ICANN Public Forum ICANN - Sydney Thursday 25 June 2009 >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Please welcome chairman of the ICANN board, Peter Dengate Thrush. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And thank you for getting up early and starting this forum earlier. We're anxious to allow as much time as possible at these meetings for public comment. We've made a number of changes to the format, and I'd like to call upon the man in charge of such things, Kieren McCarthy, just to come and explain a couple of the features of today, particularly including remote participation. Kieren? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Hello. Sorry, I jumped on the mic. Okay. Sorry, Paul. I jumped on the mic without warning you. So as you can see, we have spread out the public forum into different issues so that we can get -- we can cover all the different issues. If, at the end of that time, we don't -- there's still people on the floor, we have an online question box. It's very simple to get to. You go to the front page of the Sydney Web site, click "Public Forum," and there's a very simple one-line question box there. And we will take those questions and provide you with answers. So if we run out of time on any particular subject and the chairman wants to move on, you can put in your questions there. Also, we are streaming this using the conferencing software, so you'll be able to see the screen plus a chatroom plus a Q&A box plus video and audio, et cetera, in the different languages. So it should be very simple to get at. So there's two methods of asking a question. One is in this online question box, which is on the public forum page. Second is through the online conferencing software. And just to reiterate, we're running the issues according to time so we can get through them all. And I think that's largely it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: You want to explain the microphones? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Sure. We have two microphones down here. When we get to the general session and you have a series -- issues to raise, the idea is you'll raise new issues on this microphone (indicating). This is something the IETF does that we think we might try at this meeting. Raise issues on this microphone (indicating). When an issue or topic is raised, this line here (indicating) will be for comments on that issue. The idea is you have discussions on an issue, you allow the community to talk about one issue at a time rather than a series of issues. Did I explain that clearly or would you like me -- >>DOUG BRENT: One more time. >>KIEREN McCARTHY: One more time. So this line (indicating) here is the normal line that we've always had. You can raise any issue that you desire. When someone does raise an issue -- for example, DNSsec, someone mentions DNSsec on that (indicating). This line (indicating) is for people who say, "I also want to make a comment on DNSsec." The idea is that you then have a discussion on the same topic, rather than jumping topics. I hope that's clear. I probably will explain it again later. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Kieren. Yes, we may have to have hourly explanations, as the population changes. Just a word in terms of chairing the meeting. I'm in your hands to a large extent on this, just I am in relation to the selection of topics. We try and work out, as best we can, what the hot topics are. We can't talk about everything that's going on on the ICANN program, so we've tried to pick topics and allocate times that reflect largely my sense of what -- where the pressure points are and where you want to talk about things. If we've got that wrong and we've scheduled far too much time for a topic, or not enough, we will try and adjust. And obviously there's a block at the end of "general" for all the other things that you may to want talk about that are not on here. So let's try and make it work. Let's try and start a topic on the left-hand side. My left-hand side, your right-hand side. If you want to talk about that topic that's currently under consideration, come and line up over here (indicating) and we'll do what we can to progress. Just a quick word, just of clarification. The chairman of the GAC has sought permission from me -- and graciously been granted it -- not to be on stage. Janis is here with us. He has to go, and it's more convenient for him to leave from there. So there's been no falling out with the GAC. Please don't start another rumor. You know how these things go round. Let's begin. I don't think we need to do much introduction by way of the IRT. You know that the board asked this group to start coming up with some solutions to a problem which many of them were particularly familiar with. So I'm going to go and start with the first online question in relation to IRT, to kick that discussion off. The question comes from Horacio Fernadez Delpech from ADIAR, and the question goes like this: The UDRP agreement created by ICANN in 1999 was designed for the cybersquatting concept of the time. Nowadays, a more modern concept of cybersquatting includes other types of conflicts. This is what many LDRP -- which is what the ccTLDs run -- and second processes have understood. Is ICANN taking into consideration the possibility to broaden the issues that may be applicable to UDRP in the gTLDs? If this is not the case, why? Okay. Well, the answer, just, again, to keep things moving is, the issue of trademark protection in new gTLDs has specifically been addressed by the IRT. Its final report is currently out for comment. And additionally, ICANN expects input from other interested parties on this issue as part of the broader new gTLD process. And the second question -- and then I'm going to open the floor -- is from George Kirikos, and George asks: IRT recommended URS with two weeks to respond. Initial notice is by e-mail. Another notice by post within five days. No faxes. What percentage of all e-mail is spam, and what's the average time for postal delivery around the world? How late was the IRT report compared to its deadline? [Laughter] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Trenchant and pithy from George Kirikos as usual. And the answer is: It's very difficult to get a precise figure for what percentage of e-mail sent is spam. It is also a misleading figure as many techniques exist for preventing unsolicited e-mail from reaching individuals in the first place. It is equally difficult and largely meaningless to find an average postal delivery time. It is much easier to point to the dates of the IRT report. It was initially planned to be released on the 24th of May. However, when it became clear it would take longer, the deadline was extended to the 29th of May and met. So the reality is, it took five days longer than originally expected to provide the final report. But obviously there are some issues behind that in relation to communication in terms of the IRT recommendations, and I know there's some IRT members in the room who will be more than happy to explain the debates that they must have had and the reasons they reached their conclusions. So by way of that pipe opener, the topic of the IRT report and the general issue of trademark protection in relation to new gTLDs is now open. Ladies and gentlemen, the microphones are available. Usual rules. Please when you come to the microphone, announce your name and affiliation. Thanks. And I wonder if we might move that a little bit forward to give you -- Kieren, is it possible just to give a bit of room so that the speakers aren't going to be -- that's great. Thanks, Doug. Sir. >>KIM HEITMAN: Thank you very much. My name is Kim Heitman. I'm here with auDA, but I emphasize that I am speaking in a personal capacity and as a working intellectual property lawyer. I chose to come to this mic because I wanted to follow up on the point by the first online question as to whether or not the IRT issues are, in fact, better placed as part of a reform of the uniform dispute resolution process. And this point has been raised in a number of fora around here today. There are a number of problems with the IRT report that others will comment on. There are concerns about the process, whether or not this is an implementation or a new policy. There's concerns about the personnel who are a part of the team and whether or not that was inclusive enough. And ultimately, there's still a big divide among the ICANN community as to whether or not the balance between the rights of trademark owners and the wider society has been properly met in the objectives of this report. So my suggestion, and perhaps my counsel, for getting this matter moving is to suggest that this be part of a review of dispute resolution processes in general. And just to point out to my colleagues in the IP community that trademark infringement is not one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. It's likely to be thought that spamming, phishing, child abuse, and crime are equally important priorities for ICANN to consider in the establishment of new gTLDs, and unfortunately trademark infringement is the little fellow in the suit on the Shetland pony 10 paces behind. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for the brevity and clarity of that, and thank you for the humor. Nice way to start the forum. Let's try and keep that up. Sir? >>PATRICK VANDE WALLE: Thank you. The rest will be in French, so I'll give you a few seconds to get your headsets. In fact, I don't want to go into details and repeat what I said yesterday, but I'd rather add to it, since in the meeting that we had yesterday we got stuck on the topic of WHOIS, which is very important within the context of the IRT report, and in particular, I'm not against -- I must explain first I'm Patrick Vande Walle, and I am a member of ALAC, and I'm talking in my own -- I'm expressing my own views. So regarding the WHOIS, I don't have an opposition regarding WHOIS, but I think the model will be hard to implement if only because of the environment, the international legal environment, and in particular I'm thinking about, as a European citizen in particular, my personal data are protected by national laws, and there is -- that prevents there being exported outside of Europe. So I don't know how, in the WHOIS model, such a register outside Europe could collect data from European users unless we stop doing business with the European users, which would be a shame both for the users and for the registries and registrars. And I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that for 10 years already, The European Commission has been sending regularly and repeatedly, in particular, Article 29, working party, which often sent to ICANN notices, advices regarding some of the consequences of some decisions. And I think there is room for negotiation and we could find a compromise, and I think the model that was adopted for Telnic is something that could be easily implementable, and if ICANN is intending to have a contract -- a standard contract model for all TLDs, I think this model ought to be used so that all TLDs, wherever they are physically, and wherever the jurisdiction they fall under. So this would make it possible to meet the needs of those who legitimately want an access -- complete access to the data whilst protecting privacy and personal data of the users individually, because currently domain names are no longer those used by companies, but it's also used by individuals, and therefore, it seems to me necessary that they ought to be protected on a privacy level. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Vande Walle. Perhaps I'll ask Paul Twomey to respond to that. The issue of collecting personal privacy information in relation to data protection by organizations outside the jurisdiction of the place that has rules covering that has been a long-standing problem. I can perhaps ask Paul to explain how it's currently dealt with. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Patrick, for the question. I think the answer to the question was somewhat in the document itself. ICANN's contracts, of course, cannot compel a party to break the law in their own jurisdiction, and we have actually, as you've pointed out, made an accommodation in dot tel for conflict of laws, and the -- I think in the draft contract that we're preparing for new gTLDs, the concern you raised has I think been recognized and I think we're probably going to follow that dot tel -- general dot tel approach. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Paul. Just an explanation to the lady on this side (indicating) of the room. This microphone is probably going to be quiet until about 9:00, because this is the microphone for new issues. If you want to talk about current issues, we've created this system and it's interesting to see how well it works. So if you want to talk about the IRT issues, please come. Thank you. >>LESLIE GUAN YUANYUAN: Okay. ICANN board members and participants, good morning. I'm Leslie Guan. I come from CONAC, China Organizational Name Administration Center. As a legal supervisor in CONAC, I was concerned about IPR protection very much. During these days I have attended many meetings of ICANN. I have paid a lot of attention to IRT final report. Especially I can understand that it's not easy for IRT members to accomplish this report in just eight weeks. I show much respect to them. Additionally, I want to give some personal suggestions on this report. First, objectively speaking, this report is so rash that it couldn't be considerable. Definitely it still needs to be modified. This has been a great (inaudible) by most participants at yesterday's meeting -- yesterday afternoon's meeting, which is new gTLD program consultation session on trademark protection. Second, in my opinion, as valid and professional legal documents, it should be discussed and verified by legal experts -- I mean IP law experts -- who specialize in IP laws research. Moreover, it's a fact that different countries have different jurisdictions, and there still hasn't been the uniform trademark law in the world until now. Therefore, IRT may hear the opinions of IP laws experts in different jurisdictions as well. Isn't it necessary and reasonable? Third, according this report, there is a list of file mechanisms on new gTLD application process. It will be more complicated compared with the traditional gTLD application procedure. Therefore, not only the legal reviewing costs, but also technical costs will be increased a lot. Now, the question is: On whom will be imposed this burden? Trademark holders, registries, or registrants? Isn't it necessary to be clarified and explained in details on the mechanisms of rules of implementation in this report? Fourth, obviously we should care much about the interests of trademark holders for their commercial purpose, but surely we can't ever ignore the interests of Internet users or customers. As to Internet techniques developed, more and more individuals, companies, organizations, even governmental departments, cannot survive without the Internet. Especially the domain name system has played an important role, not only in e-commerce, but also in e-government. In that case, we should consider to balance the interests of different parties, not just a specific party. By the way, I want to emphasize that we should also balance the interests of different countries' TLD registrants. Is that more fair and equal? Lastly, as we know, to resolve the domain name disputes, WIPO made and published a UDRP in 1999. It has been more than 10 years since then. In fact, UDRP has got global consensus on protection of trademark. For a decade of years, the essential social and legal issues have not changed a lot. So the report should be in accordance with the spirit and the principles of UDRP, because UDRP has got authority among registrants, so in that case, the report, especially the mechanisms mentioned in this report, can be more easily accepted by registrants all over the world. That's all. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much for that. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can I agree with you -- and I'm pretty sure the board and the community agree with much of what you say -- particularly in relation to the need for time to respond to the report, and the need to discuss it in relation to different jurisdictions and that's partly why there is a continuing process of discussion of the report. There's going to be a round of consultations in other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong and London and New York, and one hopes that with the amount of time that we've got, that there will be that consideration that you called for. Thank you. Sir. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Hello. I'm Jordyn Buchanan and I'll make it very clear I'm speaking only on behalf of myself. No one else endorses these ideas, probably, and I'm not sure I do, but... [Laughter] >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I do think, to follow up the point on the point you were just making, Peter, it seems very clear to me that at least parts of the ideas contained in the report -- and I'll point at the URS in particular -- seem clearly to be matters of policy, as opposed to simply minor implementation details that we need to work out along the way of getting a draft set of contracts correct. So part of the consultation that could -- that should take place as a result of this input -- and it is, I think, a very -- it's a very useful document. I commend the IRT team for the work that they've put forward in creating the document. I think it would be a tremendously helpful input in initiating a policy development process to address the issue of the URS as well as perhaps looking at the issue of trademark disputes generally, perhaps reforming the -- the UDRP in the process. It seems -- it would beg our belief to have the idea that the UDRP is a policy, but this new mechanism that substantially changes or at least -- or at least modifies the relationship between rights holders and registrants would somehow not be a policy, even though it covers much of the same ground and has many of the -- it has, you know -- even is adjudicated on the same standards as the UDRP. So I strongly, strongly urge the board not to endorse or build into any contracts this -- the URS or any similar mechanisms until a policy development process has occurred. Now, the board could vote tomorrow to initiate a policy development process through the GNSO, and you could use the IRT report as an input into that process and if, in fact, this is a wildly popular and useful mechanism, I imagine that policy development process would go very quickly. We have precedents for that when there have been clear ideas that are popular within the community. If, on the other hand, it's controversial and not popular, that process might take a little while, but that would prove the whole point of why you need to use the policy development process, as opposed to simply having a group of people create a mechanism that would not be endorsed by the community. It would -- that's a vital part of the bottoms-up process within ICANN. I'll make one minor caveat to all this. I don't think we need to block the process with new gTLDs on this. I think many of these issues are just as germane to the current set of TLDs as they are to new TLDs, so I don't know why we would stop the rollout of new TLDs to try to address a whole set of issues that exist today, that everyone acknowledges most of the cybersquatting that's happening is -- you know, is in a side of TLDs that are well known and well understood today. I don't -- and I think we could -- we could easily -- and like I said before, if this goes quickly, the policy development process could be done in parallel with the rest of the new gTLD rollouts and it would be done -- if it became policy, it would become part of the new contracts in any case. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jordyn. I think I'm going to ask Bruce, who chaired much of this, of course, in the policymaking process in the GNSO several years back just to comment on whether this is policy or not. Thank you, Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter. Just to the point in using policy development processes and how they apply, most -- the policy development process that's used in the GNSO, one of its prime purposes is that it actually sets policy for existing contract holders with ICANN that they -- that's mandatory to comply with. So examples of that was the transfers policy. It means that all registrars at the moment that policy becomes approved by the board are mandatory to adhere to that policy. Another approach that has been used in ICANN in the past was the development of a process called the redemption grace period. Now, that wasn't done through the GNSO policy development process. In fact, it was done on about a similar time frame as the IRT. It was about a 60-day process. But that was voluntary. So the registries chose whether to use the redemption grace period on the basis of whether they thought it was useful, and the majority did and actually asked the board if they could actually change their contracts to support the redemption grace period. So I guess one of the options with the proposals from the IRT is what I suspect could happen is that if there's support for particular mechanisms, that the new gTLDs registries themselves may take those up. Because there are some benefits to the industry of scale, with a number of these initiatives, such that a classic example is the concept of having a standard IP clearinghouse, because the last few launches of new gTLDs have each basically built one of those themselves, so there's a substantial cost in doing that. And then the rules and formats of information is different each time. So I think the industry can see some benefits in standardizing that. Another example is EPP protocol. Again, that was done through the IETF, as the development of a protocol for changing information between registries and registrars. That was never done through the GNSO process, but most registries and many of the ccTLD registries have voluntarily taken that on. So I think that's one of the choices. A PDP makes it mandatory for all existing registries as well, so if you wanted to change UDRP, that would become compulsory to all the com, net, org, other registries, whereas this process is potentially something that new gTLD registries could choose to implement. So just some options but I just wanted to point out those two mechanisms. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Yeah, thanks. I'll just make a very brief comment. I think that's right. I think that if the IRT report is just a set of recommendations that a given new gTLD applicant can choose to onboard, then you're right, that's not policy. But if it becomes a mandatory part of the application process, I think we're essentially setting policy for all new TLDs, and sort of calling it an implementation detail. I don't think it follows that just because there is not a policy, that means we're allowed to do it. I think, in fact, the opposite is true. Unless there is a policy, we're not allowed to do it. My esteemed colleague, Bruce Tonkin, in fact, in the past has made the analogy of the GNSO Council being the sort of legislative body that provides a framework of rules under which the ICANN staff can implement things as -- as an executive, and unless there's enabling legislation to do something, the executive can't do it. And I think that analogy applies here as well. We can't simply go and decide to do something because there's no rule saying we can't. We need a rule saying we can do it. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Sir? >>TIM RUIZ: Tim Ruiz with Go Daddy and the registrars constituency but I'm really speaking in my -- in a personal capacity here this morning and kind of following up on Jordyn's comments, I guess what I was -- wanted to do today was just offer a suggestion for a way forward with the IRT report. I was involved in at least two of the many presentations that took place this week, and many, many different comments and suggestions and concerns have been raised about various parts of the IRT report. When asked, you know, "Do you support this or do you support that," one of the things I heard over and over again was, "Yes, I could support that with changes." But those changes are -- you know, they vary quite a bit from one stakeholder to another, from one interest group to another. So my concern is: How can we -- how are we going to bring all these various ideas and concepts and concerns together in order to give them all, you know, appropriate consideration? Those that have been raised here as well as those that will be raised through the comment period that ends July 6th, and the various consultations. And it seems to me we have a process that's worked very well for dealing with that, and if we don't want to call it the policy development process, for one concern or another, that's fine. But it seems to me that a very appropriate way to deal with this would be for the board to take this body of work that the IRT has worked very hard on, and that -- parts of it are very well done and I think could have some support within the community. All the comments that have been offered here, that will be offered coming up through the consultations, hand that back to the GNSO and direct them to form a working group, a very broad and inclusive working group, to address the concerns that many have had that the IRT was rather a closed group, to consider all the various concepts, all the various ideas and considerations. Something that they've -- they've done very well, that that's what the GNSO has been formed to do. And then offer back, within a set time frame, a set of recommendations to the board for them to consider. And for the community to -- perhaps to further comment on. And I think that that could -- with the work that's been done and the comments that have been made, then some of the consultations that are coming up, I don't see how that could not be something that could be accomplished before the end of the year, and well within the time frame that's currently set out for the release of new gTLDs. So that's a suggestion I'd like to offer, and I will certainly participate wholeheartedly if that should occur. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Sir? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Good morning. Just a moment. I'm height- challenged. I'd like to -- my name is George Sadowsky and I'm speaking in a personal capacity. My comment crosses two topics that I believe are closely related. The subjects addressed by the IRT proposal and what I see as a potentially very negative consequence of even its consideration. Listening to the IRT session yesterday, several things were clear to me, and my contribution to humor is that the one thing that was clear to me was I was very glad I was not a lawyer, and especially not a trademark lawyer. But more seriously, names and trademarks are very important in the ICANN context, and the IRT process is an attempt to simplify and strengthen the appropriate treatment of intellectual property. A substantial number of members of the community have significant reservations and feel that the proposal has serious shortcomings, and weaknesses, and given the centrality of names for ICANN, community consensus among all groups will be needed to achieve this. This is likely to take significant effort and time. One of the principal forcing factors for a major initiative suggested in the IRT report is the desire to significantly expand the gTLD namespace and this leads to the much greater concern that I have, and that is that the process of achieving this consensus likely -- probably certainly -- is going to delay the introduction of IDN TLDs. Excuse me for a moment. I'm having trouble with the scrolling on the computer. I see a probable conflict between significant trademark holders, maybe all trademark holders, and the IPR community on the one hand, and the millions of potential new Internet users on the other hand. And if that's the case -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: George, sorry, just to interrupt for a minute, we seem to have lost transcribing and I'm not sure whether we've just lost the screen or something in terms of the capture -- it wasn't a moment ago. It's back up. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: We have it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's good. Just -- >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Thank you. If that's the case, it is necessary to understand that that's the nature of the tradeoff and decide what choices to make among the alternatives. I look at the nature of the tradeoff from the point of view of the user. This is the ultimate user of the Internet, of which there are over a billion and growing, whether or not that user is a domain name registrant. Now, if a user works in a language which uses a Latin alphabet, then the user enjoys almost all of the benefits of the Internet, even if no additional gTLDs using the Latin alphabet are ever created. I think that's an important point. This class of user is going to achieve almost zero benefit in the short term from any rush to implement new gTLDs. However, if a user works in a language that uses a different alphabet, then the existence of IDN gTLDs and/or IDN ccTLDs is absolutely essential for that user to benefit from the resources and the services that are available throughout -- through the Internet. This class of users is effectively disenfranchised at present. And that class of user will achieve very substantial benefits from the existence of IDN TLDs of both types as they're introduced. So I believe that the global public interest imperative that underlies ICANN's creation and the continued -- and its continued existence strongly argues for the rights of the un-networked. And the issues addressed by the IRT are, in my opinion, minuscule compared to them. So my suggestion and my plea to the organization is the following: First, solve the IPR and security issues addressed by the IRT report, but take the time to do it right. Take the time that is needed and ensure that the outcome has broad community support and leaves no really fundamental or significant disagreements in the community. Second, recognizing that ICANN's fundamental responsibility to promote the global interest is paramount, do not delay the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs either on the basis of concerns regarding long-run competitive advantage among new registries or while waiting for any improvements in handling trademarks and the issues raised in the IRT report or from any desire to rapidly expand the domain name space in a market that is already robust. Let me exaggerate somewhat. Only somewhat. I'm urging ICANN not to hold millions of potential new and important groups of users of the Internet hostage to a process of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of trademark considerations and cybersquatting issues. And finally, I'd like to note that while most of the people in this room will see this as an exaggeration, a large part of the world is likely to see it as an understatement. And I think this should give us pause to consider substantially reordering our priorities. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, George. I think the board constantly is aware of the issue that you raised, the balance that you raise or the several balances that you raise, particularly somehow to preserve things for those not yet networked. And we are very conscious of making rules that are going to affect people who are not part of the rule-making process. Let me confirm that's a principle that the board is very much allied to. Let me also add that there is no intention to try to delay the introduction of IDN, either G or ccTLDs. Paul, you wanted to say something. >>PAUL TWOMEY: George, I had a follow-up question. And the question was, putting aside the question of intellectual property rights, as -- that's -- you prioritized it different than other people would have -- issues around ensuring secure and stable introduction of IDN, be their ccTLDs or gTLDs, particularly with the complexities of a new -- IDNs in a mass -- how it's expressed in Unicode, et cetera, how do you prioritize that? >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: Do I have a mike here? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's on. >>GEORGE SADOWSKY: I think those are important issues. But the IRT report, as I saw it, did not directly address those issues, except with respect to cybersquatting. And that's a problem. And there are other security problems in the Internet. And we do need to address those also. But I'm not sure I'm fully responding to your question. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Next in line, thank you. >>MARK PARTRIDGE: Good morning. My name is Mark Partridge. This is my first opportunity to speak to the board. I'm honored to be here. I serve as an adjunct law professor in Chicago. I'm a private practitioner. I am a UDRP panelist. I have been since the start of the process. I'm a mediator and arbitrator, and I was honored to be a member of the IRT team. I'm here in my personal capacity to make a personal observation about the system and how we could improve the system of dealing with disputes in the Internet world. Last year, the NAF, which is one of the UDRP providers, reported that it had received 1,770 UDRP filings in 2008. WIPO reported that they had received 2,328 filings in 2008. So roughly -- well, exactly 4,099 cases were filed. The filing fees for these generally are approximately $1,000. So we're talking about $4 million, plus attorneys' fees, to do the filings, which can be 4,000 to 10,000 in a typical case. So in this particular sphere, it was up to $40 million or more in expect and waste that could have been spent in better ways. This is the tip of the iceberg. This is only the UDRP cases for two providers. And, of course, with the ccTLDs, there are other providers and more cases. This is a systemic problem when we have to spend so much money on this process, not just in terms of who files, but in terms of the expense of operating the system, the expense of having panelists participate in this system, and particularly where the panelists are not fully compensated for the time they spend on these cases. Much more time is put in in a voluntary way than is actually paid for. As a UDRP panelist, I see that a substantial portion of the cases involve default decisions, no answer is filed, and are clear cases of cybersquatting in ways that are harming consumers, selling counterfeit drugs, selling counterfeit products, doing phishing, doing spam, et cetera. So there is a systemic problem where -- that we could do better. I urge ICANN to seek solutions to this problem that will make the system faster and less expensive for all involved to help deal with this issue. I believe that the ideas in the IRT report are a step toward that solution, and I urge their very serious consideration on that perspective, in making the system better. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Just a quick response, I suppose. And that is, there's a tradeoff in all of these things. And although you might be able to calculate $40 million in enforcement fees, intellectual property rights owners know that rights need protecting, and the tradeoff really has to be, is that a reasonable cost for what the Internet is providing? And there are 80 million dot com registrations. Or just short of 80 million. And we know that those people have now got access to every one of 1.5 billion consumers. So the tradeoff has to be, if you want to access those consumers, and if you want to take part in the trillions of dollars of e-commerce that are flying across the Internet, what is an appropriate fee to pay for that participation. Put against the trillions of dollars of sales that are made, some might argue that $40 million spread amongst 80 million registrants is actually a very low cost for participating. >>MARK PARTRIDGE: I agree with your point on the importance of balance. And I'm not complaining about the cost from the point of view of trademark owners. My point is that there's a considerable expense that could be reduced to the system as a whole by focusing on faster, less-expensive methods for dealing with those clear-cut cases of cybersquatting. And that was the intent of some of the provisions in the IRT, to try to overall have a system that reduces that expense. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Just an indication, please, because we're coming close to the end of the scheduled time for this. How many people, just stand up, please -- Still want to talk about this topic? I know we started about five minutes or so late. So I can perhaps get an indication that we run over. I have this wonderful mechanism at my disposal which I have yet to unleash. And that's the time clock. So I'm not sure whether I'll do that yet. Can we just make sure we keep things reasonably brief, as you have been? That's been good. And then we'll try and get through this. Thank you. Next in line. >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Hi. So I'm reading this from a question sent in by the online Adobe Connect system and also through the online question box. Lynn Goodendorf asks, will processes such as the URS be implemented and in place prior to processing applications for new gTLDs. She also asks, is it not in the interest of Internet users to be able to clearly identify Web sites and not be misled or misdirected by domain name abuse? I have two more questions, one from George Kirikos, the IRT said a fax notification for the URS would violate laws. The UDRP has been doing this for years, though. Which specific laws are these opting faxes violating? Since faxes are cheaper than postal mail, faster, and more reliable, the IRT makes no sense. The only explanation is that IRT members do not want registrants to receive adequate notice. Question from Rafik Dammak. Hello, my name is Rafik Dammak, NCUC member. First, I want to express that I am against adoption of the IRT report as its recommendations extend trademark owners' rights more than is necessary. My question is, how can ICANN protect individual users' rights and interests with such possible threats? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. I'm going to ask a member of the IRT, if there is somebody available, could you just give us a very quick answer in relation to this question of the methods of service and the time and the e-mail, spam traps, et cetera? I know that's been raised, and I have heard some answers. While a member of the IRT is preparing for that answer, I think Harald wants to say something. Harald. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Just a minor point. I've heard phishing, scamming, and the various criminal activities being stated as a reason to have the IRT. Trademark protection isn't a crime-fighting tool. If we have criminals, it might actually be better to figure out how to make law enforcement, like -- as in enforcement of law -- more effective. In one of the recent examples, it's the McColo takedown, which briefly dropped 75% of all spam on the Internet for a day. I mean, if you want to catch criminals, you need to go after the criminals, not the trademarks. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Harald. There a member of the IRT yet just ready to deal with this repeated question about e-mail and spam and stuff? If not, Mike, your turn at the mike. Mr. Partridge, thank you for accepting the burden. And thank you for coming all the way back from the back of the room. >>MARK PARTRIDGE: Mark Partridge. As part of the IRT report, we were looking for effective ways to commit service on the respondent and find tools that would actually get to them and not add extra expense. And the information in the short time that we had is that some of the providers of dispute resolution services were finding that using faxes were not effective. They were not being received. They get a very low, low, if any, response rate to faxes. We also had some information that we don't have specifics on that in some countries, there are rules about faxes. And we weren't aware of what the specific rules were in terms of restrictions on using faxes and sending them in this way. So that's the -- that was the gist of it. It's something that is another method. And if it were considered effective, I don't think anybody would be opposed to it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that very -- that last point. So if there are productive suggestions about service and better mechanisms, please, feed them into the process. And, Bruce, you have a response? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I was just going to respond that it's kind of interesting we're talking about faxes, because the only faxes I receive these days are spam. I think, you know, most of us have moved online. I would think that with a lot of these things, it comes back to giving the user a choice on how they wish to be contacted. Because most other sort of relationships that you have with suppliers these days will give you a range of options. You can choose to be contacted by SMS, you can choose to be contacted by e-mail, you can choose to get your -- you know, your bank statement sent by post or you can choose to get them online. So I think what it's really about is saying, how does the user want to be served notice and have some method of choice there, of which there are so many different communication mechanisms around. Let's put it in the hands of the user. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mike. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you. Michael Palage. The IRT has taken a lot of heat this week here in Sydney. And while it's not a perfect document, I think it really was a really Herculean task that a small group of people undertook in a short period of time. And I do think it provides a foundation for solving one of the four overarching issues. That being said, I think we need to look at how do we ensure this implementation? Paul, during the registry lunch on Tuesday, you brought back an unpleasant memory, which was 2005, when ICANN hit, I think, the high watermark of seven active litigations. Right now, I think ICANN's in a much better situation. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, probably in the next 12 to 18 months, you're probably going to exceed that high watermark. No matter what you do, American lawyers and other lawyers from around the world are going to find fault in what you do. So with that rather somber, if you will, statement, I think what you really need to do is look at how you go about implementing this. And one of the things that I've learned this week through the antitrust sessions and some of the other competition issues is that, as a standard-setting body, your best defense when you get sued is to follow your bylaws. Follow your articles of incorporation. And what your bylaws do is, it's very clear, it says, "There shall be a policy development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." Now, we've heard issues of both the IRT and the next issue, registry/registrar separation, its implementation. It's contractual. This is a policy duck. It has feathers, webbed feet, lives in water, and quacks. Okay? It's a duck. It's a policy duck. And you've got to follow your bylaws, because when the lawyers start suing, you, the board, and your general counsel, are going to need to rely upon that to make sure. And, again, being sued is not a bad thing. ICANN is a steward of a global resource. So don't let the threat of litigation be a bad thing. As a steward, you stand up and fight for what is right. So please do the right thing. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mike. Sir. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Good morning. Chairman thrush and members of the board, I'm Philip Corwin, council to the Internet Commerce Association, representing domain investors and developers and the companies they serve. And our members and the customers they provide services to collectively own many millions of domains. And as we believe that whatever is adopted for new gTLDs will, in rather short order, become the dispute mechanism for incumbent gTLDs -- in fact, I've heard suggestions at various meetings here in Sydney that that be done in fairly short order. Even if our members never buy a single domain at the new gTLDs, we believe they will be affected by your decision on this. And, of course, if the new gTLDs are to be successful, you want people like that to be taking advantage of the new opportunities for competition and serving Internet users they provide. Since the beginning of this process, we've been calling for -- very strongly for the establishment of strong, cost-effective, and readily implemented protections for rightsholders. We are not -- in no way against that. But we've also been saying that we should not have fundamental change of the dispute process that will substantially supplement or replace the UDRP without a process that ensures that registrant concerns about current UDRP issues are heard. And, unfortunately, we believe that this IRT process, while I believe the people involved in it were acting in good faith and worked very hard, did not provide that opportunity. I won't go into details. Your ombudsman knows that we have raised objections from the beginning that the IRT was an ICANN constituent body which was not operating in conformance with the bylaw requirements that constituency bodies maximize transparency and fair representation. And one example is their vote at the first meeting to operate in a confidential manner and not to release transcripts or MP3s. And we, frankly, found the ombudsman to -- process somewhat -- substantially lacking as an accountability mechanism. Let me turn to the substance of our report. Our principal concern is with the URS, which we call the URSP. We believe that this is a major policy and that will not just supplement the UDRP at new gTLDs, but that, in fact, it is -- will be the new UDRP at the new gTLDs. And on that point, we rely on a submission from the World Intellectual Property Organization to you dated April 3rd in which, in analyzing the effect of their very similar proposal, called the ESM, the Expedited Suspension Mechanism, they reviewed 400 UDRPs and found that an expedited process which only dealt with names that were identical to the text or word elements for trademarks would capture, and I quote, a significant majority of UDRP disputed domain names. Now if an identical process would capture a significant majority, we believe that when you expand that out to confusingly similar names, as the URS would do, you would capture the vast, vast majority of cases that are currently dealt with in the UDRP. And then when you add to that the extremely low cost for complainants, which could be as low as $1.50 per name disputed in mass filings, and the fact that complainants would not have the cost of acquiring a domain that they wanted taken out of being resolved, we think that this -- the UDRP will basically disappear at new gTLDs if the URS is adopted as proposed. Our other concerns about the URS are the -- well, the potential abuse encouraged by the extremely low cost of filing, the lack of adequate sanctions to deter complainant abuse. We don't think suspension from the process for one year after three separate incidents of intentional abuse is in any way adequate to deter such abuse. We don't think an inadequately paid examiner can possibly provide adequate due process to registrants or implement the supposedly higher evidentiary standard in this process and the great expense for the outright absence of a substantive appeals process for registrants who believe that their domains have been unfairly suspended. In short, we believe the URSP is UDRP reform undertaken solely from the viewpoint of complainants, without input from -- adequate input from registrants. We did get to testify for 30 minutes in San Francisco. But it's in no way equivalent to being part of the process day in and day out. Quickly, another element. We share the concerns of many on the globally protected marks list as to whether it can be implemented and whether there's a firm legal basis. On the positive side, we believe that the standard sunrise registration process that's been recommended has substantial merit and that the I.P. clearinghouse, if we work out some details, could be a benefit to both trademark owners and registrants who want to avoid any unintentional infringement. So, wrapping up, we believe that the policy that this would implement of having a one-sided URS at new gTLDs while maintaining a flawed, deeply flawed, UDRP at the incumbents, is the wrong policy, would have - - We should have one much-improved dispute process against all gTLDs, both new and incumbent. We believe that setting the precedent of allowing a single constituency to control the agenda and membership of a short-term ad hoc group and have its recommendations implemented without further communitywide policy review would be a terrible precedent, a very dangerous precedent. Suggest -- we suggest -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Corwin, I hate to interrupt, but you did say you were wrapping up, and you've gone on for very much longer than the 2 minutes that I suggested was a good guide. And so you've used up a lot of time of the people behind you. >>PHILIP CORWIN: We hope the IRT report can be a starting point for a broader process and includes the entire affected community, with the goal of putting in place a balanced expedited process in place that does not delay the introduction of new gTLDs. Thank you very much for your time. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. All right. Let's start the clock. Can we have the clock up on the screen. Ms. Cade, it's not an indication that you are about come to the microphone, but an indication perhaps of those that have gone before you. >>MARILYN CADE: Mr. Chairman, my first question was going to be, please, start the clock. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm speaking as an individual and have appeared before this council of master yodas many times. The chairman suggested that perhaps we should continue to try to find understanding and humor. And so I use the term master yodas because I think, in fact, I understand that we are asking you to exercise wisdom. So I have two points. One point I have is a question for you. And it is not a question I had when I came to the microphone. But it is a question as I have listened to what you have heard so far, here's my question for you: Does the board have the authority and the right in an implementation process when serious issues are identified to establish a group of experts to thoroughly examine an issue and then to put that topic back out for public comment for a robust period of time? So I will turn and ask Kieren, when does the public comment period end on the IRT? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Yeah, so it ends on the 6th of July. It was extended from the 29th of June to the 6th of July. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. The reason I -- So we are in a public comment period. A long one, a good one, and everyone here who has concerns, I urge them and their friends to use that public comment period. Here's my question again about do you have the right to appoint a group of experts? There are four overarching issues. They have nexus. We have to be able to address the implications of those four overarching issues and their interaction with each other. And you have asked a group of experts in the other four overarching issues to develop some ideas and to provide things for the community to comment on. So my view is there, we have to keep that nexus in mind. And I do think you have the right and the responsibility to turn to experts, not just the broad, diverse community who have opinions, but to turn to experts at particular times and ask them to give you more informed options. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next, please. Elliot, I think there's a queue behind you. I'm not sure whether you're aware of that. >>ELLIOT NOSS: No. I was looking for it and -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's a bunch of -- [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's a bunch of agitators. You have to work out who's who and get behind them. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: That sounds perfect as a segue to what we're about to say. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Cheryl Langdon-Orr. I'm the Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization representative, one of two here to the At-Large Advisory Committee. And I am in fact the At-Large Advisory Committee chair. And it is in that capacity that I am standing at this microphone. I am also here with Robin, a rare moment. Look at this, solidarity. Take the camera shot now. And the NCUC and the At-Large Advisory Committee, the regional leaders, and the members of the at-large structures at this meeting have formed some text which we wish to share with you today. It is delightfully short. I'm going to read the first couple of paragraphs. Robin's going to finish up. We're going to read the text, because every word has been herniated over, because it has got to be in agreement. And it is not an ALAC statement. It is yet to go through that process. And it will become, we believe, a statement of some of the regions. To the words. The at-large community, the At-Large Advisory Committee, and the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN are on the record as strongly supporting creation of new gTLDs. With respect to the final IRT report, those members here, as I've mentioned earlier, unfortunately need to raise the following concerns: The process to move forward with the changes to the draft application guidebook requires legitimacy of full community participation and full transparency. In the case of the IRT report, we believe we've had neither. To be more specific, the globally protected marks list, the GPML database, is a matter, in our opinion, well beyond ICANN's scope and its core competence. It presumes to be able to resolve an issue that continues to divide full-time trademark experts. The attempt to create the GPML has already revealed numerous substantial challenges. Its development has the strong potential to delay rather than to speed the implementation of new gTLDs. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Your time is up. So I just -- carry on, but just recognize what two minutes means. It means don't spend a quarter of your time introducing yourself. Let's get to the point. And if you've got information that you can send by way of written submission to us, do that. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thank you. To continue, the GPML takes no consideration of the actual limits of rights and protections allowed to trademarks. In the real world, trademark owners apply for a trademark in a specific class of goods and services, and their use is bound to that class or classes and subject to territorial and other well-known, recognized limitations. In particular, trademark law does not regulate non-commercial speech. By protecting a string of letters in all new gTLDs, the GPML would extend trademarks into new gTLDs far beyond the bounds of their class of goods and services, far beyond existing national laws and international treaties. We have serious issues with the URS as proposed. For instance, the URS mechanism subverts conventional UDRP practice as it gives entirely insufficient time for notice to the registrant of the pending dispute. Thus, the registrant is unfairly limited in his or her right of response and the process is missing the fundamental principle of due process. We are opposed to the IRT proposal's policy recommendation to move to a thick WHOIS without doing a privacy analysis, nor taking into account national laws nor international standards, such as the 1980 OECD Guidelines, the Privacy Convention 108, and the E.U. Data Protection Directive. Overall, we wish the result were different. We wish the IRT had delivered a balanced proposal for the protection of trademarks and privacy. But the product delivered is far from [sic] outside the scope and core competence of ICANN and outside the bounds of the trademark and privacy law. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Could I just have an indication of how many people still wish to speak on this topic because we are going to have to close it down? We may not have time for all of you, I'm afraid. Next at the microphone. >>KATITZA RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, sir. It is my first time in an ICANN meeting. I want to submit a comment. My name is Katitza Rodriguez. I'm the director of EPIC International Privacy Program. We want to make a precise comment. We are opposed to the IRT proposal which made a substantive policy recommendation to move to a thick WHOIS, a central registrar level provision of WHOIS for all domain names registered within the registrar. Without doing an independent privacy impact assessment of that substantive policy recommendation, addressing legitimate privacy concerns should not be left to the chance and this needs to be addressed from the outset of projects which may raise such concerns. And their taking a privacy impact assessment is one of the ways of ensuring that those privacy concerns I am saying are addressed and built in as a project develops rather than done later as an expensive afterthought. ICANN should read those privacy analysis and assessments taken into account at the international privacy development held in different international policy-making processes that foster the development of the right of personal data protection in different jurisdictions and at an international level, such as international privacy standards, the 1998 guidelines, the EU directive and the national discussion of global privacy standards which we held in November at the Spanish Protection Authority in Madrid. It is not the job of ICANN to rewrite international privacy standards that have been developed at the international level in the last 25 years but to implement them. Thank you. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Kathy, I will make you the last speaker on this order. What I would like to do is take the rest of you who are unable to get to it in this time, can you leave your names with the staff. If we get time at the end, we will come back and you will have priority but we are now well over time. And you can also use the question box that Kieren has explained. You can put questions through that. So, Kathy, you will be the last on this order and then we will move to registry-registrar. If we get time, we will come back. Leave your names, please, with the staff and you will keep that priority. Kathy? >>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to submit my longer comments since they are about three minutes long and not two minutes long. I will submit the full length later. I'm Kathy Kleiman. I'm a co-founder of the noncommercial users constituency, a drafter of the UDRP and also a trademark and telecommunications attorney who represents small and very innovative Internet businesses. NCUC has asked me to share with you our very strong concerns with you about the IRT report. First, we have strong concerns about the process. This was a group comprised largely of intellectual property attorneys. So whether they're experts or -- I'm sorry. I can't hear. Okay. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: You need to go a little bit more slowly because of the translation and the transcribing. Thanks. >>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: And I won't compete with the noise behind me. Thank you. We object to the process that composed the IRT. This is largely the intellectual property constituency, which while experts also have opinions and they have things that they want on behalf of their clients, I spent half a decade in ICANN as co-chair of different working groups banging heads with registrars, with business, with intellectual property constituency. That's traditionally how we get things done. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to argue going forward the group that reviews the current and upcoming comments be one composed of constituencies excluded from the IRT process. Why? Because all week the IRT committee has sat on high rejecting even the most basic of suggestions and ideas. If you hear one idea long enough, it's easy to forget that there is another side. So in even the comments that ICANN staff show, there is a sway that has taken place. So bring in attorneys who represent trademark registrants. Bring in people who work with human rights groups, people who know what these names mean to individuals and human rights groups and small businesses in the group that reviews the comments. On substance, the IRT has proposed an IP clearinghouse, and the Noncommercial Users Constituency is very concerned. This is a global database of not just federally registered trademarks but unregistered marks, not just trademarks in international use but some of intent to use. The domain name we think will be used to scare away domain name registrants from registering an identical match of a word in a second level, even if it's a common, ordinary word, even if it is a word that has been registered many, many times before. But even if we could do this database, is it within the scope and mission of ICANN? And we don't think so. If a private party wanted to create the IP clearinghouse and offer its services, that might make sense. But for ICANN to create this type of database goes beyond our core competence and core mission. The globally protected marks list is causing us to lose a great deal of sleep. There is no international list of famous marks. There is no international consensus of what protection an internationally famous mark might have, and the U.S. Second Circuit just rejected something that was considered an internationally famous mark. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I will have to close you down. You had three minutes now. I know there was an interruption in the middle, but I think I have allowed you time to compensate for that. So could you bring it to a close? >>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: Yes, the URS is not fair. When we negotiated the UDRP, we negotiated for every day of a notice period. And the registrant needs it. 14 days is not enough. Registrants will default on mass. They won't have time to respond. The proper process has opened up the UDRP and do this right. And maybe find a very, very narrow set of egregious cases for rapid take-down. Overall, the recommendations will dramatically limit our use of language, alter the DNS space, and significantly alter ICANN itself. Thank you. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Let's move to the next topic, registry/registrar separation. I am not quite sure how the second microphone works in this case. Might as well take the gentleman from Japan at that microphone on registry/registrar separation. >> NAOMASA MARUYAMA: My name is Naomasa Maruyama. Skipping why I'm here, my problem here is my topic is both related to this registry/registrar vertical separation issue and new gTLD issue. But, anyway, I have to speak now. Sorry for reiteration that this topic I have spoken several times. But my topic here is what I call the proprietary TLD. And it seems that there's lot of -- it means the gTLDs wholly used by one corporation, and it seems that there's a variant name for this notion. For example, to look at the analysis of public comment for the guidebook, number one, February 18th, page 85, there's a quote from the -- a comment by Microsoft. It says that if ICANN does not intend to allow the community-based gTLD designated to apply -- designation to apply to for corporation-branded gTLDs, it should so state and provide a detailed explanation as to why not. That is an important question, I think, and I cannot find the answer -- clear answer to this question. That is one point. And, also, there's another name for this -- another variant name for this notion that as a single registrant TLD. So the answer for the -- this Microsoft question is very much related to the new gTLD issue. But I have to explain this relation to this question to the registry/registrar separation issue. So to keep this speech short, I have to introduce one assumption that the answer to this question might be like this. My reading -- this answer is my understanding about the analysis of public comment guidebook -- analysis of the public comment Book Number 2, 31st of May. And I think that is the not short answer but a rather short answer for this Microsoft question will be, ICANN will not permit corporate- branded gTLDs except for it is applied as a community TLD and qualifies community criteria. That is something -- my understanding about the analysis guidebook. So this issue is the next topic, so I have to keep this short -- rather short answer as an assumption here. And based on this assumption, my comment here is that there is a danger that an outcome of registry/registrar separation, integration discussion might create a backdoor to this corporate-branded TLD. That is my warning and caution that I have already raised in the session the day before yesterday. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. We will be getting on to the general issues of TLDs later on. You are all ready to talk about registry/registrar separation? >>BECKY BURR: I am, indeed. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm not sure whether there are any others over there that thought we were going to use that microphone for registry/registrar separation. Let's form the queue over here behind the current speaker. So registry/registrar separation. >>BECKY BURR: Sorry. I thought we were using both microphones. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We are trying to see if we can get some more flexibility. But go ahead. >>BECKY BURR: Becky Burr. I think I want to say, first of all, for those of you who were able to attend the session on Monday, it was a very interesting session with the economists. It would be really helpful in the future if we all had advance notice of those kinds of things coming together, but I do think it was a really great discussion and it pointed out that on this topic, we really need more information, more data about the market, more economic data; that the economists agreed with each other and with the people who are participating in the audience. But there is a set of data that is absolutely critical to this issue that has to be pulled together. So I hope we can figure out a way to do that. The other issue that became clear in this is once you get to the economic data, there is an issue of an ICANN-created policy and how it impacts the people who have been subject to it, and that is everybody on both sides of this issue. And so the discussion cannot simply be an economic and antitrust discussion. We have to understand how that policy impacted people who are -- have been living with the system for ten years and figure out a way to create a level playing field, which I think is what everybody wants. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Bruce? Becky, there may be a follow-up or question, do you want to stay at the microphone? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Becky, I wanted to respond. Lots of people at ICANN say we need more data. That's a very general term. Can you be specific? What specific data would you like to see? >>BECKY BURR: If you are going to look at this in a sort of "what's the right way to proceed," the basic question is what is the market and who has positions in it and what are those positions. The point put forward by the economists -- and I think a point that most economists would agree on, is that if there is no market power at either end of two markets, integrating them vertically is going to produce some efficiencies. I think the question is: What is the market and how do you analyze where that is? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let me be just be clear what data is available and you tell me whether you think there needs to be more. What data is available for all the gTLDs, you know the number of registrations and you also know the number of registrations per registrar. So, admittedly the ccTLD data is generally not public. Are you saying you need more than that? Because the way you're describing it, saying you actually have the data, you know exactly how many names each registrar has and you know exactly how many names each gTLD registry has. That's all public. >>BECKY BURR: That's all public. The question of whether an individual TLD is a market, an individual registrar is a market, a group of TLDs are a market, whether the CCs as a whole are a market. I don't think that the CCs' issue is particularly relevant here. But questions about where are the markets in there are the questions that frankly are questions that we need to answer for the purposes of the gTLD process all together. It is not just data. >>BRUCE TONKIN: You're not asking for data. You are asking for analysis of the existing data, I think. Anyway, we can take it offline. What you're saying is you want ICANN to get some analysis done of the data that's there. I didn't hear you ask for more data. You asked for analysis of the data. >>BECKY BURR: I expect the people who do the analysis are going to need to pull together some data, some of which is not public. That's not hard to do. I'm not saying that you have to go out and run tests and create data. The data is there. But somebody needs to pull it together and somebody needs to look at it, and we need it for a whole bunch of other issues that are relevant. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Any more on registry/registrar separation? I see some. Excellent. Please take your places at the microphone. >> ADAM COGAN: Good morning. This is my first ICANN meeting, and possibly my last. I only have a couple of small points. My name is Adam Cogan. I run a software company in Sydney. We have 30 guys here and 11 in China. We have done some good solutions over the last 19 years, and hopefully we will do some good ones in the future. But my interest here is around URLs. I think they are very important, and I'm happy about cool ones that are coming up like dot me and in the future I'm looking for dot dev and maybe you can make even make some better ones like dot cloud. But my main problem is how the domain resellers work. We pretty much use Melbourne I.T. mainly. We don't use big mamas like GoDaddy that sell their domains with naked women. But I'm upset that Melbourne I.T. don't sell cool domains like dot me, and I wonder why. Are they really that worried about putting $1 into the pockets of GoDaddy or is there other reasons? But my solution would be to have all domain resellers forced to sell all domains. To me that sounds logical. Not sure the reason why it isn't. And in the future, I think that we should have more cool domains. Obviously, we've got dot me today and dot dev tomorrow and dot cloud hopefully coming after, but I've got even cooler ideas which I don't plan on sharing right here. But I would like to say, please allow me to create a super cool domain for an niche and let me sell it. Today big companies trust us with their consulting, with their domain hosting. Why can't they trust us with their domains? So please allow me to help you -- help me help you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. And welcome to your first ICANN meeting, and thank you for the contribution that you've made. Now someone who is not at his first ICANN meeting, and I think for those of you that don't know, I think Ken has the rare claim of being able to say he has attended every ICANN meeting. >>KEN STUBBS: Yes, 34 of them, I believe it is. Good morning, my name is Ken Stubbs. I just wanted to elaborate very briefly on a comment that Bruce had in a response. We have data available to us to analyze the market. But one of the basic flaws so far that I've seen in the way that the data has been analyzed is we look at it in a more static manner. We all are aware of the fact that we're dealing with an incredibly dynamic market. So you need to take a look at how the market acts and how it acts in a time period that's more relevant to these decisions that you're making. You need to look at things like Net Creates. In other words, over the last three years, where has the growth in the base in new gTLDs been? So I encourage you to take another look at that. Listen to the questions that were posed to you and to the people on the Monday sessions. And I think it will give you an opportunity to get a lot more insight as to where the issues could be and how you may have to address them. Thanks a lot, Peter. I appreciate it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Next in line? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Good morning. My name is Jeff Neuman. I'm with NeuStar, but I'm making this comment just in my personal capacity. As we didn't really know necessarily that this subject was on for the public forum. I think our positions are pretty well-known and documented on this issue and don't really want to engage in a debate here, which I'm sure could be fun and interesting. The only thing I want -- the only point I really want to make is kind of related to the last discussion about what is a policy and whether you need to go through some process to change that policy. I believe that vertical separation is an existing policy of ICANN. How we got there could be told in a number of different ways, but right now vertical separation is a policy. And any change to that policy other than clarifying or potentially closing loopholes that we all know that exist in that policy, any overall change to that policy needs to go through some sort of policy process. Now, I'm not saying necessarily it's a consensus policy that goes through a GNSO PDP because at this point in time I'm not sure the GNSO has the expertise to actually go through that kind of analysis. But what I am saying is the existing policy is separate -- is vertical separation. Any change is to be carefully considered and not only the economic analysis but the equities of what will happen to the existing players in transitioning to a new policy, what effect that would have. And I guess that's my comment. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jeff. I know Paul wants to respond. There may be other board members. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Jeff. When we had this discussion on Tuesday across constituencies and what seemed to emerge out of those discussions on Tuesday was some -- first of all, that there need to be more work done on economic analysis and some of the stuff that Becky pointed out. Two, that the constituencies pretty consistently said convene an expert panel and have members of the community be advisors to the panel to do that work. Don't ask the constituencies themselves to do it, probably for the reasons you've indicated, they'll just end up with a bifurcated outcome with no common ground in the middle. If we do that approach, what's the -- what is the next step? Because I'm coming to your point about what is policy and how does it get created. If we do that as a step, what do you see is next? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Well, I think it is a good point. I think when you raise the panel of experts, my confusion in talking to others was who are the appropriate experts. I mean, people think of economic experts, but you might just get an academic theory of "in the long run" or "in general if you were starting out on a blanket slate, a market is more efficient if it runs like X, Y and Z." I don't know personally -- and this is something we are discussing as to who are the experts who would look at issues of equities and transition in addition to the long-term. So, for example, in the United States, if there's a consent decree, let's say, in the Department of Justice and that consent decree is removed, in other words, restrictions are removed in an existing market, there is usually a sufficient transition period that's afforded to those that were playing under those rules. I don't think that would come across from an economic expert and people use the term "competition experts" but personally I'm not sure what that means. So I think your solution of creating these experts is a good one. We just need to figure out who are those experts. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I think that's a good point. And I'd also point out that you can actually commission a group to quite explicitly not only deal with the "long run" but deal with transition costs and transition implications. And I think, suspect that's where a lot of the input from the members of the community with new knowledge will flesh out that new (inaudible) would require. Let's say we do do that and they end up with Conclusion A or Conclusion A, B and C, I want to come back to this question of what do you think policy making is in this environment? We get conclusion A, B and C. Then what? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I guess it all depends on what Conclusion A, B and C are. As long as they take into consideration all the factors and the transition to moving towards those conclusions, I suppose that would be fine. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: But you understand those who don't like the outcome will challenge the process. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Again, whatever the outcome is going to be the way it's going to go. But again, if you consider a transition period and how the existing players are affected and moving to that, then, I guess -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jeff, as I said to you in the registry meeting, I personally have no problem with the concept, if we change the rules, we have to consider how the implementation affects those who have been living under the previous regime. >>JEFF NEUMAN: If it goes through a fair process -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We got that point. >>JEFF NEUMAN: If it goes through a fair process with everybody's input and the decision is that in the long-term we want to move toward vertical separation, if that's the decision of the community and there is a reasonable transition period involved, then that's where we're going to move towards. I guess my point is I'm not presupposing any kind of outcome. What I'm saying is any outcome needs to study the transition affects. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I understand that. Can I just get an indication -- I know Naomasa, there are people behind you in line. There is a queue behind you. >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: Quick response to Paul, ten seconds. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ten seconds. Okay, let's start the clock. Thanks. >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: The problem I faced the day before yesterday is that these experts did not understand the backdoor issue I mentioned. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Just an indication, how many have we got left on registry/registrar separation? One. Excellent, because then we can go into all the other aspects of new gTLDs that you want to talk about. Go ahead. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you, Peter. Mike Palage. Bruce, you were talking about data, what data we needed for this analysis. One of the elements -- and I've raise this had in a number of articles I've written recently. Back at the annual meeting 2006 in Brazil, there was talk by Paul Twomey about a full-market report. I think we need to really look at that full-market report. This is something I think the U.S. government has called for, a number of people in the business community have called for. Again, putting on that litigation hat of what's going to happen when the lawsuits start flooding in, did you have all the data? Did you do what you said you were going to do? I think this economic data is really important. I don't know how to define a market. I'll leave that to the experts. But there is, I think, a growing interplay between Gs and Cs. There is competition. This is something that did not exist back in 2000, but there is a growing, if you will, interrelation. We just heard comments about dot me. Is that a G or is that a C? So, again, full market analysis, I think, is important. It is something that not registries or registrars but the U.S. government in its submissions as well as a number of businesses -- from the business community has asked for. That's it. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mike. And follow-up from Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just a clarification, too. Do you see gTLDs and ccTLDs as one market? Or are you expecting the analysis to be just gTLDs? I think that's an important point? When people are asking ICANN to do a market analysis, what do you mean by that? Define the market for me. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: As I said, I'm using the words of Paul Twomey at the board meeting. He said "full market." So when I say "full market," I include all TLDs. I don't think we need to delineate between Cs and Gs. Again, these are artificial labels. Is dot mil, dot gov, dot edu, dot int, technically, they are a G. Do they act like a G? No. Dot me is that a G or a C? Dot TV? I don't know those answers. What I'm saying is I would like someone who is an expert in the overall global marketplace to look at how these unique identifiers function in the market and how they interrelate, how consumers view them. Again, I don't know these answers. But what I do see is I see people that I respect from the business community and from the United States government saying "you said you were going to do a full market analysis, where is it"? Not only do I think it is a good idea but Dennis Carlton in his final report said, yes, I think it is a good idea but I don't think it's necessary. What I'm telling the board, I think you should slow down, get that report, get all your ducks in a row so when the litigation starts, you have all bases covered. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any more on registry/registrar? Otherwise, we can move to the other new gTLD issues. I see one more. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any more on registry/registrar? Otherwise we can move to the other new gTLD issues. I see one more. Go ahead. >>JON NEVETT: Thanks, Peter. Jon Nevett, Network Solutions. Just wanted to comment on this registry/registrar separation issue. I see this issue divided in two ways. One is an easy question. One is much more difficult question. The easy question is: Currently there are no restrictions on registry operators to receive services from third parties. They could choose whoever they want to receive back-end technical services, janitorial services, ice cream socials for their employees, anything they want. There's no restriction on that. So that -- and this is not a loophole. This exists in the marketplace right now, where in dot coop, and dot cat, and dot me and dot pro, these registry operators are receiving services from whoever they choose. There's vibrant competition for that, and that's good. So when the CRA report came out and said, "Look at the existing requirements and whether they should be liberalized," the issue of service providers for registry operators is not an issue, in my eyes. The much more difficult issue is: Should a registrar or registrar affiliate be an actual registry? And that's the issue that the economists are looking at, and I'm very supportive of the prior speakers on let's study it, look at the market, get the experts in a room -- either the competition experts, the marketplace experts -- and study that issue quickly, and get it done. I think that that's where we'll have the most lively debate and that's where you'll see whether we should relax those rules or not. Very complicated issue. The key point we should also make is: Whatever rules we come up with, they should be no more restrictive than what's in the dot com contract. Because the whole point of new TLDs is to provide competition. We want vibrant competition. To straddle the new TLD operators with more restrictive rules than the market leader doesn't make any sense if you're trying to encourage competition and help these new TLDs succeed. So we should look at that. There's also an old adage in competition law: If competitors are complaining about proposed rules, it's usually good for competition. If consumers are complaining about proposals, then it's to take a close look at, so you should keep that in mind. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. I think Paul wants to make a comment, Jon. Do you want to just stay, in case there's some follow- up? Thanks. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Jon. I just wanted to go to sort of pragmatic next steps, partly picking up from Mike's comments. I think the experience over the last 18 months or more in this space, at least from sort of a staff or personal experience, has been one of education, one of engagement of experts who gradually get to know the area, issues of -- to come to Becky's point, the public data is one thing. It's the data that's not public where you get the difficulties. That's the intense difficulties. And then frankly, once you're in that space, sometimes you get into legal difficulties. And so you get private data and then you get restrictions on the use of the private data which then make things difficult. I think the pragmatic -- so I think what's been very valuable about frankly changing the approach, which was Monday's -- Monday's thing, rather than doing -- rather than getting economic reports -- right? -- which get caught up in all of that space I've just talked about, shifting it to the open panel discussion actually made a lot of the discussion on it I think a lot easier, brought up issues that were easier and then brought up inputs that were easier because people -- when those inputs were coming in, people were doing it on a public basis. So I think what everybody is calling for, in terms of further studies and further analysis, I think is absolutely valid. I think that approach of panel with people inputting and a fairly transparent aspect to the way it's done is actually the really successful way to go forward, and more efficient. I think the -- the previous fundamental we've been trying to has a high degree of inefficiency because it gets caught up in all of the issues around private data. >>JON NEVETT: Yeah. >>PAUL TWOMEY: So I really would -- I think I can see us doing that, going forward. I think that we'll be addressing the concerns that people have been asking calling for -- it's not as if we've not been doing it, but I think it also makes it easier to use, and I think we could then write that up, you know, as a sort of community -- in terms of community experience, we can write that up as a report, rather than specifically saying to one economist, "Please write a report." So that's just my personal observation. >>JON NEVETT: Yeah. I would certainly agree with that. I would not agree with setting up an IRT-type committee on this issue. It just won't work. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jon. Next in line and I think this is the last on registry/registrar separation or does the gentleman sitting down want to talk about...new gTLDs? No. We'll do registry/registrar separation. Mr. Noss is last on this one. >>ELLIOT NOSS: Thank you, Peter. Elliot Noss from Tucows and I'll be very brief. I actually had no comment here until I found myself frustrated on one point in this line which I think could generally be applicable to every -- or many or most of the issues that we look at in this process. I think the -- if -- you know, when it comes to getting the advice of outside experts on a question such as this, I think we all need to recognize that what we are trying to do is predict and regulate -- or not -- the future. And that if there was an outside company or government entity that was going to convene a panel of experts on the subject of new domain names or domain names in general, what they would do is probably have a panel of experts that would be the people who were lined up in this line. So I found the call for experts somewhat ironic, from the people -- whether they see themselves as that or not -- who are the most experienced people in this industry. Paul, I want to -- really applaud or, you know, reaffirm your comments about the discussion, as opposed to the economists in the session the other day. I think that highlights that whether we like it or not, whether it's scary or not, the experts are us. It's the people in this room. And I'd really encourage you all to keep that in mind on this and other issues. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. All right. The next topic is up. New gTLDs. Now, clearly we've been talking about two aspects of new gTLDs. We've talked about the intellectual property problems, and we've just been talking about the registry separation -- registry/registrar separation. Other issues in relation to new gTLDs, please. Let's start over there. Thank you, sir. >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: Thank you very much. Again, Naomasa Maruyama. So my issue here is that the question by Microsoft that is in the analysis of public comment book 1 that is in Page 85, if ICANN does not intend to allow the community-based gTLD a designation to apply to corporate-branded gTLDs, it should so state and provide a detailed explanation as to why not. So I cannot find any clear answer to this question, and I think this is the real problem we have to tackle. And -- but that although it's not clearly stated, it seems that the analysis got -- analysis of public comment book 2 mentioned about that in the community chapter, probably in Page 194. It's mentioned about the dot brand TLD, and my understanding of that chapter is that the -- as I have said in the previous session, ICANN will not permit corporate branded TLDs except for if it is applied as a community TLD and qualifies community criteria. That is my understanding. So there is -- I feel that it's a problem that we have not had any explicit discussion about the -- whether or not we will permit what I call the proprietary TLD. That is a very important policy decision, but there's not. So to look at the analysis guidebook 2, it seems that for me, that the -- it's just taking the -- keeping the status quo. That is, the -- just the community TLD criteria it satisfies, and any corporation can apply. That is the -- I feel the status quo. And in that case, the problem is simple, so there's no need for the PDP process or else, so this is the -- some kind of a -- I feel this is some kind of a compromise that we don't have enough time for the next round. But I have to -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt you. You did actually make this point earlier so this is the second time we've heard this point and we're running out of time, so can we -- >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: Yeah. So the point is that we have to discuss in the future probably about the -- a clear discussion about the policymaking, about the appropriate. That's my point. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let me see if I can get an answer from Kurt Pritz in relation to whether or not, as I understand the question, will proprietary brands need to go through -- need to be treated as community or -- As far as I understand, they don't, but let's get somebody who knows about these things. Kurt? >>KURT PRITZ: Well, I'm not sure I qualify completely, but it's up to the applicant as to whether they want to apply as a community-based TLD or, you know, what we call in the guidebook an open TLD. So a brand -- a representative of a brand may choose to apply as a community TLD, but then have to meet that community criteria that's set out in the guidebook. So it's up -- it's up to the applicant and then they meet the criteria. Is that clear? >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: Yeah, yeah. My comment is that we have to clearly state that. >>KURT PRITZ: Okay. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Next in line. And there was a gentleman I think -- yes, let's see if we can just hold up. If you could come forward, I know I -- you're in the front of the queue. Thank you. >>ZUO RAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of China Organizational Name Administration Center -- that is CONAC -- I would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest concern over the three-letter issues related to the IDN gTLDs. In the earlier GAC working session, the Chinese government representative expressed her concern over ICANN's three-character rules. As an NGO, I would like to propose once again to introduce two- character rule in the new IDN gTLD applications for the following reasons: One, from the cultural and language aspect, currently in China, most of 1.3 billion people in their daily life use two or four characters factors in their language to exchange their ideas and thinkings as four characters are too lengthy, two characters would be the most sensible choice in Chinese application in IDN new gTLDs. As now, IDN stands for multilingual domain names. Therefore, long cultural and lingual customs should be respected in the process of determining IDN gTLD regulations. Otherwise, the so-called rule, no matter who has made, would not be possibly accepted or recognized by local Internet users. Two, from the regulator point of view, IDN gTLD is a new thing. The present rule should not be an obstacle in introducing new gTLDs. Some people say that two-letter can only be used in ccTLD. I would argue that as long as it does not cause confusion, it should be used by IDN gTLD for the sake of equality and nondiscrimination. Three, in regard to economic cost, using two characters in Chinese application and implementation in IDN gTLD will not increase any operational costs nor bring any burden to ICANN nor to respective registry and registrar. Also, to our understanding, using two Chinese characters in IDN gTLDs will not be a technical problem. Four, as long as the Internet users are concerned, to use two Chinese characters in IDN gTLDs, we will be overwhelmingly welcomed by the current 400 million Chinese Internet users around the world and will be certainly accepted by another 800 million potential Chinese users. Therefore, I urge ICANN board, GNSO, and other -- and other IDN gTLD policy advisors and makers, seriously listen to the opinions and voices from Chinese government and NGOs. Carefully and reasonably review the aforementioned rules and make a win/win policy decision. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. There are a number of board members who want to respond and I'm going to begin with Paul Twomey. Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you for that, and thank you for the point. I do actually think there is an opportunity for you to address your concern through the procedural intervention of your Chinese government colleagues, and I'm going to wait till you can listen because I really want to you pay attention to this. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: This is an answer to your question. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. Are you listening? Are you able to -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Would you like to come back to the microphone? >>PAUL TWOMEY: There is an opportunity to -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry. Is there a translation difficulty that we can help with here? No? Okay. Come forward. Come forward. >>PAUL TWOMEY: There is an opportunity for you to address your concern with the help of your Chinese government colleagues in the GAC. The origin of the two-letter -- two-character limitation is a proposed - - a recommendation from the Governmental Advisory Committee in the Melbourne meeting, in the previous round of opening up of TLDs that two- letter codes -- there will be a limitation to two-letter codes. It also reflected work from the -- from the IETF. It's specifically to protect the two-letter -- the freedom of the ISO3166 maintenance agency to have freedom in reallocating the two-letter codes they operate. That their two-letter codes are only in Roman characters. The GAC recommendation at that stage did not expect IDNs. So one of the things that Chinese organizations and Chinese government could do in the GAC is to recommend the GAC make some exception to their previous recommendation on two-letter codes to distinguish between two-letter ASCII codes as they relate to the IDN 3166 Part 1 maintenance agency and to character codes in other scripts. I'd strongly recommend that you take that back to Beijing and that you talk about what you might be able to put forward in the Seoul meeting in the GAC. >>ZUO RAN: Yes. So we recommended that the ICANN -- okay. Thank you. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Now, there's other board members who have contributions, beginning with Thomas Narten, who of course is the IETF liaison to the board. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Yeah. Thank you, Peter. I sort of want to talk a little bit from the perspective of this being a technical issue. This is not really a technical issue, per se. I mean, as Paul described, the real issue is we want to avoid having conflicts with ccTLD names that derive from the ISO 3166 list. So I think we can relax the current rule if ICANN can come up with simple, clear, and objective rules that allow two characters in cases that we know will never conflict with 3166 names. Either those that exist today or, more importantly, those that might be created sometime in the future. So let me again emphasize that what we need, though, is very clear, simple and objective rules, because once we allow, you know, any two- character TLD, we will have to be able to -- I mean, others will come along and essentially say, "We would like to have two-character TLDs as well" and we have to have a way of distinguishing between the cases where it is safe to do so and the cases where it's not safe to do so. So I think we could relax the restriction if we could come up with rules that we are confident won't cause any problems going forward. And so far, the discussions -- at least that I've been in -- haven't really come up with a clear sort of simple objective distinction, though, you know, there's been lots of conversations and attempts to get there. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Thomas. And Harald wants to contribute as well. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: So as always, when we start to design rules, we find out that there's border cases, and border cases take a lot of time to work out. So in the current round, it will be nice if we could figure out a way to state a rule that says, "these cases are so obvious that it's blatantly unreasonable to expect that the prevalent policy to outlaw them." That might mean that a lot of cases that might not be -- might be permitted in the future would not be permitted in the first round. But crafting another exception for this round that permits the variants that our gentleman from China wants to see possible, I think that's not impossible. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Any further on the two-letter codes? If not, we'll move to the next in line. Thank you. >>ALEXANDER SCHUBERT: Hello. Yeah, my name is Alexander Schubert. dotGAY, LLC. I try to be very brief because the queue is long. I have a suggestion to ICANN concerning the new gTLDs. In order to explain it, a short question to the audience. How many of you have received a dotGAY business card, some dotGAY business card? There must be more. I handed out 400. [Laughter] >>ALEXANDER SCHUBERT: Okay. So has anyone received a dotGAY business card from someone else who is not from Castro street in San Francisco? You? Okay. So one. So what I want to explain, within our little ICANN body here, it takes obviously just 48 hours and everyone knows that someone is doing, for example, dot gay. However, ICANN is reaching out to 6 billion people outside of our little bubble. Let's stay with the example of "dot gay." ICANN reaches out to the entire Internet community, and I can lively imagine that in California alone, more than 10 entities will independently come to the solution that there should be a dot gay top level domain. And I assume it would help them a lot if there would be an ICANN Web site where all community gTLD initiatives could present themselves. So I assume that would be important for community gTLDs. I mean, if there's someone going for an open TLD like dot shop, he would probably like to stay in his closet until the application window closed. But if you do something like dot Paris, dot Berlin or dot gay and you already have your coming-out, then it might be helpful if you see the other potential applicants so you could either partner up or stay away or simply do it better. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. I'm going to read a question from online, and while I'm doing that's correct I think we're going to need the clock back up. So if the technical people could perform their magic and activate the clock. The question from online is this. It's from Yanus Nevstruev. Can I apply for a new gTLD dot www? The acronym obviously for the World Wide Web. And the answer is: The string "www" is currently on the list of top level reserved names, and then there's a reference we can live to the URL. Names on this list are reserved for technical and infrastructure reasons or ICANN organizational names. According to the ICANN guidebook as currently drafted, an application for dot www as a gTLD would not be approved. Okay. We have the clock up and we have another speaker ready to race against it. Away you go. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Hi. I'm Evan Leibovitch and I'm the chair of the North American at-large but I'm speaking personally based on a sense that I feel within the community and I'm relating specifically to the issue of the independent objector, which I believe is actually a phenomenal concept, a really good idea, and if implemented properly, has the ability to totally negate the need for the morality and public order issue, which at-large in the past has strongly objected to. I would like to get some sense on the board, since you already have an at-large process, and you already have an ombudsman, both of these are charged in one way or another to try and gauge the view of -- independently of the community, and get an idea of how the board sees the role of something like the independent objector, and whether, in fact, it might be possible to not need something like the morality and public order clause if this is implemented properly. One minute. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Kurt, I want -- I wonder if you'd be able to respond to that. I'm not quite sure I got the full impact of it, but anyhow, I think Kurt probably has. >>KURT PRITZ: I'm sorry. Could you just repeat the-the gist of the -- [Laughter] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's the interrelation between having the independent objector and the public order and morality objection. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: And also, I was hoping, actually at the board level, to get a conceptual idea from some members of how you saw this carrying out, as opposed to implementation details. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, Paul's happy to start on that level, and then Kurt can pick up on the detail. Thanks. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Let me just be clear. The morality and public order provision is a part of the policy process coming from the GNSO which was approved by the board last year, so -- and the idea of an independent objector is a proposal from -- through the staff process for a potential way of implementation of the new gTLD objection framework overall. So it's really an apples and pears question. Morality and public order is clearly an ongoing sort of area of discussion, but just in terms of -- just in terms of procedure, it's part of the policy that came from the GNSO and through the community and it has already been approved by the board in June last year. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: That doesn't stop the objection from at-large, which continues. I think it's a really bad idea. >>PAUL TWOMEY: That's true. But I'm just wanting to be clear about your expectation from the board in answering the question might be but - - I agree it's still a controversial issue. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. Let's move on. Thank you. Next in line. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Yeah. Dirk Krischenowski on behalf of the city top level domain initiatives. I'd like to give a brief update on the city top level domain initiatives, what we did here in Sydney, so in an action with ICANN staff and other stakeholders, we are on a very good way to find a place for our growing group of city top level domains within the current ICANN structure. Our group has grown now to -- in the last 12 months to over 10 top level domains that include the top level domains for cities like Barcelona Berlin, Hamburg, colon, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, and Seoul. Three of them include IDNs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much for that update. Next in line. Thank you. >>YOUNG EUM LEE: Too high for me. Young Eum Lee. ccNSO representative of dot kr and ccNSO vice chair but speaking in my personal capacity. The current distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is a valid and an integral part of the domain name system, as evidenced by the fact that ccTLDs now have 74.1 million registrations, comprising more than 40% of the 183 million domain name registrations according to VeriSign's June 2009 industry brief. That the ccTLDs satiate a significant need of the global Internet users is also evidenced by the fact that it is growing at a faster rate than that of the gTLDs. I am concerned, therefore, by the fact that the 200-page analysis of the public comments of the new gTLD applicant guideline -- guidebook, Version 2, still recommends that the names of countries and territories be included as part of the regional names subject to new gTLD applications, against the recommendations of the ccNSO and the GAC not to -- and this is a quote - - "allow any string that is same and meaningful representation of a country or territory name listed in the ISO 3166-1." The public comment analysis document explains that it is trying to accommodate the GAC statement emphasizing the sovereign right of a government to use its name. That is, that ICANN cannot deny a government applying for a country name under the new gTLD process because of its sovereign right. I would like to point out a significant critical flaw behind this reasoning. It completely ignores an additional, equally or even more important view of the ccNSO and the GAC, which says -- and this is another quote - - "it is of utmost importance to keep the distinctions between gTLDs and ccTLDs." There is a significant difference between the purpose and the operation of ccTLDs and gTLDs. For example, whether it's profit- oriented or not and so on. I'm not going to go into the details of that. But there is a significant difference, and the addition of a government support requirement in the new gTLD application does not make it a ccTLD. If ICANN is truly cognizant of its limits and is seriously trying to accommodate the sovereign rights of governments, perhaps it should initiate a new ccTLD application process that is not limited to IDNs rather than a new gTLD process with regard to the names of countries and territories. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dr. Lee. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I can tell you that the issue of geographic names has occupied the board considerably, including trying to reconcile the GNSO position and the advice from the GAC and the resolutions from the ccNSO. Thank you. Next in line. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Hello. I'm Jordyn Buchanan, and I'm still speaking only for myself. In the malicious activities session last evening, a few points sort of came together for me and helped me come to a realization that I'll try to share with the board. The points were first of all that people can make qualitative distinctions between TLDs if there are qualitative distinctions in how they're managed or registration criteria. So the examples that were given were for people recognize dot gov and they're relatively confident that a government entity is behind that. And similarly people make qualitative distinctions about CCs if they have rules around them. Most of our TLDs today don't have qualitative distinctions in terms of who can register, at least they're not meaningful from a consumer perspective. Second, that the market can react to bad behavior on the Internet. It was pointed out that if we notice that there's a particularly bad actor in the routing community or something like that, people stop routing to them. This same philosophy could also apply to domain names as well, I suppose. And, third, that one of the new TLD -- relatively newer TLDs, dot info, is more responsive than the legacy TLDs in regards to responding to various events the malicious behavior. I combine this with my general observation that I haven't seen evidence that the new TLDs are responsible in any significant way for making any of the problems that we talk about being associated with new TLDs any worse. Most of the cybersquatting, the phishing, all of these bad things that we're worried about happen just as much in -- or predominantly more in the legacy TLDs. So I'm not sure what we're worried about. And, in fact, I think that there's a singular opportunity in the introduction of new TLDs to carve out spaces where people can start to make qualitative distinctions. You could make a dot safe, and that place could have heightened security rules, WHOIS that's verified in advance, and we would know 100% exactly who that was and be able to get in touch with them. And I think by slowing down this process or being afraid of this process, we're actually doing ourselves a disservice in being able to tackle many of these problems as opposed to embracing it and moving forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next. >>YU YANG: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Yu Yang. I'm from CONAC. The only point I'd like to make here is to ask ICANN to make new gTLD introduction working calendar as clear as possible, especially IDN, of course. We all know that, therefore, that ICANN contributed to and appreciate so much for the board's decision regarding IDN introduction to the root, which may make the ten years' dream of the IDN community come true. The development of the IDN gTLD has been fast in many countries. And these countries have carried out the IDN test bed for years and there are actual use. Today, the fast development of the Internet and the e-government are demanding registries and registrants to deploy IDN with local language. And CONAC -- CONAC just receiving the request for deploying the IDNs from the Chinese community not only in China, but also abroad, all over the world. Of course, you see all of the Chinese faces here in Sydney. They are all demanding IDN urgently. To make this happen, we would like to recommend ICANN board or -- to group a certain working group to visit China and to carry out a survey on the IDN demand. And that could help you to better understand the vast need of IDN. Of course, we know the preparation work is tough, and we are quite willing to contribute. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. Thank you for that offer. That's very generous. We'll consider that. Next in line. >>PAUL FOODY: Paul Foody. Good morning. I'm referring to Dennis Carlton's report, the economic analysis. Point 4, Mr. Carlton describes what he's been asked to do. "I've been asked by ICANN to analyze from an economic perspective ICANN's anticipated introduction of new generic top-level domain names and to identify and address the benefits and costs associated with ICANN's proposal." That term Mr. Carlton was commissioned to perform such a report two months, three months before ICANN even know how many new gTLDs would be able to be provided, demonstrates that this was an irresponsible waste of money at best, and a lot worse at worst. Nevertheless, Mr. Carlton makes the point in point 29, and again I'd like to read it to you: In the absence of competition from new gTLDs, registries and registrars that serve dot com and other major TLDs face limited incentives to develop new technologies and/or improved services that may help attract new customers. If money is the only incentive you guys need -- and, you know, this basically -- this relates to everyone here. This relates to registries and registrars to improve the service. If the only way -- the only incentive you have is money to get this done, then God help you. As regards the two Chinese characters, each of those characters is actually like a word. They're inputted by individual strokes. And if you break down the characters into individual strokes, you don't have a problem. Many thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Can I just comment that the clock seems to have frozen. I'm not sure how the technical people are operating that. I'm running my own timer here just in case. But I'd rather have the one -- thank you. Next in line. >>JEFF BRUEGGEMAN: Thank you. Jeff Brueggeman with AT&T. I wanted to pick up a theme that I've heard this week, heard on Monday from the economists, which is that facts matter. And I want to reiterate AT&T's position that we in our comments that a thorough analysis of how the domain name system is being used and misused currently is needed before making some of the critical decisions on how to move forward with the domain names. And it's not just a matter of looking at the economics of the program, but how it should be structured and how some of the other overarching issues should be addressed, particularly the consumer impact and the malicious conduct. I thought it was a very good discussion yesterday about some of the problems that are occurring today. And I think that this type of analysis, I think, Paul, as you said earlier this week, is really going to help inform that work on the malicious conduct. It also, I think, will be important and relate to the security and stability. A third point would be that it will also help to set the priorities. The evidence that AT&T was able to gather and put into the record showed that there has been a lot of growth of country code domains. And what we say is legitimate growth as opposed to defensive registrations. I think that points to focusing in on IDNs and ccTLDs as a positive way to move forward and really improve the consumer benefits. The other point I want to make is that I think these issues need to be considered holistically, based on that set of facts. And by piece- parting the issues into malicious conduct and I.P. security and stability, I think there's a danger that you're losing the common thread of the holistic approach of the impact that the new domain name system is going to have across the board, particularly from a consumer perspective. So I'd urge that there be a way to pull the threads of the individual issues together as part of the process. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. And thank you for staying on time. Can I just urge those who are coming up, don't feel that you have to use all of the two minutes. If you can get your point across in any less time than that, please don't feel constrained by the clock to fill it. And I mention that because if all of you take two minutes, we're going to go past the allotted time that I have for a bio break for my board members. And I don't want them to revote my letters patent as chair. If they don't get a chance to take some caffeine in and things that -- we won't be able to go on. So we are going to have to come to a stop shortly. It may be that we can't get through to the end of the line. If that's the case, we'll take your names and fit you in as we can. >>KEN STUBBS: I'll be happy to defer for a pause to the cause, Peter, if that's necessary. [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: No, I don't think there's anything with their legs crossed yet, Ken. >>KEN STUBBS: Yes. My name is Ken Stubbs. I just have an observation. I've had quite a few discussions with people who are representatives of corporations that are desirous of obtaining a new TLD, specifically for a very limited use by the corporation. I will use a quick example. Suppose I was the Sydney telephone company and I had a half a million users, and I decided that I wanted to set up a TLD strictly for me to facilitate e-mail and so forth for my users, and I had very strict contractual arrangements around the TLD. It could not be assigned, it could not be in any way delegated, and if the relationship terminated, the -- the second-level registration went right back to the company. It seems that ICANN's making it very difficult in the way that the process is designed so far to facilitate these kind of entities, because what you're doing is forcing them to go out into a community and, in effect, inject another party in the process that really isn't necessary in a case like this. And I think you need to take a very close look at those very specific uses. If I'm BMW and I want a TLD strictly to use second-level names for my new models or something like that, you ought to have something that allows them to do that. They are going to be making representations to you in the RFP. All you need to do is hold them to the RFP. If necessary, you could have a requirement, if they change the registration agreement and if it goes different, they would have to get ICANN approval to do that. So you have in your compliance process the ability to provide this opportunity to these entities that have very, very limited use TLDs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Ken, that's, of course, going back to the origins of that registrar/registry debate earlier. Next in line. Thank you. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Peter. Good morning, my name is Eric Brunner-Williams and I'm speaking on behalf of the initial signatories of the step-by-step proposal. I represent one of the signatories as the principal of the Native, Aboriginal and Indigenous cultural and Linguistic Top-Level Domain Project, one of many similar efforts to preserve living languages and cultures. Along with linguistic and culture and city and regional top-level domain projects, we have started the step-by-step proposal. We held a workshop on Monday which was well attended, and we've had discussions with the relevant stakeholders, which are continuing. After detailed discussions with many interested stakeholders, I am now presenting the step-by-step proposal to you, the board. The step-by-step proposal is an early window, nothing more, nothing less. We are convinced that while the still unresolved issues are relevant, a fair number of applicants fall under the radar and are not affected and do not affect these open issues. Applicants seeking to enter this open window should commit to the highest level of protection regarding these open issues. Credible reliance, credible registration and compliance policies, recognition of legitimate protection of intellectual property rights, and antiphishing mechanisms through a shared binding code of couple implemented on a scalable platform. The step-by-step proposal, while allowing some application to move forward, harms none. An early window tests the system. Stakeholders having legitimate concerns about open issues will be able to flag applications which do not conform to their standards, removing those applications from the early window. Linguistic and cultural, regional and city applications mentioned in the draft of this proposal are examples. The early window would be open to any application which is willing to commit to the higher level of protections I mentioned previously. We invite discussion with the board and the ICANN community, and an online fora is available at stepbystep.tel. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I have a question, I think, from Mike Silber. >>MICHAEL SILBER: Thanks, Chair. Eric, the issue has been raised as to whether that would possibly prejudice other applicants for new gTLDs. And I wonder if you could just explore that a little bit further with the chair's indulgence. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Do I have the chair's indulgence? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, you do, if you can be quick. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any ranking or prioritization or any ordering scheme would have claimants who are later in ranking, order, or priority that they are disfavored by ranking, order, or priority. There is no way around that. Alternative, declining to rank, order, or give priority to applications is equivalent to stating that the most complex, the most -- depending upon one's orientation, the highest-ranking, the highest order or the high- -- the -- whatever the third thing was, nothing can happen before that. So it's not the case that the absence of ranking or order or priority is -- it's not the case that the absence of something is in fact a mutual statement. I don't know if I've made myself clear, because, of course, I get tangled up myself. >>MICHAEL SILBER: I just wanted to clarify. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm going to have to interrupt. You two can take that offline or put it through the written comments. It's an interesting topic. But we've just got no time to explore all the ramifications of it. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can we move to the next in line. And I think we're going to have to be cutting you off about midline. So get ready to leave your names with the staff to maintain priority. Thank you, go ahead. >> Good morning, Chair and the board. I am Yaling Tan with CNNIC. I'd like to make two proposals. One is on IDN variants. I understand it is quite difficult to -- for the IDN variants on the technical side. But I'd like to make -- suggest that we solve these kind of problems on the policy side. And here's my suggestion. One, IDN TLD applicant must indicate the number of variants characters in the string when the application is submitted. And, two, all variant strings must be reserved. And, three, the applicant should apply if they want their variant strings to be active. If yes, the applicant should indicate which strings. And, four, the variant string should be delegated to the TLD applicant at no cost due to the fact that the evaluation is already done. And the fifth, the applicant TLD operator must distribute the name registered and the TLD and all its variants as one name. That's my first proposal. And about the second -- the second proposal is about comparative evaluation process for community-based application. Although the current criteria are set to be objective, but there is still tons of room there for subjective judgment. Thus, it's extremely important to make the evaluation process transparent and objective. The recommendations are as follows: First, ICANN to better define community purposes may serve the purpose. And second, an evaluation team muss compose of experts from the related communities, and the process of choosing their panel members should be transparent. Third, the way of resolving the judgment must be fully provided and an appeal process should be available for significantly biased results. And fourth, the timeline of the evaluation should be better defined. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Next in line. Thank you. >>WERNER STAUB: My name is Werner Staub. I'm just here to read a statement to you on behalf of four applicants who were not able to come to Sydney. Dot bzh, dot (saying name), dot (saying name), and dot gal join their voices in order to express to ICANN and the ICANN community the following statement: We want to create culture and linguistic TLDs for, respectively, the Britain, the Welsh, the Basque, and the Galatian cultural and linguistic communities. First of all, we would like to highlight the fact that the communities waiting to serve are not confined to their home regions. Our services tend to be worldwide. Our TLDs will be used in our communities throughout the world, whatever they are, as immigrants and others who are simply interested in our culture. Most of our communities may be online today, but our TLDs will create a more visible, recognizable place on the Internet. The content that may already exist will be easy to identify, and this duly created space will most certainly improve the confidence and use of the Internet as the success of dot cat proves. As such, our LCTLDs will help reflect the culture and linguistic diversity of the Internet and, in turn, our LCTLDs will make diversity stronger. ICANN has proved its concern to the issue and has made great efforts in offering multilingual documents and information, for which we are grateful. We saw in the announcement in Paris last year the same will to promote diversity. It occurs to us to keep advocating for more LCTLDs and mobilizing our communities around this great opportunity. It has now triggered great expectations, and our communities are awaiting the launch of LCTLDs. As we previously and repeatedly pinpointed, ICANN's postponements of the estimated timeline for starting the process is generating much impatience amongst our eager members and indeed much misunderstanding and discredit from our local partners, who are not familiar with the process. That's why we ask ICANN to consider the specificity of the project and help them go through as proposed earlier this week in the step-by-step document. If any objection is raised, we will wait for the objection procedure to be settled. We are very confident that our TLDs will easily overcome at their level the overarching issues in the way, and we will happily cooperate with ICANN in assuring the rest of the global community of our goodwill. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Great. Thank you very much for that and coping with the limits of the time. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Philip Corwin, ICA. We are in strong agreement with views we have also heard voiced by brand owners at this meeting that the draft applicant guidebook has conceded too much to the GAC on the issue of geo names at the second level. Geo domains are one of the great success stories at the incumbent gTLDs. Geo locale is one of the principal means by which consumers searching for products, services, and information find it on the Internet. And as there are no trademark rights in (inaudible) names, unreasonable and unjustifiable restrictions on the use of geo names at the second level would be a disservice both to consumers and to the economic prospects of new gTLDs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much for that. And as I said earlier, we are struggling with the -- balancing those different interests. Sir. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: Yes, my name is J. Scott Evans. And I actually am here on behalf of Yahoo! and speaking on behalf of my company. What I would like to say to the board and to the community is, we are committed to finding solutions to many of the issues that have been identified as the four issues. We have given of my time, which has its value, and we have participated in the process. And I would ask the board and the rest of the community -- I've heard to do a lot of criticism about the reports and the solutions that have been put forward. What I have not heard is any alternative proposals that would still resolve the problem. So I ask everyone, let's not only come to the table to tear down what's been put forth. Let's come to the table with alternative proposals that will help the 500 million consumers that come to my site every day from being cheated and their computers being raided and bank accounts being taken down. We're here to help. So help us help you help consumers. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Hello, my name is Constantine Roussos from dot music, from Cypress. I represent the music community, people talk about public support and demand from the music community. We have raised 700,000 signatures for our dot music petition. We have 91,000 followers on Twitter. And we have presented our dot music proposal at the Harvard Business School last month. And it is very exciting times, I must say. This is my third meeting here. I know I'm not appropriately dressed. But I have to be true and authentic to what I am, I am a musician. And I'd like to talk about innovation in the domain space. Just releasing domains does not really cut it, in my opinion. Musicians want to sell their music, sell their merchandise. So just having a domain is just not enough. From the music industry perspective, fighting piracy, that's another issue. So we're looking at all these issues. Each domain, I would say, extension has its own issues. So I would ask the board or the people that are drafting the application to look into all these issues that might arise and, obviously, include these in their points on how do we address bringing innovation, security, safety, and helping all the Web community -- the musicians and everyone else and the at-large community. And that's all I have to say. And lastly, I know you all want to take a break. So we recorded a dot music theme song. So I don't know if you guys would let us play the song while you take the break. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's see if the community wants to hear it. Who wants to hear it? [ Cheers and applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Absolutely. Thanks very much. Sir, if you could help by talking to the technical crew. I'm not sure who on the staff can take responsibility. >> CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS: I'm already prepared. I have it right here. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excellent. Thanks very much. We won't hear it now, but we'll hear it later during the break. Thanks very much. Next in line. >> My name is Jaime Wagner. I'm a member of CGI dot BR Steering Committee and also a member of the ISP/CP constituency. But I'm here on a personal capacity. I think that from the four overarching issues, the one that has had less concrete outcomes since Mexico is the study on prospects for malicious behavior. In his presentation to the GNSO cross-constituency meeting this week, rod Rasmussen of APWG suggested that registry/registrar security or technical weakness was the main concern in this respect. I have asked them if the DAG had any requirement pertaining to applicant technical or security qualification. And the answer was "no." If this is really so -- and I was not able to find anything in this line -- I strongly recommend that a task force should be put in place to come up with a set of these requirements, since this is Net security and this is the point, the point, where any action would improve public confidence. By the way, I think these same requirements should be added to the RAA. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. And second to the last in line. >>BOB HUTCHINSON: Yes, my name is Bob Hutchinson. I'm with Dynamic Ventures. I would also like to reiterate that as we grow into this new world of IDNs and gTLDs and greatly multiply the number of TLDs, that malicious code and malicious software distribution on the Net will have literally billions of new places to hide, and the processes that we have in place currently to deal with this are inadequate, and this is just pouring gasoline on a fire. I am very concerned that we have left this door wide open. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. And last in the current line. Thank you for the brevity so far. >>ROBIN GROSS: Hello. My name is Robin Gross, and I'm the chair of the Noncommercial Users Constituency, and I just wanted to talk about the implementation work with regard to the morality and public order mandates. So NCUC has serious concerns with the implementation of the morality and public order mandates, and particularly, its impact on freedom of expression. You may recall that during the -- the GNSO policy-making process, the free expression concerns with respect to morality and public order was one of the most controversial issues, possibly the most controversial issue in the process. Hundreds of NGOs and individuals petitioned the board not to impose these global morality standards on the world via this process. Well, I wanted to just point out two things in particular in the implementation guidelines in the DAG. The legal standards for the morality and public order recommendations that have been -- for the different jurisdictions that have been provided in the DAG are in fact contradicted by legal experts in those jurisdictions. NCUC was told in Delhi that we would be provided with the legal research that ICANN directed from the different jurisdictions to help -- that it used to create these flawed legal standards. And we still have not received that input, despite numerous requests. We're just basically told, "Trust us. We figured out what the legal framework is for the world." The other issue that I wanted to raise was the issue of who gets to object based on more about and public order. The DAG has decided, ICANN has decided that anyone can object based upon their own personal sense of morality and public order. Now, obviously this is an unworkable and arbitrary standard, and it will end up prohibiting anything remotely controversial. Now, I'll just very briefly wrap this up. We just heard Dr. Twomey tell the at-large representative that we cannot reexamine the issue of the free expression concerns here. He said, and I quote, "The GNSO passed it and the board approved it." But the same was true for the trademark protection issues, and yet we are throwing out the GNSO recommendations on that issue and starting all over again. So it seems we have a double standard here, free expression concerns are tough out of luck, but trademark concerns are being reopened as a result of the heavy lobbying. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We've got a break now. But, Robin, Robin, let me just repeat something that I've said before. If you can point to something, anything in the IRT work that contradicts anything in the policy that was given to us by the GNSO, please draw that explicitly to my attention. I understand the claim there's been additional work and there's been straying into new areas. But if you can find anywhere that supports what you just said, which is that policy that was made in the GNSO has been overturned by the IRT work, that's a very different claim. And I would like some evidence of that. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thank you. I think we'll do that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Okay. We're going to take a break. Board members can have ten minutes to attend to personal needs. While we're doing that, I'd just like to read -- so we're on a break. I'm going to read a question and an answer into the record from the -- from the online people. From Emily Hackett, Internet Alliance, what is more important to the ICANN board and staff, meeting a deadline for introducing new TLDs, or ensuring that all legitimate community concerns are met before commencing with the rollout? And the answer is, meeting legitimate community concerns is more important to both board and staff than meeting an announced deadline. We have said publicly that we will not open the process until concerns have been addressed. (Break) >> Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. The session will recommence in one minute. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for returning, ladies and gentlemen. As you're coming in, I will take the opportunity to ask Kieren to read into the record other questions from the online commentators because they won't be disturbed having their question interrupted by people moving around. So, Kieren, if you could read those questions, thank you? >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Peter. This was a bunch of questions with regard to new gTLDs which we didn't have time to slot in so thank you very much. I have Susan Reynolds from Punto Gal. One of the questions she asked was answered earlier. She said they would like to know which specific overarching issues will be discussed at the meeting that will be held in London on the 15th of July and could we provide an advanced draft schedule? Adrian Kinderis asked a question: There are companies spending millions of dollars on this process based on timelines that ICANN has produced. While I understand they have been always been draft in order to meet the timelines that were, organizations have had to mobilize and prepare themselves technically for the introduction of new gTLDs. This is an incredibly important and technical task, and time is necessary to prepare. So we were somewhat compelled to get moving now. The discussions that we're having are of concern, that we're going to yet, again, have to delay the process. My point is not to decide whether this is a good or bad thing. Please let us know as soon as is practical to set a timeline so we can make the necessary commercial arrangements and scale back preparations until the process is back underway. I have another two quick questions. One from Frederick Felman from Markmonitor. Anecdotal data is being considered as statistical or relevant to the process of evaluating the issues surrounding gTLDs. One example of many I have heard asserted is that the cost of policing the Web for those doing commerce there is $14 billion against trillions in sales. Has the board evaluated the real cost of gTLDs for all interests? How do you audit decisions and alter those based on erroneous data? And the last one which leads into the topic, which is JPA/IIC which is the Joint Project Agreement/Improving Institutional Confidence consultation, my name is James Stevens. And I run Roses Only, a thriving small Internet florist here in Australia. I have a brand I have worked hard to build, and I hope to expand my market into Asia. Just recently a guy approached me to do business with him in Ireland and had his mother or mother-in-law register rosesonly.ie. He used that as leverage to get the ball rolling on doing some business with him as I could not register that URL without having a registered office in Ireland. He thought he would do me a favor. I'm worried about the fate of small business brands with the explosion of TLDs. I'm worried about greater government involvement in Internet Governance. It sounds like it is being worked on but will take some time to get right. Meanwhile, there seems to be lots of folks sniffing around ICANN to take over. While I support breaking ranks with the yanks, what's the rush at this point? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: One of the advantages of public comment is the full impact of colloquialism can be taken into account. The last comment was about the Joint Project Agreement, which is, in fact, the next topic and I will begin that by reading some further questions about the JPA. The first one comes from Betsy Mullins from TechNet. The question is: If the NTIA determines based on community input that the JPA should be extended for some period of time, will ICANN enter into discussions regarding an extension or simply walk away from the agreement? And the answer is ICANN will continue to work closely with the NTIA on the agreements it has with the U.S. government. ICANN has made it clear it believes the JPA should conclude in September 2009 with a charter and has outlined a number of suggested changes to the organization through the improving institutional confidence consultation to address community concerns raised during the midterm review of the JPA. What happens in September will be the focus on continued discussions with both the NTIA and the community as to the best way forward. And another one -- and then I will open the floor -- is from Lori Prater, the Information Technology Industry Council. And the question is: The ITU, EU and several foreign governments -- I'm not sure where it's foreign from -- foreign governments have called for more direct control of ICANN. Without proper safeguards, these entities may be able to effectively take control. Has ICANN established any new protections to prevent a hostile takeover by a foreign government or international organization? And that's a very significant question, and the answer is important. ICANN's model of decision-making already makes it impossible for the form of takeover you outline. The board is made up of representatives from across the community, and they would need to be persuaded of such a significant alteration in the way ICANN works. The board would also take direction from the community on a matter of such importance. In short, unless the whole community decided to provide additional governmental influence within the model of decision-making, it would not happen. So with those serious questions, I open the floor to further questions about the Joint Project Agreement and the progress on improving institutional confidence. Microphones are open. And I see nobody coming forward. I will take that as a vote of complete confidence -- oh, perhaps that was premature. Joke. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: I'm never one to speak so I will go first. Mike Palage. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Two quick points. One, I'd like to comment on the independent review tribunal. During the -- I think it was the registry session with the board on Tuesday, the question was asked by Jeff Neuman to Paul Twomey, did he view the scope of the independent review tribunal to be narrower or broader than the current independent review? And I believe at that time, Paul, you said you viewed it to be broader. What I'd like to do is when you look at the independent review tribunal, they talk about three rubrics: Fairness, fidelity and rationality. Going back to my days as an engineer and the principal of KISS -- keep it simple, stupid -- I would like to suggest if we really want to make that independent review tribunal as broad as possible, we should be asking the questions: Did ICANN violate its articles of incorporation? Did it violate its bylaws? Did it violate an agreement in which it is entered into as a party? If we look at that broad scope, that is how we give the community the broadest confidence to have an accountability mechanism to seek a reconsideration or review of a board action. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Peter and I both think the proposal in front is broader. The third item you've pointed out, I think, is colored by the provisions of the contracts, whether you breach a contract. The only potential thing is are you raising the proposition of parties not -- are you going beyond privacy of contract? Are you arguing the point that third parties should be able to make the point that ICANN is in breach of a contract even if the other contracting party has not done so? >>MICHAEL PALAGE: No. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Okay. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mike, speaking as a lawyer for a moment, the extension I see in this is that it goes beyond simply breaching contracts and there is this concept of behaving reasonably. And this (inaudible) to be a principle of reasonableness which is being imported from largely U.K. and commonwealth administrative law. So I think it's broader. That's a debate that perhaps lawyers can have. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: As long as we have this on the record that the chair and the current CEO thinks that it is broader, then we'll have that record there for future consideration. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Putting it on the record doesn't make us right. Let's try and get it right. Thanks. Steve Crocker. >>STEVE CROCKER: I hope this doesn't muddy things up. But listening to your words, listen to two attorneys back and forth, the thing that was completely missing from any of this is whether or not we're getting anything done. The solution that is -- complete solution that satisfies all your constraints is to be absolutely ineffective at getting anything done. I'm not entirely satisfied with the formula that it doesn't violate, doesn't violate, doesn't violate. There's got to be a little bit more in there. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: I guess to answer that question is right now ICANN is engaged in its first independent review action. And I think it would be beneficial, I think that hearing is scheduled for the third week of September. Perhaps after we have that, after we see the panelists -- I think there are three internationally recognized panelists on that -- perhaps we may gain some experience. So I guess wait and see what becomes of that. Let's see how it works. I just think rushing forward with something, that those are my concerns. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We said we are not rushing forward with it. The discussion has just started. Next in line. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Steve DelBianco with NetChoice. I wanted to sort of recap a little of the conversation that President Twomey and I had yesterday in the IIC session and see if I could get some level of reaction from the full board. Paul conducted a great session where we discussed the IIC and in particular the accountability mechanisms. And I think it's only fair to acknowledge that this Joint Project Agreement and the MOU set up a decade ago were all about transitioning the management of the DNS from the U.S. government to a new organization set up specifically to handle it in a private sector-led way, and that's ICANN. I know Paul has worked so hard to hustle that along and have that transition be complete. I understand that. But I wanted to bring up two, what I think have been, beneficial effects of the relationship with the U.S. government and simply ask the board what we would do to create substitutes or replacements for those beneficial effects as the JPA terminates. And there are similar beneficial effects to that which even my teenage sons would acknowledge they get from me, protection and pressure. So really quickly. Protection, I've said for years here at ICANN that the JPA through sort of the U.S. government oversight provided some protection from the threat of capture by other governments. I have often talked to you folks about things I hear at the Internet Governance Forum about the ITU, the United Nations wanting to assert a bigger role internet governance and have more muscle here at ICANN. That was an abstract threat. Here is a more definitive threat of capture. The European Commission at the beginning of May, one of its officers came out with a statement that said when the JPA expires, we need to replace the accountability it had with a new accountability mechanism. And Commissioner Reding's idea was for a G12 for the Internet. Whether you like that idea or not, I simply want you to acknowledge that some perceive that the accountability mechanism in the JPA prevents other governments from wanting to take a bigger role at ICANN. So that's the issue of protection. I really think the JPA protects ICANN from capture in some way, and we need to replace that. And the other is pressure. And I think that the pressure the JPA has brought on ICANN is the pressure to be accountable to the private sector. In fact, it was a year and half ago that you set up the IIC in response to the midterm review of the JPA termination. So how do we maintain pressure on ICANN to be accountable to the private sector, to implement the new accountability mechanisms that the IIC came up with if we're never going to get that done in three months? And three months from today the clock is over. Question for the board, do you guys to intend for ask some extension of the JPA or potentially find other ways of keeping pressure and protection in the model? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It's difficult to know where to begin because there are so many errors of fact in your statements. Transition in the white paper is about transferring all of the DNS operations to ICANN. Paul has not been working on that because there is no attempt at all, and it has been quite clear, that there is no effort being made at all to transition, for example, the IANA and the IANA function out of the IANA contracts. The effort that's been going on has been to bring to an end a contract which has, in its own terms, a natural expiry date. It is not a question of bringing it to an end. The question is -- the fact is that it is coming to an end. So we have confused to a certain extent -- and I may have contributed to that. We talked about transition out of the JPA phase. But that's not transition under the white paper. There is no attempt to transition the DNS operations of matters covered by the IANA contract to ICANN. Okay? So let's -- so that's -- and it's that that provides the U.S. oversight role. There is no -- the Department of Commerce has been saying this to you and to everyone who has come along and talked about the oversight provided by the JPA, read the contract. I will put it up on the screen. There is no oversight provided under the JPA. So we're not losing an oversight mechanism. What we are doing is talking about changing the concept of accountability and enlarging the accountability of the entire community. So I think you just need to frame the context of the discussion accurately. We're not -- there is not transition out from a relationship with the United States. What we're talking about is increasing accountability to the entire community. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Would you permit a response? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: There may be other board members who want to comment as well. I think Paul wants to say something. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I just -- Steve, I just want to add that I think your two propositions at the end are very interesting when you talk about protection and you talk about pressure. And I think one of the things that this reinforcement of the idea of accountability to the community has the inverse side which is engagement by the community. And I think one of the things that's become clear to me and one of the things I've observed in the last 18 months is people getting more engaged in the topic and they have actually taken it seriously. It has been we are this body stakeholder organization globally. And frankly this is particularly people in the United States. It has been less so outside the United States. They have actually said, this thing is concluding? We better get involved and make sure we get our voice heard. And that's exactly what I think has been the position of the board, is that it needs to be accountable to the community. I do think there are opportunities for us to discuss in the community and you talk about pressure points. How do we set pressures? I agree, what gets pressured gets done sort of stuff. But we ought to think about broadening who gets -- and certainly embedding it in our community as to who gets to set those pressure points. I think that's a worthy discussion. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. There are other board members wanting to contribute. Jean-Jacques, I think, is on my list. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Peter. To take up that point, two things. One is the nuance between accountability and oversight. I think that if your point is that there is a necessary sort of controlling mechanism which is exercised by a state, then is there really a difference between one state or several states? You mentioned Mrs. Reding, I think her proposal for a G12, for instance, has not been put forth as a proposal of the European Union as such. In fact, the very next day it was made clear, including by the European Commission itself, that it was not an European Union proposal. So I'd say that if accountability is the real issue, then that's a mechanism which does not require oversight by one or any collection of governments. So maybe you should address that more closely to see what is at stake. I think that -- your statement seems to downplay the role of governments as exercised in the GAC. I'd like to hear from GAC people. Do you really think your role can be discounted like that because, you know, one government either exercises some sort of control or there's nothing. So I think that it's not very helpful for the perception of GAC nor its reality, which is that it will gain more direct role in ICANN if more countries are represented and even more at the appropriate level. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jean-Jacques, thank you. Roberto, were you on the list? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: No. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. Dennis and Harald. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Just a quick comment. It's natural for governments to want to take a command and control view, so we'll hear a lot about this. This is the natural, instinctive reaction of a government. If it's important, I want to run it or control it or whatever. And that's what you see with Commissioner Reding's proposals which have changed more recently and I'm sure will change again because they do not represent the European council, that is the council that administers view which is actually the deciding body in Europe, not the commission. Similarly, other governments around the world, whether expressed to the ITU or separately who want to take a command and control approach, this multistakeholder model where the governments are stakeholders in the process is difficult for governments. But the issue is that what we're doing and what the Internet has done has created an international non-territory-based set of government's issues which governments cannot actually properly address. So we hear a lot of talk about sovereign this and sovereign that from governments, but that's a territorial concept that doesn't work in this concept. And that's very difficult for governments to cope with. We heard earlier sovereign statements about names. Governments don't have any sovereign right to the title of their country, except as expressed as a representation of that country. So there are issues here that are difficult for governments, in my view, and that needs to be clear. As we hear the noise, we will work this through and we will develop an understanding that I think will result in much better support, much stronger support, more continuing support by governments for the GAC as a methodology for contributing. Thanks, Peter. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Dennis. Harald? >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND: I will make one point which is not really about the mechanisms but about the debate. You made a statement -- remember, I'm a Norwegian citizen, come from a country with slightly more people than Lower Manhattan and has been an ally of the U.S. since 1948. It's not like you to can control the root, but whenever I hear a statement that semantically translates to "When the U.S. government does this, it's protection. If anyone else even starts thinking about it, it is capture," my mind as a non-U.S. citizen of a non-U.S. country boggles. Please, when you want to make statements about what the government should or should not do, check what the sentence sounds like when you change the name of the government because most of us, most of us on the planet are not U.S. [Applause] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks. Jeff Neuman. I want to make a comment to just expand what Michael Palage was talking about. I always find the best way to see how the organization looks at itself is to actually look at the litigation documents that are filed. And I encourage every one of the board members to actually read the response filed by ICANN in the ICM independent review that's going on. Because according to that, the accountability is expressed as an independent review process, a board can only be found in violation of its bylaws if it doesn't meet in good faith, act in good faith, doesn't listen to both sides. It basically says it doesn't matter if the board got it wrong, it only matters if the board met in good faith. I think that is an improper way to look at real accountability. In fact, you know, I think Paul and Peter actually in responding to Mike Palage actually said, look, these are just our views. It doesn't mean we are right. So where is the accountability mechanism when you're just not right? I mean, it's kind of -- it is inconceivable to me that you come up with mechanisms for institutional confidence and review but none of those topics are, What if we got it wrong? We met in good faith. We listened to both sides. We had a good debate. But the board met and got it wrong. There is no challenge mechanism that's built in there. And what it looks like to me is that you're really only accountable to yourselves. And there is a platitude that says an entity that is accountable only to itself is really accountable to no one. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jeff, two quick responses. First of all, we agree with you about the status of the current mechanisms which is why they are being extended. So don't judge us by the standards of the old ones. We are on record saying "we think we need more, and this is a process to increase more." The second thing is, the board is accountable to you. >>JEFF NEUMAN: How? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Through the mechanisms that we're developing. And the suggestion that we can have a board that is somehow independently accountable to a bunch of other governments, as I explained the other day, as soon as you change the accountability mechanisms away from the board, you are going to gut the multistakeholder model. You are going to betray the principles on which ICANN is based and shift all the policy making to the place where that accountability resides. Either the accountability is through ICANN, to ICANN and to the entire Internet community or there is some other model which we haven't thought of yet. But you can't have an ICANN model responsible to the Internet community and yet at the same time accountable to a bunch of governments or some other entity. Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Can I just ask, I guess, a question of Jeff yourself. So what would you recommend? I would really like the public forums to be much more about "here's my issue and here's how I would solve it" rather than just say "this is really complicated," we don't like it. Just tell us, what's your view on what is an appropriate accountability? What would you like to see? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Actually I think it is pretty simple. In the proposed plan, you have all these grounds that an independent review panel can look at the actions of the board. What you don't have in there is what if the board actually did violate its bylaws? You just have to add that ground to what the independent review panel can actually consider and make a determination because what the proposed mechanism says now is the same thing that frankly ICANN staff, the general counsel and the legal counsel has argued in the litigation is, well, "As long as you guys meet, as long as you talk about it, you listen to both sides and act reasonably" -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Jeff, that's not what the new proposal says. It says these are going to be measured against a different set of standards which Paul and I have said are intended to be much broader. If we haven't got that right, let's take it offline. The intention is to increase accountability. I don't know how I can say that any clearer. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I guess there are three grounds, fairness, fidelity -- and I'm sorry, I forgot the other one that you mentioned. Nowhere in one of those grounds in the proposed staff implementation, nowhere does it say that the independent review panel can make a determination that the board got it wrong. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Jeff, it really sort of depends on what you mean by "the board got it wrong." So if your intention is you want to set up a structure that after four years of GNSO review of something like new gTLDs and there is a whole process and there was policy and there was a whole discussion and they went through and it got passed, are you asking for some appeal mechanism to a sort of judges or something who can just turn around and say "despite all that, it's just wrong"? Is that what you're saying? >>JEFF NEUMAN: I can give you a concrete example. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Please do. >>JEFF NEUMAN: There is a bylaw that says it must treat parties equitably and not discriminate absent substantial cause or something like that. Again, I'm misquoting it but that is a bylaw. Let's say a party comes forward and asserts that you violated that bylaw. What the review process now would look like as proposed is the independent review panel would just look to see, well, did the board meet? Did the board listen to both sides? Did the board exercise it in good faith? And there is a couple other factors. But none of the questions -- I mean, you could do all of that just like you said to Mike Palage that you can offer opinions but you could just be wrong. In other words, the panel could find that you actually did violate that provision. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Listen, if that's your example, couldn't agree more. I think it is very clear whatever has been discussed or put up will have to have further consultation with the community. But if that's your example, I think the intent is there. And if the wording doesn't say that, then we just need to look at the wording. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Okay, thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Jeff. Next in line? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Good morning. My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle, I'm the French representative in the Government Advisory Committee. I want to state for the record that I regret that in four, five -- I don't know how many days we've spent here -- the subject of the institutional evolution of this organization that is our organization -- and when I say "our," I don't mean governments' organizations, of course, but all the community. This subject has been devoted half an hour. If you expect that the substance can be debated in half an hour substantially, you're wrong, and I will not even address the issue because we need a space. And the comments on the institutional improvement recommendation paper is not a debate within the community. At best, what you're doing during half an hour is consult the community on one issue that is a major international -- and I would say not "international" -- global issue which is the governance framework and the institutional framework for the management of a common resource in the public interest. I will stop my comment here, and I want to make a comment on the internal working process that I hope will be constructive as Bruce has requested. We had a very, very interesting discussion with the board committee dealing with structural improvement two days ago. When I say "we," it was just a very small number of process freaks like myself who care about process and think it is important. The outcome of this discussion is in order to facilitate discussion within the community on the coordination of the different vertical reviews, there would be a benefit in having some kind of contact panel or community panel. Let's call it bylaws reviews community panel, informal, to discuss the bylaws transformations needed by the reviews. I just want to say and invite all those who are interested, including board members -- but I know you have a lunch -- there will be a birds- of-a-feather session tomorrow in Room 2 at Level 2. For those who are like me, process freaks, and think that process in institutional frameworks are important, you are happily invited. And I thank you for your attention. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. I'd just like to take a room sounding. How many people have issues that are not currently on the agenda and they would like to bring them up under the heading of "general" or "other business" at the end? One, two, three -- I'm just trying to work out how to allocate time towards the end of this. Doesn't look like there's a lot of general business. Four, five at the back. Okay. Thank you. Next in line. Thanks. >>JONATHON ZUCK: Yes. Hello. My name is Jonathon Zuck and I'm with the association for competitive technology. I think I've been to nine ICANN meetings now but I look forward to a time when the translator don't need to check my name badge. That's when I know I've really made it in the ICANN community and that will probably be the time not to show up anymore. But I also confess to being a white male American, too. I'll get that right off the bat in case anyone's accused. [Laughter] >>JONATHON ZUCK: But I do represent about 4,000 small and medium- sized businesses from around the world, and hear about these issues with respect to ICANN and transition and confidence from SMEs from all over the world. And I think this issue of institutional confidence is a really serious one and maybe one of the most important things on the agenda before this board, and I think it requires more rigorous treatment than it's received. I think a lot of work has into it, and I don't in any way mean to denigrate the work that has gone into the recommendations by the President's Strategy Committee and the consideration that's happened through the entire community through feedback, et cetera. But fundamentally, what Paul said earlier I think really matters: What measured -- what's measured gets done. And there are no measures inside of this institutional confidence initiative. We don't know whose confidence it is we're trying to increase. Wee don't know how we're measuring that confidence. We don't know what the stakes are if that confidence isn't increased. We don't have a time frame by which that confidence needs to be increased. And yet we all know it's important. Fundamentally, if the exercise here is to increase our confidence by having an institutional confidence increasing exercise, then I think we have nothing more than a confidence game, and it's not worth our time. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. And a response from Bruce? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, Jonathon. I'm also very keen to make sure we have measures. Can you suggest some? How would you measure institutional confidence? >>JONATHON ZUCK: Well, we could begin with a survey, for example. We could look at the different communities that we're trying to increase the confidence of. So identify whose confidence it is that we need. I can say in the business community, we're far less concerned about our own confidence than we are, for example, in the confidence of this model by government. So how do you measure that? It could be ccTLDs that come under contract. It could be new members of the cc -- GNSO, right? It could be how the GAC is perceived. Is there a survey that could be done that says, "If these kinds of measures are brought in as compromises, that we as the community of governments actually think this is the model to go forward, for example?" So a survey of the community, of the business community. Are the accountability mechanisms sufficient. The fact that they've been proposed doesn't increase anyone's confidence. Do they actually work? That will increase people's confidence. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So thanks, Jonathon. So there's a cost to measurement, so you mentioned many measures there. I think what I'd like to see going forward -- and I've been pushing this from a board perspective -- is when we do an operating plan, we often have headings and there's no argument about those headings but what we need to do is have measures. And I think what's useful for the board is to get your view on, say, each of those headings, what the five key measures would be under each heading. Like if you could give that some thought, because you obviously have a measurement mind-set. I'll be happy for you to send it straight to me or through any of the other public comment forums but that's what I'd find useful. Not 50 measures because we actually won't have time to do the measurement. If we had five key measures and decide the topic of institutional confidence and let's get those measures right, then we can move forward. >>JONATHON ZUCK: I'd be happy to do it. I'm concerned that the document itself doesn't even list the questions we're trying to answer, and so I'm happy to interact with anyone to come up with those questions and help you measure the answers. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Next in line? >>BECKY BURR: Becky Burr, and I'm going to apologize for those of you who have heard me say this before this week. I'm going to take Bruce up on his request for concrete suggestions. Here's what I would do if I were you. I would say, "Thank you very much, staff, for that proposal, for the tribunal. Very interesting. Put it on a shelf and do what the President's Strategy Committee wanted to do, which was to get a panel of independent experts -- this is not rocket science -- to come back to the community with a plan for creating an independent judiciary." An independent commission -- five judges from -- five retired judges from five countries around the world to -- I mean, the number of independent judiciaries that have been created in new states in the last two decades is not an insignificant number. The expertise exists. Get it. Get them to come back to the community with a plan, with a proposal, with two proposals, with alternatives. Whatever it is. But get the people who know how to do it and get -- and make it independent. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Any -- Jean-Jacques? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Peter. Two quick remarks. First, to Becky Burr. I concur with what you said. I think that's a good idea to go forward. The mechanisms exist -- the people exist, the expertise exists, so we have to get that together. I'd like to address this to Jonathon Zuck, who said that he was representing a large number of small and medium enterprises. I would add to his concern that of course we have to look not only at the industrial and commercial interests as they exist today, with perhaps a head-start of something like 20 years in some parts of the world. Mainly North America and my continent, let's say the western part of Europe. I think it is our duty on the board but community-wide to look at the global issues and the global challenges, and in that sense I would say that the question is not so much to know who will or should exercise oversight. It is making sure that the rules of the game -- but also the fairness and the reliability of the whole system -- can be proven against all odds in the future. And that brings me to say that at the PSC, when we were working on this institutional -- increasing institutional confidence paper, that is exactly the tack we took. That sounds crazy. That's exactly the choice we made, which was to look first at future challenges and then to adapt to that and say which structures we would have to look to. And in this sense, what came out very clearly was a necessity for ever- greater internationalization. So your point about your being a white male from a certain part of the world, et cetera, is interesting, of course, as a sociological reflection of the current situation, but I'd like to understand -- to underline that of course that may change in the future. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Any other board -- yes. Katim. Thank you. >>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Peter, and thanks, everybody, for your contributions. It's been really a very eye-opening session. I've really thoroughly enjoyed it and I just wanted to say that I'm in total agreement with Bertrand about his statement about the importance of the -- of international issues and the global dimension of really what ICANN is all about these days. I was just -- I think it must have been last night I was talking to somebody, and I think that what's happening now has to be set in the context of the fact that because of the incredible growth of the Internet, it has, of necessity, become globalized. And one of the ways I like thinking about it is that people -- instead of us -- a lot of people thinking of it in terms of a global network of something like 200 million or so computers that are networked, I'd like to take a look at it as some almost three or so billion people that are networked. In other words, when we started, you know, some 40 or so-odd years ago, what we had was just a network of machines. But what we have now is a network of people. And let us remind ourselves also that those computers, some 200 million or so-odd of them, as many as they are numerically, as a group very homogeneous. I mean, they pretty much all talk TCP/IP. 95% of them run Windows -- or run on Windows from 95 to Vista or whatever. Only a few of them run on Linux. And you compare that to the multitude and variety of languages and cultures that we have in the world, and you move the perspective from thinking of the network as a machine-centric to a people-driven network, you begin to understand why it is necessary that we have to have these queries, and I think that's all the more reason why it is important that moving forward, we really pay very close attention to international issues and how it affects ICANN. In that regard, I'd like to also mention that the whole issue of institutional confidence is very important. I think what we are going to achieve in the international community is going to be a direct -- in direct proportion to the enthusiasm with which people all over the world, people who are involved in ICANN's affairs, can wholeheartedly engage their governments, engage other people that they talk to. That means that we have to internally in ICANN make sure we have an inclusive tent, make sure that everybody feels that they're heard to the most extent possible, and of course with reasonable limits. I think if we think along these lines -- realize, one, that we really are dealing with a network of people that are diverse and what we have to do is to work toward our common interests and we have to make sure that we build systems and, you know, infrastructure -- you know, mechanisms to make sure everybody's, you know, welcome or at least heard I think would be in very good hands. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Next in line. >>PAUL FOODY: Oh, well, thank you. Okay. I was going to say something. Yeah. ICANN prides itself on being a bottom-up, transparent organization. Who do you see as being at the bottom? Yeah? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Foody, I'm sure that's a rhetorical question. >>PAUL FOODY: No, no, it's not. It's just -- you know, who do you see as being at the bottom? You guys are at the top -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If I start polling 21 board members you're going to use up all of your time getting answers. >>PAUL FOODY: I'm not sure -- well, who do you see as being at the bottom, Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, it depends on the question. Because we have our bottom-up -- where the "bottom up" bites is in the policymaking process and policies affect different people and the polymer about bottom-up and the policymaking process is that it's intended to be inclusive of the people affected. So upon what the policy is -- so the ccTLD managers, for example, are not at the bottom of a process that involves registry/registrar market separation. They're not involved. So for every different issue, there's a different group of people that are at the bottom of the bottom-up transparent policymaking process. >>PAUL FOODY: Okay. Well, your interpretation of it is very different to mine. When I think of a bottom-up organization in terms of ICANN, I'm thinking about the guy using the computer on the Internet in exactly the same way that Katim has just described there. We can't get in touch with those guys -- well, we can get in touch with those guys, actually. We've got a guy from Google here who can very simply put a note on the Google saying, "New gTLDs are being discussed, this is what it would mean." But apart from that, ICANN could very, very simply send an e-mail to every domain registrant. Now, not only would it give the -- not only would it confirm your contention that you are transparent, but it would also provide real help to the WHOIS database. Because anybody then expecting that e-mail -- and it would probably list all the various domains that anyone would own and the various registrants they're registered with, it would then give them the opportunity to confirm that their information is correct. And the WHOIS data has been one of those items that we have discussed - - that has been brought up as a -- as a real value in securing the Internet. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: I don't think -- excuse me. The other thing is when we're talking about the Internet, we're talking about a $100 trillion asset plus. If you take that away from the American people who predominantly are the major registrants of dot com owners, and you transfer it to a thousand corporations, none of which have any allegiance to any country, you are going to do something that is going to upset the global economy in ways that, you know, I hope you're prepared to be responsible for. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: Many thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Mr. Foody. Next in line. >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Can I just say as general manager of public participation, I had a horrible feeling that would be my e-mail address that's sent out to 60 million people so I don't want to take that on. [Laughter] >>KIEREN McCARTHY: But anyway, with -- tied in with that, there's been a lot of discussion in the chatrooms and I've got a few questions and it's broadly the same question about registrants' rights and registrants' accountability, so I'll just read two quickly. One is from and knee Gartner and he addresses you Peter. He says Peter in 1999 in Santiago you spoke towards a constituency for domain registrants 10 years on registrants who pay a significant tax to ICANN have no vote. Do you think it's time registrants had a hands-on role in ICANN? And a similar short question from Charles Christopher: What is the accountability to registrants? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. I don't think we're going to be able to answer that in this time frame. Next in line? >>SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: All this argument about extending JPA boxed onto improving institutional confidence, which is an ongoing process, what is happening in this room is a clear indication that the world can have faith in ICANN as an institution, and it's a process that is further happening, continues to happen, and it's going to happen for the next 10 years, 20 years, and it will happen forever, and if -- this is used as an argument to extend JPA. It could take eternally and that could be used as an excuse. So ICANN should positively say that -- that U.S. government should have faith in ICANN as an institution, and JPA should not be extended. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Paul, a quick comment. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Yes. Thanks very much for that intervention. And just to Jonathon's point, if he's still in the room, I think we should see this whole discussion in a context of 10 years of work by this community. And if you were to look at this issue of building institutions or institutional confidence, Jonathon said, you know, what are the measures? Well, if you were involved earlier in this space, the measures were how many of the institutions -- in fact, this is a bottom-up question -- how many of the institutions or the parts of the global Internet community were recognizing and participating in ICANN? Now, remember at the beginning there were no country codes involved with ICANN. They were just meeting on the side. So we've had measures like how many participants are there now in the ccNSO, how many accountability frameworks have been -- have been signed, how many agreements with root server operators have been put in place, how many countries are participating in the GAC, which countries are participating in the GAC. I mean, we now have, in one form or other, you know, all the really major country -- you know, sort of major powers, if you like, of the world who are participating. We've had -- you know, have we got -- you know, what sort of constituencies in the GNSO and new people participating? So that -- the idea of booting, that's been part of the solution. I'm not saying there shouldn't be other measures. I think that's useful. But just to point out this has been a long process. And it is -- the work on the Institutional Confidence -- with, you know, capital letters around it -- came out of the, you know, last two years about identified holes in what's been a 10-year project. So I don't think anybody should make the mistake of thinking that institutional confidence is something that this community has been doing in the last two years. It's what this community has been all about for the last 10 or 11 years, and identification of holes. And to come to Steve DelBianco's point, which I think is a very valid one, is this is a never-ending journey and the last person is absolutely right. The question becomes then -- I think fundamentally becomes who is it that holds accountable and who sets those bounds? And I think the position from, you know, the committee and the board and what have you is that we increasingly need to take that on ourselves. We do need to have -- you know, we're going to continue to have to keep deadlines. I mean, the sort intervention Becky made before, you know: Here's something from the community, here's some deadline, here's recommendations. We need to do that to ourselves, right? And to a degree, get a little beyond the expectation that one party who's done a fantastic job in offering guidance and support and will continue to do so -- and of course we'll listen to them -- but that's not the only party to do that. I mean, it's about our own community continuing to say, "These are the guidelines." So I think, you know, Jonathon's idea of, well, what do you measure and such as we keep going forward is an important one but we mustn't think this is -- at some stage you can draw a line and say it's complete. It's a journey. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Paul. Can we have the next in line, please? How many do we have left on this -- on this topic? You're ready for IDNs. All right. Let's move then to the next topic. Let's go to IDNs. Thanks very much. >>LIYANG WANG: Good morning, everybody. This is Liyang from CONAC China. Today I would just express my two dreams on behalf of all the Internet users whose native language is not English. The creation of IDN -- IDN is making all the -- three-fourths non- English speaking global population stream coming true. We are so eager to use our own native language as a whole domain name to browse Internet but it has been seven years or more since IDN was created and it is still unclear to see when the new IDN gTLD could be implemented. So I wish ICANN could set up a committed time line on the new IDN gTLD process in the -- and see the urgent requirement from the rest of the part of the world. Please open the application process as soon as possible. Second, I wish ICANN could give more rights to the local IDN communities on regulating the IDN policies. We all know being correct is a basic rule that ICANN always follow. Also, we know that the local communities use and understand their own language much better and accurate than the other communities. For example, two Chinese characters really is the best combination to represent a meaning. Three or more characters would duplicate or make no sense at all. So if there's no technical problem for IDN strings to add into the root zone, why restrict them into three or more characters? Giving more rights to the local IDN communities would show more respect from ICANN to our variety of cultures and it would help ICANN to make more right efficient movements on the new IDN gTLD application. This also makes the domain namespace market to be more diplomatic, open, and prosperous. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks very much. Next in line? >>JAMES SENG: Hi. James Seng. I won't repeat the numerous statements that my colleagues and others has repeated over the -- from Mexico, from -- to now on the three-character limitation. It was also raised numerous time across the week, especially including statements from the Chinese, the Japanese and the Korean representative at the GAC meeting. I think like to express my appreciation for various members of the staff and the technical community who has spent numerous time and were very helpful in moving the issue forward. As Harald said, this is -- it is possible to come to a solution, and we will be working together towards it. I also heard other arguments that there are other names other than CJK that may have words in one or two, like, dot characters. This leads to some people thinking that one, two characters TLDs is something that is nice to have or some sort of vanity TLD. I would like to just -- sorry. I would like to just make one comment that one, two-letter CJK is unlike other language; that it is not merely nice to have, that it is something that we cannot do without. By refusing accepting just one-letter TLD in CJK, ICANN would have effectively eliminated over 90,000 words in Chinese. While we may joke that we may pair -- the one-letter CJK was to trigger this, I hope that remains as a joke. Otherwise the joke is not just on the CJK community, but (inaudible) ICANN for the world to see. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, James. Next. Thanks. >>IZUMI AIZU: Izumi Aizu. This is my 33rd ICANN meeting. I'm a member of the at-large community but speaking only for myself. Before that, James Seng took all the lead, technically, in the IETF working group with IDNs, so thanks to the staff, but thanks to James we are now ready on the IDN ccTLD implementation. And maybe to touch upon the JPA/IIC, I'd like to share some of the following facts and my observations. In the preparation for the new IDN TLD in Japan, a formal expert panel was hosted by the Ministry of Communications, with a series of hearings from stakeholders, and reached the consensus with many public comments considered, and the final report was published this month which proposes to set up a new body, Internet Domain Name Council, in Japan. The government will ask this council to establish an open bidding process for which the IDN ccTLD registry will be selected by a new 12 selection committee, and that result will be reported to government. In turn, the government will hopefully endorse this to ICANN. So this new IDN ccTLD will not automatically be given to the existing ASCII ccTLD operator, although they can also apply for. So we will have multiple ccTLD operators for competition perhaps for better services in Japan and this new council is also likely to become the auditor for the continued operation of this new ccTLD. Yes, it's a bit complex, but we are having sort of a local framework, governance framework, of both the existing -- hopefully -- and new ccTLD, and with that, that is sort of a mini-ICANN kind framework, government participating. Not talking about IP addresses, so it could be half of mini-ICANN. But with this framework locally placed, I hope this will also sort of contribute to the enhanced accountability which is not only globally exercised, but if we have a local solid base amongst all the participating stakeholders, which will hopefully give a better solid framework for the global ICANN as well. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Izumi. I'm not sure what the order is here, but we've got somebody at this microphone. Okay. If you know where you are in the line, that's helpful. Thank you. Jonathon, another round. >>JONATHON ZUCK: As a Zuck, I'm always expecting to be at the end of the line so it's a different change. Paul, just in brief answer to what you said before, after nine of these meetings, I suffer no delusion that anything being deliberated is being deliberated quickly, so I know that everything has gone on for a very long time, so I don't mean to suggest otherwise. On the topic of IDNs, I agree that we need to think beyond just the business community and just the business community in the developed world, as you describe it. I remember an intervention in Cairo from someone named Yasser Elmorsy who had a company called Blue Mountain and was very interested in having IDNs for his Web site in Arabic. I think he even began his intervention in Arabic at the meeting, which was sort of a unique experience. And the issue that he raised at that time, I think, is still relevant today, and is more relevant now that we've heard confirmation that IDNs are going to be made available a year earlier on ccTLDs than they are on gTLDs, existing gTLDs. And so somebody like Yasser is -- if he wants to expand into the sort of IDN space, is required to go and get, from individual Arabic countries, his own domain from those countries and follow the rules of those countries in order to get them, rather than being able to simply convert his existing TLD into an IDN. And it just occurs to me while I'm standing in line here that the name of his company is "Blue Mountain" and given my plans for tomorrow, I wonder if his names would even fall under the geo names restriction as well. So to loop back in a full circle, these are not things that are probably inspiring confidence in this organization by Yasser Elmorsy. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. I'm going to close the line after the final speaker and call on the Korean representative to give us a presentation on the next meeting. Can I just explain that there is a very important meeting of one of the board committees starting at noon that I have to chair, and so at that point I'll be handing over to Roberto, the vice chair, to handle the meeting. My suggestion is that we finish IDNs and then we can extend if you're available into -- up to 1:00 to deal with any other items of general business. So go ahead, please. >>WERNER STAUB: My name is Werner Staub. I speak in a personal capacity. I've heard increasingly the people stating concern about competition between IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs, and I want to remind everybody that these concerns are totally misguided. There is a concern that indeed we are losing time in introducing IDNs, and the more time we lose in introducing IDNs, the more damage we do, because some of the effects cannot be taken back as people just accept that nothing can be done about them, have to be taught again that IDNs are possible but just going to take time. There are many barriers to the introduction of IDNs that are past the ICANN barrier, so whoever is going to be later in the introduction of the IDN gTLDs or cc's is going to have a great advantage through the work has being done by the others and I believe that if the cc's are first, they usually will be doing their own IDN in the area that they know about. This is actually a great advantage to the gTLDs. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next? Edmon. Thank you. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. This is Edmon Chung. In recent discussions from -- stemming from the IDN ccTLD fast track and also the new gTLD process, I think it's been becoming increasingly apparent that there are common interests issues about IDN TLDs between ccTLDs and gTLDs, and I think, you know, I'd like to bring this to the attention of the board and there are a number of elements that needs some consistency and coordination to meet certain user expectations because users expect that IDN TLDs work a certain way. At the GNSO, myself I've been championing a -- working with the ccNSO on a joint working group sort of to address some common interests or interrelated issues about IDN TLDs. Here -- just sitting there hearing Paul mention that some of the issues might be related to the GAC as well, I sort of put this open question to the board whether there's some action to be taken by the board to encourage some -- to encourage participation from the GAC as well on these interrelated and common interest issues. These include the length of the TLD. These include variants, the management of variants in the root, and certain other -- a few other issues that are common interests or interrelated between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Edmon. Paul? >>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, just remember that, first of all, we can ask things formally of the GAC. The GAC's its own creature. And that it has its -- very specifically its -- it is there to give public policy advice to the ICANN board. Now, the definition of what public policy is can be -- can vary. I think the advice on the two-letter code issue, back in Melbourne, was quite specifically to protect the interests of the ISO 3166 agency and as Thomas said, any future changes that may have to happen with changes of countries. Some of the things you mention are certainly things -- operational issues that we raised with the GAC, and we're happy to take advice at a staff level on specific things, but I think it's always up to the GAC itself to determine what is public policy, what sits within its remit and what perhaps does not. I'd hate to just take a list to the GAC and say, "Please give us an advice on, you know, quite narrow technical operational issues." They may not think it's within their remit. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just very quickly. We're out of time. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah, I understand that. What I sort of am putting in as an open question to the board is we look at the IDNC work group, for example, which was pretty successful bringing together GAC people, ccNSO people and limited GNSO people and we did do some good work. And perhaps this is one of the ways that we can address some of these issues. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line and then we'll close down for the next item. Thank you. >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Steve DelBianco with NetChoice. Jonathon Zuck mentioned something about the concern of registrants who want to reach an IDN audience but may have to wait several months to potentially a year for the gTLDs to be available in IDNs. I would like you to expand that perspective and also think about end users. We have worked so hard on IDNs for the past five or six years. There's going to be a lot of hullabaloo the day we announce and roll out that IDNs are in the root. Picture an Arabic user going to their favorite Web site and trying to find the IDN equivalent of gTLDs as she goes to Arableagueonline.org. Won't be there. Can't type that in all IDN because org won't be available. Or yahoo.com, eBay.com, instead they have to hunt around and try to find which country code IDN has happened to be instantiated with that domain. And then e-mails, they are trying to send e-mail addresses and type them into their e-mail product. And, again, they are not going to be able to use the all-Arabic character script typing those addresses in if the person they are trying to reach is in a gTLD domain. It is a simple sort of visual experience. What a shame if it undermines our sense of achievement and hard work at getting IDNs out. The bottom line is to try to encourage us to find a way to also come up with a quick-track, fast-track for the IDN gTLDs like we have done for the Cs. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. And last. Thank you. >>KHALED FATTAL: Thank you, Peter. I recognize that you're rushing to your other engagement, so I will be as brief as I can. Khaled Fattal here. Many hats I'm speaking on behalf of. I could have chosen to say my comment during the topic on the JPA, but I chose it on the topic of IDNs primarily because I think what I'm going to talk about pertains directly to how to improve institutional confidence and address the issues that many of the board members talked about: What is representation and where is the oversight? And if it is the community,then this probably is the path. Many of the board members -- I think it was Bruce who mentioned earlier on that if people want to talk about something that they wish to fix, perhaps to come up with a recommendation. I have a recommendation for you. IDNs have been an issue for the last more than ten years. Within this space, we have only been talking about it seriously in the last few. The next two, three billion Internet users will come from the IDN communities. So in brief, where ICANN could improve its responsibility and impression to the international community that it is representative of these people is to show how it has prioritized IDNs. And so far the current structure of prioritization of IDNs sits within the GNSO and the ccNSO. And I think they've done a relatively good job, but IDN could never reach the priority it deserves. So my recommendation to the board -- and if you'd like to have this in a formal document, I'm more than happy to provide it. You can take it from the text -- is ICANN in part of its improving confidence, restructuring and reform needs to consider forming a new Supporting Organization called the IDN SO. This will sit in parallel to the current two organizations and would have a priority on addressing IDNs. Many issues today within those two Supporting Organizations may not always be in cohesion, but the three working together, each one of them factoring in its priorities, I think, may add significant confidence in the process, because I'm also a process freak, and in the confidence of this model to show that it does work. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. I actually had closed the line. Is this another IDN comment? Please begin then. >>SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: I'm Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. I'm the ALAC IDN liaison speaking as the liaison. I would support what he has proposed, the IDN SO, before I go to my comment. That's a good idea. Right now I don't have a house to go to, and there is no forum there. Therefore, IDN issues are discussed in concentration. My comment relates to the character requirement. One of the requirements relates to the number of characters. And there are several drafts -- Internet technical drafts underway which have gone through several revisions. And none of the drafts point to any difficulty in using a single character or a two-character CJK script. And, technically, a single character CJK dot a single character CJK is possible. Then why do we still tend to think of it as a technical issue? That should be defined as a policy issue or a social issue. And when we look at it as a social issue, we should take into consideration the difficulties of 1.2 billion people or 1.3 people who look at -- look up the IDN and move on without unnecessarily debating on policy grounds. One of the points that came up that does not directly relate to domain difficulties but the Unicode difficulties in China, 56 million people are asked to change their names due to the difficulties and restrictions on the CJK script. There are similar issues when we talk about character requirements. So let's consider it as a social issue and possibly make it possible to move on. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay, thank you. You're up for general business? Okay. We're not opening that yet. Could I invite -- but you will be first in the queue when we do. Can I ask, please, for Kelly Hyeyoung Kang to come forward and give us the presentation on the new -- on the next meeting. Kelly, welcome to the stage. If you wouldn't mind -- as I explained earlier, some of us have to go. We will take this opportunity to decamp. Thanks. >>KELLY HYEYOUNG KANG: (Speaking Korean). That means hello in Korean. (Speaking Korean). Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Kelly Hyeyoung Kang from NIDA. On behalf of the Korean government and the National Development Agencies of Korea, I would like to express our gratitude to all members of the ICANN community for the opportunity to host the 36th ICANN meeting and welcome you all to Seoul, the capital of Korea for over the past 600 years. The venue, Hotel Lotte, is located at the center of Seoul. Now, let me show you a video introducing you to Seoul and Korea. [Video] [Applause] As the video whets your appetite for Seoul, Korea, we hope to see you all in Seoul coming in October, which is the most beautiful time of the year to enjoy Korea. (Speaking Korean). That means "thank you," which is a very important phrase to remember before coming to Korea. (Speaking Korean). Thank you, everyone. Thank you. [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Can we resume the comments from the floor with the new topic? I would like to remind that we have this -- we are trying to do this arrangement of the two microphones. So if the next speaker can speak from that microphone. If speakers -- if the next speaker -- the following speaker has an issue on the same topic, they should probably -- of course, you don't know. But if you find out that the topic is different, can you move to the different microphones so that -- I would like to keep topic by topic. So what's your topic? >> DANLEI JIN: Thank you, Chair and board member. My topic is GNSO restructuring. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: So all those who would like to speak about GNSO restructuring, please queue up there behind the lady that is on the microphone, and everybody else on the other side. I've been told that I have changed the rules versus what has been said before. That's the privilege of the Chair. [Laughter] [Applause] >> DANLEI JIN: Thank you, everybody. My name is Jin Danlei representing Chinese Internet users. I really appreciate the challenge to present in the public forum my personal opinion regarding GNSO restructuring. As is known to all, the GNSO is experiencing reshuffle. Even if certain revisement to bylaws or charters of specific constituency is made, the alternative goal personally is to better facilitate a service to ICANN by distinguishing membership, improving management mechanism, et cetera. In that case, GNSO should take a more tolerant attitude to embrace new members such as new gTLD constituencies, which is indispensable to new gTLD application round. Temporary membership as an interest group, as someone suggested, can never solve all the problems extended during the application or after the successful bidding, if we could put it in that way. We really expect ICANN to be more open and active in adopting conceptions all over the world and hear from representatives from various countries for its future development by the challenges of developing a new gTLD and IDN issue. I also see the gorgeous video from Korea. So for next round of ICANN meeting, maybe you can switch to China, welcome to China again. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. Bertrand? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle. I'm the French representative in the GAC. Just one point, the GNSO restructuring, as the council itself, is closely linked to all the GNSO reform processes in terms of the evolution of the PDP, the working group model. And there is a lot of work that is being done in that respect. I just call, as I did for the other issues, that ICANN tries to address those process issues in a coherent manner because they are all usually very connected. And I think the evolution of the GNSO policy- making function is one of the core functions in ICANN, particularly given the importance of the new gTLD program. And in that respect, a second remark, the discussion at the very beginning of the open forum led me to think that we could benefit from exploring different levels of PDP. At the moment, we have GNSO PDP and I think the ISOC and ccNSO PDP. I wonder whether it wouldn't be worth exploring an ICANN level or board level PDP for issues that are really community-wide. For instance, the GNSO PDP would be perfect and reform to address mainly the contractual agreements and frameworks and the consensus policies. But the broader policies such as opening up the space for new gTLDs actually are a community-wide issue. It is a suggestion. There are probably objections to that, and it relates to the role of the GNSO within the organization. It's not the place to have the debate, but I just wanted to flag it in the discussion as a contribution. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: My name is Adrian Kinderis. I'm speaking on behalf of my company, which is AusRegistry International, a registry services provider. That's Kinderis, scribes. >>ELLIOT NOSS: That one is more appropriate. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: You're taking my time. Peter responded to the question online before saying meeting legitimate community concerns is more important to both board and staff then meeting an announced deadline. I also provided a comment back, but the board wasn't here when that comment was read out, at least not all the members. And that is one of commercialism. There are companies that are ramping up to meet deadlines that have been announced for some time. And I have no concern over delays, by the way. But if you are going to delay, please give us some firm deadlines to work towards. If it is going to be another two years, I'm okay with that, but let me know because I'll go and sack all the stuff I have working right now that are costing me a hundred thousand dollars a month because we are trying to deliver services to those who need new gTLDs and I will go play golf for two years. And then I'll come back and pick it up. I have got no problem with the delay, but you guys just need to give us that are working with the community to ensure the business plans are put in place and appropriate due diligence is done so we don't have failing registries and give them enough time to get things together. The timelines are tight as they are now, and these guys are starting to wake up, realizing they have got a lot of work to do. If you're going to delay, that's fine. But don't let them start investing in these things only to have them sit around and wait. So I implore you to think about deadlines and make sure they're firm. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. [Applause] >> OLE JACOBSEN: Thank you. I'm Ole Jacobsen. I serve on the ICANN NomCom. I'm also the holder of organdemo.info domain. I'm here to briefly announce that the ICANN NomCom has a special social event in St. Mary's Cathedral on Saturday night at 7:15 p.m, if you are still in town. I know some of you are. You are all invited. Please come along. I have some flyers if you are interested in more information. Mary's Cathedral is just two blocks up. It will be a musical event. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. >>ELLIOT NOSS: Yes, hello. Elliot Noss from -- I didn't get a fresh clock, did I? Elliot Noss from Tucows. I have been coming to ICANN meetings for ten years now, and I will tell you that this meeting in particular for me has created a different feeling in the air. There is a positive that I want to call out and I want to be very explicit about. For me the biggest frustration or problem with ICANN over the last ten years is too much us-versus-them thinking and behavior. Too much self-interest and not enough common interest, and that has tended to make the whole ICANN experiment less productive than it otherwise could be. Here, I feel that in the discussions that are substantive around things like IRT and some of the compromises that have been discussed already, I am encouraged. In some of the JPA discussion, I am encouraged. Particularly, a year ago in Paris I besieged the board to start a process to discuss explicitly what comes next. Here I think we're starting to see that discussion. There is a point that I'm afraid of in some of the GNSO restructuring. Sadly, I think the only applicants or some of the applicants for new constituencies are single interest or special-interest constituencies. Those are exactly the kind of entrants that can bog us down and get us back to "us versus them." There is a new feeling in the air. All of us who have for so many years felt so often like we are beating our heads against the wall, there is something positive now. And I really encourage everybody here, everybody who reads the transcript, everybody up there to focus on win-win and to keep that momentum going forward from us versus them to "all of us." Thank you. [Applause] >>GRAY CHYNOWETH: Gray Chynoweth from Dynamic Network Services. I wasn't able to comment on the IRT earlier. My comment is specifically relating to the GPML. Two concerns, the first one being that I believe that the GPML violates one of the tenets that the IRT took upon itself to follow; namely, that it would not expand rights. To me, it is very clear that you move with the GPML from a regime that is remedial or punishes bad actors to a proactive regime or one that prevents good actors from taking actions until they have proven they are good. Because of that, I think it's unacceptable to me and should have been unacceptable to the IRT to put forth a recommendation that, in fact, contradicted its own operating norms. In addition, I think it violates traditional notions of freedom of expression that have been not only inherent in the Internet since its inception but also inherent in the various laws that ICANN is subject to. Lastly, I think that it really, to me, goes to the core of the interests that were at play in that group and I hope that the ICANN board will consider that as a voice of one interest -- and hopefully you've heard a variety of interests hear today and throughout this week voiced in relationship to the very narrow interest that was presented by the IRT. Thank you very much. [Applause] >> ALASTAIR MacGIBBON: Chairman, good afternoon. My name is Alastair MacGibbon. My background is cybercrime, Internet crime investigations and Internet policing. And I ask to day that as we look to add the next billion people with IDNs and we bring essentially lambs to the slaughter, in what role ICANN will play in educating people, in educating people about how to be safe online? As we bring these new services, let's look back at what we've done so far with those that use the net. What role does education play? And may I posit some of the things we should be discussing in reaching out and educating consumers through ICANN, through registrars and other people. First, we need to be teaching them about basic I.T. security, simple things about patching and updating their computers and downloading AV and other such things, simple things, good things, Mr. Chairman. Advising them on their behaviors and how, indeed, crime can occur against them. They are, in fact, the constituency that own ICANN. They are the users of the Internet well below us in many respects and well above us. But can I add one more thing. In my experience with dealing with Internet crime is that criminals are pretty simple people. I have dealt with them criminals online and offline. And their motivations tend to me financial in the online space, if we take sex offenders out of this. Let's talk about finances. In my understanding of how consumers behave, finances are their number one concern online and protection of their personal financial information is by far the major barrier to bringing new people into the net. And so as we go out and educate, the people, the new people, the next billion, let's not forget the fact that we need to be educating people on how to pay safely online. And that isn't using necessarily credit cards and giving away your personal financial information to a person you don't know and can't necessarily trust. That is us as a community educating the Internet users of tomorrow and those of today that they need to be using safer payment methods online, trusted intermediaries who hold their financial details so they are not necessarily passed to those they do business with. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. [Applause] >>PAUL TWOMEY: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of the last speaker? >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes, please. >> ALASTAIR MacGIBBON: Oh, sorry, Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Would you be willing to have that discussion with, for instance, the registrar constituency of ICANN? >> ALASTAIR MacGIBBON: Absolutely. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Would you be willing to propose things that you think are valuable? >> ALASTAIR MacGIBBON: Yeah, I think it's critical, Paul. I think the fact is, we're so busy laying track and we have debates about delays -- and I appreciate those. But we've laid a lot of track. There are a lot of people who have come online to date and lot more, a billion more that we want. We need to educate them, and I would welcome the opportunity to be engaged, yes. >>PAUL TWOMEY: The reason I suggested potentially that group, I'm not certain everything you outlined would fit formally within ICANN's mission but they are nevertheless a group who actually interact regularly with registrants. I personally would be interested in knowing what came out of that discussion. >> ALASTAIR MacGIBBON: I would love to. Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: I wish we could end the comment with that comment, quite honestly. That's the most positive comment -- most positive thing I've heard the whole time I have been here or in Mexico, so thank you very much. My other comment was in response. >>PAUL FOODY: I wish we could end the comment with that comment, quite honestly. That's the most positive comment I've -- the most positive thing I've heard the whole time I've been here or in Mexico. So thank you very much. My other comment was in response to Adrian Kinderis. He's obviously very disappointed that he can't go ahead and sell his domains as quickly as he would like, but at the same time, Adrian does have a role. He could very easily e-mail all of his clients and tell them of the impending domain name changes and what that is likely to mean to them. He could very easily advertise on his site -- I've not been to his site, I point out, but I'm prepared to bet that just as none of the other domain registration sites mention anything about the prospective new gTLDs, I am prepared to bet that his site doesn't either. The last gentleman talked about collective responsibility, and, you know, I've been berating the ICANN board mainly because you guys are in the firing line. We are all responsible. I could have come to ICANN meetings five, six years ago, but I sort of thought that I could trust guys at the top. But as we've seen in the newspapers recently, guys at the top have been given a little bit too much leeway, and the British -- the British government, particularly, are under a lot of flak for taking expenses and all sorts of stuff that they maybe shouldn't have done, but which became customary. The interesting thing is the extent to which they have been engaged to behave that way by the media, by the -- by people around them. And we all have a collective responsibility to look at our own behavior and say, "Am I doing the best I can do?" Thank you very much. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Hello. I'm Jordyn Buchanan. Speaking in my capacity as an individual and I'll become clear why in this particular context. I note the completion of -- and I'm going to say the name wrong -- the working group on the ALAC reviews report, and I know -- I have one sort of -- slightly distressed comment and one comment to highly endorse one of the ideas therein. And the first is, I note with some distress -- and this is partly, you know, I should have probably responded to the Westlake report and made this point as well to avoid being too late, but I think the notion of retaining the existing RALO, whatever the things under RALOs are called -- structure is a mistake. I mean, I think with all due respect to all the people who have put a lot of effort into building up those structures, I think it's horribly Byzantine. I as an end user, if I wanted to participate in ICANN, it would be very unobvious to me how I would go about doing so through that structure. And while I appreciate that it does capture civil society input from various groups that want to participate, it makes it very hard for end users to participate in a sort of organic manner, and I think a strong look should be taken as to how to correct that over time. The notion that I would like to heartily endorse is having ALAC board members. I think having end user representation on the board is extraordinarily important, and I think it's been a long, long time now that it hasn't been the case, and I heartily endorse that particular recommendation, hope the board acts on it quickly in order to change the bylaws to make it so. >>KIEREN McCARTHY: Hello. Me again. So I've got various questions that have come in, and various questions both in the chatroom and from the online question box, so I'll just run through a few of them. I realize we're running very late. We have to look at how we reduce these public forums down to, you know, less than 10 hours. But there you go. So bear with me. Steve Metalitz says overarching Number 4 -- this is with regards to gTLDs -- is how to structure new gTLD rollout to maximize competition and consumer benefit. How does ICANN plan to resolve this issue before launch? How will that resolution be embodied in the draft applicant guidebook? Are there public consultations on this as in issues 1 and 2, which was trademark protection and -- I forget what Number 2 was. Then I have -- I really won't be able to pronounce his name so I'm going to call him Sivasubramanian Muthusamy from ALAC. He says has ICANN established a scientific system to accurately summarize voluminous public inputs without bias, group them into positions for and against, format and publish it transparently. And perhaps a voting interface to gauge the levels -- the acceptance levels of proposals and provide feedback to the public on what is accepted. And I've got two more. Olivier Crepin-Leblond from ISOC England and there's some rare praise here, which is nice. I wanted to raise ICANN for having, for the first time, made a double-stack IPv4/IPv6 integrated WiFi network available to all ICANN participants. Well done and thank you. In fact, many attendees here in Sydney are completely unaware that they are using IPv6, especially if it is default enabled on their computer. And it says if you go to kame.net, there will be a dancing kangaroo, if you're using IPv6. So there -- [Laughter] >>KIEREN McCARTHY: There you go. There's a bit of fun. And then lastly -- oh, I think I'll end there. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. I have a couple of comments and replies from the board, so I'll start with Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. I was looking for the dancing kangaroo. The -- specifically to Steve Metalitz's question, I think as of whatever time it is now -- 12:27 Asian/Australian Eastern Time, I think the view is beginning to emerge on the questions that Steve asked, that it might be available to build -- to put in place a panel, building perhaps on some of the individuals but not limited to some of the individuals who helped in the -- at the economists' panel on Monday, to not repeat -- repeat the IRT experience because of the advice from participants -- especially registries and registrars -- but rather to call upon people to be technical or, you know, industry advisors to this panel, that the panel have a fairly public open process of discussion about issues of consumer benefit as well as the general industry structure issues, and then also those -- the integration, vertical integration questions. And then we asked that panel to try to draw some conclusions and that that be available for -- for the community's consideration. I think anyone that has dealt with it would understand whether it's something that can be incorporated into just the discussion on new gTLDs or whether any aspects of it would have to fall out to be formally policy development process. And as for timetable on that, I can't answer at the moment because I'll have to -- we'll have to consult obviously with the individuals. And I'm happy to receive feedback on that as an idea but that's my present read of the discussions we've had this week. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Paul. I have Jean-Jacques and then Thomas. Okay. And then I have Thomas and then we go back to the floor. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Yeah. Thank you, Roberto. I just wanted to respond briefly to Jordyn's comment about the ALAC review and some recommendations and just wanted to remind the community that the ALAC review just ended. There was a paper that was finished. The recommendations are being considered by the -- I guess by the board, and on two points, on the question about the current structure and whether the current structure of ALAC makes the most sense. That review group explicitly didn't consider that question because of the timing. It was felt that the current system was just coming up to speed. We didn't really have enough experience to say whether it would or would not work and it would be inappropriate to kind of judge it in its current form. And on the question of board seats, you know, from ALAC, the recommendation of the -- of the review group was to do exactly that. Thank you. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. Bertrand? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: So my name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. First point I would like to contact a factual misunderstanding. I've heard several times this notion that IDNs are for the next billion users. Think about it. This is wrong. The IDNs are for existing hundreds of millions of people who are actually on the Internet, perfectly competent, and who are waiting to be able to have access to their scripts. Of course it will serve the next million users and help it grow. But we've been working for those years with Latin characters and I encourage everybody uses Latin characters to think how they would feel if, today, they had been forced to use Chinese characters that they don't manage normally. First point. Second point: Regarding what I mentioned earlier, I may not have been clear. There is a huge interconnection between the different review processes -- ALAC, NomCom, board, and GNSO -- and the purpose of the community discussion that we were exploring is to allow the different communities, a little bit in an ASO/AC format, to discuss together those evolutions. So I repeat: There is a birds of a feather tomorrow in room 2, Level 2. And now in a symbolic move, I will turn around, just to express that the open forum is not a hearing by the board, but a discussion among the community. [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Bertrand. >>ROBERT HALL: My name is Rob Hall of Momentous. I want to rebut something Mr. Foody said. He seemed to imply that Adrian Kinderis, who runs the country code AusRegistry should be e-mailing clients, and of course I'll get together with Mr. Foody and explain registrar/registry separation later, the fact that Adrian is not actually allowed to do that. But as a large registrar group, I can assure the community that we have reached out to every single one of our registrants to educate them on what's going on. Slow down, yes. But, you know, the clock. Ding, ding, you know. So the -- we've reached out to every single one of our registrants. In fact, we started a service with pool.com in cooperation with (inaudible) to take preorders and educate people as to what TLDs. And, you know, I can assure you most registrars are saying, "Would you like a TLD and if not, would you like a second level within the TLD?" So I think there's a lot of education going on, and if anyone has any ideas on how we can get more people pointing to that site and placing preorders, I'd love to hear it. We've accepting about 10,000 a day currently. So there is interest, the community is aware, and as soon as you set the final schedule for us, I think you'll find that we're able to outreach much more positively and give people some concrete facts. A minute one left, so I'll say thank you and ding, ding. [Laughter] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you. I understand that we have the last speaker in line. >>JOUNG IM KIM: And it's going to be very, very brief. Juong Im Kim from the University of Hawaii. I just wanted to offer my enthusiastic "here, here" to Bertrand's call for a birds of a feather gathering tomorrow. I think it's an excellent, excellent idea. I just regret that I won't be able to join it because I'll be flying up north during that time. But I really urge a lot of you who identify yourself as process freaks -- I think that's what Bertrand called it, right? -- please, please, join him. And I think it's going to be a very important beginning of a good discussion for a long time. That will impact ICANN overall. Thank you very much. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Okay. Thank you very much. Jean-Jacques wanted to say a final word. Do we have other comments from the -- yes, please. Katim and then Jean-Jacques. >>KATIM TOURAY: Okay. Thanks a lot, Roberto. Appreciate the opportunity. I just want to say very briefly that I must say that I was really taken aback by the really very strong reaction to the IRT report. Those of you that were in Mexico will probably remember that the Mexico City meeting, I did say that as far as I was concerned, the suggestion then of forming an IRT to really look into the IPRs issue was a best practice issue that we should look at, you know, trying to replicate moving forward. And the reason I said -- and I think I mentioned it -- was that it was something to me, at least, that seemed very sensible because it seemed to be demand-driven. Whereby we have an issue at hand and the community or a section of the community comes before the board and says that we need resources to look further into this. I never expected and I never thought that whatever was going to be the outcome of that process would or could be considered as gospel or set in stone. And I think -- and I might be wrong, but I suspect that most of the reaction to what has happened or most of the reaction to the report that came from the IRT must have come about by virtue of the fact that maybe some people thought that this was basically it. I certainly don't see it that way, because as far as I'm concerned, it is just an opinion that's been expressed by people that's been funded or provided resources by the board, and so as far as I'm concerned, like I said, all bets are still on, not off. And that means that people are still welcome, as I see it, to contribute their opinions to the process until we get to the point where we are all mutually satisfied with whatever it is that we end up with. Number one. Number two is that I think we also should be moving forward, addressing the issue of the concern that was expressed by the NCUC about that feeling of unfairness and double standards that they say we have whereby, for instance, if something is said or tabled by the GNSO, it's taken seriously, if it comes from the -- from the NCUC or any other sub-constituency, for that matter, it's basically rubbish. I think we need to address that. And finally, I want to really take this opportunity to implore my friends and people like me who come from developing countries that these forums are for us and for everybody to speak up. I have never heard anybody speak up from -- somebody from Africa speak up and I think that's really unfortunate. As I was telling somebody at break time, we all come from various countries in Africa, from Asia. Fortunately there are about -- there is one or two people from India that spoke. The people from China spoke. But, I mean, we can certainly do much more than that. In fact, as I've been telling people, we should look seriously at trying to form an informal network, for a start, of people from developing countries or people interested in developing country issues as they are impacted in the deliberations of ICANN, but I think that has to start by really us taking interest and being very particular about making sure about -- about making sure that our opinions and ideas are heard in fora like this. I think it really would be foolish to think that all of us that are from Africa that are sitting here representing some I would say 700 million Africans are sitting here with absolutely no opinions and nothing to say. So let's try to buckle up a little bit and gather a little bit more courage and come up and say something. Thank you. [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Jean-Jacques? >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Roberto. I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few words about this public forum, actually. As chair of the public participation committee, I think it's my duty to pick up a few points of what could be improved, what should be improved, certainly, but perhaps also indulge in -- very briefly in what perhaps even went right. First of all, you probably have noticed that your remarks over the past few years have been taken on incrementally, and I must say that especially since Mexico I think we've made a point of taking this on, to improve, for instance, the public forum format of our general meetings. As you know, so the public participation committee was set up only at the end of last year, and we've really started working at the end of January this year, and it was one of our priorities to get the public forum format right. And that's why the public participation committee, with the help of staff -- Kieren especially, but others on the staff -- have sent over to the chairman of the board a proposal for this new format of the meeting you saw this morning. Well, until now. We still have a lot to do to improve upon that, but I was heartened by some reactions. For instance, what Elliot Noss was kind enough to say about this particular public forum. So my message, in concluding on this, is to say thank you very much for your reactions and I would like to impress upon you that this is not just hot air. Your remarks are extremely valid. In fact, the improvement depends very much on you as well. Thank you. [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. And that concludes the public forum. I would like to thank all the participants that have been staying and even if we, as usual, I would say we have extended a little bit the time because it seems that there's always something else to say and it's a good thing to have a lively community that stands up at the microphone and expresses their opinion. And let me confirm what Jean-Jacques said, that all what you have said is going to be taken into account. So in closing this session, I would like to remind that tomorrow morning at 8:30, we will start another public session. We'll start with the reports from advisory committees and supporting organizations and then we'll continue with the board meeting as usual. We will have - - yeah, the board meeting afterwards. Okay. Bye. [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: And I would like to have the thanks to the scribes and to the interpreters for their -- [Applause] >>ROBERTO GAETANO: -- for the job that has been done. Nice job as usual. Thank you.