ICANN Public Forum Thursday 5 March 2009 Mexico City >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Good morning, everyone. Please, would you take your seats. We're about to begin. Thank you. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Has somebody hitched up a stethoscope to channel 1? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Peter Dengate Thrush. I'm the chairman of the board and chairing the open microphone session of our public forum today. Today is divided into three parts. The first session is a three-hour opportunity for the community to speak to the community and particularly to the board and for the board to listen. Just a couple of quick housekeeping announcements. It's occasionally thought that the board are ignoring comments because they have their laptops open. Let me assure you that is not the case. What the board are doing with their laptops in many occasions is actually communicating with each other and with me. We have a system where we use a Jabber room, and board members are asking to be put in the speaking cue, discussing an issue, and very often resolving whether they need to speak to an issue and agreeing that one other person, for example, can be the spokesman for that particular issue. There's a considerable housekeeping twang to me and to the meeting as a whole if the board can be communicating this way. So please don't think that people are doing their e-mail or doing something else when you're speaking. Secondly, I want to make a personal comment about the at large session this morning. Due to some confusion, some people thought I was going to be speaking, and I never thought I was. So there was certainly no intention on my part to give any indication of lack of support, if that was taken by the -- from the at large. I was in the audience, supporting from the floor and thought that was a fantastic closing session. And both Paul Twomey and I are delighted to have received -- I think 35 pages, Paul? -- of real content from the at large. And real policy positions and development. So congratulations to the at large, and what a wonderful summit. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Moving on to today, we've -- I just want to reconfirm our commitment to the public forum and to the open microphone session. We had a little bit of difficulty scheduling things in Cairo. Some people, I think, may have assumed as a result of that there was some lack of commitment to the process. There isn't. What we have done this time is made sure this three-hour session is completely available and not interrupted by visiting speakers or any other matter. What we've also done is to try and facilitate the asking of questions by people who cannot be here. We have had in the past online processes. And we've streamlined those at the invention of the general manager of public participation, Kieren, who has created the question box. That's been open now for about a week. And we have received 88 questions. And we will be closing that in about an hour and a half. And that's to allow us time to process those questions before the end of the meeting. The reason for that is, we know there are many people in the room for whom standing up in a microphone and asking a question is very difficult for cultural or linguistic reasons, as well as for those people who aren't here. what we've done with those questions and distributed them, among the board members. We will try to give the same reaction to those questions as if people were in the room. The other thing I have done is used those questions to try and structure today, because it's a little bit difficult to know what you want to talk about until you start talking. And it could be that all of you just want to talk about new gTLDs or it could be that all of you just want to talk about ICANN's finances. And somewhere between the middle, there may be a compromise. I'm going to use the questions from the floor as a way of guiding us. And I'm going to begin by opening the floor to questions on new gTLDs. That seemed to be a topic of considerable interest to most of us. It has certainly been a huge focus this week. So the microphone is open now for questions in relation to new gTLDs. While you are preparing yourselves to discuss that, let me tell you that the next question is going to be IDN ccTLDs. So when we have some sense that we've reached exhaustion or completion or satisfaction in relation to new gTLDs, we'll move on to IDN ccTLDs. After that, we will have a session on ICANN's finances and money. And the session following that will be questions in relation to public participation. So hopefully that gives you an indication of about the first half of this three-hour session. And I see to no surprise there are people who want to talk about new gTLDs. Remember the rules. Speak slowly and clearly, particularly if you have a difficult New Zealand accent or some other communication difficulty. And I'm not looking at Paul Twomey at all as I say that. [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Who shares with me an unusually antipodean accent. Remember this is being interpreted. Give the interpreters a chance to hear you and translate it so we get the best of your message. Please also introduce yourself and your affiliation. So with that, I'm here -- okay, I -- can I have the sound turned up for me, and I'll get closer. What I said, Rita, was welcome, everybody. Go right back to the beginning. Let's begin, please, new gTLDs. First in line. >>JAMES SENG: Hi. My name is James Seng. I'm from (saying name) Holdings. First I'd like to thank the staff, who has worked very hard on the revised gTLD RFP. And if you look at the quality of the document that has been produced, I think it has shown the dedication and the time and effort that the staff has put in, and I thank them for this effort. I have to pay attribute to staff because what I am going to say may sound ungrateful. But I certainly do not mean so. When I started using the Internet in the '90s, it's a very Anglo centric Internet. We have a vision back then that says we like to have an Internet that does not have English as prerequisite to use Internet. ISOC has a slogan at that time, that is Internet -- sorry, Internet for everyone everywhere. We had that in any languages. Snow 1999, I and my mentor, Dr. Tan, we build the IDNS system that demonstrates internationalized domain names, when everyone told us it can be done. I went on to chair the IETF working group. I spent a number of years in ICANN educating, doing presentations, conducting workshops on IDNs. And many people are aware of my effort over here. I dedicated nearly a decade of my time in IDN. And I do it with no regrets. So I'm pretty proud that we have come so far that I almost going to see my dream, a ten-year dream that we will have a fully internationalized domain name finally after so long. Yet, as we move on the next step forward on IDN gTLD, I'm also disappointed that ICANN remains as Anglo centric as ever. Why do I say that? I give you two examples. The first example, in the latest revision of the RFP, there is a legacy rule that says gTLD has to have at least three characters. Well, the latest draft took that arcane rule and applied that and said we're going to go from three ASCII characters to three Unicode characters, thinking that it works for the rest of the languages. It doesn't. A Unicode character in CJK, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, is a word. So when ICANN -- when the rule says that you need to have three characters or three Unicode characters, limitation in the gTLD, what you are saying is that you can have your English TLD, so long as three words. So there's no dot com. You can have the big corporation, big corporation, sorry, big corporation is not enough. It's crazy. But that's what ICANN is telling us, the CJK community. A second example is that I spent a number of years in the JT guideline -- sorry, joint engineering team that defines the JTE registration guideline. It's being embraced by ICANN. It's within used by IDN registration policies by registrar. But the IDN -- sorry, the gTLD RFP is totally silent on the JET guideline on IDN variants. I will not go into the IDN variants today. It's too complex for this open forum. But what it means is that ICANN's basically saying that you can have dot shop in lowercase, and I can give it to you. But if you want dot shop in uppercase, it's a separate application. Or worse, it's given to someone else. So I'm really disappointed. But at the same time, I'm also very glad. I spent a lot of time this week with the ICANN staff as well as several board members addressing this issue. And I am very glad to see the ICANN staff are extremely understanding and sympathetic to our cause. I'm not here to whine about the process. I'm here to bring proposal. I have made proposals, and I hope that the proposal will be considered and accepted in the amended draft. Let me end with a story. At a joint -- at the joint SO/AC meeting a couple of days ago, the moderator posed a question to the audience. In the RFP, do you agree that IDN TLD has the most well-defined mix to the audience. I think it's the only question that had unanimous consensus in the room. Everyone raised a green card. And if that's the case, if there is a priority for the gTLD RFP, I would daresay it must be IDN gTLD. In 2008, the largest growth of domain names come from Asia, other than dot com, come from Asia, 31% growth year to year. And if ICANN is sincere in making gTLDs work and in seeing that it is successful, then I beg you, please, please make sure it works in Asia. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: James, thank you for that. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can I just make a small point, and that is that you took nearly five minutes to ask your question. And while we have a commitment to participation, that means if everybody takes five minutes, we're going to have about 30 people speaking in the entire time. So I don't want to close anybody down unless we really have to. Please, can you be, all of you, be as concise as possible and recognize there are other mechanisms for communication, including the web chat and e-mail, et cetera. But in relation to the content of your question, I think Paul will be able to provide a quick answer. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, James. It's an excellent appoint we're very conscious of it. Just two quick observations. Not all non-ASCII characters are the same. So a Cyrillic character, two-letter Cyrillic character could be confusing vis-à-vis Chinese characters, for instance. But in the analysis for this round of the applicant guidebook, we have actually asked the community to address the solution in the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scripts. So just that we are looking for that feedback. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Next in line. >>JAEYOUN KIM: Thank you, Chairman. My name is Jaeyoun Kim. I am speaking on my own behalf. I would like to comment on the policy requirement for gTLD string in new gTLD applicant guidebook version two. There is still a requirement that the string must be composed of three or more majority string letters or characters in the script. Obviously the requirement for a minimum of three characters does not work for Korean scripts because one or two Korean syllables can represent a meaningful word. We know that China and Japan also have the same concerns about the three-character requirement. ICANN already developed a string computing algorithm for Korean script, and it was already verified by Korean language expert. Therefore, the string confusion problem for Korean IDN TLD (inaudible) happen. I believe that the string confusion algorithm is also very effective for assessing the degree of visual similarity for other scripts such as Chinese and Japanese. It is a big mistake if ICANN treats ASCII TLD and IDN TLD with the same measuring stick. I urge ICANN to take this issue very seriously. If ICANN does not allow single and two-character URLs on the top level, the introduction of IDN gTLD will be pretty much meaningless for Korean Internet users. Our dream to make our Internet thoroughly international will be shattered somewhat. I hope that ICANN will have long years to listen more carefully to the comments regarding this issue. I'm more willing to ICANN determine a consistent exception for some scripts, such as Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. I look forward to seeing the changes to allow (inaudible) and city characters to IDN gTLDs in the next bottom-up of applicant guidebook. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dr. Kim. May I make the point that was very much the same as the previous speaker. I understand you want to get your position on the record, and we welcome that. But as a general rule, if you agree with the previous speaker, you can take it that we have heard it and we have got it, and we don't really need lots of repetition about the same point. But -- >>JAEYOUN KIM: I just wanted to emphasize the importance of this issue. That's all I want. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: We got it. Thank you. Next in line. >>PAUL FOODY: Hi, my name is Paul Foody. This is very loud. I have got a quick question. Does anybody know how much the Internet is worth? Can anybody give me that answer? There is the annual global GDP is about 70 billion. So if we say 10% of that is going to be done on the Internet, capitalize it, we are looking at something worth $100 trillion. That 100 trillion is currently 50% owned, I guess, by dot com owners. Those dot com owners are going to be completely blown away by this proposal. And it is my belief that, as such, that represents a global theft of the most unbelievable kind. You are talking about 10,000 new gTLDs, and you are going to be selling these at $185,000 apiece. That's a total of about $20 billion, but sounds like a lot of money, but in fact, it's only what AIG lost every two weeks during that first trading quarter after getting bailed out for 120 billion. What I am saying, in other words, is these are going to get bought up by corporations who are going to censure the Internet in ways that nobody could have imagined in the past. What I'm asking the ICANN board for is for the right to send an e- mail, a letter, to you guys, which I hope you will then send to every dot com, dot org, every existing Internet domain owner, so that I can advise them of my concerns and why I believe that this is something which, quite honestly, should not be allowed to go ahead. 255 people who voted unanimously for the gTLDs, selling something worth 100 trillion for 20 billion, means each of those votes was worth $400 billion each. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. In response to your question, yes, you can e-mail us, and we will consider that. We tend not to act as a personal distribution for any particular applicant, but if we decide to process your material, we'll post it on the Web site. >>PAUL FOODY: It's not for me. It is for every dot com owner. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Hello. I guess you know me. I am Vittorio Bertola, anyway. Before getting to my question, I have an announcement. I have given up on my nonprofit geo TLD for cultural reasons because it's unfeasible under the present conditions, but I'm sure there will be ample time to start it again and be ready by when ICANN will finally open the next application round in December 2025, or something like that. So the question was -- [ Laughter ] [ Applause ] >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Okay, that was a response to the previous speaker, I guess. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: We sure miss you on the board. >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: The question is really related, of course, to the application fee, 185K. Because there was ample comment saying that it's unfeasible for too many good applications, under all forums. We just got the video comments from (saying name) saying the same thing one hour ago. And yet in the summary of the comments, there didn't seem to be any actual consideration of these. There's just one page and a half restating the reasons that initially brought ICANN to determine the fee, but there is no consultation or analysis of the ultimate models that have been proposed. And I have seen many very reasonable ones that would allow to differentiate the fee by the type of applicant fee, profit or nonprofit, and by the size of the TLD, by measurable quantities that could be applied objectively. So I think there's a clear political decision in these. So what the board is saying, what ICANN is saying, is that there is a political decision that this first round will just be open for big for- profit applicants, global TLDs with millions of registrations, and to defensive registrations by big corporations from the developed world, which is a political decision like anything else, but it would be more honest to state is clearly. So not to say that we are going to promote new TLDs for the cultures of all the world and blah, blah, but state clearly this is so difficult so we are just starting a first round for these particular type of applicants. So my question is whether you -- wouldn't it be better to state this clearly. And the additional question I make is in the same document on page 20, it says that 185K, anyway is not so much because you need at least $500,000 to run a TLD. I don't know who wrote that, but whoever wrote that doesn't know anything about running a TLD. There have been TLDs running for free for ten years. Look at U.org, which is the example I brought up. They have been giving domain names away for free. They have several tens of thousands of registrations. They have been working for 12 years, and they never asked for any money. So you really don't need 500K to run a TLD. And please get it corrected, or at least my question is do you think that, and can you explain why you need that run TLD for any purpose? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Vittorio. Paul is going to make a quick response and if anybody on the finance committee wants to, they may also contribute. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you. It's an excellent question, and I think the staff work has been very conscious of the question. There are two aspects of the reasoning that perhaps you can help in further feedback to address. The first principle is N that this be cost recovery. This is the GNSO policy process approved by the board. And in particular, that existing registrants not subsidize new registrants. And we will release even more detail of the costing behind that number, but I can tell you we did a lot of time and effort to come with as an accurate a number as possible. The second principle is this is a very entrepreneurial community, and the potentials for gaming are intense if there was to be were differentiation around pricing. So we certainly are keen to receive more feedback on this issue because we are conscious of the point you are making, but if the feedback could address those two points, it would be very valuable. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excuse me. Ramaraj, you are the chairman of the finance committee, would you like to respond? And I see Raimundo who is a member of that committee also. Ramaraj. >>RAJASEKHAR RAMARAJ: Yes, I agree with what Paul said. And that really was the thinking in coming up with that number. That was cost recovery, and an initial estimate of maybe 500 applications to cover historic costs. So that's the basis on which that has been arrived at, Vittorio. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I have heard this question many times since Cairo, and before. I have been proposing to the finance committee two ways to cut partially the effect of the $185,000. I have looked very carefully to the model, to the pricing model of the cost recovery, and these proposals are this one. First, there are no clear reasons why and which is the amount of the historical cost to be recovered. So my proposal is not to -- not to consider the historical cost. And one strong reason not to consider the historical cost is that perhaps the historical cost is much higher for the IDNs than for the rest of the applications. And there's a political reason to go through the IDNs. So if we're going to recover that cost, that probably will handicap the development of IDNs. And the second way to cut the impact of the $185,000 is to, instead of having a refunding, is to have a pay-as-you-go system. So you pay for the first stage, and if you don't want to continue or you are deleted or what, then you don't pay nothing more. If you want to follow to the second stage, then you pay for the second stage. But no refunding. In my opinion, the refunding will always be a problem, because people will say, "I have the right to be completely refunded," and maybe the staff will say no or the expert will say no. So those are the two proposals. I presume non-historical costs, and, number two, pay as you go instead of refunding. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Raimundo. I think it's probably fair to say you are a minority view on the finance committee, but it does indicate the diversity of views and the fact that a robust debate about this is going on. Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you, Peter. Vittorio, I just have one response to your comment that 500,000 may not be right number to run a TLD. And I couldn't agree with you more. I think that everything that ICANN is trying to do with these financial numbers is clearly indicating that it's not a science. It's not even an art. It's really about trying to come up with the best numbers possible, taking various input from people all over the world. And we're trying to balance things like safety and stability with, also, encouraging as diverse a pool of applicants as we can. But also balancing the rights of individual registrants. We don't want to have registries that are going to fail. People are going to pay money to get a registration, and then it won't be able to operate. So again, we're not trying to say that these are numbers that are scientifically accurate, but we're trying to do this the best we can. So if people have real data and real numbers they would like to provide to us, please do because we welcome the input. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Next in line, please. >>FABRICIO VAYRA: Good morning, my name is Fabricio Vayra. I am IP counsel for Time Warner. Some of you may know Time Warner has some of the leading brands and services under publishing under Time, Inc., such titles such as People, In Style, Sports Illustrated, Real Simple. We have filmed entertainment under Warner Brothers and New Line with such titles as "Batman" and "Lord of the Rings." We have HBO. We have Time Warner Cable, and on and on. Time Warner is also a member of the IPC, the COA, and the B.C. At the risk of sounding redundant, I would like to echo some of the sentiments throughout basically the people in our groups that have already made statement throughout this process, which is that Time Warner is very concerned about the new gTLD roll-out. We're concerned for many reasons, but two big reasons is -- the two big reasons are, one, in the past with new TLD roll-outs, our companies have had to fund these new initiatives to ensure that they protect their brands. But second, because of the concern that there will be expansion of abuse and consumer fraud in this new space, I know a lot of you, and this has actually been expressed to me personally, a lot of you feel that this consumer brand -- consumer protection issue really is one that brand owners are using as a way it back-door brand concerns. I really wish that were the case. On a regular basis, I receive phone calls from grandmothers who have had their credit cards maxed out or their bank accounts completely depleted due to fraud. Unfortunately, those phishing fraud examples were perpetrated using our brands. That's why I am getting the call. Many of you the other day heard me tell a story about a man who went on the Internet to buy a collectible, a "Friday the 13th" Jason mask. What he received was a counterfeit product. He thought it was shoddy product so he let his child use the product. The result was his child's face was literally burned off through chemical burn. We again received a phone call about that. Why did we receive the call? Because the product was sold using our brand, both in the domain and on the Web site. I don't want this to all sound doom and gloom because throughout this process, in the past few days, I have talked to many in the registry, registrar and domaining communities, and I am encouraged by the fact that all of them unanimously agree that both infringement and fraud are a bad thing. I have heard Jeff Neuman's group talk about processes they have personally taken up to eliminate some of these harms on the Internet. Mine isn't a question today, but it is a suggestion to ICANN, and the suggestion is the following. Take the momentum that we have had this week, the collaboration we have had amongst groups this week, grab the bull by the horns and make sure you reach out to the pertinent stakeholders to set up, expeditiously, appropriate processes so any new expansion of the Internet is a safer one. Not just for the businesses like mine who offer goods on the Internet, but for those consumers who rely on our legitimate businesses and services. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Fabricio. Next in line. >>WERNER STAUB: My name is Werner Staub. I work for core. I have two comments. I am put both in relation to the same at the fore. We have all seen what the financial crisis has done and what it came from. If you look more closely where it came from, it came from calculating instead of thinking. This was a disease that affected, I believe, the way we went about things ever since 2000. And we have seen how dangerous it is. Now, if you look the our evaluation criteria, we see, again, an attempt to replace thinking with calculations. We have a system that provides scoring from one to four points now, it used to be one to three points, but the result is exactly the same. There's no progress. We suggested one element to start thinking; namely, when the word "open" as opposed to "community-based" was used, we said, look, this is a mistake. It's a misleading term. Well, if you use misleading terms, of course we will get confused and that is exactly what happens. If you look at the current comparative evaluation criteria, it says that a community-based TLD must be closed, it must be for card-carrying members of that TLD. Of course, this says you have up to four points, but there's another rule that says you have to score at least 14 points out of 16, and it essentially burns down to that last point that defines that you are crazily closed, and only then will you get the number required to avoid the problem of not scoring 14. I'm not sure what exactly happens. It's not so clear what happens if several community applicants are there and one of them scores -- or all of them score less than 14, and if they are going to be mixed up with noncommunity applicants. I'm not sure about -- that that's going to happen. But we have a case where the scoring system is being used to obscure things, maybe, so that nobody realized we're not thinking, we are just calculating. There is no substitute for analysis. So that must go back into comparative evaluation. Take into account all the criteria that are necessary for that case, that specific case. I have another context where the calculation instead of thinking takes place. We're all talking about how much money new TLD, be the ccTLD or a gTLD, should pay, and coming up with things even like confidence intervals, as the ICANN calculation contained. This makes no sense whatsoever. I very much agree with what Raimundo said. We should try to attempt incorporating historic cost into this evaluation, but overall, we should get away from just looking at domain names as way of funding Internet governance. The tax on domain names cripples the respective initiative. It only lets the bad initiative survive. It is comparable to taxing children to go to school, and possibly require higher tax if they bring back high marks. And at the same time, we say pollution should be free. Wasting resources should be totally free. That's why I encourage the ICANN board to take a hard look at what happens on the IPv4 addresses front and introduce, for the IPv4 addresses, a fee. Start maybe with ten cents per IPv4 address, make it (inaudible) to make it simple. But to introduce a cost of ownership for IPv4 to prevent what is happening now; namely, race towards rampant speculation in IPv4, leading to situations where in some parts of the world they are extremely expensive, and, in other parts of the world, they are just squandered. If there is a cost of ownership, they will give IPv4 numbers back, and there will be money for governance and for development. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Werner. Ball. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Werner, they are very thoughtful suggestions. Can I just make three observations, and I will go backwards. Your question about pricing for IPv4, I think the appropriate place for discussion about any aspects for pricing for Internet protocol addresses really sits with the Regional Internet Registries in the bottom-up process whereby they have that discussion. Now, we certainly are thought partners and dialogue partners with the Regional Internet Registries, but the issue of charging for v4 address as a form of managing demand is really an issue for them, not for us. I think the second issue is we do get contributions from the IP addressing community towards the ICANN budget. If you have other suggestions, and I would appreciate you putting forward the IP address, but we are always open to suggestions through the operational plan and budgeting process for alternative sources of revenue. So we very much would like to hear more ideas on that. Your final point about -- you described as thinking rather than scoring, I think, in terms of thinking about the community criteria. The GNSO policy process was very, very explicit that the process follow a mechanism whereby the board of ICANN or the staff are required to make subjective judgments. And you look through the whole process of what's proposed in the policy both in terms of applications, openness of applications, and the reliance on the objection process, it is all geared towards not having a subjective arrangement -- a subjective set of tests trying to be implemented by ICANN staff or the board. So if you have got a real concern with that, I think you have to go back to really try to address it within the policy context. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Paul. Next in line. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Good morning. My name is Amadeu Abril i Abril, and yesterday evening I was proclaimed by Peter Dengate Thrush as an ICANN dinosaur. Two things. First, to make it short, I completely agree with everything what that James is saying, Kim Jaeyoun, Raimundo Beca, and Werner Staub said, and I agree with most of what Vittorio Bertola and Fabricio Vayra said with some friendly amendments. First, regarding that issue on the pricing. I don't think that $500,000 is an arbitrary number. I think it's quite realistic for an ideal number for a small registry or medium-sized registry. In our own calculations with language and cultural TLDs that we will be sharing some resources and that we will try to keep all costs down because they will be among the small TLDs, well, we came back to something like slightly before 300,000. But this is not the ideal. This is the minimum for surviving. So that's more or less where we are. And it is an expensive game, unfortunately. Somehow, for some natural reasons, some artificial reasons, but this is not a cheap game. Then, regarding what Fabricio said, we completely feel their pain. We have been feeling his pain and our pain, and the consumers' pain, for the last 12 years, and it's unfortunate that we are still at the same point after 12 years of discussions. We think that we should all recognize that we failed to somehow address that in a rational way in all these years, or at least most of us have failed. It's not possible, reasonable that we are still listening to the same things in 2009 as in '97 regarding the concerns for (inaudible) TLDs. Something must be wrong within all of us in ICANN if we are still allowing that. The next question regarding the comparative evaluation, what Werner say, just let me tell you, as an example, that if you take the past applications, dot museum would succeed in this 14 scoring, would be declared the winner, perhaps with some other dot museum. Dot cat would fail, this is standard, with two points below 14. So it would be sent to an auction with a TLD for cats or something like that, or with other dot cat applications made by anyone on the community. Any dinosaur saying I know, myself, without any community support what to do there. So this is the standard you are setting, and probably it is a little bit wrong. Now, one thing about the time line that has not yet been here, I just was reading the Carthage resolutions 3-166 to 3-168 from 2003, and it clearly indicates that it was asking the president and CEO to start implementation of the plan that had been approved much before, apparently, before the end of 2004. I haven't checked any calendar this morning, but I think we are past, even the dinosaurs are past 2004. If you allow me a joke, Paul. Isn't your salary, the top-management salary anything like a bonus for performance and a minus for misperformance? Because we could have a solution to fund some developing countries' applications with a Paul Twomey Foundation for that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Steve Delbianco Paul, a quick response? And then Bruce. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Amadeu, I wish I was paid that sort of money. Can I just clarify? I think you'll find if you read the 2003 resolution, it had two parts. The first part of the resolution dealt with the introduction of sponsored top-level domains, and the second part said the initiation of a policy process for the GNSO for the broader issue of competition in gTLDs. I think you'll find the provision concerning the CEO's actions was directed towards the first part, which was the board's decision to move forward in response to top-level domains. So I think you'll find that was actually achieved. >>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I'm afraid you're right, as usually. So does that mean we're right on schedule? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bruce, another response. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thanks, Peter. I just wanted to comment. I know there's a lot of discussion in the GNSO with respect to what standards are used for a community-based application. And I think that's an area that ICANN historically has had a lot of trouble with. So we had the sponsored round of 2004. We were trying to determine whether or not an organization generally had the support of a sponsored community. And so I guess we've had that experience that was very poorly managed in that it was very hard to determine whether they did or did not meet the requirements of sponsored. So I think what the staff have tried to do is set a bar that's going to be reasonably high. But that's only in the situation where there's contention. So if a community group -- and let's just call it dot community group -- wants to apply for a TLD, and, hopefully, they are the valid holders of that name, and they're the only people interested in that name, then this doesn't even get applied, because there is no contention. The name goes straight through. I think we just need to get it in context that by and large, community-based applications should go straight through provided they meet the financial and organizational capabilities. Secondly, if these things get into contention, so that means that there's either more than one community group that claims that they represent a name, or that name is a generic name that, you know, maybe businesses have interest in, then, automatically, you'd be asking yourself, is that really the right string to choose? Shouldn't you choose a string for your community that is generally representative of that community and would be accepted by that community? Now, even if there is multiple applicants, and let's say in the case that you were suggesting that -- so there were two applicants for the name and they both didn't meet the standards of 14 out of 16. It also doesn't mean there's some automatic jumping to an auction process. ICANN is envisaging that that is very much a last resort. The first step that would happen would be some sort of mediation between those two parties to try to reach agreement between those two or three parties, as the case may be, to actually be able to run that TLD together in some way. So it's not really black and white. It's very much a case of setting a relatively high bar for you essentially winning again some other applicant on the same string or the basis of your being a community, but also allowing for the fact that if there is no contention, these criteria don't even apply. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Bruce. Very helpful. So, next in line. >>STEVE DELBIANCO: Thank you. Steve Delbianco with the Net Choice Coalition. And also a member of the business constituency. And the comment that I submitted on the gTLD guidebook was very short and sweet, very simple. I took a look at Module 2 and I took a look at the scoring questions based on the technical criteria and capabilities of the registry operators that were bidding. And I was very disappointed to see that an applicant could get a passing score for simply describing what it is they would do, if anything, to address abusive registrations. And I tried to be a little bit more clear about raising the bar for a registry applicant that they should not be able to get a passing score on that question unless they had adopted industry best practices for protection of consumers through three or four measures that I laid out, things like a global brand registry to stop brand-jacking, consumer fraud through phishing. Ideas like thick WHOIS for all applicants. Another one was a rapid takedown procedure for registry applicants. This is what I mean by raising the bar. Now, staff no, surprise, staff did not embrace my ideas in version two. But this week here in Mexico City, I got a better sense of the dilemma that staff faces, and a better sense as to why they can't embrace unless they get more guidance from the board. It was at a board breakfast on Tuesday where I clearly saw the dichotomy, the dilemma the board is in as well. I heard one very skilled, articulate, and experienced lawyer on the board express a reverence and respect for precedent and process, making the point that over the past three to four years, council and the community has worked through a PDP on what needed to be the requirements for a new registry operator in a TLD, and since that was a bottom-up consensus process, what their conclusions were should constrain what it is staff can do at this point in the guidebook. And I understand that point completely. Now, on the other hand, I heard another board member, who's an experienced technology expert and a registrar operator, express a lot of concern and fear over what the real world is showing him today in terms of e-crime. Yesterday, we heard a workshop where e-crime is growing at, what, 50% a year, I guess in this economy, it's the only growth industry we have growing. Bad news there. But I did hear that this particular board member expressed a lot of concern that we need to require scale and experience on the part of anyone that's going to run a new registry, and a genuine fear that small and experienced registry operators are not going to be able to keep up with the criminals. Now, the community is concerned about this. So if you really want to look for a bottom-up, consensus, stakeholder, community reaction, you've heard it over the last three months. I'd close by asking that the board should address, as openly as you can, please try to address the tension of these two views that are at the board, in the community, and are probably constraining what it is staff can do in the guidebook revisions. And it's a tension between respect for old processes that were determined and a genuine respect for the reality of what's happening in the world right now. And while you're at it, don't forget to raise the bar for the CCT -- ccTLD operators as well. This is not just a gTLD concern. And I'll close by this. Fabricio, one of my colleagues, talked about being on the horns of a dilemma. But, frankly, when I look at the e- crime concerns, it's really the other end of the animal we ought to be worried about. Because there's a time in everyone's life when you have to grab the bull by the tail and see what's coming. Thank you. [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. I think Paul can just explain where those concerns that you raised, Steve, are being addressed, Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thanks, Steve. I think, and many people are in agreement with the concerns you've raised. I want to be quite explicit that I think we made it quite clear in the it documentation that was released prior to this meeting that this was one of the three or four key overarching issues. We also made it clear those overarching issues were not going to be reflected in this version of the applicant guidebook. But they are key issues we want to discuss with the community in the next couple of months. So I think the issue you're raising, the answer is yes and it's an open door for discussion. >>STEVE DEL BIANCO: Appreciate it. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line. >>SUSAN REYNOLDS: Hi, this is Susan Reynolds speaking on behalf of (saying name). As you know, we are an initiative in favor of a domain for the Galician language in culture, a linguistic and cultural TLD just like similar initiatives such as dot (saying name), dot BZH and dot CYM. Our main concern right now regarding new gTLDs is the timeline. Time is very important for everybody, and especially for us, because our initiative started in June 2006. And we've been following ICANN's public international meetings since 2007. Since then, we have been working hard on the applications, and we have spent lots of time, effort, and money. That's why another delay in the process would be really bad for us and for other similar initiatives. Right now, we have a second draft. That's great. We appreciate that. And we thank you for the work done there. But now you say there will be a third draft. I just hope there's not a fourth draft or even a fifth one. We don't want to see the new gTLD process turn into a never-ending story. The Galician culture community is waiting to see the dot gal become real. It's willing to register a dot gal domain. And they keep asking, "When?" The Galicians in Galicia, around Europe, Argentina, Brazil, and even in Mexico -- and there are quite a few -- want to know a date. And we can't tell them, because we don't know. That's why we will appreciate if ICANN would tell us a realistic date of the opening of the process. When will we be able to apply for a new gTLD? December 2009? Will that really be the date? You know, it's difficult, especially because the process must be robust, timely, and effective. But cultural and linguistic TLDs are not the cause of those overarching issues that are delaying the whole process. In fact, LCTLDs will contribute to a more democratic, multiple cultural, and global Internet. So ICANN shouldn't penalize us with another delay. Just a remark. Dot gal won't be a geographical domain, because it's for a culture that is spread all over the world. We ask you not to postpone any further the introduction of new gTLDs. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just -- [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Steve Goldstein. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. That plea made a lot of sense. But, you know, we have this big airplane, and I think we want to get it fixed before we take off, because we don't want to try and fix it in mid-flight. But I understand the frustrations about the delay. We're all frustrated, too. But we're working very hard to make that airplane air- worthy before we take off. >> Take another plane. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. The obvious conclusion from that suggestion, given that the whole process is delayed by the collective complexity of the new gTLD process is to separate out some categories from others. And if that is -- if there are serious proposals to do that, I'm not hearing them. So if you really believe that the answer is to separate out the process, then you have to think how to do that and put input to the process that would allow us to consider such a separation. And at the moment, that's not on the table. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Dennis. >> What is on the table, then? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Next in line? >>JIM PRENDERGAST: Good morning. My name is Jim Prendergast. I'm from Washington, D.C. First off, you know, I think it goes without saying, the staff do deserve a great deal of credit in trying to synthesize the comments they got during the first round into the discussion and analysis document. I thought that was very helpful, and I think a lot of people, including myself, have been spending a lot of time going through that. And I think the addition of the red-lined version of the guidebook certainly helps with comparisons between both versions. I was surprised, though, that there were some significant new additions in the second round of the guidebook. And I think, you know, without much explanation or without further thought, I think, you know, they were thrown out there for reaction, which I'm sure there will be a lot of reaction to, specifically, the idea of a foundation being set up to distribute the proceeds of any possible auctions. I know the auctions, it's been said once, it's been said a hundred times, is a last-chance -- or a last resort. But having been in nonprofit management now for about 15 years, I do know there are significant complexities, as you can appreciate, being on the board of one, of setting up such an organization and distributing funds that are garnered in such a way. So I think that idea needs to be a little further developed. And if that was an idea that was around earlier, I guess, I would have appreciated it being in the guidebook earlier so that people would have a chance to react to it a little earlier in the process. The second new idea that came up was the idea of the independent objector, or, as I refer to them, as last-chance Charlie. It was suggested this week by staff that this was in direct reaction to some of the comments that were made during the first round. However, in reviewing those comments, I was not able to find anything that really justified. I saw one line that may actually refer to it. But unlike some of the comments in other areas, there really wasn't a loud outcry for something like that. So I think reconsidering that, giving more detail about how that would play I think is very important, because as it was alluded to, the purpose of it is to protect and stop any applications from getting through a somehow got through the process and they shouldn't have. To me, that suggests that maybe there's a flaw in the process and not a problem with, you know, having somebody there to be the last line of defense. And then my final comment is, consistency in the second round. I noticed in the dispute resolution process, there were some panels that would be made up of an individual, some made up of three people, some made up of three, if both parties only agreed to three. I think there needs to be some consistency along those dispute resolution panels. And I would suggest that they should be three-person panels. I know there was a concern about efficiency and cost. But at that point in the game, the marginal cost of adding two more people to a dispute resolution panel is insignificant compared to the investments that have been made to that point in the process. So thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jim. I've got a response from Bruce, and then Rita. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just a response on the independent objector idea and I guess where that partly is coming from. In the new gTLD process, it envisaged a number of dispute resolution steps. And as the staff have been working through each of those dispute resolution steps, the two things they have been trying to determine is, for each type of dispute, who has standing to raise the dispute. And, you know, obviously, what is the criteria for dealing with that dispute. So for most of those, they're pretty straightforward. So, for example, if it's confusingly similar to a TLD, standing is somebody that's running a TLD. So that's been fairly straightforward. But in some of the others, it hasn't been straightforward. And that's partly because in perhaps some geographic disputes or some morality and public order disputes, the question is, is it a government that would enter into some dispute process with a private dispute company and whether a government feels able to do that or not. And that's where some of the areas come up, so, how else could we do it. So I think what we'd like is, I guess, suggestions of how to deal with that problem where particularly the morality and public order, and possibly geographic names, how can disputes be raised by an organization that traditionally wouldn't engage in a dispute process with a private dispute provider. So that's partly where that's coming from. And that's why that's being suggested. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. And Rita, a further comment? >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Sure. Just a quick comment on your notion about the number of panelists. I know that in doing UDRP, one of the reasons we did that was, you know, you say there's an insignificant cost to you at that point. But to some extent, for a little business, it actually could be significant. So it was tried to be built into the process was a flexibility in the limitation of cost, if that's what the parties thought was appropriate. >>JIM PRENDERGAST: I would say it's not an insignificant cost, but compared to the investments that the applicant has already made to that point, you know, we've heard the number 500,000, which, you know, I think adding two more people to the panel compared to 500 -- I don't think it's going to cost anywhere in the magnitude of that. But, you know, that's to be determined. We had a wide range of what the dispute resolution fees might be. Something of a delta of, like, $80,000 or some of them. So I think a little more detail as that gets fleshed out would certainly be helpful on that as well. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Well, Mr. Prendergast, your question is very well formed. I would be very interested in knowing whom you represent, or are you just representing yourself? >>JIM PRENDERGAST: I'm just representing myself at the microphone. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Okay. But who is your employer who got you here? >>JIM PRENDERGAST: I have a consultancy, and VeriSign is one of my clients, as well as some other companies. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Excuse me. Rita, were you still in the queue? If not, Paul. >>PAUL TWOMEY: Thank you, Chairman. Just to come to the question which was raised around the foundation. Just for clarity, the board actually passed a resolution this last board meeting specifically asking the staff to -- direct staff to prepare a preliminary paper -- preliminary paper setting forth possible guidelines for a foundation or other mechanism that might be established to appropriately deal with proceeds that might result from auctions. So just want to be clear about what the request was. And that's where the work came from. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. Thank you. Next in line. >>IRATXE ESNAOLA ARRIBILLAGA: Good morning. My name is Iratxe Esnaola Arribillaga, and I represent dot EUS for the Basque language and cultural community. Our community is distributed all over the world, and it is actively and deeply committed to the development and evolution of our language and culture. Internet and, in general, ICT is a true reflection of such active engagement. In this way, we do believe that like other linguistic and cultural TLDs, such as dot gal, dot BZH, dot CYM, add value to the Internet, as they will make Internet's diversity stronger. Linguistic and cultural TLDs seek to respond to that diversity, and moreover, we believe that our TLD and other similar TLDs don't create any of the overarching issues. So many of the applicants will apply for nonproblematic TLDs. And so it's really necessary not to delay more and more this process. Thank you for listening. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Next in line. >>RON ANDRUFF: Thank you, chairman. Good morning, my name is Ron Andruff. I'm with R&A partners. I'm a member of the business constituency but speaking on my own behalf today. I would like to speak also to the issue of comparative evaluation and, like many, we feel it's much improved. But it still needs further consideration. 14 of 16 points to prove nexus to a community is much better, but the subjectivity is always there, as has been noted. And particularly is noted in the EOI that's been put out to have people review. Therefore, to assure applicants have a fair chance, I would recommend a threshold of 12 of 16 points be made, and that would allow for the margin of error of human fallibility. As hard as we try to remove subjectivity from ICANN, we all understand that it will never happen. So it's important that we have a fair process. And I would like the board to give that consideration. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Next in line. >>CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS: Hello. ICM Constantine Roussos. I represent dot music. I'm from Cyprus and the U.S. I wanted to thank the ICANN board and the staff for all the hard work. We're very pleased with the application. And I hear everyone talking about time. We believe as dot music that this has to be done right and time doesn't really matter that much until this is done correctly, because I think we have a big responsibility towards the at-large community, especially for us, since we're talking to the music community, because that's what we are. We have interviewed a lot of musicians and they've scored us 17 out of 16. And we're very happy about that. And we are very happy to announce that we have received over half a million supporters that signed our petition at www.music.US. And we would like the board to check it out and sign it as well. And as a gift, we will send you our third draft of our jingle. I think you guys would like that. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's fantastic to see the creativity that is emerging around this project. Obviously, the board is going to have to keep an objective view. But we may go and have a look. What I'd like to do with your permission is ask Roberto to deal with three of the questions that came in online about new gTLDs. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. I'm glad to do it. Putting some gear that I need. The first question comes from Laudy Hammond (phonetic). And the question is: Why did it take almost five years to get to a new gTLD process? The board and ICANN have repeatedly misled the public by providing wrong dates. See the announcement, and the URL of the announcement is provided. Well, first of all, I don't think that there was any intention from the board to mislead the public. It's just the fact that the process is complicated, as you have seen from the comments and objections to the process that are coming up even in this forum. Personally, I can share the frustration that some of the people have. I personally joined this -- got involved in the Internet community at the time of the IAHC and the gTLD MOU when the project was to create new TLDs. And that was in 1997. So I think that I fully understand the frustration. But on the other hand, as it has been already pointed out by Steve Goldstein, at this point in time, we want to make sure that we have a solid process, even if that requires this additional iteration. But rest assured that the board has no intention to delay this process further, also because we are all sick and tired of discussing the same things over and over again, and we want to move to new subjects and new other things. So I think that it's the intention of everybody on the board to bring this project to a start and to have a big party when this happens. The second question comes from (saying name). And it's -- he says: Can you simplify application and process for new gTLD rules with fixed fees and simple four, five-point rules. It's very complicated now. I think that this is linked with the question before. The fact that it takes a long time is just because the process is inherently complicated. Because we have a lot of cases that we have to take into account. Now, we are trying to simplify at the most the procedures. But we would like also to make sure that at the same time, the procedures will cover all the possible cases and that we don't have then some unintended side effects because the process has not been thought out fully or because the application data have not taken into account all the possible cases. The third comment comes from Nikolai Pavlov. He asks whether granting of domains of first level to republics, noncommercial, is possible. It would help preservation of minority languages of the people. Well, I think that the creation of TLDs for such a purpose, we can have two different avenues. One is for geopolitical entities that are in the ISO 3166, and we therefore can create a ccTLD. We can open up -- we have opened up the possibility of having even IDNs TLDs for geopolitical entities. So that could be done also in Cyrillic. However, to the best of my knowledge, the individual republics that are part of Russia are not in the 3166 table. The second avenue is to have a request for specific generic TLDs. And I see this case as pretty similar to the cases that have been raised already by some people in the audience and some questions before. And I think that the way to follow is to think about presenting an application that can be either for an ASCII string or for a Cyrillic string if that suits better the needs of the local community of the republics of the -- of Russia. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Roberto. Just to explain for those of you who have come into the room, we're responding to questions through the question box as part of the public forum. I can tell you that there were 14 questions asked through that process. All questions that are asked will be responded to. We're only selecting representative questions and responding to them here. But let me confirm that we have received also questions from David Costello, (saying names), Robin Gross, Raymond marshal, (saying name) and Danny Younger. As I say, all of those questions will be responded to. Now, while we're interrupted, we're going to break to give the board a bio break in about ten minutes. Could I have an indication of whether there are any other speakers in the room other than those standing at the microphone who want to deal with new gTLDs? What I'd like -- I think I saw one. Two. I'm going to close that list, because we can't spend all day just on one topic. All right? Let's close the list with you two joining it after when we come back. And, please, just recognize that we're running -- we are going to run out of time if you aren't concise. Please, next in line. >>BOB HUTCHINSON: My name is Bob Hutchinson, with Dynamic Ventures, a software development outfit. And we consult with businesses that have interest on the Internet. In the spirit of reducing confusion in the gTLD process, can I please ask the board to, ad hoc, come up with some better definitions for community gTLDs than what is currently in the guidebook, either by representation or -- by example? It's very difficult for us to understand whether commercial interests that have communities associated with them would be legitimate under this current selection process. >>PAUL TWOMEY: May I respond to that? Your question is an excellent question. The difficulty -- and this partly comes to the previous comments about the community objection -- is how to be able to devise a nonsubjective process that allows people to put forward community objections without necessarily opening it up to all sorts of gaming, including interpretation by commercial strings that are going to be for the public generally, that they are a community. We would appreciate any thinking you have in response to what's presently being posted to help us think about how to achieve that. This is a very difficult area. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: My name is Dirk Krischenowski. And I'm founder and CEO of dot Berlin and also spokesperson of the emerging city top-level domain constituency. I am here on my 12th meeting now in a row, and as you have learned, the cities will not go away, and they will come even more. Therefore, we have found the city top-level domain interest group, which is aiming to become a constituency within the registries or the contracted house parties. And each of us is aiming to become a contracted party with ICANN. Behind us, at the moment, are the City top-level domain initiatives for Barcelona, Berlin, hamburg, New York, and Paris, and others are already grouping up, including London, Boston, Tokyo, and a couple of other global and metropolis cities. The city TLDs we think will be less contentious, have less risk and less cost within the new gTLD round which is going on there. Our shared concern and common concern is the time line. ICANN has even missed to publish a time line at this time. There are various communications out there, and the time line ranges somewhere from October to somewhere in 2010 for the application window. Some proposals have made, for example, a tiered application windows or subsequent application windows to solve the issues. But we have the feeling that the current round lasts forever. So my question to Peter and Paul is, what can you do to ensure the cities, and by this the oldest, strongest, and most powerful brands mankind has ever created, will get their TLDs in a timely manner. Or do you want that the city mayors at the next meeting are begging up here, on knees, for the city TLD? [ Applause ] >>PAUL TWOMEY: Dirk, I think we are very conscious of this issue, and we understand there are people who have their business cases ready who are prepared and ready to go. I do think you need to understand that we are talking about generic top-level domains and that the issues that are raised in the feedback, some of the issues are applicable to all of the top-level domains. Let me tell you an example. The impact of scaling of new gTLDs, IPv6, and DNSsec upon the root zone is an issue that applies to all of the gTLD applications. We have to get that work completed before we can finalize. There's a number of other of those sorts of issues. So please don't consider that these are some sort of attempts to slow down, but we need to ensure that when the TLDs are introduced, that everything works smoothly and you have a successful new gTLD. The last thing you want is some rushed process that then has to be stopped three or five months into your operations because there's unforeseen things that haven't been fixed. So we very much appreciate the pressures. We're just trying to make certain we do this in a thoughtful manner. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. I would like to rule out of order now any further discussions about the time line. We understand the issue, we understand that some people want us to push ahead, some want us to slow down. We have had careful response from Roberto from response to the time line question and several responses from Paul. So, please, let's not take up any more time discussing timing. We understand that issue. Next in line, please. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: So I assume there is no time line anymore for new TLDs. >>PAUL TWOMEY: No; there's a time line. We have always made it clear. But we have got -- We suspect there's going to have to be at least three, and I suspect four, rounds of the application guidebook before it's ready for finalization. And if you follow all the consultation steps that we need to do to follow those rounds and the meeting schedule, as I said in a release last week, the first step -- we could not expect to have applications before December, and it may well be February. Okay? >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Okay. >>PAUL TWOMEY: So that's what our present expectations are. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: And it's been published. Next in line, please. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Kristina Rosette. I am the Intellectual Property Constituency North America representative to the GNSO Council. And although I am usually at this microphone speaking in my individual capacity, this morning I am not. I am speaking on behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency and its members. We were very concerned that ICANN decided to proceed with publishing the second draft of the guidebook without addressing any of the trademark protection, which are ultimately consumer protection, issues that we had raised, without addressing or acting on any of the solutions that had been proposed in the public comment period. And frankly, without articulating any specific plan to do so. However, we are very interested in facilitating a constructive solution to this issue, so that this process can progress. We believe that the board should convene a solutions team of persons who have knowledge, experience, and expertise in intellectual property law and the interplay of trademarks and the Domain Name System and charge that team with developing and proposing concrete solutions that can be fairly, on a scalable, cost-effectively and not overly burdensome manner be implemented and rolled out in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs. And that this solutions team would be charged with providing a report to the board for its consideration in advance of the Sydney meeting. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Kristina, that's an excellent suggestion, and I, for one, have welcomed the interchange that we have had with the business constituency or business community and also the intellectual property community here. We are aware of those conference. Steve, then Rita. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Kristina, when you brought up that suggestion in the early morning session we had the other day, the cross constituency session, I responded to you at the time I thought it was a very good idea. Please give us a very specific proposal, because I think you also requested some support for the people who would be involved. And if we get a very specific proposal, including any costing, we're going to give it very serious consideration and hope to help you out. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely. We will. Thank you. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Peter. Also, Kristina, I want it make a comment that the board is very pleased that the community is starting to talk about solutions. So Dirk and others, as Peter has said, we are all concerned about the delays. We are all trying to move forward as quickly as we can. And we see this as a very positive development, that there was a constituency who felt like major issues, both for commercials, for individuals, for large businesses and small businesses, there were issues that weren't being addressed. So what people did is come together and say let's organize ourselves and propose uniform solutions. One of the reasons we are having delays is that we have people in the same constituency talking about diversely different solutions. So again, Dirk, others, help us with this schedule by getting together and proposing uniform solutions about how we can move forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Rita. Next in line, please. >>ANDREW MACK: Good morning everyone. Thank you very much. My name is Andrew Mack. I run a consulting firm called AM Global which works with companies that want to do more work in emerging markets, special focus on emerging market issues. I am also a baby economist by training, and so I looked at the economic report on the new gTLDs with a lot of interest. However, and let me put this gently because I know the person who wrote it has great credentials, because that was most of the report. I was a little bit surprised to see that there was no analysis of what impact the new gTLDs are likely to have on emerging countries. There wasn't any discussion of Africa, Latin America or Mexico, or frankly they weren't even mentioned in the report. And I have spent most of the time here talking with delegates from different emerging markets countries, and I have heard them say that they have some concerns about e-crime and the ability to deal with it and concerns about the impact that this is going to have on ccTLDs and things like that. I haven't heard anybody say that they wanted to slow down the process. So I have a constructive suggestion for the board. We have nine months, maybe, in which -- before we are going to launch into the next phase. Why not take that time and use some of the resources that we have to study this issue so that we make sure that the next round of gTLDs doesn't further the digital divide. Using the airplane analogy that was thrown out earlier, I see us moving all toward business class and I wouldn't want to see emerging markets permanently an economy. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Next in line, please. >>MATTHIEU CRÉDOU: I am Matthieu Crédou from dot BZH. We are a linguistic and cultural TLD for the Britton community. Like dot com, dot eus like dot gal and many others, our project is to promote the linguistic and cultural diversity for the interest of Internet users. To keep my statement short, I will just say that I support what Susan and Iratxe from Puntu Gal and Puntu EUS have said before, and my only worry is that the time line delay is really a burden for us in terms of credibility to our local sponsors, supporting environments. And I would like to know how ICANN can help us getting some credibility with our local partners. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Now, Bertrand, before you begin, people in line, we are going to take an indication of who you are and your order, and after the break, we'll ask you to resume. So Bertrand, you are going to be the last, and then we have several board members who are falling over from lack of food, so we are going to take a short break, and I'm sure there are other members of the audience who would appreciate a short stop. So Bertrand you are last, and we will resume with Karl and in the same order. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: If I can make a statement on behalf of Karl who says he cannot be there in the next session, I very kindly cede my position and start the next session. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bertrand. >>KARL AUERBACH: Yes, I have to catch a flight in a few minutes. I am Karl Auerbach. Everybody knows me. By the way, my family is from the other Galatia, the one in the Ukraine, so I want to point out there are various instances of geographical locations. My point is I'm not sure whether to buy ICANN an East German shirt band or a Keystone Kops uniform. I find this plan has as much reality as a Soviet era five-year plan. It is central planning of what should be an open and innovative marketplace. And it seems to be larded with private law to enforce private agendas of many of the privileged stakeholders here. I would say we have moved way down a rat hole, and we are going to have to back way out -- we are going to have to back up a long way. Otherwise, I think one or both of two things are going to happen. We're going to face those words written in 1886, a combination in restraint of trade, because that's what ICANN is. We restrain trade. The other point is this may engender the rise of competing root systems. People are frustrated. These costs are absolutely unrealistic. No one has ever asked me, and I operate my own TLD, how much it really costs to run a small TLD. It's a few hundred dollars a month. Not $500,000. That's absurd. I serve my customers on that amount, and they are happy. So I say that this plan basically is going to have to be trashed, and we are going to have to start all over on an entirely new approach, a market-based approach, a competitive approach, one that's not based on central planning, one that's not based as private enforcement of private agendas. Thank you. [ Applause ]. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Karl. And thank you all for the contributions. We will come back in ten minutes and resume with the speaking order as we were before. Thank you. (ten-minute break). >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, please resume your seats. We have had ten minutes. Can I ask Bertrand to resume as soon as we have a board on stage and quiet in the room. >> Ladies and gentlemen, please state your seats. We are about to start the second portion of the public forum, and it will give you more time for questions if we can get started quickly. Thank you. >> Should we wait until at least the board is all back? >> Would the ICANN board members please return to the stage. ICANN board members, please return to the stage. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Okay. We're going to resume. Now, you don't have to line up, because we have a speaking order. Let me tell you the speaking order to close the issue of new gTLDs. We're going to begin with Bertrand de la Chapelle, followed by Paul Foody, Marilyn Cade, Joung Im Kim, Stacey King, Jothan Frakes, Philip Corwin, and Paul McGrady. So you don't have to speak. You don't have to line up. We've got you, and we can begin. Bertrand, s'il vous plaît. I could never forget you, Sébastien. Was your hand up? You've been added to the list. Bertrand. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Peter. First point on cost recovery. I heard Paul, but, unfortunately, is not on the table. He made a comment that says old registrants should not be sponsoring new registrants. If I recall correctly, usually the wording was existing registries should not be sponsoring new registries. Is there any specific meaning in the slip? And I don't know how the old registrants are actually sponsoring the new registrants in this. Second thing: Cost recovery, let's be clear, is not only about the costs that have been incurred. The amount of 185,000 is also taking into account an element that is a risk calculation. There was a contract that was made to evaluate this risk. I understand it is hard. But at the same time, I am concerned that, to put it mildly, the noncontentious, community-based applicants are actually going to finance the risks or the potential risks that will be brought by bad cases. And this is a concern. Second point: On the fee itself, the fact that an operator has a high startup cost, which is basically having to pony up 185,000 to even make the application, is going to put a certain burden on the noncommercial applications. This burden and this high startup cost is likely to bring a higher risk of failure for those applications. And I'm wondering whether this is not actually increasing a problem of stability rather than guaranteeing a better stability. Next: As was said before, geo TLDs or social and community, linguistic TLDs, are actually the biggest community TLDs. As it was mentioned earlier, those are brands that people have given their lives for. The cities, the countries, the local communities, the regions, there are actually communities. And they have an additional positive element. There usually are lists that have been agreed at a global level by perfectly neutral organizations, which is very similar to what we were able to do with the ISO list. Second, just like in the ISO list, there are local authorities, they may be lower than governments, but they provide some kind of legal framework, some kind of accountability frameworks, that would actually facilitate some elements. And so I would argue that, in a certain way, instead of making things more complex, the introduction or examining and envisaging categories can sometimes make things simpler. And in closing, I would use the word "pressing demand" and "noncontentious." That would probably ring a bell for those that have followed the IDN ccTLD discussion. So the point is, in the SO/AC discussion the other day, there is a strong message now that the community wants at least that a chance be given to the concept of categories. Until now, the staff approach has been consistently to refuse this on the basis that it is bringing more problem. And I actually take Rita's and Dennis Jennings's comment as an encouragement. Because it is now up to the community itself to provide solutions and answers to show that this is possible. We had a meeting this morning with some of the city TLD applicants with a few GAC representatives, there were registrars also. We also made a proposal between the GAC and the GNSO to have a common interaction. So expect that this issue is going to be brought back to the staff and the board with concrete proposals to move forward. And I want to finish by addressing what Steve's analogy of the airplane was. Are we really doing one big airplane or are we more an airplane or a certification authority that basically has different certification rules for very light aircraft and very big jumbo jets? [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Roberto, and then Bruce. And while they're doing that, I will make sure that Paul is able to answer your first question. Roberto. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Yes. Actually, the idea of being an airplane and having lots of different types of traffic is really appealing. I have two concerns about this. First of all, that if we start going in this direction, we are going to take a lot of time in trying to figure out what the different categories are and have maybe a different set of rules for every category. And so in terms of how much time is going to happen, I'm just thinking back about the sponsored TLDs round years ago, when we thought we were going to start with something that was, in principle, simple. And you all know what we ended up with. The second concern is that maybe on -- at first sight, certain things seem simple. I'm thinking about the city TLDs that have been evoked before and also what Bertrand speaks about, local communities. It is true, on paper, it seems simple. You know, what's simple? We have a city, a name of a city, and we give the TLD. We have an official list of all the cities, and so on. But then there are some issues like, for instance, where -- multiple cities with the same name, and so on. So I think that -- I'm not saying that we shouldn't go in this direction. I'm just warning about the fact that what seems at first sight simple might become complicated the moment that we go into the details. So my personal opinion is that, yes, we should evaluate this suggestion and consider this as a way forward. On the other hand, I don't want to find myself in a situation in which a few months from now, having found out that the issue was more complicated than we thought at first sight, we get, I don't know, comments like the one we got before, that we were delaying, misleading the community and delaying the process. So my -- it's just a warning about the fact that it might not be that easy as it looks. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Roberto, with all due respect -- sorry for taking the floor again -- what you're describing is exactly what's happening with the current process. You think it's simple. It's getting more complicated every time. So I want to make a very strong statement here. If this organization is a bottom-up organization, when the community strongly sends a signal on Monday, waving green cards everywhere that at least the notion of category is being given a chance, then, one, the staff has a duty to accept to explore it and the board shouldn't say, "No, it's to complex. You don't understand." [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Bertrand, for the suggestion. One comment I would make is what the aim of creating these categories is. So sometimes it can be beneficial, and we -- I think we heard some speakers earlier saying that for different types of names, let's say, names using Chinese characters, that the three-character limit may not be appropriate. I would imagine that that group could come up with a concrete proposal that applies uniformly to all TLDs, you know, whether it's ccTLDs or gTLDs. So that's something where a group of interest forms together and they put a proposal forward that can be applied across the board. We've heard similarly from the I.P. constituency saying they want to get a group together of experts to make a proposal that applies to all. If, however, the objective is to create categories with different rules, and let's say these rules give an advantage of one category over another, then what you get caught up with is defining the boundaries. Because, if, let's say as an example, a community name gets a different price, then what you'll find is that people will find ways to say that their application fits into that category, and you get tied up in all those rules on the boundaries. So I just think we need to be careful what you're trying to achieve with the categories. The other thing I would say is that, in terms of your bottom-up approach, what's happening in the GNSO now is a call, essentially, for formation of new constituencies. And the -- within the registries' constituencies, or registries' stakeholder group, the city-based names, like dot Berlin, dot Paris, have suggested getting together and forming a group within that structure which can better represent their interests. We've heard in the noncommercial stakeholders interest likewise, some groups starting to form like some that are formed on consumer safety or security. Others might be focused on other topics, and they're starting to form those groups. So I think we absolutely encourage forming these groups that, essentially, self-select. We've just got to be careful when you're forming groups with the idea that those groups have some special privilege over the other groups. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Bruce. I have Raimundo and then Rita, and now Katim. Raimundo. >>RAIMUNDO BECA: Thank you, Peter. With all respect for Bertrand and all the people that have been promoting these categories, I would say that a bottom-up policy is not made with green cards in a room. It's made -- it's a long process of discussion. And I think that the real way to promote the categories is to initiate a policy in the GNSO on the categories. But that will take time, whatever it is. But we shouldn't -- we should not, in my idea, stop this process or make it slower while we are studying the policy on the categories. Because we are in the application of a policy that was long discussed in the GNSO and ratified by the board. In my opinion, we don't have the right today to people that achieved consensus which perhaps is not a good one. Every -- every consensus may be perfection. But when we're in the application time, we cannot say, "Well, let's vote with green cards," and introduce different concepts and make it slower or whatever. I would like to add another thing. From the economic side, which is one of my skills, I know very well that the root is a scarce resource. It's a scarce resource. And all scarce resources have a high value. And I made some calculations. Put any string on the root with no -- nothing in the name of the string, the value of that is at least one million dollars, without taking the name. That's -- it's a calculation you can make. If I have a string in the root, and I park, I park it for advertising or whatever. I can go in and a lot of money. And these calculations will have to be very, very aware of that. And I don't buy the concept that all the communities in the world to exist have to be in the root. That's not true. That's not possible. We will never have -- We have one million, two million, I don't know how many communities in the world. All those communities, we cannot make them to exist. They cannot be in the root. They have -- So we -- and the other day in the breakfast with the cross-constituency, Demi was speaking about -- I share his concept -- on the fact that we have to take care not to scale too much, not to scale too much the number of gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs or whatever that we have in the root. We have to -- not to scale too much. And from that concept, from that concept, I would like to advance one idea which I have been thinking about, is that we should avoid in this exercise to approve any application, any application which can be scaled. So if I say that if I approve one city, I have to approve all the cities in the world, that's not feasible. That's not feasible. So I say, well let's say cities, yes. But not scalable. Which probably will mean that only megapolis can be cities in the root. That's the kind of concept that we can introduce now and we don't have to wait for a long time to have a policy. Okay. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Raimundo. Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thank you, Peter. Bertrand, I want to just respond to your comment, because I do think that this is a complicated process, and I don't think it's the board that's been making it complicated. And as we've all heard today, we're trying to create a new program that addresses an incredibly wide array of concerns. So on the one hand, we have the gentleman from Time Warner, and we're trying to deal with huge, multinational, global businesses and help them protect their brands that they've spent billions of dollars to build. On the other hand, we're hearing from people in developing countries who are begging us to get TLDs online to help their local people get information from the rest of the world and to help them spread education and the gift that the Internet is. So this has been an iterative and a learning process. And it is extremely complex. And I don't believe that we would be well-served to just have the people that have been in the room over the years making the decisions. So we've been trying to get as much information as possible to try to solve this very complicated problem. And, you know, I'm feeling more and more like I'm becoming an optimist, which is not natural to me, because I'm a lawyer, after all. But I really feel like things are starting to gel. I feel like people are very aware of these issues and are coming together and are trying to make progress. I think we've heard this week progress from all areas, the GNSO, the CCs, the GAC. I think the board is becoming extremely aggressive about how we can take steps to conclude this process. We've heard that we feel as though comments aren't being incorporated into the guidebook, and we are trying to take steps to fix that problem. So I'm going to reiterate what I said to Dirk again to all of you in the room and to all of you listening. Come together, propose solutions, and help us move forward to help everyone benefit by this fabulous new gTLD introduction. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Rita. And Katim. >>KATIM TOURAY: Thanks, Peter. My name is Katim. I'm from Gambia, which is in Africa. And I want to go on the record to say that there is no digital divide on the board. You notice that everybody has a laptop in front of him or her except myself. And I just deliberately -- it's not that I don't have a laptop. I do have one. I just deliberately decided to put it away, because I think it really -- it's something that is going to be distracting, at least for me. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to the day when we have a huge tsunami that will just clear laptops away from this whole table here so we can engage in effective dialogue. [ Applause ] >>KATIM TOURAY: Having said that I'd like to say just a few things about the issue of proposals from people that we have different pricing structures for various categories of end users for the new gTLDs. One of the problems people have pointed out that might happen is that we might have a complicated scenario. And I suggest that maybe we can start with two categories, one for nonprofits, because I think every country you go to does recognize the existence of a distinct category of nonprofits; and, secondly, a category for least-developing or developing countries. Because I think it is all -- it is well-accepted in international development circles that there is a category of nations that are classified as least-developing. So we could use those two criteria, one for, again, like I said, nonprofit organizations. And cultural groups might come under this umbrella. The second category for the least-developed countries. And then develop some pricing structures that would address the specific needs and concerns of those people. I say this because I think ICANN, one, has a social responsibility to ensure that as we move forward, we develop and -- we develop an Internet that is inclusive and not exclusive. I think if we think that inclusivity is so important that geographic representation is taken as an important criteria in the selection of ICANN board members, that attitude and that thinking should filter all the way down to the issue of developing policies for the adoption of new gTLDs. And secondly also, we've just heard this morning and pretty much throughout this meeting the concerns of the business community about the protection of their intellectual property rights, their brands, and things like that. And, of course, one of the very brilliant outcomes of those liberations was a proposal from that community that they went from a study group, and ICANN has promised them a commitment to work with them to come to a solution. And I'm thinking to myself that if we are going to open the gates for the business people, the intellectual property community, for them to form a study group, we also should offer the same facility to people from developing countries and also from cultural groups and nonprofits for them to come together from also a study group within, of course, certain reasonable limits and then come back to us with suggestions as to how we can move this forward. Thanks. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Katim. Mr. Foody, you're next in line. >>PAUL FOODY: Thank you. First off, I would just like to say that I'm disappointed that Rita, being such a beautiful girl, is a lawyer. But there seems to be a view that people in the dot com who have registered dot coms have done it just to -- for no reason, just to hold onto them and make a profit. But for ten years, I've seen this day coming when you'd clean up the Internet. We had an interesting lecture yesterday on e-crime. And there was a slideshow of a couple of naked girls, you know, they were wearing bikinis. And it was censored, okay. And the guy said, I'm very sorry. I hope this isn't offensive. I didn't want to offend. And, you know, he made the point that this was offensive. Well, our kids have been going online for 15 years, what, 12 years, and they have -- the sort of stuff that they are capable of viewing is just incredible. The reason why I haven't utilized the domains that I have is that I own yesplease.com, which is probably the most valuable domain in the English-speaking world. You know, you might joke. But, you know, if you can think of a more valuable one, I'd love to know about it. Yes, please, is something that you're inculcated with from a child. But that's by the by. I registered the dot com ten, 11 years ago. I didn't bother trademarking it, because I had the dot com. I then decided that I wanted the dot U.S. At that point, I did try to trademark it. And I went $3,000 into the process before it became apparent that dot US was dead in the water. Anyway, two years ago, some guy phones me up or e-mails me, says, "I'd like to buy yesplease.com." I said, "It's not for sale." His assistant e-mails me again and says, "You know, please sell it." I said, "It's not for sale." About six months later, he -- I get another e-mail from him saying, "We have now registered the trademark in all these different countries around the world. Please sell to us now." I said, "Tough. It's not for sale." I then ended up at WIPO. I defended myself at WIPO at no small inconvenience to myself, off site -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Mr. Foody. I hate to interrupt. This is an interesting narrative. But there are a lot of people wanting to talk to new gTLD. Can you bring to your point about the new gTLD process. >>PAUL FOODY: My point that pretty much every dot com that exists right now, if anybody believes that they are infringing trademark, there is -- there are really remedies. My solution to the board is to elevate every dot com to a gTLD, to incrementally increase the annual payment to whatever sum, maybe $1,000 per year, which would be enough to bring down, discourage people from just holding on to domains that they don't intend to do anything with, and then individuals who then want to purchase those domains and use them as registries can negotiate with the individuals who, by their own merit and their -- their vision, registered those domains so long ago that these legal companies, these big corporations now who see their opportunity to muscle in and beat these people out of the way are resorting to hijacking the Internet, in my opinion. One other point before I finish. If the board is going to continue using the word "gaming," would you please provide a definite definition of it? Because, otherwise, I am just going to interpret it as an abuse or abusing trust. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Marilyn Cade. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Marilyn Cade. I am a member of the broader business community. I want to thank the staff and the board, who provided the support to the staff to undertake the extensive round of comments that has now been analyzed and summarized and presented back to all of us. I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that we, in fact, did not make policy and are not making policy by waving green sheets of paper in a room where some people can come together and others cannot. The public comment process, which drew in members of the business community, other interested parties who are wanting to apply for a registry, and other parties who are just learning about what we do here, provides the opportunity broadly for people to participate and bring us their thoughts. So here's a comment that I would like to state, and then I have a question. You know, I did read all those comments. And I guess I was a little surprised that since I saw many of the business community comments, some of which, of course, did come through their trademark representatives or associations, did propose solutions to a number of areas. Some of those comments also raised a number of other very challenging areas. I applaud the fact that the staff identified those as four overreaching topics. I would say that they're actually threshold topics, and they are interrelated. I advise one of the global multinationals, AT&T. And AT&T did provide comments, and they did propose solutions. I will encourage them, as I have been talking to the IPC constituency members, as they propose solutions, I will encourage them to join the solutions-oriented work group or whatever it is. And I think that others who propose solutions should be included in that process if they meet the rest of the criteria. But I would like to say that those other three areas have to be addressed. And so here's my question. Let me preface that by saying, I read the economic statements. Those are not analysis documents. They're statements. They don't address the questions the board asked in the resolution, and they don't address the questions that you received as comments. So while you identified that there was a request for economic analysis and it was embedded in many of the comments you received, what you gave us back was a position paper. Thank you very much for making sure that it's open to public comment. And I appreciate that. Here's my question: Are we getting a real economic analysis from you, funded by ICANN, or shall I start the process now of fund-raising so that the community does the economic analysis it has asked for? If the community needs to provide that funding, you know, I only work about 75% of my time. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I just wanted to interject. There have been a couple of comments that have come over the course of that that come across as unprofessional and are directed to individuals in a personal capacity. We've all got reasonably thick skins. But I want to remind you that we have a code of conduct for behavior at ICANN meetings. And one of those is that we treat each other with civility and person and online. I just want to ask you, when you're making your comments, if you could refrain from any personal comments directed to individuals. So -- [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: -- the next one -- >>MARILYN CADE: Sorry, Peter. I just need to ask for clarification. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Sure. >>MARILYN CADE: Was that directed at me? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: No. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Joung Im Kim. >>PAUL FOODY: I apologize. I was directing my comment at lawyers. >>JOUNG IM KIM: Thank you. I won't make any comment directed at any individual. This is Joung Im Kim, coming from the University of Hawaii, but here sent by Korea, which will be the host of our October conference in Seoul, Korea. This is my first time at ICANN. And while this week I mostly participated in the At-Large Summit, including the group -- grouping 2, which focused on future structure of ICANN and many other sessions, I'm telling you this as an introduction so that you know where I'm coming from and what I have to say now. Well, one of the things I want to say to you is very exciting thing that I wanted to share. I shared this idea, this thought with some individuals, but I wanted to share with the larger community here. I think we might be witnessing birth, plural, of the, quote-unquote, "ICANN model" or the ALAC model as a trial that may be referred to by others and used by others as synonymous to the most effective model of multi-level, global yet local, multi-sector, multistakeholders, community-based participatory model. That excites me, and I am very glad I came here. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt. But can you bring your comments to the topic of new gTLDs as quickly as possible, please. I'm sorry, this is not about new gTLDs, but then I am going to make the next comment quickly, and I will sit down. The next comment is, since I have been participating in the at-large sessions and heard a lot about the outreach and public participation and so on, participatory process, I want to draw your attention to the concept of the users. And when you say users, I want you to be mindful of the fact that there are people who are not users, but they may be users in the future, or they may be dropouts. So in the process of developing and improving ICANN policies and structures, I would like you to include those people in your mind, and I want to make a few elaboration on that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I am going to have to close you down. Perhaps I wasn't clear that we were actually discussing new gTLDs. You probably noticed that most of the people before you were talking about new TLDs and so will the ones after you. Please will you sit down and let the people who want to talk about the topic carry on. The next one is Stacey King. >>STACEY KING: Hi. Stacey King. I am with Richemont. I do have to say up front that I am not making a statement on behalf of Richemont. I am here to talk about the more traditional businesses maybe are not as often represented here, and that's the typical bricks- and-mortar business. I will give the example of the company I work for, Richemont. Many of you may not know it. It is a luxury goods business. We own a number of some of the world's most famous brands, (saying names). I would like to make clear that not all of us are against the new gTLDs. Many of us recognize the importance they represent to the growth of the net. At the same time we recognize all too well the many problems on the Web -- fraud, cybersquatting, phishing; we deal with them every day -- and the perceived lack of voice that both IP owners and businesses feel they have at ICANN. This perception, real or not, acts as a barrier to brands understanding how or why they or their consumers fit into the gTLD process. A couple of weeks ago I gave a speech at a conference for European brand owners, and I talked about the new gTLDs, talked about the draft applicant guidebook, talked about how they should deal with it. And when we got to the question-and-answer period, we couldn't get past the idea of how is ICANN dealing with the problems we face now in the new gTLDs. Until we get to that point, they don't want to address whether they themselves should embrace new gTLDs. As a result, it's critical that ICANN address the concerns of the community and its comments on the guidebook in a timely manner in order to engage the rest of us out there. I believe the proposal to engage a panel of experts, as Kristina proposed, to address these issues will go a long way in bringing brands to the table and to begin to feel that they have a place at ICANN. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next can we have Lee Youn Ho. Is Lee Youn Ho here? If not, we will move on to Jothan Frakes. Jothan. >>JOTHAN FRAKES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will be very brief. My name is Jothan Frakes, I am with a company called Minds and Machines. And we are here to basically commend the process and progress that has been seen in the new top-level domain with respect to getting the guidebooks completed, working forward and finding ways to kind of untangle and create better hygiene to the process of respecting the rights mechanisms for others. It's very important that this process is going to remain expedient, and we look forward to the expedient process wherein applicants can begin to submit in the coming year, hopefully at the end of this year, but as expediently as possible that new top-level domains can begin to funnel into the Internet. It will be great for all parties, as we witnessed. I want to commend the at-large for very successful sessions off-site where they also came to this conclusion unanimously, or nearly unanimously, that new top-level domains are going to be very beneficial to everybody. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Philip Corwin. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Good morning. I am Philip Corwin. I am counsel to the Internet Commerce Association, which is a trade association of domainers. We have members from around the globe, and we are a member of the ICANN business constituency. Domainers are entrepreneurs. We view the new gTLD process as one that promotes entrepreneurship. I will say that among our membership there is divided opinion on the proposal. Some are against it, some have mixed feelings, some have talked to me about preparing applications for new TLDs. But on the three issues I am going to raise quickly, there is a very strong consensus among our members. The third -- the first one is pricing. There's great -- We view generally that there's going to be blow- back. Whatever rules are adopted for new gTLDs will become the rules for incumbent gTLDs as well. And I think everything I have heard at this meeting just reinforces that impression. The issue much competition was raised by ICANN with the U.S. Department of Commerce -- I mean, the Department of Justice in December. I have asked ICANN staff several times at this meeting whether the lack of price controls in new gTLDs would permit differential pricing at the incumbents, which will be the dominant gTLDs, at least for the foreseeable future, no matter what this does in the long term for competition. And I get very squishy answers. The answer is kind of not necessarily, but whatever ICANN's understanding or intent on this issue, there is litigation. We all know that the current dot com contract came out of a settlement of litigation. So we think at a minimum, even if there are not going to be price controls, there should be a prohibition of differential pricing. That whatever the price is for a domain at a gTLD, it should be the same price for everyone because if registry operators can differentially price, they become tax collectors, and they are taxing the success of domains, which had established a brand at a certain location, and it's not very easy to move to another registry and continue to be successful. The other issue is geographic controls. Frankly, we believe -- we understand the political pressures from the GAC. We think you have conceded a bit too much already in that each country has its own ccTLD, and there's no trademark protection for matt names. But whatever the rules are at the top level, we believe it needs to be made clear and I have been satisfied by the answers from staff at this meeting, but we would like to see it nailed counsel down in writing that at generic -- new generic top-level domains, that, for example, if there was a dot beach new gTLD, that if some entrepreneur wanted to register Hawaii.beach or Rio.beach Australia.beach or Riviera.beach, that there is no requirement to get the endorsement or non-objection of that from country or city or region, because, frankly, all that does is introduce politics into the domain process where you need a good lobbyist or something else to get that endorsement. The last thing is protection for trademark owners. We absolutely support processes and procedures that protect the legitimate interest of trademark owners in the new gTLD space, with two caveats. The first is that we need to be careful that it protects their existing rights under national and international law and doesn't give them rights in the DNS that don't exist under existing law. The second caveat is that when we get away beyond the first level down to the second level, my members have many concerns about the UDRP process. Many of them are the same concerns I hear are articulated by trademark interests. But to the extent that there is going to be any new protections or process at the second level, it has done very carefully so that the existing due process rights, legitimate rights of domainers, of registrants are adequately protected. The UDRP, in and of itself, could be a subject for a very extensive and complicated review to deal with all the problems that have arisen over the last dozen years in the application of the UDRP, and we don't want to see extensive and far-reaching changes in protections at the second level kind of as an after thought in the new gTLD process. So wrapping up, we think there's pricing issue. Differential pricing is very important. And in protecting the interest of nations on geo domains and trademark interests on their trademarks, be careful that you don't go too far because the result will be to not only injure the rights at existing TLDs but, frankly, make so many domains off limits or very complicated that you will inhibit entrepreneurial development of the new gTLDs. Thank you very much for your attention. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for making those six or seven points so concisely. Mr. McGrady. >>PAUL McGRADY: My name is Paul McGrady. I am a member of the IPC, I am a partner at Greenberg Traurig, and a writer for Lexis. That's by way of background. I just wanted to suggest a round of applause to the staff for all their amazing work to date on the draft applicant guidebook and to encourage them on their way in the coming months. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Sebastien. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings to an end the first topic. We have half an hour left for the rest of the forum. The next topic is going to be IDNs and the fast track. So the queue can now reform for those who want to speak about IDNs and the fast track. Line up at the microphone, and as you are taking your place, I will call on Harald Alverstrand -- is Harald there? Harald, could you deal with the questions that have come in from the question box on the CC fast track. >>HARALD ALVERSTRAND: So we have five questions about IDNs in the fast track that have been asked online. And two of them I have suggested answers for and will make some commentary. The first question from (saying name), when can we see appropriation for language table development as the basic technology for IDN? And there's a paper out there, which you will find under the ICANN Web site under the IDN fast-track topic. I must admit not having read it myself. The IDN variants table technology is actually fairly old by so-called Internet time standards. And the main issues are linguistic, not really technical. I don't know what (saying name) means by appropriation, so I would have to ask. And so it's important for IDNs. That's for sure. And we know that. There's some text in the guidebook about the use of such tables. Second question, from Raymond Marshall, IDNs fast track may cause existing ccTLDs to decline in value. Will owners of a ccTLD get first pick of the existing domains in the IDN ccTLDs to offset against such declines? In short, not ICANN's business. The selection of the session about who should manage the prospective IDN ccTLDs will be a matter to be decided in the local community country or territory that is associated with a string. I mean, if the governments of a territory, 3166-1 territory, cannot figure out which name -- which operator they want for which names, well, ICANN has no business saying what it should be. The three other questions, and two of them I think have the same answer as the one I just read, where Pedro (saying name), possible conflicts between the ccTLD managers and the governments over IDN ccTLDs, again. And Nikolay, of the risk of multiple applicants for IDN ccTLDs. The last question was whether elections could effect the fast-track process. Well, my personal answer is I have no idea. It depends on which election in which country. But we will get answers out on this -- on this will a little more conversation than my personal opinion after the meeting. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Harald. Let's go to the front of the queue. First speaker, please. >>LEE YOUN HO: I am Youn Ho Lee. I am from KCC, the Korean government. The Korean government considers ccTLDs to be different from gTLDs, and I would like to further illustrate this. NIDA, the Korean registry for dot KR, and the future registry for the Korean IDN ccTLD is not working under a business model. As a nonprofit public corporation established by the Act on Internet address resources in 2004, NIDA mainly aims to provide domain services to the people of Korea, not to make profit, and to provide the security and stability of DNS for the public good. The Korean government does not consider the Korean ccTLD domain as a product, and the domain user community is not considered a market. Thus, although we recognize the importance of adhering to the IDN guidelines, we very strongly feel that different standards should be applied to IDN ccTLDs in the introduction and operation of new TLDs. Thus, a single uniform DoR that applies to all new TLDs is not acceptable. And although we do recognize that the ccTLD community, as a whole, needs to increase their contributions, we are against the idea of the open-ended fee structure. I would like to conclude by stating that the Korean government is committed to responsible voluntary contributions to ICANN. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. We welcome that contribution from the government of Korea. Can I ask you, if you have the text of your statement, sir, available, could you make it available to the scribes. There's a couple of places in the record -- >>LEE YOUN HO: Yes, we will do that later. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. Next at the microphone, please. >>TAN YALING: Thank you. This is Tan Yaling with CNNIC. I will make my speech as concise as possible. As stands one of ICANN's responsibilities is to ensure public good instead of pursuing commercial interest, and the introduction of the -- intention of introduction IDN ccTLD is to meet the present need of IDN users to bridge the digital divide, especially the next billion people, who can't access the Internet because of language barrier. But I think we are losing the point on IDN ccTLD fast track, because according to fast track tied-in principles, the principle of the fast track is to introduce a limited number of noncontentious IDN ccTLDs in a short-term time frame to meet near-term demand. And the fast track is experimental in nature. In short, fast track is supposed to be a simple, clear, and limited solution before a comprehensive IDN CC PDP is developed. Now, in my view, fast track seems has been stagnated by issues such as DoR and the financial contribution issues, and the fast track is going to become a slow track. In the opinion of CNNIC, we would like to make commitment to make the security and stability of DNS and, in the meantime, we're willing to make contribution to ICANN, but DoR and contribution shouldn't be a prerequisite for fast track. Anyway, considering the complexity of DoR and the money issue, my suggestion is why don't we just put the DoR and financial contribution things aside. Just let's go through the fast track as it goes, and leave these issues for IDN CC PDP. I'm sure, when the time IDN CC PDP is finished, all the issues should have been solved. And that feeds our original intention on fast track and the CC PDP. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Steve Goldstein. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: You know, somebody says, "Dad, how about giving me the keys to the car? I won't make any promises, and I'm not going to agree to put gas in the tank after I have used it up, but give me the keys to the car now, huh?" >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next at the microphone. >>RAMESH NADORAJAH: Thank you, Peter. My name is Ramesh Nadarajah, speaking on behalf of the AP TLD. Three points to make. First, you've already heard from a couple of our members before this. I think a lot of the points are similar. Firstly, that we feel that IDN ccTLDs should be treated similar to ASCII ccTLDs. This is because we know our communities. We serve a potential community of more than two and a half billion, many of whom are not able to read the Roman alphabet or the ASCII script. These people will be disenfranchised if there are delays, further disenfranchised the longer we delay. The second point to make is that the ccTLDs are responsible people, responsible managers. They've been managing their ccTLDs for quite some time now, and they recognize the importance of adhering to technical standards, and they are willing to adhere to the relevant IETF technical standards in relation to IDN, IDNA protocols and guidelines. But this should not mean that any documentation that -- that documentation should not be a precondition to delegation of the IDN ccTLDs. Thirdly is actually according what the comment was just before me, which is that we are willing to make contributions towards some of the costs that ccTLD has -- sorry, that ICANN has invested in relation to work on IDN. But there must also be a recognition that it's not just ICANN who has invested. Quite a number of our members have been doing a lot of work in getting the necessary tables together, identifying the differences in the languages, the scripts, putting all of that together. So there is cost involved there as well. We recognize there is cost. We are willing to contribute. But we want that contribution to be voluntary. We -- in fact, one of the problems we have is, we don't understand what the cost is at the moment. We are still waiting to understand what the cost is. Therefore, any delegation that's going to be done, there should not be precondition of an agreement to cost. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line. >>HOWARD LI: All right. This is Howard, the guy who got the job on Monday and probably will get fired today. [ Applause ] >>HOWARD LI: Actually, I need to modify my statement here, 'cause my statement is also about the DORs and the fees that the IDN ccTLD fast track is already in discussion. But I actually would like to bring it to another aspect, that, just like Steve said, okay, getting the cars and all this, getting the cars and getting the keys, and running on the road. But we have to remember, the DNS system isn't somebody's car. So for my feelings of this week, I have to say that domain name is global public resource that has been in place long before ICANN was established. And we are here today is because ICANN is actually entrusted by all the TLD managers and the registrars here today to manage the DNS. It does impose a lot of social responsibility onto ICANN's shoulder, and it's certainly not an easy job. However, this is why ICANN here today to succeed IANA, it is so precious that ICANN don't lose that entrustment. IANA fast track for meeting the present needs, for bridging the digital divide set by language barriers, which suffers the most, users in developing and least-developed countries or territories, so that's our duty to help. While the domain names are probably the last things to be multilingualized on the Internet -- I hate to say "internationalized," because starting 2005, in the Vancouver meeting, I have to call them the multilingual domain names. [ Applause ] >>HOWARD LI: So I say, let's just let the fast track go fast instead of opposing a DOR or a fee requirement. Those ASCII ccTLDs exist and running just fine long before ICANN was established, again, we also come to ICANN because we trust ICANN, trust the bottom-up policy development model, and trust not just set by a piece of agreement. A piece of agreement, sometimes we know how fragile it can be. So this is so important that ICANN retains that trust not by a piece of paper, but by the good work. Good work pays off financially most of the time. So we should encourage the ccTLD and IDN ccTLD managers to sign either DOR or accountability framework or exchange letter with ICANN to further demonstrate their commitment. But it really shouldn't be a burden or requirement, considering the wide variety of administration style. Again, let's just let the fast track go fast, and in ICANN we trust. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: That was a lovely statement, but would you please state for the record whom you represent. >>HOWARD LI: I'm speaking totally on my personal capacity. I have many hats, as you know, but I'm not wearing any of them. Just for my personal statement. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Next in line. >>KHALED FATTAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Also would you state, Khaled, whom you're representing now. >>KHALED FATTAL: Steve, I think you're making an important point in asking people to identify who they represent. Whenever I step up to the microphone in the past, and it's always been on record, I always establish who I represent, who I'm speaking on behalf. And thank you for the reminder. And I hope everybody else does the same thing. Khaled Fattal, chairman, CEO, of live multilingual translator, also chairman, CEO of MINC, member of the president's committee on IDNs, also, I think, you're all aware of my involvements with Arabic Internet as well as many other community IDN Internets in the past. Let me start first with talking about IDNs and the fast track. Let me start first with paying tribute to the effort by the staff and pay tribute to the individual members of the board. I accept and I acknowledge the daunting task that has been put in front of you to deliver on what is required on behalf of so many different parties that are coming from so many different angles with so many different interests. I also recognize that ICANN is starting to appear to be listening better than it has in the past. But I'm not quite sure if we're still listening as best as we can. James Seng, in his first -- as the first speaker, made a remark about why the three-letter requirement may not necessarily be something that, in Chinese, is valid or required. But here we seem to be sitting on a process that is channeling you, as a board, and staff to start doing the preparation towards a direction that makes things exceptionally centralized. I can tell you -- and I totally agree with Rita's comment that you guys are doing the best you can in factoring all relevant issues. And that's why it becomes complex. But I will issue this challenge: You're not going to be able to do it. And you know why? Because the expertise that's required for factoring IDNs and policies for IDNs, for example, that pertain to Arabic or Chinese or Pashtun, I don't think there's anything here from the Pashtun community. Their exercise that's required -- well, I'm glad there is, then. I stand corrected. But the -- and I would like to hear him come up and speak, then, so at least the board is more aware. But the expertise that's required, ladies and gentlemen, is so much that to create a central mecca for everybody to come and apply and create a process that has a one size fit all with minimal requirements is going to actually disappoint the members of the intellectual community. It's going to disappoint the members of the IDN community. And I think had we listened five years ago to a presentation I made and many others who have discussed the same thing instead of focusing on domain names that are international or domain names that are gTLDs, we should have focused on a multilingual Internet. Because then the process which you have been asked to preside on and deliver would have asked you to actually empower local community to help you in making the policies required instead of having to sit as -- in judgment on what is right for the Arabs, what is right for the Chinese, and what is -- and factor all that in. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a task that's impossible. The reason why you're finding it exceptionally daunting is because the direction you've had laid out is not going to deliver all of the needs. I recognize nothing's going to come out that will be perfect. But as Steve Goldstein said, and I totally -- and I fully agree with him, is that we need the airplane to be airworthy. The way we are moving forward, I don't see anybody being happy enough to make this plane airworthy. The last point I will close with, the IDN ccTLD fast track, we've talked about this in the past, and we agree on why it came about and why the need of the international community has been so -- of paramount importance. A communiqué that came out of ICANN, I think it was a couple of weeks ago, and I stand corrected if I am mistaken, talked about that more than 250 ccTLDs, country codes, authorities, have been informed about the fast track and asked to participate. What the communiqué says is that out of the 250, 34 have showed their interest. If that -- if I am mistaken, please correct me, but that's what I recall. If this is a statement of -- let's say reconcile the needs of the international community for the last six or seven years calling for making the Internet multilingual, making -- providing IDNs. And now we're asking ourselves, well, how many have agreed to participate? And we're only finding 34. I don't know how many of the 34 are from the non-ASCII community. The point I'm raising, Mr. Chairman, do you believe that this process, which is meant to bring in the communities of the non- -- the non-ASCII communities in the Internet, do you believe this process has satisfied those that would have been standing in line, instead of two hundred -- 34, we should have had 150. We should have had 200. I ask you that question. I ask you to really ponder on that one. Because I think this is a reflection of what still is needed to be done. Thank you very much. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line, please. >>WERNER STAUB: My name is Werner Staub. My organization, CORE, has no vested interest in IDN ccTLDs. Well, actually, this is not true. We have a vested interest in the quickest possible deployment of IDN ccTLDs, as have any other proponents of gTLDs. We have no interest whatsoever in ccTLDs being saddled with pointless discussions about how much, you know, a given country should pay for getting a way to serve their own community that most of the countries have had without doing anything. Even if the gTLD round, which I don't hope is further delayed, this is no justification to give additional delays for the ccTLDs. They should get to where they need to be as quickly as possible. The work that they will do is going to be in the interest of us all. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Next in line, please. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Mr. Chairman, the three people do not have IDN comments. We just wanted to make a placeholder in case the session was cut short. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ah. Thank you for that. Is that the end of -- sorry. Manal, a comment on IDN ccTLDs. Thank you. >>MANAL ISMAIL: Manal Ismail, Egyptian GAC representative and speaking for myself. I think admitting the need and agreeing to proceed with the fast track, we implicitly agreed to share some risk and to, with all good faith, work towards a PDP. And I feel we are trying to finish before we even get started. So I think we have to really get started and work it step by step. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Now, the meeting is scheduled to close in about seven minutes. But we have up to half an hour available if you would like it. Members of the board have indicated that they are available to stay. Would the community like the public comment period extended for half an hour? [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'll take that as a flash of green cards, and we'll move on. Now, if I understand you, Mr. Palage, you've got different topics you want to raise than IDN ccTLDs. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Correct. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: All right. Can we begin with those, then, and -- Mr. (saying name) has been there, I think, the longest. Mr. Goldstein. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, chair. Regarding the IDN ccTLDs and all the statements that have been made about it, there seems to be a major sticking point about the DORs and the fees and agreeing to sign and pay and so forth. I'm wondering if there are any countries who do want an IDN ccTLD who would be willing to come forth and speak to us and say, yeah, we are willing to sign something and to pay and to agree to pay now, and then maybe we can just break the logjam and get some IDN ccTLDs really on fast track. So maybe that's a -- an unusual idea. But if there's any country that's ready to go on that, we'd sure love to hear from you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Steve. Back to the microphone. >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you, Peter. I'm Eric Brunner- Williams. I work at CORE, but I'm speaking entirely in a personal capacity. We began work on IDNA in about 2000. And we were compelled to do so by the actions of one of the vendors, VeriSign. So when you attempt to cost the activity, I suggest that -- and I've made this in written comments previously -- that you include the cost that the ccTLDs, the IDN community has given voluntarily already, which you are using without actually having paid for. We have given thousands of hours of engineering time. And this should not be ignored when you attempt to cost what the IDN ccTLD program actually is costing and who should pay for it. You should look to VeriSign, which has made quite a profit on this activity in the past, and others who have as well, not merely to the CCs as if we were starting the ledger books now. The ledger books began in 2000. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. Roberto, did you have a comment also on IDNs? And Katim. >>ROBERTO GAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I do have a comment on IDNs. I'm -- Those who know me will acknowledge the fact that I have spoken for IDN ccTLDs in each and every occasion. I think that is one of the most important things that we can manage to do for the Internet community, especially for the parts of the community that have not been well served by ASCII TLDs. So I'm all for having the fast track as fast as possible. However, as a board member, I have a commitment to serve the whole community. And so I need to make a couple of comments, add a couple of comments to what I've heard so far. I appreciate the fact that gTLDs are considered a different thing from ccTLDs and that ccTLDs up to now have not been asked to contribute to the ICANN budget and to the general cost of operation of ICANN. This is true. However, may I also remind you that once upon a time, gTLDs also were not asked to contribute. That has changed in time when the management of Internet operation has become more complicated and there was the need for funding and the funding had to come from somewhere. So it was simply just a choice at that time to operate this with the gTLD contract. I don't think that the fact that the ccTLDs, ASCII ccTLDs, up to now are not being asked to have contributions to the ICANN budget can be considered a precedent, a valid precedent when we talk about IDN TLDs that are a method of much more complicated, and so that will require and that has required so far already some funding. I also have to say that at this point, since the whole operations of ICANN, of IANA, and so on, has a cost, if ccTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are not paying that cost, that only means one thing, that somebody else is paying. And that somebody else, at the end of the day, is the registrants of the gTLDs. And I don't think that this is a fair arrangement. So I think that -- I beg that the organizations that are interested in getting IDN ccTLDs will think about this and think about the fact that the way that they will be looked at by the rest of the Internet community that is paying for the costs while they are having a free ride. However, I think that the most important issue from my point of view is not really the payment, although it is an important matter. I think that -- I really believe that at one point in time, the operators of IDN ccTLDs will eventually provide voluntary contributions to ICANN. I think that -- I have lived long enough in this community, I have seen ccTLDs, for instance, providing voluntary contributions. So I'm confident that this will happen. I think the most important issue is not the financial aspect, but is the commitment to use the protocols and the rules that the community itself is -- is giving itself. I have witnessed in the past a violation of rules. And, for instance, one example was the wild card, where that was creating a problem for the whole community, and that we were able to solve only because we had a relationship with the operator that would allow us to put pressure onto the operator to change the situation. If we don't -- if ICANN doesn't have, if the Internet community as a whole doesn't have a way -- it can be a contract, it can be whatever. You know, if contract is not the appropriate means, I think that we have to find another means. But we need to have a mechanism that is appropriate to make sure that whoever is getting into this electronic highway that the Internet is will respect the code of this Internet community, the same way as when you go to a normal highway you have to respect the rules of traffic. And if you don't respect the rules of traffic, then there are sanctions. And I think that we have to -- we have to, by consensus, put together a system that is similar for dealing with traffic on the Internet. So if contracts is not the appropriate way, I think that we have to find a different way. But we have to do this. And, again, it's not going to be something between ICANN and an operator. It's going to be something where ICANN, on behalf of the whole Internet community -- for practical purposes, it's going to be ICANN, but on behalf of the Internet community -- is making sure that everybody agrees on a common code that will make life easier for everybody. If we can get to this kind of agreement, I think that the fast track will -- can start in very short, with very short delays. And I think that we will be able to give to the vast population that has been deprived of appropriate presence on the Internet this possibility. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. Bruce. Can we keep it short? We're running out of time. I think some of these speeches had have other occasions to be presented. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, actually. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. At the microphone. -- Katim, this is about IDNs? >>KATIM TOURAY: Yes. Thanks, Peter. I would like to respond very briefly to a remark by Mr. Fattal about low response to the invitation to ICANN to express interest in the new IDN process. I have to say, I think, in my opinion, that this whole number has to be taken in the context of the fact that there are a lot of countries in Africa, for instance, that even though they are non-European, are perfectly happy by virtue of historical reasons, colonialism or whatnot, with the Latin script. So, really, the IDNs don't really apply to them, with the exception, I must say, of Ethiopia, for instance, which is actively involved in it, and also those countries that live in northern Africa in the Arab-speaking region. Having said that, I think maybe one policy, that ICANN could have been more forceful in trying to reach out or have outreach programs to really sensitize people a little bit more about the availability of this process so they could be encouraged to participate more. I also would like to say, I think this is really -- this goes to the heart of a very important issue here, which is public participation. Let's remember, there is this saying, you can take the horse to the river, but you cannot force the horse to drink. The process is there for everybody to participate. Just to give you a very brief example. Just about two days ago, I ran into Zahid from Pakistan. And we were talking about the IDN process, and I suggested he join the IDN Arabic-speaking group that's actually when Ram Mohan was on the board that is discussing how they can really use the Arabic script in the IDN process. When Zahid got in touch with them, they realized there were some older numbers that actually were not taken on board in the process. So they finally picked up that thing. And I think the lesson here is that we all should encourage each and every single person that we know to get actively involved in this process. Because like I always tell people, if you do not participate, the process will go on, and you will have to agree to live with whatever decision has been arrived at by other people on your behalf, and you might not necessarily like what they have decided. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let's go back to the front of the queue. >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA: Yes, this is Naomasa Maruyama with JPNIC. Here is the information I would like to share with you. The Japanese government set up in November of last year, the Japanese government set up a committee to discuss about the process of designating IDN ccTLD for Japan. The discussion is not finished yet, but the mood of the committee is that the designated IDN ccTLD manager for Japan should have the contract with ICANN and commit the payment to ICANN. This is just speaking about the IDN ccTLD for Japan, not about the other ccTLDs. And I have to say that this is not decided, but this is just the mood. But I hope this is a quick response to Steve. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Bring it on, Maruyama-San. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: You have actually had a turn and I am wondering whether -- not you, Mr. Maruyama. You have had a turn. No, not you Maruyama. >>HOWARD LI: Just to respond to Steve's comment. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Very quickly, please. >>HOWARD LI: Very quick. I'm sure there are some IDN ccTLD and ASCII ccTLD operator that will some to sign, as Maruyama said, that they will come to ICANN, say, "Okay, we will sign the paper and we will take the money." That is totally fine. What we are meaning is it should not be a requirement. That's what we are saying. That's why I like Roberto's comments so much. Financially, pays good. That's good. It should not be a requirement. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: There's fast track and there's not-so-fast track. We are talking about fast track. >>HOWARD LI: I know. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: So you want to come and be ready? Let's talk fast track. >>HOWARD LI: Even in fast-track it should not be a requirement. There are some IDN ccTLD managers who come to pay and sign, fine. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. We understand the point. Mr. Palage. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of order, having run out of the public comment forum in Cairo as well as running behind here, perhaps the staff could take into recognition that there are a number of important issues -- IDN fast track, new TLDs -- and perhaps budget that into the upcoming Sydney meeting so we don't run short. I have a couple of points. I will keep them succinct. First, having participated in, getting a pin last night, 32 out of 34 meetings, I have been involved in the policy development process since the beginning. I have seen the good, bad and ugly. I think it's important to acknowledge some of the good work Denise Michel and her policy staff have been doing. All too often in the past I have seen staff and the constituencies at times rolling rowing in different directions and the boat going in circles. I have seen marked improvements, and Bruce, perhaps you can comment on this having sat in on a number of meetings over the past week, things are going in the right direction. I think that's positive, and when things are going right, the community needs to tell the board that staff is doing a good job. [ Applause ] >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Second point, one of the initiatives that Denise Michel and her staff have done is consistent with ICANN's principles of openness and transparency. And what they have done is they have provided an online forum where anyone from the GNSO receiving money to attend the ICANN meetings, it's there for the entire community to see. We see if they received airfare, whether they received per diem, whether they have received a hotel. I think as ICANN's budget continues to grow and more people are, at times, subsidized to participate in ICANN -- I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- and I think, again, Vanda would probably come up here and hit me upside the head if I said it was a bad thing, I think it's important that we just document who is coming and the compensation or remuneration that they are receiving. I think that this is consistent with ICANN's principles of openness and transparency. Third point, it has to do with -- Paul just left. It has to do with the job description of the CEO. And I actually wanted to sort of make a comment to Paul. I don't know if he is here. But many people in this room know that Paul and I have not seen eye to eye on a number of issues, both philosophically and personally, over the years. But do I want to acknowledge the work that he has done improving the ICANN process. Now, while I recognize that the board did not, if you will, announce the search for a CEO until this meeting when Paul could address the entire Internet community, I do believe it's important for the staff to publish the criteria that you are looking for in a new CEO. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: It will be. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you. If I can, Peter, and this is, if you will, a statement to you. Back in 2003, I sent an e-mail to Vint, and I talked to him about the complexities of the job of president and CEO of ICANN. And I suggested to him at that time that he might want to consider bifurcating the responsibilities. At the time it was Keith Teare and Paul Twomey. And I suggested to him Paul could be the ambassador of good will, circulate it around the ICANN community, and Keith could be the guy staying at home making the trains run on time. As ICANN continues to grow in complexity, I would urge the board to consider this, because I can almost guarantee that when your expert headhunters come back, they are going to say ICANN is a unique organization and there is no one candidate that meets all the criteria. So here are the list of candidates with their strengths and minuses. And at that point in time, would I urge the board to consider bifurcating or at least allocating some responsibilities. Final point and it has to do with the board review. As I stated during -- I believe it was the registry constituency meeting, I was very concerned about recommendations talking about reducing the detail in the board minutes. And, Steve, I would like to give you an example of how those details actually provide a basis for the community to hold the board accountable. On June 18th, 2007, almost two years ago, as other business, so it wasn't an action item, Paul Twomey addressed in the minutes a statement regarding the dot INT registry. He talked about communication that had been received, not only from the ITU but also from the U.S. government. He said that ICANN will be undertaking a public consultation on representations that it has received from the ITU. In two years, I have not seen any representation. So again, this is an issue, Peter, you may recall when I was on the board I raised issues regarding the dot INT registry, specifically with regard to provisions in the ICANN articles of incorporation and bylaws that say that ICANN shall not act as a registry. So again, Steve, this is an example of how detailed minutes allow people in the community to hold the board accountable. Thank you. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Mike, thanks, and we will be very happy to accept your application and give it due consideration. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks. Next at the microphone. >>TONY HOLMES: Tony Holmes speaking as chairman of the ISP and connectivity providers constituency. Yesterday I attended the PSC session on improving institutional confidence, and most important of all are the next steps there, the detailed implementation plan. And I have mentioned a number of times across this meeting the need to map ICANN priorities to resource, and certainly, in our mind, this is one of those priorities. But my request is that we do not find that the implementation plan is posted as people board the flights to go to Sydney. That leaves no time for informed debate during the Sydney meeting and simply relies on input to that process across the consultation period. Everybody is insanely busy, and the pressures due to external influences is not going to help enhancing the engagement required on such an important topic. On the general issue of mapping resources to priorities, I think we're well past the stage where we can just throw additional staff resources at the issues and we have to find a different way of doing things. And I would like the board to consider that during their meeting. One suggestion I do have is that maybe the meetings committee could also post a Web link after each ICANN meeting so we could just provide some feedback on what works really well at ICANN meetings and what could be improved. I think that would be a helpful process. And finally, Mike Palage stole a little bit of my thunder because I wanted to speak for all of us involved in the policy development process and say that I think all of us have tremendous respect and appreciation for the work of the ICANN policy support staff. I think they are a credit to ICANN, and we all benefit from their efforts. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you for that. I'm sure the staff gratefully receive those compliments. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Can I come in, Peter? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'm sorry, John Jeffrey, chairman of the public participation committee. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Tony, for your remark and suggestion. I wanted to tell you we are thinking about that. Thank you, we have noted it and we will come back to you. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ayesha. >>AYESHA HASSAN: Thank you, Peter. Ayesha Hassan, the International Chamber of Commerce. In the interest of time I would like to just support what Tony has articulated about the timing of the PSC report, and also to underscore that I am hearing a message from the board and the community that we all need to work together to put forward workable solutions. The implementation is critical to my membership, and we would like to be able to give thorough input on the implementation after the comments have been compiled. So timing is essential, as we don't expect it to have other opportunities afterwards. And we would like to be able to do our best to help you. Thanks. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much for that. Next. >>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Hello, Sébastien Bachollet. I am going to speak in French, because we have the interpretation today, which is a great improvement of ICANN that I want to take advantage of. I would also like to take advantage that there are a lot more people present now than early this morning, so I would like to thank the board and the staff for having supported the establishment of the summit for the Internet users and the other meetings that have taken place here. At the end of the meeting this morning, there were 35 pages of a political statement, and I think that's a first time that individual users represented within ICANN have done so much work and have participated so deeply, publicly and in terms of policy. Jean-Jacques Subrenat, who is the president of the public participation committee, I am personally sorry that all of the participants at the summit were not able to remain this morning so they could see the end of their work and to be able to stay tomorrow and be at the end of the meeting, which will be the board meeting. I'm going to finish by where I should have started. I am Sébastien Bachollet. I am vice president of ALAC. I am member of ISOC France. I am a consultant, and many other things, too. And if you would like -- if you want to find out, you can go on -- you can go on my page on ICANNWiki, which has all this information, and I encourage all of you to put your information on the Web page so that our speeches here can be shorter. Thank you very much and have a good day. >>STEVE GOLDSTEIN: Sebastien and all the people of the ALAC Summit, I think you know that I was one of the biggest skeptics that you would ever accomplish anything here at the summit, and I must admit that I am absolutely delighted and amazed at the tremendous amount of good work that's come out of that summit. I thank you and I congratulate you all. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Back to the microphone. Thank you. >>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: Amadeu Abril i Abril, ICANN veteran, speaking from for the moment just for myself. First, a short commercial. We just submitted some days -- well, some weeks ago, an expression of interest for organizing the European meeting in Barcelona in 2010, whatever dates this will be. So I would just like to discourage anybody thinking about applying for that time frame. They already have the best possible candidate. [ Laughter ] >>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: But then the personal request to the board is that, please fix the new request about the dates as soon as possible so we know where it is. Regarding meetings, the organization of the meetings, I have a big problem with the current -- I mean, it's much improved in all regards except for one, the published schedule. And that's between unbearable and a nightmare. You know, one of the most useful questions for the new people coming - - and there are lots in the last meeting -- "What are the useful sessions for me?" You go session by session, you see, why is important? Because everything ICANN does is important. Who should attend? Amadeu, his mother, and the family dog. Everybody. Why? Because we are addressing important issues. You don't have any name of panelists, you don't have any name of the concrete topics, you don't know who's organizing that. That's very bad from the participation side, but it has a very bad effect on another one. You want to say something as you don't know how it works, you don't know who's responsible for these workshops. You just try to bring a workshop with your friends, and then you have in two consecutive meetings or three consecutive meetings workshops that are done from the staff and the community that are exactly the same, with the same people saying the exact same thing, but only different accent to say who's there, who's the boss, and who's having friends. I don't like that. And I have the same problem with myself. I want to say something. We organize a workshop. And the names of the participants never end up, and nobody asked me for that. I really encourage you to do something very useful: Designate who's responsible for the schedule, just the front person, not who's organized that, but a front person for anybody having an idea. Second, as soon as you publish the schedule, publish the name of the responsible person from the staff. And if that's someone from the community as well, the name that is organizing, if all the panelists are not there. And especially, please, this person that is responsible, maintain a list, a blog, Wiki, whatever, where people can make proposals for ideas for topics having, you know, in the next meeting and even when they see the topics, et cetera, merge the workshops or say, oh, I would like participating here. It doesn't mean that you need to accommodate everybody there. Quite the contrary. We prefer well-organized workshops like many of them are. But now the system is completely untransparent. You need to e-mail 18 friends within the ICANN community to understand who is the person responsible for that meeting and what's going about. I think this is not useful. Finally, do you allow me a personal request to you, Peter? I don't know whether it's a yes or a no. I can't see whether you're -- >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, fire away, as long as it's done politely. That was my major concern. [ Laughter ] >>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: Peter, it's done very politely. But I have to say that, you know, I have a thick, a very thick skin. I am very aggressive in talking to people, especially to the useful people. But I was really appalled as an ICANN participants to the way you cut intervention of that Korean lady that I can't remember the name because I couldn't read the transcript. I think that for a first-time attendant, you were right on what you were saying, but the tone was unnecessarily rude. And I think you owe an apology to her on our behalf as chair of ICANN. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, I'm certainly going to talk to her about it at the end of the meeting. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Next. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Okay. I'm Alan Greenberg, I'm a member of the ALAC and the ALAC liaison to the GNSO. At this meeting, the GNSO approved, unanimously approved, the package of RAA amendments. The next step is board approval. I strongly urge the board to approve this package at this meeting. In it's delayed to a future meeting, then any registrar renewals between now and then will not be subject to these new improvements. The whole process has gone on far too long already, and it would be really nice to see action out of this meeting tomorrow. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Noted. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, next in line. >>KHALED FATTAL: Thank you, Peter. I'm pleased I had the opportunity to come up and further address the issue that board member Katim raised on the issue of the fast-track of IDN ccTLD. I think he made some very valid points and I'm pleased he raised them. But let me just add why, from the international perspective, international community perspective that has been calling for IDNs for so many years, you hit it right on the nose by saying that ICANN should do more. I think you used the word "stronger." I probably don't think it needs to be stronger. It needs to be much more comprehensive to enable and make it possible for these ccTLDs to participate. And I'm not saying that ICANN is not trying. But I think maybe we should look at a bigger picture. And that is probably where the discourse is making it less likely for these ccTLDs to participate where I would want them more to participate. I think nobody has been talking here about the JPA. Everybody's busy with ccTLD fast track, IDNs, gTLDs. But the JPA is one of the issues that could be the reason why some of these governments are actually sitting back and watching. So in that sense, perhaps some of the discussion that could have been much more positive is how and what the picture will be beyond the expiration of the JPA. And ICANN and I think we could have done a little bit more. I said the same thing at the IGF last week in Geneva, to assist ICANN and assist U.S. government so that there is some kind of a modality that takes us to the next phase in transitioning. It is perhaps that that I think has stopped or probably made people hit the brakes. On a second note, it is quite important to recognize that when we hear within the ICANN framework the statement said that they know the processes here, that if they don't come and participate, they're going to miss the boat, it is not because they have a choice. It is because it's the only boat. And I think if we are able to provide -- to assure that it's not because that we are the only boat that they need to come to, it's because it is the best boat, that we will find that it's far more likely that some of these ccTLDs will come and participate. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Next. Thank you. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Zahid Jamil from Pakistan. I'm a lawyer, a member on the BC. I'm a councillor on the GNSO. A couple of points dealing with the IDNs and what has been said earlier. Something happened just the other day where, with the Arabic working group, I'm an Urdu speaker, the language Urdu from Pakistan. We found there were certain characters that were not included in the Unicode, has nothing to do with the Arabic Script Working Group, but they weren't in the Unicode. But, effectively, there would be a confusion about visually, at the very least, and I'm not very technically competent to understand what other problems may occur. But, basically, there were different characters from what were being assigned to my language. And I find that, having come here, speaking to the right people, a board member, for instance, someone on the ASWIG, this forum was so open in trying to explain to me how this problem would affect me. So I wanted to first of all acknowledge that. And I'm a developing country person. And, yes, I'd like to talk about participation. And so it is important that the travel support that is being discussed in various workshops is provided to many other people from developing countries as well as other people who are actually participating. I think it's a very serious issue for outreach. The reason why this thing got slipped up was because only one person from my country could actually come to that meeting. And he doesn't represent government necessarily. I'm not sure. He did a very good job fighting many other issues. But you need more people around the table looking at this aspect. Because that would then impact when you launch the IDNs. So I think, saying, let's push it -- and I'm taking Khaled's point -- I think if you're going to push it hard without doing the study carefully, you're going to have a problem. On the last point about the JPA, I'm going to say this on behalf of developing countries, at least from mine, and I speak for business and civil society both in Pakistan, not necessarily for government. We don't care about the JPA. We do not care about the JPA because it does not affect the guy, the farmer on the ground. He wants the Internet to work. That's a political issue. It's between governments. And governments have a responsibility to do that. That's fine. But those governments should have been in. An example of my situation, taking care of the problem of my Urdu script. Instead, they're spending their time fighting about the JPA. And I think that's really, really wrong. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Don't all rush at once. But who would like the last word? >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Peter, could I make a comment? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Certainly comment, yes. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: On this particular issue here, there are some problems that are not solvable in the ICANN context. In some cases, the task of ICANN is to say, "Yes, we have a problem, and it needs solution elsewhere." In this case, the Unicode consortium might be the only place the problem can be solved. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Jean-Jacques and then Dennis. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you, Chair. Several of these remarks over the past few minutes have, in one way or another, been dealing -- sorry. I shouldn't listen to myself in French at the same time. [ Laughter ] >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: That's really silly. -- have to do with public participation. So have we gone over the time? Yes. So I cannot reply. But very quickly, the points are taken. One of the suggestions, which was to have a Wiki or some sort of place where, after an ICANN meeting, additional suggestions can be taken on board, is really important. We will be working on that. I just wanted to give you that reassurance. Travel. I'll go very fast. There's travel support, but there are many things related to travel in attending board -- ICANN meetings. I've taken several of these this morning. For instance, the difficulty for some to access visas. One gentleman from Africa told me that he had to stay in a hotel in Paris for four days, not that it's disagreeable, but it's costly, because the Pakistan embassy in Paris apparently was not sufficiently aware of the ICANN meeting. >> Mexico. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: The Mexico embassy. Did I say something else? So there are a whole series of things we have to get better knowledge of. And I can assure you that my colleagues and myself on the Public Participation Committee will look at that. Thank you for your input. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. And Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Peter. There have been some very generous acknowledgments from the floor about the effort and achievements of the staff in producing the documents. But I would also like to acknowledge and thank all the volunteers and others in the support organizations and advisory bodies for all their work in -- that goes unacknowledged, as far as I can see. But many of you, particularly chairs, do an enormous amount of work, for which we are really grateful. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Sébastien Bachollet. (No translation to scribes). Thank you all. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached the end of the public forum. I see no further speakers. Let me just remind you that we have a number of comments we've received online. They will all be responded online. And we will also take the text from this forum and collate it and answer any unanswered questions. Thank you, all, very much, and see you back for the next session. Meeting closed.