GNSO Working Group.
 Sydney, Australia.
 21 June 2009.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  All right.  Good morning, everyone.  I have 9:30 on
my watch, and I don't know if it's a little fast or, so we'll try to
get this meeting started sort of on time.  We'll see if there's -- is
anybody outside the room that we know of that should be in here?  That
wants to be in here?

 I'm going to actually give two more minutes, I'm going to look out --
I'll go outside personally and see if there's anyone that's out there
on these work teams, so two minutes.  A.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay, everyone.  Welcome.  This is the combined
meeting of the PPSC, which is the Policy Process Steering Committee,
and I apologize, there's a lot of acronyms that we use in this group,
and I think there is a glossary that's around that may describe these
particular acronyms.

 This is an open meeting, so anyone's welcome to attend, and if anyone
else wants to join the tables, as opposed to sitting in the back, we
welcome that as well.

 What I think I'll do is I'll start out with a brief introduction.

 The PPSC is -- for those of you that are not familiar with it, it's
the steering committee that was -- that got together to discuss
basically two main topics.  That's the policy development process,
which for those of you that were here at lunchtime yesterday, Margie
went into a little bit of discussion of consensus policies and the
policy process.

 And also to talk about the use of working groups and essentially kind
of the rules that should be in place for the new restructuring, the
GNSO as it's restructured, and so what we're going to do during this
first hour is really talk about the progress that each side has made,
some of the difficulties or stumbling blocks that we've run into -- I
guess we have the phone lines open, which is good.

 And so we'll talk about some of the stumbling blocks, talking about
some milestones and how we could actually get to a point where, if --
if everything is as planned, the plan is to have the new council
restructured by Seoul, which is only a few months from now.  It sounds
kind of far away, but, you know, there's a lot of work to be done
between now and then.

 So I think what I'll start is, I'll start with just an introduction
of who everyone is.  They can all introduce themselves around the table
and around the back, and I'll apologize to the people that are in the
back on the right side here, because I can't really see everybody, so
if anyone raises their hand, I won't be able to necessarily to see you
so it's probably best if you have anything to say, and I do encourage
that, to come up to the mic and that way I can actually see you and we
can call on you.

 So I think I will start with for those of you that don't know me, my
name is Jeff Neuman.  I'm with NeuStar, one of the registries.  We're
the registry for dot biz, and I think what I'll do is I'm the chair of
the PPSC, as well as chair of one of the work teams, the policy
development process work team.

 So I'm going to talk with Mike Palage over are there.  If you could
just introduce yourself, your affiliation and which of the work team --
if you're on one of the work teams, if you could just say that as well.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:  Mike Palage from the registry and business
constituency and I'm on none of the work teams, to my knowledge.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I'm Marilyn Cade.  I'm a member of the business
constituency.

 >>JIM BASKIN:  Jim Baskin from Verizon, business constituency, just
not -- not a member of the any of the groups here.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Mike Rodenbaugh, GNSO Councillor, from the
business constituency.  I am on the PPSC and I'm on the PDP work team.

 >>UTE DECKER:  I'm Ute Decker.  I'm a GNSO Council member from the
intellectual property constituency and I'm listening in.

 >>OLGA CAVALLI:  Olga Cavalli.  I'm a GNSO Council member and a
NomCom appointee.

 >>GREG RUTH:  Greg Ruth, ISPCP councillor, working group work team.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Margie Milam, ICANN staff.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Marika Konings, ICANN staff and supporting the PDP
work team.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I am J. Scott Evans from the IPC, and I am the
chair of the working team work group -- working group work team.

 [Laughter]

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Ron?

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Ron Andruff, business constituency member, alternate
member of the operating steering committee and the -- a member of the --
a member of the working team for GNSO operations.

 >>JAMES BLADEL: James Bladel, registrar constituency and member of
the PDP working team.

 >>TERRY DAVIS: Terry Davis, GNSO Councillor, NomCom appointee.  Just
listening in.

 >>DAVID MAHER:  David Maher, dot org, chair of the registries
constituency and a member of the working team.

 >>GRAY CHYNOWETH: Greg Chynoweth, Dynamic Network Services, a member
of the registrar constituency and a member of one of the working teams.
I can't remember the acronym.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  That's fine.  There's a lot of them.  If the people
on the side want to come up and introduce themselves at the mic or if
there's a -- there is a mic going around, too.

 >>ALICE YU: Hello.  This is Alice Yu from t.nic.

 >>LLOYD THROWER: Lloyd Thrower, U.S. government.

 >>KAHANKE LIYANAGE: I'm Kahanke Liyange, student from La Trobe
University.

 >>PAUL FOODY: Paul Foody, sitting in. 

 >>ILIYA BAZLYAHKOV: Iliya Bazlyankov, member of the working group.

 >>ZUO RAN: Zuo Ran, from Conac, China. 

 >>RYOVICHI HOSOYA: Ryovichi Hosoya, from Japan NTT.

 >>JOE CADY: Joe Cady, SG Intractive, France.

 >>NACHO AMADOZ: Nacho Amadoz, dot cat, working group work team, or
work team working group.

 >>BYRON HENDERSON: Byron Henderson, dot travel registry.

 >>CHRIS WRIGHT: Chris Wright, au registry.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Great.  I think that's everyone.  I don't think
anyone walked in since then.  Okay.  So the way we'll start this is to
just go and update on the PDP work team and I want to thank ICANN staff
for helping to do these slides.  We'll just give an update as to where
the PDP work team is, and then we'll go turn it over to J. Scott to
give an update on the working group work team.

 So this is the objective.  The PDP work team is responsible for
developing a new policy development process that incorporates a working
group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN's
policy development needs, and then the primary tasks, as you see up
there, are to appropriate operating principles, rules and procedures
applicable to a new PDP, and implement -- sorry, and implementation and
transition plan.

 So essentially, you know, we're taking into account that a new PDP is
-- going off the Board Governance Committee's recommendations, is to
take into account that the new PDP is better aligned with contractual
requirements of ICANN's consensus policies.  We're putting emphasis on
more work to be done at the prelaunch phase, to establish a PDP that's
more flexible than the current one that we live on -- live under,
including things like timing and dates, things like that, provide for a
periodic assessment -- so how did we do?  Does the policy actually
achieve its goals?  Is it working?  Do we need to go back and revise
any of our thinking?

 Is it better aligned with ICANN's strategic plan and operations plan?
And does it contain rules, processes, and procedures that are more
effective and efficient from what we have today.

 And so the way we've approached this is we started out in Mexico City
and had a brainstorming session which really was just a session to just
throw out ideas of things that people thought were working, people
thought were not working, stuff we should keep, stuff we should just
add to the process, and since Mexico City, we've scheduled biweekly
conference calls and have had a number of them since that time in the
last few months and I think we've made some pretty good progress which
we'll talk about in a minute.

 And we've also had input from external experts and we had -- one
example is we had Thomas Narten from the IETF come in.  He's obviously
also a board member here.  He came in to give a presentation on
something that the IETF calls "birds of a feather" process, which is
essentially a process by which the IETF introduces subjects basically
that may result in a working group, may not, but it's to kind of just
gather and see what the interest is in that particular subject, to see
whether it merits further work.  And there's -- although there's not
necessarily mandated process is for a "birds of a feather," there are
best practices or good recommendations that the IETF has put into place
that I think are very instructive as to the way we could be doing
things and we'll talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes.

 So another thing that we had is staff had done an excellent
background document on, you know, what is -- how do they view the PDP
and the work that they've had to do, and staff has had a lot of work in
these last few years on new PDPs, doing some background research,
getting together all of the materials, and some of the issues that
they've come across, things such as, you know, what happens when
there's a topic that people want a PDP on, but the issue is so broad,
what are ways that can help staff or help others to frame the issues
more narrowly, so that, you know, when you do get a working group
together, it actually can function more efficiently using some of the
past examples that we've had over the last few years.

 And what we've done in the PDP is we've broken down the work into
five stages which are up here, and really we're -- we're -- the first
stage, which is the planning and initiation phase is probably the one
with the most meat and we've certainly spent most of the time on that
and in fact, are still on that planning and initiation phase but I
think we've gotten to a point now where we can actually move on to the
next phase, which is to talk about proposal, review, and voting
thresholds.  Keeping in mind what that does not mean.

 The voting thresholds were actually, on a number of areas, already
set for us, coming out of the -- and I'm going to forget the acronym
but basically coming out of last July where there was the compromise
reached of certain voting thresholds that will be involved in some way
in the PDP process, things of, you know, what does it take, what kind
of vote does it take to initiate an issues report, what is it the vote
that it takes if it's, quote, in scope versus out of scope.  

 But there's a lot of things around those voting thresholds that still
need to be defined and those are the things that the work teams are --
need to work through.

 So even though it says "voting thresholds," I don't want to make it
sound that we have any input into changing those thresholds, but merely
helping to define when they -- what they are and what they mean.

 Then of course there's the work phase, which a lot of that is
overlapped with the working group work team, so I -- I'm actually
interested in hearing from some of the members of the working group
work team as to where they are with working groups.

 And of course then there's voting and implementation of the policy if
-- if it -- if that's what it's intended for.

 And then the assessment.  So once there is a new policy in place,
what do we do then?  We got to access its effectiveness and then some
mechanism for compliance with that policy if it is something that
requires compliance.

 So Stage 1, planning and initiation, again, we're currently in --
under discussion, and for those of you that are around for the next
session after this one, we'll go into much more details about this, as
to where we are, but essentially we've broken that down into 11 phases,
including who has the right to initiate a request for an issues report,
what does an issues report mean, scoping out the issues, creating of
that issues report once it's decided that that's something we should be
doing, and then how to resource it and prioritize those issues to make
sure that there's not too much work going on at once.

 And we've been working through each of these phases by using concerns
and questions.  A lot of them were actually raised during the Mexico
City brainstorming session, and a lot of them have been known or raised
in previous -- for a number of years, with the objective of getting the
work team consensus on a response which will help define what our
proposed solution is.

 And we expect to use a similar approach for the -- the other stages.

 If you want further information on the PDP work team, there's a Wiki
that we have that's available for anyone to view.  There's a staff PDP
background document.  There's our planning and initiation working
document.  And a summary of the contributions by Thomas Narten.

 I would also say that we're trying to arrange for a meeting with
Thomas Roessler, who could speak to us about the W3C processes of
especially how do they scope out an issue before the policy development-
type phase.

 So that's kind of an overall where we are with the PDP work team from
a process standpoint.  I'd be happy to take any questions.  Recognizing
that we're really going to dive in depth into this in the next session
that starts at 11:00, is that right?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  11:15.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  11:15.  So we've drive a lot more into the policy
development process work team.  We have actually a pretty sizeable
document to go through.  Some of the items that we've been discussing,
plus we did a survey amongst the work team members on some of the
issues that we've been talking about, and I'm happy to say that even
though sometimes we have a tough time getting people to show up for
calls, there was a -- a good amount of people that actually filled out
the survey so I'm happy about that.

 So before I go into more about the PDP, let me turn it over to J.
Scott to just talk about some of the activities of the working group
work team and the subgroups there.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  The working groups work team has divided into two
subgroups, and one is trying to come up with the charter guidelines. 
In other words, it's a document that's going to be used as a guideline
for work teams to divine their charters and set up their charters for
the work team.  The other is the operating model sub-team and that is a
sub-team that is going to look at exactly the processes that a work
team working groups will use, when they are -- after they've been
chartered.

 We've finally come up with an outline for the charter guideline, a
consensus.  It has been posted on the Wiki.  I think it was posted on
July -- I mean, I'm sorry, June 9th, and we are now going to flesh out
the text that will flow through that outline, working with our staff
liaison and consultant, which is Ken Bour, who has worked very closely
with us, to help us craft that so we can put it out for comment to our
group and then to the larger group once there's consensus on the actual
language of the text that fleshes out the outline.

 With regard to the operating model sub-team, we are still working on
fleshing out that outline, and getting some clarifications for how the
sections will be devolved, and what kind of guidance we want to offer
through that, but we are hoping that in our session this afternoon,
which I believe is from 1:00 to 3:00 this afternoon -- I think it's in
the same room from 1:00 to 3:00, so if you want to be there, you're
more than welcome to come -- we're going to flesh that out a little bit
more.

 So what we've got now is outlines.  We're hoping to use the month --
the six weeks before the end of July to get a document out so that the
groups have reached consensus that we can bring it to the PPSC, the
larger group, then to consider and then we can move forward.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Are any of the -- so you've broken them down
into two teams.  Are the chairs here now or --

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I don't believe so.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Is there anyone that's on those work -- those
teams that wants to give an update as to where they are?  I'm seeing
silence.

 Okay.  Well, what -- have there been any issues as far as -- you
know, I'll say with the PDP work team, as is I think kind of an issue
with ICANN in general, there's a lot of topics going on at the same
time, so I know with the PDP work team, we've had certainly good
attendance at some meetings and at other meetings we've, you know, had
to cancel calls because there -- you know, three or four people show up
and, you know, two of those -- or two or three of those three or four
people are ICANN staff, which we've gotten great support from, but, you
know, we've had to cancel some meetings because of lack of attendance.

 So have you guys been having some of those similar issues or --

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I would say we've had exactly that issue.  I have
found as a chair, I got involved in the IRT process, and was sort of
off the radar and I found that if I am not at the meetings circulating
and cajoling everyone to show up, nobody shows up.

 When I leave it to the subgroups to do things on their own without me
coordinating everything, I don't get any -- you know, I get some
attendance from stalwarts, but the problem we always have at ICANN is
that everyone says, "Well, we weren't involved or we didn't have an
opportunity to comment," but I just don't have people showing up.

 I have, you know, a core of about three or four people that show up
to the charter guideline group, and about one or two that show up to
the operating model group.

 So it's been difficult.

 Now, when we've had the larger calls, where both groups were
combined, I do get more folks to show up, but then it's really not any
work getting done.  It's more discussion about process than -- than
actual work.

 So I've talked to Avri and gotten some pointers on how to push things
forward so that we can actually get things accomplished, and I think
I've got some ideas for how we can get that done, and one of the ideas
is to actually work with staff to just get us a rough draft to some of
the documents out there, and then get people to comment on those
documents, and we can -- you know, if we have something to work with,
once the ball is rolling down the hill, I think it will gain momentum.

 It's just getting it over the precipice so that it will go down the
hill and so that's where we are now.

 We've got an outline.  The outline does have consensus, so I think
fleshing out that outline with text, we just need to get a draft out
there and rather than waiting on others to contribute, we're just going
to put out a draft and then get everyone to make comment on the draft,
just so, you know, we'll get something out there.

 I think once we get a rough draft, it will get people's minds focused
and ready to go and ready to start pulling it together.

 I think it's the whole point of nobody really wanting to take
ownership, and staff has really been very great about assisting and I'm
going to work with them and we're going to get something out for --
just to get comment on.  And I think once we do that's correct we'll
have far more engagement.

 Right now, it's a little confusion about what to say and how to say
it, so we can use some of the brainpower that ICANN staff has, because
they're very good at that, in being consultants, in getting us
something as a ground basis level to build from, and that's where we're
going to -- that's where we're headed.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah.  Marilyn?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Jeff, can I make a statement that we could park and
maybe come back to, but it's something that you and I just had a very
brief conversation about.

 I am on the PDP working -- the PDP group, and one of the experiences
that I have, which I suspect is a virus that is -- has spread to many
other people in the community, is this thing called work overload, and
I'm wondering if we might -- before we leave -- look at our experience
and think about how we might better structure -- or might give some
advice about how work of this nature can best be done in the future.

 So for example, at each meeting that we come to face to face, there
is a Friday afternoon that is open, and maybe we should be thinking
about trying to -- when we're doing something as important as this,
thinking about how we put together a major period of time together to
kick things off, and then go into the work -- the support of staff and
the work with committees because I -- my experience, being on the
council, when we took that approach in a couple of instances, came
together face to face and we worked in a concerted, straight-through
period of time to get an initial process launched, I found it easier to
then manage the rest of the work.

 And I -- you know, I think everybody's really committed to doing
this.  They understand how important it is.  But I think what we're
dealing with is, you know, just kind of workspace overload, and so
while we might not be able to restructure what we're doing within this
group, this might be a really good lessons learned in terms of our
advice about the kinds of support and approach that could be used
either to finish this work or in the future on work of this nature. 
Which does have a budget implication and I realize that, but, you know,
if we'd started this out by saying to people who are on the group,
okay, the Friday afternoon and Saturday after the next ICANN meeting,
you're going to be locked in a basement room working on this, people
would have planned accordingly.  And so just to put that out, not to
debate now but maybe to come back to.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any other comments or questions?  Gray?

 >>GRAY CHYNOWETH: Yeah.  I wanted to echo I thought that we -- the
calls that I was on, we did have some limited attendance but I actually
thought that we got some very good work done.  

 And I would echo the comment about staff.  Ken was really crucial in
kind of pushing the ball along, and I think part of the confusion, to
my mind, or part of the lack of attendance was a lack of clear
understanding of the roles that each of the sub-teams were focused on,
and, you know, so that you think that clarity of purpose kind of helps
with feeling like you had some ownership and know when you get on a
call exactly what you're going to do, and I think that the -- the end
result of the work that we did will be that future working groups will
have that clarity, which is, I think, a positive thing.

 But I think that the -- in relationship to the two working groups
that I was on, talking about the charter and the operating norms, I
think that they -- you know, they will result in some very positive
things.  And with regard to a time to spend -- and I think that this is
-- the afternoon session I think is intended as exactly what Marilyn
was talking about, to spend some time together face to face in a way
that really you're able to kind of move the ball forward, and I think
that that was -- I think we were really floundering until Ken came in
and we got those draft -- got that draft document done and then I think
people have something to look at and chew on.

 But it really takes someone who is willing to step up with a
significant amount of time to build that document, and then people say,
"Okay, well, I can take the half an hour or the 45 minutes to review
that and give my comments" but to take the 4 hours or something like
that that it would take to produce document I think is daunting and
results in the kind of lack of participation that we saw.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Ron?

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you, Chairman.  I'm not sure of where this fits
into the dialogue of this morning, but I did want to put it on the
table and perhaps we can answer it now or later.

 As I mentioned, I'm working on the GNSO operations steering committee
in the sub-working group which has to do with the GNSO operations work
team.

 Within that body, we are working on the -- on the rules of procedure
for the new GNSO, and one of the issues, of course, will be quorum and
voting.  Voting.  Can you just shed some light on how you might
perceive voting will take place at the GNSO level and on which type of
issues and so forth?  Because right now, we're a little bit lost in
that area.  I don't expect this will be a final definitive answer. 
Just to give us some direction about what does voting look like vis-a-
vis the PDP process?  What will the GNSO Council, policy councillors,
be voting on, as examples, perhaps?

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Does anybody want to take a stab at that?  I think
Tim Ruiz.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Well, if I understand correctly, the voting thresholds
have all been defined, correct?  So I think they're -- they're pretty
much set and I don't believe they're actually -- you know, those can be
redefined or expect to be redefined at all by the working group.  So
are there other voting thresholds that are missing or that you're
trying to define?

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  No, Tim.  Excuse me.  I wasn't clear.  It was not
about voting thresholds.  Just trying to understand:  On what issues or
where does a vote happen by the GNSO policy councillors in relation to
the work that PDP groups are doing, and so forth.

 So just trying to understand, in the past whenever an issue came up,
the councillors would vote and that would ultimately determine the
direction of that policy.  In this case now, a policy is not being
determined by the council.  The policy councillors anymore.  It's being
determined by groups, working groups.  So the point here I'm trying to
understand is:  When will council vote?  On what types of issues?  Just
so we have an understanding, when we're developing the rules of
procedure or not -- I mean, there may be no changes but we're just
trying to understand, where will voting actually come into play?

 Agreed that the number of votes and how that's determined is clear,
but we're just trying to understand:  When will the council vote and on
what types of issues?  Is that more clear?

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Well, so, one of the things that we were talking
about in the PDP -- and I put this document up and I know it's real
hard to read.  I'm using Glen's computer so I'm not sure how to
increase the size of some of these things.

 We talked about one of the issues for our group is -- and why can't I
get it to stay -- Number 5, which is what could be the end result of a
PDP and I'm not sure why it's not staying on a topic, but...

 And it's an interesting question that we've kind of -- we've talked
about, because, you know, when a lot of people think of a policy
development process most people associate that with a policy that comes
out of it that is a consensus policy.  That's something that's -- that
puts an obligation on a contracted party or gives a contracted party
rights or, you know, is something that affects their contract.

 But in reality, the way a policy -- what we talked about is the way a
policy process can be used is for other outcomes.  There could be just -
- there could can no vote in the end, right?  It could be just, "These
are some recommended best practices that we think contracted parties or
we think ICANN staff should be doing," right?  It doesn't always have
to be geared at ICANN -- at contracted parties.

 So the question is not necessarily the GNSO Council will ever have to
vote on anything other than maybe just accepting the report.

 So -- but Kristina's got a comment.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  And I, too, have been in IRT land since Mexico
City, so I have a lot of list reading to catch up on, but it is my
general understanding, Ron, that the council will continue to vote to
initiate -- to request an issues report, to initiate the PDP process,
but that as with regards to policy, it has been my understanding -- and
if I'm wrong, I would very much like to be corrected -- that once the
working group finishes its work and presents its report, that it's
really the -- the council's role is going to be limited to saying, "Did
they follow their charter?  Did they follow the procedural guidelines?"
And that if the answer to both of those questions is "yes," then
depending upon what the output is, whether it's a recommendation for
best practices or an actual consensus policy, that it is that thing
that the council will be voting on.  And as a practical matter, really
won't -- again, as I understand it, if the first two -- if the answers
to those questions are "yes" won't really have much discretion.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So it looks like -- I see a couple people.  I see
Mike.  I see Ron and Bertrand.  I think Mike was responding.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I'm just wondering, Kristina, where do you get
that impression?  Is that in the draft bylaws?  I don't have that
impression at all.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  From the conversations that started with the BGC
report about the council needs to no longer be making policy but
managing it.

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Can you explain what you understand, Mike?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Sure.  Obviously the working groups are tasked
with developing the policy, the recommendation for the council to
consider.  There is nothing hindering or preventing the council from
changing that policy.  We are the elected representatives.  The working
group is not.  The working group is volunteers.  It could be anybody on
a working group.  So, you know, there is no reason why the council
should be limited from altering the policy, if that's what we decide to
do.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Ron, did you have -- or did you just have a question?

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  I was just looking for some clarification on
Kristina, but we got that now.  Thank you.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm going to go to Bertrand.  You didn't have a
comment?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  No, just all ears.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Marilyn Cade, I'm speaking as an individual.  I just
want to make an observation about the GAC and offer clarity only from
my own personal point of view and observation, right, which may mean it
is not clarity.

 I think there is strong validity in the point that Mike just made
about the fact that the councillors are elected and they are, thus,
empowered and entrusted by the constituencies who elect them or the
Nominating Committee who appoints them to exercise certain kinds of
responsibilities and judgments.  And in the -- while we are, I think,
moving the development, the research, analysis, development of the
policy work into a working group, which should be multistakeholder,
which should be also resourced and supported by ICANN, hopefully
starting with a more well-founded analytical perspective going into the
work -- in the working group.  The working group will be putting
forward a report.  And here's the challenge we face.  This is a bottom-
up organization.  If the policy council does not vote, then they are
moving the voting to the board.  So -- and I will say personally, I'm
on the record as opposing that.  And I have spoken at the microphone in
the public forums before the board in opposition of that.

 So I've actually thought that while you're moving much of the policy
development work into the working group, it's clear to me that the
policy council must retain its authority and responsibility and
accountability.  

 Now, how you do that, I've basically assumed that you must vote even
if your vote is to accept the work and support the work and endorse the
work of the working group.  Otherwise, what you're doing is to abdicate
your role in a bottom-up organization and anoint the board, which is
not something that I think any of the constituencies or the SOs or the
advisory groups supported.  And I'm not sure the board would have
assumed that they would have been replacing you in that role.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  To be clear, what I meant is that what the
council will vote on is going to be significantly more limited, at
least that has been my general understanding.

 I would be delighted if the reality was closer to what Mike and
Marilyn are talking about because otherwise I don't see the point of
being a councillor.  But that's a discussion for another time.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm developing a queue.  I have Tim, Bertrand, Philip
Sheppard and Ron.

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Just a question on that point, Chair, seeing as I
brought it up.  I'm asking just for some clarification for our working
group.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  Thank you, sir.  So following what Marilyn just said,
then the vote could take place saying, We agree with the working group
but it could also say, We disagree and kick it back to the working
group, correct?  Is that how everyone is understanding?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I would say --

 >>RON ANDRUFF:  But it is still a vote to kick it back?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Remember, this is my personal point of view.  I
would say if you think of this as almost like a management structure,
right, you have a business unit that has done work and they send it up
the line and the management team goes "not done yet, do more,
circumstances have changed, you need more resources, I'm firing all of
you and starting over."

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Let me try to go back to the queue.  Thank you, Ron
and Marilyn.

 Let me go to Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah, that was the point I wanted to make.  It wasn't
just the matter of the working group will do their work, it will get
sent to the council and then the council is just going to do what it
wants with it and change it and modify it or whatever.  I think the
process would more often be that if we weren't satisfied or we had
concerns or questions, that we would kick it back to the working group
to work further on it.  But I do agree.  I think that ultimately the
responsibility has to rest with the council.  We don't want to kick it
up to the board.  But I think most of that responsibility needs to be
exercised by continuing to use the working groups or other working
groups, whatever, whatever is needed to get the work done.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  I have Bertrand next.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Actually, I wanted to say that the two
points that Marilyn and Mike were alluding to are two different points.
One point is whether the council actually does vote to validate the
process of the working group before sending it to the board so that the
council does have the actual say which means that the board in the end
will probably have a competence that is to accept what the council has
done unless there are very specific circumstances.

 But fundamentally, what Marilyn is saying is that it's the council
that makes the decision to endorse the working group results and not
the board.  The other point that Mike was making is a very different
issue.  Because if the council is limiting its role to either endorsing
or sending it back with additional recommendation, that's one thing. 
The second thing is very different, is whether the council receiving a
consensus report from the working groups has the capacity to twitch it,
to, basically, say, well, Resolution 1 is okay, 32 is not and 35 is.

 In that case, it sometimes deconstructs the consensus at the lower
level.  And it is the same distinction as the distinction you have in a
jurisdictional order between the appeals court and the last resort
dealing with procedure.  In the appeals court, the appeal court can
reform the decision and say basically you judged wrongly, I judge
differently.  If you go to the Supreme Court in the American system,
the Supreme Court doesn't necessarily rejudge it or at least -- maybe
I'm wrongly assuming how it works in the U.S. system, that I don't know
enough.  The way it works, for instance, in the court system in France
is that the equivalent of the Supreme Court is just allowed to send it
back to another court to be rejudged but not make a decision on the
substance.  And I think here it is a very important distinction you
have to make, whether the council has the capacity to influence the
substance or just to work in the process to send it back and be
reconsidered.

 And what I'm surprised at that stage is that it is a question.  It is
absolutely amazing that at that stage of the process and of the
discussion within ICANN, as it's always the case in all issues, when we
address issues within ICANN, very deep policy questions emerge very
late.  I'm sorry, just a personal contribution.  But it is an amazing
experience.

 This is "the" fundamental question related to the Board Governance
Committee recommendation that the council is less legislative.  This is
"the" question number one, the fact that you don't know exactly yet is
amazing but great because this is a very good question.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I still think it is a debated item and I don't think
there is a common consensus viewpoint at this point.  That is one of
the issues that is later on for the PDP work team to discuss.  I'm
trying to get back to the PowerPoint.  I think it was on this slide up
here, stage 4, voting and implementation.  I think that's an issue that
we haven't gotten to yet as a work team, but certainly you hear from
the brainstorming session that we had that there's a debate going on.

 Let me go to, first, Philip Sheppard and then to Tim.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Thank you very much, chairman.  It is, of course,
a Sunday and Sunday is a day typically suited to philosophical
discussion.

 [Laughter]

 And that's, of course, what we're having.  And the reason we're
having one is because none of us know how effective the outcome of a
working group is going to be.  Some of us have experience of certain
work groups in the past, and we have our own opinion about the
effectiveness of a working group and consensus building.  That's
irrelevant to the future.  It may give us a few about the future, but
we'll see what the future holds for us.

 So we don't know how effective a work group consensus is going to be.
It may be that it is great and it is clear and indeed the role of
councillor actually becomes one of voting and endorsing from the work
group and it moves forward beautifully.  But it may be messy.  It may
emerge that the work group is split useless and making nothing clear in
terms of opinion.  So it comes back to council to make a decision in
terms of what we do next, how do we progress it.  And all options must
be open in terms of what council then wants to do.  Is it sufficiently
urgent that the council itself has to make a decision?  It may be,
depends what the issue is.  Do we have the luxury of time to send it
back to the same group?  Do we form another one in the naive hope that
the outcome will be different?  All these things are plausible, but all
of those things must be within the remit of council and those elected
to do so.  So ultimately the power must rest with council.  And if it
doesn't, then the whole concept of electing council, et cetera, just
flying out the window.  We might as well scrap that and start again on
this whole process of reform.  Thank you very much.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thank you, Philip.  Tim, you had a comment as well?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah, just a similar thought, that there is no, you
know, single concept or definition of how recommendation -- what
they're going to look like.  It's not -- they don't fit into some
formula or some template.  They are going to vary all over the map. 
They are going to be quite different depending on what the issue is. 
And so as Philip said, we need to have that leeway in order to be able
to act appropriately depending on the type of recommendations or work
that we get back from the working group.  It is impossible to predict
it's going to be exactly this way in every case.  So there is no way to
say, this is precisely how the council should react in every case.  We
have to have those -- that leeway in order to act appropriately
depending on what the situation is or the issue is.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Mike?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Yeah.  Just continuing on the theme, one big
issue that I think certainly the council has to be the ultimate arbiter
of is whether a working group recommendation is in scope of ICANN
policy making for consensus policy, for example, you know, because the
council are the one that is are looking at multiple policies and
presumably understand the bylaw provisions that Margie has now made
very clear to us and can make that call.  Whereas, a working group
which is composed of volunteers, many of whom may never have interacted
with ICANN before ideally, frankly, just would not have the tools or
really should not be their place to be making that call because it is
the council's place in the first place to task them with a charter and
then, of course, to review the recommendations and make sure that they
are what the council wants and are implementable.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any other comments on that?

 I actually want to turn back because this discussion is interesting
as far as some of the things that we've talked about in the work team. 
And I think one of the issue questions going back was, what are the
potential outcomes of a policy development process?  And I meant to
throw this out because we have so many people here from differing
backgrounds and different opinions, is to throw it out to everyone and
say, okay, these are the few things that we came up with as possible
policy outcomes that would go to the council, putting aside the voting
and what they decide to do with it.

 But the different outcomes we thought of and brain stormed were --
this is in a weird place in this document because it is at the bottom
of the page and next page, so I'll read it.  We thought obviously one
of the outcomes could be a best practices or guidelines which would be
non-binding recommendations.  And that's, again, could be non-binding
on a contracted party but it could also be something we talked about as
ICANN, ICANN staff.  It should be ICANN staff should be doing X, Y and
Z.  It doesn't have to be a registry or a registrar has to do X, Y and
Z.

 The outcome could be the one that we're mostly familiar with is the
consensus policies which would be binding on the registries or the
contracted parties, registries, or registrars or possibly both.

 They could be policy frameworks such as charting a course for a broad
range of activities.  That's the parallel there for new TLDs.  That was
a working group that was -- the outcome was not going to be something
that was going to be binding on registries, registrars or frankly that
was going to be a best practices but was a general question from the
board to set parameters on the introduction of -- or policy issues
involved in the introduction of new TLDs.

 Again, I think you're right as far as either there is going to be no -
- since there are going to be different outcomes, it is hard to
generalize in advance what the council can or should do.  But that
said, I think there are a number of people in the room that may still
feel that there should be some guidance we should be able to give or
parameters in which the council should act in to kind of avoid the top-
down decision-making as opposed to the bottom-up.  It may be avoiding
the substitution of a councillor's policy position.  You don't want to
substitute necessarily a councillor's policy position for the work
that's been done for a working group, unless there is some cause to do
so.  So there is competing concerns there.

 Is there anyone in this room -- is there any possible outcomes of a
policy process that are not up here or that would require different
rules?  Again the three ones are the guidelines or best practices,
consensus policies or the policy frameworks such as a new TLD.  Any
other outcomes, Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  There was a possible category of a
decision that is outside of the scope of the consensus policies that
is, for instance, not to the scope of a general policy like launching
the gTLDs but that can be something that is, I suppose, not exclusively
regarding registry, registrar agreements or within the picket fence
framework.  I suppose there are decisions by the council that can be
binding and that are not specifically in the framework of the existing
arrangement.  Am I mistaken?

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  You triggered something in my mind about things that
are going on now.  If there's a -- there could be -- although I'm not
this has been done.  There could be a working group established to
respond to another Supporting Organization.  So for what's going on
now, let's say the GAC comes up with a position on the geographic
names.  Well, in this case there was a council response, a letter -- we
could debate that whether that was appropriate or not.  But in theory,
there could be something that's less time sensitive, a subject that
comes from the GAC or where they're asking for thoughts from the GNSO,
and there could be a working group set up to respond to that.  So I
don't think that's kind of covered in one of our three areas, is
basically providing advice to other Supporting Organizations or other
groups which wouldn't result in a framework.  It wouldn't result in a
guideline or a consensus policy.  That's different than what you were
saying.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  For instance, if you look at the question
at the fast flux or problems related to spam or security issues, is,
for instance, the answers or the decisions that will be taken
ultimately on the fast-flux hosting going to be consensus policies
within the framework or are they going to be decisions by ultimately
the board that will be enforceable?  It is a question -- it is an open
question.  I don't know.  If they are not -- what I mean is the
consensus policy is something that is directly linked to the agreements
existing that plan the existence of this framework.  There might be
other decisions and maybe I don't have the example.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Yesterday I covered a little bit about that. 
There's other ways of having enforceable policies against contracted
parties but you have to look at the contract for the specifics.  So
they don't necessarily fall within consensus policies.  But there are
other placeholders in the contract.  So it is limited to a certain
extent because of the contracts.  But it is a little broader than just
consensus policies.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Marika?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Just to add specifically on the fast flux PDP,
what is currently in discussion as well are recommendations for
additional work maybe with other groups or looking at best practices. 
So I think we are already currently and the PDP is ongoing, we are not
only looking at consensus policies or changes to existing policies but
trying to see if there are other means to address the issues that are
being dealt with.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  And also -- and then I'll take a queue.  When we talk
about "in scope," there are actually two different things as far as in
my mind as far as "in scope."  There is "in scope" within the contracts
but there is "in scope" within the GNSO.  There could easily be a
working group that's established that doesn't come out with a
recommendation or policy that's within scope of the contracts but it
could still be within scope of the GNSO as a whole.  So I think that
term is often used interchangeably, and it has been debated as to what
in the current bylaws -- the current bylaws now call for a -- at the
time an issues report is created, it calls for the general council to
issue a decision on whether something is in scope but it doesn't
differentiate between the two.  Now, in my mind initially, going back
years when I was looking at that provision, I had always thought it was
"in scope" within the contracts.  I had never thought of it as "in
scope" within the GNSO.

 Others did think of it that way.  So when we came together, we didn't
know that there was a difference in viewpoints, but we all agreed that
"in scope" was something at that time that the general scope should put
a view on.  It is funny because the first time it happened for me when
I realized it was in the Feb '06 PDP when we talked about contractual
conditions as far as existing contracts and whether there should be
recommendations or changes within existing contracts.  I always took
the approach of, well, this is beyond the scope of the contracts -- the
existing contracts to actually talk about this, where others said, no,
it may be beyond the scope of the existing contracts but it is not
beyond the scope of the GNSO.  And there is never really a bright line
test to see that.  But I think it is important for us to recognize that
that's crucial.  And it is something that I think we need to provide
clarity on if we still keep this "in scope" distinction.

 Let me take a queue.  I know I saw Mike.  I saw Tim, Alan.  Okay, so
start with Mike.

 >>MICHAEL PALAGE:  Thanks, Jeff.  I've not been very engaged in this
group, and I'm just trying to get up to speed.  So my apologies if this
issue has been addressed previously.  One of the things I'm looking at
with this PDP is how it's going to scale going forward with new
entrants into the name space and particularly when those entrants are
not sort of, if you will, private entities but perhaps governments or
IGOs that may be coming forward because right now the only process for
one to get into the zone is through this gTLD process.

 And if you look back at the 2000 round, there were two IGOs that
applied the WHO -- the UPU and the World Health Organization.  And in
the 2004, it again was the UPU.

 So looking forward, does this group view a carve-out for governmental
or intergovernmental agencies in the current process?  Or is the
current thinking right now if you're a gTLD, this is it, tough?  Or are
they going to sort of recognize some carve-out?  Again, I'm just trying
to reconcile that because when you look at the name space historically,
there are some things -- there are some gTLDs, dot mil, dot gov, dot
edu that, if you will, have fallen outside the traditional ICANN gTLD
policy development process.  And, again, I'm just trying to reconcile
these two issues going forward.  And it would help from those members
of the group to see whether they view a potential carve-out.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Before I go to Tim, does anyone want to respond to
that question?  I see Alan.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  We certainly haven't discussed that, but my gut
feeling is if it's applied for under the new gTLD process, it falls
within the scope of the GNSO.  Now, that doesn't mean for any given
issue it's applicable.  So the policy that we came up with on domain
tasting on the add-grace period didn't apply to some domains because
they didn't have one at all.  So they were excluded from that consensus
policy applying to them.  But if they had, it would have applied.  So I
don't think I've heard any discussion within ICANN of the new domains
not falling under the GNSO other than the ccNSO.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Anybody else with a thought on that question? 
Okay.  Let me go to Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  You know, we've -- we talk a lot about -- and it's
pretty much the work that we're doing within the PPSC, is all focused
on the whole policy development process and the working group up to
where the GNSO, you know, finally accepts, or however we want to frame
that, the recommendations from the working group.

 What I think is somewhat missing, that I have concerns about and not
sure how we would address it but something I think that needs to be
considered, is what happens to that recommendation after that? 
Because, you know, looking at the new gTLD process, for example, there
is a lot of policy development process going on in regard to new gTLDs
as this thing is implemented.  So just how far can that go or how far
should it go?  And what's the process through which that should go in
order for that policy to continue to evolve as it's being implemented? 
And then I think -- this occurred in other cases in the past, and I
realize when you are in the implementation phase, you run into things,
some things might have to be adjusted or massaged, but I think
particularly with the new gTLD process, it really points out how
dangerous it could potentially be by allowing this continued evolution
of a policy for who knows how long or what period of time.  But there
is nothing here in this whole new restructuring that really addresses
that issue.  It is kind of looked at as something outside of the
restructuring but I don't think necessarily it is because it affects
the work that this new structure produces.  So I think it is something
that deserves some attention.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So I think -- and maybe I'm wrong and others can jump
in.  I believe we haven't gotten there as the PDP work team yet,
although soon will, is the fourth item there which is the voting and
implementation.  I think that doesn't -- and maybe it's more in the
assessment of policy effectiveness as well.  Those two are general
categories.  We had discussed this within the PDP work team as to the
role in -- to date, what it's been is there would be a policy that
comes out and then they throw it over to staff and then they go, okay,
implement it and then the staff comes out with an implementation paper
which I agree in a lot of cases there could be elements that people
view in that implementation plan as "wait a minute, this is setting
policy."  Is that something that should be in the implementation plan
and what is the role of that working group?  Should it necessarily be
dissolved once something goes up to the council and then goes to the
staff to implement -- or the board to order staff to implement?  Maybe
the working group shouldn't be dissolved at that point?  Maybe it
should be continually involved in that implementation maybe, maybe not.
These are subjects that we're kind of -- between Number 4 and 5 of
those on there.  But I do -- that's an issue that was discussed and
needs further discussion.  Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah.  To chime in on this very point, it
is a very, very important point and the new gTLD process is an absolute
topical example of this.  The moment you decide that something is
moving into implementation is a critical moment in the current process
in ICANN, because it's the moment where basically the ball passes from
one side to the other one.  Namely, from the community and the whole
development process to the staff.

 And the ambiguity of this threshold at this moment is putting
everybody in a weird situation, because as you said, there are many
cases where the implementation document itself is bringing new policy
questions, like there is a real choice.  In particular, I give a very
concrete example.

 When I was looking at the -- at the implementation guidebook, I mean,
the draft applicant guidebook for the new gTLDs, the very fact that
there is a single sheet structure for all types of application is not
necessarily mandated by the PDP before, but it is a major policy
option, and in a certain way it is an ambiguous situation where you
cannot blame the staff for addressing the issue, but at the same time
you put them in the position of having to make a policy decision and we
don't have the mechanism to review the policy dimensions of the
implementation.

 So I think this notion that there is an implementation policy
component is very important, and maybe the transition between drafting
of the policy and implementation is more progressive.  It should be in
stages, like there is the general framework, then identification of
three or four items for implementation, then the policy guidance for
each of those items and then you can move progressively into the actual
plan, the -- the distinction between the two phases was probably too
sharp here, I suppose, seen from the outside.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Anybody else with comments on that?  Tim?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  You know, just real quick, I appreciate Bertrand's
comments.  I agree there.  And, you know, I think the key is that
maintaining that bottom-up consensus-based concept and idea when policy
issues are addressed during implementation -- and I'm not sure we're
there yet.  You know, comment periods and things are very much
appreciated but I'm not sure that's the best way to gauge, you know,
that there's consensus on a particular issue when it's actually a
policy that's being set.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  What we're going to do now is we're going to
take a little break because we're going to deep dive -- sorry.  Oh, I
missed Alan.  I'm sorry.  I apologize.  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I actually had comments on that one also, but I
was being patient in waiting.

 With regard to the discussion that's been going on right now, I think
it's very important that the council not take a position that "We
discussed this three years ago, we asked everyone for opinions and,
therefore, it can't be changed, it's cast in concrete."

 The real world does change around us, and there are times when some
of the other people in ICANN are not as engaged in our introspective
policy development process as perhaps they should be, and so I -- so I
think we need to make -- put into it a process by which we can modify
these policies after they're passed.

 And the same, of course, goes for the -- what we're now including in
most policies.  That is, a review period, to see if it's really working.

 On the other hand, we can't afford to start a year process every time
a little part of the policy needs to be tweaked, but somehow there
should be something in writing to say how we are doing this and not
just have it be completely ad hoc as it has been in the gTLD process.

 The other thing, going back to the previous discussion on outcomes of
PDPs, I think we want to be careful that for issues which are within
scope of the GNSO, we don't proscribe or forbid types of outputs
because we didn't think of them this week when we're writing up the
policy.  We want the GNSO to be able to fix problems and change policy,
as necessary.  It doesn't have the right to legislate it, but we don't
want to make -- stop the GNSO from making recommendations, regardless
of the exact details of how it's going to be implemented.

 So I think we need to be careful to leave things open-ended.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  All right.  We're going to take a short break.
Actually, it's a longer break, to 11:15, and then we're going to do a
deep dive into the PDP initiation and planning document that we have up
here.  We've talked a little bit about it.  Talk a little bit about the
results, the survey results we did, and then get into the next phase,
the "B," which is the -- oops, I went to the wrong one, didn't I.  It
will be these slides.  There we go.

 Which is the proposal review and voting thresholds question.  So
we'll take a break and see everyone back here at 11:15.  Thanks.

 [Break]

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Everyone, welcome back.  This is the policy
development work team meeting of the PPSC, the Policy Process Steering
Committee, and so we're going to do a deep dive into some of the issues
that we talked about at the full meeting of the PPSC.

 Is there any way we can shut the door?  Sorry.

 >>GLEN de SAINT GERY:  Yeah.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks.  First thing that I want to do is that we did
a survey -- I guess we're pulling up the Adobe connect as well, if
there's anyone that wants to join that room.

 We did a survey of the -- we're on the planning and initiation phase,
which is Phase A, talking about those subjects, and we did a survey on
the different outcomes and the things that we've been talking about.

 And so we're going to display the results of the survey.

 There were -- correct me if I'm wrong, guys.  There were 12 people
that responded?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think 11, because one didn't fill in --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  So there was 11, which is pretty good, because
the work team is only 12 or 13.  14 people maybe.  So --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think there are more, but active participants --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  So pretty good participation on that survey. 
I did not fill one out as the chair, just to try to keep a more neutral
view on things.

 So I just want to go over the results first, and I think the results
are pretty indicative of helping us to move forward.  And maybe --
Marika's got the hard copy of the results, so we can actually go over
the numbers because right here, they're kind of pie charts.

 So the first question we asked everyone, of the outcome that we came
up with, is:  "The current status in which an issues report can be
requested by the ICANN board, GNSO Council or an ICANN advisory
committee, should that be maintained?"

 In other words, should there be other parties that will be able to
introduce, or should we change it any way, and I think you'll see that
the vast majority had said that they view that those are the
appropriate three parties to make a request for an issues report.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  If I just may, because, I mean, on several of
these questions, comments were added.  I mean, after this meeting,
we'll -- I need to put all the data together and then publish a more
comprehensive report, but this is just to get an idea of, you know,
where the group feels along similar lines and where there is
disagreement.  

 And also maybe just to preface, the reason for the survey, you know,
this is not a vote or, you know, a final decision on what the final
outcome on these issues is going to be, but this was really a way of
trying to, you know, get a -- feel the temperature of the group,
especially since we had, you know, difficulties in getting
participation from time to time, and as well, give people an
opportunity to, you know, fill in some ideas or suggestions that they
have on these different issues.

 And just to add on this point, I think there was, you know, 8 people
said yes, 2 said no, 1 expressed no opinion.

 I think one person that responded with a "no" basically indicated
that of course in the new GNSO you won't have the GNSO Council making
the request, but it's under the two houses, or there's now voting
thresholds, so that's something that might need changing.  

 So that was one of the comments made.

 So another comment was received saying that there could be an
increased threshold of support.  They said, "This will help reduce the
preponderance of narrow issues.  One thought would be to consider that
the council or board can initiate a report alone, but other SOACs must
have the support of other SOACs or work in conjunction with the council
or board."

 And someone else suggested that there should be some possibility for
groups of actors -- to be determined who those should be -- to submit
rather than request an issues report in a predetermined format that
should be explored in order to make this initial exploratory step more
bottom-up.

 So those are some of the other comments received in relation to this
question.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  So let's actually -- I want to take the first
comment that you had raised -- or that was raised, which is on the
bicameral -- the fact that there will be two houses.  And I think the
assumption was that there's still a council and the council would still
vote on things.  The council still would initiate an issues report. 
Maybe there's different thresholds with it, but the council would still
come to a vote and initiate the process, even though there's two
houses.  And Alan's shaking his head, so do you want to add?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Yeah.  It's still the council making decisions. 
The thresholds require a specific threshold on each side of the house,
on each side of the council, to have the council make the decision but
it's still the council deciding.  It's just the detailed rules of the
voting have changed.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  I don't know if that person maybe meant --
because I think it can be -- I don't know the exact numbers, but isn't
it one house or two houses, a certain percentage, or one house
basically indicating that if one house would request an issues report
and vote in favor of it, even if -- I mean, technically, of course,
it's still the council, but maybe that was what that person had in
mind, but -- not trying to put words in the --

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  But that was in support of the previous one, which
said you only need 33% of the entire council, or something, so it
always could have been done by a small -- by a minority of the council
with full objections on the other side -- on the contracted parties or
the non-contracted parties, and could still be initiated, and this just
maintains the relatively low threshold for initiating a PDP, which I
think was there -- it happened before my time, but I think was there to
allow a PDP to go forward even though one of the parties disagreed and
didn't want to see it done.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  So the point is, the council is still acting,
and so I think the wording is still correct.  It's still the council
initiating it, and the voting thresholds are what they are.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Uh-huh.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So if we want to move -- and the one that was no
opinion, did they just not to respond to anything or --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  No.  I mean, I think "no opinion" should be
interpreted as no -- I mean, that's how we phrased it, I think, in the
other questions in here.  I think it was just no opinion, but it's no
strong view either way.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Okay.  And by the way, this survey is still
open for anyone that has a -- hasn't done it yet and so I encourage --
Marika can resend out the link again.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  It was a sent a number of times last week.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  But she could send it again.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Last week was a bad week.

 [Laughter]

 >> (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah.  So it went out --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  11 responses.  And just for the record, staff
filled in -- Margie, Liz, and myself completed one response as well on
behalf of staff.

 >>TIM RUIZ: (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>MARIKA KONINGS: Yeah, I have the -- 

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm sorry.  Can everyone use a microphone when
they're speaking because it's being transcribed.  I apologize.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I mean --

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah.  This is Tim.  I was just asking if -- you know,
how many responded and if there were any demographics on that.  And I'm
sorry, I came in a little bit late, if I missed that, but --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  I'm happy to go through the list, if no one
objects, but, I mean, I presume everyone that stated an opinion here is
happy to --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah, I think you can go through the list of people
that responded.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah?  

 >>JEFF NEUMAN: Sure.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS: So responses were received from Wolf Ulrich Knoben
from the ISPCP constituency; James Bladel, GoDaddy, registrar
constituency; Liz Williams, BC; Zbynek Loebel, from the IPC; Greg Ruth
from the ISPCP constituency; Avri Doria, NCA, chair of the GNSO
council; Bertrand de la Chapelle from the French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the GAC; J. Scott Evans, IPC; Paul Diaz, Network Solutions
and registrar strategies; Mike Rodenbaugh, business constituency; and
then Margie, Liz, and myself on behalf of ICANN staff.  

 So those were the responses received to date.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Can you just use the mic?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I'm sorry.  So the question was, did -- Marika
and Margie, you did the surveys that are in these results?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yes.  But we just did one for staff.  So we didn't
fill in three.  We just one.  We shared the same opinions --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  You didn't stuff the ballot box?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yes.  Didn't want to tip the balance.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So, I mean, compared to the membership of the PDP
team, I think that was a pretty good turnout, so it was good.  There's
still a couple more people that need to do it and we look forward to
their opinion, so this is just a -- again, it's just to test the waters
to see where we're at on the issues that we've been discussing.  So on
Number 2, which is -- I think you might have jumped.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Oh, sorry.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So Number 2, which related to the procedures for
requesting an issues report, we had a question on there:  The reference
to the initiation of a PDP for the request of an issues report should
be removed from the bylaws, as the initiation of a PDP does not start
with the request of an issues report.

 And the answer that we got back, the numbers were...

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I just gave the page away, but I think it's the --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Same thing?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  The same -- let me just.  Sorry.  So it was 8 in
favor, 1 no, and 2 no strong view either way.

 Some of the comments received were the first one, "Well, why not
reword it to initiation of a PDP process.  This process can be cut
short with a no vote on Step 2, but the issues report is an integral
part of the PDP process. 

 I presume this is from the person who said "no."

 Second comment received was saying actually, it should be -- it could
be possible to make only a mechanics of the existence of a policy
development process in the bylaws and describe it in more detail in a
separate document.  In addition, suggestion was made to have two
documents in initial stage, an issues paper and a staff recommendation
regarding the actual launch of a PDP.

 And a third comment was made saying if the reference was removed from
the bylaws, I assume this working group will recommend replacement text
that more accurately describes the process to launch some desired
policy work.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Does anyone have any questions or comments on
that?  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Just a quick one.  I think the real issue is not
to use the same identical phrase to be -- to refer to several different
stages in the process, so whatever we come up with should be clear and
not confusing.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Correct.  I think for --

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  But whether one -- the first stage or the second
stage is the one that initiates is rather moot, as long as we don't use
the same term twice.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yep.  Okay.  The third question is:  Are the
procedures outlined in the bylaws still relevant and efficient?

 And I think, you know, it's the exact -- I mean, looking at the pie
chart --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  Strongly divided crowd.  3 yes, 4 no, and 4
no strong opinion.

 There were six comments received because as well the question was
asked and if you answered no, how you should the procedures be -- be
updated.

 So first comment was the procedures are still relevant.  Their
efficiency is strongly correlated with the management capabilities of
the relevant working teams.

 The second comment stated that a request for an issues report should
be accompanied by some explanation of the need for same.

 And the timings need to be changed.  The voting of creating a task
force should be changed to a vote on creating a charter.  For the most
part, yes, but not as written and then they listed the issues that are
currently in there.

 The third comment states that the many evolution is the move towards
a working group model and a better communitywide interaction during the
early phases of the issue scoping and goal setting that must happen
before the actual PDP is launched.

 The fifth comment says that at a minimum, the time lines need to be
updated.  What's the point of deadlines if they are never met?  "Never"
in capitals.

 More information needs to be provided at the time of the request. 
And the last comment says that clarification might be needed on how to
whom requests needs to be submitted.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So I think in this one, the actual comments are much
more helpful than the question, the yes or no, which is good, which is
fine too.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Going on to the next one, this was -- there were no
requirements as to what information a request should contain.  Would a
template be helpful, including items such as definition of issue,
identification of problems, supporting evidence, why should the issue
be considered for policy development, and I think there, the results
were pretty strong in favor of some sort of template, and can you just
go over the comments and --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  So 10 stated yes, 1 person stated no. 
Comments were received it could help as a guideline for creating a
request, but I have some doubts whether all kinds of requests could be
pressed in a formal template.

 A template can include recommended data sources or subject matter
experts and could help define rather than restrict the issues under
study.

 Template can also reference any existing policies that are relevant.

 Another comment stated, "Yes, but a template information required
should be flexible.  One size does not fit all.

 Generally templates mean one size fits in and you better fill in
every blank even if it's irrelevant.

 I tend to think that a set of guidelines of things to be considered
might be useful but would avoid anything as bureaucratic as a
template."  

 And the last comment received stated, "Definitely a major improvement."

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So I think one of the things that we meant by
template in our discussions was not necessarily that every field needed
to be filled out, but it was a template that contained the fields that
others would consider helpful to know that information if you had that,
at the time the request was made.  I think that's kind of the tones of
the discussion, and so even the person, I guess, who sounded like voted
no might be okay with that, but if anyone's got any comments in this
room --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  The next question actually goes into the mandatory
nature or -- of such a template, so --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  So --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Maybe we should take that one together.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  So if you answered yes to the previous
question about templates, are you of the opinion that the completion of
the template should be mandatory step in requesting an issues report. 
And this one was a little bit more divided as between the yeses and nos.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  So actually 7 said yes, 4 said no, but additional
comments were submitted here as well, saying it shouldn't be a
precondition for accepting the request.  Mostly yes, but this should
not be a barrier to good faith efforts to initiate a report.  So
subjects -- so a subsection of mandatory information must be stated
with other more detailed information considered optional.

 Second person said but this should not become an excessive
preliminary exercise where requesting an issues report.  I would prefer
requesting a preliminary inquiry becomes a process in itself, adding to
the vast amount of paperwork.

 Third person said the template should be very concise.  And the
person refers to a previous comment that they made.

 Must retain flexibility and not impose rigid requirements as to
format or content.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Anyone with questions on that?  Okay.  Jumping
right along to the next one.  This is a pretty strong one here.

 Is requesting an issues report the same as initiating the PDP?

 And I think this is -- the answer is pretty obvious.  We had a number
of these discussions and so the answer "no" here reflects really what
we thought it would reflect, which is, no, that there is a distinction
between requesting the initiation report -- I'm sorry, requesting the
issues report, initiating a -- and initiating a PDP and so obviously
what -- when we rewrite this, there needs to be a clear distinction of
what it means in both cases.  And so we've had a lot of discussions on
this issue in the -- in the calls.  I don't know if this is worth
talking about now, if anyone's got any questions, but I think at least
to the members that have been participating, it's pretty -- pretty
clear.  Okay?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  So I mean, the comments -- yeah.  There were 10
no, one -- one stated no opinion, some stated that to my understanding
the issues report is the basis for initiating a PDP.  Please advise if
I'm wrong.

 Someone named it a tricky word game.  It is the same as initiating
the PDP process and should be part of the defined process.  How else do
ACs have the ability to force consideration of an issue if the issues
report is not a bylaws mandated part of the PDP process?  Whether it is
part of the PDP per se seems to be an academic semantic
differentiation.  

 Someone said, "No, but it amounts to requesting a preliminary
inquiry.  The whole process should lower the barriers to entry and the
agenda setting.  To let issues emerge early with the possibility of
easily dismissing abusive requests.  And another person stated if the
requester cannot fully define the issue and provide credible supporting
evidence, further policy work may be needed before a full-blown PDP can
be initiated.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  If you answered no -- which is interesting,
because I don't think -- oh, I'm sorry.  Yes.  If you answered no to
the previous question -- which is everybody -- should advisory
committees be allowed to initiate a PDP.

 Now, this discussion comes in light of our calls in which the current
bylaws state that an advisory committee could initiate the PDP, whether
or not -- well, actually, no, wait.  Hold on.

 It doesn't.  I'm confusing this.

 The current bylaws say that the advisory committees can request an
issues report, and that it -- but it would still go to the councils
after -- for a decision as to whether a PDP would be launched.  Am I
getting that right?  Alan's looking at me here.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  The current bylaws, if I remember correctly, use
the term "initiate a PDP" at at least two and possibly three different
points in time.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  We need to be clear whether -- whether starting
the -- whether requesting the issues report is initiating the PDP or
initiating the process associated with ICANN policy development in the
gTLD environment, which it used a different set of words -- I mean,
right now, I think that answer -- the large answer "no" is the advisory
committee should not be allowed to initiate the creation of a working
group to discuss consensus policy.  I think is what that answer "no" is
to, and not reversing the very first question of should advisory
committees be allowed to initiate -- request an issues report.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I think that's right.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I think we have a nomenclature problem here and
until we fix it, we're going to continue to get -- being confused.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Well, in a couple of the calls that we had talked
about -- and you're right, we do need to fix the nomenclature but we
had talked about initiating the PDP was synonymous with the working
group.  The creation of a working group.

 As opposed to initiating the policy process, which is the issues
report and everything prior to that.  So this question was meant to get
at:  Should advisory committees be allowed to initiate the process of
getting a working group together, you know, secure passing the council -
- the council vote on that.  And I think -- so what were the comments
that were received?  And the comments may be indicative of the language.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah, I think the comments were along the lines
that we've discussed now, basically saying the ACs can trigger
initiation of a PDP by requesting and cooperating on an issues report.  

 Another said, not alone.  They should work with the GNSO Council and
our board.  

 Again, word games, they should be able to initiate a PDP process, if
this is the PDP or -- pre-PDP or just a fair step in the provisional
PDP that can be determined -- sorry -- after this first step, I
believe, is a semantic detail.  

 And the last person said this question is ambiguous.  If it means
that ACs have the right to submit a request for the preliminary stage,
the answer is, of course, yes.  If it means an AC should have the right
to order the launch of a formal PDP like the board currently does, this
is an issue to be discussed.  There are pros and cons, but it is
certainly worth considering.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I think the last comment sums up pretty well. 
Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  To that one, which was actually my
comment -- (laughter).  Oops.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So much for anonymous.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  No.  Anyway, the point -- I fully support
what you and Alan were saying.  The ambiguity in particular here is
"initiate."  It is very interesting because "initiate" both means
starting the initial phase but also "initiate" is like ignite somehow.  

 If this question means, Does an AC have the right to say, I asked for
it so you go, whatever the council says, I think obviously the answer
should be no.  But if it is, as Alan said, the right to request that it
is initiated, the initial phase is launched, the answer is probably yes.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Moving on, should more details be provided on
how an advisory committee can request an issues report?  Currently, the
bylaws don't have any details as to how this request should be made. 
All it says is that an advisory committee can request an issues report.
So here it looks like we probably had, let me guess, like, 8, 3 and 1?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  8-2-1.  You are getting the hang of it.  Some of
the comments received were the bylaws or rules of procedure should
clearly outline how the requests should be processed.  A flowchart
would be very helpful.  Another person said that an explanation, a
flexible template should be required but not in the bylaws.

 And a guideline to considerations might be useful.  The objective is
to have very concise formulations in the bylaws and possibly annexed
working methods.  

 Excessive precisions creates documents that are hard to understand. 
It probably wouldn't hurt to have a staff advisory that explains the
process ACs have used in the past to request an issues report, example,
with the support of GNSO Councillors.  I'm not convinced this needs to
be enshrined in the bylaws though.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  The last comment is interesting because I
don't think we said "in the bylaws," but I guess people read that into
the question.

 Okay.  In theory -- I think this is missing a couple of words here.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  In theory, there is currently no limit on the
issues that can be raised as there is no requirement for the issue to
be within scope, i.e., within ICANN's mission and linked to gTLDs.  

 This assessment is carried out as part of the issues report.  Should
an initial assessment take place when an issue is raised?

 So six said yes.  Three said no.  Two said no strong view either way.  

 Some of the comments received stated that assuming you mean doing
this in the issues report in line with the above comments, the
objective is to lower the bar for raising an issue, i.e., a very bottom-
up agenda setting, but have simple modalities to dismiss abusive
requests should a topic be out of scope.  Some independent process, not
only ICANN stakeholder council, should provide an appeal mechanism in
case of dispute regarding the scope.

 And the second comment reads, requesters need to be encouraged to
submit issues that are narrow and defined so the scope determination
can be made.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Any questions on this one?  I see Marilyn and then
Philip.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Jeff, I apologize for being out of the room earlier.
I had an unfortunate conflict.  But I just want to catch up on this
point.

 The topic that I want to ask is, you know, let's say that an item
comes up that actually will involve not a single SO but multiple SOs. 
If there's no way to raise it within the Supporting Organization -- and
I could think of it as a security and stability issue and will affect
both CC's and gTLDs.  So if there is no way to raise it in the policy
council, there would be, I think, no way to even initiate the cross-SO
conversation.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Sorry.  You're talking about raising --

 >>MARILYN CADE:  So if we don't allow an issue to come forward for at
least discussion.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I think this question is should there be an
assessment as to whether it's in scope or not.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I know, I know.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  But it is not necessarily saying that the issue
shouldn't be brought forward.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think where the issue came from -- because
currently that assessment is only carried out as part of the issues
report, so whether it's within ICANN's mission.  And the question was
related -- I think Marilyn is basically asking another question, how do
you -- well may be related.  But if the GNSO Council can only look at
or address issues that are within ICANN's mission and just only link to
gTLDs, how can you then get issues on the agenda that are not only
linked to gTLDs?

 >>MARILYN CADE:  Yes, that's exactly it.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah, Margie.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  I don't think that the scope issue is that narrow. 
If -- in your example, if it had no applicability to gTLDs, then you're
right.  But if it has applicability to ccTLDs and gTLDs, then I think
it is still within GNSO scope.  That's how I look at that.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Philip was next.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Thanks.  It is interesting you have done this
survey, I think, because it exposes misunderstanding of the original
intent of our current policy development process, and I think at least
understanding where there is misconception is very useful.

 But if we look at certainly what the intent was in the policy
development process, which is pretty well captured by its current
writing, it's fairly clear.  The idea was that there were three groups
within it makes sense: the board, council and advisory committees, who
might have some sort of idea, however wacky it may be.  Here is
something that council should address.  And the idea was that should be
able to be raised with a fairly low bar.  

 And then you had this process called the issues report whereby it is
duly assessed as to whether or not it goes any further.  That's exactly
where the scope issue hits.

 The point of that process was that it may not be clear to the people
first thinking it is a possible issue as to precisely whether or not it
is scope, et cetera.  And expertise about that must rest with staff to
do the evaluation.  That was the nature of the issues report.

 Now, I think what has happened over time is that the nature and
complexity of the issues report as interpreted by staff has perhaps
been wider than the thinking of those who originally constructed the
PDP.  And if that's the case, I think it's a question of how we look at
the implementation of the issues report.  Maybe staging it in terms of
the scope issues can be up front as sort of a first pass and go no
further, if that's -- if it is out of scope.

 But, I mean, the main construct behind it, which is, is it something
we might need to talk about and now we do a good check, I think, is a
very strong part of the existing PDP and a very useful part of it that
we don't want to lose.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I don't know if we read the comments on this
question.  Did you want to read some of them?  I can't remember if we
did.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think we already did.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  We did on this one?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think so.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Sorry, forgetting.

 So then the next question is should the requester identify the
desired goal or outcome of a PDP?  Again, this was the relation of
whether it should be something that's a consensus policy or best
practices or policy framework or any of those items.  And do you want
to go over that?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  It is a 7-2-2.  And there were quite some comments
in relation to this one.  

 First person saying possibly if this can be done without biasing the
participants of the working group and it could identify desired
outcomes that are beyond ICANN's remit and are impractical to implement.

 Second one says, and define what problem a PDP is designed to
resolve.  

 Third one says, yes, to the extent that it can be determined. 
Sometime it might just be there is an issue here that needs to be
looked at.

 Fourth person says, yes but this should not be binding.  The purpose
is to help actors evaluate what is the expected amplitude of the issue.
In that respect, a clear typology of outcomes, guidelines, consensus
policy, decision and general policy are four possible categories, would
be helpful.

 And the last comment stated requesters should be encouraged to
identify their desired goal outcome.  Otherwise, the community could be
overburdened with multiple policy initiatives that barely meet the
threshold requirements to get started but don't have widespread support
and will be seen as a waste of time.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Any questions or comments on that?  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I find that one quite interesting actually because
on the last issues report I did, we included hoped-for outcomes and
were severely criticized by a whole bunch of people to say that's not
an inner request for an issues report.  You are not supposed to be
predicting the results.  

 And, yet, I found in the discussions, it focused a lot of the
discussions on what the issues were and to understand what the problem
was.  So I like that outcome.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I'm sorry.  Mike?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  For me, you are really prejudging what the
outcome should be if you are doing that.  Bottom line is we always have
a range of potential outcomes that there can be from consensus policy
to best practices to whatever.  We've outlined them before, and we have
a beautiful slide, I think, with them.  That answer should always be
the same to that question, and you shouldn't prejudge which one until
the working group has done its job.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  I see Marilyn makes a face as she wants to say
something.

 >>MARILYN CADE:  I want to see if I understand this.  If you're
requesting an issues report, that is probably because you've done a lot
of research on an issue, you're affected by an issue.  So, you know,
I'm not sure that I understand why you would not have the option of
identifying the desired goal.  

 I would also, however, assume this is the requester.  This is not the
person that drafts the issues report.  So I think there is a difference
here between "I request an issues report" -- and I'll go back to an
issues report that I've requested many, many years ago on transfers. 
Clearly there had been -- there was a cross-discussion between
competitive registrars and the business community and ISPs and the
desired goal was an established transfers policy that was clear and
articulated and had recourse.

 Now, that's not to say that the issues report identified that, but
the request and the justification for moving ahead with an issues
report, I would think, does have to identify what the desired goal is. 
The issues report is supposed to be neutral, but I think that's
different than request.

 So I'm kind of feeling like I don't -- I don't understand why the
request would not identify a desired goal, not to say that the council
approves that as a goal.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  I know I saw -- Okay.  Alan and then Mike.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I will let Mike.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Just continuing on, I should have been more
clear.  I'm not saying they should be discouraged from doing it.  I'm
saying it should not be required because, for example, with the fast
flux working group, when I got that issues report going -- request
going, I really had no idea how it ought to come out.  I just knew it
was a big problem that probably was within the scope of ICANN's mission
to address and was able at least to convince enough councillors of
that, that we got it going.  But, honestly, had no idea how it should
have come out at that time.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go to Tim and then Alan.  Sorry about
that.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I think, too, it depends how you define "goal."  I mean,
if you're going to say, "Well, we want an issues report on transfers,"
that's pretty difficult to deal with.  I mean, what's the problem
statement?  What is it that you're trying to solve?

 I think just in the request for the report, defining what you see as
a problem or what the issue is in itself implies that there is some
goal.  The goal is to fix the issue.  And so I think that in a broader
sense, you know, a goal should always be a part of it.  

 Whether or not there should be detailed response about how that issue
or how that problem should be solved is a different question, and I
could see where there might be cases where that might be included but
it doesn't necessarily have to be.

 But I think just a properly framed statement or a properly framed
request for an issues report would in itself imply some goal.  If it
doesn't, then it is very difficult to act on.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I support what the last two statements were.  I
don't think this should be required.  There is certainly going to be
issues where you know there is a problem and you know we need a lot of
discussion and investigation but you can't predict what the outcome is.

 There are others where the requester can predict an acceptable
outcome that would satisfy them.  That may not be what comes out of the
PDP.  If we look at the domain tasting one, what came out was not what
we envisioned when we went into it.  But I think most parties were
happy with it, and that's fine.  That's what the process is about.

 But if you do have some projected outcomes, then that helps to focus
on what the problem is.  And I think we certainly shouldn't forbid it.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  I would like to determine a term that had
been used previously and in one of the questions, which is
"flexibility" because the key -- the key question is how aware are
people of the actual issue, the dimensions of the issue, the proper
solution or so before launching this whole process?  The initial part
is actually a cleaning of the issue.

 If -- in general terms, the community is very aware that there is a
problem.  If the basic assumptions are relatively well-known, then the
initial part will focus on what is the expected time frame?  Is there
an urgency of sorts?  How are we going to compose the working group
and, basically, do we agree on the goal?  Like, what is the policy that
should come out of it?

 If, on the other hand, it is a very tricky issue, people are not very
aware that it's important, it's obvious that the initial phase will
focus much more on additional information, issue scoping.  And so in
one case, it's possible to go very far in the request saying basically
based on what we know, it's likely that the solution might be this but
it is not binding and it is certainly not a necessary part of the
request.

 In other cases, people will say, we sense there is a problem here and
the initial phase should highlight the problem and what should be done
about it and whether it should be addressed at all or not.  

 So flexibility in here is the main criteria, whether at the same time
the desire is to go as fast as possible when a certain number of
previous elements had been clear before.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any comments?  James back there has got a
comment.

 >>JAMES BLADEL:  Is that on?

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  It is.

 >>JAMES BLADEL:  Forgive me.  I don't know if I fell into the purple
or not.  But it may have been a question of me not reading the language
of this particular survey item correctly.  But just to kind of build on
what Mike was saying, I also had the fast flux working group experience
in mind when this came up.  

 And I was thinking if a requester identifies a goal early on, a lot
of folks can join a working group and that is kind of a first to occupy
that particular issue in sort of a stated goal.  And it can have a lot
of staying power even if during the course of the working group's
deliberations other legitimate uses come out or other types -- we find
out the issue is much more complex.  We keep circling back to this
stated goal that was laid out initially which may or may not have any
relevance anymore to the outcome of the PDP.

 It just seemed to be this kind of ball and chain around the work of
the working group that maybe should have been separated earlier and
moved on and could have sped up the entire process.  I think -- I just
wanted to get that in for the purple.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any comments on that?  All right.  Jumping on
to the next one.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  The next one was actually an open question so I
didn't put up here but I can quickly go through it.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Not too quick because they have to transcribe.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I will try to be slow.  Next question is what
actions are needed in order to ensure precise and narrow definition of
an issue?  And nine people provided some input on that one.

 First one stated providing issue-related information as comprehensive
as possible.  Squeeze the initiator for providing information.  Set
criteria against which you can question.

 Understand appropriate role of ICANN and organizations within the
ICANN community in effecting an issue.  

 Early and frequent consultation between affected parties.  

 I don't think we can prescribe this.  It will vary from case to case.  

 At the issues report level, policy staff should be able to ask
clarifying questions.  The question may not be narrow -- may not be a
narrow definition but rather an agreed concise formulation that
encompasses the different dimensions of the issue.

 If the purpose -- if it is the purpose of the very initial stage is
to help participants to define issues of common concern or interest and
agreed goals, i.e., the purpose of the PDP, in many cases the problem
is not the absence of a narrow definition of the issue but the lack of
clarity requiring the different dimensions and the actual objective
pursuit.

 And one person said "to be decided."  There is no one-size-fits-all
answer to this question, but it seems likely that a more robust
definition will be developed if more than one vocal persuasive council
is driving the issue.

 There need not be a precise or narrow definition of an issue.  And a
last comment refers to workshops, templates, birds of a feather and
community discussion as examples.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Obviously an open-ended question got a lot of
different types of answers.  I think it's helpful, though, and glad
people responded with good substance.

 The next question we asked was should an initial assessment be
foreseen whether GNSO policy development is the appropriate response to
an issue raised or whether other alternatives are deemed more efficient
to achieve the desired outcome?  This was pretty split between those
that say yes or no opinion or no strong view either way or -- or no by
itself.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  It was five yes, two no's and four no strong view
either way.  And some of the comments stated:  Are there examples for
alternatives?  The assessment is just a recommendation.  It might be
useful as long as it's not binding on the council.  The policy
development process can actually cover a broad range of issues and
outcomes.  It is part of the issue assessment, i.e., preliminary phase
to verify collectively that the issue is indeed important, that there
is an agreed goal and the nature of the desired outcome.

 This should be reported in the staff-produced recommendation at the
end of the preliminary phase.  

 We should avoid multiplying ex ante checks and base the process on
the assumption that people will use it fairly.

 This may not need to be a requirement, but it seems folly to forge
ahead with PDPs that are deemed largely out of scope by staff and don't
have widespread support at the council level, i.e, fast flux.  Better
to develop more knowledge first and make a better informed decision
whether the issue really lends itself to policy work.

 Policy development can have multiple outcomes so it does not need to
be restricted.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  One of the first comments to that I thought was
interesting.  It was just a question.  It says, Are there other
alternatives?  So maybe we could talk about that for a second.  Are
there any other alternatives?  There is an issue brought up and the
assessment is whether GNSO policy development is the appropriate
response to the issue raised or whether all alternatives are deemed
more efficient.  The question was, what are other alternatives?  And do
people have a thought on that?  What were they thinking when they were
responding to this?  So, Alan.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I haven't responded yes.  Those aren't mine.  I
think the answer to that depends on who it is doing the requesting.  I
mean, an advisory council has the ability to advise the board to do
something.  The board may, I guess, initiate a GNSO PDP at that point.

 But the GNSO itself has other mechanisms that it has used on
occasion, writing letters to various bodies, the board or other groups
are included.  So I would have thought that's almost a given, that
whoever is initiating it is looking at what tools are at their disposal
and deciding whether this was the right tool to use in this particular
case or not.  I sort of take it as a given.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Does anyone that responded to this want to have a
comment for that?  I mean, are there people that bring up an issue -- I
guess Mike, you brought up the Fast Flux one.

 When you were initially assessing that problem and bringing it up,
did you think that there were other vehicles within ICANN that you
could have used, as opposed to bringing it up through the GNSO or...

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, SSAC had already issued an advisory at that
point, so no.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Trying to draw out some conversation.  So if
it wasn't through GN -- so it was your view that if it wasn't through
GNSO, it wouldn't be handled at all or that it was --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, it wouldn't be handled by ICANN at all.  I
mean SSAC had done their job.  They came out and they said, "This is a
problem" and they actually suggested that we do something about that,
and so I acted on that.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  And Tim?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  It -- the question was is there -- should an initial
assessment be foreseen.  I guess I'm just trying to understand what was
meant there.  You know, who would do the assessment.  Is that the
requester?  Foreseeing an assessment?  Or is that the GNSO or the staff
or...

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I guess that will be the next question.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I mean, did -- sorry, Mike.  Just quickly, I think, you
know, it's an interesting question.  I think in my mind, it kind of
relates back to the question about, you know, the -- you know, should
there be an initial assessment of scope, you know, or those kinds of
things that I think help to inform the council as they're looking at
these different issues from a -- from a -- just an ability -- the
ability to properly prioritize their work or to be able to, you know,
focus, look at the resources available, whatever it might be.

 So I think, you know, all that's valuable, but of course, you know,
who -- who's going to do that assessment I guess would be the question.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, I mean, I would say just inherently, every
councillor has to make that assessment when they decide how to vote. 
Every constituency has to make that assessment when they instruct their
councillors how to vote.  Just it's inherent in the process.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Philip?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I think actually this was a very interesting
question to have asked.  And in many other processes, I mean, when
you're looking at doing work, you -- you ask the same thing:  Are there
different alternative ways of achieving the same outcome.

 It strikes me that, I mean, if we look at the existing content of an
issues report, there are five things which the staff managers are
required at the moment to include within that.  I think it strikes me
that maybe adding this -- the idea of a sixth, which would simply be
"Are there alternative means to achieving this," as a natural part of
this process, which could simply be a, you know, "no" followed by two
lines, "this seems to be the only way," or "yes," and a paragraph to
follow, would be a useful part of the issues report.  

 Now, sometimes it's going to be easier to do than others, and if
there's complexity, fine, that can just simply be indicated.  We don't
need to, in my mind, imply a lot of extra work to do that, but I think
simply addressing the question is part of what you get back in the
issues report would be quite useful.  So again, it's asking the staff
manager, to my mind, would be part of the way you would -- you would
implement that, if it's felt desirable.  Personally, I do.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Thank you, Philip.  Anybody else with comments
on that?  Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah.  Just a quick comment.

 Actually, I think there was a remark by somebody regarding not
multiplying the prerequisites or the preliminary evaluation before the
preliminary evaluation and so on.

 I think what we're listing, all the discussions we have here and all
the questions that we ask, are basically the equivalent of a checklist
for the preliminary phase, and so it should be the things that should
normally come into the discussion during the preliminary phase, like if
there is anybody who thinks that there is another way to do this than a
PDP, this should be part of the discussion, like, "Hello!  Why don't we
use another process."  And so it should be recorded, taken into account
in the issues paper, or whatever.

 So I think what this question means is that it is part of the range
of issues that have to be taken into account, rather than a separate
process that is a sub, sub, sub, subpart of a preliminary process to
judge whether we should launch a PDP or not.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  I think you're right.  I think a
lot of these are -- these topics have all come up in one way or another
during our calls, and, you know, we're trying to assess, you know, what
the group's view is on these things.  And you're right, it -- what
we're getting out of it is a checklist or at least people's thoughts on
the checklist.  Again, not necessarily a required element to be filled
in in the checklist but certainly helpful elements or that some feel
would be helpful to have, and so you're kind of following the questions
right, I think.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  If I may make an additional comment.  We
might have here an illustration of the distinction between the
categories that I was -- that we were discussing before, because the
whole process is a framework.  What we have here is the equivalent
maybe of guidelines.  This whole checklist is very close to the birds
of a feather document that was presented.  Like it could be a document
that is for the benefit of working group -- sorry, of the initiators
and managers of the initial process saying basically when you discuss
this issue, keep in mind the following list of questions to guide your
discussion, period.  Which is very different from having it as a formal
framework that says, "You need to have first a discussion and a
decision and a vote within your group on Question B slash 73C or
whatever."

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  And once we come out with the checklist, then
we'll ask the question, again, as to whether the group feels any of
these elements should be mandatory or not.  You know, that's a time
that you could reask the same question.  And the answer may be:  No,
none of them should be.

 But we'll reask the question at that point.

 Anybody else with a comment on this one?  Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Just a very quick one.  I think the wording "a
checklist" I think is very helpful to give people who are new in this
process -- there's a lot of turnover in ICANN, and to give them an idea
of what is expected and the questions they should be asking I think is
very useful.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  All right.  The current requirements for the
content of an issues report are predefined by the bylaws.  Are they --
are the current elements still relevant?

 And this one -- I saw Alan just shrug his shoulders.  Maybe that's
the general view of -- there was no strong view either way.  It seemed
to take the -- take the cake on this one.

 Do you -- so the comments here would be helpful.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  So someone suggested that another template
is necessary for this, so it can be populated with relevant information
and a checklist for completion should also be included along with a
proposed time line.

 As indicated previously, there should be a distinction between
initial issue papers -- two to three pages -- and staff-produced
recommendations in a Secretariat function regarding the launch of an
actual PDP.

 The content of these documents is too precise a level of detail to be
in the bylaws.

 And the last comment stated, "It will depend on the outcome of the
discussions regarding the pre-request phase."

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any questions on this one?  Nope?

 Okay.  Is an issues report still the desired outcome of the
planning/initiation phase?

 And the answer here was pretty strong --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  8 yes, 1 no, and 2 no strong view either
way.  So some of the comments going with that...

 As mentioned above, the outcome of the initial preliminary phase
should be a recommendation drafted by participants in the initial phase
with the support of staff as Secretariat that describes the next steps
proposed and the rationale for it.

 Concision is key here and the format should be somehow a draft
resolution for the council to adopt as-is unless it objects according
to an agreed procedure.

 Council should be a validator, not the decision shaper.

 A report is likely the outcome of the planning and initiation phase,
but whether this is called an issues report and whether this is a staff-
only report should be further discussed.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Any comments?  Is the person who made the -- the last
comment -- what was the -- can you say that again?  I'm just trying to
digest that one.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I think that was staff.  Basically, we feel that
probably a report will still be the outcome of this phase.  That, you
know, outlines different views, information found, findings of a
workshop.  You know, if there's a decision to have a public comment
period or request the opinion of constituencies, we think that a report
will still be the product that will be sent to the council for
consideration, but whether we call that an issues report or whether
it's only compiled by staff or by others, that seems to be still open
for -- for discussion.

 But, you know, I don't want to speak for the rest, but I do think
that indeed some of the detail that is currently in the bylaws
shouldn't be there, and probably should be in a separate document, and
again maybe have some kind of, you know, template for what kind of
categories you might want to include.  I mean, maybe the issue is the
recommendation of staff might be a requirement that you leave in the
bylaws, but some guidance might be helpful of what other kinds of
information are deemed useful for the council to take an informed
decision.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Any questions or comments on that one?  I see
Alan's got a puzzled look.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I don't think it's a comment on this one, but it
strikes me as we've been talking about it that the -- what we're
calling the issues report is always we toss something over the wall at
staff and 15 days later or 30 days later or the agreed-upon time they
toss it back.

 [Laughter]

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  And I've gotten the impression, as we look at this
more and more, that there should be a little bit -- we should (a) allow
enough time and there should be perhaps a little bit of iteration in
the process, because there are cases where things just get missed, and
it's locked in the issues report forever, and there's no opportunity to
refine it.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  And I think we need, somewhere along the process,
some iteration to see a draft, at least to pass it back to the people
who made the original request, "Are we answering your question?"

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  And one thing that I would strongly
advocate is indeed that there's an opportunity for the community not to
maybe comment on the recommendations or, you know, challenge certain
findings, but be able to make factual corrections.  Because indeed as
you said, you know, in 15 days, it's a deadline, it gets published, and
that's it.  I mean, yes, we can put out, you know, an updated version,
but it would be really helpful if we can, you know, put it out saying,
"This is the preliminary report.  Can you just check to make sure that
we've covered all the information?  Is there any key, you know,
information or data that we've missed that we didn't see that you think
needs to be included"; that indeed there is this possibility to say,
"Okay, and here's the final one.  We've made the correction.  You know,
it's not intended to be already a discussion on whether to initiate or,
you know, how to address the issues, but just any of the factual -- is
the information correct."

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  I think bottom line, between staff and volunteers,
an immense amount of effort goes into the PDP process from its very
early pre-initiation stages through whatever ends up coming out, and it
would be nice to -- if we had some level of comfort that's really
addressing the issue that was raised, and I -- I think -- believe there
are cases where there has not been the case because of things along the
way.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Bertrand, did you --

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Yeah.  I think there are two -- the
discussions on the -- on that issue were very interesting in the group,
and indeed the question of the responsibility -- the respective
responsibilities of staff and whatever group can help draft the outcome
is important.

 The second thing is, during the discussion, we raised the fact that
there was probably a beginning and an end that could be formalized by
different types of documents, and that the initial phase can be either
very short, if it is a simple, very well-known issue that people really
want to address quickly, or can be more lengthy if it is an issue that
really has to be dealt with in detail.

 I think the main outcome of the discussion on the PDP was to
highlight the incredible importance of the preliminary stages, and my
experience in the little time that I've spent in ICANN in the last
three years is that there is a big danger in the rush into the process.

 Like the preliminary stage is done very quickly, and say, "Yeah, we
need a PDP," and then -- Bing -- the whole shebang comes in and it
lasts for ages because in many cases, as mentioned before, the scoping
of the issue or the understanding of what is at stake and sometimes
just the formulation of the problem, like working tirelessly at the
beginning to formulate the problem in a way that encompasses all the
interests of the different actors, is sometimes more important than six
months of work later down the road.

 So I would highlight in this respect that the preliminary phase has
two critical elements slash dangers.  The first one is the entry bar,
which is the agenda-setting, whether you can easily bring an issue in. 
The more preliminary checks, the harder it is for an emerging issue to
be coming up early enough.

 The second danger is closing it too quickly and rushing into the PDP.

 So flexibility in having additional discussion, maybe create an
informal group to discuss the issue and have pre-fined the report is
sometimes a good way to launch the PDP only when people are really
ready to do it.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So let me ask a question of, I guess, Alan and Mike
as being two of the people in this room that have requested the issues
report, and without putting you on the spot too much, have there been
instances where either of you have wanted more involvement in the
issues report or have not necessarily been happy with the way the
issues report came out -- 

 >>MARIKA KONINGS: Can I, after that, comment as well?  

 >>JEFF NEUMAN: And then I'll turn to staff to also comment to say
whether they wish the two were involved.  

 So is there any comments or thoughts you guys have on that, or are
you okay with the way the issues report turned out?  

 So Mike?

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Well, I wasn't asked for help during the process.
Had I been asked, I certainly would have -- would have given some, I'm
sure.  But then again, you know, if I get to help, then why shouldn't
eight other people get to help in the process, so that becomes really
unwieldy.  Then you've got a drafting team, you don't have staff
working on a report.

 So -- but clearly I was not happy with the way that issues report
came out, but for another reason.  It was because staff, you know, made
a firm recommendation that they didn't think a PDP should go forward at
that time, that other work should go forward, and that created tension
between staff and a subset of the council.  A majority of the council
members, actually, as I recall.

 And, you know, that -- that's another issue which we can talk about,
which we'll talk about later, so I don't need to belabor that point,
but --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go to Alan, and then I see Kristina,
and then I want to hear Marika as well.  So Alan?

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Well, I've only been involved in two, and one of
them, I think, worked out just the way I was hoping, and the other one,
there were some problems, and if we were to do it over again, I would
do my best to try to make sure the outcome was a little bit different. 
So...

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So what were the good things?  We'll start with that.
So when you say --

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Well, the good things are the issues report, I
think, addressed the question, confirmed that there was a problem,
confirmed that there were a number of possible solutions.  And, you
know, that was the one on domain tasting.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  The one on post-expiry -- expiration domain
recovery, there was one major problem with it, and I think if there had
been some iteration, it would have been addressed properly, and because
it wasn't, it remains to be seen just how successful the process is
going to be.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  Hopefully we'll cover from that, with you there
are -- you know, there are issues which should have been different.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go to Kristina, and then to Marika.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  I just had a suggestion slash request that I
think would be helpful on several levels with regards to issues
reports, and that would be for staff to prepare and include, at the
end, just a list of, you know, references consulted or factual
information relied upon.  And I think that would accomplish several
goals.

 First, it would help those reading the issues report understand --
just to know what factual information staff had access to and what they
relied upon.  And to the extent that there may have been inverted
omission simply because staff didn't have access to particular
information, that would be a way to highlight that.

 Second, I think it would allow people to understand, in many cases,
how staff got to where they got to in terms of their recommendation.

 And finally, I think it would serve as a really useful starting point
for if the issue then goes forward, whether it's to a working group or
a drafting team or whatever, and there may be people who are interested
in the issue but don't have the same factual background in it, this
would be a really good kind of source list for them to go to, so that
they can become -- get as up to speed as everybody else, so that when
you start the work, everybody has the same basic factual underpinning,
so you're not having to play catch-up all the time, which I have found
can really slow the process down.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go to Marika and then I'll go back to
Alan.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  No, just a comment on Kristina's point.  I
think it's a really good idea.  I mean, the only issue is that
sometimes it's really difficult to actually find sources and it often
comes back to talking internally or getting experiences and coming back
as well to a point that Mike made, it's for us sometimes really a
challenge indeed when we research or write the issues report that we
cannot go back to one person and ask questions, because we should do --
do it then to everyone.

 So often indeed we operate in a -- in a silo, and say, "Okay, well,
those questions will come at a later stage," because we don't want to
see either as talking to one person for information and then not the
other.  So that's -- you know, that's one of the challenges and I think
why we really see a need for more discussion and information at those
beginning stages.

 And just a comment on, you know, the experiences with how the
requests for issues reports have been received.

 I mean, you know, with the ALAC, that experience was really good
because they actually came to us before with they submitted the
request, so we actually had some time to try to understand what the
issue actually was and really try to get as much information as
possible out of them before, you know, the request was actually
submitted and, you know, the clock started ticking.  And that has been
lacking on some of the other issues where they were, you know, without
us knowing, put into the council, voted upon, and "Here are your 15
days," and that has proven to be really difficult.  So even though
you're not completely happy with what was in the issues report, from a
staff perspective that was really helpful to try to understand what do
you see as the issue and, you know, trying to focus as well so -- in
the issues report on digging into those specific questions.  So...

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Alan and then Bertrand.

 >>ALAN GREENBERG:  One of the things that bothers me is that we're
having these discussions and we use expressions like "if the problem is
well understood," and we're assuming ICANN is a monolithic organization
where everyone has the same knowledge, and that's far from the truth.

 We can have issues that have been talked about at workshops and ad
infinitum for the last two years, and there are other -- there are
people in the community, often very knowledgeable senior people in the
community, who are oblivious to the issues because it hasn't been
something they've focused on.

 So ICANN is not monolithic.  Issues can be very well understood, but
still a complete new game for half the people on council.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go to Bertrand, and then see if we can
go through a couple other questions.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  One precision on the comment that you
just made.

 Did I understand correctly that in the face -- in the current
mechanism, when a request for an issues report is being made, the staff
is not supposed to have interactions with people?  I mean --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  I don't think -- I mean, it's not an official rule
but we -- you know, personally I would view that as a way that some
might say you're being influenced.  If I would only talk to Jeff on a
certain issue but not to Alan and the community would find out, it's
very easy then to say, oh, yeah, but then Jeff guided -- I can see that
here.

 There's no -- there's any official rule but -- and anyway, the 15
days don't allow for much --

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  This is exactly the point I want to make.
The mechanism, I understand, and once again I'm discovering things as I
go along, so apologies for the naive questions sometimes.

 It really looks like what Alan was describing, like tossing an issue,
then oops, nobody talks to anybody.  Make sure that nobody talks to
anybody!  And then wait until the staff, in its wisdom, brings the
answer that, yes, of course it's a very important issue or, no, it's
not.

 I mean, this cannot work.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Well --

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  I mean, excuse me, now I get the
understanding why I see PDPs lasting for ages, because there is no
interaction before the thing is launched.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So what I'm hearing is to just to kind of summarize,
what I'm hearing is that perhaps there is -- should be some sort of --
before the issues report is formally submitted to the council for a
vote --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  The request even.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  -- that there -- well, at least at this stage --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Uh-huh.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  -- that there should be some or -- there should be --
there maybe should be some mechanism that -- where there should be a
review by those that brought up the issue to make sure the issues
report captures exactly what was intended to be captured before the
council actually votes as to go, "Okay, a working group should be
launched" and develop your charter based on this issues report.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  Because one of the suggestions that we've
made as well in our paper is, for example, for staff to be able to, you
know, put out specific questions as part of -- a bit of a short public
comment period, so we can actually get the information we need, you
know, to really do a comprehensive issues report.  And have more work
done in workshops and discuss issues with the community to get as much
information as possible to really indeed allow the council to make an
informed decision and not on, you know, a sometimes limited 15-day
phase in which you're trying to pull an issues report together.

 Often on issues where there's very little public information
available, so we're relying on, you know, experience from other staff
members on these issues, you know, complaints that are being dealt with
in compliance or services, just to, you know, try to build the issues
report.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Let me go -- I'll go to Philip and then
Kristina and then we have to actually end it, so let me go to Philip
and then Kristina.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Thanks, Jeff.  I presume that the mentioned 15-
day deadline is just historical interest because one of the things
we'll be looking at is whether or not we want to amend that.  

 I think it's a very interesting discussion and I think it does
underline some of the problems that's been here.  Particularly hearing
from staff the problems they're having in doing a staff task I think is
very useful.

 I mean, for me, one thing I think can be achieved by combining what
we heard earlier in terms of Kristina's recommendation in terms of
relevant sources, which to my mind would include "why not" you know,
and "we had dialogue with, you know, this individual who is part of the
group who made that request in the first place."  That would be, to my
mind, legitimate transparency in terms of explaining that.  So that
would help in terms of that interaction and the report naturally has
that transparency, so we know that -- that that discussion took place.

 And for me, it's an open question -- which is the other suggestion I
think we heard -- about whether or not there should be this sort of,
you know, preliminary issues report and then a short comment period
just to make sure it captured things, and I'm not sure if that's
necessary, if you have the other part of it, but I'm open to it.  But I
think that's -- I think we're getting close, I think, to quite a good
process and I think as part of those suggestions we've heard so far.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks, Philip.  Kristina?

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:  Philip just asked my question.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  There you go.  And one last comment from Marika.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Yeah.  One idea could be as well, when a request
for an issues report is received, it could be an option as well that
staff actually comes back yes, we can do this in 15 days, 30 days, no,
we would strongly recommend that a workshop is held first because we
feel there is not enough information available in the public domain or
we would like to run a public comment period to solicit contributions. 
So that might be a way, as well, to facilitate this need in certain
cases for more information.  I mean, in some, we've been able to do it
in 15 days where there's clear information available and it's, you
know, very narrowly defined issues.  Then, you know, it's sometimes
possible.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Okay.  Well, I want to thank everyone.  We're going
to release the survey results to the entire --

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  World.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  To the entire world.  Well, at least to the PPSC, the
whole PPSC, including the two work teams, just so everyone can see the
results.  Everything is public anyway.  I mean, people can see it on
the Wiki.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Just one question.

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yes.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS: Do we allow for -- because I heard some, "I
actually didn't have a chance to fill it in."  Do we --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Yeah.  That was to be my next -- I think we should
keep it open.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  But then I cannot do the results yet, so --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  That's a good point.  

 Let's give a few more days to allow people -- like let's give another
week.  Or how long is it going to take you to compile the results?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  Well, give them at least another week.  It
probably wouldn't happen before I get back from Sydney, so --

 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Right.  So what I'm thinking is, we have our regular
biweekly call, so which would probably be two Thursdays from the end of
this meeting.  So hopefully by then, we could have sent all the results
to everyone out?  

 Okay.  So we'll do that.  There are a couple questions we didn't
discuss, and maybe we'll finish them up on the next call that we have
as a team, but I think this has been very helpful to kind of create the
checklist, and then we will get into topic "B," which is the next
phase, but I really want to thank everyone for filling out these forms
and discussing it.  I think these -- the discussions we've had here
have been really helpful, and it's good to have so many people, so I
really encourage those that are on my work team to maybe now that
things will get a little bit less hectic, hopefully, to join in a
couple weeks on our next call.  Anybody have any closing remarks? 
Questions?

 Well, I want to thank everyone, and I will see everyone around. 
Thank you.

 [Break]

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Everyone, the next meeting is scheduled to start
at 2:00 but we are going to give it another five minutes because we are
waiting on Ken, our staff liaison, to get here.

 [Break]

 Okay, everyone.  Our staff liaison has gotten here, and so I would
like us to call to order and -- so we can get started.

 So I'm J. Scott Evans, and I'm the chair of the working group work
team, which is what this group is.  For those of you, I'll just let you
know where you are.  For those of you that are here for observers, this
team is part of the GNSO improvement.  And what we are working on is
two separate subgroups, one which is getting together a draft template
to guide working groups in how to create a charter.

 And the other one is an operational handbook that will help work
teams -- working groups, as they are formulated by the council, they
will then have some sort of parameters or guidelines for how they are
to operate.  And so it's to assist us in the process so that as we new
people matriculate through the system, it is not reinventing the wheel
every time.  People don't have to relearn everything, and there is some
basis of consensus and consistency in the process.  I mean, that's
really our goal is to assist new leaders and new working groups so that
they can spend more time on substantive work and less time on charting
the territory.

 With that said, I'm going to ask Ken who was on our last call, which
I believe was held June 10th, to bring us up to date.  He has posted
this -- for those of you that have access to the Wiki, he has posted
this in PDF form on the Wiki so you can look at the minutes there as
well.  And we're going to bring you up to speed on where we are and
what our next steps are.

 Ken?

 >>KEN BOUR:  Thank you very much, J. Scott.  Now, I just need to
figure out where am I.  So I'm looking at -- I'm going to try to get to
the working group team charter page, although if I back up to the
working group page that's probably where the notes are, right, from the
last meeting?  There we go.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Do you want to project?  I can find them if you
can't.  Let me see if I can do it because I found it this morning.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Great.

 Yeah, I'm not sure that I actually need to go through the call
summary from the notes, right?  We can just -- yeah, we can just go to
--

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  The meat.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Yeah, to the meat of it.  Just scrolling down through
the notes.

 So from the working group team page, if we go to the team charter --
that's not right.  Bear with me a second here.  I got it, charter
guidelines.

 So I'm at the st.icann.org -- the working group team charter page. 
Does everybody know where that is?  Does anybody not know where it is? 
And we'll get it up in a second.  If not, we can plug into me.  I'm
sure I have got a connection here somewhere.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Just jump in and I'll catch up.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Sure.  As I mentioned in the notes, the charter subteam,
the charter operating guidelines -- we're calling it the working groups
implementation and charter drafting guidelines, that subteam, several
of us met on 4 June.  It was Avri and it was Cheryl Langdon-Orr and
Gray was there and myself, I think, was the group that we had.

 And we made a tremendous amount of progress actually going through
the original outline making decisions about whether a particular
element should be in the outline or whether it should be out, and we
discussed the rationale for all of that.

 And the results are on this page.  And I even noted that this is the
revised draft outline posted after the 4 June session.

 And we ended up creating some new sections, and if we go to the
introduction -- I'm not sure if you can see it there or not.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Why don't we just plug you in, Ken.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Let's see if this works.  Okay.  If I hit it again, I
might actually be able to see my screen.  That's because I have got a
tablet PC.  Keep hitting it, right?  That's going to turn it off. 
Let's try it again.  Now I'm right side up.  No.  I will have to read
it off the big screen.  There is probably a way to do this, I just
don't know -- this is a new computer.

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  Do you want to try one more computer and have me
do it on this computer?

 >>KEN BOUR:  Sure.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I work for one of the largest technology companies
in the world and this happens every time we try to do something on
PowerPoint.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Momentarily we'll have this going hopefully.

 So the new charter guidelines has an introduction section, and then
it has three major sections.  And we'll have them in a second.  There
is the introduction.

 And then inside that introduction, we actually described what the
three sections are.  I'll just read them since it is brief.  Section 1
contains background information, informing the effort to create this
document as well as suggestions or recommendations related to the
implementation of working groups within the GNSO.  And so what that's
attempting to refer to is all of the material that was in the original
outline that -- and I think I liked Avri's term.  She called it meta
information.  It is information sort of about working groups and about
how to enable them but it doesn't specifically relate to the building
of a real charter.  So we took all of the material that was of that
meta type and put it in Section 1.

 Section 2, then, is comprised of the material that relates directly
to a charter that would be written by a sponsoring or chartering
organization for a working group.  

 And then Section 3 is just for amendments, so that was to capture the
idea that the document would be living and we would be able to make
amendments to it as it goes through experience.

 So Section 1, then, also has a short introduction to indicate what
it's for.  And then we'll have a background -- Section 1.0 background
and then some material on revisions, applicability and then information
in Section 2 about the implementation of working groups.

 There is a bunch of information in here, like the announcement of the
working group.  This would relate to advertising and telling people
what it's for and what it's about.  There's a section on security
concerns, chair facilitation, expectations and so forth.

 And then Section 2 is the place where we actually deal with the
charter template itself, and there is an introduction section there. 
And then you can -- we can walk our way through that sort of briefly
and you can see that Section 1 deals with identification of the working
group's name, who the chair is and so forth and so on.  These would all
be parts of a real charter.  

 The mission purpose and deliverables, major sections.  I'm not going
to go through all of these.  Formation staffing and organization and
then Section 4, rules of engagement.

 There probably is some important stuff to discuss there around
decision-making methodologies.  We've talked a little bit about whether
or not consensus decision-making has to be prescribed in a tight way,
and that will probably depend on which type of working group is being
commissioned.  If it is one that's related to policy, then quite
clearly it would have a very definite definition.

 We created Section 5 called working group history:  The dates, when
was it chartered and all of that kind of information.  And then the
last section, 3, would be for revisions.  So this is Version 1.0, and
this is the version posted to the working group team Wiki.  Eventually,
there will be a 1.1 and a 1.2 and somebody should say we should go to
2, 3, 4 and hopefully over time we'll continue.  And we'll be able to
tell from the description on what was done on each of those versions. 
This is where we are briefly on the charter work.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  One of the problems that I have identified is
getting everybody involved and helping in drafting.  And it's my
understanding from the last call, Ken, that there was a group that
agreed that Ken is going to work with us to put together some
preliminary draft language that we would then all engage in in editing
it and expounding upon it and clarifying it as we go through the
process.  Rather than having this divvied up to a bunch of groups
drafting sections, we're going to have Ken work with us on getting it
drafted, and then we will take it and craft it as we review it and have
our questions and flesh out issues that need to be discussed further on
this.

 And I think that's probably the best way in order that we can get
this done because we need to have this done -- I'll be right with you --
as soon as -- you know, by Seoul.  So seems like a long time away but
it's just around the corner.

 We have a question here.

 >> JONNE SOININEN:  Jonne Soininen from Nokia Siemens Networks.  Hi. 
I think we need a different approach that we have had thus far because
we haven't really made the progress that we wanted perhaps to have
until we came here.  And, really, if we continue with this, Seoul is
not very far away.  We will have a couple more sections before Seoul
but we won't be ready if we don't take a different approach.

 But I think that -- which I would like to propose that we use this
face-to-face session time to kind of, like, get the principles done and
stuff like that because I think that I can still read from the comments
in the draft here that there are questions about if even some sections
are supposed to be here.  

 And then, for instance, adding text to that and working on those
texts and putting forward in that text might not be that useful.  Some
of these things like importance and priority was one of the sections
which I thought shouldn't be there, and I saw Avri's comments said it
shouldn't be there.

 And the question -- getting all the principles kind of done, then we
can give this to maybe to Ken or to a small team to draft.  But
generally I think that, yes, we do need a different approach than we
have done so far because we have to move on.

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  Yeah, I guess I would be interested in hearing
the enumeration of those things which were still up for debate because
I thought we had actually made some good progress on the calls.  I
think the main debate point was whether or not -- who the audiences
were.  

 I think there was some confusion as to who the audiences were for the
document that we were producing.  And once we clarified that the
charter was -- it was kind of layers of audiences, right?  The first
audience for this was the people that were going to draft the charter,
and then subsequent to that they were going to draft a document based
on this form that the audience of which would be the members of the
work group team.

 And so my thought is we had actually make significant progress on
that and kind of clarifying those and I'd be interested -- to me at
least on the last call I was on, it didn't seem that there was that
much -- that much debate about what elements were appropriate to
include in that.

 So I think we could -- I mean, you mentioned one.  Are there others
that are -- I don't know if this is the right time to discuss this. 
But are there others that are relevant that we would need to revisit
prior to kind of moving forward with actually drafting the content?

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I mean, personally I don't think there is any --
the way we're planning on moving forward, I don't think there is any
problem with going with the outline we have and flushing out that.  And
then as we get into editing, we can make a decision about whether there
are certain areas that don't belong there or not.  

 I mean, Ken is taking the -- you know, if there are certain sections
like priorities that people feel like are extraneous or need to be
shorter, those are all questions we can get into once we get into the
editing.

 I think I would like to err on the side of over-inclusiveness for the
original draft because I think when you go to narrowing it down, then
you just find yourself revisiting issues.  It is always easier to take
away than it is to create something that you feel wasn't there.  So I
would be preferred -- it seems like this general outline is acceptable,
that we flesh this out with text and then we can have -- if there is
still -- after the text is there, if there are still concerns about
some of the subject matter that's included, then we can have a
discussion about whether that needs to be shortened, it needs to be
removed.

 But at this point, I think the best thing to do is to get something
on paper and get as much on paper as we can so that we then have
something to start discussing.  Ken?

 >>KEN BOUR:  Yes, thank you.  I just quickly scanned through because
I wasn't clear that there were any that we hadn't already resolved.  I
noticed there is a note on -- and it's up on the screen.  Gray's got
it.  It's 2.3, import, impact and priority.  And Avri did subsequently
add a note, "I still don't think it belongs but I will read what you
write and offer an opinion later," which is exactly, J. Scott, what I
think you said.

 So, yes, there was some discussion on this item that it didn't
belong.  But we -- in our discussion, I remember that -- and the reason
it is still here -- and if you read what I wrote, it says, "Not every
charter will be for a PDP item."  And our hope was that this drafting
guidelines document could be used for working groups other than
policy.  

 And so, for example, the team that we are, which we are a working
group, we might have used such a drafting guideline document in
building our own charter or the OSC might have used it, had it existed.

 And in that particular case, impact, import, priority might have been
something they would have said.  The reason this is important, it came
from a BGC report.  It is going to influence the way in which working
groups are -- so that might have been a place where it would have
applied.

 But in a policy case, as Avri has pointed out, it gets very
difficult, in which case they can simply ignore this.  This would be an
optional item.  Anyway, that's just a thought about that, Jonne.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Cheryl?

 >> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  Just picking up on that -- Thank you very
much, J. Scott.  When we were discussing it, I think it was really
important that we did spend a good deal of time discussing it even at
this point.  I was keen to point out in many of these work groups or
teams that are going to be produced from these documents, you are going
to mixing culture and experience, which is unlike anything you have
ever done before, which is not inclusive of those who understand how a
normal PDP process works.  

 And background, even from a historic and archive point of view, is
hugely important.  If it is deemed important in this case, this is
where you can place it. 

 >> JONNE SOININEN:  This is just something that I picked where I saw
that because I wasn't in the last call.  So I was just skimming through
this and that was one of the points that I saw that there was some
contention.  

 Just on that point, I don't think that anybody is going to say that
my working group is not important.  It has no impact and it should be
low priority.  So kind of like everybody says, This is the highest
priority working group because it's mine.  This-- has big impact
because it has big impact and don't you understand that?  And it should
be high priority. 

  That's kind of like, even if it is optional, I think that this would
be always the case that comes out and kind of like having the criteria,
what is important or not would be a discussion that wouldn't be very
useful.

 But let it be there if everybody else wants it to be there, and we
can discuss when we have the text.  I'm fine with that.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  You know, personally having been involved in ICANN
for ten years, if everybody thought their working group was the highest
priority and put effort and time into it, I would be thrilled.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Talking about creation, actually putting time into
it.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  I understand, of course, that -- you understand,
of course, that some of this is going to be relegated by council
because council is going to be managing this process.  And just because
you draft a charter doesn't mean that council cannot say to you, "We've
reviewed the charter and we have problems in X, Y and Z area and we are
sending it back to you to address those issues."  One of them might be
where you place it on your priority.

 But, again, I think your points are well-taken.  But I would like to
just see text, and then we can -- once we see text and how it is all
fitting together, if there are still objections, we can talk about that
at that time.  But I would much rather get it on paper now and see how
it fits in as an overall piece of the puzzle before we don't put the --
you know, we don't have it as a piece because it's always easy to say,
"Yeah, we had a discussion, this isn't going to work, let's take it
out" rather than to say, "Oh, we didn't do this" and we are revising it
two months after we put it out there.  So that would be my preference
and given that Ken is taking the laboring oar for us, we have the easy
part.

 >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  We have the easy part.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Just as a comment to that, actually it seems to be
always when drafting text that taking text out is much more laborsome
than actually putting it in.  I agree, that's a good thing.

 One thing I had another question, this might be because I missed the
last call is that there are some sections in this document that I think
would be more appropriate in the kind of general working group
guidelines because they are general for all working groups.  Whereas,
charter guideline is just for chartering the working group.  That was
how I understood it.

 And the thing is we're not -- are we going to discuss or when are we
going to discuss which is appropriate where?

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  Could you specifically reference which sections
you thought -- I think we are trying to get through this now.  I think
that's what the purpose is.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Well, for instance, things like what they call
here security concerns, chair facilitation expectations, those are
general things, I think.

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  Would you reference the section so I can get it
up?

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  In the Section 2.0, the subsections thereof are
kind of things that I think are general for all working groups and not
specific for a single charter.

 And I think these are important things to write down.  The question
is just how we split these two documents because I understood this was
just a document to -- not "just," but a document concentrating on
chartering working groups where some of these issues I think are
general for all working groups, not for a specific one.

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  My thought on this is -- I mean, these are
instructions that are given to the working group, right, about how --
about how things are going to work.  So my thought is that they would
actually apply -- if they're in this document, they would be spoken to
by the chartering entity, and then the working group would take that
information and use that in their work on the working group.  So I
don't see why this wouldn't be broadly applicable to all the working
groups.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  I think -- what was my understanding of the
chartering document was to give a checklist, what do you have to show
that you have done to charter a working group, the kind of due
diligence or checklist of the items that have to be defined for a
working group.

 Whereas, the working group guidelines was a document that describes
kind of the rules or guides how the working group works, which is
general for all working groups.

 Whereas, the charter document would be something that explains, well,
have you -- what are the specific things that you have thought of for
this particular working group that you are chartering now.

 >>GRAHAM CHYNOWETH:  I think this goes back to the question of
audiences.  And this document -- or at least the way I understand it is
that this document is drafted by people who want to have a working
group created, right?  So that's part of the process -- part of the
reason for this document is it forces anyone who wants a working group
to get created to think -- to think long and hard about what they're
doing.

 And then once they produce that, they give that to the entity that
would create the working group -- or that would charter the working
group.  

 That entity which has the authority to charter the working group then
takes that -- takes this charter, massages it over, maybe changes some
of the language and actually issues the charter.

 Then that document goes into the hands of the people that would be
participating in the working group.  So they have a guide with all the
relevant terms about what is going to happen in this group that they
are now participating in.

 I think that's why this is relevant here is that it talks about how
this particular group is going to be organized and structured and what
it's going to do.  And then there's operating norms that go with all of
them.  But it is really about that packet of information that is
received by the people that are going to be on the working group that
we want to have -- be the net result of this.

 So do you see why I think -- I think it is a relevant thing to have
in there, and it is part of that communique that goes from the charting
organization to the people that are going to do the work.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  And I think that because of the different
audiences, that there may be in the two documents very similar
provisions because they may closely map one another in certain
instances and in certain areas.  So this is probably one of the areas
that is going to map pretty closely in both documents, but I'm not sure
that one belongs in one document and not in another document because
you have separate audiences and it may not be the same participants
that did the chartering that are doing the work.  And so you have to
have a document that sort of whatever role they're playing covers the
material for that role, and it may be that the material is similar
because there are similar issues.  But we have to cover it in both
places.  And I think, again, you know, that's the basic point and it
may look like it is duplicative.

 But I think what gets very complicated for people is when you start
sending them, "Refer to Section 2.0 in the other document," they're
never going to do it.  So it needs to be in the document that's before
them.  

 And the fact that we may have similar provisions in the operating
document as we do in the charter document, I don't think the two are
mutually exclusive.  I think that, you know, you have to have them. 
Again, what we're trying to do is chart -- I shouldn't use that word
since we are talking about charters, but is to plot a course for
leaders who are coming into this process without having been involved
before.  Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Thanks, Scott.  Apologies for coming
late.  I'm actually very happy to be able to catch up with the work of
this part because it was difficult to devote time to both.

 What I understand from the work and what you're saying is that
actually the charter exercise and the guidelines or operating
principles exercise are working at different levels.

 What we're doing in the guidelines or operating principles is
basically working methods and they're generic.  It basically says a
working group works this way.  It has a chair, it does, ta-da, ta-da,
ta-da.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  That's right.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  The charter, thing that we're doing at
this time is more like a template.  It's a fill-in type of box that
says, "A charter contains A, a title that says this is the subject;
two, this is a brief description of the topic; three, this is how we
have decided to distribute it, this is who is going to be the chair,
this is the time line," and so on.

 So it's basically a template that has to be filled, whereas the other
one is an actual document that is complete.

 So I don't think there's that much overlap.  Quite on the contrary,
the more distinguished it is, the clearer it will be.  One is permanent
and the other one -- the template is permanent, but the fill-in is
different.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Well, I do believe that there could be, you know,
some subject matter that is almost identical, because, I mean, you're
covering similar -- it's just it's at different levels, and so like
this section here where it talks about how to announce the working
group and all of those things, because the working group itself is
going to have some communications that it's going to have to take care
of, and so I'm just saying that just because we put something in -- a
subject matter in one document and we cover it in a certain way doesn't
preclude it from being in the other document.  It may be that it's a
different -- it may be that there's a different take on it, or a
different approach to it based on the level of where that document is --
who it's speaking to.  Again, it's different audiences.  Similar
information but who's your reader, who's your audience and what is the
goal of that particular document, whether it's to define a parameter
for how a working team works or working group works, or if it's how to
charter that group.

 I see Jonne and I saw Avri and is that it?  And Ken.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yeah.  So this is something that is a new concept
for me, this different audiences, because to be honest, actually I
don't think that they are different audiences.  They're the same people.

 Like there's not going to be a new breed of people coming in ICANN
that will just charter working groups but never are going to
participate in them.

 And the other thing is that what I would find very confusing, if you
find similar but not the same rules or kind of procedures of the same
topic in two different places, and keeping those two topics kind of in
line would be difficult.

 I take your point that well, people won't go and read a document if
you point to a section or stuff like that, but that's packaging. 
That's what we don't have to do here.  We can do that then in a way
that, well, when the Secretariat sends the template to the person who's
-- or the group who's interested to do -- or the charter working group,
they will copy/paste what is in the operation document about chartering
a working group.  And then you still -- and this would be the template,
what is needed to fill out.

 So I think I have the same view as Bertrand has about what is a
charter template and what is the difference between an operational
document.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I pretty much agree with what Jonne just said.  I
think anything should only be documented in one place.  It can be
included by reference in many places, but having -- having the same
thing, sort of, in several places and trying to keep them aligned is
close to impossible and disastrous, because then you argue about which
set of rules you're following.

 So I think a lot of things should be documented just once, in one
place, and then included by reference everywhere they need to be.

 >>GRAY CHYNOWETH:  My thought on this is that -- and the way I see
them working together and referencing some of the same stuff but not
exactly the same and it working out and making sense is that, for
instance, announcement of a working group, to me if you had a variety
of different ways in the operating models which described different
methods you could use to announce a working group, publicize its
existence, different types of outreach that might be involved.  That in
the charter what would make sense to me is that the chartering entity
would say, "All right, of a variety of things which you could do, we
want you to do X," right?  So in the operating models you say, "These
are the various things you could do to announce a working group," and
in the charter it would say, "Of the things that we've discussed that
are in the operating models of how to do these things, we would like
the group that puts this together to announce it with this choice."  So
with an e-mail to the variety of different constituencies, potentially,
you know, a blog in a -- you know, something on the ICANN Web page,
whatever it may be.  That this would direct the group to select from
different options that occur in the operating model which things it
should -- which -- in which manner it should implement the different
elements of the operating model.

 Same thing with the -- with each of these elements.  Where there may
be many -- there may be things in the operating model which describe
particular variations on ways to do things, the charter would be
important to reference that because the charter could then say, "Of the
various different things that you could do, this is the one that you
should be doing.  These are the -- these are the elements of that that
you should really be paying attention to."

 And in relationship to the audiences thing, I think that there's -- I
don't -- I think that it's really just about the information you're
trying to communicate.  I don't think we're talking about different
people here.

 So -- and when you're talking about referencing the same thing or
having the same information in two places, J. Scott, my thought is that
it -- it describes the way in which you're going to use or implement
the operating models.  It gives direction to the people that are doing
the work.  And so in that sense, it makes sense to have the same thing,
in essence, with some direction to it.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Well, here's my suggestion:  My suggestion is the
discussion we're having now is fairly academic, and I would suggest
that we get something on paper and then once we get the two documents
fleshed out into a rough draft, we can begin having this discussion
about where we want to put certain sections and where we think it needs
to serve the better purpose.

 And I think that that -- if we spend all of our time talking about
where stuff needs to be, we're never going to get to getting it down on
paper.

 And I don't think there's -- nobody here is committed to being
creative and understanding there might be better placement for things
once we see how everything starts to fit together, but at this point we
don't have anything, so we need to get something on paper and that
would be my suggestion is, we just get it on paper knowing that there
are concerns of these issues -- Avri's been very clear, Jonne has been
very clear, Bertrand has been very clear about their positions. 
Keeping those in mind, that those are issues that when we get the
fleshed-out draft documents, those are questions we need to ask
ourselves is, is this the right place for this, will this serve better
in this document or that document, and do those.

 But it needs to get written whether it's going -- it doesn't matter
which documents it's in initially, as long as we understand that we
still have not, in my mind -- it's still a work in progress and until
we get them down on paper and then we start deciding when we see how
they are going to fishtail together, we can do that.  That would be my
suggestion.  So let's just get the drafting done.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  So I totally agree with you, but...

 [Laughter]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Totally, but...

 [Laughter]

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  Yes -- so I think that the -- yes, the discussion
is academic but I think that the discussion -- for instance, I don't
think that we are disagreeing at all.  I was just thinking that
something here was generic whereas you said, "No, it's actually about
choices and this document is about being a template where you document
choices."  And I think that the discussion is important that we get the
principle, because I think that we had a little bit of confusion about
the principle here.  

 You, J. Scott, had a little different view than maybe us two, and we
didn't know that we share the same view.  And for getting the drafting
right or the direction right, I think we need the meta-discussion to
give the guidance what should be and where, that every -- that we get
to the right direction.  In that sense, I think the discussion has been
fruitful.  At least for me.

 >>KEN BOUR:  I can take another shot at it.

 This discussion goes back many, many months, where we first talked --
and when we used this term "audience," think of it as a role, right? 
Not -- not -- we're not trying to bifurcate people but we're saying
that people have different roles.

 When you are in the charter creation or working group creation role --
so if you're the GNSO Council or if you happen to be the operating
steering committee or the policy process steering committee -- you're
in a role of having to create a working group.

 The document that we're looking at now is intended to be instructive
and informing to a group that is intending to create and charter a
working group.

 What advice, counsel, guidance, templates, practices, rules,
suggestions would we give to a group of people in the role of wanting
to create a working group.

 So that's how this -- that's what this document is intending to do. 
Therefore, it's reasonable to say to some group that's wanting to
create a working group, "Here's some things you should think about: 
What kinds of liaisons or experts or consultants or staff personnel
might you want to think about as you create this working group?"

 That's what Section 2.4 deals with here.  It's in Section 1 and it's
a meta-issue.  It's not part of the charter itself.

 All right.  Now, so that's the role of the people creating the
working group.

 Once they have actually established one, they have said, "Okay, you,
working group A, you are now chartered," the next question is:  What
would that group of people -- it might even be some of the same people
who were in the -- who were creating the working group team that now
are going to join the team.  That's okay.

 In their new role as working group members, what advice or guidance
would we give them about how to carry out their tasks?

 Now, clearly their charter is going to tell them a lot of what to do,
right?  It's going to tell them what the mission is, and what their
time frames and deliverables are.  But the -- the operating model
document was also going to talk about things like norms and behaviors
and expectations, what kinds of reports and things might you create.

 So there would be a whole different set of guidelines that would be
given to a group of people in the role of working group members and/or
working group chairs that would help them or guide them in completing
their tasks.

 So that -- I don't know if that helps.  It seems pretty clear to me
that there are these two different audiences in these different roles
and that's what these two documents were intending to do.

 And so here again, while you might see this concept of "experts," if
I'm talking to the sponsors of creating a working group, I might ask
them, "What experts or consultants or guidance do you think your
working group's going to need?"  They may say, "We'll let them figure
it out."  Right?

 In which case, they defer that item in the charter, right?

 When the working group gets together, they might see in the
guidelines -- they might see a section that says, "Hey, if you think
you're deficient in some particular area of expertise, you should raise
your hand to your sponsoring organization and ask for that help to be
given to you."

 That's a completely different perspective but it's the same topic. 
Okay.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Again, I think that once we see a draft, a lot of
this will become more -- clearer to us, and my suggestion is that we
get together, Ken, and we over the next couple of weeks -- two or three
weeks get something on paper on the Wiki that people can look at, and
then we can start having a more drilled-down discussion about these
things.

 I agree with you, I think most of the people here who have at least
been in the process of dealing with working groups and having chartered
them realize that there are similar subject matters that have different
viewpoints, depending on what your role is, and those will have to be
addressed differently, because there are different roles.

 And so let's -- the take-away from this meeting that I'm getting is
that we are going to agree that we're going to let Ken give us a draft
that we can then work with him in crafting and building upon and
clarifying, so that we can move this process further quickly.

 And I just want to make sure that everybody's on board with that.  I
think that is the most efficient way to do this at this point, so that
we then can have discussions on drafts, rather than sitting around
trying to wait for people to complete drafts that don't get done.

 I mean, it's -- it's merely a working draft, a discussion draft for
us to then craft into the final document.  Does that sound like
something that is acceptable?  Bertrand?

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Actually, it's -- just before that stage,
I wanted to come back just briefly on the two -- on the two comments,
because I still have -- and unfortunately it's because I have not
participated in the whole thing, but there's some ambiguity in here
that I'd like to clarify.

 The first thing is, you may have a single document that basically
says -- and covers the two dimensions that you're saying.  It basically
has the first part that says, "The charter of the working group should
contain at least those elements.  Optionally those elements."  And
that's what I call more or less the template charter.

 Within the headlines, for instance, you can say, "Your charter must
designate a chair, and the modalities for designation of a chair in a
working group is X," or "is X or Y or Z," depending on how you want to
choose or not.

 Then you get a second part that says, "The working matters -- good
standing, operational recommendations -- for a working group are as
follows."  

 And you can even have a third part that is general recommendations or
tips or good check boxes or checklists that are things that are good to
know.  

 In the discussion on the PDP, we had lengthy discussion on the paper
that has been produced by Thomas Narten, I think, on the birds of a
feather, which is a very interesting document that is absolutely not
constraining but it is an incredibly good list of how you run birds of
a feather.  So that's one document.

 Then when the charter is being -- is being set up, either there is
one working method, one type of working group, and basically you fill
the blanks, so on the one document it says, "The chair will be
designated by a vote by a majority among the participants," or
whatever.  The charter contains, "The chair is Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so
and has been elected," blah, blah, blah.

 The document will say, "The description of the topic and the time
line should indicate clearly the milestones," and the charter will say
maybe, "These are the milestones that we have agreed upon."

 The thing that I want to clarify is, I was very struck by the
experience of all the preparatory work for all the different subgroups
in the PS -- PPSC, OSC, and so on.  The amount of time that has been
spent or needed very early on in drafting all those charters indicates
the need of the work we're doing now.

 My question is:  Has the GNSO agreed on the notion that there should
be one working group, working method type, or that it should be several
working group types clearly defined, or that it is basically a menu of
functioning options?

 I think these are three different approaches.  You can choose one of
the thing.  But it has very strong consequences on the drafting
exercise that you were suggesting.  If there is one working group and
the goal is to get something that is as generic as possible, it's a
different exercise from identifying, for instance, two or three types
of working groups very clearly defined or having a menu where you
actually choose and pick.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  It's my understanding that we're going to have one
form, format, for how they would operate that would then adapt. 
Because one of the things that the working group is supposed to do is
to do a self-evaluation at the end of the working group to say what
worked and what didn't work.

 So I would assume over time, Avri, that the working group model will
mature --

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  But one.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  But it will only be one.  I think you get into a
real problem when you start changing forms because then you get people
who feel like the form was picked to drive the agenda.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Absolutely, yeah.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  And so I think you have to come with one consensus
form that fits -- it's one size fits all.  There may be nuances to that
depending on -- you know, some may be 60 people in a working group
because of the issues.  Some may be 12.  You know, size may be a thing
that will fluctuate.  There's not a -- but it's one model.  And I would
think most people here agree that that's where we're headed is towards
one model, not a menu.  It's not McDonald's.

 >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  No, no.  I was misunderstanding, then,
your comment when you were saying "pick and choose the different
elements."  This is why I asked the question.  You think it's better to
have one, but...

 >>GRAY CHYNOWETH:  Yeah.  I think I would clarify my statement to be
it really goes towards what you're talking about, J. Scott, whether
we're going to have 60 people or whether we're going to have five
people, whether or not we're going to, you know -- that kind of
direction is going to be in the charter.  And then you have -- then you
have the operating model, which is regardless of whether you have a
group of 60 or of twelve, this is the way that you, you know, operate. 
And to me, it's kind of like a constitution which sets out the
direction for the whole thing, and then bylaws of an organization, or a
mission statement and then bylaws of an organization, which are your
operating norms, how you make decisions, you know.  And I think that it
could be -- it could be either one document or two.  It doesn't really
matter.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Yeah.  It's basically so that every member of a
working team knows what their obligations are and what the norms of
behavior are and how it obligates.  And then it has in there procedures
for if people aren't being cooperative or they're -- you know, there
are some administrative things that are answered by those could you
understand of things.  It's questions -- the toughest question we're
going to have, and we haven't -- we're not going to get to that today,
but everyone needs to remember -- is when we get into this consensus
and how do you reach a decision.  And that is a section of the document
that's going to take the most, but I wanted -- and I felt like everyone
agreed that it was easier to sort of know that's an issue we're going
to have to get to, but let's get this thing fleshed out knowing that
the hardest part of our work is going to be that one section.  That's
going to be the most difficult part of our work.  And it has -- it has
really are challenged ICANN from the very beginning.  I mean, we've had
this whole discussion about what's consensus, what's rough consensus,
and we're going to get to that but I want -- I felt it was best -- and
I believe I had buy-in from everyone -- that we get everything else in
place, knowing that that one center piece is going to be tough, and
we're going to have to spend a lot of time on that.  So that's the
reason I'm thinking moving ahead with getting this draft in place,
knowing that we're going to have one model, knowing that there are two
different purposes to the documents and the -- the purposes will be
driven what's in the perspective, although it may be -- and that's what
we're going to do.

 So that's where I think we are is to get a draft to the -- to the
teams that we can then begin working on.

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  So I have a really, really stupid question.

 [Laughter]

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  This -- the question is that this is the only time
that we have scheduled for this week, and the thing is that in some of
these things -- like, for instance, the charter document is not that
long.  Getting that fleshed out during this week would -- getting the
first draft shouldn't be an issue.  I don't know what else Ken has to
do this week.  Probably nothing.

 [Laughter]

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  But kind of like this is doable.  And this is the
only face to face meeting we have before Seoul, where this should be
ready.

 Is there any way we could use this fact that we are in the same place
at the same time and kind of look at that?  We have -- have a first
draft and have the understanding that if we're going to the right
direction and so on?

 >>KEN BOUR:  You want me to speak?

 >>JONNE SOININEN:  No.  You just say, "Yes, that's fine."

 [Laughter]

 >>KEN BOUR:  Hmm...it's tempting.

 [Laughter]

 >>KEN BOUR:  Unfortunately, I would not have any bandwidth this week
to even add one paragraph to this.

 There are a number of other huge projects I've already been assigned,
and I'm even late on those.

 And so -- but as soon as this meeting is over, you know, one of my
top priorities would be to start working.  And Avri had given me a
number of links to documents from IETF and some other things, so she
has other resource material.  Other people have written guidelines like
this before, and so we will also borrow shamelessly and try to get this
material done shortly after this meeting.

 I do want to raise a second point, though.  While I think personally,
just based on the work that the sub-team has done, that the charter
document, the charter outline, is ready for drafting -- I mean, I think
it is.  It's time for us to -- and in fact, at the end of that session,
the group that was on that call said, "Ken, you're ready.  Go!"  Right?
And so it's time to write.  And I accept and I -- so I've got the ball
on that one.

 On the operating model outline, though, we have not reached that
point yet, in my mind.  Where that sub-team has really wrestled with
every element in that outline, done the thinking and back-and-forth
dialogue as to whether it should be there or not there, and so forth.

 That work could get done in Sydney if that sub-team could get
together either in some time that's remaining in this meeting or
sometime later, and try and hammer that out.

 Then once that outline is nailed down, and all the comments are
extracted out of it, then I could start doing some drafting work there
too.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Well, unfortunately this meeting is -- is at an
end, so I am certainly willing to send out an e-mail to the group
asking if this -- those members of the team that are here would like to
meet and to try to get a time together.  You know, I'm more than
willing to do that.  We could send out perhaps a doodle.

 >>KEN BOUR:  Was Dr. Subbiah in the house?

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Huh-uh.  I haven't seen him.

 But again, we could also put something together and then put it out
there for comment and give it a -- you know, a time -- so somebody who
didn't have input would still have time to comment.

 So I mean, I think that's -- if that's something that folks want to
do and Ken has identified that as a -- something we need to do this
week -- and just because you're not -- you're on that -- not on that
sub-team, if you're on the other sub-team and you want to participate,
there's no -- you can participate anywhere you want to participate. 
You're not -- there's no stricture, so, you know, what I would suggest
we do is we do some sort of e-mail to this -- to the -- to that model
team and ask them if they're here, if they want to have a side meeting,
and if so, what time.

 I can tell you that most people may be pretty booked up, but we can
give it a shot.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Do it at midnight.

 [Laughter]

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  6:00 in the morning.

 >>GRAY CHYNOWETH:  I think that sounds like a great idea and I'm sad
that we didn't get to delve into this first because I think this is
where a lot of the work needs to get done.

 >>J. SCOTT EVANS:  Okay.  So I will send an e-mail here in just a
moment and this meeting has to come to an end because I'm not sure if
this room is in use, but we were slotted until 3:00 and we've reached
our 3:00 time.

 So thank you to everyone for attending.  I will say this:  That if
Ken is taking the laboring oar to produce drafts, I expect that the
members of this group will become engaged and will speak up and will
help to flesh this document out.

 You have to take responsibility if you're going to be on the team. 
We have to work together and we have to hear from you because I do not
take silence as assent.

 I do not believe that when you say -- when I don't hear from you,
that means you agree.  We need to hear from you.  And we need you to
come forward with any concerns and things that you have so that we can
address those and get them handled as we draft.

 So I would appreciate you to read the documents and get back with us.
Thanks.

 [Break]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Let's start.  Okay.  So this session is a
continuation of the first session we had yesterday morning.  Seems like
weeks ago now.  So what we're going to do is we'll do two things.  One,
we'll start with the group that went away to rewrite the paragraph that
was sort of difficult and mangled and review that and see how that one
works.

 Then, basically, we'll proceed through the rest of the document and
try and hopefully knock out most of the changes that are still pending,
taking into account and acknowledging that there's two pieces that we
will not solve in this meeting today.  One of those being that, one, we
already passed by in terms of seats 13 and 14 and how we basically put
the -- do the directors' election.  That one we won't work on further
today.  And, also, when we get to the bottom of the document,
acknowledging that there is an outstanding issue on how the council
representatives of NCSG are placed into the council, that there's a
pending question with the board.

 I did have a long discussion with Roberto yesterday saying, Hey, you
guys got to make a decision on this.  It's gating getting the bylaws
done and it's important that you guys work it out.  Please work it out.
And Roberto said he would do everything possible to get that worked out
during this week and come to the various -- that the SIC will make its
recommendations on those two issues this week and then we can continue.
The board is not going to take any votes on this until it has got the
bylaws in front of it as a proposal.  But the SIC is basically the one
working on resolving the issues.  So they will work on those.  So we'll
leave those two sections alone, but we will try to work through the
rest.

 Who wants to talk through the change here?  Who from that group wants
to -- I mean, I can read it and then someone can explain.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Tim, you want to?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Someone want to take the lead on this rewritten section?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Sure.  We had several discussions about concerns over
some sort of check in the event of just a single house voting to remove
the NCA.  So this is kind of the compromise we came up with.  And
Philip offered what we felt was actually the best compromise in regards
to including the board, which is actually an appeal process with the
board instead of having the board approve the removal itself.

 So basically what we came up with is -- you can see that the NCA
that's actually appointed to a particular house can be removed by a 3/4
vote of all members of that applicable house.  In the case of the
Nominating Committee, the non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee, it
would take a 3/4 vote of all members of both houses and then such
removal shall be subject to reversal by the ICANN board on appeal by
the affected GNSO member or any other GNSO Council member.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Philip?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just one clarification -- well, point.  This is
the first time I have seen the text that we discussed earlier.  I'm not
sure we need an appeal by any other GNSO council member.  I thought an
appeal by the affected party was probably sufficient.  That was my
original thinking.  That may be worth discussing, if people think
otherwise.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I was sort of surprised by -- it was an interesting --
could anyone explain the rationale for having another GNSO council
member do it on somebody's behalf?  Yes?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I can't explain the rationale.  I believe that was at
the request of a couple of the other members on the team, Alan and
Olga, neither one of which are here.  So I'm not sure we can explain
the rationale for that.  I would be fine with just "the appeal of the
affected GNSO member."

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  That's what I remembered as well.  I think they just
wanted to have an extra check in case there was just some egregious
situation that a council member, you know, could possibly object.  But
it is really -- it was their issue.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Is there a problem with having it appealed by someone
other than the person that was -- for example, okay, one case I can
imagine is if someone -- and this is just a hypothetical where this
might be useful.  If someone has been in the hospital and, you know,
3/4 of the members decide to boot her because she hasn't been attending
meetings and someone else basically says, Wait a second, this is
unfair, this person has been in the hospital, et cetera.  So that kind
of circumstance might be when it makes sense to have someone else have
the ability if the person being booted is incapacitated or unavailable
to do that.  That would be my only thought as to why that might make
sense.  I don't see a harm in it.  Is there an objection to it?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Yes, I'm objecting I think because, I mean, you
need to have standing normally to make an appeal.  I don't see where an
unaffected party would have standing in this case.  It just seems a
strange addition.  I would speak against it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  In which case, I suggest we strike it.  Does
anybody object to striking it?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Those who would object aren't here.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  We'll have to put a line through it at the moment and
we'll have to go back and check with them, though.  This is the team in
which we're working on it for the moment, so I would say striking it is
the prerogative of this group.  And if they want to basically get it
put back in, they can come and get it put back in and we can check with
them.  Thanks.

 Okay.  As I said, 4 is remaining as a red pending until such time we
get an answer from the board SIC.

 Where is the next -- so there is "provisions" replaced by
"procedures."  And "the chair and any other officers," any objection to
that?  That just seems a grammatical type of change.  Anyone object to
that?

 Okay.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  I'm trying to figure out how to show the comments
again.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I should have that in front of me.  I'm just
not in the right place.  Okay.  You have fewer comments to look at?

 So in 5 there was a question on the word "or both," "as the GNSO
Council shall select the GNSO chair for a term" -- "for a term the GNSO
Council specifies but no longer than one year, by written ballot or by
action at a meeting or both."  And then the comment is the inclusion of
"both" confuses the requirements.  What is trying to be achieved here? 
It may be better to remove "or both" unless we can reach a better
formulation of this.

 So does the "both" make sense to someone?  No?  Anybody want to argue
for keeping "or both"?  It does make -- it does seem that you are
either going to elect someone by written ballot or by action at a
meeting.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  What about the proxy vote when you do a vote in
presence and people can vote later if they are not in presence?  Is
that what that's trying to --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  The proxy vote is really only -- is it defined for
things other than PDP?  Yes, it is defined also for the election of
officers.  But wouldn't that be part of the written ballot procedure? 
Yes, Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I was just wondering why it had to be specified at all. 
The sentence couldn't end after "longer than one year"?  The procedures
contained in the operating rules and procedures, why "by written ballot
or action at a meeting" has to be included at all?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Which is because that stuff is going to be in the
operating rules and procedures is basically what you're saying.  We
don't need to say what the procedures are here because the procedures
are elsewhere.  Does anybody object to removing the whole phrase?  No?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  So just end at "one year"?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yep.  And then the procedures for selecting "the chair
or any officers" are contained within the -- so, yeah.  Any objection
to accepting that grammatical -- I think it is grammatical phrasing. 
Okay.  

 Moving down -- I shouldn't even look at the one I have got anymore
because it is too confusing.

 So the next one is in terms of the vice chair, and it's "each house
is described in section -- of this article shall select a vice chair
who will be vice chair of the whole GNSO Council for a term the GNSO
Council specifies but not longer than one year."  And then it had that
same "by written ballot or by action at a meeting or both" in it.  Then
it had "the provisions for selecting these positions are contained
within the GNSO Council operating rules and procedures approved by the
board."  But we already have the previous sentence that says that.  Or
do we need to repeat that?  And the previous sentence says, "for all
officers, chair and any other officers are contained in."  Do we need
to repeat that sentence that's crossed out here?  I'm assuming we want
to remove the "by written ballot or action of a meeting or both" as we
did before.  Is that a correct assumption?  Anyone object to that
assumption?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Why not move the "provisions for selecting" to the end?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Why not move the "provisions for selecting" to
the end?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That makes sense.  Any objection?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Avri, this is Steve Metalitz.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Steve.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  I'm not sure if there is any discussion going on
but I'm not catching what's going on but I do have a question.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  We have been talking.  It mostly has been me
talking, not a whole lot of discussion.  But please go on.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  This is on this vice chair paragraph.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  It talks about electing vice chair and then the
last question says, "the vice chairs will serve as interim GNSO co-
chairs," plural.  Is there a provision for electing other vice chairs
that needs to be cross-referenced here?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Like I said, this reference is to each house electing
a vice chair.  So I think in that previous paragraph, it says, "Each
house shall elect a vice chair who will be vice chair of the whole of
the GNSO Council for a term."  And then later -- so it's referring to
the two vice chairs elected by each house.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Sorry.  Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  So the next one is -- I'm not sure how to tell you
where it is.  In 6B, and "except as otherwise specified in these bylaws
Annex A hereto or the GNSO Council operating rules and procedures
approved by the board, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
motion or any other voting action requires a simple majority vote of
each house."  And then it goes on to create basically the list A -- and
this was already in there -- "create an issues report requires more
than 25% of both houses or majority of one house."  And these are the
rules specified in the -- that were specified in the July working group.

 And then there was a comment related to -- I'll get to the comment
first.  Is there any objection to the rewrite of the top half before I
get into the comments related to the rest?  It was basically a
formalization of what we already had but a rewriting basically
introducing the paragraph with the thresholds and saying if there isn't
already -- if there isn't a defined threshold in either these bylaws,
Annex A or the operating rules of procedures, then the default is the
simple majority of each house.

 So is there any objection to that rewrite?  Can that one be accepted?
Yes.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just one comment on consistency.  Either every
time we refer to "operating rules and procedures" we are going to
follow that with the phrase "approved by the board" or we don't.  I
think at the moment it is a bit of a mix, isn't it?  I can't see the
point of saying "approved by the board" every time.  I just think we
need to say somewhere else the rules and procedures will be approved by
the board and leave it at that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  We would have to put in a note somewhere.  We would
have to put in an extra clause somewhere to say there will be such
procedures that are --

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  What I'm saying, I'm not sure in previous
references to "operating rules and procedures" we have always used the
phrase "approved by the board."

 >>AVRI DORIA:  There was an attempt to do it.  I don't know if I was
consistent all the way through.  I had attempted when I did one of the
edits to try to put "approved by the board."  And I think we have a
choice of either saying it every time or putting in a new paragraph
that says there shall be operating rules and procedures which shall be
approved by the board.  

 Unless anybody objects, I'd say that -- ask Margie to basically go
through and make sure it is consistent with the "approved by the board"
phrase.  In this case, it's there obviously.

 And no objection to accepting that edit?  Okay.  Thank you.  And that
would accept the deletion also since this replaces what was deleted.

 Okay.  Now going down to -- there is two comments that need to be
discussed related to -- which one is it?  It's E.  It's related to the
whole section?  Could this be moved to Annex A for the PDP procedures? 
I think that this entire paragraph can be replaced by the paragraph
above.  If this is already specified in the operating procedures, do we
need to restate this here?

 That had been actually a thought I had earlier, but it had been
important to Chuck that those be listed here as opposed to in the
transition.  And the case was that we weren't doing a rewrite and edit
of Annex A at this point.

 So basically we're leaving Annex A alone until the PDP working group -
- yeah, until the -- yeah, PDP working team had finished its work and
there had been a choice of either having these here or having them in
the transition.  And there had seemed to have been consensus for a
point made by Chuck that it was better having these here.

 Any comments on whether we leave them here?  Put them in the
transition?  We really didn't want to open up Annex A at this point
because Annex A will get opened up at another point.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  And I think the reason that they're concerned about
it is because of the contractual obligations under the registry
agreements.  Consensus policies is policies adopted in the manner -- in
the bylaws, so they thought at least this part needed to be there.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  They didn't actually say that in their comment, that
they were worried about it from that basis.  It seemed to be --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  I've heard Jeff say that in the PDP thing.  I might
be repeating that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That's from the legal team.

 Any comments?  Should we put this in Annex A?  I mean, because it's
this paragraph that calls out Annex A, so I don't see why that would --
I would suggest that we just leave this here for now and -- any
objection to just leaving this and responding pretty much as I've
responded to the comment?  No?  Again, then let's leave it here and
move on.

 Okay, next is in Article 10, Statement 1, "the following stakeholder
groups are hereby recognized as representative of a specific group of
one or more constituencies."  Any objection to the "one or more
constituencies"?  Okay, accept it.

 Next one.  At the end of C in paragraph -- oh, still 1, sorry.  There
was an "a" inserted after "Internet."  So just --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Accept?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I think so.  I'm just curious in looking at parallel
construction why the B didn't get an "and" after its semicolon if we
need an "and" after this semicolon.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  From a drafting point of view, there is only one
"and."

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Of course.  Yes, sorry.  That was a silly question.  I
was just being stupid.  Yes, I know that's in the minutes.

 Okay.  The next one is 3.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Right above 3.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right above 3, thank you.  So on the last line, let me
go to the top of that sentence.  It is the whole thing here.  Basically
-- okay.  I will read the whole thing.  "Each stakeholder group
identified in paragraph 1 of this section and each of its associated
constituencies shall maintain recognition with the ICANN board. 
Recognition is granted by the board based upon the extent to which, in
fact, the entity represents the global interests of the stakeholder
communities it purports to represent and operates to the maximum extent
feasible in an open and transparent manner consistent with prevailing
laws and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.

 Stakeholder group and constituency charters may be reviewed
periodically as prescribed by the board" as opposed to "will be
reviewed periodically as prescribed by the board."  Was that a legal
suggested change?  Must have been.  So I guess we're not requiring the
board to review them periodically, but they can do it in a non-periodic
manner.

 Any objection to "may" replacing "will"?  Okay.  Accept.

 And then in the next one there was a line removed.  "Any group of
individuals or entities may petition the board for recognition as a new
or separate constituency."  And then the phrase that was excluded,
"including recommended organizational placement within a particular
stakeholder group," and that was removed.  And because it was moved
down to one of the bullets and then "any such petition shall contain"
and then there is a sequence, A, "a detailed explanation of why the
addition of such constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to
carry out its policy-development responsibilities; B" -- which I guess
would start a new line in a cleaned up version -- "a detailed
explanation of why the proposed new constituency would adequately
represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent;
C" -- and this was the line that was moved from above -- "a
recommendation for organizational placement within a particular
stakeholder group; and, D, a proposed charter that adheres to the
principles and procedures contained in these bylaws."

 Any issues with those edits?  A whole set of them in 3 there?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Avri, my only concern there is the phrasing of B,
"a detailed explanation of why a proposed new constituency would
adequately represent on a global basis."  It is sort of looking into
the future, and what it doesn't capture is precisely who at the time of
the petition has gotten together to say who we are and who we represent
now.  

 I mean, clearly there is going to be an aspiration of growth.  That's
fine.  But it seems to be suggesting a petition coming from an
individual with high hopes would qualify.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  So basically you're suggesting it say "a detailed
explanation of how the new proposed constituency adequately represents"?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I think so, yeah.  That would be better.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Any objection to changing it in that manner?  In which
case, please.  And I said "how" instead of "why."  I guess "why" is
just as good.  So probably leave it as "why."

 Yes, David?

 >>DAVID MAHER:  Is there an assumption that every constituency must
be global?  You can't have a constituency, say, of later than --
whatever?  I'm just asking.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I guess that's the assumption here that, yes, that it
needs to be a global constituency.  Is that something that we don't
want to say?

 Constituencies have, by and large, not been geographical.  In fact,
there's been a requirement that they be global up until now, so that
would be a large change.

 Okay.  So we'll leave that as global and accept the rest of the
change.  Any issue with accepting the rest of the change?

 Okay.  Moving on -- okay.  I'm not sure where the next one is because
we lost that.

 Okay.  So under (d), there is a -- oh, and I have to make sure I keep
track of time here because we do need to --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  We're at 4:00.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  We're at 4:00?  And it's at 5:00 that we have our
joint session, so I want to make sure that we're -- we finish by 4:45."

 Okay.  The line being removed is "prior to approval and confirmation
such new constituencies shall submit a formal charter to the board that
adheres" -- but we already had "charter," so that line was basically
moved up into the list.  So any objection to removing that from here? 
Basically, that was (d).

 Okay.  Then 5:  "The board may create new constituencies within any
stakeholder group in response to such a petition as described in
Section 4 link], if the board determines that such an action would
serve the purpose of ICANN.  Whenever the board posts a petition or
recommendation for a new constituency for public comment, the board
shall notify the GNSO Council and the appropriate stakeholder group
affected and shall consider any response to that notification prior to
taking action."

 Any issue with the edits of replacing "it" with "the board"?  I
wouldn't think so.

 And then adding "the board" in the future -- in the following
sentence?  "The board shall notify..."as opposed to "It Shall Notify"?

 Okay.  Moving on...

 Okay.  Now we're on in Article 10, Section -- oh, you're back -- no,
you're not back.

 Okay.  Then a deletion of "Initially, the," and it's just "The policy
development procedures to be followed by the GNSO shall be stated in
Annex A of these bylaws.  These procedures may be supplemented or
revised in a manner stated in Section 3(4) of this article," and then,
two "check cross-references."  

 So any objection to replacing "initially, the" with "the"?

 No?  Okay.  And then probably only need to "check cross-reference"
once, but that's no biggie.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Yeah.  I'll do that later when we're finished.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  Yeah, yeah.  In fact, that exists all the way
through the document.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  And then we're into transition articles and
where's our next edit?

 Okay.  There, 2, a deletion of "Notwithstanding the adoption of these
bylaws amendments, each," and then just "Each GNSO constituency
described in Paragraph 1 of this subsection shall continue operating
substantially as before..."

 Any objection to that change?  No?

 Okay.  Thank you.

 Okay.  Then down to 3.  Then this was prior to the commencement of
ICANN meeting -- meetings.  Oh, okay.  It's replacement of "meeting" to
"meetings."

 "In October 2009."

 And then we have the escape clause "or another date," and then
further -- so I assume there was no objection to changing "meeting" to
"meetings."

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Is there a comment there, Marika?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Oh, is there a comment?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Which line?  3?

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  "And officers."

 >>AVRI DORIA:  "Prior to commemorate of the ICANN meetings and
officers"?  

 >>MARGIE MILAM: No.  It should be worded, "GNSO shall consist of its
current constituency structure as described," or some sort of --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  I think there's a comments there about the officers.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  And we're not quite sure what that comment is
actually applying to.

 Oh, so let me read it.  "Prior to the" -- excuse me?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  I think it's current structure and officer.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  "Prior to the commemorate of the ICANN meeting
in October 2009 or another date, the board may designate by resolution
the GNSO Council shall consist of its current constituency structure
and officers," and then add -- oh, and then "as was the line that was
commented."  I see.  "And officers."  

 Any objection to adding "and officers"?

 Okay.

 "As described in Article X of the bylaws as amended 29 May 2008." 
Excuse me?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'm not sure that that 29 May 2008 --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  I'll confirm that and then accept that if --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah, right.  So leave that as marked because that --
I don't assume anyone here has a strong opinion on that as long as it's
a correct and reasonable date.

 Okay.  And then at the bottom there, "subject to any change by action
of the GNSO Council or ICANN board."

 So that means -- I should probably read that whole sentence to make
sure it makes sense.

 "All committees, task forces, working groups, drafting committees,
and similar groups established by the GNSO Council and in existence
immediately before the adoption of this transition article shall
continue in existence with the same charters, membership, and
activities, subject to any change by action of the GNSO Council," and
then the addition:  "Or ICANN board."

 Any question or objection to the addition of "or ICANN board"?

 Okay.  Thanks.  Accepted.

 4, an addition of a line -- or actually it's a replacement of
replacing "Upon Adoption of This Transition Article," with, "Beginning
with the ICANN meetings in October 2009, or another date the board may
designate by resolution, the representatives..." et cetera.  Any
objection to the rephrasing?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  I think it -- that probably should be "beginning
with the commencement of the ICANN meetings or another date," because
the ICANN meetings isn't a date.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  So you're saying beginning with the commencement of
the --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Yeah, I think just make it parallel with the --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Yeah, okay.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone) of the ICANN meetings.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Any objection to the change?  Okay.  So we can accept
that rephrasing.

 Okay.  Then continuing down, and then we get to (d):  "The three
seats currently assigned by the noncommercial users constituency shall
be reassigned as three of the six seats of noncommercial stakeholder
group."  And any objection to that change?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  This is Steve.  I just want it on the record that
as you mentioned, that this issue will be decided by the board,
including all the members of that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  So that one probably -- what we should
probably add is two comments.  One here and one beside the election
clause, which was 4, up higher, saying that these issues are pending
board or board SIC confirmation or board SIC decision?  Is that what
you're looking for?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Yes.  

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Can you read it?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  "These revisions are pending SIC approval."

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  And then add that comment also to the -- to Paragraph
4 up above, where it talks about how the director --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  The 13 and 14 seats, right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  1 and 14 of the board are elected, and so those two
are marked as pending decisions.  Yes.

 >>CARLOS SOUZA: Avri, just a question.  The new GNSO board is going
to be seated in the beginning or in the end of the next ICANN meeting?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  The idea is the beginning.

 >>CARLOS SOUZA: Okay.  So it's a change in the -- in the mandates. 
Because it could sound like a silly question, but as it affects me
directly, I just want to know if we -- because I remember that we are
using the end of the meetings as the -- the last day of the mandate and
not the commence -- not the beginning.  So is there a change in this -- 

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I think because this was the transition article, we
were --

 >>CARLOS SOUZA: Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  -- trying to get the new council --

 >>CARLOS SOUZA: Seated in Korea.  Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA: -- seated as the steering group -- and that's in the
stakeholder-based council -- seated at the beginning.  

 And then normally, yes, the elections were the end, but the
stakeholder group -- and so I -- I don't know that it would necessarily
affect you.  It really depends on how the NCSG process was that, you
know, if the three seats moved in and then afterwards there was the
election, that would be.  But that's, you know, a stakeholder group, et
cetera, issue to be dealt with.  Yes.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Well, the way that, for example, Carlos' term goes is
it ends at the end of the meeting, so now I'm not sure who we're
supposed to send to represent us, and so are we -- and so are you
saying we need to have the -- because we know we have to have the
elections between now and then, but in terms of when those council --
when that seat gets replaced, I thought he would finish his term and --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I think the way this is being written -- and if I
understand, it's the way it was working with most, is that that meeting
was the beginning of the stakeholder group elected representatives.

 Now, how each stakeholder group was doing its elections and, for
example, that allows for assuming that the -- that the SIC approves it,
that the three current ones move into that role and then another one
starts up later.  I don't think it's actually determined -- actually,
it is.  It basically says "as long as the SIC approves it," that the
three seats move into.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  But I'm just -- I'm still -- because this seems to be
like basically ending a term a meeting early.  I mean, is that the
intent, then, to say, "Well, forget about the two-year term.  In this
case, it's only an 18-month term"?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Well, it's not really.  It's one week early.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Okay.  But you know we have these meetings where all
the work is done and the people come, and so, you know, in terms of who
to send, we had been anticipating that Carlos would finish his term and
go to the meeting and -- but now it sounds like you're saying that
maybe it's going to be an entirely -- the new council and he's not
going to --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That was what I was understanding is that the new
council in this one transition time slot, the new council was seated at
that meeting.

 Is that how other people understood it?

 So that had been the understanding and am I -- I mean, is that how
the other stakeholder group constituencies had understood that?grows.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Until now?  Steve?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  I thought the goal was to have the new council
seated in time for the Seoul meeting.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.  That was my understanding also.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  [inaudible] individuals or not [inaudible]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So repeating what you said because the
transcribers had difficulty, I think what you said was that yes, the
new council was seated, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was
different council members; that council members, depending on how
things were done within their own stakeholder group, could indeed
continue through that particular meeting and then there would be a
replacement election afterwards.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Well, that -- I think, I think that's not exactly
what I said, but --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Sorry.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  -- there's only one stakeholder group to whom this
matters and that's the commercial stakeholders group because we're the
only ones that are losing seats, so we have to have a system for
reducing nine to six, and only six should be seated at Seoul or
whatever date the board specifies.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.

 >>MARGIE MILAM: I just wanted to ask Rob, since he's been involved in
all the transition stuff, if he has any -- if that's correct.

 >>ROB HOGGARTH:  No, I have nothing to add.  Thank you.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Rob has nothing to add.  Yes, Tim.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  So using -- you know, Carlos' example here particularly,
so in Seoul even though an election may take place, Carlos could sit on
the council for that meeting and then at the end of that meeting -- and
be considered part of the new council and at the end of that meeting,
the newly elected councillor could take up.  That's a possibility that
may not necessarily be the best solution, but that's --

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Yeah, that's what it sounds like yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  That wouldn't be precluded by what's written
there.  Okay.  So any -- next change.  So we've added those two
comments that say basically on these two issues, we're waiting for the
SIC to give us a decision.  And what's next?

 Okay.  The next one was "The three seats currently selected by the
Nominating Committee shall be assigned by the Nominating Committee as
follows," and I guess that was just an addition -- a clarification
phrase there.

 Any objection?

 Oh, okay.  Yes.  Right.  That was that same comment.  Right.

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Then the three seats selected by -- okay.  And
then "as follows:  One voting member to the contracted party house; one
voting to the non-contracted party house; and one member assigned to
the GNSO Council at large."

 Now, the fact that this was assigned by the Nominating Committee --
actually, going back to that -- was that was -- where was that one
decided?  I'm not clear.  Is that what the legal came up with?  We're
asking the Nominating Committee -- this Nominating Committee to make
that decision?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>MARIKA KONINGS:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I thought that was what we had discussed --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  We had a lot of discussion about that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  We had discussed that for -- for the future, but had
we actually --

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  No, I think we --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  -- worked it out with the Nominating Committee for
this point.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  No, exactly.  That's my point.  I think we had
discussed it as desirable for the transition also, but the last
conversation we had with the Nominating Committee is that's not what
we're doing.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  So therefore, that's why I just went back to
it and sort of said for us to put it in that that's who's doing it is
not correct.  And then I think we had gone to how had we resolved it at
that point?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Didn't we ask the SIC this one as well?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I don't remember at this point.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  I'm sure we punted it somewhere else.

 [Laughter]

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  And if we didn't, we should have.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  I don't think we left it up to the NomCom --
the NCAs.  I'm not sure what to do with this one at the moment, because
I don't think "by the Nominating Committee" has been agreed to by the
Nominating Committee, and so to say they're going to do it is not
reasonable.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  This is Steve.  I would just say that there are
lots of things in these bylaws that parts of ICANN are called to do,
whether they want to do them or not, so I don't know if that's a
reasonable option or --

 [Laughter]

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I think at this point it may be difficult to get the
Nominating Committee that's already engaged in this year's work to
necessarily do it, though.  Why don't we leave it in for the moment,
and I'll talk to the Nominating Committee.  Yes, Edmon.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Is this just for this particular time and --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah, this is the transition.

 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Just for the transition?  Why don't we just draw lots
or something.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Cut cards?

 >>EDMON CHUNG:  Yeah, something like that, because that wouldn't
involve somebody else and it wouldn't involve a -- kind of a --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.

 >>TIM RUIZ:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Now, yes.  Is this an instructive comment or
another humorous one.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Perhaps.  Perhaps both, I don't know.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Does it maybe make sense to have both the old and
the new councils sit at that meeting and then have the hand-off at the
end?  Then you get rid of this problem.  It would be added expense for
everybody, but, on the other hand, I don't know, this council has done
twice the work of any council in the past so --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I don't know how that affects that.  Because we're
talking about -- I mean, the -- all the NCAs will be there because
within the NomCom, the practice has always been they bring the new ones
even though --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  -- they don't actually start until after the meeting.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Exactly.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  So -- but that doesn't answer this question.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  I thought it did because the problem is the
NomCom wouldn't have the people there at the beginning as the -- or
ready at the beginning, or, isn't that right?  I'm sorry if I missed it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  No.  What this is -- at that meeting, you're going to
have three NCAs still, and they're going to -- and it's basically going
to be Olga, Terry, and me.  And we're still the NCAs for that meeting.

 Now, as far as I'm concerned, I'm definitely the homeless one and if
somebody makes me go into a house, I'm going to complain, but -- and
then we have to assign Olga and Terry, is my belief, one to each house
for that meeting.  For basically the -- the electing of the vice chair,
which is probably the majority of what the house -- and then for any
decisions that are made.

 So Olga and Terry I believe need to be assigned to -- each to one
house.  Then after that meeting, Terry and possibly Olga or Olga's --
you know, and then the two new ones.  Olga may be one, may not. 
Depends on what comes out of it.  I definitely won't be one.  Need to
be assigned to houses.

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  So if you're not talking about seating the entire
new council the beginning of that meeting -- because I still got the
old NomComers --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Just Luke we've got -- no.  The bicameral -- it's the
bicameral council.  Yes for that one meeting you still are struck with
the old NCAs.  But they go away at the end of the meeting and then you
have new NCAs at the end and that's something that the --

 >>MIKE RODENBAUGH:  Doesn't it make more sense to just do the entire
council at once?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Avri, this is Steve.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Steve.  Please.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Please do.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Yeah.  I think, first of all, I'm not sure how we
could have both the old and the new council at once because the
question is:  Who would get to vote?

 But the second problem is I think we're getting confused here between
seats and individuals.  Because we just had the discussion on the
noncommercial side, this is about the seats, not necessarily about the
individuals.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Well, but the --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  And in each case, we're basically leaving it up to
the stakeholder group or to be decided in the stakeholder charter how
those seats would be filled, right.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  In terms of -- yes.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Depending on what their terms are.  So that's why
I think it makes sense to say the Nominating Committee, since that's
actually the source of legitimacy for the NomCom committee appointees
to decide who -- how to allocate those seats.  I hear you saying that
the Nominating Committee may not be prepared to do that, and I'm not --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  -- quite sure what the answer to that is.  But I
think that's why it's structured this way.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  I -- why don't we -- I'm suggesting that we
leave it "by the Nominating Committee" and I will try to talk to the
Nominating Committee and see -- and come back, if we can't get the
Nominating Committee to do it and just have them do the assignment and
see if they're willing.  Ask them again.  You're nodding.  Will you
help ask them again?  Rob will help ask -- will help ask them again.

 Okay.  Thank you.

 And so we'll leave that for -- you know, since that seems to be the
easiest way to have them basically just make the determination, if they
can.

 Okay.  In 5, there was basically a substitution of "After the
adoption of this transition article and as soon" and just "as soon as
practical after the ICANN meeting in October 2009 or another date the
board may designate," so it was just basically a phrase substitution
for "after the adoption of transition article and as soon."  It's just
"as soon as practical."

 Any objection to that change?

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Well, just a comment here about the current chair.
I think the answer to the question is yes, but --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  -- commenter is raising questions to --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  And I did --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone) specify that or --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I did give an answer to them and I think they were
satisfied.  They were just checking that basically with the way this
worked, and what would essentially happen is the new bicameral council
holds an election as long as -- as soon as it's seated.  It can either
hold it directly in Seoul -- in other words, in the room and have the
new election then -- and in which case, you know, I would be replaced
as chair as soon as the election was done, or perhaps at the end of the
meeting, however it was done.

 Otherwise, what would happen is the two vice chairs -- and as you
would have the election by e-mail ballot right after the meeting and I
would cease being chair when I ceased being a member of the council at
the end of the meeting and the two vice chair -- the clause about the
two vice chairs taking over the chair function would be the case until
such time as a chair was elected.

 So there --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  What you say is correct but I'm not sure that's
what this says, because this says after the conclusion -- this says
they can't elect that -- they can't elect the new chair in Seoul.  So
maybe it's supposed to be "as soon as practical after the commencement
of the ICANN meeting."

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That -- that's true.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone) after the conclusion.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.  I mean, it's not --

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  There's no reason why that election -- yeah.  There's
no reason why that election can't happen in Seoul.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  The only reason is that this says it can't.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  I know.  You're correct.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  You're correct.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  This says after the conclusion of the (Speaker is
off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  So it's been changed now as soon as practical
after the commencement of the ICANN meeting in October 2009 or another
date the board may designate, et cetera.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  And then that means you can get it done.  You know,
you can elect that person during the meeting to take over right after
the meeting or however it works out or, in a worst case, you can start
a mail ballot right afterwards, depending on how it goes, but as long
as the two bicameral -- as long as the two houses have elected their
vice chair, then you've -- the clause kicks in that they carry on as
chair until such time as the election is done.

 Any other changes?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  I just capitalized "board."

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Any other -- are we end at the end?  We are at
the end.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Just one thought about Seoul.  Are we -- I mean,
supposing the action doesn't taken place, we won't have had the vice
chair elections either.  You've now got a council sitting with no chair
at all, so you might just have a transitional chair for the meeting or
something.  Yeah?  And is that --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Well, the transitional chair -- I mean, at the moment,
my election was for a year or until replaced.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Ah.  You'll be around to do that.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I'll be around until the end of that meeting, yeah. 
You haven't gotten rid of me yet.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah, because the Nominating Committee --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  The replacement takes over at the end of the meeting.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Yeah, okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA: Right.  So I'll be around for that meeting.  I blink
out of existence at the end of that meeting.  

 And so, yeah, so there will be a chair for that meeting, either a new
chair that's elected at that meeting or -- right.  And the vice chairs,
I think they're -- it's sort of incumbent on the two houses to make
sure they elect a vice chair during that meeting, if they haven't
already done so.

 But probably during that meeting.

 Okay.  So I think we've made it to the end of this.  I think we have
accepted all the changes --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Yeah.  I have one question and I think it's just
because I didn't realize that I needed acceptance.  Let me just go back
up.

 I think this language -- was this language accepted?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That no more -- okay.  We've gone up to the "no more
than one officer, director, employee, agent or consultant of any
particular corporation or other organization (including its
subsidiaries and affiliates)" -- sorry about reading so fast -- "shall
serve on the GNSO Council at any given time."

 I think that was accepted.  Is there any objection to that, as
written?  What we were going through yesterday or -- yeah, yesterday --
was the "agent or consultant" language.  But I think that was accepted.

 >>MARGIE MILAM: Okay.  Just wanted to confirm.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  So we have -- basically, we have the one pending in 4,
which currently reads --

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  4.  Let's see.  This one?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.  "The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill
seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN board by written ballot or by action at a
meeting placeholder regarding manner of selection TBD by board," and
then with the note that basically this revision is pending SIC approval.

 And then we have the transition article for -- is it 4(d)?

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Uh-huh.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  No.  Yes.  4(d), related to the NCSG seats, which is
also -- yes?

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Yeah.  I think the "pending the SIC exception" should
apply to all, and not just the NCSG.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay.  Any comment?  And that's based -- so basically
you're saying that the NCSG -- I mean, that the comment "pending
approval by the SIC" applies to whatever paragraph --

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  (Speaker is off microphone).

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  That's what I'm saying, the paragraph number.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Yeah.  Not just --

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yeah.  What is the paragraph number?  I'm trying to
see.  Yeah, no what you're saying.  I'm just trying to figure out the
paragraph number.

 Paragraph 4 there.  Any objection to changing it to basically that
whole paragraph needs approval by the SIC?

 Okay.  Please put the note as referring to the whole paragraph.

 >>MARGIE MILAM:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Okay?  And so basically we have three action items.

 One is to get the SIC to clear both of these notes with a decision. 
And two, for Rob and I to try and convince the Nominating Committee to
do the assignment of the NCAs to the houses for the council.

 And in terms of Wednesday's meeting, the approval of these remains on
the -- on the agenda.  We'll discuss the thing.  Even though it's been -
- the motion's been made and seconded, I understand that there will be
at least one constituency, if not more, that basically asks that this
is delayed until our next meeting, which following our common practice,
yes, it will be -- yes, Rob, wanted to say something?

 >>ROB HOGGARTH:  I wanted to ask about that step of the process.  If,
in fact, the council does not vote on this item at the end of or during
the meeting this week, you had outlined the scenario where that might
prevent the new council from being seated in Seoul.  I wanted to share
with you two thoughts that staff was having in this regard.  One that I
shared with you earlier today is that we're trying to work with the
ICANN meeting staff to determine if there is some way to extend some of
those or shorten some of those deadlines for declaring who might be
traveling to Seoul to alleviate some of that time pressure.

 The second is -- and wanted to explore this with you -- to the extent
that the council has not recommended bylaw changes, is there
potentially some room for this version to still be posted, you know,
staff posting it at the direction of the board or of the SIC to post
these for public comment so that that process could begin?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I will look for others to comment, but I would think
that as long as it met the board's posting rules -- and, indeed, I
don't know whether the board actually needs a recommendation from the
council for making a bylaws change, so that's really a board issue.

 We won't have approved these.  We won't have recommended them.  But
they're obviously the working draft.  How that fits into proper board
procedures is for someone else to determine.

 Any other comment?  Yes?

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Yeah, I had a question.  I'm sorry.  I will come back
to it.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  There is not that much time to come back to it today.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  No.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Because we've got 15 more minutes maximum on this one,
but if I can call this meeting done, I will.  So any more comments on
these?  So as I said, the motion is there.  It stands.  I would argue
that we can approve these with the two -- with the three action items.

 I expect there will be others that will say that's not the case and
so we will delay.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  That was actually my question, is this issue of
delay.  What happens if there is delay?  To be frank, this sounds like
gaming.  Why -- what's with the delay?  And what happens then?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  The delay is -- I'm sure others can argue it better
than I can, but the delay is basically that we have been wordsmithing
this today.  There hasn't been time for the constituencies to review
that.  We have a standing practice that basically if a constituency
raises its flag and says, "Hey, we just haven't had time to review
this, we want it delayed until the next meeting," that's not gaming. 
That's been a standard practice.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  No, that's what I'm asking.  So what you're saying is
it will be delayed to the next meeting?  That's what happens?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Right.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I pretty much got the SIC's guarantee that they will
have responded to those issues in time for that vote to happen.  And if
the review has already started, then, you know, of course --

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  And if the next time for the next vote should there
be another delay -- I mean, is there some end to the delay?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  As the person that made the motion, and it has been
seconded, while it could -- there could be amendments that could be
voted on before that motion, it would have been delayed one meeting. 
We would vote on it and then it would get accepted or rejected, but we
would have had -- we would have followed our standard practice of
having a motion duly made and seconded, then postponed for a meeting
because of constituency request for further time to talk, any changes,
amendments that were offered, friendly or otherwise, and then it would
get voted on at the next meeting.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  This will be voted on in the next month or so
regardless?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  That's my belief.

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  Okay.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, Philip?

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Let's also be clear.  We are as council doing
best endeavors to meet a timetable and meet notification periods
required by the board.  But the biggest delay in us moving forward is a
decision by a subcommittee of the board.  That's the key issue, huh? 
If we had all those answers now, we could move forward.  So let's not
kill ourselves about the fact that we can't move forward as fast as we
want to.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  But if we had no questions, we could also move
forward.  So there's questions and there's waiting for answers.  Trying
to pin down exactly why we're waiting is we're waiting.

 Any other issues or questions before I end this session and give us
basically 25 minutes to get to the board meeting?

 >>ROBIN GROSS:  GAC meeting.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  GAC meeting, thank you.  It is hard to tell the
difference sometimes.  No.

 Yes, Tim?

 >>TIM RUIZ:  Where is the dinner tonight?  Was that announced?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  I expect it was announced in the mail, but I have no
idea.  I have not looked.  Yes?

 >>DAVID MAHER:  Glen told me the dinner tonight is the Zeta room on
the fourth level.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you.  It is the restaurant essentially.  Right.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  Zeta is the bar, isn't it?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Oh, it's the bar?

 >>DAVID MAHER:  It is the bar, but apparently they also serve food.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  And can you get in through the hotel?

 >>DAVID MAHER:  Yes.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Or do you have to go to some funny elevator?

 >>DAVID MAHER:  In the evening, you may have to go out.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  We can check.

 >>PHILIP SHEPPARD:  If it is a private function, it may be obtained
by the normal way.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Yes.  I should have paid attention to that, but I have
not given it a thought.  Well, thank you all for your patience during
this exciting editing session.  We don't do many of those.

 This is kind of something the GAC does all the time, I'm told,
editing sessions.  We can all aspire to GAC.  So thank you very much. 
Meeting is over.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:  Thanks, Avri.

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Thank you, Steve.