ICANN - Cairo GAC-ICANN BOARD JOINT SESSION Tuesday, 4 November 2008 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So ladies and gentlemen, let me start the GAC and ICANN board joint session. On behalf of 40 GAC members around the table present in this meeting together with three observers, international organizations, and one invited country, the Russian Federation, to welcome board members who are present in this room as well as Rita, who is following this session from distance. Welcome to the GAC, and we have this time a fairly long agenda. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: This is the closed meeting? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: This is open meeting. This is all open meeting, and, in fact, this time, apart from two initial sessions, GAC was working with open doors. And we had a fairly interesting experience. Initially, there were many people sitting in the room listening. And then after first day of this nice experience, in the corridor I heard kind of an opinion, one participant said, "If that is what they are doing," meaning GAC, better they are doing behind the closed doors. [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can I comment on that? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Hello, I am Peter Dengate Thrush. I am the chairman of the board. I want to make a quick comment about having open meetings. Let me begin by saying that I have always supported the right and the community that the GAC has taken to have closed meetings. I understand, and I think most people have understood, that there are times when the only way you can proceed is when you can close the doors and have a session just amongst yourselves, and people can think freely out loud without fear that what they are saying is going to be taken and spread and misquoted. And I have supported that even, at times, when people have complained and said the ICANN bylaws require meetings to be conducted, to the greatest extent, in open, et cetera, and the GAC has been subject to criticism for that. And I think that criticism has been unfounded. That said, I do welcome the trend to have as many of your meetings in public. And partly for the reaction that Janis has just described. Once people do find out what's going on, they are completely unable to make up malicious stories. And once they realize it's just long, hard work going on, you defuse a lot of potential criticism. So congratulations on as much as of your work can be done as open as possible. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: It does not mean that we will be completely naked in front of everybody. So there will be some sessions which will still be closed. But as you said, the trend is there. So if you would allow me to walk through the list of issues we would like to discuss with you during this remaining hour and a half. So they are the following: The GAC contribution to President's Strategy Committee report; IDN ccTLD fast-track implementation plan; new gTLD introduction implementation plan; WHOIS data accuracy, WHOIS data studies; ICANN meeting strategy; the role of the GAC from the view -- from the board's viewpoint, namely, based on commitment taken in the article 7 of appendix A of Joint Project Agreement. The information exchange on press reports linked to ICANN accredited registrars with -- linking ICANN-accredited registrars with criminal activities. Potential travel support to the GAC members from developing and least-developed countries. And the question of -- which was added in our preparatory session, the communications between ICANN and national governments. That is to say, letters which have been recently sent out to ministers in different countries on ICANN-related issues, namely, ccTLD fast track and gTLD. So these would be agenda items from our side. We communicated them to the board early in advance of this meeting. And I hope that we will have a fruitful exchange. So the order is as I listed, or -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's fine. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Let me start with one issue which GAC members raised not a single time during these two days, and that's unfortunate short time of communication of major documents before the meeting of -- Cairo meeting. I think the joint working group, ICANN board and GAC joint working group, was created to discuss and agree on the ways how to improve communication between the board and the GAC. And the result of this joint working group was a common understanding on the timely communications. That is the document which is attached to one of the communiqués and was well received by the board. And many GAC members pointed out that particularly fairly long documents, guidebook, new gTLDs, and ccTLD implementation plan, were published too short before the meeting, and that did not allow not only to read carefully those documents, but also GAC members, those who have this internal procedure, did not have any chance to consult on those documents with the respective authorities, and, therefore, our performance is -- and our, let's say, engagement on these documents is fairly limited and can be considered only preliminary. This is -- please take it as a note of criticism from the GAC. And, hopefully, in the next meetings, this can be improved. Because, in my view, this is just a matter of internal organization for preparation of the meetings. If you put the first deadline earlier, then you have still leeway to breach it for one week, and so on. So just a note of criticism, if you wish. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let me respond to that, and then I will pass it over to Paul, whose team is responsible for actually producing the paperwork. And first of all, let me say that from the board's perspective, there is no retreat from the principle. And it's a principle that we work to maintain in relation to staff supply of papers to the board as well. But let me, in sympathy with, I'm sure, what Paul is going to say, point out the difficulties of actually achieving this. Very few organizations meet internationally as we do, with the pace of change that we face, three times a year, in remote locations. So we have set ourselves, you know, a difficult challenge. I'm not saying that we are resiling from that. And the introductions from the board to the staff are to attempt to meet these challenges. But the practical reality is, things get in the way. And just by way of example, the board has subjected itself voluntarily to the same review process that we are subjecting the other organs of ICANN to. The reviewers came to present to -- their draft paper, and then agreed for the release of their paper. And it was published, as a result, one day before the public seminar on board review. So these things happen. We decided that it was probably better to have at least that release and that discussion on this wait three or four months until Mexico before we could do it, and we had the reviewers present and we had, in the end, a very useful session, albeit limited. So sometimes it's a question of making do. But, Paul, I'm sure you can be slightly more specific in relation to the principle and the practice of early release of documents. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Peter. And I agree. At a staff level, there's no moving away from the commitment, either. Indeed, for the major set of documents that went out for this meeting, which was the documents all associated with the new generic top-level domain process, the two-week deadline date would have been Monday, the 21st of October. And we ended up posting on the Friday, or may have been the Thursday night. So, in other words, it was four days late, for which I can only apologize. My only -- I mean, I think you'll appreciate, not only this is a question of staff coordination, but it was also a question of coordinating some multiple outside groups with feedback. So I won't go through some sort of large defensive defense on this. Just say we recognize -- recognize the issue. I would like to make the following point. For the new gTLD implementation plan, there are two 45-day consultation periods built into that. The second one concludes after the Mexico City meeting. So we also never envisaged that this meeting that groups like the GAC would be expected to make responses. We never thought even two weeks would be sufficient for that. So our expectation is that consideration in the -- intersessionally between now and Mexico and at Mexico would be a valuable process. So that was always what we considered in the planning. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Steve, did you want to say something? This is Steve -- >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Yes, please, Chair. I'm Stephen Goldstein from the board. I must say, Mr. Chairman of the GAC that I do take exception to the tone of your communication. To wit, please note that this is a note of criticism from the GAC, and, hopefully, for the next meeting, this can be improved. The word "criticism" is particularly harsh. It implies a relative positioning, at least to me, it implies a relative positioning that the GAC is in a position to criticize, as opposed to just come to us and say, "You know, this makes it very difficult for us." But this has been a -- to me, this has been a rather prolonged and continued approach that the GAC takes, to criticize. But to me, the "A" in GAC is "advisory." And so I really have trouble with this. And I believe that relations between us would be much more smooth if such relative positioning were abandoned. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Steve. I take your criticism as well. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: And I take it seriously. It's not -- it was not a joke. I think maybe my limited knowledge of English, which is not my mother tongue, prevents me from being more eloquent in saying. Sometimes I feel tired after chairing a meeting all day long without a break, to find the right words. But we have been on this subject on timely release of documentation which would allow GAC members to follow also internal procedure, which, in some bigger countries, or bigger organizations, are rather cumbersome and long, to come to the meetings of ICANN and the GAC fully prepared. So -- and in this respect, I know also that this is the board's position, that documents should be timely presented before the board's meetings. And I think that this is not too much of a request, of timely communications. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Dennis Jennings, a board member. I have to say, Steve, that I would be somewhat critical, too, of late documents. It's very hard to get very large documents and to read them in a timely fashion. But what do we mean by "timely fashion"? This is the Internet. We expect people who participate in this to, within reason, to turn around, to read documents quickly, and to expedite their processes to enable that. I don't know what is a reasonable time from the -- from a typical government point of view, but I would have thought ten working days as a norm should be more than enough. And if it does come out two days beforehand, then I would expect people in this environment to have a good crack at reading it. That's the way we work. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I just suggest we get off this. I think we can talk for hours about what was timely. We've got some other more interesting topics, though. So with the concept of my fellow board members, let's move to the first item of substance, Janis. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I agree. >> (inaudible). >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I agree. No. So there was a request from -- from Bruce. Then European Commission, then New Zealand. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I really have a question, 'cause it partly comes down to how we structure some of the comment processes. But the new gTLD process, it has been trickle fed to some degree. So some of the documents have been appearing over the last two or three weeks, but admittedly, the last documents have been arriving in the last few days. But it currently calls for one 45-day comment period. And I think the staff have said in the last few days that they are planning to move to having two 45-day comment periods. But I'd like to get a sense of, is it better for the GAC or for this part of the community to have one, you know, 90-day comment period? Or is it better to have documents that iteratively come out, you know, reflecting feedback as it arrives? Should we have multiple short comment periods or one long comment period? What works better for you? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think we have talked on multiple times that the GAC can take decisions on substantive matters only during the face-to-face meetings. So it is not a custom for several reasons to take decisions on substantive matters intersessionally. On procedural matters, we -- sometimes we do take decisions online intersessionally, but not on substantive matters. So that partly answers your question. And that should be factored in. So.... European Commission. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. I'm finding this discussion quite useful, actually, 'cause I hadn't realized there was such a poor understanding on the part of board members, actually, about what our job is as government officials. You know, I have to explain to you that we do not come here in a personal capacity to offer advice. With the best of, you know, intentions, we do act largely on goodwill. We do we act late to documents. But there's an obligation on our part to explain to the board, actually, that on some of these papers which are broad in scope and which are technical, which are legal, which are have political implications, we are obliged to consult with colleagues who have responsibility for those areas. So our criticism or our advice or our complaint, actually, I think would be a useful word as well, is intended to be constructive. So I'm rather surprised at the reaction of some board members. We're telling you that if you want us to do our job properly as government members of this advisory committee, then this kind of timetable doesn't work. And my last comment would be in terms of Internet governance. There are other organizations that deal with multistakeholder, multinational participants, in fact, have more participants than ICANN meetings. The IETF is a good example. And they have three meetings a year, I understand, two or three. They have a two-week cutoff date. You can't post documents for discussion unless you post them at least two weeks before the meeting. I think that would be a very useful discipline for ICANN to consider. But it's not just an empty complaint because we would prefer more time and we don't like to work hard. I think many of us do work very hard. It's purely that we can't do our job properly. If you would like us to do our job properly, then we're saying you need to give us more time. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So last on this subject, New Zealand. >>NEW ZEALAND: No need. What he said. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Maimouna, Senegal. >>SENEGAL: I just want to add to what has been said that in some countries, we need also to translate the documents before giving it to our ministry. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Maimouna, for this addition. So, now, in the first round of exchange is over, we can go to the agenda item, GAC contribution to the President's Strategy Committee report. To kick off the debate on this, I would like to inform the board that GAC is working with the aim to produce written input to the President's Strategy Committee report by the end of this meeting. We have had the first reading of the initial draft, which was produced during intersessional consultations, online consultations. And as it is usually, many substantive comments have been filed during the first round of exchange. And we hope to work tomorrow in order to reach compromise on a number of issues. But just to give a flavor of our discussion, I would like to underline that the five objectives mentioned in President's Strategy Committee paper, in our view, represents a basis for further community and multistakeholder discussion on further evolution of ICANN. We will be presenting our views of -- on safeguarding ICANN against capture. We will be presenting our views on accountability to multistakeholder community. Equally on -- there will be fairly substantive proposals on financial accountability, including very precise recommendations, like embark on results-based budgetary planning, on development of appropriate metrics to evaluate spendings and results, and so on. I will not go into detail. So we need to finish. But just to give a flavor. We will be presenting our views on internationalization, and as well as of role of the GAC in ICANN. So this is our objective. Then when it comes to timing, Peter, we have certain concerns that the proposed timetable may be too ambitious, meaning to go to implementation phase already after the Mexico meeting. In our view, since this question relates and is of concern of the whole community, we need maybe more time to deepen discussions of a number of elements which are in President's Strategy Committee report to reach community agreement on them. And then we think that maybe Mexico could be kind of midterm of this process and the final agreement could be reached, the design phase, as we are calling it, could be finished by the June meeting of 2009. And that would be the beginning of implementation. So that would also allow for an important GAC member to be on board, taking into account the upcoming change of administration after elections of today. So this is also one of the reasonings why we're asking maybe to postpone it for three months and give us more time to work on the subject. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Can I put my hat on as one of the co-chairs of the President's Strategy Committee first, and say we will very much welcome the input from the GAC when it comes. Just a reminder that there is a session, a seminar on this at 2:00 on Thursday. So it would be very helpful if this was available sometime tomorrow. I would hate to have a criticism about lack of timely presentation of documents before -- that was -- So it would be helpful if -- and if GAC members can be present, and I know that some, at least, of the GAC members -- and I'm looking at France rather obviously -- have been participating in these discussions. And we find that useful. And if the material from the GAC will be available. In relation to the timetable, I hear what you say. If the design phase is extended to June, I guess the question would be, how much implementation work does the GAC see as being required? Now, obviously if there was no implementation work required at all, then that would be ideal. Are you able to give us any indication at this stage from the work that you have done as to whether you think there will be much to implement after June? And if so, do you think that will be completed by September? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I'm looking around. So I don't want to abuse the privilege of chairing the meeting and answering all questions. So is there anybody who would like to intervene from the GAC side? Bertrand, France. >>FRANCE: As I've been so kindly singled out by the chair. One element that is related also to the beginning of the discussion of this session. I think, in many cases, when the GAC makes a comment regarding processes, it can be perceived and it's sometimes worded by the GAC as something that is almost self-serving, that we see our interests or our own position. I think in many cases, it is actually something that is more general and more shared by the rest of the community. And in this respect, the comments regarding the process on the PSC are meant to mean that it is a subject that is of the highest importance for all actors in the community. And I think the joint open session showed how much at the same time importance actors attach, and also the different levels of implication of the different subgroups of ICANN of addressing the issue in detail. In that respect, the distinction in the current version of the Joint Project Agreement -- of the PSC document between a clear analysis and design phase and a clear implementation phase is probably more fluid. In particular, I don't think anybody expects -- and if this is not the case in the PSC, let us know. Nobody expects that there will be a switch somehow that will be either switched on or off on the 30th of September, and then suddenly the new ICANN will emerge from the egg. Whatever implementation mechanisms or provisions are needed, they will necessarily spread on a certain distance. If there are some rules that have to be modified. If, in particular -- and I will come to that just next -- the evolution of the decision-making processes and the policy development processes are part of the transition evolution, then it is necessary that some amendments of the bylaws will have to take place and that the functioning of the different SOs might have to evolve, even the relationship between the SOs and the board and so on. So there are many interlocking pieces. And I suppose that in any case, implementation will take time. The question, though -- and this relates also to the new gTLD process, strangely -- is that there is a strong distinction between detailed implementation and implementation guidelines. In the case of the transition action plan, the design phase is about implementation guidelines maybe or refining what is needed to achieve a certain number of goals. What kind of concrete measures afterwards need to be taken -- is it one element in revision of the bylaws? Is it revision of the internal working methods? -- is another question. At the moment, I don't think there is -- we are at a stage yet where the clear vision on all the different interlocking aspects are taken into account completely. And so the suggestion is that there is a need for broader community interaction. And this is where the GAC is not speaking only on its own behalf. I think it is a widely-shared preoccupation to make sure that the interaction of the community -- with the community is even broader and that this fundamental issue is treated in the bottom-up, multistakeholder process that is fundamental for ICANN. And it does respect the idea of having this period of six months to conduct this interaction is very important. The last point is, if I'm not mistaken, in your presentation at the beginning of the open joint session, the part regarding the multistakeholder model was reintroduced as a sixth point in the list. And should we take it as an indication that this element and that the evolution of the policy development process will be considered more as an item in the work led by the PSC? Or is it just a mention that is relatively inconsequential? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm not exactly sure which piece of the presentation you are referring to. But I think, from memory, the point was that part of the -- the preservation, that in making the changes and looking at the structure we were wanting to emphasize that there was to be no change to this fundamental principle of bottom-up structure. So -- >>FRANCE: If I -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just making it clear that this -- something that exists was always intended to continue to exist. >>FRANCE: No. Actually, the point I was making is that in the versions of the PSC reports, there are five big chapters. And the maintaining the multistakeholder model used to be as a sixth point. And we had the interaction that it was reintegrated in the second part. I was noticing in the document that you presented on the slides, that it reemerged as a sixth point. The question is, is the purpose to maintain the model or to continue to improve the model? Which means that the current interaction and modalities of functioning of the PDP, for instance, but not only the PDP, should either just be maintained as such, or should they be part of the discussion in the PSC process? Because they are an essential part of the improvement of the institutional confidence. In particular, and I finish here, it is a widely shared vision now within GAC members, I think, that an improved policy development process that would be more transversal from the onset is a critical tool for reinforcing accountability and prevention of capture. So if this is going to be an element that is singled out in the future PSC process, that would be interesting to know. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you. Bertrand, I wonder if I could just make an observation. And I think that would be valuable. I think some of the things you are raising are things that come up in the GNSO review. And there has been a very significant piece of work done and feedback done on the policy development process, at least within the GNSO, and it's coming up in the other review processes. So I suppose -- I appreciate the analysis and the thinking, and I think that's very important. I suppose partly, I'll be asking -- the question I'm asking is -- perhaps not to answer now, but where is the appropriate home for this? And I do think -- I do think we should be quite conscious that one of the things that I'm actually very pleased about the evolution of the community, is that the community has now got to a stage of building an institution and its own functions where it's doing a range of reviews on an ongoing basis. And also doing the real work, if you want to put it that way, at the same time, and able to do that in a comprehensive manner. So I think the President's Strategy Committee has been trying to address a particular set of institutional challenges that were identified through a process, particularly the midterm review of the Joint Project Agreement. I think some of the things that you are raising may well be appropriate there, but I might also direct you, they may be in the implementation planning of the GNSO review might be the right place to have that discussion as well. So all I would say is some of the things that you are thinking it's uncovering, you may find there is another home for it, just as another observation. >>FRANCE: May I make one point on that. I fully see your point. Actually, it's the way to consider -- the PSC exercise is an opportunity to bring some holistic view and coherence between different processes that have been going on separately. What you say is absolutely true. The point I am raising is the one element that the GNSO review in terms of implement working groups in particular is address, and I think it should be integrated as an element that is already taken into account. The proper home is not to say it shouldn't be in the PSC but only in the GNSO review. It should say in the PSC process, we take note that there is already some elements that are taken into account from the GNSO review and that contribute to the objectives. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Can I posit this to you? I think certainly at the PSC, there is a concern that we don't turn this into a top-down exercise. And the sorts of questions I think you are posing around particularly the process of policy development process in the reviews for the different supporting organizations has included enormous input since the supporting organization process, has sort of agreed those reviews and comments are coming up. So again, I am a little hesitant. I am not questioning your line of thinking and analysis. I think it's very valuable. I am just questioning whether it's appropriate that the natural home is the PSC, which to a degree has an oversight role. And with those things so fundamental that they are actually put into the review processes that we ensure they are sort of bottom-up from those particular Supporting Organizations' consideration. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Jean-Jacques Subrenat, a member of the board and also a member of the PSC. In reply to Bertrand's remarks and suggestions, I would voice two, how should I say, preoccupations. The first is beyond what you said, Bertrand, about phases or the way we have suggested cutting up the total exercise, I would underline the fact that there is an overall more important aspect, which is that the whole process has to be really ready and running as a proposal by, you know, of course, September 2009. So I would like to make sure, of course, that your proposals are really workable in the sense that you have suggested. At this stage, I'm not sure that I, as a member of PSC at least, have all the elements to judge on that issue. But I take your point. I think it's worth looking into in the coming days and weeks. And if the co-chairs agree, I suggest that we look at that suggestion very specifically. The second point brought up by Bertrand is actually a question of philosophy. A very important point, which is what importance, actually, does the PSC suggest that we, as a wide community, grant to the very notion of multistakeholder. And I think that Bertrand is right. It is so important that it could be factored in either into another part, instead of being item 6, or actually to be factored in in various ways into all the other parts, all the other five parts. So there again, I think the reply I want to make is, I see your point. It takes some more thinking, actually, because you have just only made this proposal today. So with the permission of the co-chairs, that's what I would suggest. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, jean Jacques. May I suggest that we move on to the next agenda item. I think we had a fairly interesting exchange of views on JPA. We will do our best to finalize our contribution by tomorrow evening. And we will be able to present it on Thursday, for sure. And that will be part of our communiqué. With the reserve that we will finish. So the next agenda item will be IDN ccTLD fast-track implementation plan. I would like to inform members of the board that GAC had a number of sessions on Sunday and also today with the ccNSO Council. We actively participated in the joint session of all constituencies on Monday. As a result of these discussions, the opinion of the GAC, which still needs to be finalized, and this will be part of our communiqué, lead us to think that some more information would be needed, more precise information would be needed in the relation of -- relationship between ICANN and potential IDN ccTLD operators before we could finalize our position on this outstanding issue. I think that the security and stability of Internet always has been the underlying priority of the GAC, and we fully share the view that stability should be preserved. But how that could be done, the details, that needs to be further explored, and we would appreciate receiving further thoughts on potential relationship. If that is in the form of accountability agreement or something like accountability agreement, it would be useful, maybe, to see the first draft of what that could look like. So that would allow us to further reflect on that. Because there might be situations, for instance, in some countries where national law would not allow a potential IDN ccTLD operator to enter into contractual relations or any kind of relations with ICANN not-for-profit corporation operating under California law. We need to think what would be the way in that kind of situation, whether there is a way. And certainly, we do not want that these relationship would prevent a country or territory of introducing IDN ccTLD. So these are questions which crystallized during our discussions. And we are looking forward to further work in this direction. And the relations of fees -- Maybe I will take -- In the relations of fees, I think the GAC communiqué of Paris said that GAC members do not support introduction of fees for IDN ccTLDs. Again, there are various reasons for that, and we would like maybe to ask board members to enter into the discussion on the reasoning behind that, whether it is still considered as an absolute necessity to introduce this fee structure, taking into account that for IDN -- for ccTLD operators, there is no obligation of fees. There is voluntary contributions. So if you could comment, also, on the board's reflection in this direction. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Well, I wonder if I can respond first as one member of the board, as president, and then I will let the chairman of the board manage the rest of the responses. Occasionally I get to delegate. Can I, first of all, say personally how pleased I am to hear your description of the state of play in the discussion. I think that's a well considered and careful expression, both of a set of balance -- a set of characteristics and criteria that I, in my discussions at least, have also identified. So I do appreciate both the recognition around the security and stability points that we have discussed previously and also the peculiarities in particular regions and particular places that may affect any expression of such needs to protect any undertakings. We are keen -- well, I am certainly keen -- First of all, I would like to recognize the role that Chris Disspain has played as Chair of the ccNSO also in helping us think about this set of issues. And also to both report and encourage that we are looking to the advice of both CC operators and governments, as I recall in the leading countries in the IDN ccTLD initiative, but from all, as to how to potentially consider this issue. And I think there's already been quite a number of bilateral, if you like, discussions with various players. And we're looking for, further, more and would like to have those discussions. And then to potentially consider what might be some draft language that might be considered. So I think the process we think as a way forward does sound like it's in align with the questions you are asking. And I think the concerns you are expressing are concerns we heard also and we also recognize need to be considered. Just an observation on the fees element. In those discussions -- and I hope I have Chris's leave to say this, but Chris Disspain himself has been leading a lot of the discussion about -- so as a country code ccNSO chair and a country code operator, he has been leading a lot of discussions about should there be financial contributions, and if so, how could we consider them. There has been a long history in the ccTLD community about -- discussion about making contributions. And I think in this feedback process we're conducting, Chris is still looking and I am still looking to see what responses we might get on that issue. I know that he has certainly -- one of the things he has uncovered in those discussions already is understandings of concerns about currencies, concerns about different business models, concerns about that these are small and reasonable contributions. So this is something also we are still looking to get responses to. Now I am talking about the process Chris and I and others have been involved in seeing what might be feasible here. So that's my first response. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Janis, you opened this by saying you were wanting further information. I'm not quite sure what the further information is, but it might be helpful just for some members of the board to just express some views. There at the present isn't a board view on this, but I think, Bruce, you are ready to go. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter. I guess rather than sort of talk about -- I think the question that you asked, Janis, is is there going to be requirement for fees for IDN ccTLDs. I guess I would like to ask the question a slightly different way back to you, and that is there are costs in operating ICANN and that there are costs in introducing IDN ccTLDs. And looking at the operating plan, just to give you a feel for the costs that are there, the costs for new gTLD implementation that's just in this financial year, which is first of July '08 to 30th of June '09, so new gTLD costs were budgeted at $7 million, and a lot of the analysis has been put into working out what the full costs of implementing new gTLDs are, and the GNSO policy was that that should be done on a cost recovery basis. In other words, those members of the ICANN community who want new gTLDs should directly contribute to the cost of having those new gTLDs, and if we then go into the other costs, the costs of IDN activities is $1.5 million. The cost to strengthen IANA is $2.5 million. The cost to broaden participation in ICANN is $5.9 million. To further improve policy processes is $3.2 million. To improve Internet security is $2.9 million. And ICANN meetings is $4 million. So these are big, big sums. And they are not -- and I really need to be considering how we share those costs to achieve the objectives of ICANN in a fair and equitable way. So I guess my question is, to the GAC, I guess, and to that part of the community, that if I think, ICANN wants to see and definitely is proceeding to introduce IDN ccTLDs, but at the same time we are getting requests to fund travel to GAC meetings for those who need it. We're funding the ccNSO members to travel to ICANN meetings and increasingly getting requests from other parts of ICANN for travel funding that are outside of that, I guess, core, or what's considered to be the bulk of ICANN gTLD cost. So I just want to be clear that the costs are significant. They are in the multi-million dollar category around things like getting participation, travel expenses. Just this meeting alone cost about $2 million. And so we do need to have mechanisms of sharing those costs. So my question back is how do you see those costs being shared? What is the best -- What is your advice on how to do that? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think maybe we can take further comments, and then see who from the GAC would like to answer the question. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Well, on other input from the board, we have Harald and Dennis. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: So I'm Harald Alverstrand. And just a reminder that this is, after all, the fast-track process that is to address an urgent need for a few domains. If we have to find a quick-fix way to make sure that equity of payments is maintained, or that we can find a party that is willing to take on responsibility on behalf of someone who can't take on responsibility formally, we should be able to work around that. But let's focus on making it possible to get to a conclusion and not get confused with all these things that probably will not be part of the first round. I am very happy to see that we now have paper trail of who is interested in the TLD strings under the fast-track process and who is not. It limits the size of the problem significantly. And we should aim to make this less complicated to get into harbor, not more. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A follow-up on something that Harald was already saying. Our -- We have to see what our objective is. My personal objective is, having lived in the Internet world for so many years, is that I see that there's a need, and there's a need for millions of people to have access to the Internet in their own script. And that those people have been waiting so long that I think that whatever additional obstacle we are putting in the way is going to be very badly perceived, sometimes even perceived as the continuation, the perpetuation of a digital divide. And I think that is in the interest of nobody to do this. The moment that we are proposing ICANN as a coordination body, the moment that we are proposing the GAC as the coordination body for the government, nobody has interest to have those issues about separation, about, I would say, privilege. So I think that it's in the interest of everybody in this room to have a fast solution. And it's also the interest of everybody to make this experiment a success. And in order to make this experiment a success, I think that we have to have some basic ground rules. And I think that we have some stability and security issues, we have a lot of things that are related to the risk that we are going to have in doing something in the Internet by implementing something unknown, like scripts, non-Latin scripts in the DNS. So I think that that's a first consideration. So we have to go in this direction, and we have to have goodwill for overcoming all the issues. On the other hand, I am raising the issue of stability and security because there are some concerns, there are some basic rules that have to be respected by everybody. So at this point in time, I think there has to be some type of agreement that cannot be only a gentleman's agreement, like it used to be at the time of Jon Postel when the ccTLDs have been first awarded. Everything was based on a gentleman's agreement. And I think that we need to formalize this. This -- The need for formalization comes by the fact -- is the very essence of ICANN. ICANN was created in order to have a better and more professional way of dealing with the coordination of the domains and addresses, then to have just one person in his office deciding who is doing what. So the formalization has to be seen as a step forward for the common good. We have seen so many times that the misbehavior of one -- I'm talking -- I don't know, we had examples like RegisterFly but we had example like the introduction of wildcards or whatever. The misbehavior of one has affected everybody. I fully understand the issue about and the sensitivity of governments about the sovereignty. But I think that there is something here that we are trying to build with the Internet that is a common good, that will bring all the governments together on the same point. The Internet is something where it's very difficult to say where the national jurisdiction stops and where a common -- some kind of common area starts. We can -- I don't know. We can enforce a series of traffic rules for vehicles in our own country. And when you change country, you have different traffic rules. You have a different speed limit. You have a different -- you know, maybe even the color of the lines that limit the road path are different. Now, in the Internet, we don't have the luxury of doing this. In the Internet, once you are in the Internet, it doesn't matter where you are, to a certain extent, of course. There is the possibility of doing some filtering on a national level, or some -- take some action at the national level. But by and large, we have to create rules that are wide for the whole world. And I think that there must be some common understanding of those rules and some acceptance of those basic rules. Now, you want to call it a contract. We call it a contract. You want to call it in a different way. But there has to be something that is more than a gentleman's agreement in order to ensure that everybody will behave in a good way. And then if there is somebody that is misbehaving, there are some sanctions that are taken. I'm taking the example, for instance, of the aviation. I mean, all countries -- most -- okay, several countries have a national airline. My own country, Italy, has gone very close to losing its own, but that's a different story. Now, we have our own airline, but that airline has to do its business by applying generally accepted rules. Now, the ICAO is not a treaty organization. Those rules are accepted on a voluntary basis. For tariffs, since we are talking about costs, there is IATA, and IATA again is a voluntary organization. Ideally, it is not an obligation that goes to national treaties, international treaties among organizations. There is a code of conduct that is formalized in order to go beyond just a verbal agreement, as we say in Italy, taken from Latin, (in Italian.) The words pass and you might not remember the words, but when you have something in writing, it stays there. So I think that we have here to have to have a common agreement on some basic rules and then apply those rules. And if we -- every time we fall back on an issue that is related to national jurisdiction, then probably we collectively -- we are not doing a good service for the new world and the new culture that the Internet world is putting forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Roberto. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thanks, Peter. It seems to me that it's absolutely natural that if we are going to make something different with the IDN country code than what we have done in the past with the normative code, is there should be a fee, there should be payment because there are additional costs to ICANN, there are additional costs for ICANN related to this new IDN country code. And -- But I would like to mention that in the study of the -- or in the evaluation of the fees for the gTLDs, about a third of the $185,000, in the evolution of that fee, about a third of that fee is related to the risk. And that means that if the country codes -- IDN country codes, as I imagine, are going to be certainly less risk than the gTLDs, we'll have a fee which will be considerably lower than in the case of the IDN country codes in the case of the gTLDs. And I think that is something that we should consider that very close. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Raimundo. I think Dennis was the last to speak on the finance. And then I hope -- we would like to hear from the GAC as to why there should be no payment of a fee. And I would like if you could be -- if somebody is preparing to answer that, could they be clear to distinguish whether they are opposed to paying the application fee and continuing annual fees or just one of those two. But Dennis, it's your turn. Dennis Jennings thank you, Peter. Dennis Jennings again. I would just like to pick up on a comment that was made about results-based budgeting. And to let the GAC know, as Bruce Tonkin has indicated, that we are getting increasingly better information from the management on what we're spending money on. And working through the finance committee with the management, we have a target this year of developing what we're calling functional reporting, financial reporting, where we will be able to give everybody a much better view on how much money we're spending on what sort of things at various levels. And we will be looking to the community, including, of course, the GAC, to provide us input and feedback on the initial attempts to do this, to see whether there is additional reporting that the GAC might like to have to better explain how much we are spending on what sort of things. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Dennis. Back to you, Janis. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I will give floor to Bill Dee to answer the question what Bruce raised. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Actually, I am happy to respond. I don't know if I will answer the question, because I think it's a good question. I don't think we dispute it. It's a very important question, actually. As all of the other concerns raised by board members, I wouldn't dispute the legitimacy at all. I think one of the concerns that some GAC members have from talking to -- One of the concerns the GAC members have is kind of extending this logic into the current ccTLD world that we have at the moment. The reality is that we have I think, in excess of 240 ccTLDs. I think ICANN has agreements with 50 or 60 of those, either contracts or framework accountability. So we are in a situation where the majority of CCs don't have agreements. We are not entirely sure why in most cases, but they don't have them. If the reasons that prevent them from having an agreement with ICANN at the moment also prevent them from having an agreement for an IDN ccTLD, the implications potentially from a political perspective are quite worrying. Because most of those ccTLDs that don't have agreements, my guess is they are almost certainly from developing countries. Most of those that do have agreements with ICANN currently, and are therefore in a position to have agreements for IDNs, are from developed countries. Therefore, extending the logic, regardless of how justified it is, we could end up in a scenario where the fast track results in a lot of IDNs for developed countries. And I think from a political perspective, that's a legitimate concern on our part. But I do hear several of the board members who have spoken have said we need to find a way around this problem. And I think that is the right and healthy attitude, is not to dismiss any of the concerns, but to try and look for a solution. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thanks, Bill. I think Dennis has a first response and then I have a partial response, and then I think Paul Twomey has something. So Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. I'm not speaking for the board but my own view, given my background many years ago, with the ccTLD world is that that was then and this is now. And I don't believe we are revisiting the existing ccTLD arrangements. But I think we are drawing a red line under that, and making sure that we do the new IDN ccTLD arrangements correctly for going forward. Now, I can't speak for the board. Maybe the board will decide that, in fact, the new arrangements should be retrofitted retrospectively on existing ccTLDs, but I don't think that will be the case. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Again, just for myself and almost entirely anecdotally, but with a reasonable experience with the ccTLDs, particularly with respect to the agreements with ICANN in my time, in looking at this issue, I was not aware of any ccTLD that could not sign an agreement. It's very much more a question of would not. So I'm not sure how that really relates to the question now of signing agreements in relation to a new service. Paul, I think you have got some data that might fill my anecdotes. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Peter. I am actually just trying to pull it up. I haven't found it yet, but Bill, just generally, your hypothesis on who is signing accountability frameworks is not true, I don't think. I think we find the mix is actually -- there's a mix of developing countries and developed countries are signing accountability frameworks. And that the people who make contributions, it's a mix of them as well. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Sorry, Paul. My point was the other. The ones who don't have agreements with you are mostly developing countries, I suspect. Thank you. >>PAUL TWOMEY: And European ccTLDs. Some of the European ccTLDs don't have agreements or accountability frameworks. The concern you have raised, though, which is why, is something that both Chris Disspain and I are trying very hard, as part of this engagement, as I said earlier, to ensure that we are engaging with people who are concerned. Remember, we are talking about the fast track, for people who are concerned with the fast track. If these issues are important to them, that's one of the things we are looking for. We have already gotten feedback on this along some of those lines. And some of the feedback, we have been told by individuals that it's a question of wording. How is this going to be expressed to ensure that it doesn't affect a political concern at home. That's part of the consultation process we are trying to follow because we are conscious of the issue you are raising, and that's why I think the process of drafting any text is something that certainly I think, Chris sees as being done in a consultative process with those who are concerned and interested in having a fast track to address just the very concern that you are raising, if there is a political or other reason. That's probably -- My one observation about your hypothesis also about people who have not got accountability frameworks in place, accountability frameworks now probably cover more than 65% of the users of ccTLDs in terms of registrants. And if you took the -- So that's just an observation. That's all. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you. I think it was very, very interesting exchange. I was hoping to close this and move on. Otherwise, we have 25 minutes left in this session, and we cannot deprive Manal from speaking. Please, Manal. But you will be, then, the last speaker on this subject. >>EGYPT: I'm sorry, I am going to make it really quick. Actually, I think one way to push this forward is that we share something that we can comment on. If we have something in hand, we can say this clause is not accepted in such countries, and maybe people find it easy to -- I mean, to sign. Maybe we can suggest other amendments or refuse in principle. I mean, it would be easier to push things forward and discuss. Just for the fees, I think -- I personally think this would add one more barrier to language barrier and, in some places, even technical barrier. So I think this is going to be a cost barrier. And I had a real quick question. What is the role of the government in this agreement? I mean, is it a tripartite thing? You sign directly with the ccTLD? And who pays the fee, if any? >>PAUL TWOMEY: These are excellent questions. I think the consultation process needs to flesh that out and ask that question. I suppose we want to see whether people think it should be a tripartite thing or whether it should just be bilateral, have that discussion. And again, that may not be the same in every place. Maybe we will have different versions or something. I don't know. >>EGYPT: I know we are running out of time. I am not looking for answers right now. But maybe an RFI. It worked well last time. So it would help if we, I mean, probe again with an RFI whether people are willing to sign such a template, pay such an -- I mean, some sort of a questionnaire. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Manal. I think that goes in line with what I said at the beginning, that we need maybe further information to explore this issue further. And I think we still have some time. And as we heard from ccNSO today, the first draft of document may be circulated maybe in three, four weeks, maybe a little later. But that we can start reflecting already on the basis of documents. If I may suggest that we move on to the next agenda item, which is new gTLD introduction implementation plan or guidebook. Again, taking into account time, I would like to say that the GAC will carefully examine the proposed document. We couldn't do it before the late arrival of the document. We note that some of our concerns which were expressed during Paris meeting have been taken into account. But we still need some time to reflect further on protection of geographical names. And I don't want to go now into details. That would be maybe premature. We had the discussion with the GNSO Council, ccNSO on the subject. And we will try to formulate our views on that from the public policy perspective at the later stage, but certainly not later than Mexico meeting. And if that would be acceptable to all participants, we would go to the next agenda item, which is WHOIS data. And I would like to ask Suzanne -- I would like to ask Suzanne to introduce the question on behalf of the GAC. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Janis. We had a discussion between the GAC and the GNSO Council on Sunday which was very helpful. They always are. And, of course, they brought us up to date on where they stand in their review of proposals to engage in WHOIS studies. And I started with the GNSO, because I believe that's how we left the issue in after our Paris exchange, which was, we had sent you a list of questions, a recommendation that they be -- data be gathered to answer those questions and refreshed our request in Paris. And it was our understanding at that time that you felt it would be a wise move to defer action pending an expected decision from the GNSO during the Paris meeting. Having met with the GNSO Council on Sunday, it is our understanding that they are reviewing a collection of hypotheses. They are not entirely sure that they will be able to reach agreement. And I'm looking across the room at Chuck Gomes, because he is chairing that particular effort. Therefore, as we reviewed that ourselves and we shared this with the GNSO Council, we appreciated that they made an effort to incorporate many of the GAC's questions in their exercise, so that was a very good sign of collaboration, and we appreciated that. On the other hand, since we do not know when or if the GNSO will endorse studies, we come back to our suggestion and recommendation that I think we reinforced as a request in Paris to the board that we would ask you to please respond to the GAC's request that data be gathered so that we can begin a factual analysis, and then go on to the more detailed sort of questions that we raised. We are aware that there are some companies, one of whom I believe attempted to make a short presentation yesterday in the public session, a represent from KnujOn. And I know ICANN is familiar with KnujOn. They have been submitting WHOIS data inaccuracy reports that have helped you take action in the contract compliance department against certain registrars. So we throw out that name. I honestly don't know if they could answer all of the GAC's questions. But it seems to make sense to us to investigate whether they could at least answer some. So our agreement around our table is to return to this issue and to ask for some feedback on when you might take action on our request. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. The thing we're discussing is how best to respond to that request. Perhaps I just go back and start from the beginning. The council voted in October 2007 to conduct studies into WHOIS. So it's been there intention to do these since October. And the GAC communiqué of October supported the idea. And then in March, submitted some questions -- sorry, in April, submitted questions for inclusion in those studies. And what's happened since then has been a discussion about which of those questions from the GAC should be included and how best to do it. Part of that deals with cost and feasibility. And the registry constituency has, for example, submitted extensive comments which underscore how difficult many of the proposed studies may actually be to execute. They've -- the registry constituency's identified at least ten proposed studies which are probably not feasible to conduct, in their view, and several others which they say have low priority because they will release useless -- insufficiently useful data. And other constituencies are still deciding. The GAC's 15 recommendations for studies have been factored into the council's work. But the information that I have back from staff and from the councillors that those questions are very broad and no formal hypotheses have been defined. And I'm given one of the examples is a question, "What is the economic impact of restrictions on some or all legitimate uses of WHOIS?" So that's an extraordinary question to try and design a study around to get useful data. At the same time, ICANN's contractual compliance group has finished the design phase of a WHOIS accuracy study using the National Opinion Research Center from the University of Chicago and are planning a new registry privacy proxy registration services study to assess the extent to which registrants are using privacy and proxy registration services. Now, the cost for just one of these studies has been forecast at approximately $50,000 to design the study and another approximately $200,000 to conduct the study. So we are -- GNSO and the staff are grappling with how to do this, as well as exactly what should be done. So at this stage, the staff have developed a template to solicit public suggestions, which requested that each submitter provide a testable hypothesis for each proposed study. And the obvious point is that the studies have to result in precise and definable results. So at this stage, there are approximately 25 suggestions, categorizing recommended studies, including WHOIS misuse, compliance with data protection laws, availability of privacy services, demand and motivation fees for privacy services, impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse, proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests, WHOIS data accuracy. So that work is going on. At this stage -- And I think you know the current state of the play is, as you've reported, the council at this stage has not decided which of these studies it's going to do and is working on solving them. So I thought by giving that state of the play, it might be helpful. We are trying to consider what kind of response in addition to that information the GAC would find helpful. So if you'd like a letter expressing that, we'd be happy to record it in that fashion. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So I have request -- thank you, Peter, for your answer. I have request from Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are running out of time, but I couldn't let aside making a comment regarding the previous point, in fact, that you very quickly mentioned about the new gTLD implementation, since we tackled this issue in our last meeting in Paris and there have been some intersessional developments that I think is worth bringing about to everyone. I am referring to the letter that Mr. Paul Twomey sent to you, Mr. Chairman, in early October in which he says with regard to Paragraph 2.7(a) of the GAC principles on new gTLDs that ICANN would be reluctant to place blanket restrictions on the use of geographic names at the second level of any -- all new gTLDs. And based on the reason that it is anticipated that many multinational companies will apply for a string that represents their brand name. And it is likely that they will use geographical names at the second level to replicate their business operations. I would like to refer also to paragraph 2.7(a), which says that applicant registries for new gTLDs should pledge to adopt before the new gTLD's introduced, appropriate procedures for blocking, upon demand of governments, and at no cost for governments. There is this idea here is to have a defensive registration without cost to governments in case -- in case the government concerned does not want to associate the names, geographical names of its country with a certain extension of new gTLD. And it does not mean that there is the need to place a blanket restriction at the second level of all new gTLDs. It means that registries that are presenting applications, they are supposed to, in their applications, considering presenting also at this procedure for allowing governments to block at no cost. This is something that is of interest, particularly to governments. And, of course, it would not apply to, let's say, a multinational company that wants to have its brand as a new TLD used as described. And I don't think that any government would bother about that. But it is a measure that is important for us in case registries do. Because I don't know -- it is not clear to me how would multinational companies be considered in this context. Are they going to be registries? Are they going to be at the same status and follow the same requirements that are presented to registries to enter into this business of selling domain names? So if that is the case, then there is no reason why not allow governments at a certain stage to block their names. But if the multinational companies will, in fact, be direct registrants to ICANN acting as the registry or so, I would like to have an explanation about that, because I know that the criteria and the technical requirements for registries might be different in one case and the other. So it is worth exploring a little bit this as well. I would like very much to hear any views on that. And, to finalize, I couldn't think of expressing it in another way. I do not want to present here any criticism. Though, based on our mutual understanding and collaboration, criticism is part of our joint work. And I think even if some people might not be ready to be criticized, it is just part of the game. We at governments are very used to that all the time. And I believe that at the board, you are, too. But I would like to -- just to finalize, saying that it worries me sometimes to hear from high-ranking officials within ICANN that they are so much concerned about protecting the rights of multinational companies to have their brand names inscribed in the root of the DNS, while we know that the DNS should be and has to be administered in the public interest at the most. Thank you very much. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Everton. I -- really, I don't want to now prolong discussion, since we have five, seven minutes left in this session. We will have a chance to continue our dialogue with the staff on implementation. And you raised very legitimate question. And Kurt Pritz already informed me that he is ready to continue engagement in order to further develop implementation procedures and common understanding to accommodate this. So let us now return back to WHOIS question. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. >>JANIS KARKLINS: And, Peter, if you could -- you wanted to continue. And then Suzanne will speak afterwards. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. With the permission of the meeting, I said earlier something that I had been told the registry constituency had said. And we have the privilege of having the -- an official from the registry constituency in the room who says this is their position, that they have -- rather than saying that there are ten -- having identified ten studies that could not be done, they, in fact, have done three categories of studies. One, formal empirical; two, data-gathering and minimal analysis; and, three, data-gathering and no analysis. So they're prioritizing studies in terms of value to future WHOIS work in each category. Many of the GAC questions are included as quite high priorities. And several studies seem to be compliance issues rather than needing studies. So I just read that into the record as being the correction, which I accept, from someone who knows. Thanks, Chuck. >>PAUL TWOMEY: I wonder if I can make a further observation. I hope this is eliminating part of the question from the representative of the United States. We had posted recently a blog entry which goes into some detail of activity that is already underway. I think, certainly, speaking for myself, the GAC request is taken very seriously. And potentially, I think, we should have done a better job in writing back and actually explaining how we have responded to it. I think that's one of the obvious next steps we should have done. But the -- as well as, obviously, there will be an engagement with the GNSO and the registry constituency and others about what data can be collected and what studies to be undertaken. We have already moved on several of those steps, including on a number of compliance steps, (inaudible) on the parameters and the usage and the types of proxy services that are being used. That was seen to be an evaluated thing to bring back to the GAC in its request for studies. We've also been doing a lot of very detailed work, and Kurt might be able to give us detail -- but a lot of very detailed work with one of the world's leading market research organizations, with great depth and statistical analysis, to help us do -- commence shortly a large-scale survey on WHOIS which deals with nonresponse. Because one of the things we have spent a lot of time and quite a lot of money in discussions with this trying to deal with nonresponse issues and how do you pass nonresponse issues. Is it a question that you've got wrong data? Or is it a question of not responding or have you got the wrong address? So this -- the uncertainty and the nonresponse is actually something that has to be dealt with. And these people are experts in this area in terms of statistical analysis. So we've actually been spending quite a lot of time trying to find the right experts who can help us design the sort of study that I think addresses specifically some of the issues that the GAC has been concerned about and that we can give feedback on in a way which is actually -- has integrity rather than just doing a survey which says, "We have this many nonresponses," without being able to sort of parse that. That is actually outlined in the blog. And we can potentially add more if you want that in a written response. And I'm actually wondering whether you -- Suzanne, you mentioned that other firm after your conversations. But we have actually selected this group to help us do a lot of this work. And I'm wondering whether they will actually achieve the same sort of analysis that would help address it. Just -- you mentioned KnujOn. I'm simply saying in the context of us already having a lot of discussion with another firm, we should think about whether those interests are the same, or those -- the analysis would be the same. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Suzanne? >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much. And thank you both Peter and Paul for the update. Actually, I am sure I can speak for all of us when I say that I think the response outlining all of these actions would probably be exceedingly helpful. Because, otherwise, we only have an outstanding letter and a couple of exchanges, with no feedback. So this would constitute at least a response indicating what you are doing. It might also be helpful to us -- and I'm going to go out on a limb. I am not just speaking as the United States, by the way, on the record. I am speaking for the GAC, with their permission. I think it would be helpful, too, if either the firm you have hired or anybody else involved in this would give us a sense of those questions that you think are unanswerable. And then maybe we could continue the dialogue. But I do think I would like to close on one small point. I know we don't have time for it today, but I think we should we visit it. And it's a procedural point. Because we -- while on the one hand, we in the GAC are actually actively promoting more cross-constituency, cross-organization work from the outset, so that, actually, we would have had this discussion about data to inform a policy process many, many, many years ago. That would have been optimal. So going forward, this is one reason we are pretty vocal about promoting a change in the policy development process, first, that it be fact-based; and, second, that it be cross-constituency, because that brings all the different perspectives in at an early stage, so that people can be sensitized and understand where boundaries might be. But we did not have that luxury. We don't have that yet. So in this situation, it's our understanding, based on the bylaws, we interact officially, if you will, or formally, with the board. Unofficially, informally, of course, we interact with the rest of the community. And we're doing a lot more of that. And we think we should do more. But this is a work flow process point. And it would be very helpful to have some feedback, if not today, maybe at our next meeting, and we can talk about exactly what happens when the GAC submits something to the board. And so that we can understand the considerations you've given and how you then look to other parts of the organization. I think both sides would find that very helpful. Thank you. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Suzanne. We are very close to the end of this session. And I would not like to prolong any further discussion of this point. Let me suggest from all remaining issues, we would address very briefly two. One, upon request of Peter, on meeting strategy. He said four sentences, no more than that. And then we would go to information point on linking ICANN accredited registrars with the criminal activities. That would be very interesting. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Just in relation to meetings, I want to, first of all, formally acknowledge receipt of the letter from the GAC dealing with meetings, and by way of interim response, report that I expect on Friday the board to form or take the first steps to forming a new committee which will be entitled Public Participation. And this committee is going to be directed to a number of issues which touch on things we've dealt with today, including meetings. That will be where policy on the number of meetings, the style of meetings, the reason for meetings, what we hope to achieve, who should be coming, and how we prepare work plans and so forth, where that policy will be prepared. Now, the other important aspect of public -- of public participation, and we include correspondence and dealings with the GAC under this general heading, will deal with Suzanne's last point. And we are aware that we do not deal very well with the incoming written advice from a number of sources, including public comment processes. And this committee will also be looking at formalizing and improving responses to all sources of input to the ICANN public consultation processes. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter, for these -- the update. And do you want to -- >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, I want to -- I'm a bit disturbed by something I said earlier, so I wonder if I can beg your leave and make a correction to a comment I've made to Bill. I've had a chance to check those data that I did before. Just to put it on the record, in terms of agreements broadly defined with country code managers, ICANN has 22 with developed countries, seven in the Asia-Pacific and 15 in Europe. So I did Europe a grave disservice in my previous comment. And it has 43 agreements with countries in the developed world -- developing world, should I say, just to put that on the record. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you. Bertrand. >>FRANCE: Just one brief question on -- because -- indication, what kind of committee is this going to be? Is this a board committee? How is it going to engage with the community on how to develop the meeting policy and the interaction with the community? I think we are circling always with the same -- the same issue. There's a need for the board to have all the proper committees. The question is, how do they work in interaction with the rest of the community on issues that are at the core of discussion? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, I'm sure that will be item 2 on their first agenda. Item 1 being finalizing their charter. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So let me now ask Bill DEE to introduce the last item on press reports linking ICANN-accredited registrars with criminal activities. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: It's a news report that was brought to my attention in early October. And I discussed it with our GAC chairman, actually, and suggested it would be very useful to have information from ICANN on how they see the situation. And after discussion, it was decided that we could address it here today. I think, in retrospect, probably it's something that could have been dealt with in the interim probably with some information. Maybe we can take that into account in the future. I think Janis has passed you the report. It refers to a study that was published by an organization called Atrivo: Cyber Crime U.S.A., suggesting that there were problems with ICANN-accredited registrar and links with criminal activities. And having been brought to my attention, I'm under the obligation just to ask the board for their -- or for the staff, actually, views on any information they can provide in relation to that story. Thank you. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Chairman, if I may, thank you, Bill, for that -- for the question. May I suggest, Chairman, that we'll give you a formal response in writing to that question, and I will make the statement that we consider the article to have many misstatements or factual errors. But that I'll also point out that we have recently moved, as you will see from the ICANN Web site, to deaccredit IST Registry specifically because of convictions. But that's been further -- there's further dialogue between those. But we will put forward a response back to that question through you, Chair. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Yes, Roberto, please. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: I think that brings to just -- just light, in my mind, this comment about and this situation about an accredited registrar. And, basically, the question is, what can ICANN do in this case, and what we will be doing. I think it's an interesting question, if we relate that to the previous discussion that we had. What if the wrongdoers, the entity that was involved in illegal entities, instead of a registrars, is a registry? And what if the activities that this registry is doing is affecting the whole Internet outside the boundaries, regardless of the fact whether this registry is a gTLD or a ccTLD? Because that might change the policy, but the effect on the Internet is the same. The damage to the Internet is the same. What can ICANN do in the case of an offending registry if ICANN has no contractual relationship or, in any case, no enforcing power on that entity? Thank you. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you, Roberto. And before closing the meeting and then thanking board members for patience and also active participation, I would like to conclude by offering GAC's services to the ICANN staff and president when he writes the letters to the ministers. I think you have a resource here who knows the best situation in the country, and we would be very willing to help you channel all your communications to the right minister on -- who is responsible for the question. Because sometimes, the complexity in the country may bring the situation when your letter lands to the wrong table and is put in the round file instead of being examined. And we would like to offer our services, of course, to the limit of our membership, in the future. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chair. And I would like to take up that opportunity. And I understand -- having been in both positions, I understand the concern. We tried to copy all and ensure that GAC members all received copies of the communications. I understand there was a glitch in the most recent communication where that was not finalized in time. And my apologies for that. I would like to take that opportunity. I would also like to hear your guidance on how -- on these issues which -- particularly on issues such as ccTLD strings, which are a pretty significant issue, how we can ensure that the communication we receive back is a communication that, over a period of time, will be seen to have been authoritative. And so you will appreciate the level of communication when we receive the communication is not just -- is in no way any sort of questioning of the bona fides of the GAC member. But if in ten or 15 or 20 years' time, we need to say, "This is the authority under which this was done," especially in the fast track, you can appreciate that communications at the senior level is important. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So thank you very much. We really appreciate this interaction. And I hope that we will have the opportunity to engage with the board in Mexico. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. If I could just say a strong and fully functioning GAC is essential to ICANN. And I think robust questioning sessions like this one are an indication of the good shape of the GAC. And it's a pleasure to come and have these conversations. And we, too, on behalf of the board look forward to having them. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>JANIS KARKLINS: If I may ask GAC to stay for a little while. We will have, for those GAC members who want to be briefed on on developments on dot Asia, this briefing will take place immediately after this session. But before doing this, I would like to inform that Secretary-General of ITU will be attending ICANN meeting on Thursday. And his schedule allows to engage with the GAC between 15:30 and 1600 hours on Thursday. And we have -- certainly we have limitations in the size of the meeting room, because meeting will not take place in this room. And, therefore, as an indication, I would like to ask GAC members who would be interested and who could, on Thursday, between 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. attend a meeting, bilateral GAC meeting, with Secretary-General of ITU, Hamadoun Toure. If I may ask raise hands who can do that. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Okay -- >> Behind you. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Okay. About 20. I see about 20. So I was told that the size of the room allows 12. But there might be arrangement made which would allow participation of 20. So I count that 20 GAC members, those who raise hands now, on Thursday at 3:30 will be in the VIP room. And I will send an e-mail to the GAC list indicating how to find the VIP room. It's not, apparently, obvious. But I will send a detailed -- detail instruction how to reach there. So I will send you instructions on the room. And I expect that 20 members, those who just raised hands, will be in the meeting. Thank you for that. So, for tomorrow, before giving floor to dot Asia, for tomorrow, so we will start with the -- some procedural questions tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. And I would appreciate if you would be in the room precisely at 9:00. Though, I must say, that for those who are interested to participate in the brainstorming on the items we should take up in Mexico, you are most welcome to come to the meeting room at 8:30, when the planning committee will meet. And planning committee, for the time being, is the chair and vice chairs. But, of course, everybody is welcome to come at 8:30 to participate in the brainstorming. It is not -- it will not be a decision-making. It is just a brainstorming, what we should try to plan for Mexico meeting. So -- And after -- at 9:00, we will start plenary, and after that, we will address a couple of procedural questions, including formalization of election procedure process. And then we would go to the drafting of our input to President's Strategy Committee report. And I hope that we would agree on the text by lunchtime. And then after lunch, we would work on draft communiqué. And I believe that the first initial draft of communiqué I will be in position to circulate by late evening today or very early morning tomorrow. And for those who would like to contribute to the text of communiqué, and here I am turning more to Bill Dee, who is carefully listening. For those who would like to contribute to draft communiqué, please send e-mail to me and I will put the language in the draft communiqué if you feel like doing that. If not, I will do my best to propose an initial draft. Tonight. Otherwise, tomorrow morning in the plenary. And now I am turning microphone to dot Asia