Public Forum: DNSO NC report.

Bruce Tonkin: Walking through resolutions. Resolutions re ERC process. Structure of new GNSO. Want three representatives per constituency; review 12 months after the formation of GNSO council. Second resolution: NC underlines principle of equal st…

Bruce Tonkin: Walking through resolutions. Resolutions re ERC process. Structure of new GNSO. Want three representatives per constituency; review 12 months after the formation of GNSO council. Second resolution: NC underlines principle of equal stakeholder representation. Third and fourth: updating of name servers at the root level and DNS data quality issues. NC recommends that ccTLD managers and ICANN committee for security and stability with input from IANA staff develop procedures at interface between IANA and ccTLDs. Fourth resolution re Lynn and Cerf letter on security and stability: Look at data quality; also concerns WHOIS data. Chairs of task forces no longer need to be members of NC. Terms of reference and procedure for deletes task force. Discussions around WHOIS and Transfers: How to actually implement conclusions and recommendations from Task Forces? ICANN is about contracts, not laws which can just be imposed. Even after looking at improvement at policy level, need to figure out how to practically implement these. Complex with multiple registries and hundreds of registrars. Difference between policy decision and detailed implementation information? Need to review output of task force from that point of view; permit for registry and registrar flexibility in implementing. Transfers: What’s the most effective way to assure that registrant has actually authorized transfer? WHOIS: Accuracy is a concern, but can only be accomplished when privacy is properly addressed. WHOIS is very complex. Process will be to prioritize. Like to report that ccTLD constituency has ended involvement in the DNSO as of yesterdaqy. Would like to thank for the contribution of the ccTLDs to DNSO. Cerf: Thoughtful, timely.