NCSG Executive Committee Meeting

Tuesday 08 November 2011 at 16:00 UTC

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of NCSG Executive Committee Meeting on Tuesday 08 November 2011 at 1600 UTC. Although the transcription is largely

accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It

is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an

authoritative record.

 

Coordinator:          Please go ahead. The call is now being recorded.

 

Nathalie Peregrine:      Thank you, Tim. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. This is the NCST Executive Committee Meeting on the 8th of November, 2011. On the call today we have Rafik Dammak, Klaus Stoll, Robin Gross, Milton Mueller. From staff we have myself Nathalie Peregrine. I would ask you to please state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. Thank you very much and over to you.

 

Robin Gross:         Thank you very much. This is Robin Gross. I'm the new chair of the executive committee as you all know and let me just briefly say what we're going to talk about this morning.

 

                              Maybe for 15 minutes or so we can go through the review of the membership application procedures when people apply for membership into the non-commercial stakeholder group and then we've got quite a list of applications to actually look at - 20, 21 applications that have come in the last month or so and need to be dealt with. And so that will probably take the bulk of our time is discussing those.

 

                              And then we should also quickly touch upon the establishment of the financial and membership committees which we are supposed to do under the charter. So, did anyone have anyone have any questions on the agenda? Shall we just roll right into it. Okay. Great.

 

                              So, let's try to get a process, like an understanding for how we're going to handle membership applications where - we're relatively new here, brand new in setting up this non-commercial stakeholder group and setting up processes for joining and for evaluating applications and so that sort of means we have more work than a typical executive committee who can just follow the pre-existing procedures but we need to create some procedures ourselves.

 

                              So what I'd like to talk about is how we handle these membership applications because, you know, a lot come in and they just kind of sat there and so we need to have a process in place to deal with that in a timely fashion. I mean, frankly I'm sympathetic to concerns that some of these applications haven't been addressed yet.

 

                              So without further adieu - I think - I've set up an email address for people to send inquiries to. So it's joinncsg@(iphs).org. So if anyone has any questions or inquiries on membership they can always send something to that email address and then I'll forward that on to the executive committee and so we can get it - we've at least got a working email address for people to send things to.

 

                              So then one of the things under the charter that is really important that the executive committee do is set up an online membership form so when people want to join the NCSG there's a form they can just click on it and fill out their data and it gets submitted and they can review that data and get back to them in a timely fashion.

 

                              So there haven't been any membership forms available yet. So we've asked (Konstantinos) and Amber to create some joint forms for joining NCSG jointly with the different constituencies.

 

                              And we've got one from (Konstantinos) - two, actually because we've got one from them that's an organizational form and one that's an individual form for individual membership. And I believe Amber's also working on a joint membership form as well so we can get these posted to the Web site as soon as possible.

 

                              I sent around earlier this morning - the forms that (Konstantinos) has submitted so if you haven't had a chance to check your email yet you might want to take a look at that and just see the forms that he's creating and look pretty good to me so I think we can put these up on the Web site, the NCSG wiki pretty quick and have some online membership forms working.

 

                              So I don't know if anyone has any questions on those forms, if you've had a chance to take a look at them or any other suggestions for the membership form part of it. If so, please just, you know, speak up but just make sure you say your name for the transcript and such.

 

                              So anyways, once these forms are submitted with the data in them I would like to get back to the applicant within two weeks so we've got some kind of a time frame that they can expect to hear some kind of response from us. You know, we haven't had any process in place before this to sort of deal with this in a timely fashion.

 

                              So I think if we can get back to them in two weeks that's a reasonable amount of time. And I can do the first cut, if you will, just in terms of looking at the membership application and just to see if it's complete.

 

                              If it is, you know, filled with just a bunch of spam and trying to sell products as sometimes membership forms get filled out with, it doesn't need to be forwarded on to the executive committee.

 

                              Or if it's incomplete and it doesn't have the requisite data that needs to be supplied for any evaluation by the executive committee, I'll get back to them, the applicant, and let them know that it's missing some information and would they please resubmit or supply that missing requisite information into the application so the executive committee can review and evaluate the application.

 

                              So once we've got a complete application, it can be forwarded on to the entire executive committee to - for the evaluation and for conducting the due diligence that we need to do.

 

                              And this is the part where if it's an organization we need to verify that it's an organization that really exists, that really wants to join NCSG, that really is not commercial. So this is the part that could take a little bit of time.

 

                              I'm thinking that if we had two weeks for members of the executive committee to conduct their due diligence that probably enough time but that's, you know, I kind of want to throw that out there and see what you guys think because you'll be the ones expected to conduct this due diligence so do you think that that's a sufficient period of time once you get a complete application to do your research and verification and validation and that sort of thing?

 

Milton Mueller:     This is Milton. Yeah, I think two weeks is plenty. It should be anyway.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Great. Great.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Robin, it's Rafik. Look, yeah, I think two weeks is enough but just to remember that not all the, how to say, period in the year are the same. If we have application like two days before Christmas, it's not problem for me. I don't celebrate Christmas. It's doesn't mean anything to me.

 

                              But for the rest of you it's holiday, et cetera so we should be careful about just to say two weeks, maybe two weeks business day or something like that is more - can be more accurate.

 

Robin Gross:         Two business weeks. Two actual, you know, days that people are working and I take your point that, you know, not a lot of people are working the week between Christmas and New Year's and it is one of the reasons why many lawsuits get filed during that week. But I don't actually expect that we'll get an onslaught of applications the day after Christmas.

 

                              But you're right, we want to take that into consideration and so I think that, you know, roughly two weeks but if we say business - when we say business days I think that can give us a little bit more flexibility there as well.

 

                              Okay. So then we've got our two week period that we're going to be doing our due diligence. And we can discuss on the mailing list also some of these applications and, you know, share information and that sort of thing to sort of help make our initial determinations.

 

                              And then after the end of this two week period we'll have - if we have one of these EC meetings every month then whatever the next preceding EC meeting is, we can deal with whatever applications are then pending and need to be dealt with. So, you know, we can just plan as a regular course to discuss any pending applications at the EC meeting and make an initial determination as to their approval. So...

 

Rafik Dammak:     Robin?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Rafik Dammak:     It's Rafik speaking. How many EC meetings are you expecting...

 

Robin Gross:         One. One EC meeting. One hour.

 

Rafik Dammak:     You know, otherwise I would complain about the time. Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Is that okay? And we may not need to do these EC meetings every month after a while. I'm just thinking right now when we have to set up all these processes and we have all these backlog of applications to deal with that now we need to have at least a monthly one hour meeting.

 

                              And, you know, maybe six months from now we've got processes in place, we don't have the backlog of applications to deal with and so it may not be necessary then but I think it is for now since we're setting things and we're trying to clean up a lot of things that were left unfinished. So I think..

 

Rafik Dammak:     Just like for example if it's like (unintelligible) maybe Friday for you which means Saturday morning for me, it's okay, because I can manage that but it's always on Wednesday in the middle of week, it's not easy because I also have some working groups meetings (unintelligible) and so on so I'm not really going to be, how to say, happy to have all my nights (unintelligible) ICANN calls.

 

Robin Gross:         Right. Well, we'll, you know, we'll have to take that into consideration and try to find some times that are a little more favorable to you. I do appreciate your special need in the Asia Pacific region. It's not easy to find times that coordinate with the rest of the world it seems. So I am sympathetic.

 

Rafik Dammak:     It's just like the day so I'd say Friday for me, it's okay for me.

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah, I mean, I think we had a Friday on one of the doodles this month and like, you know, two people said they were available, you and me. So, you know, we could have a meeting of you and me but I'm not sure that would be useful.

 

                              Okay. So with respect to these membership applications, we'll make our - we'll have - make an initial determination then the EC meeting after the two weeks of due diligence and we'll contact - I can contact the applicant to inform them of the decision to approve.

 

                              We may decide that we need more information, you know, we may look at this application and say, you know, there's an open question here. We need to do some additional verifications, we need to have some further discussions or clarifications about one issue or another issue.

 

                              So if that's the case then, you know, we'll make that decision at that meeting that we need more information, it's an open question, I'll get back to the applicant and get whatever additional information we need from them or let them know that we've decided that they're not eligible for membership.

 

                              So, you know, we've got sort of three approaches, yes they're eligible, no they're not eligible or it's an open question and we need information or discussion for the determination. But I think that the answer - one of those three answers at that initial EC meeting we should be able to make a determination of one of those three.

 

Michael Carlson:   Excuse me, Robin. This is (Michael). I just joined the call. Sorry for being late.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, great. Thank you, thank you. Welcome. We were just going through the process for handling the membership applications so let me back up just a tiny bit.

 

                              So we've got the forms that will go on the Web site and the forms will be submitted by the applicant and I will go through the application and sometimes if it's going to be a lot of spam in which case I'm not going to forward it on to the entire EC.

 

                              And it may have - it may be incomplete. We may need - the requisite information might not be filled out so I'll get back to them and say we need this additional information for your application.

 

                              So that will happen within two weeks. They will always get an initial response form us within two weeks of the time that they fill out their application. Although, as Rafik has reminded us, we have to be careful about holidays and that sort of thing. So we can't be too hard and fast of a rule when it's the holiday season.

 

                              So then once we've got the - a complete application, I will forward that on to the entire executive committee to conduct its due diligence. And so we've got a two-week period then that the executive committee will be conducting its due diligence and verifying the information and the application and the appropriateness of the membership in the NCSG.

 

                              And then whatever the next EC meeting - and we're going to have these EC meetings monthly for a while - we can discuss and make the initial determination on whatever the pending applications are at that point in time so we can let them know one of three things that at this initial evaluation that they're accepted for membership, that they're not accepted for membership because they're not eligible or that we need more information to make the determination, there may be an open question.

 

                              So we should be able to have at least an initial evaluation at the EC meeting, the first EC meeting following the due diligence. So I will get back to them and let them know if we need more information or what not at least within a week.

 

                              And then if we determine that - if the EC determines that there's further discussion or clarification or verification is needed then we can discuss it on the mailing list and then that application again will come up at the next monthly EC meeting where the decision should be reached.

 

                              So that is - that's sort of the process that I'd like for us to follow and I think that we can handle these applications in a timely manner. We can have a process in place so everybody knows what to expect and what happens when and, you know, we'll be done on the mailing list and in these calls.

 

                              Okay, so do we have any questions on this process?

 

Michael Carlson:   This is (Michael). I just have one quick question. So the process we should tell people we'll take six weeks...

 

Robin Gross:         Pardon me?

 

Michael Carlson:   So should we tell people the process could take up to six weeks based on the two weeks to review it, have questions and then we won't make the determination until the next meeting or is it four weeks or - I was just trying to gather...

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah, well, I guess it really depends on how easy of an application is. If it comes in and it's all complete and it's information, it gets immediately within two weeks we'll forward it on to the - responded to and forwarded on to the executive committee who then has two weeks to do its due diligence and then at the next EC meeting we'll say yes everything looks good and it gets approved. So, you know, that's the easiest...

 

Michael Carlson:   Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         - easiest way forward. Yeah, I guess we're looking at about a month.

 

Michael Carlson:   You're going to handle all the incoming applications?

 

Robin Gross:         Well, I'm going to take the first pass at them and then forward them on.

 

Milton Mueller:     Robin?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Milton Mueller:     This is Milton. Do we really have to make all the decisions in a meeting? I would think that in many cases the applications would be uncontroversial and you can handle it through email.

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah.

 

Milton Mueller:     Once you pass the application onto the EC then if no one objects and everybody says it's fine then there's no need for a meeting, right?

 

Robin Gross:         That's right. That's right. That's right. Some of these are easy and, you know, we can do this on the mailing list. We don't need to wait for the monthly meeting and it can be done on a mailing list.

 

                              So what I'm saying is for the not easy ones that we need to have some discussion on. At least we'll have a set day by which there will be a decision such that we can get back to them that we need more information or we don't think you're eligible or we do think you're eligible.

 

                              So it's just sort of a cutoff date. If it can be done on a mailing list beforehand, great, easy but for those that can't be then I think, you know, if we have a cutoff date of the next EC meeting then by then at least we will have made some kind of, you know, some kind of initial determination and can get back to them. But if, you know, you've got another suggestion I'm happy to entertain it.

 

Milton Mueller:     Well, my suggestion was simply that (Michael) doesn't need to tell people who apply that it should be six weeks. I think in most cases it will be more like three weeks.

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah, that sounds right.

 

Michael Carlson:   Okay. That's fine. So when you get the application you're going to look it over and then send it to us to review or are you are you going...

 

Robin Gross:         Exactly. Yeah, look it over and then - as long as it's complete I'm going to - I mean, I'm not going to make any decisions on it except that it's been filled out properly.

 

Michael Carlson:   Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         And if it's completed it gets forwarded it on to the executive committee for its decision but in my experience with (NCUC) membership forms in the past a lot of times things were incomplete or it was just like advertisement for Viagra or something that people would put in and, trust me, you don't want everything forwarded on that will come in. Only complete applications. So that's...

 

Michael Carlson:   Okay. I think that's reasonable.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Great. So then let's - if you guys are okay with that I will sort of type that up and try to, you know, make that a process that we can refer to so we can know what to expect in the future.

 

                              So then let's go on to the pending membership applications that we've got. And the form, the sheet that - the spreadsheet that (Michael) sent out was actually really helpful in terms of having all of this information in one place so we can kind of - if you guys have that let's just go through that. And then we also need to append the application that came in from (Cheryl Langdon Orr) as well.

 

Michael Carlson:   We also received an application yesterday but we - I'll let you do this and then I'll talk about some of the other applications that we received because we didn’t include a lot of the other applications that we had because we didn't know what to do.

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah, we just - we haven't had a process in place I realize. So, okay, so let's go through these. The first one, the American Lebanese Syrian Association Charity Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital. Does anyone have any comments about this one or opinions about this one?

 

Milton Mueller:     It seems okay to me. This is Milton.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Let me put it another way. Does anyone object to this one? Okay. Very good. And I also went through all of these applications myself so this looks fine to me.

 

                              The Australian Red Cross Society. Did anyone have any - have any opinions on this one?

 

Rafik Dammak:     Robin, it's a new one? I don't remember seeing it that's why I - maybe I don’t have any idea about it so -

 

Robin Gross:         So you haven't had a chance to look at this one yet? Okay, and I really don't know when it was originally submitted. I just saw it because it was in this nice spreadsheet that (Michael) created so I was able to go through it. So, do you think more time, Rafik? Is that what you're saying? You want a little more time to look at that one?

 

Rafik Dammak:     Honesty, this is first time to hear about it so I receive it more later the spreadsheet because you forwarded it yesterday I think.

 

Michael Carlson:   Rafik, just for clarification, all of the names on this list - this spreadsheet Amber had created and all of the names on this list were previously submitted so these - although I sent it to you they were - I just wanted to say for this conversation that they were previously submitted.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Which one? In the first batch or the second one, that's why --

 

Michael Carlson:   I'm not sure. She just said that these were all the ones that were previously submitted and I'm not sure where this all is but everything in here was - isn't new and it's not that it wasn't submitted. This is stuff that's been submitted before.

 

Rafik Dammak:     I will check (unintelligible). It should be okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     I'm not sure that everything this list - some of these are new actually. Some of them are the missing applications that Rosemary lost and some of them are new.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Well, if anyone needs a little bit more time to look at one then, you know, we can do that, we can put that one aside for now and say, you know, we'll pick that one back up on the list. Because, I mean, I've looked at it and it looked fine to me but, you know, this was the list I was working from because I had no idea what had come in before.

 

Klaus Stoll:           This is (Klaus). In this case I think we need to go back to point number one and have a procedure or a time limit about how much time people actually can look at this and use the argument. I didn't have a look at it for stopping the application. I think we have a responsibility toward the applicants and I think there should be a maximum of two weeks that somebody can say I didn't have a chance to look at it.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes, we've already established that, haven't we?

 

Michael Carlson:   Yeah, but I thought that's what we were going to do going forward. These applications are - I mean, I think the last list that Amber sent was October 15th and that's almost a month ago. So these have been out there since at least October 15th. And I think that's what Klaus is pointing - these applicants right here...

 

Robin Gross:         I see your point though. The problem is that on October 15th there was nobody really looking at, you know, sort of taking care of these applications. They were just coming in and going into a black hole it seems. So...

 

Milton Mueller:     Well, I recognize most of these...

 

Robin Gross:         Yeah, some of these, some of these.

 

Milton Mueller:     ...and I think we can move on almost all of these today. I don't think there's a big problem. I'm not sure - what one was Rafik...

 

Robin Gross:         The Australian Red Cross.

 

Michael Carlson:   The Australian Red Cross.

 

Milton Mueller:     Australian Red Cross. Well, I have no problem with it.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Milton Mueller:     I don’t see, you know, if Rafik wants to take a week or so to look at it...

 

Rafik Dammak:     I didn't say a whole week. I was just surprised, one day, okay. It's just to clarify even if Amber sent them it was that time that executive committee was in transition so we have interim chair, et cetera. We didn't really work from this membership. So, anyway, if you want just one day, that's all I'm asking just to check and also (unintelligible).

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. So you're saying this is the first time that you've seen this particular application from the Red Cross and you need more than a day. So if you took - if we put this one aside for a week and, you know, you wanted to take a week to look at that application more closely, would that work for you?

 

Rafik Dammak:     I just really asked to check, that's all, because I cannot really make a decision on something I didn't ever check.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, I hear you. That's totally fair. And at the same time I want to be fair to the applicants who - I have no idea when this came in, if this came in a month ago and it's just been sitting with nobody dealing with it or if this just came in yesterday, we don't know.

 

                              So, you know, let's try to be fair to everyone and give, you know, the executive committee ample time to review the applications but also give these applications reasonable response times. So let's do that. We'll put this one aside for the next week and then if you've got any objections please let us know in the next week.

 

Michael Carlson:   Robin, one quick question before you proceed because I'm kind of new to this process. So are we - when we make this decision as an executive committee, are we making the decision, is it three to one, two to two or whatever, how does this work...

 

Robin Gross:         How does it work, right. That is something that is actually in the non-commercial group stakeholder group charter. It says the decisions have to be unanimous. So the approval decisions have to be unanimous to be admitted.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Robin, I've got a problem here. This is (Klaus). My problem is this application came in before the 15th of October. Now we are putting it back for one week then we don't have a meeting for another month so this application then basically will be two months plus in processing which I think is absolutely not fair to the applicant. I think we need a clearer time frame and a quicker time frame for dealing with this case.

 

Robin Gross:         I think what we're saying is we'll get back to them within one week. A decision will be made within one week because, you know, we're in limbo here with thee applications that have already come in.

 

                              We've agreed on a process now going forward but, you know, what do we do with these ones that came in - you know, I think we all need to be a little bit flexible on and I think what we're saying is, you know, if Rafik has an issue with it, he's got a week to speak up and say so and I think -

 

Klaus Stoll:           And how do we discuss it?

 

Robin Gross:         We will discuss this on the mailing list. So...

 

Klaus Stoll:           And when is the cutoff date for the decision?

 

Robin Gross:         One week from today for the applications, you know, we think we need another week to look at.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Robin, I didn't really - just really few days. I'm not really asking for long time. Just I want to check to be fair but I - how to say - I'm feeling that I'm pressured to make a decision about applicant that I didn’t even know a few minutes...

 

Robin Gross:         Right. I realize there has been a miscommunication with these applications and getting them to the executive committee members for their - so they can do their due diligence.

 

                              That didn't happen but, you know, so we need to be a little bit flexible. Everyone does at this point and we need to give people the ample time to do their due diligence but we also need to get back to these people, the applicants in a reasonable time as well.

 

                              So, I'm trying to find a compromise here that gives the executive committee members ample time to do the due diligence but also does not leave these applicants hanging because I'm really sympathetic to this.

 

                              I mean, if this application came in, you know, two months ago there's not a very good excuse for why it hasn't been addressed until now frankly. So I really want us to deal with these applications.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Anyway, I'm trying to fix this (these dates) and after we will have set process...

 

Robin Gross:         That's right. That's right. I think we've got a process that we can go forward with but, you know, it's not really clear when some of these came in so when, you know, time period starts so we're just going to have to try to be flexible and work together here for these applications I think.

 

                              Okay. So let's go on to the Child Protection Alliance.

 

Rafik Dammak:     My question about this Child Protection Alliance, I remember when I tried I couldn't find any information about their membership. And because, how to say, I'm worried about this Child Protection and (unintelligible) in many countries.

 

                              I am little bit concerned if government or something is involved in such (unintelligible) so I want for you to be sure that it's about the memberships. So if they have - because I tried on the page, on the home page but I didn’t find any information about their membership.

 

Milton Mueller:     This is Milton. It is true. They have a Web site. They have - and the member section is blank. So is the staff section so we, you know, it's kind of strange.

 

Michael Carlson:   Okay. We'll address it and get more information.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Yeah, I think we should write back to them -- this is (Klaus) -- and ask for more information on that.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. So let me just make sure I understand what we need to ask them for. We need to find out about membership, who their membership is and their connection to government. Is that right? Is there a concern they may be...

 

Rafik Dammak:     Just their membership because it's usually really stakeholders and so to be sure what their members. If it's just people from civil society I think it's okay but just to be sure, that's why.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Okay. Well, I'm going to be contacting these people and, you know, requesting this information so I want to make sure that I understand what it is that we're asking. And we're asking for clarification as to who their membership is? And was there another - the staff or was there another issue?

 

Rafik Dammak:     No, just membership. That's the information that (unintelligible).

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Okay, so (I’ll get) back to them with the request for additional information.

 

                              What of the next one on the list, the Church of God in Christ? Did everyone have a chance to take a look at that one and have any thoughts on that one?

 

Milton Mueller:     This is Milton. So we handled this during the initial phase and the issue was whether they had any authorization, because the person put forward as a representative was actually independent of the actual church. And so did we going to a letter from them?

 

Man:                      No. I sent - over the weekend I sent you the link. If you go on their Web site, he’s listed as a staff member, although he’s an attorney. Outside his own practice he’s listed as a staff member who’s employed by the Church of God in Christ as a staff member attorney. So he’s linked to the organization. He’s the special counsel for the presiding Bishop of that organization.

 

                              I said that in that - in the email that I forward - and I think I - yes, I - because I sent it to the EC list and it came back up undeliverable. I mean I forwarded it to Robin and then he copied you on it Milton.

 

Milton Mueller:     Oh, okay. So that (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Man:                            It came over the weekend.

 

Milton Mueller:     ...yesterday or something?

 

Man:                      Over the weekend. But it was - but he - if you go to their Web site and look under staff, he’s - his picture is there under General Counsel for the Church of God in Christ on their Web site.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Yes, I think (unintelligible).

 

Milton Mueller:     Robin, what day did this - was this the...

 

Man:                      I sent it out on the 5th. I’ll send it again now.

 

Milton Mueller:     Do you have the new EC address?

 

Man:                      I’m not sure, but I’ll...

 

Robin Gross:         ec-ncsg@ipjustice.

 

Man:                      ec- I’m sorry. Say that again Robin.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. ec-ncsg@ipjustice.org.

 

Man:                      Okay. All right, I just sent it. And if you look down in the bottom of the first email I sent, there’s a link there that takes you right to the Legal Counsel’s page and he’s listed there as part of the staff.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, I see. And you're saying - okay. And here’s the email.

 

                              Oh. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought - was there an independent verification that was sent, or was this - because I don’t know that we need it.

 

Milton Mueller:     That was what we’d asked for originally (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Man:                      That was what - yes.

 

Milton Mueller:     We had not asked for a link. We had asked that somebody in the Bishop’s office to send us a letter authorizing this guy.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Man:                      But he - but I don’t understand why that would be necessary if he’s part of the staff. I mean, it’s not - why would he - why would they apply if - and he’s part of the staff, why would he apply if they’re not wanting to be a part of it? That doesn’t make sense?

 

Milton Mueller:     Well for example, I could say that I represent Syracuse University, but I don’t, but you could find my name all over the Web site for Syracuse University.

 

Man:                      Yes. But if you look at the page, he’s there as part of the staff under the General Counsel’s office. So what - and it shows what his title is. Part of (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, but I - I guess that wasn’t really apparent before. I didn’t - I mean I think this is helpful.

 

Man:                      Okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     No. Again, I think the - part of the problem here is just that if (Ulysses) had applied to us directly and said, “I’m applying on behalf of (Cogic), then I would - you know, I...

 

Man:                      (But he applied through an) NPLC Milton. He applied through NPLC. We took his application and we - and the application was forwarded to the (unintelligible). So what - I mean, I don’t understand what (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Milton Mueller:     So what’s stopping him from saying, “No. You know, I want to join NCSG directly.”

 

Man:                      What? I’m - what is stopping him from doing what? I didn’t hear your question.

 

Milton Mueller:     I’m saying is he able to send the Executive Committee a direct request?

 

Man:                      Yes. But I - but again, this application, like some of the ones in here have already been submitted, the issue was was he authorized to represent the Church of God in Christ? There’s evidence here that he’s authorized to represent the Church of God in Christ as a staff member and special counsel to the Bishop. So I don’t understand what else - what other information do you need to supply? I mean, I don’t understand why don’t we go back to him and ask - what are we asking for? I mean, I don’t get it.

 

Milton Mueller:     Well again, I think on a going forward basis - in this case, you know because of the legacy issues I’ll make an exception, but we want the people applying to apply to NCSG directly.

 

Man:                      Well, that was never the case before. It was - we were - we’re a new constituency to - they don’t understand what NCSG is. They’re applying to (NPOC). (NPOC)’s a part of the NCSG, so they would - evidently they’ll - I mean they’re going to be part of the NCSG because we’re part of the NCSG.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. That was the initial misunderstanding that got us into so much trouble the first round was because it was made clear to (Debbie) from the beginning that members were supposed to join the NCSG first and then join a constituency.

 

Man:                      Well, the - well we didn’t have - they couldn’t - okay, I don’t know what conversation you had with her, but with respect to this, I mean I don’t know what else you're supposed to ask them for.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. I mean I think that you know seeing that on their Web site is pretty clear that the - you know, that he’s a member of the organization, so I think this one is okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     Okay.

 

Klaus Stoll:           I think it’s okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Okay, so let’s - so this one - does anyone have any objections or is this one allowed in then? I’ll let them know.

 

                              Okay. All right, so the next one on the list is the Civil Society Movement Against Tuberculosis in Sierra Leone. This one does seem to be an issue with because they don’t have a domain name. Is that right? Did I misunderstand? They don’t have a domain name?

 

Man:                      I’m not sure.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Yes, because it says in the H field, “Unsure how EC wants to decide on this. It’s a small organization that doesn’t have infrastructure to support a domain name when free options are available.” And the reason why that’s an issue is because the NCSG charter - in order to be a member of NCSG you have to have a domain name. So I think they might want to reapply - you know, get a domain name and then reapply.

 

Man:                      Okay.

 

Klaus Stoll:           So (unintelligible) rephrase it -- this is (Klaus) -- and saying please could you give us your domain name? And if not, please register a domain name and then reply again.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. Exactly. I mean, I’m just - let me just pull up the charter that talks about eligibility.

 

                              So yes, under 2.21, Eligible Organizations, the second criteria is, “be the exclusive user of at least one domain name.” And so they need to - they may have a domain name and we don’t realize it, but it says here in this Field H that they don’t have one, so that’s why I wanted to flag that as something we need to take care of.

 

                              So okay. So I will get back to them and let them know that they’re ineligible unless they have a domain name, okay?

 

                              And then the next one on the list is the Goodwill Industries. Okay, did anyone have any thoughts on that one?

 

Milton Mueller:     I thought we had approved that? I have no objection, and really I remember approving that in my opinion back in August.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh.

 

Milton Mueller:     Or after we got some kind of a - no, I think we asked for more information, and after we got it I thought that they had been approved.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Did anyone have any objection after doing their due diligence?

 

                              Okay. So I guess this is approved. Going once. Going twice. Approved.

 

                              Okay, next one on the list, Information Technology Association of the Gambia.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Robin?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Rafik Dammak:     I think we have an issue for this application.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, okay. What’s our issue?

 

Rafik Dammak:     There’s a constitution they accept corporate members which are business - they accept both commercial and non-commercial I think that...

 

Man:                      They accept what? I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you Rafik.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Really?

 

Robin Gross:         Commercial organizations.

 

Man:                      I couldn’t hear what he said (unintelligible).

 

Robin Gross:         Commercial organizations is what he was saying.

 

Rafik Dammak:     They accept business. They have what they call corporate members, which is they define as business established in accordance to the law of Gambia (unintelligible) in the business of (ICT). So - and...

 

Milton Mueller:     I looked at this also Rafik and I’ve - in my opinion, this is a - basically sort of a trade - an (ICT) trade association in the Gambia.

 

Man:                      Right.

 

Milton Mueller:     I don’t think it’s - I actually know the head of it, (unintelligible) is - he’s somebody associated with (Diplo) and he’s a good guy and everything. He’s involved in IGF, but he might want to - I mean based on my understanding of what the organization does and what it is, it’s more like the ITAA in the US.

 

Man:                      Right.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Okay. Independent from them directly as an organization, I think I would like to suggest -- this is (Klaus) -- that we need a basic conversation about involvement of governmental and private sector NGOs and how that influence their ability to be recognized as a valid NGO or not. Because for me there are a lot of organizations nowadays who basically get private sector membership (unintelligible), and I think that really deserves a in-detail discussion and a discussion which is based on reality.

 

                              Because, I think NGOs (unintelligible) which are purely operating inside the NGO sector and have absolutely no connection to the private or government sectors are really not viable, at least in my experience. So I would suggest it doesn’t have to be now, but I think we should really have an in-depth discussion about this topic.

 

Rafik Dammak:     (Klaus), the problem is the shorter point (unintelligible) this kind of membership. The shorter of the NCSG, so that’s why we don’t - we cannot accept like trade association et cetera.

 

                              Even for example, the ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, it’s an association but it has business members, and so that’s why they cannot join the NCSG. So there’s not just NGO activities or NGO as how it’s defined in each local (unintelligible), but it’s the membership which also define if they can join NCSG or not. If they are acceptable of (unintelligible) we have a problem if they join the NCSG. We are non-commercial space, and that’s why we are trying to check the membership.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Man:                      It’s not primarily a membership issue. It’s a mission issue. The purpose of the organization. I think it’s basically kind of an industry development association. So yes, many non-profits have corporate support or donations or Board members. That’s not a problem I don’t think in most cases. It’s more the - what is the vision of the organization?

 

Klaus Stoll:           Rafik, I completely comply with you on the (unintelligible) issue if you are saying look, it is a trade organization. In this case, you are absolutely right. But there’s another cases where organizations are really NGO’s but they get a private and governmental members or partners or whatever which I think shouldn’t exclude them for being part of the NCSG.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. I think that’s one of the borderline cases that we’ll have to discuss. I agree with you. We should have a discussion of that and try to develop clearer criteria for handling those kinds of cases, especially in the developing world.

 

                              As you probably know, there’s - these lines get blurry.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Just (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Rafik Dammak:     It’s (unintelligible) and the problem is how we define though the NCSG charter what the - is your ability to be in the - so that we talked also about the membership. So I’m not really -- how to say -- I’m not wondering or guessing. It’s from the NCSG charter. I’m trying to find the text exactly, but...

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Well it sounds like we’re going to at least have to have more discussion about this one and the extent to which an organization can be commercially supported or commercial membership for eligibility.

 

                              So I want to move on to the next one if we can because we’re running out of time and I really want to get through this list.

 

                              So the next one is the International Baccalaureate Organization. Does that name...

 

Rafik Dammak:     Let me just - you didn’t find (their clear) membership for this organization.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Okay.

 

                              Okay, so this is another one that maybe we need more questions on? We need to ask them to - who their membership is.

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Man:                      (Unintelligible) does not have membership.

 

Rafik Dammak:     (Unintelligible) membership.

 

Robin Gross:         I’m sorry. What was that?

 

Man:                      It says on the chart they do not have membership.

 

Milton Mueller:     Right. Right.

 

Rafik Dammak:     So what is it exactly? Is it a foundation? Something - what...

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. It’s a foundation.

 

Man:                      Yes.

 

Robin Gross:         Rafik, did you think you needed more time with this one?

 

Rafik Dammak:     Just what I was trying to find about the membership because I remember they say they provide like service et cetera, but like kind of certification. It’s a - and my - how to say it? What I am getting used to this kind of certification in my field. Like in the IT field you have the Linux Profession Institute, et cetera.

 

                              Even they have like a foundation structure, they are mostly doing like a kind of certification and training business. So I just - I tried to check clearly what is their mission, or it’s really not commercial. That’s why I try to find if they have membership, something like that.

 

Klaus Stoll:           I mean you say a foundation, that means it doesn’t necessarily have a membership, like my own foundation from the (unintelligible). We have a Board but we don’t have members. And I think in that case you need to look at the Board.

 

                              If it’s a foundation and they - that doesn’t require and want membership, look at the Board. And when you have - that at least needs to be the basis of your decision.

 

Robin Gross:         So should we follow-up with them and get more information from them?

 

Man:                      I mean if they’ve issued membership, he’s not going to find that.

 

Klaus Stoll:           It doesn’t make sense to ask them for membership if they don’t have membership.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, I know. I mean I think the question Rafik is I think where do they get they get their support from? If it isn’t membership then, how are they supported?

 

Rafik Dammak:     Because my understanding is that they don’t have a memberships, so they have foundations. But also, they provide with many kind of service (unintelligible) et cetera, to really (unintelligible) community. But - so, it’s (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Robin Gross:         You're saying they’re part business too.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Because they get fees like (unintelligible). So is not - even they don’t have membership I think they accept like accreditation fee. So that’s why - that’s my - how I am now recalling about that case. So...

 

Klaus Stoll:           I’m sorry that I’m butting in again. It’s (Klaus). But that’s really - I (unintelligible) lot of foundations all over the world that provide service and get remunerated for their services and fee service - these remunerations going into the sustain the foundation. And I think that is actually (unintelligible) business model for foundations nowadays. They just can’t - if you (bite on) foundations nowadays, they can’t just survive on donations and (unintelligible).

 

                              And for a foundation to provide services and get remunerated, as long as we service it, that remuneration goes 100% back into the non-profit of the foundation, it’s absolutely no problem.

 

Rafik Dammak:     (Klaus), just I want to - (Klaus), I have something about foundation. Even if around country you have the same terminology, it doesn’t really have the same meaning. I think the foundation like United States is not the same like in France. In - for example in Tunisia, we don’t have this concept at all. I think in Japan they don’t define foundation - they have I think foundation, but it’s different.

 

                              So we should be careful when we say foundation and we have - we try to define like a generic concept, that’s why we try to check like membership or also people now say that about the members of the Board or the mission, et cetera. So we - with all this different information to try to have - to draw that image of this members and to check if they aren’t really - have that non-commercial nature. So that’s why I’m just - you know, because for me that’s different - and trying to...

 

Milton Mueller:     Okay. So I just want to make it clear that I have no objection to this organization. It seems to be a umbrella organization that ties together a bunch of private universities or schools around the world.

 

Man:                      I have no objection either, so...

 

Klaus Stoll:           No objection.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Rafik, did you want to take some more time to look at their - to look at them a little more closely?

 

Rafik Dammak:     Oh, no.

 

Robin Gross:         We need unanimity to move on.

 

Rafik Dammak:     Okay, no problem. Let’s move on. Yes, no problem.

 

Robin Gross:         That’s one - when you say no problem, you mean you would vote to approve this one, or...

 

Rafik Dammak:     It’s no - okay, so I - so as I didn’t (unintelligible) actually to (unintelligible) for my (unintelligible), so let’s move on. So that’s okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay.

 

Man:                      So was that a yes or what - I didn’t hear.

 

Robin Gross:         I heard an approval. Did I...

 

Man:                      All right. Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         ...mishear that?

 

                              Okay. The next one on the list is the (unintelligible) Community Resource Center, and this is another one that had a special note that it doesn’t have a domain name, so I think we have to get back to them and...

 

Man:                      There’s a domain name. I think we have one here.

 

Robin Gross:         Let’s see.

 

Man:                      On the list I’m on.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay, I’m on Number 11. What’s the domain? I’m seeing a (unintelligible).8m.net.

 

Man:                      Net. Yes.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. So that’s - so - and then the next column, Column H says it doesn’t have a domain name, so - I mean it’s kind of easy fix to make, but it needs to be done. So I’ll get back to them...

 

Man:                      (Unintelligible) - I mean if you go - if you put that link in there’s a domain - there’s a Web site for them. I don’t why...

 

Robin Gross:         Right. But I think issue is it’s not like their own domain name. They don’t - they’re not an exclusive user of a domain name. I mean, I think maybe they’ve got a Web site here on this 8m.net.

 

Milton Mueller:     FreeServers.com is what 8m points to.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay.

 

Man:                      Sorry. Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         So I mean again, it’s a pretty easy fix I think, and it’s pretty clear in the charter that you have to have the domain name, so I’ll let them know.

 

Man:                      Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay?

 

                              So let’s move on to the next one. Okay - and actually, we could talk about the next three together - the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, and the Pilots and the Paws. And the reason I say we could talk about them together is because they’ve got the same representatives listed - a trademark attorney (James Bigoff), Outside Counsel.

 

                              So these are - these three here I guess present some problems. One is (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Klaus Stoll:           Now Robin...

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Robin, can I ask you why that is a problem? Because a lot of organizations which are completely different using the same (unintelligible) representative.

 

Robin Gross:         Right. So the...

 

Milton Mueller:     There are? Where?

 

Klaus Stoll:           (Unintelligible).

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Robin Gross:         I think there are two issues here. One issue if you're going to have an outside counsel represent you, we need to have that verified from the organization, so that’s one issue. And then the second issue is aggregate voting and the appropriateness of one individual representing several organizations in the stakeholder group. So they’re two separate issues but they apply to this group of three applicants.

 

                              So I wanted to open that up and see what anyone had to say on that.

 

Klaus Stoll:           I just want to make an observation then. For example, the reality in Ecuador is that there’s only one NGO lawyer in the whole country. His name is (unintelligible), so you would - on every application in Ecuador you would get the same name. I just want to put that in as a reality check.

 

Rafik Dammak:     I just want to make also a point. You know this idea to be represented by a lawyer is quite strange for me. We have different backgrounds, but this is strange why? Because we are in policy (unintelligible). We are not really in court or legal field, so we need that each organization to be represented by a lawyer.

 

                              So I understand (Klaus)’ point from Ecuador perspective, but in other country we don’t really - people - organizations don’t appoint lawyer for represent him because they don’t fight - it’s just they represent someone to defend their opinions, et cetera. And when they need like a - we are - in ICANN we are just discussing about policy issues related to domain names, so...

 

Man:                      Rafik? If I may interject something. I think it just depends on the organization, and these organizations are small organizations with not a lot of money, and if they can get pro bono representation, particularly around this area, then that’s quite common in the United States. That’s not some - you know, some strange thing that you have...

 

Rafik Dammak:     The United States is not the rest of the world, so that’s why we...

 

Man:                      No, I understand. No, I was just making a point. I wasn’t saying that it was to apply to the rest of the world. You were saying that it - that that was where the issue was, but I’m just saying from the - from being in the United States, that’s not an uncommon thing to do.

 

                              So it’s...

 

Robin Gross:         Well from the perspective that I’m looking at this issue, which is you know, sort of our rule and responsibility to the stakeholder group. And one of the things that you know we were really charged with, particularly by the Board, was concern about capture and concern about making it too easy for one or two people to sort of you know - the policy space.

 

                              And so that’s really where my concern comes in is we need - you know, we need to set up policies and procedures that don’t encourage behavior that would incentivize trying to capture, but we need to set up policies and procedures that will make sure that if it’s an organization that wants to be a part of this that it really is that organization that wants to be a part of this, and that it’s not you know a trademark lawyer who’s just rounding up a bunch of his clients and putting his name down and getting them to sign off at the end of it.

 

Man:                      Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         So we have that responsibility to make sure that that’s not what’s going on here. And one way we can do that is by saying...

 

Man:                      (Use a lawyer). Yes, (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Robin Gross:         ...you know, you can only represent one organization.

 

Man:                      Well I mean if we - and we had spoke with the attorney and I was going to follow-up with him once I got off this call. If he get - if he has a letter from each organization saying that yes, they want him to represent them, is that sufficient enough to...

 

Robin Gross:         But I think that deals with the verification issue, but it doesn’t deal with the aggregate voting issue. And I think what we’re hearing with the aggregate voting issue is we really want to have - see a separate person representing separate organizations because that’s the way that we can prevent...

 

Man:                      Is that the way it is right now?

 

Robin Gross:         ...(unintelligible) gamesmanship.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. Yes. That is definitely the way it is now.

 

Man:                      Okay.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Can I offer a compromise?

 

Milton Mueller:     I’m sorry?

 

Klaus Stoll:           I would like to offer a compromise because I think Robin’s point has some validity. Because you might have a situation one guy representing 20 organizations and has 20 votes, which simply is not fair.

 

                              But in this case we’ve got a situation where we might say that in the future, only one - only - organizations should only have a representative who doesn’t represent another organization already, and making that clause as a general rule. But in this case, because we didn’t have that rule before, we accept all three.

 

                              And this will be my compromise I’m offering.

 

Robin Gross:         Well, I think we have had that rule, and - I mean, I think that you know, we would be sort of making an exception to that for this group. And I’m not really sure that’s fair.

 

                              I think - you know, I mean we’ve got two names and three organizations. Can’t one take one, the other take the other, and the third organization find their own representative or put one of their own staff members up? I mean at some level if they really want to participate, you know we need to see that they want to participate.

 

                              And so you know, I’m a little bit leery about making that exception for this group.

 

Milton Mueller:     Right. I would add to that I think you're recognizing (Klaus) the issue that we’re concerned about. It’s more the precedent (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Klaus Stoll:           Definitely. I would have the same issue.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. And so if we let one person do it then how can we not let others? So I don’t like your make an exception compromise.

 

                              I think - you know if - let’s say one of these organizations, which one of them is - you know, the Coalition for the Homeless or something, or the Grange, you know - you know, if indeed (Bigoff) represents all of these organizations, then if he’s admitted the membership for one of them, then they are in some sense represented.

 

                              And if he doesn’t - if Pilots and Paws has very different concerns about various policy issues than the Homeless Coalition or the Grange, which I suspect that they do, then they shouldn’t just automatically be having their votes cast by the same person uniformly. It’s just very strange.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Can’t we write back and make the document and saying please could you nominate somebody else of your person?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. I mean I think that that’s the right answer is you know, we need to have a separate representative for each organization.

 

                              Yes, I mean - you know, one of them, the - what is it? The (Pies and Paws and Pilots), 7000 employees. And you know if they have 7000 employees and volunteers, surely one of them was willing to be their representative for this group.

 

Klaus Stoll:           But Robin, my concern is quite simply when we write to them that we explain to them why we make this request.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Klaus Stoll:           That they exactly understand what the point is.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. Because the reason is is we want to see a separate representative for each organization because we’re trying to prevent - trying to create disincentives for gamesmanship. And so this is - you know, this is an easy way that we won’t encourage that kind of game playing, just by having this simple rule that applies to everyone equally.

 

Man:                      Okay. So (unintelligible)...

 

((Crosstalk))

 

Klaus Stoll:           (So my concern) is if we write back not explaining it, they might get fed up and fail to understand why we’re doing it. Sorry.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. Yes. I understand.

 

Man:                      So if we’re able to get confirmation - so if he represents one and then the other two organizations are represented by two different individuals, then is there any other objections to these applications?

 

Robin Gross:         Well frankly, I didn’t - I saw that and then I said, “Oh, that’s going to be a problem,” so I don’t - I would need to look at them again because I didn’t go any further once I saw that as being a big problem.

 

Milton Mueller:     Well, I looked at the Grange. I mean the Grange is a famous organization.

 

Man:                      Yes.

 

Milton Mueller:     The Coalition for the Homeless also fairly well known.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. I mean it looks good from where I’m sitting...

 

Milton Mueller:     But obviously, it’s...

 

Robin Gross:         ...but I haven’t had the time...

 

Milton Mueller:     If they appoint somebody else to represent them - you know, I just - it should be somebody that actually represents homeless advocates and not looking at the whole issue from the standpoint of an outside trademark council. I think that’s what we’re expecting from the legitimacy of the representation.

 

Michael Carlson:   No, and I understand that and that’s how we’re going to phrase the question. I just want to make sure that if I go back and get this information and then we submit it and then we’re discussing if they’re legitimate again, then that’s going to be, one, embarrassing, and two, frustrating I’m sure on your part.

 

                              So if they’re able to get actual individuals from the organization to represent them, I just want to be able to say that this is the condition that, you know - and the legitimate concern, that this is the condition and if you meet these conditions, then there’s no other issues.

 

                              That’s what I’m just trying to...

 

Milton Mueller:     I can’t see any reason to question the legitimacy of the organizations.

 

Michael Carlson    Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Michael Carlson    All right.

 

Robin Gross:         I haven’t looked at them carefully, but I mean they look like they’re - from what I see here, they look pretty legit. So that’s...

 

Klaus Stoll:           Okay. Let’s imply it one of these rules.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay, so...

 

Michael Carlson    All right. I’ll get on it and get it back - probably to you within the next day.

 

Man:                      Robin.

 

Man:                      Yes.

 

Man:                      Maybe it’s, how do you say, off topic, but just when you was discussing, I check it quickly about the Red Cross in Australia so it’s okay for me you can.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. So you don’t need another week for that, so we can approve that one right now, as well?

 

Man:                      Yes, but...

 

Michael Carlson    Which one? I’m sorry.

 

Robin Gross:         The Australian Red Cross.

 

Michael Carlson    Oh, okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Great. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, so let’s go on to Number 15 on the list, the association of NGOs The Gambia. All right. Did anyone have anything to say on this application?

 

                              Okay. Everyone did their due diligence. Any objections to approving it? Going once. Going twice. Okay. I guess this one - I will take your silence to mean approval and we’ve got approval on the Association of NGOs the Gambia.

 

                              Okay. The next one on the list, Tranquil Space Foundation. Okay. This one - yes, this one caught my eye in particular because I noticed that the representative, the GNSO Council representative for the intellectual property constituency (Brian Winterfeld) was listed as one of their representatives. And so that didn’t quite seem appropriate for a sitting member of the IPC’s GNSO Council to be representing a member of the NCSG. I think...

 

Michael Carlson    But he’s listed as an alternate.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, right.

 

Michael Carlson    I mean, if his name is off of it, I mean, does that say he shouldn’t represent them? We can...

 

Robin Gross:         Well, I mean I think - I mean, to be frank, I think this is an example of the kind of concern that you’ve heard about the role that the intellectual property constituency has played in trying to bring in members to the NCSG who have a trademark perspective and I think, you know, this is a pretty good example of that it is going on and that there - you know, the concern is legitimate when you’ve got sitting members of the IPC actually, you know, trying to represent members in the NCSG.

 

                              So I mean I don’t have any issue with this particular foundation, but I think it’s pretty strong evidence of the kind of monkeying around for what the IPC is doing with the NCSG.

 

Milton Mueller:     This is Milton. I think the important thing to understand here is the whole structure of the representational process within the GNSO is this kind of delicate balance, so they have the contracting party house and a non-contracting party house and they have the commercials and the non-commercials for the so-called user house or non-contracting parties, and I was involved in the formation of this structure.

 

                              And it was, you know, a very difficult negotiation and it was all balanced so that nobody can do anything unless they get support across different kinds of interest groups.

 

                              And so if - you know, if the non-commercial side tips by the commercial side or visa-versa somehow, if somehow we sent a bunch of members into the commercial stakeholders group that we’re really trying to vote the way we wanted them to vote. Then the whole point of that structure gets undermined because...

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, I mean...

 

Milton Mueller:     ...it’s designed to make sure that there is a reasonable level of consensus among the different people involved. Is that understood? Am I making any sense to you (Michael) or (Klaus)?

 

Michael Carlson    Yes. No, I understand. I understand.

 

Klaus Stoll:           No, it’s completely clear. But sorry, take my silence as approval.

 

Milton Mueller:     Okay. I couldn’t tell. The GNSO structure is such a complicated thing and most people fall asleep when I start talking about it so I thought you might have fallen asleep, also.

 

Michael Carlson    No, I understood what you were saying.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay, so with respect to this application, I think they need to come back with, you know, without a member of the IPC as one of their representatives. I mean the foundation itself looks like a legitimate foundation. It’s just, you know, I mean, we cannot really...

 

Michael Carlson    So the person on here, (Tim Mooney), so he should remove himself also or...

 

Robin Gross:         No. The other - (Brian Winterfeld).

 

Michael Carlson    All right. So how do we prove that (Brian) is not - I mean, what is it they should submit or ask...

 

Robin Gross:         Well I don’t think we need to prove anything. We just need to say your representatives need to be people who are not members of the intellectual property constituency.

 

Michael Carlson    Okay, so...

 

Robin Gross:         I actually think the IPC has some rules in their charter about...

 

Michael Carlson    Right.

 

Robin Gross:         Membership in more than one stakeholder...

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes, we do, too. We do, too.

 

Michael Carlson    Right, right.

 

Milton Mueller:     So it’s the whole point about these boundaries and, you know - so all he has to do is replace his alternate. I mean...

 

Michael Carlson    Yes, that’s what I’m - okay. All right. All right. So they’re okay once the alternate is replaced...

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Man:                      ...is what I’m trying to - okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     (Unintelligible).

 

Michael Carlson    All right. Great.

 

Robin Gross:         Did anyone else have anything to say about them? I know it cut that discussion off pretty much.

 

Milton Mueller:     Well I think it’s great that somebody who is running a Tranquil Space Foundation, his last name is (Mooney), but I won’t make any more jokes like that. I promise.

 

Robin Gross:         All right. Okay, so we’ve got just a couple more. And I appreciate your indulgence of time to get through these, but I feel like we really have accomplished something if we can at least make our way through these today.

 

                              Okay, so the next one is the U.S. Olympic Committee. This one was certainly a cause of a lot of discussion on the membership list, NCSG list. Does anyone have anything to say on this application?

 

Milton Mueller:     Well, my objection to it is not sufficiently non-commercial would still have to stand.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Okay, yes, now that I’m thinking about it, you guys have evaluated this one before and that decision was made and then - so this is sort of a rehearing of that. Is that what I’m hearing?

 

Michael Carlson    Yes.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Okay, so that one I’ll have to get back to them and let them know that they were not eligible for being to commercial.

 

                              Okay, so the Water Environment Research Foundation; the next one on the list, okay, this one, this is another one that looks like it’s represented by outside trademark lawyer. Did we ever get any kind of verification that this organization wants to be represented in the...

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes, we did.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     So from my point of view, they’re okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. Did anyone else have anything to say on this one? Then we’ll approve. Going once. Going twice. Okay. Approved.

 

                              Next one on the list, YMCA of The Gambia. All right. Anyone have any thoughts on this application?

 

Milton Mueller:     Well I would just point out -- this is Milton again -- that (Ponce Ley) is the representative and he was the guy who was purporting to represent the ITAG. So if we had any bad feelings about not accepting the ITAG, then they should be gone now if we accept the YMCA of The Gambia.

 

Robin Gross:         Not sure I understand that but...

 

                              I take it you’re saying approve. Did I hear that right? Anyone want - anyone have any objection of the YMCA of The Gambia? Going once. Going twice. Okay. Approved.

 

                              And the next one on the list, Young Life. Okay. Any thoughts on this one?

 

Milton Mueller:     So this was another one where we asked for a letter and maybe (Michael) can tell, I think we got it, but I don’t recall for sure.

 

Michael Carlson    I’m not sure Milton. You wanted a letter regarding what?

 

Milton Mueller:     Regarding Jan Morton’s authorization to represent this very large organization.

 

Michael Carlson    I...

 

Milton Mueller:     I mean there’s no question about the organization as being appropriate and eligible for membership. It was just we wanted to make sure that, again, with such a large organization, so many chapters, so many branches, you want to make sure that the actual main head of the organization has approved this person to represent them.

 

Michael Carlson    Is that on our new form - I mean is that on that new form that was sent around today from NCUC? Is that a question on there? I (unintelligible) I just saw the email. I’m just curious.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes. It’s - again, with those it’s authorized - we’re authorized to ask and in most cases now we’re expecting that the organization itself will apply so that this would be less of an issue.

 

Michael Carlson    Okay. So you need authorization. So other than authorization, they are approved?

 

Robin Gross:         As individual, I think that’s right.

 

Michael Carlson    So once we get the authorization then they’re approved?

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes, yes.

 

Michael Carlson    Okay.

 

Milton Mueller:     Yes.

 

Michael Carlson    All right.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. And then this is all of the ones that I had on (Michael)’s list, so I’m so happy we made it through those.

 

                              And then we’ve also got the application that came in from Cheryl Langdon-Orr. And I forwarded that around again this morning. Let me just pull that up.

 

Man:                      Robin?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Man:                      I seem to have also another application.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, we do. We have another application?

 

Man:                      From (Glen Ricka) for his authorization.

 

Robin Gross:         Well, he’s - oh, right. He did have another organization that wanted to apply. Okay. Okay, I’ll get in touch with him and send him the membership form. I don’t believe, you know, he’s filled anything out. He’s just expressed some interest.

 

                              Okay. So, the only thing that’s not clear to me because when Cheryl filled out this email, we didn’t have a form, and so, you know, it doesn’t exactly ask for all the information that we - her expression of interest really doesn’t give us what we need as we look at it.

 

                              I don’t - for example, I don’t see what her non-commercial domain is or any of that information, so let me just send her a copy of our form and then she can fill it out. I mean frankly I’m sure she would be eligible. I’m sure there’s no reason...

 

Milton Mueller:     Well I think that’s the right way to handle it now that we have this form and there’s no rush with her. She hasn’t been waiting for six months like - not six months, but she hasn’t been waiting for two months like these other organizations. So just say we got a new form, fill it out...

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Milton Mueller:     ...and we’ll handle it by email if it’s an easy one.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. I think that’s right. Did anyone else have any objection to that or any other suggestions?

 

Michael Carlson    No, I have a - well, we just got another application in, but it’s by the one who has an attorney representing the organization, so I’ll get that information.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. So you’ll need to fix that...

 

Michael Carlson    Right.

 

Robin Gross:         ...situation before it gets forwarded to the NCSG.

 

Michael Carlson    Right. So one quick question, what do we do about - I think we have about 15 other applications that we have yet to submit that we have and we didn’t know...

 

Robin Gross:         Well, let’s...

 

Michael Carlson    ...what to do with it. So what do we do with it?

 

Robin Gross:         Let’s get them submitted and, you know, we’ll just go through the same process that, you know...

 

Michael Carlson    Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         ...we (unintelligible).

 

Michael Carlson    That we agreed upon earlier?

 

Robin Gross:         Exactly.

 

Michael Carlson    All right.

 

Robin Gross:         And, you know, once - yes, so just - I’m going to have the form up. I’ve got Konstantino’s form already. He sent that to me. So I can have that up, you know, like within an hour and then when (Amber) has a form - I think the form she has now is just for NPOC membership so that doesn’t help us. She needs to redo it so it’s a joint form and then I can put that up as soon as she’s got that, as well.

 

                              That way these folks filling out, you know, forms that will not create these, you know, sort of misunderstandings and miscommunications in the future.

 

Michael Carlson    Okay.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay. So we did have a couple of things on our agenda, but we’ve already gone over time and I think, you know, we really dealt with the bulk, the important things this morning with this membership application procedures and the pending applications themselves.

 

                              So let’s just, you know, sort of put off to the mailing list the discussion of setting up the membership committees and the financial committees and our liaisons with the various SOs because I think that’s enough to do on the mailing list.

 

                              Any objections to that or you want to really want to stay on the line and keep plowing through?

 

Klaus Stoll:           If we try to do the finance committee, now I’m on.

 

Robin Gross:         You want to talk about the finance committee, is that what you’re saying?

 

Klaus Stoll:           Yes, any objections?

 

Robin Gross:         Any objections?

 

Michael Carlson    No. Not for me.

 

Robin Gross:         Okay.

 

Man:                      How much we take...

 

Robin Gross:         Great, well then...

 

Man:                      Robin? Robin?

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Man:                      What will we take? It’s already 2:30 a.m. here.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, okay. Okay. We have an objection and I am sympathetic to the...

 

Man:                      Not an objection. It’s (unintelligible).

 

Robin Gross:         Yes, let’s pick up on the mailing list because I think really it’s, you know, we just need to sort of...

 

Man:                      I will wait. It was not objection but just how long it will take.

 

Robin Gross:         I know.

 

Milton Mueller:     Oh, he just wants to know how long it would take. He didn’t say he objected.

 

Robin Gross:         Oh, oh. Well I don’t think very long at all. You know we’ve got the representatives appointed from the different constituencies. Milton was appointed from NCUC and (Klaus) was appointed from NPOC.

 

                              And so I think really what we just need to do is we need to build a larger committee of people volunteers who can help us with fundraising who can help us develop a fundraising plan, who can help us with budget allocations and resource allocations from ICANN getting things that we need in the budget for the next year or meetings that we need to have funded to the extent that ICANN is willing to support that.

 

                              So, you know, I think we really need to get that committee up and running and sort of with a work program and some goals and I think one way we should do that is by broadening it out and the way the charter says the financial committee is to be composed it’s to be the representatives from the constituencies but then we can also invite other people, as well, to participate.

 

                              And so I think we should take advantage of that and see if we can find some volunteers who have contacts in the fundraising space and some energy and some time and can really help us to build a much stronger and more financially sound NCSG.

 

                              So, you know, I’d kind of like us to sort of think about who do we know who are members of the NCSG that would be willing to join the membership - or excuse me, the financial committee and, you know, kind of work with us to build a fundraising plan and to get these kinds of budget allocations.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Yes, I think what we should do is to give ourselves a week or two to nominate people who we think are the right guys and discuss it and then after discuss them to get in touch with them and see if they’re really able to do it.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes.

 

Klaus Stoll:           I think it’s a very important task.

 

Robin Gross:         Yes. I think that sounds like definitely forward. And this committee will also elect a chair that will serve as the treasurer under the charter. Now, we - it doesn’t have to be a chair that’s, you know, sort of one of the full voting members, the official constituency representatives. It could be one of these people that we, you know, just invite on to serve as the treasurer.

 

                              So I like your idea that let’s just sort of think about who we want and nominate people and then we can have some discussion on the list. You know, I don’t think - I think the more - frankly, I think the more the merrier when it comes to skills, people with connections and contacts who are willing to put time and energy into fundraising for us.

 

                              So I think, you know, any and all suggestions will be welcomed. My own point of view, at least. I don’t know if anyone else has any other suggestions for a way forward on that.

 

                              Okay, great. So then we can now call this meeting to a close and I thank you all for going over especially and for your time and attention and going through these applications with me today.

 

                              And I will get back in touch with the various applicants and let them know the outcomes of our decisions and see you all on the mailing list where we can pick up our discussions together there.

 

                              So thank you very much.

 

Man:                      Thank you.

 

Klaus Stoll:           Thank you very much everybody.

 

Michael Carlson    Thank you.

 

Robin Gross:         Thanks. Bye-bye.

 

Michael Carlson    Bye-bye.

 

Milton Mueller:     Thank you for chairing Robin. Bye-bye.

 

 

END