GAC/ICANN Board Joint Meeting

 Tuesday, 3 March 2009

 Mexico City

 

 

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

 On behalf of the GAC, I would like to warmly welcome members of the
board, chairman of the board, president, CEO.

 In this meeting in Mexico City, participate 38 members, two
observers, and one invited country, namely, Russian Federation.

 And due to audio streaming, we have for the first time also remote
participation of two members.  So -- and on behalf of the Governmental
Advisory Committee, I would like to express gratitude for providing us
with the new technological tools which potentially will enhance
participation of those GAC members who, for one or another reason,
cannot travel to the meeting.

 Thank you for that.

 From our side, I communicated the agenda of questions what we would
like to address today.

 And maybe to indicate for our colleagues in the room that would be
IDN ccTLD fast-track implementation plan, new gTLD applicant guidebook,
WHOIS data accuracy, which would be a follow-up to our discussion in
Cairo.  That would be GAC contribution to PSC report.  And in that
context, the role of the GAC within ICANN.

 That would be additionally to communicated questions, we identified
also question of scheduling of events during ICANN meeting and
timeliness of publication of documents before the meeting.

 So these would be questions GAC would like to address during this
session with the board.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Janis.  And good afternoon,
everybody.

 We have three preliminary items that won't take long before we get on
to the agenda.  And thank you for sending the agenda items through.

 I'd just like to introduce an incoming board member who's about --
will take a seat in May between meetings.  Is Mike Silber in the room? 
If Mike -- Mike, could you stand up.  There.  Mike will be replacing
Demi as the representative from the ccNSO.

 Thanks, Mike.

 The other preliminary item, I see, is in fact one of your preliminary
items as well.  And that's the question of posting of documents.  

 There's been quite a lot of discussion here at this meeting about
posting of documents, and some confusion.  And so I've asked Paul if he
would get the data together for the community on the policies, the
practices, and the actual procedures in relation to the posting of
documents.

 So at this point, if I could hand over to Paul, who can take us
through practices and procedures and policies.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you, Peter.  And can I say chairman how good
it is again to be here with the GAC.

 We actually have a small PowerPoint just to work through this issue
on Web posting, which is not showing.

 So those people on the telephone, there's a PowerPoint here, I'm just
talking through some Web posting analysis in a summary.

 I want to talk a little bit about meeting posting policy.  I'm sorry
if it's a little dark to see.

 There's a series of existing policies in place for posting
specifically around board agendas and -- firstly, and then a series of
policies that are clearly in place around posting for public comment
periods for people who are affected either through the PDP processes or
for third parties who are affected by any particular decision.

 Coming specifically to meetings, however, all board agendas are
posted at least one week before each board meeting.  And that's a
requirement under the bylaws.  For public meetings, over the past few
years, practice has included posting all documents relating to
decisions at least seven days before each public meeting, put that has
not always been met.  And for Mexico City, the board has asked the
staff to try to post all documents earlier, with the goal of moving to
14 days prior to the start of the public meeting.

 And that's been successful in some parts and not in others.

 I think importantly for the GAC, the public participation committee
of the board has taken responsibility for drafting a policy regarding a
posting of documents specifically for meetings.  And I'm certain that
that committee will very much appreciate receiving input from the GAC
itself into its consideration as we're doing consultation with other
parts of the organization.

 Just to give you some facts and figures on announcements coming up to
Cairo, there have been 58 official announcements by ICANN since Cairo,
since the Cairo meeting.  31 of those announcements were for
information only.  23 were for public comment.  Four were for board
action.  Three of those were approved at the February board meeting. 
And one was putting up for approval in the Mexico meeting.  And that
was posted on the 5th of February.

 If I was to give some posting analysis of other announcements related
here to Mexico, one item is posted anticipation of board action in
Mexico.  That's the proposed global policy for remaining IPv4 address
space.  Now, this has actually been out for public comment for a very
long time.  I've forgotten the exact details.  But the Address
Supporting Organization processes for bringing up public global policy
before the community for the board for decision-making requires a long
policy process of public comment from the ASO, and then similarly
before it comes to the board.  It was posted on the 5th of February
formally for board action at this meeting.

 One item was posted for discussion by a committee in Mexico, but not
for decision.  And in the week prior to the meeting.  And that was the
improving institutional confidence plan which was posted by the
President's Strategy Committee on the 27th of February.  Similarly,
four major items were posted for discussion, but not for action, in
Mexico in between one and two weeks prior to the meeting.  And they
were the board review interim report was published, the draft applicant
guidebook, what you told us, fast-track proposed solutions, and the
operating plan and budget framework in the fiscal year 2010.

 So those are the items that were posted between one and two weeks
prior to the meeting.

 There were two items that were posted specifically -- which were
letters were communicated between myself to Janis in response to
requests from the GAC.  Similarly, these did not include anything that
required action or decision-making here at the Mexico meeting.

 On the 23rd of February, there was the update on current proposed
work on WHOIS data research and analysis, which gave the most up-to-
date reporting on the GNSO's own decisions and -- which have just taken
place on WHOIS.  And then the 24th of February was an article relating
to the -- letter relating to the article in the register.  

 So that's an analysis, Chairman.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Paul.  

 The other preliminary item is to congratulate you on the streaming
members.  That's an excellent addition.  And hopefully that will
develop.  You have heard in my opening address that I have asked the
Public Participation Committee to make ICANN a world leader in relation
to remote participation.  And I hope that will also extend to
facilities that the GAC can use.

 The third and final preliminary item relates to a recommendation made
by the GAC in its letter to us at the end of October in relation to
meetings.  And, again, if I could ask you, Paul, just to quickly report
on that.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you, Chairman.

 In the letter from the chair of the GAC to the chair of the board on
the 23rd of October, the final item in that letter reads following, the
GAC recommends that a portion of the agenda for the Mexico City meeting
in March 2009 be devoted to a community-wide discussion of these
issues.  They must be addressed in a holistic approach in order to
improve the further efficiency of ICANN's unique multistakeholder model
and institutional confidence in the organization.

 There's been specifically sections of this meeting agenda allocated
for those types of discussions.  First of all, the supporting address --
the supporting SO and AC meeting yesterday.  And there is specifically
time set aside for the President's Strategy Committee discussions on
the improving institutional confidence issues.

 That's for Wednesday at 2:00.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Paul.

 Maybe, in response to this latter point, from our part, we suggested
to exchange on meeting scheduling issues.  We acknowledge that these
issues are important, and certainly we would like to be present in
those public meetings when issues are discussed.  But, unfortunately,
despite that I communicated preliminary agenda of the GAC to the staff,
we have a serious conflict.  On Wednesday, everybody knows that on
Wednesday afternoon, GAC is drafting communiqué.

 And usually -- and you know from your own experience -- usually that
takes the whole afternoon.

 And in the afternoon on Wednesday, there are two meetings.  Scheduled
one is the PSC.  And another is open consultations of Public
Participation Committee on meetings policy, exactly where GAC made
submissions.

 And since in Cairo we publicly announced that PSC process is of
paramount importance for the GAC, we decided to break our session of
drafting of communiqué and participate in the meeting -- in that
meeting from 2:00 to 3:30.

 But then we need to come back to do our job on communiqué.  And it
means that we cannot participate in another meeting.  Or an alternative
is the GAC does not produce any communiqué, which would be the first
time.  And I don't know whether it is a good precedent.

 So that's why there is a certain conflict in scheduling.  And I think
that there should be some efforts made in order to avoid repetition of
similar situations in the future.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Janis, I think this is an unfortunate
situation.  It's not an uncommon one, unfortunately, that somebody in
the community complains about the scheduling.  We find that by
extending -- we've just extended the meeting time, some of us were
starting here on Friday and met all day Saturday, all day Sunday, in
addition to meeting from Monday to Friday.

 And I don't offer that really as any excuse in relation to your
points, just as that's the general background.

 We've just been talking in our tour of duty that Paul and I do with
the various constituencies, and the overwhelming response is that
everyone is being overwhelmed.

 Some specific instances from the ISPs.  They just don't have enough
people in their community, they were saying, to deal with the frequency
of one- to three-hour phone calls a week on each issue.  And we got a
similar response from the other ones.  

 The practical reality, and I think it's perhaps reflected in some of
these statistics that Paul produced about the number of publications
since Cairo, now, we can work on this in a number of ways, and we are. 
And part of that includes much greater attention to prioritizing
things.  And the other thing is bringing resources.

 I think it's something also -- and my colleague on the board, Jean-
Jacques, who's chairman of the Public Participation Committee, I think
is also addressing meeting agenda-setting.  And I'm sure that will
include attempting to avoid conflicts.

 But inevitably, occasionally, there will be just an inability to
schedule things that suit everybody.

 But, you know, I think you have my commitment.  We will work as hard
as we can to avoid that.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Chairman, just to say, we are hoping -- aiming
within one to two weeks from now to post the first draft schedule for
the Sydney meeting.  So that would allow more feedback on, you know,
the plan for that.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  That sounds very encouraging.

 Suzanne.

 >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   It does, indeed.  Thank you, Janis, and
thank you, Peter and Paul, for those interventions.

 I think we specifically wanted to flag this today because of our
inability to participate in the public participation meeting on
Wednesday.  And so we wanted to make sure that we shared these concerns.

 And I think we're all quite comfortable with volunteering to work
with you as you move forward.

 We are, I think, fairly flexible and willing to adjust our schedule. 
We've done so already for Wednesday for the IC meeting.  It's just if
we adjusted our schedule for every other meeting we would like to
attend on Wednesday, we would not be able to conduct our business.

 So I did just want to flag a couple of other things to reinforce a
point that maybe we have not been very clear on in the past.

 Another session of great interest to governments from a consumer
protection perspective is the e-crime and abuse of DNS.  Obviously,
most of us would have loved to have been in that room to listen to the
experts provide some data.

 So, again, to the extent that we can help you identify early on those
discrete issues where we would find our participation would be helpful,
and vice versa, we're more than happy to do that.  And we just wanted
to flag that today due to our absence tomorrow.

 Thank you.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you.  A quick remark.  I'm Jean-
Jacques Subrenat, a member of the board, and the chair of the Public
Participation Committee.

 I cannot speak on behalf of the staff, of course, and I realize all
the work that has been going on to make this meeting in Mexico the
smoothest possible.  I realize that has not been possible.

 As far as the Public Participation Committee, I would just like to
point out two or three things.

 First is that the committee was set up in November last year, and we
actually started working only at the end of November last year.  So do
bear with us.

 We are in the phase where, after having prepared the draft of our own
charter, trying to find out what are the main issues for public
participation, what is the definition, the most suitable definition, of
public participation, and a few other points.

 We will be especially listening to you, to the GAC and to other parts
of ICANN, to make sure what are the important elements and also how you
yourselves prioritize these points.

 So we are very carefully listening to you.  I am taking notes.  My
colleagues as well.  And we will try to formulate all this as an advice
to the board and to the rest of ICANN.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you.  Thank you, Jean-Jacques.

 Bill.

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you.  And thank you for the
information provided, actually, on the posting of documents.

 I must say, I think we all appreciate the very heavy workload placed
on ICANN staff and that this is a particularly busy year, I think.  I
think it's the fullest agenda I've seen.

 I think our concern is just to manage expectations.  There are a
large number of very significant documents which we haven't been able
to discuss at this meeting.  It's as simple as that.  And I think it
may be that even if they're posted seven days before, the GAC tends to
meet a bit earlier than the rest of the community, you know.  And most
meetings are a long-haul flight for many GAC members.

 So if something's posted on the 20th of February, for example, that
gives us about -- I had three working days.

 So to consult colleagues, I don't know whether it's correct or not,
but I suspect that we have more formal obligations to consult other
people than maybe some other stakeholders do in the rest of the
community.

 So in terms of managing expectations, I think it's just to make it
clear to the rest of the community that if we don't get them within a
reasonable time -- and that varies according to the size of the
document and the sensitivity of the issue -- that we will only be able
to take a decision at the subsequent GAC meeting.  For example, for the
PSC report and the applicant guidebook, that will be Sydney.

 And I think we're just worried that we don't want to give the
impression to the rest of the community that we're slowing the process.
We're not.  It's just that if we don't get the papers in sufficient
time, actually, we actually can't discuss them at the meetings.

 So that's the reason.  It's not a complaint, just a concern about the
way we're perceived by the rest of the community.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Please, Steve, Steve Goldstein.

 >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN:   Thank you, Bill.

 I just want you to know that we on the board are very mindful of your
needs.  And there are some documents that came out, I can't remember
which one it was.  But there was a next-to-final draft.  And I asked
staff to forward that to the GAC, even though it wasn't final, just to
give you extra time to look at it.

 So we are, indeed, mindful.  And we hope to do better.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you.  And thank you, Suzanne and Bill.  I
really appreciate the way you've described that and appreciate the -- I
appreciate, from both sides, the issue raised both in terms of the
stresses to get these documents produced between meetings but also the
need to fully consult with colleagues across agency in an
intergovernmental context.

 I think as the PPC thinks about a formal policy for posting for
meetings, one of the other counter-tensions that we should also be
aware of is that other parts of the community would very much like if
information has become available, can we just put it up.  And certain
situation arise for staff if some piece of work is finished where the
temptation would be to say, "Look, we won't post it because we have to
wait until after the meeting, because people won't be happy it's just
arrived."  And other members of the community say, "Please post right
away."

 So to give you an illustration, we have received so-called economist
reports on new gTLDs, which may come up, and we have received strong
exhortation from the GNSO today to please post that.  Our intention was
not to post it here because we thought we'd be misinterpreted. 
Obviously, it's only for information.  But this is an illustration
where open public committee is saying, "As soon as the information
arrives, please post."  While I recognize what you are talking about
absolutely.

 So as we think about the PPC policy, I think we are going to have to
work through, as you are quite right, people fully understanding how
much time frame is needed before they can have an input on the
decision, but also, I think, as you say, some groups want to have input
faster than others can handle.  And we're going to have to work that
through.

 But thank you for the point.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Paul.

 Peter.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Janis, I was just wondering whether we
might move off this issue of procedure, which I think is well
understood and we've covered the data and the principles and the
feelings.

 I'm conscience that Chris Disspain is sitting right beside me and has
other work to do and might be able to contribute usefully to the
board/GAC interaction if we only get on with it.  Can we move perhaps
to the one that's of significance to the ccTLDs and therefore to Chris,
the IDN fast-track implementation issues.  And perhaps I can just kick
that off by summarizing it on the basis there seem to be two principal
once.  The first one is the document of responsibilities.

 Just to explain by way of background, this is a document recently
released, based on a continuation of the accountability framework
approach, which is in place between ICANN and the ccTLD managers,
developed itself out of work done by the ccNSO.  Currently, there are
nine sponsorship agreements, 22 accountability frameworks, and 27
exchange of letters.

 Coming to the content of the DOR, as it's being called, there is no
commitment in that that the ccTLD managers will be bound by policy. 
There is no requirement to join the ccNSO.  But there is a commitment
to adhere to technical standards, which seems unarguable to at least
the ccTLD and the technical community.  And the issue which I think we
want to discuss today in relation to that is whether that agreement --
what else could be in that agreement and whether it should be mandatory
or voluntary.

 And the second issue is the financial contribution.  I think it's
fair to say that the board is expecting some kind of financial
contribution.

 Certainly, the gTLD community expects there to be financial
contribution and talks about making sure there is no free ride by the
ccTLD community on the gTLD registrants.

 On a basic principle of the cost causer pays, then there should be
some contribution. 

 Again, there are different approaches to that, whether it should be
on a cost recovery basis or a revenue basis.

 And it may well be that we can have multiple models or combination
models.  

 And then the next issue in relation to that is whether they should be
mandatory, again, or voluntary.

 So I just offer that as a scene-setting couple of comments with some
of the facts.

 I look forward to you and Chris and the others taking it forward.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Peter.

 Maybe I would suggest that I would quickly go through principles that
GAC agreed upon during this meeting -- the principles comments GAC
agreed upon during this meeting on the first version of proposed
implementation plan.

 And we had a joint session with ccNSO.  And it seems to me that we
are very much on the same page on these.  And certainly after that, I
would invite GAC members to pick up and maybe address more specifically
specific items.

 So the -- and these comments are formulated in the form of bullets. 
They are very, very short, but very clear.

 So on -- there is one overarching principle that IDN ccTLDs should be
similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs as a principle for both relations
from -- between ICANN and ccTLD operator and in relations to fees.

 On the relationship between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD operator, the GAC
emphasizes that it is primarily for the local Internet community,
including the relevant governments -- government and public authority,
to determine the manner in which a string should be selected, the
manner in which a registry operator should be selected, and the
registry policy that should be applied for the selected IDN ccTLD.

 In our opinion, the documented relationship between ICANN and IDN
ccTLD operator should be kept voluntary.  Documented relationship on
the basis of the proposed documentation of responsibilities, either as
it stands today or in a modified format, may be encouraged, but should
not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

 And related to adherence to standards, as it has always been the
case, it is in the best interest of ccTLD operators and the entire IDN
community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards, including IDNA
protocol, IDN guidelines, and commit to complying with the future
protocol updates.

 On financial contributions, we think that financial contributions
should be calculated on a cost recovery basis.  And I think that this
is a fundamental principle what GAC agreed upon.  Full disclosure and
breakdown of the costs involved in IDN program would be desirable for
better understanding of possible cost recovery models.

 Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a
condition for IDN ccTLD delegation.

 And further information from ICANN staff on the different possible
cost recovery mechanisms and concrete proposals would help advance
positions on this subject.

 So these were comments we agreed in relation to the first version of
the fast-track implementation plan.

 And now I invite GAC members to complement these comments.

 Manal, from Egypt.

 >>EGYPT:   Thank you, Janis.

 Officially speaking, or on behalf of Egypt, I would like to thank the
ICANN for the DOR document.  And I would like to stress that this would
definitely help us advance our position and get into a more
constructive discussion.

 Also, I understand that within a few days or weeks, there will be
further information on the financial side of it, which, again, we'll be
looking forward to further discussions in it.

 Now, on another note, which should not be recorded as neither Egypt
position nor the GAC, I fully understand the legitimate concerns of
ICANN on the financial side and on the agreement side.  But I would
really like to see those discussed separately and not tied with the
delegation of the IDN ccTLDs.

 I mean we are trying to help communities who are struggling to get
their citizens online.  So maybe we might not be very much helping if
we tie the delegations with the financial contributions or agreements. 
And maybe what made the framework agreements succeed -- and I see them
increasing every day with the ASCII domain names -- maybe what made
them succeed is because they are voluntary.  I mean, both the
contributions and the agreements within the ASCII domain are both
voluntary, as far as I understand.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Manal.

 Any other requests?

 Bill Dee, please.

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you very much.  And like Manal, I'd
like to thank the ICANN staff, actually, for -- I'd like to thank the
ICANN staff for the papers they've produced for this meeting,
particularly the DOR, which has made very interesting reading.

 You will recall, I think, in the Paris communiqué the GAC advised the
board that we felt that there should be no obligatory -- I can't
remember the precise language -- no obligatory contracts for IDN ccTLD
operators.

 And so my question to you is, would you view the DOR as a contract? 
Would you view any of the clauses in it as being enforceable?  

 Because, in which case, to be blunt, I propose you're probably
rejecting the GAC advice.  It would be interesting to know whether you
feel you are.

 I also would like to reiterate the point that was made to us earlier
on by the ccTLD community that they haven't yet seen a breakdown of the
costs.  And I think this is quite an important point.

 I think that they need to -- if they're going to end up paying these
fees, I think they need to approve the basis on which those fees are
calculated.  I think that's quite important for us.

 And in terms of -- in terms of ICANN consensual policies, I'm pleased
to hear that your view is that there's no requirement to adhere to
ICANN consensus policies.

 But with the exception of compliance to IDNA.  And that's quite a big
exception for some of us.

 Coming from a treaty-based organization like the UPU, to be blunt, we
don't want to end up in the situation that the UPU is currently in,
actually, and where the dot EU operator is unable to sign a contract
for an IDN because there are provisions in there which would require us
to rewrite our treaty.  And perhaps I'm paraphrasing and
oversimplifying that problem, actually.  But that has highlighted some
of our concerns about any compliance issues that may be in the DOR.

 But very much welcome your comments on those points.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Can I just answer perhaps one of your later
points first.  And it may just be a technical nomenclature issue.  But
adherence to the technical standards is not an exception to the
consensus policy rules.  Because the technical standards aren't set by
consensus policies.  They're IETF standards.  So it's not a question --
so there is an unexceptionable issue in relation to adherence to
compliance policies.  Those are the policies that will go through the
ccNSO or possibly any other part of the organization.

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   My apologies I should be clear.  The problem
is having to sign an agreement that you will apply the policies made by
another organization.  There's a problem for treaty-based organization
because the treaties normally say that the members or the signatories
of the treaty will make their own policies. 

 So whether they're ICANN consensus policies or even ITF protocols,
actually, it's problematic from a legal perspective.  And we've
usefully had an explanation of the problem that the UDU had and I
appreciate that as a gTLD but it raises similar concerns for some of us
regarding any obligatory provisions along those lines in a DOR.  Thank
you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Bruce, Bruce Tonkin.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   Hi, my name's Bruce Tonkin, and I'm a member of the
ICANN board.  Just want to clarify -- just probably maybe it's use of
language, but in sum, your concern there, if I understand correctly, is
if there's a contract and it says you must buy [[a buy, let's call it
an ITF standard, that normally an organization, ITF standards are
published, and normally organizations make their own decision within
their community.  And they might say, you know, for that community, we
direct you to, you know, apply that standard.  It's not the ITF that
tells you to do that, it's usually the community that makes that
decision.

 In terms of the benefit of putting something in writing, would it
make sense that an organization acknowledges that for IDNs to be
universally resolved that it is -- they acknowledge the recommendation
from ICANN to use such and such a standard, so the terminology there is
you're actually acknowledging in writing at some points that you know
about this standard and you're acknowledging that that's a
recommendation from, you know, ICANN, this global organization, to use
that standard.  'Cause I think there's benefit in actually,
acknowledging that.  It's not the same as saying, you know, we're
directing you to adhere to that standard, it's basically saying that we
acknowledge that that recommendation exist and we acknowledge that that
recommendation has come from a global community.  Would that kind of
terminology be more helpful?

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   I think so, that's a positive proposal,
Bruce.  I think the problem is a slightly different one.  And it's that
the registry policy for a ccTLD operator which is under direct
government control or public authority control, the policy is made by
the political institutions and therefore, people as unimportant as me
can't concede in advance, actually, that anybody else can make those
policies and neither would our registry, we'd have to instruct them
that they wouldn't be able to do that.  So it's more a procedure and
legal point rather than a technical one.

 I have full confidence, actually, that we, as the relevant public
authority, would be very concerned if they weren't respecting fully the
relevant standards.

 It's a question of, at the moment, in particular, actually, of
signing up for a protocol which hasn't yet been adopted, I understand. 
That would cause problems for us.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   You wouldn't be signing up to the protocol, you'd
be signing up to the fact that it exists and that that protocol is
recommended.

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Well, we'd see no benefit in signing up
actually.  We'd think it was our responsibility to ensure that they
respected it.  As the relevant public authority.  And I just think it
creates constitutional and legal problems for us, actually, to have it
in anything that may resemble a contract.  And it's to give advance
warning to the rest of the community that some situations exist like
that.  It's not a technical argument, it's not a problem with the IDNA
at all, actually, but it's a problem that's been highlighted by I think
the UPU situation and I think, and I'm sure they'll speak for
themselves but I think they're in the same situation, that there are
strict legal reasons why the policies for the registry will be made by
other parties than the GAC members here or indeed anyone else in the
ICANN communities, it's just a fact of life and a fact of international
law.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   Can I also clarify a question on cost recovery
Janis that you mentioned and you said the cost recovery of IDNs so if I
understand the logic you're saying that IDNs should be treated -- IDN
ccTLDs should be treated simply to ccTLDs and then you're saying that
you acknowledge that there should be some cost contributions but not
mandatory but that there would be some basis of saying, you know,
perhaps a suggestion of a method of contribution.  And then you talked
about the specific costs of IDNs.  Looking at this, I guess, as part of
the bigger picture, and let's say IDNs, you know, serve five to 10
years, it's more than just the cost of actually running that particular
IDN, but there's costs, I guess, in running ICANN as an operation and a
cost in global coordination.  

 So would you say that cost model that might come back and the
supplies not just to IDN ccTLDs but just call it ccTLDs in the general
category, that there's a concept that the cost model would include some
contributions maybe like the cost of holding this meeting and the cost
of renting this meeting room as one of the costs that ICANN has and
that, you know, a contribution to those costs would be included?  Just
want to get a sense of what's comments when you use the external of
"cost recovery," which costs.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So I -- I think that that is a subject of further
discussions when we will see, in fact, the breakdown of different
costs.  Now we are talking about -- we're talking in abstract.  Once we
will see really a breakdown, once we will see what -- what issue costs
how much, so then it will be much more informed discussion.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   So the benefit is us providing transparency on what
the costs are.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Indeed.  And I think that what's important at
that moment is acknowledgment that costs associated with the IDNs
should be recovered by ccTLDs -- IDN -- operators.  So -- but we cannot
go beyond that at this point simply because we don't have sufficient
information and we don't have any proposal to discuss.  So now we are
speaking more or less in abstract.  So once things will be on the table
we'll be happy to look at them, we'll be happy to discuss in-depth and
try to define what is feasible, what is not feasible.  So -- I'm not
sure whether that is -- now it's time to enter into discussion but
simply give you an example.

 There are countries in the world which are using different from Latin
script, where currency is not convertible.  So you cannot ask that
particular operator to pay in convertible currency because simply they
cannot do that.  So how to address that type of situation.  That is
very complex.  And that should be described in a proposal and that we
can understand that and we can comment and then propose maybe
solutions.  Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO GAETANO:   Thank you, chairman.  I have a comment and a
question.  The comment is that considering that what we are talking
about are not policies but are technical standards, ITF technical
standards that the operators have to comply with.  I'm sure that we can
find a way around it.  Because, for instance, by observation, if I
think about another similar situation as the GSM phones, huh?  The GSM
standards have been developed by the GSM consortium and by ETSI which
are private organizations.  If in some countries they have been, then,
converted into, in the legal framework of the countries, that's a
separate issue, but in the origin, those are standards for operating a
network developed by a private organization.

 So I'm sure that a national operators, national telecom operators
that are operating GSM networks, and I'm sure that they are bound to
comply with those standards.  So I think we can find a similar solution
for our case.  That shouldn't be a big issue.

 The important issue is that we're not talking about policies, but we
are talking about technical standards in the -- in this context.

 The question that I have is:  if we don't have any mechanism -- well,
actually, let me start from the beginning.

 Suppose that an IDN ccTLD operator starts doing things that violate
the standards.  And by doing this creates a problem to the whole
network.  There have been cases for instance in the case of -- for the
wild card in the gTLD world.  So it's not impossible that the situation
like this happens.

 So we have an IDN ccTLD operator that creates problem to the whole
network.  Not only in the boundaries of the country, but also outside
the boundaries of the country.

 What are the mechanisms that we can use in order to solve the problem
for the rest of the world if we don't have -- if ICANN doesn't have a
mechanism which is either a contract or whatever, how can you envisage
to solve this problem from -- by a rogue IDN ccTLD that may belong to a
countries that is not even a member of the GAC or, you know, how -- how
are we going to deal with this situation?  I think that this is the
main -- the main concern.  And this is what brings us to this path.

 If this path -- if the path of the contract is not practicable we
need to find another way but I need the answer to this question. 
Because we are talking about facts of life.  The facts of life is that
we cannot allow problems worldwide in the Internet created by an entity
that we don't have any mechanism to pull out from the network.  Thank
you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Well, we're contemplating answer to your
question, Paul.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Well, thank you, Janis, and one of my -- I had two
questions and one observation.  And one of my questions has been asked.
I think this is a very serious question to think about.  Further, just
in the historical -- two historical contexts, well, two contexts of
this question of what to do if something goes wrong is -- at least the
advice I hear from technical people and members -- to the members of
the board and members of the board is that this is going to be a
protocol and this is going to be an experience that doesn't bring the
30 years of listability of the ASCII environment.  

 And so this -- there is -- I certainly hear concerns from some of the
technical people, not that they say, you know, this particular thing's
wrong or this particular -- but there are voices that say to me and say
to us, you just don't -- we don't know what will happen yet in these
implementation issues that we just don't know will happen with --
happen yet.  

 Secondly, if we're frank about it, we also know that in this
particular space, there have been quite a number of attempts of various
proprietal systems for IDNs in attempts to have proprietal systems
adopted by certain governments and certain country codes, et cetera. 

 So there's a history of some fragmentation of approach here.  Now,
hopefully we're moving beyond that.  

 So I think that's some of the motivation which asks around this
question both about we don't know what will happen and not taking a
fragmented approach to adopting different -- a different approach in
each country.  And the observation I'd also make concerning that is
that in the DOR, the other sort of responsibility is just that ICANN
and that particular operator entered into discussions in good faith, if
there is an issue that emerges.  And again, that's -- has been raised
by others particularly where there are issues of character variance
across CCs or across IDN CCs of what happens if my neighbor does
something and it affects my users?  How -- you know, how am I going to
be able to raise that with them?  So that's one of the other questions
that have been asked to us which is another reason why we had this --
we have an obligation to talk.

 The second point I'll make and then come to my question, the second
point I'll make is I think we ought to be a little careful about saying
what's the status of the ASCII allocations.

 Becky Burr, in another place today -- and for those of you who don't
know, Becky Burr was for quite a period of time with the national NTIA
in the United States -- made at least her observation that it had
always been her consideration that [IRC 1591 was actually part of a
contractual basis for the allocation of country codes.  I would have to
say to you -- there is some uncertainty about that because there were
some allocations prior to March 1994 which is has been [IRC 1591 was
actually proclaimed by John.  But I would say to you that in some
redelegations certainly at the request of relevant government, failure
to comply with 1591 has been a reason why a particular redelegation has
taken place. 

 So I think we ought to be a little careful about any supposition to
say that there is no -- I'm going to say contractual in inverted commas
-- that there is no conditions upon the allocations of the ASCII to the
codes, and 1591 does actually have quite a number of quite specific
requirements concerning technical standards to be followed by the CC --
the CC operator.  So it's a -- I just put that as an observation on the
table.

 The specific question I have for you, Bill, is -- and tell me if I've
got this wrong -- but the point you're raising is this issue of the
specific circumstances facing treaty organizations.  

 What's the difference between an IDN ccTLD in a [[framework and the
procedures that took place with the allocation of dot eu and ASCII? 
Because my understanding of that process -- and that really was in a
time when ICANN had an old contract which we sort of moved away from,
but I understood in that process that the commission actually made it a
condition of the operator to enter into such a agreement.  

 So if, in the past, the commission made a condition for the operator
to enter into a contract with ICANN, can you explain to me what was
different then to now in terms of your political -- sort of political
point you're making, although legal-political point you're making?

 >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Well, on that point, actually, I have to --
I have to plead a little bit of consideration, actually, because I'm
not a lawyer and I wasn't involved in the negotiation or indeed the
contract but I'm happy to come to you on that at a later date.  The
observation I would make, Paul, and it's not an attempt to, you know,
torpedo the logic which I do understand, actually, about the need for
contracts is, you know, Roberto's bad-case scenario is one that would
horrify us as well as governments, we don't want it to happen.  

 I think the problem is I don't understand how a DOR would help or a
contract would help.  Because there are two possibilities.  You've
either got a good-faith registry operator who has deviated from the
IDNA protocol in a way which is destabilizing the DNS, and I imagine
it's an easy matter to contact them and correct that, or you have a bad-
faith operator that's not going to care that he signed the DOR.  And in
that case probably the only people who can sort that out is the local
government of the country concerned, that ICANN would have to contact
them.  And a DOR won't help, a DOR won't help, because the government
aren't signatories to any DOR, actually.  

 So I just don't know how in the real scenario we've got a bad guy,
how it would help.  I mean, I presume we're not talking about the
nuclear operation of taking them out at the root.  And one of my
concerns is that a lot of good-faith registries and public
administrations who are supporting ICANN can have problems from
anything that looks like a contract in this situation.  But the bad
guys will sign a DOR, is my guess.  Because they can't see what you can
really do about it once they're in the root.  To be very blunt,
actually.  So I just really wonder whether the medicine is worse -- or
the cure is worse than the illness, actually, whether you create more
problems than you would really solve in the real world to deal with
that particular scenario.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.  Jean-Jacques and after that Roberto.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you.  I've been following this very
carefully, but I have a couple of comments.  The first is that as a
member -- as a citizen of a member state of the EU, I do realize how
important, of course, that can be, as a real case, perhaps also as an
example, but I'm wary that it may not cover the total reality of the
world and the variety of situations.

 Listening to this, I have the sense that the crux of the matter is
not so much how you consider technical standards or what definition
related to that.  I suppose we can come around that.  I speak here as
someone who has some experience of the kind of difficulties you face
every day in the GAC.  I was an ambassador for a number of years.  And
I would suggest to this assembly here that perhaps, unless it's already
existing and in my ignorance I'm not aware that it is operating, but I
would suggest setting up a small working group which would include, of
course, GAC, ccNSO, others and board and staff, if Peter and Paul agree
to that, to look at the -- not so much as the history of all of this
because I think that is rather well-known, but perhaps to look at the
positions, the variety of positions represented on the GAC from which
it would be possible to arrive at a set of solutions palatable to all
representatives around this table.

 In one word I think it could be sox sort of never mind what you call
it, memorandum of understanding or whatever.  But it would have to
include some sort of mechanism for enforcement.  I know that the word
"enforcement" is not acceptable to sovereign states, so I propose that
simply because I'm not a native English speaker and I cannot, for the
love of me, come up with a better word just now but we certainly would
have to find something else.  So my propose is setting up a small
working group.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques, Roberto.

 >>ROBERTO GAETANO:   Yes, just in answer, we are talking, yes, of the
case of somebody who is doing something in bad faith because in good
faith we don't have any problem.  What worries me is that if we have a
framework in which somebody, some operators can start operating without
any constraint of any sort where there is no paper, no legal
obligation, nothing to comply to a certain set of rules, if this is the
situation, we have no mechanism.

 Now, I'm not saying that we need to have a contract.  What I'm saying
is that we need to find out how to have such a mechanism to put
pressure on the party that is misbehaving.

 If we don't have any way to pressure this party, and if the solution
is only the sovereign government that -- in which jurisdiction the
party's operating, I find it personally a little bit weak.  Because I
can think of circumstances in which international organizations -- I
don't want to make examples, but international organizations have
difficulties in enforcing international treaties with some member
states that have voluntarily signed those treaties.  And if you're
talking about the nuclear option by pulling the plug under the ccTLD,
what I might evoke with this is a nuclear option that is a little bit
more harmful.  Those are the situations that have been created in
history to deal with certain particular cases.

 So because of this, I don't want to have a situation by which we are
only dependent on one government that might be -- might have 1,001
reasons for not complying with the rule that the best of the Internet
has given itself.  So in order to make a long matter short, I'm not
saying we need a contract, but mine was a question, we need to have a
mechanism by which we can ensure that everybody is behaving and if
somebody's misbehaving we can take any action in order to stop this
misbehavior.

 If we don't have this sort of assurance, I'm afraid that we cannot
put at risk the rest of the Internet, even the ASCII TTLDs, everybody,
so if we don't have this kind of framework, we cannot proceed, we
cannot take the risk to go ahead with the IDN ccTLDs.  And that will be
a major disaster because there are communities that are waiting for
having their TLDs in their own script, in their own language.  And I
think that we have to try to get together and to put aside some formal
issues and come to a solution that will allow governments on one side
but also the Internet community on the other side to come to a common
ground in order to ensure that those major disasters won't happen and
that we can deploy the ccTLD, the IDN ccTLDs.  Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Yes, Peter, please.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Just building on what Roberto said, I
think, Bill, there are a number of very simple answers to your
proposition that because it may not be enforceable you shouldn't have
it, and I think that's too simplistic, with respect.  There's a lot of
advantages in having an agreement even if there may be doubts, in the
end, about its enforceability.  And as Roberto's indicated, the first
one of those is the clarity that comes with the obligations.  There's a
huge advantage in having a clear set of statements of what the
obligations and responsibilities are.  Because once you've got that
clarity, you can then build trust.  And you can prevent mistakes.  And
you've got a framework in which you can operate which, you know, the
absence of it is much more problematic.

 The other thing about a written agreement is that there's some
publicity around it.  So others who may want to get into the system has
a known mechanism and know in advance what the requirements are going
to be.  And there are, as Roberto's indicated, other pressures that can
be brought to bear in the absence of a formal contract enforcement. 
And the Internet is a connection of -- it's an interconnection of
operators and users.  And the power of peer pressure in that when
everyone is at risk by a bad actor I think is something we have always
relied on, in fact, to keep things going and it's something we should
continue to rely on.  But in the absence of clarity about what the
obligations are, there can sometimes be a lack of justification for
taking action.  

 So clarity of obligations, able to prove and point to breach or bad
conduct means that if you do have to take action, you've got a clear
justification line which may in the end lead to what Roberto doesn't
want to call a nuclear option.  

 So I think the modern reality of running a system which is the
operating system for the world requires some kind of clarity, modern
systems.  The days when these were handed out without those records
which seems to be what you want to continue, I suggest is just an old-
fashioned view and would be unacceptable to almost any other business
or any other organization. 

 So we need to adopt modern standards, record who we are dealing with,
what the promises each makes to each other are.  And.

 And I understand that as a matter of final practicality, many, if not
all of the countries who are indicating that they do want to take part
in the fast track have indicated that they will sign.  So I wonder
whether this is an intellectual rather than a practical exercise.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Peter.

 Bertrand is willing to take the floor.  But before giving him the
floor, I would like to react to what Jean-Jacques said and also
contribute to the discussion.

 What you said, Peter, maybe is absolutely correct in a rational
world.  But as we know, the world is not always rational.  The world
sometimes is political.  And politicians are not always very rational
people.  They make decisions based on irrational assumptions.  So,
therefore, we need to be aware that decision to sign or not to sign may
be taken based on political considerations.  And they may not be
rational.

 So --  And now we are facing situation if there is a political
consideration not to sign compulsory documentation of responsibilities,
whether that automatically means that there is no way IDN ccTLD should
be created in that particular country.

 So -- and that is a very serious question of ICANN's image.  And if
that happens, there certainly will be a lot of noise elsewhere.  And we
have experienced a number of times that ICANN has been criticized for
one and another reason.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Janis, a very quick response to that is, of
course, immediately to throw the obligation to explain themselves onto
the person who won't follow what the rest of the community is doing. 
Get them to identify why they won't sign a contract, which will
highlight the very irrationality on which you predicated that comment.

 So if they won't sign for an irrational reason, let them go in front
of the international community and demonstrate their irrationality. 
That is not a problem of ICANN's making that an irrational party won't
sign a rational agreement.

 I can see living with that situation.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Bertrand, please.

 >>FRANCE:   Just a few quick points.

 The first thing is, as RFC 1591 was mentioned, it's always good to go
back to documents.  And I must confess that I'm longing to find again
the concision and the quality of writing that used to be the case at
that time.  And it's an opportunity to pay tribute to -- Steve
Goldstein was explicitly mentioned in the RFC 1591.

 The reason why I mention this is because there is a formulation that
I think we should keep in mind, which is that in case of CCs, the
designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the
nation, and in the case of a country code, and the global Internet
community.

 I think it's important that we keep in mind that there is a sort of
dual responsibility and that there is a combination between the strong
sovereign rights and a duty to not have a behavior that harms the rest
of the community.  First point. 

 The second point is that, it may have escaped me before, but I find
very interesting the argument that is emerging now of the potential
impact on the rest.

 I must confess that I had not understood that so far.  And I don't
know if this is the case for others.  Or maybe it slipped my attention.

 Is it really the case that there is a strong difference with the way
the ASCII TLDs are run and that there is a potential that one
misbehavior has a ripple effect to the rest?  I would be interested in
having, not here right now, but having a little more explanation on the
technical way this can have an impact.  Because this is a very
important argument.

 Now, on the question of the types of agreement, if any agreement is
in case, the fundamental rationale is the connection between the first
two points I was making.  If there is, indeed, a risk that the
misbehavior of one actor has a ripple effect to the rest of the system,
including ASCII, then this is an important element regarding what I
said about RFC 1591.

 But then this means that the key element in the requirement is the
technical compliance.  At the same time, for the reason of the
political environment that Janis was mentioning, I would also like to
avoid that this becomes a debate that pits two conceptions one against
the other, and that there's a sort of western type of who will blink
first, you know, I will impose a contract, no, you won't, because I'm
sovereign.  This is not in the interest of the global community.

 Hence, I mentioned that earlier in the interaction we had with the
GNSO, is there a way to explore -- provided that we have addressed the
first two points -- is there a way to explore something that would
identify at the ICANN level by all of the communities a certain number
of really technical strong requirement that need to be respected to
prevent the ripple effect, one?

 And second, whenever a country doesn't want that its own ccTLD has a
contract with ICANN, that it is actually incorporating those
requirements at the national level in the contract or in the framework
that it is establishing for its own delegation?  So it would be a two-
step mechanism.  If country code manager or countries want to accept
the contract, fine.  But if there is a reluctance for having a
agreement on that, could it be possible that the rules are established
and that instead of being embedded in an agreement between ICANN and
the ccTLD manager, it would be embedded into a relationship between the
national operator and the CC operator?  Is this an avenue?

 Chris was mentioning the fact that it's a chicken and egg problem and
there's no need to explore this direction if the governments are not
willing to explore it.  But I just wanted to raise it here, because I
don't want this to remain a sort of positioning.  

 We need concrete action, and I fully support Manal. If there is no
danger of a real ripple effect, can we handle it the way it was handled
before, as a progressive introduction of voluntary agreements?

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bertrand.

 Chris.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thanks, Janis.

 A couple of points just on yours, Bertrand. 

 Just so that we're clear, what I'm saying is that I think that has
merit, but I would need to know first that it has merit from a
government side as well as merit from our side, because there's a lot
of work to be done to do that.

 I just want to make a couple of points.  It seems to me that
sometimes we might be losing sight of a couple of things.

 If you just take -- if you take the compliance with the IDNA protocol
just out for a moment and say the general feeling of everybody is that
it does need to be complied with and we should try and find a mechanism
by which you can -- you comply with it.  That, it seems to me, removes
any difference between an existing ASCII ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD.  And
we've been talking for the last few days about, you know, there are
these legacy ccTLDs that Jon Postel, you know, sent out e-mails on and
et cetera, et cetera and that's true.  But there are also a quite
significant number of new ccTLDs that have been delegated over the last
few years that have been delegated in precisely the same terms.

 As the delegations to Jon.  And they've been by Jon and delegated
with accountability frameworks and delegated with voluntary payments. 
And I forget when the last one was, but it happens all the time.

 And, actually, it seems to me that with the exception -- unless I'm
missing something -- with the exception of the IDNA protocol
requirements, they're the same.

 Oh, sorry.  I also wanted to say that I strongly support Jean-
Jacques's suggestion of a small working group.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Chris.

 Yeah, I forgot to say, I think that that is worth trying.  But all
the time we need to be cognizant that whatever agreement we -- or not
agreement, but compromise we may reach here on this very subject, that
may be easily overruled by a sovereign decision of a country, of a
government.

 So that is -- that's the reality.

 Paul.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Chairman, I hate to do this, but can I put one of
the -- I think the Canadians sometimes say the dead moose under the
table, can I please put it out?

 If one of the irrationalities -- and I'm afraid I don't find -- I
think I find government actors normally act rationally, they just act
according to different criteria.  If one of the so-called
irrationalilities is a desire from a government to have an IDN ccTLD
but not to enter into any communications with ICANN and/or a California-
based nonprofit organization, people should be aware that this is only
the first stage of the process.

 The second stage of the process is the delegation into the IANA into
the root zone.  And IANA processes will require communication from the
government to confirm, just as we do with redelegations, it will
require communication from the government to confirm that this is the
operator and that it supports the application.

 So just in case we need any clarity about one of the potential
sources of irrationality, it's not going to be just an issue about
whether there's an accountability framework.  So I just want to be
clear about it.  Because I want people to understand that there is --
there's a two-part process here for IDN ccTLDs.  There is the process
of this and then there's going to be the process of delegation where
that's going to be important.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you.

 Manal.

 >>EGYPT:   This might sound redundant again, but, I mean, we are all
fully supporting the principle of abiding by the technical standards. 
I mean, we are all in agreement in principle.  The problem is the
mechanism, how we can enforce this or if we can find a better word.

 And my concern was that we try to separate those discussions, the
discussion on financial contributions and agreements from the current
fast track, so that we don't delay the fast track anymore.  And maybe
by separating those and discussing them further, we can come with
creative solutions such as what Bertrand just suggested or on the
financial level, maybe we can find even financial creative mechanisms
to cover the ICANN costs without overburdening every single ccTLD who
might not be able to contribute.

 And I forgot.  Sorry.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So thank you, Manal.

 I think that --  You remembered?  Go ahead.

 >>EGYPT:   Yes.  I just -- I was going to add that, I mean, we don't
want to create hostility by saying that we'll tie the IDN ccTLD
delegation versus other either agreements or financial contributions. 
And we don't want a ready registry with the government's approval to be
rejected simply because of financial aspects or political aspects,
which we all know it's the main problem for the agreements.

 And maybe again we can come with something creative as having some
sentences or closes in an online application where people can just
click "I agree."  Again, I'm not a lawyer.  I don't know how enforcing
is this online thing.  But maybe the problem is in the signature itself.

 I mean, we can come with solutions.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Manal.

 I think that we have spent a lot of time, and it was very fascinating
discussion.  I believe that board members understood maybe better where
GAC representatives are coming from and vice versa.  The information
you provided to us, the way how you feel how you think, how you see
this issue is very useful also for better understanding.

 What I would like to say maybe, if you would allow to conclude this
discussion, is only one thing.  All creative solutions for fast track,
we hope, will be fine until end of the year or 2009 annual meeting of
the GAC.  Because we really hope that that meeting will be where the
board will take decision to give a green light to roll out of IDN ccTLDs.

 So Korea, I think that this is a very appropriate place, the country
with a different script.  That would be also a good communication
possibility.

 So let us work together to try to reach that target date in Korea.

 So if you would allow, we could move to the next item, new gTLDs
applicant guidebook.

 GAC -- to launch this discussion, GAC is working on comments to the
first version of the guidebook, though in a runup to this meeting,
Mexico meeting, we had a conference call with Kurt during which he
briefed us on proposed changes.  And we -- we were -- we knew what is
coming, but, nevertheless, majority of our comments, in our view, are
not covered in the next version.  And certainly we will continue our
consideration of the second version of the guidebook.

 Just to give you a preview of comments we are working on, it is a
general vision of the domain name name space that is the limits of the
single fee structure, it is a fee level and management of surplus, that
is importance of contract compliance, and the reduction of need for
defensive registration, that is auctioning versus competitive bidding,
IDNs, and still geographic names.

 So we hope that we will be able to conclude our consideration of
comments tomorrow and that will become a part of our communiqué.

 And we will certainly let us know on the progress.

 I know that there were a number of issues GAC members wanted to
raise.  And I think that Victor from Brazil will launch this debate.

 >>BRAZIL:   Thank you very much, Janis.

 I would like to comment that, first of all, I can't help expressing
the frustration of the Brazilian delegation with the fact that some
recommendations of the GAC new gTLD document issued in March 2007, two
years ago, have not yet been incorporated in the applicant guidebook, I
think even not in the second version that it did not evaluate.

 But in spite of that, I would like to comment that we had a very
positive meeting with the GNSO council yesterday.  And I think we could
think of exploring some alternatives to the suggestion of having
negative lists for both first-level and second-level geographic names.

 So I would like to mention some of these possibilities that Brazil is
considering.  I'm not speaking on behalf of the GAC, of course, because
I think the valid document when it comes to the GAC is the principles
adopted in 2007.

 But one possibility is that instead of having a negative list for the
first level, governments could have the right to object to new TLDs at
no cost during the evaluation period of any given gTLD whenever it
consideration that a geographic name is at stake.

 And when it comes to the second level, I think a mix of two
solutions, two remedies that could help protect geographic names.

 The one would be a sunrise period in any second-level gTLD in which
governments could object to geographic names if they so opt.

 And a second possibility in this regard is that it would be
interesting if we explored the possibility of having something similar
to the UDRP to protect geographic names.

 Everybody in this room, I think, recognizes that a company that has
registered a trademark should have the right to have -- to see it
protected in the second level.  And I think it would be interesting if
we considered that names of cities and regions should have the right to
enjoy the same privileges.

 So we could think of developing a similar policy to protect
geographic names as that would resemble the one we have to protect
trademarks.

 Of course, circumstances are, to a certain extent similar, and to a
certain extent different.  But I think both sorts of names should --
deserve protection.

 Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Victor.

 Peter.  And Rita afterwards.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Just an immediate quick response.

 Of course, the fact that they're in the original GAC communication
isn't -- doesn't necessarily mean that they will ever make it into the
guidebook.

 If there is a difference between what the GAC recommends and what the
board adopts, that will necessarily require us to have the consultation
that the bylaws provide.  And I think you've identified an area where
there is, in fact, a head-on conflict which the board does have to
resolve between the policy advice given to us by the GNSO in relation
to geographic names, and that recommended by the GAC.

 So I will be attempting to bring that to a head.  And as I say, if
the eventual decision is not to accept the GAC recommendations, but to
accept the GNSO recommendations, we will be coming back to resolve that
with you.

 I'm very -- I think it's very unlikely, given the previous history,
that the UDRP would ever be extended to include geographic names,
largely on the basis that that was the subject of an extensive piece of
work by the GNSO some years ago and resulted in the most uniform and I
think most supported position the GAC -- the GNSO has ever adopted.

 So if there was an attempt to extend the UDRP that way, I think we
would be back in the same situation.

 But, yes, that is an issue that now has to be resolved.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Peter.

 Rita.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   I just want to make sure that I understand
what the representative from Brazil is proposing.  He wants to -- in
addition to the UDRP, he wants to have lists of things that cannot be
registered.

 Is that right?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Victor, could you answer?

 >>BRAZIL:   Sorry.  I -- could you please repeat the question.  I
couldn't listen to that.  I'm sorry.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   Sure.  Sorry, Victor.

 I just want to make sure I understand.  

 What you're proposing is that there are certain, if you will,
policies that the GAC is recommending with respect to these new gTLDs;
is that right?

 >>BRAZIL:   Yes.  What we are recommending is that we have a twofold
protection.  In one direction, it could have -- we could agree on
principles that -- regarding the use of geographic names in the second
level.  And either -- so whenever an application -- whenever a domain
name is registered, and under a sunrise period, this could be checked
against these criterias.

 But, of course, that this sort of thing has not only to do with use,
but -- not only to do with names, it might have to do with use.  So I
could think it's acceptable to have, say, "Rio de Janeiro" in a second
level of a domain name, provided that the use is not offensive to the
city.  But if it becomes offensive to the city, then we would have the
right to object to the use of this name in the second level.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   Right.  I don't mean to cut you off.  

 I understand.  So I'm trying to get to the point, which is, you want
principles that you all agree to, and you want ICANN to impose those
principles on new gTLD operators?

 >>BRAZIL:   I think we should find a mechanism that would do -- that
would play the same role when it comes to geographic names as is played
by, say, WIPO when it comes to trade -- registered trademarks.

 >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:   Right.  And the way that that will happen is
by a contract between ICANN and the gTLD operator.  So I'm trying to
make the point, which is, you all will find principles that you want to
apply to new gTLDs.  And what we're trying to get you to understand is
that others want these same principles to apply to IDN ccTLDs.

 This is why we have a fundamental disconnect and why we need --
people on the board feel as though we need some way to have policies
that apply to these IDN ccTLDs.  So I was just trying to make that
point.  That it's an argument that you have on behalf of gTLDs and that
others have on behalf of IDN ccTLDs.

 >>BRAZIL:   Yes, yes.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Rita.

 Paul.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Thank you, Janis.  And thank you, Victor, for your
question.

 Victor, I'm a little confused.  So perhaps you can help me.

 After the GAC made that recommendation, I convened a teleconference
with GAC members, together with senior ICANN staff, and we spent some
hours talking through potential ways to implement those -- would it be
possible to actually implement the recommendations or the things that
were in the principles.

 That was in October of last year.

 Following up from that teleconference, I wrote to the GAC or to the
chair of the GAC, outlining proposals for how these could be
implemented and also pointing out that some aspects of the principles
were, in our view, probably not implementable, or that they had adverse
consequences that, at least on the telephone call, the GAC members had
not considered and recognized as such.

 We have not received a response.  At the end of that letter, I
actually asked for some response to that, and comments.  We have not
received a response in writing from the GAC to that letter.  So I'm
somewhat -- I'd like --  We have actually incorporated into the draft
guidelines what we had actually outlined in that letter.  So I'd like
some clarity as to what it is that you're claiming we have sort of --
we have ignored in terms of ignoring the policy, and certainly would
very much appreciate receiving a response to the letter of October 2008.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Please, Victor.

 >>BRAZIL:   May I?

 I'm not saying that it is ignored.

 And if I sounded as not recognizing the efforts to incorporate the
GAC comments, please, I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to say that.

 But the fact remains that some of our concerns have not been
contemplated in the current document.  And I -- version one that we
analyzed.  Nor do I -- nor, I think, it's been contemplated in version
two that we had not yet had time to analyze.

 And our recommendations with regard to that are two years old.

 So I think when it comes to responses and time to respond, I think we
presented our advice in due time.

 Now, what I meant here is that we are trying to explore other ways to
have our -- to safeguard geographic names from abuses in other ways,
and we're trying to explore this with GNSO Council.  And we had a
positive meeting in this regard yesterday.  So I just try to anticipate
some possibilities here.  They were not endorsed by the GAC.  These are
just possibilities I'm suggesting now.  So that's the context.

 And the GAC could not have had a position, an official position,
after that phone call unless it had a (inaudible) meeting.  Because our
rules impose that the GAC just pronounces and presents in meetings.

 Thank you.

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   Well, Victor, can I just say that in the letter in
October, we did try to go through in quite some detail all of the
provisions of the particular clauses that related to geographical
terms.  And where we thought it was not implement -- where we thought
some of the terms were vague or not implementable, we have actually
made it quite clear in that letter from me the difficulty we faced. 
And we are happy to receive back from the GAC any letter which could
give us further clarity around how to address those areas we saw there
was difficulty to actually implement.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Paul.  I just wanted to clarify.

 We -- after reception of your letter, I circulated it to the GAC
list, and all GAC members received it.

 We did discuss questions outlined in the letter, and through
communiqué in Cairo, we acknowledged that a number of our proposals
have been implemented in the draft guidebook, particularly ones you
outlined in your letter.  But some GAC members felt still that a couple
of -- a couple of recommendations, or let's put it this way, some GAC
members felt that the response given was not ploy satisfactory.  And
particularly it was expressed in Cairo communiqué in relation to GAC
principle in the paragraph 2.7(a).

 And so I am not sure that we will be preparing a specific letter in
response to your letter, because we consider that communiqué gave a
feedback to your letter in certain extent.

 Bertrand.

 >>FRANCE:   Thank you.

 Two dimensions.

 The first thing is, following the discussions within the community, I
think it is interesting to have in mind a sort of tryptic here.  We
have the ASCII new gTLDs.  We have the IDN ccTLDs.  And there is, in
the middle, a sort of orphaned group that is paid a bit less attention,
I feel, which is the IDN gTLDs.  And one of the reasons is probably
because they accumulate the problems of the two.  They are IDNs and
they are new gTLDs, plus there's the problem of the transliteration of
some of the existing gTLDs in ASCII potentially in other scripts.  Just
to mention as an example the question of, should there be a dot org in
Cyrillic, knowing that, in Cyrillic, it would be written exactly the
same, for instance.

 But I just wanted to highlight the fact that in order to have an IDN
domain name space or multiscript domain name space that is balanced
with IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs, this category should maybe be given a
little bit more attention.

 But the main point I wanted to address was the question of the single
type of TLDs in the new gTLD process and what has become known now in
the discussions of the question of categories or classes of TLDs.

 The current guidebook has basically one single type of application,
with one exception, which is the community dimension.

 It is getting clearer and clearer that, actually, the distinction of
CCs on the one hand, and Gs on the other hand, is not a black-and-white
distinction anymore, if it has ever been, and that as we expand the
domain name space, we're getting at least in shades of grade, and
probably in two colors.

 The reality is that, in the document, for instance, any corporate TLD
cannot be considered as a generic top-level domain.  I'm sorry.  Dot
Disney is not exactly the same category of dot com, for instance.

 The reality is that in the discussions and in -- even in the current
guidebook, there is a hint of a recognition that, for instance,
geographic names are a form of category, be it alone, because after the
interaction with the GAC, a specific treatment is reserved for them.

 Likewise, all the discussions show that there is a global
understanding in the community that corporate TLDs, if we wall them
this way, have some types of specific requirements or specific
characteristics.  In addition, our colleague from the UPU this
afternoon was also mentioning that the nature of the applicant can
sometimes make a difference and that maybe international organizations
shouldn't be treated exactly the same way as a company, a for-profit
applicant.

 I'm painting this landscape, because we're confronted to a situation
which is the following:  There is a growing recognition and desire
within the community as a whole that the concept of categories or
classes be given a chance.  I think it was clearly demonstrated in the
SO/AC session yesterday, with the showing of cards, where,
fundamentally, there is a desire from all categories to explore this. 
I attended today the registry constituency meeting and the registrar
constituency meeting, and in both meetings was exposed to this request.

 On the other side of this community desire, until now, and maybe
there's some evolution in the last few days, the constant answer of the
staff has been it's raising more problems than it can solve, it is very
difficult to implement, and the community concept is enough to solve
all those aspects.

 I am concerned with the situation and we should be concerned with the
situation where a clear desire from the community is not taken into
account.  If there is a bottomup approach this is a clear desire that
is coming up from the bottom up and so to be fair to the staff we are
in a situation where all the burden are solving the problems is on the
staff.  And honestly, it is very difficult for them because they don't
have fundamentally neither the capacity or the legitimacy or the
mission to iron out all the differences that can exist between the GAC,
for instance, or the GNSO on that subject of geographic names so I
would like to conclude by saying, one, I think there is a growing
consensus not only with the GAC but also within the community that at
least the notion of categories should be explored a little and second,
on the very specific gaze of gTLD we had an interaction with the GNSO
and I wanted to share with you the fact that we're exploring the
possibility of setting up a sort of joint informal working group for
exploring this because fundamentally it should be the responsibility of
the SO and the AC's concern and the rest of the community, not the
staff, to iron out very concrete questions that are between the two SOs
and ACs.  But I think it's an important question in terms of process,
if the community wants it, how to make sure that this is taken into
account and explored.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Thank you, Bertrand.  I don't know whether there
is a wish to react from the board's side on that proposal.  If not,
Harald.

 >>HARALD TVEIT ALVESTRAND:   It -- a personal comment is that it
seems clear that, as you say, people are coming to the conclusion that
sticking with black and white between the CC and the G space isn't the
way forward and I think that's possibly the biggest change I've seen in
the community in this meeting.  And so speaking personally I think it's
very much world exploring this.  It's not clear whether we can -- how
far we can explore this without significantly delaying the introduction
of the Indy TLDs that everyone seems to want to have real quickly but,
yes, I think so this is worth exploring.  Thank you for opening up.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Harald, that was not really a good note to finish
this discussion.  Because in our dreams, we see that another green
light is given in Korea and that is for the new gTLDs.  So -- and I
think that we still have time, there is a clear will to work on these
subjects, and we need to prove that we can roll out both IDN ccTLDs and
new gTLDs at the same time and the start will be given in Korea.

 We have another 10 minutes left for our session, and I would like to
maybe move on to the -- skip the question of WHOIS, just acknowledging
that -- acknowledging reception of the reply and thanking Paul for the
substantive information.  And move on to the JPA alias PSC alias GAC
reform question.  So we know that there will be a session and the PSC
report will be presented, but as it was already mentioned in Cairo, we
would like to engage with the board on seeking or discussing the role
of the GAC in ICANN and how it is perceived from the board side since
this commitment was undertaken by signing the JPA agreement and in this
respect I would like to ask what is the intentions of the board in
relation to addressing this question.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Janis, can I respond first by saying you
seem to be raising two different things.  One is the PSC, and the
proper response to that has to come from the PSC, not from the board. 
The board has only just received the PSC committee report.  And -- oh,
hasn't received it, receives it for Friday, so hasn't even received it
yet.  After the session tomorrow -- tomorrow?  Yes.  

 So I think now is really not the appropriate forum.  But in
anticipation of this request, what staff supporting the PSC have done
is prepare an analysis showing where in the PSC report GAC comments
have been responded to or in some cases where they haven't been.  It's
generally because they're being dealt with somewhere else in the ICANN
engine.  

 So I think Paul is circulating that via you, Janis, are you going to
circulate them around the room?

 >>PAUL TWOMEY:   We have printed 100 copies, and we will give it to
Janis and the members of the GAC to pick it up, and it might help them
for the -- in listening to the discussion tomorrow.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   The second question really is slightly
different.  And that is the question about analyzing the role of the
GAC.  And I think we have some mixed signals here.  The item in the --
our position, as far as I understand this, was that the item that
currently appears in the joint project agreement was written when there
was in place a committee looking at that very issue.  There was a
working group between the GAC and the board working on improving
communications with the GAC to improve GAC effectiveness.  So that was
drafted at a time when that committee was in place and that's why it's
expressed in the way it is, that -- as a continuing exercise.

 Janis, as you and I well recall when you and I were discussing
yesterday, I think it was at the Lisbon meeting, we agreed that that
committee, it actually achieved its purpose and communications between
the GAC and the board were at a much better level.  And so that
committee was, by agreement, disbanded.  

 Now, what the PSC recommends -- to intrude into the PSC space for a
moment -- is to look at that question again and say is there a joint
mechanism that could be set up between the board and the GAC to, on a
wider scale, improve the effectiveness of the relationship and the
effectiveness -- workingness of the GAC inside the space.  

 So if the GAC accepts that recommendation by the PSC and if the board
accepts that recommendation by the PSC, then I assume we will be
talking about setting up another mechanism between the parties to
improve effectiveness.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So, thank you, Peter, for this explanation.  And
indeed myself, I was one of the cochairs of that joint working group
together with Alejandro Pisanty and at that time the issue was
reestablish the proper and timely communication links between the GAC
and the board and move GAC further in the interaction with different
constituencies.  So that -- in my view that has happened.  In Lisbon,
we really agreed that there was no -- the initial objectives of that
working group was attained and there wasn't any reason to continue the
work of that group.

 So certainly we're looking forward to read the PSC report, read the
recommendations.  We're looking forward to hear from the board, whether
the board will accept the PSC recommendations in their entirety.  And
we're looking forward to further engagement with the board on these
very important issues.

 For the GAC, I can tell you that the discussion and also actions to
constantly improve our working methods, our performance is always on
the agenda and this meeting was not different.  So we had a session
where we tried ourselves to define the role of the GAC and ICANN and
taking into account evolutionary developments.  And we are not -- we
are not yet to conclusions.  We hope that in Sydney we will be able to
conclude our discussions.  But I made one conclusion for myself.  I
understood one thing and maybe that is very trivial but I would like to
conclude this meeting by offering my conclusion, personal conclusion
from this discussion, that we -- we cannot gain expect of other
constituencies by saying that we are special.  We can gain this respect
by our performance, by our engagement, and by our added value to the
discussions within ICANN on different policies providing input on
public policy perspectives.  And this is what -- what I see,
personally, as our evolving role.  We need to improve our performance,
and through that, gain respect of others.  And I think that this is my
personal conclusion.

 So maybe on that note, I will give the floor to Heather.

 >>CANADA:   Thank you, Janis, I just wanted to make a proposal to the
board, actually, and you might consider this under the public
participation board committee work, under board visibility.  We've
noted that in the past we've actually had joint efforts that are more
informal.  Cocktail hours or receptions and this sort of thing.  And
that might be a useful opportunity for GAC members to get to know some
of the board and vice versa in an informal setting.  Clearly, there's a
lot of value to this format and, you know, these meetings should
continue, but that's something you might want to consider doing.  We
think there would be benefit.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Certainly, yes, I think that's an excellent
point and well taken.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   So, in other words, let's have a drink.

 [ Laughter ]

 So that brings to the end this session.  I would like to thank the
board members for spending time with us and engaging in discussions. 
It was very useful.  As usual, very interesting.  And I think that we
have progressed in our understanding where we're coming from.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Janis, can I thank you, and the GAC for
hosting the meeting.  And as usual, raising the most contentious
discussion and requiring us to think hard about what our position is. 
Can I also say how helpful it is in terms of the process having a GAC
representative on the board, something that we perhaps don't think
about, but we have the chairman of the GAC, you know, at almost all of
our meetings and almost all of our calls, and this is actually at the
GAC and that is a mechanism we should not overlook as I think greatly
improving the communication mechanism.  So I thank you, Janis,
personally for your role that way.  And thanks, also, to the other
board members.  Meeting closed?

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Closed.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

 >>CHAIR KARKLINS:   Let's have a drink.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Well, let me buy Heather a drink.