TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST Meeting with GNSO on Policy Issues and Implementation of ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS. Meeting with GNSO on Policy Issues and MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- . MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS DAKAR, SENEGAL 23 OCTOBER 20. . %%%D{P|ENDSTART TESTING, TESTING STREAMTEXT CONNECTION. MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS DAKAR, SENEGAL 23 OCTOBER 2011 MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS DAKAR, SENEGAL 23 OCTOBER 2011 MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS . DAKAR, SENEGAL . 23 OCTOBER 2011. MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS. DAKAR, SENEGAL. 23 OCTOBER 2011 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- MEETING WITH GNSO ON POLICY ISSUES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS.. DAKAR, SENEGAL.. 23 OCTOBER 201. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. IF WE COULD BEGIN TO TAKE OUR SEATS, WE COULD BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. COULD WE MOVE MORE CLOSELY TOWARD THE TABLE, PLEASE. WE'VE ADDED A FEW CHAIRS TO THE MAIN TABLE. AND IF GAC REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE MORE NUMEROUS REPRESENTING A PARTICULAR MEMBER, IF THEY COULD, PERHAPS, MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL ROOM AS WELL SO THAT THE SPEAKERS FROM THE GNSO COULD BE SEATED WITH US AT THE MAIN TABLE, THAT WOULD BE APPREC. -- APPRECIATED. . GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, WELCOME TO THE GNSO. WE HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR OR SO TO HAVE AN EXCHANGE THIS AFTERNOON. AND WE HAVE QUITE A FEW AGENDA ITEMS NOW IN ADDITION TO THE ONES INITIALLY PROPOSED. SO FOR THE GAC, THAT'S GOING TO BE CIRCULATED TO THE GAC LIST. BUT AS PREVIOUSLY PLANNED, WE WILL BEGIN WITH A COMPARISON OF WORKING METHODS OR APPROACHES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GNSO AND THE GAC. AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THE LEA RECOMMENDATIONS TO REGISTRARS. AND ALSO THE PROTECTION MECHANISM FOR THE IOC AND A RED CROSS. AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS AS BEST WE CAN WITHIN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED. SO TO BEGIN, COULD I ASK STEPHANE THAT THE CHAIR OF THE GNSO COUNCIL TO COMMENT ON HOW WE MAY PROCEED WITH THE FIRST ITEM? >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE GAC FOR HAVING US, ONCE AGAIN. THE MEMBERS OF THE GNSO COUNCIL THAT ARE IN THE ROOM AND THAT ARE PLANNING TO DISCUSS OR LEAD SOME OF THESE TOPICS, PLEASE DO TRY AND FIND A SEAT AT THE TABLE, IF POSSIBLE. AS HEATHER HAS JUST DESCRIBED, WE HAD THOUGHT TO START WITH A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE WAY THAT VARIOUS WORKING METHODS -- THE WAY THAT WE WORK, THE WAY THAT THE GAC WORKS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT OF PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, THE GNSO COUNCIL AND THE GAC, WHERE IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THERE WAS A FEELING THAT SOME OF OUR PROCESSES WEREN'T KNOWN TO ALL AND THAT THERE WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE OF SOME USE TO EXPLAIN THAT. SO WE THOUGHT WE'D START BY JUST PROVIDING A BRIEF EXPLANATION AND OVERVIEW OF THE WAY THE PDP PROCESS WORKS. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I WILL ASK MARIE CO MARIKA KONINGS, MARIKA, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE TABLE? YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE MIC, OKAY. SO MARIKA WILL GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PDP PROCESS. MARIKA >>MARIKA KONINGS: SORRY ABOUT THAT. HELLO, EVERYONE. I'M SENIOR GNSO AND POLICY ACTIVITIES. SO JUST GOING TO PROVIDE YOU A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF HOW POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORKS IN THE GNSO. THERE ARE COURSE OTHER WAYS THE GNSO UNDERTAKES PROJECTS OR INITIATIVES, JOINT WORKING GROUPS OR ACROSS COMMUNITY INITIATIVES. BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. SO FIRST STEP IN THAT PROCESS IS THAT AN ISSUE IS RAISED. ALSO, REQUESTING AN ISSUE REPORT. SO BASICALLY THAT CAN BE DONE BY -- THROUGH THREE WAYS, EITHER THE BOARD CAN REQUEST AN ISSUE REPORT. AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE CAN REQUEST AN ISSUE REPORT, OR THE GNSO COUNCIL ITSELF CAN REQUEST AN ISSUE REPORT. THERE'S A CERTAIN VOTING THRESHOLD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IN THE GNSO COUNCIL AND IT'S RELATIVELY LOW. IT'S AT LEAST 25% OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EACH HOUSE OR MAJORITY OF ONE HOUSE. SO THERE'S A VERY LOW THRESHOLD GETTING THAT PROCESS STARTED. SO THAT'S FOR EXAMPLE SOMETHING THAT HAS RECENTLY HAPPENED AND I KNOW YOU'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE ON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OR SPECIFIC MOTION THAT THE GNSO REQUESTS IT. SO THAT'S A REQUEST FOR AN ISSUE REPORT. SO THAT THEN GETS TO STAFF. AND STAFF IS TAS BD WITH DEVELOPING AN ISSUE REPORT. THERE'S CERTAIN REQUIREMENT ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE IN SUCH AN ISSUE REPORT LIKE OUTLINING THE ISSUE, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ISSUE. THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AN OPINION FROM THE GENERAL COUNCIL WHERE THE ISSUE IS CONSIDERED IN SCOPE AND IT WOULD ALSO CONTAIN A REPRESENTATION FROM STAFF ON WHETHER A PDP SHOULD BE INITIATED ON THE ISSUE. THAT REPORT IS THEN SUBMITTED TO THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND THE GNSO COUNCIL THEN NEEDS TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR NOT. AND THAT'S, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STAGE WHERE THE GNSO COUNCIL IS NOW IN WITH THE UDRP. A FINAL ISSUE REPORT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY STAFF AND IT'S NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE GNSO COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT OR NOT. AGAIN, THERE'S A SPECIFIC VOTING THRESHOLD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT NEXT STEP. AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PDP, A VOTE OF MORE THAN 30% -- 33% OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OF EACH HOUSE OR MORE THAN 66% OF ONE HOUSE IS NEEDED IN FAVOR -- IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD. SO, AGAIN, THERE'S NO UNANIMITY REQUIRED OR SUPERMAJORITY. THERE'S RELATIVELY LOW VOTING THRESHOLD IN ORDER TO GET A DPD STARTED. SO ONCE THE GNSO COUNCIL DECIDES TO MOVED FORE WAY PDP, A WORKING GROUP IS FORMED AMED THANS CURRENTLY THE OPERATING MODEL FOR ANY POLICY ACTIVITIES TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP THAT'S BASICALLY OPEN FOR ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN. SO NOT ONLY GNSO COMMUNITY MEMBERS BUT ANYONE THAT HAS AN INTEREST IN THAT TOPIC IS INVITED JOIN. SO THROUGH THAT WORKING GROUP, THE WORKING GROUP DELIBERATES, HAS PUBLIC MEETINGS, NORMALLY PUBLISHED VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF ITS REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS INPUT FROM THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS ON ITS REPORT. AND IN THAT WAY GETS TO ITS FINAL REPORT WHICH IS THEFEN SUBMITTED TO THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR ITS CRKS. THE GNSO COUNCIL IN ITS TURN NEEDS TO CONSIDER A REMS AND MAKE A VOTE ON IT. AGAIN, THERE MIGHT BE CERTAIN THRESHOLDS VOTES REQUIRED ESPECIALLY IF IT RELATES TO CONSENSUS POLICIES AND THERE'S A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IN ORDER TO SEND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. SO ONCE THE GNSO COUNCIL ADOPTS THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY MOVE UP TO THE BOARD AND THEN IT'S FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THOSE AND IF ARE ONCE ADOPTED, THEN THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF IMPLEMENTATION. AND AGAIN ON A DIFFERENT STEPS AND ON THE WAY THERE ARE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY INPUT AND PARTICIPATION. THIS IS JUST A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. THERE ARE A LOT OF SMALL LITTLE STEPS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THERE -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: SORRY TO INTERRUPT BUT THIS IS VERY FAST. IT'S BEING INTERPRETED AND THERE THERE ARE NO NATIVE SPEAKERS IN OUR COMMUNITY. CAN I REQUEST SLOW DOWN A BIT. I'M TRYING TO TAKE NOTES AS WELL. >>MARIKA KONINGS: THANK YOU. APOLOGIZE, NOT BEING A NATIVE SPEAKER, ALSO, I KNOW I SPEAK VERY FAST. NEVERTHELESS, I DO WANT TO EXTEND MY OFFER TO PROVIDE MAYBE A MORE DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY DEPARTMENT PROCESS. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL PRESENTATION THAT'S WE CAN ALSO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT TAKE YOU THROUGH THE DIFFERENT STEPS. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT AS WELL THAT AS PART OF THE GNSO PROFLTS A NEW REVISED PDP ISING GOB TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL ACTUALLY THIS WEDNESDAY. BROAD LINES IT HAS THE SAME STEPS THAT I EXPLAINED BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ENHANCEMENTS MADE TO THE PROCESS TO ENSURE BROADER PARTICIPATION, DISCUSSION, AND REALLY MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A -- THERE'S ENOUGH TIME, ENOUGH ROOM FOR INPUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WELL-INFORMED DECISIONS CAN BE TAKEN ABOUT CERTAIN TOPICS. AND I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. DO GOING COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT PRESENTATION AND DID THE APPROACH TOWARDS THE PDP THAT GNSO FOLLOWS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. I NOTICED THAT YOU REFERENCES A LOW THRESHOLD TO INITIATING A PDP. HOW DO YOU ACCOMPLISH BALANCE IN THE CAPACITY OF A MEMBER OF THE GNSO TO INITIATE A POLICY WITH MANAGING WHAT COULD BE IN FACT NUMEROUS REQUESTS INITIATED AND HOW DO YOU MANAGE CONSIDERATION OF THAT AND THAT PROCESS SO THAT IT'S ACHIEVING SOME SORT OF BALANCE, IF YOU WILL. >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: I JUST WANT TO THANK MARIKA FROM ICANN STAFF FOR GIVING US THAT PRESENTATION. TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION, HEATHER, IT'S SOMETHING WE STRUGGLE WITH AS WELL. IT'S BALANCING OUR WORKLOAD WITH THE ABILITY TO INITIATE NEW PROJECTS. AND AS I'M SURE MOST OF YOU KNOW AT THE GNSO ALREADY HAS A VERY FULL PLATE. SO IT IS SOMETHING THAT THERE'S NO SIMPLE ANSWER. BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND THE WAY OUR VOTING THRESHOLDS ARE SET UP NOW, THEY ARE DONE THAT WAY SO THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES THAT MAY BE IMPORTANT TO SOME GROUPS THAT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED THAT COULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE VOTING THRESHOLDS WOULD BE TOO HIGH. ON THE OTHER HAND, -- AND THAT'S A FUNCTION OF THE GNSO'S DIVERSITY AS WELL THAT WE NEED TO BE IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE NOW SUFFERING WITH A HIGH WORKLOAD. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE ARE PAYING PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO WITHOUT HAVING RESOLVED IT COMPLETELY YET. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SINGAPORE, PLEASE. >> SINGAPORE THANK YOU, CHAIR. FOR OUR EDUCATION WE ARE NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PDP PROCESS. ASSUMING THEY APPROVE THE PDP PROCESS, WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME WHERE THE WHOLE PDP PROCESS WILL BRING TO CONCLUSION? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? >>MARIKA KONINGS: SO THIS IS MARIKA AGAIN. WE HAVE ACTUALLY KEPT SOME STATISTICS AND IT DOES VARY DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE. BUT I THINK IF YOU REALLY GO FROM START TO FINISH, YOU LOOK AT AT LEAST A YEAR. AND ON VERY COMPLICATED ISSUES, I THINK THE REASON PDPs HAVE COMPLETED TICK MORE THAN TWO YEARS BUT I THINK THAT'S PARTLY RELATED AS WELL TO STAFF AND COMMUNITY OVERLOAD BECAUSE OF MANY ISSUES GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME BUT AGAIN ALSO TAKING MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN CONSIDERATION BY THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES. SO ONE TO TWO YEARS, I WOULD SAY, IS AVERAGE. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, PERHAPS I COULD GIVE OR BEGIN WITH A BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE WORK THE GAC'S BEEN DOING ON ITS PROCESSES. AND PERHAPS BY COMPARING OR LOOKING AT THE WAYS IN WHICH WE WORK, THAT WILL GENERATE A BIT OF DISCUSSION AS A RESULT. SO I WILL BEGIN. AND I INVITE GAC COLLEAGUES TO CONTRIBUTE AND SHARE THEIR VIEWS AS WELL ON THE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE A NUMBER WERE MADE IN RELATION TO THE ORGANIZATION OVERALL AS WELL AS SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE GAC. AS WELL, THE JOINT WORKING GROUP REPORT OF THE BOARD AND GAC, WHICH LOOKED AT REVIEWING THE ROLE OF THE GAC, MADE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO REFER TO TO AT LEAST BEGIN MAKING SOME REMARKS FROM A GAC PERSPECTIVE. SO AS PART OF THE JOINT WORKING GROUP, WE DISCUSSED GAC ADVICE. IT SEEMED APPARENT TO US THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD, FOR THE COMMUNITY, WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE GAC ADVICE. AND WE DETERMINED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OCCURS IN WRITING. AS IT TURNS OUT, SOME MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY OR ON THE BOARD WERE UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER, IF WE WERE HAVING A MEETING AND MAKING VERBAL COMMENTS WHETHER WE CONSIDERED THAT TO BE GAC ADVICE. SO IT CAN BE IN WRITING IN THE FORM OF LETTERS, THE COMMUNIQUE THAT WE ISSUE AT THE END OF MEETINGS AND SO ON. WE'D ALSO BEEN ASKED BEFORE ABOUT WHETHER OUR ADVICE WAS FORMAL. AND, FROM A GAC PERSPECTIVE, WE DETERMINED THAT THIS ISN'T A MEANINGFUL DESCRIPTOR FOR GAC ADVICE, THAT IT'S ALL FORMAL. THAT YOU WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE INFORMAL GAC ADVICE. BUT YOU MAY HAVE GAC ADVICE THAT COMES IN STAGES. YOU MAY HAVE INTERIM ADVICE. BUT FORMAL AND INFORMAL WERE NOT THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. WE EXPLAIN IN THE REPORT THAT WE WORK ON THE BASIS OF CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD NOTE FROM MARIKA'S PRESENTATION THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF VOTING. AND THAT SEEMS TO ME ONE OF THE MOST PRONOUNCED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC IS THAT WE PLACE FAR LESS EMPHASIS ON VOTING TO GENERATE OUR ADVICE. WE WORK ON THE BASIS OF CONSENSUS. IN TERMS OF TRACKING GAC ADVICE AND THIS ADVICE, OF COURSE, AS REFLECTED IN THE BYLAWS IS TO THE BOARD, SPECIFICALLY. WE IDENTIFIED DIFFICULTIES WITH TRACKING THAT ADVICE. SO ONE OF THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE IN THE REPORT IS FOR THE CREATION OF A REGISTER. AND I'M MOSTLY CLOUDY SKIESED TO REPORT THAT WE ARE WORKING ON THAT CURRENTLY WITH THE BOARD TO PUT IN PLACE A BETTER MECHANISM FOR TRACKING ADVICE THAT'S BEEN ISSUED AND HOW THE BOARD RESPONDS TO THAT OR WHAT ACTION IS TAKE NEN RELATION TO IT. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE REGULAR BOARD EXCHANGES, PARTICULARLY WHERE IT APPEARS THERE MAY BE DISAGREEMENT REGARDING ADVICE. WE POINT OUT THAT THE BENEFITS OF PROVIDING INPUTS EARLY INTO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND, OF COURSE, RECENTLY THIS HAS BEEN COLORED BY OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM. AND SO WE TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE REPORT. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE ROLES THAT LIAISONS CAN PLAY. AND WHILE THE GAC CHAIR SERVES AS A LIAISON TO THE BOARD, WE PROPOSE PERHAPS LOOKING AT HAVING AN ADDITIONAL LIAISON WHICH WOULD BE A BOARD LIAISON TO THE GAC. AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY EXPLORE ALSO, WE TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHEN GAC MEMBERS DO PARTICIPATE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY, THEY CANNOT PLAY A REPUTATIONAL ROLE, AND SO WE TRY TO CLARIFY THE BASIS ON WHICH GAC MEMBERS CAN PARTICIPATE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING GNSO WORKING GROUPS AND SO ON, AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN WORKING IN THAT REGARD. SO I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE KEY RELEVANT POINTS HERE FOR THIS DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OTHER COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT OR WHETHER ANYONE FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN RELATION TO THAT. STEPHANE. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: THANK YOU. JUST A QUESTION. THE REPORT YOU MENTIONED, HEATHER, IS THAT AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE? I'M NOT SURE I HEARD OF IT BEFORE. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: YES, IT IS AVAILABLE. IT WAS PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AS WELL AS BEING SENT TO THE BOARD AND SO ON. SO IT IS AVAILABLE PUBLICLY. IT IS ON THE GAC WEB SITE, I BELIEVE, AS WELL. BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ABOUT THAT. UNITED STATES. U.S.A. >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE A REGISTRY STAKEHOLDER GROUP AT THE TABLE -- THERE YOU ARE. THE REGISTRY STAKEHOLDER GROUP DID ACTUALLY PRESENT COMMENTS ON THE REPORT WHICH ARE MUCH APPRECIATED. REGRETTABLY, DUE TO THE PRESS OF WORK, THE REPORT ATTRACTED ONLY TWO SETS OF COMMENTS. BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ENOUGH FOR THE GAC AND THE BOARD TO GO ON. WE HAVEN'T YET HAD OUR MEETING, BUT WE WILL BE MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE THAT JOINT WORKING GROUP REPORT IS A KEY INPUT THAT WILL GUIDE OUR DISCUSSIONS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE FIVE OF THE 27 ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THE ROLE OF THE GAC WITHIN ICANN. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. OKAY. SO I SEE NO REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR. U.K., PLEASE. >>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS VERY MUCH, CHAIR. AND THANKS TO THE GNSO FOR TALKING US THROUGH THEIR PROCESSES AND SO ON. IT'S VERY HELPFUL. IT'S GREAT, ACTUALLY, TO HAVE, FINALLY, A GAC SESSION HERE IN DAKAR WHERE IT'S NOT JUST THE GAC. MUCH OF OUR TIME HERE IN DAKAR IS IN CLOSED SESSION, BUT THAT'S FORCE OF CIRCUMSTANCE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE WAY WE WORK IN FUTURE, IN PREVIOUS GAC MEETINGS WE HAVE ALWAYS PRETTY MUCH BEEN AN OPEN SESSION ON EVERYTHING WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED. SO IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU HERE. AS HEATHER HAS DESCRIBED, WE WORK ON THE BASIS OF CONSENSUS, AND THAT SORT OF FLAGS UP A QUESTION FOR ME WITH REGARD TO THE GNSO. AND YOU HAVE A GREAT DIVERSITY, AS I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER, STEPHANE. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY IS IN VERY CLEAR AND OBVIOUS DISAGREEMENT ON A POSITION? PERHAPS WITH REGARD TO A PDP PROPOSAL OR A PROCESS UNDER THE PDP. I MEAN, HOW DO YOU RESOLVE DIFFERENCES OF POSITION BETWEEN CONSTITUENCIES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE A WAY FORWARD ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMMENT ON? THANK YOU. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: SO PERHAPS I SHOULD CLARIFY BY SAYING THAT ONCE THE COUNCIL INITIATES A PDP, THAT IS -- THERE IS A GROUP THAT IS TASKED WITH DOING THAT. SO THE GROUP ITSELF WILL PRODUCE, THROUGHOUT ITS WORK LIFE, IT WILL PRODUCE VARIOUS STAGES OF A REPORT THAT WILL BECOME FINAL ONCE THE GROUP HAS FINISHED ITS WORK. AND AT THAT POINT, THE GROUP WHICH IS -- ANYBODY CAN JOIN THE GROUP. ANY MEMBER OF THE GNSO COMMUNITY OR OUTSIDE CAN JOIN THE GROUP. ONCE THAT'S BEEN DONE, THE GROUP PRODUCES A REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED FINAL, AND WHICH REPRESENTS, WHETHER IT BE CONSENSUS OR WHAT THE FINAL STAGE OF AGREEMENT WAS WITHIN THE GROUP. THAT REPORT -- SO IT WILL BE MADE CLEAR IN THE REPORT IF THERE WERE -- IF THERE WAS, AS I THINK YOU PUT IT, VIOLENT DISAGREEMENT FROM JUST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE OR PERSON OR MEMBER OF THE GROUP, THEN THAT WOULD BE MADE CLEAR IN THE REPORT, AND DIFFERENT STAGES OF CONSENSUS ARE DEFINED IN OUR BYLAWS TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO BE REPRESENTED. AND THEN THE REPORT WILL BE PASSED BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OR REWORK, IF THE COUNCIL FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING THE OUTPUT OF THE GROUP. SO ONCE AGAIN, IF THERE'S VIOLENT DISAGREEMENT FROM ONE AREA ON THE OUTPUT OF THE WORKING GROUP, THEN THAT MAY CAUSE THE COUNCIL TO ASK THE WORKING GROUP TO RECONVENE AND LOOK AT THE ISSUES AGAIN. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, STEPHANE. JEFF, PLEASE. >>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH, THIS IS JEFF NEUMAN. I AM WITH THE REGISTRY STRARLD GROUP. I AM ALSO ONE OF THE VICE CHAIRS OF THE GNSO COUNCIL AND HAPPENED TO CHAIR THE PDP GROUP, OR THE GROUP THAT'S IN CHARGE OF REVISING THE PDP. I WANT TO FIRST DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STARTING A PDP AND THE RESULTS OF A PDP. WE HAVE THE LOWER THRESHOLD IN PLACE TO ACTUALLY JUST START THE PDP, TO START THE WORK ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THE COUNCIL GETS THE RESULTS OF THE WORK AND HAS TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO APPROVE OF WHATEVER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY BE. THE VOTING TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF A PDP ARE A MUCH HIGHER THRESHOLD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT IT TO AMOUNT TO WHAT WE CALL A CONSENSUS POLICY. AND A CONSENSUS POLICY ARE THOSE THINGS THAT CAN BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE REGISTRIES OR REGISTRARS. SO IT'S A MUCH HIGHER THRESHOLD. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE IN THE PDP PROCESS WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESULTS WEREN'T CAPTURED BY ONE PARTICULAR GROUP. SO YOU COULD FORESEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A PDP ON SOMETHING, AND THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT REQUIRES, LET'S SAY, REGISTRIES TO DO SOMETHING. WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT, IN SETTING UP THE WHOLE PDP, WOULD BE TO GIVE A UNILATERAL VETO RIGHT TO THE REGISTRIES; OTHERWISE, YOU COULD IMAGINE, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS GOOD FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY, IF THE REGISTRIES JUST GOT TOGETHER AND SAID, "NO, WE WON'T DO IT," YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THE GROUP CAPTURED LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THERE'S ALL THESE BALANCING EFFORTS. WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE UDRP, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS WHETHER TO INSTITUTE THE REVIEW PROCESS. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGES TO THE PARTICULAR -- OR CHANGES -- PARTICULAR CHANGES TO THE UDRP. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHETHER TO REVIEW THE UDRP AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. JAMIE, PLEASE. >> JUST TO ADD TO JEFF'S COMMENT, WE MUST MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. AND SOMETIMES THIS DISTINCTION ISN'T VERY CLEAR. AND I HOPE IT IS -- IT WILL BE MORE CLEAR TO GAC MEMBERS THAN IT IS. BUT I THINK JEFF MAILED THE DISTINCTION ON THE INITIATION AND THE CONCLUSION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION IN A WAY AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE TOPICS THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE ENDORSED BY THE GAC, AND FOR THE REGISTRARS AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS THERE. FOR THE GAC, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN LEADING, SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT THE UNITED STATES INTRODUCE THE TOPIC FOR OUR DISCUSSION, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED FROM THERE. SO, PLEASE, UNITED STATES. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU. I'M VERY MINDFUL THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME TOGETHER, AND SO APOLOGIES TO MASON IF I'M JUMPING AHEAD. WE HAVE CIRCULATED -- THE GAC -- BOTH THE GAC AND THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOW VERY AWARE OF THE RECENT GNSO COUNCIL VOTE THAT APPROVED A REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP MOTION TO ASK FOR AN ISSUES REPORT ON SEVERAL, AT LEAST THREE, IN PARTICULAR, OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION. MY LAW ENFORCEMENT FRIENDS TELL ME THEY HAVE BEEN AT THIS WORK SINCE 2009, SO A GOOD TWO YEARS. AND AT LEAST FOR MOST OF US IN THE GAC, WHEN WE ENDORSED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT WAS JUNE 2010, SO HERE WE ARE, IT'S OVER A YEAR LATER. WE HAD A VERY GOOD EXCHANGE, WE THOUGHT, IN SINGAPORE BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP WHERE OUR TAKE-AWAY WAS MORE POSITIVE THAN I THINK THE RESULTS WE'RE SEEING TODAY, QUITE CANDIDLY. SO I'M SURE I AM GOING TO BE JOINED BY COLLEAGUES AROUND THE TABLE. BUT AS WE LOOK BACK AS TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN SINGAPORE AND THOUGHT WE HAD ARRIVED AT A FAIRLY CLEAR SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE COULD BE A WAY FORWARD ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS, WHETHER YOU CALLED IT A CODE OF CONDUCT, WHETHER YOU CALLED IT BEST PRACTICES, WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T FEEL STRONGLY WHAT IT WAS CALLED. WHAT WE FELT STRONGLY ABOUT WAS THE NEED FOR ACTION. AND SO QUITE CANDIDLY, I AM GOING TO CONVEY, WITH MY COLLEAGUES' APPROVAL, THAT THE GAC AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ARE FRANKLY VERY, VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THIS RESOLUTION. WE FEEL IT'S VERY, VERY LITTLE, GOING FORWARD. IT'S VERY LATE IN THE DAY. AND AS WE LOOK INTO THIS MODEL ITSELF, WE SEE THIS AS A, YOU KNOW, VERY CONSTRUCTIVE MULTISTAKEHOLDER SELF-REGULATORY MODEL. AND, FRANKLY, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED THAT IT CAN'T SELF-REGULATE VERY EFFECTIVELY. SO IT'S VERY HARD FOR US GAC REPRESENTATIVES TO GO HOME TO CAPITAL AND REPORT UPSTREAM WHERE THIS IS CONSIDERED A VERY HIGH PRIORITY, TO MITIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY USING THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM. IT'S EXCEEDINGLY HIGH PRIORITY. AND YET WHAT WE HAVE HAD TO REPORT RECENTLY -- WELL, THIS IS THE RESPONSE WE HAVE HAD TO DATE. A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. AND WE'D LIKE TO SORT OF EXPRESS TO OTHER GNSO COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS OUR CHAIR DID SEND AN E-MAIL TO TRY TO SHARE THE CONCERN WITH YOU THAT NEITHER THE GAC NOR LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ACTUALLY ENDORSED THAT RESOLUTION. APPARENTLY, HOWEVER, THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE A LENGTHIER DIALOGUE TO SUGGEST A NEED TO PERHAPS STEP BACK AND REGROUP AND ENGAGE WITH THE GAC. SOMEHOW, THAT WASN'T VERY PERSUASIVE, SO WE'RE DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT AS WELL. SO QUITE FRANKLY, WE ALMOST FEEL SIMPLY AS IF WE HAVE TAKEN A STEP BACKWARDS. I DO WANT IT SHARE WITH YOU ALL THAT WE DO INTEND TO RAISE THIS WITH THE BOARD BECAUSE, IN FACT, AS WE LOOK AT THOSE FIVE ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PERTAIN TO THE ROLE OF THE GAC, THEY COULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF HOW CAN THE GAC PARTICIPATE EFFECTIVELY IN ICANN PROCESSES. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE AVENUE. WE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING BY ENGAGING DIRECTLY WITH THE PARTIES IN QUESTION WHO COULD ACTUALLY COLLABORATE WITH GOVERNMENTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ADVANCE WHAT WE WERE TOLD ARE SHARED GOALS. SO THAT'S VERY NICE TO KNOW THAT THESE ARE SHARED GOALS. APPARENTLY WHERE OUR VIEWS DIVERGE IS HOW TO BEST MEET THOSE GOALS. SO WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL BE MADE AWARE THAT THE GAC IS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED. AND INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS AND COMING BACK TOGETHER AS A GROUP. AND CERTAINLY LATER THIS WEEK WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE WITH THE BOARD. SO MAYBE THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME TO SAY, AND I WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN AS WELL. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. WOULD GAC COLLEAGUES LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING AT THIS STAGE? TO THOSE COMMENTS? UNITED KINGDOM, PLEASE. >>UNITED KINGDOM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. YES, WE VERY MUCH SHARE THE DISMAY AND CONCERN EXPRESSED BY THE U.S. WITH REGARD TO HOW THIS WORK, WHICH WAS A MATTER OF COMMON AGREEMENT AND SHARING OF OBJECTIVES, SEEMS TO HAVE DRIFTED SO BADLY INTO INACTION. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO REPORT TO MINISTERS. AND I DID EMPHASIZE WAY BACK IN BRUSSELS MEETING, I THINK, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS RIGHT AT THE TOP LEVEL IN GOVERNMENTS, COMBATING ABUSE AND ENSURING THAT THIS WHOLE ORGANIZATION, ICANN, WORKS EFFECTIVELY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE REGISTRARS HAVE A VERY OBVIOUS AND PARTICULAR ROLE TO PLAY. AND I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COMMITMENT TO DEVELOPING AN APPROACH, A KIND OF SELF-REGULATORY APPROACH, WAS THERE, AND IT'S THE KIND OF APPROACH THAT WE IN THE U.K. GOVERNMENT AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS ALWAYS LIKE TO PROMOTE. A KIND OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING FOR US TO SORT OUT AND AVOID ANY KIND OF HEAVY-HANDED, TOP-DOWN LEGISLATIVE APPROACH, WHICH IS NOT -- DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO THE IDEAL SOLUTION. SO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND -- AND WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS A RAFT OF SUPPORT FOR MANY OF THE LEA PROPOSALS SEEMS TO HAVE DISSIPATED IN A VERY SURPRISING AND FRUSTRATING MANNER. SO WE DO WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS ON -- AS TO WHETHER YOU SHARE WITH US THE ANXIETY TO PUT THIS BACK ON TRACK QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE POSITIONS OF THE U.S. AND U.C, AND IN PARTICULAR TO ECHO THE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE NEEDS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO REALIZE THAT IN ORDER TO DEFEND THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL AGAINST OTHER PRESSURES, IT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT IS POLITICALLY SUSTAINABLE. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS OUR CLEAR IMPRESSION THAT THE POLITICAL SUSTAINABILITY IS NOT THERE. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EUROPEAN COMMISSION. SO MASON COLE, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. CAN I ASK THAT REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUPS COMMENT ON THIS? I BELIEVE THERE IS INTEREST FROM THE GAC TO HEAR THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHERS IN THE GNSO, AND IN PARTICULAR, IN RELATION TO THE MOTION AND HOW THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE GAC HAD BEEN REQUESTING AND SEEKING IN SUPPORTING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. STEPHANE, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK FIRST? OKAY. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: NO, I JUST WANT IT MAKE A CLARIFICATION. MASON IS THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP BUT WILL BE JOINING THE GNSO COUNCIL ON WEDNESDAY. HE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP. AND THE COUNCIL HAS AGREED THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK IN THAT CAPACITY TODAY TO YOU. SO JUST TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. MASON. >>MASON COLE: THANK YOU, CHAIR. WELL, I THINK ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRARS, THE FIRST THING I SHOULD DO IS SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDID INPUT ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPOSALS. I WOULD AGREE THAT THE REGISTRARS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THE DESIRE TO OUTCOMES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPOSALS. I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT SUPPORT FOR THOSE PROPOSALS HAS DISSIPATED. IN FACT, I WOULD SAY THAT'S ENTIRELY INACCURATE. I WOULD AGREE WITH U.S. THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON HOW TO BEST ARRIVE AT THOSE DESIRED OUTCOMES. I THINK LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN THEY MADE THEIR PROPOSALS TO US THAT WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR WAS BINDING, ENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS OF POLICY THAT COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE REGISTRARS, AND THAT WE WOULD BE BOUND TO ADHERE BY. THE ISSUE THAT I THOUGHT REGISTRARS WERE VERY CLEAR IN EXPLAINING WAS THAT A CODE OF CONDUCT OR A VOLUNTARY METHOD WOULD NOT ARRIVE AT BINDING ENFORCEABLE POLICY, AND, THEREFORE, PROBABLY WOULDN'T ACHIEVE THE OUTCOMES THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES WERE SEEKING. SO I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE GAC BELIEVES THAT THE REGISTRARS ARE ROADBLOCKING THE SITUATION. I ASSURE YOU THAT THAT IS NOT CASE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SIMPLY A MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE REGISTRARS AND THE GNSO ABOUT HOW TO ARRIVE AT BINDING ENFORCEABLE POLICY THAT WILL BE USEFUL IN COMBATING ONLINE CRIME. I THINK, TOO THAT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO REVISIT THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE GOT HERE. WHEN, IN 2009, WHEN THE RAA WAS SORT OF RE-OPENED FOR DISCUSSION, LAW ENFORCEMENT MADE 12 PROPOSALS ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE RAA. SOME OF THOSE PROPOSALS, AS WE HAVE COMMUNICATED TO THE GAC AND TO OTHERS BEFORE, ARE AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY, AVAILABLE TO BE PUT INTO PLACE TO BE IMPLEMENTED. OTHERS ARE NOT, BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE TECHNOLOGY OR SERVICES THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET OR WOULD NEED TO BE DEVELOPED IN COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WITH THE GAC. THAT WAS COMMUNICATED VERY CLEARLY IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND IN OTHER MEETINGS. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE PROPOSALS, BECAUSE, IN FACT, WE DO. THEY JUST MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TODAY. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COOPERATE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND INTEND TO COOPERATE WITH COMMUNITY TO ARRIVE AT WHATEVER SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE ARRIVED AT TO PUT THOSE THINGS -- THOSE PROPOSALS INTO PLACE. I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IF REGISTRARS HAD BEEN APPROACHED WHEN THOSE -- WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPOSALS WERE FIRST MADE AND BEFORE THE GAC ENDORSED THEM, TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE AVAILABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE SOLVED A LOT OF THE FRUSTRATION THAT WE HEAR IN THE ROOM TODAY. I REGRETFULLY LOOK BACK ON THAT SITUATION AND REMEMBER THAT IT WAS REGISTRARS WHO BEGAN THE DIALOGUE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND I AM PLEASED TO SAY THAT THAT DIALOGUE BECAME FRUITFUL OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS TENSE BETWEEN REGISTRARS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THIS POINT, WHICH I FIND VERY REGRETTABLE AS WELL. THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE. SO LET ME JUST REPEAT, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH ANY OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY OR AGAIN AS A GROUP DURING THE COURSE OF THIS WEEK, BUT LET ME REASSURE YOU AGAIN THAT REGISTRARS AGREE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WITH THE GAC THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE THING TO ARRIVE AT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPOSALS IS BINDING ENFORCEABLE POLICY THAT CAN BE ENFORCED ACROSS ALL REGISTRARS, NOT JUST THE ONES WILLING TO SIGN A VOLUNTARY CODE OF CONDUCT. WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WE WILL ARRIVE AT BINDING ENFORCEABLE POLICY VIA THE QUICKEST AVAILABLE METHOD, AND THE FASTEST AVAILABLE METHOD TO US RIGHT NOW IS A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN -- I HOPE WE CAN MOVE BEYOND THE DISCOMFORT OF THE MOMENT AND ARRIVE AT SOLUTIONS THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE ARE PLEASED WITH. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, MASON. I'M REMINDED WITH YOUR REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT SOME THINGS CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE SHORT TERM VERSUS THE MEDIUM VERSUS THE LONG TERM THAT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT, I HAD THOUGHT, AS REFLECTED IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUE FROM THE LAST MEETINGS THAT THERE WOULD BE A REPORT OUTLINING THOSE MEASURES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE HIGH-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS. CLEARLY YOU NEED TO DO WORK -- THIRD PERSON PLURAL. I MEAN, THERE NEEDS TO BE WORK DONE WHEN BEING GIVEN A HIGH-LEVEL RECOMMENDATION TO TURN THAT INTO SOMETHING IMPLEMENTABLE. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE RECOMMENDATION ISN'T CLEAR OR THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE RECOMMENDATION ISN'T DURABLE. SO I WOULD POINT THAT OUT. AND AGAIN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE GAC IS LOOKING FOR ACTION. AND THAT CONTINUES TO BE THE CASE. SO I HAVE NEXT ZAHID JAMIL AND THEN KRISTINA ROSETTE. >>ZAHID JAMIL: THANK YOU. ZAHID JAMIL FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL AS B.C. COUNCILLOR. AS B.C. REPRESENTATIVE, I DID OPPOSE THIS RESOLUTION, AND THE B.C. VOTED AGAINST IT, AT LEAST I DID, AND I KNOW THE IPC DID AS WELL. I KNOW KRISTINE WILL BE SPEAKING AFTER ME. WE DID SEEK A DEFERRAL OF THIS MOTION BECAUSE WE SAID WE UNDERSTAND LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT TOTALLY BEHIND IT. BUT THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME SORT OF A A RUSH IN THIS AND WE WERE NOT PERSUASIVE. I WOULD LIKE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE ARE THESE JUST SOME OF THE PROPOSALS? IS IT POSSIBLE TOMORROW WE COULD PASS ANOTHER RESOLUTION ADDING ALL THOSE THINGS LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD WANT IN THERE SO WE CAN REMEDY THE SITUATION, AND THE RESPONSE I GOT FROM THE REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP REPRESENTATIVE WAS YES, I DO NOT SEE WHY THAT COULD NOT BE MADE POSSIBLE. IN THAT RESPECT -- AND THAT'S IN THE TRANSCRIPTION. YOU CAN LOOK IT UP IN THE MEETING TRANSCRIPTS. SO MAYBE MOVING FORWARD, ONE OF THE REMEDIAL SOLUTION TO THIS WOULD BE THAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD. WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW, AT LEAST THE B.C. WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE GAC WANTS IMPLEMENTED. MAYBE WE CAN WORK WITHIN THE GNSO TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO THERE. SO THAT IS A PROPOSAL. MAYBE IF YOU SEND US SOMETHING WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT OFFER. KRISTINA ROSETTE. YOU ARE NEXT. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: SURE. KRISTINA ROSETTE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. I WANTED TO CONFIRM FOR YOUR INFORMATION THAT MY OTHER IPC COUNCILLOR AND I DID VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION IN LARGE PART BECAUSE IF IN FACT IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND WE ALSO HAD NOT RECEIVED QUESTIONS -- ANSWERS TO VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ADDITIONAL LEA RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS IT NECESSARY TO INITIATE A PDP PROCESS TO REQUIRE A REGISTRAR TO PUBLISH ON ITS WEB SITE A VALID PHYSICAL ADDRESS FOR PURPOSES OF RECEIVING LEGAL SERVICE OF PROCESS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF IT. I DO ALSO WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF ANOTHER KIND OF PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS ISSUE; NAMELY, THAT BACK IN 2009, WHEN THE RAA AMENDMENTS, OR WHAT BECAME THE NEW VERSION OF THE RAA WAS PUT UP FOR A VOTE, IT WAS INITIALLY BLOCKED BY WHAT IS NOW THE NONCONTRACTED PARTY HOUSE. AND WHEN WE DID, IN FACT, VOTE TO APPROVE IT IN MARCH OF 2009, WE DID THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD BE EFFORTS MADE TO DISCUSS HOW TO GO FORWARD WITH THOSE POTENTIAL TOPICS FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN INCORPORATED AND HAD NOT, IN FACT, MANIFESTED THEMSELVES IN AMENDMENTS. A GROUP WAS CONVENED. THEY PUT FORWARD TWO PROCESSES, PROCESS A, PROCESS B. PROCESS A HAD STRONGER SUPPORT THAN PROCESS B. A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS A -- NAMELY, FOR IDENTIFYING A WAY FORWARD FOR DEALING WITH THESE OTHER TOPICS THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HIGH AND MEDIUM PRIORITY -- WAS DEFEATED ON A HOUSE -- SPLIT-HOUSE VOTE. THE NONCONTRACTED PARTY HOUSE WAS IN FAVOR; THE CONTRACTED PARTY HOUSE WAS OPPOSED. A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MODIFIED VERSION OF PROCESS B WAS PUT FORWARD IN SAN FRANCISCO, WITH A VOTE ALONG THE SAME LINES. AND BECAUSE I AM AN ETERNAL OPTIMIST, I HAVE INTRODUCED FOR THE COUNCIL'S VOTE ON WEDNESDAY A FURTHER REFINED VERSION OF PROCESS B. I, FRANKLY, DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS GOING TO PASS BASED ON PAST VOTING HISTORY I WOULD SUSPECT VERY MUCH THAT IT IS NOT. BUT THAT IS KIND OF THE NON-LEA COUNTERPART TO THE LEA RECOMMENDATIONS. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. I HAVE AUSTRALIA, THEN JEFF, THEN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. >>AUSTRALIA: FIRST OF ALL, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY USEFUL DISCUSSION, AND I'D LIKE TO THANK GNSO MEMBERS FOR THEIR INPUT INTO THIS DISCUSSION. I FOUND THAT VERY VALUABLE. I THINK IT SORT OF TIES TOGETHER WITH THE PRESENTATION WE HAD ON WORKING -- ON THE WORKING METHODS, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS -- FOR ME, ANYWAY, HOW THIS PLAYS OUT IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, IT WOULD SEEM, WITHIN THE GNSO. SO ONE THING I'D BE INTERESTED TO FOLLOW UP, IF NOT IMMEDIATELY BUT AT SOME STAGE, HOW GNSO FEELS THAT POTENTIAL ISSUES LIKE THIS CAN BE TAKEN FORWARD. FROM A GAC REPRESENTATIVE POINT OF VIEW, I SHARE THE VIEWS OF GAC MEMBERS WHO SPOKE BEFORE. I SENSE A FRUSTRATION HERE. SO IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY THAT THINGS LIKE THIS CAN BE TAKEN FORWARD. SO -- BUT GOING TO THE COMMENTS OF MASON COLE IN PARTICULAR, I REALLY -- I'M STRUGGLING HERE TO SEE THAT IT'S TAKEN SO LONG TO COME FORWARD WITH -- TO START A PROCESS ON THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SEEM TO ME WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT BIG ISSUES HERE IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, WE'RE PUTTING UP A CONTACT AND, AN E-MAIL CONTACT POINT ON A WEB SITE FOR SOMEONE. AND THIS TAKES A YEAR TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE INITIATE A PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER YEAR. THIS, I FIND, ASTOUNDING. SO AND THEN TO FOLLOW UP, FOLLOWING A CONVERSATION IN SINGAPORE, I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULD BE TRACKING ALL 12 LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WE'D BE SEEING A TABLE OR SOME KIND OF TRACKING DOCUMENT THAT HAD ALL KIND OF TRACKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND A PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PATH FOR EACH SO THAT WOE COULD ALL BE CLEARLY INFORMED AND HAVE AN ON GOING DIALOGUE ABOUT LOU WE WERE TAKING -- HOW WE WERE TAKING THESE FORWARD. I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THAT DOCUMENT. SO IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW -- I HAD SOME INSIGHT I THINK, FROM OTHER GNSO MEMBERS ABOUT WHERE THIS MAY BE GOING NOW. BUT GOING FORWARD, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT WE DO THIS SO THAT THERE ARE NOT THESE KIND OF EXCHANGES IN FUTURE, THAT WE ALL HAVE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHERE THIS IS GOING, THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, AUSTRALIA. SO I HAVE IN THE LIST THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. I HAVE JEFF, MASON, THE UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE, AND MARY. AND THEN WE WILL NEED TO CONCLUDE I THINK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM AS WE'RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. SO EUROPEAN COMMISSION, PLEASE? >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO GO ON RECORD THAT WE SHARE THE SURPRISE OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHER GAC MEMBERS THAT HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE US. AND I WOULD LIKE TO PASS ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL AFFAIRS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN. EU, THEY'RE SURPRISED, TO PUT IT DIPLOMATICALLY ON WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE PROBLEMS THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS RAISE. BECAUSE WE MUST EITHER BE MISSING SOMETHING ESSENTIAL IN HERE OR WE CAN'T QUITE SEE THE REASON TO LAUNCH AN ANALYSIS ON HAVING -- PROVIDING A VALID PHYSICAL ADDRESS FOR PURPOSES OF RECEIVING LEGAL SERVICE INVOLVING REGION, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND FAX NUMBER AND I'M JUST MENTIONING ONE. OUR COLLEAGUES AT HOME ARE QUITE SURPRISED AND AGAIN MAYBE WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING BUT WE'D LIKE A CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. JEFF? >>JEFF NEUMAN: JEFF NEUMAN FROM THE REGISTRY STAKEHOLDER GROUP. WHEN WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THE MOTION FOR -- FROM THE REGISTRARS, WE DID NOT SEE VOTING "NO" AS AN OPTION. TO US, VOTING "NO" MEANT DON'T EVEN TAKE THAT LITTLE STEP FORWARD. WE DID NOT SEE IT AS OTHER GROUPS MAY HAVE SEEN IT AS MORE OF A PROTEST VOTE. IT WASN'T A CHOICE OF DO YOU ACCEPT ALL OR NONE. IT WAS DO WE EVEN TAKE THIS STEP FORWARD. SO TO THE REGISTRIES, IF WE VOTED NO, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING. AND THE REGISTRIES TOOK THE VIEW THAT WE'D LEATHER TAKE THIS LITTLE STEP THAN DO NOTHING AT ALL. SO I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER. AND THAT'S WHAT WE AS THE REGISTRIES CONSIDERED. SO VOTING NO AS A PROTEST WAS NOT AN OPTION. I DO ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE CONSTITUENCY SAID THAT HE ASKED FOR A DEFERRAL. THAT IS CORRECT. HE DID. BUT UNDER OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEFERRED ONCE. AND IF THE PERSON PROPOSING THE MOTION DID NOT WANT A DEFERRAL OR ACCEPT A DEFERRAL THE SECOND TIME, OUR RULES ARE THAT IT DOES NOT GET DEFERRED A SECOND TIME. SO THAT'S JUST MAYBE A RULE OF PROCEDURE WE CAN GO BACK AND THINK MORE ABOUT. BUT THAT'S JUST THE RULES THAT WE HAD. AS FAR AS AWAY FORWARD, ABSOLUTELY. ADDITIONAL ISSUE REPORTS CAN BE REQUESTED. THEY CAN EVEN BE COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING ISSUE REPORT. WE MADE THAT POINT ON THE CALL. THE REGISTRIES, IN FACT, WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL ISSUE REPORTS. AND I ALSO WANT TO CAUTION, WITH DUE RESPHOCT MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE IPC, BEFORE YOU FORM ANY OPINION ON THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENTS, I ASK THAT YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ALL SIDES OF THAT ISSUE. I THINK IT WASN'T COMPLETELY CHARACTERIZED CORRECTLY. AND SO YES, THERE IS A MOTION, BUT THERE ARE A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER ISSUES WITH THAT MOTION. SO I ASK THAT BEFORE ANY KIND OF FORMAL OPINION IS FORMED, THAT ADDITIONAL CONSULTATIONS TAKE PLACE. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, MASON. >>MASON COLE: I KNOW WE'RE SHORT ON TIME. SO I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. A COUPLE OF ISSUES. I'M NOT SURE WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUEST, THEY ARE IN FACT QUITE SPECIFIC. I'M NOT SURE THAT -- I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HIGH LEVEL. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE 12 REQUESTS, THEY'RE VERY, VERY VERY SPECIFIC. AND I WOULD REMIND THE GAC THAT WE WENT THROUGH EACH OF THOSE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WE WERE VERY CLEAR WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT WAS IMMEDIATELY ABLE TO BE PUT IN PLACE AND WHAT WAS NOT AND THE REASONS FOR -- THE RATIONALE BEHIND ALL OF THOSE. SO I CONFESS THAT I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE REMAINS CONFUSION ABOUT WHY ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN'T BE PUT INTO PLACE TODAY. TO THE POINT THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY EASILY PUT INTO PLACE LIKE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OR AN ABUSE CONTACT, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT MANY OF THE REGISTRARS ALREADY DO HAVE THOSE THINGS AVAILABLE ON THEIR SITES. THE POINT OF HAVING A PDP OR SOME OTHER BINDING PIECE OF POLICY IN PLACE IS TO ENSURE THAT IT IS UNIVERSAL ACROSS ALL CONTRACTED REGISTRARS AND IS ENFORCEABLE. AND THEN, IN GENERAL, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S INPUT ABOUT THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT WITH INACTION. I -- I -- I'M -- I CONFESS THAT WE'RE VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THERE HAS BEEN INACTION. WE'VE INVESTED A GREAT DEAL OF TIME WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WITH THE GAC TO TRY TO FIND WORKABLE WAYS TO MOVE THESE THINGS FORWARD AND WE REMAIN VERY COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. IF THE GAC WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE REGISTRARS, THE REGISTRARS WOULD BE PLEASED TO DO THAT. IF THE GAC WOULD LIKE A NEW DIALOGUE WITH REGISTRARS ABOUT HOW TO COLLABORATE TO GET THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE FOR REGISTRARS TO IMPLEMENT TODAY TO BRING THOSE INTO FRUITION, THE REGISTRARS WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO DO SO. I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET PAST THIS MOMENT OF FRUSTRATION AND UNDERSTAND THE RULES UNDER WHICH ALL OF US HAVE TO OPERATE ACCORDING TO THE OBLIGATIONS THAT REGISTRARS HAVE UNDER THEIR CONTRACT TO ICANN. AND THAT WE CAN -- WE CAN GET PAST THIS MOMENT AND FIND WAYS TO COLLABORATE. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, MASON. I DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE SAY THAT ALL OF THE MEASURES CAN BE IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENTED. THE DISCUSSION WE HAD PREVIOUSLY WAS ABOUT IDENTIFYING WHICH COULD BE IMPLEMENTED NOW. WHICH WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE MEDIUM AND THEN IN THE LONG TERM, AS A USEFUL MEANS OF ENSURING ACTION IS TAKEN. REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS, PERHAPS I WASN'T CLEAR. BUT THE INTENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE, IS CLEAR. AND THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW YOU IMPLEMENT AND WHAT ARE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES, WHAT ARE THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES, AND SO ON, THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT CAN TAKE PLACE. BUT THE INTENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE, IS QUITE CLEAR FOR LEA AND FOR THE GAC. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE THE UNITED STATES, SINGAPORE AND THEN MARY AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. SO UNITED STATES, PLEASE. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. AND LIKE PETER BEFORE WE, I DO APPRECIATE GETTING THE FEEDBACK FROM INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENCIES. IT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR US TO HEAR DIRECTLY. BECAUSE I DO THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A CASE STUDY FOR US IN TERMS OF HOW, IN FACT, DIFFERENT OUR WORKING METHODS ARE. THIS JUST HIGHLIGHTS HOW VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THEY ARE. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS IF I MAY. AND I KNOW WE'RE TAKING MORE TIME BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS CRITICAL. BECAUSE THESE ARE SOME FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES THAT QUITE CANDIDLY ARE GOING TO BE OBSTACLES UNLESS WE FIND A WAY TO RESOLVE THEM. THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN OBSTACLES TO US COLLABORATING IN A SELF-REGULATORY MANNER. SO THE FIRST POINT WHERE I THINK THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING IS A COMMENT THAT THE REGISTRARS WERE SOMEWHAT FRUSTRATED THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CAME TO THE GAC FIRST. WELL, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE PART OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. SO FROM A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS THE MOST LOGICAL STEP THEY COULD POSSIBLY TAKE. THEY BELONG TO US. SO THEY FIRST COLLABORATED AMONGST THEMSELVES. AND IT WAS TRUEY A GAC-WIDE EFFORT AND THEN THEY RESPECTIVELY APPROACHED EACH OF THEIR GAC MEMBERS AND WE MET AS A GAC. THAT IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL. THAT IS HOW GOVERNMENTS WORK. I DO HAPPEN TO KNOW, ANECDOTALLY, HOWEVER, THAT MANY OF THEM CONSULTED WITH REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES INFORMALLY. SO THIS WASN'T A SURPRISE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR THE AIR ON THAT POINT. NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE SURPRISED THAT THE GAC IS GOING TO REPRESENT SOME SUBSET OF OUR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS. THAT IS NATURAL, THAT IS LOGICAL. SO LET'S TAKE THAT ONE OFF THE TABLE. THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN EACH AND EVERY TIME. THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT IN DIFFERENT WORKING METHODS THAT I THINK WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED. I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAIL. BUT IT IS PRETTY STRIKING TO ME -- AND I BELIEVE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES AROUND THE TABLE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO START NODDING THEIR HEADS. IT'S VERY STRIKEING TO ME THAT A GNSO MOTION TABLED BY THE REGISTRAR STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND AGREED BY A MAJORITY, HAS A POINT 4 THAT SAYS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCYs PROVIDE -- AND IT AS ALL SORTS OF DETAIL AS TO WHAT REGISTRARS THINK LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES NEED TO DO FOR THEM. NOW, THERE WAS NO DIALOGUE BACK WITH EITHER THE GAC OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE THAT TEXT WAS PUT IN THE MOTION. THERE WAS NO DIALOGUE BACK FROM ANY OF THE OTHER CONSTITUENCIES. THANK YOU FOR THE TWO THAT DID VOTE TO -- NOT TO MOVE FORWARD. SO THE REGISTRIES, I WOULD SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS THAT THE GNSO HAS AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY TASK ICANN STAFF TO WRITE AN ISSUES REPORT THAT SOMEHOW INCLUDES A TASK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. SO I'M VERY CONFUSED AS TO HOW THIS NOT ONLY GOT IN HERE, BUT HOW IT'S -- HOW ANYBODY COULD PROCEED FROM THE GNSO WITHOUT COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION WITH THE GAC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO THAT IS ANOTHER REAL PROBLEM I THINK WE HAVE IN OUR -- THERE'S A DISCONNECT. LET ME JUST BE VERY BLUNT HERE. THIS IS A DISCONNECT. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD HAPPEN OR HOW ANYBODY THINKS IT CAN ACTUALLY BE ADDRESSED. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK KRISTINA ROSETTE AND I DO CONCUR WITH HER. I KEEP SEEMING TO HEAR THE COMMENT THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PDP, THIS IS NOT BINDING. THIS IS WHERE YOU LOSE GOVERNMENTS. YOU LOSE ANY SYMPATHY, YOU LOSE ANY SUPPORT. IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO WRITE A BRIEFING MEMO FOR OUR POLITICAL MANAGERS TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED A POLICY TO SIMPLY PUT YOUR NAME ON YOUR WEB SITE. IT IS SIMPLY MIND-BOGGLING THAT WE WOULD -- THAT YOU REQUIRE THAT. NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT HAS TO BE ENFORCEABLE. WE THOUGHT WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD EXCHANGE IN SINGAPORE WHERE YOU SAID THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM REPRESENTED 80% OF THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY AND THAT YOU WERE FULLY PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT PROBABLY UP TO 9 OF THE 12. SO THAT'S THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE ARE NOW COME TO YOU SAYING THIS LOOKS PRETTY PALTRY. AND ACTUALLY, IT LOOKS A LITTLE SILLY. SO I DID WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THAT. AND TO REFRESH MEMORY THAT WE, TOO, THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE GAC ENDORSED WERE INTENDED TO AMEND THE RAA. SO IT'S PRETTY DISHEARTENING TO THINK THAT HERE WE ARE. WE HAVE ONE MOTION THAT ADDRESSES SO LITTLE OF WHAT GAC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE ASKED FOR THAT IT'S DISAPPOINTING. BUT THEN WE'RE HEARING THAT IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE ON WEDNESDAY THAT YET ANOTHER MOTION TO AMEND THE RAA IS GOING TO FAIL. SO AT WHAT POINT -- WHEN DOES THE GAC HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WE'VE IDENTIFIED? THAT YOU HAVE SAID TO US YOU SHARE OUR CONCERNS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE FEEL LEFT IS COMPLETELY IN LIMBO WITH NO CLEAR WAY FORWARD. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. I UNDERSTAND MY COCHAIR STEPHANE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND ON THAT POINT. >>STEPHANE van GELDER: YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HEATHER. AS CHAIR OBVIOUSLY I'M UNABLE TO COMMENT ON THE ISSUE ITSELF. AND I WON'T DO THAT. BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE MOTION THAT YOU REFERENCES AND THE POINT 4 THAT YOU REFERENCED, IS IN THE PROCESS WE DESCRIBED EARLIER ON, A REQUEST FOR AN ISSUES REPORT. SO IN OUR PROCESSES, WHEN THE GNSO COUNCIL FEELS IT NEEDS MORE INFORMATION OR MORE IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING, A TOPIC BEFORE CONSIDERING -- AND I HIGHLIGHT THE WORD "CONSIDERING" WHETHER TO INITIATE A PDP, THAT'S A POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ON IT, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR AN ISSUES REPORT. SO I JUST WANT TO READ THE RESOLVED ON THAT MOTION WHICH READ , "RESOLVED, THE GNSO COUNCIL REQUESTS AN ISSUES REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE POLICY REVISIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS." SO IT'S RESEARCH AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT I HAVE SINGAPORE THEN MARY AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. SINGAPORE, PLEASE. >>SINGAPORE: THANK YOU, CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE GNSO COLLEAGUES. HOWEVER, WE REMAIN CONCERNED WITH THE PRIORITY AND THE TIME FRAME GIVEN BY THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY IN FOLLOWING UP THE LEA RECOMMENDATIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD IN BRUSSELS MEETING, I THINK SEVERAL LEA RECOMMENDATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED NEAR TERM OR LONG TERM. AND NOW WE FIND THAT CERTAIN ITEMS ARE NEAR TERM. THEY BECOME SUBJECT TO AN ISSUES REPORT AND WE ALSO HEARD THAT PDP IN THE WORST CASE CAN TAKE UP TO TWO YEARS AND THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER POLICY IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME. SO YOU WONDER THE THREE ISSUES THAT I'DFIED IN THE ISSUE REPORT RESOLUTIONS WHICH TO US IS SORT OF PROCEDURAL MATTERS, IT TAKES A LONG TIME AND WE WONDER HOW THE GNSO WILL DEAL WITH THE REMAINING 9LEA RECOMMENDATIONS. PERHAPS WE CAN SHOW SOME LIGHT ON THAT. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SINGAPORE. MARY? >>MARY WONG: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY NAME IS MARY WONG AND I'M AN ELECTED COUNSELOR FROM THE NON-COMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY. SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE CHAIR'S REQUEST AND ADDRESS THE GAC ON BEHALF OF THAT CONSTITUENCY. FIRST, LET ME PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY SAYING THAT OUR STWNT SI RECOGNIZES AND AGREES THAT THESE ISSUES ARE VERY IMPORTANT. SECONDLY, MY CONSTITUENCY ALSO RECOGNIZES AND APPRECIATES THE GAC'S INPUT INTO SO MANY IMPORTANT MATTERS, MANY OF WHICH ARE DEALT WITH AND WILL BE DEALT WITH BY THE GNSO WITH ITS OWN PROCESSES. SO WE WELCOME FURTHER INPUT FROM AND INTERACTION WITH THE GAC. HAVING SAID THAT, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, WE WISH TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OR EVEN GOING FORWARD ON OTHER GENERAL MATTERS, COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON OTHER USERS AND OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE GNSO INCLUDING THE NCUC WHICH I REPRESENT. AND JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IN THIS LAST MOTION -- AND LET ME JUST PAUSE HERE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS MADE BY JEFF, MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE REGISTRIES STAKEHOLDER GROUP ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF VOTING NO ON THAT MOTION. NCUC COUNSELORS VOTED YET. BUT IN THAT RESPECT, THE DISCUSSION THAT WENT INTO THE MOTION, THE DRAFTING AND THE REVISIONS, BROUGHT OUT ANY AWB OF ISSUES THAT WERE IMPANELFUL ON NON-COMMERCIAL USERS AND AS A RESULT, THE FINAL RESOLUTION INCLUDED AN AGREEMENT TO DO A FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IMPACT ANALYSIS OF SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO I OFFER THIS AS AN EXAMPLE TO THE GAC THAT, WHILE I UNDERSTAND AND WE UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATIONS WITH TIMING AND PERHAPS THE PROCESSES THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS, THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT SOME OF THESE ISSUES -- IN FACT, MOST OF THESE ISSUES BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL SO THAT THE WHOLE OF THE GNSO CAN GIVE THEIR FEEDBACK AS TO THE IMPACT OF SOME OF THESE. SOME MAY BE PURE IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS. OTHERS MAY AT FIRST NOT APPEAR TO BE POLICY THAT IMPACTS A LARGE NUMBER OF USERS. BUT UPON EXAMINATION, THEY MIGHT. AND SO WE URGE THE GAC TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARY. OKAY. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS THE PROTECTION MECHANISM FOR THE IOC AND RED CROSS. THE U.K. -- THE TOPIC LEAD FROM THE GAC SIDE IS THE U.K. SO I WILL TURN TO THE U.K. TO INTRODUCE THAT TOPIC AND THEN THE GNSO CAN RESPOND. >>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS VERY MUCH, CHAIR. I THINK I CAN BE QUITE BRIEF ON THIS BECAUSE I'M SURE WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE TASK BEFORE US FLOWING FROM THE BOARD RESOLUTION IN SINGAPORE, WHICH WAS -- WHICH SAYS THAT IT LOOKS TO THE GNSO AND THE GAC TO PREPARE ADVICE ON -- WELL, TWO ASPECTS. THERE'S IMPLEMENTING PERMANENT PROTECTION FOR THE OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT AT THE TOP LEVEL. AND SECONDLY, PROTECTION AT THE SECOND LEVEL. AND WE SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL ATTACHED TO HEATHER'S LETTER TO STEPHANE 14 SEPTEMBER TO AMEND THE GRT REGISTRY AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND LEVEL NAMES. SO TWO ISSUES. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM GNSO COLLEAGUES ABOUT HOW WE IMPLEMENT THIS AND THE KIND OF MECHANISM THAT MAY BE YOU HAVE IN MIND FOR ACTION ON THIS. AND, OF COURSE, WE'RE READY TO ASSIST WITH THAT AS SOON AS YOU'RE READY TO GO WITH THIS. THANKS. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. I BELIEVE JEFF IS GOING TO RESPOND ON THE GNSO SIDE. >>JEFF NEUMAN: THANK YOU. YEAH, FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE REALLY TRULY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO YOUR LETTER, YOUR PROPOSAL. AND, AGAIN, WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE DETAIL THAT'S CONTAINED IN THERE. WE WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE THE PROPOSAL VERY SERIOUSLY. WE DON'T HAVE UNANIMITY ON THE COUNCIL ON THIS TOPIC. AND BELIEVE THE WAY FORWARD IS TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO WORK WITH THE GAC IN A COLLABORATIVE MANNER TO FIND A SOLUTION TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WORK TOGETHER IN SOME WORT OF GROUP, I'LL CALL IT A GROUP AND NOT A WORKING GROUP, WORKING TOGETHER IN SUCH A GROUP, WE UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE AS INDIVIDUAL GAC REPRESENTATIVES, NOT AS AN OPINION OF THE GAC. BUT WE FIND THAT GETTING YOUR INPUT INTO THE PROCESS WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO KNOW SOME OF THE THINKING THAT WENT IN BEHIND THE LETTER AND THE PROPOSALS. SO THAT END, WE JUST -- WE ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS ASKING. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF THE WAY WE UNDERSTAND IT. AND, OF COURSE, PLEASE LET US KNOW IF WE DON'T HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. BUT AT THE TOP LEVEL, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GAC IS ASKING FOR TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT EXACT NAMES IN THE ATTACHMENT -- IN THOSE ATTACHMENTS TO THE LETTER REGARDING THE OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS MARKS BE PUT ON THE OFFICIAL RESERVED NAMES LIST AS OPPOSED TO WHAT ICANN HAS PUT IT IN RIGHT NOW IN THE GUIDEBOOK WHICH THEY CALL STRINGS INELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION. AND THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT STRINGS ON THE RESERVED LIST WOULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH A STRINGS SIMILARITY REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO JUST OUT RIGHT JUST THESE EXACT MATCHES. AND THE SECOND THING THAT WE UNDERSTAND AT THE TOP LEVEL IS THAT THE RESERVATION BEING A PERMANENT ONE AS OPPOSED TO JUST THIS CURRENT -- OR THIS NEXT ROUND THAT'S COMING UP. AT THE SECOND LEVEL WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT THE NAMES -- WHAT IT SAYS IN THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE NAMES BE RESERVED. ONE OF THE THINGS IDENTIFIED BY THE COUNCIL IS THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF VINT CERFED NAMES. THERE'S A RESERVED NAME LIKE THE WORD "EXAMPLE" WHICH IS RESERVED OUTRIGHT WITH NO ABILITY TO GET THAT NAME OFF THE RESERVED LIST. THERE ARE ALSO RESERVED NAMES LIKE THE 2 LETTER COUNTRY CODES WHICH, ALTHOUGH INITIALLY RESERVED, IN READING THE GUIDEBOOK, THOSE NAMES CAN BE TAKEN OFF OF THE RESERVED NAMES IF THERE IS -- I'M JUST TRYING TO -- THE REGISTRY -- WHAT IT SAYS IS THE REGISTRY OPERATOR MAY PROPOSE RELEASE OF THESE RESERVATIONS BASED ON ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH THE CORRESPONDING COUNTRY CODES. AND THERE'S ALSO A THIRD TYPE OF RESERVED LIKE THE COUNTRY AND TERRITORY NAMES WHICH SAY THAT PROVIDED THAT THE RESERVATION OF SPECIFIC COUNTRY AND TERRITORY NAMES MAY BE RELEASED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE REGISTRY OPERATOR REACHES AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTS PROVIDED FURTHER THAT REGISTRY OPERATOR MAY ALSO PROPOSE RELEASE OF THESE RESERVATIONS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ICANN'S GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL BY ICANN. SO IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE TALKED ABOUT THINGS LIKE GRANDFATHERED OLYMPIC MARKS. OLYMPIC AIRWAYS OR AIRLINES, SORRY. AND AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES THERE'S OLYMPIC PAINT AND SOME OTHER GRANDFATHERED MARKS. SO A DISCUSSION OF HOW OR IF WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROCESS TO REMOVE THOSE NAMES IF THERE WERE A LEGITIMATE RIGHTS TO OTHERS TO USE THOSE. AND ALSO, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSAL, EVEN AT THE SECOND LEVEL, IT WAS ONLY FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, A REQUEST TO RESERVE THE EXACT MARK AND NOT STRINGS THAT STRINGS THAT WERE CONTINUING THAT MARK. SO EXAMPLE IN.SPORT, IT WOULD BE OLYMPIC DOT SPORT BUT NOT NECESSARILY OLYMPIC GAMES.SPORT. SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS ASKING FOR. WITH THAT SAID, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. YOU KNOW, MAYBE FORMING A GROUP TO WORK ON THESE ISSUES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OUTPUT OF THIS GROUP WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LARGER GROUPS WHETHER IT'S THE GAC AND ALSO THE GNSO BUT WE REALLY DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS PROPOSAL, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR INPUT SO EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS. I THINK THIS IS A FIRST OF, I HOPE, A FIRST OF MANY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, JEFF. UNITED STATES? >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, HEATHER, AND THANK YOU, JEFF. I WONDER IF THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP MIGHT BE THAT YOU PUT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU BELIEVE THE COUNCIL HAS WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL FROM THE GAC IN WRITING SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IT AS A GROUP. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A USEFUL NEXT STEP. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO WITH THAT, JEFF? YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? >>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH. AND ALSO, I KNOW THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING I'VE MISCHARACTERIZED, IF YOU COULD PLEASE LET US KNOW. I GAVE OUR OWN SUMMARY. AND, AGAIN, IT'S JUST BASED ON OUR READING OF THE LETTER. THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE'VE NOT CHARACTERIZED CORRECTLY. AND ALSO AFTER WE SUBMIT THESE IN WRITING, IF THIS IS WAY WE CAN WORK -- OBVIOUSLY TIMING ON THESE IS CRITICAL AND SHORT. BECAUSE IF WE CAN GET KNEES INTO THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT BEFORE ANYBODY ACTUALLY SIGNS THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY MECHANISM AFTER REGISTRY SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS THROUGH THE WHOLE PDP CONSENSUS POLICY PROCESS, WHICH I KNOW WE ALL WANT TO AVOID. SO, IF THERE'S A WAY AFTER WE SUBMIT THESE IN WRITING THAT WE CAN FORM SOME SORT OF TASK FORCE OR SOMETHING THAT COULD LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO THE GROUPS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, JEFF. SO THANK YOU TO THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR MEETING WITH US TODAY. WE DO APPRECIATE THE TIME SPENT. I THINK WE HAD SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING WITH YOU AGAIN. SO FOR THE GAC, IF WE COULD CONTINUE IN FIVE MINUTES, SO VERY SHORT BREAK. AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR SESSIONS. >>STEPHANE van GELDER: THANKS AND FOR THE GNSO COUNCIL CAN I REMIND COUNSELORS THAT THERE ARE TWO MORE SESSIONS IN THE ROOM ACROSS THE CORRIDOR IF YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE GAC FOR HAVING US. Event is not active