Single-Character Working Session.
 Cairo, Egypt.
 05 November 2008 
 >>PATRICK JONES: Okay.  Thank you, everyone, for staying around.  This is a working session on single-character names at the second level.  I'm Patrick Jones from ICANN staff.  We have Carolyn Hoover from dot co-op, Caroline Greer from dot mobi, Jeff Neuman from NeuStar.  And we're going to talk briefly about the current registry requests for the allocation of single-character names. 
 And this is intended to be a chance for community discussion, so there will be more of an opportunity in the remaining 40 minutes for questions and answers and discussion from the floor rather than us up on the stage speaking.  So with that, I'm going to turn to Carolyn.
 >>CAROLYN HOOVER: I'm going to give you a brief rundown into what we put in the dot co-op request.  It was -- actually, the original proposal included both one-character and two-character domain names to standardize that process for us.
 And the two-character domain name was handled basically by simply following the current contract so there was no specific contract change needed or any change needed to address that particular part of the final request.
 However, the one-character domain name was strictly described in the contract, so that needed to go through the process.  And after, currently, five months, we are hopeful on Friday that it will be addressed.  It's a very simple contract change of, what, two lines, Patrick?  I don't think it took a long time for you to draft that up.
 But the overall proposal that we put forward was simply to have an eligible cooperative submit a simple RFP describing how they were going to use the domain name so we could be sure that it was going to be used in a manner that was consistent with the best standards within the co-op community.  It doesn't preclude somebody using it individually for their co-op.  It doesn't have to be a community portal or anything like that, but a simple proposal.  
 And then, in addition, we decided that we were not going to charge anything in excess of our standard registration fees.  And again, that was because we wanted to ensure that all members of our community had access to these domains without regard to their particular financial situation.  Co-ops can be, you know, two people or they can be multimillion dollar international organizations.
 So the other thing that we wanted to consider is to make it a very straightforward process, something that our registrars could easily register the names, not making any type of boundary for them.  And again, just to emphasize that what we were trying to put forward was a simple process that would make these names that were now becoming available because of the studies that have been done to show no stability or security issues, to make those names available to the cooperative community.  Thanks.
 >>CAROLINE GREER:  Thank you.  So the dot mobi proposal was practically identical to the dot co-op proposal but our proposal was just for single-character/letter names.  And we were proposing a straight RFP process.  So inviting content applications from the market, no revenue involved whatsoever.  And this was just not a revenue-generating project for dot mobi, it was simply getting the names out into the space.  And there was considerable demand from the mobile community for these domains because of shorter keystrokes and just to make these names very valuable.  
 So we posted on the 29th of May which is over five months ago now and we were led to believe that there were no stability, security or competition issues associated with the proposal and we're now moving forward with a contract change.  Again, a very similar couple of lines' change to the contract.  
 I would say the delays are very frustrating because our community has seen the proposal and, you know, our dot mobi advisory group and policy advisory board are all behind this and we're being asked practically on a daily basis when is this coming out.  It's problematic in that, you know, we need to sort of put forward considerable resources for this project.  It's not just a matter of releasing these domains.  We need to make systems changes, we need to allocate marketing resources, legal, PR, et cetera.  So we're ready to move and I really we come away from the Cairo meeting with a go-ahead for our proposal.  So thank you.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thanks.  NeuStar has made a formal proposal through the registry services evaluation process a few days before we got here and it has been posted by ICANN.  It's for a single and two-letter dot biz domain names and it's really a three-pronged approach.  
 The first approach is to have an RFP process for, as I said, single and two letters.  The RFP process would look at -- primarily with a purpose of marketing and promotion of the particular dot biz domain name.  And it would look to things such as -- it would look to get things such as a commitment to use the domain name as a primary -- as their primary site for a particular marketing project.  It would look for some financial commitment from those registrants that are seeking that dot biz domain name, and we would use a process to determine which applicant put forth the best proposal for the promotion of dot biz.  
 And, you know, what people need to remember here is that we are in a competitive environment.  Although we are competing against other TLDs, in particular, other registry operators that are considered by many to be market-dominant and we need ways to compete.
 We have no interest to see a dot biz domain name registered, let's say, by a trademark owner that wants nothing other than to warehouse the name.  That does no good for dot biz and it is not something that we're looking for.  We are looking for actual use.  That is what that means the most to us in that RFP process.
 The second approach, for names that are not taken through the RFP process, we have proposed what ICANN has called an efficient allocation mechanism otherwise known as -- by most of us, as auctions.  After all, ICANN has determined that the most efficient way to allocate domain names that have some sort of economic value is through an auction.
 We have proposed using those funds, that we would collect those funds and we would use it, again, towards the marketing and promotion of dot biz, toward specific marketing programs that get dot biz domain names to be used.  Remember, we are competing against a registry that has 85% of the market.  So we see nothing wrong with wanting to use those funds to have marketing programs because we think it's not only in our interest but certainly within ICANN's interest to see other TLDs other than dot com and dot org and dot net being used.  Certainly, as we have new TLDs that come into the marketplace, ICANN should have an interest in seeing other domains other than com, net and org being used.
 If there are names that are not allocated through the efficient allocation mechanism, we propose just going through a first-come, first-served process.  
 I think there's a couple things to keep in mind here.  That every top-level domain is different.  We are not dot com, we not dot net.  We don't have 85% of the market.  I know I keep stressing that.  We have less than 2% of the market.  Too often the community paints all of the TLDs with a single broad brush.  Just because you may not want another registry to introduce names via auction does not mean that that policy is appropriate for every top-level domain and we cannot continue to lump other domains in with the dominant player.  This is going to be even more important as we have new top-level domains.  And on that point, there is nothing in the new TLD process that will prevent auctions for single-letter, double-letter, or, for that matter, any character domains in the new top-level domains.  Nothing.  
 Also want to say and just emphasize something that Carolyn pointed out, there's already been determined no technical or stability issue with the release or allocation of single or double-letter domains.  We have had interest from domain name registrants to have this allocated.  We have had interest from entities that want the names through the RFP process.  And we've also had interest from those that want the names through the auction process.  
 So I guess with that -- and, I'm sorry, one other thing is that there have been -- there's another proposal to allocate -- it's not a single or double-letter domain names, it doesn't apply to that, it applies to names that were taken by the registry through a launch process.  And those names, the proposal was to release those names via an efficient allocation mechanism.  That has already gone through the process and is currently in the contract negotiation phase.  We see no difference between a proposal that proposes to allocate names that are more than two digits -- or two characters, we see no difference between that proposal and a proposal to allocate single or double letters, two letter -- two characters.  
 Again, in each case, both involve names that are held by the registry for whatever reason, names that have independent economic value and names that need allocation, and too often in the registry services process there has been unpredictability, there has been -- the word I'm looking for here, I'm trying to be nice here -- there's been inconsistent standards applied to similarly situated proposals.  And we think it's about time that ICANN staff treat the registries equitably, apply consistent, nonarbitrary standards and allow these proposals to go through.  Thanks.
 >>PATRICK JONES: So this was an opportunity from each of the three registries to present a little bit of their own proposals that have been submitted to ICANN.  You know, this is coming up because single-character names are currently reserved in all of the 16 gTLD registry agreements and in the new gTLD draft materials.  ICANN staff has taken the guidance that was suggested from the GNSO through the GNSO reserved names working group and the suggestion was to no longer reserve single-character names in new gTLDs so that category of names is not listed in the schedule of reserved names for the new agreement.  That's currently open for public comment and be interested in community feedback on the -- you know, that aspect.
 But the -- as a result of the reserved names working group there was, you know, staff advised the GNSO Council and the community that further work may be needed on coming up with potential allocation mechanisms for single-character names in the existing gTLD registries and so ICANN has had two different public consultation periods.  There was a public comment period from the 16th of October to the 15th of December, 2007.  And as a result of that, ICANN accomplished a synthesis of the public comments on potential allocation mechanisms and then developed a single-character, second-level domain name allocation framework document.  That document was published in June of this year.  And it discussed generally that, you know, ICANN recognizes that all -- there's not a one-size-fits-all approach across all gTLD registries, and it raised at least some potential areas for allocation mechanisms and uses of funds that could result from the release of this category of names.
 What we were hoping to do with this session is have it be more conversational and take input and questions from the floor and from the rest of the community instead of having, you know, us talk up on the stage, but rather be -- would look forward to any questions, feedback, and comments that anyone attending the Cairo meeting may have, just I know the board is interested in hearing community feedback and ICANN is interested in community feedback on allocation mechanisms. 
 So at this point, if there are questions and comments from anyone in the audience, we'd appreciate hearing them.
 >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you very much.  My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm an advisor to Overstock.com.  On the topic of single-letter second-level names, my advisory role to Overstock has been made public from the day that I first began talking to them, which was in Luxembourg.  Overstock's interest in registering O.com has been very transparent and open from the beginning of their interest.  
 Overstock took seriously the effort of the community and ICANN, in general, to develop a policy process that could guide the allocation and release of single letters of single characters at the second level.  So much so that they even retained technical advice to examine whether or not there were technical limitations, retaining a fairly well-known and highly respected technologist, Steve Blevin to provide advice in that area.  
 As a result of the work of the working group, it was determined that while symbols continue to have technical issues, numbers and single letters do not.  The work of the working group, which was quite extensive and involved many members of this community, resulted in a set of recommendations that could lead one to believe that the allocation and release of single letters, single characters at the second level will be done at the same time, even though the working group clearly recognized that there could be unique treatment of single letters and characters in the sponsored TLD community, recognizing the unique role of the sponsoring entity.
 Where I think we are today is to note that there is another proposal out there but not made public that addresses the release of single letter -- single characters at the second level in the dot com and the dot net registries.  
 So our question, on behalf of Overstock, is, why are we not seeing and hearing also from VeriSign on their proposal to release such characters since that would provide a holistic opportunity for the community to comment on the proposals?  
 Secondly, I will point everyone to the proposal that Overstock submitted on the 10th of -- let me get my dates right -- the 10th of December, 2007, which provides a detailed proposal for allocation mechanisms.
 The ICANN staff synthesis and subsequent allocation process took into account many of the comments received from a wide number of parties in the community but disregarded a very critical issue, and that is the recognition of prior rights.
 And let me explain why the Overstock proposal took that into account.  If, in fact -- and I would just pause at this point to say that several of the comments made by the three participants are completely in line and consistent with the perspective that Overstock has about the allocation and use of these characters.  We do differ in that we think that the funds that are received from the registration of these names should largely go into a special fund which is used to support the broader interest of the ICANN community in such areas as capacity-building and we spell out in our proposal some of the areas that we think would be good such as capacity-building, DNSsec, outreach to developing countries, support of participation, those kinds of things.
 But I still see significant consistency in other areas with the comments that have been made by the three presenters.
 What I find disturbing and of concern is that there seems to be an emerging perception in some parties' minds that we may not be moving forward.  And I do think that, again, I see consistency on the part of the three speakers and Overstock that it is time to move forward with a decision on how to allocate these names and how they will be used.  So what I'd like to say is we'd like to hear from VeriSign about their proposal which has been shared informally and we'd like to, then, continue a discussion about how to advance the allocation of the single characters at the second level in the legacy TLDs.
 >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS:  Thank you.  I will take a moment to digest what we just heard from Marilyn.  My name is Eric Brunner-Williams.  And I want to follow-up on Jeff's comment about looking for equity across registrar, registries.  Excuse me.  Core is the back-end operator of two of our registries, museum and cat.  And I have been involved in this process since the beginning as well.
 We don't actually have equity across legacy treatment from the pre2000 round that is the legacy monopoly regime, the 2000 round, the 2004-5 round and the present round.  It is hard to have equity temporally.  And as we look at the contract for the 2009 round, there are some challenges presented by the model of having horizontal equity across all the TLDs.  I don't think we are actually getting there, even though ICANN staff is attempting to have horizontal equity.  We noticed a problem in the application fee structure.  If the application fee is greater than the actual cost, that is, if there is an accumulated surplus which we would find out about three years after the applications close for the 2009-2010 round, that money, if it's not returned to the applicants in that round, the successful applicants and even perhaps the unsuccessful applicants is used to subsidize -- or lower the cost of the applicants in the third round after that, assuming there is a round every year.  Then we'll have present-round applicants subsidizing future round applicants.  And, yet, we don't -- we carefully don't have that property in the present that is the legacy.  The pre-round registry is not subsidizing the current round or are the 2004-2005 round registries subsidizing the present application process.
 The search for registry equity treatment I don't think is limited to just this one issue.  It's both broader horizontally and in terms of linear time going forward and also going in reverse.  I think I just said the time goes in reverse.  Thank you.
 >>CHUCK GOMES:  Thank you.  I wasn't going to initiate conversation on this but since Marilyn asked -- thank you, Marilyn -- I will respond on behalf of VeriSign.  We did submit a registry service proposal for the allocation of single and two-character second-level domain names for dot com and net shortly before the Paris meeting hoping it would get posted so that there could be public comment even there while we were all together.
 That proposal was never posted.  I've heard various reasons as to why it wasn't posted and have never heard an acceptable one to me, although I'm sure there are those who disagree with me on ICANN staff.
 It is a proposal, just since many of you haven't seen it, because it wasn't posted, in which VeriSign did not make one penny from the -- shall I use Jeff's term -- efficient allocation mechanism, an auction, okay?
 We proposed an independent way of the majority of the funds going to community benefit and that independent mechanism would have an independent group with a representative from ICANN and one from various constituencies, et cetera, would have determined the -- where the funds would go.
 We thought that it would have been of tremendous benefit to the internet community as a whole, including possibly even developing nations with regard to new TLDs or however it might be decided would be beneficial, even maybe dealing with some of the cost issues for underfunded applicants that would be good to see in the system.
 The only thing that VeriSign would get out of it is some cost to set up that organization, and it would have been a fairly minimal contractual change in that the names would have to come off reservation, which was already talked about.  We think it is unfortunate that it didn't bet put out for public comment because it would have been nice to hear what some of you thought.  And I'm sure everybody wouldn't have agreed with all the ideas we proposed.
 But we do believe it would have been good for the community.  And we also believe that it is very important for the registry service evaluation policy to be applied consistently and predictably not only for us but for the community as well.
 >>SUSAN CRAWFORD:  Susan Crawford, ICANN board.  About five years ago ICANN struggled very hard to come up with an objective process for new registry services so that new services that were proposed that did not trigger security and stability issues would be posted for review, for public comment and then allowed to proceed in an uniform fashion.
 Is it ICANN's view that these three proposals do not fall within the registry services framework?  That's my first question.  And, second, is there an existing consensus policy in place today that would bar the introduction of these registry services if, in fact, they are registry services.  Thank you.
 >>PATRICK JONES:  So I'll answer it first and then, Jeff, you wanted to respond.
 The three registry requests have been submitted to ICANN through the registry services evaluation policy and for dot coop and dot mobi they went through first the 15-day review for ICANN to determine whether there is a security, stability or competition issue which ICANN staff determined that there was not one.
 And, second, they both had proposed contract changes that were posted for public comment and I believe there were no public comments on the proposed contract changes but there were comments of support during the public comment period for the single-character allocation framework document.  And there were, I believe, nine to 12 comments submitted and most, if not all, of those were supportive of the requests.  NeuStar's request has been also submitted through the process and it's in its 15-day evaluation period and would assume it would follow the same process that dot coop and dot mobi have followed and will come up for board consideration and discussion at a later date.
 As to your other question, all of these requests have come to ICANN after the GNSO's reserved names working group made its recommendations that single-character names be released in new gTLDs and further work may be necessary to come up with allocation mechanisms in the existing gTLD registries.
 That working group was a component of the new gTLD PDP -- policy development process.  It wasn't a stand-alone consensus PDP process.  Since it was within the new gTLD process, we're sort of in this strange place of having a recommendation from a working group that was supported by the GNSO Council but it's not its own stand-alone consensus policy.
 >>SUSAN CRAWFORD:  Okay.  I am sympathetic to the concerns of the registries on the platform here that they've attempted to follow the process that ICANN set up, that there appears to be no bar to the allocation methods they've proposed based on security and stability reasons.  But they seem to have been swept up in a not-yet-completed policy process, if I'm understanding correctly, as to single-letter domain allocation methods for existing registries.  Let's not talk about the new gTLD process because from the perspective of these three actors that doesn't matter.  They're asking for treatment in their standing capacity.
 So I'm just trying to clarify here what's happened.  It appears that their standardized requests have been swept up in larger set of concerns about overall treatment of single-letter domains.  Is that correct?
 >>PATRICK JONES:  So this issue has come up before the board, I believe, this will be the third time in four or five months, since late May.  And on May 29th, staff gave an update to the GNSO Council and to the board on the same day, within a one-hour time period, and the update from staff was that there may not be a need for a policy development process on this because the current registry agreements provide for a mechanism for ICANN in collaboration with or consultation with the registry to work out a contract amendment or request to allocate this category -- or release this category of names from the existing schedule of reserved names.
 >>SUSAN CRAWFORD:  So it is up to the board now, dot bow me applications are before the board yet again on Friday to be decided.  What's the status of the biz application?
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So, Susan, dot biz, just to clarify that we just submitted ours so it is still within that period.  It hasn't yet been delayed.  But do I want to go into a couple things after you are done with your questions.
 >>SUSAN CRAWFORD:  I'm sincerely trying to clarify what's happened here so I can be a better informed board member.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  So for dot biz -- this is actually a good thing that ICANN does is -- when we submit, and we've done this before with other dot biz requests, is we informally submit it to staff so they can look at it for format to make sure we've answered all the questions and then they asked us do you want to formally post this and we do.  I think it is a good process because we don't really want to post something that may be incomplete.  We want to make sure we have all of the elements in there.
 Over the past couple of years, that informal process, however, has not just turned into "is it complete and have we answered the questions that are required for the process," ICANN staff has kind of manipulated that a little bit and now they're asking other types of questions that they believe should be answered as opposed to what the process requires to be answered.  And by that I mean in this process, when we informally submitted it, the question we got back was related to how we can justify doing an auction with the notion of a -- the price of a domain name, not reserved, being capped at $6.42 which we didn't think was an appropriate question.  I will go into why.
 The reason why it's not appropriate is if you look at ICANN's efficient allocation mechanism proposal, not once do they mention that there may be an issue with an existing registry having an efficient allocation mechanism at all, not once do they mention that registry may not be able to do it because there is a price gap.  I think that's important because if you look at the difference between, let's say, ICANN's proposal and our proposal, there is one difference.  And the one difference is who controls the funds.  I think it is important.  I'm not going to say any more about that, but I think it is an important distinction that in one proposal one party has the funds and the other proposal someone else has control of the funds.
 But I want to ask a question to Marilyn actually.  Part A is kind of half in jest.  Overstock, if you would like o.biz, we would be happy to give it to you if you promise to use it. I think it is an important distinction.  If you promise to use it within our guidelines, we would be happy -- more than happy to have those names actually be used.
 And the second part is in your comments and it is interesting to note, everything about overstock's statement is dot com, dot com, dot com.  And I know people -- it is obvious that the dot com names are much more valuable both from a brand perspective at this point in time and from a monetary perspective.  But I think -- let me change it.  I know that the comments that we got informally from ICANN all related to fear over our proposal being accepted and being used as a precedent for dot com.
 And I think we really need to get out of that mind-set.  And I know it is very difficult, but just because something goes through for dot biz doesn't mean it's precedent for dot com.  I want to draw one last -- so it doesn't look like an inconsistency what I am saying.  Before I said that there should be equitable treatment for registries.  "Equitable" does not mean equal.  It is important.  When looking at the treatment of registries, you need to look at context and that's why many times I said "market players," "mark conditions."  That the context of a dot biz is different than the context for a dot com.
 So I think with those -- I mean, Marilyn has got some questions.  I want to hear from her.
 >>PATRICK JONES:  So before we turn to Marilyn -- and since we only have a few more minutes left, is there anyone else in the room that has a question or wants to make a comment?  If you could, raise your hand.  And if not, I'll turn to Marilyn.  Okay.
 >>MARILYN CADE:  My comment is going to be that as much as I appreciate the individual interest of the three registries who very openly have put forward thoughtful proposals, I would like to take us back to what our job as the community is and note that with all good intentions and with the advice of the general counsel, policy process was launched and good deal of work was done.
 Now, in retrospect, it is clear to me that that should have been a consensus policy.  And I'm wondering if that, in fact, is what should happen now because a consensus policy, I think, can take into account a point that Jeff Neuman made and, in fact, the policy advice put forward by the working group did recognize that sponsored names have unique status.
 I'll just say that dot biz has a somewhat unique status in that it is limited to registration by businesses, although it's not perhaps what I originally conceptualized as a broadly sponsored name.  It does have a unique identity.  So I could certainly see characteristics that are similar to dot org which increasingly is taking on a unique identity.
 Just to clarify, I made it very clear that overstock has always been clear, that because they have established a brand recognition in o.com, that was what they were pursuing that string, that second-level name.  They're not unique, but I will say in the research we've done, there is very few companies who actually will create an identity and act in that identity in a single letter.  There are some.  There will even be conflicts, potentially, over o.com.
 We took that into account and suggested that there should be competition in a managed auction.  But that brings me back to what I hope will be a broader objective and that is finding a way while we're here to develop an approach that allows the release -- and I'll just pause to say, one thing that I would take -- perhaps differ with Susan on is, in fact, ICANN has those names on reserve.  It may be because of historical reasons and at that time suspected technical issues.  But those names are on reserve.
 Secondly, names do not belong to registries.  And we seem to, in some parts of our community, get into thinking that because a registry has allocated a responsibility and business opportunity to manage a string that they then own the names.  They don't.  Right?
 So I think it is really that the proposals we've seen so far really recognize that and take into account wanting to fit into a policy guideline that has been guided by the community.  I'd like to see us while we're here find a way to bring forward the VeriSign proposal and to think about whether we can come up with an agreed-upon mechanism to move forward.  Or if not, call on the board to establish consensus policy -- issue an issues report and call on the board to direct council to make the work that's already been done and put forward a consensus policy that allows everyone to move forward very quickly.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Just a comment, Marilyn.  I don't think any of the registries are saying that they own the names.  But I do think that you need to take into consideration some of the TLDs that have launched since 2005 -- trying to remember the years here.  A number of them including dot mobi, dot Asia have had auctions for premium names.  So we're not asking for something that's unprecedented here.  In fact, the only difference is that those names were more than two characters.  That's it.  Let me just go back into a little bit of history.  At the time, dot biz had asked the then-general counsel to allow these names to be registered when we were negotiating our contract because there were names like z.com and others that were already being used.
 And the answer we got without explanation was "no."  Now, I don't think it is proper to say that they were reserved perhaps for technical reasons.  None of us really know why they were reserved because there was never really any discussion that took place as to why.  It was just "no."  And, in fact, the two letters, what we were told when we were negotiating the contract, in 2001, the two letters were not allowed because there was a fear that they may cause confusion with the ccTLDs and that it was possible that new countries would come into existence and we needed to account for the fact that sometime in the next few years that that -- we'd have to.
 So I don't think it is a correct assumption to say that they were reserved for technical reasons.
 The other thing I just want to make the statement of is you made a statement that it is in a policy process.  It has never really been in a policy process, the single letter.  There has never been an issues report as far as I'm aware.  There has never been a vote by council.  There has never been anything that would put it in the policy process.  I believe overstock had submit add letter.  ICANN has on its own put out some papers to get some opinions and thoughts but that's not a policy process within the meaning of ICANN.
 And I am probably taking up a lot of time.  You're pointing.
 >>PATRICK JONES:  Pat, did you want to make a comment?
 >>PAT KANE:  I wanted to add something since Jeff had gotten done.  Pat cane, VeriSign.  A small riddle, what do single letter character names and dot museum have in common?
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  Say again.
 >>PAT KANE:  What do single letter character names and dot museum have in common?
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  I don't know the answer.
 >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS:  26 registrants.
 >>PAT KANE:  No.
 [ Laughter ]
 That's unfair.  But good.
 Many applications don't recognize either one of them.  So some of the same issues that we had with long TLD strings we still have with single character domains.  There are three dot coms that are registered today and we have one registrant that continues to call VeriSign for help in trying to make certain that applications can recognize single-character domains.  As with everything we decide at ICANN, there is still many more things that have to get done once we get past this particular process.
 While it is important to figure out how the domain names whether they be in com, biz or any other TLD, yet efficiently allocated, what we have to ensure is that when they are allocated that what people are registering they're satisfied with.  So there is some other work we have to set up and prepare and pave that path so that when people do have mail applications, they are not being rejected to spam.  Thank you.
 >>PATRICK JONES:  The goal of this working session was to provide an opportunity for everyone -- or people attending the Cairo meeting for registries that are interested in this topic, for registrars, and there is a number -- there have been a number of registrars in the community that have been very interested and have submitted comments in the two previous consultation periods.  Some of these registrars have provided suggestions on potential allocation mechanisms and processes.  This was an attempt to provide a way to have open dialogue from the community on this topic and we hope that this dialogue continues as the weeks go forward and as the board considers the requests that are currently pending before it.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  If I can ask a question then, so we've made our proposal.  And it will pass the -- it should pass the technical stability since other proposals have.  My question for ICANN staff is:  Will ICANN staff follow the registry services process and not wait for some policy process which is we have no idea when or if that will even take place and move forward on the proposal because as of this moment, as Susan was talking about earlier, we need predictability.  And right now I have no idea what's going to happen to my proposal.
 >>PATRICK JONES:  So our commitment is to follow the process and conduct the 15-day review and we'll keep communicating with you and working through this.
 >>JEFF NEUMAN:  For the record, I don't understand what that means "keep working through it."  But we'll work through it.
 [ Laughter ]
 >>PATRICK JONES:  Unfortunately, we started late and I think we're now at 6:00.  It's been a long day and I don't think we can go much longer.  We can't keep our wonderful scribes here much longer either.  So with that, I think we're going to bring this working session to a close and we'll try to find a way to continue this open discussion.