GNSO Council Meeting. ICANN - SYDNEY 24 June 2009 >>AVRI DORIA: So let me actually start and welcome people to the GNSO public meeting. I've started using the word "public meeting" as opposed to "open meeting" since all of our meetings are open and I didn't want the fact that we called this one an "open meeting" to make anyone think that the other meetings weren't open. But this one is certainly done more publicly. So the first thing is the roll call of council members, and could you do that? >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Certainly, Avri. >>CHUCK GOMES: Present. >>UTE DECKER: Present. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Present. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Here. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Present. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Present. >>GREG RUTH: Here. >>TONY HOLMES: Present. >>TONY HARRIS: Present. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Present. >>CARLOS SOUZA: Present. >>MARY WONG: Here. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Present. >>TERRY DAVIS: Present. >>HAN CHUAN LEE: Present. >>EDMON CHUNG: Here. >>TIM RUIZ: Present. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Present. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: G'day. How are you. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: And Cyril Chua, who is on the phone? >>CYRIL CHUA: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. I'm here. And Bill Drake has sent apologies. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Bill Drake has sent apologies and Jordi Iparraguirre has sent apologize. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. So we do definitely have a quorum. Okay. Then the next thing is to ask anybody whether they want to update any statements of interest or make any other statements at the beginning of the meeting. Is there anyone? Yes, Mary. >>MARY WONG: Thanks, Avri. So I thought I'd take this opportunity to make a statement, in view of certain comments, and I believe that has taken hold this week in Sydney. I'd like to state for the public record that my participation on the IRT was purely in a personal capacity, and my understanding is that the basis for the invitation to me to participate in the IRT was in that capacity and not as a representative of the NCUC. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any other statements anyone that anyone would like to make at the beginning? Yes. Please. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'd like to confirm Mary's understanding that the invitation to participate was based in her personal capacity and, in particular, with regard to her expertise from the academic perspective. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone wish to update their statement of interest? I'd like to remind all council members that if your statement of interest changes at any point between meetings, please send one in to Glen. It will be posted, and then please bring it up at the next meeting. The next item is to review and amend the agenda. The first item will be the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, which starts at 8:30 and we will start it at 8:30. Or actually slightly before. And this is one comment I'll make, is that in general, in most of these items where I've invited someone else to come -- like a staff member or somebody to come -- we will try to stick to the schedule. So if we are finished with a previous item a few minutes early and -- which is -- sometimes happens, then we'll just pause, people will have a chance to go out and get a cup of coffee or whatever and come back in time for the next item. Obviously, if we run over a little, I'll try to catch up and we won't pause. And of course we have a break. Okay. So Item 3 is Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, and it's basically talking about the working group charter on the PDP that was previously approved. Then there's the Inter-Registry Transfer Policy, Part B, where there will be a discussion of the PDP itself and then assuming that a PDP is at least -- is approved, then a discussion of the charter. There's been some discussion of an internationalized domain names group for some work that might be done, a possible charter on work that might be done, and there is not a complete motion on this, but there's a motion that's being worked on, and basically would like to just sort of talk about the subject. Bylaws changes, there's been a lot of work ongoing on the necessary bylaw changes to go along with the restructuring/improvements process that the GNSO has been laboring under for the last year, and so we're going to talk -- there is a motion on the table there. There is a break, 10:30 to 11:00. Then we go into various topics on GNSO improvements and restructuring, sort of a continuation, with reports from various committees, update on constituency recertification, update on stakeholder group charters, and then there's a discussion based on a complaint that was registered with the council in terms of when it is appropriate, if it is appropriate, for the council to send out letters based on previous policy. And just if it is appropriate for us to do that and when. So that will be a discussion. And then there needs to be in here an item 8, which was "any other business." And does anybody wish to put any other business on the -- I understand that there's a -- just an update from the travel group under "any other business." Is there any other "any other business" that I should put on the agenda at the moment? Okay. Thanks. I'll ask again when we get there. And then we go into the open mic, where it's any subject. You'll notice in each of the other items, there is an open discussion part, which includes an open mic, basically where we'll go back and forth between people at the mic, assuming there are people at the mic, and council members. I will try to limit those discussions. If there's a lot of people that want to talk, I'll certainly limit it to one time at the mic each. And the topics can come back up again in the open discussion should there be longer, more intensive discussions to be had on things, but I do want to try and keep to the schedule. Any discussions on the agenda or should we follow that agenda as listed? Okay. Hearing no objections, we'll go with this agenda. So the first thing is the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP working group charter, and -- oh, yeah. One other thing I wanted to mention, and this will come -- I guess there's been a handout given. This is something that was -- I think an innovation since last time -- that the staff has basically put together brief introductions to the issues that are being discussed, so anybody that, you know, isn't a true fanatic and follow us and follow every single one of our conversations afterwards can have a quick introduction. Can I ask someone from the staff to just give a brief, you know, view on that? Okay. Thank you. Marika. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Hello? Okay. Yes. As Avri said, there's another note at the entrance where everyone can see a little background on this issue and I'll quickly just run through this. So the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery is an issue that was brought to the GNSO by the ALAC that requested an issues report in November 2008 on a number of issues related to registrants being able to recover domain names after the formal expiration date. So the staff did prepare an issues report on that, and the issues report highlighted a number of questions that staff believed could be further examined in order to determine whether some of these issues needed additional policy or other recommendations. So that the issues covered here -- and I think they're covered in the motion as well in a minute -- there are issues such as is there adequate opportunity for registrants to redeem their expired domain names, is there adequate expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements, and are they clear and conspicuous enough? Is there adequate notice relating to alerts to registrants of upcoming expirations? And should there be additional measures to indicate that once a domain name enters the auto-renew grace period, that it has expired, and it also deals with the question related to whether a transfer of a domain name during the RGP should be possible. So the council reviewed the issues report and formed a drafting team to put together a motion on the initiation of a PDP, which was adopted - - let me just check -- on the 7th of May. Following that adoption, this drafting team came together and prepared a charter for a working group, and that is up for discussion today. Maybe just to point out, anyone that's interested in this issue and would like to participate and hear more about it, there is a workshop taking place this afternoon from 2:00 to 4:00 that will go into these issues deeper, and I would invite all of you to come there and hopefully sign up as well to the working group, once the charter gets adopted. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes, Stéphane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Avri. Just wanted to commend staff on that note. I think it's very useful. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. So I've put the motion up. I'd like to turn the floor over to Tim to take us through, to read the motion, take us through the charter, and -- yes, before we do that, yes, Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Excuse me. Adrian Kinderis. Just today when we're speaking, can we ensure, where we can, to not use acronyms and to use the full words? Just for clarity for the audience and those that are listening outside of here? Perhaps newcomers, just where we can. If we could be conscious to not use acronyms, please. >>AVRI DORIA: I will try. So -- okay. So it's the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery policy development process working group charter. And Tim, if you could. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. Thank you, Avri. I think Marika did a very good job of summarizing how we got to where we are today, so I won't go through that again. The drafting team met and drafted this charter. It wasn't real difficult because I think the motion for the PDP really laid out the questions very -- very clearly. It was very well drafted. So I'll read the motion. Whereas, the GNSO Council has decided to initiate a policy development process on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery; and the GNSO Council had decided against initiating a task force as defined in the bylaw, the GNSO Council resolves to form a working group composed of constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The working group will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN advisory committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their advisory committee. The working group initially shall: Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current registrar accreditation agreement provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal and recovery of domain names following expires are enforced; review and understand the current domain name life cycle; review current registrar practices regarding domain name expires renewal and post-expiration recovery. The working group shall then consider the following questions: Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; whether adequate notices exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the auto-renew grace period, it has expired. For example, hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined; whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the redemption grace period. The working group is expected to organize and issue update or workshop at the Seoul meeting in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The working group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for consensus policy. And then for reference, the working group processes that we have previously adopted are -- at least the interim processes are included there for reference. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. It might be good to just go through the milestones before opening up the -- >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. So based on the motion and our discussions about the other work that's on the council and staff's plates, from the time the -- so you'll notice "T" is defined as the working group being formed, the chair, council and liaison and staff coordinator being identified. Once that occurs, then the initial report is expected to be completed within 150 to 175 days after that. The first comment period then would end on that report another 20 to 30 days after that, and the preliminary final report then would be 190 to 220 days after the commencement of the working group. And I'd like to put dates on those, but I can't think that quick this morning, so... >>AVRI DORIA: Right. No. Thank you. I guess I'd like -- also like to point out that as I understand it, you're available to do the liaison. >>TIM RUIZ: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Duties. Okay. Thank you. >>TIM RUIZ: Right. >>AVRI DORIA: And we'll basically go through that as we go. So I guess at this point, I'd like to open up discussion on it. Is there anyone on the council that would like to make an initial statement on this charter? Yes, Alan. And anyone else wish to be in the queue at this point? Okay. Alan, please. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'd just like to say on behalf of the ALAC, who originated the request for the issues report, we're delighted it's gotten to this stage and we encourage wide participation in the working group. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Some very lovely music in the background, very light and very lovely, but it probably shouldn't be there. Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: The registry constituency definitely supports this motion, and just from an historical perspective, as is the case with quite a few of our reviews, the redemption grace period policy that was adopted many years ago, and implemented -- it's not a consensus policy, as such, but the review of this is very important and probably way overdue, but it's good that we're doing it now. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Following what Chuck said, I wanted to point out that council has -- council and various groups within ICANN have tried to address this problem a number of times over many years, and each time we think we have been moderately successful, and for some reason or another, it falls apart. And hopefully the intent of this process is that we do it properly and don't have to do it again in another two years. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'll create a diversion. >>AVRI DORIA: No wonder I thought that music was lovely. It was mine. [Laughter] >>AVRI DORIA: Please forgive me. Okay. I -- did I miss any hands on anyone else wishing to speak? While I was -- is there anyone in the -- in the room that wishes to comment on this before we put it up for a vote? No? Okay. So if there's no further... As it's a charter vote, it doesn't necessarily need to be a polled vote, because the PDP has already been approved. Is there any objection to taking a hands vote on it? Or even a voice vote on it? Any objection? I'd like to ask for hands being raised simply since it's more visible. Would all those in favor of this charter please raise their hands? [Show of hands] >>AVRI DORIA: Cyril? >>CYRIL CHUA: Aye. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. So yes, Cyril. Okay. Thank you. Would any opposed to this charter please raise their hands. [No hands raised] >>AVRI DORIA: Are there any abstentions? [No hands raised] >>AVRI DORIA: So I think the -- and, Cyril, if I understood, you said "aye" during the hand raising? >>CYRIL CHUA: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. So the charter is accepted unanimously. I'd also like to ask -- Tim Ruiz has put himself forward as the liaison for the group. Is there any objection to Tim serving in this role? Okay. Thank you, Tim. Okay. So we went through that one rather quickly, and at this point, I had basically said we wouldn't start the next item until the -- the scheduled time because I'd left more time for discussion on it. So I guess we start again immediately at 9:00. Yes, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think we probably should point out that I've agreed to act as the interim chair until the working group forms, and then hopefully turn it over to someone else. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. I don't know that we need to check on that, but if anyone would like to comment on that. Yes, Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: I guess I left it on. Not specifically on Alan. I appreciate his willingness to do that. Just the timing of when we'll then produce a notice to the community that we're looking for participants in the working group? Will that be immediately following the Sydney meeting, pretty much? Okay. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Adrian, yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: On a different topic but same one for me, where is the -- can we make an announcement as to where the glossary is located for those in the audience that may want to be up-to-date with our terms and acronyms, please? >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Does anyone have the URL? I mean I can find it. Perhaps at the break -- perhaps at the break, I can put it up once I've found it and show it to people. So at 9:00. So, you know, quick start and we -- but I will start immediately at 9:00, again, with the next topic. Thank you. [Break] >>AVRI DORIA: We'll be starting again in about a minute or less. Okay. Starting now again, it's 9:00. So basically the next item on the agenda is inter-registrar transfer policy Part B. And Marika is going to give us a quick explanation or actually some slides to take us through what it's all about. Thank you. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Correct. So just a little bit of background information on the inter-registrar transfer policy, also referred to as IRTP. The IRTP is a consensus policy that was adopted in 2004 to provide a clear and transparent way on how registrants can transfer their domain names between registrars. So as part of the adoption and implementation of this policy, it was decided that it would be helpful to conduct a review to determine whether there were any areas that needed further clarification and whether the policy was actually working as it was intended to. So as part of this overall review, a working group identified a list of issues that in their view required further improvement and clarification and these were then divided into a number of PDPs, one on the clarification of reasons for denial, which concluded some time ago. And the other issues were divided into five issue sets. So one of those recently concluded IRTP Part A. So in order to be more efficient, the council decided to combine the issues outlined in this set B which related to issues on doing transfers. It decided to combine it with some of the issues that were already set together in set C with regard to registrar lock status in an effort to actually be more efficient and have an overall reduced timeline in addressing all these issues. So an issues report was submitted to the council on the 15th of May. So this is just very briefly an overview of all the issues that are covered in the issues report. In the next slides, I'll go into each of these, so I'll just skip through this one. So the first issue covered in the issues report deals with the question of whether there should be an expedited handling process for fraud situations. So some of the suggestions that staff produced in a staff report that was published in 2005 following the comments that were received was that there probably was a need or it should be further reviewed, whether there should be an expedited handling process for fraud situations. Alternatively, one could consider whether to automatically return names that are subject to a dispute to the original until the dispute has been resolved or consider automatically rolling back the name servers in case of a conflict. So this issue was further discussed in a SSAC hijacking report which also suggested that such a process could be developed and complement the existing transfer dispute resolution procedure, or TDRP. They suggested the possible elements of such a process could be there could be an emergency action channel and accompanying policy that would outline how such an emergency channel should be staffed and how incidents should be reported and dealt with in combination with a public awareness campaign. So some of the questions that the working group should consider on these issues is what is the actual extent of this problem? Is it worth the effort of developing a new policy or the other measures that could be considered? How do you ensure a fair process? How would be the decision maker? Who would decide whether it was a fraudulent transfer or not and what kind of criteria would you use or would you need to develop? And are there any market solutions or best practices that already exist and might be sufficient or might serve as a model for developing such a procedure? So a second issue considered was whether there should be additional provisions for undoing inappropriate transfers. So the policy today is clear that a registrant can overrule the admin contact but how this is implemented in practice is up to the registrar. So some of the comments received indicated that the process is considered very difficult and not very transparent. And it is also an issue that was discussed by the IRTP Part A working group, and they recommended as well that there should be further investigation of the appropriateness of a policy change that actually would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it had actually had been completed and authorized by the admin contact. So third issue in this category is considering whether there should be special provisions for change of registrant near a change of registrar. This is an issue that's not covered in the current policy, but it is a feature that often is prevalent in hijacking cases. So a domain name is hijacked. They change the registrant details, and the domain name is transferred out to another registrar and very difficult then to get back. It was pointed out as well in the comment period that the liability for those fraudulent transfers lies with the losing registrar. So as a result, some registrars have taken preventive measures such as transfer prohibition periods that following the change of a registrant. Basically if you change the WHOIS data, you cannot transfer -- or you have the option to prevent a transfer out for a couple of months because the domain name is locked. ICANN did clarify that a registrant changed the WHOIS information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request as we did receive complaints that this procedure was being used by some registrars without options -- without the option for registrants to opt out. So if you would make a change, even if you would change your phone number, your domain name would be locked and you wouldn't be able to transfer it out. That has changed in the meantime, and as I understand from our compliance staff, there have been fewer complaints related to this issue. So this is where the working group will need to consider whether this is still a problem or an issue and, if so, what can be done to address it. But some might still consider these measures unnecessarily restrictive. So the next two issues relate to registrar lock status. So these were grouped together in this PDP. So the first one asked a question whether there should be standards or best practices for using registrar lock status. So, for example, when should you use it, when shouldn't you use it, whether it may or may not be applied. Again, there is a variation in how registrars use the lock status and registrants have found this very difficult to understand and have difficulties in unlocking their domain names. So the question that should be considered here, would registrants benefit from greater standardization or should there be a more precise definition of the appropriate use of the lock status included in the policy? So closely linked to this is the last issue which relates to the clarification of the reason for Denial Number 7. There are a number of reasons for denial of a transfer included in the transfer policy, some of which were already dealt with in the previous PDP. But this one which basically states that a domain name was already in lock status provided that the registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the registered name holder to remove the lock status. Again, as with the same issues, the practices vary here so it is difficult for registrants to often understand how this works. Of course, the definition of "accessible" and "reasonable" might have different interpretations in relation to this issue, too. So here, again, we feel consideration should be given to greater standardization or maybe a more precise definition. And as I said, this was discussed before but the group then felt as well as it is so clearly related to the previous issue, those two should be discussed together and considered in combination. So this issue was deemed in scope, and staff also considered enhancements to the IRTP related to this issue will be beneficial for registrants. So we do recommend that a PDP on these issues is initiated. So the GNSO Council will now consider a motion on the initiation of a policy development process, and there's also -- if the motion is adopted, there's also a working group charter that has been proposed that basically specifically relates to the issues outlined in the issues report. And this is just some additional information for those interested in those issues understood, of course, the council initiates the PDP. We hope many of you will join the working group and here is more background information where you can read more and there is a Wiki created where you can follow the progress of the working group. Any questions? >>AVRI DORIA: Any questions? Please come to the microphone, if you do. Any from the council members? Okay, thank you. We do have a question? Thank you. >> ELLIOT NOSS: Elliot Noss from Tucows, it is less of a question and more of a plea. Somebody who has had to be in front of this transfer issue for what is now going on ten years, first with Network Solutions as the monopoly was broken up, then as other incumbents started to -- or as other companies started to gain market share with other companies worried about losing market share, I want to make two or three points clear. We have gone through a parallel process to this before. There were clear rules that came out of that process. Those rules were simply not enforced. We now, again, have issues on the table that are virtually identical to issue that is have already been resolved by the GNSO. I found it ironic that in the presentation here one of the points made was that there had been a reduction in complaints. I will tell you that Tucows was the loudest and largest complainer. Our complaints amounted to nothing, and we gave up. So I would suggest that the number one reason why there are fewer complaints is because us and others like us in the community gave up. We had been successful, in quotes, through a policy process. The rules were simply not enforced. They were flouted by some registrars. And those rules were then said to, instead, be, no, no, this is open to interpretation and put back into the PDP spin cycle, in this case. So if we are, as a community, going to expend time, effort, resources, money on this again, please make this a definitive process, one that is not able to be continually gamed. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes, Chuck? >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Elliot. Your points are well-taken. Having been one like you and Ross who worked for a couple years on the development of that first policy, I fully appreciate what you're saying. And I'd like to point out that this particular area, the area of the registrar transfer policy is -- as far as policy development goes, maybe not enforcement like you pointed out -- was one of the successes of the GNSO and sometimes we forget that. But it wasn't an easy success. The policy development process, it wasn't called that then, as I recall took at least two years. And I think we do need to look at it and make sure that the language is clear enough to make enforcement as objective as possible. So I'm with you in terms of what you said. >>ELLIOT NOSS: I'm sorry. I need a couple -- thank you. But I need to make a couple corrections. If I recall correctly, it took six or seven years, not two, or more than two. And, again, it was -- the language was clear, I would argue. Compliance was just unable or unwilling, at the time -- and I do think a new sheriff is in town -- a few new sheriffs are in town. And I'm hopeful for this. But it was on the execution. The thing that scares me the most, Chuck, about what you said there is you defined it as a success. If "success" means that a document came out the back end, then I guess it was a success. But if "success" means that it actually contributed to the community and to the business marketplace, then it was abject failure. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, I can tell you, because registries are a -- responsible for dispute resolution with regard to transfer disputes, that we have resolved over the years a lot of disputes. So is it perfect? No. That's why we're reviewing it again. Was it -- is it better than what we had before? Absolutely. Was it enforced properly? I'm with you on that and we need to improve on that. >>ELLIOT NOSS: Okay, thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Marika? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Thank you very much for the comments. I just want to note as well that we have involved compliance staff. We did organize a brainstorming session on Sunday and we hope to involve them further in the process for them as well to indicate what they would need to enforce these issues if, indeed, there are maybe things that are not clear or where they would need additional tools. We really hope to have their participation as well together with the community in order to make sure that it is interpreted as intended and enforced. >>AVRI DORIA: Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Just to follow up on Elliot, I would -- Marika, with all due respect, I would hope it would be more than -- that you would more than hope for their participation, but you would demand it. I 100% am behind Elliot on this, and we need to either make sure that that document that does come out the back end, in his words, is written in such a way that they can utilize it. Otherwise, it is a waste of time again. But they, therefore, need to have input into the process and not, if they feel like it, but they must. Otherwise, we are wasting our time. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I'm not normally a person that demands. But I have asked and they said yes, so I'm convinced that we will work closely together on this. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'm sure a request by you would be sufficient. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. At this point, could I have the slide shifted over so I can show the motion? There's two motions as was pointed out. One is on the PDP itself, which will take a 33% vote of the council. And Tim, who is making the motion, would you please. >>TIM RUIZ: Okay. So I made the motion. It's been seconded by Chuck Gomes. I'll read the motion. Whereas, the inter-registrar transfer policy, IRTP, is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, the GNSO transfers working group identified a number of issues in its review of the current policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested policy development processes, set A through E, as per the council's resolution of 8th May, 2008. The GNSO Council in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP policy development processes resolved on 16 April 2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issues set B addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers and some of the issues outlined in issues set C related to register lock status into one IRTP part B. The GNSO issues report inter-registrar transfer policy Part B was submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009. The issues report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. And the general counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a policy development process on the issues defined in inter-registrar transfer policy issues report Part B. A working group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the policy development process. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. The motion has been made and seconded. It is a PDP motion, so, therefore, it requires a 33 -- it is a PDP motion that is within scope, so the bylaws defined needing only a 33% threshold to approve it. One second. And because it is a PDP vote by the bylaws, we will also need to have an absentee ballot extension of -- and in this case I will make it basically one calendar day after this meeting. The choice is given to limited -- we have one person who is absent, so we just have one -- we have two, sorry. So basically a 24-hour completion time for this. So, okay, open it up to questions and I had Kristina first. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I just have a clarifying question. Adrian, I'm going to pose it to you as somebody who expressed support with the concerns that Elliot had raised. Is the language of the charter adequate to accomplish what, as I understand your view is, in terms of what needs to be done? Is this language strong enough? Does it specifically deal with some of these issues? >>AVRI DORIA: Before Adrian answers, can I actually ask that we hold that until after the PDP when we're actually voting on the charter? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, but aren't we voting on the working group charter? >>AVRI DORIA: No. Actually, we first will vote on the PDP. Once the PDP has been approved -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Got it, got it. >>AVRI DORIA: Then we go on to the charter. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: No, no, no, no. That's fine. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Any other questions or issues or discussion on the PDP itself? Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Just a comment. This motion does include forming a working group. And if not already the case, I hope that -- Elliot, that Tucows can provide somebody on that working group to contribute the concerns; and Adrian as well, if possible. I know that all of our resources are stretched thin. That working group will be open. So it's critical that the right people be on there that know the issues and can make sure that the language is precise enough to be enforceable. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any more -- yes, Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Can I just clarify that, once again, whilst we can work -- and I agree with you, Chuck. We can work as hard as we possibly can on writing what we consider enforceable, but we're not the ones enforcing. So I think, once again, my point was to ensure that ICANN staff and those that will be enforcing this are interwoven into the process so that they can go out there and enforce it. And I hope that helps. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. If there's no further comment, I'd like to call for a roll-call vote on the PDP itself. As I say, the charter will be discussed right afterwards. If you could, Glen. Or you can take this one. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: Thank you, Avri. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: In favor. >>ZAHID JAMIL: In favor. >>UTE DECKER: In favor. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: In favor. >>CYRIL CHUA: Yes. >>TONY HOLMES: In favor. >>TONY HARRIS: In favor. >>GREG RUTH: Yes. >>MARY WONG: In favor. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: An absentee ballot will be sent to Bill Drake. Carlos Souza? >>CARLOS SOUZA: Yes. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Yes. >>TIM RUIZ: Yes. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Yes. >>GLEN de SAINT GERY: An absentee ballot will be sent to Jordi Iparraguirre. Chuck Gomes? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. >>EDMON CHUNG: Yes. >>TERRY DAVIS: In favor. >>AVRI DORIA: In favor. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. As I say, two votes will be sent but it obviously does meet the threshold for a PDP. We have 24 and need to continue. However, the threshold certainly has been met so we will go on. And did I check that it was okay if we knew that the PDP contingent of the bylaws vote had been met even though there is a still a pending bylaws requirement for absentee ballot to get all opinions recorded, we can go on to the creating of the working group. So, Tim, I would like to turn it over to you to discuss the charter. >>TIM RUIZ: All right. I can read the motion of the charter or did we want to read the substance of it first and then have a discussion on it since there has been a question about whether it is clear enough. >>AVRI DORIA: I would recommend starting with the motion and then go to the substance, leaving out, though, all the stuff that's boilerplate in terms of how the group will be run. >>TIM RUIZ: Right, right. Okay. So this motion again was made by myself. Actually both of these motions were drafted with the assistance of the previously working group on the transfers Part A. So the motion is whereas, on -- today -- 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and decided to create a policy development process working group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the policy development process. And the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. Resolved, the GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz, confirmed as the GNSO Council liaison, to the IRTP policy development process Part B working group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B working group be initiated no later than 14 days after the approval of this motion until such time as the working group can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council. The GNSO Council liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter, the working group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council. A, whether a process for urgent return resolution of a domain name should be developed as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report, security and stability Advisory Committee hijacking report, at the link noted. See also the other link noted. B, whether additional provisions on doing inappropriate transfers are needed especially with regard to disputes between a registrant and admin contact. The policy is clear that the registrant can overrule the admin contact but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. C, whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with a change of registrant which often figures in hijacking cases. D, whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a registrar lock status. For example, when it may or may not, should or should not be applied. And, E, whether and if so how best to clarify denial reason Number 7, a domain name has already -- was already in lock status provided that the registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the registered name holder to remove the lock status. And then, again, the working group processes are included which are boilerplate processes, interim processes. And milestones are included. From the formation of the working group to the initial report, 170 days is expected. The first comment period would end then 20 days after that. with the preliminary final report 30 days later or 220 days after the formation of the working group. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I'll open up the discussion. I guess we'll start with Kristina's question. And I don't know whether it was actually directed to Adrian or in general. But... >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I mean, it was specifically to Adrian, given the statements he had articulated. But obviously it is open to anyone who is working on the issue. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Adrian, did you want to respond? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Thanks, Kristina. I appreciate the question. I would like to suggest based on the charter that somewhere in there we can add, number one, the identification of those ICANN staff that will be responsible for enforcement. Did I say A or one? I said one. Therefore, two, that we seek their input into ensuring that the outcomes are, indeed, enforceable. So I guess I turn -- if that seems adequate and maybe Elliot could speak to that if that helps him as well because I know he's concerned about this issue. But, Tim, can I ask you, does that seem appropriate? >>TIM RUIZ: That seems very appropriate and reasonable. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Can someone -- I can quick add that to the motion as -- I mean, to the charter, if someone tells me what to add, but...yes, please. >>ELLIOT NOSS: Thank you. The one piece that -- and again, I could miss it in the, you know, wall o' text and it might have been dealt with in IRTP-A -- who can keep track -- was transfers in the grace period. So, you know, it was -- the greatest offense would be the combination of locking a name because of change to information for a period of 60 or 90 days, which would then be used, because of course you change your information when you're looking at renewal, which is the time you're looking at a change of supplier. That would then be used to drag the name into the grace period, where the transfer would be -- so first the transfer would be denied because the information had been changed, into the grace period, transfer is denied because of transfers in the grace period, another year is squeezed out of the unhappy customer. That was the most troublesome act. On top of that -- and I think this could be -- this may or may not be necessary to change in the language, you were identifying explicitly that the incidence of changing information and then changing registrar is prevalent in situations of hijacking. Situations of hijacking are very, very concerning, but also very, very infrequent. There has been, since this issue was last looked at deeply by the council, a fundamental change in the market for domain names. Specifically, the secondary market, which is now potentially -- or arguably -- larger on a dollar-for-dollar basis than the primary market. It is com -- it is -- it is almost expected that if a domain name is sold, the information will be changed and then immediately a transfer would be requested. And I'd really like to highlight that, you know, for the folks who are here on behalf of the IP community who have become much more forward-thinking in their use of the secondary market, you know, it's those brand owners who are out to -- who will often buy a name in the secondary market and then look to bring it into their registrar of choice, who often provides a fundamentally different level of service than the one where it's being transferred from, that we -- you know, we need to make sure we cover off for. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Stéphane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Avri. Elliot, don't go away. I wanted to have your views on the process. I understand that you have a lot to say about the actual subject material that the working group will cover, and I hope that you or someone from Tucows will be able to get involved in that, because you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about the subject matter, but what about the process that's being proposed here by Tim and Adrian? I mean we haven't had your feedback on that. >>ELLIOT NOSS: You know, I'm pretty simple about these things. It's not about strategy; it's about execution. You know, the problem last time -- all of these issues were cleanly resolved. You know, we were thrilled with the outcome from the GNSO. And when it was flouted and completely ignored by registrars, compliance first gave us hope that they were going to act, and then refused to act. And the reason they refused to act, Stéphane, was that, you know, they made recourse to the contracts. What are we going to do? We don't have any gradation in what we can do. All we can do is threaten these registrars with taking away their accreditation. You know, basically it was the litigation avoidance concern that kept this from being enforced. So I know we have new contracts. I think that's great. All of us -- or many of us are signing up for those. Those do give compliance more arrows in the quiver. But at the end of the day, you know, somebody being threatened for losing their accreditation for acting outside the bounds of the contract, that's fine. That should have been those registrars' problem, not compliance's problem. So, you know, again, we can do -- you guys all, and people who volunteer and, you know, we'll talk about providing somebody, you know, can do all they can do. At the end of the day this is about execution. I don't know how you can, you know, enforce that or, you know, ensure that in this process. That's just the realities of it. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. In listening to the conversation and in looking at the motion for the charter, it does look like it needs a little bit more oomph than is in it, and that could be adequately done by a little bit of quick wordsmithing at the moment, so I'm looking to see whether there's -- there will be any objection to tabling this until the next meeting for the working group. But please, Liz. >>LIZ GASSTER: I was just going to say, Liz Gasster on the ICANN policy staff, that I recognize at least part of this has to do with actively involving the compliance group in the process, and I'd be happy to arrange that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I guess the additional part to arranging it is putting something in the charter that basically emphasizes that connection. Yes, Tim, I saw your hand. >>TIM RUIZ: I think that's fine if we -- if we want to table it and get something correct. I was just going to offer some really bad language that might help get us started, but perhaps it's just best if we discuss it. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any other comment or issue on this at the comment? Anyone want to make any further comment that needs to be considered in the retightening of the charter? And even if you don't mention it now, please talk to Tim and others who are working on the charter over the next day or two to make sure that the language does get to where -- and I'm assuming, Liz, you'll be able to work with the compliance folks to make sure that there's language in there that enables them to do what they need to do, if we need enabling language. Any further comment on this one? Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: I just want to make sure that we're clear who has the lead responsibility on this, to make sure that this is ready to go at the next meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: Tim, who has already -- almost in the position of liaison, has actually even stuck up his hand in saying he'll take the lead on it, and follow through. And Marika is happy to remind Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: I'm happy for that. >>AVRI DORIA: And any further comment on this one before we move on to the next agenda item? Which is -- let me see if I can go back to the agendas now. I'll just go back it here. I don't need to -- Okay. Then the next issue is the internationalized domain names group, the IDNG charter. Now, that charter has not been completed, but basically we decided to leave the item on, so that we could have some discussion on what it was -- what the topic was, what the concerns are, and where the thinking is, so that people could participate in this discussion before we got to a point of actually doing the charter. One of the things I had been looking for, to lead into this -- and I'll turn the mic over to Edmon in a second -- was for someone from the staff, from the implementation team, to give us their rough estimation of the comparative dates for when the IDN ccTLDs would start being available, and the new gTLDs, including the IDN gTLDs -- or especially including, for this topic, the IDN gTLDs -- would be available. And because it was something that everyone's really a little nervous about, speaking of dates and speaking of dates with any sort of authority, I'm certainly not capable of speaking of dates with any sort of authority but when I look at the comparative dates, all things being equal, which of course they never are, but all things being equal, there will be a gap between the one and the other, or there may be a gap between one and the other being ready. So this discussion is in that context of if various -- if IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are not ready at the same time, and because of all the still open and prevailing issues of gTLDs are still in the process of being worked on, is there an approach that we want to take. And hopefully that's a sufficient, if not too-ambiguous, start to this one. And Edmon, I'd like to give you the floor, allow you to read the "whereas" clause if you'd like, and then basically to initiate a discussion and then it will be both the open mic and the council. >>EDMON CHUNG: Thank you, Avri. Instead of looking at the "whereas" clauses, I think perhaps I'll just give a background of where we got to where, if that's okay. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. It's -- yeah. >>EDMON CHUNG: Sure. Okay. So I'll start from where, Avri, you left off, and the GNSO Council and GNSO generally, I would -- I think -- I believe, we have some concerns about the introduction of new IDN TLDs between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs if they're not introduced at the same time. In fact, just pointing back to a couple of council statements that were issued before, one of which said that if -- if basically new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts. And then further, in a more recent statement, the GNSO Council also stated that it strongly believes that neither the new gTLD or ccTLD fast track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other, unless both the GNSO and the ccNSO so agree. So this is sort of the foundation of which the discussion was started. A drafting team was created shortly after the Mexico meeting, to look into a possible way to address this issue, to take -- basically take this further. The initial direction of the group pointed towards a possible IDN -- I keep saying "IDN." It's Internationalized Domain Names, but I'll keep with "IDN," as it's -- I'll keep repeating this term. So the initial direction of the group -- the drafting team was towards possibly having an IDN gTLD fast track. Discussions went on. There were certain concerns about different areas of having an IDN gTLD fast track, and one of which -- one of the most -- strongest voices was the concern that if such a path was taken, that it would cause further delays to the new -- the full new gTLD process. In recent couple of weeks, there has been increased discussion on the matter, and I think the drafting team sort of took into consideration some of the concerns and took a slightly different approach and revised -- which is what is posted right now -- a third draft of the potential charter. The revised purpose is, instead of focusing purely on an IDN gTLD fast track process, perhaps to take a step back and start where we have agreement which is we need to address the potential issue if a ccTLD -- IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are not introduced at the same time. And, therefore, the revised -- sort of the current revised direction would be to take that as a basis and perhaps look into different options that could address the issue, and one of which being a potential IDN gTLD fast track. The other potential option is to seek some sort of mutual understanding that processes for the IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs would continue as they are, but in terms of introduction to the root, they will be coordinated at a -- within a similar time frame. And that similar time frame being part of the discussion. And another set of areas that was identified was that there -- it has become more and more obvious that there are common interests between IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs -- well, between the ccNSO and the GNSO on the topic of IDNs, and these include, for example, the management of variants at the root. This -- both the IDNC, the internationalized domain names ccTLD fast track and the GNSO recommendations for the new gTLD process specified the adherence to IDN guidelines, and the IDN guidelines pointed to the use of IDN tables and the -- and, in essence, variants. But what was not stipulated was how this would be implemented into the root. So this is one of the areas of common interest. Another area of common interest between cc's and g's would be, for example, the IDNA, which is the internationalized domain names in application. This is the technical standards for IDNs. That is being currently revised, and in both the ccTLD fast track process as well as the gTLD -- new gTLD process, we have stipulated in the policies to wait for the revision of the IDNA protocols to be completed before IDN TLDs would be introduced to the root. So this seems to be common interests between ccTLDs and gTLDs which warrants potentially working together on. Subsequent to the discussion from the drafting team -- and we had a GNSO and ccNSO lunch earlier this week -- the topic was also brought up, and especially on the areas of common interest, I think there is -- there seems to be some agreement and some interest to work together on. So that sort of is much of the "whereas" part in the proposed -- well, in the current unfinished draft of the motion. But really what we are then -- then need to talk about and consider is what action is to be taken, some of which could be potentially a joint working group between the ccNSO and the GNSO, which has been floated in our lunch earlier this week. It's possible that the GNSO would initiate a working group. It's possible that we would ask the board to initiate a working group across the two supporting organizations and also probably inviting -- well, inviting other -- the broader community to participate. And perhaps all of the above. And perhaps reemphasizing some of the statements that we have had before about the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs. So that's sort of the brief introduction. But before that, I want to -- there's one point that I was very strongly reminded in the recent discussions, which I want to point out, is that I did -- all of the discussion earlier was about the process, but I was reminded strongly that this is all about really the -- the user experience for IDN TLDs and user expectation, especially on -- in the -- on the issue of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs. We do believe and we've seen and we've heard the concerns and the expectations from the user that when IDN ccTLDs are introduced, users expect that IDN gTLDs also exist and also can be used. So these are some of the issues that we must not forget, in the whole - - when we talk about the process and when we -- when we're so entwined into the process. So I think with that, I -- that's -- I think that's a very important point to, you know, remember as we go about this process. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. So I'll open up discussion. I already have two names on the queue up here, which is Stéphane and Adrian. I invite people to come to the microphone and I've got Chuck also. Go ahead, Stéphane. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thank you, Avri. I wanted to start by thanking Edmon for his approach on this. He's been very open to discussion. There's been -- just for everybody's information -- a lot of background work on this, and things have changed and moved and we've had some -- you know, I've had some worries. Edmon's addressed all the worries, I think, that we've put to him, so it's been a pleasant experience working on this. I wanted to go back to the question you asked initially, Avri, which seems to me the central point of all this. If we can get an idea from staff or from somebody of some dates or some time line, then it puts this work in a lot more focus. As Edmon mentioned earlier on, there are some worries -- and I share them -- that as it stands, if we start to work on this, it could delay the whole new gTLD process and it could be a kind of a sidetrack to that process. This doesn't need to be so, but to ensure that it isn't so, we do need to have some kind of idea of how the cc's and the G's could coexist, and in what time frame. The feeling that we get now is that although at the start it seemed that the G's would come out before the cc's, it seems that that's reversed somewhat. It would be very helpful to have a better idea of that. And I also wanted to mention the fact that the joint cc/G working group that is being proposed is -- I may be wrong on this, but as far as I know, something new, something that hasn't been done, or at least not often. I don't think it's ever been done before. I think it's a great idea. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Adrian. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I'd just like to reiterate Stéphane's point and thank Edmon for the work he's done. However, just in listening to you then, your, I think, potentially final point was what you called the most important, and that was that if cc's were to go first, that there is a general -- you believe a general expectation from end users that if they're using their cc, that their g will also be available in IDNs. If that is the case, and that is your important point, I just think you want to be careful, because surely the converse applies. And that is that if you use your g, you would expect your cc to work. And if that's the case, and that's your important point, then I think it speaks to the very heart of this charter, and that is that there's no need for a fast track. It doesn't facilitate anything. Thank you. >>EDMON CHUNG: Can I quickly -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>EDMON CHUNG: I'll stay in the queue. >>AVRI DORIA: Do you want to be in the queue or -- >>EDMON CHUNG: I just want to clarify -- >>AVRI DORIA: Just a clarification, okay. >>EDMON CHUNG: Okay. Just to clarify that I think that that was the - - that was a -- I meant it to be an example and some of the things that we have heard from the community, not something -- not my own personal point of view or whatever. So... But I take your point. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I have Chuck and then I have Han Chuan. Okay. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thank you, Avri. With regard to the joint ccNSO/GNSO working group, if I understood correctly in our lunch meeting with the ccNSO on Monday, we have a kind of a basic start to that, with one person from the ccNSO and you, Edmon, and I think we've kind of indicated to Tina that we'd like her to be involved in that as well. Tina Dam. Is that correct? And is this -- I mean, should we even now enlist volunteers who would like to join you and the representative from the ccNSO in starting to work on this? >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Let me go to Han Chuan. Yes. >>HAN CHUAN LEE: Thank you, Avri. When it comes to the joint working group, I believe you will definitely both the ccTLDs and the gTLDs as the issues and the problems, as far as any resolution that comes out from there, will definitely be beneficial and advance the progress interests of the introduction of the IDNs ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs. However, the working group must be very clear that the outcome of this work should not introduce any delay to the introduction of the ccTLD or the IDN gTLD for both sides. So the objective and goals of the working group must take into consideration that the issue come to us for broad consideration. You know, the IDNA protocols, getting it revised and approved, you know. But that should not cause any delays like, you know, saying that -- for example, purposely introducing -- delaying the progress of the IDNA protocol and things. Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Chuck, one thing I did want to comment on to your question on should we start looking for volunteers for a working group now, I would think that, yes, because I think even the form of that group, since it's a little GNSO, a little ccNSO, there are no policies anywhere for how such a group exists and formed. They would be the ones to sort of recommend how we did this while we were in parallel. So I would definitely recommend that if there are people that are willing to start talking about it, they start talking about it while we can still talk about it face to face. I've got Chuck, I've got Stéphane, I still have no one at the mic. Okay. I have Steve. Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yes. I just want to respond to Han Chuan's comment there, and I appreciate it. But I -- I think -- and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong -- that if we don't properly deal with these issues of common interests, we could have a delay, so it's -- I think it's very important and critical for us to deal with those, so that we don't have delays. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I think you were next and then I'll come back to Stéphane because we haven't -- >>STEVE DelBIANCO: Steve DelBianco with Netchoice. And, you know, it's funny. Edmon, it's a shame that you have to work so hard to find a commonality, to find points of common interest, to rationalize and justify finding a way to work together with ccNSO, because I remember four years ago at the Vancouver meeting, hearing all the discussion of IDN TLDs. There was no one at the ICANN meeting at Vancouver who was splitting between cc's and G's. It was all about serving the IDN community, which was desperate for being able to use domain names and e- mail addresses in their own scripts, and we were -- I mean, everybody was uniformly pressing ICANN to move more quickly. But then something happened. It got forked. It got forked for two reasons. And I think mainly because the notion that new TLDs were going to include -- were going to include all of the ASCII G's, so by opening up new TLDs to not only IDNs but all the G's, we've created a giant process clutch as we try to figure out how to fit them all in, and that's slowing them down, and that drove the need -- as far as I can tell -- for the ccNSO to demand a fast track. And Adrian, to your point, the fast track didn't mean faster to the root. The fast track was the board granting permission to the ccNSO to skip the whole PDP thing, and just go directly to some countries that would do noncontroversial introductions. I know this because every time I've claimed that the fast track was going to mean that they were in the root too quickly -- more quickly than the G's, Peter Dengate Thrush would correct me. The fast track says nothing about when they're in the root, it only says that you don't have to do a PDP on the ccNSO side, and those of you who are experts in process I think would be able to back me up on that. And so those two events created a situation where they are going to be in the root at a different time and Edmon is exactly right. People have an expectation, but registrants who have invested a lot of money in domains in the ASCII side and want to move them to the IDN side, and much of that content, much of that commerce and communication, is in the G. Skype.com, for instance, one of my members is going to want to be in IDNs. They're not going to want to necessarily have to register IDNs in every potential language that uses their service. Same thing with eBay. So it is a common interest, and it's a shame that we have to work so hard to find commonality. But it's funny how money changes everything. I've heard over the last few days, as the ccNSO has discussed the notion of having to pay up to $26,000 as an application fee, and to listen to them discussing it on Monday afternoon, you'd think $26,000 was a barrier. And I realize that the people that flew to this meeting spent -- well, they spent half of that to get here for a meeting. But $26,000 is such a barrier. And there was encouragement -- and Avri was in the meeting as well -- they were encouraging each other to have solidarity to stand firm to tell ICANN, "No, we don't want to pay any fees to get in there." But I would encourage the GNSO to take a look at whether we could find another element of commonality by bringing the large registries that want to launch IDN gTLDs, bringing them to the table, bringing them into a joint process and find a way to help with what seems to be an acute pain on the ccNSO fast track side, and that is the money. It could be that the expertise and investment that could be brought by the big G's could smooth that over and create an opportunity to work together, so that we get into the root at the same time, fulfilling the expectations that we have set around the planet for IDNs in both G and cc at the same time. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I have Stéphane, then Eric, then Olga. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Thanks. I will take my turn in the queue. I wanted to volunteer for the working group. I'll be very happy to work on that. To what the gentleman just said, I wanted to be clear, did I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the g's subsidize the cc's? >>STEVE DelBIANCO: The GTLDs already subsidize the cc's. That's well- known. If you are going to do the time, you may as well do the crime. We are going to subsidize it. Let's subsidize it explicitly not accidently and implicitly and do it in a way that actually gets us an objective that we know that the registrants and the users around the world want. So the answer to your question is yes, without apology. I do think we are going to subsidize them anyway, so let's do it on purpose. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Eric? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: Thank you. Eric Brunner-Williams from CORE. Like Stéphane, I'm standing up to volunteer to be part of the activity. Of course, most of this is actually taking place presently and has been for some time. We just are institutionalizing something that's ad hoc and somewhat covert. Turning to the cost issue just momentarily, I know that VeriSign has contributed a great deal of its own staff time to the development of what was originally a sort of proprietary approach to this. But my point being that VeriSign has spent some money on this themselves, as has CNNIC and others. So the subsidization question should be posed simply as if there had been no expense previously, whether the expense originated from a g player or from a cc player or from academics and third-parties. That's about it. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Avri. I would like to volunteer for working in the working team. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Lots of people can volunteer also. Just find Edmon. Chuan Han, please. >>HAN CHUAN LEE: This is in response to Chuck. The cc and the g, they have different working paces. The g used to go faster than the cc in terms of the IDN. And as like was mentioned, it seems like it is not the reverse. So if this working group were not to materialize and the ccNSO went on with their own work and the g went on with their own work, you are going to have outcomes coming up at different times. But if there is going to be a joint working group, the outcome will most likely be at the same time. So the concern on the cc side will be the joint working group, the objective must be very clear that it must not cause any delay because if a cc will go on their own, they will probably going to have a different time, a different pace of work. So this is why we are going to stress that if this group -- if this working group were to materialize, this has to be a very clear objective for the working group. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Edmon, you wanted to -- >>EDMON CHUNG: Yeah. On that point -- and, Han Chuan, I think that is definitely the starting point. That has to be the starting point, and that has always been what we are starting from here. And I think the -- okay. Now we have a joint mike as well. [laughter] Yeah, I think the -- at least the concept of which is that to first look into some of the common interest issues, I think that is a very important basis for which the GNSO and the ccNSO can work together and those -- as Chuck pointed out, those could be issues that need to be resolved to avoid delays on both sides -- both tracks, if you will. But from there -- from there going into the discussion, I think that's precisely one of the Item 1 issues is the -- I understand the ccNSO's position, and I would like to bring the GNSO's position to the discussion as well, which is we have had a number of statements before and how we address them. You know, I use the word "harmonize" and some didn't feel that was a good word and maybe it is either harmonizing or coordinating the introduction of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs into the root. So I think that's -- the common understanding right now and the starting point is definitely that we shouldn't be obstructing each other's process or delaying each other's process. And I think that needs to be a continued understanding, and I think that's really -- I hope and I do believe that the outcome of which would be beneficial for both ccNSO and GNSO in that if we can have some common positions in the areas of common interests, then we can further smooth out the implementation track for both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Before I go on with my queue, which has one person in it, I understand that Kurt Pritz is in the room and might be able to give us some insight into that question we've been asking about comparative timing. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you, Avri. I'm sorry to interrupt the meeting. I was briefing the ccNSO on the geographic names. And the tone of the conversation was similar to the one I had with the GNSO but the points were different. So what's the question exactly? Is it just to -- >>AVRI DORIA: The question has been trying to understand the relative timings of the two processes, so to better understand when various IDN names, cc's and g's, would be available to the community. >>KURT PRITZ: Okay. As you know, it's been ICANN's intent to prosecute the completion of both processes with all due alacrity. We are moving those processes independently forward as quickly as possible but with the right amount of deliberation. And so given that premise, the way the timing appears today -- and the timing always changes -- is that the approval of the IDNC process -- IDN ccTLD process is planned for the Seoul meeting, that the board would vote to approve the ccTLD process in Seoul. As I think everybody here knows, there's a few ccTLDs lined up waiting at the door with applications in hand as they understand the process right now to give ICANN an application for that right away. Also, the ccTLD -- the IDN ccTLD processes -- I'll call it the evaluation process in here -- is shorter than the gTLD evaluation process. So a few months, I think, before a IDN ccTLD would be delegated after Seoul. The gTLD process, the timing that has been laid out is that the final guidebook could be published in December, and that would be with board approval. So there is a board meeting in early December. And given the requirement for communications, the ability to launch the communications plan a little bit early, we think applications could be accepted in February. I think that would be the soonest. And then as we've tried to put forward in presentations, the application process and then the delegation process after that, then the board approval, execution of an agreement and then placing in the root zone placement, that takes 4 1/2, 5 months. The evaluation takes 4 1/2, 5 months. Probably 7 months for the whole process. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I had Stéphane in the queue. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Thanks, Avri. Just to come back to the point that was made by the observer from the ccNSO Council, I think we have to be clear that the GNSO's position has always been that we do not want to see the g's come out after the cc's or vice versa. We would like to avoid a first-to-market advantage. I agree that this process should not delay the c's. That certainly is not the intent. But I think we have to also make it clear that the GNSO is coming into this process because we would like to avoid seeing a first-to-market advantage for one compared to the other. Kurt, before you go away, sorry, I just wanted to also -- can you just clarify what you just said about the -- because the important thing about what you just said isn't really when the application window opens, it is when the actual TLD goes into the root. So am I right in saying that you said it would be, like, a few months for the cc's because the validation time is shorter and seven months for the g's? So if we're starting in February, that would be, like, the end of 2010 for the g's and the middle of 2010 for the cc's? >>KURT PRITZ: That's Kurt's personal opinion. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any -- okay. Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: I really appreciate the volunteers for this joint working group that have already stepped forward. I think it's really important now that we go back to the ccNSO to encourage response from their side as well. And I think hopefully that can happen in a couple ways. Han Chuan, I hope you would take it back and encourage participation. And, Avri, probably a good idea if you could do a follow-up e-mail with Chris so we can get this thing going because I don't want delays any more than the ccNSO wants delays. But if there is a couple of these issues that could cause delays, so let's get on it right away. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, thank you. By the way, Han Chuan, I apologize for saying your name backwards. >>HAN CHUAN LEE: No worries. Chuck, I will definitely do that. >>AVRI DORIA: And I will definitely speak to Chris. Okay. So I guess seeing no one further at the mikes and no further hands, we'll end this topic and move to the next topic in the agenda which is the topic of the bylaw changes. And I want to start with a little bit of introduction to it before reading the motion. And then I'll open up the floor. Due to the restructuring and the various improvements requirements, there have been a number of changes that will need to be made to the bylaws. Now, there's nothing in the bylaws that requires that the GNSO first come up with these bylaw changes and recommend them to the board. However, in a bottom-up organization, in a bottom-up process, it does make sense for us to make our own recommended changes -- I mean, for us to recommend the changes to the bylaws that relate to the GNSO and such. So for the last several months, a drafting team of the whole, as it were, of basically the whole GNSO, those who were -- GNSO Council, those who were interested plus substitutes or additional people from the constituencies as well as some representatives from applicant constituencies have been discussing the bylaw changes. And at the moment, we've gotten to an almost satisfactory conclusion of that process. However, there are still two pending issues, one of them to do with how the next board seat is chosen and basically there's an alternating rule that has been proposed in the July committee of one house elects one seat, one house elects the other seat and there are questions of the order of precedence in who elects the next seat. And so the bylaws, as currently written, within the GNSO have basically a blank in them saying, "Board to insert here how this should be done" because there has been a request to the board to reconsider the recommendation that was made by the July committee and to reverse the order of the houses. As it stands now, it would be the contracted parties house that would recommend the next one. As was recommended in the July committee, it would be the contracted parties house that would be voting on the next seat and it would be the non-contracted parties that would be voting on the following one. And there has been a request from the constituencies that would be the non-contracted parties house, from that house, or at least some of the constituencies from that house, that this order be reversed. This would be a very difficult decision for the GNSO to make because most probably it would end up being the three NomCom appointees who would make this decision, and I don't think that would be appropriate or perhaps even safe. So -- and probably wouldn't stand in any case. So this issue has been directed to the board and such. The other issue that is pending some further comment from the board and its Structural Improvements Committee, often called by its initials SIC, would -- is how -- I mean, the whole section on how in the transition, on how the current seats that are held by the constituencies in the council transition to the new council and how any other seats are decided at that time. And there have been various discussions, especially with regard to the noncommercial stakeholder group that are still under discussion. All that being the case, though, I still wish to as -- okay, let me get to the motion. I still wish to place the motion on the table, and then I will open it up to discussion on the bylaw changes. The motion being made because -- and I'll read it in a second. It is my opinion as the person making the motion that when we're making recommendations to the board and we're leaving questions open for the board in something that is really a -- is not a mandatory part of the process that we recommend these changes, it is okay to approve something that has holes in it. Though, I understand that there are people who feel that those holes should be filled. And doing my most best to see those are filled as quickly as possible, however. Whereas, on 28 August 2008, the ICANN board of directors approved the BGC -- that's the Board Governance Committee -- plan to the restructuring of the GNSO. And on 27 March 2009, the ICANN policy staff introduced a draft of proposed bylaw changes related to the restructuring of the GNSO. And subsequent to receiving the changes suggested by the ICANN policy staff, the GNSO Council decided to create a committee of the whole to work on a proposed set of changes to the bylaws, which committee was open to council members as well as substitutes from the constituencies and to representatives of applicant constituencies. And on 8 June 2009, the Structural Improvements Committee of the board of directors gave a set of clarification to questions posed by the GNSO committee of the whole. And on June 12, the ICANN legal council gave a set of recommended edits to the GNSO committee of the whole. Resolved, the GNSO recommends to the ICANN board of directors that the bylaws related to the GNSO Council be amended to read as documented and then the latest edit of the bylaws is listed here. And this motion was made by myself and seconded by Chuck. So I open up the floor, queue to the council members and to any of the participants sitting here. Anyone want to start? Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think we accept that with certain things where maybe it's work in progress and that there are a few holes of non- substantive matter that are unresolved and it helps the process along, then, of course, it is appropriate to do so. In this case, however, I think the two issues that are unresolved are not holes in the patchwork but are chasms. These are two fundamental issues upon which the entire agreement made over a year ago was based, and it is on that basis that we must formally on behalf of the BC request a delay of this vote until we see some full and final text whereby we can see all the elements that were agreed upon put in one place. And that is important, I think, as a general principle but especially important when we're talking about the bylaws that will govern the way that we are run for the next few years. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. It has been a common practice within the GNSO to delay by one meeting any motion that has been put on the floor to the following meeting on the request of a constituency. So I would take that as such a request and will certainly delay it to the next meeting. Yes, Tony? >>TONY HOLMES: Well, those of us who've been involved in developing these bylaws, I think we really appreciate the work that's gone into that, some significant effort across the preceding months. But we did discuss this issue yesterday at our constituency meeting and certainly shared the view that the issues that are outstanding are of such significance that we couldn't support going ahead with this at the moment. So we would also request the delay in the hope that this will be resolved before the next meeting. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Tony. And I will give the floor to Chuck in a second. But the Structural Improvements Committee definitely already knows that we need these answers from them. Okay. I have Chuck, Carlos and then Ute. >>CHUCK GOMES: I want to make sure, first of all, I understood you correctly, Philip. I thought I heard you say that there were some fundamental understandings that underlined our agreement that we made last year in terms of structure and that those -- apparently the two issues that are on the table have changed in that regard. If that is what I understood, I would say that that's not the case with regard to the order of the board seat election. I can tell you emphatically that the registry constituency, who I represent, understood that and that it was an important part of the decision that they made to accept the total package. So I think it is totally inaccurate to suggest that that was not on the table then any differently than the way it is now. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Carlos? >>CARLOS SOUZA: Carlos Souza. I just want to reaffirm as we -- in the transition article on Item 4, the blank clause regarding the allocation of seats from the NCSG, we cannot vote on this as we have previously mentioned here at the table. So we took this issue to the constituency day, the NCUC. But to be sincere, we spent much of our day yesterday in the constituency meeting discussing the IRT. So we really need to go back to NCUC, within our constituency, to get more information on this so that we can vote. So we second the request to postpone this voting on this motion. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Yes, I think now we have three constituencies on notice as saying they need the delay to the next meeting. So there is no way I'm going to call a vote on this in this meeting. Next I had Ute. >>UTE DECKER: Yes. Just for the record, we also express our appreciation for the work that has gone into this, but like the three constituencies that spoke earlier, we believe that this cannot be decided today because really -- and I think this is something that should be brought to mind because the two issues outstanding would be essential to the approval of the entire package. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much. We now have four reasons for postponing it. Yes, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: On kind of a little different angle here, if possible, it would be nice to get a sense that there's pretty general agreement on the rest of the packages, besides those -- the rest of the changes besides those two because it would be nice -- it would be helpful now if there are other issues where we're not in agreement that we identify those now so we can work those in a timely manner. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. One of the things I neglected to say is we spent probably about three hours this weekend going through all the changes, talking about each of the changes. And it's certainly my belief, until someone raises an issue otherwise, that except for those two issues, we have come to a general consensus on the rest of it. I have -- no one has brought up other issues that need -- and so I certainly second what you said, that if there are such issues they should be raised. Yes, Mike, and then Stéphane. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I would just say this is a little bit premature to say it was total general consensus because we haven't seen the whole package together and haven't really considered it as such. I understand what you're saying, is there general consensus as to everything but these two issues. And I think that's still maybe a little optimistic simply because several of the constituencies still need to go back to our members and get their views. Many of them will not have expressed those views to date because there simply was not a well-baked package for them to consider. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I guess then I should be more specific and say there seemed to be general consensus within the committee of the whole. It still needs to go to constituencies, I understand that. I had Stéphane and then I had another hand come up but not quick enough to identify. Okay, thank you, Tony. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: I think it is also important to go back to the timeline here because, I mean, we have all noted that it would not be possible to take a vote on this today. But this process is part of what we're trying to achieve by sitting the new council in Seoul. And I think it might be helpful to have some idea of where we need to have this done by, the absolute deadline, so that we can, you know, still reach our objective of sitting that new council in Seoul. >>AVRI DORIA: Let me talk about that a little, and then I might ask for some staff help on some of the stuff I'm going to take and then I will get back to the queue. That basically the requirements, as we did a calculation back, looked like we need to make the decision by the end of June in order for the board to be able to vote on this by the end of July in their meeting so that all the constituencies and stakeholder groups can do their elections by the end of August so we can get everybody here. And those are general dates. Because the set of bylaw changes -- there isn't a bylaw requirement for the approval of it by the GNSO -- one of the questions that's being looked at at the moment is to start collecting community comments on these bylaw changes as soon as possible and to basically get the GNSO vote on it as soon as possible. One of the things that's not on the agenda for this meeting but is at our follow-up meeting tomorrow is a schedule of meetings, and one of the proposals is going to be for a special meeting within the next two weeks that would be purely this. Now, this assumes that we have answers from the Structural Improvements Committee/Board on the two pending issues by the end of this meeting, which we're definitely pushing on. And I have seen draft sort of -- sort of a draft notion of at least one of the answers that's still being discussed. I have not seen anything on the other issue yet. So that's -- but that's something that in terms of discussing schedule for how to proceed on that is something that I was planning for tomorrow's meeting to nail it down and not get into those sort of insane discussions we get in when we try to schedule a meeting about Thursday afternoon in what part of the world. So I would prefer to just leave that discussion. I had Tony and I had Kristina. >>TONY HOLMES: Well, just for the record, whilst I think other than those two main issues, there may be some support for the general principles that are set out within that document, I don't think all of the details have been nailed down. For instance, there are some discussions still going on with regards to the name of the non-contracted parties house, and those things haven't been closed out, and there needs to be some more dialogue. But I believe there's time for that in the next period, and we can reasonable do that on the list. But I just wanted to give an indication that I don't think everything is quite as firm as perhaps was put forward. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. On that one -- and I'm not saying that the discussion is certainly closed on that, but we did get a response from the structural improvements committee saying the names are the names, and we're not open to changing them at this point. Of course nothing is ever firm, but we did ask that question of the board structural improvements committee and the answer they came back with was, "No, we're not considering name changes at this time." I have Kristina and then Chuck. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Thank you, Avri. I think the proposal to have a special meeting in the next couple weeks, presuming that we can get clear articulation of a position by the board on -- in its meeting on Friday, is perfectly reasonable and in fact, was something that I was hoping that we could go ahead with that assumption. I did want to kind of take a step back, though, and just note that while it certainly is the case that one point that is outstanding is whether the board seat would be first selected by the contracted parties or the non-contracted parties house, it's really that the fundamental issue that frankly remains open is the recommendation in that initial proposal that was put forth and that was agreed on through a very extensive compromise process was that the board members would be selected by the houses, period, and that it is that issue which has not yet been resolved at the board level. So I think, you know, while it certainly is the case that who goes first is important, we don't even get there unless there will, in fact, be opportunities for both houses to select board members. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And thank you for that correction and for reminding both me and the board that they have not taken that decision yet. So, yes, that was a good -- good reminder. Thank you. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I just wanted to respond to Tony. Tony, I understood the SIC's answer to our question just like Avri stated, but unless I misunderstood them, I think there was still freedom for us, within our stakeholder groups, to use other names. But in the bylaws, they were, I think, saying that the name wasn't going to change. So I don't know if that helps or not, but... >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, Tony. >>TONY HOLMES: Just a quick response. In some ways, it helps, but we have to have consistency as well, so I still think that there are issues to discuss around that, and personally I don't think that that's totally closed off. >>AVRI DORIA: Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think to be fair, in terms of the dialogue that we had with the SIC on this issue, it was part of a package of requests that were made with some fairly simplistic questions with no argumentation attached and the SIC went through that and it was one issue on it in terms of, "Well, we don't see any moment at the moment to change the names." What we haven't done is explicitly spoken to the SIC and said, "We believe that the name 'non-contracted parties house' is inappropriate, you know, for these reasons," and to make it clear why that's the case. So we haven't actually had an intelligent dialogue yet with them on the issue, and I think that's actually where things stand. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I would probably offer an additional point on that, is -- actually, two points. One is, we did have a member of the Structural Improvements Committee participating in the meetings with us and on our list, and basically was able to see the complete conversation and relay it to the members, so I wouldn't presume that he hadn't. And second of all, I'd be -- I'm not quite sure that we even reached agreement between the various stakeholder groups within the houses on how we would change the names, so there's a lot of elements to that one at this point. Are there any other comments at this time? We've come up to the scheduled break time. I see this issue as probably one that concerns those of us up here more than anybody sitting in the community section of the room, so are there any more comments on this one before I close this item and begin the break? No? Okay. Thank you. So we're on break now, and we come back at exactly 11:00, when we'll start with the reports on the progress being made in the -- the committees and I'll have to remind myself of what the initials mean before I speak them. So thank you. Have a break. [Break] >>AVRI DORIA: It's 11:01. Time to restart. Okay. While everyone is -- oh, it really is a stage show. Everybody applaud. [Applause] >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. While we're waiting for everyone to file back in, those that are interested in this part, we're moving into Item 7, which is GNSO improvements and restructuring, and reports basically from the policy process steering committee, the PPSC, and the operations steering committee, the OSC, and their various sub-teams. The policy process steering committee has a policy development process subteam -- and I'm being helped by getting someone to translate all these for me. Don't think I've remembered them all well. It has a working group sub-team work teams, so -- And the Operations Steering Committee has a community communications work team, a GNSO Council operations work team, and a GNSO constituency operations work team. So -- and it's an alphabet soup that keeps getting more and more alphabety. So to start off with, the PPSC, or the Policy Process Steering Committee -- and I guess the chair is -- is the chair here? Jeff? Okay. So we have Jeff and -- Jeff Neuman and J. Scott who are the -- Jeff is the chair and I think J. Scott is the alternate chair, was the proper name that was used at some point. So Jeff, the floor is yours. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Wow, they make these for real tall people. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah, they do. >>JEFF NEUMAN: I got to point this down. Hi. I'm sorry. I'm a minute late. I got dragged into a confidential. Three minutes late. I apologize. So the PPSC, as was explained -- the Policy Process Steering Committee -- is comprised of two work teams, the policy development process work team and the working group work team. We had a meeting -- both of the policy process steering committee, to go over the status of the two work teams and where we are. And also to kind of just discuss a little bit about some of the substance that we saw coming out of the work team meetings that we've been having since Mexico. And I'm going to speak now a little bit about the policy development process work team, the PDP team, that I am the chair of. We've been meeting pretty much every other week since Mexico, and we've been focusing primarily on the planning and initiation phase of the policy process. And notice I said "policy process" as opposed to the "policy development process" which under the current bylaws actually has two different meanings. During those discussions, I think, you know, what we're focusing on is not necessarily mandated bylaw changes, in the sense of requirements for initiating a PDP but more of a best practices approach as to the proper way of -- and notice I said PDP. I apologize for that. The proper way to get the policy process initiated, so that there's enough information, if eventually the outcome is to form a working group, that they don't get bogged down as some of the previous working groups have gotten. And a lot of the conversation has focused on what either other standards bodies have done -- for example, we had a presentation by Thomas Narten of the IETF, who wrote an RFQ on -- an informational RFC is on birds of a feather, which is a process that the IETF has even before the creation of a working group. Those discussions over the last several months have led to, as I said, a number of recommendations for best practices as to what would be helpful for those outside the process to know when they want a particular issue to come forward. As I said, it's really informational and more of a recommendation stage, because we recognize that policy processes are going to need to have flexibility. So with that said, I mean, we're working towards having something final for Seoul, by the time the new council is seated, or the bicameral council is seated. And we'd encourage as much participation in those groups. We've had a little bit of fallout over the last several months, and -- but I think we're back on track and getting to where we need to be. So I'll turn it over to J. Scott to talk about the working group work team. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you. And then I'll open it up to any questions on the PPSC. Okay. J. Scott. >>J. SCOTT EVANS: The working group work team divided into two subgroups. One is concentrating on coming up with a charter guideline document to assist groups in putting together charters. The other is an operational team that will look at working group operating guidelines for how this group is going to, once it's established, how it should be administratively run. The outline has been completely agreed upon for the charter guideline document, so the drafting is getting prepared to start with that. We can then put it out to the group for editing. With regards to the operating guidelines group, that group is going -- is meeting here tomorrow again to sort of finalize an outline, so drafting can be there. We are hoping to have drafts complete within the next several weeks, so that we can then begin the real meat of editing those drafts and getting them in the proper order and making sure we have consensus on the documents. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any questions on the Policy Process Steering Committee, PPSC, or its teams? Okay. Thank you. Chuck, would you like to do the Operations Steering Committee, OSC? >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. I'll be happy to. And if the chairs who are here want to add something after I share some -- a brief summary, I will open up the opportunity to them. The -- there are three work teams in the Operational Steering Committee: The GNSO Council operations work team, which focuses on operational issues for the GNSO Council; the second team is the GNSO constituency and stakeholder group work team, focusing on operational issues for constituencies and stakeholder groups. And then third, there is the GNSO communications work team. With regard to the council operations work team, the chair is Ray Fassett, who wasn't able to attend. I don't know if he's online today or not. But the OSC, the Operational Steering Committee that I chair, met with that team this week and had a good session of them requesting some feedback of the steering committee, and I thought that was a very productive meeting. They are making very good progress on -- and even made progress this past weekend on council rules and procedures, revising those to correspond to the new bicameral council model that we will be going to in October, and that's a gating factor to being able to seat the bicameral council. So that looks like it's on good target there. The -- and they're also finalizing a document that they were putting out to constituencies for some additional comment regarding council organization and will be requesting broader feedback on that shortly. With regard to the GNSO constituency and stakeholder group work team, there are several sub-teams in that group that are working on a variety of constituency and stakeholder group operational issues. One specific request has gone out to the constituencies for additional feedback on elements of a services toolkit that could be provided by ICANN to constituencies and to stakeholder groups to facilitate their operation. The -- there's a lot of other work going on, too, but that's one specific element that has become a little more concrete. The third work team, the GNSO communications work team, they have done a lot of work on GNSO Web site improvements. They've prepared a business requirements document. They have met -- or are going to meet with Mark Salvatierra from the ICANN technical team, Web team, and so they're moving right along with regard to the Web site improvements, which is one element of their task. They're also exploring current activity as far as localization and translation efforts. They're looking at ways to get better feedback from the community. They're looking at codes of conduct for ICANN blogs and public forums and also at suggestions for better communications at meetings. So a lot of activity going on for GNSO improvements on the operational side, and I will now open it to Olga to see if she has anything as chair of the constituency stakeholder group work team, and I saw Mason Cole, who is chairing the communications work team a little bit ago but I think he stepped out, so I'll just open it up to Olga, if you want to add anything. >>OLGA CAVALLI: Thank you, Chuck. Yes, thank you for the update. Our working team has been organize -- we have organized in small working teams. I will encourage all those representatives of different constituencies to be -- to try to actively participate in our working team. The feedback and the information provided by constituencies is relevant to achieve an outcome which is good for all this process. Some representatives of the constituencies may have some difficulties because they are very busy and could not perhaps be so much involved in this sub-working team, so I would encourage the constituencies to see if someone else also would like to join or go on with this work. And also, we would like to receive your feedback about the services toolkit letter that we sent I think two weeks ago. Thank you very much. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Adrian, you had a question? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: It wasn't a question, actually. It was just a comment to Chuck. And Stéphane's just joining me back. Just a reminder that the registrars had a photo opportunity regarding the RRA with ICANN this morning, and their willingness to sign it so that's why Mason a few of the other registrars weren't here at 11:00 so it's not because he's not interested or not prepared to participate. Just on his behalf. Thanks. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Yes. That had been mentioned to me before, but I -- it slipped. Anyone wish to ask any questions about either the PPSC or the OSC? Okay. Thanks. Then I'll move on to the next item, which is -- and there's actually two items that will be sort of taken perhaps together, perhaps separate, as Denise Michel, vice president of policy will basically take us through these two issues and, as I say, maybe mixing them. I have your slides if you'd like to use them. Let me know if you want them to be put up. >>DENISE MICHEL: Sure. And we'll post them for the edification of those not here. Or if you could skip to slide -- I believe it's 5. There's some background slides for those interested. The focus of activities recently at the board level has been around restructuring and stakeholder group charters and new constituency petitions. The Structural Improvements Committee has had three meetings so far in Sydney, to address these issues, and they have now circulated specific recommended changes to the proposed stakeholder group charters that the board has received and has discussed these changes with the various proponents of the charters. You'll recall that these stakeholder group charters need to be approved by the board in order for the new council to be seated. And so the expectation of the board is that the proponents of the stakeholder group charters will process the suggested changes and come back to the board with revised charters that the board can then approve. Their expectation and hope is that they'll be able to do that at the July board meeting. Late July. In addition here in Sydney, some of the proponents -- the applicants for new constituencies have -- have met, including the city TLDs and consumer TLDs. Next slide. So the pending new constituency applications are from cybersafety, city TLDs, consumers, and IDN gTLDs. Public comment forums have been completed on all but the latest application, which is from the city TLDs, and that closes in the next couple of weeks. The board, under the leadership of the Structural Improvements Committee, chaired by Roberto Gaetano, has been conducting due diligence and discussions on these applications. The bylaws give some general guidance as to what the requirements are for new constituencies and how the board should evaluate these applications, so this work is ongoing and staff will be recommending that the -- that the board take action on these and the SIC will be recommending that the board take action on these I believe at the July meeting, but there is an open issue, of course. I think there's been discussion among the Structural Improvements Committee that it would not be feasible or advisable to -- if they found constituency applications worthy of approval, to approve them with the idea that they would join the existing council. The idea here is to incorporate them -- if there are constituencies to be approved, incorporate them in the new council that is to be seated. And so I think they're looking at once they resolve their due diligence and assessment of these applications, they're discussing ways to resolve this issue of timing, when they would approve them, when they would take effect, how to incorporate them in the stakeholder group charter -- stakeholder group structure and new council. So next slide. So next steps for the board relating to GNSO improvements and restructuring include: Board action on the stakeholder group charters. Of course the charters have to be formally approved by the board in order for the new structure to take effect. The board also needs to act on the constituency petitions that's pending before them. Once the stakeholder group charters are approved by the board, there's I think an issue of renewing -- the constituency charters or the existing constituency charters need to be revised and in some cases to be consistent with the new stakeholder group structure. And of course board action on seats 13 and 14. That's still outstanding. The board has pending a recommendation from the working group that was created after the Paris meeting last year to choose a specific process for filling board seats 1 and 14. Board has not yet acted on that. And of course the bylaws need to be amended to accommodate the new GNSO structure. I understand the GNSO has been working diligently on the proposed bylaw changes, but has not come to a formal agreement and approval for a set of bylaw changes to be considered by the board. We're dealing with a timing issue here as well, of course. If the new council is to be seated in -- now in Seoul, as the board is expecting, we need to have proposed bylaws posted for formal public comment in advance of any board action. So I think we're expecting the board to ask that some draft bylaws be posted for further public consideration and discussion, with the understanding that the GNSO is still working through its process and the board is expecting to get additional guidance from the GNSO on this aspect. Next slide. I'm sure you're all aware of what the community's next steps and items are. The board has asked for revisions to stakeholder group charters. There is existing constituency charters that will ultimately need to be updated once the stakeholder group structure is approved. Charters are approved. We have potential revisions to new constituency applications, bylaw amendment recommendations. We need to resolve outstanding transition issues in order to seat the new council. And of course we've just heard about the critical work team recommendations that are still being developed. Happy to answer any questions. >>AVRI DORIA: I open it up to questions. Are there any? Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: A comment and a question. I think on behalf of the commercial stakeholders group, I can say that we have received the suggested changes from the SIC and we don't see any particular problem in adapting our draft to those. And I'm not sure we exactly had a dialogue with them, but anyway, we don't see any particular changes there. Is it the -- Denise, is it the SIC who are looking at the somewhat challenging questions posed by two of the applications in terms of where they will find a home in the new stakeholder group? >>DENISE MICHEL: Yes. So the board -- the board -- so the Structural Improvements Committee has a -- has purview over the independent review, evaluation, and the subsequent improvement efforts that -- that are part of that process. And so they have the sort of first-line responsibility of assessing and making recommendations to the board on the pending constituency applications. But of course it's the full board that will be voting on these applications. Yes. And thanks for raising that issue. The Structural Improvements Committee doesn't have a public address, and we'll take care of that, and e-mail out to the council and constituencies on how to contact them. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any other questions? Or comments? Okay. I'd like to add one question -- or one comment before -- and that's just to point out the discussion we had earlier that there seems to be a relation between the board making its decision on the seats 13 and 14 and the council's proposed recommendations for how to change the bylaws. And I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it a "deadly embrace" yet, but as we get closer and closer to deadlines, it starts to have that feeling that -- >>DENISE MICHEL: Right. >>AVRI DORIA: -- we're waiting, and so if that one can be brought, I'd like to ask -- you know, to pass a message on to the board that if that one can be brought to an earlier meeting than the July one, that would be very helpful to us continuing with our process. >>DENISE MICHEL: Thank you. That's an excellent point, and we'll certainly reinforce that with the board and I would invite all of you to also bring that to the board's attention directly, if you have an opportunity. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, yes. Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Sorry, I was a little slow here, but following up on Philip's lead, the registry constituency did meet with the SIC yesterday and we -- we did have some dialogue there and asked some questions. We have targeted our next meeting, which should be about two weeks from now, to finalize our response to that, and we think it should be very easy to -- to do, and thought that they made some very constructive recommendations. >>DENISE MICHEL: Great. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any other comments? Questions? Thank you very much, Denise. >>DENISE MICHEL: Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I'll take down the slides. Okay. The next item on the agenda, we've covered both 7.2 and 7.3, is 7.4, "Guideline for council roles/responsibilities," basically the question: To what extent is constituency review required? And I'll give a little bit of background on this and then I'll ask for Jeff Neuman to basically make a further comment. We sent a -- as a GNSO Council, we sent a letter in response to a GAC letter related to geographic names at the second level. This discussion is not about the content of that letter, but it is about the -- basically whether the GNSO can or should send responses that have not gone through a period of constituency review before that. There have been various conversations and basically so a protest, a complaint, a comment came in from Jeff Neuman saying basically that it was inappropriate for the council to have so acted without having gone to the constituencies and given a proper time to comment. Several of -- or I guess several or at least one of the constituencies -- I don't remember at the moment -- of the constituencies and an individual within the council did abstain from the letter that was sent because they had not felt that there was either enough time for them personally, there was a personal issue, or that constituencies had not had sufficient time to basically agree or disagree. Therefore, they abstained from the letter. So the basic issue that's here -- and this is really input to the operations steering committee on one of the -- I'm not sure which one it would be that would take it up, but basically to one of those teams to -- when talking about future processes, and operational processes, the GNSO Council operations work team -- thank you -- to basically look at that issue in terms of there's policy development processes, there's other recommendations that are made in these. Of course always require the full constituency review period. But basically on the issue of when something may need to happen in a shorter time frame, what are the constraints? What are the issues? And so I'd like to invite Jeff to sort of continue the conversation, if he's in the room. As it was his issue. But otherwise, I'll just open up the floor. Several council members have already voiced an opinion on it. He may be -- would he be off signing things? No. No, he wouldn't be, obviously. That's the wrong side. Wrong side of that house. So I've basically put the issue out on the table. I assume that there are people -- there's been a conversation within the council on it. I don't know if anyone in the council wishes to comment before Jeff is back to comment, but Stéphane? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Thanks, Avri. I'll try and get the ball rolling on this. I actually think it really is crucial for us as councillors to get a better idea of what -- either what's expected of us or how people expect us to function with regards to those times when we need to act quickly. There's Jeff, so we can -- we can take it up with him. But, you know, I felt that really we needed to -- in the instance that is being quoted, we needed to act quickly and although most of us tried to get back to the constituencies, maybe some of us were unable to. I mean, those are clear concerns and I understand them. My main concern is something that I think it was Philip Sheppard said while we were having this debate, which is, you know, "What's our role? Is our role just one of being a messenger boy between the constituencies and the council or are there times when, as councillors, we should put a position forward because there's no time to get, you know, the full input of the constituencies?" That's something that if - - if Jeff wants to address that and give us his thoughts on that, I think that would be very useful. >>AVRI DORIA: I'll give Jeff the MIC in just a second. It would be messenger boys and girls. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: That was a generic -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. But I just had to do that. >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Yeah. Meant to be generic. Probably in 2011. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Stéphane, you could be a messenger boy. So I think the answer to that question is dependent on the constituency from which the member comes. It is very possible that in the BC -- I mean, I don't know how these operate, but it is very possible that in the BC, the role of a councillor is a lot greater than in the role of the registry constituency. My view, and the constituency's view, especially because we are a group of competitors, is that any substantive policy decision needs to come back to the constituency. And first I want to address, though, the fact of the short time period. I want to state for the record it is inexcusable to only be given a week to respond to a letter from the GAC when the GAC insists that they have notice and documents 21-days in advance of their meeting. So the very first thing that the council should have done from an administrative standpoint is send a note back to the GAC saying "thank you for this letter, we will respond on our time frame when we can get you a response back." >>AVRI DORIA: Quick question, is that a letter we could have sent without constituency approval? >>JEFF NEUMAN: Yes, because that is an administrative letter and that would be basically in your administrative role. With respect to policy -- and the one I got back when I submitted the complaint was, well, we were just quoting existing policy and interpreting existing policy that the council or one of its working groups had come back with. And my response to that is, any time you get a thoughtful response from an Advisory Committee, from an another Supporting Organization that is thoughtful and responds to issues and asks for a response back, even if the decision's already been decided by the council or the GNSO community as a whole, three months ago, six months ago, a year ago, circumstances can change. And it is quite possible that the GNSO community could feel differently based on the response you got from the GAC or it is quite possible that the GNSO community decides in the spirit of compromise that one issue or multiple issues may not be worth responding on. There's lots of conditions that can change, and it is imperative for the council not to act as a sort of legislative body where you're a bunch of representatives but act as more policy facilitators, which when we go back to the whole premise of GNSO restructuring was one of the clear and concise recommendations of the LSE back in -- I don't know -- 2005 and also by the Board Governance Committee several years later. I mean, this is fundamental. And I agree there may be times when the GNSO Council needs to act quickly. And in an emergency situation, the very least that could happen is a note to all the constituencies basically saying that this is the premise, this is what's going on, this is the time frame we have and then constituencies then should respond appropriately as to their role according to their own charters. Now, I apologize because I was actually personally at the time involved in a bunch of other work, IRT-related, totally away from my other work and didn't notice that the council had sent out a note on a Monday. I didn't notice it till Wednesday because of traveling. And then by the time I responded, it had already been completed, which is, again, inexcusable for the lack of timing. But the premise is that the council should always go back to the GNSO community for its input. And I applaud the BC because the BC abstained on it for the same reasons of what I'm talking about, that there wasn't enough time. And I -- I just think it is a very important issue. I don't think we elect the council to act as our representatives for substantive policy issues. If there's a role, it's more administrative and facilitating and for being the spokespersons of the policies that have already been developed. But, again, if there is a substantive response back that contains thoughtful responses, of which I believe the GAC was a thoughtful -- the letter that we got was thoughtful and happened to go through a lot of deliberations. Any time that happens, that it needs to go back to the constituencies for possible reconsideration or possible affirmation of what had previously come out of the policy process. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. And I've Stéphane. One thing I wanted to point out in the practice we've taken up for this meeting of acronyms and abbreviations for anyone, it was the London School of Economics report on the restructuring or on the reform of the GNSO that was being referred to by the "LSE." Stéphane. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: Jeff, you make a very clear point -- several very clear points. Thank you for that. One of them is "go back to your constituencies and get a response." I wonder what your thoughts are on what happens or what we should do when in such a short time frame -- and I fully agree with you that the time frame was -- I mean, we were reacting in a situation where the time frame was so short that really, you know, there was not much time to do anything. I agree with that. And it may have been too short and maybe we should have, as you say, really gone back and said "this is too short, we can't really react." But how -- what's your view on -- what happens when constituencies don't react? You know, you go back to them and you don't get an answer. You described your own example. You were -- I mean, these were public discussions. You know, there is a public GNSO site list, whatever, but you were out of the office working on the IRT and you only caught up to this when it was too late. So obviously that's an issue for all constituents in all constituencies. What's your view on that? If there's no response, we do nothing? >>AVRI DORIA: Can I have one comment before the answer? In fairness to the GAC in this case, their rapid schedule was because they had a board-rapid deadline driving them. So it was -- it was a peculiar circumstance. I just wanted to get that said so we're not misrepresenting the GAC. But, please. >>JEFF NEUMAN: And I probably should provide a little more facts of what I understand happened in this case. In this case, the constituency -- our constituency agreed -- or I guess the council had agreed to put forth a drafting team. And I think that was open to anyone. And Chuck and our representatives brought that back to our constituency and said, does anyone want to be on a drafting team? It was my assumption, and I guess an incorrect assumption, that whatever came out of the drafting team would then go back to the constituency so that we all could consider it, which is the rationale -- I think the rationale assumption. Otherwise, anybody who is interested in any topic has to be on every single drafting team. And, of course, that can't happen. So in this circumstance, I think I made an incorrect assumption which I thought was rationale. But I think the general -- the question was, we should never be put into a situation where the time frame is so short that one that's away from an office a day or two days misses out on everything, I think there should always be clear-cut, you know, at least -- I don't even know what the time frame is, but at least several weeks to respond. For constituencies that don't -- are unable to get the attention of its members, I think that's kind of an issue for your own charter. I mean, in our charter, we have provisions in there about active participation and certain rules that apply to our councillors. And I'm assuming that that probably should be the case in other constituencies, but I think that's an internal matter as how they should deal with that kind of thing. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Avri. My name is Marilyn Cade. I am a member of the business constituency. I own a microenterprise called mCADE, LLC. I'm speaking in my personal capacity. So I'm going to just say that it's really good that this particular incident happened because we can learn from it because we're going to have more incidents like this. And I am -- I'm going to stop short of endorsing every word that Jeff Neuman said, but it is pretty close. >>JEFF NEUMAN: Thank you. >>MARILYN CADE: Not the first time, and I can tell it may not be the last. But here's my thought for all of us. When we set the board up, we suggested to the board that they define the circumstances under which they could act without any input. I suppose if the board were putting the GNSO Council out of business in 24 hours that we could justify the council taking immediate action with no consultation. But I think each of the constituencies in their charters need to devise the exigent circumstances and the limitations in which they will act without consultation and make sure their constituency members endorse that. I personally don't think the council should be sending communications to the board or to the GAC or externally without consultation backward. Now, you know, you guys clearly can device a proposal for your community that says, "we're issuing a letter which says our existing policy is X, Y, Z." I'm okay with that if it is only a restatement. But I do think Jeff laid out some interesting points for us. When we're responding to an another Supporting Organization -- and that's why I said I hope there will be more of this -- or responding to an Advisory Committee, it has to be a thoughtful, thoughtful, thoughtful, thoughtful exchange of views and thorough examination of the consequences of what we say. So I think unfortunately more work. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. That's why we're basically collecting viewpoints so that the GNSO Council operations work team can basically take this into account. Any more comments on this at the moment? Yes, Tony. >>TONY HOLMES: Well, the ISP constituency didn't endorse the letter either that went forward. And I very much welcome the input that has come from the floor. Particularly, I think Jeff made some excellent comments. And I think this somewhat knee-jerk reaction has to be considered really carefully, particularly Jeff's point that you can get to a situation where the landscape has changed since the GNSO Council has had a discussion of an issue. And just to react so quickly based on previous input and not have the ability to actually have some detailed discussion, which does need to go back to the constituency, I think sets us on a dangerous path. So I welcome the input, and I think we should learn from this. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, definitely welcome the input. At this point, then, I would like to end this, if there are further comments. I don't see anyone at the mike. They can certainly come up during the open mike. That takes us to the end of Item 7. I had a "any other business" item with an issue from the travel drafting team. Was that Olga that was going to speak to that or was it Adrian? Zahid was going to speak to that. Okay, thank you. Zahid? >>ZAHID JAMIL: Yes. And I will have Stéphane right after this. I just wanted to say this was an interesting experience where even the registrars and, you know, people from the BC, et cetera, all agreed. And it has been pretty much successful. I wanted to start off by thanking the members of the drafting team and the staff has been responsive to whatever we put out there. Basically our ideas were generally accepted. So we have full support for travel for the GNSO in 2010 for all 23 councillors. And the possibility of rollovers, if you don't use an allocation, you can roll it over to the next year in addition to the possibility of a flexibility that you can actually allocate that not just to the individual councillor but maybe somebody else as well. So I just wanted to mention that point, that it was a pretty successful interaction between various representatives in the drafting team and wanted to allow Stéphane to make a point as well. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, Stéphane, and I also had a hand from Olga. >>STÉPHANE van GELDER: I think -- there is nothing much to add to what Zahid has just said. So... >>AVRI DORIA: And Olga? >>OLGA CAVALLI: Yes, I would like to commend ICANN staff that was involved in this group of people working together. Also, the involvement of all of the constituencies and also I had to chair most of the work we D but I would like to commend Stéphane, a chair, an interesting part of the work we did. So that's what I wanted to say. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay, thank you. Anything further on this? Okay, in which case, the mike is open. Any topic that is of GNSO issue, if the topic is one that's not ours, I'm not sure we will be able to say about it. But, please, go ahead. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: Thank you, Avri. I think it is related to the things we discussed in the last 30 or 45 minutes. My name is Dirk Krischenowski. I'm speaking here on behalf of the city top-level domain interest group, which you probably all know. The title of my speech today is "Lost in the ICANN process." A while ago ICANN and GNSO asked the global community to self-form new constituencies to participate and work in a policy development process. We, as the city top-level domain initiatives, heard this call clearly. Since all of us are aiming to become a contracted party with ICANN in the future, we welcomed this opportunity and filed, according to the rules made here, a petition and charter to become such a constituency. To make one thing clear here, as I made in my last statement in public forums and so on is that we are -- as city top-level domain initiatives, we are not a minority or fringe group which has been discussed here like this in the last days. With the agreement of our governments, we represent at the current stage about 50 million citizens and their organizations, the cities. So here in Sydney, we were a little bit disappointed because we were told that there's no place for us and our constituency here in the current structure. And that was quite astonishing. What we primarily want today is a voice and an official, a formal status here at ICANN, some voting power. That may come when we are a contracted party with ICANN. That's also very clear, and that was also set by us. And our message here for the GNSO councillors, if there's no such place for our legitimate interests of the city top-level domains, ICANN has to find one place. Otherwise, we are lost in the ICANN process. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you.Any comment? Yes, Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think we in the commercial stakeholder group are entirely sympathetic with what we're hearing from Dirk. I mean, our understanding, I think, this we first had the discussion in terms of houses was that it was essentially attempting to divide where within ICANN terms the interests lay. And we have been somewhat disappointed by the exceptionally rigid interpretation by the incumbent contract parties as to wanting to ring- fence their particular house in the new structure and to put up barriers to entry for new participants. I think that touches on issues to do with competition policy as well as simply things within the ICANN structure. And I believe it is something that probably the board needs to take into consideration very strongly. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Adrian? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: I just am -- and I know -- I've actually read your application and your proposal. But I just think that -- I think there is a place for you. And to speak to Philip's point, I think there is a registry constituency. And if you're successful as a registry applicant, whether you are a city or a brand or whatever it may be, you have a seat at that table. I'm not sure that speaking to having voting rights, I mean, if you want to have a constituency or have a group where you have a common voice, I guess that's fine, but you can pass that voice up through your stakeholder group and then wherever the voting rights may lie thereon. There may also be room potentially for registry operators constituency that will probably step well outside of the registry constituency, being those that are contracted to ICANN. And maybe they are over in the business constituency or business stakeholder group that can speak there and have a voice heard that gets passed up that way. So I think we are going to see some change, but I'm not sure that the proposed mechanisms don't satisfy your requirements up and to the point where you are saying you need a vote. That's the first time I'd seen that you actually said you need a vote. If I misread that before, I apologize. >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: We don't need a vote. We need a voice at this stand and official starters to be recognized as a constituency with all the support coming for constituencies here. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. Next in line there, I had Robin and then I had this next mike. So, Robin, you were next. And then I go to this mike. >>ROBIN GROSS: Thank you. I wanted to bring up the issue of the IRT report, the intellectual property rights wish list that we're seeing. I'm speaking for NCUC, and we have serious, serious grave concerns about this issue, the total lack of the bottom-up policy-making process. I mean, let's remember ICANN drives all its legitimacy here because it has got this bottom-up policy-making process. We dealt with trademark protection in the GNSO for the last two years basically. We came up with our recommendations. The intellectual property constituency didn't get what it wanted in the consensus-based forum so entirely side steps the GNSO and decides to go out and create this star chamber of intellectual property rights and trademark experts to rewrite trademark law and come back here and try to impose it on this community. This is a totally one-sided report we're seeing. No registrants were even allowed to participate in this report, in this entire process. It was done in this star-chamber fashion. Our councillor who was on the team was not even able to tell us what the proposals were that were being discussed when we asked. Now, what kind of accountability, transparency, bottom-up policy- making process is this? It isn't. It is illegitimate on its face. Not to mention the fact that trademark protection is entirely outside the scope of ICANN. This is about mission lead, once again. And when you talk about the substance of the proposal, it is a total expansion of trademark rights. It doesn't even -- it doesn't even match existing legal rights. So it's entirely wrong. So we've got big problems with this proposal. We've got problems with the substance of it. We've got problems with the process by which it was created. I can't imagine what kind of precedent this is going to set for other constituencies who don't get what they want in the bottom-up consensus- based policy-making process. They can just lobby the board and go off and do what they want on their own. This is a problem. We're not -- NCUC does not support this proposal, not by a long shot. Thank you. [Applause] >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Any comment? Yes, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I'll just make several points starting off with that I think one of the interesting things about this whole process is I think it identifies the Achilles heel of our current policy-making process; namely, that the people who have the loudest voice win, whether or not they are correct or not. As we all know from the protecting the rights of others working group, that working group simply could not recognize that there is, in fact -- and I think ultimately it comes down to a baseline recognition that given what is currently going on in the current environment of 261 gTLDs with trademark abuse, that if you multiply that times two or three or even four, which are some of the numbers that we've heard, that those problems will be magnified. There seems to be an organizationally-wide recognition of that, whether you agree with that or not. The staff identified the overarching issue of trademark protection in the analysis of public comment. They identified that it was an issue that had to be addressed before the process could go forward. Our response was to say, "We agree and we will pull together a group of people and try and come up with solutions that are reasonable and can move this process forward." And the board resolution specifically directed the IPC to do that. It set out the criteria -- the general criteria for the composition of the groups and identified that eight-week time period within which all work had to be completed. And from that point on, the IPC did everything it could to open up membership. I would note for the record that there are statements by Milton Mueller and Bill Drake and others from NCUC leadership on the NCUC's only list stating that NCUC should not participate in the process. So given that those statements were made and clearly followed, it's a little inconsistent at this point to challenge the output on the grounds that you didn't have the opportunity to participate. The NCUC had the opportunity to put people forward. Every single aspect of this community had the opportunity to put people forward that met the board's -- the board's criteria for inclusion and were able to make the time commitment. There were a couple people who self-identified as representing consumer protection interests that wanted to participate, and we wanted them to participate. But we estimated at the outset that doing so within the very tight deadline set by the board would require a minimum commitment of 15 working days. That time commitment estimate proved to be woefully low. Those individuals could not agree to be available, and we simply had no choice. There were folks that we invited to participate who said I would love to, can't make the time commitment. We had a very, very tight time frame within which to operate and we did everything we could to make sure that everyone who expressed an interest, even on paper, met the criteria that the board established and could participate did so. You will be hearing more later today about the specific recommendations, and I think I can say that on behalf of the entire IRT, our goal was to come up with solutions. We have proposed solutions that we did exactly what the board asked us to do. I think we would call welcome the submission of alternative solutions for consideration. If there are other solutions that members in the community can put forward that solve the problems that the board asked us to address and can do so in ways that are perceived by the community to be more reasonable and, frankly, achieve the same goals, I think that every member of the IRT would be delighted to consider them. We've already heard in some of the sessions we've had different suggestions, good suggestions, for ways to go about this. We're not trying to stop the train. We're trying to say if the train is leaving the station, let's try and make sure that the interests that otherwise will result in just chaos are addressed because otherwise you are just going to have huge problems. If other groups have solutions, please put them forward. I don't think there's anybody in this community that wouldn't want to see them. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. I want to try and keep -- okay. I have in addition to the people at the microphone, I had Zahid, Tim and Mary who wanted to add responses to this, but I wanted to keep them sort of brief so we can get as much microphone speaking time because we have been speaking a lot today. >>ZAHID JAMIL: Thank you. Thank you, Avri. In response to the question about the IRT, I agree that I wish the process worked, and I think that the IRT and the necessity to create it demonstrate that the process didn't work, not the IRT process but the process in the GNSO. It brings to light the fact that the weighted voting structure and the reconstruction of the GNSO didn't actually work. Let me just add, it wasn't just the IPC that wasn't heard, it was the commercial stakeholders, it was the BC as well that was not heard. They're not alone. That's an important point to make. Let's just not beat up on one of the people there. There are others involved who were not heard in this entire process, and that's what led to the IRT becoming an ad hoc process. So -- and let me also add that this is not a wish list for trademark owners. It hardly is that because if you speak to many trademark owners you will hear the IRT did not go far enough. It was a balanced, a compromised result. We had registrar-registry individuals involve in their personal capacities because of their expertise, not representing anybody. We also had somebody not representing the NCUC had some input to give. So we tried as a group, individuals together, to come to a balanced approach. If you think this is a trademark wish list or a Christmas wish list, it is absolutely not that. You will find lots of trademark owners saying this just does not go far enough. In fact, we are not getting tracks with them on just the proposals. So it is really just a compromise. And just the last point -- and I'm sorry, I know I'm going further, Avri, but is the answer to say, "Oh, we do not need trademark protection whatsoever"? Because I'm not hearing any solutions as such from this comment. Are we saying there shouldn't be recommendations for trademark protection? And if that's not what I'm hearing and I'm not understanding the comments correctly, well, what are the alternates? What are the solutions? Could you please give us those? And maybe those can be implemented and discussed within the community. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: I've got Tim -- I'll get -- I'll get to you. I've got Tim and Mary. Please keep it short and then I'm going to go to the Mark, so Tim. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. Actually, I think it's interesting that earlier today, we were having a discussion about process, in regards to the way the GNSO communicates with the other organizations within ICANN. And I don't think that those concerns fell on deaf ears and we listened to that, but now I think Robin makes a very good point again about process, and that is that the bylaws are very clear about how policy development process ensues. Even allowing for the board to initiate policy development process. That's very clear. But it's defined within the bylaws. That process, I think it's a good question: Was that process followed? I think it's a very valid question. And I think part of that is going to depend on what the board decides to do with the IRT report. If that report is used to initiate further policy development process within the bylaws, as defined in the bylaws with the GNSO, I think that's -- that's one step. If the board should decide to proceed with modifications to a policy recommendations that the GNSO produced without any further input from the appropriate GNSO process, then I think we have good reason to question that, and I think that's part of what Robin was bringing up today and I think those are very valid questions. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Mary? >>MARY WONG: Let me just briefly reiterate for the benefit of those not in the room at 8:21 this morning, as the councillor in question, my participation and invitation to be on the IRT was purely in my personal academic capacity. Having said that, putting my NCUC councillor hat on at this point, can I just say that I think this is a great opportunity for the community. That, first of all, it shows the divergence of views, the number of people, organizations, expressions of interest and so forth not just within the NCUC but within the larger ICANN community. So may I suggest that the community take the IRT's recommendations as the framework, as a first step to have a constructive dialogue on how to move forward. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I'll go to the microphone. Paul? >>PAUL FOODY: Oh, thank you very much, Avri. And thank you very much for the -- to the board for the opportunity -- >>AVRI DORIA: Name and affiliation. >>PAUL FOODY: Paul Foody, Ourssold, although it might change on Saturday morning. I appeared in Mexico, Avri, as you remember, and I asked you then at that stage if any attempt had been made by ICANN to contact all the domain name owners. At that stage, you said that you weren't aware how ICANN would be able to contact domain name owners, and I said, "Well, you do have the WHOIS list." I was wondering: Has any e-mail been sent notifying domain name owners of ICANN's intended carve-up of the Internet? >>AVRI DORIA: I do not believe so. >>PAUL FOODY: You don't believe so. Okay. Maybe I could ask Adrian Kinderis, who -- as a registry operator: Have you notified any of your customers of what is going on this week? >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: As a registrar operator -- I'm a registrar operator in dot ua, and as such, as a ccTLD, I have not. >>PAUL FOODY: Thank you very much. Now, on a second note, we're talking about the IRT, and you've come up with this global protected marks list, GPML, and as a guy who has been registering trademarks now for 10, 12 years, we already have a GPML. It's called the dot com registry. And just to illustrate the point, in the last week, I've registered mintod.com, standing for "money is not the only dream." I've registered culchy.com, which is an Irish slang term meaning a -- someone from the boondocks, to put it into the Australian vernacular. I almost registered m1626.com, but although it was available, matthew1626 had already been registered, so I chose -- if you'd just bear with me a second. >>AVRI DORIA: Not too long, because I'm not sure where this is going that's anything we have anything to do with. >>PAUL FOODY: Okay. So then I referred to the USPTO, the trademarks registry, and both mintod -- neither "mintod" nor "culchy" had been registered. The fact is that with the introduction of the dot com registry 12 years ago, trademark lawyers engaged solely in registering trademarks became redundant. Once you had the dot com, you didn't need anything else. And basically the IRT has simply reproduced a technological innovative advance that made registering and getting a place on the global market very easy, very affordable, and instantaneous. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: Will you be sending out an e-mail to domain name owners? >>AVRI DORIA: I won't be, no. >>PAUL FOODY: Will ICANN? >>AVRI DORIA: You'd have to ask. I do not know. >>PAUL FOODY: Okay. >>AVRI DORIA: It's not something -- the GNSO won't be sending out an e-mail, I don't believe. Yes, Stéphane. You wanted to ask something? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Sorry. I mean, okay, I'm going to wade in. Why are you asking this question, and what do you expect? What do you expect ICANN to do? Contact -- I mean, ICANN has said they will, you know, put together a communications period. There's been, I think, a lot of outreach, or at least a lot of press around the new gTLD projects. Just so that I can understand what you're asking for, that's all. There's nothing behind my question apart from trying to understand it. >>PAUL FOODY: Simply so that ICANN fulfills its claims to be a transparent, bottom-up organization. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Okay. Now, before at the other MIC, I had - - I thought I had Jeff and Eric. Have you deferred to Robin getting in front? Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Robin. >>ROBIN GROSS: Okay. Thank you. I will -- I'll be brief. I just wanted to follow up on a couple of points that had been asked of me, so the question was: Where does -- where does trademark protection belong? I want to make it really clear. We are not against trademark protection. I am a trademark lawyer. I am not against trademark protection. I am against unbalanced trademark protection. Trademark law, regulations, belongs in legitimate legislation, national laws, not ICANN. It is not ICANN's job to rewrite trademark law. Leave that to the legislatures. So it's not that we don't care about trademark protection; it's about where is the right forum for addressing that concern. And it isn't ICANN. This is about mission leap here. And the other point that was said about -- I keep hearing it over and over again, "Oh, this is a compromise. You should be -- the trademark lobbyists really wanted so much, much, much more that you should be glad that this is all that they were able to get, that this is a compromise." Well, I think that's really kind of laughable. To me, that sounds like the mugger who says to you, "Be glad I only took your money and didn't kill you." >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Zahid. >>ZAHID JAMIL: So if trademark law is only national, then in that case, should the UDRP be abolished? Because not every country would recognize the UDRP nationally. I'm just going to say that. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. Was Amadeu next or was Eric next? Or together? In harmony? >>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: We're going to do a duet. >>AVRI DORIA: Oh, okay. Please. In harmony. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: He was my proxy. I'm Amadeu Abril i Abril. I speak on behalf of CORE and a number of linguistic and cultural TLDs, city TLDs and cultural and regional TLDs that have submitted a proposal called "step by step" for an early window in the new gTLD process. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the constituencies, more than the council itself and the members of the GNSO in general. This proposal is trying to solve the problem that it's two weeks. We have a new problem that should be solved before we start the new gTLDs. Next we will be globally studying the impact of new TLDs on global warming or something like that. And as the delays keep -- and many of them are for legitimate concerns that some issues are not well solved, the proposal is a month's proposal for having an early window for those applications that we believe under the rudder of all these still-open questions. But in any case, for those that are really willing to engage in the higher level of protection for those things -- issues that are not solved to the satisfaction of those claiming they are not still solved. So the points here are fair, first. Even if linguistic and cultural TLDs and city TLDs are used as an example in the document, it's only an example. It's open to anybody else willing to adhere by code of conduct to this higher -- implication of higher standards regarding trademarks, security, or any other issue that's still being there. Second, it really portends that every -- some people can be better off because they are under the rudder of the problem and can start the process. Nobody is worse off. For instance, those still having legitimate claims should not be disenfranchised and see application go through this fast lane or however you call it. So there's a -- a red flag system in which, for instance, each and every constituency of the GNSO could raise their hand and say, "Wait a second. For this application, we are not sure that we are completely sure that there is no problem." So they should wait until this big day that one day we will solve all the problems for having new gTLDs. And not just because they applied and there is no objection procedure. But I repeat: It's not about objection. Just saying that there are issues with them. And thirdly, and most important, we would like having input from the constituencies and from the interested parties about whether they are satisfied with the softer guarantees that are there, or they need more specific protection for their still-not-yet-well-resolved legitimate interests in the process of having new TLDs. Thanks a lot. The proposal is in the -- you can find the pointers at stepbystep.tel. You will find different e-mails, telephones, documents, Wikis for comment, et cetera, and the signatories. Thanks a lot. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Stéphane, you wanted to comment? Question? >>STEPHANE VAN GELDER: Yes. I would like to ask Robin, who is walking away, so... I would like to ask you: You've made some very clear -- you have some very clear complaints with the IRT process. What -- do you have some suggestions or ideas on what should be done or do you have some requests on what should be done now, now that the -- I mean, you know, I'm not going into what you've said and the fact is that we're now at a point where the IRT has submitted some recommendations. What would you like to see happen now, to balance the need to protect trademarks or rightholders' rights, and the need to move forward with the new gTLDs? >>AVRI DORIA: I guess Robin we'll come back to t but -- oh, you're coming -- >>ROBIN GROSS: I'll come back. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. She'll come back. In which case, the microphone is yours. >>PHILIP CORWIN: Good morning. Or good afternoon. Phil Corwin, counsel to the Internet Commerce Association. I hadn't planned to speak, but given what's going on, I felt compelled to step up and just briefly discuss the process on the IRT. We have had quite open concerns about the -- well, first, let me say we've been calling since before the Mexico City meeting, before the creation of the IRT, for an open and fully balanced and transparent process of UDRP reform which would put a much improved process for -- that would recognize trademark owner difficulties with current UDRP and registrant concerns about the current UDRP and result in a balanced work product that could be put in place before the first new TLD opens in the final quarter of 2010. We've raised concerns about the adequacy of the outreach -- the notice that one could apply to be a member of the IRT and the way -- and raise question about whether the IRT's operations complied with ICANN bylaws, and that's all at our Web site internetcommerce.org. We've had exchanges with Mr. Fowlie on that, so I won't get into the substance. I've had concerns up to that. We do believe on policy that it's a mistake -- well, let me say this: We believe that members of the IRT worked very hard and in good faith to produce a document under very difficult and time-constrained circumstances, and whatever criticism we have of the aspects of the final product are in no way criticisms of their good faith or their hard work, and we believe that some of the things they've suggested, such as standardized sunrise registration and the IP clearinghouse, if it's done the right now, have very substantial merit. We recognize the concerns have been raised by others about the feasibility and the basis in trademark law of the GPML, and I think those will be heard. Our particular concern is the URS or I call it the URSP. We did do believe that this would put in place a mistaken policy of having one -- the present UDRP remaining in place for the incumbent TLDs and basically what we believe is a new UDRP for the new ones. And we base the belief -- our belief that the URSP, which I prefer to call it, because it is a major policy change, would really just about completely replace the UDRP at the new gTLDs. On WIPO's April 3rd letter to ICANN, where they stated that their own study after very similar mechanism, what they called the ESM, the expedited suspensions mechanism, would capture, quote, a significant majority of UDRP disputed domain names, and that was a mechanism that only dealt with identical names. So we believe that when you add confusingly similar, basically you will replace the UDRP for the vast, vast majority of claims. So we believe that the way to go forward is not to have two different UDRP for the incumbents and the U -- URSP for the new ones, but to take the work product -- and I will say we did -- we found out about the opportunity to propose a member of the IRT -- it's hard to keep all these acronyms straight. At the very last moment, we found out about it. A highly qualified trademark attorney, who is general counsel to one of our principal members, which has developed a very widely praised by trademark owners means of getting relief on infringement claims without -- much quicker and much less expensively than the UDRP for the names that they manage and we think one of the failings of this -- and he was willing to put in the time but was not allowed to participate -- was that there's inadequate attention to such private sector initiatives which could perhaps provide a much better way for trademark owners. So we'd like to see the -- the report taken as a starting point for an expedited PDP for a process that brings the other parties in and produces a new UDRP that works for everyone and addresses everybody's concerns that could be in place before the first new gTLD launches. And we don't think -- we think the GNSO should assert its role in this because we think it would be a grave mistake to set the precedent of one constituency being authorized by ICANN to create a short-term ad hoc group where they essentially control the membership and the agenda for that group, and let that group put in place major new policies which will be in place for a very long time without subsequent GNSO review and input from the entire community. And thank you for your time. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Robin, were you -- did you have the response? >>ROBIN GROSS: Sorry. I had to clear my throat out there. So the answer is what to do now, and I think that what we have to do is we have to bring this -- steer this back towards a legitimate bottom- up policy-making process, which means it's got to go back to the GNSO. We take this as one idea, one perspective from the intellectual property constituency, and now put it back to the whole GNSO, to actually really get some feedback from -- from the other stakeholders. I mean, registrants had absolutely no say whatsoever in this. This involves registrants' rights, and they were not allowed to participate whatsoever. This needs to go through a proper process that involves the people who will actually be affected by this policy. That's legitimate law-making. Thank you. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Avri, can I -- I just would like to say that there's going to be like five or six hours this afternoon devoted to this whole report and I certainly don't want to tell people what they can and cannot ask but I can just tell you that I think, you know, in the interest of this forum being made -- this time being put to its best utilization that, you know, I don't intend to respond on a case-by- case basis. I think this afternoon's forum is a more appropriate place for that. >>AVRI DORIA: I appreciate that, though certain comments did relate to things they thought the GNSO should do so -- right. Okay. Chuck, you wanted to say something? >>CHUCK GOMES: I want to talk a little bit about process, because a lot of people have mentioned process, and it's very important. First of all, I'd like to point out that the process is still ongoing. It's not finished. And we're all part of that, even in this meeting right here. But more importantly, I'd like to point out that especially in a process -- a policy development process that takes a long time and we know the new gTLD process did, and we certainly didn't get everything right, and in the implementation plans it's not all right there either, I'm sure. But what happens at the end and we have a public comment period and there's significant public comment. Because we've finished the policy development process, do we ignore that? I don't think so. Now, we have to -- it's a hard balance. It's a very hard balance. Because what do we do? You don't want to start all over. If you send it back to the GNSO and the PDP every time, we will never get anything done. So it's a balancing act. There are many competing views. We've heard comments that they want this process to get underway. They want to stop delays. We've heard people that they want to go back and start it all over. It's not easy. We have to find a balance. But I don't think it's as simple as you finish the PDP and you ignore all the rest of the comments. We -- and that's what I'm hearing some people say. And you probably don't mean it quite that extreme, but I'm making a point. So what's the balance? I don't have the answer. But we're all trying to find it now, and in the next few weeks we have a chance to have a lot of input but let's keep in mind that it's not that simple and it won't be, and what all of you are doing is good, and -- and it's part of the process, and hopefully we'll see an end to the process, at least this round, later this year. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Tim, you wanted to say something and then I'm going to want to go to a microphone with someone who hasn't spoken yet. >>TIM RUIZ: Yeah. I appreciate that, Chuck. I think it is difficult to find that line. But I think sometimes too, it's very clear, and when the GNSO has completed a policy development process and has made recommendations that have consensus and the staff is implementing those recommendations, certainly during comment periods there's going to be implementation issues that need to be addressed. Several have been. We've been through a couple of different iterations of the draft applicant guidebook. But when we're talking about major policy changes, major shifts in the way that ICANN even deals with certain interest groups, I think that's not a very hard line to see. That now we're talking about major policy changes that should perhaps come back to the GNSO Council and I think those are very valid issues to be raising right now. You're right, the process is still ongoing. It will be interesting to see what the board does with it, but I think now is the time for anyone with concerns to make their voices heard. >>CHUCK GOMES: In fairness we -- >>AVRI DORIA: I think at this point -- >>CHUCK GOMES: In fairness, we should say that we had rough consensus. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Excuse me. At this point, we've got lots of time to talk to each other. I'd really like to go back -- >>DAVID CAKE: Hi. My name is David Cake from Electronic Frontiers Australia. I know we're going to be sick of -- we'll be talking about the IRT pretty much all day, and I just -- I don't want to get into the details but just talk about what I think the policy development sort of issues are in this forum, which is that -- the IRT process, it was sort of explicitly not transparent, in that people preparing it were encouraged not to discuss it outside the group. It was implicitly not open. There's nothing really wrong with getting a group like that together in order to create a document, but given that sort of it's explicitly not transparent or open, of course it's only going to be a starting point for discussion. I can't really see how we're -- we're talking about this document as anything other than a proposal that we're going to throw out there and, you know, people are then going to start taking shots at. And I mean, I'm certainly -- I know earlier there was the question about, you know, why have Robin and so on not put up opposing suggestions? Well, you know, we didn't know what we were sort of -- what the -- we needed a starting point of the discussion in order to make those. I've certainly got a lot of, you know, interesting things I'd like to talk about, the URS versus the UDRP and so forth. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. We've only got eight minutes left. Who was at the MIC first? Was it Paul or was it -- >>PAUL FOODY: I thought you wanted somebody new. >>AVRI DORIA: I do want somebody new, but please go ahead. >>PHILIP ARGY: Philip Argy from ArgyStar.com could I perhaps make a suggestion that where the world has gotten to in the Internet age is that there are now a vast number of stakeholders, that it's increasingly difficult for ICANN to reach and to poll, and to understand. And I think the biggest challenge for the GNSO is to innovate in ways of reaching those people and finding out what they think, because the pervasiveness of the Internet into everybody's lives is such that the cohort of stakeholders has just exploded, and the number of ICANN-aware people in the world is proportionately shrinking and the assumption that indeed, you know, ICANN or ICANN-aware constituencies is sufficient input is not the case anymore. So I -- I think the comments that you've heard in the last half hour or so are really more symptomatic of a complaint that it's becoming harder and harder to take account of all the possible legitimate views, and yet the challenge is you are constrained for time. There are pragmatic considerations. And the balancing act is quite a difficult one to achieve. And what's needed, perhaps, is a bit more acceptance on the part of critics -- not that they shouldn't criticize. Anybody is entitled to criticize, and you have an open process that permits that, which is good. But to accept, I think, that those who have put a huge amount of intellectual effort into producing a document did so by an authority and with good will and weren't sort of overtly taking particular lines to offend anybody. And I think now let's put that behind us, take the document as a discussion document, and as was said earlier, the important point now is to really try very hard to solicit maximum comment opportunity and to really elicit all possible views on the document and just treat it as a basis for discussion and not give it any default status that, you know, if not credibly responded to it will become the default bible. That's -- once you can displace that fear amongst people, you're more likely to get thoughtful input, and that's really what you crave and need. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you very much for your comment. Okay. Paul. >>PAUL FOODY: Great. I've got two comments. I think you should also -- bearing in mind the benefit of an e-mail to every registrant -- now, Mr. Argy has made the point that it's very difficult to poll 80 million, 160 million people, but it's very easy to notify them, and that is absolutely critical, that they be notified of your intent. Otherwise, you know, I wouldn't like to be in your shoes when 80 million people found their dot coms had been stolen from underneath their feet. Secondly, the IRT was prepared by trademark lawyers. I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I do know there are two types of trademark. There's registered and unregistered trademarks. Now, in 2000, when I tried to register yesplease.com, there was no -- sorry, "yes please" -- I tried to get an American registration for trademark "Yes Please" in America, there was no section to register a domain name. There was no -- there was no area. I don't know what you call it in trademark language. >> (Speaker is off microphone). >>PAUL FOODY: Sorry. The classification. There was no classification for an Internet business, and that was back in 2000. As a result, the dot com has become the de facto registration for people wanting an Internet place. And we should also remember that if I go online and I type in "Yahoo" I will to go Yahoo.com. The fact that Yahoo then reroutes it elsewhere is, by the bye. This has been happening for 10 years. It's still happening. So that every time anyone with a dot com wants to access that address, they don't need to put in the "dot com." >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: Okay. And they haven't need Thad for 10 years and hence, why you see the likes of companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, advertising around football grounds, advertising their single name without the dot com. >>AVRI DORIA: The point has been made. Thank you. >>PAUL FOODY: Thank you very much. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. We've got three more minutes. We had a couple hands here. I know Carlos had his hand up. Who else had a hand up to make a final comment? Tony. Okay. So Carlos, please. >>CARLOS SOUZA: I'd just like to give an example about the issue regarding process, as we are discussing so much about process. Maybe as we have mentioned an Achilles heel, one of those would be the WHOIS. We have been going for a long time in GNSO discussing the issue of WHOIS and then IRT report has a very important part on WHOIS. That is needed for us to give some attention and to debate that issue, so if you want to -- if you may use an example of how policy issues can be drafted, apart from GNSO and having this type of situation, I believe WHOIS could be one of them. The discussion of a thick WHOIS, from what I am aware, has not been a great discussion inside GNSO, but then again, I think it's a positive thing that we had that discussion about IRT here during the GNSO session. I know that we have the whole afternoon to discuss that, but there are some issues pertaining to the process and to the competence of GNSO and that was important for us to have the audience say and we discussing this during this morning. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. Tony? >>TONY HOLMES: Well, it's interesting to follow on from a link between policy process and WHOIS, and I think we're all aware what happened with that discussion and how much time we spent on it. And we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that how this issue started was a response to a consultation showing some serious concern from one sector of the community. And I believe the IRT was set up by the board to try and expedite that process. And I do know that there was significant effort put in by the members of that team. They really sacrificed a significant part of their life for a while to pull that together. If that exercise had just been fed into the GNSO, as a policy development process, we could never have succeeded in coming out with anything during that time. In fact, I think it would have been significantly impacting the whole of the introduction of the new namespace, if we tried to do that. Where the discussion goes now is really in the hands of the -- the board, rather than the GNSO, but I'm sure that when they consider that, they will look at the potential impact and the linkage with the introduction of gTLDs, the time frame, the expectations of the community has to be part of that deliberation, but I don't think that's our call. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Tony. You've had the last word. We've hit 12:30, which is our time to close the open MIC and to close the meeting, so I'd like to thank everybody, those who commented and the council members who participated through this meeting, and say the meeting is over. Thank you. [Applause]