ICANN Brussels GAC/ICANN Board Joint Meeting Tuesday, 22 June 2010 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon, directors, liaisons, warmly welcome to the GAC meeting. It's our traditional joint meeting. We have preliminarily discussed the agenda for the meeting, and the agenda would stand for, first of all, to have a discussion on the progress of the GAC/Board Joint Working Group, and then discussion about progress on the new gTLD program addressing the issue of morality and public order and outstanding issues. So that would be -- And then, of course, any other business, if there would be another question what GAC members or board members would like to raise. If that agenda would be acceptable, we could follow. But before giving you, Peter, the floor, I would like to say that this is an exceptionally well-attended meeting, and I think that this represents a record in GAC history, 58 members participate in the meeting, and three observers. And so we are very happy about such attendance. We had very fruitful discussions with the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, addressing all range of issues which are on ICANN's agenda at the moment. We met also representatives of NRO, and had our internal discussions. One important thing is, as you are aware, the chair of the GAC resigns on Thursday 24th of June, and following the Article 9 of GAC operating principles, the GAC appointed Ms. Heather Dryden from Canada to serve as an interim chair, and the nonvoting GAC liaison to the board for the remainder of the current chair's term which ends at the first GAC meeting of 2011. And this appointment is effective from June 25, which is from Friday. And Heather will be reading the GAC communiqué and sitting as the GAC liaison on the board meeting Friday morning. So that is what I would like to tell you at the beginning. And if you want to take the floor at this stage. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. And good afternoon, GAC members and community. First of all, yes the agenda has been agreed between us, and thank you very much, Janis, for kicking that process off. It makes it a great deal easier when we have an agreed agenda. Can I come to the Heather Dryden appointment and congratulate you both. I think the GAC's done a very good job in selecting Heather, and Heather is doing a great job in accepting that position. There's a significant work burden associated with chairing any of the ICANN constituent parts. And the GAC included. So thank you very much, Heather, for assuming the burden of work that's about to fall upon you. We all look forward to working with you, and particularly myself personally, if there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Congratulations. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. And congratulations also to the GAC on achieving 58 participants at a meeting. That's an extraordinary achievement. One of the key requirements for a strong ICANN is a strong GAC. And obviously, solid participation by a large number of countries is a very good indicator of the strength of the GAC. So well done. And, finally, while I'm making an opening statement, perhaps I can congratulate you, Janis, and just confirm in front of your peers, your fellow GAC members, the view of the board, which is that you've been an absolutely excellent GAC chairman from what we've seen, and what we have seen in your role as a GAC liaison, you've done a superb job. We've had a very harmonious relationship with you between the board and the GAC and you and I personally. And I think that's contributed to a great deal of progress and better understandings and better work done between us. So the board wishes you particularly well in your new role. Thank you very much for your service to ICANN. [ Applause ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter, for your kind words. My favorite saying is -- can easily be translated in the context of your last intervention, is that it is very good with you, but it is much better without you. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I accept that, because this is my favorite saying. But don't worry. I am not going overly far. Because in my next life, I will be in charge of implementation of UNESCO/ICANN agreement from UNESCO side. And be sure that I will be testing ICANN with the requests of money and projects. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So.... But humor aside, we have a long agenda and important questions in front of us. And let us start with the first item on the progress of the Joint Working Group, Board/GAC Joint Working Group. And I will ask Heather, one of the co-chairs of the working group, to kick off the discussion. >>VICE CHAIR DRYDEN: Thank you, Janis. My co-chair from the board side is Ray Plzak. So I assume he's in the room and he will leap in as need be. So, in essence, the Joint Working Group met on Sunday morning and focused on two particular issues contained in that draft report. The first is concerning GAC advice to the board. And the second is regarding the various GAC liaisons that exist. So that would include liaisons to the board, to the Nominating Committee, and the issue of liaisons to the other supporting organizations and advisory committees within ICANN. What we hope to do is to have those particular sections ready to submit this week. And that's in particular in response to the issues that were raised by the review team and their interest in receiving advice as early as possible from the Joint Working Group, because, of course, these issues pertain directly to some of the questions they have related to the GAC. So I will focus the comments on GAC advice to the board. We had quite a vigorous discussion. And if there are questions around some of the GAC liaisons, then perhaps I can respond to those. But I will focus on GAC advice to the board. So what the Joint Working Group proposes: To note that any explicit advice in any written form in the view of the Joint Working Group constitutes the advice that is foreseen in the bylaws. There are various kinds of written advice, of course. We note some of those in the report: Communiqués, letters, principles documents, and so on. We also note that there is verbal advice provided to the board via the GAC's chair. And that in that role, the chair is expected to represent GAC views. We recognize, however, that there are -- there is a need to comment on more mundane procedural matters. And so we recognize that here. We also will note that the bylaws only reference that the GAC provides advice to the board. So there isn't mention of the other communities, which, in essence, means that only the board is obligated by the bylaws to respond to GAC advice. We also point out that the bylaws reference, in particular, public- policy advice and not formal advice. I think in the past, the board has sought to clarify with the GAC whether advice is in fact formal or not. But this is not something that we see in the bylaws and isn't particularly meaningful for the GAC. So clarification on behalf of the board might be a useful way of understanding why that is of significance to the board, if in fact it still is. We also note that the majority of the advice that the GAC generates is public policy. This is the reason why we participate. This is the reason why we attend GAC meetings. However, there is another kind of advice that the GAC does provide from time to time, and that relates to the effectiveness of procedures at ICANN for facilitating interactions between the constituencies for the sake of developing policy. We also note that the policy development process at ICANN, by its nature, is iterative. So we do need to provide advice in stages. Of course, as information becomes available and GAC members have time to reflect, then we respond and issue advice as needed in relation to that progress. We also refer to the fact that the GAC seeks consensus first. And this is recognized in one of the GAC operating principles which says that first the GAC will work towards consensus, and failing that, then we can, we must, present a range of views if we cannot reach consensus. We also discussed on Sunday that generating this kind of consensus takes time and that there is, to some degree, a tradeoff between arriving at consensus and how much time there is to generate advice. We also note that as the GAC continues to expand as participation increases that we can expect it to be more difficult to arrive at consensus. Regarding the bylaws that describe the board obligation to notify the GAC regarding issues that have a public-policy aspect to it, we note that there is no register of this. So it's not entirely clear to us how or when this aspect of the bylaws is used. But we also note that usually the GAC in fact reacts to initiatives elsewhere in the community. The bylaws also refer to the GAC's ability to recommend a public- policy process. And this has not been used. In terms of the board process that is undertaken when they receive conflicting or potentially conflicting advice from the community, it does appear -- it's not clear to the GAC, and so perhaps further clarification would be used there to understand what the process is in that case. It does, however, appear rare that the board applies this bylaw -- sorry -- the part of the bylaws that describes what must happen when advice is rejected. Then the draft report describes four recommendations in relation to the various findings that I have just described. First of all, the recommendation is to create a transparent register or consistent record to make apparent whether, when, how the board has taken into account or responded to particular advice from the GAC. The second recommendation is that the board could consider submitting written regular requests for advice to the GAC clearly identified as such. This approach could also be a useful component of the proposed register. Third recommendation. In the event that the GAC decides to form a working group to review the operating principles, that the work -- that work could draw on the work of the Joint Working Group. And finally, a recommendation to identify consistent methods of notating written GAC advice. That's it. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So thank you, Heather. Ray, would you like to add something to this report? No. Peter, would you like to react? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, my first reaction is to say thank you very much to the members of the Joint Working Group. I suppose the second reaction is to say we look forward very much to receiving the report. And I'm just not sure whether it would be productive now to respond to Heather's oral description of it. But I'd be happy to talk about any of those topics, if you want to. I'm just not quite sure what you -- what would be useful in the context of not having had a chance to read the report. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Canada. >>CANADA: It might be useful to note in this context, whether you choose to respond or not, that one of the main issues that came up in the Joint Working Group in some of the responses that the board provided to questions that were asked by the Joint Working Group, that there was clarity -- lack of clarity on what constitutes GAC advice and a concern that so many years into the existence of the GAC and ICANN, that such a fundamental thing should be unclear. So it generated a very good discussion, which I think is positive. But I think it's useful to flag that to you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Towards the obvious sort of instant reaction is that that's a -- because if it is advice, it has consequences, occasionally quite complicated and possibly expensive consequences. So if the GAC is just explaining what its view on something is or if it's saying that it has a feeling about something, or if the GAC wants to say it doesn't like something or -- you know, there's a whole range of emotional or other expressions that may be made, which -- let me be clear -- we want to hear this. This is all useful information to get. And it shapes the decision-making on the board. And the same kind of information can be conveyed into the ACs and other SOs. So it's a matter of, if you like, being protection for the GAC that you -- that this special category, called advice, then triggers, you know, bylaw consequences. I don't think it's to the GAC's advantage, personally, to have everything you ever say to the board treated as advice. Because it triggers consequences. That's the first reaction. Lots of times, you may want to tell us things that are very useful information, but doesn't actually constitute advice, which then triggers this consequence. But that's just a reaction. Say everything -- the major reaction to information coming from the GAC is to consider how it affects the policy development process. Is that helpful? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Body language says that not really. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So United States. >>UNITED STATES: Just a quick question, and my apologies to Heather. I certainly don't want to run away with any of your prerogatives as the GAC vice chair and now interim of this particular group. But I wonder, as Janis so eloquently put it, body language says no. What might be helpful is perhaps to have a -- a better understanding or even a legal decision that can define that word. Because the word "advice," it is in the bylaws. And if we could understand how you interpret that word, that might help us understand why there's apparently been a sense that you are never sure that you've ever had advice from us in 11 years. [ Laughter ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, let me be clear both by body language and by words that there are occasions when it's been perfectly clear we've had advice, when we've had a written letter from Janis, from chair to chair, saying, "The GAC views on this are these." There's no question that. It's slightly different, though, when we have a discussion like this. Is everything that's said here from the GAC, you know, advice to the board? Your communiqué, which often, you know, people say advice. But the reality of a communiqué is it's an announcement to the community about what you've been doing at your meetings. Not all of it's directed at the board. So I -- you know, I think some clarity around this is probably going to be helpful. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So any interventions on this point? Dennis, please. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Well, may I suggest that we, the board, take an action to propose a working suggested definition of "advice" to try -- if that's helpful, to try and move this forward. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Dennis. Jean-Jacques. >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT: Thank you. To go along the lines suggested by Dennis, one additional consideration which I brought up during a meeting of the joint working group was that I indicated that as far as advice is concerned, I think that unanimous position is, of course, more easily dealt with by the board than a series of options or positions. It's only a partial question to your question -- partial answer to your question. But unanimity, of course, makes it easier to not only take it as advice, but also to treat it in an efficient way. It doesn't exclude the expression of opinions, diverging opinions, but then we don't necessarily consider it as advice to act upon. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Gonzalo. >>GONZALO NAVARRO: May I suggest this is maybe not about definitions, but processes. So if we identify a process or, I don't know, for example, exchange letters or, I don't know, a formal process to identify whenever we have an advice, a clear advice, from the GAC to the board could be easier to engage into a discussion about this particular work. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Gonzalo. France, and then European Commission. >>FRANCE: Thank you, Janis. Without pushing the discussion too far, because we already had very interesting interaction, and this is an ongoing element, I would go along the previous comment. It's not about making a clear definition like something that would have a very precise frontier. This is advice, this is not. The nature of the GAC as an advisory body makes it so that by definition, anything that comes out of the GAC is considered as no more than advice if you take the literal element. This is a different question from when the mechanism of back and forth explanation between the GAC and the board is being triggered. There is a specific provision that requests that the GAC -- the board explains when it doesn't follow GAC advice, the reason why and so on. So these are two different issues. Any transmission to the board from the GAC can be formulated in either very strong language or very light language. And obviously whether the GAC says the GAC unanimously strongly opposes the board doing X, Y, Z, or whether the GAC says in the course of the discussion, we want to highlight the importance of that topic, it's a difference of degree, but according to the bylaws it remains an advice in any case. The question, therefore, becomes not, as already said, a question of definition but a question of process. So the key question is when and under which conditions is this mechanism of back and forth triggered, and when is the board -- has the obligation to explain why it didn't follow advice and when is it not necessary. That's basically the discussion point. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bertrand. European Commission. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, yes. And I think we probably all want to avoid turning this into a working group on redrafting the bylaws. But just to make a couple of observations. Our problem is essentially that the bylaws just says the GAC gives advice, full stop. It doesn't safe the GAC can give advice or opinions or offer, you know, information or anything. It says we give advice. And you're right, and we can argue that thanking the hosts, actually, in our communiqué for hosting the meeting isn't advice to ICANN to change its policies. But I'll be frank, I was one of those people who was a bit frustrated, actually, by this kind of response because having an application of common sense actually would have suggested that when we take a position on a policy issue and we take the trouble to discuss it and to communicate it to the board in writing, that we have assumed that that's GAC advice. So I think the problem, actually, is we didn't write the bylaws, I'll be frank, and we have no power to change them. That's your job out there, actually. And that's why some of us were a bit surprised that it's taken so long for to you indicate that you weren't sure what was GAC advice. I mean, maybe we should have checked, but I think we have been acting in good faith that you would have told us if you weren't sure that what we were communicating to you should be considered as advice. So I hope you will take that in the constructive spirit that it's meant. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bill. Senegal. >>SENEGAL: Thank you, Chair. My name is Maimouna Diop, I am the representative of Senegal on the GAC and the one of the GAC vice chair. I just want to add on the report done by Heather that we also have a small discussion about the advice that we give to the ICANN board, and if they don't take it in account, they have to give to the GAC back the reason why they did not take this advice into account. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Maimouna. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I always love some of these discussions at ICANN, and I guess this seems somewhat surreal to me that we are talking about what is advice, because I guess I am kind of with you, that if the GAC sends us a letter then I would assume they are behind it and that's their advice. So I guess the question I have, Peter, has ICANN ever received something in writing from the GAC that the GAC did not consider advice? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I think the more important point, and let's finish this, I'm pretty sure, as Bill said that, strong dollops of common sense have been applied. And as far as I can tell, and we have had no communication to the contrary, there isn't any incident where what's been regarded as advice by you has been received by us and not followed, under any circumstance there's a suggestion that the mediation device should have been activated. So it's sort of a discussion, to me, without any consequences. Let's fix it by all means. Unless the GAC is suggesting because of this theirs there's a great stack of advice somewhere that's not being followed, I'm not sure whether we should spend much more time on it. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. If by any chance the board is considering to change or propose changes in bylaws in relation to the GAC advice, in our discussions here, what transpired, that according to current bylaws, GAC provides advice exclusively to the board. In practice, GAC interacts with the supporting organizations at the early stage of policy development. And according to bylaws, all communication goes up to the board, and then hopefully down from the board to Supporting Organization in question. So maybe it makes sense to examine and consider that it's feasible that GAC interacts not only with the board but also with supporting organizations if GAC is asked to participate in the policy development process from the public policy perspective. This is just what was discussed during these conversations. So I have U.S., Canada, and then Rita. So United States. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you. I thought it might be worthwhile, then, to chime in and share a bit of a discussion the GAC had with the accountability review team, because actually a question was put to us whether we could think of an occasion where we had developed what we considered to be fairly strong advice that had not been taken into account and that we hadn't had an opportunity to discuss that with the board, and we did come up with an example. So I'm happy to share it with you. You might find that helpful. In March 2007, the GAC completed its principles on the introduction of new gTLDs, and it's our understanding, if I have the dates right, it was June 2008 that the board adopted the GNSO recommendations on new gTLDs. To our knowledge, there was never a side-by-side comparison or analysis done, and ever since that time I believe the GAC has come back in many communiqués and a few discreet letters but primarily communiqués to highlight where there has been a discrepancy. So I do think that that is a fair example where the GAC was actually ahead of the game. We issued advice. And as Janis pointed out, one of the challenges we have is that under the bylaws, our advice goes to the board. We, of course, do share our communiqués with the rest of the community. We do engage and interact with them. But in all fairness to the other SOs and ACs, they are not under any obligation to listen to the GAC. So it is only the board that has a bylaws obligation to accept GAC advice. So that is the challenge. It goes one way. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Suzanne. I think probably our reaction to that is we don't regard the implementation process in relation to new gTLDs finished, and we are constantly taking GAC advice into account as we are moving through developing the GAC -- developing the bylaws. And perhaps the most recent example is in relation to some geographic names, for example. And so when we are going through these processes, I can assure you Janis is sitting there as the guardian of the GAC principles. And when we are discussing a particular process, as well as the staff advice that comes to us that says hey, there's a GAC principle on this, Janis is there defending that. So I'm not sure what you think we haven't done. If there's an area in relation to the gTLD implementation program that's currently in conflict with the GAC principles that you gave, then we should deal with that. But I don't think it's an example where advice was given and has been ignored. We rather see it that GAC advice and we are still, with the DAG 4, processing how we can take account of that advice. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Suzanne, that actually was helpful. I was going to say before your comments that maybe we should just take on board that communiqué equals advice, and maybe that will solve part of your problem. Again, to your point, EU, I think that's common sense. But I don't think that's acceptable if we have, in fact, received something from the GAC that you all don't feel was addressed properly. And we as the board should work to fix that. And I'm sorry if that's the case because that doesn't seem acceptable to me. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Heather, Canada. >>CANADA: I would just note that in the relevant bylaw, it seems to focus on whether the board takes an action that is consistent or inconsistent. And we seem to be using the word "conflict." There are two relevant bylaws, but I think that might also be helpful to us if we think about the word consistency. I wanted to provide a slightly different example, and this, I think, speaks to why we're recommending the creation of register. You may be aware that the GAC has issued, in fact, two principles documents related to country codes and replaced in effect the first one with a second updated version in 2005. And it came to our attention that the understanding at the board and by staff working in IANA was that there was only one version, the first version, and that's what they were referencing. And so in creating a register, we would hope that that would not happen in the future. And of course we also recommend that we try to notate our advice more consistently. So perhaps if we would have written on it this replaces the earlier version, it would have been made more clear. But I think that's also quite a critical issue for the GAC. And so I would highlight that as well to the board. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Heather. Bruce Tonkin. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you. Is this working? Hopefully it is. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: It's working. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just wanted to follow up what the representative from the U.S. government pointed out with respect to the process with the GAC advice on new gTLDs and how that had been handled. And it also relates to something that came up in the Affirmation of Commitments review team yesterday, and that's about explaining reasons why a particular position wasn't accepted. And I think if you look at the GNSO process and if you look at the board process, a lot of the effort is put into getting consensus around a set of principles or a set of recommendations and then most of the documentation is about supporting why they supported those recommendations. And ICANN, as a culture, doesn't tend to document very much the reason against a particular position. So that advice from the GAC on geographic names in the GNSO, because I chaired that committee at the time, resulted in a working group being formed, and there was a geographic names working group, if I remember correctly, or it might have been under reserved names working group, but there was a working group where that was considered and discussed. But it didn't sort of come back with a formal response back to the GAC saying, "We have taken your advice, we have considered it in this way, and this is why we have accepted or rejected it." So that didn't happen at the GNSO level. And that's the level where you are going to have the people that really understand the issues. Then by the time it gets to the board, the board is a governance body, and I think what we have to do to improve the process is further down at the GNSO or ccNSO level, that's the first point where if the GAC advice is received at that point, there is a formal response to that advice written as part of the GNSO process. And then that advice is then available for the board as well, rather than trying to get the board to craft such advice. Because the board members, by and large, there are only two on the board that know GNSO issues in any detail and the others are more generalists. So I think the key thing from a bylaws perspective is requiring as an improvement that, whether it's from the GAC or ALAC or RSSAC or SSAC, any of the advisory committees that provide advice, that the relevant policy body, whether it's GNSO or ccNSO or ASO, formally responds to that advice at that point, and then the board can then consider it if that response isn't deemed to be acceptable. So we have got to start getting it to work bottom-up, not wait until it gets to the board and then ask any of the board members who don't know that issue in depth to try and respond why your advice wasn't accepted. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bruce. Rod. >>ROD BECKSTROM: Yes, I just wanted to respond to the vice chairperson from Canada's suggestion with respect to a register -- I guess it's the joint working group recommendation. It sounds like an excellent, sound recommendation. Obviously we need to have that data there for transparency and accountability. And I just wanted to mention we developed a similar register for the history of all the board resolutions which was posted this week. And we'd just like to say we would very much like to work with you and get your feedback on that register and see if you would like to us build something like that to support you. Unless you'd rather do the register in your own Web site or different place, we would be very happy on the staff side to support that execution. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Rod. Norway. >>NORWAY: Yes, thank you, Janis. And I just want to also briefly comment on what Suzanne was saying. We made the principles in March 2007 and, of course, not getting a response, then of course that appears to the GAC that the advice has been ignored. And, of course, making a register would, of course, make that easier if, like, advice on that is maybe it's pending, for example. Then, of course, you're still evaluating and so on. But still, that could make it more easy to accommodate and track what advice has been given. But I also just want to adopt under the comments that it is a bit surprising that it is sort of the assumption of the communication of the GAC has not sort of been considered as GAC advice in the past. But I also want to make a positive comment as well, especially on this country and territory names, and I think I must commend the ICANN board for making this appear in the DAG Version 4 that the country and territory names are not treated as gTLDs. And I also wanted to comment that of course the, I would say, sensible solution is not to just delay it until the first round but is to delay taking applications on that until the PDP, CCPDP has been established and not just the first round of the gTLDs. So thanks. And very quick, which is also related to the GAC advice is also the post-delegation procedures that you also have taken on board. And I think that's also a good example that you're making a mechanism that will actually allow some governments to be able to give approval or nonobjection to some new gTLDs, for example for city names. That is good, so I just want to commend on that as well. But still, there are some issues to be resolved. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ørnulf. Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just to be clear, I don't think I said or meant that just because it was in a communiqué, it was not treated as advice. In fact, if you take the example of the XXX application, the primary pieces of GAC advice in relation to XXX, from memory, come from the communiqués. The Wellington communiqué in 2006 and the Lisbon communiqué. And they have been carefully looked at in relation to that XXX decision. So rest assured, communiqués, when they are in relation to -- and this is the dose of common sense that Bill says we should apply and I said that we mostly do. I wonder if we can move off advice and let's see the report and let's carry on the discussion and take up another one of the suggestions, and that's the question of the notification to the GAC of public- policy positions. And that was first formally raised in a letter just from Janis to me. And I can't remember the exact issue. What we have done -- I think it was the EOI. That was the first time that it was ever -- that the current practice has ever been raised and questioned. And that practice has been that because Janis -- because the chairman of the GAC, and there's been others before Janis, and in fact I see actually another one is in the room. Paul Twomey has visited us. So we had this long practice of having the GAC chair acting as liaison to the board and participates in all of the board discussions and that's been regarded as a satisfactory way of communicating. Now, if that's not, we have got no difficulty at all of creating a more formal notification process, providing a list of active areas of policy development or a list of here is the board -- we can develop something. So I don't think it's led to problems. It seems to have been a relatively effective practical thing, but if more formality is required, there's absolutely no objection to that. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. Though I think that this discussion revealed that there might be possibility or when the board will decide or change or amend bylaws to take into account the substance of the discussion and see whether this vertical communication GAC/board is only possible way according to bylaws to provide public-policy advice. Maybe it could be somehow changed and formalized that GAC advice is also considered in supporting organizations during the policy development process. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let me foreshadow an immediate and enormous political problem with that, and that is that this situation as a result of the current structure is a very delicate balance between all the different stakeholders and the balancing of interests. The suggestion that GAC advice, when given to an SO, also carries with it the same power and obligation would be a very significant reweighting of the political balancing exercise that the current structure recommends. If you are going to go into the registrar constituency talking about renegotiating the RAA and Governmental Advisory Committee advice in a registry constituency, that's also going to have to be followed, he talk about an incredible extension of the power of the GAC. And so that may be something that the community would accept, but my suggestion is it would take a lot of discussion. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So, then let's keep thinking about that. Shall we move, then, to the next agenda item on our -- of today's -- Dennis, please. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Janis. Has the board/GAC working group considered the question of intersessional advice? Now, I know the GAC works tremendously hard, and I understand that the GAC advice comes from the meetings of the GAC at the public meetings, but I'm asking because I can envisage situations where the GAC may wish to respond rapidly to an emerging situation on a time scale that the next planned meeting doesn't accommodate. So I just wonder whether the working group has considered the question of intersessional advice, urgent advice, whatever you want to call it. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Heather. >>CANADA: The current draft that we have does recognize that iterative policy development process and that advice can be given in stages. So it's not explicit, but there is, I guess, an implicit understanding there that the GAC, at least, may have various degrees of advice in terms of time. I think there are examples of the GAC providing advice intersessionally because we have issued letters, for example, intersessionally. But within the working group which is what I would prefer to speak to and defer to other colleagues whether they would want to comment more broadly, we will have, we intend to have a final report in Cartagena. So there is time, there is opportunity for the joint working group to consider that question, and perhaps elaborate further on that matter. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Heather. In practical terms, that means in the past, when GAC has issued a letter containing public policy advice intersessionally, then during the next face-to-face meeting, the GAC revisited the text and formally endorsed during the face-to-face meeting, and that found reflection in the GAC communiqué. So that has been used in the past. So let us -- Pakistan. >>PAKISTAN: Thank you. A very quick one. Regarding the comment Mr. President made about the assumption of the balance, delicate balance, if more weight was given to GAC advice. I would just like to remind that this whole process started in WSIS in Geneva in 2003, and it was the governments that were really most concerned about the -- having more democratic system for the governance of the Internet, and so much so, it was so contentious that we could not resolve the issue in Geneva. And it carried forward to Tunis. And finally in Tunis, the outcome was the Internet Governance Forum and the GAC, if I'm not wrong. So I -- and how things evolved and how this balance was created. But I think governments were at the forefront that were asking for a more -- a bigger share in the governance of the Internet. So I just wanted to bring that data to the table, I mean, however we resolve it, it's not going to be done in this meeting. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. In fact, the WSIS resulted with the IGF and the concept of the enhanced cooperation. GAC was created with -- together with creation of ICANN about ten years ago, now more, and existed since then. So New Zealand. >>NEW ZEALAND: Thank you, Janis. Just a point about the question of balance and advice to the supporting organizations. I think it's worth pointing out, Peter, that rather than changing the balance, one of the issues that's coming out of the Joint Working Group, as I understand it, is the need for GAC influence on early parts of the policy development process and that that has not been -- that's been perceived as being something of a failure. Now, an example where early involvement has worked supremely well is in the case of the fast-track IDNs, where there's very, very close working relationship between the ccNSO and the GAC, and it's worked brilliantly well. And an area where it's tended to break down has been in terms of the generic -- the new generic top-level domains, where it has not worked so well. So it's in that context this has got to be looked at. It's not really a matter of changing balance. It's a matter of ensuring that the GAC is involved at an early stage in policy development, which leads to much better outcomes. And that's really the -- the point that's being made, I think. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Can I just quickly agree with that point. I think that the cases where the GAC has gone out and participated early in those processes have been very, very successful. I'm completely in favor of that. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Bertrand, France. >>FRANCE: Without continuing this discussion too long, because we have the working group, and it will develop, just to reinforce what Frank was saying. Peter, I do not think that it changes anything in terms of balance, because if a constituency or any part of the GNSO elaborates a position, that goes to the GNSO Council. That then goes to the board. And if at that stage the GAC gives an advice to the board that is in contradiction or says what is being proposed is not okay, it is exactly the same thing as if we had introduced the same thing earlier. And according to Frank, this would have been much more efficient. So I do not think that establishing any kind of circulation of direct information to the policy development process at an earlier stage would in any dimension change the balance of power. So it shouldn't be considered as an obstacle. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Let me agree with that as well. I'm not talking about preventing what you just called the circulation of direct information to the policy process. I completely agree with that. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think that this makes a good segue to the next question we have in mind to discuss. That is question which in other words is known as "MOPO," morality and public order. We came up with this abbreviation during the meeting, and it seems that the community really liked that abbreviation, "MOPO." We had already a very extensive discussion about that among ourselves. And I would like to ask Suzanne to introduce the -- the question, and especially from this perspective of the GAC advice given earlier or taken into account at the early stage of policy development. Please, the floor is yours. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Janis. I'm happy to do that. And I know that many of my colleagues, in fact, a majority of GAC members around the table have views on this as well. So hopefully we will have sufficient time to address them all. On this issue, actually, I believe the GAC anticipated in its March 2007 new gTLD (inaudible), we anticipated what I think MOPO is intended to address, but we used different terminology. And we cautioned the ICANN board that we anticipated that with the introduction of new generic top-level domains, there was a strong possibility that there could be terms that would be proposed that would raise national religious, cultural, linguistic sensitivities. So I believe that was the terminology we used, sort of saying, "Look, we know this is possible, and we urge great caution as you move ahead." I don't exactly recall when MOPO first sort of hit the screen, DAG 2 or 3. It certainly was in V3. We -- really, that was the first time we all tried to understand the process. And I believe we flagged our concerns and questions about it on numerous occasions in our exchanges. So I certainly remember it at least going back to Sydney, and probably even before. In April of this year, Janis arranged, and Kurt Pritz very graciously agreed to a GAC conference briefing and an exchange on this issue. And the GAC had sent him probably way too many questions, I think nine or ten or so. And we had a very good exchange. And yet I will say, despite his best efforts -- and he did make best efforts -- if Kurt is in the room, thank you again -- the majority of us came away from this call feeling as though none of the questions had been answered. So we went back to the drawing board. We in Washington very, very definitely went back to the drawing board trying to figure out, can we fix this, since we can't answer these questions, or can we come up with an alternative. And after extensive discussions and a lot of analysis, I think we identified what we believe is the threshold problem with MOPO as proposed, that the -- the morality and public order terminology is lifted out of a treaty, the Treaty of Paris, and is used in that treaty as the basis upon which countries, the signatories, can take an exemption. And the exemption is you would deny a trademark application on the grounds that it raised, quote, "morality and public order" problems or concerns in your country. So, number one, it's the basis for an exemption. And number two, the exemptions are left to each sovereign country to determine how they would apply them. So the more we thought about this, we decided that that was the inherent flaw in the ICANN MOPO proposed approach, that you're using the basis for an exemption in a treaty that governments take as the -- you're flipping it to become a positive foundation upon which panels of -- forgive me -- so-called international juridical experts will make decisions. And I believe the language is used based on agreed definitions in international law. Well, from the GAC's perspective, there are no formally agreed international definitions of morality and public order. And the Treaty of Paris enshrines that and underscores that by saying each country can take an exemption from these treaty provisions based on their own national interpretation of those terms. So there is a great deal of respect in that treaty for differences among nations as to how they might define what could be objectionable on morality and public order grounds. So, actually, we've kind of come to the point and had a very, very extensive discussion this morning around the GAC table and then subsequently between the GAC and the ALAC on the same issue. Frankly, we think it is rather unworkable. In fact, I shouldn't say "rather." Am I being too polite? We think it is completely unworkable. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Suzanne. I think that we used an example of one issue which everybody considers as bad, child pornography. And we could try to prevent names alluding to child pornography by applying to the Convention of the Protection of the Rights of the Child. But the problem is that this is not a universal instrument. Not all countries have -- are state parties to convention of the rights of the child. And how then a provision which is not binding to a state could be applied to that state. So you see that there is a problem that in the international arena, there are a number of international treaties which could be used to underscore the -- these issues or used to justify the kind of action based on morality and public order. But the problem is that these legal instruments are not universal, or not yet universal. So therefore that creates a problem in a number of countries. This is just an illustration of a real situation with the international instruments, legal instruments. So any other comments? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I have lots of questions about -- about what -- about that. But I suppose the simplest question is, does the GAC have a view of its own, then, as to how we should follow GAC principle 2.1, which is that new gTLDs should respect sensitivities regarding terms with national, et cetera, significance? How do you think we should create a system that takes account of the sensitivities of national, cultural, and religious significant names. Give us some advice on how this might look if you don't like the way we are suggesting. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So I must tell you, Peter, we had this discussion. And we are trying intensively -- seeking all possible -- or examining all possible options and solutions. And I must tell you, for the time being, we do not arrive to the point which we would consider being a workable and good alternative. The point of this discussion is to raise awareness that we -- the GAC believes that this is a not workable proposal. And the we committal ourselves to further reflect on this issue. And, hopefully, in no time, we will come up with something workable. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: The other part of that, of course, is, please, can we have a very clear exposition from you in terms of advice as to what you think is wrong with the current proposal. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Bruce. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Janis. I just wanted to provide, I guess, at least the interpretation the GNSO had at the time on the text. And I accept you've got a different interpretation. But firstly, just on the topic of the terminology "international law." We recognize that there is no such thing as international law. There's various treaties, and then different governments or nations then decide to encapsulate some of those treaties into their national laws. And international treaties aren't necessarily signed by all countries was our advice at the time. So what we tried to do is identify the existence of some international treaties. And I believe there was -- I may not be getting the wording right -- but I thought there were some treaties that covered things like racial discrimination, covered things such as, you know, protecting the rights of children and things. So we tried to name some treaties that, you know, we'd asked the staff to give us advice on. And we named some treaties. Now, we recognized that those treaties don't necessarily, then, represent international law. But that's why we used the terminology "international norms." We sort of thought if there is an international treaty, and let's say 50 out of 200 countries signed it, then that was kind of what we were referring to as saying that's -- that's a reasonable international law -- norm that ICANN could use as a basis for rejecting a particular application. So that was our intent. And, really, what we're sort of seeking is the GNSO, back in -- you remember, Suzanne, at the early days, where we actually asked the GAC to give us some advice. That was done verbally in meetings such as this where we did seek guidance. We didn't receive any guidance from the GAC. And so the GNSO worked with staff. And staff had suggested that as a compromise position. It was very controversial in the GNSO. Many hours were devoted to that and it wasn't unanimous in the GNSO in accepting it. It was a two-thirds majority around that language, but, really, it was a two-thirds majority saying, we recognize we need some mechanism that dealt with the original GAC principle. And that was the mechanism we came up with in the absence of any advice on a mechanism. So, really, all I can say is what Peter said, is what we really need is advice from the GAC on how to make your GAC principle work in practice. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bruce. Bertrand, France. >>FRANCE: Just quickly, this is not about, fundamentally, the GAC alone defining a procedure to solve this problem. The outcome of our discussion, both inside the GAC and then in interaction with ALAC, was actually to push unanimously for a debate or a discussion within the community, among the different stakeholders to find a solution to this. I won't get details. A few possible orientations have been explored. And, honestly, the discussion this morning has been absolutely excellent. The only thing that I think Suzanne was raising is that it is only basically in Nairobi, as a result, actually, of a GAC/ALAC interaction in the previous meeting that the two advisory committees just raised the level of awareness and attention to this topic that had not really been paid attention enough to. And so now we're confronted with a situation where there is an issue. And I think the discussion today was very heartwarming in terms of the interaction between the actors of the community, and we'll probably have a joint group to discuss possible solutions. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, just a question, I guess, for Suzanne, although this may not be -- you may not be championing this particular position. But I just want to make sure I understand it. The suggestion is that the problem with using treaties, as Bruce has said, which establish international norms, is that there are some countries who haven't signed those treaties. So what that means is, if under one of those treaties, a name would be banned, there would be people in some countries who would regard that as improper because they live in a country where that conduct is not banned. And what that means is that they should be allowed to use that name. But that's completely inconsistent with the GAC principle which says that we have to take account of those sensitivities. So what's wrong with us taking the position that if there is an international norm and many countries, if not all, have acceded to it, that the way of taking into account those sensitivities is to stop it? I understand that there would be some people in some countries who would feel that -- if the rules were made in their country, that they would be allowed. But a -- under this principle, names are prevented, and they're prevented because they're offensive to a large number of people. They're offensive to all of those people who have signed the treaty and made that conduct banned conduct. So I find it really inconsistent (inaudible) that we have to have a system that recognizes sensitivity, but at the same time, allows people to proceed in a way that is insensitive. So help me (inaudible) conundrum, please. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES: Knowing that I am not an attorney and I am speaking to several attorneys, I will do my best. I think the problem we have -- and, again, thank you, Bruce, for reminding me that you all worked very, very hard. And apologies if the GAC was ever approached with a request for advice, because I don't think we ever felt we were invited to come into the GNSO and help work on this. So my apologies for that. That's many, many years ago. And, again, not to suggest that the GNSO was not very, very well mentioned trying to find a proposed mechanism to deal with these kinds of issues. The problem presented to all of us by this particular choice of terminology is that it is taken from a particular treaty that is -- and, again, I'm not the lawyer here. So you can correct me -- that countries have signed, and it provides the basis upon which those countries can take an exemption from the -- the provisions of the treaty that they otherwise have committed to be bound by. Okay? So you're flipping the basis for an exemption. And the reason it's an exemption and the reason the terms are used that way is that each country has the sovereign right to define morality and public order for itself. So there is no international norm. That is our problem. So each country still retains the right in the GAC's mind of defining what it finds objectionable on those grounds. And you're proposed approach regrettably does not lead us to a new international standard that we could all say, "Well, this looks very interesting." That is the problem. Now, a related problem, but it's very small -- and we do need to do a lot more work on this -- in really examining how MOPO is intended to work, it could very well be that some of the sensitivities that the GAC tried to highlight way back when at a, you know, rather high level would not even be captured by the MOPO approach. Some terms, let's say names of religions, would conceivably not be captured by MOPO. However, there would be a lot of people who might feel very, very strongly not just about the string, but about the entity that is applying for it. Is that the relevant entity or the appropriate entity or the authorized entity, whatever, however you wish to characterize it, that should, in fact, get the string for, I don't know, dot Catholic. So there are those other sensitivities that would not at all be captured by this phrase morality and public order, just by way of example. We did have a very good exchange. My colleagues must be getting tired at the end of the day because they were much more spirited earlier today. I wish had a video camera and you could have seen it. [ Laughter ] >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And have this broader communitywide approach because obviously everybody cares about this and you want it to work well and we are working through how to make that proposal, thousand move forward. Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Suzanne, I'm sure they're quiet because you are doing an excellent job of representing there. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So in absence of further comments, we are just flagging that there is, in our view, that there is a problem we need to continue thinking about and come up with a end solution. I would like to see whether there would be another request for the floor, and I see Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: I'm just a bit worried about this. We all take this very seriously, we are all very concerned about it. We thought we had a framework of dealing with this, and it's not yet advice but what I here is that the advice would be this is inadequate. But we then urgently need an alternative. And I know you are working on it. But it's a very complex issue, and I suppose my instinct is to say is there anything we can do to help your work in this area? Because we are -- well, certainly I am -- I don't speak for us collectively, I am certainly boggled by this and we don't want to make a major mistake in this area. So is there some way that we can facilitate or assist? I mean we, ICANN. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: European Commission, Bill Dee. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. I don't want Suzanne to think that we are enjoying her show too much, although I think we were quiet because we were quite happy with what you said. Yes, I think this is a very serious matter, Dennis. The observation that I would make, and I don't know whether you will enjoy this very much but I think it comes back to the role of the GAC within ICANN. We are an advisory committee. We give advice to private sector corporation that's orientated along private sector-led grounds. The bylaws don't say we give advice only in the instances where we come with an alternative solution. We have come to the stage where we have said we think this is unworkable for us. We are quite happy, I think you heard we are quite happy to take part in discussions with other members of the ICANN community to try to find a solution. But I would resist the idea that the responsibility for finding a solution is ours. We are plainly telling you this doesn't work from our perspective, and that's the advice we are going to give you. And in an ideal world, of course, actually, there would be a fiche behind that with a solution that we found for you. But on this one, there isn't one at the moment. But I think we should flag that I personally don't feel the GAC should accept responsibility for finding a solution. We have a private corporation here that we are all here to support. The supporting organizations, correct me if I am wrong, are responsible for proposing the policies. The board are responsible for agreeing to them, the staff for executing them. Our role is to give advice on public policy, and I think Suzanne in an articulate manner has explained to you where we are at the moment. And there's a great desire this morning to actually participate and we know we are part of the problem here in having identified this. But I would just put a marker down is that you wouldn't raise expectations, Dennis, that I take your offer very generously, is there something you can do to help us. It sounds very much to you that this is a problem that you think we have to sort out where I think it's a problem that you have to sort out. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think Harald is seeking the floor. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify one -- to clarify the definition of unworkable. I mean, this definition has possibly been the most attacked one I have seen in the guidebook. And one group has attacked it because it permits the blocking of too many strings. Another group has attacked it because it permits the blocking of too few strings. I understand that I might misunderstand your statement as saying you are attacking it as unworkable because it blocks too few strings. I would just like to verify that. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please, Suzanne. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Actually, that was not my intention at all. We are talking about the methodology that is proposed. So we are actually challenging the whole fundamental premise that you can arrive at a decision based on terms that are currently defined on a country-by-country basis as the basis for exceptions. So it seems just bizarre that you would somehow be able to turn those terms around to create a basis for making an affirmative decision. That is the fundamental challenge. I won't even get into the challenges I have encountered in literally trying to describe for my political management how these three -- maybe multiple panels of three people, none of whom have ever been identified, will actually arrive at their decisions. So there are -- I cannot tell you how many layers there are of challenges for us, but the first one is this threshold problem. >>HARALD ALVESTRAND: Thank you. So that creates a real problem for me because I don't understand the purpose of the process in that some of the examples given, like the religious group, I thought that was completely different part of the guidebook. It was community objection. So this thing we're talking about was entitled morality and public order, and the you corporation was challenged to come up with some definition that was actually possible to exercise and practice and has come up to us with a suggestion, and has been told that this is unworkable. And I'm still, from the engineering viewpoint, is that, okay, the output of a process that looks like this is going to have a certain shape. Since the process is wrong, the output must be wrong; otherwise, you couldn't tell that it was wrong. So the output must have a different shape. And I'm trying to figure out what output you are aiming for us as a result of having the morality and public order objection in the process. And I had a hard time following the definition of positive, negative and so on because this is, of course, -- this is, after all, a procedure that can only result in a denial. So we have a technology problem to sort, too, but I would also like to ask this one: What is the output of the process that we are trying to achieve. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Harald. Portugal. >>PORTUGAL: Well, this is an issue that must actually be looked at from several angles. So we should not oversimplify it, I think. But leaving to the side a formal treatment of it and a practical solution at the moment, I think I'd just like to phrase -- echo sentiments that some of us around the table have that may highlight where problems might appear that might somehow raise difficulties. If somehow on the process of approving new gTLDs some of them are approved which are against the law of a particular country, that may raise the possibility of fragmentation of access to certain of these domains. And we think we should do our best to avoid that kind of situation, and that's why the sentence formulated in this can, of course, account for many different things. Also it is related to worries like these. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I have Ray, Rita, and then Bertrand. >>RAY PLZAK: Thank you, Janis. You know, it seems to me that, yes, I understand hesitancy to be the person -- the GAC being the person to propose the solution. However, because of the fact that you're voicing objections, it would seem to me in order to be part of the solution, that perhaps you could provide some characterization of the framework of what could be a workable solution. And so instead of using the terms about things being unworkable or bizarre or so forth, what are some things that possibly could characterize the work that would have to be done to come up with a solution? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Ray. We will try to do our best. Rita. >>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: Thanks, Janis. I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to go over the discussion this morning of Suzanne and others, because I have to say that I have not liked this formulation morality and public order since I first read it. And I understand that it was a compromise, as Bruce mentioned, in the GNSO, because there were some concerns about doing a dot Catholic, to use your example, and have the wrong organization get it or doing something about the way women should dress in certain countries that don't want to have that information disseminated. There are a ton of examples that we can give here, even if we look at the XXX example. There's people around the world that would have different views on whether that's against morality and public order. I think you add to that the layer of trademark law, which is this treaty you are talking about. And trademarks are necessarily national in nature. So what does that mean? Each country can decide certain rules around trademarks. So I feel your pain here. And I think that what I am hearing, at least, and I'm talking as much to the board here, what I am hearing the GAC say is that we were saying -- or the GNSO was saying there's this international standard, and there really isn't, because this treaty allows the countries to say "we decide morality and public order." And the gentleman from Portugal -- I'm sorry, I think it was Portugal -- has stated exactly what has been my fear all along, is that I don't want to start a TLD that people are going to start blocking. I really don't, because I think that's what makes the Internet great. And I want people all over the world to be able to have as much information as they can. So I think this is a mutual problem. This was in the GNSO policy. I think we all need to figure out how to solve this. It isn't about saying you do this or you do this. I hope we can all try to figure this really, really difficult (dropped audio) out together. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Rita. Bertrand, France. >>FRANCE: One of the challenges that we have now is to actually render in a short period of time an extremely dense discussion that took two and a half hours this morning. And we had progress during that time. I think Harald is right in explaining that the formulation that was actually adopted not by the GNSO, but by the staff as a proposal to implement the GNSO recommendation -- which is an important distinction -- what we are talking about is a mechanism and not only a recommendation itself. You are absolutely right, Harald, some say it allows to block too many, and some say it allows to block too few. However, I would caution against a natural tendency sometimes in ICANN that says if we manage to make two parties uncomfortable, this means we are right in the middle place. Because, actually, the problem is orthogonal. Those two parties are right. In a certain way, the current formulation is allowing too many blocking and not enough for other actors. Which means that it is unworkable because if it is implemented as such, it will cause problems in the implementation. I think I would fully support -- and it was actually a main outcome of the discussion this morning -- what Rita said is, we have a common goal. And this is really clearly emerging. We want to make sure that there is a process that as much as possible ensures that any string that is inserted in the root will be acceptable worldwide so that no country is going to block it. But this raises a concern. However, there is no treaty, even those that have been mentioned before, that says anything about a word being unacceptable. Treaties are about behaviors. And so a TLD string is a label. What is behind is the content. And we are, without getting into details, because, actually, it was part of the discussion this morning, mutatis mutandis is the problem we are having here with the top-level space is an equivalent to the problems we are facing on globally hosted content platforms. The objective is to have the TLDs accepted in not only in as many, but, ideally, all countries, so that there is no blocking of a TLD, which would be a real problem. That at the same time, content that is objectionable at a lower level is being monitored or filtered according to national law at the most granular level. Without getting into details, I want to recall that the word "morality and public order" is not only present in the Treaty of Paris; it is also in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And one of the tracks that we have been exploring this morning, without getting into details, is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a very careful balance between Article 19 and Article 29. And there probably is some inspiration there that could be used to try to find a model or a solution. But, clearly, it is a matter for the community to discuss. And the GAC has said clearly this morning, with ALAC and with any other entity that wants it, that we're willing to participate in a group to find the solution. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bertrand. Dennis. >>DENNIS JENNINGS: Thank you, Janis. Perhaps -- perhaps naively, but I had thought or hoped that the objection process would be a sufficient safeguard in relation to the morality and public order issues. And I wonder, has that been discussed by the GAC? And if it has, in what regard is the objection process inadequate to deal with strings that might get through the -- our version of the filter for morality and public order? >>CHAIR KARKLINS: While we're thinking the answer, Gonzalo. >>GONZALO NAVARRO: Thank you, Janis. Just a quick comment. I agree with my colleague, Dennis. We are talking about -- here about content and processes. So there is a set of things -- there are human rights, international human rights. For many countries, one thing could be really, really dangerous or forbidden or, I don't know, problematic, but for other countries, no. And within the human rights, there is such a thing called freedom of speech. Maybe someone is going to be interested to defend that position within the process. So what we need to be sure or to ensure during that process is due process exactly. That's the word or the concept. So we have to try to add balance to it and involve interested parties to have enough space and opportunities to defend their rights. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Peter. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you very much. I think this is a tremendously interesting discussion. I just -- perhaps we can start to wrap it up a little bit. I'm very glad there was eventually agreement. I think that there's an inconsistent call for too much regulation and then too few. The first one was in relation to the treaty situation, those countries who don't sign the treaty don't want to be bound. But on the other hand, the call for control of dot Catholic means that you want stronger. So I think it's important to recognize that that's an inconsistent call, some for too few and some for too many. The other thing that I think we have to be very careful about, which is the fragmentation issue, the worst consequence of following that path is to allow every country an absolute veto power on what goes into the root. If the idea is that fragmentation has to be prevented at all costs, it means that you give every country the total veto power of what goes into the root. And I don't think that's an acceptable solution for the majority of users. And, finally, I think we've circled right back to some of Bill DEE's comments which we started with before, which is what is the nature of advice from the GAC. It would be very interesting to me if advice from the GAC was purely limited to what looks rather like judgment, telling us what we proposed is unworkable. It's a form of advice, but it looks much like judgment. And when we ask, "Well, tell us -- give us advice on how you can make this work," that there's some resistance to giving us that advice. Advice has to be advice. And if we ask for it, it doesn't make it any less advice. So we look forward to advice from the GAC as to how we can make your requirements or your conditions workable. How can we create a situation where TLDs will be granted that take into account the sensitivities that you've asked us to take into account. We look forward to that advice with real interest. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. And I think the thrust of this discussion or throughout this discussion, it was made very clear that we're not sitting with our hands in the lap and just waiting for the solution. We are actively seeking solution. And we certainly spare no efforts to continue seeking the solution. And once it will be found, we will be communicating. I -- We are slightly over the time which is allocated to the session. And I know that there is one -- that the delegation of Brazil is willing to make a brief statement which would be qualified under "any other business." Delegation of Brazil. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Janis. A very brief statement. In the context of IDN fast-track process, we believe that -- that we believe that (inaudible) a very successful basis. Brazil would like to express its support to the recent board's decision about avoiding graphic similitude between new country codes and current country codes in Latin. This is particularly important inasmuch as any graphic confusion might facilitate phishing practices and all the problems related to it. So we would like to express publicly our support to the board's attitude about taking into consideration this particular aspect in the IDNs current implementation process. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Brazil. Peter, you had something in mind? >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes, just a quick, a quick item in response to a GAC -- GAC advice. You asked us some time ago to conduct a series of studies in relation to WHOIS. And I've previously reported on that. There was, for example, a study published on February the 15th, and a final report, and that was on WHOIS accuracy. And that's cost -- that's budgeted to cost $210,000. In addition to that, the questions that you asked were, as you remember, forwarded to the GNSO, who have reformulated those questions into four distinct classes of WHOIS studies. One of them is WHOIS misuse, and another one is WHOIS registrant identification. And feasibility and costing studies have been done in relation to those. And $400,000 has been budgeted for conducting those studies. There are two remaining in the group, WHOIS proxy and privacy services abuse and WHOIS proxy and privacy services reveal studies. They are yet to be feasibility and cost analysis -- studies yet to be under the feasibility analysis and costing, but it's expected that something of the order of $400,000 will be done in relation to those studies. So I just I offer that as an indication of the work that's going on in response to a GAC request. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. This is very much appreciated. And so that seems to me that it brings us to the end of this session. And in absence of further requests for the floor, it remains to me to -- to thank the board for active participation. I hope that this conversation brought us closer to a better understanding of each other's position. And as I said earlier, we will be seeking further solutions to the questions we have discussed here. Thank you very much, indeed. And see you next time under new chairmanship from the GAC side. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Janis. Well done.