Joint Meeting: GAC and GNSO Council Sunday, 25 October 2009 ICANN Meeting Seoul, Korea >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you to take seats. We're about to start the session. So good morning, ladies -- Or, excuse me, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think it's morning Europe time still. Very glad to see GNSO councillors and GNSO representatives in the GAC room in our traditional meeting. Warmly welcome. With Avri, we had a conversation how to spend in the most useful way this hour that we have together today. And we agreed that two issues would be of the top of priority list. That is, the new gTLDs and the affirmation of commitments. And we decided to devote about 30 minutes, maybe 35 minutes to gTLD questions and then move to AOC. So if that is acceptable, then maybe we could start the meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: That sounds quite good. It's in keeping. And thank you for having us back here again. Always happy to come back here in on these conversations with the GAC. So thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I hope it will not be like last time when this was almost like in the police station, where I was questioned by many and tried to answer for all sins of the GAC. No, I hope that today we will have more of a dialogue among members, and moreover, that unlike on new gTLDs, GAC hasn't had a chance so far to discuss the affirmation of commitments. So -- and here please don't expect miracles. We will be talking as individuals, as representatives of individual governments, and we'll be expressing our views on the document as we understand them. But that will not be a GAC position. But coming to new gTLDs, as you know, GAC submitted comments on the version 2 of the applicant guidebook. And that was after the Sydney meeting, if I'm not mistaken, on the 18th of August. And we received a response from the chairman of the board, Peter Dengate Thrush, explaining the position of the staff and the board on the issues GAC raised. Today, we had an open session, and some of you most probably participated or were present during our conversation with staff, with the IRT. Kristina made the presentation, as well as a representative of World Intellectual Property Organization, related to overarching issue of protection of property rights. We had also a presentation and conversation with representatives of law enforcement agencies. And after that, the exchange among ourselves revealed that though we are very willing to see new gTLDs being put in the root as soon as feasible, there are some areas where concerns still remain. And we had a feeling that the deeper we are discussing issue, the more complex it becomes. And we need to make an effort. And certainly from our side, we are very willing to be part of this effort to make this breakthrough and see the new gTLDs being launched as, hopefully, IDN ccTLDs under fast-track procedure will be launched during this meeting. So I think that it is not a secret where these main areas of our concern are. They are in protection of intellectual property; they are in protection of consumers; they are in protection of geographic names; they are in the categorization of TLDs, which would maybe allow, if decided and applied, allow -- say, open up some first TLDs in -- launch application of some TLD maybe even under kind of fast- track procedure. We were concerned about the price of applicant, which certainly is prohibitive for potential applicants coming from developing -- from developing countries. And we hope that this week will allow us again to progress in our common endeavor to move ahead with our decisions on this subject. So that would be, from my side, introduction on new gTLDs. And certainly we will be happy to engage in dialogue if there are questions related to our comments on the second version or any questions, we would be happy to try to answer. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I guess, Philip, you had some comments and some issues that you were going to bring up in regard to some of the intellectual property issues. Oh, that was you. Sorry. Mike. Okay. Forgive, Mike Rodenbaugh. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm Mike Rodenbaugh, councillor from the business constituency. So one of the big issues, of course, around the new TLD rollout, one of the four overarching issues was trademark protection in new TLDs and trying to do something better than we've been able to do in the existing TLDs. Similarly with malicious conduct, other than trademark infringement, such as phishing and malware distribution. One of the proposals that was devised over the summer by the Implementation Recommendation Team that was commissioned by the board was a uniform rapid suspension procedure, which essentially would allow a rapid takedown of a domain name. Not the transfer, but the suspension of a name, in clear-cut cases of abuse of trademark infringement, specifically, URS. But the same principle can also apply, of course, to phishing or malware distribution or other forms of bad activity. The IRT, Implementation Recommendation Team, had recommended that such a proposal be required in all new TLDs to deal with clear-cut cases of trademark infringement. Some of us on the council would also argue that a similar process should be mandatory with respect to fraudulent activity, phishing, malware distribution. Certainly that's not necessarily consensus of council. We haven't done a consensus call yet. We're working on that. And I can discuss the process where we're at a little bit later. But first I thought we'd try to discuss the substance. And, hopefully, that's more interesting. So the proposal that has come from staff in the form of a letter from the ICANN board after the IRT report came out this summer suggests that the staff has watered down the proposal quite a bit in an effort to find what they believe might be a compromise position in the community. And they have made the rapid suspension process for trademark infringement and for malicious conduct -- >>STÉPHANE VAN GELDER: Go on. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: They have made them optional rather than mandatory for new TLD registries. And I think it would be very helpful to us on the council to know if there are feelings within the GAC one way or the other on this question whether such processes should be mandatory or in the form of a best practice or optional recommendation. So the question, essentially, is whether you all have had a chance to discuss these issues, or, if not, whether you have or not, whether anybody on the GAC cares to offer opinions whether these processes should be mandatory or optional. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Mike. New Zealand, Frank. >>NEW ZEALAND: Thank you, Chair. It's not so much whether we have an opinion yet. But we haven't actually heard why the ICANN staff have taken that view. We haven't heard the opposing point of view. We've heard what you have said a couple of times now. And we have certain sympathy towards it, no doubt. But we haven't actually heard why the ICANN staff have taken a different view. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I'm -- I can take a shot at this. It might -- if there's any other colleagues on the council, perhaps from the noncommercial constituency or otherwise that might want to chime in, please do. But, essentially, the argument is that such a process could infringe the -- you could essentially get what we call a false positive, which means that a complaint would be filed, a domain would be suspended, but in fact there was no bad activity. Naturally, the process is designed to minimize such an occurrence as much as possible. But, of course, you can't eliminate such an occurrence completely. And that's kind of where it's come out, which some people strenuously believe that if you can't design it such that you will have no false positives, then you ought not require it. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: U.K., Mark, please. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thanks. Obviously, there's an issue there of how you balance that, I mean, that risk of inappropriate takedown, how frequent or rare that might be, as opposed to the protection that the URS proposal provides. I was also -- Just on this, I was also -- found an interesting argument in support of mandatory in that if it's not mandatory, those who do implement it at some cost find themselves at a commercial disadvantage in comparison with those who don't. So that's quite a convincing argument and one that needs to be fully taken into account, I think. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Avri, please. >>AVRI DORIA: While not attempting to provide a strong argument, one of the issues that had come up during the early process on coming up with the gTLD recommendations was also that there may be occasions where, in some -- while we don't quite have categorization of TLDs -- in some of them, it may not make the same sense to have these full range of mechanisms that it makes in others. If a gTLD is, for example, an in-house gTLD or some others, then having to put in these heavyweight mechanisms may not be necessary. So that was another reason for sort of saying that these things are certainly best practices that were recommended but haven't be made mandatory for every possible gTLD. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: New Zealand. >>NEW ZEALAND: Thanks again, Janis. What you just said, Avri, raises a very interesting position or point that is beginning to be discussed around the GAC table of categorization of gTLDs into different types. How far has the GNSO Council gone in looking at categorization? >>AVRI DORIA: Not at all. Basically, when the topic came up during the gTLD process, it was recognized that at some point, we may be able to look back and see categories and that the categories is something that would emerge. But when the policy was originally being discussed, it was still a very hypothetical topic and one that was basically put on the shelf and sort of just said, "At some point, we will see that there are categories, but looking at it from a prior position, one could define far greater number of categories than would actually emerge." But we haven't retaken up that topic yet. We've certainly been hearing the discussion of it. And it's an increasing discussion of it. But it isn't a topic that's been taken up. >>MARY WONG: My name is Mary Wong. I'm speaking as a councillor for the noncommercial constituency. Following up on Mike's invitation, actually. I'm not sure that there is a complete answer to the question that was asked earlier, but -- and like, I imagine, most people in the room, the noncommercial users and the consumers of the Internet are digesting the staff proposal and the differences with the various recommendations and so forth. What I can say on behalf of the constituency is that the concerns over the URS devolve to two fundamental issues. One is that to the extent that a mechanism is required to attack clear-cut cases of abuse, that the system, whatever it may be, be designed as narrowly and specifically as possible to address just that issue. And, secondly, one of the comments that the constituency made in response to recommendations was that, to the extent that there's abuse -- abusive registrations and so forth -- there may well be a risk of abuse by trademark owners as well. And, again, any mechanism to be put in place should also take that into account. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I don't want to jump from one issue to another. We -- Let's finish now with the protection of trademarks, intellectual property, sorry, and then move to categorizations. So Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. I'm a BC councillor. And although it's important to stress on the URS and its not being a best practice and mandatory, it's also in the context that for developing countries, businesses, the URS provides a much more effective and efficient mechanism, especially when we're really going to open this up. So from a developing country, that's why I would -- I'm mentioning this, because there are governments at the table. This would be important -- excuse me. This would be an important aspect. But I just don't want us to lose sight of two other things. There is the URS, but there are two other aspects of the IRT solutions. One was the post delegation mechanism. What I find interesting is, it's been sort of put on the side as in a different bracket in a way. I think that the GAC may want to look at that also. What you will find in the post delegation dispute resolution proposal is that the IRT proposal basically said that if there was a contract and there was a registry contract breach, then a third party could actually, you know, enforce that and start a proceeding. However, what I'd like to characterize -- and nobody else has, just it's me characterizing it -- the staff proposal basically proposes what I call a blind-eye provision. The reason why I call it a blind- eye provision is, it talks about the necessity for anybody making a claim to show affirmative conduct on behalf of the registry. So if the registry says, "I'm closing my eyes. I'm not seeing what's going on," they're off the hook. That's one aspect I think the GAC may want to look at. The second is that even right now, there is absolutely nothing in any of the rights protection mechanisms with regard to the -- any solutions with regard to the problem of defensive registrations. There's just none. The only solution that was proposed was the GPML. That's out. So that whole gaping area of defensive registrations is still there. There's no solution to it at the moment. Just wanted to highlight that point. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you, Janis. It's Philip Sheppard from the business constituency. I know in a moment we're going to talk more generically about the AOC. But I think it's worth recording in the context of this debate, 9.3 of the AOC, which says: "ICANN will ensure that it contemplates expanding the TLD space that the various issues involved, including competition, consumer protection, security, stability, and resilience, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection, will be adequately addressed prior to implementation." I mean, the wording there is crystal clear to me. And I find it, therefore, extraordinary that this proposal from staff for one of those clear protections ICANN has mandated to take out has been made only voluntary. And I think as Mark of the U.K. pointed out, that has a whole knock-on effect in terms of competitive advantage as well. So I would be interested in hear what other views there are from GAC members on that issue. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I have Edmon and then Bertrand on the list, and maybe then we can move to the other issue of categories. >>EDMON CHUNG: My comment is on category, so -- >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Then Bertrand. >>FRANCE: Just a quick comment, Bertrand De La Chapelle from France. Just trying to reconcile what Avri was saying and what Mike was saying. The option is not between voluntary for absolutely everybody or optional for almost everybody. What I found very interesting and what Avri said is that the reason why it was positioned as voluntary is because there are cases where it might be overkill and that it might be a very, if I understood correctly, it might be providing too much. Can we consider that on the applicability of the URS, for instance, there are certain criteria that make it applicable on a compulsory basis for certain types of TLDs, providing that there is a discrimination among TLDs, but that for others it is not necessarily put in place? For instance, if you have a TLD that has a very restrictive policy and reasons and procedures that show that it will enforce it very strongly, that was part of the discussion that we had before, maybe not opting for the URS is less problematic than if you have another TLD that will have a large number of registrants, a very open policy. I don't know. But can we find or identify something in between that would apply it on a compulsory basis for certain types and leave it optional for others? Just a suggestion. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Just a quick response is, I don't understand the notion that you are expressing that it would be overkill. If you have a policy in place and it's never used, who cares? The policy can still be standard for all TLDs. If it's not used, so what? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I just wanted to note that as far as I know, we have yet to receive an explanation from staff as to why certain changes were and were not made to the IRT recommendations. So if any of those of you who have put forth reasons can confirm that that's a staff communication, that would be wonderful. But I think until then I think we should make sure that we know we are talking about speculation. >>AVRI DORIA: If I could, what I was pointing to is what the original policy recommendation from the GNSO had been, not saying that the staff did it because that was the original recommendation. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I think that on the question of protection of intellectual property, the concerns of GNSO and the GAC are shared. So maybe there are shades of degree of these concerns, but in general, I think we all understand that the protection of intellectual property should be assured in one way or another. And as Kristina told us today, the IRT proposal is not ideal but represents the best possible compromise of different views. And we will certainly -- we will be monitoring the progress and debate on these issues, and will be commenting from our side as well. So that is granted. So on categories of TLDs. So that is a recurring issue, and as you said, Avri, comes more and more on the table. Maybe even more frequently now after the publication of preliminary report of root scaling study. And the GAC has been suggesting that the categorization maybe is the way forward. And we made our first comments I think in the run-up to Mexico meeting when we made our first submission on this issue. We certainly mentioned also in our comments on the second version, and as -- I know that our proposals have found some positive feedback also in GNSO community, in general. And I have here Edmon who wanted to talk about categories. And if I'm not mistaken, Ron. >>EDMON CHUNG: Thank you. Avri mentioned that in terms specifically about categories, GNSO has not contemplated so far. But I hear with interest another item that you brought up, Janis, which is sort of a concept of a fast track. On that particular issue, the GNSO have looked into the possibility of IDN gTLD fast-track. The problems or, you know, the issues that we bumped into was a weighing between the cost and benefit of spending a lot of time creating these fast tracks and having the whole process or the new gTLD process in place, whether -- because what we have been given as an impression is that the whole new gTLD process will be ready in a few months' time. So why spend time doing these fast tracks or these categories when we are staring at that in a few months? I guess my question is, therefore, that at this point in time, has anything changed, perhaps from GAC's perspective, that there are certain issues that seem to be significant enough to put off the schedule for quite some time or it's significant enough that it actually, now, talking about categorization or fast track, actually has a benefit? Well, outweighs the -- even delaying further the new gTLD process. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So Ron. >>RON ANDRUFF: Thank you, Chair. In the interest of full disclosure, my company, RNA Partners, is intending to apply for the dot sport on behalf of the global sport community. I am here speaking today in my personal capacity and not as a representative of the business constituency, while I am a member. However, I believe the views I am expressing are supported by many in the ICANN community and will be discussed on Tuesday in the business, I.P., ISP, and ALAC communities. I'm speaking to you today about your recent communication of August 18th to ICANN, and speaks to the issue of categorization as well. And I will be providing the Secretariat with a copy of my comments for your circulation. The topic is really orderly and responsive -- responsible introduction of new gTLDs. ICANN's fundamental responsibilities include the coordination of unique indicators with a recognition that a single authoritative root is a shared space. Because of this, there is a need to define more clearly what value a TLD adds. Many people in the community are beginning to recognize that ICANN appears to be embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing parameters around what a TLD is. The main argument we are hearing is that now is the time for competition, but without a discussion about how competition benefits registrants or users of the Internet and how competition will impact the DNS in the longer term. ICANN should introduce new TLDs in an orderly and managed manner rather than its current position of throwing open the door without consideration of the consequences of these actions further down the road. We believe that the elements of the current implementation plan, contrary to the GNSO final report of the introduction of new gTLDs to the board, wherein the instruction was to facilitate introduction of new gTLDs in an orderly way as well as introducing new gTLDs to include market differentiation. These two aspects refer back to principle A and principle C of the seven principles that had consensus from all GNSO constituencies. Applicants should be encouraged to expand the namespace with strings that strengthen diversity and choice on the Internet and serve users but should not be allowed to create undue consumer confusion or create situations where defensive registrations become a key requirement within new gTLDs, as they are in the legacy gTLDs. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Ron, excuse me. Sorry for interrupting you. For the sake of time, I appreciate you are reading the statement, but we are engaged in a live discussion, and I would like to ask you to send me the text and I will circulate to the GAC members. And now I will give the floor to Stephane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to come back to Edmon's point about the -- we have been discussing within the GNSO the possibility of having certain types of fast track. And as Edmon said, it was an IDN ccTLD. And one of the hurdles that we found is that we have been consistently told by ICANN staff that because the start date for the round -- the initial round for applications is very soon, there's no need to -- you know, it becomes logical that there's no need to do a fast track because these things are going to come out very soon. And yet at every meeting that we go to, the start date is pushed back. So I think all our -- Both the GAC and the GNSO have to be very mindful of this. There are people behind -- that are behind us that have been working for years on these proposals, preparing either applications for gTLDs or for IDN gTLD or for other types of TLDs, and they consistently get pushed back. So I guess one of the solutions has to be categories. I'm very heartened to hear that the GAC is working on this actively. I think it's something that we need to look at very closely. If it's a way to stop this eternal delay. Because I think it's a real danger to all the ICANN community. You know, if we carry on delaying further, without ever having a start date that's actually set, then we will end up losing all credibility. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Philip, and I'm looking to the GAC members. Would you like to react on this? And Stefano afterwards. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you, Janis. Philip Sheppard. It's not quite accurate to say that this discussion on categories is a new one. I hope that members of the GAC are regular visitors to the business constituency Web site, and you will, therefore, of course be familiar with our April 2007 position paper adding value to the namespace while avoiding unfairness. We did put these questions to GNSO. We did argue until we were blue in the face about the benefits of categorization. Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to say, we lost the argument. We lost the votes. We were outvoted. And part of the reason, I believe, we are in this position is because of that loss of that time. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Stefano. Italy. >>ITALY: Yes, thank you. So the basic of our points, looking outside the categories we were talking about, is this. Of course we are worried about the evolution of the study of the SSAC and RSSAC about the ideal number to be not overcome every year for new gTLDs. Not only gTLDs, plus fast track ccTLDs. Adding registries in the root server. So just in case, let's say that there will be an indication of a number 150 per year, 200. I doubt there will be more than that, at least from the status of the study that they are proposing. So the point is, are you thinking to set up sort of a fast track of new gTLDs? And I already heard a position of possible IDN gTLDs as part of this fast track, and there may be other categories. But I would like to know from you if you have some thoughts about this, and if you share our preoccupation on the fact that the number of new gTLDs per year should be reduced. Maybe the demand from the community will be much, much higher. >>AVRI DORIA: As a GNSO Council, I don't believe that there are any formal statements on that, but there certainly are concerns and issues among many of the members and the different constituency. Mike, you wanted to comment on it. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah. This whole process is out of the council's hands at this point, and it's with the staff. And despite the fact that we speak with the staff on this at every meeting and we have raised this issue at every meeting, the staff has decided that they can't figure out a fair implementation plan, essentially to decide who goes first. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Frank, New Zealand. >>NEW ZEALAND: I'm pretty naive, I guess, when it comes to these things, but I would have thought the ones that are going to cause minimum controversy go first, and I think there are categories where there is relatively little controversy. They probably aren't terribly commercial. The fact that they are not controversial probably arises from the fact that they aren't commercial. So there's probably not a great deal of driving force on the part of the commercial constituencies or, for that matter, ICANN itself which stands to make a great deal of money out of the commercial ones. I think it does. So that nobody is actually pushing for social and cultural top-level domains, which probably could be put through fast with very, very little problem. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Mark. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thanks, Chair. Yes, I would endorse what New Zealand has just said. And of course those social and community proposals are the ones that have very little in terms of financial resources to sustain them while this period of agony over the implementation persists. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I just quickly circle around to sort of my question? I wonder if, Janis, you or others from the GAC, can give sort of an indication or sense whether there are issues that you actually see that will take a much longer time sort of warrants this fast track? Because that seems to be the critical issue of going down the path of considering categorization and fast track. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Edmon, in fact, this discussion is slightly surprising to me in the sense that I had thought that GNSO is in the driving seat in this process. And sitting and listening to this debate, it seems that that's not the case. I think today we have identified at least two issues where our opinions are -- if not identical, they are very close. And those are the ones we discussed. And certainly we will be addressing the issue of protection of intellectual property in our communiqué. Ask afterwards, that will be addressed also in our potential comments on the Version 3. We have been consistent asking for consideration of categorization of TLDs, specifically mentioning the ones that Frank mentioned, social and cultural TLDs, which are not visibly commercial, but they represent the great value for the communities who would be potentially using these TLDs. And we will be addressing other issues as well. So certainly we have points in common. And as we know, if a constituency is joining forces, we can achieve something. And again, the IDN fast track is the example of very successful cooperation of a number of constituencies and pushing forward a successful outcome. So I said that as -- yeah, certainly, you can. And I said that as a conclusion for this part of discussion, if we want to engage a little bit on AOC. Otherwise, we have 15 minutes remaining. >>AVRI DORIA: No. I think it's really good to conclude it. I just wanted to basically add something on being on the driver's seat. Certainly, the GNSO put in recommendations for policies. At a certain point, now, for example, the board has sent certain issues back to us to question. Of course, any other of the advisory committees or the SOs can ask us to take on a -- an issue and ask us to look at it specifically. Normally, the GAC makes its communiqués to the board, which does not actually initiate any process within the GNSO, you know. So if the board comes back to us and says, "Do it," or if there's enough momentum within the constituencies to do it, then it can happen that way. But there are other ways for the GAC and the GNSO to work together within the established mechanisms. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Good. AOC. >>AVRI DORIA: AOC, I guess we basically have been talking about it, have been starting to ask questions, wondering in some sense where GNSO and other SOs will fit into some of the patterns that come out of it. Philip, basically, you had a question to sort of kick off the discussion. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. I'm just -- just a very generic question. The AOC, as we know, is less than a month old. So I think all of us are trying to absorb exactly what it will mean and what the implications are. But one of the key parts of it, I think, is a series of internal reviews for which both members of all the GNSO community, but also, in particular, the GAC, are a fundamental part, I think, in terms of the authority that AOC had. And I wonder what the immediate thoughts are of individual GAC members in terms of the sufficiency of that oversight role that you'll now be participating in. And perhaps as a second part of that, is there a relationship between that new role and any broadening of the membership of the GAC? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: As I said, we didn't have a chance to discuss it. And I will speak as I see it. And I think that we tend to overestimate the role of reviews. I think the most important part of the document is in the first nine -- or eight -- eight points, which states what ICANN as an organization should try to achieve and the way how ICANN, as organization, should perform. And reviews come afterwards. And the value of reviews is that this has been moved from the purview of one government to the remit of ICANN community, as such. And that will not be a GAC who will be reviewing, but that will be a team where GAC will be part of it. And I don't know at this point what big part of it, whether that will be one-tenth, one-fifth, one-third. But certainly not more than that as the government representatives. So that needs to be discussed. The -- From government side, from side of governments around the world, the document was received rather well. And in many communications which I have read, namely, coming from European Commission, European Union, individual European Union member states, from Brazil, what I have seen and read, the comments are rather positive, and saying that this agreement goes in the right direction. And, of course, the question is how are we going to implement that. And I think that there will be a lot of discussions during these days. And I think we should be prepared to provide our thoughts to the board and to the CEO, president of ICANN the way how we see it should be organized and structured. Because it is up to us to do that. But certainly we cannot do that -- these things without support from the staff. So do we have somebody who wants to speak? Brenton, Australia. >>AUSTRALIA: I think you raise a very, very interesting question. And as Janis has indicated, we haven't discussed this at all yet. And we're going to have to. But I think we're going to have to think very carefully about how the GAC does actually support the GAC chair in that role. And I think we're going to have to think about different options as to how we might brief the GAC role to take a -- there's a question to start with. Does the GAC chair take a GAC position as part of the review process? Or does the GAC chair simply go into the review process with a broad set of principles that perhaps are endorsed by the GAC and tries to apply them to whatever is in the review process? There's a range of different things that I think we're going to have to discuss. And a lot of it will be speculating on what the role of the review panel is, which is going to be pretty tricky in itself. So I think we'll have discussions, obviously, at this ICANN meeting. But it's going to be one of those things that evolves over time. And I think that's how we're going to have to play it out. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Bertrand. >>FRANCE: Thank you, Janis. I would like to actually strongly endorse what Janis mentioned just earlier regarding what the AOC is actually about. Of course, the review mechanisms are very important. And there are many details in implementation that will make it effective or noneffective, depending on how we shape it. But he is absolutely right, and I want to stress how the AOC itself is setting a certain number of goals. It is not called a review mechanism. It is called an affirmation of commitments. And the commitments are shared, but there are many of them that are basically ICANN's commitments, and particularly in the first of the three buckets -- of the four buckets, the one dealing with accountability mechanisms. It is very important there are five elements that are mentioned in this accountability paragraph, which is 9.1, I think. And these are elements that are directly connected one way or the other to existing review processes within ICANN that are already ongoing. And if you make the list, you are very well placed to know that there's the GNSO reform, there's the GNSO PDP reform, there is the board reform, or the board review, there's the ALAC review, there's the NomCom review, there's the PSC conclusions in improving institutional confidence and so on. So I want to highlight that what is at stake is the institutional evolution of ICANN in general, and that the review will only come in order to validate in this first domain whether ICANN has progressed effectively. And so we have ahead of us in the months, the coming months, a huge task for the staff of ICANN and for the community to bring together all those review processes and make sure that they are coherent among each other, because they are mostly interrelated. If you look at the ALAC review and the board review, there are questions that are connected, for instance. So I will circulate maybe for the benefit of the GNSO a statement that was made immediately after the release of the affirmation of commitments by the French minister for foreign affairs and the minister for digital economy dealing with the AOC and stressing the importance of the process of institutional reform before the review. So the AOC is not only about the review, and I think it's an important point to raise. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Brazil, Vitor. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Janis. I would like to, as you mentioned, the Brazilian reaction to the AOC is mainly positive. I would like to reiterate this. We are mostly -- we actually welcome this new document for -- I would like to mention some elements, because -- for the increase of participation in governments in the process of assessing and reviewing ICANN activities; for the ending of the requirement to submit periodic reports exclusively to the U.S. government; regarding -- requiring ICANN to issue annual reports to all stakeholders. Another positive point about it is that it reaffirms the principles of transparency, multistakeholder participation, public interest, interoperability, and end-to-end innovation, preserves the DNS security and stability in maintaining one single and global Internet. And also for the notion -- inclusion of the notion of enhancing decision-making process through cross-community deliberations. The only -- And I think this point goes in line with what Bertrand said, is that the negative point about it is that the affirmation of commitments does not advance on the issue of ICANN's institutional framework and needs to grant international legal status. The DNS zone continues to be managed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Commerce. And, of course, it was not a matter for the AOC. But this is a fact that remains. And the AOC may be revoked at any time by either the Department of Commerce or ICANN, which may generate insecurity vis-à-vis ICANN's relationship with other governments, national -- international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that are not subject to the U.S. jurisdiction. So this is our main objection to it. We think the need of actual internationalization of ICANN was not met by the AOC. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Vitor. Italy. >>ITALY: Okay. The comments, if we look in the press, is that ICANN has entered into a new era. And this is, in a way, true in the sense that there is a great political importance in the fact that ICANN is accountable to the, let's say, global community, multistakeholder community, including governments. And so someone asked to me in my government, "But what will change in real life of ICANN?" And my answer was, very little, probably, if we are able to work together. And we have to be careful not to give the impression -- I'm talking as a GAC member, but maybe someone agrees with my statement -- that the GAC, it's true, is selecting this together with the board of the - - chair of the board, these panels, that are panels quite important. But as Janis said, our representation inside these panels will be limited, will not be overarching, and we would never like to give the impression that now governments wants to have a kind of decision- making role or things like that. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think the changes in real life, maybe they are not apparent, but in my view there is a significant change in the sense of responsibility of ICANN, not just vis-a-vis one government who created that organization, but to all the community. And I think that this is something you cannot measure. This is -- As you said, this is a political, rather, feature than something tangible. >>ITALY: Yes, excuse me. Just to verify that I was talking about the possibility of advancing with the decision-making that ICANN has today, in the sense of respecting deadlines and being active in managing the DNS. So I was intending this. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I have U.K., and then Sweden. But also, I would be curious to hear what is councillors views on this. Apart from the question what we think, I will send the ball back, what do you think? So, Mark. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, Chair. I will be quite brief to allow time for that. While the U.K. supported the announcement of the affirmation of commitments, the content of it, I mean, and that support of course was captured in the European presidency statement, this is multi- lateralizing the relationship of ICANN with governments in a very positive direction. Philip, I think, was touching on expanding the membership of the GAC, I think, in his second point. And I think the AOC does provide us with an opportunity to reinvigorate our outreach to those governments that are not joining us here. The membership, I think, is over 90 governments at the moment. So it's important to get full global buy-in to the new framework of accountability. And we, for the U.K. government, will certainly do our bit in multilateral for dealing with Internet governance issues and in our bilateral relationships to help further that outreach effort and bring in those governments that are not taking part in this meeting. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Yeah, just to tell you that this is a record in terms of attendance. In the morning count, we have 54 at the table, but at least four or five are not accounted. So it means that we are close to 60. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you. Thank you, Janis. And what U.K. say was a little bit what I was going to say also. But yes, we were pretty positive what we said in the statement. But also, it's a great chance for us from the government side to be able to participate. But it also means it's a little bit up to us to really engage ourselves. And there are a lot of things we can do at home, also, with having meeting with the Internet community and having groups. And you mentioned also that, Mark. So we have a lot of nice things to look forward to, but at least from our side, it's pretty much up to us, also, to engage even more. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Avri, you want to say something? Answering my question. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, answering your question. I think tomorrow pretty much an answer from you is that the GNSO nor the GNSO council has really formed an opinion yet. Certainly there are questions, there's wonderings, there is starting to be conversations. I think that's why we certainly had the question from Philip. I think that in a large sense, we don't really know what to think yet. As I say, I invite any of the council members that are sitting around here that have their own views and their own questions to bring them, but we certainly don't have a position at all as a council yet. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: One thing is comforting. I was afraid that you would say that chairman of the GAC is trying to hijack ICANN. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Just a personal observation, really. I agree with you, Janis, that the wording, the intent, the principles laid out in the AOC are excellent. My concern is the basis for checking it is a system of internal reviews. Because if we're honest with ourselves, ICANN's history of internal reviews is a dark part of ICANN's history. And if we are to take the example of the recent reform reviews, the three reviews that are now resulting and are not yet finished about the GNSO, it is a case study of absolutely how not to do it. So I do hope that as we move forward, we will learn from our mistakes, we will see how reviews should be done in timely and efficient manners, and that we can make the review processes better. So I would like to think that we have an optimistic future, but our track record is not good. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think that that depends on methodology of reviews. And I think that this is something we should start thinking about first. And from the way how we will define the review mechanism will largely depend also on composition of the teams, review teams. So we can imagine heavy weight, heavy lifting in terms of review. The team is sent in the field and they are digging half a year and they are coming back and then present a report that is so complex that nobody understands it. We can imagine something very light that methodology provides or calls on -- comments on certain list of issues, and team assesses the overall tonality of those comments and provide its own best judgment and recommendations to the board. So in that case, it is lightweight and could be done in a relatively short time with a relatively limited resources. So as far as I know, in ICANN's budget, this activity is not included, so we need to see where ICANN will find the resources to fund this process. But that's more question to president than CEO, to dig deeper in the pockets. But certainly these are questions where we need to think right now and provide our input in inaugural thinking, because certainly the board will decide what is the right way forward. And today, there was a first board meeting where the issue was discussed. And the question was put how we proceed. Whether we create a working group or whether we designate somebody who will be in charge to set up all the process, and then to propose suggestions to the community. And here is the question, who should be driving the process, whether that should be a staff or board-driven process or whether that should be a community-driven process? If that's the latter, then how do we do that? Do we set up a kind of cross-constituency working group of limited life span, let's say one month, with a task to propose methodology of these reviews? And certainly if you look to all four reviews, they are different. And most probably, the methodology doing the overall review, the accountability review, will be one, but doing security review will be completely different. So these are not similar issues. So maybe this working group would be -- with a limited, very limited time span, life span, and very precise task would be a way forward. Again, these are just ideas, but we need to think them through and advise the board on the best way to proceed. So any other interventions at this point on AOC? If none, then it's time for a drink. Because the board is waiting for us in room Pine, which is apparently across the corridor. And I would like to thank GNSO Councillors. I would like to thank Avri personally for this conversation. I found it very interesting. And finally, we are on the same wavelength on many issues. >>AVRI DORIA: On many issues. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: For the GAC members, just a reminder we are, following tomorrow, ICANN program. And we are meeting in this room at noon for the session of the joint board/GAC working group. And we're meeting now board in room Pine across the corridor, so as soon as we can. Thank you.