APTLD On-line Meeting Logs

18 November 2002

Chair: Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah

Meeting started at 09:58 Malaysia time (GMT+8)

Participant:

.au: Chris Disspain

.kr: Lee Young-Eum

.my: Ramesh Nadarajah,

.nz: Peter Dengate Thrush,

.tw: Joanna Tso

Secretariat: Ian Chiang

Chris	Hi all
Ramesh	Hi Chris Hi all
Ian	morning everyone
Peter	Afteroon from NZ. I have a little crisis in my email, just to coincide with a very very busy day.
Peter	I assume we are waiting for somethoing like a quorum of members? Is it worth getting started anyway?
Ian	Vincent has another meeting this morning.
joanna	Good morning! this is Joannna
Ramesh	Maybe we can start with a listing of issues while waiting for others?
Peter	Or do we just join the names Council and make our comment that 7 days is an unsuitable time for meaningful input. It seems that there is no driving need to comment now. The whole paper of the cc AG will be advertised in good time before any board meeting which considers it. This is piecemeal, and possibly not likely to result in productive comment. This needs to be considered in the light of the whole.
Dr. Lee	I'm in.
Dr. Lee	Are we waiting for more people to join?
Chris	Given that the ccTLDs in Shanghai accepted our working methodology and given that that methodology was based on the AG putting out prelim recommendations for comment on all 5 areas, it seems to me that the ccTLDs should make the effort to comment. On the timing - we are considering feedback at our meeting on Wednesday week (27th I think) so any ccTLD who wishes to comment has until then. However, if you decide not to comment then that is fine and we will proceed to consider the feedback we do receive.
Ramesh	1. Issues Manager - who is she? Should she not be from the ccTLD constituency? 2. To what extent should General Counsel comment on item 2 sub-3 and sub-4? 3. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - doesn't the 100% of 2 regions appear to be a minority vote? 4. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - is majority vote (50%) too low? 5. Is the scope of the Task Force too narrow? Why do they only collect info whereas the Issues Manage (at the post-TF or Initial Report) can decide what info should or should not be included? 6. The process for rejection by Board of the Council's decision needs to be talked about. Shall we try to wade through these first?
Ramesh	Please add as you wish
Ramesh	Can we come up with general comments on these issues on behalf of APTLD?
Dr. Lee	This seems plenty to start with. Chris, can you give us a clarification on the concept of the "issue manager?"
Dr. Lee	I also definitely feel that APTLD should try to come up with general comments on these issues.
Peter	Chris, Please try and be accurate. The cctlds DID NOT agree to a 7 day response period, on this or any other suggestions. They agreed to a "timely" procedure. No one thinks this is timely. Nor is the cctld agreement all that is required. All of the other players in the DNSO< the ASO etc are involved in Reform. I know that the NC objects. However, I called this meeting to see if, even under very tight constraints, something could be achieved. I assume this is interim, and that there will be a "timely" point at which to make detailed comment. Lets look at Ramesh's list, and see where we can get to. I have abouut 45 minutes available.
Peter	The most important part of this is in clause 13. This allows the board to treat the council resolutions as "advice" and to do something else. This is all about who has the power to govern cctlds. This allows the board to make a policy which will bind the cctlds thorugh their contracts. Can we deal with this first?
Dr. Lee	I would also like to add one more item
Dr. Lee	7.
Dr. Lee	7. The concept of supermajority of Council vote needs clarification.
Chris	Peter, I did not say that anyone had agreed to 7 days. I was responding to your other comments, specifically, " The whole paper of the cc AG will be advertised in good time before any board meeting which considers it. This is piecemeal, and possibly not likely to result in productive comment. This needs to be considered in the light of the whole."
Ramesh	There is a need for someone who will manage the PDP process. To that extent, the Issue Manager is a good idea. But this person has to really understand ccTLD issues, i.e. should be someone appointed by ccTLDs. BTW, I don't think Chris should be defending the recommendations. He can provide us with clarification where necessary and give us some insight into the reasoning behind it.
Dr. Lee	Yes, Chris. I think we would all appreciate the reasoing behind the "issue manager" and 'supermajority vote'
Chris	Give me a minute to finsi up this phone call
Dr. Lee	While c
Dr. Lee	While Chris is taking his time, I think the APTLD statement should also make clear that the PDP process that will occur within the ICANN process will only apply to those limited areas defined in the 'scope'
Peter	Why don't we begin with the hardest one, as we are sure to run out of time. The rest we can do online. Who has the authority to make policy? the ccTlds in council, or the Board? We have always said the ccTLDs. What is the reasoning behind allowing the Board to disagree with a council resolution? And to YE, this process applies to policy outside both the ICANN mandarte AND the SO scope.
Chris	Supermajority - this has been taken to mean 66%
Chris	As for disagreeing with a council resolution - what would happen if the ccNSO agreed that a particular issue was within its scope and made a recommendation BUT the GNSO (also acting within its scope on the same issue) made a different recommendation?
Peter	Why has the cctld definition of "majority" ie 2/3 from each region, been ignored?
Ramesh	Hmm.. I always thought a supermajority was 75%. Especially since the recommendations actually state (in one instance - item 13(b)(3)) 66%.
Dr. Lee	Policy outside the ICANN mandate and the SO scope...? Why should this be determined by ICANN's ERC?
Peter	Chris, On what issue could the GNSO make a recommendation within its scope, that was different to one made within ours? They deal with such different areas, affecting differnt peorple, contracts, and registrants The fact of the scope difference implies a separation,. If you can identify an example of "overlap" it may lead to a solution -such as a joint group between the SO's, as suggested in the Liaison [paper, for e\xample. But in the absence of an actual likelihood of overlap, we don't need a solution...?
Chris	I am not going to get into a discussion of why this was ignored or why that was ignored. The reality is that nothing has actually been ignored. If the apTLD or any of the individual members think that a 'supermajority' should be 2/3 of each region then i suggest that you provide that feedback...cont
Chris	And, if you think that the issues manager should be apptnd by the ccNSO then provide that as well
Chris	Can i suggest that we keep to one topic at a time
Chris	otheriwse this is going to get very confusing
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
Peter	YEL -no, not the ERC, but the Board. The ERC is recomending( if it acceptsd this suggestion) that the Board can resoolve policies made outside the mandatre, and outside the scope. This is normally preveented in an organisation by its rules, which first have to be changed, or, allowed only with very great caution
Chris	Ramesh, what would you like us to discuss first?
Ramesh	Agreed. Can we go back to point 1 - issues manager?
Chris	OK -
Chris	Let me see if I can clarify something
Chris	As far as the Ag is concerned
Chris	the concept of an Issues Manager
Chris	is a good one
Chris	The question is
Chris	whether that person should be
Chris	appointed by the ccNSO or
Chris	should be a designated ICANN staff member
Chris	Why is there a problem with it being an ICANN staff member?
Ramesh	My proposal: Clear statement that the IM should be appointed by ccTLDs since we would know the subject matter best and be able to appoint a person we trust. We have to acknowledge that trust is an issue at this stage..
Chris	OK - who pays for this person/provides office space etc?
Dr. Lee	The ccNSO Council can provide for this.
Ramesh	I presume it would be the ccTLD Secretariat's budget?. Whatever the ccTLDs contribute to ICANN that would go towards the IM will now go instead to the ccTLD SEct.
joanna	can the IM be someone from the ccNSO secretariat? surely ccNSO will need to have a secretariat, right? Someone on the ccNSO structure is always better than someone from ICANN, because it's ccTLD matters
Peter	I have no problem with a person being specifically "in charge" of the Policy process. Its the role I suggested for the VP.Works. The problem with it being a staff member has been aaffected by the unsatisfactory relationships many cctlds have had with the staff to date , This may change in future. The RIRs prefer to continue wuith their own staff - oour Council can employ its own policy development people - and needs to. Agreed with Ramesh about financing...
Chris	This is all true BUT
Chris	the purposes are being confused i think
Chris	the IM is supposed to be the liaison between ICANN the ccNSO and the other SOs on a particular issue
Chris	They are supposed to do the leg work and you will recall
Chris	that it was an ICANN proposal that they budget
Chris	to pay staff who will work
Chris	with each SO
Chris	What is the problem with it being an ICANN
Chris	staff member
Chris	DO you think they have power or can
Chris	influence things in some way?
Dr. Lee	ICANN can have their own staff to work with each SOs. That's all fine. However, the issue manager that deals with ccTLD issues SHOULD come from the ccTLd community.
Ramesh	Trust is an issue that we must acknowledge. The problem with getting contact details etc changed in the IANA databse is one example.
Chris	Maybe the answer is to designate 2 people - one an ICANN Issues manager and 1 a ccNSO issuesd manager to work together - would that work
Ramesh	May not be cost effective to have 2 people. Do we expect them to have that much work?
Dr. Lee	Also, I think the final decision about issues important enough to be included in the PDP process should stay within the ccTLD community.
Ramesh	At this point, may I suggest that we adopt the GAC method of drafting comments. Different positions can be noted separately.
Chris	But the final decision IS with the ccNSO - the IM simply provides help with the leg work
Chris	It seems there is a clear opinion that the IM should not be an ICANN staff member - if so then I suggest the apTLD provide that as feedback and we now move on to the next topic
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
Ramesh	Agreed. Item 2: To what extent should General Counsel comment on item 2 sub-3 and sub-4?
Peter	This person could have a lot of influence - and they ought to if they are doing their job properly. A person appointed by some else will possibly suffer, as other staff membbers have done. Even tho' there should not be a lot of global policies to consider, it would be better a person appointed by the cctlds.
Chris	Peter, good point - and as Ramesh has said several times - it's all about trust
Peter	General Counsel opinion on an Issues Request: A good idea, but their influence must be limited to legal, not policy matters. (they can always be asked to stray into that ) I'd be happy with an opinion on items 1, 2 and 5 only.
Chris	Surely, since the comments of the GC are only opinion and are there for guidance rather than being binding, it makes sense to requuest the GC to provide an opinion on the big picture
Ramesh	I agree with both Peter and Chris. The GC in coming to a conclusion about the opinion on whether the issue is within scope of ICANN should only look at items 1,2 and 5. But his views on the other 2 items would be helkpful. But they should not be tied to his opinion of whether it is within ICANN/SO's scope.
Dr. Lee	How about changing the wording?
Chris	OK - so you would recommedn that in coming to his opinion he examines 1, 2 and 5 but may also comment on 3 and 4?
Dr. Lee	General Counsel shall examine whether the issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSOs Scope Matrix; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or General Counsel shall examine whether the issue: 1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement; 2. is within the scope of the ccNSO pursuant to the ccNSOs Scope Matrix; 3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the need for occasional updates; 4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or "General Counsel shall examine whether the issue:" would include 1,2, and 5 only.
Dr. Lee	oops...
Peter	I am sure you don't really believe that. Opinions from the staff have to be kept to the minimun necesary to allow the policy makers to make good policy, unaffected by staff opinions. One of the constant criticisms and failings of ICANN has been staff capture. This is one of the ways to ensure the staff do not have to defend themselves against that sort of complaint, at least on our "patch" The stafff are always available to assist when required. What you must avoid is undue influence in the critical formative stages, when an idea is just getting off the ground, people are unsure and thinking out loud. An infleunntial opinion at that stage is powerful beyond whats proper. 1, 2 and 5 - with the ability to equest anythiong more we want
Chris	From a personal point of view, I'm happy with PDT's proposal
Dr. Lee	I agree. Let's move on.
Dr. Lee	3. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - doesn't the 100% of 2 regions appear to be a minority vote? 4. Voting on initiation of PDP (item 3) by Council - is majority vote (50%) too low?
Chris	Re 3 - yes it does but bear in mind this vote is only to initiate the PDP
Chris	it is not a vote on policy itself - I will explain
Chris	THe AG's view is thnat if 2 regions believe that an Issues Paper should be prepared on something then it would be unfair for that to be blocked by the other regions
Dr. Lee	Also, we need to define "supermajority" vote
Chris	Bear in mind this is only a vote about whther the PDP should be initiated
Dr. Lee	I can understand this.
Dr. Lee	Can we move to the most important topic that Peter suggested? 6. The process for rejection by Board of the Council's decision needs to be talked about.
Ramesh	I think we're doing pretty well.
Dr. Lee	I believe this can only be accepted if the scope of the PDP process stays within the ICANN mandate and the scope of the SO.
Peter	Starting the PDP process Sorry -slow typing! Personally, I would like the SO to be a forum where there's a ready development of ideas. What this is about really, though, is the special case of a binding policy. Then, we need to be sure that everyone is on board, and will implement a decision if one does eventually emerge. ie there's no point starting the process if its clear some large chunk of cctlds will not implement the outcome. Why should any group be able to impose its will on any others? Clearly, only when something fundamental is at stake.... I am not sure that the SO members from say, Africa and Noth Amerioca, who are largely to account for a very small minority of actual cctlds, and a tiny fractipon of registrants, should have the ability to start a process, which, as we shall seee, permits the board to do something entirley of its own making. This process should be started with great care, and for compelling reasons
Chris	Starting the PDP process - I have explained how we got to our opinion. I still hold that view but the AG will be happy to recieve contrary feedback.
Dr. Lee	True, Peter. But I can also see where Chris is coing from. Other regions have the chance to participate in the PDP process through the Task Force.
Ramesh	My objection is to the fact that 100% of 2 regions is actually a minority. Can we just keep it at simple majority (50% +1) of the Councillors?
Dr. Lee	Agree with Ramesh.
joanna	TW also agrees
Dr. Lee	Let's move on to item 13. Board Vote.
Ramesh	Yes. Lets move on.
Peter	As I said above: The most important part of this is in clause 13. This allows the board to treat the council resolutions as "advice" and to do something else. This is all about who has the power to govern cctlds. This allows the board to make a policy which will bind the cctlds thorugh their contracts. Can we deal with this first?
Ramesh	Currently only 66% of Board is needed to reject a Supermajority Council decision. At least an equivalent level (i.e. supermajority) in the Board should be required. This of course is assuming that a supermajority is 75%.
Chris	Hold on a minute
Chris	The PDP does not allow the board to make policy that binds the ccTLDS - why do you think that it does Peter?
Chris	For the purposes of this discussion, assume that supermajority for Board and Council is set at the same level be that 66 or 75
Peter	Theindividual cctld-ICANN contracts, (including yours, Chris contracts say ( see: http://www.icann.org/cctlds/model-tscsa-31jan02.htm ) 5 Establishment of Specifications and Policies 5.1 Procedure for Establishment. The specifications and policies set forth in Attachment G shall apply to the operation of the Delegated ccTLD under Section 4.5.1 beginning at the commencement of the Term of this Agreement. During the Term of this Agreement, new or revised ICANN specifications and policies applicable to the Sponsoring Organization shall be established according to procedures that comply with ICANN's bylaws and articles of incorporation. In addition, new or revised ICANN specifications and policies established during the Term of this Agreement that are required by this Agreement to be established in the manner specified in this Section 5 shall be developed according to procedures that provide the Sponsoring Organization with input into the decision making process, including where feasible (a) prior notice (by web posting, by e-mail, or according to Section 6.8) to the Sponsoring Organization explaining what specification or policy is being considered for adoption and why; (b) reasonable opportunities for the Sponsoring Organization to comment, in writing and at a public forum, before the specification or policy is established, and (c) a written statement of the specification or policy that is established and the reason(s) for its establishment. This means that a policy made via this SO policy will become binding on cctlds.
Chris	Yes Peter but it is the CONTRACT that says that NOT the PDP. And there are only a handful of contracts and unless a ccTLD has one it is irrelevant. If the PDP was drafted another way that made it clear that the board cannot bind the ccTLDs, any contracts would STILL take precedent.
Chris	I do not believe you can fairly link one with the other.
Ramesh	Hmmm.. the PDP item that we are discussing is with regards REJECTION of policies, not adoption. Right?
Chris	Yes
Chris	It is about the ccNSO making a recommendation and having the Board NOT adopt it
Ramesh	Whereas the Contract talks about policies being imposed after going through a process (e.g. the PDP). Correct?
Chris	It makes provision for compromise but ultimately it allows the board to not adopt a ccNSO recommendation
Chris	The contract says that .au will abide by ICANN policies
Chris	So if a policy recommendation of the ccNSO were accepted by the Board, .au would be bound by it but .nz would not
Dr. Lee	I agree with Ramesh's proposal (of 75% supermajority to REJECT) the Recommendation, PROVIDED that we make clear that these policies stay within the scope of ICANN s defined in the 'scope' document.
Chris	OK, let's see if we can get clear
Chris	Firstly, the scope matrix needs to be in place and as the PDP says, it is up to the ccNSO to use the matrix to decide if it is within scope
Chris	Secondly, at present a supermajority is defined as 66% because that is the same as the Board, GNSO and so on
Chris	If you believe that should be 75% then provide that to the AG as feedback - personally I have some synpathy with 75%
Peter	Chris -Binding nature of Policy If you are seriously suggesting that the staff and surving members of the board are going to give up on a nearly 4 year effort to introduce a term in the contract which binds cctlds to policies made byICANN (in this case, now by the SO, you might have a point. I assume we are dealing with a total programme. I assume you are aware of the previous requirements imposed by the MoU/ If those are now to go, I would rather they be reomved from the so-called ccTLD resources" part of the ICANN web site, and confirmation from cctlds in negotiation right now that this is not part of the plan. Until then, lets agree we are talking about contractually binding policy.
Chris	No we are not. Contract have not been mentioned in the context of ccTLDs for months. Everyone accepts that ccTLDs will enter into contracts at their own pace on their own terms and some will never enter. Stuart has said as much and the Board has acknowledged it also. We are talkin here about a process for operating an SO. It has nothing whatever to do with the question of contracts.
Chris	It is unfair torefer to the contracts in this context. If the ccNSO is formed and the PDP adopted then CLEARLY the way the PDP works will have an effect on the contract negotiations for a ccTLD. IN other words
Chris	if the PDP remains as and says the Board can ignore a ccNSO recommendation in certain circumstances the you will negotiate the terms of any contract bearing that in mind
Peter	The conditions, if any, that the board can not approve an SO recommendation need to go further than simply the number of board members who think its a good idea to reject a properly carried out SO procedure and recommendation. They need to include safeguards, like Counsel's opinuion that the recomendation of the SO is prejudicail to the safety or security of the net, etc NOT just that another SO , or some faction, might disagree. It needs input from the GAC, and posssibly other advisory grroups. It should be a rare and hard to invoke procedure, with the onus on the board to make out its case, not on the SO - which is the body charged with cctld policy -with defending its view.
Chris	Excellent - I agree that some safeguards need to be put into place. You believe that the supermajority, plus the subsequent compromise discussions etc are not enough (these were based on the GAC ones by the way) then please let the AG have your feedback on what safeguards you would like to see.
Peter	Chris Contracts I am going to see if I can get Stuart or the Board to confirm your view, as its a crucial assumption you are making.
Ramesh	At the first rejection, the Board must give reasons for rejection. And a second opportunity exists to again push the Council's recommendation. This is a safeguard. But it would be good if we had more. Any ideas Peter?
Chris	It's an interesting discussion. There is a belief that the ccNSO should be able to bind the Board but the Board shouldn't be able to bind the ccNSO. Isn't that position untenable? Surely the correct position is neither binds the other. The Board can bind a ccTLD pursuant to a contract NOT pursuant to a policy made and the ccNSO as a supporting organisation cannot possible be in a position to bind the officers of a company who take the legal obligations of everything they do. The ccNSO or it's members ultimate sanction is to pick up their tent and walk to Willie Black's plan B.
Ramesh	Can we resolve this? My proposal: In item 13, remove the words "66%" and replace with "Supermajority" and define "supermajority" earlier in the document to mean 75%. And to include further safeguards (to be finalised after online discussion).
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
Chris	Fine by me
Peter	Board's power to reject SO The current ccTLD view is that the Board cannot reject aSO recommendation. Ramesh -please poll the group to see if any one now believes there may be conditions, yet to be developed, under which the board might reject an SO recomendation and follow its own view. I have captured this in discussions as saying the Board must" Ratify or remand, Not Remake SO policy". I strongly believe ALL policy making must be done in the SO's - that the Board MUST be kept from making policy
Dr. Lee	I like the wording, Board must" Ratify or remand, Not Remake SO policy".
Chris	Yes but this is a different topic. At the moment we are talking about whether the Board accepts or does not accept a recommendation of the ccNSO - that is not the same as the Board having the power to make policy and even if they do have the power to make some policy why is that relevant if that policy is NOT binding on the ccTLDs?
Peter	Binding Politics Chris said: t's an interesting discussion. There is a belief that the ccNSO should be able to bind the Board but the Board shouldn't be able to bind the ccNSO. Isn't that position untenable? Surely the correct position is neither binds the other Not at all -we are designing a political institution - ie a place which make policies. Who has the power is at the heart of all politics. I want it to reside in an elected and representative SO -not the Board, which I am afraid, is likely not to fit that description.
Chris	Ah - i understand. Would it be fair to say then that your opinions re the ccNSO are coloured by your believes about what you thyink the Board will turn out to be?
Ramesh	Can we then have a clear statement in the Bylaws that prohibit any policy making that may affect or impact ccTLDs unless it first goes through the agreed PDP?
Chris	It's worth a try
Peter	If its not binding, as I am sure its intended to be, via the contracts, why should the Board want It? In that case, they should be quite willing to adhere to an SO recomendation. After all, if Chris is right, and each ccTLD contract will be uniquirely designed, and not requiring adherence to policy made in ICANN, then Board policy making is quite irrelevant. As you can guess, nothing is further from the reality. TRhe contracts are intended to be relatively simple. They will bind cctlds to adhere to policies made in the SO.
Chris	Peter - that may well be so BUT if the PDP etc is desogned in the way the AG has recommended then you won;t be enmtering into a contract will you? And neither will a whole heap of other ccTLDs will they? So why is your point relevant.
Dr. Lee	Can we try to wrap this up?
Peter	Chris asked" Would it be fair to say then that your opinions re the ccNSO are coloured by your believes about what you thyink the Board will turn out to be? " Answer -no -but what a board ought to do -it should not make policy. That is the job of the SO -its job is to ensure that the place is resourced, and does its job properly. If you give it a role in policy making, you weaken the SO's, put improper pressures on the board, andnboard elections. I'd be equally opposed to the board doing anything outside its proper mandate, and would defend the CEO, for eg, if they sarted meddling in employment relations with the satff. etc etc Again Chris, the indications are that signing contracts will be required, perrhaps for membership of the SOI -again, if its made explicccct that cctlds don't need to siggn contracts to join the SO, or, can have contracts without having to follow SO plicy, the problem goes away. Your assistance in publishing ERC or staff[positions on these issues would much clarify these important issues
Chris	Peter, I can assure you that the AG WILL NOT be recommednig the contracts have ANYTHING to do with membership and can say (publically if you wish) that were that to be the case, .au would strenuously object
Chris	Also, I can assure you that in our discussions to date the ERC seem to have accepted that membership should be limited to ccTLDs only (GAC liaison excepted)
Peter	Chris Thanks for that. If you could get ERC and staff positions on this, it would help a lot. It needs to be more than what the AG will or won't do, as its mandate is limited.
Dr. Lee	Again, Ramesh's proposal: In item 13, remove the words "66%" and replace with "Supermajority" and define "supermajority" earlier in the document to mean 75%. And to include further safeguards such as a clear statement in the Bylaws that prohibit any policy making that may affect or impact ccTLDs unless it first goes through the agreed PDP?
Chris	Peter, as you very well know, neither the ERC nor the staff will be prepared at this stage to give any opinions. I am merely expressing mine and providing you with some 'inside the AG' information which might be helpful. I am certainly not prepared to hold myself out as some form of ERC/ccTLD liason at this stage of the process. I reiterate that once we have feedback on ALL 5 of the identified issues (of which this is the second) we will then publish recommendation as a whole for comment. At that stage everyone will be able to see how the whole thing hangs together and make comments on it
Ramesh	Young-Eum, I would now add to that the need to include a safeguard in the Bylaws to ensure that no policy can touch the ccTLDs unless it first goes through the PDP.
Ramesh	Can we move on?
joanna	TW agree
Ramesh	I think that may take care of some concerns. One more issue I would like to raise is with regards item 13(c): "In any case in which the Council is not able to reach Supermajority, but is able to reach a Majority then the Board shall adopt the policy according to the Council Majority Vote recommendation unless by a vote of more than fifty (50%) percent the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN." I'm uncomfortable with a situation where a policy that did not get Supermajority in Council (but more than 50%) can still be adopted by the Board with a 50% +1 majority. I would think that this should be deleted - if 49% of the ccNSO does not agree with the policy, it should not go through.
Peter	On Ratify Remand Not Remake How about we 1 continue with our current position 2, acknowlege that this is a critical issue 3. accept that there may be times when a "log-jam " needs to be broken, 4. suggest that this will come from closer working between ICANN constiiituents DURING the PDP process, not confrontation at the end of it. 5. agree to the current suggestion (plus todays other modifications) being implemented ONLY AFter 24 months have elapsed, 6. during which there is a good faith effort to develop a mutualy satisfactory answer?
Chris	May i ask what will happen if there are differing views amongst the members of the apTLD? Will individual countries be making their own feedback to the AG?
Ramesh	As I mentioned earlier, why don't we adopt the GAC method and have a consensus as far as possible while recording differing positions?
Peter	On ccTLD policy going through the PDP Agred that it must go through here, but the issue really is - only policy which is within the Mandate, and within the scope of the SO. Any other policy (and we should provide for the future) would then requie an agreement to change the mandate, or to change the scope. Other wise it can't go through.
Chris	I am coming to the point where i will need to leave the discussion - how wilol we move this forward.
Ramesh	To reply to Chris' second question: I think it would be good if everyone could make their own comments. However, having a consolidated position on the areas that we can agree with shows that, as a region, there are somethings we can agree with but are willing to disccuss the others.
Chris	Ramesh - that makes sense to me
Ramesh	I propose that the agreements herein be recorded and distributed to all Board members for final comment and then be sent to AG as feedback. Each ccTLD is also encouraged to speak out on the areas that they feel strongly about. Obviously, if the views are different, these views will not be recorded as a consolidated APTLD response.
Ramesh	We will provide the first draft by Wednesday.
Dr. Lee	Agreed.
joanna	Agree
Chris	agreed
Peter	Looks good -there are still lots of issues, particulary the time frames which all seem too short for global discussions...
Chris	Are we done?
Dr. Lee	I also propose that we send the minutes of this meeting to other members so that they get a better idea of the reasons behind the proposals.
Ramesh	Thanks all for attending. I think we're done for now
Chris	Happy to have this chat sent out to those who could not attend
Ian	the secretariat will send the minutes to every member
Chris	Bye for now!
Dr. Lee	Thanks, everyone.
Ramesh	Goodbye all. Can the Secretariat send out a copy of the discussion to the members?
Ian	yes
Ian	the secretariat will do so
Peter	Night -and thanks to all -this is a complex set of issues!
joanna	bye bye all
Ian	bye
Meeting called to close at 12:12 Malaysia time (GMT+8)
Rapporteur: Ian Chiang