ICANN Board Meeting Friday, 6 March 2009 ICANN - Mexico City >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the board meeting, which I declare open. The first item on the agenda is an update on GNSO improvements. Steve. Steve, you were going to speak on GNSO improvements. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Are we ready? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: (Nods head.) >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Good morning, everybody. The board wishes to note that during this past week, and actually preceding it, there has been a tremendous amount of very good, credible, and valuable work on the GNSO improvements. We are greatly encouraged by the spirit of good will and collaboration and compromise which has been evidenced throughout the GNSO. And so the board encourages the GNSO to continue along the paths that they have been pursuing so that we can achieve closure on the several points that are under development. I think Bruce wanted to elaborate on some of the detail. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: He did. I think, Bruce, you wanted to comment further on that? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think if we look at the five areas of improvement that are under way -- so there's refining the working group model, revising the policy development process, enhancing the constituencies, and improving communications -- I think on all of these, one of the things that we are finding as an organization is that we need to be careful that we don't find ourselves spending all our time and all the best people doing reviews all the time. So we need to, I think, advance these things fairly quickly on the topic of the working group model. That working group has already been used within the GNSO since the sort of new gTLD process. And encourage the GNSO to quickly identify incremental improvements, but keep their focus on the actual policy development. I think what we're seeing in the constituencies is new constituencies coming forward, and I think we want to encourage that. We do want to make sure that these constituencies have broad membership, both internationally broad and also diverse in their points of view. I certainly encourage that because I think more constituencies with focus will improve the quality of the work that comes out of the new stakeholder groups. So I will leave it at that, Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. And, Dennis, I think you also intended to comment on improvements in the GNSO. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Not so much on the improvements, Peter, but just on the level of effort that has gone in, and particularly by the volunteers and the quality of the work that comes out of this process is really impressive. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Thank you. I would just close this, I think, by noting the work that's going on in the Operation Steering Committee and the Policy Process Steering Committee, and to confirm that we have heard of the pressures that this is causing, and look forward to coming to a conclusion on some of these items so that we can get on with the real work. The next item, then, unless anybody has anything further, is the topic of individual users in the GNSO. And Harald had, I think, indicated an intention to speak on that. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: So it's been very clear to me from the discussions on the board and in the community that basically everyone favors individual uses as part of the policy development process in the GNSO. There has been a long tradition of individual user participation in the business side of the noncontracted house. And the situation on the noncommercial side has been a little more complicated. But still, it seems that the community wants and appreciation the input of people who are at ICANN representing no particular external body, such as a corporation. So it's also clear that there are no proposals on the board's table in the form of proposed charters that have been sent to the board, that address these issues. So the board cannot approve anything. It has nothing to approve. But it is a very good thing that there seems to be consensus in the community that individual users contributing to the policy development process is a good thing that should be encouraged. And I'm hoping that we will have the proposals for particular ways of setting up the relevant constituencies inside the GNSO in such a way that users are empowered in the right way to participate, in a way that contributes to the safe and secure operation of the Internet. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. I think Wendy had also indicated an intention to speak. Wendy. >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks very much. I wanted to make sure that we acknowledged and appreciated the work of the cross-user community, GNSO Councillors, members of the ALAC, and individuals who worked together to give the board statement of the importance of user participation, and recognize the importance of giving the users easy ways to participate across the ICANN process, as we have seen at the At-Large Summit, through the at-large organization, and in direct policy development in the GNSO Council through GNSO processes. And so I appreciate that we will have ongoing discussions about giving lightweight mechanisms for individual users of the Internet to participate in various parts of the ICANN structure. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. And Raimundo had indicated also, followed by Roberto. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you, Peter. The GNSO is, at this moment, in the process of the implementation of a (inaudible) reform. And in this reform, the main issue of it is that the PDP is coming down to make it really a bottom-up policy. It's coming down from the council of the GNSO to the working groups. So I would like the opportunity to encourage all those individuals, even if they don't find a constituency with which to work, to go to the working groups, and the GNSO should, in the constitution of the working groups, should give them a place to be there. Maybe some of them could maybe -- maybe the drafters of some policies, as it happened in other places in the world, where the policies are presented by individuals. And also, they may be chairs of some of the working groups. So it seems to me that the message we should give to individuals is if they want to participate in the PDP, the right place to do it is in the working groups, and it's to work and not to have the power in the council. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think that this issue about individual member's participation in the GNSO is an old issue. It was raised since the time when the GNSO was the DNSO. The proposal of having a constituency for individuals as the appropriate vehicle for representation has been attempted several times. We know that there are some objective difficulties in bringing together individuals to form a constituency and participate. It's just we have to accept the fact that it is more difficult, then, to bring together a set of organizations. But I think that there hasn't been any doubt about the appropriateness of the formation of such groups, and hasn't been any doubt about the fact that by not having a vehicle for participation for individual users, the ICANN community misses an opportunity. There are some great minds that could contribute and that just don't find the appropriate vehicle. So I would like to go beyond just the acceptance of the fact, and I would encourage individuals of good will to go to the effort of creating such vehicle, prepare the charter for the constituency and present the proposal to this board for acceptance. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Roberto. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. The legitimacy of the global multistakeholder bottom-up policy development process, in my view, requires that that is balanced and takes into consideration the views and concerns of all stakeholders. And an extremely important stakeholder, or set of stakeholders, are the individuals, the registrants, the end users, the customers, the consumers, the citizens who rely on the services that the Internet infrastructure provides. Therefore, I regard it as an absolutely priority for us that we ensure that those views, those concerns are fully represented in our policy development processes, particularly in the gTLD and GNSO policy development processes. I'm less concerned about the individual than the views and concerns of individuals: registrants, customers, et cetera. And so members to represent those views fairly and accurately in the policy development process is, I believe, an extremely important aspect of our legitimacy as we move forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Can we move to item 3, then, which is the GNSO renewal of the various charters of the GNSO constituencies. And, Roberto, we have a draft resolution. Could you read that for us, please. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Whereas, the ICANN board requested that existing constituencies confirm their status with the board by the February 2009 ICANN meeting, and requires constituencies to formally confirm their status every three years to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of Article X, Section 5, subsection 3, of the ICANN bylaws. This is intended to be an opportunity for existing constituencies to demonstrate compliance with the principles of representativeness, openness, transparency, and fairness set forth in the ICANN bylaws. Whereas, the six constituencies have complied with the board's direction, and a forum, which closed on the 25th February 2009, solicited public comments on their submissions. It is resolved that the board acknowledges and thanks the six GNSO constituencies for their submissions and awaits completion of the following activities: 1, staff analysis of the constituencies' submissions and public comments, and identification of changes that the board may want to request each constituency to make over the coming months to ensure that their charters, and subsequent activities, comply with the principles contained in the bylaws and expanded upon in the GNSO improvements report and subsequent GNSO restructuring resolutions approved by the board last year. 2, follow-up submissions from constituencies, as needed, provided to the board no later than its June 2009 meeting to confirm that the constituencies have implemented recommended changes. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Roberto. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Steve Goldstein. Thank you, Steve. Any further discussion about it? It's comprehensive. We have understood. In which case I will put that resolution, all those in favor, please say aye. >>MULTIPLE VOICES: Aye. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed in abstentions? Carried. The next item, then, is the board has received a global policy proposal for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space. Can I ask Raimundo Beca from -- to take us through this particular topic. Thank you, Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you, Peter. I will make a short introduction in Spanish, and then I will read the resolution in English. This policy that we present now or that we introduce now is crucial. More politically speaking that technically speaking. It is crucial as it deals with the homogeneous distribution of the five regions in the last five blocks /8 of the IPv4 addresses. For the more developed regions, this policy has no importance, perhaps. As with the degree of consumption they have, the last block will be there for another quarter. But the situation is quite different in Latin America and Africa, where a distribution of /8 will be there for one additional year plus another one which is in reserve. Therefore, we are speaking about two years in the case of LACNIC and three years plus one year in the case of AfriNIC. Therefore, the depletion of IPv4 and the slowness with which IPv6 has appeared in the world allows two years in time to Latin America and four years to Africa. This policy asks for some generosity that was very late in arriving on behalf of the other three regions, but it did arrive, and it did arrive when IPv4 is becoming depleted. And this is something that we have to celebrate. And for me, as a member of the board, the most important thing that I have done here is to introduce this policy at this point in time, and this is why I am so glad in doing so, and also with a great acknowledgment to those who were the authors of these policies who defended them in public fora. And also, I would like to thank the generosity of RyC, ARIN and APNIC because they finally were able to approve these sort of policies. Today, apparently, I don't know if this has happened but there is some hope that it will happen, that some of the space that has remained in IPv4 may be turned back to IANA. There is a new policy which is appearing at this moment in time, and, therefore, this precedent of uniform distribution of the last blocks is a very important one. The most complex policy was allocation. It is still being discussed, but at least we have a precedent where the regions that arrive later into Internet are not going to be punished for this delay. I am going to read the resolution in English. Whereas, on February -- 4 February 2009, the Address Supporting Organization address council, ASO AC, forwarded a global policy proposal for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space from IANA to the RIRs, to be handled by the board in line with the board's review procedures for global Internet number resource policies forwarded for ratification by the ASO address council in accordance with the ASO MOU. Whereas, the ASO AC has verified that sequences has been dually achieved in all RIRs for this proposal. Whereas, the proposal was forwarded by ICANN staff to all of ICANN's advisory committees and supporting organizations on February 4, 2009. Whereas, the proposal was posted for public comments on the ICANN Web site on February 5, 2009, and by the deadline of 26 February 2009, one comment had been received, expressing support for the proposal. Whereas, on March 5, 2009, the ASO AC submitted advice in full support of the proposal to the board. Whereas, the proposal gives clear direction for the allocation of the last remaining IPv4 address blocks in the IANA free pool, thereby increasing predictability concerning this matter for the community. It is resolved that the board hereby ratifies the global policy proposal for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space as a global policy and instructs ICANN staff to implement its provisions in a timely manner and ensure that its provision can take effect as stated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Dave Wodelet, you were going to second this? You do? Thank you. >>DAVE WODELET: I second it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Dave, you wanted to say something about this? >>DAVE WODELET: Yes, I do. I just wanted to mention, just to emphasize, this is kind of the end game. This is when IPv4 runs out, which is probably going to happen somewhere around the end of 2010, maybe 2011. It's really hard to tell. It really depends on the consumption between now and then. Why this is important is that it takes the last remaining five /8 blocks, which are basically around 17 million addresses, and distributes them equally among all the five different RIRs for them to use. As Raimundo mentioned, some RIRs are using them or consuming them at a slower pace than other RIRs, so they are going to last some RIRs only a few months and others perhaps a few years. And the ones in the developing countries are the few years. So I think this is a very good proposal. It gives address space the legacy IPv4 address space a longer run-out time for the developing countries, but we still have to move towards IPv6. I mean, this isn't going to do anything about that. As a community, we need to concentrate on IPv6 because that's our future. That's where we're headed. This just eases the pain a bit for some of the developing countries. So I just wanted to emphasize that, and I'm very pleased to see this moving forward because it does provide a fair and equitable distribution of the last remaining IPv4 space to the entire Internet community. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Dave. I have a speaking order on this with Steve G., Paul, and then Steve C. Steve Goldstein. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, Chair. Since I joined the board a little over two years ago, I noticed that this matter of policy for IPv4 depletion and so forth has been pursued with tenacity and reported to the board with regularity by our staff member, Olof Nordling. And Olof, will you please stand up so people can see you and give you a little applause for this thing? [ Applause ] >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you for your hard work. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. Paul Twomey. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, I was going to do exactly the same thing that Steve was going to say, so I will applaud Olof as well. And I would also like to thank the members of the ASO address council for the role they have played for putting this through. I think we should also note, and this is very important, I think this final global policy, as Dave pointed out, for the Regional Internet Registries for all to have worked through this, which has taken some time, to end up with this result I think is very significant. And I think we should also pay particular attention to each of the RIRs and give thanks to the initiatives and the coordination of this. This is one of these difficult issues to coordinate across five regions, and for five regional RIRs to work it through together and have a bottom-up policy process which has resulted in exactly such an equitable allocation mechanism I think is something that should be noted. It should be noted in this place. It should certainly be noted in all places where Internet governance is discussed, because this is a very significant outcome. And this global policy is a very significant outcome in the context of the ongoing Internet governance discussion. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Paul. Steve Crocker. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Chairman. I just want to note that although what's happening here is exactly the right thing, to step back a little bit and look at the larger context for the benefit of people who are trying to understand exactly where this transaction, where this activity of ours fits into the larger picture, when we say we are running out, we are allocating the last of the IPv4 space, that does not mean in any way that IPv4 service is going to come to an end throughout the world. IPv4 service is going to continue for some unbounded, unforeseeable amount of time. And the period we're going to go through is a co-existence period rather than a transfer wholesale from IPv4 to IPv6. So this is a very important step, absolutely true. It is. But it is just a step in the larger picture of how addressing and transportation - - transport is going to play out across the Internet as we have these two similar but not identical networks, one IPv4 and IPv6, co-existing and interoperating in various ways over the next many years. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. And Raimundo, one last quick word, please. We need to move on. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Peter, given the political importance of this policy, I would like if we could approve it by acclamation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I think that's an excellent suggestion. Let's put this -- and if people feel sufficiently moved, they can vote with applause. All those in favor, please indicate. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any abstentions? Any opposed? So the record will show, Mr. Secretary, that it was carried unanimously by acclamation. Thank you, Raimundo, for the work that went into that. Can we move, then, to a discussion about the location of two forthcoming meetings, and I would like to ask Paul Levins to give us an update on that. Paul, thanks. >>PAUL LEVINS: Thank you, Peter. Always good to get up to applause. My name is Paul Levins. I'm the vice president of corporate Alejandro Pisanty affairs and among my responsibility, I have meetings coordination so I guess I am in a way responsible for the exhaustion that everyone is experiencing right now, so my apologies. One of the things we have been aiming to do as an objective, certainly been exhorted to do this by the board, is to provide much greater advance warning of venue location for meetings. So our objective has been to try to be alerting to the community to the meeting location about 12 months out. And we had thought to reach that objective at this meeting with the announcement of a location for Africa at the first meeting of 2010. These meetings are, as you would understand, you have been here a week, very complex and increasingly expensive events. As a consequence, we're attempting to try and put a bit of a ceiling on the expense for these meetings. They tend to be about $2 million per meeting, in terms of expenditure and budget. We're -- With the Africa meeting, we have three potential bidders, and we want to try and reach a point where we are much closer to the magical number of 2 million. And as a consequence, we are not in a position to be able to make a recommendation to the board at this stage. We want to do a bit more negotiation with the existing bidders to see if we can reach that figure. That, in turn, means, Chair, that we are not in a position to be able to provide the board with a recommendation at this meeting, but we are confident that we will be able to do that at the board's next teleconference meeting, which will be on April 23rd, if I'm not mistaken. I also wanted to provide with you an update by way of the Seoul meeting. Now, those of you who were in Cairo or if this is your first meeting, let me just provide with you a little bit of memory jogging. At the Cairo meeting, the board agreed to change the rotation of meetings so that in addition to the meeting taking place at Sydney, Australia in June, we would have a meeting being held in Seoul, Korea at the end of that year. That would be our third meeting this year. The other part of the resolution the board made in relation to this was that we were to try and achieve a budget figure for Seoul which was similar to the expenditure on the Sydney meeting, or the budget for the Sydney meeting. And that is about 1.93. So again you can see there is this figure of $2 million which we are trying to hit. We're not at that point with the Seoul bid team at this stage, and as soon as -- We are not prepared to sign off on that, I guess, Chair, until such time as we have reached that figure. And just as soon as we have reached that figure, then we will be providing a recommendation -- a recommended budget to the board for approval. And again, we're confident that we can reach that position with the bidders by the April 23rd meeting. Chair, I wonder if I can just very quickly provide you with some details about this meeting, which I think are informative and give you a sense of the diversity of our meetings. Sorry, I just wanted to make one more point, and that was contingent upon approval by the board of those two locations in April, we will be 11 months out of in our warning to the community. So we are one month out from our commitment of 12 months, and we are hoping that by June of 2010 we will be in a position to be able to provide you with 12 months warning. So we are on target. Very quickly about this meeting, we had over 1200 registrations, and the top countries represented here at these meetings were Mexico with 275 attendees; United States with 228; Canada with 35, Brazil, 32; and Germany, 26. And the reason those figures are significant it's the first time in my memory that we have had the number of residents from the city where we have held the meeting outgunning the attendance of any other country. So something of significance to note there, chairman and board members. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Paul. I see a question from Bruce. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Peter, I guess it's partly more of a comment. But first I want to commend the Mexico organization that's obviously got the message out into the local community because it's so important that the people in this region know about the event and come to it. I think my observation with respect to the meeting planning is that we're getting more and more requests for people to get some travel support for either airfares or accommodation or both. And I think we have seen the benefits of that. The At-Large Summit was an example where we did provide substantial funding. The issue for us, though, is that that cost has grown dramatically. And as all Paul pointed out, we are sort of heading beyond $2 million as a meeting cost. And probably the best way to balance that out is to perhaps move from a model where we are relying on bidders and relying on planning meetings in a sort of 6- to 12-month time frame and being able to do longer, sort of three-year type contracts with airline and hotel chains to really get the long-term expenses down, which in turn means we can support more people traveling to the metes meetings. So just something I think the staff can give further consideration to in getting that balance between participation and, obviously, diversity in meeting locations. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Bruce. I know the public participation committee also has a focus on meetings. Jean-Jacques, did you want to say something? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Yes. Actually, I wanted to thank Bruce for his points. This will be taken up by the committee you just mentioned. I think it's very important that we have as long a planning cycle as we can. It should bring down costs. And at this moment in the economic cycle, of course, it is especially important. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And Rita and then Katim, and Dennis. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Peter. Thank you. I just wanted to make a quick observation, just to highlight for everyone that Paul did mention that he would have this sorted by April 23rd. The board is very conscious of people trying to get their schedule sorted. This could be a significant travel for many people, looking to go to this meeting, so that's why we've asked Paul to really get this sorted out by April 23rd. We're trying to get some tighter deadlines around lots of things and lots of process within what we're doing, so hopefully we'll have this information for you all by April 23rd. The board has told you Paul that if we can't get finality with this budget, we need to figure out where else we're going to go, and so to be quite firm with the people that he's negotiating to get this sorted very quickly. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita. Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Peter. I just wanted the opportunity to apologize for my late arrival at the meetings. I think as we all know, people like us from developing countries face incredible challenges traveling around, especially those of us from Africa, so I have to run this morning to the South African embassy in Mexico City to make arrangements to get a visa to enable me to travel on ICANN-related business. So please pardon me for my delay in arriving at the meeting. Having said that, I just would like to ask Paul a question, because a couple of months ago, the dollar -- the price for a barrel of oil was almost like $200 a barrel, and of course that really depressed the price of the dollar. So I'm just -- and now, of course, things have eased up a little bit so the value of the dollar has appreciated some. I'm just wondering whether this fluctuation in the exchange rates has impacted your ability to come to a negotiated budget with the various parties that are bidding for hosting or bidding to host the Africa meetings, and whether it's actually also affected the abilities of these countries to, in fact, come up with very good deals for you. And thirdly, if you are making or taking adequate precautions to prevent against the consequences of such wild swings. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Paul can I just ask you to hold the answer because I know you wanted to respond to another one and I'll just check if Dennis who wants to speak next may give you a question so we can get it all in one hit. So Dennis, your comment. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. As board members probably realize by now, with my background I tend to focus in the costs and expenditures and getting accurate information, and one of the things that I know staff are working on is to get a much better picture of the total costs of these generation meetings, so the 2 million figure is an approximate figure that we've been using in the past but it doesn't include some travel costs. The figures are actually higher than that and one thing I want to do, to be able to tell the community is exactly how much the meetings cost. Just wanted to make that comment. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Dennis. Paul, can you close off on some of those issues? >>PAUL LEVINS: Sure. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>PAUL LEVINS: Sure. Katim, all the bids are in U.S. dollars but we are aware of currency fluctuations obviously and so for example, in the case of Sydney, I can tell you that we purchased Australian dollars in relation to this bid and that meant that the cost of hotel rooms is, you know, massively reduced for us. Dennis, thank you for your point about the general budgeting and the drive towards excellence, and that's certainly something we're very conscious of, and that leads me to something that's a little self- indulgent but which is to acknowledge this gentleman sitting in front of me here, a man called Nick Tomasso who has really -- the staff work on both Africa and on Seoul has been excellent, and I don't want anyone misperceiving that somehow this was an error on the staff's behalf. It wasn't. It's been, you know, really driving us on track to make sure we can be close to that 12-month alert for the community. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. And also say that we are conscious of the need to be fiscally prudent and budgetarily accurate. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Paul. In closing this item, I'd like to add my thanks to Nick and the meetings team, having to, you know, chair sessions and organize things, I have to say I've had an extraordinary amount of help in running these things, and the formatting and the suggestions that have been coming through and the changes that we've been making, I think I'm getting quite a lot of feedback from the community. The break times, the timing, the meetings rooms, so many things are going so well, so congratulations, Nick, I really appreciate it. Can we move then from that to the next item, which is a discussion about the IDN ccTLD fast track, and Demi, we have a draft resolution which I've asked you to move. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Thank you. Peter. First of all, I would say that I'm personally very happy to -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Demi, can you speak up please? I'm not sure whether that's on or you need to get closer. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Oh, sure. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: But I'm saying that I'm very happy to see the progress in this area, and I'm eager to have this IDN ccTLD in place, and this is really a crucial issue for a long time, and we are really hoping to see as soon as possible this implemented and running. I want to note also that in this meeting, the ccNSO constituency reached 90 members, and this is a very good thing to know, and I want to commend also the chair of the ccNSO, Chris, for the excellent work they are doing in populating this very important supporting organization, and have the things moving forward. Then congratulations to the ccNSO for reaching 90 members in this meeting. I will read the resolution. It's about IDN ccTLD fast track. Whereas, the second revision of the draft implementation plan for the IDN ccTLD fast track process was posted for public comments prior to the ICANN meeting in Mexico City, in order to generate additional community discussion on that topic during and after the meeting. Whereas, the board has received advice from the GAC and the ccNSO on the draft implementation plan. Whereas, the board notes that the GAC and the ccNSO are in agreement that more information is needed to support the cost recovery rationale identified in the draft implementation plan, documentations of responsibilities should be encouraged but voluntary, financial contributions should be made on a voluntary basis and not be imposed as a condition for delegation, and future IDN ccTLDs should adhere to all relevant standards, including the IDNA protocol. Whereas, significant additions have been made on the implementation details of the plan, including a first draft of the documentation of responsibility, a standard arrangement between IDN ccTLD operators and ICANN, and the usage of the IDN tables and variant strings. Whereas, other stakeholders and the board believe that additional discussion, investigation, and analysis is necessary to determine whether there should be a requirement for (1) documentation of responsibility (2) financial contributions and (3) adherence to the IDN guidelines and IDN technical standards such as IDNA protocol. It is resolved, that the board thanks the ICANN community for its work to date and encourages it to continue its work so that the implementation plan can be finalized and considered by the board no later than at its annual meeting in 2009. It is resolved that the board directs staff to work towards completion of the implementation plan for the IDN ccTLD fast track process by, among other tasks, continuing consultation on the documentation of responsibility, including a specification for adherence to the IDN guidelines and IDN technical standards such as the IDNA protocol. It is resolved, that the board directs staff to rapidly provide the community with financial information on ICANN costs attributable to ccTLDs, including the costs associated with IDN ccTLDs, that will inform the creation of a financial model for cost contributions to the launch and continued management of the IDN ccTLDs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Demi. I'll second that, for the record. I think it's probably fair to indicate that there are fairly crucial discussions going on, and I think the resolution has tried to capture recording where there's some agreement and those areas where work needs to be done. At the moment, there seems to be some opposing positions. The GAC and the ccNSO are fairly clear that they don't want formal contracts. Some members of the board are very clear and some members of the community are very clear that this cannot provide without formal contracts. However, there was also plenty of signs that the parties are willing to work together to solve this difficulty, and I think that's the intent of the resolution, to record that, and to encourage those discussions to continue. So I look forward to that, and I'm reasonably certain that in the usual way, we will reach some consensus. Ram? >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Peter, I wanted to touch upon another point on technical standards. As you have heard, there are many languages in Asia, including in my own native country, India, where meaningful words and geographic names can be represented, actually, in two characters. These are not abbreviations. Rather, they are actually complete words, with full meaning. For instance, "fire" in Tamil, my mother tongue, is t-i. Just two characters. Our Asian friends in the public forum yesterday brought several cases to our attention where country names and other meaningful labels can be represented solely in two characters. In the light of these essential requirements, I recommend that staff review the three-character minimum for IDN TLDs and find a safe way to accommodate the pressing needs of the global multilingual community. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Thank you, Ram. I'm not sure you're moving that as an amendment or an addition to this. I think it's certainly very clear that the board has heard that request. We did on a number of occasions. Paul, can I take it the staff have -- will take that and action that without any further formal stips? >>PAUL TWOMEY: Absolutely. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ram? >>RAM MOHAN: Thank you, Peter. It's good to see continued progress on IDN ccTLDs. As the SSAC liaison, I just wanted to state that the IDN ccTLD fast track, that entire process which will lead to the addition of ccTLDs and new names to the root zone, it's not an experimental process; it goes into the root. It goes live. And the decisions we make now about technical implementations will set precedent. So I commend the ccNSO and the GAC for coming together on understanding the relevance and the importance of adhering and conforming to these technical standards, and I look forward to further efforts that get us to the point where IDN ccTLDs shall actually conform to these standards in a very unambiguous way. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. I have Rita, Thomas, and then Roberto. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Peter. I just wanted to note, especially after this week, my increased commitment to the rollout of new gTLDs, but I think that IDNs are now particularly dear to my heart. I don't know about everyone in the audience, but I was quite moved by Gabriela Hernandez's presentation and it's so evident to me as you hear more and more people talk about IDN ccTLDs and the real desire to have these rolled out in their country, how important it is to give access to people that don't currently have access to the Internet. It's incredible to think about providing people with this tool to educate themselves, and I had about 30 seconds in my room to turn the TV on, and I saw a commercial that I unfortunately didn't understand because I don't speak Spanish, but it was a little girl with her mother in sort of somewhat dirty in a field and then she got to actually go to school and she was playing with a computer and there was some message at the end -- I'm presuming -- which said, you know, "Thank you." She was thanking some organization for funding, I was guessing. But, you know, "Thank you for the ability to use this computer and to get an education." And I think it's incredibly important that we all move forward on TLDs and these IDN issues that exist. I think the board is struggling, but if I could just make a -- make a request to the cc's and the GAC, I think that it -- we've heard from the community and you've heard somewhat from the board that it's important that we have some sort of ability to have some standards adhered to, and there's some sort of an ability to have some sort of financial contribution. And I do think that there's been a lot of progress made. The board is very, very encouraged by the discussions this week, and I encourage everyone, again, to keep driving towards solutions so that we can really start this very, very important global initiative. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Thomas? >>THOMAS ROESSLER: Speaking as the technical liaison to the board, I would, first of all, like to second the comments that Ram had just made. I will add that the technical standards work that is going on in the IDN area right now is extremely diligent, extremely important, and that it, in fact, is work that happens with the participation of many in this community. I would like the board to recognize that participation by all members of this community that are involved in this work and also by the ICANN staffers who are doing excellent and very diligent work and are contributing actively to this. I think this is worthwhile calling out to everybody here. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas, for drawing that to our attention. Yes. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think that Thomas has expressed exactly my feelings. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Roberto. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: So I was heartened to see the strong commitment of members of the GAC and the ccNSO and the board and all the other people to actually get this show on the road. And there's a number of words in the English language that have quite very emotional meanings or have attached a lot of history to them in the ICANN process of which, of course, "contract" is one. And I am confident that people of good will will be -- manage to find a way forward that allows us to say, "Okay, we agree, and we know that we are agreeing, let's get the show on the road." Looking forward to the next round. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Harald. And Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. For my part, I can also express our satisfaction with the progress. During this meeting, the ccNSO and the GAC sent very clear and unambiguous message to the board and to the rest of the community that a number of important principles should be followed. First and foremost, that there should be adherence to standards. And equally principled the cost involved in rollout of IDNs should be somehow covered. The question is: How? And I think that here we may have some divergence of opinions which needs to be resolved by next meeting, and we're looking forward to engagement on these subjects. The resolution reflects very precisely the position of ccNSO and the GAC on the subjects and we are looking forward to further work. Only wish -- and very strong wish -- is that this work should be finalized during the annual meeting of ICANN in 2009. There are many countries which are already ready to start working on - - with IDN cc -- with IDNs in their territories. They are impatient. And I think we need to keep in mind, then, implications, political implications and also implications of image of ICANN if we will, for one reason or another, will not meet the deadline of the annual meeting of 2009. The world is watching, and I think that this is our responsibility to conclude this work by the end of the year. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. And then Dennis, I think. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. I regard the introduction of the new IDN ccTLDs as extremely important and very urgent. Nevertheless, having said that, we must get the technology right. We must get the relationships and the protections for registrants right. We must get the finances right. So there is work to be done. It's both urgent, on the one hand, but necessary that we get -- do it prudently and get it correct. I'd love to see that we're introducing the IDN ccTLDs in the third quarter this year. I'd even go so far as to say that, you know, I'd -- I know we've made a commitment that we'll try and introduce all the gTLDs at the same time, but I regard the IDN ccTLDs as so important that I would wish to see them accelerated even if the gTLDs are not ready to go, but having said that, we got to get it right. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We don't actually have to resolve that issue yet Dennis but the question of parity of process or not needs to be returned. I've got Paul Twomey next and then we on come back to Rita. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, both Dennis and Janis, for your interventions. Perhaps picking up on those interventions, the resolution directs staff to work towards completion of implementation plan, including consultation and documents of responsibility. Perhaps it would be worth sharing, just for the community's illumination, that at least at the moment, it's my view in moving forward with that -- implementing that direction that the proposal put forward by Jean-Jacques Subrenat in the meeting with the GAC of potentially convening a small group of GAC, ccNSO, staff and potentially staff members might be quite a useful way to help address that disconnect. So I expect to see some ongoing cross-constituency discussion on this, to see whether we can push this together in a timely manner. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Paul. And Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I just wanted to make a comment for the record, since Dennis kind of opened an issue that I am actually not in favor of separating the introduction of new gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs. I think that both are important, and I -- I am committed to trying to resolve all of the issues at the same time, and I don't want people to think that there aren't board members that think that they both should come out at the same time. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Ah. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just want to echo Rita's comment. I think it's important that we at least target the introduction of these things into the root together. That should be our objective. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, why don't we schedule a conversation about this for the Sydney meeting, because at the moment I think we have no formal position on the board. We've noted the position, I think, from the GNSO that one development should not delay the other, and we have so far taken the position that we are working towards, you know, contemporaneous introduction. But that was done at a time before any of the implementation discussions had taken place, and we now know that -- where we are better in relation to both sets, so a discussion now that -- now that the possibility of divergence is becoming more real, what the policy behind that. So perhaps Paul, you could note that we may need to be briefed on that for the Sydney meeting as to actually have a review of the policy position in relation to timing between ccTLD introduction and gTLD introduction of IDNs. Anything further on that? In that case, I think it's probably time to put the resolution. All those in favor of the resolution please raise their hands. [Show of hands] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Now, another exciting issue we've been discussing here in Mexico has been the intellectual property protection issues around the introduction of new gTLDs. Rita, can you take us through the draft resolution on this, please? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Sure, Peter. And this is a resolution, just for everyone in the audience, that is indicative of the board listening to some of the comments that we have received this week. Whereas, based on the public comment submissions received regarding new gTLD draft applicant guidebook, ICANN staff has determined that the implementation issues involving trademark protection need additional community input and analysis. These issues exist today within the existing gTLDs. Whereas, members of the community with knowledge and expertise in this area have proposed a way to synthesize the comments received in this area, and, with input from the broader community, including WIPO, propose solutions to the staff on these issues in a timely manner. Whereas the board recognizes that resolution of these issues would be beneficial to the introduction of new gTLDs, it is, therefore, resolved, that the board requests the GNSO's intellectual property constituency, in consultation with staff, to convene an implementation recommendation team comprised of an internationally diverse group of persons with knowledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system to develop and propose solutions to the overarching issues of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs. It is further resolved that the implementation recommendation team will be comprised principally are from the organizations and persons that proposed such solutions in the public comment period on the first draft applicant guidebook, and the implementation recommendation team would use the solutions proposed in the public comments as its starting point for development. The board directs the implementation recommendation team to solicit input from the interested constituencies prior to its first session to ensure broad community input at the outset of its work. The board further directs (1) staff to provide a dedicated staff person and additional staff resources as staff determines to facilitate the work of the implementation recommendation team and (2) reasonable travel support be provided to up to 15 members of the implementation recommendation team for the purpose of conducting two face-to-face meetings in hub cities. The board further requests that the implementation recommendation team distribute its draft report by the 24th of April, 2009, to interested members of the community for comment, and propose a final report to be published no later than the 24th of May, 2009, for consideration by the ICANN community at the Sydney meeting. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I second that motion. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Seconded Bruce. Is there any discussion about this resolution? Bruce? Wendy? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. One of the things I observed this week in particular is a growing willingness within the GNSO for people to work constructively together. And we've seen that on topics like the RAA and also in some of the discussions on geographic names. The other thing that's been happening this week is that people have been proposing various solutions to some of the trademark problems, particularly at the second, level and I think what this motion does is support that momentum in providing some ICANN resources to assist those various people that have got solid proposals, assist those that made submissions in the public comment process to really try to converge their various approaches to either one or maybe two alternative solutions that could be considered by the community. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. I have Wendy and then Katim. Wendy? >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you, Peter. I see this resolution as recognizing that members of the community have expressed concerns about the new gTLD process. And so we are providing them with institutional support to help refine the criticisms into implementable proposals that could make them more comfortable with the process and, at the same time, to vet those proposals by the community for responses from the other side. So I don't see this resolution as an endorsement of any particular position, but as an opportunity for the community to fully develop its positions so that they are bringing to us fully formed proposals which we can then act upon. And so I invite -- and I hope that members of the community will be -- of other communities will be consulted early in the process, as is recommended, and will have full opportunities to analyze proposals that come out of this working group to provide us with their views as well. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. Katim? >>KATIM TOURAY: Yes, Peter. I'd like to express my delight at this resolution. Especially by virtue -- excuse me, of the fact that it is the result of a process in which I think a lot of people in the community managed to turn what was potentially a very adversarial and explosive situation into a constructive engagement. And, of course, the end result is this resolution that we are considering here. Indeed, I'd like to encourage other parties, other constituencies to really take this as a template, most especially in regards to suggestions about the need to look at -- excuse me -- the need to look at pricing for the new gTLDs. The point I'm trying to make sure is that I encourage those people, like myself from the developing countries, and those from the nonprofit sector, to come together as the intellectual property constituents have done and come up with concrete proposals that the board can consider as to what we can do to move forward on the issue of reviewing the issue of the pricing structure for the new gTLDs. Again, thanks very much all of you for this really wonderful process. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Dennis? >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. I'm particularly pleased to see the use of the phrase "internationally diverse group of persons" in the resolution. Because my impression has been that much of the discussion has been driven by big business and west -- or North American intellectual property interests. And I think we've heard other interests speak during the week. And I'm very pleased to see that because I think there are other dimensions that need to be taken into account. So thank you to everybody here for getting that in to the resolution. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. The -- Suzanne, You wanted to speak? Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, chair. I wanted to say, for the record, that in the GAC comments on the applicants guidebook, we attach a great deal of importance to protection of intellectual property. We encourage to look for solutions which would help limit need for defense of registrations in the new gTLDs, but equally to provide appropriate mechanisms to prevent fraudulent registrations. So -- and I want to, on behalf of the GAC, congratulate with this proposed way forward. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Anyone else? Steve G. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Just to briefly note that all this really transpired because these issues were brought up in meetings here. And we were able to react to them and, you know, hopefully help to solve the issues. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Rita, back to you. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you. I guess I just want to say -- echo what my colleagues have said, which is I think we're very pleased that there seems to be broad support for this proposal and that members of the community have come together to try to determine solutions to these issues. I just want to emphasize to everyone the board's view here, which is this is not being put together -- and we are hopeful that this is not going to be a situation where there's going to be overreaching or there's going to be a stagnation of the process or that this is just going to be about big business here. We really, really want this to be solutions, to be consultative with various constituencies, and to give us real and collaborative and practical ways to move forward. And we're all, actually, very hopeful that this is going to be the case and very much trust in this process. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Can I put the resolution then? All those in favor, please raise their hands. [Show of hands] >> Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Moving on, the next item is a resolution recording some discussions in relation to the protection of geographic terms. Harald, could I can you to introduce this, please. >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: Thank you, Peter. This has been an interesting subject in many ways. And this motion is the board's way of saying okay, we've gotten this far. Let's see what's next. So I'll read the resolution. "Whereas, the GNSO's Reserved Names Working Group recommended that an objection mechanism be the sole basis for protection of geographic names, see URL. "Whereas, the GAC through the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs recommended -- there's a word missing -- "that country, territory, and place names should be protected at the top and second levels in new gTLDs. See URL. "Whereas, version 2 of the draft Applicant Guidebook includes a compromise between the GNSO and GAC recommendations, requiring gTLD applicants for certain types of top-level domain geographical names to provide evidence of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities. See URL. "Whereas, the Board has discussed in detail the issues and implementation consequences raised by these various positions. "Resolved, the Board is generally in agreement with the proposed treatment of geographic names at the top-level, and staff is directed to revise the relevant portions of the draft Applicant Guidebook to provide greater specificity on the scope of protection at the top level for the names of countries and territories listed in the ISO he 3166-1 standard, and greater specificity in the support requirements for continent names, and post the revised position for public comment. "Resolved, staff is directed to send a letter to the GAC by 17 March 2009 identifying the implementation issues that have been identified in association with the GAC's advice, in order to continue communications with the GAC to find a mutually acceptable solution. The Board would request a preliminary response by 24 April 2009 and a final report by 25 May 2009." >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. Is there a seconder for that? Jean-Jacques. Any discussion? Dennis? >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just to add some levity and to illustrate the complexity of this matter, there is in the south of Ireland a province called Munster. There's also a rugby team called Munster. And I can tell you the rugby supporters are not going to allow any authority to hijack the name "Munster" for public use other than as a rugby TLD if and when that comes up. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Dennis, It's dangerous for you to bring rugby into the conversation with New Zealanders present. But point taken. Ram, you're next on the list. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: I appreciate the way this resolution has been drafted, especially since, in the treatment of the geographic names at the top level, you know, that we're depending on a global standard such as the ISO 3166-1, which is actually providing a very clear and unambiguous reference point. A couple of things that came up was that the GAC members, including India, had suggested a broader interpretation of the reservation of geographic names such as what I think Dennis was just mentioning. And I thought we needed to actually -- in this resolution we've done it well, I thought. We needed to balance the interests of nation with those of free trade. And critical names must be reserved, but we should be cautious of locking down tens of thousands of names before new registrations can even begin. So I thought the way we're now approaching with more consultation with GAC I think is the right way to make sure that this does not happen. Thank you. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Ram. Janis, did you want to -- >>JANIS KARKLINS: I just wanted to wait until board members speak on the subject. But, if you're giving me the floor, I would like to state, for the record, that the GAC regrets that its advice on so important issue has not been taken into account fully. The GAC principles were published on March 28, 2007. And since then, they have been extensively discussed in different formats, including with the different supporting organizations and the advisory committees with the board during our meetings with the staff. All these conversations, regrettably, did not brought common understanding that the geographic names, country names, place names should be protected and should be protected as trademarks are protected. And the board just adopted a resolution which calls on further work on trademark protection. And we believe that similar attention should be given to geographic name protection. Dennis just invoked rugby coming into play. I must say that, historically, since many centuries, nations have been waging wars to protect their territories and national pride. Today we see situations where countries dispute names of the countries and block entry in international organizations. I think that it would be -- it would not be prudent for ICANN to not protect geographic names and not avoid potential conflicts in the future. Moreover, we know that there are some precedents on the protection of geographic names which exist already at the level of different registries. And dot info is one of the examples of existing policy regarding protection of geographic names. The GAC is happy to continue an implementation issues of GAC principles. And we are hoping that the board and the community will understand that protection of geographic names is not a trivial issue. Thank you. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. I'm not sure you were saying this, but I want to make it quite clear for the record that this resolution doesn't preclude lots of further working together. I understand your position that the GAC has taken a position. This resolution doesn't preclude us working together to find a compromise to solve this. >>JANIS KARKLINS: This is what I was saying. That we're happy to continue discussions on this issue. And we hope that we will reach agreement on this -- on this issue how to apply GAC principles in relation for the protection of geographic names. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The point is those discussions are going to be more than just how to implement the GAC's advice. Again, though some parts of it may well be a request for the GAC to reconsider parts of advice. Partly because they're difficult to implement and partly because they're in conflict with other policy decisions. So some part of this are going to have to be robustly debated. Paul? >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, chairman. Janis, I wonder if I could just clarify your statement. Maybe I've recorded it incorrectly. But I think at the beginning of your statement, you said that the GAC was disappointed because its advice had been rejected or ignored. Just want to clarify that. because I don't think we're at that stage of -- the board is not resolved on anything yet, so -- >>JANIS KARKLINS: I was saying that the GAC advice has not been saying into account fully. And here I'm referring, namely, to protection of geographic names on secondary level. Because, as the resolution states, there is a compromise proposal which is acceptable to GNSO and the GAC when it comes to the top-level protection of -- geographic names on top level. When it comes to protection on the secondary level, I think that here further work needs to be done. And this has been stated several times, including in our communique in Cairo, where this issue has been put on the record during our -- this meeting's discussion, GAC board discussion, a delegate from Brazil very clearly and explicitly raised the issue of protection of geographic names on the secondary level. And I think that I'm very happy that we still have a chance to engage in the discussions, how this could be done. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. So I'm going to interpret what you're saying is that you're disappointed that to date it's not referred to in the guidebook in the documentation, but the opportunity now exists under the last resolution of this clause for further discussion. I wanted to clarify that, because I didn't want any misinterpretation of where we in terms of board approval for the implementation plan. It's not yet approved. Particularly, if anybody was to interpret your words as triggering the bylaw provisions concerning board not accepting GAC advice. We're not yet at that stage formally. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Now that we've clarified that, let me go back to my speaking order. I have Harald, Bruce, and Dennis at this stage. I'll add Roberto. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: So in the board resolution we are implicitly not instructing staff has to be made make changes to the guidebook in other places. I would just like to verify with staff one piece of understanding. That, under the current guidebook, there is a community-based objection process when anyone who claims to be a community would write to a name, can object to an assignment at a top level. I just wanted to verify that intent is that any government of a named place can make an objection to applications that they regard as being the name of that place. Is that the correct understanding? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Could we ask Kurt, our senior vice president and who has been leading this progress, to provide the answer? We're just trying to get you wired for sound, are we, Kurt? >>KURT PRITZ: Test. Thanks. So yeah. The answer to your question, Harald, is yes, the intent -- one of the intents of the community-based objection process was to provide protections for community-based labels and geographical place names in particular. And that was part of the GNSO discussion when the -- that community-based objection process was created. >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: Thank you. Because this was part of my understanding which underlies my determination that we -- my thought that we shouldn't change anything at that level. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I just wanted to refer to a couple things that -- like trademark protection at the second level, geographic name protection at the second level has really been with ICANN since its inception. And there's been a few different attempts to resolve that. And the GNSO sort of worked on some WIPO II recommendations. But I think it's important at this stage to almost take the same approach that parts of the GNSO are trying to do with the trademark protection. And that's, actually, if the GAC can form maybe a working group to come up with some proposed solutions. But, especially, trying to relate how country names are used in other areas. So, for example, do ccTLDs protect country names at the moment? What practices might we learn from the CCs in terms of their protection of geographic names? Secondly, trademarks. What protections if somebody in a country like Australia wanted to trademark a good with the name of a geographic place? Are there any provisions there in trademarks to stop somebody using a country name? So just, in other words, try and get some learnings from other areas of the community where the solutions are scalable, and propose those, perhaps with a joint working group with the GNSO. So I think what we don't want is just a repeat of the principles, but really some tangible solutions to those principles. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Bruce. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: I think it should be noted how carefully we worked in crafting this resolution. And the specific reference to implementation issues. The reality is that we have advice that we don't see can be implemented -- is that working? Yes -- and as a result, we need to have further study. I mean, advice is advice. Implementation is making it work. We can't see how to make it work, we have to go around again. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Jean-Jacques and then Roberto. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Peter. (scribes are receiving no translation). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jean-Jacques, can I ask you to hold for a moment. (scribes are receiving Spanish in headphones). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Do you remember the situation yesterday where you were listening to yourself in French as were you speaking English, Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: That was really my fault. That's the difference. May I be advised in which language I should speak? Well, for this -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, why don't -- can we have an indication from the translation? Are you receiving? Try again. Why don't you recommence in French, and if we can, we will. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: . (scribes are receiving no translation). Right. Okay. I will do this in English, without listening to myself. Naturally, I agree with the overall message of GAC as expressed by GAC's president, Janis Karklins. I myself, for a very long time, represented a state, so I know what it is, and I know the sensitivities which are involved with anything which has to do with identity, never mind names. It is one of the chief manifestations of identity. But at the same time, as a member of this board, I wish to refer to a principle of reality, and that is why, although I was not absolutely satisfied with the wording, I would have preferred something more amenable to what Janis had suggested. This principle of reality has brought me to second Harald's motion very gladly. And I note in conclusion that this motion is not a closure. On the contrary, it calls for further consultation, as Dennis rightly pointed out, and it even gives very precise dates. So I think this should be seen as an encouraging sign. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jean-Jacques, thank you. Roberto, and then Rita, and that's the end of my speaking order, so I would like to move on. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to the first principles. Don't worry, I will be short. ICANN -- What ICANN is is a multistakeholder organization, is an organization where we take input and we take into account the instances of all the stakeholders. Now, the beauty of this model is that we have the opinion of everybody. The problem with this model, that we have accepted, once we have proposed and gone through this path, is that we need to take the time to listen to everybody. Now, I think that the board has received with great interest and is listening carefully to the GAC and to its advice. And there are no problems in principle in honor the legitimate worry about the protection of geographical names. Not only country names, but I would say geo-political names. However, this declaration of principle has to be matched with the practical implementation, but not only the practical implementation but also with our -- with the need to listen to the other parts of the community. So I think that what we are saying, what we have tried to say but maybe the message didn't get through in all its relevance, is that we did, indeed, listen and understood the advice of the GAC. We are going to listen to other parts of the community. We are thinking about practical implementations that are possible without giving an unbearable burden to third parties. And having done this, we need to get together again and figure out whether, on all the parties that are involved in this discussion, we can smooth out our positions in order to come to a solution that will be more accessible than if we just barely accept the advice of the GAC and we go to implementation without having had this additional step. So what we are trying to do here is to find the better solution that the simple translation of the GAC principles, as they have been -- the GAC advice, sorry, the way it has been expressed to us. So I think that by doing this additional step, that will of course be a burden and further work, we can come to a solution that will be much better for the greater Internet community. And therefore, implicitly, for the GAC as well. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Roberto. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this? If not, I will put that resolution. All those in favor, please raise your hands. (hands raised). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Any dissent? Any abstentions? Carried unanimously. What I would like to do now is just propose a short break. Members of the community, the board have been working on this since 8:00 this morning and need a 15-minute break. But I do mean a 15-minute break. I am going to start, regardless, 15 minutes from closure. So please be back on stage. Members of the community, same as well. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just before the break, may I make a short intervention? We have a well-known assertion and question in Ireland which says, reality is a wonderful concept, but will it work in practice? [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. See you back here in 15. (15-minute break.) >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We are resuming the board meeting. The next item is amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. And we thought it would be appropriate to -- I thought it would be appropriate if we could just have a brief overview from Kurt to familiarize us with the contents of the amendment. So, Kurt, could you please take us through the effects of these amendments. >>KURT PRITZ: Great. Thank you for the time, Peter, and board members and liaisons. Briefly, there's content and there's process associated with these new Registrar Accreditation Agreement amendments. In broad categories, the amendments provide for better enforcement tools, they provide increased registrant protections by providing registrants with informed choices, they seek to promote a more stable and competitive registrar marketplace by ensuring a level playing field across competing registrars. And they provide for agreement modernization, bringing the agreement more into line with the current marketplace environment. Specifically, some of the more important amendments have to do with registrar audits. There is a provision for a registrar audit in the amendment whereas in the existing agreement there really is none. There's provision for graduated sanctions which gives ICANN improved tools with N which to enforce the contract. There is a group liability provision, so in the case of an entity owning multiple registrars, that entity and those registrars would be subject to liability if just one or two of those registrars breached the agreement. There's a change in the arbitration stay, so in the case of a notice of termination to a registrar, that registrar would no longer have the delaying tool available to it in the arbitration stay. With regard to registrant protections, the amendments seek to shine a light on the practice of proxy and privacy registrations by informing registrants of the risks they undertake if they register a name through a proxy service and the fact that that data is not escrowed will illustrate the risk for that registrant. There's certain other disclosures that should be made. Regarding a stable and competitive marketplace, there's a provision where, if an entity purchases a registrar by agreement, an accreditation through an acquisition, then that entity needs to go through the accreditation process all over again. So are we pleased with these amendments? Yes, we're pleased. We think they represent significant improvements and protections for registrants. Are we satisfied with them? Not completely, and we think there's additional work that needs to be done. You might remember that the board directed the staff to solicit community input on proposed Registrar Accreditation Agreement amendments, engage with the registrar constituency to develop a set of amendments, and then get the advice of the community -- notably, the ALAC and the GNSO -- regarding that effort. That process has been a long one. The board first resolved to do that in June 2002. There's been multiple open fora and consultations, multiple face-to- face meetings with representatives of the registrar constituency, and multiple conference calls, often in heated debate about the form and content of these amendments. As a result, we published a set of 15 amendments. There was further consultation in the community. Two more were added to the list in December. In January, the ALAC voted that the board -- their opinion that the board should approve the set of amendments. In January, also, the GNSO voted 14 for, 9 against and 4 abstentions, so a majority for, but failed to reach the two-thirds majority that are required to make these amendments incumbent on the registrars; you know, insert them -- require the registrars to comply with these amendments. But here in Mexico City there has been considerable work. The GNSO constituencies negotiated a motion to approve the RAA and to commit to certain follow-up activities, and I will describe them in a second. But I wanted to let you know that the IP, business, and noncommericial consitituencies, the registrar constituencies, worked very hard at arriving at that compromise, and that the at-large -- at-large took a big role there also. And as a result, also here in Mexico City, the GNSO approved unanimously this set of amendments. So woo-hoo! The compromise went around follow-up actions and the idea that the amendments do not go far enough. So the approved GNSO motion calls for convening two groups within 30 days of board approval to draft a registrants' rights charter and identify additional amendments and have both those reports done by the 31st of July of this year. And the GNSO compromise was developed with the expectation that the board would consider these amendments as quickly as possible, as early as this meeting. The community believes that the amendments have been vetted through the appropriate public comment. What's important on timing is that these amendments become effective with each registrar upon renewal, and 70% of the registrars of the 952 registrars are scheduled to renew their agreement in the next 18 months. But we intend -- ICANN intends that these amendments be effective with all registrars, so we will be working with ICANN staff to develop a set of incentives to encourage registrars to adopt the amendments immediately. So in closing, I just want to thank the members of the GNSO constituencies that worked so hard on this compromise to get this work done here today. I think it's a significant bit of work, and it, finally, after all this time, satisfies the objectives set out by the board when they identified them in in San Juan. Thank you, Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much for that explanation. Rita, can I call on you, please, to read the resolution? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Sure, Peter. Whereas, pursuant to board resolutions adopted in San Juan, ICANN staff solicited and considered the input of the Internet community, including the at-large community and the GNSO constituencies, regarding proposed changes to the RAA. Whereas, as directed by the ICANN board, ICANN staff engaged with the registrars constituency in order to arrive at, and post for public comment, a set of proposed amendments or alternative version to the RAA intended to address, to the extent feasible, the concerns raised by the Internet community. Whereas, ICANN published for public comment and provided notice to the At-Large Advisory Committee, the GNSO, and other interested parties to review the proposed revised RAA and provide advice to the board in its review. Can you move the screen, please. Whereas ICANN staff analyzed all comments received and incorporated recommendations in the form of additional provisions, which were posted and discussed with the Internet community. Whereas, the ALAC voted to support the updated set of RAA amendments. Whereas the GNSO voted unanimously to support adoption of the updated set of amendments and agreed to convene two groups of representatives from the GNSO community within 30 days of board approval to, 1, draft a registrant rights charter, and, 2, identify further amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable and provide its advice to the council and ICANN staff no later than the 31st of July 2009. It is resolved that the board thanks the ALAC for its advice and thanks the GNSO for its recommendation on the proposed RAA amendments, particularly thanks the members of the GNSO Council who worked this week to finalize their resolution. It is resolved that the board agrees with the substance of the amendments and directs staff to immediately publish them for public comments for a period of no less than 30 days, and commits to act on approval of the amendments at the earliest opportunity. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Paul, do you wish to second that? >>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes, please. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just wanted to state for the record that my employer, Melbourne IT, is an ICANN accredited registrar, so I will abstain from further discussion on this item and will be abstaining in the vote. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. Ram. >>RAM MOHAN: I wanted to state for the record that my employer, Afilias, is a registry and works with ICANN accredited registrars. I do not have a vote but I wanted to state my affiliation for the record. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. I also have Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, chairman. I also want to put on record my thanks to the members of the community who have worked this initiative through. In March 2007, following difficulties that we faced with one particular registrar failure, I made a speech and called for a comprehensive review of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the accreditation process. And I think it was from that call that the process started with the registrar constituency and then into the GNSO. So I would like to say my thanks to all those who have been involved in get to go where we actually are. I would also like to put on record that I am glad we are also recognizing that this is not a complete step yet. That there potentially is further work that we need to keep doing as we look at why it is necessary to have the best possible practice compliance regime. But this is a very important step and I would like to thank everybody who were involved. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, palm. I had a speaking order of Roberto, Wendy, and Thomas at the present. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express great satisfaction and great gratitude to all the components of the GNSO that have been working hard, taking the chance of this physical meeting and were able, in this week, to resolve issues that -- in a great way. And I think that I'm really looking forward to having this due- process period of public comment, and be able to approve, then, this at the board's earliest convenience, because we are talking about things that have been floating in the Internet community since quite a while, and I think that having to have this final agreement at the GNSO level deserves really being applauded. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Roberto. Wendy. >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks very much, and on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee, I think I should express my thanks that this process has been open to participation from the at-large since the contracts that ICANN has with its registrars are an important piece of what gives individuals, an individual domain name registrant and individual users of the Internet, access to the stable unique identifiers that ICANN provides. And so I particularly welcome that in the amendments there's provision for a charter of registrants' rights, and the At-Large Advisory and its members look forward to participating in the development of that charter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. Thomas. >>THOMAS ROESSLER: As a former participant in the GNSO, I was particularly pleased to see the collaboration that occurred in finalizing this document and getting to a unanimously accepted GNSO Council resolution. This collaboration extended across constituencies and included the At- Large Advisory Committee. I think it is an excellent signal for the kind of collaboration and the kind of spirit that we all hope to see in the GNSO going forward and that we hope to further help with the GNSO improvements process. So thanks a lot to all those who helped to forge this compromise at this meeting and ultimately made it possible to move ahead with this. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. Is there any further contributions? Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you. I just wanted to say that we -- the board -- echo the things that everyone else has said. That the board is extremely pleased about the collaborative way that the community has come together on this RAA. We were hoping that we could approve it at our meeting today, but we are reminded of the GNSO processes of posting for policy development any changes to a contract. So hopefully we will be able to move through this comment period and be able to approve it as soon as possible. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Any further contributions? If not, I'll put the resolution. All those in favor, please raise their hands. (hands raised). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I abstain. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Sorry, Bruce, your abstention is noted. Ram, you don't have a vote but your position was noted for the record. Thank you. A major milestone achieved. Well done. Now, approval of charters of the new board committees. Dennis, you are the chairman of the Board Governance Committee that supervises board charters. Please read us the resolution. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. This is routine board governance stuff but it is important, so I will just read the resolution, if I get it correctly in front of me. Thank you. Whereas, on the 7th of November 2008, the board created four new board committees. 1, the IANA committee; 2, the public participation committee; 3, the Risk Committee, and 4, the structural improvements committee. Whereas on the 7th of November 2008, the board resolved to dissolve the conflicts of interest committee and the reconsideration committee and transfer the responsibilities of those two committees to the Board Governance Committee. Whereas, on the 3rd of February 2009, the board approved revisions to the bylaws to reflect that the Board Governance Committee shall now be responsible for handling matters previously handled by the conflicts of interest committee and the reconsideration committee. Whereas, each of the five board committees referenced above has approved the charter language unique to its own committee, and the links to those charters will be published. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has also approved language common to all of the charters. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has recommended that the board approve the charters of these five committees. It is resolved that the board approves the revised Board Governance Committee charter and the charters for the four following recently constituted board committees: 1, the IANA committee; 2, the public participation committee; 3, the Risk Committee; and 4, the structural improvements committee. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Is there a seconder for that resolution? Ramaraj. Any discussion? Excellent. It was a pleasure yesterday to introduce the new chairs of those committees and to get the first reports. Part of my time as chair has been to try to refocus the work of the board on some of those more strategic issues. Particularly mentioned IANA, public participation, but also, obviously, risk and structural improvements as way of taking over the work that had sort of grown in an ad hoc fashion in the BGC. So I am particularly pleased to see these committees working. I can also report to the community that I had to suffer being on the lists. Suffer because as soon as they reported, all these chairs have grabbed these opportunities to improve the work, and my list of reading is almost unbearable. But that's a good thing. Well done to all of those chairs, and thank you, Dennis, for the charter -- for supervising the work of the charters. Any -- Harald. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: I was just reminded on a point on the previous agenda, previous agenda that I should mention before we all forget about it. That my employer is Google, is actually an ICANN accredited registrar, and I should have recused myself from the previous vote on that basis. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ah, would you like me to rebut that vote so you can or would you just like to -- we can do it any number of ways. We can treat you as withdrawing your vote. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: I can just withdraw. It's faster. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. Let's do that. Any further discussion about the board committee charters? In that case I will put the resolution adopting those charters. All those in favor, please raise their hands. (hands raised). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried unanimously. We come, then, to a recommendation concerning the ombudsman framework, which are the effectively the rules by which the ombudsman operates. And Steve Goldstein, can I ask you to take us through this? >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Yes, Chair, I'd be delighted. I don't believe that our ombudsman, Frank Fowlie is here. I think he's probably still having office hours. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, I understand he's still doing the work of the ombudsman in his office. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, I understand he's had quite a procession at his door. So let me just say a few words. Frank has distinguished himself in the ombudsman community. He has pioneered with online dispute resolution in ombudsman situations. He recently received his doctorate and, for lack of a better word, let's say an ombudsmanship, but I'm sure there's a more precise title that goes with it, and he has seen great credit redound upon ICANN in the ombudsman world and in the dispute resolution world. So we're very proud of Frank. Nevertheless, Frank has had some of his ideas about how his procedures should be conducted and we have had some of our ideas about it, and over the past few years, we've had a -- the ombudsman frame back go back and forth and finally we've achieved closure on it, and both parties are satisfied. So with that in mind, I would read the resolution. Whereas, the ombudsman submitted a draft ombudsman framework to the board for approval. And whereas, the draft ombudsman framework was posted for public comment in 2004. And whereas, the board's request that the governance committee -- whereas, at the board's request, the governance committee has suggested revisions to the framework and has had several discussions with the ombudsman about those revisions. Whereas, the governance committee and the ombudsman have reached agreement on revised language to the ombudsman framework. Whereas, the revised ombudsman framework documents the procedures and processes under which the ombudsman currently operates. Whereas, the BGC -- in other words, the governance committee -- has recommended that the board approve the posting of the framework for further public comment. It is resolved that the ombudsman framework as revised be posted for further public comment and considered at the next possible board meeting or be returned to the Board Governance Committee for additional consultation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. Is there a seconder for this resolution? Thank you, Dennis. Any discussion? Thomas. >>THOMAS ROESSLER: As I mentioned in my previous remark, I've had a history, and I was actually quite amused to see a public comment period come up that dates from the time when I first dropped out of ICANN business. That's been five years ago. I think the ombudsman is fulfilling an incredibly important function in the overall scheme of things. I also think that we need to learn -- we need to see what we have learned about this framework in the meantime, so I would urge you to take this comment period seriously and use it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. Any other contributions? Seeing none, I'll put the resolution. All those in favor please raise their hands. [Show of hands]. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried. Thank you. We come now to a discussion led by Dave Wodelet about an issue relating to the timing of director terms. Dave, have you got a microphone? Can I -- >>DAVE WODELET: Yes, I do. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Take it away. Thank you. >>DAVE WODELET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Let me just, first of all, give of you an overview of the board transition process. I've certainly been thinking a lot about board transition over the past few months, as my board term is coming to a close. And as such, it's very timely to be working on a proposal to improve the board term transition process. The goal of this proposal is to provide as smooth a transition as possible for both outgoing board members and new members joining the board. The proposal focuses on two areas. One area is readjusting the starting and ending terms of board members to minimize the number of board members who change at each point of the board's three-year cycle. And the second is to ensure that all board members have at least one public meeting of overlap for that term transition. Right now, the majority of board members -- 15 of the 21 -- have terms that end the last day of the annual general meeting. Six of the 21 board members have terms which end six months after the last day of the annual general meeting, and these are the members from the supporting organizations. The annual general meeting, plus six months, usually lands on quite an arbitrary date, and as such, there's usually no overlap between new and existing board members. For Demi and myself, that means May the 7th will be officially our last day as board members. There are a number of ways we can handle this. One is to move everyone's term to the end of the annual general meeting. Or a second alternative is to keep the existing two transition periods and adjust terms so that it's more equal as the number -- as to the number of board members leaving or arriving on the board at any particular time. The proposal that we've been working on will be going to the board review committee, which Roberto chairs, to evaluate the proposal in the context of the entire board review process, so that's basically the overview of the proposal, and I hope you'll be hearing a bit more about that later on, but because my term is coming to a close here fairly shortly, it likely won't be from me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dave. I suppose the obvious point is that it does include a number of other people, including the board review, that the NomCom appointees take their seats at the end of the AGM, the SO appointees came in at this strange period in the middle of the year, so both of those groups are probably going to have to be consulted with, won't they? >>DAVE WODELET: That's right, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And I suppose the other issue from the board perspective is, is it better for the board to receive all of its new people in one -- at once, so that induction programs and things can be done, or is it better to have them coming in in staggered -- you know, different periods so that the workload can be managed? >>DAVE WODELET: Well, there are certainly pluses and minuses to both those proposals. Having everyone come in at once makes it easier for a transition period as far as the staff and new training that goes on. It can all happen at once. But then that leaves quite a lapse in collective board knowledge, you know, turnover at one time, which is a problem as well. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, as you say, this is a -- going to be referred now to the existing working group that is reviewing the board. Does anybody else want to make a comment that may help the board review? Steve Crocker and then Roberto and then Dennis. >>STEVE CROCKER: First of all, Dave, I have to applaud your extraordinary amount of diligence in gathering all of this and as well as the craftsmanship in putting together an attractive chart like this. It's really -- it is really -- we ought to have a special place to display this sort of permanently. Just to set the stage for a broader discussion -- and I don't have a strong position on any of this -- but the basic structure is three-year terms for board members and a replacement or a selection of -- staggering these terms is what I want to say. So -- and a -- generally -- ignoring the liaisons for a minute, a limit of two terms. So if everybody had only one term, we would be replacing one-third of the board every year. If everybody had a two-year term, we'd be replacing one-sixth of the board every year. And the actual facts are that they fall -- that we've experienced something between that. So somewhere between 16 and 33% of the board is the amount of turnover that we are tending to see, on the average. That's kind of the overall gross numbers, the arithmetic that we're going to have to deal with, unless we're going to change that. And then within that, we can fiddle with the overlaps and the phasings of all of that, but I think the basic dynamics are going to be driven by the length of the terms and the limit on the two terms. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Somebody might be able to correct me, but I think the Boston Consulting Group analysis showed that the average term was something like 2.7 years. In fact, it was actually less than 3 years. One of their recommendations is to enlarge -- is to increase the term because -- in part because of the complexity of the work, and the high turnover rate that a slightly longer term would give board members more after chance to come on board, learn the ropes, and be able to start making a contribution. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. First of all, I would like to confirm that the board review working group is discussing about this issue. We have the recommendation from the consultant, but we'll be glad to accept any other input, so -- including this one. I think that several of the proposals have been put forward. I -- for instance, Raimundo on several occasions has proposed to align everybody at the end, so at the AGM that has advantages and disadvantages in my opinion, at least. What I find, also, odd is that the -- to finish a term on something that is not a public meeting is something that creates some odd situations, also, in the relationship that the board has with the community and with the visibility that the community has on the board, just to discover that the following meeting, that somebody has disappeared. It is not a good thing. So those issues are on the table. I cannot give a precise deadline for presenting of proposals but rest assured that this matter is being discussed. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Roberto. Dennis? >>DENNIS JENNINGS: This is a very timely piece of analysis and one that's been picked up by the Board Governance Committee because the Board Governance Committee's issues are in relation to things like training, self-assessment, population of the various committees, procedures for the appointment of the chair, and so on. And these inputs are very important to that work. So the BGC will also be looking at that and will be providing input into the structural improvements committee on the aspects that are appropriate for the BGC, the Board Governance Committee. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. Steve Crocker and then -- sorry, Demi and then Steve Crocker. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Thank you. More or less along the same line as what Roberto was saying, and I am very comfortable to say that because I will not -- my term finishes before the Sydney meeting. But I really think that we have to struggle to have the beginning and the ending of the terms synchronized with public meetings. Maybe we can arrange to have it in the middle of the year, and also in the general meeting at the end of the year. We can have two places where we can seat new members and we can finish the term of the old members. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Demi. Steve Crocker and then Raimundo and then I'd like to put it to the vote. Steve. >>STEVE CROCKER: Yes. For anybody's who is trying to follow all of this and understand the pieces of this puzzle, there's another factor that complicates all of this, which is the attempt to maintain geographic balance, where the decisions about how to select people are made in very different quarters. So each supporting organization selects its two members and then the NomCom selects its eight people, each of those spread over three-year cycles, of course. And part of the calculation that has to go into the -- I'm not sure I know the rules for the SOs but certainly the NomCom is bound by an obligation to make sure that there is a minimum of at least one representative from every region and a maximum of, if I recall correctly, no more than five from a given region. So there's a very complex interplay, and as we start fiddling with these parts, it's also going to involve this additional factor. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. Steve. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thanks, Peter. I will explain the reasons why I have been proposing now for several years, I would say, the alignment of all the terms at the AGM. The reason for that is that my understanding is that the -- because I was not in the board at that moment, but I was in the community -- that when the NomCom was created, then was created the nonalignment of the terms of the ASOs. Before the ASO, they were all at the end of the year, at the AGM, and at that moment the argument was made that that would help the -- to balance the representation of the regions, because the ASOs, they have to choose their directors with the [inaudible] to have double -- two directors from the same region, so the ASO, the GNSO, and the ccNSO, they have to send to the board from different regions. But on the other hand, the NomCom could -- cannot elect more than five from the same region, and it could be theoretically -- it hasn't happened but it could have been that the NomCom elects -- chooses five and then the ASO three more. There can be eight from the same region. So it's much easier, but so the -- the reason to have the nonalignment has shown not to be very well, to be very useful. On the contrary, it has created another problem, which is the imbalancement, the unbalancement in the population of the board committees. The board committees are normally, and according to the bylaws, populated -- they are populated at the AGM. And in the moment of the ASO when the directors are appointed by the ASOs, when they arrive to the board, they are about six months without being in any committee, and then when the -- there comes the question of having -- of electing a chair, there has always been a problem to elect someone as a chair when there's no security that he will be present for the whole year because he ends his term and he's not sure he wants to be appointed for a new period, for a new term, or if he wants to be but he's not elected. So many times people have volunteered to be chair of a board committee and the board has preferred someone that will be there for one year and not only for six months. So I think that the -- finally, the -- what was the reason why it was created this alignment of the directors' terms hasn't worked correctly, so this is more reason in favor to come back to the alignment than to keep the present system. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Thank you for that. There is no resolution to vote on. I'm sorry if I misled anybody. We haven't got a resolution, but thank you, Dave, for the -- again, for the analysis. That's excellent. And I'm grateful that the discussion has been provoked and that it's taken that turn. So this is a reference to the working group and as Dennis has commented, it's also a matter for at least the Board Governance Committee. So let's move on to the next item, which is the president -- the President's Strategy Committee report. Jean-Jacques, you're a member of the committee. Can I ask you to take us through this item? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: With pleasure, Peter. I'll be speaking in English, but in order to make things easier for the interpreter and the scribe, may I just point out in advance that I will be speaking to Point 14 in French. Thank you. President's Strategy Committee report. Just a few things I'd like to draw your attention to. In beginning this part of the work of the president's strategy group, improving institutional confidence, obviously the two co-chairs were very keen to set this against the background of emerging reality, which is completely global, and therefore to look first at the global challenges. And it is through that filter or through that perception that I think I can confidently say that we were looking under the guidance of the two co-chairs at the future of ICANN. I simply want to underline -- and this is very important -- that it is not, at this stage, a board document. It is submitted to the board. And finally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, when I will be reading this resolution, that it does open a 60-day public comment period. Raimundo, would you perhaps like to add something? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry? You're going to read the resolution? I think that's probably easier to get that started and then we can have someone second it. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Yes. Thank you. Whereas, the President's Strategy Committee PSC has worked on delivering a report on "improving institutional confidence." Whereas, the report from the PSC was published on 27 February, 2009. It is resolved that the board thanks the PSC for its work and undertakes to review the report. It is resolved that the board receives the report and posts it for 60 days public comment, and during this time the staff will evaluate implementation of the proposals and report its findings to the board. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Raimundo, you had indicated you would second that. Are you prepared to do that? >>RAIMUNDO BECA: I second. I second, and as I have the floor, let me add something. Mis-fortunately, we had some problems in the posting of this document, and it appears as a document by ICANN or by the board, and it is not. And it should be clarified -- it has been clarified several times during the week, but I want that at least for the record -- okay. At least for the record, we could have here it clearly stated that this is not a document of the board or of ICANN. In [inaudible] of that, during this week we had a very good session of discussion of the document where we have many of the leaders of -- in the different constituencies were present and we had an enormous and a very positive feedback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. Any other comments? Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just very briefly, Peter. Just to add my word of thanks to the President's Strategy Committee for this report. I think it's a very important input, but highlight the fact that the board will review it and, indeed, it's time for the board to take a more determined focus on the post-JPA and the future of ICANN, and certainly that's what I intend to contribute to the board over the next couple of meetings. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's excellent. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: Having had several minutes to -- in which -- in between other meetings that I have used for reviewing this report, I would say that it's clearly the work of a lot of effort and that there are many suggestions in it that are a basis for further work. However, it's -- it also makes very clear that the overarching strategy of ICANN is not -- for its further development is not developed in this report and I could not find it anywhere else either, so it's clear that the board has further work to do in the direction of strategy. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. I think that's unarguable. The focus of this current report, speaking as one of the co-chairs, is in relation to the tasks that I, as chair of the board, gave it in relation to the midpoint review of the JPA. And there is more to the future of ICANN than that. So we need to make sure that the strategic planning cycle that we're about to kick off includes all things, including the very special topic of the JPA. I'd just asked Paul if he could remember how many recommendations there are in the report. I think it -- but it's considerable. Any further interventions or contributions in relation to the PSC report? The vote is that it be received, that it be reviewed, and that staff begin investigating implementation issues and report back on those. Same kind of way we treated the policy recommendations from the GNSO in relation to new gTLDs. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. I think just also to clarify that the staff work to be brought back on looking at the feasibility of some of the implementation issues will also obviously be available for public viewing and consultation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If there's no further contributions, I'll put the resolution. All those in favor please raise your hands. [Show of hands] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Any opposed? Abstentions? Carried. Thank you. Public participation plan for timely posting of materials, a topic that we've heard about and discussed for a long time. Jean-Jacques, this is something that's emanating from and relates to the public participation committee, so tell us what it means. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does everybody listen to the English version? Thank you. Very briefly, during this international meeting of ICANN and right before the first at-large summit on several occasions we had the opportunity of presenting the different works that had been already undertaken, as well as future projects of the public participation committee. I have to say that all suggestions have been taken into account, as well as your criticisms, be them personal or online, and I have to say that very many of these issues had to do with the timely publication or posting of the different materials. This is fundamental for the ICANN processes, and, therefore, this is what takes me now to read the proposal which I am going to read in English, obviously. Where, the ICANN community has expressed frustration at the last posting of materials prior to meetings, including some cases of documents being published during the meeting itself. I'm sorry about this. I had asked that this first "Whereas" read "Whereas, the ICANN community has expressed concern at the late posting," et cetera. Whereas, meetings, discussions, workshops, et cetera, are most productive when participants have had sufficient time to review relevant material. Whereas, the community feedback this week broadly supports the goal of having meeting material be available in advance of meetings, and specifically the GAC has requested the posting of materials at least 15 working days in advance of each ICANN meeting. Whereas, the PPC has been discussing the importance and benefits of making meeting materials available well in advance of meetings. Whereas, it will take a strong commitment from the ICANN community, including ACs, SOs, WGs, and others, to achieve the goals of advance availability of meeting material. It is resolved that the board requests that the PPC develop a plan for ensuring that all major meeting material be available at least two calendar weeks in advance of meetings, starting with Sydney. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Is there a second after that resolution? Katim, thank you. Would anybody like to speak to it? Let me take the lead. I think an important part of this resolution is the recognition that it's not just the staff, nor is it just the board, that this is what needs to be engaged. Much of the complaining -- and much of it justified -- might be directed at the staff or might be directed at the board. But the reality is this is going to have to be a whole corporate culture change. To get this to work, the whole organization has to accept that its documents need to be produced in time so that we can have this effective blackout for two weeks or three weeks before the meeting so people have got time to digest it before they get on the plane. So we all know what it's about. Anyone else want to comment or can we put it to the vote? Dennis and Bruce. Dennis and Wendy. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: You used the phrase "corporate culture," but I would prefer to use the phrase our whole stakeholder environment has to recognize this is a requirement to make it work effectively for everybody. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I treat that as a very friendly amendment and adopt it. Bruce and then Wendy. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I don't want to amend the motion but just to re-enforce your comment. The other feedback I've received is that, when people come to these meetings, it's quite a confusing schedule. And they're not clear on topics that are just for discussion versus topics that are for decision. So I think the other discipline we need to do is, two weeks before an ICANN meeting, have a staff -- fairly succinct staff paper that identifies here are the major items for discussion in the different forums. So, you know, here's the major decision item in GNSO; here's the major decision item in ccNSO; and then the relevant papers that go with that so there's some context before people get here. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excellent. I think the PPC heard that kind of suggestion as one of the other inputs, so that may be going on. Wendy? >>WENDY SELTZER: Thanks, very much. And thank you to the public participation committee for its engagement both at this meeting and in its work to ensure that the diverse at-large community has access to ICANN's materials. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. I have Roberto and then Rita. Roberto? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. I think that there's not really bad will. There's nobody that has the intention to post documents too late and so on. I think that, more than kind of a declaration of intent, this should be, as it says in the wording of the resolution, it has to be a commitment to put this principle on which we all agree in practice. And I hope that, in fact, the public participation committee would be the driving force behind this. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Roberto. Rita? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Very quickly. One of the things I've been trying to say throughout this whole meeting is everyone should come together and try to propose solutions. And the board takes very seriously the fact that you can't really propose solutions if you don't have documents you're trying to read to figure out what the problems are to solve. So, again, I hope everybody in the community sees this as a reflection of the board's serious commitment to have everybody have information to be able to talk to constituencies and get us all solutions. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's put the resolution. All those in favor please raise their hands. [show of hands] Any opposed? Any abstentions? Carried. The next item is a general one for -- if the board feels it needs to discuss any other matters that have arisen during the course of the Mexico meeting. I invite contributions, but remind you that we are running into lunch. I would rather keep moving and do the remaining items before lunch. So I do welcome contributions but ask you to keep them short as you can. Thank you. Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. I just wanted to perhaps point out a couple of items that have also been discussed within the GNSO this week that I think can be treated similarly to some of the other topics in the board meeting with respect to getting groups to propose solutions. One of those topics is around malicious or domain names that are used in criminal activities. We had some workshops on that topic. I think there's an opportunity for new gTLDs to consider maybe standardizing some of the approaches to perhaps a take-down approach for some of those domain names. So I'd encourage those in the GNSO community to give some consideration to preparing a concrete proposal for the staff to consider before Sydney. And then the second topic that I heard quite a bit about was for languages such as Chinese where one character can represent a whole word, the feeling that a number of people proposed was that the three- character limit that's presently for IDN gTLDs is too restrictive and I think it should be reasonable to have a lower number of characters, maybe two. Again, I think this is going to be difficult to do across all languages and scripts because of the complexity. But, perhaps, if a particular language and script community could come up with a coordinated solution to say, you know, our script is okay with one or two characters and this is why, that would again be very useful input before Sydney. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Is thank you, Bruce. Are there any other contributions? I think Ram. Yes, Ram. Sorry, Ramaraj. I need to be clear now that we've got two of you. And I notice you tend to sit side by side to make my job even harder. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Especially when we can talk in tandem. So it helps. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That is going to tease the interpreters, but -- >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: I thought there had been a couple mentions made about the board review working group. And I thought I'd touch upon that. Take an opportunity to give some background and update as to where we are at in that process. Although it is not stipulated in the bylaws that there should be a board review, the board decided December of 2006 to undertake a review of the board similar with the reviews being undertaken in other ICANN structures. Boston Consulting Group were appointed as the independent reviewers. And in Cairo they presented their report. A workshop was held. Public comments were received at that meeting. And it was open for continuous community feedback. The board review working group has been meeting since then many times over the telephone and otherwise. And we've been discussing many of the recommendations contained in the report. This, again, we brought it out at the public workshop yesterday. And I don't know how many of you were there. But it was a very interesting discussion. But what I thought is that we needed further comment. There were eight issues that were highlighted in the working group review. I thought at least I'll draw your attention to three where we would need more inputs from you. One is what is the right size, the appropriate size for the ICANN board? Two: Should the board members be remunerated? Three, there was a very interesting suggestion of is there a support from the community for a board elected by the community as a whole from a slate of candidates put forward from the community as a whole. A council of council. So these were three out of the eight that we're still -- I'm saying please respond to all. But these three still left many areas for debate. So that's the update. It's still open for comment and looking forward to receiving more inputs from you. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much for that update Ramaraj. What's the closing date for that public comment period? >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: I think it's 30 days. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Roughly, 30 days. Thank you. Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Peter. I'd just like the opportunity to mention what I believe are three key highlights of this meeting, which I think we should think very seriously as we move forward. And I would encourage us to really continue this period of the three highlights that I'm just about to talk about. One, is the fact that I think the meeting proved the value of constituencies having consultations amongst themselves. I think this is amply demonstrated by the resounding success of the at-large summit that was held here. It was just incredibly successful. And I think other constituencies can take a queue from them. Second also, the meeting demonstrated the value in various constituencies engaging in consultations between themselves. And, here again, the demonstration of that, I believe, is the AC and supporting organizations summit that was held and which also was very successful and resulted in a lot of value and added value to the meeting. Finally, I think also the meeting demonstrated the value of the community engaging the board constructively and all of us working together to see how we can work to resolve or to achieve solutions to very intractable problems. Here I'm talking, in particular, about the suggestion that we had for the IPC, intellectual property constitution - - constituency -- I beg your pardon -- which resulted in this resolution we just considered. Also, finally, the meeting also marked a very significant step toward our efforts to begin to address -- not to begin to address, but to continue to address and very seriously address the concerns of the non- English speakers that increasingly are forming a very significant majority of the community here. I think, once again, I'd like to encourage everybody to continue along this as we move forward to Sydney. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Last one, Rita. Thank you. Sorry, Demi. You did ask. I'm sorry, Demi, Demi and then Rita. >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Just to add also some impressions of the meeting. I'd like to stress there was an interesting meeting before yesterday afternoon on discussions about, for example, blurring the space between CCs and Gs. And there are many opinions on this. My personal opinion is that the blurring is between two letters and not two letters. Domain is not between CCs and Gs. Maybe we can revise this in the future because we're stuck to some old rules that may be not be appliable any more. And maybe some of the members of the -- that old boxes have run away from that first definition. And, instead of trying to keep all them inside the old boxes, maybe we can already find this with a kind of charter of kind of any other thing. This is one of the points. Another point I want to stress, as this is my last meeting, open meeting here, is that I have to express some worries in the new gTLD process to try to keep ICANN as a steward of the root and not leaving ICANN to entering the business of selling names just like a registrar. Then I'm, of course, in favor of the Gs and the IDN CCs and so on to have more names on the root. But I understand that our work here, our obligation to the community here is to create richness in the environment and more options to the registrants more than the -- allowing names to go to the root after a due process just for paying the fees and so forth. I will stress that we have to pay some attention to where we're going, not to allow -- not to compete with our own registrars in the market. We are to foster and not to compete. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Demi. Raimundo, did you want to say something? >>RAIMUNDO BECA: I would like to highlight the fact of the -- that I've seen many personal cases in this meeting, the -- the fact that people that have met for the first time the Internet community in the IGF, are we coming to come to ICANN meetings? I met several people in Hyderabad, but they almost didn't know what ICANN was. And have been coming now to these meetings. The people mainly from government, which are now GAC representatives or GAC presence. And also from the business community. And I think that this is a very good feedback. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Raimundo. [Applause] Dennis, very quick one. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just a very quick one, slightly different topic. I was very pleased with the responses to our improved accountability and transparency. The responses to the publication of the much more transparent budget and the reception of that I think was very positive. And also I think the very positive response to the open meeting with the public participation committee. A lot of people came despite the conflicts with other meetings. So I think those elements were also important. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Rita. Thanks. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you, Peter. I wanted to make a statement about a comment that was made from the floor during the public forum yesterday about myself, my physical appearance, and my profession. As you can imagine, I was extremely disappointed by this statement. I thought it was inappropriate, unprofessional. And it made me very uncomfortable. I received an apology from the person that made it. And I appreciate that. But it's been amazing to me how many members of the community, both men and women, those I know and those I don't know, have come up to me to indicate how disappointed they are that that type of comment was made at the mic. So I wanted to state publicly and remind everyone that ICANN has a code of conduct. If you've never seen it, you can contact anyone in ICANN and they'll direct you to it. I think it's important to appreciate the fact that ICANN is a forum for us all to debate our ideas, sometimes very robustly. But I think that is never an excuse to act unprofessionally or disrespectfully. There's only a few women of us up here on this stage. There's more in staff and there's more in the community, although I'd love to see more women come to ICANN meetings. I think it's fair to say that we all work very hard in connection with our duties at ICANN. And I hope, and I actually believe, that most of the community respects us. But I can't help but think that such a comment would not be made to a man. So I need to underscore that this type of conduct is taken very seriously by ICANN and will not be tolerated. So I suggest that when people take the Mike at the floor, they speak publicly in meetings or in gatherings or even in the hallway, that they think about this and think about what they are saying. Because if they fail to do so, I think there's, unfortunately, going to be serious consequences. Thank you. >> Here here. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. I think that was nicely put on a sensitive topic. Wendy, did you want to add something to that in. >>WENDY SELTZER: I really have very little to add but just to thank Rita for bringing that out in public and to thank the community, most of which has been very good about following the code of conduct, and to encourage everyone else to treat people respectfully with arguments about policy and not ad hominems. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I would like to endorse, as Chair, all that Rita said as well. All right. Thank you for that. Let's move to the next item on the agenda which is congratulations to the At-Large organizers for the hosting of a successful At-Large Summit. And Wendy, could I ask you to take us through that, please. >>WENDY SELTZER: Certainly. It is my great pleasure to do so. I will note that one of the signs of success of a community is when it gets too large for one person to follow all of the activities that are taking place in it, and that was very much the case with the At- Large Summit, there were multiple concurrent topical tracks, regional meetings and sessions, and while I tried to attend much of it, there was much more that I could only follow afterwards, through conversations, of which I had many, and through the At-Large Summit declaration. So I want to express my great thanks to the community of at-large structures, Regional At-large Organizations, at-large advisory committee, chair of the ALAC, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, co-chairs of the summit working group, Evan Leibovitch and Wolf Ludwig who worked very hard to prepare the summit, and to all of the individual members of the summit working group, of the at-large structures and regional organizations, topical working groups. And I could go on, but I will move to the resolution here and perhaps come back to some of the subjects. So we congratulate -- congratulations for the successful At-Large Summit. Whereas, the ICANN bylaws, Article XI, Section 2, Part 4, provides a process that allows individual Internet users to participate meaningfully in the work of ICANN as the community known as at-large. Whereas, more than 90 members representing individual Internet user organizations worldwide gathered in Mexico City to hold the At-Large Summit which illustrates the ever-growing involvement and participation of the worldwide Internet user community. Whereas participants of the At-Large Summit participated in the ICANN meetings, and organized a total of 29 events on topics the at-large community identified as priorities and discussed and developed recommendations on issues of chief importance to individual Internet users worldwide. Resolved, the ICANN board acknowledges receipt of the At-Large Summit declaration, URL, signed by the summit working group chairs, congratulates the local at-large community for these declarations and their successful sum Milt and welcomes the continued participation of the global individual Internet user community. I would just like to read one sentence from the closing of the declaration, which I think sums up the mood going forward. This summit is not just an event terminated with the closing ceremony in Mexico. For the majority of its participants, it is a starting point for further activities and challenges. We welcome all of that activity. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Wendy. Is there a seconder for that? Steve Goldstein. Thank you. I think the best way of dealing with this resolution is simply to put the motion. I am fairly sure it is going to be carried by acclamation, and I think that will speak louder than individual endorsement. So I am going to put that motion. All those in favor, please raise your hands. [ Applause ] (hands raised). [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Indeed, thanks to all those responsible. An excellent start. Coming to a new item on the agenda, I have asked for us to be kept informed about the appointments and resignations of volunteers in the volunteer community. And the first that's come to our attention is the end of service as chair of the noncommercial users constituency of Milton Mueller, and I would ask Bruce, who worked with Milton as a long- time -- Bruce was chair of the GNSO. Bruce, could you help us with this resolution, please. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. Yeah, I am pleased to be able to thank Milton Mueller. I was chair of the GNSO for a number of years, and Milton, while I think always having robust debate on ideas, I think certainly met the criteria that Rita just laid out in that he did his best to always engage politely. Another comment I will make about Milton is that he has been putting a huge amount of work in trying to get the noncommercial stakeholders group be successful in the new GNSO structure. So I would like to thank him for that work. So moving on to this formal resolution. Whereas, ICANN wishes to acknowledge the considerable energy and skills which members of the stakeholder community bring to the ICANN process. Whereas, in recognition of these contributions, ICANN wishes to acknowledge and thank members of the community when their terms of service end. Whereas, Milton Mueller has served the noncommercial users constituency as chairman for four terms, from 2003 to 2004, 2005 to 2006, 2006 to 2007, and 2007 to 2008. Whereas, Milton has concluded his service term as chairman of the noncommercial constituency. It is resolved that the ICANN board resolves that Milton Mueller has earned the deep appreciation of the board for his term of service, and the board wishes Mr. Mueller well in all future endeavors. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. I would like to second that one myself. Is there any discussion about that or can we move to the vote? Let's put that to the vote, then. All those in favor of that resolution, please say aye -- raise your hands. (hands raised). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Now, I indicated to Milton before the meeting that I was proposing to do this. He has apologized for not being here so we will arrange to have the text conveyed to him. The next item is in relation -- the next two items relate to our two retiring S.O.-appointed board members, Demi Getschko, appointed by the ccNSO, and Dave Wodelet, appointed by the ASO. And as we discussed, they are not actually finishing at this meeting. Because of the way their appointments are constructed, they actually end their service some date in the middle of May, I think. >>DAVE WODELET: May 7. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: May 7 which of course is completely inconvenient as far as meetings of the board are concerned and, more importantly, meetings with the community. So we are taking the opportunity, although their service isn't actually terminating yet to express in public our appreciation for their services. And I would like to ask Paul Twomey if he would take us through the resolution thanking Demi Getschko. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Peter. And I would like to express just how pleased I am to be giving this resolution. Before I go to the resolution, I programs would just like to make two observations, aspects that you may not be aware. Many of you may consider aspects of ICANN's work as arcane, but what you may not know is Demi is literally the board's expert on all things Byzantine. Not only Byzantine understandings of the DNS and how to operate the ccTLD environment, but also Byzantine theology, architecture, philosophy, and the fifth century sermons of Sir John Chrysostom. What you may not also know is Demi is one of the intellectual fonts for what we are now dealing with in terms of IDN ccTLDs. I remember a series of conversations that Demi started in middle of 2006 in the board context, in his own characteristically quiet way which I think have been the intellectual source of our working through how to deal with, in a thematic way, how to deal with the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names and how to deal with it as the TLD space expanded and potentially introduced more gTLDs. I remember in particular a series of conversations with Demi during the RIPE NCC meeting, appropriately enough in the old Constantinople in Istanbul in April 2006 and a series of conversations around the board retreat in 2006 where Demi really informed the board about the needs of this. With that in mind I would like to read the following resolution. Whereas Demi Getschko was elected to the ICANN board by the Country Code Name Supporting Organization and started serving on the board in January 2005. He was elected to a second term in 2006. He has served as the chairman of the conflict of interest and reconsideration committees, and is a member of the board governance, IANA and meetings committees and has provided excellent insight, leadership and expertise in these roles. Whereas, Demi has served with great integrity and consistency to the core principles of ICANN. Whereas Demi will conclude his service as a director of the ICANN board in May 2009. It is resolved, that the ICANN board resolves that Demi Getschko has earned the deep appreciation of the board for his term of service and the board wishes Mr. Getschko well in all future endeavors. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Paul. I am going to second that one as well. Demi, time for you to come and stand up and.... Demi, I have asked to second this because you and I were both appointed at the same time, and it's sad to see you go, but I do want to, first of all, give you the token that's custom around these occasions, just a tiny token of the huge respect and appreciation we all feel for your service. Sad for me to lose my ccTLD mate on the bore. But I know you will stay in touch, you are not leaving ICANN, you are still coming to the meetings and stay in touch. [ Applause ] >>DEMI GETSCHKO: It has been an honor to serve to such brilliant board. Thank you. (standing ovation). >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Does this signify that we are accepting this with acclamation, Mr. Chairman? >>DEMI GETSCHKO: Just to say thank you. It was an honor for me to be in this set of brilliant people here, and have spent this experience of life is really unforgettable. Thank you to all of you. [ Applause ] >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Chair, I trust that our applause signified that we accepted the resolution by acclamation. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. I accept that. So, declare that carried by acclamation and we come to the other director in the same category, Dave Wodelet. And I will ask Steve Goldstein if you will take us through this resolution. Thank you, Chair. And if you will indulge me a moment, I would like to relate a little bit of history. Because we -- while ICANN is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year, there is another 20th anniversary that I would like to mention. In 1989, the National Science Foundation network, NSF NET, started its T1 service, 1.5 megabits per second backbone. In those days, it was huge, and in those days the NSF NET was sort of the avowed center of the Internet. But in that same year, Canadians were implementing their CA NET at 64 kilobits per second. And the two networks interconnected at three points. Now, I mention this because in December of '89, under the so-called Landweber Conferences, most of the major participants in academic Internet, which at that point was sort of most of what there was in Internet, plus a few up and coming commercial Internets, like UUnet, met in Sydney. So in just a few months, we will be meeting in Sydney again, but 20 years ago we met in Sydney. I was a new recruit to the National Science Foundation at that time and had the good fortune of being allowed to represent NSF at that meeting and all the participants in that meeting fit on a yacht in Sydney harbor for dinner one night. There were 29 of us. Imagine the size then. Now, at that meeting, John Kerly from the National Research Council of Canada, who was implementing the CA NET, asked me, just in case the CA NET broke, would we mind if they healed themselves through the NSF NET. And half jokingly I said to John, "Sure, John, but if the NSF NET breaks, may we heal ourselves through CA NET?" So with a handshake, we began what a wonderful, warm collaboration between Canada and the United States as regard academic networking, and that collaboration continues to this day. And I might say that the generosity has been repaid perhaps a thousand fold because Canada has become one of the absolute leaders in advanced academic networking or research networking, and they have always extended a helping hand to the United States, which, unfortunately, has lagged a bit behind in some of the advances. So when I came to the board, I had never met Dave Wodelet before, but in view of all the wonderful, warm collaborations and friendships I had developed with my Canadian colleagues, I expected no less from him and David did not disappoint. It is therefore my privilege, my honor and my pleasure to read this resolution. Whereas, Dave Wodelet was elected to the ICANN board by the Address Supporting Organization and started serving on 4 June 2006. He has served as a member of the conflicts of interest, finance, meetings and public participation committees, and has provided excellent insight, leadership and expertise in these roles. Whereas Dave has served with great integrity and consistency to the core principles of ICANN. Whereas Dave will conclude his service as a director of the ICANN board in May 2009. It is resolved that the ICANN board resolves that Dave Wodelet has earned the deep appreciation of the board for his term of service, and the board wishes Mr. Wodelet well in all his future endeavors. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, is there a seconder for that resolution? Jean-Jacques. Dave, come to the front. I want to join with all that Steve had to say and thank you for your contribution. You have been one of the dry wits of the board, always good humored, and just a nice light touch, sometimes, to get us through those difficult moments, which I as chair have deeply appreciated. And also you are you have been a very clear voice for the community who sent us to us. Thank you for all of your help. (standing ovation). >>DAVE WODELET: Thank you. Thank you very much. Am I live? Yes, I am. I am already wired. Just leave this here for a minute. Could you get the slide deck up? Actually, since this is my last meeting I thought I would do something special. Normally at these meetings you cover some of the things you have learned while being at the board, on the ICANN board and I thought I would do the same. One thing I have learned is being on the board isn't easy. My first meeting was in Marrakech in 2006, and as you can see, we do get beat up a bit. But Vint Cerf was the chairman at the time. I was very honored to have met him and to have known him, and he took it upon himself to show us the proper technique during these heated discussions where this wouldn't happen. So as you can see, you know, notice the technique, crouched down low just before you go under the table when it gets really heated. I want you to compare his technique with Peter's. [ Laughter ] >>DAVE WODELET: Notice Peter has a little different technique here. He keeps underneath the table so nothing surprises him from behind, but with face forward, you know, it's a little more dangerous. So having said that, for any first-time people here, I should clarify, that's how I looked -- that picture before was, indeed, how I looked after my first day. What I didn't tell you is really that's how I looked about two days earlier as well. I'm into mountain biking and that's a great way to see the mountains, as you can see. But you end up going down very steep and rough roads, and sometimes your bike stops but you don't, and that's how I ended up with the way I looked. So on a little more serious note, I want to talk a bit about the board and the large time commitment that's there. This has been a question that's come out a lot of times. Did I a poll of some of the people on the board, and Veni was a board member when I first arrived. He probably did the first analysis of the time he spent, and he came out to be somewhere around 50%. Steve estimates his time is probably between 50% and two-thirds or about 66%, somewhere in that time frame. And Raimundo and Steve Goldstein really treat this as a full-time job now that they are retired and essentially spend 100% time with the board. I have taken this and was inspired by the estimates, but these are all anecdotal. What I have done is actually looked at my time over a one-year period. And this is from May 2006 when I first started to June the following year. So as you can see from that graph, in the early days I was spending about 80 to 90% of my time on board work. Okay. I am just talking about the top line, the red line right now. There's actually three lines on that graph, and I will explain to you what they are. And that's the amount of time spent, the percentage of time spent depending on what kind of person you are or your work life. The red line is a normal work time where you work eight hours a day, you only work five days a week, you take holidays. So that's what that is based upon. The green line is classified as someone who is a bit of a workaholic. They work 12 hour days, they work 7 days a week, they don't take any holidays. So you can judge where you are in those two lines. But the red line, kind of the normal workday, I was working between 80 and 90% of my time earlier on in the board on board stuff. But having another job, a day job, I certainly couldn't sustain that and still keep my day job. So over time, I got that down to about 50% of my time spent on the board. So that's normal, based on normal work time. If you look at if you are a bit of a workaholic, you know, you are only spending 20% of the time on the board. That's because you consider 12 hour days normal. If you want to consider the blue line, that the that's the bottom line, that's assuming you work 365 days a year and don't take any whom days or anything and in that case you are about 10% of your time. So the board doesn't take that much time. It all depends how you look at it. So another thing I looked at on the board, or I learned from the board is that you may have to do some things that you thought you would never ever have to do. Case in point. So one could interpret this as it's important to interact with all different constituencies, no matter where they are. I can see by the laughter that you are not buying that. Unfortunately, my wife didn't buy it either. But, you know, this isn't as bad as it looked. I have a really good explanation. After all, I am on the public participation committee. She is public; I am participating. All this great. I assure you that this is a member of the ALAC, and as you can see, she's a-lacking in very little, except maybe her clothes. This is something you can appreciate with. Being on the board is a great way to travel. You know, if you just want to see the insides of hotel rooms all over the world. [ Applause ] >>DAVE WODELET: It's also a great experiment in sleep deprivation to see how you react, being so time lagged. Another thing I have learned at ICANN is there are some unique alliances that are created that could have never happened anywhere else. Remember triple X? I know I sure do. I mean, that was a situation where we had basically two polar groups, the very conservative right and the very liberal left coming together to debate this. On the conservative right, they didn't want triple X because that would increase access to Internet porn. Just like putting up a billboard there saying, you know, it's all under dot XXX. Here you go. And on the other side they didn't want access because it would decrease access to Internet porn. That would be like putting a bull's eye out there so people could filter based on a domain name, a dot XXX. You can see they were totally aligned on this even though it was a different reason. Certainly a match made in heaven. Where else could that happen besides ICANN? So dare I say that made very interesting bed fellows, and dare I say that I guess that gave new meaning to the bottom-up process. Anyway, to conclude, I would also like to say that being at ICANN and on the ICANN board has been the best way to meet an incredibly dedicated group of individuals, and I want to thank the members on the board and the members in the audience as well as the members in the larger ICANN and Internet community for making it a truly incredible experience. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Dave, excellent. Thank you for putting the effort into that, and that's a very memorable farewell. Can I ask now, Roberto, to -- >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Chair, may we note that that resolution was also accepted by acclamation? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. Mr. Secretary, please note that the resolution was adopted by acclamation. Can we move to the traditional thanks to your staff, scribes and event teams for the enormous support that we receive and I'd ask Steve Crocker to take us through this one. Thanks, Steve. >>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The board wishes to express its appreciation to the scribes, Laura Brewer, Teri Darrenougue, Jennifer Schuck, Charles Motter, Susan Wollenweber, Darlene Pickard and to the interpreters and to the entire ICANN staff for their efforts in facilitating the smooth operation of the meeting. The board also wishes to express its appreciation to VeriLan Events Services, Inc. for technical support, and PSAV, Imagine Eventos, and Messe Mexico for their support. Special thanks are given to Gerardo Velazquez R. and his team. The board would also like to thank Rosa Maria Vaca, Executive Director, Monica Maldonado, Director of Sales, Eduardo Fournier, Director of F&B, Daniel Eduardo Cervantes Calzada, Capitan de Banquetes, and the event staff at the Sheraton Centro Historico for their support and for this beautiful facility to hold this event. Thank you. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Is there a seconder for that resolution? Thank you, Raimundo. I think we'll declare that one carried by acclamation, too. Roberto, could I ask you to take us through a vote of thanks to our sponsors for this event? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I'll do that with pleasure. The board extends its thanks to all sponsors of this meeting: AXTEL, BBVA Bancomer, Telmex, Public Interest Registry, VeriSign, Inc., Afilias Limited, AusRegistry International, China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), Core Internet Council of Registrars, InternetX, IP MIRROR, Minds + Machines, dotMobi, NeuStar, Inc., RegistryASP, National Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (ANRT), EuRid, Iron Mountain Digital, NameAction, Inc., National Internet Development Agency of Korea (NIDA), Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com, and ICANNWiki. The board also wishes to thank Domaine.info for providing photography and filming for this meeting. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Roberto, is there a seconder for this resolution? Jean-Jacques. Let's put that motion, and I suspect that also will be carried by acclamation. All those in favor, please indicate. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We've been told that none of the representatives are actually here to receive presents so we will be dealing with that otherwise. And finally, could I ask Raimundo to take us through thanks to the Mexican government and our local hosts for this meeting here in Mexico City. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: I will speak in Spanish for obvious reasons, but as you prepare, I would say that this is not the first time I have to do that, because I am the only speaker in Spanish in this board, and so I have had the privilege of having this for all the time also and -- >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Your mother tongue is Spanish. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Yeah, okay. But also, I had to do that in French sometimes, so this is not the first time I have to have the privilege which is a very good one on -- to give thanks to the local hosts. In Spanish now: The board wishes to extend its thanks to the local host organizers, the Mexican Internet Association, AMIPCI, The Network Information Center-México (NIC-México) and ISOC (Internet Society) Mexico. The board extends thanks to the new Vice Minister of Communications of Mexico, Lic. Gabriela Hernandez, and the coordinator of the Information Society and knowledge, León David Pérez Hernández, for their support and participation during the meeting. The board would also like to express its greatest gratitude to Ing. Enrique Bustamante R., Director General at AMIPCI, Lic. Luis Ernesto Valdez Diaz, Subdirector General at AMIPCI and all the AMIPCI staff for their enormous dedication and the hard work for this meeting to be possible. Finally, the board acknowledges the support and participation of -- and in parentheses my personal friends -- Mr. Oscar Robles from NIC- Mexico, and Mr. Alejandro Pisanty from ISOC Mexico, who were not only actively involved in the organization of this meeting, but who have also made invaluable contributions throughout the history of the organization. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. Demi is seconding the motion. I'll put the motion. Please indicate your assent. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen of the board, of the community, that marks the end of the formal board meeting in Mexico City. My personal thanks to all of the board members. We've had a long, hard, and some difficult sessions. Congratulations to all of you on the way you've handled yourselves through that. Thank you to members of the community. Some extraordinary highlights which I'd just characterize very briefly by picking out four sets of three-letter acronyms: Think of what we've achieved at this meeting in relation to RAA or PSC or IRT, the implementation team we are forming to help solve the IP problem in relation to new gTLDs or think of IDN. A huge amount of work for which I thank you on behalf of the entire Internet community. Now, observant members of the community will note that I have attempted a practice of opening sessions in the language of the host country. So I leave you now and go home to take up some special coaching so that I'll be able to do the same thing at the next meeting in Australia. I'm not looking forward to it. [Laughter] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Coaches of our language are very hard to find and very expensive, but I'll make do. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you again. See you in Sydney! [Applause]