World Wide Alliance of Top Level Domain-names

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montréal

ccTLD ICANN Meetings in Montréal, Canada, 22-25 June 2003

1. Agenda: 20030622.Montreal-agenda.html
2. Documents: 20030622.Montreal-documents.html
3. Summary: 20030622.Montreal-summary.html
4. Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-communique.html
5. AFTLD Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-AFTLD-communique.html
6. LACTLD Communiqué: 20030625.ccTLDmontreal-LACTLD-communique.html

Day 1 : Sunday, 22 June 2003

ICANN SCHEDULE
*       Governmental Advisory Committee Meeting (09:30 - 18:00)
*       Discussion with ICANN Board (14:00 - 16:00)

09:00 - 09:30 Opening session by Bernard Turcotte and Maureen Cuberrley. Review Agenda for CC meetings for next days

09:30 - 10:30 (Private CC) Presentation and review of new ICANN bylaws relative to ccNSO (session leader: Peter Dengate Trush, presentations by Chris Disspain and Bart Boswinkel)

10:30 - 11:00 Morning break

11:00 - 12:30 Discussion of new ICANN bylaws cont'd (session leader: Peter Dengate Trush)

09:30 - 10:30 (Private CC) Presentation and review of new ICANN bylaws relative to ccNSO (session leader: Peter Dengate Trush, presentations by Chris Disspain and Bart Boswinkel)

PDT Presentation

• - ERC Bylaws available
• - ICANN Reform history discussed
• - Each ccTLD operated under its national law and jurisdiction
• - E. Porteneuve Presentation: Rich world of ccTLD: Various business models, diversity of the ccTLD community
• - Peter de Blanc: Credibility and Balance - ICANN needs ccTLD to provide credibility, US centric. Without ccTLD organization, ICANN will pick on each ccTLD, Top-down. It should be bottom-up.
• - Montevideo: representatives of 60 country code managers met in Montevideo, Uruguay on Sept. 6 and 7.
• - Montevideo: Principles of an SO discussed. Regional organizations having a role. Council should have 3 members.
• - ICANN Reform paper: Feb., 2002, Stuart Lynn paper
• - Feb. 2002, 2nd draft application to form a ccSO posted
• - Bucharest: Blueprint
• - Bucharest: ccSO plan from ccTLD (council)
• - Current status of ICANN diagram
• - ERC Proposal
• - Sept. 18, ERC announces ccAG
• - Series of ccAG report
• - 28 January Structure
• - 24 Feb. APTLD's AGM response to AG
• - March, Rio - formal response
• - 22 April ERC recommendation, series of responses

* APTLD Response *

• - " work should begin on implementation.."
• - no Nom Com appointments to Council
• - deferral suggested until more cctld delegates on Nom Com
• - Exemption unless 66% council opposes
• - Separation of SO membership from IANA services
• - Launch group should be geo-diverse cctld appointments

* CENTR *

• - scope needs further definition
• - process must be "bottom up"
• - board cannot make policy
• - endorsing the Rio Resolution: 40, not 20 members
• - joining process - no letter of intent needed
• - no rules as to quorum
• - assertion of exemption, not request
• - one nom com delegate not enough
• - no PDP on issues outside the scope

* GAC *

• - general approval
• - clarity required for the scope
• - scope must be limited to stability issues
• - delegation/redelegation is a question for national governments to decide, according to law
• - SO staff should not be ICANN employees
• - no commitment to global policy

* ERC response on May 30

• - Series of responses from APTLD, CENTR
• - June 13, published

* ICANN Bylaws

• - 1. Mission: "coordinate"
• - 2. Core Values
• - 3. Council
• - Removal for non attendance
• - manage annual meeting and PDP
• - elect 2 members to the ICANN board

* ICANN Bylaws - ccNSO

• - Not less than 4 open meetings each year, including an Annual Meeting
• - membership application: recognize the role of the ccNSO, rules, abide by policies, pay membership fees, can resign
• - Access to or registration in the IANA database is not conditional on membership of the ccNSO
• - Membership of the SO is independent of any contractual relationship between a cctld and ICANN
• - Members are in the "Geographic Regions" defined in ICANN bylaws
• - Managers can appoint a person, organisation of entity of represent them in the SO

* Framework is a written delineation of the matrix

• - Policy Role
• - Executive Role
• - Accountability
• - NSF: policy role lies with the ccNSO, executive role with the cctld managers, accountability to ICANN, IANA
• - Structure of ERC recommendation is similar to the original ccTLD proposal
• - PDP: if within "scope," Board cannot amend

* What has been achieved?

• - an SO cctlds
• - with a structure substantially similar to that proposed by the ccTLDs

* Possible Timetable

• - Board adopts bylaws next week
• - Week 10-12 membership applications reach 30 members, 4 per region
• - Week 15-17 Council elections
• - Week 18 First Council meets in Tunisia
• - ccLG disbands

* Likely Early Work

• - rules for changing cctld managers
• - and others: IANA database

* What issues remain which prevent cctlds joining the SO?

• - The 3 Nom Com appointments?
• - Options include: (1) oppose appointments, (2) defer until cctld has 3 delegates on the nom com (3) accept
• - There is no defined scope to the power of the SO.
• - Options include: (1) limit the scope specifically (2) enlarge the scope (3) allow the board, in a first PDP to define scope
• - Geographic regions?
• - 40 members, not 30?
• - 66% vote in every region, not simply 66% of votes cast
• - Quorum?
• - No PDP on issues
• - Open enough access
• - role of managers in "contested" management?
• - no undertaking to abide policies on signing up
• - Negotiate some or all of the preceding as preconditions to sign up?
• - What is the effect of new Board members?
• - Effect of the ITU... WSIS?
• - Sign up now, and hope to make changes from the inside? will amendment be possible?

* Final comments...:

Comments

• Sabine Dolderer: We should talk about what we're going to get from this process. What are our benefits?

• Hilde Thunem: If we go through the bylaws, this is going to be a long process. I have many issues, esp. with things like the PDP.
  • - Scope: problematic because it is not defined. Scope is too open.
  • - If the General Council says that it is not within the scope, the board may ignore it. It's unacceptable unless we have something that says that all kinds of decisions that affect cctld managers must depend on cctlds.

• Chris: The board can only make policy if it is within the scope of the ccNSO. If it is not, the board cannot make policy.

• PDT: This is only binding only if you have a contract with ICANN.

• Hild Thunem: Quorum. Nom com. are also issues. Circular appointments by the nom com to the council and then council appointing nom com. Also fee issues.

• Bernard Turcott: ERC was not trying to overstep. The idea was to allow the ccNSO to fill in many of the open issues. Thresholds, etc. The answer lies within ourselves.

• Hilde Thunam: I would like for us to be able to discuss these issues. Can't we ask for something and get it? e.g., threshold of 40, not 30?

• Paul Kane: I would like to support Hilde's comments. Clarification of Peter's presentation. Peter said that if we wanted to change the PDP, we would have to have the approval of the board. The problem is timing. The potential of the board to ratify this process at this meeting exists. And then the board disappears. It's probably better to be able to talk to the new board. We're just about where we need to be. I would like to encourage the new board to delay the final decision until we

• Chris Disspain: Difficulties in delaying this process. The ERC will stop functioning after this meeting. We won't be able to discuss reform.

• Sabine: We only got the explanation fairly recently. I think it is a pity that we don't have enough time to discuss this. Support Paul's comments and Hilde's comments.

• Chris Disspain: The recommendations in the Bylaws have been out there for the past 6 months. If there are a few changes, they reflect mostly what we've been asking for.

• Sabine: I don't have time to go through my usual consultation process of consulting my lawer, etc.

• Oscar Robles: I think we need to be efficient. LACTLD has no official position, but my personal opinion is that the place to talk about further amendments is within ICANN.

Break for Coffee

Comments Continued

• Elizabeth Porteneuve: ICANN funding is outside PDP. If funding of the IANA function is outside the PDP, it may prevent cc's signing contracts. Some may want service level contracts.

• Bill Semich(.nu): My concern is that the cc council has an even number. Need an odd number to break the tie. Currently, the board has 2 cc members, and 8 nom com, and 4 outside SOs. Karl Auerbach and Andy's previous experiences as board members shows us what happens when two people are significantly in disagreement with the rest. They become silent opinions. We need a super-majority on the decision of issues.

• Paul Kane: I suggested that it might be prudent to delay the process, about two months. There are many other parties out there that are increasingly taking an interest in internet. If the ccNSO is not inclusive, if it is not presented in a way that would be satisfactory, the cc's could side with them and it would kill the ccNSO that we're trying to create. We should talk to the new board before signing in.

Chris Disspain Presentation

• - Review of the PDP

Comments

• Peter Dengate-Thrush: Changed my mind about the 66%. Don't think that 34% of a region to be able to block would be a good idea. We should be cautious.

• Sabine Dolderer: I think it is a wise proposal to have the majority in each region. If one region doesn't want it. It is possible to come up with a 66% vote, if you combine 2 regions. I don't think it is wise to introduce binding policies that can bind the two largest regions, composing 70%. If you are going to introduce binding policies, you need a majority in all regions, not a majority of combined regions.

• Jimmy(?): Maybe you can have a compromise, saying that one region may block with a 66% super-majority only.

• Harald Alvastrand: One region being able to block something is not intriguing.

• Paul Kane: The concept of policy by its very nature is restricting. The concept of policy building is by it nature is conflicting. If it's a best practice, the ccTLDs are free to adopt the best practice. I would propose that we keep it as is, rather than making changes. I don't think that one region, if it doesn't want a policy, should be able to reject the policy, rather than for other regions to enforce the policy on them.

• Hilde Thunem: I want the quorum in the PDP, at the member's vote. A quorum should be the one in the Rio resolution.

• Peter DT: The reason why the APTLD has changed its mind about quorum. A quorum is designed to make rapid questions. If we don't have a quorum, the process will be laid out over months, enabling sufficient discussions.

• Sabine Dolderer: This is not a country where you can't decide if you want to become part of. This is an organization that would have binding rules.

• Bart Boswinkle: Discussed members vote issue.

Bart Boswinkle Presentation

• - Discussed the scope of the ccNSO
• - We left the scope open on purpose
• - We didn't list the issues that are within the scope on purpose.

Comments

• Stephen: This means that if we join the ccNSO now, we don't know what the scope is going to be. We are back to square 1. We are saying the same thing

• Peter DT: This is the question that we have been asking the past year.

• Chris Disspain: What is the difference between all of in this room, saying what the scope should be as a ccTLD, vs. as a ccNSO.

• Stephen: The difference would be that we would be binded by the recommendations if we make it as a ccNSO. The problem is that as long as the scope has not been defined, we don't know what kind of decisions we will be bound by at the end of the day. The cc's will stay out until the scope has been clearly defined. DENIC won't join unless we know what the scope is going to be.

• Chris Disspain: What's the difference between joining, developing, and leaving if you don't like it vs. not joining before you have it developen unless you don't like it?

• Hilde Thunem: It is a good thing that the cc's will be making the policies. As long as there is no scope, it doesn't matter if it is the other ccTLDs making policies or if it is ICANN making the policies. I don't want to join an organization that can make binding policies that would infringe on my LIC. We have a previous guideline as to the scope of

• Tom Barrett: Representing a cc that is going through a redelegation with ICANN. I'd like to echo the concern that has been voiced so far, and would like to offer a different approach. Would like to the UN example. Even if the UN comes up with a resolution, each country has to go back and ask their local community

• Willie Black: I'm totally behind Hilde, Sabine and other colleagues from Europe. We have no idea what benefits are, what the costs are, etc. I have a board of directors that I have to persuade. So far, I haven't been persuaded.

• Peter DT: Would like to bring up a point that E. Porteneuve made. I also suggest that we include a ccTLD funding of ICANN. As of now, we don't have control of the ccTLD contribution to ICANN. We should think about including the issue of funding ICANN within the scope of PDP. We need to have control over our funding. As of moment, the debate is outside our organization, and decided outside our council. I can't sign a contract with ICANN until I know what the cost is going to be.

• Paul Kane: One thing worth pointing out is that there are some members within CENTR that would like a clear distinction between the cost of the ICANN function, and the cost of the IANA function. We need a separate accounting mechanism of the IANA function and ICANN function. The IANA function should be outside the PDP. PDP includes the ICANN function.

• Peter DT: Suggest that we list the pros and cons, and go through the list. Scope would be one. The importance of defining scope before joining?

• Bernard Turcott: Trying to figure out this chicken and egg thing with regard to scope. In trying to develop something that would give ccTLDs maximum freedom, we've come up with something that raised concerns. Also would like to make two points. What I find interesting about bringing the scope discussion within the ccNSO, it forces us to address this. We can come up with a caveat: nothing is imposed on ccTLDs until scope is well defined. Propose two things. (1) The formal method of going through this, documenting this, would be interesting. If you want to come on, then sign on. I would like the option to define what the rules are, but would like to do this within a structured process. (2) You can also decide to include the issue of funding within scope.

• Oscar Robles: (1) The PDP wouldn't be binding if the LIC opposes it. (2) The process should be well defined. (3) We can leave if we don't agree. I think that the most important thing is to have this organization.

• Tom Barrett: There is a difference between scope and policy. Scope binding or if policy is binding?

• Peter DT: How do people think about the threshold issue of 40 vs. 30?

• Willie Black: I have not changed my mind about 40.

• Stephan: It's not important whether it's 30, 40, or 50. It is what you want. The question is if you want a ccNSO that is workable, or do you want to just go ahead? There are two clear alternatives. Either it is an inclusive thing, or that we don't care what it is going to be.

• Peter DT: What would bring the ccTLDs to join?

• Stephan: Scope should be defined, and that it is going to be inclusive.

• Jeff: Question. How did we come up with 40? Why wasn't it 50? They started out with 20. We came up with 40. They've come back with 30. Can you explain why we came up with 40? Why is 40 the magic number?

• Stephan: I said we need make a basic decision as to whether we want this to be a inclusive thing or not.

• Peter DT: What about regional membership?

• Jeff: Each region should get equal number of council members.

• Dotty Sparks: We should go on with the issue of scope.

• Jeff: I'd like to have our members on the board. I'm against the delay. I'm comfortable with the bylaws. We should define the scope of the cc.

• Bill Semich: I don't have problems with delay. If what I see before me is what's going to be enacted by the board, then I'm for delaying this process. So far, I don't see a reason for joining. Scope and funding should be addressed.

• Peter DT: We'll break and try to go through a list in the afternoon to try to come with a consensus position.

• Alan Levine (South Africa): Question about whether there is a discussion within this group about redefining the regional associations.

• Yann Kwak(Mauritius): Concerned with the ccNSO formation process. We've been discussing. By the time of the next ICANN, someone else would have determined things for the ccSO. Everything we meet, we keep discussing and we don't get anything out of it.

• Peter DT: My personal view is that the board will decide on the bylaws and just present it to us.

• Oscar Robles: It is up to the ccNSO to define the new worlds, for us to decide on the regional association.

• Peter DT: We cannot define regions. We can only take it from the ICANN bylaws, to be determined in the ICANN forum.

• (?): Are we going to have a chance to look at this issue in depth? During this meeting?

• Peter DT: We may sometime tomorrow. Also suggest that we come back today ate 3:00p.m. to get together a list of our issues. Cut our observation time of GAC and ERC by an hour.

Day 1 : Sunday, 22 June 2003, Afternoon Session

14:00 - 16:00 (the GAC ERC meeting will be in a public format)

16:00 - 16:30 Afternoon break

16:30 - 17:30 Private CC meeting with the ERC concerning the new Bylaws (session leader: Paul Kane)

17:30 - 18:30 Establishing a CCTLD position on the new ICANN Bylaws (session leader: Stephan Welzel)

16:30 - 17:30 Private CC meeting with the ERC concerning the new Bylaws (session leader: Paul Kane)

Observation of GAC discussion with ERC

Peter DT shows points

• Hans Kraijenbrink:
  • - Realize that there may have been some confusion about scope.
  • - But the framework as presented is the first reference point for the work of the ccNSO.

• Alejandro Pisanty:
  • - There has to be a bootstrap process.

• Peter DT:
  • - Don't understand that what's the Annex is. Data entry function, for e.g.
  • - How is it that without the PDP, we know what it means

• Hans K: The most important thing of the framework is to help recognize where the ccNSO activities are placed. Recognized the difficulties. It is to be used to figure out where the cc stands. The cc managers have to recognize that it is a policy of a global nature. We took the effort to translate the matrix into a worded framework. It is intended to help the cc's focus on what the ccNSO is doing, and do it at the right level, which is the global level.

• Peter DT: I find it helpful. Would it be possible to get council's opinion as to what is in the scope and what is not?

• Hans K: If that would have been possible, you would have found a list of issues in the bylaws. Some initial differences of opinion in the AG existed, and thus it was decided that the best thing to do was to come up with a framework. The framework was to be used in a bottom up fashion, by the cc's, to figure out what is to be included. There are some people who would want to include only IANA functions. There are others who would want to include issues

• Sabine Dolderer: Question to ERC. The AG proposed to us a framework. We accepted, and felt comfortable. Why can't you just accept that? Why did you come up with a wider framework? The ccTLDs have far too much diversity. We need a much larger consent if we can agree that something can be a global policy. The ccTLDs accepted the matrix in Shanghai and Rio. Why didn't you follow the recommendation from the ccTLDs in Shanghai and Rio? Why did you come up with something different? (with regard to scope?) Why did you change it? Why have you widened the scope?

• Alejandro P: We had differences in opinion about what is global and what is local. We recognized that it would have to be changed over time.

• Hans K: The ccTLDs wanted to limit the scope to the IANA function only. The ERC has decided, with the support of some ccTLDs, to leave it open, and let the ccNSO decide.

• Sabine D: But the ccTLDs have decided that we wanted to limit the scope. At the moment, I think that it is better to start with a limited scope.

• Hans K: Nothing prevents you from limiting the scope to the IANA function.

• Chris Disspain: It's not correct to say that the ccTLDs agreed in Shanghai and Rio. Some agreed and some disagreed. The ccTLDs can decide to limit the scope within the ccNSO. The issue here is trust. It seems to me that some cc's don't feel comfortable trusting their fellow ccTLD managers.

• Hilde Thunem: I recognize that things may be changing. I think it is a good idea that things are open and that we can decide. But before I get into something, I would like to start with a narrow limited focus. I don't know what I would be signing for.

• Alejandro P: You don't want to just limit your LIC to the local. We would have to leave it open to dynamic change, within the ccNSO. The argument that you don't know what you are signing for is good. But the same argument can be said about entering schools, joining the UN, etc. The fee structure, the cost structure, the contracts, policies, etc., are going to be determined by the ccNSO. When you join a big organization, you have to trust the organization. However, with the ccNSO, you have to trust the people in this room.

• Hilde Thunem: I would disagree. In most organizations you would have to know what you are getting into. I think that the issue is one of trust. The relationship between ICANN and ccTLDs have been difficult. To try to amend that and to try to get things going, there are still some things that we need to get clear. I would like some more substance as to what I am getting into.

• Alejandro P: There is severe criticism of the openness of the proposal from other communities. We're looking at the start of the organization, and are leaving it open.

• Hans K: I believe that the ccTLD community has accomplished a very important feat. It is on the brink of creating an SO that is recognized fully within the ICANN framework, and still has full control.

• Stephan W: There are two issues that we're discussion that needs to be distinguished. One is the scope itself, the scope matrix as a whole. The other issue is whether the bylaws with regard to the ccNSO as a whole will define a scope, which can be changed, or whether the initial scope is open. Initially there is no clearly defined scope. That means that we are expected to join an organization in which we are not clear as to what we are getting into. The bylaws may be redrafted, but initially, the scope is as is defined in Annex C. Why don't the bylaws say that? It says, "the scope is as defined in the framework of Annex C."

• Hans K: This can be resolved.

• Alejandro P: We have deliberately stayed away from defining anything except a well defined ccNSO. I don't think it would be useful. We have to bootstrap it in some way. We can do some work on the wording, to make it more precise. Some people would like various things to be included. We are trying to bring it inside.

• Stephen W: I appreciate it, but the resulting ccNSO would have very few members because they don't know what they are getting into.

• Alejandro P: I understand. But the question may be, do I want it to be defined by others and then go in, or do I join and define it myself?

• Peter DT: Join up or you're excluded - your comment is very negative. We are trying to say that if you do this, we will join, but if you don't we won't join. We have given you unanimous direction as to where we want to go, and you are now saying, join up or be left out.

• Alejandro P: There are some that would want to join. If there are some ccTLD managers that join, we'll get started, and they will be the ones who decide.

• Hans K: There is another issue besides trust. It is responsibility. You are responsible to other ccTLD managers to come up with a framework. I get the feeling that the phrase, "ccTLD managers are bound by" is not appropriate. I think it should read, "ccTLD managers agree to abide by." You are not put in chains and shackles.

• Patricio Poblete(Chile): It's always the case that we've understood that there is a framework for the issues that fall under the authority of the ccSO. In the resolution in Rio, one issue was identified as global. It was also mentioned that this "scope" could be changed as trust develops. So the mechanism for changing this was built in. The ERC has decided that it was not appropriate enough. So the first task for the ccNSO was to determine the scope. There is also the issue of funding. It seems to me that we are talking about the same things in principle, worded differently.

• Hilde Thunem: Hans clearly identified what I see in Part 6. But Annex C says that this is not intended to be authoritative. You find that the Annex C is just an example.

• Hans K: I may need to clarify the wording which tries to indicate that in including organizations outside ICANN,

• Paul Kane: One of the things that has been mentioned is trust. Within the community, there is a high degree of trust in our community. It was a shame that the ICANN board, the ERC, did not trust the ccTLD community to elect the ccTLD representatives. We as a community have faith in what we are trying to do. It is very unfortunate. Although we would like to help you and present you with document that we would like to sign into, you have not accepted it. I would like to propose to the board, to trust the ccTLDs and take the document given to you and present us with a document that most of us can sign onto. Put trust in us. I know that some significant registries are not going to join. This would look bad politically.

• Alejandro P: There are a number of directors in the board that are extremely strained by the possibility of the effect of the open-endedness on the whole organization. We really ought to bootstrap this now.

• Paul Kane: The ccAG have done a very good job. They were not selected by us, but that's in the past. As of now, we are trying to help you. There are some significant ccTLDs that would not be joining. Why don't you try to persuade those that are here now, and try to have them on board?

• Hans K: When I read the comments of LACTLD, APTLD, and CENTR, I see recognition of our work. I see a limited number of differences. Let's try to get the thing started. Let's get on some responsibility. It may be an issue of words, but not the intention. I plead to you, and chairman of CENTR, to bring into this the European ccTLDs. I know some are ready to join, and that some are not. Please try to show an example.

• Paul Kane: What I'm trying to do is to bring in everyone, not even just CENTR. You are saying one thing, but there are misunderstandings in the wording. It is of concern that the current board, most of who is leaving, may not be led into the "correct interpretation."

• Hans K: It is our task, not the task of the new board, who would have many things on their minds.

• Peter DT: In the GAC meeting, the English and Danish GAC members, that they would need more time.

• Sabine D: I am offended by this discussion of responsibility. I am responsible to my LIC. I think there is a role for a limited ccNSO. I would like to read the statement in Rio. "Policies developed by the SO shall only be binding on its members when adopted by the Board of ICANN according to its bylaws and when limited to procedures providing for the entry in the IANA database of information relating to ccTLDs."

• Vint Cerf: I think that it is important that all the ccTLDs and the operators find ways to work together. I can appreciate the feeling of the ccTLD operator to be very hesitant to sign on to a process whose outcome is very uncertain, particularly if the outcome can be detrimental to the outcome of the ccTLD, and of the internet. Let me suggest a way to move forward. I have the impression that there is not a wide gap between the ccTLDs and the ERC's proposals. There are some differences of opinion. Perhaps the way to go about this it the "salami slicing method" There is agreement that the framework is agreeable. We adopted a set of bylaws that were incomplete. Is it possible (1) that we could adopt a set of bylaws of the ccNSO framework where we have complete agreement during this meeting, and (2) sit down after this meeting to work out the details? I would have thought that even if you had adopted the current set of bylaws, that the ccTLDs would have a lot of work to do to propose their set of bylaws. The outgoing board will have felt that it has done something to help get the ccNSO started, and the new board will have to learn to work together. It would make serious progress.

• Peter DT: I put the exact proposal to a former CEO, but had it rejected. I would like to put things that we can agree on in the bag, and then agree to work afterwards.

• (South Africa): Alejandro, there has been a greater degree of trust, with your presence. In your comment, you've red-flagged us. You said that there are members in the board who objected to us having too much control. We should have control. We are not the same as a bunch of generic TLDs. One suggestion is that we can go with binding recommendations with a supermajority, and non-binding recommendations with a simple majority. Working outside of organizations is not a good practice. We've seen it in the UN example. Let's make a difference between binding and non-binding.

• Alejandro P: The question is the boundary. It is not a threat in any sense. This is a workable situation. We should grab the opportunity now. I agree that there may be some managers who may not join now, but we can work with this. As for the IANA function, there is the managerial function, and the policy function. We have taken major steps for improving the

• C Brown(?): What is the rush to get things done immediately? Not to leave work unfinished for the board?

• Alejandro: We have devoted a year to a year and half to the ccTLD organization. The major work of the ERC has been the ccTLD organization. We are on the verge of conversion. People are favorable. Conditions seem to be right. The time seems to be right. Delays don't promise benefits.

• C Brown: Vint Cerf suggestion seems to be one that might get us forward.

• (): I was astounded by the two different sessions, before lunch and after lunch. Before lunch, it was ordinary sausage. After lunch, I hear confrontation. Either jump on the bandwagon, or the train will be stopping at a different stop. Before lunch, I heard that there was agreement. But after lunch, I hear confrontations.

• Hans K: (closing comments) Interesting exchange of views. I have the impression that at least we came a little bit closer on some of the points. I will be available later on to clarify the issues. I have made notes that some improvements in the text are possible, and will be presenting them to the board. Friendly modifications, suggested by Hilde and Stephan are important to make clear the limited possibility of words and what they intend. Some resented the fact that the council would have to vote. I've noted that paragraph 11-4, of the rejection of 66%, should be raised to 14 votes. Vint surprised me in his venture. In listening to all of you, I believe that what we have presented, with minor adjustments, were primarily in the interest of the ccTLD community, and through it, in the interest of ICANN. I will trust, that when I leave the board, my colleagues Alejandro and Lyman will continue this work of the ccNSO formation. It has been a pleasure to work with all of you who have worked with us, and concluding in a constructive way.

• Alejandro P: (closing) We are at the last slice of the salami. We are on a common in a lot of issues. Our disagreements can be fixed within this week, and continue to fix it later. The question is not whether we are going to start the train, but that the train may go out of our hands completely. We see an accelerated convergence. I am asking myself, "what part of 'yes' am I not able to convey?" What do you ask of your fellow members what they are committing to, as much as you are? That's the level of understanding.

17:30 - 18:30 Establishing a CCTLD position on the new ICANN Bylaws (session leader: Stephan Welzel)

• Peter DT: Suggest that we try to adjourn until tomorrow.

• Stephen W: Let's come up with some suggestions.