ICANN - CAIRO Joint SOAC workshop: New gTLDs and IDNs Monday, 3 November 2008 >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, everybody. If you don't have headsets, they are available at the back of the room. And we are just about to start, so please take a seat. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let's make a start again. The second half of this afternoon of our joint SO and AC meeting is focusing on new gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, and issues that run across that space. We are going to start, in a sense, where we started halfway through last time, which is asking each of the S.O. and A.C. chairs to provide us with a couple of observations or questions or issues that they believe to be relevant. We will try, as we do that, on the way through, to involve a little bit of at least conversation, if not a little bit of conflict or argument or heated debate or discussion or something like that is well. And we will see how we go then, bringing the audience into that conversation. So before I do that, I would like to introduce the new member on the top table here, Louie Lee. Louie is from the ASO, and it's wonderful to have an ASO representative at this table for this event, so thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Okay. Chris, we'll start with you, from the ccNSO perspective. With all of this that's happening with new gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs and so forth, from the ccNSO perspective, what are the big issues? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Patrick. Much like Cheryl in the previous session, I don't want to preempt too much what -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: Chris, just hold it a moment. You are barely audible. So just wait. >> Can you hold up the number of the microphone that's being used right now. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I've thumped it, I have punched it. How about if we do something nontechnical and move the microphone. How is that? Any better? >>PATRICK SHARRY: A little better. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Do I get more volume? Thank you very much. My apologies. Like Cheryl in the last session, I don't want to preempt what my (audio difficulty) but there are a number of topics across both the new gTLD and IDN ccTLD scenarios that I think are ripe for discussion. I want to stress that today is not talking about policy. It's talking about the implementation plan. However, in some aspects, in both new gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs, there are implementation steps that are high -- that have a high policy content. So whilst I really didn't want today to be a discussion on policy, I suspect that in some areas we may stray a little. The three areas that I have noted, in no particular order, are in respect to the IDN ccTLD implementation plan, the subject of agreements, and the subject of money. Fees. Contributions. Whatever you care to call it. In respect to the new gTLD Draft Application Guidebook, or the DAG, as I like to call it, it's geographic names. And actually, I should be more specific. It's country names or territory names as opposed to place names or state names. And in respect to both, it's the issue of timing, and the, in an ideal world, goal that new IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs should be available at the same time. >>PATRICK SHARRY: That's fine, Chris. Before we move on, can I get you to give us a couple of sentences about perhaps why that matters to the ccNSO, each of those points. But also, why anyone else should care. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: It matters to -- Okay. So agreements and money matter because the legacy situation with ASCII two-letter ccTLD country codes is exactly that. It's a legacy situation. And we have developed, as a community over time, a methodology for entering into a framework document with ICANN called an accountability framework, and that's going to need to be dealt with in the IDN world -- in the IDN -- ccTLD IDN world as well, and I suspect with additional matters in there to deal with specific IDN technicalities. And also the issue of making a contribution to the finance of ICANN is a relevant issue. It's an issue that I know the gTLD community has. So it's partly up there for that reason. But it's also an issue for us as a CC community as well. And of course with the GAC. In fact, for everyone. In respect -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: Just before you go on. Can you, for the sake of those who might not be familiar with it, explain what the legacy situation it. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, I will explain it, just only to say I am talking for myself here. I am not talking here as the chair of the ccNSO. So I wouldn't want anyone to think that what I am about to say is necessarily an official position. The legacy position is simply that a very long time ago, a very wise man sat in a chair in a room and parceled up a number of two-letter country codes and found people that he knew around the world and sent them notes and said, "Would you like to run this for me, please." And people said yes. And very often, those original communications can no longer be found. They disappeared into the ether. But there were no agreements. There were no -- very little documentation. Things have moved on a tad since then, and we are now hanging one of the major engines of the world economy, such as it is, off of a domain name system. And we need to get clear about if we're going to expand the arena of ccTLDs from that simple one two-letter code on an ISO list because we are acknowledging that we need to have Internationalized Domain Names, that we do that in a way that enables ICANN to complete its role of coordinating the global DNS, and from a security and stability point of view. >>PATRICK SHARRY: So what sort of conversations are you having in the ccNSO about that issue? I'm not asking for an official position, but just an indication of what the ccNSO thinks the issues are there. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Well, there are, as you would expect, there would be polarized positions. There are those who believe that it should simply be case of being given your IDN ccTLD. There are those who believe that there's nothing objectionable about entering into some sort of accountability framework. I am using that expression because that's the accepted expression in the community. Accountability framework with ICANN. And that doing so doesn't, in any way, impinge on the sovereignty of your ccTLD. And the difficulty for us as a community is to ensure that the debate is at least led by those who want an IDN ccTLD, and not led by those who are speaking solely on the matter of principle, but actually don't have a need for, at this stage, an IDN ccTLD. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thanks, Chris. I will come back to some of your other points in a moment, but before I do, can I just ask at that top table whether there's anyone else here, another Supporting Organization or an Advisory Committee, who has a view or a feeling on the issues that Chris has just raised about agreements and money and contributions and so forth. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yes. Every time money is involved, somebody who buys something at the other end, often in my community, ends up paying. In terms of cost, which is one of the big issues we raised in our discussions on this matter, it was focusing very much on what the end cost is going to be and continuing end cost in terms of annual fees for not-for-profits and for community-use models that may be coming out. Clearly, and in terms of branding, we're all for more choice and lots of competition, but the branding people have a different funding model involved in these things. And we'd certainly like to explore cost a little bit more. And in terms of IDNs, we have worked very hard and very long for what I think was a very successful and extraordinary experiment in the IDN ccTLD fast track. I certainly want to recognize my associate and fellow -- ex-fellow ALAC member, but our ALAC liaison in this area, (saying name) work with his across S.O. and A.C. committee as well. But our constituency, our users out there desperately need it. We are tempted to say we want it and we want it now. So whilst we recognize the timeliness and the need for things to come close, it's already no longer a fast track from our point of view. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. So we'll come back and talk about that timing piece in a minute, Cheryl. Does the GNSO have an issue with regard to that agreement and contributions there that Chris has raised, Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly the GNSO has been discussing and has issues in terms of the geographic country names. Certainly there have been discussions and concerns about agreements. I don't know that the GNSO as a council, the GNSO council -- let me correct myself. The GNSO council has had issues with geographic names. The GNSO council has had issues with agreements, and there may be people within -- in fact, I'm sure there are people within the GNSO that have had issues with the money and various councillors have brought it up, but the GNSO hasn't been saying, well, that's one of the issues that they have put at the front. >>PATRICK SHARRY: And again without asking you for an official opinion in this context, what sort of discussion has the GNSO been having about this. Before you answer, can I just warn audience members that in a moment I am going to start to take questions on that, agreements and money and contributions issue. So if you have a question, start to formulate it. We will get the mics moving in just a minute. Sorry, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: One of the things that's being looked at in the council is the variance between the policy recommendation that the GNSO made and that was approved by the board and the implementation at the moment. So it's not that it's a policy issue and that it's a new policy issue. It's just it was a certain policy that was -- that was agreed upon in the council, and by a supermajority, and that was then passed on to the board, and then passed on with its agreement. And there's a variance between that and the implementation. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thanks, Avri. Chris, do you want a quick response before I go to the floor? That was no, was it? Any questions from the floor on those agreements? Can we get a microphone to that gentleman over there, please? No, I'm not going to ignore the GAC. How could I possibly ignore the GAC, Janis. I want to take a couple of questions and come back to you on more input on that one. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: This is a cross-constituency meeting and we shouldn't be at cross purposes. And I think, actually, Avri and I are talking about two different things. Avri was responding to, in fact, geographic names and I was talking about agreements. So I just want to -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: You were talking about both, Avri? >>AVRI DORIA: Right. You were talking about both. I also was talking about both. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Okay. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good, thank you. So let's go over there. We will take a few questions, and Janis I promise I'll come back to you. >>RON ANDRUFF: Good afternoon. Ron Andruff from the business constituency. With regard to the issues of agreements, I think that Becky Burr's comments this morning are very well taken. That the contract, while obviously it should be a thin and easy -- well, thin, let's just say thin contract, should certainly be one that's fair and equitable. ICANN is a body responsible for stability and integrity. It shouldn't have the ability to be so empirical about the decision. With regard to the money aspect, I think it's also important to understand that the contributions from the registry to ICANN have to also be appropriate. If you think about dot museum, other small registries, 3-, 4,000 names in the registry, that would be a huge burden on their shoulders if another registry came along that represented a small community. On the other hand, most registries coming out today, I had the experience when we were running the dot travel and launching dot travel, we had about 25,000 names in the registry after the first year. Over the coming decade, we will see whether or not dot travel actually has the ability to pull the community together as we had hoped. But at the end of the day, had I paid $2 a domain name for 25,000 names, that would have been 50,000. And then I would have paid a $25,000 penalty to ICANN because I didn't crest that particular hurdle. So I think it's really critical that we come back to some really basic things and help the businesses that will run these TLDs to put something into their business model makes sense. And as an example but not as something that should be taken too seriously, a dollar name. That being then we would know this is a cost of business, it's affixed cost. Our cost of sales we can put into that column. But we know what that number is and we are not penalized if we should find ourselves with a lower number of names than we anticipate. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Cheryl, I see strong emotion in response there. Write it down and I will come back to you in a moment. I am going to go to the microphone just there. The. >>MILTON MUELLER: (No audio). ...privileged and given to country code operators, should there be a contract or not. I just cannot conceive of the case as to why there should not be a contract. And particularly when we talk about the fees, how does one justify in any standard of justice or any standard of efficiency that the country code should not pay at the same rate as a gTLD. And the only explanation I have heard is some kind of magical invocation of the sovereignty word. But I just don't understand it. When governments contract for telecommunications services or other kinds of services from private operators, they pay. And they have signed contracts, just like anybody else. So what is the case? I really want to be enlightened about this. We don't have the direct government perspective in the GNSO where I work, so please, tell me what's up with that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Milton. That's a nice lead-in to a GAC position, and then I will come back to the question I have over there at number 4. Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: Do you want me to answer directly to the last question or.... [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: If you wish, or more generally, if you would prefer. >>JANIS KARKLINS: I think that these three issue areas, two on CC side and one on GS -- G side, are the ones that we really need to resolve in the consultations in this cross-constituency format. When it comes to ccTLD -- IDN ccTLDs, I heard in the previous session kind of rather negative comment on the privilege, having -- governments having these IDN ccTLDs as a kind of contrary to gTLDs and the governments are in some privileged position. And I tend to disagree with that. We have been talking about this issue of the fast track as a way to alleviate, to take off pressure in the countries which are ready to introduce IDNs in their country code space. And that is not a privilege. That is just a way how to facilitate that movement in the places which already are doing that. And I think that there's no conspiracy behind that. Simply there is a readiness in the territory to move and to introduce IDNs to facilitate access to Internet of the people who are using different script, and not ASCII. So on contracts, as you know, in the Paris communiqué, GAC was fairly -- made a reservation on the question of contracts. One of the reasons why, it is, of course, because contracts do not exist now. And why we should think that IDN ccTLDs would be different from ccTLD in terms of management, in terms of allocation. I think in every country, existing procedure of allocation of IDN ccTLD will be decided by the government or by the authority which is in charge of making this decision, following existing procedures in the particular country. So if we want to impose a contract, it may be used as a mean to delay introduction of IDN ccTLDs because we know, again, in existing practice, that in some cases, in the previous rounds of gTLDs, elaboration of contracts and reaching agreement on contracts take a long time. And we think that a fast track should be really fast. Nonetheless, yesterday we had a discussion among ourselves, and what became very clear in the GAC, that when it comes to insurance of standards, adherence to standards, I think that there is no opposition. Simply, we need to find a way how these responsibilities should be defined by both sides, by ICANN and by potential IDN ccTLD operator. And I think that in this respect, there might be a possibility to reach agreement on this particular question. But certainly we need to make sure that these agreements, they are more or less unified. There is no discrimination one against each other, when it comes to agreement between IDN ccTLD operators in different countries with ICANN. On the fees, I think here the question is a little bit more complicated because in different countries, policies of allocation of domain names are different. And there are countries where ccTLD operator operates on commercial basis and charges for registration. There are countries where a ccTLD operator is acting on a cost recovery basis. It means that they are spending -- that they charge only that amount to cover their current expenditures. And there are countries where a ccTLD operator does not charge at all. So they give domains for free. So we need to find the way how to reconcile all these different policies in different countries. And then the policies in these countries have been developed and adopted independently, separately, in each country. So there is no unified approach in countries on this question. So that is on IDN, these two questions, what I can say at the moment. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thank you, Janis. Quick, Chris -- Chris, quick response from you. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: It's not a response. It's a, actually, if when you are speaking if you would be kind of enough to say whether you are talking about a gTLD agreement or ccTLD agreement, or gTLD money. Otherwise, it is going to get very confusing because there are different points in respect to those different things. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Chris. So let's go to the microphone there over at number 4. Can I, as you stand up, get an indication of where we have questions at live microphones. So we will go there and 2 after that. >>DON HOLLANDER: Thank you. My name is Don Hollander. I'm the general manager of the APTLD, which is the trade association for the ccTLDs in the Asia Pacific region, where many of our members use scripts other than ASCII, so it's a very important issue for us and has been for some time. I just would like to make a couple of points, pretty much reiterating a lot of what Janis has said. ccTLDs operate in many, many different models. There was a question earlier that suggested that they were controlled by governments. That is true in some cases. But the vast majority are not. The ccTLDs are there to serve their local community. And the governments are certainly part of that, but some of them are for-profit, some of them -- actually, very few are for-profit. Many are still with universities. Many are in not-for-profit community organizations. So I think the different models is really critical to keep in mind, and I think people who work in the C space -- CC space, they understand that and take it for granted. And what I'm hearing is that that's not clear. And as Janis said, we have a number of ccTLDs who charge nothing for their ccTLDs. Some of them are quite happy to donate a large percentage of their revenue to ICANN, if that's useful. ccTLDs see themselves as the steward of the ccTLD for their community. The community itself is in discussions on the issue of some agreement for the ccTLDs. As Chris pointed out, some don't see any need for an agreement. Others are quite pragmatic and happy to do that. Some are not able to have an agreement with ICANN, because of ICANN's base being in the U.S. Actually, it's more ICANN that can't have an agreement with them, because they are in -- of where they are. And others would find it very difficult to have an agreement with ICANN because the ultimate decision appears to still rest with the Department of Commerce. And there is some indication that the Department of Commerce is not responding as quickly as they might for some country codes. I would also like to point out that -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: I am just going to hurry you up here a little bit as well. >> Two more points. They tend to be very good Internet citizens. They have, with the ASCII ccTLDs, no reason to expect that they wouldn't with the IDN ccTLDs. And again, with respect to fees, many ccTLDs do make the voluntary contribution, and having some structure just needs to be well thought through. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: We've got a live mic over there at 2 or we did a moment ago. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Hi, Kristina Rosette. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Try again. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Kristina Rosette, I represent the IPC on the GNSO council although I'm speaking in an individual capacity. And my questions really have to do primarily with the agreements and financial aspects. And I would kind of reaffirm Becky Burr's points of earlier today as well as Ron's and to just note two points with regard to that. And if you look, for example, at the allocation of fees a significant portion of it is allocated to ICANN's risk. And it's unclear as to why that cost should be directly passed on to all applicants who may not, and many may not encounter any or all of these potential risk scenarios. And I think -- I'm just curious as to whether there are -- anyone up there is aware of any plans in their respective organizations to further consider this aspect as well as, frankly, the gross inequity of a scenario in which dot museum at least according to the most recent budget pays ICANN $500 a year and any new gTLD registry that gets a contract is looking at arguably $75,000 as a floor. The next question that I have also is directed to all of you as to whether you're aware of any efforts in this regard because I'm certainly not which suggests that there probably aren't any but I hope I'm wrong and that is compliance. Compliance is an extraordinarily important aspect of what ICANN has to do. If you don't have contract compliance in a system based on contracts the system falls apart, period. ICANN has improved its compliance efforts enormously. But there are still significant problems. We're looking at an environment in which, at a minimum, you're going to have, at least according to ICANN's expectations, 20 times as many registries as you currently have and who knows how many registrars. The current compliance capabilities simply do not appear to be equipped to scale. And I've seen nothing so far that suggests that ICANN has a plan for changing that. And if any of you are aware of any of those efforts, I think we would probably all like to hear about them. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. I'll take any quick responses from the top table if there are any. But also put staff who are in the audience on notice that someone would like to respond in that regard in a few moments. So Doug, you're happy to respond in a moment, that's good. Thank you. Let's go to the mic we have here at No. -- was No. 3 at the moment. >> (Speaker off mic). >>PATRICK SHARRY: Sorry, no, sorry, we had the woman in the second row here I had as the next speaker. >> (Speaker off mic). >> Thank you. This is too loud. Young Eum Lee from dot KR. I was the cochair for the IDNC Working Group for the fast track for the ccNSO, and I would just like to add just a couple of brief comments to add to Don's comments. I'm very glad to see that -- to actually hear that the word -- terms like thin agreements is mentioned. And I'd also like to reemphasize that the CC world is very different from the G world. The CCs have a responsibility to their local communities just as ICANN has its responsibility to the global Internet user community. And the CCs operate at, again, in a very different way. Not just by providing domain names services and resolution services and so on, but many of the other things that ICANN is also doing in terms of trying to secure the stability and security of the Internet, observing the needs of the local communities in terms of developing new software and so on. So it's not just a domain name operator issue. It's a CC operator serving the local community issue. And so I'd like to add that in the new IDN fast-track process that this aspect of -- this difference in the CC world be taken into consideration not just in the final agreements but in the whole process in terms of applications and processing and all that. I do realize that some of it is being recognized by the fact that we are having the fast-track, but I -- in the implementation plan that was announced, several things kind of started to make me a little concerned with ICANN reemphasizing the relationship with ccTLD or ccNSO operator and when ICANN reemphasized the financial contributions, and I'm not saying that the CC world is not prepared to maybe agree to some kind of a technical stability agreement. But this is not something that should be taken in the same mind as with a gTLD operator, thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Right, thank you. I'm going to take No. 4, can we get a microphone to the woman in the second row here who has waited very patiently. Just hang on a moment, Mike. And then after that I'll go to Doug for a quick reply, No. 2 and then the top table. Michael. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you, Patrick. Michael Palage. Having participated in ICANN for 10 years, I can talk about, if you will, the tension that has existed regarding the inequity of funding between Gs and the Cs. What I'd like to talk about, though, in connection with new gTLDs is address one of the comments in Paul Twomey's cover letter where he talked about his who initiative was to create new, different business models and new innovation and things like that. And I guess what's interesting is in listening to the comments to the speaker before from A -- APTLD, there we go -- regarding their different business models in the ccTLD community, we're not going to have that diversity when you have those minimal fee caps of $75,000. What you're basically saying is deep pockets only apply. So if there was a registry, a G registry, that wanted to serve a community and not necessarily charge a fee, that's not possible, because under the current ICANN construct there's a $75,000 annual fee, then there is a 20-cent surcharge on every domain name that will have to be paid by the registrars. So I still have concerns about the inequities, but what I would like to see ICANN do is provide the G space the flexibility to provide innovation and services to their community that the ccTLD community has. So again, I think that should be there and obviously there needs to be safeguards to make sure that for-profit entities aren't using that as a ruse to put money in their pocket. But there needs to be that flexibility to recognize that diversity in the name space. Otherwise, this whole expanse of the name space is really nothing more than a for-profit land grab to put money in different people's pockets and not serve communities. [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Terrific, Thank you, Michael, and you might want to respond when you get the microphone in a moment. Thank you for your patience. >> Becky Burr. I want to talk about ccNSOs. I think that maybe we're getting ourselves wrapped around a pole that we don't need to, because I think as a practical matter it's not true to say CCs don't have contracts. Each and every one of them was delegated originally under 1591 which was an agreement that it would be run for the benefit of the local community, all of those things. Maybe there wasn't a signature, but it was a bargain for agreements. I think when we hear the CC operators talk about the ways that they are operating in the interests of the community, that's not just a madeup thing. It's an obligation that they have affirmatively taken on as a contract. And so I don't want us to get this debate into the contract versus no contract issue because I think that -- I assume that that's the right discussion. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Doug, at this point, do you want to make a response, then we'll some to No. 2 down the back there. >>DOUG BRENT: Hello. Whoa! Excuse me, didn't mean to wake everyone up. My name is Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer at ICANN. Actually, we wanted to respond narrowly to Kristina's comment regarding what we're doing in contractual compliance. Just to say that certainly and element -- one of the elements of the ongoing operating fees that we're contemplating for new registries is sort of the operational requirements of running those new registries. And if you look at the details underneath that, which we have not yet shown -- and that point's been made several times already at this meeting in terms of what that registry fee should be and there's been comments about that -- but one of the elements we're building in is sort of an incremental compliance effort. Sort of the internal model for this is per 100 TLDs. So thinking about scaling we would scale the compliance effort and as you kindly note I think we have made some improvements in the compliance effort with more staff and more systems planned even under the current regime. But definitely looking for new TLDs to -- you know, part of the operating fees associated with that would be to fund ongoing and enhanced compliance because more numbers will just inevitably yield additional compliance issues. I think it's also important to note today if you look inside ICANN staff, there's roughly the same number of staff that support registries and registrars. Which is kind of interesting because there's, you know, maybe -- there's certainly many hundreds of different registrar entities and a thousand registered -- you know, registered RAA entities and there's just a couple dozen registries. We would also hope that through more standardized agreements with these registries we're able to deal with them in a more standard way and use compliance efforts that way. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Doug. Can we go to No. 2 down in the back there, please. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Hello, I'm Jordyn Buchanan, I'm speaking -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: Hang on, we just need to bring you up a lot more. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Is that enough, is that okay? >>PATRICK SHARRY: No, we need a little more, please. >>JORDYN BUCHANAN: Test. That sounds better. Okay. I'm Jordyn Buchanan. I'm speaking only for myself. This is good timing, I guess, but I want to talk a little bit more about compliance. I think that it's interesting, ICANN has, I think, over the past couple of years, a little bit more of a compliance function than in the past, but largely this appears to be essentially an audit function. ICANN's better at going out and finding whether registrars, and to a lesser extent, registries are complying with the requirements of their contracts. What's not clear to me is we've done very much in terms of the other side of compliance which is enforcement functions. As Chuck alluded to in the last session, the sort of bit hammer that ICANN has is this ability to terminate contracts. And in some cases that's been used, I think, appropriately, in some cases. But it's an awfully big hammer, and it's not necessarily always the right one. So this leads me down two paths. One is what, if anything, is being done to give ICANN a better tool set across any of these realms, whether it be gTLDs, registrars, registries, ccTLDs, in order to give ICANN a better tool set in terms of allowing it to enforce contracts? And secondly, specifically, it seems like in many cases, even though the threat of the big hammer exists, in reality, it's probably not a very realistic one because in situations where there isn't escrow and a robust mirroring process or something like that, users and registrants would suffer significantly if ICANN were to try to redelegate a ccTLD or something like that and there was no obvious way to move the registration function somewhere else smoothly and cleanly. So I guess what I'd ask -- I'd note in looking at the compliance page that one of the things that the compliance function for ccTLDs is supposed to be looking at is to make sure that there is a data escrow and there's a mirror site for ccTLDs. I wonder how -- it's unclear to me whether that's actively being pursued or if we could get some color as to what sort of -- how many ccTLDs meet that standard and what, if any -- I certainly don't have a lot of confidence that there's a robust system in place on the gTLD side either, where we could very easily move a registration function or a gTLD registry operator within a very short period of time that would not disrupt users significantly. So I'd be curious to hear what, if anything, we're doing about that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Terrific. Chris, would you like to quick reply there? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Again, I'd like to ask a question of you. Are we collecting questions like we were in the last session? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Sorry? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Are we collecting questions like we were in the last session? Because it seems to me that what Jordyn has just basically said is we would like more information about compliance and that needs to be up somewhere if our goal is to collect a group of questions so that we can see -- feed -- the feedback to staff. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Chris. Now, a lot of what we've spoken about has to -- in some way -- all of it in a sense -- impact on the end user. We've spoken about costs, we've spoken about compliance, those sorts of issues, what's the ALAC been talking about, Cheryl? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Well, at large has certainly been talking about the enforcement part of compliance. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I say this with some trepidation, but could you speak more loudly, please? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: And I was trying to be so restrained. Of course, I can. There's often very active interchange on our lists and particularly focusing on the enforcement part of compliance. So I've made a note to respond to Kristina's question that certainly complies to something as part of the end-user story, and sitting up here as the At-Large Advisory Committee chair, which is Internet users of a particular species, I recognize it is part of the end user story but as a major part of the end user story, obviously it's not just a matter of compliance, it's also the enforcement thing. So very much what Jordyn has said is very close to our hearts. But you also mentioned about the equity issue. And, to me, when I hear if it was a mantra in our area, we believe equity is enormously important. But equity needs to be looked at inasmuch as what's best for the end user as well. If it means making everything extraordinarily high, extraordinarily expensive, then equity is going against a good user experience if it's going to get passed on in terms of costs. But I got excited. You said you saw an emotional response. And it happened when the board business model was used. And it's a very odd response for someone in my position. But why I responded that way -- and this was particularly in context to the gTLDs, new gTLDs, is, clearly, robust, as well as inventive, new, and interesting business models, are important. And we obviously want to make sure they are sustainable. And we need to make sure that there is enough resources in a proposal to say we do have the wherewithal to make this work. But there's got to be a point when a very small community or a very small return, within the CC world, no-charge modeling needs to be somehow compensated for. Or we are very much going to do what has been said by other speakers, you know, fee certain, rather deep pockets. And from the at large, it is globally at large. And we're passionately interested to make sure this is benefit to all, not benefit to few. And the final point, I think, is some of what Don was saying. And that is, some of these -- these costings could be (inaudible) over an enormous length of time. Don't they up-front how much the cost return goes to ICANN, but those ongoing fee models. And there has to be, I think, a robust debate on exceptions and rules and clever ways -- let's work smarter as well as harder. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thanks, Cheryl. We've got a question there, and another one there. Can I just have an indication of whether we've got any other live mikes. Thank you. Over there first. >>IZUMI AIZU: Thank you. My name is Izumi Aizu. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Izumi. >>IZUMI AIZU: ALAC member from APRALO, and from Japan, but this is my sort of question/comment in my personal capacity. On the new implementation of fast-track IDN ccTLD, I think it's our sort of mutual interest to exchange some information regarding that -- what's happening in Japan. Just today, the newspaper, we build the government plan, or leaped. My government is going to host a panel through official Infocom Council that's starting in one week from now to have a series of hearings on how to handle the IDN ccTLD dot Nihon or dot Nippon, perhaps, and inviting all stakeholders involved, from trade associations, Internet associations, consumer groups, and people and panel of experts, academics, and the like, and discuss what is the best way forward to decide which string to be used, who is to run the registry service, and how that be audited, et cetera, before making the final endorsement by the government. Or whether the government should decide that or let the other private entities be formed to decide is another subject, perhaps. And already there are a number of trade associations or groups that have been consulted before reaching there. That's sort of trying to be multistakeholder or public/private partnership model to reach that consensus. And I think the questions to be asked is, is it more beneficial for individual users, especially for the at large sort of viewpoint, for the individual user to consolidate the existing ccTLD and the new IDN together in one package service? Or better to introduce the competition for the registry service? Also, what are the terms and conditions? Do you give privilege to the existing domain holders to automatically or to with some set of conditions, sunrise or whatever, to give the same domain name for the new IDN? Or what if the money's made, the surplus? Should it be just retained for the profit business, with contribution to ICANN? Or it be used for the local community? And stuff like this. So these are all open questions. But I think there's some value to exchange these sort of things as we progress. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Izumi. Any quick responses from the top table there? Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I just would like to say that I think that more ably demonstrates one of the -- a series of the major differences between a ccTLD and a gTLD. I seriously doubt that any gTLD that comes into existence will go through that sort of process. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Chris. We had microphone there. And do we have any others live at the moment. Okay, after Milton, we'll come back and I'll ask some more questions of the GNSO and the ASO. Milton. >>MILTON MUELLER: Yes. I had a follow-up question to Mr. Karklins of the GAC. So the -- as I understand it, your theory of the IDN claim of ccTLDs is that because they already have a string under the ISO-3166 list, that the IDN is simply somehow an extension of this in their own native language. And, to me, that is, indeed, a claim that the gTLDs made in the initial stages of the IDN process. And they were roundly hooted out of town by people concerned about competition. I would also notice that in your comments before the board on the new gTLD process, you mentioned something about being concerned about competition policy. So I would think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And that's an idiomatic expression that means, quite literally, what's good for gTLDs is good for ccTLDs. In that respect, why -- shouldn't we either give gTLDs the same right to extend their string into other scripts, or, if not, why should we give it to ccTLDs without going through the same additional process? >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Milton. Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Because they are fundamentally different. You cannot seek to apply a set of rules to one to the other, because they are fundamentally different. ccTLDs serve their local -- local -- Internet community, defined by the territory. gTLDs are global, or serving, rather, the global Internet community, or a subset of that, not defined, currently, anyway, by a territory. They are built in different ways. And that's the reason why -- I'm sorry. That is actually the answer to your question. Because they're fundamentally different. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Chris. Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: I'm not sure that I really understood the question. But just adding what Chris said, I think we also need to take into account that the Internet as it was perceived and the importance of the Internet, it was -- 15 years ago is completely different than it is now. And certainly the -- governments who are responsible for safeguarding economic development in the territory, promoting economic development in the territory, and knowing that Internet-based applications basically already is a -- fundamentally, the base of all economies in the world, so they certainly have a very serious interest in development of Internet in its own territory. So -- And they apply certain procedures and policies what they have developed, established in consultations, in many cases sometimes arbitrary, which apply only for that territory. And that also is a difference from the gTLD space. No country intervenes in the GNSO process, establishing policies for gTLDs. So GAC is advisory body. We advise -- we express our opinion what should be taken into account from public policy point of view, from public interest point of view. But this is up to GNSO to decide how that -- whether that is applicable or not and whether that should be taken into account or not. So -- am I not answering your question? I really -- I didn't get, really, your point. I didn't understand whether that was exactly what you wanted to hear. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Wait for a moment while we get a mike back for Milton very quickly. But a very quick response, please, Milton. Just put your hand up so they can find you. >>MILTON MUELLER: I think it answers it as well as it's going to answer it maybe in this forum. Both your -- Chris and you are basically saying the same thing, is that ccTLDs are different. I don't understand how that difference justifies an additional claim to a cost-free, outside-the-process IDN. I understand the differences and the similarities, which are probably larger than the differences. So we should probably discuss it offline. But thanks for trying. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Milton. We have a question over here. Sorry. Janis, one more quick response. >>JANIS KARKLINS: The mere fact that policy is apply for ccTLD for territory is developed in the territory. So they are not financial burden for ICANN. So that's -- that's another argument what one can use, saying that -- why there is a difference between a ccTLD operator and a gTLD operator. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Janis. Avri, have you got another response there? >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, I'd like to add something. I think that there are certainly aspects in which we could certainly argue about them being a different thing. I think that there's one certain issue that certainly the GNSO Council has spoken on. And that's the whole notion of compliance -- >> Microphone, microphone, please. You can't be heard. In the booths. Microphone, please. >>AVRI DORIA: And, certainly, within that whole area, they should be the same. Whether there's a difference in terms of other agreement conditions, material conditions, pricings, and stuff I think is very much an open discussion that we can have. But, certainly, when it comes down to anything that is compliance for stability and security, there is real concern there that there should be equality, that there should be sameness between the two forms of TLDs. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Avri. Chris, from the ccNSO perspective, what's the compliance response to that? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I think I agree. [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Does that mean, Chris, that it's something that the ccNSO continues to work on? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: No. In fact, it means that I think that it has -- that's a many-layered comment that has -- there are consequences from -- there are consequences that flow from the bald statement that the levels of compliance should be the same that I would need to consider before I was prepared to make that bald statement. But I think certainly from a security and stability -- I mean, compliance goes to a whole heap of things is, I think, what I'm saying. But from a security and stability point of view, I think, yes, there's the level of -- the level that that should be the same. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. And that would be also true in the IDN ccTLD space? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Absolutely, yes. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Okay. Thank you. Again, thank you for your patience over here. >> Sorry about that. My name is (saying name) with the ALAC. My question is very brief because I really, actually, wanted to introduce somebody who is here. It has to do with WHOIS. Obviously, there's a contractual compliance issue with that now. When you factor in all of this new territory with new gTLDs and IDNs, certainly the current system is not working. How is it going to be scaled up to fit this system? So I'll leave that question on the table. But I wanted to introduce a gentleman by the name of Bob Bruin (phonetic), who, with his son, created an organization called New John (phonetic) that has compiled a lot of data that shows real problems with compliance. He's flown here at his own expense, and is taking a taxi back and forth to these meetings at his own expense. And the reason I'm sort of giving him an introduction like this is because he has -- he and his son and his organization, which is basically just a labor of love, have had real trouble getting ICANN to acknowledge what he's been saying. So I want to give the mike to him. >>PATRICK SHARRY: I will ask you to be short, as the other speakers have been, please. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. And I want to thank ICANN for its recent actions in the compliance area. They're small, but they're helpful. We have run into serious problems over the past couple of years trying to get WHOIS data accuracy acknowledged. We have used the RAA to suspend about 100,000 Web sites, known spam sites, known transaction sites, knowns criminals. We've worked with a couple of other organizations to get rings shut down of, like, the drug companies that are not really drug companies, and to get other kinds of actions in terms of, you know, botnets. And a paper was put out recently by Jose Novaro on "As the Net Churns," where they did a fast-flux analysis of botnets. And they put on the first page, the only way to shut the botnets down is to shut down the domain names at the registrar level. We're trying to get ICANN to be more cooperative. We've talked to several registrars, and they are being cooperative in some degree. But blank, we put out a list of ten registrars that we know have a big concentration, mostly through resellers, of problem sites. And if you don't fix this, there is no way you're going to get any kind of confidence in the institution, because you're allowing by inaction all of these criminals to exist. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. And I don't want to pursue that, while it's an important topic, I don't want to pursue it any more in this forum. What I'd like to do is get back to the implementation plan, the draft applicant guideline and ask if there are specific questions around that or comments from people at the top table around that document or its equivalent in the IDN CC space. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I'd like to -- The purpose of running this joint -- one of the purposes of running this joint session was to try and see if there were common threads amongst the SOs and the ACs in respect to the implement- -- the draft application guidebook and the implementation plan. It isn't and wasn't intended to be another open microphone. And, frankly, if it can't be done in any other way that it turns into an open microphone, then I, for one, won't be supporting it again. There is time for open microphone. This is a session of the supporting organizations and ACs. And that is -- we are trying to get common ground in respect to feedback to the staff who have all worked extremely hard on two very complicated documents. I have one specific area that I would like to see if there is input from the floor on. And that is in respect to geographic names. I know that this is an issue that is running in the GAC. It's an issue that's running in the ccNSO. I can see a hand up back there. It's running in the ccNSO. It's not an out to get the GNSO thing. It's just something we do need to talk about. And I would request -- if there are people in the room who want to talk about that, I think that would be very useful. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Okay. Let's take some questions on geographic names. We've got one there. And we have a question on geographic names there. Okay. >> Thank you. My name is Hilde Thunem. I'm from the Norwegian registry. And I do have a question for your white board in regards to geographic names or, specifically, country names and the current implementation plan. We've been talking a lot about the difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs and there has been a question of is there a difference? Why should there be a difference? Well, the fact is that the difference stems from where we derive our policies from. The ccTLDs take it from their local community. The gTLDs from the global community. Now, today we know we have a way of visually representing this difference, because anyone that can count to more than three can tell whether it's a ccTLD or a gTLD. You just count the letters. But my question is, how are we going to keep this distinction in a post-IDN world, where you can no longer just count the number of letters? And since we're running here different processes, there's a ccTLD IDN fast track, there's going to be a ccTLD IDN slow track, and there's an introduction process for new gTLDs. And they're all running more or less in parallel. If we don't sort out at the very beginning what is a ccTLD and what is a gTLD, we will get confusion into these processes. And to give a concrete example from the current guidelines, in the current guidebook, there is a part where a country name, as defined by being in certain official languages, can apply if it has the approval or nonobjection of its government. At the same time, in the IDN ccTLD fast track, a country name can apply for an IDN ccTLD. So if Norway had Chinese as a language of administration, an official language, we might, with the approval of the government, either enter the gTLD process and become a gTLD, or a ccTLD process and become a ccTLD. Now, this is very confusing for the user. It depends on the government deciding exactly right. It depends on all the governments in the world agreeing exactly on saying that these are all ccTLDs or all gTLDs. I think my government is brilliant. They're in the room. But -- and they will probably not make a mistake on this. But I think to expect people outside here being in different governments to realize that one letter of approval should be specifying that, well, you are approved but only as a ccTLD, and knowing that there are two different processes is not good. So I think there needs to be something done about that. [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. And some support from the floor there. We had a question over here on geographic names. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Mike Palage, speaking in an individual capacity, although I will make reference to some client experience that I have had with regard to this. There are two data points in which I have dealt with geographic names over the last ten years. First has been working as a consultant to Afilias, who, under board resolution 01-92, held a group of 200-plus names on behalf of countries to reallocate them back as a result of some complications with the initial sunrise. I also, with Avri Doria, served as the chair of the Geographic Names Working Group on the reserved name work within the GNSO. So that's kind of my background. One of the problems I see with the geographic -- There's a couple of different problems. And this also ties back into concerns with the preference for ccTLDs and getting their IDNs. So I want to try to, if you will, weave the legal concerns together. Looking at the current recommendations in the RFP or the guidebook, they have attempted to address two types of geographics. One for countries, and then one for city regions. The countries have a clear veto -- you need their permission to even come forward. You need their approval. With cities, though, however, there's less of a burden. So if someone could show that their trademark is related to a city, they can perhaps overcome that concern. Now, the problem, though, is, there are actually some countries that, in some countries, have been trademarked. So, for example, in the U.S., there are some country names that are actually the subject of a trademark. So you can see the, if you will, double standard. And this goes back to the original concerns regarding why -- Milton's concerns of why are you giving a country a monopoly. Now, let me make it very clear for the record, I support the vital interest and public policy concerns of ccTLDs having an IDN equivalent to serve their user base. The questions that I have raised in the past is, what is the legal authority by which ICANN is going to go about doing it? Now, I have articulated in an article that I published on CircleID that one can use article 10bis of the Paris Convention, which talks about unfair competition and how that could be used to provide a legal authority for ICANN to allow CCs to have this right. The problem is, if ICANN is to treat registry operators in an equitable fashion, that same right should also be attributed to the G space, to the G equivalents. And getting back to some of the questions that I think Jeff Neuman had raised in the previous session about some of the things that are missing in this new contract for the proposed TLDs, the lack of equity, of which ICANN must treat registries, that has been taken out of the base of this new base agreement, although that is increased. So these are some of the concerns, I think, that the G space has. And the reason why we need to look at the legal basis for what we're doing. Because if ICANN is making law, and they are making law, because as it was very clear in the WIPO II report, there is no international law. There are some countries which have clear laws that protect their rights. But there is no international established law. And the fact that -- I'll speed it up and I'll put it in writing as well. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Michael. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: But if ICANN is making decisions in which there's no clear international law, that has consequences. And we need to consider that. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Michael. We've got a question from down the back. >>RAY FASSETT: Thank you, Ray Fassett from the Dot Jobs registry. I just think I'm hearing some misleading comments with respect that the differentiation of ccTLDs and gTLDs hanging the hat on that ccTLDs have a closed policy, if you will, and the gTLDs have an open policy. I think there are gTLDs that are actually very tight knit in closed policy forms, if you will, dot EDU is a great example. Meanwhile, you can look at some ccTLDs, and, clearly, these are TLDs that have moved beyond just their own local region, if you will, you know, dot CC or dot ME, for example. So a little misleading in my view, unless I'm missing the point, to say that that is the differentiating factor between a ccTLD and a gTLD in coming up with this foundation that you're trying to build upon. So a little misleading, in my view, unless I'm missing the point, to say that that is the differentiating factor between a ccTLD and a gTLD in coming up with this foundation that you are trying to build upon. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Can I come back to the top table and ask, first of all, Avri, whether there is other big issues which in this case the GNSO has been talking about with regard to the draft application guidelines? >>AVRI DORIA: Sure. First thing, I do want to come back to a comment that was raised -- >>PATRICK SHARRY: Certainly. >>AVRI DORIA: The comment that was made from Norway, is that had been a GNSO question at the beginning of this whole process that we, too, asked. The GNSO council, with the approval of constituencies, had come out with a request to the board to basically think about that particular subject as a community before we went down the road too far. What does it mean to be one? How do we tell the difference between one and the other? How is the space divided? So I think it's a very good question. I think it's a question that does need to be answered. And we're trying to answer it now in sort of a, you know, intrinsic way that what you do will sort of define what is what. But I think I agree with you that when one looks at a name, one won't know. In terms of other issues that I think will come up, and these are issues that are certainly not issues that there's agreement on within the council, because the council is still very much looking at these things, going through, asking questions, and in no sense has the council decided these are our issues. There are certainly issues that have come up with the objection process and how those are being implemented, the price points in those, the sort of -- especially -- you know, all of the objection processes. Those dealing with legal rights of other, those dealing with morality and public order. But there's also a strong concern that we don't do anything that sort of pushes the introduction of new gTLDs out too far. So we're constantly balancing, as we've talked over the last days, the notion of we want to make sure that things don't get pushed out too far. People have been coming to the GNSO council meetings time after time and to the open mic meetings time after time saying when, and it's always been a horizon time of nine months from now. You know, and perhaps the horizon time gets a little shorter as we move down and we get to eight months from now for a couple passes. So there's a real concern that we move out of horizon time to real time for when new gTLDs will come out, when, I guess, you know, the IDN ccTLDs come out. And yet how do we balance that with concerns to make sure that we do have workable objection processes, that they don't go too far, that they are understandable, that they don't cost too much. And so there's an area -- there's an area of concern. As I say, there's no GNSO council or GNSO constituency-wide position on any of that. But there are concerns that balance on both sides of that kind of issue. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thanks, Avri. And Louie, from an ASO perspective, are there questions in this space? >>LOUIE LEE: Well, from the ASO perspective, since our duties relate to the development of policies relating to the number space, as a group, we do not have a stand on this one way or the other. However, as individuals in various capacities, we have, for instance, participated in SSAC and various network operators group to find out their views on various things. And their views are being put forth in the appropriate forums. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thanks, Louie. Are there other things -- We have gone lightly over the ALAC, I think, on the way through this. And perhaps also the GAC. Are there questions that are coming up in the ALAC or GAC we need cover? >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: It's not so much a question, but something that I was certainly requested to cover and highlight, and that's really a follow-on from something we raised quite firmly, we thought, last time around, and that's the dreaded morality and public order part. And we do want to recognize that this is quite a piece of work, this RFP for implementation plan. It is a significant and well-written out document. There is tweaking. We all want to find out what the tweak spots ought to be. We do want to recognize that we are now going to be reading, digesting and firmly discussing the explanatory memorandum, but recognize the fact that we feel there's been a reaction to some of our concerns. So that's a tick type thing, not a criticism type thing. The other thing coming back to the geographic names, is of course in terms of the user experience, we really would expect that geographical names would have relationship to the community that the geography is relating to. It's not so much we are going to get confused if it's three letters or two letters or whether I am ever going to need to count what is in another script. The local community of Internet users should have a clear and understandable way to build trust and to have certain securities, beyond just the security and stability question, that they are dealing with safe experiences on the Internet. Who it is their buying their things from or having their communities represented by. I guess the final point is, it is a large piece of work, and I know that our community is really just getting its teeth into it now, so it's a "watch this space" response. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. Janis, do you want to just pick up any of those points there? >>JANIS KARKLINS: Thank you. I think when it comes to geographic names, that is a work in progress. It is not a simple issue. It is complex and difficult issue. It may be a politically sensitive issue. And we know cases where we have been confronted or ICANN has been confronted with politically sensitive cases. In Paris, GAC expressed some concern on the degree in which GAC new gTLD principles have been taken into account, especially in relation with the geographic names. And in between Paris and the Cairo meeting, we had a very useful interaction with the staff and with the CEO which led to a proposal which yesterday had been positively evaluated by a number of GAC members. Of course, we understand that we cannot get everything we want, but all and all, the proposed procedure may be found satisfactory by the GAC. Answering the question of Hilde, I think we have been lucky that when the system was created, there was a reference table, which made the system very, very clear and easy understandable. Now, when we are entering the new territory, new grounds, we are exploring new ground, so we are facing a situation and then we really cannot apply the existing system. Or, rather, we need to put some work to maybe extend existing system to the new territories. And here I may be running a little bit ahead of train and pre-judging the outcome of CC PDP, but one potential outcome of CC PDP would be a decision to create a reference table for IDN ccTLDs which then would answer your question. Would put in place, very clearly, what is ccTLD and what is not ccTLD. Let's put it in that way. So if the CC PDP will arrive there, I don't know. But this might be one of the options which will provide more clarity for the whole system. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Janis. Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Patrick. Just to feed into the discussion on the geographic -- or more specify, actually, territory names. So from the ccTLD point of view, the concern or the input is specifically to do with territory names. I wanted to just make it clear that this is a ccNSO position. We are not saying that the name of a territory cannot be registered as a -- in ASCII or in a non-ASCII script as a gTLD. What we're saying at this stage is that we think that given that there is a policy development process underway in respect to ccTLD IDNs that it would be sensible to not delegate in the IDN space the name of a territory as a gTLD until such time as we have completed our policy development process, when that could then be revisited. And again, just to be clear, we are talking about the name of a territory listed on the ISO 3166 list or meaningful abbreviation of it. So that, we have actually -- those are resolutions -- the resolutions we passed in Los Angeles in October last year. And we sent those resolutions, obviously, to the board. So I just want to be clear, the ccTLD community is not saying you couldn't register -- and I'm just going to take a wild stab at something. You couldn't register dot Australia as a gTLD, subject to the rules that are in the thing. We are just saying that at this stage, given that we are in the middle of a policy development process that may actually affect some of those registrations, we would suggest that that shouldn't happen until such time as we completed it. >>PATRICK SHARRY: And Janis, what's the GAC response to that sort of approach that Chris has just outlined? >>JANIS KARKLINS: I was out of commission for 30 seconds. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Sorry, I didn't mean to embarrass you. I think, Chris, if I can summarize that briefly, the CCs are saying that there shouldn't be a delegation of territory names until your CC policy process is complete. And then that may well open up after that. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Well, effectively what it amounts to is that when the policy is clear, then it becomes clear what the situation is. And it seems to me that that makes sense for everybody. Not talking about reserved lists, not talking about anything like that. Just saying that we should back off the country names, territory names until such time as we have completed our policy. >>JANIS KARKLINS: So I cannot complete, Patrick, an answer to this question. GAC has not discussed it, this question from that particular angle. So I cannot tell what you the GAC position would be on this. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you. And Avri, from a GNSO perspective? >>AVRI DORIA: From a GNSO perspective, I think we're still at the point where we are supporting the objection process, so would see that as a reasonable way to where there would be an objection raised to those and would have to be dealt with. But certainly the GNSO council has not gotten to a point where it's gotten further than its support of the objection process as a way. So in other words, we still are at the same position we have had that those are not a reserved name list. And it sounds like, in your concept, it sort of -- we are reserving them at least temporarily. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Okay. Yes. I can accept that interpretation. But it seems to me that it's a question of how you want to end up. If, at the end of the day, there is a definition of what comprises a ccTLD from this policy development process, then, by definition, that frees up everything else. But until such time as you have that definition, it's actually quite hard. So you are liable, in my view, to have less chance, actually, of having successful gTLD applications for things that could be perceived to be territory names or meaningful abbreviations of them because they will simply get objected to on the basis that we don't yet know what we will end up with as a ccTLD definition. Now, I accept that that might be drawing a slightly long bow, and I understand that that may happen anyway. But I -- The philosophy that we were trying to work towards is that we will end up with -- I'm speaking specifically in the IDN space, although to some extent it applies to the ASCII space, too. We would end up with a clear definition of what an IDN ccTLD was. And that therefore would mean that pretty much everything else is freed up. >>AVRI DORIA: There certainly, I believe, has been support in the GNSO council for being able to identify clearly what is a ccTLD and what is in the ccTLD name space and what isn't. And I expect that it would need going back to a reserved names effort at some point once those are defined. And I believe that the council has been pretty supportive in saying that it does support an ICANN community-wide effort to understand which names belong in which category and how to deal with that. That is something, though, that we haven't had yet. Us talking here is sort of the first time that we have even -- I mean, other than in the bar, is the first time that we've gotten to the point of even talking about it. And the GNSO council has been very supportive all along of a community-wide discussion of which name belongs in which pie. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: All we all know, the real work does get done in the bar. The ccTLDs, I think, would -- I think would recognize -- and I'm speaking for myself. I think they would recognize that as part of our policy development process, the clarity around what a ccTLD is and certainly in respect to IDNs, clarity around what a ccTLD is is essential. But our view would be that the place to do that is in our policy development process. That does not mean that it's not an outreached -- an outreaching process, but that it sits fairly and squarely in our policy development process in the same way that new gTLDs sits fairly and squarely in your -- >>AVRI DORIA: I understand. As you probably remember, though, the GNSO council did make an appeal to the board that this be considered as a, at the very least, a joint discussion in terms of trying to understand how to do this within the IDN space. And I believe that that is still the position of the GNSO council at this point, that it needs to be a community-wide discussion on how we deal with that particular issue. And until such time as we have had that sort of discussion, all we have been able to come up with support of is an objection procedure, because there are no lists, there is no agreement, there has been no community-wide discussion. So the objection procedure seems to be the only solution to the council at this point. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks. Let's go to Cheryl for an ALAC view. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: It's not so much an ALAC view as a request, because I had written here "get objection process on the list down there," that we desperately need to talk to across these groups. So it's just a perfect follow-on from what's just been said between Avri and Chris. But it sort of needs to be there. We would certainly want to be talking to. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Now, we just had an interchange about geographic names. Questions from the floor about that? We have one over there and one over there. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Hi, I am Vittorio Bertola. Sorry to interrupt your chat, but I am actually a want-to-be applicant for a geographical name. So I wanted to tell you the idea -- it's not just mine. I have met several people from different parts of the world. The idea is we have a part of the world where there is an ancient language being spoken since one thousand of years ago which will disappear in 20 years from now because it is not transitioning into the Internet age and it's on the list of UNESCO endangered languages. And Europe is full of that. There are several dozens of languages that are at risk of disappearing. So several of us think why don't we just make an application and create a TLD to create a user language of the Internet that will be a geographical and cultural TLD much like dot cat. And I think that's about the most useful use you can make of the new gTLD opportunity. Much better than yet doing another dot com clone or trademark as a company. Unfortunately, these ideas have no money because there's no money to be made, because when you start with this kind of project, usually you will be lucky if you get a few dozen registrations for the first years. The point is not about making money. The point is about making something useful and promoting a certain culture. And unfortunately, you also make this completely impossible because even if you gather in-kind donations of service and of time for people to prepare the proposal, you will still be faced with the $185,000 fee and 75,000 per year. So my point, I think it's a deeper point than it looks like. Because you might think what I plan to do is amateurish, but in fact this is the way all the TLDs started, because all the ccTLDs and gTLDs -- even dot com, dot net and dot org -- started this way. It's a few people running on a few Linux, UNIX boxes at the time, and giving away domains for free. So I am a bit concerned to hear that you want to promote innovation by putting these kind of high fees and hyper requirements, because innovation doesn't happen that way. On the Internet, innovation happens because one or two people invent something new. So what would happen if the IETF would require $185,000 for someone to publish a new Internet draft or a new RFC? This is actually completely opposite to the way the Internet works. So please, I think you should reconsider this idea. And yet, understand what kind of domain names do you want to get. Because my last point is, I mean, Emily Taylor made this very well this morning. You might actually get 500 domain name applications at the $185,000 and get your $92 million, but what kind of domains would they be? I guess you will end up with maybe 490 trademark registrations just to protect the trademark and maybe ten dot com clones which will domain trap in three years and not really a useful domain. And if that happens, you will have failed. ICANN will have scored in the hugest failure of its history. So please be careful. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Authentication, Vittorio. Over there. Support from the floor over there. And then we will come to -- is it Bertrand next? Yes. >>HUALIN QIAN: Thank you. Okay. My name is Hualin Qian. My comments is about the fast-track IDN implementation plan. In the document, it says that the requirement -- one of the requirements is one string for one official language. I agree with that. But I don't agree with it that there is no explanation what is one string. Because for IDN, if you only say one string, it's not enough. You should specify that one string, including each character that has variants. So it should include all of those variants. They all belong to one string. I can give you an example to explain that. For example, China. The Chinese name is (in Chinese). The has two variants. One is simplified, one is traditional. But they are pronounced the same, and the meaning is the same, but the shape are different. The Unicode codepoint are different. I think that they should belong to one string. Just like dot com. When you -- each character, C-O-M, you have lowercase, uppercase. You had to do some conversion from upper case to lowercase somewhere in the system. Because the ASCII character is very simple, only each character has two cases. So it could be done in the root or it could be done in the user host. Normally it's being done in the user host. But the full IDNs names, it's very difficult to ask any user host to do that. So I think technically, it's very easy to do in the root. We can make all the variants different string; different look, belong to same string. And allow people to register different -- looks like different string but actually essentially it's the same. I mean multiple string. If we look at the shape is different, but actually it's the same. Or you can put all these things in the root zone file, and using the DNAME to map different variants to a single one. That's very easy in the root zone. So I just hope to explain for the IDN which is a single string. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thank you. Bertrand. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you. Just rapidly, to remind people that this is a two-part exercise as well, and the purpose of the session is also to list issues that people will bring back in their constituencies to dig deeper. At the same time, it's interesting to see whether there are common threads and common issues that can be shared. I want to highlight one word that I have heard that I think is very important and is probably not shared enough, which is fairness. Actually, I think deep at heart, all what we're fighting for is for a fair treatment, which means that when situations are different, people are treated differently. Requirements are different for very large actors, for very small ones, for nonprofit ones and others. I heard a lot of discussion between the CC space and the G space. And I think there's a lot of fairness questions behind like why should they be able to. And when you say that it's not only by envy, it's just because you think that there's some upper rule here that has not been formulated, but is a principle that should be taken into account so just wanted to highlight this word which I think we should share. In the respect of listing issues just as titles for the board, I mean, the whiteboards here, I think the issue of single pricing is the threat and as you may notice has a relationship with fairness of sorts. The question is should there not be a high or low pricing, the question is should there be a single pricing in all cases and are there fair criteria to distinguish how taken fully into account I heard what was said before that there were complexities attached to different scales and possibilities for gaming but if I may say so, I think I would prefer something that is potentially gamable to something that is currently biased. The other point is the distinction between CCs and Gs is the mental framework that we've been working for, or in, for a long period of time. What is happening at the moment is an opening-up of this landscape. We need to get out of the single dichotomy. It's not everything in the future will not be either G or CC, for the moment it is because it's the procedure that is set up this way. But what we see emerging is this notion of categories and in the terms of fairness and in terms of differentiation, it's obvious that certain differences will appear. ccTLDs will not be treated as dot Disney, or at least I hope so. And how there will be different changes -- differentiated is not -- so just broadening the landscape if you can put the notion of categories somewhere on the thing I think that would be great. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Other thread, just to mention, appeal processes. I think there is a very worrisome thing when the appeal for the evaluation process is basically an extended evaluation process by the same actors. If you have something in a court, you don't have an appeal that is handled by the same court. It's cumbersome for everybody. So extended evaluation is one thing. But a possibility for appeal somehow must be taken into account. And finally, just to support what Becky was saying regarding RFC 1591, I don't think moral commitment are lower commitments than written commitments. Working in the benefit of the public interest for ccTLD was clearly the moral framework and I don't consider that and I don't think we should consider that as a lower and less stringent commitment than whatever framework could be now. So CCs should have no problem if the formalization is not tied to the fee issue which is another thing. If it is about the framework in which they are framed, it's okay. Last point, and this goes into the methodology question for the following week, the draft implementation plan for gTLDs at the moment, as we all know, is an incredible amount of work, and I really want to support what others have said regarding the efforts of the staff in drafting this. At the same time it is not sufficiently distinguishing what I was distinguishing in terms of implementation guidelines and very concrete implementation aspects. I think a few of the issues we're discussing here are a sort of higher priority than some very concrete elements that are discussed almost at the same level and maybe in the next iteration of the plan this distinction should be used a little bit more and maybe we can do that until next -- the end of the week to identify the three, four, six points to go forward, sorry. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Bertrand. I'm going to take two last comments here and ask for a closing comment for the top title. Number one number five here. >> Thank you very much can you hear me? No, yes, no, yes? Thank you very much. My name is Andrew Mack, I'm with AM Global Consulting. And I wanted to pick up on some of the geographic things that we're talking about and then on Bertrand's mention of fairness because I think both of them run together very nicely. To Chris' differentiations that we were talking about earlier, certainly there's the geographic aspect and there's a connection to this idea of an economic development function. The problem is that it gets awfully blurry in my mind. When you're looking at things like dot Asia, for example, which could have very much of an economic development -- economic development function. When you're talking about dot ME, the pen that they gave me which I'm sure was not given to me because they want me to become a member of the Macedonian Internet community, but who knows, it strikes me there's going to be an increasing blurring of those lines. And certainly from the perspective of people, for example, in the dot Asia community, would only make sense that they would be wanting dot Asia in Korean script or in Japanese script or in Chinese script. So it strikes me, therefore, that the best way we can -- really, if we're talking about fairness, from my perspective, it's fairness for the user, and if we're talking about fairness for the user and if we're looking at a CC and a gTLD space that are basically blurring or are blurring in a lot of different ways, it would strike me that keeping similar policies and keeping similar rollout schedules and these kinds of things only make sense from the user perspective. So I appreciate your considering that. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, and briefly here from No. 4. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I'm talk -- okay, good. Hi, Jeff Neuman, just first a comment on some feedback on this session and then I have a question, actually, for Chris. I think this session is a good idea to have cross-constituency feedback. Probably would be better scheduled after the constituencies are able to meet and the council's able to meet to actually get what that input is especially because the draft document just came out a few weeks ago so there really haven't been formal meetings with the organizations to discuss the viewpoint. The second comment on that is you know, while chairs of the supporting organizations are admired and do a great job up there I'm not sure that it's appropriate to have the chair speaking on behalf of an entire organization without some sort of mechanism for them soliciting feedback on these topics specifically before getting up there. So that's just on the feedback on this conference, but I think it's very good to have. Question for Chris is: You mentioned an example with dot Australia and it's a highly unlikely example but just wanted to make sure I understood what you said. You had said that if someone had applied for dot Australia in the gTLD round and it gotten -- met the requirements in the RFP which include evidence of support for the country name, so the government shows some support for that, you still believe that should be on hold pending a ccTLD process despite having the government support -- and I agree in Australia that's probably very unlikely just like it's unlikely in the United States but in certain jurisdictions, where they're not so closely tied to the government where the ccTLD is not so closely tied to the government, it is possible to have that dichotomy and I'm not sure why that would necessarily need to wait for a ccTLD PDP process. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Jeff. Very quickly, Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: It's very hard to answer that quickly and we can talk about it, but very simply, it goes to stretching that into the IDN space, goes to confusion, and it goes to the possibility of finding that in the future a word that by policy would fit in -- as an -- as an IDN ccTLD is already out there in the gTLD space. But I'm not doing it justice to say it as complete as that. I do just want to say one more thing because I want to make absolutely clear here I appreciate very much appreciate your feedback, however, I just want to be clear that I'm -- that I have only spoken for the ccNSO when I've said I have and that's only, in fact, in respect to our resolution that was passed by the ccNSO. So I haven't sought to -- I've sought to express what I believe are opinions but no positions except where they actually are them. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Good. Thank you. We're just about out of time so what I'd like to do is run through the table from this end for about 30 seconds each to get some idea of what you think the next steps are and what you think you can take back to your respective organizations. If there's anything, Louie. >>LOUIE LEE: Thank you, Patrick. In the addressing community in a number space we fully appreciate the grappling -- the difficulties we have in fairness. We have the idea of fairness for the end user, the idea of fairness for assigning addresses to ISPs across the world. For both existing entities and upcoming need that can be demonstrated. Right now addresses are assigned based on demonstrated need as soon as -- and this began as soon as we realized that the number space is finite. In the address -- in the name space it's infinite, practically. But in number space there's limited -- so the idea of fairness is -- is very often discussed, contested. So in the addressing community, we -- we developed a process both on a regional and on a global basis. We gain consensus across all regions before we can put forth a global policy and we support the idea that consensus be gained also in development of -- in policies relating to the name space. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Lee. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I want to go to the method for a second and I think I tend to agree with Chris in that I may have missed the point at certain points but I do believe that I've tried to only list things as council viewpoint when there has indeed been a council decision for me to go back to and quote. In fact, sometimes I was actually looking at it while I was quoting it. And various things, it's sort of expressing viewpoints that had been given to me and tried to tag those as there are viewpoints that are. I actually think I've stayed away from expressing any personal opinion at all. And at this point I'll just sort of add one personal opinion which I think this kind of conversation is a really good idea. I think we do have some more sort of mechanics to work, I'm not sure that having chairs be the ones up here doing the conversation or be the only ones, you know, maybe it's good for constituencies, maybe it's good for other groupings to be the ones, so I think that's something that needs to be looked at. And I do think that as a word that can go through everything, I think fairness is a really good base principle. But that's only a personal opinion. There's no GNSO Council position on fairness. [ Laughter ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Avri, Janis. >>JANIS KARKLINS: I agree on the fairness point. I don't agree on the first word you used that we're fighting for something. I think we're not fighting. We're -- at the end we have a common goal, to open new horizons, to enter territory we have never been and explore what is feasible, what is not. And, of course, we have -- each of us, we have some perspective. And sometimes these perspectives are -- we need to explain. And I think in these sessions we -- this is the aim of the session to explain better where we're coming from, what we're -- where we're aiming and see whether there are points where our opinions converge. That's the value of the session. And I hope that, for those who were in the room, we brought more clarity on the positions of the different constituencies. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Avri. Cheryl. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: The risk of being at this end of the table, you tend to just say I'm going to echo what has happened. This has been a very interesting experiment and I really think I'd like to know in some way how -- what the feedback is from the most important part of the room here which is you out there. Just to go back to who we're representing and how we're representing, most of us have made great efforts elicit opinion to get -- especially with a larger, more complicated document that, you know, we all are still struggling to get through and get a good understanding particularly within our community where we have translation issues and much feedback is simply not coming through. We were highlighting areas where we were worth think of further conversation to see where there is a nexus, doesn't matter if it's divergent or there's an agreement but it's a topic we need to pick up later. If we made that mark, then please let us know. If not, to work across what someone said was still trans-silo, we'll have to have another way of looking at it but what we didn't want to do was experience what was happening so often in the past which was multibilateral meetings which were saying exactly the same things. We could tease out what could be said across all of us, that was our intent. I'd like to think we may go back toward some of that, and be a part of it, that's an interesting experience. I'm glad I've been here. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thanks, Cheryl. Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I will go back to -- I will go to the ccNSO meeting tomorrow, and one of the questions that I will be asking the ccNSO people is whether this is valuable for them, et cetera, et cetera. I echo the echoes of Cheryl's and Janis's and everybody else. I -- Speaking as somebody who spends a huge amount of time running around from meeting to meeting, it's actually extremely valuable for me to be able to do three or four meetings in one. So thank you for that. I want to close on one more thing, which is that we all of us have been here today discussing the PSC document earlier on, but later on this afternoon, discussing the draft application guidebook and the implementation plan. Both documents have been put together in an extraordinary effort by the ICANN staff. And whether you agree with what they say or whether you think there are holes or flaws or whatever, it has been quite an extraordinary effort to get those documents prepared and out for us to be dealing with. And I think that is something that we should all recognize. Thank you. >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, Chris. [ Applause ] >>PATRICK SHARRY: Thank you, everyone. I think we've done a really important thing today. The speakers have been saying to bring this group together. We can obviously do it better. I'm happy to take comments on that. I know that Kieren McCarthy, who's in charge of public participation, will be really happy to take comments. The people at the table will be happy to take comments. I think it's worthwhile doing it again, and next time we'll do it even better. Thanks, as always, to our scribes, who do a magnificent job, and to our interpreters, similarly, thank you for your time. There's at least three interesting meetings happening now. The one that's in this room is about the board review report. And that will start in two or three minutes' time. Thank you.