GAC/ALAC Joint Session Sunday, 19 June 2011 ICANN Meeting - Singapore >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Okay. Can we take our seats, and we will begin in a moment. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the ALAC. Thank you for coming and meeting with us today. The ALAC is proposing a couple of topics, and they're related to each other, for our discussion today, which we will have for the next 30, 45 minutes. We're on a very tight schedule because we are preparing for the session that we will have later on with the board today. So -- But thank you for coming to meet with us at this time. So I will turn over to Olivier to talk a little bit more about what we would like to discuss today in this session. So, Olivier, please. >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Chair Dryden, or Heather, for those who know you. The two main points that we were going to speak about -- in fact, we were going to speak about a few more, but unfortunately, due to the shortness of time, we will probably just stick to those two points. The first one being the JAS working group and the new gTLD program. I think there is anticipation from everyone in the community and probably most GAC members to also to speak about this. And the second point being the -- a question, a set of questions. If the new gTLD program passes, how can the GAC and At Large work together to ensure that end users are positively impacted, or if the new gTLD program does not pass, as in it does not get signed, or if it passes with problems remaining, how can the ALAC play to help resolve the remaining gaps between the GAC and the board positions. But we will probably start with those two questions and enable a debate, and then we'll spend, I would say 20 -- 20 to 25 minutes speaking about the joint application support that we will do just afterwards. So first set the questions, if the gTLD program passes, how can the At Large and the GAC -- or the At Large, actually, and the GAC work together to ensure end users are positively impacted, or how can we bridge the gap if there is a gap still to be bridged? The floor is open. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Who would like to comment, or even ask a question on those questions? Sri Lanka is willing to go first. Thank you. >>SRI LANKA: I will go first. Waiting for Alice, who is our official spokesman on this issue. But let me first say that we appreciate fully the efforts made by the working group to formulate these proposals. That is the second milestone report. So are we going to discuss that or.... So in terms of bridging the gap, that is there in terms of addressing some of our developing country needs. I believe there has been an effort consequent to the dialogue we have had and some of our colleagues have had in the past that there's an attempt to include some kind of framework to address the issue of making developing country applications more accessible activity included in this kind of report. But the issue is about the process. Where will this go? How long will it take for this to be finalized as well as what time frame do we have to include concrete proposals to develop the criteria? And finally, whether the gTLD process itself will go hand in hand together with the outcome from this finding and conclusion of this report. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Sri Lanka. So clearly there are a number of questions that we have in relation to the JAS work and the new gTLD program. So it would be useful for us to hear from the ALAC what challenges they see. And I see that Kenya has joined. So by all means, contribute and share your thoughts on this. But in terms of what happens at this meeting and after this meeting, I think is likely a key area where we can work with ALAC, and I would certainly benefit from hearing an ALAC perspective on how we move forward. I know in my case, it's not clear to me. And if we can't address the process question, we are not going to resolve the substance question. We're just never going to get to it. And I think there are disagreements on the substance as well. So, I mean, that is going to take time for us to work through. And if we can come up with areas of agreement, then I think we're that much likelier to be successful on the kinds of measures that can be implemented. So on that, I would ask the ALAC for their views, but also if -- Alice, if Kenya would like to add anything to that, please do. >>KENYA: Thank you, Heather. Apologies for coming in slightly late. I believe Jayantha, Sri Lanka, must have presented all the major questions we had and again just wanted to reemphasize the issues around timing, especially taking into consideration the proposed launch around new gTLDs. That's very important to us, the timing and the process. And we also have quite a number of questions around the substantive report itself as well. So I think we'd like to hear from ALAC first, and then we can follow up with additional questions, if any. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you. Okay. So an ALAC perspective. Please, Cheryl. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: You thank you very much. It's Cheryl Langdon- Orr, for the transcript record. If I just can separate those issues, Alice. And I think we probably need to go back to the substantive questions that rise from the report because Sri Lanka gave a more overview question on timing, and we would need to have the responses to the substantive ones, I think, dealt with one by one. And there are many people from the JAS work group here who can speak on that. To the matter of the timing, however, one of the most outstanding issues that the JAS work group has at the moment that I believe is pivotal to having GAC working with us to solve is the criteria area on municipality, public/private partnership and those type much relationships. And with the second milestone report behind us, this is a main focus in our willingness to work immediately on that and basically get it done as fast as humanly possible. I see nothing but opportunity there for that to happen. The JAS work group did break into a couple of specific subteams. So we're not working as a committee of the whole, so it would be very possible for the GAC to have a couple of people hold the pen with our subteam and progress it intersessionally I think at a quite reasonable pace and then become socialized in our individual groups before we were to perhaps meet again in Dakar. When it needs to be finalized, however, is before applications can be accepted. I mean, that -- we cannot have our developing economies disadvantaged by not having an applicant support system in place by the time that new gTLD applications are in their, you know, acceptance or go-live phase. But it's my personal belief that there is enough time in the -- from, "Yes we're going to do it" and here's an applicant guidebook" to the education, outreach, and marketing part that some of that work can be done in parallel. To go back to the other question that was raised, and that was based on the questions that Olivier started and Heather reiterated, how can we perhaps work together if and when the new gTLD program does, in inverted commas, get announced, I think it's been announced for the last decade, or at least it feels that way to me, one of the things I recently raised in a session at the Asia-Pacific regional IGF was the fear I held that in an area of, for example, just the Asia-Pacific where 63% of the world's languages are, I really think putting things out in the six U.N. languages to talk about new gTLDs probably isn't good enough, and that there is going to be a huge amount of on the groundwork in country to, first of all, identify who the appropriate and key decision-makers and stakeholders are, be they at the governmental or business or society or consumer interest or language group or whatever level. And that may be something where we can work with the GAC to see whether or not we have people on the ground in a place you don't and vice versa. So I think that's one of the most obvious opportunities to make sure that those who do need to know about the program get to know about it the program. And also, hopefully, get them involved in further ICANN- type work and policy development. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Cheryl. On the JAS working group, I understand that we have -- we can ask the ALAC to provide us some information to introduce. >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Well, I think we have -- this is Olivier Crépin-Leblond. I think we have edged again towards the JAS because it is the big subject, the big topic of the day, at least for a lot of people here. We have the chance of having the two co-chairs of the working group, Rafik Dammak and Carlton Samuels here, and we also have members of the drafting team. So what I was going to suggest was perhaps to have a very short introduction, maybe a little rundown on where the working group is. I guess you all have had the milestone, the second milestone report in your hands. There has been some time since then, so the group has continued its work. And so I would ask, perhaps, Evan, Evan Leibovitch, member of the writing team, to give us a quick rundown on where we are now. Thank you. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Good afternoon. This is Evan Leibovitch. And thank you for the opportunity. The JAS group, as you know, has been working very hard at this. You have seen the second milestone report that was released before the Istanbul board meeting. And, in fact, it was very welcoming to see the GAC response to that. But rather than going into the details of that milestone report, which by now you will all already have read, it's very important to discuss going forward, as Heather was saying. And for that reason, it's critical that the GAC is involved in our process going forward. We want to try and accommodate however you would like to get involved. We have held telephone conference calls that were open for -- that were open to participation. The GAC was invited. The only participation, in fact, on that call was from Trinidad and Tobago. We really are going to need a higher level of participation, and active participation. We can't read minds. It is critical that we have an idea of where we need to go forward together on this. It's clear that we share a lot of the similar goals. The idea that this is an issue of cost reduction as opposed to foundations in charity. This is a very shared common goal. But it is critical that for us to move forward, and especially for us to move forward in a compressed timeline, that we have some more active involvement in knowing what it is you want out of this process. We've heard at a high level what you have asked from the ICANN board. We need now, as we polish the many rough edges in the milestone report and get into this detail level, that our need for more input is going to become more acute as we go forward. >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Evan. And if I could just add that we are here to answer your questions and also to receive your input. So I think you will hear less from us, but we would like to hear more from you. And thank you. Back to you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that. Thank you, Evan. I think implicit in your introduction and your continued extension of openness to having the GAC participate is the assumption that the JAS working group is leading on these issues across the organization. And is that the assumption you are making? The process problem that I see, and what I am having difficulty understanding, is how we can move forward if you have a JAS working group and then you have separate constituencies also looking at these issues or aspects of these issues. In the case of the GAC, we're currently wanting to advise the board on these issues. So do you have thoughts on that? And on top of that, this is a meeting with the ALAC, not with the JAS. So I don't want to overcomplicate this, but it isn't clear to me how the GAC, along with other parts of the community, can move this forward as much as we may want to. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I would simply note that, although, as you say, this is an ALAC meeting, JAS was created as a cross-constituency working group, and in fact has members from GNSO as well as from ALAC and was meant to be open to anybody in the community that wanted to participate. While that doesn't totally answer your question, it tries to go to the heart of what we were charged to do and how we are trying do that, which is trying to answer a very, very high level set of questions with the level of detail that's necessary to actually turn this from a philosophy into an implementation. We had some -- we had, you know, the basic GNSO policies, things like cost recovery and things like that, that we had to use as a foundation, and then take that together with subsequent board recommendations and GAC advice and turn that into something that could actually be put into an implementation level. Not necessarily in the Applicant Guidebook but perhaps as a parallel document. Like I said, I don't know if that answers your question, so much as to say this is the framework in which we are working. And to the extent that any help will be useful to us, whether it's direct guidance to the JAS, further details given to the board or anything like that, again, the better information that we have, the more accurate information we have, the more closely that we can come up with the solution that will be satisfactory to the entire community. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Evan. So I think, Kenya, were you requesting to speak? No. Okay. So I have Alan and then Portugal. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I didn't realize I had actually been on the list I guess I will follow on what Evan said but I will try to say it in different words. The JAS group has been given the onerous task of having been referenced in various board and GAC documents as being the group they are looking towards. And if you want to go off with the board and come up with a different mechanism for addressing these issues, I think we will happily stand aside. But at this point, we seem could have been given the responsibility, and we're certainly willing to try to meet that. But as Evan said, we are not prescient, and we know that there are specific targets and constraints that various GAC members and board members have. And to the extent that we can have people talking to us, not necessarily formally representing the GAC but at least guiding us in ways that they think might be acceptable or not acceptable, and this applies to the board as well as the GAC, we're much more likely to come up with something that really addresses the need in a timely manner than if we're expected to act on our own and suddenly come up with some work product that miraculously addresses questions that haven't been raised. So we're working in the dark a little bit. We know there are no formal processes to do this properly. We need to invent the processes as we go along and do it rather quickly because we're on a short timeline. So to the extent that we can get people who are willing to talk off the record or formally, regardless of whether they are formally representative or not, the more likely we are to come to closure on this. Or someone else needs to take it over and do it with a different set of rules. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Alan. And I think we heard a suggestion from Cheryl about a specific area where the JAS might benefit from GAC advice. So -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think it's wider than that, though, so.... >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Yeah, I suppose. Okay. So I have Portugal, Italy, and then Carlton. >>PORTUGAL: Thank you. I would like to thank the JAS for this second milestone report. I have a question; but, first, I have a comment. In fact, more work has to be done between GAC and JAS. But through conference calls, it is very, very difficult because I think that the level of detail and the misunderstandings that might appear, they can be much better solved in face-to-face meetings. And if we miss the opportunity to have a meeting here in Singapore, I think it will be a pity. Then there is something that strikes me that I would like to ask now. For the time being, governments from developing countries are excluded. So I would like to know why. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Would someone like to respond to that before we go to the next speaker? I can continue through the queue and we can come back to you it. Nope, Evan, please. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: I would just say we would welcome any opportunity for face to face. I can't speak for the others in the JAS group, but I know that I would make myself available on next-to-zero notice. This is a very important issue to us. And we've already made I think great pains to try to accommodate and we will continue to try to make great pains to accommodate whatever works. The main thing is getting this moving. And if there is an opportunity to do face-to-face, we've already tried to set things up already. Obviously the issues between the GAC and the board have, you know, changed -- affected some of those possible timelines. But any time that people -- any time that GAC members can give to us, as Olivier said, formally or informally will be welcomed. And like I say, just let us know and I think between the various people on the JAS, there's ways of accommodating this. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Evan. Italy? >>ITALY: Thank you, Chair. The initial question was: What about if the process of new gTLDs is launched tomorrow, let's say? Or what about if the discussion continues because there are still outstanding issues around? My statement is that the cooperation will continue, and it is very important because the GAC wants to listen to the opinions of the main constituencies and it is very important and coherent with the ICANN model. And this new process of the gTLDs, this process of the new gTLDs is certainly a major challenge. And I'm trying to explain why the continuation of this interaction will be similar in both cases. So we learn in this discussion that started in June 2008 in Paris that the complexity of the project for implementing new gTLDs increased as much as we discuss. And instead of solving problems and others that are coming, this is provoked uncertainty on the start point, let's say. And we still have uncertainty now. We will see then, tomorrow. Because the point is if we want to elaborate all the possible contingency cases and some special issues that are starting now, like antitrust, protection on intellectual property and all the problems connected to the different typology of new gTLDs, social, utility, geographic names, real business and things like that, as we study more, as we request more details and so on. So at least for my part, I wish that the process is not delayed anymore. Because if we continue on this path, the risk is that we not approve here, we not approve in the next meeting and so on because the process is so complex. And so what is important when the process starts is that we continue being active also in the GAC and listening to the problems that are coming out from different typology of new gTLDs or from how to promote the developing countries, which is the plot that is coming out from reality from the implementation. And in some cases, we will be obliged to solve cases -- to solve a problem on a case-by-case but then multiplying the different cases, we might discover our recommend to collect opinion and to solve problems of a similar nature. So I think in this case, we need to continue cooperating because the process will last years, many years probably, because then there will be a first call, then a second call and not after the first one it will probably take more and so on. So this interaction of the GAC with ALAC and other constituencies will be very important because we promote this aspect of multistakeholder approach to this kind of problems. And in the end, we have the responsibility all together to promote the model of ICANN as a model that is then to be followed also in other problems of the Internet in general. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you. I have Carlton next. >>CARLTON SAMUELS: Thank you chair. For the record, my name is Carlton Samuels. I'm co-chair of the JAS working group. And I just want to say a few things that might be bouncing around in the bubble a little bit, but I think they need to be said. The question of process and substance, we readily admit that we're working the process through and the process and substance are tied together. And I will give you some instances. The JAS work group framed its work around the declarations from the board and the GAC. In one of them, it says "we are waiting to hear from the JAS working group." And the other one says "we would like to get recommendations from the JAS work group." And so that's about substance. And then the process is how do we engage? There are some members of the community that express alarm that the working group would dare to speak to the board or to get directly. Perhaps we are reflexively -- from the At-Large, we are reflexively open. So we would recommend and we would wish to have input from any part of the community, be it board members or GAC members, with or without their hats on. It is very important to understand that what we're seeking is as broad enough an understanding of the issues and what we might do to address them. With respect to the specific areas of need -- and, Cheryl, thank you very much. She mentioned one that was high up on the list. It is a question of criteria for applicant support. There has been a lot of brouhaha back and forth about whether or not government entities, be they national or municipal, would they be eligible for support within the rubric of the JAS working group. That is something that we would very much like to hear from members of the GAC on, and we would respectively ask for your direct input on this one. There's also an issue of outreach. If you are going to provide help to people who are needy, it does make sense that they know that help is about. And, therefore, we have to design an outreach operation, an outreach program that will enable those who might be eligible for assistance to know that there is help around. And so it comes to a question of when would we wish to see this happen? Well, it is in our interest, and I believe it makes sense for us, to ensure that if we are going to provide help, then that help is in place before we have the launch of the new gTLD. So we are working on that assumption. If we work on that assumption, therefore, we are not asking for -- I don't believe the work group is asking for delay in launch. What we're saying is that please, please, please we need help to ensure that at launch we have something to give applicants for support that they can file and make use of. It is true that having telephonic conversations is -- it takes a lot and we do it twice per week. And we have the Wiki where we ask members and interested parties to put in any substantive comment or any interest that you might have there. I am going to, again, reiterate that while the telephonic conversations are the modalities that we use, then the Wikis can be used extensively for more extensive comments and that provides us a record from which we can more ably support the community. The JAS work group still has some questions to answer. We's sorted ourselves into subgroups, and you can see the details of that on the Wiki. And there are some specific subgroups in which interactions from the community, especially GAC members, with or without your hats, would be most helpful. I, therefore, would urge that those of you who would love to see this process go forward, as we all have -- Evan has mentioned that some of us have been working hard at this for quite some years, it is not just yesterday -- if you could participate in that way on the Wiki or become a part of the subgroups again, we are an open work group. We do not relegate any part of the community to any sort of exclusion zone. Thank you so much. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Carlton. I think that is very useful to us. To your last point, it's one question already for the GAC as to how it would communicate a GAC view as part of a working group. So that's already a challenge for us. If you have subgroups, that only amplifies the difficulty for us to participate. However, we are quite interested in this topic. So I don't know whether Alice wants to comment on, you know, whether there is a GAC strategy that we need to contemplate on these issues. But that may be a separate discussion that we have as a GAC, you know, in light of various decisions that may be taken this week while we're in Singapore. So -- but thank you. I think that illustrates very well the outlook of the working group and highlights usefully areas where it may be particularly useful for the GAC to comment to the working group. So -- >> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Heather. Olivier Crépin- Leblond. I was just going to add just a couple of words with regards to the communication between the JAS working group, the board, and the GAC and the chartering organizations. It has come to the attention of both the ALAC chair and the GNSO chair that the charters, both charters actually, mention that any communication with the GAC and with the board needs to take place through the chartering organizations, which is one of the reasons why we either would have had a meeting yesterday which actually was going to be organized by -- jointly between the GNSO and the ALAC or the meeting today where we're discussing this as part of the ALAC/GAC interaction. It requires wearing several hats. I have been personally following as an individual following the work of the JAS working group and so sometimes we do tend to pass information through in a rather faster way than if we were going to do this in a formal way. But the subject itself is extremely important. It is one which is on a timeline -- a very short timeline. So with regards to having direct interaction with GAC members joining the working groups, I think that perhaps the members of the GAC could be observers and could even join as an individual in the group so as to be able to inform their peers informally as to what is going on in that working group and where the progress is. This is just a suggestion. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you. Kenya, did you want to speak? And then I have Portugal as well. >> KENYA: Thank you, Heather. And thank you, Olivier, for clearing that because that has been our greatest challenge, especially the lead countries that are dealing with this issue in terms of how we interact with the JAS working group. Considering that I think two weeks ago there was an issue, that the second milestone hadn't been approved by the GNSO and ALAC had approved it, we didn't know how we were going to come back to the GAC as the leads in that. So it is a bit difficult in terms of how we deal with that. And it is an issue we are discussing even within GAC itself in terms of how we relate -- how the GAC works generally and how we then relate and engage with the various working groups. And so, you know, you asked at the beginning -- you made a very convert -- you know, appeal for GAC contribution. But then how do we do that within the context we're talking about, that the two chartering organizations have to agree and that communication has to go to the board and the GAC from the two. So it is a bit confusing. So in this case, what you are saying is we can only work with the JAS working group as observers which means then we have to wait for the report to come to us, for the GAC to come up with proposals and questions and recommendations and advice and then come back. You know, I think that's the concern in terms of does that delay the process? And how does that impact on some of the processes that we want to ensure, you know, speed it up. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Kenya. That reminds me of one of the points that Carlton made. I think it's very reasonable to be concerned that if you are going to be embarking on an outreach program, you need to be able to tell people about what support is available at that time in order for them to really receive that communication. So I think that's really worth highlighting. Okay, Olivier, you wanted to quickly react to -- >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you, Heather. I was going to say that Cheryl was going to answer Kenya's point. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: I was happy to wait until after Portugal. It is just that I will raise the point raised by Kenya, that's all. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Portugal, please. >>PORTUGAL: Thank you so much because it seems when I'm asking for the floor, it is a bit difficult to have it. Well, I would like to comment on what Stefan said. I couldn't agree more with what Italy had said, that we are delaying and delaying all this process. But, in fact, it wasn't a pity that yesterday when other topics were raised, this position was not so strongly put on the table. In fact -- and with the developing countries, this question, it seems like, okay, please, don't continue this discussion because we really have to move on regarding gTLDs. Well, the same applies to what was raised yesterday. So I would like to say that our position is to start the process with all those strings which do not have the potential to create any type of controversy and move forward with this first basket of applications and at the same time continuing negotiations of both parties to remove the brackets from the controversial issues, hopefully until the meeting in Dakar, which will then open the door for applications which would go into a second basket. So this is our position. But this is our position for any topic. So the topics raised yesterday and lengthy discussed yesterday, it is accepted the same as the ones that applies to developing countries because gTLDs, they are not only for rich countries or rich people or rich companies or rich entities. gTLDs is for everybody. And ICANN is for everybody, I think. If it is not so, we must have another discussion. My last point is this one, I think that we really should take advantage of the fact that we are here in Singapore to have a face-to- face meeting. Well, we have some GAC leads discussing this issue. We have a strategic. We know what is missing in this report. At least we think that we know. And I think that it will be great if we could have a face-to-face meeting with you. I think an hour will be enough, and I think we could move on in a very good way. Thank you so much. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Portugal. Is Alan next in the queue, Olivier? Cheryl is next. Cheryl, please. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: I'm horrified, Heather, that you could forget me. It's very useful that I am following on with a point that I wanted to raise earlier, and that was that the opportunity for the more formal issues that GAC would like to perhaps raise after discussion and the ability for leads in the GAC or GAC representatives in their own rights to influence the processes that are going on at the work group level. We have the second milestone report out for public comment now and, therefore, it would be an opportunity for particular issues such as where is support for governments in developing economies? The questions you'd like to raise, perhaps that could raise in a public comment response. And let me tell you why I think it is important that it is. Because the people who are in the work group are telling us exactly the opposite. They're telling us that there is no space or place for applicant support for activities which are of a commercial nature, let alone a public/private partnership. They're telling us that they would like -- not all of us, some of us would like to see, strangely enough I'm one of the voices that is the opposite of that, is purely those things that are of a cultural, linguistic or non-profitable or public partnership or have anything to do with municipal government. Now, if we don't hear voice to the opposite, then we are going to have a much harder time winning that argument. Because the voices that are in the group, influencing the group, are saying it should be a much narrower field for JAS than I believe I'm hearing from the GAC that they would like to see. So I just want to raise that awareness and the opportunity at the public comment that we have now to interject that in. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Cheryl. So in terms of issues that have been specifically identified, criteria regarding how to access funds, so whether that's a municipality or another level of government; and also now regarding the prospect of having support to commercial TLDs and whether we would have views or advice to provide on that. Okay. So next I have Sandra, the U.K. and then Kenya and then we are close to the end of our time. So we will try to wrap up soon after that. Okay? So, Sandra. >> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you, Heather. Sandra Hoferichter from ALAC. I just want to underline the proposal from Portugal that the Internet -- for whom the Internet is and who makes it work. And we are discussing here more or less how GAC and ALAC can work together internally within ICANN. I see a very strong point how we can work together externally because we are both GAC and ALAC representing the end user, the Internet user. So in my experience -- and I can only speak for Germany -- so far there is no knowledge about new gTLD process around citizenship. And that's quite astonishing, I think, because some people from the business sector don't even have a clue what's going to be next in the Internet. So I think we should really start and work together to inform and educate the citizenship in our countries, start sort of a campaign maybe. And the GAC, I mean, not the GAC in person, but the governments, they should give access to channels where at-large -- I don't mean At-Large, but at-large structures within the specific countries have no access to. I think we can even ask the business sector to help us to produce promotional material, videos, et cetera. We had another discussion between ALAC and registrars going on about those issues, and I think they are quite overlapping in these terms. Why I think this is important, first, the new gTLD process will offer a lot of new chances to the end user. It will change the behavior on the Internet, and we have to explain some sort of controversies going on behind the scene, I think, because this helps to educate and to understand to who Internet ecosystem for which the end user perspective is not easy to understand in a way. I mean, we are knowing how these things are working. The end user only sees this or that works and this and this works and not what can my government do for me in order to prevent me -- or in order to offer me some things. So I don't think we should miss any opportunity for education and outreach to our citizenship and I see there great opportunity to work together. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Sandra. United Kingdom. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thank you, chair. Thank you, co-chairs, for this very useful session and explanation of issues and process. There was one issue that I wanted to touch on -- or raise, rather, which is touched on in the JAS report. It is under 3.1.2, last paragraph. And this is -- this was regarding multi-script -- multiple script applications and the bundling of these applications where you have an applicant for a gTLD who's wanting to submit that in different scripts, perhaps in addition to the Latin script. And there are communities in Africa, I know, where they are using different scripts. So within a single community, you have different scripts in use. But I see the report says there isn't consensus support for this proposal, which I'm a bit surprised by. I think the case for it is pretty clear. Such an applicant -- ICANN in handling such an application would benefit from cost efficiencies because you are dealing with the same string but in different scripts, so it is not like you're doing a set of entirely separate applications. I've been to many U.N. fora and other conferences where the challenge is the next billion, getting the next billion online and multilingualism and diversity of scripts is a critical factor in achieving that. And to ICANN's credit, has done remarkable progress in introducing IDNs into the root, and here's another opportunity for ICANN to help move this agenda forward. And I wonder if there is a missed opportunity here as the guidebook is near or almost finalized for the JAS, for the GAC and ALAC. I think it was a scorecard issue, if I understand -- I'm looking to Alice to confirm. It was a scorecard issue for the GAC. So I'm curious as to why this did not achieve consensus support and, as I say, risks valuable opportunity being lost in promoting diversity of scripts of access, of inclusiveness for the global community including developing countries and communities across the world which are using non-Latin scripts. So I wonder if there is a comment from JAS group members with regard to that. And value your reactions. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, U.K. I understand that Eric can respond to that, so we'll turn to Eric to provide a response and then complete the speaking order where I have Kenya and then Olivier would like to make comments. Then we really do have to conclude this session. So, Eric. Please. >>ERIC BRUNNER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you also to the delegate from the U.K. My name is Eric Brunner Williams, and I'm a participant in the JAS working group from the ALAC. The issue of multiscript is one that we are well aware of, that there are many, many communities which are, in fact, plural linguistic communities with multiple scripts for a single language or multiple scripts and multiple languages for a single community. To take an example from North America, the use of united Canadian aboriginal script in the northern areas is mandatory, and the same language groups, which are not a single language, use Latin script in the south of Canada. So an application for only one of those two would be dysfunctional. It would profoundly disfavor the community for which the TLD presumably is intended to assist. The problem gets worse as we look into very pluralistic societies such as in South Asia where there are 11 different scripts used, for instance, by the State of India to support 22 languages which are used by the State of India all for governmental purposes. And clearly an application mechanism that results in fewer than the correct number of labels being allocated to the applicant is going to cause the applicant to disfavor some languages, which will cause actual stress within the community, tending toward communitarian strife. That is clearly not the end result that we desire. So where this comes up on a hard spot for the JAS, remember that we acquire the -- we are dually chartered, so the GNSO, which is the author of the general policy for new gTLDs is one of the chartering organizations. That -- That group was unable to come up with a solution for bundling which deals with the -- the phenomenon where a single application -- where two applicants -- where a single applicant is the author of two or more applications. And you would think that, of course, it's very -- there is duplication of work if the evaluation process treats each one of these completely independently. And this actually leads to the least efficient utilization of the evaluation process, and in fact we've designed it something which is actually the least efficient mechanism possible by insisting that all applications are to be evaluated independently. But it is out of our immediate ability to change that. We have not gotten the board to agree to any kind of solution for bundling. So while we see -- putting on the JAS hat, we see the tremendous necessity for this, from the linguistic community point of view, there are other aspects of this for which the larger applicants have a different interest, merely in cost reduction, as they offer, for instance, two applications using the same platform operator but entirely unrelated applications other than that. And they, too, are seeking a cost reduction. So we couldn't come to consensus on the specific form of bundle to -- and I'll just stop there and let Evan continue. Thank you very much. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Eric. Evan, you have something directly related? Okay. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Just very briefly and it almost brings us full circle to what the discussion was at the beginning of this, and this had to do with the interaction. Mark, this is exactly what we need. A very specific saying this is a point that was raised, this is something that is important to the GAC or it is important to individual governments, and it needs to be considered. This is exactly the kind of feedback that we need, either individually or as a group. I thank you, and I encourage more of it. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Evan. Okay. So we have Kenya, and then Olivier, and we will wrap up. Kenya. >>KENYA: Thank you, Heather, and thank you, Olivier, also thank ALAC for giving us this opportunity to discuss the JAS report and not other. But I think my colleagues have come up with the most important issues, and I think we would look for an opportunity to have a face- to-face meeting with the JAS working group to discuss the details on that; specifically, the method of implementation in terms of how exactly the fund is going to be applied and, you know, where the money is going to be gotten from, the differentiated TLD categories and the valuation procedure; you know, the IDNs as well. The timing and process, which is very important for this first round to ensure that there's equal opportunity for all applicants, but also how it's reflected on the DAG, the Draft Applicant Guidebook, so that it can enable a certain level of outreach, informed -- I think I would like to call informed outreach, which I think is very important. So thank you again and welcome the opportunity to meet with the JAS working group. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Kenya. Olivier. >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Heather. And I wanted to also, in return, thank Kenya for this thanks to the working group, which I have received on their behalf. I just wanted to ask -- to answer one of your earlier points, or earlier questions, which was do with process. The At-Large Advisory Committee believes that the JAS working group is not dealing with policy. It is dealing with implementation. We, therefore, have a much larger amount of flexibility with regards to passing information from one group to another. And this is why we have taken the -- what could be seen as the liberty, by some people, of passing the milestone report directly to the board after a very short consultation within the At-Large Advisory Committee and within the wider At-Large membership. It is something which we have pushed because we feel very strongly about. Sometimes there are some subjects, as I mentioned earlier, which need to be really driven for them not to be falling aside, and especially with the time left until the possible signing of the new gTLD program and the pressing of the button to launch this new gTLD program. It would have certainly been absolutely unacceptable for some of our members to have that new gTLD program progress forward without the JAS being -- having had some progress and having been passed on to the boards and to the community. So thank you for asking those questions, and I hope that you will be able to continue this interaction. And certainly the invitation which you have provided this week about having a face-to-face meeting is something which we need to explore. There is a workshop which will take place on Thursday. I haven't got the -- is it 11:00? At 11:00. I'm not sure whether your members will have the time to attend. If this is not the case, then may I ask that you provide us with a listing of the times that you are free, perhaps even a smaller working group, and there could be a direct interaction. And again, I am saying this as member of the At-Large -- well, chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee, trying to liaise between the JAS and the GAC. I would, of course, say that the chair of the GNSO will be fully informed of what's going on and obviously they will be able to have also some members of the GNSO if they so wish to join the smaller meeting. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Olivier. I think if we can make use of being here together this week in Singapore, face to face, we should certainly do our utmost to make that happen. Okay. So with that, let's conclude this session. Thank you from the GAC to the ALAC for coming today. And for GAC members, a five-minute break, please, and then we will be in a closed meeting. So for those of you in the room, it's a closed GAC meeting for the next hour. Okay? >>OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: And of course thank you from the ALAC to the GAC.