Page History
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) DT
Sub Team B
TRANSCRIPTION
Thursday 15 April 2010 at 18:00 UTC
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of Registrar Accreditation
Agreement (RAA) drafting team Sub Team B meeting on Thursday 15 April 2010 at 18:00 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.
Present for the teleconference:
Steve Metalitz - IPC – Chair
Kristina Rosette – IPC
Tatyana Khramtsova – Registrar Stakeholder Group
Michele Neylon – Registrar Stakeholder Group
Statton Hammock - Registrar Stakeholder Group
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC chair
Shiva Muthusamy – At-Large
Philip Corwin - CBUC
ICANN Staff
Margie Milam
Marika Koning
Heidi Ullrich
Liz Gasster
Glen de Saint Géry
Absent apologies:
Tim Ruiz - Registrar Stakeholder Group
Elisa Cooper - Registrar Stakeholder Group
Woman: Is there anyone else having difficulty getting into Adobe Connect?
Coordinator: The recordings have been started.
Glen Desaintgery: Thank you (Carol). Good morning, good afternoon, good evening
everyone. This is the RR - this is the RAA B Drafting Team call.
On the call we have Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Shiva Muthusamy, Tatiana
Khramtsova, Michele Neylon, Steve Metalitz, Kristina Rosette, Statton
Hammock. And for staff we have Liz Gasster, Heidi Ullrich, Margie
Milam, Marika Konings and Glen Desaintgery.
Thank you. Steve over to you.
Steve Metalitz: Thank you very much Glen and thank you...
Glen Desaintgery: And we have - sorry. We have apologies from Tim Ruiz.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Thank you Glen. And thanks everyone. I circulated a proposed
agenda last - yesterday afternoon I guess. I don't know what time it
was for you, but anyway, a little while before the meeting. So I guess I
would ask if anybody has any additional items that they would like to
add to the agenda? If not, why don't we go ahead?
And first item on the agenda is to approve a revised timetable. We
obviously have slipped from our - the timetable we adopted back in
January or February. And so once we had this meeting scheduled, I
wanted to try to spell out what a revised timetable might look like that
would enable us to wrap up our work, if at all possible, before the
Brussels meeting.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 3
One thing I wasn't sure about, and perhaps someone on the staff can
advise me on this, I'm a little unclear on the deadline. How far prior to a
GNSO Council Meeting our draft report would have to be submitted in
order to be, even in theory, able to be acted on at that meeting? I'm not
sure this is totally determinative for us, because I'm not sure - I mean,
we obviously can't dictate the GNSO Council agenda.
But, for example, there is a meeting on June 10. And I'm not sure if
anyone - can anyone tell me when we would have to submit our report
in order for it to be right for action on June 10?
Liz Gasster: So it would be - this is Liz. It would be June 2, eight days in advance,
typically...
Steve Metalitz: Okay.
Liz Gasster: ...for it to be considered at a Council meeting. And then it - unless it’s a
Council meeting, you know, a face-to-face Council meeting, like the
Brussels meeting. And then there’s a 15-day requirement.
Steve Metalitz: So that’s - there’s 15 days for that. So assuming that there was a
Council meeting on June 23 in Brussels, which actually I didn't see that
even listed on the calendar. But assuming that’s the date, because it’s
the Wednesday of that...
Liz Gasster: Yes, I would assume so. All right. I doubt the calendar’s really
(unintelligible).
Steve Metalitz: Yes. So that’s 15 days in advance of that. So that will be June 8 right?
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 4
Liz Gasster: Right.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. So those, I guess, if you, you know, look on the bottom of the
right-hand column, those would be the target dates that we'd have to
shoot at – June 2 or June 8. So...
Liz Gasster: Steve, actually I should make one more point too. This is Liz again.
Just that typically the Council too will - like when you make a - turn in a
report, post a report, they'll take two Council meetings.
One Council meeting to discuss the report and discuss possible
responses or actions as a result of the report. And then hold it over to
the next Council meeting to actually act on it. That’s what the typical
process is used.
Steve Metalitz: Thank you for raising that. I - yes. I wasn't assuming that they would
act on it the first time it’s available. But that’s good to point out.
So where I have a May blank deadline. In fact, I think we’re looking at
either June 2 or June 8 as our deadline. That doesn't change this
timetable very much.
Let me just say that I think in order to meet this timetable we’re going
to have to go to weekly meetings, starting the 25th. I mean, if people
are prepared to meet next week, we could do that too.
But what I've got here is to have a meeting the week of the 25th. If
needed, have a meeting the week of May 2. I think that would probably
be needed. Have a meeting on May 9 - week of May 9. And probably
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 5
have a meeting the week of May 16. And, you know, we might have to
have yet another meeting.
But I don't think we've - we don't have a very good track record in this
group of accomplishing a great deal on the list, which is disappointing.
But I think that’s just kind of the reality. So I guess what I'd like to
suggest is if - is I'd like to open discussion on this timetable, but with
the expectation that probably we’re looking at weekly meetings starting
the week of April 25.
Michele has his hand up. Anybody else want to comment on the
timetable? Go ahead Michele.
Michele Neylon: It wasn't actually in relation to the timetable. It’s just there’s a few
people who are having issues getting into the Adobe. Well, I think that
they’re probably having the same problem I had with a call a few days
ago, where the system is saying the meeting has started and they can't
get in.
Steve Metalitz: Kristina is that the problem you're...
Kristina Rosette: No. I'm actually stuck on the screen before that. I don't even get that
far.
Statton Hammock: Yes. I'm in the same position Steve. Statton.
Marika Konings: This is Marika . You might have to clean the cache. So if you don’t use
Adobe Connect regularly, you need to clean the cache from time to
time to get it working again, because from this side it looks fine. And
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 6
we don’t see anyone wanting to go into the room. So you might want to
try that.
Kristina Rosette: All right.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Well yes. Again, this document was circulated yesterday so
you'll find it on the archive or in your inbox.
Okay. Any other comments on this? Or are people comfortable with
this and with moving to a weekly meeting? If we don't need it, we don't
have to. But if we - but plan to move to a weekly meeting schedule
starting April 25. Okay. I'll take that as a yes.
Well I'll tweak this to reflect the dates that the staff has given us, as far
as the deadlines.
Now another thing I'd like to raise in this regard, and the staff asked if
we could do this, is rather than set the meeting time ad hoc every
single week, which means that the staff has to launch a Doodle poll
and figure out what’s available and so forth.
Can we try on the next Doodle to come up with just have a set meeting
date and time for all of our subsequent meetings, or at least for the
next several subsequent meetings? I'll work out with the staff the best
way to do that.
But I think I agree with them. If we can say – all right, here’s our
meeting. If we can have our dates and times for the meetings for at
least the next several weeks all at once, that definitely saves
everybody time and energy. I know it makes it a little harder and
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 7
people may not be able to attend every single meeting, but let’s try - at
least try to do that when we set the date for our next meeting.
Any other comments on scheduling or timing? Okay.
((Crosstalk))
Steve Metalitz: Go ahead Marika .
Marika Konings: Sorry. Just at the moment, for those having issues, another thing you
might try is just using a different browser; that sometimes works as
well.
Steve Metalitz: All right. Thank you. Okay, well good luck folks on that. I'll try to point to
you if there’s any other way to look at these.
Actually, the next documents, I'm not sure if they’re up on the Adobe
anyway. But they’re basically are from the - our email archive, and so if
there’s questions, you can look at those.
I thought there was a - did - we did have some discussion over the last
couple of days about Task 2 and Task 3. Recognizing that we haven't
completed Task 1, because we have a document with something like
40-odd top priorities and that still needs to be done. We - I think we
need to resolve how we’re dealing with Task 2 and 3 if we can today,
or at least make some progress on that.
I sent around – again, just to remind everybody – what Task 2 and 3
are. Task 2 is from the list of topics. Flag any topics that may require
further analysis as to impact on consensus policy. That’s the task we
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 8
were given by the Council. And now I - we seem to have two or three
different views on how we should proceed on that.
Up till now, we've been trying to do Task 2 in tandem with Task 1. And
you'll see on the matrix there are a few items where we've noted – this
seems to be handled by consensus policy; this seems to be something
that’s being actively discussed by another working group, and it was
the PEDNR working group. So I think we flagged a few issues.
But now I see that Tim and Statton have suggested that in one
approach. And I think the staff in the memo that they sent around may
have suggested another approach. And then I put in a couple of
comments on a third approach. So let - why don't we just ask, you
know, let’s just review these and see what the different options are?
So Statton are you - can you tell us how you think we ought to handle
Task 2?
Statton Hammock: Well I've assist to supporting (Ken)’s proposal a couple days ago -
a day or so ago; that we let ICANN legal staff take a crack at this. Just
because I - it could take things off us having to go through it. Give it to
them. Give them a chance to do it. Apparently, they had done it in the
past as well and their input would be helpful.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. So your idea is that we wait until they do that before we
complete Task - in other words, we kind of subcontract Task 2 to the
staff?
Statton Hammock: I'm not saying we would have to stop work on what we’re doing. But
we would seek their input at this point in the process.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 9
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Margie, or someone else from the staff, would you like to kind of
walk us through this aspect of the memo that you circulated yesterday?
I mean, looking, really, at Point 3 of your memo, which I guess is on
the Agenda Page. Maybe you could let us know. Tell us what the staff
view is on who should be deciding whether an issue is more
appropriately addressed through policy development process than in
RAA.
Margie Milam: Sure. I can address that. The memo basically walks through the
requirements under the RAA. And we were just clarifying that, you
know, a couple aspects that I think there’s been maybe some
misunderstanding on, on some of the participants.
And what we were pointing out was that although the amendments can
touch upon consensus policy issues, the question really is, is it
appropriate, given the amount of work that we have and, you know,
and the length of the topics?
And so that the approach we took in the memo was to suggest that we
look at the amendment and, you know, and where it’s clarification of
language versus, you know, a new policy – this is just a - purely a
recommendation – that that would be the - where you draw the line.
You know? And understanding that the, you know, there is work
already underway in some PDP groups and some, you know,
something.
Like, for example, you know, domain warehousing or something. You
know? There’s no work absolutely, you know, being done right now on
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 10
that, and that could be a subject of, you know, consensus policy
development.
And so we were just clarifying that; that the way we view the contract,
you know, you can address consensus policy issues. But we think it’s
more appropriate where you’re talking about developing new policy to
go down the PDP path.
Steve Metalitz: And what I took away from your memo was also that you thought this
is something the drafting team should try to...
((Crosstalk))
Margie Milam: Yes, that’s right. I mean, I don't think that the legal department would
want to go item-by-item in that review. You know? That’s something
that - because the question is, you know, is it required? And they, you
know, it will just take them forever to get through that process.
And so I think it’s more appropriate to have it be worked on the in the
group, as opposed to seeking, you know, legal advice on it, because
the legal opinion up until this point is, you know, anything that’s been
consensus policy is - and it can be touched, but we just don't think it’s
appropriate. You know? And think it’s better handled through the
drafting team.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Thank you Margie. But let me just to round - kind of round out
the picture, kind of walk through some of my comments on this.
As I said in the first memo, I think we do have a pretty clear divergence
between Statton’s suggestion that the staff handle Task 2 or be - get
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 11
input on - provide input on Task 2, and Margie’s suggestion that the
drafting team try to do that, using the standard that - that’s in the staff
memo.
And then Statton had mentioned that this, you know, that the staff had
- the legal staff had weighed in on this question in the last go-round. So
I went - kind of went back and looked at the process as Margie had
sent around a memo earlier kind of outlining the process.
And I found this document that I think came out in - sometime in late
2007, in which the ICANN’s legal staff went through all of the
suggestions that had been made. They had a somewhat different
process, because they said, "A public comment period." They didn't
have a drafting team like we have.
But they went through all the suggestions and they classified them in
several categories. And one category was where they thought they
were either under discussion in context of the consensus policy
already, or otherwise, because of their nature, could/should be handled
through the consensus policy process. That’s a quote.
And I'm not trying to defend that standard, because it’s a little unclear
to me what that standard is. But it’s just interesting to note that of the
issues they identified then that they thought were better handled
through the consensus policy process, most of them are not in our list,
at least as far as I can see.
And again, I'd welcome any corrections to this list that I circulated – 14
items. And I think the majority of them aren't really in our matrix.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 12
Then there were a couple in our matrix that we've already had flagged
under Task 2 or we'd said something like – there’s PEDNR
involvement; and it should be low priority. I think that kind of translates
to the same thing, which is let’s not focus on this as an RAA
amendment. Let’s let the policy development process continue on this.
And then there were - and there’s really only one area where I think
where we might have to - for some discussion of something that I don't
think we've explicitly said is outside is something that has consensus
policy implications. But that the staff apparently did think it fell within
their standard in 2007. And that was, basically, requirements for
verifying the identity of registrants at the time of registration.
And there’s several different flavors of that, both in what was on the list
in 2007, and then what’s on our list. So that tells us two things, one, a
lot of people think that’s a good idea and think it should be in the RAA;
and second, the staff three years ago thought that was something that
was better handled through the policy development process.
So with that exception, I think - and that’s something we - I'd be
interested to talk about with. But I think otherwise, we've done a fairly
good job of - I think some of what we've concluded or tentatively
concluded about policy development process and consensus policies
is probably parallels what the staff would say, or at least what they said
three years ago. So I just that was - that might be helpful in this
discussion.
So those are three points of view that we have here – Statton's;
Margie’s on behalf of the staff; Statton on behalf of his support of
Tim's; and then my 2 cents worth for what that may be worth.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 13
So let me open the floor now. And I recognize that for some reason
people have difficulty getting into the Adobe room. So please just
speak up if you have a comment or question and would like to be in the
queue.
Statton Hammock: Steve it’s Statton. I have a question.
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: On our matrix that we have so far, do we mark things? You said we
had already marked some as being flagged for consensus policy. Do
we mark that in the notes, or the implementation, or the stakeholder
recommendations?
Steve Metalitz: If we mark it in the notes - so if you...
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: Because I looked through the notes. And I'm trying to find one
where say, for example, it is subject to - we believe subject to
consensus policy.
Steve Metalitz: Look at 2.2. A couple observations. And then question whether it is...
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: Question whether...
Steve Metalitz: ...a consensus policy, rather than through an RAA amendment.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 14
Statton Hammock: Okay. So that’s the language you use to flag a question. Okay.
Steve Metalitz: Well that’s not consistent throughout, but that’s one example. And then
as I mentioned, where we say, "The PENDR is looking at this and it’s a
low priority." I think - I don't think it’s a stretch to say that’s another
area where it may be - we don't think that should be at the center of the
table.
Statton Hammock: Yes.
Steve Metalitz: Again, we - as we've walked through this, I think every single time
when we went through a section we asked, "Did anybody think that
there were any - is anything here we should flag under Task 2?" And
clearly, if there is something you think we've failed to flag under Task
2, we welcome your input on that.
Did anybody else have a comment?
I had one question to - really to Margie about the memo and the
standard that’s suggested there. And I'm trying to figure out how this
would apply to the proposals that the staff has made, because unlike -
I guess first, one thing is different in our process this year is that we
have a lot of proposals that came from the staff, including the legal
staff, but a lot of others. There’s compliance staff and many others that
contribute to this. And I think it’s really been incredibly valuable to have
this.
So, you know, on - I'm looking at that Item 3.1. Malicious conduct –
registrar duty to investigate. So one proposal that the staff put forward
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 15
is, "Certain language in the RAA requiring registrars to investigate
within a time certain. Any report demonstrating harm from illegal,
malicious use of a domain received by the registrar from ICANN or
other credible sources." And it gives some examples.
And I just wondered if you, you know, your memo says that, "If there’s
a new policy position, rather than clarification of existing language or
obligations, maybe you should go through a PDP process." How would
you apply that test to Item 3.1?
Is that a new - this is - it looks like a new obligation that you’re talking
about for the RAA. Is that something that the staff is now
recommending ought to be taken off the table and diverted to the
policy development process?
Margie Milam: That’s a good question. I don't - I think that with regard with respect to
the malicious conduct issue, because it - a lot of our recommendations
came out of (unintelligible). But they (unintelligible) ahead in the new
(unintelligible) process. But that might, you know, be an area where,
you know, that rule may not necessarily apply.
I mean, we didn't go item-by-item and evaluate it in that way. You
know? But there’s certainly a reasonable, you know, question or
comment.
Statton Hammock: Yes Steve. This is Statton. I think that is - that’s a great example to
point out there. You know? It’s not so flagged as a consensus policy
issue. But I would flag it as such, you know, under the, you know, sort
of guideline of, you know, new policy.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 16
Steve Metalitz: Though you would, the staff isn't sure. And right, that’s helpful.
Well let me just ask if there are any other comments or views from
people on the call about this Task 2.
Okay. Well let me put - I'll give you my take on this. I mean, I think we
heard from Margie that it’s just not - it’s probably not practical just to
ask the legal staff to go through this point-by-point at this point in the
process.
I mean, if they - I don't know how long that would take, but it’s got to be
- it can't be - it seems like unlikely that we be able to maintain anything
like the timetable we've adopted if we did that now.
What I would suggest at, you know, of - I think there’s been a lot of
opportunities for people to flag these issues. But I'm happy to ask
people again on the list, to let us know if they see other top - topics that
they think, as Statton has said, for example, on 3.1; that they think
ought to be taken off the table or moved away from the center of the
table, if you want to put it that way, in RAA amendments. And instead,
divert it to the policy development process.
I mean, let’s get those views into the, you know, out on the table. And
then we can discuss, you know, whether we agree with (unintelligible)
which ones command a consensus.
I'll also say I think we've been a little vague about the - how we've
carried out Task 2 up till now. I think Statton’s question is certainly a
very legitimate one; that we've said, "Well maybe this is a, you know,
maybe this is a consensus policy issue on 2.2." You know?
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 17
Ultimately, if we think it is, we should say so. I mean, that’s not
determinative. But if we have a consensus on it, let’s just put it out
there as a declarative statement, rather than gee, maybe there’s a
question here. So let’s all be a little clearer about this.
But let me just ask everybody to go through this matrix over the next
week and identify any topics that they think should be taken out of the
mix of the RAA amendments, or flagged as presenting these issues as
in accordance with Task 2.
But I'm just not - I just don't think we can abandon Task 2 or turn it over
to the staff. The staff will definitely have the last word on this. I have no
doubt about that; that the legal staff, if, you know, they have plenty of
opportunities to intervene in this process. So I'd - I would just suggest
that we try to do it here and see if there’s - if there are some that we
can achieve consensus on.
Let me ask for any reactions or comments on that point or other views
on this kind of Question 2 - excuse me, Task 2.
Statton Hammock: Steve I have a - Statton. I have a question. If we do that exercise as
you suggest, then what? I mean, we, you know, conceivably will have,
you know, a number - as many as the number of people in this working
group provide their list of topics that they think we didn't properly
identify as being, you know, a consensus policy proposals at - when
we did a first task.
So after we get those divergent lists, then how do we - are we going to
attempt to reconcile the list and - or just, you know, we have a - now a
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 18
sort of second list of things that we, as members individually, have
come up with?
Steve Metalitz: Well I think until we see those lists, it’s hard to say that. We may find
those lists aren't so divergent. It may...
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: That’s true. That’s true.
Steve Metalitz: ...that most people will agree on certain things.
Statton Hammock: Sure.
Steve Metalitz: Say 2.2, where the first task this question was raised, I would probably
agree with that and say maybe that's, you know, a (unintelligible) policy
issue. I don't know.
But let’s see first if how much divergence there is. It may be we - all we
can say is we had divergent views on it and here’s what they were.
You know?
I think that the Council chose to word flag. It didn't - we’re not - what
we do in this process doesn't determine the issue. We’re just saying,
"Someone ought to look at this." You know? "We think this may be
better suited for the policy development process."
And if we can come to a consensus on some of those, great. If we
have divergent views, we just report our divergent views, I think. I
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 19
mean, I'm open to other suggestions on how to proceed on that,
certainly.
Okay. Then unless there’s anything else on Task 2, let’s talk, at least
briefly, about Task 3. We had just to review the bidding. We had a
straw man that I put forward that called for a negotiating group of - that
included ICANN staff, the registrars and representatives of effected
groups that were not parties to the contract. There was a strong
pushback against that.
And Tim from (unintelligible), who came forward another proposal that
we talked about last time. I don't - we had to - I think a good discussion
on that, but I'm not sure we updated that document to reflect that. But
basically, I think he was talking a - registrars and ICANN negotiating
this on their own, but reporting back periodically to a larger group. And
I know that had some support.
And then I proposed, in response to Tim’s latest proposal on this, was
something a little bit - I mean, I actually put forward two proposals.
One is that the group be constituted as I suggested, with the three - a
three-sided table if you will. But that there be the opportunity for ICANN
and the registrars – who are ultimately going to be the party signing
this contract – to have confidential sessions if they need to, where
confidential information is being discussed. And that there be some
procedure for them to step out of the room and do that and then come
back into the room.
Or another way that - another suggestion I put forward was that those -
that the ICANN - the registrars be the parties to the negotiation, but
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 20
that these other groups, other effected entities be granted observer
status in the negotiation. And we have a fair amount of experience and
rules about what observers can and can't do in GNSO processes
generally. And I'm not expert in that, but I know Council members are
probably quite familiar with this.
So those were two proposals that I made sort of as a counter to Tim’s
counter. So that kind of reviews where we are. And I will open the floor
for any comments, questions or propose - further proposals - different
proposals if people have them. They want to speak on this?
And again, please speak up if you’re not - whether you’re in the Adobe
or not, it’s probably easier just to speak up if you want to be heard;
want to get on the queue.
Statton Hammock: Steve this is Statton again. Did you just - did you say there was
precedent for having observers during the negotiation between two
contracted parties and the - within the ICANN...
((Crosstalk))
Steve Metalitz: Well...
Statton Hammock: ...process?
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: Because that strikes me as kind of funny to have - that that would
be the case. But I'm not - been involved in ICANN as long enough to
know if there’s - that’s ever occurred.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 21
Steve Metalitz: Yes. I don't think that is what I said. I said there’s a lot of precedent for
having observer status in a lot of GNSO processes. I didn't...
((Crosstalk))
Statton Hammock: Yes, right, okay.
Steve Metalitz: ...in the contract negotiation.
But, you know, I mean, I think just (unintelligible). Just earlier this
week, there was a rather hastily assembled call for ICANN and the
registries to talk about changes to the Draft Registry Agreement; that
would be that all new gTLD registry operators would be required to
sign. And ICANN was quite eager to have observers participating in
that. And they, you know, big outreach process.
In fact, they did that also with the consultation that was held in
Washington on January 7. So that - I mean, that - it’s not - no. That is
not a negotiation technically speaking. But in fact, I think it’s somewhat
equivalent to it. And that the goal was to come up with a contract that
ultimately two parties would sign.
And a lot of entities that were not anticipating being parties to that
agreement were invited into the room to give their views. So way I
think that that’s something of a precedent, but I agree. It’s not exactly
the same as...
Other comments or questions? I see Michele has his hand up in the
Adobe room. So Michele did you want to say something on this?
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 22
Michele Neylon: Well yes. I have to disagree with your comments there about the
registry discussions regarding the new TLDs. I mean, what’s currently
going on there is a lot to do with the entire new TLD project, which is -
yes. At the moment, it’s all kind of out there, up in the air a bit.
So it’s like kind of, you know, what we’re going to do in the situation, in
the future. I mean, it’s like with a vertical integration with all these other
things. I don't - I wouldn't see them as being parallels. I can understand
how somebody might wish to use them as a precedent, but I wouldn't
accept them as being a precedent.
If it was a case of renegotiating the contracts for existing registry
operators, for existing TLDs, but that would be a totally different kettle
of fish.
Steve Metalitz: So the distinction you’re drawing is that in this case there isn't a
relationship - I mean, since these are for the new TLDs, there is not a
relationship that...
Michele Neylon: Yes, exactly, because, I mean, for - well the thing is, theoretically
speaking, I could end up running a registry for new TLDs. You could
end up running a registry for new TLDs. I'm not saying that either of
one of us wants to. But it’s - at the moment, it’s all to play for. And God
only knows who is going to end up running registries.
And it’s not just a case - the registry contracts have in the new TLD
space, will also have a direct impact on the registrars and the
registrants. I mean, all three, plus ICANN and everybody else, that
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 23
entire - how that entire kind of ecosystem is going to develop and - is
up for debate and discussion at present.
Whereas, within the case of the existing contracts that may exist
between the registry operators and ICANN, or any contract that exists
between ICANN and the registrars, you’re talking about an existing
contract.
Kristina Rosette: Can I get in the queue Steve?
Steve Metalitz: Yes. Kristina did anybody else want to be in the queue at this point?
Go ahead Kristina.
Kristina Rosette: Just two points. And I understand the point that you’re trying to make
Michele. But I don't think it’s - the analogy is completely on point in the
sense that if ICANN were to renegotiate, let’s just say an existing
contract within an existing new gTLD, it would not be possible for an
entity that is currently a third party to kind of choose to become a party
to that agreement. It’s simply not possible.
That’s not the case, though, for the RAA. Any entity that potentially in
the future wants to become a registrar is going to be bound by that
agreement. I mean, theoretically, I could decided to become a
registrar.
But it’s a bigger point that I am concerned about – and I put this out in
an email earlier today – is that part of the reason we are where we are
right now is because a significant portion of ICANN community found
the process through which the 2009 RAA amendments were
completed to be objectionable and inconsistent with the
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 24
representations that were made as to inclusiveness and participation.
That’s why the CSG blocked the amendments the first time they came
up to a vote for Council.
The reason we ultimately decided to agree to them - and I can't speak
to the NTCN TSG, because I know that one of their issues was also
the Registrar Rights Charter, which Group A is working on.
But the only reason that we agreed to vote to approve them was
because it was our understanding that there would be – and it was the
intent that there would be developed for the next set of amendments –
a process that was different. And if this process is not going to be
different, we’re going to end up right back where we started. It will just
take longer.
Steve Metalitz: Thank you Kristina. Other comments? Or do people have other
thoughts on this topic?
I'll recognize myself while people are deciding whether they have
something else that they want to say.
I would just go back also Michele to your second point. I think these
negotiations and what emerges from them also affects the entire
ecosystem. Certainly, entities that don't - aren't registrars and don't
intend to become registrars have just as much stake in how these
come out, these - how this discussion comes out as entities that aren't
registries and don't intend to become new gTLD registries would have
in the discussion that just took place this week.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 25
I mean, and I'm - I feel confident I was not urged by ICANN staff to get
involved in that meeting and to that discussion because they thought I
was interested in applying to run a registry. Though, I'm not sure that
the - this is quite a sharp a distinction as you suggest.
Other comments on Task 3?
Is there - are there any react - I know that I - this was not circulated till
less than 24 hours ago, but I wonder if there’s any reaction to
proposals I made about observer status. I guess we've already - I've
already heard some reaction on that.
Or on the proposal; that it just be a three-sided table, but with two
sides able to leave the room when they need to and have a private
discussion.
Okay. Well let me ask the people to give their thoughts about this on
the list. I guess I would encourage Tim – who is not here – and Statton
- if you can pass this along to Tim – or Michele – who can pass it
along to Tim – let’s take his proposal and try to incorporate some of
the discussion we had last - in the last meeting.
In fact, I know - I wonder. Maybe the staff could do that, based on the
transcript of the last meeting. And try to flesh out Tim’s proposal a little
bit more. Is that something the staff could try to do?
Woman: Yes, Steve. I can do that.
Steve Metalitz: Thanks. And then let's, you know, we'll have to put that on the - back
on the agenda for our next meeting to have further discussion about
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 26
Task 3, I think, because obviously we haven't resolved anything even
on an interim basis here. But I appreciate everybody’s comments and
viewpoints on this. And let’s see if we can have further discussion on
the list as we often say.
Unless there’s anything else that people want to say on Task 3, I'd like
to talk, at least briefly, about our activities in Brussels. We’re aiming
here to finish our work before Brussels.
And we've already been asked whether we could take responsibility for
some type of workshop or program in Brussels to explain what we've
done; to walk through the list of topics, and give our - explain whatever
our views end up being on Task 2 and our views on Task 3 as again,
as a discussion forum.
And presumably, that would happen at the Brussels meeting before the
GNSO Council Meeting, so it would be before the Wednesday meeting
so that the Council would have the benefit of that discussion.
And this would be an open meeting as I understand it. You know?
Anybody who attends the Brussels meeting or is there by remote
participation could join.
So although we are far from completing our work, I don't think it’s too
early to be thinking about this. And I'd like to solicit anybody’s
suggestions for how we ought to structure that.
Or, I guess, I first ask the staff – am I on the right wavelength here, in
terms of this being a likely step? Assuming that we get our draft report
done before Brussels, wouldn't it be that we - that would make sense
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 27
for us to plan to - some type of workshop or similar public forum on this
topic?
((Crosstalk))
Margie Milam: Yes Steve.
Woman: Go ahead Margie.
Margie Milam: Oh, okay. Yes. I do think that that would be an appropriate step.
There’s a lot of interest in the amendments process. And I think that
will be a session that would be very well attended.
Steve Metalitz: Did someone else wanted to speak? I thought I heard somebody else.
Woman: Oh, that was Liz just jumping in when Margie answered the question.
Steve Metalitz: Okay.
Woman: And we just would want to plan a, you know, a room, and try to get a
good time and all of that challenge.
Steve Metalitz: Other comments on this?
I mean, I guess my - I'll be glad to say a little bit of what I've thought
about on this. And that is that we might, you know, most of our topics
here came from one of three or four sources. And we might think about
asking representatives of sources, if you will, to be part of this
presentation. And then, obviously, members of the drafting team as
well.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 28
IPC had a working group that made a number of suggestions. The law
enforcement group made a number of suggestions as we know. And
then the staff group made a number of suggestions. So those would be
three kind of obvious presenters on some of these topics. And then
others from the, you know, our group could certainly be (unintelligible)
and, you know...
You have to plan this much detail right now. But at least get the idea
on the table and to - and ask the staff to try to work with us to find the
best time and - date and time for this. Again, prior to the Council
meeting on Wednesday in Brussels, And see if we can move forward
from there.
I guess I - I'll ask this on the list as well, but maybe it’s useful just to
ask those on the call today, who’s planning to be in Brussels, and
therefore, a potential recruit to be part of our workshop once we...
I - my plan is to attend the Brussels meeting. I don't know if anybody
else knows yet whether they’re going to be there. Cheryl will be in
Brussels.
Woman: (Unintelligible).
Steve Metalitz: Yes. Do go ahead.
Woman: Well first, I'll be there.
But second, and I guess this is really a question for staff along with my
preference, in that I don't know that to what extent it would be
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 29
anticipated that whatever session we would have would cover both
Teams A and B. I, frankly, have no idea where Team A stands on its
work.
But my preference would be, frankly, to just limit it to this, simply
because there’s a lot of substance here. And there’s a lot of diverging
views. And I think it would be important to have as much time as the
schedule will permit to really allow people to talk, and discuss and
understand.
Margie Milam: Yes. I'm sure - yes. And this is Margie. Yes, I agree. This topic is going
to take a lot of time. And I don't think that there’s anything, you know,
pending that - from the other group that would necessitate it having
inclusion in the session. So I'm - I think that’s the - probably the right
approach.
Woman: All right. thanks.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Other thoughts on this topic? Michele has his hand up and I
assume it’s on this topic, so go ahead.
Michele Neylon: Just to confirm that I will be in Brussels, assuming that Iceland doesn't
explode in the mean time.
Woman: You could take a boat.
Michele Neylon: Okay. Let’s move on beyond that please. You do realize that both
Ireland and the U.K. are completely shut down. There was - there are
no planes in the skies.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 30
Woman: No, I know. That’s why I was suggesting you take a boat.
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: Yes. But I mean, I don't think - I think the boats will be a little bit in
demand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'm sorry Michele. I have images of you in a rowboat.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Floating for me, I'm sorry.
Michele Neylon: Oh, come on now Cheryl. You've seen me in a tux so...
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I know. I just saw the image of you in a tux and you were in
the rowboat (unintelligible).
Michele Neylon: Oh, God. What an image.
Steve Metalitz: Yes. I hope you’re wearing a life jacket anyway.
Michele Neylon: I think I've got my own buoyancy at this stage.
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Anything else on the Brussels topic?
Okay. The last item we have on our agenda is really just to mention
that we did receive and Glen circulated - I think there was three or four
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 31
letters from various groups – Interpol and the Octopus group – which I
- it sounds kind of menacing. And I think, I don't - we don’t want them
in our rowboat anyway.
And there were a couple of other’s letters that were supportive of the
law enforcement proposals. And I guess this is a follow on to the
statements in the GAC communiqué about the law enforcement
proposals. So, yes. I think there’s a letter from Interpol. A letter - a
message from the Octopus Conference, which is part of the Council of
Europe. And from the G8 Lyon-Roma Group High Tech Crime
Subgroup. So you all have those.
And I don't think there’s any action necessarily required. I think we
determined last - on our last call that these law enforcement proposals
are the same ones that we've been looking at throughout and had a
whole session on with Bobby Flaim from the FBI.
And so they’re definitely in the mix. And I don't know that we need to
do anything more. But just wanted to note for the record this very
strong statement of interest and support from these various
international groups - law enforcement groups on these proposals.
I don't know if anybody else has any additional thoughts on this. I see
Cheryl and Michele. Cheryl go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Steve. I think what it does do and what we should
know, that I agree. This is no particular action item to say to come out
of it. But having cabled those documents - and I think it’s very
important that, you know, it was very specific from the GAC’s point of
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 32
view that they do be passed on to us for our attentions and at least
note.
It is a mechanism of bringing considerable warning to us. And
(unintelligible) knows that the (EGAC) is highly interested in the
particular aspects of the work we’re doing. And to that end, it probably
a very good idea to get presences from that particular part of the
spectrum in the Brussels presentations as well.
Steve Metalitz: Excellent suggestion. Michele?
Michele Neylon: Yes. The thing that I've - the thing, I suppose, that concerns me as
small this is, but unless I'm misreading things, the documents that have
been circulated are identical to the ones that we discussed previously.
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: So I supposed what concerns me there is that although we discussed
our concerns and tried to understand what exactly they were looking
for, and as opposed to what they were asking for, which is they’re all
the same thing. It - they seem to have just kind of shoved that out there
without making any changes whatsoever and that does concern me.
And as well as what some of you know, coming from a country which
doesn't have the GAC representative or any other representative, I feel
a little bit powerless.
Steve Metalitz: Cheryl did you...
((Crosstalk))
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 33
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks. I was writing. I thought Michele might pick up a point
that I realized I'd dropped before I passed the microphone on. And I
certainly hear what Michele says. But I did want to mention, of course,
whilst I understand this may be a gathering of the troops and trooping
of the color exercise on the issue by GAC to defend that. And that’s
fine too. Let’s have a game just implied.
What is important is that we did have that meeting with Bobby. And
there were particular action items and closing of loop issues. There
was a whole bunch of things that he said, "Oh, thank you for that
perspective. We will now take that into consideration. And we will get
back to you on this."
So we actually go back and close that loop. We need to revisit that
whole area of discussion, because it was a dialog where both aspects
of a regional points of view shifted. And there was an undertaking for
us to have further input from them. I think we need to make that
happen.
Michele Neylon: Just coming back on that, if you don't mind. I mean, the thing from my
perspective was, you know, if I felt that the conversation we'd had with
Bobby was very, very productive. And that - and I felt a hell of a lot
more comfortable after that.
And then when you see these documents coming out months later,
with absolutely no change, no consideration, nothing further on
anything that we had discussed with him, it’s quite depressing. I mean,
I could come up with a special word, but I think I'll just stick with
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 34
depressing. And you've got to think to yourself, you know, "What is the
point?"
I'm bashing, you know, we’re trying to understand what it is that they’re
trying to achieve, seeing how best to do so in a manner that works for
everybody. But then throw this thing out. And well, it’s not particularly
encouraging.
Steve Metalitz: We have comments on this?
Margie Milam: Yes. Steve it’s Margie. After we had the call with Bobby Flaim and, you
know, we can look all that after that, I actually went back, read the
transcript, and updated our notes to include some of the areas where
he made some concessions on. You know? Where their proposals
might, you know, vary. So I know that the latest version of the
document we have, you know, includes some of that information.
I actually did not see a document like - that explains their current
position. It just seemed to be a high-level, you know, description of
what they were looking for. But it’s possible I missed it.
The only detail that I was aware of was the documents that were
shared by Bobby early on, you know, in where ever October of last
year. So Michele or anyone else, if you've actually more detail, please
forward it. And I'll, you know, take a look at it.
Steve Metalitz: I think we've confirmed that there is no additional document. We talked
about that last time. There isn't a new document. At least that’s what I
was told by Bobby and...
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 35
Margie Milam: Yes. And I was told the same thing. So that’s why I felt pretty
comfortable that our spreadsheet, you know, included some of those
concessions. And I think, you know, and I wasn't going to pull it up right
now, but I know that I revised it to incorporate some of that; the
discussion that we had.
Steve Metalitz: All right. Well, you know, the ball is kind of in our court in this sense;
that I think when we get our revised version of the matrix, I think it will
reflect some of the - hopefully, it will reflect a lot of this. The discussion
with Bobby and other input so...
Part of this is a communications gap that probably some of the people
sending these letters aren't aware of what we've been doing. Even
though the matrix has been on publicly archived, mailing list isn't
exactly, you know, prominent so that...
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not front rage - it’s not front-page reading for the majority
of the world, surprisingly enough.
Steve Metalitz: So they really - and they'd just be unaware of this. But I think - I guess
- I think our best way of taking this view onboard is to move as quickly
as we can to finalize our document - or our draft document and get that
out there. And get the actions of the law enforcement people, as well
as everybody else.
And also as Cheryl has suggested, if - assuming we have a workshop
in Brussels, let’s get law enforcement input as well.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 36
And I see Cheryl and Michele have their hands up. Was this - is this
something...
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no. We both put them up again. But I'm going to cede to
the depressed Michele, because I need to support my depressed
colleague. So you’re first now Michele. Go ahead.
Michele Neylon: Oh, thank you Cheryl. But I think the thing Steve, I think you’re being
very generous to them about this, because the - whether the
documents that they’re using for the basis of all this has changed or
not, wasn't what concerned me most in the last few weeks.
I mean, some members of law enforcement were speaking of various
events across Europe. And they made references to various things that
were in that document. And the things that we had discussed with
Bobby that, you know, could be - I'm not talk - looking in case of her
toning it down. But let’s just say modify it in such a manner that you
would end up...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: Yes. We’re looking at breaking the Internet.
But if the fear I have with some of the stuff that’s - that law
enforcement are trying to push is that you'd end up in a - you could end
up in a situation where, sure, you might not have any bad guys, but
you wouldn’t have any space for any good guys either. And that’s
something which does concern me a lot.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 37
And I don't believe that to - it would be going easy on them will actually
help us in any regard. And obviously, since I'm not a shy little
wallflower, I'm more than happy to take that up with them myself.
Plus, I think it would be useful for us as a group to formally go back to
law enforcement and say – look guys, you know, you had this
conversation with us; we have notes; we have transcripts of the
conversation you had with us. Have you changed, modified, taken
onboard, done anything with anything that was discussed, or are you
going to blindly continue down this route as if you never actually had
the conversation with us in the first place?
Steve Metalitz: Well Michele, I guess what I would suggest is that if you think we need
to respond more formally than we have, I'd invite you to draft
something, and put circulated on the list and let’s respond.
Kristina Rosette: Can I get in the queue after Cheryl please Steve?
Steve Metalitz: You can. But as I indicated, I have a hard stop now so I'm going to...
((Crosstalk))
Kristina Rosette: Okay.
Steve Metalitz: ...off here. I'm going to pass the gavel, if I can, to Margie. Margie are
you in the position to Chair the rest of the meeting?
Margie Milam: Yes, that’s fine.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 38
Steve Metalitz: Okay. Thanks everybody.
((Crosstalk))
Woman: Bye Steve.
Woman: Thank you.
Margie Milam: Okay. Go ahead Kristina.
Kristina Rosette: No, no, no. Cheryl go ahead.
Margie Milam: Oh, Cheryl. Sorry.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, we’re easily confused aren't we? Thanks Margie.
Look, I just think that what we should be doing is (unintelligible)
particular issue into an opportunity. I (unintelligible) see it. It’s a good
point for us to revisit our discussions, and conversations, and our
perceived perceptions and assumptions we made when we met body -
Bobby. And I'm sure, whether we'll have a hell of a lot of time to do that
and do the other body of work between now and Brussels.
So I was going to propose that not only in Brussels should we be
looking at the particular - with particular granularity at most of the work
we had - we are doing. And hopefully, our report by then. And digging
in a public format way to - with granted - granularity to - with the whole
set of issues.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 39
But it might be quite appropriate to have because of GAC’s interest,
and people having a mismatch on GAC reactions about oh, this all
sounds very good because it keeps us safe. And besides, law
enforcement thought it was a good idea type responses, to thinking
more deeply about – yes, but at what cost; and how is it going to
actually work?
These are sorts of questions which are very, very fruitful to explore in a
panel or hypothetical situation. So we might actually look at two
proposals.
One, the straight workshop system that we discussed earlier. But I
wouldn't mind putting on the table a possibility so it does involve GAC.
It does involve proponents from industry.
And so if like Michele’s happy if he gets his rowboat there to sit at the
table and do this, to have this whole frank and serious discussion in a
public forum, even if it’s in a little mini hypothetical or shortish sort of
panel.
It would satisfy community interest and needs. It would help raise the
skill set and knowledge of us all. It would be very accountable and very
transparent. And I think it would get a big kick from the nervous Nellies
in parts of the GAC.
Margie Milam: Kristina were you next in the queue?
Kristina Rosette: I believe I was. I think that is an excellent suggestion Cheryl; which
suggests to me that at a minimum, I guess we’re looking at probably
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 40
Monday afternoon in a practical manner, because I think, you know,
the GAC folks don't really start working until Sunday and...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I agree. And if you don't think that GAC is interested in, they
wanted Monday afternoon. And I'm happy to bring it forward in the
Joint (FLAC) Chair’s forum for that reason. If it were...
((Crosstalk))
Kristina Rosette: Well, and quite frankly...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: ...if the workgroup wants it.
Kristina Rosette: Well and I speaking personally, would shed no tears if the - replaced
the - that kind of joint (ARAC) - the ACFO thingy that (unintelligible).
But I do think that’s an excellent idea.
I guess the only other question that I would have is, you know, I had -
have kind of been trying to figure out exactly what - when are we going
to be done? And whether the expectation of those of us in the group is
that once we have presented our report to the Council, we have the
session, is the expectation that the Council then picks it up, or that we
would go back?
Only because just looking at the original resolution, we’re coming close
to being at a year behind.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I know it’s recorded, but can I just say shit happens? Be
there.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 41
Kristina Rosette: Well I know but I guess I would personally like to keep it at, you know,
a year or less, other than more.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I'll just lead back to my previous comment.
Woman: So yes. And if I could follow up on that. I mean, you know, that you talk
about sending it to the GNSO Council. But, you know, we also may
want to open a public comment period on this as well. So, you know,
that extends your time period as well if that were - be one of the steps
undertaken.
Margie Milam: Michele you have a question?
Michele Neylon: Well two things. First off, I would very strongly support Cheryl’s
suggestion. I think that would - I think, you know, I think getting - if you
can get law enforcement’s GAC ties and other interested parties from
industry, whatever, in the same room, to have an open and frank
discussion, debate, argument, whatever. Then I think that would help a
lot, because I personally feel that a lot of these - a lot of the people
within politics are easily swayed by the what-are-the-poor-children type
arguments.
I mean, we've already seen this...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: We've already seen this happen in Europe with the data retention
directive. And if you’re not familiar with it, I mean, it’s - it would be - I -
the spirit of it was - is not apparent. The spirit of it is fantastic and
commendable. The reality is that it puts an enormous burden on a
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 42
whole range of entities. It actually doesn't solve the problem that we’re
trying to resolve in the first instance.
So the entire thing is like rice. You've got the thing for, you know,
looking after the poor children. Of course - and that's, of course, the
Catholic church is involved. And then you...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: ...can forget that. It’s another (unintelligible). So anyway the other...
((Crosstalk))
Woman: Oh, my. How we going to keep...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: ...with regards to timelines and everything else, while I appreciate that
people would like to get things done quickly - I can't remember which
working group that was in.
But, I mean, I think we’re better off doing is doing a properly rather
than quickly, because ultimately, if you want to make significant
changes which are meant to improve things, then you’re better off
doing is doing this in such a manner that you don't have to revisit again
- revisit it again as soon as you've managed the gas.
Sixty or 70% of the markers - the market I signed up. By the market, I
mean, as in registrar controlling add back percentage of the markets,
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 43
which I think in some respects is what happened with the last
amendment.
But no sooner had it been agreed on, then people were unhappy and
wanted to go back on us. So rather than that ending up in this kind of
ridiculous cycle where you go through an entire RAA revision cycle.
You eventually manage to get something out the door. And then
almost immediately, you have to start all over again, which I think is a
little bit silly.
So, you know, that’s just my personal take on it.
Kristina Rosette: Oh, no, no. And just, you know, to the extent that anyone thought I was
saying, you know, we maybe get it done quickly if they had
(unintelligible) right. That wasn't at all what I intended to say.
And I guess I had a follow-up question for you Michele.
Michele Neylon: Sure.
Kristina Rosette: I have no idea what you’re talking about when you’re referring to these
more recent law enforcement statements. Are there transcripts or
report anywhere?
Michele Neylon: There’s been a bunch. I monitor a lot of key words, both on Twitter and
Google, so I see a lot of the - these articles appearing.
There was a law enforcement meeting in the U.K., I think, within the
last month or so. And just the - what was being reported in a lot of the
kind of the press was kind of - seemed to me to be almost verbatim.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 44
Like sections pulled from the documents that we've seen. And it be -
and various people within law enforcement.
I mean, some of them would have been kind of unknown entities. But
others are known entities. They’re the kind of people that I'll end up
bargaining with at the DNS abuse forums; those kind of people. Oh,
they’re great guys. Don’t get me wrong.
Plus, you know, it was - I can probably - I'll see if I can dig something
out. A few links. But with - there are several ones mainly in the U.K.
press that I saw this stuff appearing. I think, you know, the likes of say
Guardian Technology, BBC Technology and Computer whatever the
hell it is; a few of those ones. I think U.K. ones.
Kristina Rosette: Okay.
Michele Neylon: I don't think I saw any on the register. But it was mainly in those ones.
If I get a chance, I'll see if I can dig you out something.
Kristina Rosette: That would be great.
Michele Neylon: I think there was some meeting or other within the last month or so and
this sparked off this entire thing. So it was like kind of out of nowhere. It
was like suddenly, boom, law enforcement, you know, flexing their
muscles.
And the way they were doing it is as a - it just - it gave me the distinct
impression - okay, obviously, I'm going to be slightly more sensitive to
it than somebody who isn't a registrar - or who is - or who doesn't get
all the stuff from (Eurispa). And, yes, I just kind of went, "Oh, hold on a
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 45
second. You know? What the hell is this about?" This is like kind of,
you know, that entire dialog never happened.
Kristina Rosette: Yes.
Michele Neylon: And - or some of the side conversations I've had with law enforcement
on various events over the last couple of years, because I deal with the
- with some of these - well I don't deal with them. I bump into them at
other events in Europe.
So I don't know. It’s just - it does more - it just concerns me that you
would end up with a similar type scenario as is at - what happened with
the data retention directives in Europe. And which if you’re not familiar
with them, you know, it was a kind of - you've got an EU-wide directive,
which has one body of text but, of course, totally ignores the technical
implementation of it.
And then you have each member state going off and implementing it in
its own way.
And the variance in the implementation is scary. It varies from 6
months to 2 years. And it doesn't actually solve the problem, because
they’re talking about retaining certain logs. But they’re also talking
about not changing a whole load of other things.
So you end up in this ridiculous situation where somebody’s able to go
back to the constituents and go, "But look what we've done. Aren't we
great? Aren't we wonderful?" Pat on back. And all the ISPs and
everything else are going, "Oh, my God. The only people who are
going to gain from this are people who make hard drives and mass
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 46
storage arrays." Because we’re going to end up having to store this
data for a stupid amount of time.
And by the way, nobody’s actually worked out how on earth you’re
going to be able to extract the data from the logs. And if you ever - and
if you...
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Stop bringing (unintelligible) into the issue Michele. You
know that doesn't work in politics.
Michele Neylon: Oh, here. I'll give you one little story that’s - I'll keep this brief.
About a year ago we were contacted by the Irish police to help in an
investigation of some kind of serious crime or other, which involved
something to do with some Web site that we hosted.
We host thousands of Web sites. And to be perfectly honest, I have no
idea what we host and I'm keeping it that way.
And they sent down two guys from Dublin. Now we’re an hour and a
half drive from. So they sent two guys down in a car. So they - at the
time for them to come down, they came into our offices, introduced
themselves and then disappeared for lunch. Came back again.
And then had to spend like two hours with one of my technical staff
trying to - so my technical staff were actually explaining to them what
the hell they were looking at, because it wasn't simply a case of them
collecting the logs. They didn't even know what they were looking at.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 47
Then you give them the log file and go, "Here. Here’s the log file." And
they’re scratching their heads going, you know, "What is that?"
So you’re going to have to go off and teach them TCP/IP, and basic
HTTP codes and, you know, various other things. I mean, the entire
thing was just ridiculous. But, you know, that’s the fun part of us. You
know? Fun and games. Fun and games.
((Crosstalk))
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It sounds like we need to market - if I may. Sorry. I didn't put
my hand up. (Unintelligible) hidey-pidey demanding of me for my next
meeting. She’s trying to get (unintelligible) to set up for two hours time.
Difficult to work. They send me nasties occasionally. No it’s not.
Look, I think what we do need to do is post to the list the concept of a
two-prong approach, a traditional workshop, which I think should if at
all happen before the all-singing, all-dancing, more exciting for the
public, and press and everything else, topic of the law enforcement
needs.
And so I think we need to look at scheduling and timing, in fact, very
carefully; that I'm happy to take it forward, you know, at the (Croft)
chairing level, which does have mandated influence on time tabling, as
some of the staff will know quite frankly. Time tabling at these
meetings to get a good in view on the mandate, if that is the feeling of
the wider workgroup. But I would need to know that relatively fast.
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 48
So if we could get some feedback from the list and some others.
Clearly, Michele and I and those that’s on the call think it’s a good idea.
But there’s more to be considered than just us.
Margie Milam: Okay Cheryl. I will - I'll send a note to the list and we'll solicit additional
input on that. But I appreciate your volunteering to push that Board, if
that’s where the working group ends up...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No. I'm more than happy to volunteer. I'll moderate. I'll do a
song and dance routine. I'm very, very keen on getting this one sorted.
Margie Milam: Great. Well...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: I appreciate that Cheryl.
Margie Milam: Oh. So now we’re about 15 past the hour. Should we go ahead and
close the call. Or is there’s anyone that wants to make final comments
before we sign off.
Woman: No.
Margie Milam: Okay. Well thank you everybody for...
((Crosstalk))
Michele Neylon: Cheryl...
((Crosstalk))
ICANN
Moderator: Glen Desaintgery
04-15-10/1:00 pm CT
Confirmation # 7210047
Page 49
Michele Neylon: ...please call me. Oh, my God.
Margie Milam: All right. Everyone have a good week. Bye.
Woman: Bye.
Woman: Good-bye.
Woman: Good-bye. Thank you.
Woman: Bye.
Michele Neylon: All right. Bye. Bye-bye.
END
