar approach to Chuck?
 >>SOPHIA BEKELE:  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, Kristina.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I would also agree with both Chuck and Sophia, although I would suggest that given the number of working groups we've just had that if it's decided that it would be preferable to have council members involved as opposed to having this simply be a staff function, that perhaps we might want to do it more along the lines of an ad hoc group, kind of a small group of folks who are gathering together to just pull all the data together.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  
 Mike?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I generally echo all those sentiments.  We've had a draft resolution, thankfully, from Maria this morning that I think many of us have seen.  I will put it up on the board.  Its it essentially tracks what Chuck and Sophia and Kristina just said.
 I would make the motion that we adopt this resolution.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Could you read the resolution.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Sure.  It would state that the GNSO resolves, one, to acknowledge the issues report on domain tasting.  Two, to create a small ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting and to draft terms of reference for a GNSO PDP in a timely way.  Three, to direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP.  And, four, to consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting and to consider whether to launch a PDP on domain tasting at our September 2007 council meeting.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  So that is a motion.  Is there a second?  I have you on the list to speak.  I'm just --
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  I'll second.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  That motion has been seconded.  
 Okay, Alan.
 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  As the submitter of the request for the issues report, I strongly support this.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Strongly support the motion.
 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Yes.  Since I don't have a vote on the motion in the end.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, I understand.  Is there any other comment or discussion on this resolution?  I guess I have one question upfront about it.  When we say to "create a small ad hoc group of GNSO representatives," do we already have the beginning of the volunteers for such a small ad hoc group or are we just sort of saying, well, we'll look for somebody later?  Or do we know who would volunteer for such a thing and, perhaps -- obviously it is not something that you absolutely have to know before we vote on it, but I would certainly be interested in knowing that we have the core of such a group before going further.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I believe we do.  I will volunteer.
 >>SOPHIA BEKELE:  I will volunteer.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  We have Sophia and Alan.  Okay, fantastic, that's the beginning of a core, I feel good.
 So does anyone else want to comment on this before -- yes, Edmon?
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Just wondering, on point number two, it pretty much anticipates a particular PDP.  Then on point four, it seems like it may be possible non-PDP mechanisms to deal with this issue.  I just want to know whether we're okay -- it seems to me there may be some conflicting message in the whole resolution.  I just wonder what the thinking was and how...
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, yeah.  When I first read it, I guess, I read that there's still the obligation to vote on the PDP and if this ad hoc report came up saying a better way to do it is X, then the report -- I mean, the vote on the PDP would be recommending X and not PDP.  But, perhaps, you could clarify.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, what I would say on that is my personal view is that we will want a PDP on this regardless because I think it will be important to have policy that applies to all of our new TLDs as we would like it to apply to the existing TLDs where we have these issues.
 I do see the inconsistency in this as drafted.  I'm trying to think of a way that would make it better, perhaps some sort of conditional statement, a draft of conditional terms of reference or something like that because obviously it requires a council vote in order to initiate a PDP.  But, of course, that vote could be better informed if this ad hoc group could come up with draft terms of reference.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Anyone wish to speak on the issue?  Yes, Edmon.
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  I may suggest, just simply add to draft terms of reference for "possible" GNSO policy development process would make the entire thing consistent between two and four.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Will you accept that as a friendly amendment?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Absolutely.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Any other comments at this time?  In which case, I think we probably need to take a role vote on this one as opposed to going through an acclamation vote.
 So, yeah, we will go around the room and basically get the vote on this particular resolution which reads to acknowledge the issues report on domain tasting, to create a small ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain tasting and to draft terms of reference for a GNSO policy development process in a timely way, to direct ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP, to consider the further research and terms of reference, receive a status report on non-PDP mechanisms regarding domain tasting and to consider whether to launch a possible policy development process on domain tasting at the September 2007 GNSO Council meeting.  
 So, yes?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I would just note that the resolution that you just read did not incorporate the friendly amendment.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I thought I did read the possible --
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  It is actually rather on the second point rather than the fourth point.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sorry.  I got it wrong.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Take the word "possible" out of number four and move it into in two.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Could you actually do that?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Actually, I cannot.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Because it is in an e-mail.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Actually, yes, I can.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I want to make sure we have the proper text before people vote on it.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Fair enough.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I apologize for getting it wrong.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Sorry for being so slow on this, but I had mentioned earlier that I think it would be good to consider the questions that were raised in the issues report.  I think it is page 30 of the issues report.  Now, my own opinion is that that could happen under this motion, and if everybody believes that, that's fine.
 If we think it is helpful to specify that, that would be a friendly amendment.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So how would you amend?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Chuck, can I make a suggestion?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Sure.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Something you might want to do with number two, you could incorporate that so that it would read, "to create a small ad hoc group of GNSO representatives to direct and consider further research on domain name tasting including but not limited to examination of the questions posed in page 30 of the issues report and to draft terms of reference" and then continue on.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  That's very good.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Do you accept that?  I see you typing it in, but do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I do.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Mike does.  Okay.  Yes?
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Yeah, I am a little bit concerned about setting up an ad hoc group of the council members to go into this right now.  I'm concerned because we've got a lot of work on our plate at the moment with the new gTLD issues and the WHOIS issues and the IDN issues and we only have three council members per constituency and I just don't think we'd be able to effectively participate in the -- in such an ad hoc group.  And so I'm just worried -- I don't think we can support it for that reason.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Is the motion restricting it to GNSO council members or just GNSO representatives?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  It's to representatives.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  So I think it -- I absolutely respect what you're saying and understand that, but I don't think that we have restrict it to council members.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  No, when I was looking for council members as a core, I wanted to make sure there were at least some council members that were prepared to participate but it does specifically say represent "representatives."  Does it change it at all for you?
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  I am still concerned that we won't be able to find the adequate representation at this point in time to be able to participate effectively in this process.
 So I would prefer that we put it off a little bit until we get some of the other issues off of our plate, and then we can really, perhaps, give more attention to this issue.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  Yes, Tony?
 >>TONY HOLMES:  You had a couple of councillors from a couple of constituencies confirm earlier -- and just for the record, I don't know who it will be -- but one of the councillors from the ISPs will support this.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 Any other discussion at this point before we do the vote on this?  Okay.  Then I'll go around the table.
 >>UTE DECKER:  Can I just ask that I can vote first because I have to run to catch a flight.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sure.  Okay.  In which case we'll start the vote with Ute and then continue with Jon.
 >>UTE DECKER:  I vote supporting the motion.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Thank you.  And have a pleasant flight.  Okay, Jon.
 >>JON BING:  Jon votes yes.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I vote yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Edmon?
 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Yes.
 >>CARY KARP:  Yes.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.
 >>NORBERT KLEIN:  I abstain.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  I vote no.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO:  I vote yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sophia.
 >>SOPHIA BEKELE:  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Tony?
 >> TONY HARRIS:  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sorry.  Greg.
 >>GREG RUTH:  Yes.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Yes.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yes.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS:  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Myself, I'll vote yes.  Cyril, are you on the line?  Do you vote yes?
 >>CYRIL CHUA:  Yes.  Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.  I guess that's the votes and it was 20 yes, one no, one abstention.
 Okay, so thank you.  We'll start this ad hoc group, I hope that we can find a sufficient number of representatives to make sure it's covered and thank the ICANN staff for their continuing participation in dealing with this.
 Okay.  That would put us at the next steps on the next which was the issues report on dispute handling for International Intergovernmental Organizations based on the report that Olof gave earlier.
 I guess the recommendation in that report was not in favor of a PDP at this time.  I'd like to open it to discussion.  Yes, Kristina.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I would just as an initial matter thank the staff for turning this around so quickly, particularly in light of everything else that's on their plate and to also say that during the IPC meeting yesterday we did discuss the staff's recommendations on the issues report and do support them.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Chuck.  Are we creating a list?  I've got Chuck.  Anyone else at this point?  
 Okay, Chuck.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Okay, thank you.  The registries also discussed this yesterday and were supportive of the staff recommendations, except we really don't think that the third option of extending the dot PRO working group is necessarily a good idea.  Mainly because it is a very large working group and at the same time we're fully supportive of any members of that working group being a part of whatever of the other would options that are done to be a part of this.  In fact, we would even support Kristina being the head of it again.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I am going to get fired if I chair anything else.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Anyone else wish to -- so okay.  I guess I'm trying to understand.  So are -- if we were to take the staff's recommendations as what we'd be voting for, are you proposing to amend that to not be the PRO working group but be what?  Another ad hoc group or -- or can't the PRO working group actually -- well, we actually -- did we actually terminate -- close the group?
 So in a sense, it is a closed group and it would require reconstituting something?
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, right.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I think.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Right.  So I mean it just -- our -- whether we have to amend the suggestion there or not, it's just our thinking that it would be -- that that may not be the best of the two options that were proposed.  Although I confess in reading it several times, I wasn't totally clear between the difference between the first two options, and so maybe some clarity could be provided there.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.  I'm looking for the -- I'm looking for the document now to bring it up on my screen.  I haven't been able to get on the network lately to --
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm a little confused because there's those set of recommendations that Chuck's referring to, and then on the last page, before the annexes begin, page 19, there are different recommendations.  Which I would tend to support and do not mention the PRO working group.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: I was looking at page -- the staff recommendation starting on page 16 and continuing on page 17.  Is that where you're at, Mike?
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: No.  Then go to page 19, after further discussion, and at the very end of the -- what I would consider the report, it starts, "Staff recommends that the council, in due course, move forward on a PDP with the following proposed terms of reference."
 >>CHUCK GOMES: And I don't think that that's inconsistent with the options up above, because I think in each case, they said ultimately leading to a PDP.  But correct me if I am wrong on that.
 >>AVRI DORIA: I'm trying to bring it up now so we can look at it, perhaps, on the screen if --
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Avri?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Would it be possible to ask if Olof could provide some clarification of that, please?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Please.
 >>OLOF NORDLING: I'd be happy to.  I think the gist of the proposal is that we do continue, rather, to develop the dispute resolution process with a view to its application in the new gTLD framework.  So without launching a PDP on that, but actually drafting on a dispute resolution procedure, in conjunction with the development of other dispute resolution procedures that are foreseen for the new gTLD process, when we have such a dispute resolution procedure, together with all the other dispute -- such procedures, which would call for vetting by the council, I presume, then is the time to launch the PDP in order to see how it could be potentially modified, because then you have to take grandfathering aspects into account for existing bona fide registrants, for example.  And it opens other issues.
 Then we could use that as a basis and see how it could be applied for existing gTLDs.  So that is the -- in short, what perhaps appears in two places, but disjointed.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: So Olof, if I understand you correctly, the two options besides the PRO working group approach was -- were, one, to let the new TLD process, dispute processes, be finalized and that may, indeed, feed into a PDP that would apply to existing registries as well.  The other alternative was to form a working group to do it in parallel with what's going on in the new gTLD process.  Did I capture that correctly?
 >>OLOF NORDLING: That's correct, yes.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: If I may make another question or clarification to Olof.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Please, please.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Olof, my understanding of that -- tell me if it's wrong -- is that the default proposal, if we simply vote yes to adopt this report with staff recommendations, is that staff will take on, as part of the TLD implementation process to come back to us with proposals of how this particular DRP would look, and the reason for that and the reason we don't need to do any more detailed work in that we already have two very good models that have been offered to us historically to do that -- so actually, the work is pretty straightforward and you've got back to us and we can look at it if we like it, and you're merely floating the idea in the report that, okay, if you really want to, we can get involved in various degrees of complexity and involvement, but, I mean, for me, certainly, I'm comfortable that we take the default that has the staff implementation issue and then we look at how that comes out.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  And --
 >>OLOF NORDLING: You're spot on from my perspective.  Thank you, Philip.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Okay.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  And what has had me, I guess, going back and forth is the recommendation that -- I mean, in some sense the recommendation seems not to do a PDP process, or at least not at this time, and so in accepting the report, we are accepting the recommendation to not do it PDP process at this time.  Is that a correct -- even though it reads as "in due course, do one."
 >>OLOF NORDLING: Very well put.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  So in other words, our decision would be, at this point, if we go with the report, we're basically deciding not to do a PDP process and then we can reconsider the PDP process at another time.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: I think you're -- I would agree with your interpretation there.  Except I think we need to do more than just accept the report.  I think we ought to pick one of the directions to go.  Otherwise, it's just sitting there.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Well, the -- isn't the direction that the staff keep working on it in terms of its --
 >>CHUCK GOMES: That's one of the directions.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: The other one is to form a working group and I think we ought to pick one of those.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: And -- if we can.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Is there some discussion on which of those two alternatives in terms of -- is there discussion on those two alternatives?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Well, why don't I make a proposal that we take the default staff recommendation, which is that this is taken as a staff implementation issue and that we do not explicitly form a group to look at that.  So the reason for that is that, to my mind, the model is -- is virtually drafted.  It's not a huge issue.  But we instruct staff to come back to us with that model, so that we can formally approve it.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Any more discussion on -- so we need to --
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I do think that we should put some sort of timing expectation into this as well, since we've heard from Olof this morning earlier that this is a matter of pretty serious importance to entities that we would like to stay happy with us, generally, and we've already had this issue ongoing now for I believe a number of years.  I'm not sure if the council would be comfortable suggesting to the staff that we have something back within, say, three months or something like that.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Kristina?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, I was actually going to ask that very question, as to what Olof's current thoughts were as to the time that would be required, and I do think that Mike raises a very good point.  I think the various parties that have been interested in seeing this go forward have been extraordinarily patient, and I think at this point, we should do what we can to expedite this.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  So I'm trying to sort of draft out --
 >>OLOF NORDLING: If I may respond.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, please.
 >>OLOF NORDLING: It's a very, very reasonable proposal.  The time frame that Mike mentioned.
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Perfect.  Excellent.
 >>AVRI DORIA: If you give me a second, I will write...
 I'm just sort of typing up a proposal so that we can see the words and vote on them.  I should probably make it a bigger font.  I haven't quite finished writing it yet, but at least people will see it while I'm writing it.  They can see how badly I type.
 So those are the two questions that were left open.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Can you make it all bigger, please?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Sure.  And of course we need to spell it correctly.
 Okay.  I'm sure that the wording needs to be --
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Avri, I'm not sure we -- the bit of the (a) and (b) that comes out of the questions raised after the --
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Did I get the wrong things?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: -- the general counsel thing.  Isn't it the page 16 staff --
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Excuse me.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Which I mean you just referred to.  I mean it's just basically instructing staff to do it, isn't it?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Right, right.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  As proposed in the issues report on page 16?
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Is this adequate, or anyone propose any changes to the wording as created?  Or should I read it out loud?
 Okay.  The council accepts -- oh, wait a second.  There was more.  Right.  There was some stuff at the beginning.
 "Council thanks the staff for the issues report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations.  The council accepts the recommendation that a PDP not be initiated at this time, and that the staff continue as proposed in the issues report on page 16.  The council requests that the staff report back to the council within three months and the council will reconsider creating a PDP at that time."
 Any discussion on that?  Okay.  In which case, I will do -- I will call for a vote on it.  Actually, I guess it's a proposal.  It needs a second.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'll second the proposal.  And can we move to vote on that by acclamation.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  I suppose we could.  Yes, Kristina?
 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I think Norbert --
 >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, Norbert, were you seconding -- yeah, Mike and Norbert both seconded yeah.  Yeah, I suppose we can just vote on that.  We don't need to go around the room on it.  I have to get clear yet on which we do and which we don't.
 So all those in favor of this proposal?  This recommendation?  Say aye.
 [Chorus of ayes]
 >>AVRI DORIA: All those against?  Yes?  And all those against?
 [Silence]
 >>AVRI DORIA: Any abstentions.
 [Silence]
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  So this has been accepted.  Thank you.
 Okay.  The next item we had was discussion on the next steps for new gTLDs.  Basically, where we are at the moment is, we have, after discussions, we have basically stated a very strong intent and goal of making sure that the board has our recommendation in hand and available for consideration by the L.A. meeting.
 For us, that means that the council needs to -- and I guess there was dates set by -- there was calculations done backwards, and that the council needs to make its decisions on this early in September.  And Liz had a set of dates for us, working backwards to meeting that.  That means that the new gTLD committee basically has approximately four to six weeks to actually finish the report, and send it on to the council for a vote.  At that point, then, there will be -- there will be a public opinion period.  After that, there will be -- there will be publication and then there will be legal review and everything.
 So we, for example, have another meeting scheduled tomorrow for most of the afternoon to continue working through the issues in the reserved names report, which have to be integrated into the new gTLD report, and on continuing to deal with issues in recommendations 3, 6, and 20 as written.
 I'd like to open up to discussion now on sort of our goals on what needs to be done, et cetera, on any views that the council wants to sort of contribute to the next steps with the new gTLDs.  Chuck?  And then robin?
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Robin, you can go ahead.
 >>ROBIN GROSS: I'd like -- I think we need to have -- when we do our vote on this, I think we need to vote on the specific recommendations individually, because I'm concerned that the more controversial ones, if we don't vote individually, will be passed even though they may not support -- may not be supported by the majority of the council.
 We all want to get this project finished and we all want to roll out the process for new gTLDs, so I'm concerned that we would be voting for some recommendations that we don't actually support just because we want to get the process completed.
 So, again, I think it's really important that we have specific votes on some of these more controversial issues, like the mandating of morality and opening up a public opposition process for people to complain about an application.
 These -- these are the kinds of issues that I think we need to have individual votes on, so we can really see what should be in the final report and what we need to leave beside.
 >>AVRI DORIA: One comment on that.  I mean, we have in the committee sort of been going through -- recommendations and such.  The report -- and the committee does allow for the statements of -- whether they're called minority statements or just differing statements on any of the issues, but I thought that normally, in sending a report, one would send a report voted on as a whole with attaching any minority statements and attaching any, you know, for example expert advice/opinion that was gathered during the meeting.  And I don't know just how to go through doing it on a point-by-point basis, but I'd like to let others speak on it as well.
 >>ROBIN GROSS: Well, I think in order to really understand what is the minority view, we need to have votes, and then if there is a minority view, it goes in as a minority report.
 But I -- I'm concerned that if we just vote on everything as a whole to begin with, the more controversial ones will be accepted.
 You know, I think we should have the final vote on the report as a whole, but that should be step no. 2, and step no. 1 should be figuring out what belongs in the report and what belongs in the minority report.
 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I agree with that.  I think there just may be some confusion.  We can vote recommendation by recommendation as a task force on the report, and then ultimately the council needs to vote on the entire report.  I would very much not like to go down the slippery slope of accepting reports from working groups and then going through them item by item.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  I'd like to -- I guess there's a board member, and normally when we have a council meeting and a board member would attend, a board member would be able to speak to an issue, so --
 >>CHUCK GOMES: And former chair.
 >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah.  I'm not going to speak as a board member.  Let me just speak as a former chair.  I just want to get clarity just from a bylaws perspective here.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.
 >>BRUCE TONKIN: You're not voting on the report.  The staff produced a board report after the meeting, which includes the various commentary.  Your job is to vote on the recommendations, and then what you're really debating here is the process you do that.  You can obviously vote on the recommendations as a whole, if you feel that you've got consensus support for the recommendations as a whole, or if you can't determine that, you could decide to vote on it recommendation by recommendation.  Presumably to allow you to then vote on the recommendations as a whole.
 But I just want to clarify, you are voting on the recommendations, not the report.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Am I still in the queue.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, you're still in the queue.  You're at the top of the queue.
 >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you.  I'll reserve my original comment till later, but just to respond, I'd like to propose a little alternative approach to what robin suggested.
 I don't think we're done with maybe 3.  At least three of the recommendations.  We're still working on them.  So I think it's too early to talk about voting.  I think we need to -- and it's consistent with the LSE recommendations for GNSO improvement and the board working group and so forth.  Let's try to work together to come up with some wording that the majority of us can live with.  Hopefully all of us can live with.  That may not be realistic.
 And then, if there are cases on individual recommendations where there is disagreement in the final wording -- and that may very well end up being the case -- then minority statements can be added to reflect that for particular registration -- recommendations.
 So, again, I think it's -- let's keep working to see if we can't achieve full consensus.  We may not, and that's okay and there needs to be the opportunity to express those minority opinions just like you stated, Avri.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Uh-huh.  We'll take a queue.  Philip and then -- Philip, Mawaki, Tony.
 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'd like to strongly support what Chuck has just said, and also what you said earlier, Avri.  And also just to make the distinction, I think, between grammatical drafting of a report and the true basis of a holistic recommendation.
 The way we've written this report has helped us separate out certain things.  In particular, with a view as to how those may be implemented.  But to my mind, they are not separable.  They are all thoroughly integrated as a proposal.  An attempt to pretend they are somehow separate, you could take out one little element without the whole pack of card -- house of cards falling down, I think, is a grave mistake.
 Where we have issues still to discuss, absolutely, let's do that, but that is working group level.  And let us not confuse grammatical drafting with a coherent proposal.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.  Mawaki?
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: Yes.  I think we do need to determine, one way or the other, how much do we support each recommendation as a group.  Whether you call it vote or whatever means you like to do to do this, we need to ask ours how much do we support each recommendation?  And then maybe if one or two recommendations are not -- can't get a consensus, then maybe we can contemplate the possibility of reducing the PDP to those of the recommendations that got a consensus, and adding minority statements or reports about those -- the remainder of the recommendations.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly there have been reports that have gone through with recommendations that had strong support and recommendations that had a lower level of support, so -- so that's something that certainly can come out of the committee that's producing the report.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO: What -- sorry.  What I wanted to highlight is that by considering the recommendations one by one and determining the level of support, that doesn't mean that at the end we will be reporting to the board on each recommendation separately.  Okay?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Tony?  Did you have your hand up?
 >>TONY HARRIS: Let Liz speak first.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, excuse me?
 >>TONY HARRIS: Could Liz speak first?
 >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, okay.  Sorry.  I didn't see you standing there.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: No.  And Avri, I'm happy not to say anything if you would prefer not to have staff input into the discussion.  Okay.  Just a couple of things, because I'm listening to this very, very intently.  
 One, just first of all dealing with differing views, consensus is not unanimity.  That's the first thing.  Consensus is, as Chuck said, tolerable positions for everybody that are manageable as a package.
 Second thing is, the state at which the committee have reached is very stable text on many of the recommendations, and it's nearly -- but there is still outstanding work to be done on three.
 So these -- and that happened on the 7th of June conference call.  This is just a little recitation for the people who are behind me who might not have the full context of what's going on in this discussion.
 Thirdly, the insertion of differing views takes a number of forms within the PDP process.  The most recent iteration of individual or individual constituency views -- and there's a distinction between individuals as in the committee members and individual constituencies which is the collective views from constituencies -- those have already been incorporated in part B of the report because we made a deliberate effort to do constituency impact statements and those views have already been incorporated into, both the main body of the report, and in full, in the procedural annexes of the report.
 There's one outstanding element there, and I haven't received a constituency impact statement from the registrars, and I'm looking to you, Adrian, to see if you can follow that up with your constituency.  That's an important piece of work that needs to be completed.
 >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It's been drafted.  We just don't have it finalized.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah.  Thank you.  
 So just a couple of points.  One is consensus is not unanimity.  The other is that many of the recommendations have been in a stable state for quite a long time.  There is ongoing work that needs to be done, and minority views or individual views are consistently incorporated in the report as it's written, and there are many, many, many instances of where that's actually the case.
 I -- I urge you to agree on a time frame to commit to having the board report ready for the board to consider in Los Angeles, and unfortunately when I set up those dates for you, working backwards from that, there's some very, very tight time frames for us to complete the work, and I am happy to do whatever it takes to slice and dice the work to get it done, in the most efficient way possible.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Yeah.  And I think that when we have our meeting tomorrow, we'll go specifically through the dates, and that -- and I think also on the issue of how we go about approving the recommendations at the end, I think we should continue discussing that and we'll have to decide at that time, you know, how we're going to do it, and that will really be up to the council to decide how we want to deal with approving the recommendation.  Did you have a comment that you wanted to add?
 >>TONY HARRIS: Yes, actually.  I think Liz put it very well.  I basically wanted to say what she said.  I'm a little concerned, we seem to be held hostage in going forward with these rather -- rather late comments that have come into the proceedings.  We've been working on this for two years.  I have no antagonism to what's being suggested by the NCUC at this late date, but I do think that we should not be delayed in moving forward due to this.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  Thank you.  Yes, Norbert?
 >>NORBERT KLEIN: I think there is agreement that we all want to go ahead as soon as possible and not delay things unnecessarily.  I think the only point which has been raised from time to time is whether opinions which may be minority or not so much minority are clearly recorded also.  I think if this is an agreed principle -- and I think it is -- I do not see the problem.  But the problem is only that we have to agree that whatever different opinions may also be held within the goal of consensus, which is also, I think, my goal and the goal of our constituency, but in some cases there is no consensus and then it has to be recorded.  That's all.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah.
 >>NORBERT KLEIN: I think it is very simple.
 >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Norbert.  I think I want to close this for now and then we'll continue at tomorrow's Thursday meeting.  I do want to say that the bylaws do require that all opinions that -- especially those that are minority to the consensus -- be recorded absolutely and clearly, and we'll continue this one at the Thursday meeting.  We've got a whole afternoon set for continuing this discussion.  So I'd like to actually end this item now.  Yes, Chuck.  On this item or --
 >>CHUCK GOMES: I -- yes.  I'd like to go back to what I originally raised my hand to comment on, which was unrelated to what Robin discussed.
 The reserved name working group has several recommendations that suggested additional work and I'm real concerned that we don't let those hang and would like to make a suggestion for moving those forward and actually there is one new item that in the discussions that occurred yesterday in our constituency meetings in particular, but have come up, I'm sure in other venues as well, actually discovered something that we may have missed in the reserved names working group that I think we need to take action to get that covered.
 Let me talk about that one first and I will be as brief as possible.  But the ccTLDs are in the process of deciding what they will use for IDN representation of their two-character ASCII strings now.  And we have the possibility of conflict with what they might decide on that.  Unfortunately, we don't know what that's going to be yet.  At the same time, I think it is something we need to accommodate.
 My suggestion there is fairly simple that we reactivate the geographic names subgroup of the reserved name working group, not the whole working group, keep it fairly simple, allow others to join if they would like.  In fact, I think that would be good, and see if we can't come up with a way to deal with that.
 I think it's -- to be responsible, we need to cover that in the process, and it is a little bit difficult in the sense that we don't know what they're going to choose, nor do we want to overly restrict their choices.  But at the same time, we need to deal with it.
 So that would be my recommendation in that regard and in all of these things I'm going to suggest as the reserved name working group chair, I'm more than happy to serve as a coordinator of whatever we decide to do in that regard.
 Now, in addition we also suggested more work with regard to ICANN and IANA names.  And one part of that is very easy that I think we can just ask staff to do and that is just do a final confirmation that our recommendation suggesting that all possible Unicode versions of the name "example" must be reserved.  Be tested one last time.  I think we did a pretty thorough job of testing it with IDN experts, but if staff could do one final check on, that I would suggest that be done.
 The other part on ASCII ICANN and IANA names, it was recommended that additional work be done to evaluate whether there is justification for continuing reserving ICANN and IANA ASCII names and some guidelines were provided in the report.
 I would suggest that we make a decision in terms how to proceed that work forward could be, you know, forming a small little group of people to do that or if the council thinks -- the council could decide maybe that's not needed, but I think if we just let it hang, it will be a problem.
 The second area has to do with single-letter and single-digit names.  And in that case, one of the actions we could take would actually be to -- and just to summarize for everybody, I should do that.
 We need to -- the actual recommendation for additional work there was to first decide whether or not an allocation method is needed at the second level for those.
 Next, if it is needed -- and they could actually happen concurrently, I think -- implement a process for developing an allocation method.  One approach to that might be just to have staff put out a request for some well-vetted proposals in that regard.  We don't need to work out all the details there.
 And then another approach would be to have a small group to actually come up with a plan for dealing with that problem.  Whatever way we decide to do, my suggestion is that we don't just let this sit but that we actually take action in that regard.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thanks.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  The other categories where we recommended further work are actually covered in the new TLD process, geographic names and controversial names.  So I don't think any action is necessary in those regards.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  I need to make a point of clarification, if I can.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Excuse me.  Yes.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  There is an issue that we're asking for unanimity in the report and that's not at all the case.  What we are saying in some of these recommendations don't even have the majority of support on the council, and that's one very important point that we are not looking for unanimity but, perhaps, some estimation of what is, in fact, the majority view.
 And other important point that needs to be clarified is that there are no late objections.  These objections -- these free expression objections, we've been making all along, they have just simply been ignored.  They haven't been included in the report.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.
 >>ROBIN GROSS:  These are not new issues and no majority view. 
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  On both of these issues, on both of the reserved names which I do have -- and I really do want to proceed to tomorrow's meeting -- on the reserved names, it was what I had basically first on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting.  I sent that out earlier and on continuing to discuss what the degree of agreement, unanimity, consensus, rough consensus, broad consensus, minority views, et cetera, is something that we will continue discussing in the committee of the whole at tomorrow's meeting and beyond and I really do want to cut this issue here now --
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  Two seconds?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  -- and continue tomorrow if it is a logistics, issue, please.  Otherwise not something that would continue the conversation.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  I want to report on two of Chuck's points.  One is ICANN IANA names, to give him an update on that and the other is with second-level single-letter allocation method discussion.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you very much.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  Do you want to take both of those?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I would prefer to do them at tomorrow's -- since we will be continuing on this topic tomorrow for five hours.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  I understand that, Avri.  My concern is that tomorrow is not a council meeting and to initiate action on these things, I think we need council action not new TLD committee action.  I respect what you're trying to do and understand the problem, that's why I brought it up today rather than tomorrow.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  Do you mind if I respond?
 >>AVRI DORIA:  No, I don't respond.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  On ICANN and IANA names, Chuck, Dan and I had a detailed conversation about how to handle that part of the recommendation to take into account Mike Rodenbaugh's point of view.  We discussed that yesterday.
 With respect to the single-letter second-level existing registry names that were slightly separate from that piece of work, Kurt and I had a conversation this morning and that work is proceeding as an implementation piece of work and will come back to the council separately on that piece.  That doesn't address the IDN one that you also raised which can be lumped into tomorrow.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Can be lumped in.
 >>LIZ WILLIAMS:  The two are already underway.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  That's what I was trying to accomplish, to make sure they're not just idly sitting there.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay, thank you.
 So I would like to end this discussion but it really isn't ended, it is really just postponed until future discussions and will be continued.
 So at this point on the agenda -- and we have about six minutes left before the meeting ends, I would like to ask if there is any other business?
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Yes.  I would like to make a motion, and it is going to go against Jeff's request in the public forum that these motions always be presented in advance for the public to see, but I hope you will bear with me and agree that this is an appropriate use of this.
 I'd like to propose a motion -- and councillors, I have sent this motion to the council list, if you're online so that you can read it online.
 Here is the motion.  And just to let you know where we're going, this is a motion of thanks to Bruce Tonkin for his well over four years of service as council chair.  Here's the motion.
 Whereas, Bruce Tonkin served as DNSO Names Council chair beginning on August 29th, 2002, and continued as GNSO Council chair until 7 June 2007. 
 Whereas, on 8 June 2007, Bruce Tonkin's second term as chair of the GNSO Council came to a close as he took his seat on the ICANN board to which the council elected him.
 Whereas, Bruce maintained neutrality as chair while still representing the registrars constituency.
 Whereas, Bruce demonstrated a calm demeanor in successfully keeping the council on track during long deliberations on extremely divisive issues.
 Whereas, Bruce combined his leadership abilities, technical expertise, industry experience and relationship skills with extremely long hours of hard work to leave an imprint on the GNSO that will be missed greatly.
 Whereas, Bruce provided exemplary service in his role as chair of the introduction of new gTLDs PDP committee that has been working for the past 1 1/2 years demonstrating a way in which the GNSO can effectively tackle a very large challenge involving many complex competing interests and many policy issues.
 Whereas, Bruce's accomplishments are exemplified by the respect he generated not only in the GNSO but in the ICANN community as a whole.
 Therefore, the GNSO Council expresses sincere thanks and appreciation to Bruce for his outstanding service to the GNSO and for his willingness to continue to serve the community as an ICANN director.
 [ applause ]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  I was going to propose we accept that by acclamation, but I think it has been seconded and has been accepted by acclamation.
 >>MAWAKI CHANGO:  And by the public.
 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Ah, yes, Bruce.
 [ Laughter ]
 I forgot all about you.
 >>BRUCE TONKIN:  I always like to have the last word on things.  I thank very much the council for those very kind words and I have been pleased to serve the council during my term.
 However, I'd like to make some specific thanks to the staff involved because they are, perhaps, not as always as public and upfront as members of council are but they really make the machine work behind the scenes.
 I want to really draw attention to a few in particular staff individuals that have helped me in the council while I have been there during my term.  I think probably my number one thanks must go to the GNSO secretariat Glen De Saint Gery who has supported me throughout the five years that I've been on the council and really continues to support council members individually.
 Her dedication and attention to detail has been outstanding throughout that five-year period.  So I'd like to thank Glen.
 I would like to thank Liz Williams who has been involved since the beginning of the new gTLD policy development process and as others pointed out, it has been extremely complex.  The policy development process itself has sort of spawned a number of subworking groups and the amount of hours that Liz has put into this policy development work have been extreme.  And I think she definitely deserves thanks of the community for the progress that has been made so far.
 Maria Farrell has worked on the WHOIS task force again throughout the period that I've been chair and, again, that has been a very contentious area and often sometimes when she is trying to write summaries of particular areas of work, depending on the nuance that people interpret in that summary, she often gets criticism from members of the task force or the community.  But I think it needs to be recognized it is very hard to write up a summary of a contentious topic in a completely neutral way.  And I do believe she does her best in that area and, again, deserves the thanks of the community for being willing to be involved in such a contentious activity.
 Olof Nordling has done a superb job on IDN issues reports as well as IGOs.  Olof has got the ability to do fairly deep research into the issues behind some quite complex topics, especially IDNs and has been able to summarize those issues in fairly short, useful reports.
 Denise Michel has taken over, I guess, the role more recently as heading the Brussels policy office and she's put a lot of work behind the scenes to get more support for the GNSO both in terms of additional staff but in terms of travel support for the face-to-face new gTLD meetings.  And so there is a lot of work she does behind the scenes that's probably not visible to many council members.
 Kurt Pritz has been very dedicated throughout the new gTLD process and really trying to make it work in terms of an implementation.  And I think it's been a fairly new experience to have staff involved in working on the implementation of a policy while that policy is being developed and being able to give the council feedback or the committee feedback on issues that may arise with some of our deliberations and have allowed us to improve those deliberations.  So I would like to thank Kurt again for his level-headedness and willingness to try and lead an implementation development work in ICANN.
 Dan Halloran has provided support in the new gTLD committee work in trying to work out, well, what's the legal basis for some of the implementations that we're looking at and has done a lot of work in trying to come up with a draft registry agreement, a RFP that ensure that is we can actually implement the recommendations that we're working on.
 And, finally, Karen Lentz has done a lot of work behind the scenes to create the diagrams that allow the process to be understood and the process to be implemented.  It is a bit of a long list but I think it is important to thank the staff for the support they've given me throughout my term on council.
 So thank you.
 [ applause ]
 >>AVRI DORIA:  So if there is no other business, I'll close the meeting at this point and thank you.