Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in São Paulo, Brazil

Captioning GNSO Public Forum Part 1

4 December 2006

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Public Forum Part 1 held on 4 December 2006 in São Paulo, Brazil. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

ICANN MEETING
GNSO NEW TLDS PUBLIC FORUM
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
4 DECEMBER 2006

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED. THIS IS A GNSO SESSION ON THE NEW GTLDS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN UNDERWAY THROUGHOUT MOST OF THIS YEAR, 2006, AND THIS IS, SITTING BEFORE YOU, THE COMMITTEE OF THE GNSO THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON NEW GTLDS.

THE STATUS OF OUR WORK SO FAR IS WE HAVE A SET OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS. NOW, THESE DRAFTS HAVEN'T BEEN FORMALLY VOTED ON YET BY EITHER THE COMMITTEE OR THE COUNCIL, SO THEY ARE VERY MUCH A WORKING DRAFT, AND WE HAVE A DRAFT FINAL REPORT THAT IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO GET A BIT MORE DETAIL BEHIND SOME OF THE REASONING OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THIS SESSION IS WE'RE GOING TO BRIEFLY INTRODUCE EACH SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS ON -- OR COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS, ON EACH SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THE FIRST -- I GUESS THE STRUCTURE OF -- SO THAT THE FIRST SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATES TO THE SELECTION CRITERIA, AND THE SELECTION CRITERIA IS BASICALLY USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEBODY THAT IS APPLYING FOR A NEW GTLD MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE THAT TLD.

SO WE HAVE PHILIP SHEPPARD FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND BRET FAUSETT WHO IS A LIAISON FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO WILL BE FIELDING QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC, AND AT THIS POINT I WILL HAND OVER TO PHILIP TO GIVE AN INTRODUCTION ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO THE SELECTION CRITERIA ARE THE -- THE ESSENCE, IF YOU LIKE, OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDATION AND PROCESS, AND WHAT ARE, TO SOME EXTENT, SOME OF THE SIMPLEST AND SORT OF FAST TRACK, IF YOU LIKE, PROCEDURE. WHAT WE'LL HEAR ABOUT LATER ON WITH SOME OTHER PANELISTS ARE THINGS LIKE ALLOCATION CRITERIA, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE MAY BE CONTENTION ABOUT NAMES AND OTHER THINGS.

THESE ARE THE ESSENCE OF THE PROCESS ITSELF AS THE COMMITTEE HAS CURRENTLY FORMULATED THEM.

AND WITHIN SELECTION CRITERIA, WE HAVE -- AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SEEN ANY OF THE DRAFT REPORTS WILL SEE, THERE ARE ALREADY SORT OF THREE TYPES OF CRITERIA THAT APPLY HERE. THERE ARE CRITERIA WHICH APPLY TO THE VERY NATURE OF THE STRING ITSELF, TO THE NATURE OF THE NAME. THERE ARE CRITERIA WHICH APPLY, TOO, TO THE APPLICANT. AND THEN THERE ARE PROCESS CONDITIONS WHICH ESSENTIALLY ARE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW ICANN STAFF WILL BE PROCESSING SUCH APPLICATIONS.

SO WHAT I'LL DO NOW IS JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH EACH OF THOSE THREE SETS, AND THE ESSENCE OF EACH OF THOSE, AND THEN WE CAN FIELD QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE UNDERLYING DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HAD ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES.

UNDER STRING CRITERIA, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FIVE MAIN CRITERIA THAT APPLY. AND THOSE OF YOU ALSO WHO MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK THE GAC IS DOING IN THE SAME WAY, WE WERE INTERESTED TO SEE AS THE COMMITTEE YESTERDAY TO GET SOME OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE GAC. THERE IS ALREADY COMMONALITY IN TERMS OF SOME OF THEIR THINKING AS WELL.

SO THE FIRST OF THE STRING CRITERIA ARE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING TLDS. SECONDLY, THAT IT SHOULD NOT INFRINGE THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. THIRD, IT DOES NOT CAUSE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY. FOURTHLY, IT SHOULD BE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY MORALITY OR DECEPTIVE TO THE PUBLIC, AND THAT'S PHRASING THAT COMES FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW. AND FINALLY, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A RESERVED WORD.

NOW, FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE, THERE IS A DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY MEAN AND WHO MAY BE MAKING INTERPRETATIONS, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION IN A MOMENT. BUT LET ME JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH THE NEXT TWO SECTIONS FIRST, AND THEN WE WILL PERHAPS COME BACK TO EACH OF THOSE AND DISCUSS THEM IN GREATER DETAIL.

SO IN TERMS OF CRITERIA APPLYING TO THE APPLICANT, THERE ARE FOUR MAIN HEADINGS THERE.

FIRSTLY, WE WANT THE APPLICANT TO, AS THEY CURRENTLY DO, OF COURSE, DEMONSTRATE SOME TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. TO ALSO HAVE A DEMONSTRATED FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN, SO AT LEAST THERE IS A PLAN THERE IN TERMS OF THE EXPECTATION OF THE MARKET, HOW THEY SEE IT. NOT NECESSARILY ONE OF WHICH THEY WILL BE RIGOROUSLY JUDGED BUT A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS SOME SOUND THINKING BEHIND IT.

THE THIRD CRITERIA IS AN OBLIGATION TO USE, AS CURRENTLY, ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS.

AND FINALLY, A VERY IMPORTANT CRITERIA, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT SHOULD COMPLY WITH CURRENT AND, OF COURSE, NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES AS THEY COME UP THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS.

JUST MOVING ON TO THE THIRD CATEGORY, WHICH ARE THOSE PROCESS CONDITIONS WHICH APPLY TO ICANN. AND THESE ARE REALLY BASED ON OUR LEARNINGS OF THE PROCESS SO FAR. DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, UNDERSTANDING FROM SOME OF THE NEWER REGISTRIES AND SOME OF THE TENSIONS THEY HAVE HAD IN THE PROCESS, AND HOW WE CAN TRY TO MAKE A NEW PROCESS A LITTLE MORE STREAMLINED.

AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, OF COURSE, IS THAT WE WANT IT TO BE WELL-KNOWN IN ADVANCE SO IT IS CLEAR PROCESS, PRE-PUBLISHED, EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR AND HAS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF THE EXPECTATIONS AS TO WHAT THEY ARE GOING INTO.

SECONDLY, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE A BASE CONTRACT, KNOWN IN ADVANCE, AGREED IN ADVANCE, SO THERE IS ALREADY A FEELING AS TO WHAT THAT CONTRACT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, AND AGAIN, SO THE APPLICANT REGISTRY WILL HAVE A FEELING IN TERMS OF WHAT THEIR LIABILITIES ARE GOING TO BE.

WE WANT TO FIX TIME LINES IN THE PROCESS SO THAT IF EVERYTHING IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, IF THE APPLICANTS HAVE FULFILLED THEIR CONDITIONS, IF THE STRING THEY ARE ASKING FOR FULFILLS THE CRITERIA YOU SAW EARLIER, THEN THERE IS ALSO A REASONABLE EXPECTATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE TIME LINES ARE GOING TO BE FROM THE MOMENT THE APPLICATION IS FIRST LOOKED AT TO THE ACTUAL AWARDING OF THE CONTRACT.

WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE PRINCIPAL OF COST RECOVERY FOR APPLICATION FEES, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE FEES THEMSELVES MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR THE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION, DEPENDING IF THERE IS CONTENTION, ET CETERA, AND DEPENDING ON SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE UNDERLINED BY SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED EITHER ABOUT THE STRING OR THE APPLICANT. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE COST RECOVERY OF THOSE FEES AND NOTHING MORE, BUT NOTHING LESS.

WE ALSO WERE IN FAVOR OF A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY STAFF.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE PROCESS, BEFORE YOU MIGHT HAVE A WINDOW FOR THE APPLICATION, YOU COULD SAY -- YOU COULD HAVE AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH THE STAFF, THE RECEIVING STAFF FOR APPLICATIONS TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS STRING. WE HAVE THESE CONDITIONS. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SORT OF PLAN. WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL FEELING ABOUT THAT. AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, STAFF CAN GIVE SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT LOOKS LIKE, SO WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY DOING THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE GOT MOST OF THE DETAILS RIGHT, FIRST OFF.

FOR SOME OF THE THINGS WE SAW EARLIER WHERE THERE MAY BE DOUBT, AGAIN, WE EXPECT STAFF TO MAKE THE INITIAL JUDGMENTS, BUT WHERE STAFF WOULD FEEL, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS QUESTION IS -- IS A LITTLE BIT TOO DIFFICULT FOR US, IT'S UNCERTAIN, WE CAN'T BE CLEAR, THEN THERE IS A CONCEPT OF EXPERT AND INDEPENDENT PANELS TO RESOLVE DOUBT. AND THEY MAY BE CONSTRUCTED EITHER SEPARATELY OR BY A POOL OF EXPERTS WHO ARE PULLED IN, KNOWN IN ADVANCE, AND WILL BE USED TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS THAT WE SAW EARLIER.

AND FINALLY, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE THERE WILL BE A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS TO CHALLENGE, PERHAPS, DECISIONS TO BE MADE, EITHER NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THAT. AND THAT THOSE -- THE NATURE ALSO OF THOSE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES SHOULD BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE.

SO PERHAPS IT WILL BE USEFUL, WE WILL RETURN TO THE FIRST SLIDE ON CRITERIA.

THE SECOND SLIDE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HELP ON THIS SLIDE, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STRING CRITERIA, AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE STRING TO PROPOSE. AND WILL IT AT LEAST PASS SOME INITIAL TEST OF APPROPRIATENESS.

AND THE FIRST CRITERIA -- I THINK TALKING THROUGH THESE WITH EXAMPLES, AND PHILIP AND I AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THE TASK FORCE USED A LOT OF EXAMPLES IN OUR DISCUSSIONS. AND WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT "NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO EXISTING TLDS," WE WERE THINKING IN TERMS OF DOT COMM WITH TWO M'S, A DOT BLZ THAT LOOKED A LOT LIKE DOT BIZ. WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT DOT EMPLOYMENT BEING CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO DOT JOBS BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO SERVE A SIMILAR MARKET SEGMENT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING TO THE USER AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME TLD.

IS THAT FAIR?

YEAH. ON INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS, THIS IS THE CLASSIC FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF CYBER SQUATTING OF SPRINT TAKING OUT -- ASKING FOR THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW TLD OF .ATT OR TRYING TO FIND YOUR COMPETITOR OR TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO. TRYING TO SELL .AOL WHEN YOU ARE NOT AMERICA ONLINE.

CONCERNING TECHNICAL INSTABILITY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT FORMATS IF YOU HAD A STRING THAT LOOKED LIKE AN EXTENSION OF A FILE THAT IS COMMONLY USED, LIKE A DOT DOC OR A DOT TXT, YOU MAY CREATE SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.

I DON'T -- THERE'S SOME QUESTION HERE ABOUT WHETHER DOT TXT OR DOT DOC OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE COMMON-USED EXTENSIONS, FILE FORMATS WOULD ACTUALLY PRESENT A PROBLEM, BUT WE WANTED TO RAISE IT AND FLAG BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSION AROUND THAT BEFORE WE WOULD WANT TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO HAVE A TLD LIKE THAT.

NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY OR DECEPTIVE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS POTENTIALLY VERY LARGE, AND YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY THINK OF LOTS OF COMMON WORDS THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS HAVING A SPONSORED TLD ABOUT DOT GOD WHEN THAT'S -- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN AND GIVING IT ONLY TO ONE SPONSOR WOULD CREATE SOME PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.

AND THEN NOT A RESERVED WORD. ICANN HAS HISTORICALLY HAD A LOT OF RESERVED WORDS LIKE ICANN AND IANA AND NIC AND A HANDFUL OF OTHER EXTENSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ON RESERVE LIST AND THAT'S WHAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT TOO.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHY DON'T WE OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS ON JUST THIS SECTION, ON STRING CRITERIA, AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE NOW ON THAT.

>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S MARILYN CADE. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE DISCUSSION ON RESERVED NAMES THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BEGINNING REALLY WITH OUR LUXEMBOURG AND THEN AMSTERDAM POLICY DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF RESERVED NAMES AS A CATEGORY. THERE ARE TODAY FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RESERVED NAMES. SOME OF THEM DO HAVE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS. OTHERS ARE NAMES THAT MAY HAVE A POLITICAL IMPLICATION SUCH AS GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS, TWO LETTER COUNTRY CODES, ET CETERA.

YESTERDAY, WE DID TALK IN THE TASK FORCE MORE ABOUT LOOKING AT WHETHER WE COULD HAVE A PROCESS TO TREAT A RESERVE CATEGORY AS EVEN A PLACE TO PARK NAMES THAT WE -- THAT MAY BE TOO CONTROVERSIAL TO DEAL WITH INITIALLY, AND THEN A PROCESS COULD COME BACK TO TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THEM. AND THAT, I THINK, IS STILL JUST WORK IN PROGRESS. WHILE SOME NAMES MAY HAVE NO IMPLICATIONS AND COULD BE RELEASED, MANY OF THE NAMES THAT ARE RESERVED NAMES DO HAVE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TO THEM.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK WE HAVE THE FIRST QUESTION. MARK, GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: PHILIP, THANK YOU. I HATE BEING THE FIRST AT THE MICROPHONE.

I WONDER IF THE TASK FORCE HAS THOUGHT CAREFULLY ABOUT STRING CRITERIA ONE AND THREE HERE.

THEY SEEM TO BE POTENTIALLY VERY LARGE, ESPECIALLY SINCE CRITERIA DOESN'T SEEM TO MENTION IDNS AT ALL. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE SCHEME OF NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO EXISTING TLDS, IT SEEMS THAT IF THAT'S A CRITERIA, YOU ARE OPENING YOURSELF UP TO, IN THE WORLD OF IDNS, A VERY, VERY LARGE NUMBER OF STRINGS BEING REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THAT.

ALSO, ON THE ISSUE OF NOT CAUSING TECHNICAL INSTABILITY, THAT'S VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART RIGHT NOW. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOUR NEXT SLIDE SUGGESTS IS THAT IF STAFF WERE UNABLE TO MAKE AN INITIAL DECISION -- A PROPOSAL TO COME TO STAFF, STAFF MAKES SORT OF A QUICK ANALYSIS AND THEN DECIDES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO RELY ON TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO DECIDE THIS PROBLEM, IT SEEMS THAT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CRITERIA COULD BE DECIDED IN ADVANCE. AND THAT'S THE ADVICE THAT I WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE TO THE TASK FORCE, AND THAT THE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY LARGE, I THINK. YOU CAN ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THEM.

IT'S NOT JUST THE DOT EXE AND DOT DOC BUT IT'S ALSO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU INTRODUCE IDNS AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF, FOR INSTANCE, ALMOST EVERY THREE-CHARACTER EXTENSION IS SOMETHING THAT IS A MINE TYPE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES THERE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SUGGEST, PHILIP, IS THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO SORT OF PICK A SET OF THESE AND HAVE SOME TECHNICAL WORK DONE IN ADVANCE.

AND SO MY TWO COMMENTS MERE, AND THEY ARE NOT REALLY QUESTIONS, I'M AFRAID, THEY ARE MORE COMMENTS, IS I WOULD ADVISE THE TASK FORCE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT TECHNICAL WORK DONE IN ADVANCE. AND SECOND OF ALL, I WOULD PUT INTO THE STRING CRITERIA SOME EFFECT OF WHAT THE IDNS HAVE ON THE CRITERIA YOU HAVE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS JUST BEFORE --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: REGARDING THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES, HAS THE GNSO COUNCIL THOUGHT ABOUT PROPOSING HAVING A SEPARATE EVALUATION FOR REGISTRY PROVIDERS THAT ARE ALREADY DOING THIS JOB FOR GTLDS OR HAVE PAST PURVIEWS. WHAT I MEAN, ASKING AGAIN VERISIGN THAT THEY PROVE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT EPP MEANS PERHAPS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE QUESTION.

SO PERHAPS WE COULD SIMPLIFY THAT. APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR LIMITED USE, CONVERSE THE PROVIDERS THAT WANT TO BUILD A REGISTRY FROM SCRATCH AND HAVE POSSIBILITIES.

THE SECOND ONE REGARDING THE GTLD STREAMS, PREVENTING CONFUSION, BUT I HOPE YOU UNDERLINE THIS IS NOT ONLY PURELY BASED ON THE STRING BUT THE STRING AND THE USE.

I MEAN, DOT COMM WITH TWO M'S AND ONE M IS CONFUSING. DOT COM SOUNDS VERY SIMILAR TO DOT CO, DOT CAT TO DOT CA, DOT TEL TO DOT TL. BUT INDEED, THERE IS LITTLE RISK OF CONFUSION IF YOU GO BEYOND JUST THE STRING AND GO ALSO TO WHAT'S THE USE HOW THIS WILL BE MARKETED.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS VERY OFTEN YOU USE SENTENCES IN THE POSITIVE WAY, THAT IS THAT THE TLD IS DOING THIS APPROPRIATE, OR THAT IT COMPLIES WITH. AND SOMETIMES IT'S MUCH EASIER TO DO THE REVERSE.

OTHERWISE, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. BECAUSE SHOWING THAT SOMETHING IS APPROPRIATE IS VERY DIFFICULT. POINTING OUT THAT SOMETHING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CONCRETE REASON IS MUCH EASIER.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. I WILL TAKE THAT AS A COMMENT AS WELL, I THINK.

PERHAPS JUST TO SAY CERTAINLY THAT IN TERMS OF INPUT FROM REGISTRIES, OF COURSE, THE TASK FORCE HAS BENEFITED FROM NOT ONLY REGISTRIES OF LONGSTANDING AS MEMBERS BUT ALSO SOME OF THE NEWER REGISTRIES. AND WE HAVE GOT SOME VERY USEFUL INPUT IN PARTICULAR FROM SOME OF THE NEWER ONES AND THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH THE EARLIER PROCESS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: COULD I ASK AMADEU A QUESTION ON HIS ONE COMMENT THERE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I THINK YOU CAN, YES.

>>CHUCK GOMES: AMADEU, WITH REGARD TO THE SEPARATE PROCESS FOR EXISTING REGISTRY SERVICE PROVIDERS, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT YOU ARE -- THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT IN CASES OF ESTABLISHED BACK-END SERVICE PROVIDERS, THERE COULD BE A MORE EXPEDITED PROCESS, FOR AT LEAST THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PART? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: JUST FOR THAT PART. ONLY FOR THAT PART, YES.

>>CHUCK GOMES:THAT'S WHAT I ASSUMED, YES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>>BRET FAUSETT: AND WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE TASK FORCE ABOUT NOT ONLY LETTING EXIST EXISTING REGISTRIES HAVE A PASS ON TECHNICAL COMPETENCE BUT ALSO HAVING A PREREVIEW SO NEW REGISTRIES COULD DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMPETENCE AND SIMILARLY GET ACCREDITED AS A REGISTRY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE, TOO, TO COME BACK TO THE POINTS RAISED BY MARK, BUT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY THAT WE MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ELABORATE ON VARIOUS PARTS OF THIS REPORT IS TO INCLUDE SOME AREAS OF GUIDANCE. ON SOME OF THESE, BRET GAVE A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. SO WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION THAT IS HUGELY LONG TRYING TO COVER EVERY CASE.

SO I THINK THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP QUITE SHORT AND SOUND AT A POLICY LEVEL. BUT WE COULD THEN SECONDLY PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND SAY SOME GUIDANCE, HERE ARE SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES OR BE AWARE OF THESE IDN ISSUES, ET CETERA. SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE LOOKING TO THE STAFF TO HELP ADD THAT GUIDANCE TO SOME OF THESE CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY, BRUCE, AND I THINK THIS PROCESS ITSELF IS ALSO PART OF OUR -- HELPING OUR UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE GUIDANCE NOTES OR IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS MAY BE.

NEXT QUESTION IS FROM STEVEN METALITZ.

>>STEVE METALITZ: STEVE METALITZ WITH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. REALLY TWO POINTS. ONE, I THINK PICKING UP ON ONE OF THE THINGS AMADEU SAID, THE CONFUSING SIMILARITY CRITERION REALLY NEEDS TO APPLY, I WOULD THINK, NOT JUST TO STRINGS THAT LOOK LIKE OTHER STRINGS, BUT ALSO TO STRINGS THAT SOUND LIKE OTHER STRINGS, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WILL READ THEM ON A SCREEN BUT THEY'LL ALSO SAY THEM EITHER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. SO I JUST THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE CONFUSING SIMILARITY.

THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE, AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE STRING CRITERION SECTION, IS THAT I THINK -- I WONDER IF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER EITHER -- THERE IS EITHER SUPPORT IN THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY FOR THE STRING OR FOR THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THIS STRING.

I'M THINKING REALLY OF TWO EXAMPLES. ONE WOULD BE IN A SITUATION LIKE A SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAT MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARD A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY SECTOR OR PARTICULAR AREA OF ACTIVITY, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH OR AT LEAST LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THAT INDUSTRY SECTOR OR ARE CUSTOMERS OF THAT INDUSTRY SECTOR OR INVOLVED WITH IT IN SOME WAY WANT TO HAVE OR HAVE SOME INTEREST IN HAVING A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. THAT WOULD BE, UNDER OUR CURRENT CRITERIA, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT A SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE IT ANYWHERE IN THE REPORT, SO I HOPE IT CAN BE ADDRESSED.

AND AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT, EVEN -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MIGHT BE UNSPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, OPEN TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND WHILE I CONTINUE TO THINK THAT'S NOT THE BEST -- THAT SHOULDN'T BE ICANN'S TOP PRIORITY, I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE DOMAINS NOW TO KNOW THAT SOME STRINGS ARE LIKELY TO BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING NEW TO -- OR VERY MUCH THAT'S NEW TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. THEY'RE GOING TO, TO A GREAT EXTENT, TRANSFER WEALTH FROM TRADEMARK OWNERS TO REGISTRY OPERATORS AND REGISTRARS, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. I HOPE WE CAN HAVE SOME WAY OF AT LEAST LOOKING AT THAT QUESTION OF WHETHER A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IS LIKELY TO BE A MAGNET FOR DEFENSIVE REGISTRATION AND IF THAT OUGHT TO BE PART OF -- NOT THE ONLY FACTOR, BY ANY MEANS, BUT PART OF THE CALCULUS THAT WOULD ENTER INTO THIS. THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: STEVE, THANKS VERY MUCH. PERHAPS JUST IN RESPONSE ON YOUR FIRST POINT, IT'S PERHAPS A FUNCTION OF THE PARAPHRASING ON THESE OVERHEADS. THE PHRASING ON "CONFUSING SIMILAR" ACTUALLY IN THE REPORT AT THE MOMENT IS INDEED VISUALLY OR PHONETICALLY CONFUSING, WHICH IS THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, QUITE RIGHTLY SO.

ON THE SECOND POINT, MY SYMPATHIES ARE ENTIRELY WITH YOU, WHICH WILL PERHAPS NOT SURPRISE YOU, AND PERHAPS ONE WAY OF ACCOMMODATING THOSE MAY BE IN THE NATURE OF THE CONTENT OR THE FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS PLAN IN TERMS OF HOW THAT IS EXPLAINED. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL OBSERVATION, SOMETHING PERHAPS WE COULD TAKE BACK ON THE TASK FORCE. AND I'LL JUST LOOK AT ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAD ANY OTHER OBSERVATION ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. CHUCK?

>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH. I THINK STEVE'S RAISING A GOOD POINT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WANT A TLD TO BE APPROVED THAT CATERS TO A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY WITHOUT REASONABLE -- NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT REASONABLE -- DEMONSTRATED SUPPORT FROM THAT COMMUNITY. IN FACT, WE DO KIND OF COVER THAT IF THERE'S CONTENTION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY COVERED THAT IN OUR MAIN CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU FOR THAT. NIGEL ROBERTS. I'M A REGISTRY MANAGER OF DOT GG, BUT I'M NOT HERE AS A REGISTRY MANAGER. I'M HERE AS A STUDENT, PERHAPS.

I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, AND MAYBE SOME ANSWERS CAN BE FORTHCOMING. I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE ONE, TWO, THREE -- FOURTH CRITERIA DOWN: "NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, OR DECEPTIVE OF THE PUBLIC." AND IT'S THE FIRST OF THOSE THREE THAT I'M ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT. AND MY QUESTION IS: WHOSE PUBLIC POLICY?

"PUBLIC POLICY" IS A PHRASE OF PARTICULAR MEANING TO GOVERNMENTS. IT COULD BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OR IT COULD BE WIDER THAN THAT. I WONDER IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED THAT. AND I WONDER IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED THAT IF IT IS THE WIDER PUBLIC POLICY, WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN PUBLIC POLICY.

I CAN THINK OF ONE PARTICULAR ISLAND JURISDICTION -- I WON'T NAME IT, BUT IT'S NOT FAR FROM WHERE I LIVE -- WHICH WOULD, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, WANT TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WHICH CERTAIN LARGE ECONOMIES IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS AND MONTHS HAVE TRIED TO DISCOURAGE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY. SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED WHOSE PUBLIC POLICY AND WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE'S A CONFLICT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE A BACKGROUND IN LAW MAY RECOGNIZE THAT PHRASEOLOGY AS COMING, IN FACT, FROM THE 1883 PARIS CONVENTION, AND IT IS ON THAT BASIS THAT -- AND IN PARTICULAR OUR LEARNING HERE HAS BEEN BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF TRADEMARK OFFICES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS SAME BASE LAW AND, INDEED, SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT USE OF SIMILAR PHRASEOLOGY IN NATIONAL TRADEMARK LAW WHERE TRADEMARK OFFICES HAVE THEN HAD TO LOOK AT CERTAIN, CERTAIN TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS AND MAKE SIMILAR JUDGMENTS. AND ALL WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE HERE IS THAT PROBABLY IT WILL BE INCUMBENT UPON US, INCUMBENT ON ICANN, TO DO THE SAME. AND IT IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM, AS TRADEMARK OFFICES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE PROVED, IN THAT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE GUIDANCE NOTES IN TERMS OF WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS, AND TYPICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE U.K. TRADEMARK OFFICE OR THE EUROPEAN TRADEMARK OFFICE, THERE YOU HAVE THE IDEA O!
F THE NATURE OF OFFENSE, BUT OFFENSE OF THE LEVEL THAT IT WOULD CAUSE OUTRAGE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING SIMPLY BEING IN POOR TASTE OR DISTASTEFUL. AND DECISIONS LIKE THAT ARE MADE REGULARLY IN SUCH OFFICES, AND IT IS THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF THAT SOMETHING SIMILAR WILL PROBABLY BE NEEDED WITHIN OUR OWN SYSTEM HERE. AND THERE, AS YOU SAW ON THE THIRD SECTION OF THIS, OUR FEELING WOULD BE NATURALLY THAT FOR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS MORE DIFFICULT THAN WE WOULD EXPECT STAFF TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON, THIS WILL BE A CASE WHERE YOU WILL HAVE AN EXPERT PANEL WHO WOULD ASSIST IN MAKING SUCH DECISION.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU, PHILIP. IF I MAY JUST HAVE A SUPPLEMENTARY ON THAT. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING ANSWER, AND NOT AT ALL ONE WHICH I WAS EXPECTING, BECAUSE I READ THAT AS MEANING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO HOW YOU'VE INTERPRETED IT.

FROM WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT PUBLIC POLICY IS RESTRICTED, SHALL WE SAY, TO TRADEMARK ISSUES. I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES OF IT IN THE PAST.

I DON'T WISH TO GO INTO FURTHER DETAILS, TO PREJUDICE A POSSIBLE THREE-LETTER APPLICATION FOR SOME PEOPLE I'VE BEEN TALKING TO. HOWEVER, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT CERTAIN MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PARTICULARLY ON INTERNET COMMERCE OF SOME DESCRIPTION, ARE BEING DISCOURAGED AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR JURISDICTIONS OR BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING THEM.

ICANN IS GOING TO SIT IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THESE TWO, BEING PULLED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, AND I'D BE VERY INTERESTED TO KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE WIDER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ONE OTHER COMMENT ON THIS, TOO, NIGEL, IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE ONE AREA WHERE THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T FEEL IT HAD A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERTISE, AND WE HAVE SOUGHT ADVICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC AS TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT SOME OF THE ISSUES MIGHT BE. AND WE'RE YET TO REALLY RECEIVE THAT ADVICE AND WE DO KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE THIS WEEK.

BUT THERE WILL BE A SESSION, I BELIEVE, ON THURSDAY WHERE WE'LL DISCUSS THIS JUST TO GET A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE ON IT. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS, BY ANY MEANS -- THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION IS, BY ANY MEANS, FINAL. WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR ADVICE FROM YOU AND OTHERS.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT TO DO IN THAT DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT: AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR MEETINGS WAS, YOU KNOW, HATE SPEECH FALLING INTO THIS. YOU KNOW, DEROGATORY WORDS TOWARD SOCIAL GROUPS BEING SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS OUGHT NOT BE A TLD. NOW, I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT -- OF A KIND DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE POKER AND GAMBLING AND SEX. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

>>ROBIN GROSS: YES, I VERY MUCH SHARE NIGEL'S CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA. I DON'T THINK THAT ICANN SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING PUBLIC MORALITY. I DON'T THINK ICANN SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING, BETWEEN RELIGIONS, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE SPOKESMAN FOR A PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT.

SO THERE ISN'T UNANIMITY ON THESE CRITERIA, AND THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF US THAT DON'T AGREE WITH THIS ONE. WE THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE, OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF ICANN'S -- THE SCOPE OF ITS MISSION, TO BE TRYING TO -- TO TRY TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SPOKESPERSON FOR A PARTICULAR WORD.

AND THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW TRADEMARK LAW, I THINK, IS ALSO MISPLACED.

THE TRADEMARK EXAMPLES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS ABOUT TRYING TO GIVE SOMEONE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PREVENT SOMEONE ELSE FROM USING A TRADEMARK. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A WORD CAN BE USED AT ALL. AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, AND I THINK WE'RE CONFLATING THE TWO IDEAS WHEN WE USE TRADEMARK LAW TO TRY TO JUSTIFY WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE CRITERIA. THANK YOU.

>> PHILIP SHEPPARD: ROBIN, THANK YOU. JUST ONE LAST COMMENT ON THAT, AND PICKING UP ON WHAT BRET SAID, IT WAS INTERESTING THAT IN LOOKING AT THE DRAFT GAC PRINCIPLES -- NOW, THESE ARE, INDEED -- I STRESS THE WORD "DRAFT" -- ONE CONCEPT THAT THE GAC HAS PICKED UP THERE IS, INDEED, THIS IDEA OF INCITEMENTS TO HATRED, WHICH IS ALSO A COMMON CONCEPT IN LAW OR ELSEWHERE. BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE, GOING BACK TO YOUR BROAD POINT THAT YOU ASKED EARLIER, NIGEL, WOULD BE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE THE NARROWER DEFINITION, RATHER THAN THE WIDER. CERTAINLY THAT IS OUR HOPE. AND IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE WORDING IN OUR FINAL REPORT, WE WILL DO SO.

THE NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: STEFANO TRUMPY. AND IT IS NOT BY CHANCE -- IT IS BY CHANCE, LET ME SAY, THAT I WENT JUST AFTER NIGEL. I AM REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY IN THE GAC, AND MY QUESTION IS THIS: WHAT WE ARE DESCRIBING HERE IS REALLY A PROCESS THAT SHOULD GO STEP BY STEP. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STRING ANALYSIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST -- MAYBE THE FIRST -- ELEMENT FOR JUDGMENT, AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM ON THE STRING, THEN PERHAPS THE OTHER STEPS SHOULD BE POSTPONED, AT THE LEAST. AND SO TIMING IS IMPORTANT.

AND ALSO, IT IS IMPORTANT, OF COURSE, WHO WILL JUDGE AND HOW THE PROCESS OF JUDGING, IF A STRING IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT, IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, AND ALSO WHICH KIND OF INTERACTIONS THERE WILL BE WITH THE GNSO, WITH THE BOARD, WITH THE GAC, OR WHOEVER.

SO THIS IS A PROCESS TO BE ANALYZED, BECAUSE AS WE HEARD, THE JUDGING COULD BE VARIED, DEPENDING FROM MANY ASPECTS.

AND ANOTHER POINT CONNECTED TO THIS IS THAT FOR A NEW REGISTRY, MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THE CHARTER OF THE REGISTRY. AND SO DID YOU CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING THE CHARTER AND CHANGING THE STRING IF THE STRING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS? THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: STEFANO, THANK YOU. YOU'VE RAISED SOME VERY GOOD POINTS.

I THINK ON THE EARLIER POINT, CERTAINLY THE IDEA FOR THOSE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS WOULD BE A PANEL OF EXPERTS, AND FOR MOST OF THEM, IN CASE THE DECISION IS BOTH ON MORALITY AND ON CONFUSING SIMILARITY, WE ALSO ENVISAGE THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHALLENGE PROCESS TO THOSE DECISIONS. THE DETAIL OF THAT HASN'T YET BEEN WORKED THROUGH, BUT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A PROCESS IN WHICH THE VARIOUS STEPS ARE CLEAR, AND CERTAINLY IN THE CASE OF ONE APPLICANT/ONE STRING, THE BOARD WOULD BE DIVORCED FROM MOST OF THAT PROCESS, PERHAPS UP UNTIL THE TIME THERE MAY BE SOME SORT OF CHALLENGE PROCESS IN TERMS OF HOW THAT WOULD THEN COME DOWN. BUT THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE PRELIMINARY THINKING IN TERMS OF DESIGNING THAT PROCESS.

YOU'RE RIGHT ALSO ABOUT THE DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHAT -- WHAT GETS LOOKED AT FIRST, AND WE HAD, IN FACT, JUST YESTERDAY AN INTERESTING SORT OF FIRST LOOK AT A POTENTIAL FLOWCHART THAT DERIVES FROM THE CURRENT DRAFT OF OUR REPORT, DEMONSTRATING TO THE COMMITTEE THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TO SEE WHERE THERE ARE AREAS THERE OF PARALLEL PROCESSING AND WHERE THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THINGS WOULD BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.

BUT CERTAINLY THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TAKE THE SIMPLER THINGS FIRST IN TERMS OF YOUR PROCESS OF ACCEPTANCE OR ELIMINATION. BUT YOUR POINT IS VERY WELL TAKEN. NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANK YOU.

WENDY SELTZER.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT SPEAKING HERE FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

FIRST TO SAY I SORT OF WELCOME THE COMMITTEE'S PROGRESS ON NEW GTLDS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.

AND I ALSO WELCOME THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR IS VISUAL AND PHONETIC AND NOT A SEMANTIC DISTINCTION.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT ICANN SHOULDN'T BE IMPOSING SEMANTICS ON TLD STRINGS.

AND THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION IS, AGAIN, ABOUT THE FOURTH POINT THERE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY OR MORALITY.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU JUST INVITING HOLDUPS BY PUTTING THAT CRITERION IN THERE, INVITING PEOPLE TO COME IN WITH ARGUMENTS THAT STRINGS THAT THEY OPPOSE FOR OTHER REASONS ARE CONTRARY TO THEIR PARTICULAR MORALITY.

AND THEN ARE YOU MAKING ICANN INTO AN ARBITER OF MORALITY TO SAY SOMEBODY WHO CLAIMS THAT FOO IS HIS DEITY IS SOMEHOW LESS ENTITLED TO RESPECT THAN SOMEBODY WHO CLAIMS A MORE WIDELY RECOGNIZED OR MORE WIDELY SHARED MORALITY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A MORASS THAT ICANN WANTS TO BE WADING INTO.

AND YET I DON'T SEE A LIMITING PRINCIPLE ONCE YOU'VE PUT UP THE -- THAT CRITERION.

DO YOU SEE A LIMITING PRINCIPLE THERE SHORT OF ALLOWING ANYONE TO HOLD UP DOMAIN NAME STRING CERTIFICATION?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK MY INSTANT RESPONSE THERE IS THAT THE COMMITTEE CERTAINLY ISN'T INVITING OR SENDING OUT A CHALLENGE BY SUCH A CRITERIA.

ALL WE ARE DOING IS RECOGNIZING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE STRINGS OF A CERTAIN NATURE WHICH COULD CAUSE ISSUES WITHIN THAT AREA OF POLICY OR MORALITY, AND RECOGNIZING THAT IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE NEED A SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH THAT.

FROM THE VIEW OF THE WISE APPLICANT, IF THEY'RE MAKING AN APPLICATION THAT IS FAR FROM ANY OF THOSE ISSUES, THEY WILL, BY THEIR VERY NATURE OF THE PROCESS, HAVE A FASTER PROCESS THROUGH THAN THOSE THAT MAY FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I CAN REALLY RESPOND TO THAT.

IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY ON THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER COMMENT ON THAT, PHILIP, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE CERTAINLY IS -- THE STRINGS WILL BE PUBLISHED AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SUBMIT, I GUESS, ISSUES THEY HAVE AGAINST THE CRITERIA.

BUT THE ONUS IS ON THE PARTY MAKING THAT COMPLAINT.

AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE THESE CRITERIA.

SO THEY SAY IT'S TECHNICALLY INSTABLE.

THEY'D NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY IT'S TECHNICALLY UNSTABLE.

THEY CAN'T JUST SAY, "I THINK IT MIGHT BE."

THEY'D HAVE TO SAY, "IT IS, AND HERE'S THE EVIDENCE."

AND THE SAME WOULD APPLY UNDER THESE OTHER CATEGORIES, THAT IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT UNDER SOME OF THE MORALITY THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT'S WIDESPREAD.

IT'S NOT JUST IT AFFECTS MY PERSONAL MORALITY.

YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND SOME BASIS FOR DOING SO.

SO IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE CONCEPT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN HOLD THINGS UP.

>>ROBIN GROSS: I THINK THAT SORT OF UNDERSCORES THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, WHEN YOU SAY THE PROBLEM IS FOR A COMMUNITY.

WHICH COMMUNITY?

WHOSE MORALITY?

THE MORALITY OF THE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE ICANN RESIDES?

THE MORALITY THAT IS OBSERVED IN BAGHDAD?

THE MORALITY IN ITALY?

WHOSE MORALITY?

SOMEHOW ICANN SEEMS TO BE THINKING WITH THIS POLICY THAT IT'S IN THE POSITION TO BE DECIDING WHICH OF THESE MORALITIES IS THE MORALITY.

AND I THINK BESIDES BEING COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, IT'S UNWORKABLE ON A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: CAN I MAKE A COMMENT?

THIS IS TO COUNTER, BUT NOT TO -- TO CONTRADICT YOU IN ANY WAY.

THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I DON'T THINK ICANN IS READY OR IS IN A POSITION TO DECIDE WHAT ROUTE TO TAKE OR WHAT PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD BE.

BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING IS THE PUBLIC POLICY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP A GUIDELINES IN A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH WITH THE GAC, AS WELL AS WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THAT WILL A FEEDBACK PROCESS.

SO WE'RE HOPING A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE BASED TO ADDRESS THIS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE WANT TO JUMP THE GUN AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE HOT ON THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE.

SO JUST BE AWARE OF THAT.

THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY.

NEXT QUESTION.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHRIS DISSPAIN, CEO OF THE AUSTRALIAN CCTLD.

TWO THINGS.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION, ON POINT 4 OF THE PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, AND DECEPTION, YOU ARE TALKING SPECIFICALLY JUST ABOUT THE STRING, AREN'T YOU?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:NOT WHAT IT'S USED FOR AFTERWARDS?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I ACTUALLY STOOD UP TO ASK ABOUT POINT NUMBER 2, NOT TO INFRINGE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED -- I NOTE IN THE REPORT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD WARRANT THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO -- THEY'RE NOT INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I JUST SUGGEST THAT THAT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE MORE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.

IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO WARRANT THAT THEY'RE NOT INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

BECAUSE WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND HOW CAN I FIND OUT?

I COULD WARRANT TO YOU THAT I'M NOT INFRINGING SOMEONE'S TRADEMARK RIGHTS PROBABLY, BECAUSE I CAN SEARCH THAT AND FIND OUT THAT THERE ARE NO TRADEMARKS THAT I'M INFRINGING.

BUT ACTUALLY JUST PUTTING IT IN AS "LEGAL RIGHTS" IS, I WOULD SUGGEST, VERY CHALLENGING.

>>MARILYN CADE: PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: POSSIBLY THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" SHOULD BE IN THAT RECOMMENDATION.

BUT I TAKE THE POINT, INDEED.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.

THAT WAS THE POINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MARILYN?

OKAY.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, PHIL, MIKE PALAGE.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE, THE COUNCIL, AND STAFF FOR THE WORK TO DATE ON THIS IMPORTANT PROCESS.

I HAVE TWO COMMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

THE FIRST IS MY CONCERN REGARDING THE USE OF "CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR."

THOSE WORDS HAVE ADOPTED SPECIFIC MEANING AS THE FIRST CRITERIA IN THE UDRP, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF UDRP DECISIONS THAT HAVE INTERPRETED THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN ANY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OR DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT, THAT YOU DO NOT, IF YOU WILL, COME UP WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS THAT MIGHT CREATE INCONSISTENCIES.

BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR IS PREDICTABILITY IN THOSE WORDS AND THE MANY YEARS OF, IF YOU WILL, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES INVOLVING THEM.

WITH REGARD TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CHALLENGE PROCESS WHICH IS CITED IN THE DOCUMENT, I WOULD HOPE THE COMMITTEE AND ICANN WOULD LOOK TOWARDS EXISTING BODIES THAT HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF DNS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY, WIPO, WHICH HAS A STANDING PANEL OF EXPERTS AND WHICH HAS BEEN INVOLVED NOT ONLY IN THE DRAFTING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UDRP, THE AFILIAS SUN RISE, THE MOBI SUNRISE, THE MOBI PREMIUM NAME CHALLENGES, THIS IS A BODY WHICH HAS, IF YOU WILL, AN EXTENSIVE BODY OF EXPERTISE, AND HOPEFULLY COULD BE CALLED UPON TO WORK IN ANY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK.

THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT:MIKE, YOU GET BONUS POINTS FOR READING AHEAD.

WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE BONUS POLICY IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

BUT POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

>>BECKY BURR: BECKY BURR, I'M GOING TO JOIN THE ENDLESS LINE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4.

I RECENTLY, NOBODY WILL BE SURPRISED TO KNOW, HAVE HAD OCCASION TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME CONTEMPLATING THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC POLICY."

AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THE CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC POLICY" AS DEFINED IN WIKIPEDIA IS ANYTHING A GOVERNMENT THINKS IT SHOULD HAVE A VIEW ON.

SO PLEASE BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL.

AND, SECOND, PHILIP, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I'M QUITE CONCERNED THAT THE SOURCE FOR THAT IS TRADEMARK LAW.

BECAUSE TRADEMARK LAW GREW UP AS A NATIONAL AND, THEREFORE, FAR MORE LOCAL KIND OF LAW.

SO WHILE YOU COULD MAYBE GET TO A CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY IN THE U.K. OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY SOMEPLACE ELSE, IF YOU COULD GET PAST THE "PUBLIC POLICY" THING, I THINK IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT, THAT PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFICULT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, BECKY.

VINT.

>>VINT CERF: I'M VINT CERF, CHAIRMAN OF ICANN.

AND I WILL BE BRIEF, BECAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK MORE THAN ABOUT 50 WORDS.

I THINK ABOUT THE STAFF AND EVENTUALLY THE BOARD TRYING TO APPLY THESE CRITERIA, AND I GET WORRIED, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION SO FAR SUGGESTS THAT IT'S HARD.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A -- LET ME CALL IT A STANDARD DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM IN WHICH ANY PARTIES WHO FEEL THAT ONE OF THESE CRITERIA HAS BEEN VIOLATED COULD RAISE THE ISSUE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO THE STAFF HAVING TO DECIDE THINGS OR THE BOARD HAVING TO DECIDE THINGS?

IS THERE A PROCESS WHEREBY A PROPOSED TLD COULD BE EXPOSED WIDELY TO VIEW AND INVITATIONS TO RAISE ISSUES MADE AND A STANDARD PROCESS INTRODUCED THAT ALLOWS THOSE DISPUTES TO BE RESOLVED WITHOUT ASKING THE BOARD TO PASS JUDGMENT ON, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, OR ANYTHING ELSE, OR TO ARGUE WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR?

IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU HAD A GENERAL MECHANISM OF THAT SORT WHICH COULD APPLY INDEPENDENT OF THE NATURE OF THE DISAGREEMENT.

SO THAT'S THE ENGINEER'S, YOU KNOW, VIEW OF THINGS.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT AS I LOOK AT THESE AND THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT YOU SUGGESTED AND I APPLY IDN KINDS OF SITUATIONS, IT GETS A LOT MORE COMPLEX, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT SOUND THE SAME.

BECAUSE MANY THINGS SOUND THE SAME IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, AND THEY MIGHT BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE AS PRESENTED IN DIFFERENT SCRIPTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY SOUND THE SAME WHEN SPOKEN.

AND SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU ABOUT INCLUDING SOME REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES FROM THE IDN WORLD AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH TESTING THE IDEAS AGAINST SOME CONCRETE CASES.

THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY, VINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MARILYN, GO AHEAD.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, IF I MIGHT, VINT.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE ABLE TO -- WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

>>MARILYN CADE: YOUR FIRST QUESTION, AND THANK YOU FOR THE BREADTH OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE LAST ONE, I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT, PERHAPS NOT IN ENOUGH DETAIL, BUT IT HAS VERY MUCH THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY TO IDNS HAS CERTAINLY BEEN ON OUR MINDS.

LET ME GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST SUGGESTION.

IN THE IDEA OF HAVING A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE IN THE EVENT OF A PARTICULAR NAME, WHILE THAT MAY BE FEASIBLE, I GUESS I WOULD ASK A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEED OF AN APPLICANT TO PERHAPS PROTECT THE INTELLECTUAL -- I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM LOOSELY HERE -- BUT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF AN IDEA THAT THEY WANT TO MARKET AS A GTLD IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO EXPOSE IT TOO EARLY?

YOU KNOW, IF -- IS THERE A POTENTIAL SITUATION WHERE AN APPLICANT WOULD FIND THEMSELVES, OH, I'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA FOR A STRING.

I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PUBLIC PROCESS, AND NOW I, INCITE 14 COMPETITORS TO BID ON THAT NAME.

OR WERE YOU THINKING THAT IT WOULD ONLY IMPLY IN CONTESTED NAMES?

>>VINT CERF: NO, I THINK IT HAS TO APPLY IN OTHER THAN -- NOT JUST IN THE CASE OF COMPETITION FOR A GIVEN NAME, BUT I WOULDN'T EXPECT THE PROCESS TO INITIATE UNTIL AFTER A CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE ON THAT TLD.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS COME AND OFFICIALLY SAID, "I AM INTERESTED IN THIS TLD."

IF THEY'RE -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO YET ABOUT THE MULTIPLE APPLICANTS WHO WANT A PARTICULAR TLD.

THAT GETS INTO AUCTION QUESTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THAT KIND.

BUT SET THAT ASIDE FOR A MOMENT.

I WOULD NOT EXPECT AN APPLICANT TO GO PUBLIC WITH THE IDEA BEFORE HAVING FORMALLY MADE THE CLAIM.

WHAT I AM SUGGESTING, THOUGH, IS THAT WE NOT ENTANGLE THE STAFF OR ICANN, IF POSSIBLE, WITH THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF RESOLVING THESE, IN THE SAME WAY THAT ICANN HAS NOT BEEN ENTANGLED WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND-LEVEL REGISTRATIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DISPUTED.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, VINT.

JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS PERHAPS ON THE POINTS YOU MADE.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT CERTAINLY WE WERE VERY CONSCIOUS, I THINK, OF ALWAYS WANTING TO LOOK AT A PROCESS OF SIMPLICITY, AND THEREFORE NOT ADDING COMPLEXITY IN PARTICULAR TO THE RECEIVING SORT OF EXAMINATION STAFF FOR APPLICATIONS.

AND TYPICALLY, WE HAD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA OF PANELS OF EXPERTS WHERE SUCH QUESTIONS AROSE.

SO YOUR CONCEPT OF ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT VIA A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS IS AN INTERESTING ONE THAT I THINK WE CAN TAKE BACK AND LOOK AT.

MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT WE ARE STILL LOOKING IN THIS CASE AT THE -- THE NATURE OF THE STRING.

SO IT'S -- IT'S -- SOME THINGS, TO SOME EXTENT, ARE GOING TO BE LESS OF A -- A DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF THE WORTHINESS OF THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY NATURE OF THE STRING.

AND CERTAINLY THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT IF -- IF IT WAS A PANEL WHO SAID, "THIS STRING IS UNACCEPTABLE," IT'S NOT UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE APPLICANT, IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE REST OF TIME, AND THAT WAS THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAD BEHIND THAT IDEA, BEING THAT IT RELATED TO THE STRING AND NOT -- NOT LINKED TO THE APPLICANT.

BUT I THINK THE PROCESS THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING IN TERMS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TAKING IT OUT OF THE SYSTEM IS CERTAINLY WORTH US REVISITING.

THANK YOU.

NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, AND I'M THE FRENCH REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GAC.

ACTUALLY, I'M MORE MAKING A COMMENT HERE ON A PERSONAL BASIS, FOLLOWING SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER.

THE FIRST POINT IS THAT THE DEBATE ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY AND THE CORRESPONDENCE OR DISCREPANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC POLICY IN MANY COUNTRIES IS SOMETHING THAT ICANN IS ADDRESSING.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, BASICALLY, THERE WILL BE A RELATIVELY COMPLEX AND LONG PROCESS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THOSE TLDS.

SO THE KEY QUESTION IS JUST TO MAKE THE PROCESS, AS WAS SUGGESTED BY VINT CERF OR OTHERS, AS CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING THE POTENTIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO PUBLIC POLICY.

THAT'S ONE POINT.

THE SECOND POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS IN FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT I THINK BECKY BURR WAS MENTIONING.

PUBLIC POLICY IS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THAT IS UNDERTAKEN BY NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, NORMALLY, IN THE PURSUIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT PUBLIC POLICY.

YOU HAVE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.

BUT THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT COMES OUT IS NORMALLY THE RESULT OF A PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC INTEREST AT A NATIONAL LEVEL AND THEN TAKES MEASURES.

THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING HERE IS THAT THERE IS A CONCEPT THAT IS GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, FOR WHICH GOVERNMENTS ALONE, OF COURSE, SHOULD HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, BUT NOT AN EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST IS DETERMINED IN THE CASE OF ESTABLISHING A NEW GTLD, FOR INSTANCE, IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

WHICH LEADS TO THE LAST POINT I WANTED TO MAKE.

IF WE TALK ABOUT THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THOSE CRITERIAS ARE BASICALLY CRITERIA FOR NOT ACCEPTING A GTLD.

THE ASPECT I'M MORE INTERESTED HERE IS, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIAS FOR ACCEPTING A GTLD?

WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE OF PUTTING ANOTHER GTLD, AND THERE HAS BEEN MENTIONS OF IS IT JUST VIABLE BECAUSE IT BRINGS DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS?

OR IS IT JUST INCREASING COMPETITION?

IS IT FOR DIVERSIFICATION?

IS IT TO SERVE A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY?

AND SO ON.

POSITIVE CRITERIAS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN THE DEBATE HERE, HOPING THAT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL, IS THE NOTION THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY HERE.

WE COULD BE CREATING AS MANY GTLDS AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, .LACHAPELLE, WHATEVER, I BELIEVE IMPLICITLY THAT THERE'S A SORT OF OPTIMUM, THAT THERE IS A SCARCITY THAT SERVES THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST BETTER.

IT MAKES IT SIMPLER, IT'S LESS CONTROVERSIAL, WHATEVER.

THE TERM I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN THE DEBATE AND SEE WHETHER IT IS OF ANY USE IS THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

IN THINKING ABOUT CREATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN FRAME THE DEBATE UNDER WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY WE WANT TO PUT IN?

THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU FOR RAISING A VERY INTERESTING POINT.

A LOT OF YOUR POINTS I PERSONALLY SHARE WITH YOU.

I'M NOT SURE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE DO.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THAT?

OKAY.

WE WILL NOTE THAT ANYWAY AND MOVE ON TO AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY, THAT'S ME AGAIN.

FIRST, BERTRAND, IF WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY TLDS AS WE COULD, IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE WE HAVE GOVERNMENTS AND I.P. LAWYERS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, BESIDES THAT....

GOING BACK TO THIS PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSION, I COMPLETELY SYMPATHIZE WITH ROBIN AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAYING WE SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING THAT.

WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

IT'S NOT ICANN BUSINESS TO DISCUSS MORALITY.

WHAT WE NEED IS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT OPPOSITION TO THE CREATION OF A TLD THAT MAY COME FROM PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

ICANN WILL NOT EVALUATE THE PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OR THE MORALITY THERE, BUT THE RELEVANT OPPOSITION THERE.

SO, AGAIN, WITH REGARD TO WHAT I WAS SAYING YESTERDAY IN THE PREPARATION, I THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE HERE AND SIMPLY TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD, WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE TLDS COME, AND HER SUGGESTION, WHY PUBLICIZATION OF TLDS AND INTENT, IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE ABC, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE STRING IS NOTHING, BUT IT IS INTENDED FOR ASSASSINS, BURGLARS, AND OTHER CRIMINALS.

PERHAPS SOMEONE WILL RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS, CREATING -- NOT DECIDING WHAT'S MORAL -- CREATING A SPECIFIC RESOURCE ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS.

FIRST, WE PUBLICIZE THAT AND WAIT FOR OPPOSITION, IS NOT A JUDGMENT THAT THE ICANN BOARD OR STAFF HAS TO DO.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT OR, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY ELSE OR ANY GROUP WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY THAT COMES HERE TO THIS MEETING TO SAY WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

AND THESE CONCERNS MAY COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT GROUNDS.

THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THEM.

AND THOSE WILL BE INTERPRETED BY PUBLIC POLICY BY GOVERNMENTS, NOT BY GNSO OR ICANN.

NEXT, WHAT'S RELEVANT?

WELL, IN CASE OF PUBLIC POLICY, INDEED, GOVERNMENTS ARE RELEVANT.

BUT NOT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE THAT RELEVANT.

AND THAT'S ALSO MY SUGGESTION YESTERDAY.

YOU SHOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING REGARDING THE INTENT, THE INTENDED COMMUNITY WHICH IS DIRECTED, THAT IS, WHAT'S RELEVANT FOR DOT KKK, DOT NAZI, OR DOT ISLAM REGARDING PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IS NOT THE SAME IN NUMBERS.

SO YOU CANNOT SAY ONE GOVERNMENT IS ENOUGH, OR YOU NEED TEN GOVERNMENTS, OR SOME GOVERNMENTS.

IT WILL DEPEND.

IN DOT KKK, ONE IS ENOUGH.

IN DOT NAZI, PROBABLY GERMANY WOULD BE ENOUGH.

IN THE CASE OF DOT ISLAM, THE OPPOSITION OF NORWAY WOULD BE QUITE IRRELEVANT, BUT SOME COUNTRIES WHERE ISLAM IS A STATE RELIGION, WOULD BE VERY RELEVANT.

SO WE SHOULD GO THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PUT WORDS LIKE MORALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY, AND JUST TRY TO DEFINE RELEVANCE OF THE OPPOSITION.

IT MAY COME FROM MANY OTHER PLACES.

LET'S TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, .CAT WHEN WE PROPOSED THAT.

-- CAT IS A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK BY CATERPILLAR.

WE CONTACTED THEM TO SEE WHETHER THEY WOULD CONTACT ICANN TO DO SOMETHING.

IF THEY HAD, I EXPECTED THEM TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO SAY THAT.

BUT I DIDN'T EXPECT THEM TO, YOU KNOW, (INAUDIBLE) ON THAT.

BUT, REALLY, THEY NEED TO HAVE A PLACE TO EXPLAIN THEIR PROBLEMS, RIGHT, AS IT WAS OUT OF QUESTION THAT SOME GOVERNMENTS HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE CREATION OF THAT TLD.

AND YOU -- WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

THE OPPOSITION OF THE -- ONE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ENOUGH.

THE OPPOSITION OF THE HONDURAN GOVERNMENT REGARDING .CAT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT, PROBABLY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST ONE RESPONSE ON THE EARLIER POINTS YOU MADE.

I THINK ONE ADDITION WE MADE TO THE REPORT JUST THIS WEEK WAS THE IDEA OF ONE ELEMENT OF ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC POLICY COULD, INDEED, BE THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSE YOU GET DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT, I THINK, AS YOU WERE SAYING ALSO, IS THEN THE JUDGMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANCE OF THAT AND HAS IT BEEN ORCHESTRATED AND IN TERMS OF WHO IT'S COMING FROM.

BUT THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

NEXT QUESTION, FROM RON ANDRUFF.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, JUST IN TERMS OF TIMING, IF WE JUST END THE QUEUE WITH JORDYN ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC SO WE CAN DISCUSS OTHER TOPICS AS WELL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IF WE WOULD END THE PRESENT QUEUE AFTER THIS AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TWO CRITERIA WHICH MAY BE SHORTER IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS, BUT WE SHALL FIND OUT.

RON.

>>RON ANDRUFF: I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS VERY SHORT.

RON ANDRUFF, .TRAVEL REGISTRY.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS AN INTUITIVE INTERNET. AND SO I HAVE OFTEN SHARED WITH COLLEAGUES THE IDEA OF AN INTUITIVE INTERNET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW MEANS THAT YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, THE SECTOR THAT IT'S IN AND YOU ONLY HAVE TO PUT A DOT IN BETWEEN IT, AND IT ESTABLISHES A VERY EASY WAY, INTUITIVE WAY, FOR PEOPLE TO FIND THINGS.

SO THE IDEA OF HOLIDAY INN, IT'S IN THE TRAVEL SPACE, SO I PUT A DOT TRAVEL BEHIND IT.

IF I'M HSPC BANK, MAYBE IT'S DOT FINANCE.

IF IT'S -- MAYBE IT'S PORNOGRAPHY, IT'S GOT DOT XXX ON THE END OF IT.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS I HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO THERE VERY RAPIDLY IF I WANT TO AND IF I DON'T, I CAN BLOCK IT.

THE IDEA OF CREATING AN INTUITIVE INTERNET, I'M HOPEFUL THE COMMITTEE AND THE GNSO IS TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE AS AN ICANN COMMUNITY, THIS IS WHAT WE SEEM TO BE GROWING TOWARDS.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS BECAUSE OF AUTHENTICATION, MEANING WE CAN HAVE A PRISTINE WHOIS DATA SET.

BUT IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT.

SPEAKING TO THE ISSUE OF "NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR" TO EXISTING TLDS, I THINK THAT ONE THING I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER IS THINGS LIKE .VIAGGI, FOR AN ITALIAN WHO WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD DOG VIAGGI, BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE DOT TRAVEL IN ITALIAN, IT'S CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT CONFUSING OR IS IT A COLLISION?

I'M HOPEFUL YOU'LL TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU'RE GIVING CONSIDERATION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: NEXT QUESTION.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: HI, I'M JORDYN BUCHANAN, AND I'M SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF.

I WANT TO MAYBE MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ABOUT -- TO TAIL INTO RON'S POINTS AS WELL ON THE NOTION OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

I WONDER IN THINKING OF THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF TLDS, WHETHER THE REASON WHY WE'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THEM IS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY SCARCE.

IF THERE WERE -- IF YOU COULD -- SETTING ASIDE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR A MOMENT, BUT IF IN A HYPOTHETICAL DREAM LAND YOU COULD -- ANYONE COULD REGISTER ANY STREAM THEY WANTED AND IT WOULD RESOLVE IN THE DNS, WOULD WE REALLY CARE ABOUT WHICH TLDS THEY HAPPENED TO GO IN?

PROBABLY NOT.

JUST LIKE WE DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE IN THE SECOND LEVEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THERE, OTHER THAN THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT WILL FIT INTO THE STREAM.

SO I'M SOMEWHAT INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THAT WE HAVE ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE CARE ABOUT REGARDING ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

AND I'M SOMEWHAT SKEPTICAL OF RON'S NOTION THAT WE MIGHT SOMEHOW CREATE A BEAUTIFUL, ORDERED UNIVERSE.

I THINK WE TRIED TO DO THAT EARLY ON AND QUICKLY, MOST OF THE TERMS THAT WE HAVE LOST THEIR MEANING ALTOGETHER.

AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT WOULD BE LIKELY TO OCCUR IF WE CONTINUED TO TRY TO BE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE AND CONTROL WHERE PEOPLE CAN REGISTER THINGS.

MY SECOND QUESTION, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY LEAD TO -- MY SECOND POINT, WHICH WILL, ACTUALLY, HOPEFULLY LEAD TO A QUESTION IS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS LIST, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A VERY -- THIS SEEMS HARD TO ADMINISTER, TO VINT'S POINT.

I AGREE WITH HIM IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THERE WAS SOME RELATIVELY PAINLESS PROCESS FOR ICANN UNDER WHICH SOMEONE COULD MAKE DECISIONS ON THIS AND WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THE STAFF TRYING TO DECIDE, BUT, RATHER, WE COULD RESPOND TO PEOPLE'S OBJECTIONS.

BUT I ACTUALLY THINK WE MIGHT HAVE AN EVEN MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS.

BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE SOME STRINGS THAT ARE UNDOUBTEDLY CONTROVERSIAL AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTECTION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T END UP IN THE DNS AND CONFUSE PEOPLE OR CAUSE MORAL UPRISINGS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

BUT I THINK SIMILARLY, THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF RELATIVELY UNCONTROVERSIAL STRINGS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL IN ADDING.

AND I THINK HAVING THIS STEP BE PART OF THE EVALUATION FOR EVERYTHING PROBABLY BOGS DOWN THE OVERALL PROCESS.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY -- IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL, SO I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR -- IS WHAT ABOUT THE NOTION OF CREATING A WHITE LIST, ESSENTIALLY, HERE ARE 5,000 STRINGS, AND YOU CAN, IF YOU PROPOSE A TLD IN ANY OF THESE STRINGS, THEY'RE OKAY, AND IT JUST GOES RIGHT THROUGH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AT ANY TIME, IF ANYONE THINKS THAT SOMETHING ON THE LIST IS VIOLATING SOME OF THESE CRITERIA, THEY CAN COMPLAIN THROUGH THE PROCESS DESCRIBED AND GET IT TAKEN OFF THE LIST.

THAT MIGHT MAKE THIS MORE STREAMLINED AND PREDICTABLE FOR A NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:THANKS VERY MUCH.

ANY RESPONSE ON THE CONCEPT OF WHITE LIST?

I MEAN, ONE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE WHITE LIST IS IF IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE FIVE "NOTS" THAT'S ON THE WHITE LIST, BUT THAT'S PERHAPS A BIT TRITE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND FOR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT VINT WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT NOT WANTING TO PUT STAFF AND ICANN IN THE POSITION OF, YOU KNOW, GUESSING WHAT PEOPLE WANTED, AND IT WAS AN EXTRA STEP TO IMPOSE ON THE COUNCIL OR THE STAFF OR WHOMEVER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS, YOU KNOW, REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT THE MARKET COULD FIGURE OUT BETTER THAN WE COULD.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: COULDN'T YOU ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS? I'M SURE PEOPLE WOULD BE GLAD TO AT LEAST STAR DOING SOME OF THE WORK FOR YOU. I MEAN, THE WHITE LIST DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A NECESSARY PART OF THE POLICY. IT COULD BE IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE WHITE LIST, THEN IT IS ALL RIGHT. AND, OTHERWISE, THERE IS THIS PROCESS AND AS THE WHITE LIST -- THE WHITE LIST WILL GET DEVELOPED OVER TIME AND EITHER THE MARKET WILL CREATE IT OR SOMEONE WILL COME AND BRING NAMES TO IT ESSENTIALLY.

>>CHUCK GOMES: PHILIP, CAN I RESPOND? JORDYN, I THINK IT IS SAFE TO SAY THE WHOLE COMMITTEE HAS THE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE PROCESS STREAMLINED. WE UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE PARTICULAR STRINGS THAT WILL PROBABLY NOT GO AS QUICKLY FOR WHATEVER ISSUES WE WANT TO SAY. AND IT IS OUR INTENT IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SO FAR THAT THOSE THAT FLOW THROUGH READILY WITHOUT THOSE WOULD NOT BE HELD UP AT ALL BY ANY THAT MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL OR DIFFICULT TO DECIDE. AND THAT'S, I THINK, A CONSCIOUS INTENT OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE AND PEOPLE CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

>>ALISTAIR DIXON: I WOULD JUST SORT OF LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT AND I THINK JUST IN SUPPORT OF WHAT CHUCK HAS JUST SAID. THE STRING CRITERIA, WHATEVER WE FINALLY SETTLE ON, PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS. THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO PROVIDE AN INDICATION TO AN APPLICANT AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE AN APPLICATION THROUGH THE PROCESS SMOOTHLY OR WHETHER THEY MAY ENCOUNTER SOME PROBLEMS ALONG THE WAY.

AND I THINK IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT, SIMILAR EFFECT ON WHITE LIST. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT SUGGESTION.

>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME SUPPORT BOTH WHAT CHUCK HAS SAID AND ALSO WHAT ALISTAIR HAS SAID. BUT JUST TO SAY ALSO, IN THINKING ABOUT A WHITE LIST, JORDYN -- AND I DID GIVE THOUGHT TO IT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD IS, EVEN WITH VOLUNTEERS YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE AN ASSURANCE THAT A NAME DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHT OF SOMEONE ELSE UNLESS YOU SPEND AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME RESEARCHING WHAT KIND OF LEGAL RIGHTS MIGHT EXIST AROUND A PARTICULAR WORD.

I THINK ALISTAIR AND CHUCK HAVE BOTH CAPTURED A CONCEPT THAT WE ARE HOPING WILL WORK. AND THAT IS, THAT THERE WILL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF NAMES THAT ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL. AND BY LAYING OUT THE PROCESS, HOPEFULLY THOSE WILL NOT GET BOGGED DOWN BUT WILL MOVE MORE QUICKLY AND WILL THEN BE ABLE TO DEVOTE THE NECESSARY TIME TO DEALING WITH THOSE THAT MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND SET OF CRITERIA ON APPLICANT, IF YOU WOULD. BRUCE, PERHAPS YOU CAN MOVE THE SLIDE ON FOR US.

MAYBE HE WILL IN A SECOND.

I CAN JUST REMIND YOU WHAT WE HAD ON APPLICANT CRITERIA, WHICH WERE FOUR POINTS OF DEMONSTRATED TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, DEMONSTRATED FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN, USE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS AND COMPLY WITH CURRENT AND NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES. AND, INDEED, TO SOME EXTENT, THOSE FOUR CRITERIA ARE PRECISELY OBLIGATIONS THAT NEW TLD APPLICANTS IN THE VARIOUS TEST BEDS WE HAVE HAD SO FAR HAVE HAD TO COMPLY WITH SO THERE IS NOTHING ESSENTIALLY NEW THERE, I THINK I AM RIGHT IN SAYING.

ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ON THOSE FOUR THINGS WHICH HAVE NOW APPEARED MAGICALLY BEFORE YOU? JORDYN COMES RACING BACK TO THE MICROPHONE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I HAVE A QUESTION, I GUESS, WHICH IS USING THE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, IS THERE ANY THOUGHT -- HAVE YOU GIVEN THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REGISTRIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE AN ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR IN ADDITION TO USING AN ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR? AND IS THIS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR ME TO BE ASKING THAT QUESTION?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THERE WAS THAT DISCUSSION, WASN'T THERE? CHUCK, DO YOU WANT TO FIELD THAT?

>>CHUCK GOMES: THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY ACTUALLY HAD A CONCERN NOT FOR THE SAKE OF THE LARGER GTLDS BUT ,RATHER, FOR SOME OF THE SMALL ONES WHERE THERE IS REALLY -- IT IS NOT A VERY ATTRACTIVE MARKET FOR REGISTRARS. AND SO WE HAD QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. IT WAS VERY EARLY IN THE COMMITTEE'S WORK AND I THINK IT WAS IN THE MEETING IN NEW ZEALAND.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I HEARD, ANYWAY, AS TO WHY YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT IS BECAUSE A REGISTRY COULD BECOME A REGISTRAR. I HAVE SINCE POINTED OUT, THOUGH, THAT ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS FORBID US FROM BECOMING A REGISTRAR.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR THE LARGER GTLDS. IN FACT, NOT AT ALL.

IT IS IN SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE SITUATIONS OF THE SMALL STLDS WHERE IT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. IT IS A LEGITIMATE THING.

THE COMMITTEE, THOUGH, I WILL TELL YOU JUST TO BE HONEST, WE WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT TOOK EXCEPTION TO THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT. SO THERE WAS A STRONG AGREEMENT ON THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: ARE YOU INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM OTHERS, JORDYN?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I DON'T THINK THAT QUITE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. SO CHUCK TOLD ME WHAT THE STATUS QUO REQUIREMENT IS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S TRUE. THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS: DOES THIS "USE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS" IMPLY THAT IN THE FUTURE NEW TLD OPERATORS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ALSO BE REGISTRARS?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT IS THE CURRENT POSITION, YES.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WILL NOTE I AGREE WITH CHUCK. I THINK THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BOOTSTRAPPING PROBLEM FOR A LOT OF NEW REGISTRIES, AND I THINK THERE IS VERY LITTLE HARM THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING THOSE REGISTRIES TO OPERATE AS REGISTRARS WHILE ALLOWING ALL OF THE REGISTRARS TO COMPETE AND HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT, YADA, YADA, YADA, YADA.

>>CHUCK GOMES: JORDYN, OUR SUGGESTION WAS ON AN EXCEPTION BASIS, IF, IN FACT, THERE IS MINIMAL SUPPORT FOR THE PARTICULAR TLD, NOT A GENERAL RULE.

>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I WILL SPEAK AS A BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY OFFICER AND SAY THAT I THINK MY CONSTITUENCY WOULD HAVE A CONSIDERABLE CONCERN ABOUT THE LACK OF STRUCTURAL SAFEGUARDS. SO IF WE ARE GOING TO GO TO AN INTEGRATED MODEL WHICH IS MOVING BACKWARD FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW TO HAVING INTRODUCED COMPETITION, WE STARTED THIS PROCESS WITH NO COMPETITION, BUT WITH AN INTEGRATED MODEL, INTRODUCED COMPETITIVE COMPETITION AT THE REGISTRAR LEVEL.

IF WE ARE TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OF THIS NATURE, IT WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR FAR MORE THAN JUST NEW GTLD REGISTRIES. IF THIS DOES DESERVE FURTHER ELABORATION AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS GOT TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT IN A MUCH LARGER CONTEXT, IT SEEMS TO ME.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. WENDY, NEXT QUESTION.

>>WENDY SELTZER: SURE. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF DATA ESCROW AS A DIFFERENT GUARANTEE OF SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND I AM WONDERING WHETHER THAT COULDN'T BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A THICK DEMONSTRATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN RATHER THAN MAKING ICANN STAFF OR EVALUATORS, EVEN INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS, GO THROUGH A LOT OF DETAIL ON WHETHER THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN IS EFFECTIVE. ISN'T THE BEST TEST OF THAT THE MARKET? AND ISN'T ESCROWING THE DATA A GUARANTEE THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD WITH WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE A STUPID FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN OR A BADLY THOUGHT-OUT PLAN, THE DATA WON'T DISAPPEAR AND THE INTERNET WILL CONTINUE TO BE RUN STABLY AND EFFECTIVELY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THE POINT IS WELL-TAKEN. I THINK IN OUR DISCUSSION COMMITTEE, IF I AM CORRECT, OUR ASSUMPTION WAS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR THE PROVISION OF A PLAN BUT NOT EXPECTING A STRINGENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL JUST GIVE A TECHNICAL COMMENT. THE CYCLE TIME FOR DEALING WITH ESCROW IS NOT QUITE THE SAME AS HAVING A RELIABLE SYSTEM. WE ARE TRYING TO SPECIFY TECHNICAL CRITERIA IN THE SENSE THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE BEING ABLE TO FILE OVER QUICKLY FROM ONE SITE TO ANOTHER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

ESCROW IS VERY MUCH YOUR LAST RESORT POSITION WHICH BY THAT STAGE YOU HAVE ALREADY AFFECTED USERS IF YOU ARE HAVING TO RESORT TO THAT.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THIS ONE, PHILIP? I THINK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN OUR RECOMMENDATION IN THE DOCUMENT IS ACTUALLY HELPFUL IN THIS REGARD IN 2.A WHERE IT SAYS FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN DEMONSTRATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE CAPABILITY TO MEET ITS BUSINESS AMBITIONS. THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I THINK THE COMPROMISE WE CAME TO THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ACHIEVE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING THEY WANT TO DO. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY, CHUCK, THAT WAS THE AMBITION. IF WE CAN JUST TAKE THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS ON THIS POINT, APPLICANT CRITERIA. JUST ON A TIME-KEEPING POINT, I AM VERY CONSCIOUS THAT WE HAVE NEXT SESSION COMING UP WHICH IS ABOUT CONTENTION.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: I JUST WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT MAY ALSO BE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING FOR DISCUSSION HERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO INTRUDE TOO MUCH INTO THE TIME ON THAT. WE ALSO NEED A QUICK LOOK AT THE THIRD SECTION OF THIS PARTICULAR THING.

BUT, SOPHIA, YOU HAD A POINT TO MAKE?

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: THANK YOU. I WILL BE QUICK. I THINK THAT WAS A VERY GOOD POINT RAISED ON THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN. ESPECIALLY AS ICANN IS MOVING INTO THE NEW SPACE OF IDNS, THERE WILL BE A CONCERN OF EMERGING ECONOMIES, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE OVERALL BID PROCESS. WE WANT TO CONSIDER THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THESE LARGER REGISTRIES. I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT RAISED, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT.

I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT CHUCK SAID, BUT MAYBE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF WORKING WITH THE CONCEPT OF HAVING SORT OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PROJECTION WHICH IS -- WHICH MEANS DIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY HAVING A PLAN. SOMETIMES THE MARKET REALLY DICTATES AFTER YOU LAUNCH A TLD. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT, YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW. THIS CONSIDERATION CAN BE PUT IN PLACE. THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT QUESTION?

>> SLOAN GAON: I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO JORDYN'S ORIGINAL QUESTION BUT COME AT IT IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT MANNER. I TAKE NOTE OF MARILYN AND CHUCK'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY TO USE REGISTRARS IN A NEW REGISTRY INITIATIVE. I JUST QUESTION THAT.

I UNDERSTAND MARILYN'S POINT ABOUT COMPETITION BUT WHEN YOU HAVE PRICE CONTROLS, WHICH MOST CONTRACTS DO TODAY, AT LEAST REGISTRY CONTRACTS, COMPETITION BECOMES LESS OF AN ISSUE.

SO IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITH CERTAIN REGISTRIES, IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE TO ADD A DISTRIBUTION LAYER BETWEEN THE REGISTRY AND THE CONSUMER. IT IS JUST ADDING ADDITIONAL COST THAT JUST DRIVES UP PRICES FOR CONSUMERS.

SO ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PANEL TO LOOK AT INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT TO USE REGISTRARS IN THIS PROCESS, TO LOOK AT AN EXCEPTION POLICY FOR THOSE REGISTRIES THAT -- EXCUSE ME -- IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THAT MODEL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, PLEASE. I THINK WHAT I SAID WAS -- I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR -- THAT SHOULD WE MAKE A DECISION WHICH IT WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE SHIFT NOT TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURAL SEPARATION. SO IF THE DECISION OF ICANN IS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, IT'S A COMPLICATED AND COMPLEX CHANGE WITH LOTS OF IMPLICATIONS AND NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT.

NOW, AN EXCEPTIONS POLICY MIGHT -- AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOMETHING APPROACH MIGHT BE THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT WE ARE ASKING ICANN AT THE TIME OF AWARDING THE STRING TO ALSO MAKE THIS ADDITIONAL STEP DECISION.

I THINK RATHER THAN SAYING WE COULD ADDRESS IT JUST FOR NEW GTLDS, MY OWN VIEW IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT MORE BROADLY THAN THAT.

>> SLOAN GAON: YOUR POINT IS WELL-TAKEN. YOU HAVE A POINT UP THERE ABOUT USING ICANN'S ACCREDITED REGISTRARS. THAT'S SORT OF AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE EXCEPTION. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK AT THAT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: JUST A REMINDER, I HAD ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE QUEUE ON APPLICANT CRITERIA JUST AFTER YOURSELF, SABINE. I WANTED TO MOVE ON QUICKLY TO THE NEXT SECTION ON ICANN PROCESS BEFORE WE MOVED ON TO THE COMPLETE NEW SECTION AND, INDEED, A NEW PANELIST ON CONTENTIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH AT 3:30 ON THIS TOPIC. I HAVE UNTIL 4:30. WE ALSO NEED TO COVER TWO MAJOR SECTIONS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, LAST QUESTION ON THIS SECTION AND MOVE ON VERY RAPIDLY INDEED, PLEASE.

>>SABINE DOLDERER: I WILL BE SHORT. ACTUALLY, IT IS THE SAME ACCORDINGLY USE ONLY ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS. I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH MARILYN, THAT COMPETITION ON THE REGISTRAR LEVEL IS ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY AND HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN ONE OR ANOTHER WAY.

THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT -- ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE IDN.IDN PIECE, WHICH IS ADDRESSING MOSTLY NOT THE REAL GLOBAL BUT MOSTLY A LOCAL COMMUNITY, A LOCAL COMMUNITY SHARING A LANGUAGE, SHARING A STRING, SHARING SOMETHING WHICH IS MORE OR LESS IN COMMON.

IT IS VERY OFTEN THE CASE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERING DOMAINS NEED SUPPORT IN THEIR LOCAL LANGUAGE, IN THEIR LOCAL SCRIPT AND THAT IS BASICALLY USED ONLY BY THE REGISTRARS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ICANN CREDITED REGISTRAR SCHEME, IT IS USUALLY A VERY ENGLISH SPEAKING, INTERNATIONAL-BASED REGISTRAR COMMUNITY SO YOU DON'T FIND A LOT OF REGISTRARS ACTUALLY WILLING TO TAKE APPLICATION, GET THEM A SCRIPT, (INAUDIBLE) ACTUALLY WHERE THE LOCAL LEVEL IS ADDRESSED.

I CAN SAY, IF YOU SEE IT FROM A GERMAN LEVEL, WE HAVE THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR SYSTEM ALSO IN GERMANY. WE HAVE ABOUT 250 REGISTRARS IN GERMANY COMPETING ON THE GERMAN MARKET. GERMAN APPLICANTS TALKING GERMAN TO THE APPLICANTS BUT ONLY 20 OF THEM ARE ACCREDITED REGISTRARS IN ICANN. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ONLY 10% OF THEM. AND IF YOU COMPARE IT -- IF YOU ARE ADDRESSING A LOCAL COMMUNITY, I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU REALLY HAVE THESE LOCAL PEOPLE WORKING LOCALLY WITH THE REGISTRANTS AND, THEREFORE, I THINK IT IS REALLY NECESSARY TO KEEP SOME SORT OF HOW YOU ON THE ONE HAND SIDE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF COMPETITION ON THE REGISTRAR LEVEL BUT ,ON THE OTHER HAND SIDE, HAVE A POSSIBILITY IN MAKING IT LESS COMPLICATED AND LESS EXPENSIVE TO BECOME A REGISTRAR, TO SERVE ONLY A LOCAL COMMUNITY.

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? I THINK IT WAS MORE A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, I PERSONALLY THINK YOU ARE RAISING AN VERY INTERESTING POINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, I PERSONALLY THINK YOU ARE RAISING A VERY INTERESTING POINT, AND IN GERMANY, LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF REGISTRARS CHOOSE TO BE ACCREDITED, I THINK IT OPENS UP SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS FOR THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND WHY THAT IS THE CASE ARE PROBABLY A WIDER ISSUE THAN WHAT WE ARE ADDRESSING HERE, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO OUR REGISTRY COLLEAGUES TO FIELD THAT ON ANOTHER OCCASION AND PERHAPS FUTURE WORK. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR RAISING THE POINT.

>>SABINE DOLDERER: I THINK MANY ARE ADDRESSING ONLY THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND (INAUDIBLE).

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU CAN JUST FLASH THE NEXT SLIDE BRIEFLY UP, WHICH IS PROCESS CONDITIONS, AND IF THERE ARE ANY BURNING QUESTIONS ON THAT, WE WILL TAKE THEM NOW BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SECTION ABOUT ALLOCATION AND CONTENTION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN TERMS OF THE ESSENTIAL PROCESS CONDITIONS, JUST SOME IDEAS WE ARE FLAGGING IN TERMS OF THE WAY WE WERE HOPING STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE KEY THING HERE, PHILIP, IS PROBABLY THE LAST TWO POINTS, IN PICKING UP SOME OF THE THINGS VINT HAS SAID. BUT WE HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN ASKING THE STAFF TO HELP US WITH HOW WE MIGHT IMPLEMENT THIS. AND I THINK MICHAEL PALAGE ALSO SUGGESTED PERHAPS USING EXTERNAL PANELS. BUT CERTAINLY I WAS TRYING TO THINK HOW WE MAKE THAT STREAMLINED AND EFFICIENT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: A LOT OF THE INPUT WE ALREADY RECEIVED, I THINK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, SIR.

>>ROB HALL: MY NAME IS ROBERT HALL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS. I THINK YOU NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROCESS HERE. CLEARLY THERE IS ONES FOR EXISTING REGISTRIES THAT WILL BE APPLYING FOR NEW STRINGS. THERE IS ALSO THE PROCESS THAT YOU NEED TO PUT IN PLACE FOR HOW SOMEONE BECOMES A NEW REGISTRY AT A TECHNICAL LEVEL, AND IT GOES BACK UNFORTUNATELY TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE OF TECHNICAL ACCREDITATION.

BUT WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IS SET UP A SITUATION WHERE THE PROCESS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, DRIVES NEW APPLICANTS ONLY TO THE EXISTING REGISTRIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBLE HUMP TO GET OVER THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THE MORE ROADBLOCKS YOU PUT IN IN THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A CLEAR WAY THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM FOR A NEW APPLICANT VERSUS AN EXISTING APPLICANT.

WILL THERE BE TIME AT THE END TO COMMENT ON OVERALL STUFF? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON REGISTRAR, THEN, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING. A LOT OF REGISTRIES DO OWN REGISTRARS CURRENTLY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WITH THAT, WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SECTION SO I WILL HAND OVER TO TWO NEW COLLEAGUES WHO BRUCE WILL INTRODUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

SO THIS IS, THEN -- SO WE HAVE COVERED SELECTION CRITERIA FOR NEW TLDS, AND AS WE CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES THERE.

ALLOCATION METHODS IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE SITUATIONS WHERE WE MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME TLD STRING AND SOME OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO CHUCK GOMES FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY AND MAWAKI CHANGO WILL FIELD QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY. AND THE PLAN IS FOR ME TO GO OVER THIS WHOLE SECTION BRIEFLY, AND I'LL ALLOW MAWAKI TO ADD ANY QUESTIONS HE MAY HAVE AND I WILL ALLOW QUESTIONS FOR THE TWO OR THREE SLIDES THAT WE HAVE HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, THE DRAFT REPORT RIGHT NOW CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. TO START OFF WITH, IN THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, APPLICATIONS WOULD BE ASSESSED IN ROUNDS. AND A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.

NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION OF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE APPLIED.

NUMBER ONE, WITHIN A ROUND, FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED WOULD ONLY APPLY WITH REGARD TO PROCESSING ORDER. SO ASSUMING AN APPLICANT WAS -- EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER, THEIR APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE, THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS WITH THEIR APPLICATION, ALL OF THOSE APPLICANTS WOULD BE PROCESSED IN THE ORDER RECEIVED.

THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE -- DEPENDING ON HOW MANY THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO MOVE FORWARD ON A LARGE NUMBER, BUT THERE MAY BE LIMITS TO THAT.

THE ORDER, THEN, WOULD BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE TIME/DATE, TIME AND DATE STAMPED ON THE APPLICATION DURING THE APPLICATION PERIOD.

A SECOND WAY THAT FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED WOULD APPLY IS PROBABLY THE MOST OBVIOUS. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU ARE IN AN EARLIER ROUND FOR THE SAME STRING, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ADVANTAGE THERE IN TERMS OF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.

AND THEN, FINALLY, A FUTURE POSSIBILITY, BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATIONS DO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY GET TO A POINT, IT MAY BE SOON, IT MAY BE LATER, THAT WE WON'T USE ROUNDS ANYMORE, BUT THERE COULD BE A -- AN ONGOING ABILITY FOR APPLICANTS TO APPLY FOR A NEW GTLD. IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.

AS I ALREADY INDICATED, APPLICATIONS WILL BE TIME STAMPED, AND THAT'S FOR THE REASONS JUST STATED.

NEXT, THE APPLICATION SUBMISSION DATE -- DID WE SKIP A SLIDE THERE? I GUESS NOT. I GUESS THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT THAN ON MY SLIDE.

ICANN WILL PROMOTE THE OPENING OF THE APPLICATION ROUND.

SO -- AND THE IDEA IS AS FOLLOWS IN THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT NOW. THERE WILL BE AN APPLICATION SUBMISSION DATE, AT LEAST -- THAT WILL -- WELL, IN FACT, I DON'T LIKE THE WORDING ON THAT TOO MUCH. AND I'M PROBABLY THE ONE THAT WORDED IT THAT WAY.

BUT FROM THE TIME AN RFP IS PUBLICLY ISSUED, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THERE BE A PERIOD OF AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE START OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS.

THE INTENT OF THAT WAS TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO MAYBE HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDERS IN ALL OF THIS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED.

THEN AN APPLICATION PERIOD WOULD START THAT WOULD LAST AT LEAST 30 DAYS. AND AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD, THERE WOULD BE -- THE STRINGS WOULD BE PUBLISHED. AND THAT CAN HAPPEN IN A VARIETY OF WAYS AT THAT POINT. BUT NOT UNTIL THE END OF THE CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IF THERE IS CONTENTION FOR STRINGS, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT FIRST THE APPLICANTS WITH THE CONTENDED STRINGS BE ENCOURAGED TO WORK TOGETHER, TO MEDIATE, TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM, EITHER TO WORK TOGETHER, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT MEAN.

IF THEY CANNOT COME TO ANY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, THEN THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW, AND AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMENT ON, IS THAT ICANN STAFF WOULD ASSESS THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE TWO, OR MORE, CONTENDING STRINGS. AND THE PARTICULAR PROPOSALS.

IF NEEDED, ICANN COULD GO BACK TO THE APPLICANTS AND REQUEST MORE INFORMATION IN THAT REGARD. AND IF THEY CAN DISTINGUISH MORE SUPPORT FOR ONE OVER ANOTHER, THEN A DECISION COULD BE MADE.

IF THEY CANNOT, THEN THE ICANN BOARD COULD MAKE A DECISION BASED ON ICANN'S MISSION AND CORE VALUES, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

ONE LAST THING THAT'S IMPORTANT, THE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW IS RECOMMENDING THAT IF AN APPLICANT IS GRANTED A STRING, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE IT WITHIN SOME APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME, NOT YET DETERMINED.

JUST ONE LAST COMMENT ON THAT. VINT COMMENTED EARLIER ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE SOME OF THESE TOUGH DECISIONS.

I THINK -- AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN THIS, I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE WE KIND OF LEFT THE DECISION FOR THE BOARD WITHOUT SOME OTHER PROCESS LIKE AN EXPERT PANEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO -- AND POSSIBLY THIS ONE COULD GO THAT WAY, TOO. BUT AS YOU WERE MAKING THAT COMMENT, I REALIZED THAT.

MAWAKI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD SOME COMMENTS?

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: YES. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOUR INPUT AND INSIGHT AND CONTRIBUTION ON THOSE POINTS RELATED TO ALLOCATION METHODS FOR NEW TLDS. AND AS A WAY OF TRIGGERING THE DISCUSSIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A FEW POSSIBLE ENTRY POINTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE MINIMUM TIME FRAME PROVIDED IN THE REPORT SO FAR -- NAMELY, THE FOUR MONTHS FROM THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND THE START OF THE APPLICATION DATES. IS IT ENOUGH? IS IT TOO MUCH?

IF YOU LIKE TO TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.

AND THE ONE MONTH OF CLOSING DATES AFTER THE APPLICATION STARTS, ACTUALLY.

AND A FEW OTHER POINTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS OPEN POINTS SO FAR IN OUR WORK, FOR EXAMPLE THE ONGOING -- THE POSSIBILITY TO HAVE ONGOING APPLICATION BEING FILED TO THE BOARD INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY -- IS IT A DIRECTION WHERE WE CAN -- YOU THINK WE CAN GO?

THE SECOND POINT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS RELATED TO THE LEVEL OF SUPPORTS IN CASE OF COMPETING APPLICATION. IN CASE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN TWO STRINGS. IS IT -- I THINK WE STILL NEED TO DEFINE HOW TO MEASURE THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT. IF YOU HAVE SOME PAST EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE PROFESSIONAL ENDEAVORS, YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, THAT WOULD BE WELCOME.

AND LAST POINTS, MAYBE, THE OBLIGATION OF USING THE STRING THAT IS AWARDED IN A MINIMUM TIME OF -- TIME FRAME. WE STILL -- I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO DEFINE, TO ELABORATE ON THAT. SO YOUR INSIGHTS OR YOUR INPUTS WILL BE WELCOME HERE.

THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANK YOU, MAWAKI.

TIM.

>>TIM RUIZ: THANK YOU, CHUCK.

TIM RUIZ WITH GO DADDY. I JUST HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION, NO REAL INSIGHTS YET. BUT WHEN THIS FIRST ROUND OPENS, IS IT A CLEAN SLATE? IN OTHER WORDS, THE PREVIOUS ROUNDS UNDER THE OLD PROCESSES, THERE'S A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED. IS THAT CONSIDERED A CLEAN SLATE OR ARE WE STARTING OVER?

>>CHUCK GOMES: THE COMMITTEE, TO MY RECOLLECTION, HASN'T DISCUSSED THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, AND MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT, YES, IT IS A CLEAN SLATE.

YOU RAISE SOMETHING THAT I SUPPOSE WE COULD TALK ABOUT FURTHER, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS, YES, IT'S A CLEAN SLATE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: COULD I JUST CLARIFY, TIM, WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? BECAUSE I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN THERE ALTERNATIVE.

>>TIM RUIZ: IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION GOING ON ABOUT GRANDFATHERING IN SOME OF THE OLDER APPLICATIONS THAT WERE NEVER ADDRESSED. AND THAT THEY WOULD SOMEHOW HAVE SOME PRIORITY AS FAR AS THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED GOES. OR IF THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE DEAD, IF THEY WANTED THAT TLD, THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY AGAIN ANEW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CRITERIA PRESUMABLY IS DIFFERENT IN THIS ROUND. SO I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AT THE POINT THAT YOU START THIS PROCESS.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED LIKE THE YEAR 2000, I THINK. SIX YEARS. BY NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE SEVEN YEARS OLD. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEW, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WERE SUGGESTING OTHERWISE.

>>TIM RUIZ: NO, I'M NOT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BE CLEAR THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: TIM, WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE AMSTERDAM MEETING, AND I THINK WE AGREED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER AND WE WEREN'T GOING TO ADDRESS IT.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THING THAT YOU PROPOSED IN 2000 AND THAT YOU ALREADY PAID TO HAVE AN EVALUATION DONE ON, THAT YOU WEREN'T GOING TO CHANGE, MAYBE YOUR CHOICE OF STRING, YOUR TECHNICAL PLAN, YOUR REGISTRATION PLAN, YOUR MARKETING PLAN, THINGS YOU ALREADY PAID $50,000 FOR AND GOT AN EVALUATION FOR, BACK ON, THAT SAID YOU HAVE DONE OKAY, THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, PERHAPS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.

THAT WAS A DISCUSSION POINT. IT'S NOT IN THIS REPORT. AND I WOULD THINK THAT BEFORE WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT BECAME MUCH THOSE 2000 APPLICATIONS -- I AM SPEAKING FOR MYSELF NOW, NOT THE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE TABLED. SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE DENIED.

MY GUESS IS THAT, IN FAIRNESS TO THOSE PEOPLE, ICANN OUGHT TO ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAPPEN, AND THEN MAKE A DECISION ON THEM.

>>TIM RUIZ: AND I THINK THAT'S, OBVIOUSLY, AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO GET RESOLVED BEFORE THE FIRST ROUND, SO THAT OTHERS WHO ARE CONSIDERING WILL KNOW WHERE THEY STAND, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN ANY OF THOSE STRINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPLIED FOR. AND IT MAY BE TABLED AND NOT NECESSARILY DEAD.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANKS FOR SHARING THAT, BRET. I HAD TRAVEL PROBLEMS AND WAS A LITTLE LATE FOR THE AMSTERDAM MEETING.

>>ROB HALL: ROB HALL WITH MOMENTUS. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH BRET AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR CHUCK. IT'S EVEN FURTHER COMPLICATED WHEN YOU LOOK AT COMPANIES THAT WERE AWARDED A STRING, LIKE AFILIAS WAS AWARDED DOT INFO, SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR DOT WEB APPLICATION WHERE THEY DID WIN, BUT THEY DIDN'T WIN THE ACTUAL APPLICATION. SO I WANT TO CAUTION YOU TO GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT TO IF YOU ARE GOING TO GRANDFATHER, ON WHAT BASIS AND WHERE DO THEY GET IN LINE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: JUST ON THAT POINT, I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO NECESSARILY FALL TO OUR GROUP TO DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE OLD APPLICATIONS.

I THINK MAYBE -- MAYBE WE OUGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THEY ASK THOSE APPLICANTS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL INTERESTED AND MAYBE THE BOARD OUGHT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THAT'S A CLEAN SLATE OR NOT. BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO PARSE ALL THOSE DELICATE QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>>ROB HALL: CHUCK, YOU TALK ABOUT A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MODEL THAT I ASSURE YOU WILL CREATE A BIT OF A LAND RUSH AT MIDNIGHT AT THE OFFICES WHERE THE APPLICATIONS ARE PUT IN, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU ALLUDE TO AN ALLOCATION METHOD FOR SIMILAR STRINGS WHICH WOULD SEEM TO NOT BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. COULD YOU MAYBE TELL US WHAT THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MEANS, THEN, IF TWO PEOPLE APPLY IN 30 DAYS, WE GO TO THIS METHOD, THEN WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE TO BEING FIRST? AND, SECONDLY, WHY WOULD YOU NOT PUBLISH WHAT APPLICATIONS ARE ALREADY IN THE QUEUE SO SOMEBODY ON DAY 20 WOULDN'T SAY, HEY, THERE IS NO POINT IN WASTING MY MONEY AND APPLYING. VERISIGN ALREADY HAS A GREAT APPLICATION AND I CAN'T BEAT THEM.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YOU MEAN PUBLISHING THE STRINGS BEFORE THE END OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD.

>>ROB HALL: CORRECT. IF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MATTERS THEN PUBLISHING WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. IF THIS OTHER ALLOCATION MATTERS, I COULD SEE HOW PUBLISHING WOULD BE A PROBLEM. SO WHICH ONE TAKES PRIORITY, I GUESS IS MY FIRST QUESTION.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE -- YOU KNOW, TO PUBLISH SOMEONE'S PROPOSED STRING BEFORE THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS CLOSED VIOLATES THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

>>ROB HALL: WELL, NOT IF THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED PRINCIPLE IS THE GUIDING ONE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: BUT UNDERSTAND, ROB, THAT THE ONLY ADVANTAGE OF ORDER WITHIN A ROUND WITH REGARD TO FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IS PROCESSING ORDER.

IF APPLICATION NUMBER 8 AND APPLICATION NUMBER 15 ARE FOR THE SAME STRING, APPLICATION 8 HAS NO ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WINNING THE STRING OVER APPLICATION 15.

THE ONLY ADVANTAGE WOULD BE IF THERE IS NO CONTENTION, WE'RE GIVING ICANN SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF ORDER PROCESSING, IN THE CASE THAT THEY CAN'T WORK ON ALL OF THEM AT ONCE, WHICH VERY WELL MIGHT BE THE CASE.

>>ROB HALL: SO AS SOON AS THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS WITH THE SAME STRING, THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED PRINCIPLE, THEN, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASSIGNMENT OF THE STRING.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CORRECT, YES.

>>ROB HALL: SO THAT WOULD SEEM TO IMPLY THAT IF AN APPLICATION IS IN FIRST AND GOING THROUGH MANY OTHER ITERATIONS, AS WE HAVE SEEN THESE THINGS TAKE ON LIFE, SOMETIMES THEY TAKE MONTHS TO GET THROUGH SOLVING SOME OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN AN APPLICATION, IF YOU GET INTO A NEXT ROUND, WOULD YOU STILL HAVE PRECEDENT THEN? THESE THINGS TAKE YEARS SOMETIMES.

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, NO, THERE'S NO CARRYOVER OF -- THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW FOR PRECEDENCE IN A FOLLOWING ROUND.

>>ROB HALL: BUT YOU COULD STILL BE IN PROCESS BY THE TIME THE FOLLOWING ROUND STARTS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OH, WELL, IN THAT SENSE YOU WOULD BE AHEAD.

THE EARLIER ROUND WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE -- AND I SAID THAT IN MY SECOND POINT -- WOULD HAVE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED RIGHTS OVER ANY SUBSEQUENT ROUND.

>>ROB HALL: THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO YOU IS I THINK YOUR TIMING IS PROBABLY OKAY ON THE FOUR MONTHS AND THE 30 DAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ROUNDS SCHEDULED AHEAD OF TIME, THOUGH.

SO LET'S NOT LEAVE IT UP TO ICANN TO SAY, WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER ROUND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF YOU SAY THERE IS GOING TO BE A ROUND EVERY SIX MONTHS AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS EVERY SIX MONTHS, WHAT YOU WILL FIND IS AFTER A FEW ITERATIONS OF THAT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SAY WE AREN'T GETTING ENOUGH APPLICATIONS IN A ROUND. WE JUST OPEN IT UP AND YOU APPLY WHENEVER YOU WANT. BUT IF YOU LEAVE IT TO THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE ONE BIG ROUND AND WHO KNOWS WHEN THE NEXT ONE WILL BE, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE A GOOD THING. I THINK YOU SHOULD SPECIFY THERE WILL BE A ROUND BASED ON A CALENDAR TIME FRAME.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY INTENT ON THE COMMITTEE OF SUGGESTING ONE BIG ROUND. IN FACT, WE SAID ROUNDS; RIGHT?

AT SOME POINT WE MAY DECIDE, LIKE YOU SAID, TO STOP ROUNDS AND JUST DO IT ON AN ONGOING BASIS. AND IT'S OUR INTENT THAT THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF NOTICE.

>>ROB HALL: MY POINT IS YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPECIFY RIGHT NOW HOW MANY AND HOW OFTEN THE ROUNDS WILL BE. BECAUSE ARGUABLY, WE HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO ROUNDS AND THEY ARE YEARS APART. SO IN EFFECT, THE FIRST ONE WAS THE BIG ONE, AND THEN YOU HAD A BIG SPONSORED ONE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I THINK THAT WOULD BE IDEAL; OKAY? AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE RATIONALE THAT YOU HAVE THERE.

THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PREPARATION THE FIRST TIME THROUGH. AND PROBABLY WE'RE GOING TO WANT SOME EVALUATION TO TWEAK IT AND IMPROVE IT THE SECOND TIME THROUGH.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THIS COMMITTEE, AND I THINK WE ARE UNANIMOUS ON THIS, THAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS IT TO BE EFFICIENT, VERY TIMELY, OPEN, TRANSPARENT, AND SO FORTH. TO BE ABLE DO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, THOUGH, WOULD BE MAKING SOME GUESSES THAT WOULD BE REALLY HARD, ESPECIALLY FIRST TIME AROUND. BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING ICANN STAFF TO DO A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK BEFORE THAT START DATE HAPPENS IN TERMS OF APPLICATIONS. BECAUSE IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL OF THESE PROCESSES, ALL OF THESE EXPERT PANELS OR WHATEVER IT MAY END UP BEING ARE IN PLACE AND READY TO GO SO THAT THERE ARE NO DELAYS ONCE IT STARTS BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK, ROB, THE WAY WE ARE THINKING ABOUT IT IS A BIT LIKE THE REGISTRAR PROCESS. IF YOU THINK ABOUT REGISTRARS BACK IN 2000, THERE WERE FIVE TEST BED REGISTRARS AND THERE WAS ANOTHER BATCH PROCESSED AND THEN NOW IT'S GONE TO PRETTY MUCH ON A ROLLING BASIS.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WE HAD WAS THAT AFTER THE FIRST ROUND, THERE WOULD BE A VERY FOCUSED EVALUATION OF THAT ROUND BEFORE STARTING THE NEXT ONE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT KIND OF TONGUE IN CHEEK, AREN'T WE SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRST ROUND AND WE HAVE DONE THAT? IT TOOK US SIX YEARS TO EVALUATE THE FIRST ROUND?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: EXACTLY.

SO I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO AS A COMMITTEE IS PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS OPPOSED TO POLICY.

SO THE GUIDANCE COULD BE THAT WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THE SECOND ROUND WOULD START, SAY, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST ROUND, AND THAT ONE MONTH OR WHATEVER BEFORE THE SECOND ROUND, THERE'S EVALUATION WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO IT'S NOT AN EVALUATION IN THE SENSE OF SHOULD WE HAVE TLDS OR NOT. IT WOULD BE GOING BACK TO THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE IN THE FIRST ROUND AND SAY WHAT COULD WE DO BETTER? BECAUSE I THINK THE STAFF HAVE GOT TO BE IN AN IMPROVEMENT PROCESS HERE.

>>ROB HALL: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THINK I AM TRYING TO SUGGEST WE PREVENT, IS WE DON'T WANT TO GET TO A POINT OF WHERE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ARE THERE ENOUGH OR NOT. WE WANT TO KNOW HOW WE CAN GET MORE THAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN POLICY ORIENTED.

THANK YOU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: FOUR MONTHS? WELL, YOU CAN DO THREE MONTHS, AS ANYTIME BEFORE IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S HELL, BUT IT'S HELL FOR THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS. THE HELL IS ANSWERING THE RFC ITSELF; RIGHT? THE TIME IS NOT THAT CRITICAL. SO MINIMUM THREE MONTHS. FOUR MONTHS IS NOT A DISASTER.

SECOND, ROUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE FIRST THINGS THAT SHOULD BE DONE AFTER CLOSING THE FIRST ROUND, OR ANY ROUND, IS PUBLISHING THE TLD STRINGS AND INTENDED USE IF ANY, OR JUST ITS GENERAL USE. AND TO ALLOW FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING ON AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, IS ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL REGARDING ANY OF THESE TLD PROPOSALS.

THIS IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULDN'T MOVE INTO A STEADY PROCESS FOR REVIEWING TLDS.

PERHAPS, YES, ACCEPTING THE APPLICATIONS, BUT HAVING TWO TIMES OR THREE TIMES A YEAR, APRIL AND OCTOBER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, TLDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE PUBLISHED AND THERE IS A PERIOD OF COMMENT FOR ALL OF THEM.

WHAT I AM SAYING HERE IS IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE -- I MEAN, REMEMBER DOT 666 BUT EVEN DOT CAT. IT'S ONLY AFTER THE REVIEW -- AND IN ONCE CASE, AFTER THE CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATION -- THAT THESE EXTERNAL PROBLEMS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF VERY BAD EXPERIENCE. EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A REAL ISSUE AND YOU SUCCEED LIKE IN THE DOT CAT CASE. BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND A SORT OF REVIEW REGARDING ALL OF THIS.

NOW, FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE MANY TLDS THAT ARE FOR THE SAME STREAM OR THE SAME USE. WELL, IN CASE THAT'S A REAL SPONSORED TLD, THAT IS A TLD THAT'S FOR A GIVEN COMMUNITY THAT MAYBE ISN'T DEFINED AS SUCH, YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO ENTITIES THAT ARE THE BEST REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT COMMUNITY. SO IF THEY ARE COMPLETELY EQUAL, STILL THEN YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE. IF ONE IS JUST AMADEU DID ONCE VISIT A MUSEUM AND WANTS DOT MUSEUM, AND ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE MUSEDOMA WITH INTERNATIONAL CONSULATE MUSEUM, THE REPRESENTATIVENESS FOR THAT COMMUNITY SHOULD BE THE DRIVING GOAL. AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, IT'S JUST A GENERAL PURPOSE TLD, A PURPOSE FOR ALL THOSE WHO USE GLASSES THAT YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY AS AN ORGANIZED COMMUNITY, IN THIS CASE, ONE THING WOULD BE THE BEST PROPOSAL. HEY, LET'S HAVE TELCORDIA EVALUATE WHICH IS THE BEST PROPOSAL.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF COMING INTO THE DISCUSSION FROM AN EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE AND TO BE VERY ADMIRATIVE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAILS THAT WE ARE GETTING IN NOW AND THE MECHANISMS THAT WILL BE PUT IN PLACE.

LET ME STEP BACK JUST FOR A SECOND AND ADDRESS A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COME TO MIND WHEN I SEE THE PROCESS.

ONE THING IS, I WAS RAISING THE QUESTION OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY EARLIER ON. AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ON THE SIDE, AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ACTUALLY THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AGES WITHIN THE ICANN, WHICH IS VERY INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND.

ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS ARRIVING IN THIS ENVIRONMENT THAT THE QUESTION IS THERE.

AND WHEN I SEE SOME OF THE COMMENTS EARLIER, WHEN YOU PUT A TAG OF $50,000, IF I UNDERSTAND, FOR A REVIEW PROCESS, I'M SORRY, YOU ARE FIXING SOME SORT OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY DE FACTO.

MY QUESTION WAS, HOW CONSCIOUS IS THE ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS DECIDING? IS IT A PURELY COMMERCIAL ONE? IS IT A PUBLIC INTEREST ONE? WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?

I COULD SEE THE ARGUMENTS FROM ONE HAND TOWARDS MANY TLDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, TOWARDS LESS TLDS, THE INTUITIVE APPROACH. MY QUESTION WAS, AND I THINK IT'S STILL A VALID QUESTION, WHERE IS THE DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S APPROACH TO DEFINING THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. THE SECOND POINT IS I'M VERY SURPRISED BY THE PROCESS THAT BASICALLY PUTS THE WHOLE BURDEN ON THE STAFF AND THE BOARD.

I HAVE A NAIVE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED SOME SORT OF PROCEDURE WITHIN ICANN TO DEAL WITH THOSE PROCESSES, AND I MUST CONFESS THAT SINCE I GET INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION AND IN THIS ORGANIZATION, I'M A BIT SURPRISED THERE'S SOMEWHAT CONFUSION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD.

I THOUGHT, BEFORE COMING HERE -- MAYBE NAIVELY -- THAT ICANN IS A COMMUNITY AND THAT THE STAFF, THE BOARD, AND ALL THE PROCESSES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE ARE THERE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY ADDRESS THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES AND PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE.

ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS: HOW MANY NEW TLDS SHOULD WE HAVE, AND HOW DO WE PROCESS THIS?

IN THAT RESPECT, MY MAIN QUESTION IS NOW: HAS THE GROUP -- AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITHIN ICANN -- ASSESSED SOMEWHAT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE LIKELY TO COME IN, AND IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF A FLOOD THAT WOULD JUST OVERBURDEN THE STAFF AND THE BOARD IN SO MANY APPLICATIONS THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO PROCESS THEM THROUGH THIS MECHANISM? THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, LET ME START WITH SOME OF YOUR LATTER QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S -- WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH ICANN STAFF IN TERMS OF ASSESSING THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE EXPECTED, AND THE GUESSES RANGE FROM VERY LARGE NUMBERS TO SMALL. I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER.

WITH REGARD TO THE LOAD ON ICANN STAFF, I'LL BE THE LAST ONE TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T A BIG LOAD FOR ICANN STAFF, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S FRONT LOADED, IN THE SENSE: GETTING READY --

AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS, OKAY? SO THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STAFF SUPPORT NEEDED TO GET THIS PROCESS GOING, TO BE PREPARED FOR IT. BUT IT'S MY CONVICTION THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS REALLY TRIED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD AND ICANN STAFF TO MAKE VERY MANY DECISIONS. IF YOU LOOK THROUGH EVEN THE DRAFT REPORT, WHICH WILL BE REWORDED A LOT AFTER THESE COMMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY SIX DIFFERENT CASES WHERE WE'VE RECOMMENDED INDEPENDENT PANELS OR EXPERT PANELS TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND THE INTENT OF THAT IS THAT IT WOULDN'T PUT ICANN STAFF OR THE BOARD IN THE SITUATION OF MAKING THOSE VERY DIFFICULT JUDGMENTS.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- AND ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK WE'VE BEEN UNANIMOUS ON IN THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN THAT EVERY EFFORT BE MADE TO MAKE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE RFP THAT CAN BE MEASURABLE AND NOT SUBJECTIVE.

NOW, IT'S TOUGH TO ELIMINATE ALL SUBJECTIVITY, BUT IT'S OUR GOAL THAT THAT BE MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SO -- AND I THINK THAT, IN THE END, HELPS ICANN STAFF AND THE BOARD AND HOPEFULLY DOESN'T PUT THEM IN THE AWKWARD SITUATION WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN. SO I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY IN SYNCH WITH -- WITH SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'RE SUGGESTING IN THAT REGARD.

BUT PLEASE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KICK THIS PROCESS OFF.

>> BRET FAUSETT: CHUCK, IF I COULD ADD, I THINK A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION MAY HAVE FOCUSED ON THINGS THAT STAFF AND THESE MEDIATION PANELS WERE GOING TO DO. THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTESTED, MAYBE AT THE MARGINS OF ACCEPTABILITY. OUR CONTEMPLATION IS THAT A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE STRAIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, VERY EASY, NO CONTENTION.

YOU CAN TAKE THE DOT BERLIN ONE, FOR EXAMPLE. SINGLE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, AN EXISTING REGISTRY, BACK END. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE MUCH STAFF TIME AT ALL. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT LIKE THAT.

SO THE DOT WEBS AND THE DOT POKERS AND THE THINGS THAT MAKE -- REQUIRE CONTENTION ARE GOING TO TAKE STAFF RESOURCES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE TYPICAL CASE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: MARILYN, YOU WANTED TO TALK? AND MAWAKI?

>>MARILYN CADE: I DID. I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF BERTRAND'S QUESTION, WHICH I THINK -- AND I WANT TO REMIND ALL OF US THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY LARGE BODY OF MATERIAL THAT MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT, IF YOU'RE COMING INTO THE PROCESS RECENTLY.

WE HAD A PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND. WE AGREED TO DO AN EVALUATION. THERE WERE FURTHER STUDIES AND ANALYSIS THAT WERE AGREED TO. AND THEN AT -- AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE ECONOMIC ADVICE, BERTRAND, TOO, ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN KINDS OF DECISIONS. SO ALL OF THAT IS A WORK STREAM THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, HAS HAPPENED OR IS GOING ON, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE COUNCIL DID -- AND THE BOARD DID SUPPORT -- THE COUNCIL TOOK A DECISION, THE BOARD SUPPORTED, OR MAYBE IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A MANAGED PROCESS TO INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS, AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.

NOW, THE QUESTION OF SHOULD WE HAVE TRIED TO, FIRST OF ALL, ASCERTAIN THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SPECIFIC QUANTITY, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DEBATES ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST, AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY SEEMED TO BE THAT THAT WAS NOT A RESOLVABLE DEBATE AND, INSTEAD, WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD IN A PRAGMATIC WAY. AND I'M JUST SORT OF CHARACTERIZING WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM A BEHAVIORAL ASPECT SOME OF WHAT WE'VE DONE.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A FIRM ANSWER FROM A GROUP OF HIGHLY SKILLED TECHNOLOGISTS AND WHETHER WE CAN HAVE 10,000 OR 5,000 OR WHATEVER, I DON'T THINK THERE'S -- THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AS I GATHER.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: NO. JUST A BRIEF REMARK.

ONE, I AM ABSOLUTELY CONSCIOUS THAT I'M JUST ARRIVING LATE IN A DEBATE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

THE SURPRISE THAT I HAVE IS THAT TAKING THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT A COMMON AGREEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ON THOSE ASPECTS. NOT ON THE NUMBERS. WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF AGREEING ON THE NUMBERS.

WHAT I DON'T SENSE IS THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ON THE PURPOSE. OTHER PURPOSES. AND I THINK THIS COULD BE POSSIBLE. THAT'S MY ONLY -- THAT'S MY ONLY POINT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO --

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: OKAY. SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO BERTRAND THAT I AM SYMPATHETIC TO HIS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL OF OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER DISCUSS WITH HIM OR SEE THE VARIABLES AND THE PARAMETERS THAT HELP US TO DEFINE -- TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST CONCEPT OF THAT OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, ESPECIALLY IF IT HELPS US UNDERSTAND -- HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, THAT I'M NOT AT ALL SUPPORTIVE OF APPLICATION FEES SUCH AS $50,000, AND DURING THE DISCUSSION ON THE COUNCIL, I MADE THE POINT CLEAR THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH, WE MAY NEED TO SET UP SOME MECHANISM -- GRANT MECHANISM, FOR EXAMPLE -- FOR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO WHICH SUCH FEE IS, RIGHT AWAY -- HOW DO YOU SAY? -- ELIMINATORY. OKAY?

SO THIS -- I DON'T THINK IT APPEARS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THE RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF REFERENCE, BUT I'M HOPING THAT IT WILL BE IN THE REPORT. THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: JUST A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO FEES, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE FEES BE AN AMOUNT SUCH THAT THE COST -- ICANN COSTS WOULD BE RECUPERATED FOR -- IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.

AND THEY -- LIKE PHILIP POINTED OUT, THEY MAY VARY, BECAUSE SOME APPLICATIONS MAY TAKE A LOT MORE.

SO IT COULD RESULT IN SOME SORT OF AN ESCROW ACCOUNT OR SOMETHING THAT FUNDS WOULD BE DRAWN FROM THAT WOULD BE REFUNDED, IF NOT USED. WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AND WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT.

SECONDLY, WITH REGARD TO THE -- THE RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE BOARD, ONE POINT THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED, IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE BASE CONTRACT, THAT IF AN APPLICANT IS SATISFIED WITH THE BASE CONTRACT, OTHER THAN THE MINOR DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN THERE, THAT IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THAT TRANSACTION, WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED ACTION BY THE BOARD.

NOW, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD WHETHER THEY WANT TO GIVE STAFF THAT FREEDOM, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE INTENT OF TRYING NOT TO OVERLOAD THE BOARD WITH DECISION-MAKING IN THIS PROCESS.

>>ROBIN GROSS: I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN HERE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>>ROBIN GROSS: CAN I HOP IN HERE?

>>CHUCK GOMES: ROBIN?

>>ROBIN GROSS: I ACTUALLY DON'T SHARE THE OPTIMISM THAT MOST APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO JUST SAIL RIGHT ON THROUGH WITHOUT ANY CONTROVERSY. I THINK THE WAY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING UP THIS PROCESS NOW IS THAT MOST APPLICATIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND VERY CONTESTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ICANN BOARD AND STAFF HAVING TO EVALUATE BUSINESS PLANS, HAVING TO EVALUATE FINANCIAL RECORDS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ALLOWING WORDS THAT -- BECAUSE MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A TRADEMARK ON THEM. WELL, MOST WORDS ACTUALLY ARE TRADEMARKED SOMEWHERE FOR SOMETHING. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

ALSO, THE ISSUE OF, AGAIN, THE MORALITY ISSUE. WE'RE SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT HERE IF WE'VE GOT ICANN NOW DECIDING WHOSE STANDARD OF MORALITY IS THE APPROPRIATE ONE, WHICH RELIGIOUS WORDS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED SACRED AND, THEREFORE, NOT USED.

THESE ARE ALL WORK THAT THE ICANN BOARD AND STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO -- IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO, AND BESIDES CREATING AN ENORMOUS WORKLOAD FOR THEM, I THINK IT ALSO SETS ICANN UP FOR ENORMOUS LIABILITY WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE GETS CHOSEN OVER AN APPLICANT WHO FEELS LIKE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN MORE WORTHY.

SO I DON'T SHARE THE -- THE OPTIMISM THAT MOST APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO JUST SAIL RIGHT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I THINK IT'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED AND MOST WILL BE CONTROVERSIAL AND CONTESTED. THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I THINK THIS -- OUR SUCCESS WILL BE THE -- HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON HOW OBJECTIVE WE CAN MAKE THE CRITERIA AND TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE SOME MORE DIFFICULT ISSUES BUT LET'S MOVE ON IN THE QUEUE. PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS, CHUCK. I WONDER IF I COULD MAKE A FEW OBSERVATIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR ITS WORK. I THINK IT'S FANTASTIC AND THIS IS REALLY HARD, SO I THINK THE FIRST RECOGNITION IS: THIS IS REALLY HARD WORK AND NOT -- AND FOR YOU PEOPLE SPENDING ALL THIS TIME AND THOUGHT ON IT, AND I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK IT'S -- PRAISE NEEDS TO GO FOR YOU FOR THE EFFORTS YOU'RE MAKING AND FOR THE THINKING THAT'S GOING INTO THIS, AND FOR THE FACT THAT LOTS OF DISCUSSION HAS TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE YOU GET TO AN ANSWER. SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY.

SECONDLY, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE WITH THE STAFF AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THAT'S BEEN TAKEN. AND, FOR INSTANCE, THE LAST STAFF PAPER WHICH ALSO CAME WITH THE -- WITH THE DRAFT PAPER OF YOUR WORKING GROUP, I THINK THAT'S VERY -- I THINK THAT'S VERY VALUABLE.

IF YOU ASK ME PERSONALLY, I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THE LAST STATEMENT, AND ALL I WOULD SAY IS: THERE'S A LOT OF EXPERIENCE OF THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF WHAT APPLIES, BUT WHO AT WHAT STAGE DECIDES THEY'RE UNHAPPY WITH SOMETHING, NO MATTER WHAT YOU PUT IN THE RULES. SO THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL OBSERVATION.

MY ONLY OTHER OBSERVATION, BECAUSE I WAS -- I REALLY STOOD UP WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT PANELS. ALL I WOULD SAY ABOUT EXPERIENCE OF PANELS IS EVEN IF YOU SET UP PANELS, DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, OR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER FROM A PANEL IN A SITUATION WHERE IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

SO IT'S JUST -- THERE IS JUST EXPERIENCE -- PERSONAL EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP WORKING THROUGH THIS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET THE IDEAL ANSWER, BUT ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF JUST THESE -- JUST EVEN OF BEING ABLE TO GO OUT TO PANELS FOR ADVICE IS THAT OCCASIONALLY, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN YOU FIND SOMEBODY AND SAY, "HERE'S THE THING I WANT" AND THEY GO, "AH, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ON THE OTHER."

[LAUGHTER]

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SO IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION. SO --

>> BRUCE TONKIN: PAUL, CAN YOU JUST SORT OF -- I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE KEY QUESTIONS IS AROUND THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS AND AROUND USING EXPERT PANELS AND SO ON, SO I THINK THE CONCEPT IS THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES HAVE GOT A DIFFERENT SERIES OF PERSPECTIVES AND THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO A PANEL OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS.

BUT JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, THIS IS NOT NEW AND THE PROCESS WE HAVE WITH UDRP IS A PROCESS WHERE THERE IS A PANEL AND PRESUMABLY THERE'S AN ANSWER GIVEN. WE HAVE COURTS OF LAW WHERE YOU HAVE A JURY, AND THE JURY IS GENERALLY SELECTED TO BE A GROUP OF A MIXTURE OF PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT -- THAT ARE FROM THE COMMUNITY, SO IT'S JUST A GENERAL COMMITTEE AND THEY MAKE A DECISION.

BUT USING GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION IS NOT UNUSUAL. I'M JUST INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK YOU DO IN ADDITION --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I DON'T DISPUTE THE GENERAL CONCEPT, BUT ALL I'M SAYING IS IN EVERY EXAMPLE YOU'VE JUST GIVEN, THE WORLD TREATS THEM AS NOT GIVING THE ANSWER PERFECT. IT HAS APPEAL MECHANISMS. EVEN THE UDRP, THE PEOPLE CAN APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL COURTS, AND THE NATIONAL COURTS THEMSELVES HAVE COURTS OF APPEALS.

SO -- AND I DON'T WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE POINT, BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T DRIVE OUR DECISION-MAKING, BUT THAT ALONE PUTS A LEGAL LIABILITY ISSUE STRAIGHT BACK IN THE ICANN DECISION-MAKING, SO WE JUST SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT, I THINK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU GET OUT OF IT --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WHEN I LISTEN TO A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET TO A -- I SUSPECT YOU'LL GET TO A STAGE WHERE -- THAT WE'LL GET TO THE STAGE WHERE WE -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, I GATHER, THIS PROBLEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, RIGHT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, YEAH.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: AND ALL I'M JUST FLAGGING IS, IT'S GOOD TO KEEP THIS DIALOGUE GOING SO WE CAN DEFINE THAT AND TALK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE AS YOU POINT OUT, I AM A LITTLE SYMPATHETIC TO THE LAST COMMENT THAT I THINK THERE COULD BE COMPLEXITIES THAT WE JUST WEREN'T FORESEEING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: AND WITH REGARD TO THE INTERACTION WITH STAFF, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT STAFF IS NOT WAITING UNTIL WE'RE DONE TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS.

THEY HAVE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED. IN FACT, THEIR LIST OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS SUBMITTED JUST, I DON'T KNOW, WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS GENERATED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION ON ISSUES A GOOD PART OF THE DAY YESTERDAY.

SO I, FOR ONE, AM VERY THANKFUL FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT STAFF IS DOING AND FOR THE FACT THAT THEY'RE DOING, AND THOSE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIMING AND THIS THING HAPPENING, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ICANN STAFF ISN'T WAITING FOR US. THEY'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN SPENDING LONG HOURS ON THAT. WERNER?

>>WERNER STAUB: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE TWO OPEN QUESTIONS, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AND HOW MUCH IS THE APPLICATION FEE GOING TO BE.

THE TWO OF THEM, OF COURSE, ARE INDEPENDENT, AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SURPRISE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, BE IT MANY MORE OR MANY LESS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.

AND IF WE HAVE A SURPRISE IN TERMS OF A HIGH NUMBER, MANY -- A LOT OF CONTENTIONS, OF COURSE WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TIME.

YET IT MADE ME WONDER WHY IS THAT THE CASE? WE MUST ASK OURSELF MAYBE BECAUSE WE DO LIKE THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE, AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU SAID, CHUCK, IN ONE EXPRESSION OF "THE RIGHT OF AN APPLICANT TO THE SECRECY OF THE STRING UNTIL THE STRINGS ARE REVEALED" IS, I BELIEVE, THIS PERCEIVED RIGHT TO THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE.

IS IT REALLY WORTHWHILE DOING THAT? IT ACTUALLY CAUSES QUITE A BIT OF CONTENTION.

IT MOVES PEOPLE INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SURPRISE, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS WAYS AROUND AND THERE IS WAYS TO DESIGN THE SYSTEM SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT FORCED TO TAKE THE FIRST ROUND.

MANY PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO TAKE A LATER ROUND.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ROB HALL HAS SAID IS, ANNOUNCE THE ROUNDS BEFOREHAND.

THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE, MAKE SURE THAT ONE HAS AN INTEREST -- NO, SORRY -- A POSSIBILITY TO JOIN THE CONTENTION FOR A STRING, EVEN THOUGH WE ACTUALLY WOULD NOT HAVE LIKED TO APPLY FOR IT IN THE FIRST ROUND.

BUT IF SOMEBODY THEN ELSE DID GO IN AND APPLY FOR THE STRING THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, THEN IT COULD JUST SAY, OKAY, I HAVE ONE MONTH TO PAY THE APPLICATION FEE AND ANOTHER TWO MONTHS TO SUBMIT A CONTENDING APPLICATION, BUT THEN I COULD STILL JUMP ONTO THE CONTENTION, WHEREAS IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO SEND IN THE APPLICATION AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN ANY STATE THAT HE HAD, SO EVERYBODY ESSENTIALLY WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE FIRST ROUND.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: CHUCK, I HAVE A QUESTION.

>>CHUCK GOMES: GO AHEAD.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: I DON'T WANT TO -- MINE MIGHT TAKE LONGER.

ANSWERS FROM THE CROWD.

SO THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OH, WELL, OKAY.

I'M GOING TO TRY -- I HAVE TAKEN SOME TIME TO GEAR UP SO I CAN TRY TEN MORE WORDS.

ON THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY TLDS IS DESIRABLE, THE DEBATES HAVE GONE ON FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

NO GOOD CONCLUSIONS.

I WOULD SAY THAT HAVING AN UNLIMITED NUMBER IS STUPID AND NOT USEFUL.

AND BESIDES, AN UNLIMITED NUMBER WOULD HAVE SOME SERIOUS TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.

SO THAT CAN'T BE THE RIGHT ANSWER.

UTILITY, THOUGH, IS ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH HAS BEEN NOT VERY -- ADDING NEW TLDS HAS NOT, IN MY VIEW, DEMONSTRATED A LOT OF UTILITY.

AND, OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE ARGUMENTS ABOUT, WELL, WE DIDN'T ADD THE RIGHT ONES.

IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW TO RESOLVE THE TENSION, BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU ADD A TLD, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMUNITY WILL SAY, "OH, I HAVE TO DEFENSIVELY REGISTER MY DOMAIN NAMES TO PROTECT THEM."

AND TRADEMARK LAW FORCES YOU INTO THAT POSITION, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T DEFEND YOUR TRADEMARK, IT BECOMES WEAKENED.

SO THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF FORCES THAT DRIVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

IF YOU HAVE A ZERO COST OR, YOU KNOW, MINIMAL COST REGISTRATION PROCESS, YOU CAN EXPECT THERE MIGHT BE A LOT MORE REGISTRATIONS.

THE NEXT QUESTION, THOUGH, ARISES WHEN YOU DO THAT IS, WILL THERE BE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN SQUATTING, WILL PEOPLE REGISTER A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN THE HOPE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WILL BUY IT FOR THEM?

THERE ARE JUST AN INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT ARISE.

AND FRANKLY, I'VE BEEN VERY SURPRISED PERSONALLY BY THE RANGE OF COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WAS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD IDEA FOR A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

AND SO AS WE GET INTO INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES, I'M SURE THAT THE COMPLEXITY WILL ONLY INCREASE.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE VERY EITHER CAVALIER OR NAIVE ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES WE'VE EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS TRYING TO INTRODUCE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

AND SO LET'S NOT UNDERESTIMATE WHAT THIS PROCESS MAY TURN OUT TO BE.

AND I WILL FINALLY SAY ONE MORE TIME THAT WITH REGARD TO MECHANISMS LIKE EXPERTS AND INDEPENDENT PANELS, IT IS A FAIRLY TIME-CONSUMING AND THEREFORE EXPENSIVE PROCESS TO SET THESE THINGS UP.

AND SO IF YOU PROPOSE THAT ICANN MUST DO THAT, POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT AND EXPERT PANEL FOR VARYING DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT WILL HAVE VARYING DIFFERENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, YOU WILL BURDEN THIS PROCESS WITH COST AND COMPLEXITY.

WHICH LEADS ME BACK TO MY EARLIER SPECULATION -- AND, BELIEVE ME, IT'S JUST THAT -- THAT ONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MECHANISM FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF A BROAD RANGE OF COMPLAINTS IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE UDRP ALLOWS PRETTY MUCH ARBITRARY PARTIES TO RAISE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE REGISTRATION OF A PARTICULAR SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN.

SO I LEAVE YOU WITH THE DEEP CONCERN THAT WHATEVER ADVICE YOU GIVE US NOT WIND UP INCREASING THE BURDEN ON BOARD AND STAFF, INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION TO ACTUALLY AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANK YOU, VINT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WITH REGARD TO THE COMMITTEE'S VIEW ON THE PANELS AND SO FORTH, WE REALIZE THE VERY POINTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, MAYBE IT IS ONE LARGE COLLECTION, NOT UNLIKE THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES THINGS, WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN DRAW A FEW FROM FOR SPECIFIC NEED.

I DON'T KNOW.

AND WE'VE TRIED TO LEAVE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF DOING IT WITHOUT BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH ISSUES LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>>BRET FAUSETT: AND WE ALSO DID SAY THAT THE APPLICATION FEE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THIS REVENUE-NEUTRAL FOR ICANN, SO THAT IF THERE ARE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THESE INDEPENDENT PANELS, THAT'S BORNE BY THE APPLICANTS.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE COMMENT.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: EXCUSE ME, CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION THAT POINTS TO VINT'S, IF I MAY?

VINT, HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED IN THE POINTS YOU JUST MADE THE ARGUMENT OF WHICH THE PROBLEMS ARE RELATED TO THE TLDS ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE SCARCITY OF THE TLDS?

IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE WERE MORE TLDS, WITHOUT BEING UNLIMITED, THE VALUE OR THE SYMBOLIC VALUE OF THE TLD WILL BECOME BANAL, AND THEN THE TRADEMARK ISSUES RELATED TO THAT MAYBE WON'T HAVE THE SAME WEIGHTS.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I CERTAINLY HAVE GIVEN SOME THOUGHT TO THAT.

AND, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I WOULD OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING: TRADEMARK HAS BEEN LESS SENSITIVE AT DEEPER LEVELS IN THE HIERARCHY OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.

SO AT THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH LEVEL, TRADEMARK CONCERNS, IN MY EXPERIENCE, HAVE NOT BEEN VERY VISIBLE.

IF YOU HAVE EXTREMELY LARGE NUMBERS OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY CLEAR TO ME ANYMORE WHAT UTILITY ONE IS GETTING FROM THEM.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT AS YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF THEM, THE UTILITY GOES DOWN.

IN FACT, AT SOME POINT, YOU CAN NO LONGER GUESS WHERE PARTICULAR SECOND-LEVEL DOMAIN HAS REGISTERED.

AND YOU END UP USING SEARCH ENGINES IN ORDER TO FIND THINGS.

AND WHEN YOU END UP USING SEARCH ENGINES TO FIND THINGS, YOU NO LONGER REALLY CARE WHAT THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION WAS.

IT JUST GETS BOUND TO A DIRECT RE-ENTRY OR IT'S BOUND TO A BOOK MARK.

AND SO THIS WHOLE NOTION OF TRYING TO PARSE THE INTERNET AND SOMEHOW CATEGORIZE IT BY MAKING THINGS REGISTERED IN DIFFERENT TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IN MY VIEW IS AN EXTREMELY CRUDE WAY OF TRYING TO CREATE A TAXONOMY ON THE NETWORK.

AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN PERSUADED THAT THAT'S A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL.

THE THING THAT'S IMPRESSED ME -- AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF MY CURRENT EMPLOYMENT -- IS THAT THE FULL-TEXT SEARCHING OF CONTENT ON THE NET HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY EFFECTIVE WAY OF FINDING THINGS, MORE SO THAN GUESSING TOP-LEVEL OR GUESSING DOMAIN NAMES.

THE ONLY REASON THE DOMAIN NAME IS USEFUL, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT IT FINALLY CREATES AN ABSOLUTE AND UNIQUE END POINT THAT, HAVING FOUND SOMETHING, YOU CAN REMEMBER AND REUSE.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY.

I WANT TO -- I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT THIS SHORT; RIGHT, BRUCE?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT I SUGGEST WE DO, LET'S JUST HAVE TONY HOLMES AND AVRI JUST BRIEFLY PRESENT THE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.

AND THEN WE'LL JUST COME BACK TO THIS QUEUE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING TO A MODE WHERE WE'RE TALKING AROUND A WHOLE RANGE OF TOPICS, I THINK, RATHER THAN SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATION METHODS.

SO LET'S KIND OF JUST FINISH THE PRESENTATION OF WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SO EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE IS CLEAR ON WHAT THEY ARE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: AND LET'S REMEMBER SOPHIA, TOO.

SHE WAS CUT OFF AND WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY SAY, I AGREE VERY MUCH, AND I THANK YOU FOR THE INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS YOU MADE, VINT, ON THIS PROCESS.

I THINK WE HAVE CONSIDERED A DISPUTE RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE NOW, PROBABLY MORE INCLUSIVE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPLEX MATTERS TO RESOLVE.

AND ALSO CONSIDERING, THEN, WHAT PAUL SAID, A PANEL MAY NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM, I WOULD LIKE TO KINDLY ASK SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS HERE MAYBE TO JUST GIVE US AN IDEA OR A COMMENT ON PERHAPS THE TIMELINES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR THE PROPOSALS FOR FOUR MONTHS, AS WELL AS THE 30-DAY CLOSING PERIOD THAT WAS MENTIONED.

THAT'S PARTICULARLY A CONCERN TO ME, I THINK.

I HAVE MY OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.

AS WELL AS THE $50,000 APPLICATION FEE I THINK SOME OF YOU HAD MENTIONED.

IF WE COULD GET THE PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IDN.IDN SPACE, I THINK THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES AND NEW AREAS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET PEOPLE'S INPUT ON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE JUST GO ACROSS TO TONY.

AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THE QUEUE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO BEFORE WE GET TO THE QUEUE AFTER TONY, IS GET ANYONE WHO HASN'T ALREADY SPOKEN.

BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'RE GETTING A BIT OF A CYCLING OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY MADE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS.

AND I DO WANT TO GIVE KIND OF PREFERENCE, IF YOU LIKE, TO PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVEN'T YET HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK IN CLOSING THE SESSION.

SO, TONY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO JUST TAKE US THROUGH THE CONTRACTUAL POLICIES.

>>TONY HOLMES: OKAY.

I'LL DO THIS IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY, BRUCE.

RATHER THAN CUT IT INTO CHUNKS, WE'LL GO RIGHT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING.

SO THE POLICIES FOR CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS, THE FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A BASE CONTRACT TO PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY AMONGST GTLD AGREEMENTS, WITH THE ABILITY FOR STAFF TO HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE.

SO ANY MATERIAL ALTERATIONS TO THE BASE CONTRACT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE APPROVAL BY THE ICANN BOARD.

THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE, ENSURING CERTAINTY FOR MARKET PLAYERS AND PRESERVING FLEXIBILITY OF ICANN TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES TO THE MARKET.

AND THAT'S BOTH TECHNOLOGICAL AND POLICY CONDITIONS.

THE THIRD POINT IS THE INITIAL TERM OF THE GTLD AGREEMENT SHOULD BE OF A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE LENGTH.

WHAT IS A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE LENGTH IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH AND HAVEN'T CONCLUDED ON TO DATE.

THERE HAS TO BE A RENEWAL EXPECTANCY.

A CONTRACT WOULD BE RENEWED PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTING PARTY IS NOT IN MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OR HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN REPEATED NONPERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.

AND, OF COURSE, ANY NEW CONTRACT NEEDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CONSENSUS POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME.

SANCTIONS.

THERE HAS TO BE CLEAR SANCTIONS, A CLEAR SANCTIONS PROCESS OUTLINED WITHIN THE BASE CONTRACT, AND, OF COURSE, TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT, IF THE NEW GTLD OPERATOR HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN NONPERFORMANCE OF THAT CONTRACT.

SO IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, THE REGISTRY HAS TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING NEW OR CHANGED CONSENSUS POLICIES.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AREAS AROUND THAT, ISSUES FOR WHICH UNIFORM OR COORDINATED RESOLUTION IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO FACILITATE INTEROPERABILITY, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.

FUNCTIONAL AND PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROVIDERS OF THE REGISTRY SERVICES.

AND, OF COURSE, SECURITY AND STABILITY OF THE REGISTRY DATABASE FOR THE TLD.

ANY DEVIATION FROM CONSENSUS POLICIES SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE AGREEMENT.

AND WHERE A REGISTRY PROVIDES IDNS, THE CONTRACT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE REGISTRY ADHERES TO THE IDN STANDARDS AND ICANN GUIDELINES FOR IDNS.

THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL POINT AS WELL THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING IN HERE THAT ISN'T SHOWN HERE.

AND THAT IS THAT ICANN MUST RELY ON APPROPRIATE EXTERNAL COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST AUTHORITIES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE COMPETITION LAW.

ICANN SHOULD ALSO TAKE A CONSISTENT APPROACH WITH RESPECT TO REGISTRY FEES.

AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN REGIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND BUSINESS MODELS THAT SURROUND THAT MATTER.

AND THE FINAL POINT IS THAT USE OF PERSONAL DATA IS LIMITED TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT'S COLLECTED.

AND THE REGISTRY OPERATOR MUST DEFINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT IT'S MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD PARTIES.

SO VERY QUICK RUN-THROUGH OF THE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.

BACK TO YOU, BRUCE.

THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, TONY.

NOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUEUE.

IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, JOIN THE QUEUE NOW.

AND THEN I'LL CLOSE THE QUEUE OFF AT THAT POINT.

SO AT THE MOMENT, I HAVE FOUR PEOPLE LEFT TO COMMENT.

IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COMMENT, THEY SHOULD JOIN NOW, ON ANY OF THE TOPICS WE'VE COVERED.

OKAY.

SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT AT THE FIVE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE NOW.

SO GO AHEAD, PLEASE, ALEJANDRO.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, BRUCE.

I'D LIKE TO CHIP INTO THIS DISCUSSION THAT, IN PARTICULAR, AS REINTRODUCED BY BERTRAND, A VERY GOOD THING TO ASK OURSELVES AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CYCLES IS THIS ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY QUESTION.

THE POINT ABOUT ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY IS OFTEN MADE IN THIS -- IN THE CONTEXT OF DOMAIN NAMES.

FIRST, OF COURSE, I -- I MEAN, FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

IT WOULD BE NATURAL ABUNDANCE PROBABLY.

OR NATURAL SCARCITY.

>> YEAH, NATURAL SCARCITY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY:THANKS.

SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE ORIGIN OF SCARCITY.

I THINK THE ORIGIN OF SCARCITY IN DOMAIN NAMES IN THAT THERE ARE NOT FLOATING AROUND A HUGE NUMBER OF TLDS BEING OPENED EVERY DAY AND NEW REGISTRIES BEING OPENED EVERY DAY CAN BE SEEN AS A PIPELINE OF VERY UNCERTAIN ORIGIN IN WHAT GOES INTO IT BECAUSE THE NAMES HAVE TO BE CREATED, THE REGISTRIES HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED AND THE BUSINESS MODELS HAVE TO BE PUT FORWARD.

AND THAT PIPELINE IS SITTING BEHIND THAT TABLE.

IT'S SITTING BEHIND THAT WALL.

THE PIPELINE IS DETERMINED, AND THE YIELD OF THE PIPELINE IS DETERMINED, BY THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO MORE EASILY OR MORE DIFFICULTLY PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS FOR DOMAIN NAMES AND PUT THEM THROUGH ANALYSIS THROUGH THE ICANN BOARD.

THE FIRST ROUNDS WERE ACTUALLY THE EASY ONES, BECAUSE SOME FAIRLY EASY IDEAS WERE OUT THERE AND SOME PEOPLE WITH MONEY TO INVEST AND TO WAIT FOR THE PROCESS WERE OUT THERE.

ONCE WE RUN INTO THINGS LIKE TRIPLE X, WE FOUND THAT CONTROVERSY COULD BE SO TOUGH AND TRYING TO GET ALL THESE CRITERIA THAT THIS TASK FORCE AND THE COUNCIL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON CAN BE SO TOUGH THAT IT CAN TAKE A LOT OF TIME BEFORE YOU CAN OPEN THE VALVE FOR THAT PIPELINE AGAIN AND HAVE SOME ABUNDANCE INSTEAD OF THE SCARCITY.

SO IT'S THE WHOLE PROCESS.

THE FACT THAT WE NOW HAVE TO LOOK FOR DEEPLY INTO PUBLIC POLICY PROCESSES; THE FACT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO INVOLVE THE GAC MORE CLOSELY IN THE DETAILS AND EARLY WARNINGS IN THE SYSTEM TIGHTENS THE AVAILABILITY OF NAMES.

ALL OF THESE THINGS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SCARCITY, WHETHER IT'S NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL.

THERE CAN BE NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT NAMES.

NAMES ARE ARTIFICIAL.

NAMES ARE NOT A NATURAL GOOD.

NAMES COME FROM HUMAN MINDS.

THEY ARE AN ARTIFICIAL GOOD, AND THEY ARE CREATED BY AN ARTIFICIAL PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE IN THIS PROCESS THAT'S NOW COMING FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL AND THIS TASK FORCE TO ACCELERATE PART OF THE AVAILABILITY OF NAMES, MAYBE NOT THE MOST INTERESTING, NOT THE MORE COMMERCIALLY OR SOCIALLY INTERESTING NAMES, BECAUSE THOSE WOULD BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL.

BUT TO HAVE THAT CHANCE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO FREE THE WHOLE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION BEHIND THE PIPELINE.

AND I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE.

NOW WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GAC, FOR EXAMPLE, BERTRAND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF NAMES OR TO TAKE FREEING UP A STREAM OF AVAILABLE NAMES WHERE YOU ARE SITTING ON SOME CONTROVERSIAL ONES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, BESIDES WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GO INTO THE PIPELINE AND BE BROUGHT OUT TO THE PUBLIC FOR PRODUCTION AND WHATEVER YOU WANT FOR THE ALLOCATION PROCESS.

AND THESE SHOULD PROBABLY CAUSE A RETHINKING OF THIS ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY AS IT'S USUALLY PRESENTED, BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY PRESENTED IN A COMBINATION OF ECONOMIC THEORY BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY -- ARE NOT NECESSARILY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN DEPTH ABOUT IT, AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

AND NOW THAT'S A BAD CONSPIRACY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.

SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: JUST SOME WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE WORK GROUP AND THE COUNCIL.

THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS IN BOTH WELLINGTON AND MARRAKECH URGING THE WORK OF THIS GROUP TO CONTINUE AND SUGGESTING EVEN SOME TIMELINES FOR THAT WORK.

I'M VERY PLEASED WITH THE PROGRESS SO FAR.

I THINK YOU'RE REALLY GETTING PLACES.

AND PARTICULARLY ON THE NOTION OF A STANDARD CONTRACT THAT'S QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD, LIGHTWEIGHT, AND THAT ALL APPLICANTS WILL BE ABLE TO ADOPT HOPEFULLY WITHOUT VERY MUCH INDIVIDUAL ONE-OFF NEGOTIATION.

ICANN HAS A MANDATE TO ENCOURAGE COMPETITION IN THE TLD SPACE, AND CERTAINLY NO MANDATE TO ADHERE TO THE SCARCITY THAT WE'VE PUT IN PLACE SO FAR.

I'VE BEEN VERY TROUBLED BY THE SORT OF BEAUTY CONTEST ASPECT OF THE TLD PROCESS TO DATE, AND I WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND APPLAUD THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE IN STANDARDIZING AND RENDERING MORE EFFICIENT THIS APPROACH.

THANKS SO MUCH.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: WENDY.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANKS.

I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT SUSAN SAID.

I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT VINT AND ALEJANDRO SAID AS WELL ABOUT NOT PUTTING ARTIFICIAL BOTTLENECKS INTO THE CREATION OF NEW DOMAIN NAMES.

WHERE I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THEIR -- THE FIRST SPEAKERS IS THAT I THINK THERE IS GREAT VALUE IN HAVING LOTS AND LOTS OF DOMAIN NAMES, NOT FOR THE -- THEIR USE AS SEARCH OR DIRECTORY, BUT FOR THEIR USE AS UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS.

THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF INDIVIDUALS OUT THERE WHO WANT THEIR OWN DOMAIN NAME TO SET UP E-MAIL THAT THEY'RE NOT RELIANT ON A PARTICULAR PROVIDER TO CONTINUE OFFERING PARTICULAR BRANDED SERVICE.

THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO WANT A UNIQUE IDENTIFIER FOR THEIR WEB LOG THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO SEARCH OUT, BUT THAT THEY CAN GIVE OUT ON A BUSINESS CARD AND IDENTIFY THE SITE OF THEIR SERVICE WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MEANINGFUL TO THEM. AND FOR THAT, I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR LOTS AND LOTS OF DOMAIN NAMES.

AND THAT'S WHY I'VE CONSISTENTLY SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THIS A VERY LIGHTWEIGHT, VERY STREAMLINED PROCESS SO THAT IT ISN'T BURDENSOME ON STAFF OR COUNCIL OR THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO BE REVIEWING EACH ONE OF THESE, BUT SIMPLY TO BE SAYING, "OKAY, HERE'S ANOTHER ONE.

LET IT THROUGH.

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE.

LET IT THROUGH."

AND HAVING A LIGHTWEIGHT, TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE BEHIND IT THAT COULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND TO WENDY'S POINT THERE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D PREFER NOT TO, PHILIP, BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD BE LISTENING RATHER THAN SPEAKING AT THIS POINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT WAS REASSURANCE, ACTUALLY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: IF WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE QUEUE, BECAUSE WE ARE OVER TIME FOR THE WHOIS DISCUSSION.

GO AHEAD, JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YES, I'M CONSCIOUS OF THAT.

I AGREE VERY MUCH WITH BOTH WENDY AND SUSAN.

AND I THINK, HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BECOME CLEAR MOMENTARILY.

I THINK VINT MADE A GOOD POINT EARLIER, WHICH WAS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, AS A CATEGORIZED NAME SPACE, IS -- BASICALLY, DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL ALREADY.

AND I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK BY INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL TLDS.

SEARCH ENGINES ARE REALLY GOOD AT HELPING YOU FIND INFORMATION, AND AS WENDY POINTS OUT, DOMAIN NAMES ARE REALLY GOOD AS A MARKER FOR WHERE YOUR INFORMATION ALREADY IS.

AND IDEALLY SPEAKING, THAT MARKER SHOULD BE EASY TO REMEMBER SO THAT YOU CAN RELIABLY GET BACK TO THAT PLACE.

BECAUSE SEARCH ENGINES SOMETIMES DECIDE THAT DIFFERENT RESULTS SHOULD SHOW UP FOR EVEN THE SAME QUERY.

SO TO THAT END, IDEALLY SPEAKING, WE COULD ALL HAVE DOMAIN NAMES FOR OUR INFORMATION THAT WERE RELATIVELY EASY TO REMEMBER, AND THE CURRENT SCARCITY, PARTICULARLY IN DOT COM, CAUSES PEOPLE TO REGISTER REALLY CRAZY, LONG, HARD-TO-REMEMBER NAMES, OR TO REGISTER NAMES IN REALLY NONOBVIOUS PLACES.

SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, I THINK IF WE HAD A LOT MORE TLDS, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BECOME A LOT MORE USEFUL, BECAUSE PEOPLE COULD REGISTER NAMES THAT WERE VERY SORT OF MEANINGFUL AND EASY TO REMEMBER, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS NOT PARTICULARLY WELL CATEGORIZED.

SO I COULD REGISTER, YOU KNOW, JORDYN.BUCHANAN.

SOMEONE FROM NEW YORK COULD REGISTER SOMETHING DOT NYC AND PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO REMEMBER THESE THINGS RELATIVELY EASILY.

THE THIRD POINT IS, I THINK IN LOOKING AT THIS ALLOCATION PROCESS, I THINK THAT -- I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BETTER TIE-BREAKER.

I THINK -- FOR TWO REASONS.

I THINK FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IS FINE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT ACTUALLY WORKS.

OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S TWO APPLICATIONS WITHIN A ROUND, IT DOESN'T WORK SO WELL.

I'D EVEN BE OPEN TO SAYING IT REALLY IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, BECAUSE THEN AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE SOME OBJECTIVE TIE-BREAKER.

I THINK THE NOTION OF HAVING THE BOARD OR SOMEONE LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHETHER IT SERVES THE COMMUNITY OR SERVES THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY IS TOUGH.

I THINK FOR TWO REASONS.

NUMBER ONE IS, IT'S NOT -- IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR FROM LOOKING AT THE STRING WHAT COMMUNITY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.

WHAT IF SOMEONE PROPOSES DOT APPLE.

WHAT IS THAT?

IS THAT FRUIT PEOPLE?

IS THAT PEOPLE THAT REALLY LIKE THEIR IPODS?

IS THAT PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE LAST NAME APPLE.

IS THAT NEW YORK CITY WANTING BIG.APPLE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNCLEAR AS TO HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE.

IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY ARBITRARY.

YOU WOULD DECIDE ONE OF THESE GROUPS WAS MORE DESERVING OF DOT APPLE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE AND DIFFICULT TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS.

SO I THINK A BETTER TIE-BREAKER IS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, EVEN IF IT'S THE SAME SORT OF COMMUNITY, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO JUDGE WHO BETTER SERVES IT.

WHAT IF I APPLY -- JUST TO GIVE A CRAZY EXAMPLE, WHAT IF I APPLY FOR DOT JORDYN.

THERE'S ANOTHER GUY NAMED JORDYN. HE WANTS IT, TOO.

WE ARE BOTH EQUALLY DESERVING OF DOT JORDYN.

WE REPRESENT IT EQUALLY WELL BECAUSE WE ARE BOTH NAMED JORDYN.

AND WHICH OF US GETS IT?

HOW TO HAVE A TIE-BREAKER THERE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE PULLING IT OUT OF THE HAT AT THE LAST MINUTE OR CHANGING THE CRITERIA HALFWAY THROUGH?

THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE, AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, IS, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TLDS ADD UTILITY AND THINGS LIKE THIS.

BUT SUSAN'S POINTED TO THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF ALL, WHICH IS, ICANN'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE COMPETITION AT THE GTLD LEVEL.

ICANN'S MADE COMMITMENTS IN THE PAST TO DO IT.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMITMENT THAT ICANN HAS MADE IN THE PAST TO DO IT IS, IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION OF REGISTRY-LEVEL COMPETITION IN A NUMBER OF THE CONTRACTS.

CONTRACTS WERE CREATED FOR COM AND NET THAT BASICALLY ASSUME THAT THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF COMPETITION AT THE REGISTRY LEVEL.

IF WE DON'T ALLOW THAT COMPETITION TO HAPPEN, THEN SOME PEOPLE WILL HAVE CONTRACTS THAT MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION AND IT WON'T BE A VALID ASSUMPTION, AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY WILL BE HARMED AS A RESULT.

I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SERIOUSLY TLD COMPETITION, AND THAT, I THINK, REQUIRES SERIOUS LIBERALIZATION OF THE TLD SPACE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, JORDYN.

FINALLY, STEFANO.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: SO I'M GLAD THAT WE VERIFY HERE HOW COMPLEX IS THE PROBLEM, AND I HOPE THAT THE COMPLEXITY WILL BE NOT -- NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT IS BETTER NOT TO DO ANYTHING.

BY THE WAY, WE HAVE TO RECORD THAT ICANN WAS CREATED, ONE OF THE MAIN SCOPE WAS JUST TO INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS.

SO LET ME MAKE AN ELABORATION ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INCREASING COMPETITION.

INCREASING COMPETITION, ONE EXPECTATION COULD BE THAT THE NUMBER OF ACTORS THAT ARE AROUND INCREASING NUMBER, SO THE POOL OF THE REGISTRIES IS REALLY INCREASING.

BUT IF WE OBSERVE ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW THAT IS OPENING THE MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANTS, FOR THE USERS, THEN THE USERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REGISTRIES THAT ARE SECURE, THAT ARE HIGH-PROFESSIONAL, THAT HAVE LOW COST, AND SO ON.

BUT IF WE ARE GOING THIS WAY AND IF WE ADOPT CORE CRITERIA TO ACCEPT A NEW APPLICANT, THEN THE RESULT COULD BE THAT MANY OF THE EXISTING BIG REGISTRIES ARE GAINING NEW REGISTRIES AND THAT ALSO THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE COUNTRIES OUTSIDE EUROPE AND U.S. AND NORTH AMERICA HARDLY COULD GET NEW REGISTRIES.

SO IF YOU TAKE, THEN, THIS POSITION AND WE TRY TO OBSERVE THE POSSIBLE CRITICISMS THAT WILL GO TO ICANN IF THE RESULT IS SUCH LIKE I DESCRIBED, THEN, OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF CRITICISM, BECAUSE ONE OF THE EXPECTATIONS, ESPECIALLY FROM OTHER REGIONS OF THE WORLD, ARE THAT THE MARKET IS OPEN IN A WAY TO LET NEW ACTORS TO GET IN.

AND IF YOU ADOPT A CORE CRITERIA, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE THIS PRODUCED.

I MEAN NEW ACTORS.

AND MAYBE ALSO WITH THIS APPLICATION FEE THAT ARE CONSIDERED TOO HIGH.

SO IN THE END, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCLUSION HERE ABOUT MY ELEMENTS, WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU CONSIDER THIS ASPECTS AND HAVING IN MIND THAT THE BEST RESULT IN THE END IS TO DISTRIBUTE AND LOWER THE LEVEL OF UNHAPPINESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF SOME HOURS OF DISCUSSION AND THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS IN THE REPORT ON THAT. YET, CERTAINLY, THE INTENT IS TO HAVE SOME MECHANISM TO ALLOW PEOPLE FROM, PERHAPS, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SOME FINAL REMARKS. AND THAT WAS, BEAR IN MIND, THAT EACH OF THESE SECTIONS OF COMMENTS -- SORRY, SECTIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS WAS TYPICALLY AS A RESULT OF ABOUT A THREE-DAY SOLID DISCUSSION. SO WE HAD ABOUT THREE OR FOUR PHYSICAL MEETINGS WHERE WE SPENT THREE OR FOUR SOLID DAYS ON EACH OF THOSE TOPICS. WE HAD JUST AS MUCH DIVERSE OPINION IN THE COMMITTEE AS WE HAVE HEARD HERE IN THE AUDIENCE. AND THE ONLY WAY WE ENDED UP RESOLVING A LOT OF THE DEBATES WAS COMING BACK TO THE ICANN MISSION AND BYLAWS WHENEVER THERE WAS THAT DEBATE.

AND I HAVE JUST LEFT UP ON THE SCREEN SOME OF THE CORE VALUES, SOME OF THE ONES THAT SEEM TO BE MOST RELEVANT THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING. ONE WAS CERTAINLY ENHANCING STABILITY AND RELIABILITY. SECOND WAS WHERE FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE DEPENDING ON MARKETED MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE AND SUSTAIN COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. AND THE LAST ONE GOING TO YOUR PART, STEFANO, MAKING SURE WE ARE GETTING BROAD PARTICIPATION IN ALL DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AND CULTURAL AREAS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE DIDN'T PRESENT WAS IN OUR FINAL REPORT WE HAVE ACTUALLY A SET OF PRINCIPLES AND SO IN THE DRAFT FINAL REPORT. I WOULD DRAW PEOPLE'S ATTENTION TO THOSE.

THE PRINCIPLE DIRECTION OF THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS WAS TO PERMIT MARKET MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT USEFUL ONLINE IDENTITIES THAT PERMEATE INTERNATIONAL MARKETS AS WELL AS SUPPORT COMPETITION, INNOVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE. SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY, AS WE SEE THE OBJECTIVE WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION HAS REALLY BEEN AROUND THE PROCESS FOR ACHIEVING THAT BECAUSE THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF INTEREST IN HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD WORK.

BUT IT IS WORTH COMING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES, AND WE WILL, PERHAPS, MAKE THOSE OBJECTIVES MORE PROMINENT IN THE FINAL REPORT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION. AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF VERY USEFUL INPUT TODAY FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT I THINK WILL GO TOWARDS EITHER ADJUSTING RECOMMENDATIONS OR PROVIDING GUIDANCE FOR HOW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

THE NEXT SESSION WILL BE ON THE TOPIC OF WHOIS. EVERYONE WILL KNOW IS ALWAYS THE TOPIC OF AN ICANN MEETING. WE HAVE RITA RODIN WHO WILL BE MODERATING THE DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS CURRENT BY BEFORE THE CHOICE TASK FORCE.

(GNSO NEW TLDS PUBLIC FORUM CONCLUDED.)

ICANN MEETING

WHOIS PUBLIC FORUM

SAO PAULO, BRAZIL

4 DECEMBER 2006

>>RITA RODIN: WE WANTED TO INVITE ANYONE WHO IS ON THE WHOIS TASK FORCE TO COME SIT UP ON THE DAIS WITH US IF YOU ARE IN THE AUDIENCE. THANKS.

>>RITA RODIN: OKAY, EVERYONE. IF EVERYONE OUT THERE CAN PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS, WE ARE GOING TO GET STARTED IN ABOUT 60 SECONDS.

THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR COMING. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME, MY NAME IS RITA RODIN AND I WAS ELECTED TO THE ICANN BOARD AS THE GNSO REP THIS PAST SUMMER. I WANT TO THANK THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR INVITING ME TO MODERATE THIS VERY IMPORTANT PANEL ON AN ISSUE THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS' HEARTS.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL MY REGRETS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS A LAST-MINUTE BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED THIS EVENING SO I AM GOING TO NEED TO LEAVE A LITTLE BIT EARLY. BUT JORDYN IS GOING TO TAKE OVER MODERATING THE PANEL WHEN I HAVE TO LEAVE, SO PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES.

ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF ICANN THAT I HAVE HEARD BEING IN THE COMMUNITY AND AS A NEW BOARD MEMBER IS THAT WE DON'T DO A GREAT JOB OF COORDINATING AND FACILITATING INFORMATION FLOW AND DISCUSSION AMONG MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY AND AMONG CONSTITUENCIES, ESPECIALLY FOSTERING SOME LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION AND COMPROMISE. I THINK HAVING PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW IS NATURAL AND CERTAINLY A GOOD THING.

I THINK WE NEED TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW WE FOSTER SOME COMPROMISE IN SOME OF THESE DIVERSE POSITIONS. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS GREAT THAT THE GNSO HAS TAKEN UP THIS WORK ON WHOIS AND HAS ACTUALLY SET UP THIS PANEL FOR A PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE WHOIS ISSUE. AND THIS PANEL IS REALLY MEANT TO EDUCATE YOU ALL ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE WORK THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL HAS BEEN DOING WITH RESPECT TO THE WHOIS ISSUE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO FACILITATE DIALOGUE AND INFORMATION FROM YOU, THE COMMUNITY. I WANT TO STRESS THAT. WE REALLY UP HERE ON THE PANEL ARE GOING TO GIVE VERY LIMITED INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS, AND WE REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE TO FACILITATE THE CONTINUED WORK OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.

SO WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS TWO TOPICS TODAY. THE FIRST IS THE RECONCILIATION OF SOME OF THE WHOIS REQUIREMENTS WITH CONFLICTS THAT MAY ARISE UNDER LOCAL LAW. AND THE SECOND IS WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY REPORT THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE HAS COMPLETED WHICH HAS BEEN POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ITEM, THE RECONCILIATION WITH PRIVACY LAWS, THIS PROCESS WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE RESULT OF A PDP THAT WAS CONCLUDED IN MAY OF THIS YEAR; AND AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO DEVELOP A PROCEDURE TO ACCOMMODATE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE WHOIS REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ICANN CONTRACTS AND LOCAL LAWS, MOST NOTABLY PRIVACY LAWS. AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE GOAL OF THIS PROCEDURE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AND HEAR ABOUT IS TO FACILITATE THE RECONCILIATION OF ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCAL OR NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS AND THE PROVISIONS OF ICANN GTLD REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR CONTRACTS.

THIS PROCEDURE IS GOING TO DESCRIBE HOW ICANN STAFF WILL RESPOND TO NOTIFICATION THAT A REGISTRY OPERATOR, SPONSOR OR A REGISTRAR MAY BE PREVENTED BY LOCAL OR NATIONAL LAWS FROM COMPLYING WITH ICANN'S CONTRACTUAL WHOIS OBLIGATIONS.

AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO POST PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS PROCESS WAS POSTED, I BELIEVE, LAST EVENING BY ICANN STAFF, AND WILL REMAIN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL THE 15TH OF JANUARY. IN ADDITION, KURT PRITZ FROM ICANN STAFF IS HERE AND HE IS GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OUTLINE OF THE PROCESS AND TAKE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOU.

THE SECOND THING THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE PRELIMINARY TASK FORCE REPORT ON WHOIS SERVICES. AND AS I AM SURE MANY OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE RESULT OF A PROCESS THAT WAS BEGUN IN 2003 AT WHICH TIME A MULTISTAKEHOLDER GNSO TASK FORCE WAS CONVENED TO STUDY WHOIS ISSUES.

THIS TASK FORCE HAS BEEN CHAIRED BY JORDYN BUCHANAN WHO IS SITTING HERE ON THE DAIS WITH US, AND HE IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TASK FORCE REPORT AND THE PROCESS. AGAIN, I WANT TO STRESS THAT THE IDEA OF THIS PANEL IS TO EDUCATE YOU ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT AND THE STATUS OF THIS REVIEW AND TO GET INFORMATION AND COMMENTS FROM YOU BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS WILL THEN BE CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE, I THINK, STARTING THE 15TH OR 16TH OF JANUARY WHEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES. AND ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS AND OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE AS THEY SEEK TO HAVE A FINAL TASK FORCE REPORT THAT ULTIMATELY WILL BE GIVEN TO THE GNSO COUNCIL FOR DELIBERATION.

AS I MENTIONED, JORDYN IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS. HE WAS THE CHAIR OF THE TASK FORCE. YOU ARE ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM ROSS RADER FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY AND DAVID MAHER FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY. AND THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE OPOC PROPOSAL OR THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE REPORT.

THEN YOU WILL HEAR FROM STEVE METALITZ FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, AND STEVE IS GOING TO OUTLINE FROM YOU SOME OF THE SALIENT POINTS OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL.

AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT THE PANELISTS UP HERE ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL OF THE POSITIONS AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO THIS WHOIS ISSUE, AND I AM GLAD THAT WENDY IS ACTUALLY UP HERE BECAUSE SHE HAS SOME SPECIAL CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE PRIVACY LAWS AND SO I ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY HAVE A COMMENT TO TAKE THE MIKE AND FEEL FREE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT'S SAID UP HERE ON THE DAIS WITH THE NUMBER OF PANELISTS.

I THANK YOU ALL IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ATTENTION, AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO JORDYN.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN WE DO MAGIC PRESENTEE STUFF? OH, MY COMPUTER JUST GOT ANGRY. IT IS ALMOST WORKING NOW. I THINK WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK. NO.

OKAY. TECHNOLOGY OBSTACLES OVERCOME.

AS RITA SAID, MY NAME IS JORDYN BUCHANAN. I AM THE CHAIR OF THE WHOIS TASK FORCE. I WANT TO MAKE A QUICK NOTE BEFORE WE START THIS. THERE IS A FABULOUS -- FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT AREN'T AWARE, THERE IS A FABULOUS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WEB SITE THAT'S BEEN CREATED AT SP.ICANN.ORG. AND IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY AND YOU GO TO THIS URL HERE, SP.ICANN.ORG/FORUM/GNSO-WHOIS-QUESTIONS AND YOU POST A QUESTION OR A COMMENT, I WILL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS IT DURING THE COURSE OF THE PUBLIC FORUM TODAY. AND IF YOU AREN'T REMOTE, YOU SHOULD STILL LOOK AT THIS COOL WEB SITE BECAUSE, HOPEFULLY, IT WILL HELP US DEAL WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BETTER.

BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, THOUGH. AS A BRIEF BIT OF BACKGROUND, I WILL REMIND EVERYONE OF WHAT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE TASK FORCE ARE. WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT THREE PRINCIPLE ITEMS IN OUR TERMS OF REFERENCE. THE FIRST OF THOSE ITEMS IS TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEXT DISPLAYED IN THE WHOIS. IF YOU LOOK AT WHOIS AND YOU SEE THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED A REGISTRANT AND SOMETHING CALLED AN ADMIN CONTACT AND SOMETHING CALLED A TECHNICAL CONTACT, TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE PEOPLE -- WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY. THE SECOND GOAL THAT WE HAVE IS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY SHOULD BE DISPLAYED IN THE PUBLIC ACCESS VERSION OF WHOIS. RIGHT NOW ESSENTIALLY THERE IS ONLY ONE SORT OF WAY OF DISPLAYING INFORMATION IN THE WHOIS AND THAT'S TO DISPLAY A BUNCH OF CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT ALL OF THESE -- ALL THESE VARIOUS CONTACTS.

AND IF WE -- THE OTHER PART OF THAT DISCUSSION IS TO DECIDE WHETHER IF ANY INFORMATION IS REMOVED, HOW PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION IF IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PUBLIC WHOIS.

AND THE LAST AREA THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON FOCUSES ON IMPROVING THE PROCESS FOR NOTIFYING REGISTRANTS -- IF THERE IS SOME INACCURATE WHOIS DATA, THERE IS AN OBLIGATION IN THE CURRENT ICANN CONTRACTS THAT ALL REGISTRANTS HAVE TO AGREE TO THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR DATA -- NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE IT AT THE TIME YOU REGISTER BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO KEEP THAT INFORMATION UP TO DATE OVER TIME.

PEOPLE -- IF THERE IS COMPLAINTS ABOUT DATA BEING INACCURATE EITHER BECAUSE IT CHANGED OR IT WAS NEVER ACCURATE, WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO TRY TO MAKE THAT PROCESS BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF THE WHOIS DATA.

SO JUST A QUICK NOTE ON THE TIME LINE. WE RECENTLY PUBLISHED OUR PRELIMINARY REPORT ON NOVEMBER 24TH. THAT STARTS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. UNDER THE PDP, IT IS A RATHER SHORT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF 20 DAYS. WE HAVE DECIDED BOTH DUE TO THE END-OF-YEAR HOLIDAY SEASON AS WELL AS A GENERAL INTEREST IN ENCOURAGING AS MUCH -- AS BROAD A SET OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AS POSSIBLE THAT A SLIGHTLY LONGER PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND SO WE HAVE EXTENDED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD UNTIL JANUARY 15TH. WE CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MAKE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTICIPATION TODAY.

WE HAVE ALSO RECENTLY PUT TOGETHER A CALENDAR FOR COMPLETING THE REST OF OUR WORK. THE GOAL IS TO HAVE A FINAL TASK FORCE MEETING ON FEBRUARY 12TH. AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD PUBLISH OUR FINAL REPORT WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY INCORPORATE ALL OF THE FEEDBACK WE HAVE RECEIVED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO SOME TIME LATER IN FEBRUARY ON THE 22ND, THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IT AND, HOPEFULLY, EVENTUALLY OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE IT TO THE BOARD IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES OF THEM.

JUST A QUICK NOTE ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IN TERMS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS, I THINK, I CAN KEEP FAIRLY BRIEF BECAUSE BRUCE AND STEVE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE TWO MAIN PRONGS WITH REGARDS TO THE OPOC PROPOSAL AND THE SPECIAL PURPOSES PROPOSAL. FOR QUITE A WHILE, THE TASK FORCE WAS USING THE OPOC PROPOSAL AS A TEMPLATE FOR MOST OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

AND, FAIRLY RECENTLY, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY INTRODUCED ANOTHER PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE ALSO BEEN LOOKING AT RECENTLY, IT IS CALLED THE SPECIAL PURPOSES PROPOSAL. BOTH OF THOSE PROPOSALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT -- IN THE CURRENT PRELIMINARY REPORT.

WE HAVE HAD SOME OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT VARIOUS OTHER TOPICS AS WELL AND OTHER EITHER SMALLER, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROPOSALS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN THE FOCUS NECESSARILY OF A LOT OF OUR WORK. SOME IDEAS IN THAT AREA ARE THE OPOC PROPOSAL REMOVES A SMALL AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT THE REGISTRANT. SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT ACTUALLY EVEN WE HARDLY NEED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE REGISTRANT DISPLAYED AT ALL. WE MIGHT EVEN NEED TO DISPLAY THEIR NAME, FOR EXAMPLE.

ANOTHER SIMILAR IDEA THAT'S MORE PRIVACY FOCUSED IS IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT ABOUT SOME BAD USE OF A DOMAIN NAME AND THE COMPLAINER WANTS TO GET ACCESS TO THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE DOMAIN HOLDER, THAT INSTEAD OF JUST TURNING THAT INFORMATION OVER TO THE COMPLAINER, THAT THE DOMAIN HOLDER WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF SAYING "I WOULD ACTUALLY RATHER JUST DELETE THE DOMAIN, I WILL NOT USE IT FOR BAD THINGS ANYMORE BUT I WANT TO KEEP MY INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL."

WE HAVE ALSO HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT A CONCEPT CALLED TIERED ACCESS, NOT A LOT. AND I WILL TALK ABOUT WHY IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT REALLY -- WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BIG, OUTSTANDING ISSUES. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE WE ACTUALLY HAVE RIGHT NOW IN ADDITION TO RESOLVING, PERHAPS, THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE IDEAS OF THE OPOC PROPOSAL AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL, THE ONE OTHER AREA IN WHICH WE HAVE STILL GOT, I THINK, QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO DO IS SOMETHING I MENTIONED EARLIER WHICH IS IF INFORMATION IS REMOVED FROM THE WHOIS AS A RESULT OF OUR WORK AND TRYING TO BETTER PROTECT PEOPLE'S PRIVACY, HOW SHOULD INTERESTED PARTIES BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THAT DATA?

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS ESSENTIALLY DISCUSSED IN THE TASK FORCE. FOR EXAMPLE, I WILL LIST OFF A FEW OF THEM HERE. ONE IS JUST SIMPLY CONTACT THE REGISTRAR AND ASK THEM FOR IT, AND IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REQUEST, YOU CAN WORK WITH THE REGISTRAR TO GET THAT INFORMATION. THAT ESSENTIALLY MIRRORS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE STATUS QUO BECAUSE THERE IS NO FORMAL MECHANISM TO GET ACCESS TO DATA THAT IS NOT PUBLISHED IN THE WHOIS TODAY.

THE NEXT MECHANISM IS BASICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS DATA REMOVED, THAT THE UDRP STILL WORKS. UDRP GENERALLY REQUIRES SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE REGISTRANT IN ORDER TO FILE THE COMPLAINT AND SO WORKING OUT SOME SORT OF MECHANISM WITHIN THE UDRP IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR ANY INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE REMOVED.

THE THIRD IDEA IS IF YOU HAD INFORMATION REMOVED, BUT THE REASON THAT YOU HAD THE INFORMATION REMOVED IS NO LONGER VALID, SOMEONE COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT AND ESSENTIALLY HAVE YOUR INFORMATION PUT BACK IN. OR, IF YOU WERE USING YOUR DOMAIN NAME FOR A BAD PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU WERE VIOLATING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS OR YOU WERE USING IT ILLEGALLY, THEN THEY COULD -- THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF ADJUDICATION PROCESS BY WHICH THEY COULD COMPLAIN AND GET ACCESS TO YOUR INFORMATION.

AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY -- I WILL NOTE WE HAVEN'T REALLY DEFINED WHAT "BAD PURPOSE" MEANS NECESSARILY.

AND THE LAST IDEA IS THAT ESSENTIALLY ANYONE THAT SIGNS A CONTRACT SAYING THEY ARE NOT GOING TO USE THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR A BAD PURPOSE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE ONE TIER OF DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE SOME LIMITED SET OF INFORMATION. AND, THEN, ANYONE THAT AGREED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE THE INFORMATION SAFELY AND CAREFULLY COULD GET ACCESS TO A RICHER SET OF INFORMATION.

NOW, WE HAVEN'T REALLY ACTUALLY EXPLORED ANY OF THESE IDEAS PARTICULARLY CAREFULLY. THIS IS ONE AREA IN PARTICULAR WHERE I WOULD SAY IF AUDIENCE MEMBERS HAVE IDEAS OR SUGGESTIONS, WE WOULD HEARTILY WELCOME YOUR INPUT ON THIS TOPIC.

NOW, THE LAST IDEA I MENTIONED OF ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING DIFFERENT TYPE OF ACCESS TO DIFFERENT -- TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED CONTRACTS VERSUS PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST PART OF THE PUBLIC REPRESENTS THIS NOTION, IS ONE VERSION OF THIS NOTION OF TIERED ACCESS. AND THE IDEA OF TIERED ACCESS IS DIFFERENT TIERS OF PEOPLE OR CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE, AND THEY GET ACCESS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION.

EARLY WHOIS WORK FOCUSED A LOT ON THE IDEA OF TIERED ACCESS AND IT'S QUITE APPEALING BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION FOCUSES AROUND WHEN INFORMATION IS IN THE WHOIS, IT'S POTENTIALLY PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION IN SOME CASES. AND PEOPLE HAVE SOME SERIOUS PRIVACY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY LEGITIMATE NEEDS TO GET ACCESS TO SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IF WE HAVE A WAY OF LIMITING THAT INFORMATION TO JUST THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THESE STRONG LEGITIMATE NEEDS, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE A NICE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM.

HOWEVER, AS WE DISCUSSED TIERED ACCESS, WE REALIZED THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF ACCESS QUEST THAT ARISE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY GRAPPLE WITH IN THE TASK FORCE. THERE ARE TYPED OF TIERED ACCESS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE STATUS QUO TODAY VERY INFORMALLY. AND SHOULD WE EVEN CONTINUE, GET RID OF THAT TIERED ACCESS THAT HAPPENS TODAY.

IF WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE, SHOULD IT BE FORMALIZED AND IF SO, WHO SHOULD GET ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.

EVEN IF WE SAY OKAY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL -- FOR EXAMPLE, ONE COMMON IDEA IS LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION. HOW WOULD WE IDENTIFY THAT SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT AS OPPOSED TO JUST SOME GUY WHO SAYS HE IS WORKING FOR THE TOP SECRET SPY AGENCY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THE LAST CATEGORY IS EVEN ONCE WE RESOLVE ALL THESE OTHER QUESTIONS, WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION DO WE PROVIDE TO WHAT PEOPLE IS ANOTHER THORNY QUESTION THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS.

SO THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. TIERED ACCESS SEEMS LIKE A FABULOUS IDEA. WE WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE YOUR INPUT ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL IF YOU HAVE IDEAS TO HELP US GET OUT OF THIS -- TO RESOLVE ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, I THINK WOULD BE GREAT.

AND I THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY ALL I HAVE. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ROSS TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE TWO PROPOSALS, WHICH IS THE OPOC PROPOSAL.

>>ROSS RADER: NOW WE GET TO PLAY WITH TECHNOLOGY AGAIN.

I HAVE ONLY RECENTLY STARTED USING A MACINTOSH, SO THAT WAS A PRETTY SCARY THING I JUST DID.

I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS THE OPOC PROPOSAL, THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL.

FIRST SOME HISTORY ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT, THIS PROPOSAL. A GROUP OF REGISTRARS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES GOT TOGETHER WAY BACK IN MAR DEL PLATA IN APRIL OF 2005 TO DISCUSS THE GROWING RECOGNITION THAT WORK ON WHOIS HAD BEEN GOING ON AT THAT POINT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THREE TO FIVE YEARS, AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS BUT NO REAL SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS. THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF DATA EXCHANGE ARCS LOT OF VIEWPOINTS EXCHANGED, BUT AT THAT POINT IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE WE WERE ACTUALLY ANY CLOSER TO DEALING WITH THE ISSUES IN A PROGRESSIVE WAY.

SO WE CREATED THIS DRAFT. I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL WORKING TITLE WAS SOMETHING CALLED -- LIKE RATIONALIZING THE WHOIS, IMPLEMENTING AN OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT, WHICH EVENTUALLY GREW INTO THE DOCUMENT THAT IS IN THE TASK FORCE REPORT. THROUGHOUT 2005/2006 IT WAS WIDELY CIRCULATED WITHIN IN THE GNSO COMMUNITY.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS CIRCULATED OUTSIDE THE GNSO, AND IT CERTAINLY WASN'T CIRCULATED IN A FORMAL MANNER. THIS WAS ALL INFORMAL INPUT, FRIENDS SHOWING FRIENDS, CONVERSATIONS OVER COCKTAILS SORT OF THING. WHAT IT DID WAS GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT ALL THE HEAT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE TASK FORCE.

WE WERE ABLE TO -- IS THAT BETTER?

GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT TAKING IT TO THE HEAT OF THE TASK FORCE.

IT ALSO LET US BUILD SOME BASIC CONSENSUS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD POSSIBLY BE MOST AFFECTED BY IT.

IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE PROPOSAL WENT FROM BEING AN INFORMAL DOCUMENT. IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE WHOIS TASK FORCE AS A POSITION STATEMENT OF THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY. THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY HAD VOTED THAT AS ITS POSITION I BELIEVE IN DECEMBER OF 2005. AT THAT POINT IT BECAME AN OFFICIAL WORK-PRODUCT OF THE TASK FORCE. SO IT WAS OUT OF OUR HANDS AND INTO THE LARGER COMMUNITY FOR FINALIZING.

AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, A LOT OF FURTHER CHANGES. A LOT OF GOOD PROGRESSIVE, SUBSTANTIVE GROWTH IN THAT DOCUMENT.

SO WHERE IT FITS IN.

THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT DOESN'T ACTUALLY TRY AND DEAL WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE IS TRYING TO SOLVE FOR. THERE'S REALLY FOUR PRIMARY AREAS THAT THE TASK FORCE IS SUPPOSED -- SORRY, THREE PRIMARY AREAS THAT THE TASK FORCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT.

THE FOURTH, DATA COLLECTION IS OUT OF SCOPE FOR THE TASK FORCE.

THE OPOC PROPOSAL IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF ACCESS. JORDYN TOUCHED ON THAT BRIEFLY.

THE PROPOSAL SUBSTANTIVELY DEALS WITH THE PUBLICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF DATA. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN READING THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT TO UNDERSTAND IT ISN'T INTENDED TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS 100 PERCENT OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TABLED.

SO THE GOALS OF THIS DOCUMENT WERE, THIS PROPOSAL WERE ACTUALLY RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE WERE LOOKING TO SIMPLIFY THE DATA THAT WAS PRESENTED THROUGH THE WHOIS, MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE MEANINGFUL FOR REGISTRANTS, USERS OF THE DNS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.

WE WERE LOOKING TO REDUCE HOW WHOIS WAS -- AT THAT POINT WE BELIEVED IT WAS FACILITATING CERTAIN UNDESIRABLE ACTIVITIES LIKE PHISHING, DATA MINING, ET CETERA.

WE ALSO SOUGHT TO AT LEAST HOLD THE LINE ON THE FUNCTIONALITY AND VALUE THAT WAS INSIDE THE WHOIS. WE HOPED TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THE UTILITY OR VALUE OF THE WHOIS BUT AT THE VERY LEAST WE DIDN'T WANT TO DIMINISH ITS VALUE.

AND OF COURSE WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR PROVIDING ENHANCED ACCESS TO DATA FOR THOSE WHO ACTUALLY NEEDED IT.

AND FINALLY, OF COURSE, PROMOTING DATA ACCURACY WAS A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AS WE REVIEWED THAT PROPOSAL.

SO HOW WERE WE GOING TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS? WE FIRST LOOKED AT THE DATA THAT WAS IN THERE. WE REALIZED THAT THE OLD CONTACTS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL AND, TO A SMALLER EXTENT, THE BILLING CONTACT HAD REALLY LOST THEIR MEANING, NOT ONLY TO THE USERS OF THE DNS BUT ALSO TO THE REGISTRANT COMMUNITY.

AND THAT, IN FACT, MOST OF THE FUNCTIONS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED FOR THOSE DIFFERENT CONTACT TYPES WERE ACTUALLY BEING PERFORMED BY PERHAPS ONE OR MAYBE TWO PEOPLE RELATED TO THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER.

SO WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS CONTACT TYPES. IF THERE WAS ANY REDUNDANCIES IN THOSE ACTIVITIES, WE WANTED TO ELIMINATE THOSE.

AND OF COURSE IF WE COULD SOMEHOW -- WE WANTED TO CREATE AS MUCH CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ACCESS PROPOSALS, FOR EXAMPLE, IRIS, WHILE MAINTAINING SOME SEMBLANCE OF BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING MECHANISMS.

AND AGAIN WHAT WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH SPECIFICALLY IS WHAT DATA GETS COLLECTED. FOR THOSE OF HOW HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION, THE TASK FORCE IS SPECIFICALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF WHAT DATA GETS COLLECTED. SO EVEN THOUGH THE DATA THAT'S GETTING PUBLISHED WILL CHANGE IF ANY OR ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE ADOPTED, THE DATA THAT'S BEING COLLECTED WILL NOT. SO WHEN A REGISTRANT IS SIGNING UP FOR A DOMAIN NAME, THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THEIR TELEPHONE NUMBER. THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE A STREET ADDRESS, EVEN THOUGH THOSE DATA POINTS MAY NOT APPEAR IN THE WHOIS AT SOME POINT.

SO IN ESSENCE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL IS THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT'S BEING COLLECTED AND STORED ON REGISTRANTS.

AS JORDYN POINTED OUT, ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THE TASK FORCE HAS YET TO DEAL WITH BUT IS NOT DEALT WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS WHO GETS ACCESS TO THIS DATA. THIS IS A VERY LARGE QUESTION. IF THE DATA IS BEING COLLECTED AND IT'S NOT BEING PUBLISHED. WHO, IF ANYONE, ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO ACCESS THAT DATA.

THE TASK FORCE HAS STILL YET TO DEAL WITH THAT QUESTION. THE OPOC PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT.

BUT IT WAS BUILT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ANY PROVISIONS THAT WERE ULTIMATELY MADE.

SO IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE IRIS PROTOCOL IS IMPLEMENTED OR, NOW, THE EPP PROTOCOL HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED, THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL LIVES VERY NICELY WITH THOSE.

IT'S ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING PRACTICE. FOR EXAMPLE, DUE PROCESS OR ASKING THE REGISTRAR NICELY FOR THE DATA OR GETTING THE DATA THROUGH PORT 43 OR THROUGH WEB-BASED WHOIS FORMS.

THE ONE -- EVEN THOUGH THE OPOC PROPOSAL DOESN'T EXPLICITLY DEAL WITH THIS, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE, THAT I BELIEVE EVERYBODY IN THE TASK FORCE BELIEVES THAT ACCESS IS IMPORTANT AND THAT THE RIGHT ACCESS FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. CERTAINLY THE POSITION OF MY CONSTITUENCY, UNLESS THAT QUESTION COULD BE SUBSTANTIVELY ANSWERED, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO SUPPORT ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS.

SO BOTH THE OPOC PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY NOW, SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. AND THIS IS, OF COURSE, IN SUMMARY FORM. THE PROPOSAL IS MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN THIS.

THE FIRST BIG POINT IS IT PROPOSES TO STOP PUBLICATION OF SOME CONTACT DATA FOR THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDERS, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REGISTRANT OR THE DOMAIN OWNER. THE SPECIFIC DATA THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE PUBLISHED VIA THE WHOIS, WOULD STILL BE COLLECTED BUT NOT PUBLISHED, WOULD BE THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER, THE E-MAIL ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER. BUT THE NAME AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER WOULD STILL BE PUBLISHED. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE STATE AND/OR PROVINCE AND COUNTRY OF THE REGISTERED NAME HOLDER ALONG WITH THEIR NAME WOULD STILL BE IN THE WHOIS.

WE ALSO PROPOSE TO MERGE WHAT WE VIEW AS BEING OBSOLETE CONTACTS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CONTACTS WOULD MERGE INTO A NEW CONTACT CALLED THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT.

WE WOULD ALSO ALLOW REGISTRANTS OR REGISTERED NAME HOLDERS TO SPECIFY MULTIPLE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACTS TO ENSURE THAT THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS COULD BE FULFILLED. IN A LARGE COMPANY, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR COMPANIES TO APPOINT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO MANAGE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE DOMAIN NAME. AND THIS PROPOSAL CERTAINLY TRIES TO FACILITATE THAT.

WE ALSO ATTEMPT TO REINFORCE DATA CORRECTION MECHANISMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE WHOIS DATA PROBLEM REPORTING SYSTEM. I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THE FULL ACRONYM FOR THAT BUT IT'S A PROCESS THAT REQUIRES REGISTRARS -- OR REQUESTS REGISTRARS TO REVOKE OR SUSPEND REGISTRATIONS.

THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL TRIES TO MAKE THAT MORE SUBSTANTIAL, MORE MEANINGFUL SO THAT SPECIFIC ACTIONS ARE TAKEN WITHIN SPECIFIC PERIODS OF TIME.

WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO CREATE ADDITIONAL CORRECTION REQUIREMENTS.

I'M GOING TO SKIP THIS SLIDE VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE I JUST RECEIVED A "TURN OFF YOUR MIKE QUICKLY" NOTE.

I DID WANT TO GET AT PROVIDING AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WHOIS OUTPUT MIGHT LOOK LIKE UNDER THE OPOC PROPOSAL.

SO UNDER CURRENT -- THIS EXAMPLE IS A REGULATION IN COM. SO ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN YOU SEE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LINE FOR TUCOWS.COM. YOU SEE THE REGISTRANT INFORMATION UP TOP, OTHER PERTINENT DETAILS, DOMAIN NAME, CONTACT INFORMATION, ET CETERA. WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER THE OPOC PROPOSAL IS ON THE RIGHT. YOU SEE THERE IS VERY, VERY LITTLE INFORMATION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE REMOVED IN THE CASE OF A COMMERCIAL OPERATION.

I HAVE ALSO CREATED A SLIGHTLY HARDER TO READ EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT A DOT ORG WHOIS SAMPLE MIGHT LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, THOSE SAME DETAILS, THE STREET INFORMATION, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER, ET CETERA, WOULD ALSO BE REMOVED.

AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CONTACTS WOULD BE REDISPLAYED AS OPOC DETAILS.

SO IN TERMS OF THE PRACTICAL IMPACT AS TO THE ABSOLUTE DATA PAYLOAD, THERE IS VERY FEW CHANGES HERE.

THAT'S IT FOR ME.

>>DAVID MAHER: MY NAME IS DAVID MAHER. I AM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY, THE MANAGER OF THE REGISTRY OF DOT ORG. AND I WOULD LIKE TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY HAS AN INDEPENDENT INTEREST IN THIS.

WE PUBLISH THE DATA THAT IS PROVIDED TO US BY THE REGISTRARS. WE DON'T COLLECT ANY DATA, BUT WE PUBLISH IT, AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF REGISTRIES. ONE IS CALLED THICK AND THE OTHER IS CALLED THIN. COM AND NET ARE THIN. MOST OF THE REST OF THE REGISTRIES NOW ARE THICK AND PUBLISH MORE DATA.

WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPPING SET FORTH IN THE OPOC. THERE ARE A FEW DETAILS, BUT WE THINK THAT THE OPOC IS A MAJOR STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THE INTEREST OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY, FUNDAMENTALLY, IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS OF DOMAIN NAMES HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PROTECTION OF THEIR PERSONAL PRIVACY, AND WE SUPPORT THAT. WE DON'T SEE THE NEED TO GIVE THE HOME ADDRESS AND HOME PHONE NUMBER OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS EVER REGISTERED A DOMAIN NAME. HISTORICALLY, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME REASON TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S REALLY ANCIENT HISTORY NOW.

AND IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING, WHICH ROSS VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DATA COLLECTED AND DATA PUBLISHED. AND ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE OPOC PROPOSAL IS THAT IT CLEARLY MAKES THAT DISTINCTION.

ASSUMING, AS WE DO, THAT THE OPOC PROPOSAL GATHERS SUFFICIENT DATA THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR FOR THE UDRP OR FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERESTS, WE WOULD SUPPORT A REASONABLE MEANS, TIERED ACCESS OR WHATEVER IT IS, TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE PARTIES THAT NEED IT LEGITIMATELY. AND WE THINK THAT THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT'S DONE CAN BE WORKED OUT. IT MAY NOT BE EASY, BUT I THINK THAT IF THERE IS SOME ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSENSUS, WE CAN DO IT.

WE CERTAINLY INSIST, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PUBLISH GENERALLY ALL THE DATA THAT IS COLLECTED.

AND JUST TO BE VERY BRIEF, A FEW VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY HAS ABOUT THE OPOC.

AS WE READ IT, THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH DATA COLLECTED UNDER THIS PROPOSAL FOR SOME OF OUR SPONSORED GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, LIKE DOT COOP, DOT MUSEUM, AND FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MENTIONING THEM ALL. BUT THEY HAVE SPECIFIC NEEDS ABOUT THEIR REGISTRANTS WHICH ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM COM, NET, OR BIZ INFO AND SO ON. AND THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE SOME TWEAKS IN THE PROCESS TO GET THE INFORMATION FOR THE SPONSORED GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.

ALSO, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THICK AND THIN REGISTRIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT.

THIS IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE COM AND NET ARE SUCH LARGE REGISTRIES AND SUCH LARGE COLLECTIONS OF DATA. BUT THERE AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A DETAIL THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT WITHOUT GREAT DIFFICULTY.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. THANK YOU.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: THANK YOU. I AM STEVEN METALITZ, AND I REPRESENT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY ON THE TASK FORCE. AND I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY RUN THROUGH A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL WHICH IS THE OTHER PROPOSAL THAT YOU WILL FIND IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT. IT'S ANNEX B, AND THERE ARE MORE DETAILS THERE ABOUT WHAT I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THIS IS -- OUR PROPOSAL IS MODELED ON A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IN USE SINCE 2003 IN DOT NL, WHICH IS THE CCTLD IN THE NETHERLANDS, A RELATIVELY LARGE REGISTRY, I THINK IT'S STILL ABOUT THE NINTH LARGEST IN THE WORLD, AND THERE IS SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT AT THOSE LINKS. YOU WILL NOTE THERE WAS A PRESENTATION ABOUT IT AT THE MONTREAL MEETING OF ICANN IN JUNE 2003.

THE BASIC APPROACH THAT THE NL SYSTEM TAKES IS THAT LIKE THE STATUS QUO IN THE GTLD WORLD, THE FULL RANGE OF WHOIS DATA, REGISTRANT INFORMATION, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT, TECHNICAL CONTACT, IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FOR MOST REGISTRANTS. BUT THE DOT NL SYSTEM DOES SUPPRESS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS SOME WHOIS DATA OF SOME INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS WHO DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.

SO REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS ESSENTIALLY THE GTLD STATUS QUO PLUS SOME ADDED PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS WHO SHOW THAT THEY NEED IT.

AND AS I SAID, IT'S BEEN IN OPERATION FOR THREE YEARS IN .NL, A COUNTRY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE EU DATA PROTECTION RULES.

I SHOULD SAY OUR PROPOSAL BASED ON DOT NL IS LIKE THE OPOC PROPOSAL FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF PUBLICATION OF DATA, AND IT LEAVES TO ONE SIDE THE ISSUE OF ACCESS TO DATA THAT'S NOT PUBLISHED.

THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AS BOTH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS SAID. IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LESS PRESSING IN OUR PROPOSAL BECAUSE THERE WILL BE LESS DATA SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLICATION, BUT IT STILL IS AN ISSUE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RESOLVED.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY SOME ISSUES IN ADAPTING THE DOT NL SYSTEM TO THE GTLD ENVIRONMENT, AND I HAVE LISTED A FEW OF THEM HERE. BY THE WAY, THESE ARE DISCUSSED IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN THE ANNEX B TO THE WHOIS TASK FORCE REPORT.

BASICALLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT DATA WOULD BE SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS IS MADE ON A CENTRALIZED BASIS. AND THAT CREATES SOME PROBLEMS WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A THIN REGISTRY SETTING WHERE IT'S THE REGISTRARS WHO HOLD VIRTUALLY ALL THE DATA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THE WHOIS DATA THAT HAS PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IN IT.

SO THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT COST AND HOW THOSE ARE ALLOCATED, AND THEN THERE'S A BIG ISSUE ABOUT HAVING CONSISTENCY AND INTEGRITY OF DECISIONS ON WHOSE DATA SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS. AND AS I SAID, SINCE ALL OF THE DATA IS NOW HELD BY EACH OF THE 800 REGISTRARS, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.

SO OUR PROPOSAL FOR HOW TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, AND I'M GOING TO JUST STEP YOU BRIEFLY THROUGH SOME OF THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL NOW.

THE FIRST QUESTION, OF COURSE, IS WHO DECIDES? WHO DECIDES WHETHER A PARTICULAR REGISTRANT'S DATA WOULD BE WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC ACCESS? AND OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT AN INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY VENDOR BE CHOSEN BY ICANN, OR PERHAPS FIVE SUCH VENDORS ON A REGIONAL BASIS, ONE FOR EACH REGION.

THERE WOULD BE SOME REPORTING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET. THERE WOULD BE SOME RULES ABOUT RENEWAL OF THAT CONTRACT OR RECOMPETITION OF THAT CONTRACT. BUT THE ESSENCE IS THAT THERE WOULD BE A CENTRALIZED DECISION-MAKER, AND THE CURRENT SYSTEM IN WHICH THERE ARE PRIVATE SERVICES THAT ARE OPERATED BY REGISTRARS OR BY THE ALTER EGOS WOULD BE PHASED OUT. WE WOULD HAVE ONE DECISION-MAKER APPLYING ONE SET OF CRITERIA.

SO OBVIOUSLY THE CRITERIA ARE VERY IMPORTANT. WE LOOKED AT THE DOT NL CRITERIA. IN SOME WAYS WE THOUGHT THEY MIGHT BE TOO STRINGENT FOR THIS SETTING SO WE MADE SOME CHANGES BUT WE ALSO MADE CHANGES IN A NUMBER OF AREAS. BUT IT'S A MODIFIED VERSION OF WHAT'S BEEN USED IN DOT NL SINCE 2003.

IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AND TO HAVE YOUR DATA WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC ACCESS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE MAKING A NONCOMMERCIAL USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME. YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS A CONCRETE BASIS FOR CONCERN FOR YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY OR SECURITY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHAT MINIMUM SET OF DATA NEEDED TO BE SUPPRESSED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT.

THERE WOULD BE A PROVISION ALSO FOR AGENCIES THAT REPRESENT VULNERABLE REGISTRANTS, SUCH AS A BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO QUALIFY.

SO YOU WILL SEE IN THE PROPOSAL THERE IS SOME GENERAL CRITERIA. OBVIOUSLY FURTHER CRITERIA NEED TO BE DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

I WILL CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SECOND POINT HERE ABOUT NONCOMMERCIAL USES, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS ADDS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY TO THE PROPOSAL THAT PERHAPS IS NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY TO DEMONSTRATE OR TO MONITOR WHETHER THE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED FOR NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THAT ADDS A WHOLE LAYER OF COMPLEXITY THAT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY.

AND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CRITERION IS NOT IN THE DOT NL CRITERIA. AND THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER FACTORS.

AND SO WE'LL BE INTERESTED IN PEOPLE'S REACTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE NONCOMMERCIAL USE CRITERION IS NECESSARY OR NOT, OR WHETHER IT'S MORE TROUBLE THAN IT'S WORTH.

WE THINK THAT A PROGRAM LIKE THIS CAN BE PAID FOR FROM THE EXISTING VOLUME-SENSITIVE FEES THAT ARE PAID BY REGISTRARS OR REGISTRIES TO ICANN. IT'S GOING TO VARY DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S A THICK REGISTRY OR THIN REGISTRY SITUATION. BUT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO DO THIS, IF POSSIBLE, WITH NO ADDED COST TO REGISTRANTS, REGISTRIES, OR REGISTRARS.

I SUPPOSE YOU CAN SAY THE STATUS QUO NOW IS THAT REGISTRANTS PAY TO HAVE SOME OF THEIR INFORMATION SUPPRESSED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICES. AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO PEOPLE HAVING TO PAY FOR PRIVACY PROTECTION, AND I THINK THAT ARGUMENT IS AT ITS STRONGEST WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR PRIVACY PROTECTION AND NEED TO VARY FROM THE STATUS QUO THAT WE HAVE HAD FOR MANY YEARS IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.

SO THAT'S -- OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT IT SHOULDN'T -- THE COST SHOULDN'T BE IMPOSED ON REGISTRANTS BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD BE OTHER WAYS TO HANDLE THAT, AND WE WOULD BE -- A LOT OF REGISTRANTS DO PAY FOR PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICES NOW, SO MAYBE IT ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I THINK WOULD BE A -- WE'D BE INTERESTED IN PEOPLE'S VIEWS ON THAT.

AGAIN, THIS PROPOSAL IS BASICALLY THE STATUS QUO, BUT WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PRIVACY PROTECTION AS FAR AS PUBLICATION IS CONCERNED, BUT IN TERMS OF THE DATA THAT'S PROVIDED OR COLLECTED OR RETAINED, I THINK LIKE THE OPOC PROPOSAL, IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY CHANGES. THE REGISTRANT STILL HAS THE OBLIGATION TO SUBMIT FULL, ACCURATE, AND CURRENT CONTACT DATA. ALL THAT DATA WOULD BE HELD BY THE REGISTRARS IN THE THIN REGISTRY SETTING IN DOT COM, FOR EXAMPLE, SO THOSE -- THOSE ASPECTS REALLY WOULD BE UNCHANGED IN OUR PROPOSAL.

WHAT IS CHANGED, OF COURSE, IS THE DATA DISPLAY FOR THE REGISTRANTS WHO DEMONSTRATE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

A REGISTRANT WHO DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR ISN'T ELIGIBLE FOR IT -- FOR EXAMPLE, A NONINDIVIDUAL REGISTRANT -- THE DATA THAT'S DISPLAYED WOULD BE THE DATA THAT'S DISPLAYED NOW. IT WOULD BE THE NAME AND THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE -- OF THE REGISTRANT. CURRENTLY THERE ISN'T A REQUIREMENT IN DOT COM, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR SOME OF THE OTHER DATA ABOUT THE REGISTRANT TO BE DISPLAYED. AND -- BUT A REGISTRANT WHO DEMONSTRATES SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE -- OH, EXCUSE ME. THOSE REGISTRANTS WOULD ALSO HAVE THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CONTACT DATA DISPLAYED AS IT IS NOW. A REGISTRANT WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHO SHOWS THAT CERTAIN DATA NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, THE CORRESPONDING DATA FOR THE REGISTRARS, OUR PROPOSAL, WOULD BE SUBSTITUTED.

SO THAT -- I DON'T HAVE A MOCKUP, AS ROSS DOES, OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE IF SOME OF THE DATA WERE TAKEN OUT AND THE REGISTRAR DATA WERE SUBSTITUTED. AGAIN, SIMILARLY TO WHAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR THREE YEARS IN DOT NL. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

OUR PROPOSAL ALSO ADDRESSES SOME OPERATIONAL ISSUES. ALL THE APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TREATMENT WOULD BE TAKEN ON-LINE THROUGH THE REGISTRARS AT THE POINT OF REGISTRATION OR IF SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY REGISTERED WANTED TO APPLY FOR IT, IT WOULD AGAIN BE DONE THROUGH THE REGISTRAR. THERE WOULD BE A VERY SHORT TIME LIMIT OR TIME FRAME FOR A DECISION ON THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL. WE HAVE FIVE DAYS, FIVE WORKING DAYS. THAT IS -- IT COULD BE LONGER, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU COULD HAVE A SHORT PENDENCY PERIOD IF YOU HAVE VERY CLEAR CRITERIA, SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SENSE WHEN THEY START OUT ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THEM.

THE VENDOR NOTIFIES THE REGISTRAR OF THE DECISION, AND THEN THE REGISTRAR ACTS ACCORDINGLY, IN TERMS OF WHAT DATA IS MADE AVAILABLE IN WHOIS.

I NOTE THE DISPLAY DURING PENDENCY, THERE'S AN ISSUE OF WHILE IT'S PENDING, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T QUALIFY DOESN'T HAVE THEIR DATA INADVERTENTLY EXPOSED, SO THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS IN OUR PROPOSAL ON THAT.

AND WE SUGGESTED THIS BE -- THE STATUS BE AVAILABLE FOR A RENEWABLE TERM. PEOPLE'S CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE ONE YEAR, OR IT MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE IN 2007 AND APPROPRIATE IN 2008, OR VICE VERSA. WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE THE REGISTRARS ARE SUPPOSED TO REMIND REGISTRANTS ABOUT THEIR OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE FULL, ACCURATE WHOIS DATA EVERY YEAR. THIS COULD -- THE WDRP -- I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER ONE THAT ROSS WAS REFERRING TO, BUT IT'S ALREADY AN ICANN POLICY, SO IT OUGHT TO BE POSSIBLE, I THINK, TO FOLD THIS INTO THAT PROCESS, SO THAT REGISTRANTS ARE REMINDED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS STATUS, YOU NEED TO REAPPLY.

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT WE HAVE FLAGGED THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.

ONE IS, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR APPEALING IF THE VENDOR SAYS, APPLYING THE CRITERIA, THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL. AND THE OTHER IS REALLY THE POINT THAT I THINK DAVID AND ROSS BOTH MENTIONED, AND IT APPLIES REALLY TO ALL THESE PROPOSALS, AND THAT IS, WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR ACCESSING THIS DATA IF THERE IS A LEGITIMATE ABUSE SITUATION? WHAT PROCESSES OUGHT TO BE FOLLOWED? AND AS JORDYN INDICATED, WE DIDN'T REALLY REACH ANY -- WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. WE DIDN'T REALLY REACH ANY CONSENSUS OR EVEN A GREAT DEAL OF AREA OF AGREEMENT IN THE TASK FORCE YET, BUT THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, I THINK, PRETTY MUCH NO MATTER WHAT PROPOSALS WERE -- WERE PRESENTED HERE.

SO THAT'S THE PROPOSAL IN A NUTSHELL. I KNOW WE'RE SHORT ON TIME, SO I'LL WRAP UP HERE. YOU CAN -- YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE FULL PROPOSAL IN THE WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT, ANNEX B, AND THERE'S AN ADDRESS IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO SEND DIRECTLY TO US OR I WOULD ENCOURAGE, OF COURSE, EVERYBODY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND GIVE YOUR -- YOUR VIEWS ON THE WHOLE RANGE OF MATERIALS IN THE -- IN THE PRELIMINARY REPORT. THANK YOU.

>>RITA RODIN: THANKS, STEVE, AND THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR THOSE INFORMATIVE PRESENTATIONS.

SO I WANT TO NOW INVITE PEOPLE TO COME UP TO THE MIC, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AND IF YOU COULD DO US A FAVOR AND JUST IDENTIFY WHO YOU ARE BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR STATEMENTS, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'LL ALSO MAKE A QUICK NOTE THAT THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SERVER DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN QUITE UP TO THE POPULARITY THAT I MAY HAVE INDUCED BY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO VISIT IT AND, AS A RESULT, SEEMS TO NO LONGER BE ACCESSIBLE. SO IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY AND WOULD LIKE TO SEND COMMENTS I MADE A QUICK E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT MAY SEEM VERY APPROPRIATE. YOU CAN E-MAIL WHOIS@TOTAL.CONFUSION.NET

[LAUGHTER]

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND IF YOU DO THAT, WE'LL ALSO TAKE NOTE OF YOUR COMMENTS. THANKS.

>> NILS MONTAN: HI. MY NAME IS NILS MONTAN, AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ANTICOUNTERFEITING COALITION, SO I AM PREDISPOSED TO WANT TO HAVE FULL ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTRANTS FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES, BUT I WANT TO ASK ROSS AND DAVID: IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE'RE -- THESE TWO PROPOSALS PUT CERTAIN BURDENS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. OFTEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OR IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, SPEED IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT, IF THERE'S AN INFRINGEMENT TAKING PLACE.

HOW WOULD YOUR PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM IN CASES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL COUNTERFEITING ACTIVITIES OR THE LIKE?

>>ROSS RADER: BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE -- WHAT THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM IS. I UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINESS ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERESTS, BUT I'VE -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF -- IF YOU COULD PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, FROM YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE. IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

>> NILS MONTAN: FROM INFRINGEMENT CASES?

>>ROSS RADER: YEAH.

>> NILS MONTAN: I MEAN, IT'S JUST ALWAYS -- THAT'S AN OLD MAXIM OF LAW THAT YOU HAVE TO ACT QUICKLY AND YOU OFTEN WANT TO ACT QUICKLY. YOU DON'T WANT INFRINGING ACTIVITY TO GO ON WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO TAKE SOME KIND OF ACTION. SO EVERY -- EVERY -- EVERY CIVIL LAW IN THE WORLD THAT I'M AWARE OF, INCLUDING UNDER TRIPS AGREEMENT, FOCUSES ON THE ABILITY OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE VERY TIMELY ACTION.

SO IF YOUR PROPOSAL WOULD PUT A FILTER BEFORE THAT, AND IT WOULD TAKE FIVE OR SIX DAYS, THEN I DON'T KNOW -- SOMEONE SAID BEFORE, "HOW DO WE KNOW" -- I THINK IT WAS -- WELL, ANYWAY, SO HOW WOULD WE KNOW IF YOU'RE A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER? WELL, THEN HOW, UNDER OPOC, WOULD YOU KNOW IF ONE OF MY MEMBERS -- SAY WARNER BROTHERS -- WROTE AND SAID THEY WANTED THE ADDRESS FOR CERTAIN -- FOR INFRINGEMENT PURPOSES, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT THEY WERE LEGITIMATE, WHAT KIND OF HOOPS WOULD THEY HAVE TO RUN THROUGH, ET CETERA?

>>ROSS RADER: SO ONE OF THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT PROPOSAL IS THAT IT WILL ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL OR THE CAPABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT. ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT IS TO FORWARD A REQUEST TO THAT REGISTRANT, SO EVEN THOUGH MY PERSONAL HOME PHONE NUMBER FOR MY PERSONAL DOMAIN NAME WILL NO LONGER BE IN THE WHOIS, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT TO ENSURE THAT I GET NOTICES IN A TIMELY MANNER FROM PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF.

THE ISSUE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS TO THAT DATA, YOU KNOW, IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS IS STILL A LIVE ISSUE, AND AS I THINK I VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE TASK FORCE HASN'T QUITE DEALT WITH YET.

TRANSLATION: THE PROPOSAL, I THINK, QUITE FAIRLY PUNTS ON THAT ISSUE, AND FURTHER DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED.

>>DAVID MAHER: I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT. THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR SPEEDY ACCESS, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FIVE OR SIX DAYS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INSTANTANEOUS ACCESS. AND I THINK THAT THE TIERED ACCESS COMMENT -- CONCEPT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THAT.

YOU RAISE THE QUESTION OF -- OR, WELL, WE RAISED THE QUESTION OF: WHO IS A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY?

MY ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT EVERY REGISTRY AND EVERY REGISTRAR OPERATES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY AND SAY DOT ORG IS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA -- THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, RATHER. WE WOULD PROBABLY REFER A REQUEST THAT CAME IN FROM SOME SUSPICIOUS WOULD-BE LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY TO THE FBI AND ASK THEM TO TELL US WHETHER IT'S LEGITIMATE.

WE HAVE GONE EVEN FURTHER, TO PROPOSE THAT THERE MIGHT BE INTERPOL OR SOME OTHER GROUP THAT COULD FILTER REQUESTS, AND OUR PROPOSAL REALLY IS THAT THOSE -- THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES WOULD HAVE INSTANTANEOUS ACCESS, JUST AS THEY DO TODAY.

MY CONCERN WITH THE -- WITH STEVE METALITZ'S PROPOSAL IS THAT I THINK IT STARTS FROM A FALSE PREMISE THAT PRIVACY IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO REQUEST OR EARN. I THINK EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO PRIVACY. THAT'S WHY WE -- WE SAY THAT THE STATUS SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT WE CAN WORK OUT SOME REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR YOUR NEEDS AND THE NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN FROM MELBOURNE IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW SORT OF GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT, I GUESS, BOTH OF THOSE PROPOSALS AND WHERE I -- I SEE THEY FIT INTO WHERE -- AN OVERALL SYSTEM.

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE OVERALL SYSTEM, A SYSTEM FOR GTLDS IS -- BASICALLY HAS A CHARACTERISTIC THAT THERE IS VERY LOW VERIFICATION OF REGISTRANT DATA WHEN A DOMAIN NAME IS REGISTERED, AND REALLY THE ONLY VERIFICATION THAT REGISTRARS DO IS VERIFY THAT THEY CAN PAY. AND SO THERE'S SOME, OBVIOUSLY, FRAUD CONTROL AND SOMETIMES THAT DOES INVOLVE CHECKING THE ADDRESS AGAINST CREDIT CARD ADDRESS REGISTRIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO SEE WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS FRAUDULENT.

BUT ASSUMING THE PAYMENT IS CORRECT AND GOES THROUGH, THERE'S NO REAL VERIFICATION DONE ON WHETHER THE PHONE NUMBER ACTUALLY WORKS, WHETHER THE E-MAIL ADDRESS WORKS, WHETHER THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS EXISTS. SO THAT'S SORT OF THE UP-FRONT SIDE OF IT. THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS THAT WHEN WE DISPLAY THIS INFORMATION, IT IS DATA MINED AND MOST ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS NEED TO BE VERY WARY ABOUT HOW THIS DATA IS MINED OR RETRIEVED ELECTRONICALLY AND THEN POTENTIALLY MISUSED. AND CERTAINLY I THINK REGISTRARS HAVE INTRODUCED THEIR OWN SERVICES FOR PRIVACY, WHICH ARE AT A SMALL ADDITIONAL COST TO THE REGISTRATION FEE, AND THOSE SERVICES HAVE A HUGE TAKEUP AND THERE'S PROBABLY 30% OF REGISTRATIONS NOW THAT I SEE THROUGH OUR COMPANY HAVE BEEN REGISTERED WITH A PRIVACY SYSTEM OF SOME FORM.

AND THAT TENDS TO SHOW YOU THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR DATA BEING OPENLY AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY, AND ARE CONCERNED HOW THAT DATA GETS USED.

SO I THINK THE OPOC PROPOSAL IS AN IDEAL PROPOSAL FOR DEALING WITH THIS UNRESTRICTED DATA MINING ISSUE, AND IT DOES ALLOW FOR APPROPRIATE DATA TO BE DISPLAYED THAT IS THEN ALLOWING A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO CONTACT THE REGISTRANT USING THAT DATA, AND THAT OPERATIONAL POINT OF CONTACT IS THEN RESPONSIBLE FOR FORWARDING THE REQUEST ON.

I'M ALSO VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE NEED THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS -- THIS LOW-COST PROCESS AND WE HAVE THIS HUGE VOLUME OF REGISTRATIONS, AND IN FACT, EVERY DAY WE PROBABLY GET AN ADDITIONAL MILLION NAMES FOR VARIOUS REASONS I WON'T GO INTO, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A BURDEN FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT'S TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR BUSINESSES, WHETHER IT'S AT A CONSUMER PROTECTION LEVEL OR WHETHER IT'S AT A PROTECTING OF BUSINESS INTERESTS, AND AT THAT LEVEL, I THINK WE NEED A SECOND TIER, AND THIS TIER, I THINK, IS -- SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT SOME AUTHENTICATION IS DONE OF THE PERSON THAT'S REQUESTING THE DATA. AND AT THAT TIER, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS MORE DETAILED INFORMATION FROM THE REGISTER -- ABOUT THE REGISTRANT, BUT THAT'S BASED ON A TIERED ACCESS. AND THAT STILL ALLOWS REGISTRARS TO PUT PRIVACY SERVICES IN FRONT OF THAT, IF THEY WISH. BUT THIS IS A SECOND TIER WHERE WE'RE AUTHENTICATING THE PARTY THAT'S ACCESSING THAT DATA AND AS PART!

OF THAT DATA -- THAT PARTY ACCESSING THAT DATA, THAT PARTY NEEDS TO COMMIT THAT THEY WILL ONLY USE THE DATA FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES AND PARTICULARLY WON'T USE THE DATA FOR UNSOLICITED MARKETING.

THEN WHERE I SEE STEVE'S PROPOSAL COMING IS AT A THIRD TIER, AND THAT IS, WHERE WE DO A MUCH STRONGER AUTHENTICATION OF THE END REGISTRANT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE EARLIER STEPS, AND THERE IS SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT REGISTRANT NEEDING TO BURY THEIR DATA VERY DEEP. AND AT THAT LAYER, IF IT PASSES THIS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION PROPOSAL, THEN IN MY MIND THE ONLY WAY THAT THAT DATA CAN BE RETRIEVED SHOULD BE VIA COURT ORDER, AND USE KIND OF ANALOGIES, BECAUSE WE SEEM TO BE USING LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALOGIES, ESSENTIALLY AT THAT POINT THEY'VE GONE INTO A WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM.

SO I THINK STEVE'S PROPOSAL IS, IN MY MIND, THE EQUIVALENT OF A WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM, AND THAT -- SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY NEEDED IN A NUMBER OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THEN TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION ABOUT A PERSON IN THAT SCENARIO WOULD REQUIRE EFFECTIVELY A COURT ORDER OR SOME VERY STRONG -- STRONG METHOD.

SO I SEE THREE TIERS, THE FIRST TIER BEING THE OPOC PROPOSAL THAT THE REGISTRARS HAVE PUT FORWARD WHICH DEALS WITH OPEN PUBLIC ACCESS TO WHOIS; THE SECOND TIER, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE TASK FORCE IN ANY DEPTH, BUT AT LEAST A STANDARDIZED PROCESS FOR AUTHENTICATING WHO IT IS THAT'S ASKING FOR THE DATA AND THE PARTY THAT ASKS FOR THAT DATA NEEDS TO COMMIT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT FOR UNSOLICITED MARKETING AND THAT'S THE TIER WHERE I SEE THE COUNTERFEITING GROUPS AND THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUPS, ET CETERA, WOULD ACCESS; AND THEN THE THIRD TIER IS THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM TIER, WHERE SOMEONE REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE FOUND FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THAT REQUIRES A LOT MORE VERIFICATION. YOU'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO FULLY IDENTIFY THE PERSON, THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE JUSTIFICATION, AND THEN NEED A VERY HIGH LEVEL -- YOU KNOW, LIKE A COURT ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RETRIEVE THAT DATA.

SO THAT'S JUST SOME COMMENTS ON LOOKING AT THOSE PROPOSALS.

>>RITA RODIN: JORDYN IS JUST GOING TO READ A REMOTE COMMENT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: DANNY YOUNGER WRITES US: WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN CONSENSUS IS BOTH PRESENT AND RATIFIED BY THE ICANN BOARD, THAT THOSE UNDER CONTRACT WITH ICANN MUST ABIDE BY SUCH CONSENSUS POLICIES. HOWEVER, WHEN CONSENSUS IS CLEARLY NOT PRESENT, AS APPEARS TO BE THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRENT WHOIS POLICY, WHY AREN'T WE RELEASING REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS TO FORMULATE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT POLICIES?

INTERESTING POINT.

>>RITA RODIN: THANKS, JORDYN. OKAY. NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>STEVE DELBIANCO: THANK YOU. STEVE DELBIANCO WITH THE NETCHOICE COALITION AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY.

MY QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO ROSS, TO STEVE, AND TO DAVID WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PROGRAMS AND YOUR PROPOSALS. SETTING ASIDE THE NOTION OF PUBLICATION AND ACCESS, I WOULD ASK YOU JUST TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DATA COLLECTION POLICIES. WOULD YOUR PROPOSALS PREVENT REGISTRARS FROM IMAGINATIVE POLICIES THAT CIRCUMVENT INTENT, SUCH AS PROXY REGISTRATION? IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD THEY PREVENT PROXY REGISTRATION?

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS: HOW WOULD YOUR PROPOSALS THEN, ON THE BACK END, BEEF UP ICANN'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE WHATEVER NEW POLICIES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, SO THAT REGISTRARS HAVE TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES IN A DILIGENT AND TIME-SENSITIVE MANNER? THANK YOU.

>>DAVID MAHER: I'LL VOLUNTEER TO GO FIRST ON THAT. I'D LIKE TO READ YOU A PIECE OF NEWS THAT I JUST GOT THIS AFTERNOON.

GO DADDY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAJOR REGISTRARS IN THE WORLD, HAS JUST RECEIVED A UNITED STATES PATENT, NO. 7,130,878, AND THE ABSTRACT OF THE PATENT BEGINS: "A SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROXY DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION PERMITS A WOULD-BE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANT ANONYMITY."

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH PROXY REGISTRATIONS AND ANONYMITY, PARTLY BECAUSE OF LOCAL LAW.

YOU MAY WELL HAVE REGISTRARS OPERATING IN A JURISDICTION WHERE ANONYMITY IS FOSTERED. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE REVERSE IS TRUE.

I -- THERE'S NO ANSWER, I THINK, TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT PROXY REGISTRATIONS, OTHER THAN ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE SOME.

TO ME, PROXY REGISTRATIONS ILLUSTRATE THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMAND FOR PROTECTION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY, AND WE OUGHT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THAT.

>>STEVE METALITZ: WELL, TO ANSWER STEVE'S TWO QUESTIONS, THE FIRST IS THAT OUR PROPOSAL WOULD PHASE OUT THE PRIVATE REGISTRATION SERVICES IN FAVOR OF A CENTRALIZED SERVICE THAT APPLIES OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

I GUESS BASED ON THE NEWS DAVID HAS JUST ANNOUNCED, PEOPLE WHO ARE PROVIDING PROXY REGISTRATION SERVICES HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE INFRINGING SOMEBODY'S PATENT AS WELL, BUT I WON'T GET INTO THAT.

[LAUGHTER]

>>STEVE METALITZ: IN TERMS OF BEEFING UP ENFORCEMENT, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION WHICH I DON'T THINK EITHER PROPOSAL REALLY ADDRESSES. I MEAN, IT'S OUT OF SCOPE, I SUPPOSE, FOR THIS TASK FORCE, AND ALSO OUT OF SCOPE IS ONE OF THE POINTS THAT BRUCE RAISED, WHICH IS, ARE -- SHOULD REGISTRARS BE DOING SOMETHING MORE TO AUTHENTICATE THE DATA THAT THEY COLLECT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AS FAR AS REGISTRANT CONTACT DATA. THAT IS A TOPIC I THINK IS VERY MUCH WORTH DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS NOT PART THE REMIT OF THIS TASK FORCE.

>>ROSS RADER: YES, STEVE, I THINK YOU RAISE SOME GREAT QUESTIONS, BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S EQUALLY OR PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THIS TASK FORCE TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS TASK FORCE. SO AS IT RELATES TO DATA COLLECTION OR THE USE OF PROXY SERVICES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL GREAT DISCUSSIONS. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS TASK FORCE CAN ACTUALLY DEAL WITH AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>>STEVE DELBIANCO: MAY I JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT REAL QUICKLY?

I THINK THERE'S A RISK OF SIMPLY ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BY SAYING "OUT OF SCOPE," SINCE WHATEVER PROPOSAL WE COME UP WITH, WE WILL SOONER OR LATER CONFRONT THIS ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT AND PROXY REGISTRATION. SO IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IT'S OUT OF SCOPE -- AND I RESPECT THAT OPINION -- WE OUGHT TO HAVE IT IN SCOPE AT SUCH POINT THAT A POLICY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THAT REPRESENTS THE CONSENSUS POLICY.

>>ROSS RADER: NO, I WOULD AGREE. IF THERE'S -- IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY OR BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY TO BRING THAT FORWARD. I WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME THAT DISCUSSION, WHETHER IT BE OVER COCKTAILS OR AT COUNCIL.

>>RITA RODIN: AND STEVE, IF I COULD JUST MAKE A COMMENT.

I THINK, AS A BOARD MEMBER, THAT PROXY REGISTRATIONS AND LOOKING FOR ANONYMITY IN CONNECTION WITH DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS IS SOMETHING THAT, IN GENERAL, PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WHILE THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE MAY NOT BE IN SCOPE, I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL, AND WILL, I THINK, BE SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AS PER YOUR LAST STATEMENT. THANKS.

>>JIM REID: HI. MY NAME IS JIM REID AND I WORK FOR TELNIC, ALTHOUGH I'M SPEAKING HERE IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY. ONE OR TWO CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT WHOIS, I'M ACTUALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS VERY MUCH AT THE MOMENT, TRYING TO FORMULATE TELNIC'S WHOIS POLICY, AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE THERE IS THAT, BROADLY SPEAKING, A WHOIS PUBLICATION OF PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL DATA IS, IN ACTUAL FACT, IN CONTROVERSION OF THE U.K. AND EU DATA PROTECTION LAW. SO UNLESS THE USER GIVES EXPLICIT CONSENT, THEIR DATA CANNOT BE PUBLISHED THROUGH WHOIS.

SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO FORMULATE A POLICY WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE ICANN GUIDELINES, BUT IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH U.K. AND EU LAW. I THINK THIS IS A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO SOLVE, AND I FULLY SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS THAT THIS TASK FORCE CAN DO TO TRY AND SQUARE THAT PARTICULAR CIRCLE.

I THINK, FURTHER THAN THAT, IS THAT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE GOT LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR ACCESS TO REGISTRANT DATA, AND SUCH HAS TO DO WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES, I DON'T THINK WHOIS SHOULD BE THE FIRST PORT OF CALL. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER LIGHTWEIGHT MECHANISM WHERE THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOT A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO USE THE DATA CAN GET TO THAT DATA FAIRLY QUICKLY WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH TO THE EXPENSE OF A COURT ORDER.

ALTHOUGH HAVING SAID THAT, THE ADVICE I'M GETTING FROM THE U.K. LAWYERS FOR TELNIC IS OUR [INAUDIBLE] POLICY IS DON'T DISCLOSE UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A COURT ORDER. AND WE TELL PEOPLE, "COME BACK AND LET THE COURT SORT IT OUT, SO THAT TELNIC DOESN'T MAKE ANY VALUE JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHO HAS GOT A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ACCESS THAT DATA OR NOT.

FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF TIERED ACCESS. I THINK THAT'S ALSO GOT SOME POTENTIAL, BUT I THINK IT HAS SOME ALSO DRAWBACKS, TOO, BECAUSE AGAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DATA PROTECTION MEASURES SPECIFICALLY IN WESTERN EUROPE IS THAT I COULD ONLY DISCLOSE DATA TO SOMEBODY IF THEY WILL COMPLY WITH EU DATA PROTECTION LAW.

SO IF I HAVE TO PASS THIS DATA TO SOMEONE, SAY, IN THE UNITED STATES, THEY MUST EITHER HAVE A CONTRACT WITH TELNIC [INAUDIBLE] OR ABIDE BY SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS OR THE EU MODEL CLAUSES THAT GOVERN PERSONAL DATA, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INCORPORATED SOMEHOW INTO ANY KIND OF TIERED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS.

BUT I THINK THIS WILL BECOME VERY, VERY COMPLICATED BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT WILL BECOME AN IN SCOPE [INAUDIBLE] PROBLEM BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS AND DIFFERENT RULES FOR DATA PROTECTION. THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, JIM. I'LL NOTE THAT ONE OF THE POLICIES THAT THE WHOIS TASK FORCE HAS ALREADY ADOPTED ADDRESSES -- AT LEAST PARTIALLY ADDRESSES ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS, WHICH IS THAT IN SOME CASES, THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WHOIS REQUIREMENTS AND VARIOUS LAWS.

WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED A POLICY THAT'S ALSO BEEN RATIFIED BY THE BOARD AND IS NOW A CONSENSUS POLICY THAT ESSENTIALLY -- THAT INSTRUCTS THE STAFF TO CREATE A PROCEDURE TO ESSENTIALLY RESOLVE THESE CONFLICTS WHERE THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN NATIONAL LAW AND -- AND ESSENTIALLY CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS ICANN OPPOSES WITH REGARD TO WHOIS. AND, IN FACT, KURT IS GOING TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ON WHAT THAT PROCEDURE LOOKS LIKE LATER IN THE AFTERNOON -- OR THE EVENING, I GUESS AT THIS POINT.

SO HOPEFULLY YOU'LL GET SOME MORE INSIGHT INTO THAT PARTICULAR COMPONENT OF YOUR CONCERNS.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF HIS OTHER POINTS OR -- OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON IN THE QUEUE. GO AHEAD, JAY.

>>JAY WESTERDAL: HI. JAY WESTERDAL, DOMAINTOOLS.COM. SO I'VE DONE THE WHOIS THING FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. BASICALLY I HAVE A WHOIS PORTAL, AND ONE OF THE MOST COMMON THINGS I HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PRIVATE REGISTRATIONS IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESS IN WHOIS BECAUSE IT GETS SPAMMED BY ROBOTS.

BEYOND THAT, THEY DON'T REALLY CONSIDER DOMAIN WHOIS PRIVACY MUCH OF A SERVICE BEYOND THAT.

AS FAR AS THE ADDRESS GOES OF WHERE THE PERSON ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY RESIDES, YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE SERVING A SUBPOENA OR SOME KIND OF LEGAL DOCUMENT TO THIS PERSON THAT MAY BE INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS, AND HAVING THAT ACTUALLY AVAILABLE IS HELPFUL WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO A COURT.

SO I THINK THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE -- THERE IS A PHYSICAL ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOMAIN NAME AND A JURISDICTION WHERE YOU SHOULD BE SUING THIS PERSON THAT'S INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY NOT WANT TO TIP THE PERSON OFF BY GOING THROUGH THE PRIVACY SERVICE. YOU MAY WANT TO SERVE THEM DIRECTLY BEFORE THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING. AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PROXY SERVICE, THE INFORMATION WILL GET RELAYED TO THEM BUT YOU'RE NOT LEGALLY SERVING THEM.

THE OTHER THING I SEE IS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTUALLY COMES TO US QUITE OFTEN AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE CAPABILITY TO DO HISTORICAL WHOIS INFORMATION, AND UNLESS IT'S ABLE TO BE COLLECTED IN A -- I DON'T CARE WHAT MECHANISM, BUT AS LONG AS IT'S COLLECTED, THEY CANNOT GO BACK IN TIME AND BASICALLY TRACK DOWN WHERE THE BAD PERSON STARTED AND WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ELSE THAT'S CAUGHT UP IN THE PROCESS MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE POINTS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THIS -- THIS CONSENSUS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, JAY. I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER REMOTE COMMENT.

THIS IS FROM KIEREN MCCARTHY, AND HE WRITES: ARE PEOPLE NOT GETTING A BIT -- A LITTLE BIT CARRIED AWAY WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT COURT ORDERS FOR SIMPLE DOMAIN NAME OWNERSHIP INFORMATION? IF IT IS THAT IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE ANONYMITY, PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW THE AGE-OLD SYSTEM OF STARTING A COMPANY AND GAINING ANONYMITY AND LEGAL PROTECTION BY PROVIDING THOSE COMPANY'S DETAILS IN WHOIS. WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE EXAMPLES THAT WE ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THE POLICE SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO WHOIS?

OKAY. GO AHEAD, AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY. TWO DIFFERENT SET OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS JUST A SHORT QUESTION FOR STEVE, KNOWING WHETHER HE HAS AN EDUCATED GUESS ABOUT HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST PER DOMAIN, A SYSTEM LIKE THE ONE HE'S PROPOSING.

THE SECOND ONE IS, YOU KNOW, THE TRANSBORDER ISSUES. DOING THAT AT AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL MAY BE EASIER THAN DOING THAT EVEN AT A REGIONAL LEVEL. AS SOON AS YOU HAVE SOME VERIFICATORS OUTSIDE YOUR COUNTRY, BROADLY SPEAKING, OR DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE PROBLEM, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE LEGAL PROBLEM IF YOU'RE EXPORTING THE DATA BEFORE TAKING THE DECISION. SO YOU ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, STUCK WITH THE PROBLEMS.

AND, UNFORTUNATE AS IT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, ON ONE SIDE, YOU HAVE THIS. ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU HAVE DATA PROTECTION AGENCIES IN EUROPE THAT ARE QUITE, YOU KNOW, RADICAL IN THEIR VIEW. THEY SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE THE WHOIS. THERE IS NO NEED --

THEY SAY THAT I.P. ADDRESS IS A PERSONAL DATA THAT SHOULDN'T BE PUBLISHED AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS JUST EXTREME ON THE OTHER SIDE, ON THE WRONG SIDE AS WELL.

THE PROBLEM IS FIRST OF ALL THIS QUESTION.

SECOND IS, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT WORKING FOR .CAT ANYMORE, BUT ONE OF THE REMAINING ISSUES I STILL HAVE TO SOLVE IS THE QUESTION OF WHOIS FOR .CAT.

WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO COMPLY WITH THE REPEAL LAW.

WE WOULD LOVE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S COHERENT WITH WHAT OTHER TLDS DO INSTEAD OF CREATING MORE CONFUSION.

SO WE EXPECT THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS A CLEAR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE MECHANISM QUITE SOON.

AND REGARDING THE INTERESTS OF PERSONAL ANONYMITY OR THAT, WELL, I DON'T KNOW, ALL I KNOW IS .CAT STARTED, AND NOTHING HAPPENED.

THE VERY DAY THAT OPEN REGISTRATION STARTED, FIVE MINUTES AFTERWARDS, THE WHOIS WAS BELLY UP BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE DEMANDS FROM ALL SORTS OF COMPANIES FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.

THAT'S A VERY SMALL, MARGINAL TLD IN THE WHOLE PICTURE.

SO APPARENTLY SOME PEOPLE THAT HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT WE WERE DOING, THEY ONLY KNOW THAT A NEW WHOIS MACHINE IS THERE, GO FOR IT, AND THEN WE WILL DECIDE WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THE DATA.

>>STEVE METALITZ: IF I COULD RESPOND TO SOME OF AMADEU'S POINTS, SINCE THEY WERE DIRECTED TO ME.

NO, I DON'T HAVE A PER-DOMAIN-NAME COST.

OBVIOUSLY, IT DEPENDS ON THE VOLUME OF REGISTRATIONS OR APPLICATIONS.

WE MAY LEARN AND HAVE SOME DATA FROM .NL THAT HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS.

SECOND, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM OF EXPORTING THE DATA IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH YOUR EXPLICIT CONSENT.

YOU WOULDN'T -- IT WOULD BE DISCLOSED TO YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR WAS LOCATED IN GERMANY AND YOU WERE A REGISTRANT IN FRANCE OR WHATEVER THE -- OR THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR WAS LOCATED IN CANADA AND YOU WERE A REGISTRANT IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY AN EXPORT PROBLEM THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE .CAT WHOIS WENT BELLY UP.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT FOR MANY OF THE SMALLER SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WHOIS TRAFFIC, CERTAINLY FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WORLD AND FROM -- I MEAN, LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPENDS, I GUESS, ON WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING IN THOSE DOMAINS.

BUT I THINK THE STATISTICS FOR .NAME -- I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT .CAT -- SHOW THAT THERE'S A RELATIVELY LOW VOLUME OF WHOIS REQUESTS.

I THINK MOST OF THIS -- WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING THIS ON -- PREDOMINANTLY ON THE LARGER TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, GTLDS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SOME SMALLER ONES, THAT --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: LET ME PROVIDE THE ANSWER ON THAT.

THE REGULAR USE IS VERY LOW.

AND THE PROBLEMS ARE NONEXISTENT.

ON THE FIRST DAY, THERE WERE MARKETING COMPANIES THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, GOING TOWARD THAT DATA.

AND AT LEAST -- I MEAN, WE KNOW THOSE THAT ADDRESSED US THE DAY TO SAY, OH, WHAT HAPPENED, WE CANNOT ACCESS ANYMORE.

SO WE HAVE RESTRICTED SOME I.P. ADDRESSES AND WE HAVE RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF QUERIES YOU CAN DO PER MINUTE TO FIVE PER MINUTE UNDER PORT 43.

AND THE ONES ADDRESSING ARE MARKETING COMPANIES SAYING, "WHY ARE YOU RESTRICTING THIS?"

>>STEVE METALITZ: AND .NL DOES THAT, TOO.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT PERSON, I THINK WENDY HAD A POINT.

>>WENDY SELTZER: I WANTED TO ADD ONE NOTE SITTING UP HERE, BECAUSE FINALLY I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORK OF THIS TASK FORCE, ALTHOUGH NOT AS A VOTING MEMBER.

BUT JUST WHAT WE'RE HEARING IN THESE TWO PROPOSALS DOESN'T REPRESENT THE FULL RANGE OF PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

AND THE OTHER END POINT FROM "THERE SHALL BE VIRTUALLY NO PRIVACY" IS "THERE SHOULD BE VERY STRONG PRIVACY OPTIONS."

I HAVE, IN FACT, MANY TIMES SAID AS A PERSONAL AND CIVIL LIBERTIES VIEWPOINT THAT THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE ANONYMITY POSSIBLE IN DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS, THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH PHYSICAL IDENTITY IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS TOOL OF SPEECH.

AND SO ALREADY THE OPOC REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE FAR FROM THAT, AT LEAST TO GIVE PEOPLE PRIVACY OPTIONS.

AND MY RECOMMENDATION THAT PEOPLE BE PERMITTED TO PUT DOMAIN NAMES INTO SUSPENSION RATHER THAN REVEALING PERSONAL INFORMATION WAS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO GIVE PEOPLE ALTERNATIVES THAT SATISFY THOSE WHO THINK DOMAIN NAMES ARE GOING TO BE ABUSED AND THOSE WHO THINK THAT THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE ABUSED IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A DOMAIN NAME.

SO I THINK -- I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO THINK THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS IN NOT HAVING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOMAIN NAME, NOT ALL OF THEM NEFARIOUS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, WENDY.

WE'LL GO BACK TO THE FLOOR.

>>MARGIE MILAM: I'M MARGIE MILAM AND I'M WITH MARKMONITOR.

WE'RE A REGISTRAR AND WE'RE ALSO A BRAND PROTECTION COMPANY.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE OUR CLIENTS ARE MOSTLY CORPORATIONS TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

AND THEY ALSO ENGAGE US IN SERVICES TO COMBAT PHISHING.

AND SO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ON THESE PROPOSALS IS THE PERCEPTION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO FIGHT SITUATIONS SUCH AS CYBERSQUATTING OR PHISHING.

AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH OPOC AS AN EXAMPLE IS THE CONCERN THAT WHEN YOU LAY OPOC WITH PERHAPS THE PROXY SERVICES, THAT IT'LL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET INFORMATION TO FIND OUT WHO'S BEHIND, YOU KNOW, BAD ACTS SUCH AS CYBERSQUATTING OR PHISHING.

AND ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR THE TASK FORCE WOULD BE TO SET UP STANDARDS, IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE AN OPOC, TO SAY WHEN, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED OR PROVIDED TO THE REGISTRANT, SOME SORT OF CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE IF THEY ARE AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR UDRP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IN LOOKING AT THE TWO PROPOSALS, IT LOOKS TO US THAT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES MODEL IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER FROM AN I.P. PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE THERE'S LESS CHANGE.

STATUS QUO'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS PRIVACY CONCERNS.

AND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST INITIALLY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES MODEL LOOKS LIKE IT CAN ACCOMPLISH BOTH NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE PRIVACY ISSUE AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO HAVE INFORMATION FOR, YOU KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS LIKE MARKMONITOR OR OTHER COMPANIES TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO GOVERNMENTS AND TO, YOU KNOW, CORPORATIONS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS.

>>ROSS RADER: A CLARIFICATION, MARGIE.

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE TASK FORCE WOULD WRITE SOME GUIDANCE AS TO HOW A REGISTRANT WOULD REACT TO VARIOUS TYPES OF SERVICES, IT'S NOT A NEW SUGGESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE STRUGGLED WITH WITH THAT IS AN UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.

I SHIED AWAY FROM SUPPORTING THAT BECAUSE EVERY TIME I HEAR THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SUGGESTION IS THAT WE SHOULD GIVE REGISTRANTS LEGAL ADVICE.

CERTAINLY, IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN I GET THOSE TYPES OF NOTICES MYSELF, I TAKE THEM TO MY LAWYER.

WHAT FORM WOULD THAT TAKE TO REALLY SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT YOU'RE DESCRIBING?

>>MARGIE MILAM: WHAT I MEAN IS -- I'M SORT OF MIXING UP CONCEPTS HERE.

WITH PROXY SERVICES AT THE MOMENT THERE ARE NO REAL RULES THAT APPLY TO THEM.

SO IF YOU'RE SENDING A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO A PROXY SERVICE, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE ACTUAL PARTY BEHIND THE DOMAIN NAME.

IF IT'S A UDRP COMPLAINT, AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE SAME ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, THE WHOIS INFORMATION IS ALSO USED FOR THINGS LIKE TRANSFER REQUESTS.

AS REGISTRARS, WE HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER A NAME IN OR OUT.

YOU KNOW, IT SLOWS THE WHOLE PROCESS OF TRANSFERS AND, YOU KNOW, REGISTRAR BUSINESS IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THE INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY GOING TO THE PARTY THAT NEEDS TO RESPOND.

SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF THOUGHT IN, YOU KNOW, IF -- IF PROXY IS GOING TO EXIST WITH OPOC AND/OR, YOU KNOW, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOME OTHER MODEL, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST CLEAR RULES ON THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE TYPICAL WITH THE DOMAIN NAME, UDRPS, YOU KNOW, A TRANSFER REQUEST, YOU KNOW, YOUR WDRDS, ALL OF THAT, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH.

>>ROSS RADER: SO THE COMPLEXITY COMES FROM -- FROM THE ENVIRONMENT, THEN, REALLY IS WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

SO IT'S AN ISSUE WITH PROXY SERVICES MORE THAN IT'S AN ISSUE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORWARD.

BUT WITH THE MARRIAGE OF THOSE TWO, IT'S CREATING TERTIARY COMPLEXITIES THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT.

>>MARGIE MILAM: RIGHT.

I KNOW YOU'VE WALKED THROUGH THE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTACTS THAT EXIST NOW.

THAT IS USEFUL FROM A PROTECTION STANDPOINT, BECAUSE WE DO A LOT OF CORRELATION TO FIND OUT WHO'S ACTUALLY BEHIND A PHISHING ATTACK OR AN INFRINGEMENT ATTACK.

AND THAT IS USEFUL TO FIND OUT WHETHER SOMEONE IS A BAD ACTOR VERSUS JUST A NORMAL REGISTRANT.

>>ROSS RADER: THANKS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YOU'RE ON.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE.

I'M SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER, BUT I WANT TO, FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, NOTE THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE.

I'M NOT, HOWEVER, DIRECTLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE TWO PRODUCTS OR THE TWO APPROACHES THAT THE TASK FORCE IS ADDRESSING.

INSTEAD, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND ALL OF US FROM WHENCE WE CAME.

I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE FIRST TASK FORCE THAT DID AN EXTENSIVE STUDY AND THEN WENT ON TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO WHOIS.

SINCE WE'VE ALL BEEN WORKING TOGETHER, WE HAVE RECENTLY, IN LUXEMBOURG AND IN -- FIRST OF ALL IN VANCOUVER, THEN IN LUXEMBOURG, AND THEN IN MARRAKECH, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT IN SOME WORKSHOPS THAT HAVE BEEN VERY BALANCED AND HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD THE VIEWS OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTIES AND INTERESTS TO TALK ABOUT IN THE ISSUES RELATED TO CHANGES AND WHOIS.

ONE OF THE TENSIONS I SEE FOR US IS TO KEEP IN MIND THAT BALANCE MUST BE ACHIEVED AND THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INTERESTS.

THERE ARE INTERESTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITIES, OF TRADEMARK AUTHORITIES, OF COMMON, EVERYDAY USERS WHO USE WHOIS TO FIND OUT WHAT WEB SITE THEIR CHILDREN ARE VISITING.

I SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF MY LIFE WORKING IN THE AREA OF PROTECTING CHILDREN AND THEN HELPING TO CREATE GROUPS THAT PROTECT KIDS ONLINE.

AND WHOIS IS A BASIC TOOL USED IN THOSE ENVIRONMENTS.

THE INFORMATION HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY.

BUT I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I HAVE HEARD OVER THE TIME I HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THIS SPACE CONCERNS ABOUT DATA MINING OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES OR TELEPHONE NUMBERS.

THE WHOIS TASK FORCE THAT I COCHAIRED PROPOSED THAT WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE MOVING WHOIS ACCESS TO A WEB-BASED ACCESS, MOVING TO A WHITE LIST APPROACH TO ACCESS TO BULK ACCESS TO DATA AND TO PORT 43.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING HARD AT THOSE KINDS OF STEPS AND SEEING WHAT IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY MAKE.

I DO AGREE THAT WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR PRIVACY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN APPROACH.

THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH THAT STEVE METALITZ HAS MENTIONED I THINK HAS MERIT AND COULD BE EXPLORED FURTHER.

BUT I NOTE THAT THAT IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ENVIRONMENT.

AND BY MOVING TO WEB-BASED WHOIS AND USING IT TO DO A VERIFICATION CHECK, WE CAN CERTAINLY BEGIN TO LIMIT ANY MISUSE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSE OF SPAM, ET CETERA.

I WILL JUST SAY ALSO ABOUT THE ISSUE OF WHOIS DATA, I VOLUNTARILY REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME.

I VOLUNTARILY HOLD MYSELF OUT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC VIA A WEB SITE.

I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO I AM.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED ANONYMITY TO BE ABLE TO USE A WEB SITE OR TO FIND OTHER MECHANISMS BY WHICH THEY CAN COMMUNICATE IN AN ANONYMOUS MANNER.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN SOME BALANCE.

AND LOOKING FOR -- IF WE DON'T HAVE APPROPRIATE CONSENT AT THIS POINT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOTICE FROM THE REGISTRARS THAT WE NEED TO MOVE TO A STRONGER FORM OF MANDATORY CONSENT FOR REGISTRANTS.

AND THAT MAY BE ANOTHER STEP THAT WE SHOULD TAKE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REGISTRANT IS FULLY INFORMED.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, MARILYN.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: MY NAME IS BOB HUTCHINSON --

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIKE.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: I WOULD LIKE TO RELATE AN EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD ABOUT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD ON WHOIS, WHICH I TRIED TO TRACE BACK A PHISHING ATTACK WHICH I GOT THROUGH E-MAIL, WHICH WAS, COME TELL US ABOUT YOUR PAYPAL, UPDATE YOUR PAYPAL.

AND I WALKED THAT BACK THROUGH THE REGISTRY AND FOUND THAT THE ENTRY WAS REGISTERED TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN LONDON.

AND THEN I GOOGLED THE NAME THAT WAS ON THE REGISTRY, OKAY.

AND THE -- THERE WERE ARTICLES ABOUT THIS PERSON, -- OKAY? -- BEING A CYBER CRIMINAL.

AND THERE WAS NO PLACE TO REPORT THIS INFORMATION OR SHUT THIS WEB SITE DOWN.

OKAY?

SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS HOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE FOR PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET, OKAY?

IN OTHER WORDS, WHOIS, THE FUNCTION OF WHOIS IS REALLY THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

AND IT'S NOT DOING THE JOB.

I MEAN, THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN IN HOURS AFTER THEY'RE ON, NOT MONTHS OR, YOU KNOW, YEARS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THERE'S A CHORUS OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO RESPOND TO YOU.

SO I'M GOING TO START WITH DAVID AND THEN GO TO ROSS AND STEVE.

>>DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS: ICANN IS NOT A GOVERNMENT AND IT HAS TO GOVERNMENTAL POLITICS.

WHEN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OCCURS, THERE'S ONE AND ONLY ONE JURISDICTION FOR THE ACTIVITY TO BE PROSECUTED.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: BUT MY POINT IS, IS THAT WHOIS PERHAPS SHOULD BE CONNECTING YOU TO THE PROPER LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR SHUTTING DOWN THAT WEB SITE, AS OPPOSED TO GIVING ME THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO IT IS WHO REGISTERED THAT WEB SITE, 'CAUSE I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

OKAY?

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SYSTEM, THE WHOIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

IT'S NOT THE WAY YOU WOULD SET UP LAW ENFORCEMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, A CRIME OCCURS HERE.

I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR WHOEVER'S THE CRIMINAL.

DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON.

ALL I HAVE TO DO IS REPORT IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES AND SAY, "THAT'S THE PERSON."

OKAY?

I DON'T EVEN KNOW THEIR NAME.

OKAY?

IN OTHER WORDS, WHOIS, IN ORDER TO HELP PREVENT CYBERCRIME -- I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO REGISTERED THE WEB SITE.

I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO FACILITATE THE STOPPING OF THESE USES OF THE INTERNET.

AND THAT'S MY POINT.

>>ROSS RADER: I MAY HAVE SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU, BOB.

BUT FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: SURE.

>>ROSS RADER: I DIDN'T CATCH WHO YOU REPRESENT.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: A COMPANY CALLED DYNAMIC VENTURES.

>>ROSS RADER: DYNAMIC VENTURES.

SO THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO IS THE NOTION THAT WHOIS CAN HELP YOU SOLVE CRIMES.

IF YOU ARE AWARE OF A CRIME, YOU SHOULD REPORT THE CRIMES.

WHOIS CAN HELP YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE THAT CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS RESOURCES, FOR INSTANCE, WHO MAY OWN A DOMAIN NAME OR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOMAIN NAME.

IT CAN ALSO TELL YOU WHERE THOSE DOMAIN NAMES ARE HOSTED.

AND IN SOME CASES, IT WILL ALSO TELL YOU THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPANY THAT'S PROVIDING THE HOSTING.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.

THERE'S ALSO DIFFERENT TYPES OF WHOIS.

BUT I'M RATHER -- I'M NOT SURE IF I'M UNCOMFORTABLE OR UNCLEAR ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE -- ARE YOU REQUESTING THAT THE WHOIS BE REFORMED TO BECOME A BETTER TOOL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT?

OR THAT ITS CURRENT USES BE MADE MORE USABLE?

ITS CURRENT FEATURES BE MADE MORE USABLE?

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE REGISTRARS SHOULD BECOME THE ACT OF DOING THE ENFORCEMENT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

>>ROSS RADER: OKAY.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: BUT THEY'RE THE LOGICAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC THAT CONNECTION TO WHAT IS THE LEGAL CYBERCRIME-FIGHTING UNIT FOR THAT DOMAIN NAME.

OKAY?

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH.

>>ROSS RADER: SO JUST AS A NOTE, THAT HAPPENS TODAY.

THERE'S A VERY STRONG COORDINATION BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY, THE SERVICE PROVIDER COMMUNITY, THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, I.E., LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THE NETWORK OPERATOR COMMUNITY.

ISSUES ARE BEING DEALT WITH ON A VERY, VERY REGULAR AND CONCERTED BASIS.

THE FACT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS DRAGGED ON WITHIN THE ICANN COMMUNITY FOR NOW SIX OR SEVEN YEARS DOES NOT MEAN THAT PROGRESS HASN'T BEEN MADE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

I WOULD BE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO SHARE MORE DETAILS WITH ANYBODY THAT WAS INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE REGISTRATION COMMUNITY IS ACTUALLY DOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE SOLUTION, NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: WELL, JUDGING BY THE NUMBER OF PHISHING ATTACKS, WHATEVER HAS BEEN DONE HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE.

>>ROSS RADER: THAT IS CORRECT.

>>STEVE METALITZ: I WOULD AGREE THAT ICANN IS NOT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO BE.

>>STEVE METALITZ: AND WE CAN TALK OFFLINE ABOUT WHERE YOU MIGHT TAKE THAT INFORMATION.

BUT I THINK ONE THING YOU WILL FIND WHEN YOU TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THAT THEY RELY ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO DO SOME OF THIS SPADE WORK, TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACK.

THEY DEPEND ON THAT, AND PHISHING, IN PARTICULAR, THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS QUITE DIFFERENT THAT IT MAY BE IN OTHER CRIMES BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY TO RESPOND VERY QUICKLY.

SO I THINK THE MORE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE THROUGH WHOIS AND OTHER SOURCES, THE MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT IN CRACKING DOWN ON THIS.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I -- I HEAR WHAT ROSS IS SAYING ABOUT -- THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS BEING DONE.

BUT I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS AS YOU'VE SAID IT, I'M NOT SURE THE TREND IS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED TO TRY TO KEEP THE INTERNET SAFE.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON: THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'LL MAKE ONE QUICK NOTE, WHICH IS I THINK THERE'S AN INTERESTING SORT OF -- THERE ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH ACTUALLY HAVING INFORMATION FROM WHOIS IS NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY HELP YOU SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.

IT HELPS YOU GET INFORMATION.

SO IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S FURTHER THINKING THAT SHOULD BE DONE ON HOW, OKAY, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM AND HOW DO WE COORDINATE RESPONSES TO IT MORE EFFECTIVELY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S A PROBLEM THAT'S THREATENING THE SECURITY OR THE STABILITY OF THE INTERNET.

BUT WE'LL MOVE ON IN THE QUEUE NOW.

AND, ACTUALLY, WE HAVE ABOUT TEN MORE MINUTES ON THIS TOPIC, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO GO ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC.

SO CAN I ASK, IS THERE ANYONE THAT'S NOT STANDING UP RIGHT NOW THAT WANTS TO TALK?

OKAY.

SO WE HAVE FOUR MORE PEOPLE IN TEN MINUTES.

SO YOU'VE GOT, LIKE, TWO MINUTES PER PERSON, HOPEFULLY, AND HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE TO PUT UP THE EVIL TIMER.

GO AHEAD.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: MAWAKI.

I JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS.

ONE THING THAT SLIGHTLY BOTHERS ME WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING THESE WHOIS ISSUES AND I HEAR ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ARGUMENT IS THAT WE SEEM TO IMPLY THAT -- WE SEEM TO IMPLY AN IDEAL STATE OF WORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES' ACTS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF PEOPLE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE EVERYWHERE.

NOT ALL THE COUNTRIES ARE LIKE SWEDEN OR FRANCE OR GERMANY OR THE U.S. SO WE NEED TO BALANCE THE PROS AND THE CONS BY ADVOCATING FOR A PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THOSE INFORMATIONS.

THERE ARE -- THOSE INFORMATION.

THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE SIMPLE DISPLAY OF THE NAME IS -- CAN BE A SOURCE OF THREATS FOR SOME PEOPLE'S LIFE.

THERE ARE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE STILL STRUGGLING FOR THEIR RIGHTS TO SPEECH.

SO I WILL -- I UNDERSTAND THOSE WENDY WAS REFERRING TO WHO ADVOCATE FOR STRONG PRIVACY.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND ALSO THE NEED FOR COMPROMISING.

SO I THINK WE SHOULDN'T BE ONLY THINKING OF THE POSSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WHILE IGNORING THE THREATS TO PEOPLE IN SOME OTHER PLACES.

AND ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT YAHOO! CURRENTLY OFFERS TO KEEP INFORMATION PRIVATE.

IT'S LIKE IF A COUPLE OF OTHER REGISTRARS FOLLOWED THE SAME EXPLICITLY, WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE A POLICY TO FORBID REGISTRARS TO OFFER THAT SERVICE.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY THE WAY TO GO.

IN FACT, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

BUT SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ACTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THEM SPECIFICALLY AS ACTING TO ENFORCE LAW.

SO IF FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB WE NEED TO PUT THE DATA UP THERE FOR EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THEM, THEN THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIVILEGE, IF I MAY SAY SO, OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND EVERY OTHER PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE WRONGDOERS THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT US FROM.

SO I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

I STOP HERE MY COMMENTS SINCE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANK YOUS, MAWAKI.

AVRI.

>>AVRI DORIA: THANK YOU.

I'M AVRI.

I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO END -- NORMALLY -- I SHOULD PROBABLY, LIKE MARILYN, INDICATE THAT I AM ON THE TASK FORCE AND NORMALLY GET TO SPEAK A LOT.

SO I'M REALLY ONLY GOING TO SPEAK ON TWO POINTS, TWO WORDS, LOOKING AT SECURITY, AND LOOKING AT THE NOTION OF LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE THOSE HAVE COME UP SEVERAL TIMES.

IN TERMS OF SECURITY, WE TALK ABOUT CONSTANTLY GOING BACK TO ICANN'S PRINCIPLES.

I THINK THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT SECURITY, MANY OF THE SPEAKERS, WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SECURITY OF THE INTERNET, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CATCHING THE BAD GUYS, PUTTING SOMEBODY IN JAIL, STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM DOING SOMETHING.

THERE'S ALSO THE NOTION OF SECURITY FOR THE USERS OF THE INTERNET.

AND THAT SECURITY DEMANDS THAT THEY BE ABLE TO OPERATE WITH PRIVACY, THAT THE SECURITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MANY INDIVIDUALS OF THE NET, IS, INDEED, PROTECTED AND PRIVACY.

THE OPOC PROPOSAL, AS I SEE IT, AND IN MY OPINION, IT HAS GONE TOO FAR IN ALLOWING TOO MUCH INFORMATION, SPECIFICALLY, THE NAME AND NATION AND STATE.

I GUESS IT WAS CALLED THE -- THE JURISDICTION, RIGHT, IN OTHER WORDS, HOW THE LAW IS GOING TO GET YOU.

THAT WAS ALREADY PUT IN AS A COMPROMISE, AND I GUESS ONE NEEDS TO LIVE WITH IT AS A COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF AT LEAST TELLING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO.

NOW, WE THEN TALKED ABOUT WHO'S LEGITIMATE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT A TIERED NOTION.

HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHO IS LEGITIMATE TO HAVE THIS MORE INFORMATION IN THE TIERED PROCESS?

AGAIN, PEOPLE UP THERE HAVE SAID, "ICANN IS NOT A GOVERNMENT."

IT'S GOVERNMENTS THAT DECIDE WHAT IS LEGITIMATE, WHAT IS THE LAW.

SO THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE OF SAYING THAT SOMEONE IS A -- HAS LEGITIMATE ACCESS TO INFORMATION IS FOR THEM TO COME WITH AN INSTRUMENT FROM THE LAW THAT SAYS THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE ACCESS, SPECIFICALLY, A WARRANT.

THAT'S WHAT WARRANTS ARE.

THEY ARE THE ONES THAT INDICATE THAT SOMEONE HAS LEGITIMATE ACCESS TO DATA THAT IS NORMALLY PRIVATE.

AND SO AT FIRST I WAS THINKING, NO, I DISAPPROVED OF THE TIERED NOTION.

BUT I REALIZE I DO ACTUALLY APPROVE OF SOME NOTION OF TIERED.

ALL INFORMATION IS PRIVATE.

YOU GET MORE INFORMATION WHEN YOU HAVE A WARRANT SAYING YOU GET IT.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, AVRI.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: MY NAME IS KRISTINA ROSETTE. I AM SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT I AM ONE OF THE IPC REPRESENTATIVES TO THE GNSO COUNCIL AND I HAD QUESTIONS ON BOTH THE OPOC PROPOSAL AND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL.

I THINK THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL QUESTION IS SHORTER SO I WILL START WITH THAT ONE, AND THAT IS I AM JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE AS TO WHAT REALISTICALLY WOULD BE THE ELIGIBLE UNIVERSE AS OF TODAY OF PERSONS WHO WOULD QUALIFY UNDER THAT PROPOSAL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE GOT ANY STATISTICS OR YOU CAN MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS OR WE CAN EXTRAPOLATE BASED ON NL BUT I WANTED TO GET A BETTER IDEA ARE WE TALKING 10,000 PEOPLE, ARE WE TALKING 25,000, IS IT 5?

STEVE? I DON'T KNOW, TO WE HAVE THAT.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: WE DO HAVE SOME STATISTICS FROM NL. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE. BUT I DO THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA. AND I THINK IF THE CRITERIA ARE SPELLED OUT CLEARLY THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS, THAT THEY HAVE TO SHOW A CONCRETE THREAT TO THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY OR SECURITY, IS ANOTHER SECURITY ISSUE, AND I THINK THERE'S EVEN SOME MORE DETAIL IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REFERRED TO IN THE PROPOSAL.

I THINK THAT GIVES YOU THE PICTURE OF A CATEGORY FOR WHICH THERE WOULD NOT BE THAT MANY PEOPLE ELIGIBLE, AND I THINK THAT MAKES IT A MANAGEABLE PROCESS. AND YET AT THE SAME TIME, IT RECOGNIZES THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT NEED THIS -- THAT QUALIFY AND NEED THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TREATMENT.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A TERRIBLY LARGE NUMBER, BUT --

>>STEVEN METALITZ: AND I THINK IT ALSO HELPS SOMEWHAT ON THE SIDE OF HOW TO GET ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION, BECAUSE IF IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL UNIVERSE, THEN PERHAPS THERE ARE WAYS THAT DON'T REQUIRE SO MUCH OF AN APPARATUS TO DECIDE WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: ALL RIGHT.

WITH REGARD TO OPOC, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

IT DID NOT SEEM TO ME THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING IN THE PROPOSAL ITSELF THAT WOULD DELINEATE OR CATEGORIZE WHAT CATEGORIES OF ENTITIES OR WHO COULD BE THE OPOC. AND I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS, IN FACT, THE CASE, THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, AND IF THAT'S TRUE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. AND IF SO, HOW HAS THAT COME OUT SO FAR?

>>ROSS RADER: I GUESS THE SHORT ANSWER WOULD BE NO, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN THERE.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT BETTER. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE -- HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, IS THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: WELL, WHAT I'M THINKING IS THERE ARE CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF PERSONS, SHALL WE SAY, THAT AS COUNSEL TO IP OWNERS, I WOULD BE LESS WORRIED IF MOST OPOC, FOR EXAMPLE, WERE THE REGISTRAR, THAN I WOULD BE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, MOST OPOC WERE THE REGISTRANT'S NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR.

SO I WAS TRYING TO GET A SENSE AS TO WHAT EXTENT THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT SHOULD WE DELINEATE ABOUT WHO THESE PEOPLE CAN OR CANNOT BE AND HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD WORK.

>>ROSS RADER: THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD THAT QUESTION. CERTAINLY HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL AND BILLING CONTACTS, OR THE REGISTRANTS, FOR THAT MATTER, HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIC PERSONS OR ENTITIES. IT COULD BE YOUR ISP, COULD BE YOUR WEB POSTING COMPANY, COULD BE YOUR TELEPHONE COMPANY, COULD BE YOUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR.

IN TERMS OF INCREASING THE -- OR RAISING THE BAR AS TO WHO WOULD QUALIFY TO BE A CONTACT ON A DOMAIN REGISTRATION, I SUPPOSE WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT THAT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF LICENSING MECHANISM, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE.

>>KRISTINA ROSETTE: OKAY. THANKS.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: PERHAPS THERE IS SOME NOTION OF OPOC ACCREDITATION.

I WILL -- ONE THING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN THE TASK FORCE IS THE NOTION THAT THE REGISTRANT COULD BE THEIR OWN OPOC. SO THERE IS A NOTION THAT EITHER THE -- IF IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL IN PARTICULAR, THAT THEORETICALLY THEY COULD JUST CONTINUE TO LIST THEMSELVES, AS SOME PEOPLE DO, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CONTACTS TODAY.

GO AHEAD, ROBIN.

>>ROBIN GROSS: THANK YOU. I AM ROBIN GROSS, I REPRESENT THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY ON THE GNSO AND AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF IP JUSTICE.

I WANTED TO PICK UP ON THIS POINT ABOUT SECURITY, AND THE NEED FOR SECURITY WITH THE WHOIS DATABASE.

AND AVRI TALKED ABOUT THE SECURITY RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS, NOT JUST OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDERS BUT THE USERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

THIS YEAR, THE USFTC HAS ANNOUNCED THAT NOW IN THE UNITED STATES, ONLINE DATA MINING IS THE NUMBER ONE CRIME. AND PRIVACY EXPERTS -- IN PARTICULAR, EPIC -- HAS TESTIFIED THAT IT IS THE WHOIS DATABASE THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PROBLEM.

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE PAYING SOME ATTENTION TO THE SECURITY INTERESTS OF ORDINARY, EVERYDAY INTERNET USERS WHO REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES, AND NOT JUST THE LARGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS HOLDERS.

THEY HAVE LEGAL MECHANISMS AT THEIR DISPOSAL IF SOMEONE IS VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS. IT'S CALLED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

AND I REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD ANY EXPLANATION FOR WHY LEGAL DUE PROCESS SHOULD BE CIRCUMVENTED IN THIS CASE.

WE HEAR, GOSH, IT'S A HASSLE TO GO INTO COURT AND TO CONVINCE A JUDGE THAT WE NEED SOMEONE'S PERSONAL INFORMATION, BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A HASSLE. AND IT'S NOT THAT MUCH OF A HASSLE. YOU CAN GET THAT INFORMATION IN A DAY.

SO THIS IDEA THAT WE NEED INSTANTANEOUS ACCESS TO EVERYONE'S PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS EVER REGISTERED A WEB SITE, IT'S JUST COMPLETELY ABSURD.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PROPOSAL, I AM QUITE FRANKLY SHOCKED BY IT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME ENORMOUS BARRIERS TO PRIVACY HERE.

IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, IT'S OPEN ONLY TO INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANTS, FOR NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AND THEY HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS. THESE ARE ALL LAWYER WORDS MEANT TO BE STUMBLING BLOCKS, BY THE WAY. THAT THIS ACCESS WOULD JEOPARDIZE A CONCRETE AND REAL INTEREST IN THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY OR SECURITY THAT CANNOT BE PROTECTED OTHER THAN BY SUPPRESSING THAT PUBLIC ACCESS.

WOW! THAT IS AN ENORMOUS BURDEN FOR INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE TO PROVE BEFORE THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR PRIVACY RIGHTS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO BE TRYING TO BE BUILDING IN BARRIERS TO AN INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY LIKE WE SEE IN THIS PROPOSAL.

AND YOU KNOW, WE DECIDED THIS ISSUE ALREADY. WE VOTED ON THIS ISSUE AT THE WELLINGTON MEETING. AND SO THE IDEA THAT THOSE WHO LOST THAT VOTE CAN NOW PUT FORTH ANOTHER PROPOSAL AND WE GET TO RE-OPEN THE DEBATE, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, ROBIN.

AND WITH THAT, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO WRAP UP THE DIALOGUE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

THANKS, EVERYONE, FOR PARTICIPATING.

THIS IS, BY FAR, THE MOST PARTICIPATION THAT WE HAVE HAD IN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHOIS, AT LEAST UNDER THIS TASK FORCE. AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONTRIBUTION.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO WELCOME TO THE MIKE AND TO THE DAIS, -- DIE-AS -- HOWEVER YOU SAY THAT -- TO THE STAGE KURT PRITZ AND HE IS GOING TO GIVE US A BRIEFING ON THE NEW PROCEDURE THAT THE STAFF HAS DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO HELP US RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH NATIONAL LAW, WHICH CAME UP EARLIER TODAY.

SO KURT, IT'S TO YOU.

>>KURT PRITZ: USE THIS ONE? OKAY; GREAT.

HELLO.

OKAY. ICANN RECENTLY PUBLISHED A PROCEDURE AS WAS ASKED TO DO BY THE ICANN BOARD WHEN THE ICANN BOARD APPROVED THE GNSO CONSENSUS POLICY REGARDING DEVELOPING A PROCEDURE FOR HOW TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS BETWEEN LOCAL LAWS AND ICANN'S CONTRACTUAL WHOIS REQUIREMENTS AS A WAY OF ADDRESSING PRIVACY RIGHTS AS AFFECTED BY LAWS, GOVERNMENTS, AND LEGAL CONSTRAINTS.

SO I START WITH THE -- WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE GUIDANCE WE RECEIVED IN ORDER TO WRITE THE PROCEDURE, THE THOUGHTS THAT WENT INTO IT, AND OUR PROCESS, STILL ONGOING, FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROCEDURE.

THEN TAKE YOU THROUGH -- BRIEFLY THROUGH THE PROCEDURE, AND THEN FINALLY, HIGHLIGHT SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION THAT STAFF UNDERTOOK IN READING THE GNSO CONSENSUS POLICY AND THE ADVICE THAT ACCOMPANIED THAT, AND WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE.

SO THAT'S SORT OF THE ROADMAP OF WHERE WE ARE GOING.

I WON'T READ THIS, BUT THIS IS THE DIRECT ADVICE WE RECEIVED FROM THE GNSO THAT WAS IN THE FINAL REPORT AND WHAT WE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE POLICY.

HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN READ WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN? NOBODY OVER THERE? CAN YOU GUYS? OKAY.

OKAY. I THINK -- SO THE PROCEDURE HAS SEVERAL GOALS. THE FIRST TWO ARE FROM STAFF, AND THEN THE LAST FOUR ARE ACTUALLY IN THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT FIRST IT'S TO INFORM ICANN STAFF HOW TO DEAL WITH CONFLICTS AND HOW TO MANAGE THE SITUATION WHEN PRESENTED WITH A CONFLICT.

THE SECOND GOAL IS THEN TO INFORM THE COMMUNITY HOW TO ACT WHEN IT PERCEIVES THERE TO BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS AND THEIR CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO IT'S TO TELL STAFF WHAT TO DO AND TELL REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES OR CONTRACTED PARTIES, THEY WILL BE REFERRED TO FROM NOW ON, WHAT TO DO.

SO THEN THE POLICY CALLS OUT THESE GOALS TO ENSURE THAT ICANN IS INFORMED OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND TO RESOLVE THAT CONFLICT IN A MANNER THAT MAINTENANCE ICANN'S CORE VALUES.

ONCE REALIZING AND IDENTIFYING A CONFLICT TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION IF THAT'S REQUIRED, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE ICANN WITH SOME FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO ISSUES ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

SO HERE'S SORT OF SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

THE PROCEDURE, IF YOU GET THE GNSO FINAL REPORT AND THE ICANN STAFF DEVELOPED PROCEDURE, THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH IN LOCK-STEP.

I'LL POINT OUT WHEREVER WE, AS ICANN STAFF, THOUGHT THERE NEEDED TO BE CLARIFICATION SO YOU CAN ZERO IN ON THOSE.

THIS IS JUST TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW. SO SEE THIS -- SEE THIS LINK FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION. AND THIS REPORT IS POSTED. SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET TO THE LINK THAT WAY.

SO THIS IS A DRAFT PROCEDURE, AND WE HAVE POSTED IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE JUST SAT THROUGH A COUPLE HOURS OF FAIRLY PASSIONATE DISCUSSION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROCEDURE, WHICH REQUIRES SOME INTERPRETATION, SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

PARTICULARLY, THIS IS TRUE WITH REGARD TO GOVERNMENTS, AND ICANN'S GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO SPECIFICALLY WE HAVE WRITTEN TO SHARIL AND ASKED HIM TO WORK WITH THE GAC IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADVICE ON THE POLICY.

SO NOW I'LL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH, I THINK THERE ARE SIX PHASES OF THE POLICY.

DID I BRING IT WITH ME? I DON'T KNOW HOW I AM GOING TO DO THIS BUT IF I HAVE TO REFER TO THE DOCUMENT, IT'S OVER HERE.

SO VERY, VERY BRIEFLY, THE REGISTRAR/REGISTRY WILL RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF A WHOIS PROCEEDING. AND A PROCEEDING IS READING THE POLICY ADVICE, THE CONSENSUS POLICY, AND OUR PROCEDURE.

A PROCEEDING IS A GOVERNMENT OR CIVIL ACTION THAT MIGHT AFFECT ITS COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT OR OTHER CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH ICANN.

SO IT'S SOME NOTIFICATION THAT THERE IS SOME ACTION BEING TAKEN BY SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICANN AND THE CONTRACTING PARTY, WHETHER IT'S A REGISTRY, OPERATOR, SPONSOR, OR REGISTRAR.

THEN THERE'S A CONSULTATION PERIOD AFTER THAT. ICANN AND THE CONTRACTING PARTY WILL DISCUSS WHAT THE ISSUE IS.

IF APPROPRIATE -- IF APPROPRIATE, THEN ICANN WILL CONTACT THE NATIONAL AGENCY OR OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED.

THIS IS TO INFORM THE AGENCY IF THAT'S REQUIRED. IT'S TO INFORM ICANN OF THE AGENCY'S POSITION.

SO IT'S SEEN AS ESSENTIALLY AN EDUCATIONAL, RATHER THAN A PERSUASIONAL, STEP.

AND THEN IF -- AT THE END OF THIS CONSULTATION PROPOSAL, AS WE GO INTO PHASE III, IF IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS PROCEEDING, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEEDING, WOULD RESULT IN SOME NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE ICANN CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS, THEN ICANN WILL -- THE ICANN STAFF WILL REFER THE MATTER TO THE BOARD.

IN THAT INTERIM WHEN THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE BOARD, ICANN CAN REFRAIN FROM TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE CONTRACTING PARTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. AND THE STAFF WILL THEN, TAKING THE INPUT RECEIVED FROM THE CONTRACTING PARTY AND OTHER INPUTS, MAY PREPARE A DETAILED REPORT THAT IT WILL MAKE PUBLIC, AND THAT INCLUDES A RECOMMENDATION AND IT WILL SUBMIT THAT REPORT TO THE BOARD.

AND THEN THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER THIS. AND AS WE'RE AWARE, THE BOARD CAN TAKE ONE OF THREE ACTIONS, GENERALLY, WHEN RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION AND A REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION.

THAT IS, TO MAKE SOME -- TAKE SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION OR SOME SORT OF DECISION. IT MAY SEEK INFORMATION OR, IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY SEEK INFORMATION FROM THE GNSO.

SO AFTER THAT, THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO READ THE PROCEDURE ITSELF FOR MORE DETAIL.

BUT THE BOARD RESOLUTION THEN WILL RESULT IN A DETAILED REPORT THAT WOULD BE POSTED.

THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE CONTRACTING PARTY WILL -- AND IT'S NOT AN ASSUMPTION, IT WILL BE A DIRECT COMMUNICATION THAT THE CONTRACTING PARTY WILL IDENTIFY ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SO THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CAN BE MAINTAINED THAT WAY.

AND THE FINAL STEP IN THIS PROCEDURE, THEN, IS THAT ICANN WILL REGULARLY REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROCESS. THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTIES GONG INTO THIS PROCESS. WILL THERE BE ONE REQUEST? WILL THERE BE A HUNDRED? WHAT ARE THE SORTS OF REQUESTS? WHAT WILL THE THRESHOLD OF REQUESTS BE? SO WE TAKE THIS ADVICE FROM THE COUNCIL, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE REGULAR AND, I THINK, RAPID REVIEWS AND POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS. YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL FOR POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS.

SO WHEN WE READ THE -- "WE." THERE IS NO "WE" IN ICANN; RIGHT?

WHEN THE CONSENSUS POLICY WAS READ AND THE ACCOMPANYING ADVICE, THERE WERE SOME CLARIFICATIONS MADE TO THE PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE MANAGEMENT OF IT, I'LL SAY.

SO IF YOU READ THE PROCEDURE, THE POLICY REQUIRES THE CONTRACTED PARTY TO NOTIFY ICANN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF A NOTIFICATION OF THIS -- OF THIS PROCEEDING, AND THAT'S BEEN RELAXED SOMEWHAT. AND THE PROCEDURE JUST SAYS "EARLIEST POSSIBLE JUNCTURE."

THERE'S A FEW TIMES IN THE -- IN THE POLICY DOCUMENT WHERE THE WORDS "MUST" HAS BEEN CALLED OUT, AND THAT'S BEEN CHANGED IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO "SHOULD" OR MODIFIED BY "IF APPROPRIATE."

THE AIM HERE WAS TO AVOID CREATING ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL DUTIES THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROCEDURE.

THE PROCEDURE ASKS THE CONTRACTING PARTY TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT INITIALLY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BEFORE TRIGGERING IT. AND THAT IS IN THE INITIAL REPORT TO ICANN THERE IS A CALL-OUT, A DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO UNDERTAKE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH LOCAL LAW AND OBLIGATIONS TO ICANN BE INCLUDED.

THIS ISN'T A NEW REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S PROMOTED EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. BEFORE TRIGGERING THE PROCESS OR THE PROCEDURE, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE CONTRACTING PARTY SORT OF EXHAUSTS ITS ATTEMPTS AT FIXING THINGS ITSELF BEFORE TRIGGERING THE PROCEDURE AND THEN MAKING THIS ATTEMPT.

IN THE INITIAL -- IN THE CONSENSUS POLICY IT IS CALLED OUT THAT ICANN WILL MAKE A REPORT TO THE BOARD AND PUBLISH IT TO THE CONTRACTING PARTY. WE THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY THAT THE REPORTING SHOULD BE PUBLIC, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY FOR CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS. AND IN THE ACTIONS THE BOARD CAN TAKE, WE HAVE ADDED THE BOARD CAN TEMPORIZE. IF YOU GO TO THE WEB SITE AND TRY TO GET A MUCH BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT I TRIED TO SAY HERE, YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE NEW PROCEDURES CLOSES ON JANUARY 15TH. THERE IS ALSO POSTED A LETTER THERE TO THE CHAIR OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AS I MENTIONED.

IT'S INTENDED TO ALLOW THE GAC SUFFICIENT TIME FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADVICE.

AND THEN AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, THE END OF THE PROCESS IS REPORTING -- YOU KNOW, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCEDURES, REPORTING, AND SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROCEDURE, DEPENDING ON THE EXPERIENCES.

SO IT'S NOT A COMPLEX PROCEDURE. IT'S JUST A FEW PAGES LONG. AND THERE'S NOT A LOT MORE DETAIL TO PROVIDE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND DO THE BEST I CAN WITH THEM, OR TO REFER THEM TO SOMEBODY IN THE ROOM THAT CAN BETTER ANSWER THEM.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THANKS, KURT. SO THIS IS NOW THE OPPORTUNITY, IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THESE PROCEDURES.

IS THERE ANYONE OTHER THAN MARILYN THAT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE THEORETICALLY, WE HAVE ONLY FOUR MORE MINUTES AND I WANT TO SEE IF WE HAVE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR THAT.

ADAM, ARE YOU COMING UP OR ARE YOU JUST WALKING? YOU ARE JUST WALKING. OKAY.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO ALLOW MARILYN TO TALK FOR UP TO FOUR MINUTES

[ LAUGHTER ]

>>MARILYN CADE: KURT, MY QUESTION IS -- I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS, TO DATE, WHAT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND CONTACTS DOES ICANN RECEIVE FROM GOVERNMENTS ABOUT EXCEPTIONS OF THIS NATURE?

>>KURT PRITZ: I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT AWARE OF THEM. AND I'LL FIND OUT.

>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY.

IF YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING COMPLAINTS AND CONTACTS, AND I WOULD ASSUME YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING MUCH PUBLICITY, EITHER, YOU ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS. THE GAC WILL HAVE TIME TO COMMENT ON T WE ARE THINKING THIS WILL BE FORMAL AND LAUNCHED IN THE MARCH TIME FRAME?

>>KURT PRITZ: I THINK THAT GAC ADVICE MIGHT COME IN LISBON IF IT DOESN'T COME HERE.

>>MARILYN CADE: OKAY, OKAY.

SO THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE ANNOUNCING IT, IT WILL RAISE THIS TO THE AWARENESS OF GOVERNMENTS.

AND DID I UNDERSTAND THAT -- I PARTICIPATE ON THE TASK FORCE THAT WROTE THIS SO I THINK I REMEMBER THIS, AND I THINK YOU SAID THIS, THAT YOU ARE GOING TO REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AS -- ON A REGULAR BASIS ON HOW MANY COMPLAINTS THAT YOU ARE GETTING AND WHAT THE NATURE -- WHAT THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE CONCERNS ARE THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.

>>KURT PRITZ: YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. WE BOTH THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE GREAT DEAL OF UNCERTAINTY GOING INTO IT.

>>MARILYN CADE: I GUESS MY COMMENT, THEN, WOULD BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT ICANN HAS NOT RECEIVED A GREAT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS UP TO NOW AND THAT WE JUST PUT A CONSENSUS POLICY IN PLACE, MY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME TO TEST AND SEE HOW MANY COMPLAINTS WE GET AND WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS THAT WE ENCOUNTER BEFORE WE START MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES IN WHOIS POLICY.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: OKAY. AND WITH THAT, I WILL NOTE THAT THE TIME IS ACTUALLY 6:58, AND SOMEHOW WE ARE DONE.

OOOH!

IT WAS, IN FACT, IMPOSSIBLE.

HI, SHARIL.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: NO, NO, NO. ALL I AM JUST GOING TO SAY, JUST TO MANAGE SOME EXPECTATIONS, IS THAT THANK YOU FOR THE LETTER WHICH WE JUST GOT TODAY. THANK YOU FOR THE FORMAL NOTIFICATION.

IT PRESENTS A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT. SO WE WILL TRY ENDEAVORS AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THIS LIMITED TIME. BUT I CAN CERTAINLY PROMISE YOU, KURT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ONE AT THIS MEETING. LISBON, MAYBE. BUT WE'LL SEE.

>>KURT PRITZ: THANK YOU.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND IT'S STILL 6:59, AND I DECLARE THIS MEETING CLOSED.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

[ APPLAUSE ]

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers