New gTLD Overview ICANN Meeting Seoul, Korea Monday, 26 October 2009 >> Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senior vice president, services, Kurt Pritz. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. I hope you have the same reaction when I'm done. So I was thinking if Fun Two could accompany us with his guitar tomorrow when we make our constituency rounds, the whole thing could go much better for us. I am here to talk about the new gTLD program and the latest developments. I am going to be accompanied in this brief journey by ICANN staff members, Karla Valente, Karen Lentz, and Greg Rattray who will also present some of the material. It's important to provide a broad overview of recent developments in this program, the program for introducing new top-level domains, into the DNS, but mostly signal what's going to happen during the rest of the week and what sessions you might want to attend. So you will get a taste of what those sessions will be here, and then encouraged to attend and then participate in those sessions later on in the week you. We think there is going to be time for questions at the end, so you can anticipate that. So what's ICANN been working on? What's been published during the past several months? It all centers around the Applicant Guidebook, and the Applicant Guidebook I think everybody here knows is the instruction manual for how to apply for a new top-level domain. So what's published has been a new version of that guidebook and the changes. And importantly, an identification of the issues that are left. And that's a big part of what this meeting is about and the subsequent sessions that are going to be held. So what are those key issues? They are implementing rights protection mechanisms into the procedures and processes, additional economic study, the structure of the marketplace, vertical separation, also called registry/registrar separation; how we might relax the three-character requirement so those participating in languages where single or two characters often express a complete word, how they can fully participate. And how we can manage variants, TLD variants, which are a character of IDN top-level domains. And we're also working to mitigate malicious conduct. As the number of TLDs multiplies, how can we help ensure that the opportunity and possibility for malicious conduct does not multiply. And maybe it can be decreased. And then the last issue to be discussed here and needing to be solved before the launch of this program would be the root zone scaling. How the root zone can accommodate the growth that it will see with the introduction of new top-level domains, DNSSEC, IDNs, and IPv6. So those are the issues we are going to discuss here. After that, we're going to have a brief discussion of the communications plan for global outreach and information about this process. And then how is ICANN getting ready for it internally. And we are going to focus today on how we are going to process the applications that come in. So what was published? A new version of the Applicant Guidebook. Public comment summaries and analysis. So all the public comments that were made since the last version of the guidebook have been summarized and commented upon. There's explanatory memoranda, independent reports, and, again, the communications plan has been accomplished. So in a little more detail, all the changes or most of the changes you see in the Applicant Guidebook are the result of public comment. So you can see that there is a real reaction to public comment, and those comments are taken seriously, and very often result in changes to this process. So we've posted a clean and red-line version of the guidebook, so you can track changes since the second version of the guidebook. I think if we posted a red-line of all the changes since the first version, the whole thing would be red and not very instructive. It reflects over 50 substantive changes in the guidebook. Alongside the guidebook, we have done this public comment summary, so every comment that's been made since the publication of the second version of the guidebook has been captured and put into categories. And so there can be some sort of balancing between or among the various viewpoints of how this procedure and process should run. And so these public comment summaries and analyses are pretty thick documents, and they try to make this fine point that this balancing has really gone on and the comments are really carefully considered. And so while every comment does not result in a change or result in the desired change, there's an indication that it was considered and what the balancing was in making a final decision. And so there was this comment summary on comments of the previous version of the guidebook. There's a comment summary and analysis for the IRT reports, three of those. And then finally on the root zone scaling terms of reference. And then what else did we publish? We published explanatory memoranda. About five of them this time, and 27 of them to date since we've published the first version of the guidebook. And what are these things? They are meant to convey the thinking behind what's in the guidebook. So the guidebook is the instruction manual, but why that stuff is in there is often found in the explanatory memos. And then there's independent studies that have already been published. The root zone scaling study has been published and a companion study that's been done by OARC. And we have done about 16 of these independent reports to date. So quite a bit. So that kind of gets us into a discussion about what are the changes that we see to the guidebook first. And I'm going to ask Karen Lentz of the ICANN staff to come up and briefly go through those. You may not know it but Karen essentially has written the entire guidebook. I had a few hundred words in there at one time, but Karen has improved upon them all. And she spends her days talking to subject matter experts inside and outside of ICANN, memorializing those conversations, testing models with various groups, and then doing the actual prose that goes into the guidebook. So some day her notebook might not be besides Vint Cerf's and Steve Crocker's but they will probably be in the same museum. So with that, I would like to turn it over to Karen. [ Applause ] >>KAREN LENTZ: Thank you. I am going to be going through some of the key changes to the guidebook between Version 2 and Version 3. And they are grouped somewhat into three categories here. The first is guidance for applicants. That is material that's been put in to give more detail or assistance to applicants to enable a more successful application. The second is called new programs and initiatives. That's material that's been added as a result of work that's going on within the ICANN community in other areas. And third is called completing procedures and standards. So that is, as the implementation work continues to advance, there is more detail and more information that we can include for comment. So looking at the first category -- And these are things that you will find in various places in the guidebook. The first is noted there, is timelines. This is when you -- At the very beginning, there's a section that lays out all the various processing phases and steps, and paths that one application might take. So what we have been able to do this time as a result of the implementation work that we are doing on staff is to add timeline estimates for exactly how long some of those steps might take. The second note there is gTLD registry operator obligations. That's a new section, kind of addressing some comments that there were some groups out there not as familiar with the gTLD space. And it goes through -- tries to go through in summary form what some of the obligations of a gTLD registry operator are. Things like complying with consensus policies, what the technical requirements are, and so forth. So those are all collected in one section. Community priority evaluation is something that occurs when there is string contention or there's more than one qualified applicant for the same TLD string. And there have been, in all three versions of the guidebook, there's been a whole set of criteria for how the decision is made which applicant is going to be successful. So those have gone through several iterations, and what we have added this time is some annotations and explanatory notes intended for applicants to help them have an idea of the criteria and how they would be applied in that situation, in advance. The string similarity algorithm is something that we have had as a tool to help the string similarity review, which is intended to ensure that we don't have two or more gTLDs that are so similar that they would tend to cause user confusion if we delegated them both. And so we have had this algorithm in development, and it's at the stage now where it can handle -- it can perform comparisons, automated comparisons, between strings in eight different scripts. The registry services review description is just kind of augmenting what was a pretty open-ended question to applicants: Tell us what your registry services are, and to give some structure and idea of what are customary services and how an applicant might go about answering that question. Finally, we have the evaluation panel selection process, conflict-of- interest policy, and code of conduct for panelists. This is an area that really came out strongly in the comments, that people felt that there was a lack of information about all of the various independent groups that would be performing roles in the evaluation. So there is a whole new section on this that describes what each of the panels are, what each of their responsibilities are. And then we have also been able to include the conflict-of-interest policy and code of conduct procedures that all the panelists are expected to follow. Under new programs and initiatives, we have -- as Rod mentioned earlier, there's a whole set of changes relating to the malicious conduct work that's been going on. You can read about those. There's actually an explanatory memorandum that goes through them all, step by step, in detail and where to find each of those. One of those is the verification program for high-security zones. That is outlined in this draft of the guidebook as an option, as something that a new applicant might choose. At the same time as they are applying for their new gTLD, they would also elect to pursue this level of verification to signal that they perform certain high- security practices. So that's been added for comment. Thick WHOIS is also an issue that has been discussed both in malicious conduct and in the rights protection area. And so there's a thick WHOIS requirement in the draft registry agreement that's been included. Finally, there are some post-delegation dispute mechanisms included here for the first time. They are both in draft form. One of those is a trademark-focused rights protection mechanism that allows rights holders to pursue infringing behavior or behavior that they believe is infringing once a new gTLD has actually launched. And then there's a community-related mechanism as well for a case where an applicant applied with the idea that they are going to be serving a particular community and setting up their registry that way. And then maybe a few years or some time down the road, have changed their approach to not -- to something different than they originally proposed. So there's a mechanism that's designed to look at those issues, and that's included in draft form. The last section here, completing requirements and procedures. There's a lot of stuff in here. The pre-delegation testing procedures is something that we have had in place for quite a while with the idea that before a new gTLD actually gets delegated, it goes through a series of technical tests that validate the information that was in the application to start out with, to make sure that they can actually operate a new TLD that is stable and secure. So the requirements for the pre-delegation have undergone a lot of development, so you will find specific topics and areas and what information the applicant would be expected to provide at that point and what measurements ICANN would provide for taking an applicant through the pre-delegation section. Morality and public order is one of the objection grounds in the evaluation process. There's been a lot of comment on this objection ground and how it could actually be implemented. What's new in this version is that there is what's called a quick- look procedure, and the attempt -- or the idea with that is that because the standing is broad, it's practical to have a sort of a safeguard in place to prevent somebody from deliberately abusing the process or using it to try and stall an application. So the quick-look procedure is just designed to locate an objection that's frivolous or abusive at the very beginning without having to go through the whole dispute resolution process. Another ground -- Another -- Excuse me. Another of the grounds for objection is community, and that is if a community feels that it opposes the applicant who has applied for a new gTLD. We have included standards for that type of objection, including a potential defense if the applicant can show that it meets the standing requirements to file that type of objection. So this area is another thing that's gone through several iterations. The standard we have has a set of factors, so those continue to be clarified and elaborated. The defense this time has been clarified as well. Geographical names is another subject of discussion. The definition of -- The definition that's in there now includes some more work that's been done on, specifically, country and territory names. That was actually previewed in some excerpts that we posted before Sydney. But that's been continued here. And then there's also some new material on a requirement that new gTLDs reserve geographical terms from registration at the second level once they are operational as TLDs. The financial instrument is something that we have had in place for a while with the idea that an applicant would need to set aside some amount of funds that would enable the basic registry operations to continue in the event of some sort of failure. So in particular, to ensure that registrants are not harmed if that registry goes out of business or, for some reason, can't continue. So there's been a lot of development work on that financial instrument and what form that might take. That's been honed now to be pretty specific about how that requirement can be met and how an applicant could go -- should go about setting that up. Finally, I think this is the last item, is the IDNA 2008 protocol. There's ongoing work on this in the IETF. So the guidebook has been revised to reflect the current status of that protocol and how it would be expected to effect the string reviews that occur in the gTLD application process for IDN strings. Thank you. I'm turning it back over to Kurt. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you, Karen. I was sitting with John Jeffrey, and he remarked that maybe it wasn't a good idea to have Karen talk, because if people realized the extent of her expertise, someone would hire her. And I applied, anyone who wants new gTLDs to come to fruition would not hire Karen away from ICANN. [ Laughter ] >>KURT PRITZ: So I and Greg Rattray are going to share a discussion of some of the important issues that need to be resolved before the process is actually launched. And so I'm going to start with discussion of trademark protections. And I think already at this meeting, for those that have been here for a day or two, there's been a lot of discussion about detail into various rights protection mechanisms, how should an I.P. clearinghouse function, how should a post-delegation dispute resolution model work? There's contending models for that. What I think is really important for everybody to understand is, as recently as Mexico City, we were all staring at a blank sheet of paper that had, essentially, no new rights protection mechanisms in it. And since that time, a lot of work has been done. The Implementation Recommendation Team has been formed out of the I.P. constituency at the request of the board. And they worked explicitly hard, as Peter described earlier, delivered a timely, complete, detailed report on proposed rights protection mechanisms. There's been a lot of public consultation on that, a public comment forum that garnered over 200 comments, face-to-face consultations in Sydney, not -- in Sydney, New York and London, not as extensive as this, but very well attended, with a very knowledgeable crowd. And as a result of that, there's been additional writings and analysis, another set from ICANN of proposed rights protection mechanisms for inclusion into this process, and also a decision to refer certain of these recommendations to the GNSO for further discussion. So while there's arguments going on about how these rights protection mechanisms should be implemented into the process, we're now talking about details of how and specific proposals as opposed to before. So I think that's very, very significant. For those of you who want to participate in the next round of this discussion, there's a workshop on Wednesday that's going to be chaired by ICANN board member Bruce Tonkin that I think is going to be really good. So where are we? Well, certain new rights protection mechanisms have been included in the guidebook. The whole guidebook's a proposal; right? It's all for discussion. But these are in the guidebook in the form of a -- as Karen described, a post-delegation trademark dispute mechanism. And also there's a proposal that thick - - a thick WHOIS database is required for all gTLD registries, for them to maintain thick WHOIS. The ICANN board has written to the GNSO to consider an additional two rights protection mechanisms that have been proposed to ensure that these rights protection mechanisms are in line with the GNSO policy recommendations. You might remember that of the 19 policy recommendations, recommendation 3 said that new TLD strings should not infringe the rights of others. A broad recommendation and mandate, do these rights protection mechanisms, these specific ones, are they in line with that policy recommendation? And so the board has asked the GNSO to undertake a considerable task in a very timely manner to consider that question. And those are -- those mechanisms are for the establishment of an I.P. or trademark clearinghouse, which would facilitate services such as I.P. claims and sunrise. If you want to know -- if you do know what that is and want to get into that discussion, come to the workshop on Wednesday. If you don't know what they are but want to learn about them, you can read the guidebook. And I encourage you to come to that workshop on Wednesday, too. The other proposal is for a uniform rapid suspension service, so that blatantly -- blatant and clear violation -- names that are blatant and clear violations of trademark can be quickly removed from the DNS upon a proper showing. So that's trademarks. What about economic studies? Well, as you know, ICANN's published four economic studies in the past. And there have been earlier studies, too. The OECD published a report on new TLDs in 2004. There's a Gandi survey, and Michael Kende published reports as early as 2009. So there's been quite a bit of activity on economic study. But, clearly, community comment has led to a conclusion that additional work needs to be done. And so we want to wrap up this effort that was really started when ICANN was started. And one of ICANN's charges was to create a process for the introduction of new top-level domains and open up this space. The GNSO, then, in its policy development process, determined that new TLDs would bring benefits and innovation to the DNS that outweighed the costs. So, again, with more specificity addressing the specific proposals that are in this implementation plan, we're going to retain economists to review and summarize the work to date and augment the studies to consider whether the -- whether the net benefits, the benefits minus the costs of the new gTLD program overall will bring net benefit to users and registrants in the Internet. And also explore whether individual applications can be assessed, can we look at individual applications and say you know, there can be a demonstration that the detriment of this TLD outweighs the benefit? I don't know. But we're going to ask them to explore that, too. So -- And then at the end, for a verification of the policy conclusions, that there is net benefit for the introduction of new TLDs. And in the meantime, we're going to continue working on mitigating the costs and risks associated with new TLDs by seeking to implement rights protection mechanisms and mitigating malicious conduct. Another issue to be resolved before we launch the process is the configuration of the marketplace, should there be separation, vertical separation, between registrars and registries, and how would you characterize that separation? Need it be an organizational separation? To what degree is structural separation required? So what's the big change in the guidebook here? Well, there was a pretty specific model for this marketplace in the guidebook. Given the community discussion about that, that model's been taken out. And it's been replaced with a range of four options, none of which do we think will be the specific implementation at the end. But those four options are just meant to convey that this is still an open discussion. And the discussion continues. There was a very interesting webinar held last week with -- how many participants? -- 60, 70 participants, discussing various models that might be implemented to structure -- structure this marketplace. And importantly, there's a workshop later this afternoon right here that's going to be chaired by Peter Dengate Thrush, the ICANN chair, and feature Brian cute from Afilias and Richard Tindal from demand media. It will discuss the pros and cons of various models. And as is custom in all these workshops, there will be ample -- well, there will be opportunity for members of the -- attendees of the workshop to participate. So how are we going to get to the end here? Well, it sort of depends on this discussion and how it moves forward. Can there be some accommodation or compromise? Or is it for the board to resolve at the end of the day? Another issue to be resolved is three-character -- the three- character issue and variant management. So I touched on this earlier. In certain scripts, with IDNs, many of the words are expressed in a single character. And for a new gTLD, there's a requirement that the top-level domain needs to be at least three characters long. So would that requirement hobble the use of IDNs in the new gTLD space? And if it does, should there be some sort of accommodation made? And variants, I don't have a slide defining variants here, but in some scripts, there's different alphabet sets that are very similar. And so to allocate names in both those alphabet sets may lead to user confusion. So these are two very important issues to be resolved with the launch of IDNs as part of the new gTLD process. And so those that were in Sydney and have been watching, ICANN formed a team to engage with the relevant language communities and form some opinions on this and make some recommendations and report back to the community. That report is still a couple days away. So it might be released during this meeting; it might be released right after it. If I were to guess, I would guess that that report would provide a proposed model for relaxing the three-character requirement in some way. So that model will be for public discussion and potential inclusion, potential modification. And then, also, the report will probably say, in the short term, while we try to figure out this variant problem, it's important to reserve variants. So if a TLD is delegated, its very, very similar variant should be reserved so that the rights of the TLD owner are preserved while, in the long term, the ICANN community develops a model for delegating the variant name, too. That delegation has to ensure that the user experience is guaranteed to be a good one, that there's not confusion. So you can look forward to a report on that with those sort of conclusions pretty soon. So those are some of the issues. And I'm going to, you know, point to Greg to carry on with the next couple ones. So we'll just keep this rolling. Greg Rattray. >>GREG RATTRAY: Thank you, Kurt. I'm going to cover two issues, mitigating malicious conduct, and progress on the root scaling analysis. So if we could move to the next slide. Oh, I have the clicker? Okay. In handling this issue, we really took comment, both prior to the last version of the draft applicant guidebook, and certainly in the last four or five months from a wide variety of sources. We've held public forums; we've utilized a lot of reports that have come from the SSAC to inform our work. The Anti-Phishing Working Group, as well as the Registry Internet Safety Group both provided formal comment to us about the issues that might be raised by an increase in the number -- or the implementation of new gTLDs and the increase in the number. FIRST and CERTs -- "FIRST" stands for the Forum of Internet Response and Security Teams. It's the global forum for computer emergency response teams. So we've engaged with them, and members of the CERT community have provided comment, as well as a focused effort from the banking and finance community. A number of associations have provided us input. Sorting through the relatively robust set of inputs we've had, we've characterized four key issues that we think have been raised by the community related to malicious conduct. The first being how do we ensure that bad actors do not run registries? The second, ensuring the integrity and the utility of the information that the registries maintain. Then also that the -- that that information enables more focused efforts by those who respond to abuse when it occurs, because there's no future envisioned where we have no abuse occurring in the new gTLD space. And then, finally -- and I'll describe this in a little more detail, our reaction to it -- is, we get a lot of feedback that certain zones are very likely to be targeted by higher levels of malicious conduct, and how do we enable and enhance control framework for those specific zones? So this is the set of proposed solutions. They're resident, really, in three places. The first five of them are, in one form or another, in the draft applicant guidebook. The sixth, which is a process we've instituted called the Expedited Registry Security Request Process, is actually already in effect. It's something that new registries, as well as existing registries can use if they are contracted parties to ICANN. This really stems from the Conficker worm and the need for ICANN to enable quick action on the part of registries if certain contractual obligations might be called into question. So we've implemented a process that allows us to take those concerns on board and react rapidly to enable more effective security responses. And then the seventh is present in a concept paper on high-security zone verification program that's also published with the draft applicant guidebook materials. All seven of them are explained in an explanatory memorandum which is posted with the DAG Version 3 materials. I don't plan to go into depth on any of those except the seventh one here this morning. I did think it was useful to explain at least at the high level what we are envisioning in terms of a high-security zone verification program. This is a concept that we think is important. We got very strong feedback from the banking and finance community and the antiphishing community that in certain zones, there needs to be some mechanism by which the users of that zone are confident that a set of controls have been put in place and been independently verified in order to, you know, increase the level of trust in that zone. So our proposal to the community is outlined in this concept paper, which I'm going to -- I'll describe the high-level features of. It, again, is try to deal with these targeted zones where we expect malicious abuse to occur. Clearly, this is banking and finance zones, but one might also consider any other zone with a high number of electronic financial transactions or potentially zones that are carrying critical infrastructure protection, those sort -- or critical infrastructure so that they may be the targets of malicious activity. What we see here is that this is going to be a voluntary program. This is not directly linked to the application process in any way. The expectation is the registry responsible for the new gTLD -- the gTLD -- and we did leave this program open not just to new gTLDs, but right now it's open as a TLD verification program, awaiting community comment. The basic notion is, we want to create a way to acknowledge that a given TLD, both at the registry and registrar level, is run in a controlled, secure fashion. Now, "secure" doesn't mean nothing bad can happen in it. But the level of trust is validated through a compliance -- through a program of verifying that these controls are in place. We're very open to the model in which this thing is organized. The cost-sharing structures for implementing such a program, this is all laid out in this concept paper. This program, along with all the other mitigation measures, will be discussed, as I'll mention at the end of this, in the panel this afternoon on mitigating malicious conduct. In terms of the root scaling study, this is really a work that's currently in progress. We did receive the -- the report -- and I'm going to draw some nuances here in labeling. The board put together a steering committee -- a steering group comprised of the RSSAC, the SSAC, and ICANN staff. That steering group commissioned a study team, the Root Scaling Study Team, RSST, which provided a final report to the steering group on the 7th of September. And that report was forwarded on to the board, the RSSAC, and the SSAC on the 9th and was publicly released on the 14th. I realize that the dates didn't get filled in there. It has been posted for public comment on the 1st of October. And that report, as well as a descriptive report from -- regarding the quantitative model used by the Root Scaling Study Team, were both posted on the 1st of October and are open for public comment until the 29th of November. At this stage, these reports are being digested by the RSSAC and the SSAC. They may or may not report to the steering group. They may report -- those two advisory committees to the board may report independently and directly to the board. They are on -- those deliberations are ongoing at this point. Many in the room may have read those reports. This is what we find are the major implications of the -- what is reported in those reports. It is clear that the reports indicate that multiple changes, you know, on the root zone can stress the system, and that the key to the system is managing its adapt- -- its adaptive capacity. And the rapid accumulation of too much stress or change could stress capacity, and it's fundamental to understand what those conditions are and to plan for those. The study team began a modeling effort. You know, that modeling effort needs to be matured in order to actually be better able to understand what those stressful conditions are. The other really significant finding of the study team was that, given this situation, that there's an imperative to have an early warning system in place to identify those stressors and increase confidence that the management of any of the changes to the root zone -- and the changes envisioned included increases in new gTLDs, the implementation of IDNs, the implementation of the DNSSEC, as well as the potential, you know, stresses that might come from IPv6 glue records being included in the root zone. So a wide variety of things that now may happen in a relatively time -- time-compressed or at least, you know, relatively quickly one after another, all those things need to be managed, and an early warning system needs to be in place. And that in order to achieve this, there will need to be an increased level of communication and cooperation among all those who are part of the, you know, provisioning and distribution of the root zone. So we believe that's a clear finding from the report. And that this adaptation, you know, effectively to avoid any problems at the root zone level, will be based on, you know, sufficient notice so that all those elements of this ecosystem that creates the root zone can adapt for planning purposes. So in terms of the session this week, there's two focused sessions, one on each of these topics, the malicious conduct and new gTLD session will be held this afternoon in this area at 1630, and the root scaling will be discussed at 1330. With that, I'm going to turn over to Karla Valente, the director for product services and communications. [ Applause ] >>KARLA VALENTE: Good morning. I'm here to talk a little bit about the communications for new gTLDs. We have recently posted a draft communications plan. This is our first posting. And if you look at the plan right now, it really structures some of the information based on phases. We will be modifying this plan according to regional needs or program needs as we can. If you look at the plan, you'll see that it covers objectives, messaging, some audiences, some I/O storms, phases, some plans for media outreach that are still, you know, a work in progress. And the global events, more specifically, some of the things that we had since June 2008 when the board approved the policy up to, you know, now and a few months ahead. So the actual calendar of events is something that is going to evolve with time. Some of the main objectives of our communications on new gTLDs are to ensure that we have a global awareness about new gTLDs and IDNs and also to make sure that people that want to apply or people that are somehow impacted by the program have the information that they need about the program. And, in this particular case, you can imagine that we're not only talking about potential applicants; but we're also talking about governments. We're talking about businesses. We're talking about trademark brand owners and all of us as Internet users. Because, depending on the TLDs that are applied for and how many we have, we are going to experience the Internet and the information probably differently on the Internet. So we're all impacted by this program, one way or the other. If you look at the phases, there are three main phases that we have right now. The pre-launch activities -- and those activities cover from the moment the board approved the policy up to now where we are. And we have gTLD application period. This is the launch period. This is when you, you know, as applicants would be able to launch your applications into the test, a TLD application system during a certain period of time. We call it launch, or we call it gTLD application time. One of the questions that I often get when we have events is, when are we going to know who is applying for what? And this is the time that we plan on releasing information about the applicants, the TLDs that have been applied for, whether or not they are community, geographic, or some other details and pertinent nonconfidential information about those applications. And we plan on doing that on our website. Right now what you see on the website doesn't really show what is going to be. This is still, you know, under development. But this is the time that you're going to know who is applying for what. Then we have also the post-launch time. So the application period runs from the moment the application starts to the initial evaluation. The post-launch period is from the initial evaluation on. And at that time, we are planning on releasing a series of reports that really show you how the progress of the evaluation for the applied TLDs, you know, is taking place. In addition to those three main phases for the application, we also have some targeted campaigns. One that we had very recently was for the search of the evaluators for the new gTLD program. The evaluators are the panels, the organizations that are experts in certain fields that are going to evaluate the applicants and their applications during the evaluation period. And Kurt is going to give more information about how this search and where we are on this. A second campaign that you're going to hear more about in the upcoming months is TLD acceptance. TLD acceptance is a very important issue. And I'm going to need -- we are going to need a lot of your help to make sure that, you know, this campaign works well. As we launch IDNs -- and that applies to fast track as well -- and new gTLDs, we're going to make sure that the systems and applications around the world understand that there are new TLDs. So your e-mail addresses and other kinds of information that actually uses that extension is accepted by the systems and applications and not rejected as, you know, nonexistent. So you're going to hear more about this TLD acceptance campaign in the upcoming months. And some of the more trivial activities that you'll see on the communications campaign is the release of multilingual information materials and some improvements on our website, which is also a work in progress. But we try make it more user friendly. I heard a gentleman in the morning say that we didn't release the draft applicant guidebook in other languages. We have been making a very concentrated effort to make sure that the applicant guidebook and all of the most important information and materials are released in six United Nations languages. Now, we have been delaying a little bit in posting the translated versions. And this is an area that we - - it's an area of improvement for us. But we have a very concentrated effort to make sure that at least six languages are always covered by our informational materials. We also have been developing live events. We have, basically, three types of events. We had consultation events. And consultation events it's a very specific topic in which we have an interactive approach with the community to discuss the topic. We recently had New York and London, for example, to talk about trademark profession and malicious conduct. And I thank all of you for attending and participating, the ones that did. We also have events that are outreach events. And outreach events, at this point, are for people that know little or nothing about new gTLDs. So we really are educating audiences around the world about what this program is and what it does. We also tried to participate as much as possible in calendared events that are being developed or run by other organizations. And we have a speaking opportunity to do outreach activities. You will also see that we want to invest more -- we're going to be investing more on webinars. We plan on doing those on general topics and specific topics, hopefully, in different languages as well. We recently held two webinars that were for supporting organizations -- one on malicious conduct and the other one on registry-registrar separation. If you go to the new gTLD program site under "Information Center," you will find that there's a recording. And the presentations are -- have been posted there recently. In addition to that, we also tried to make effective e-mail notifications to supporting organizations, including the GAC and also non-GAC members or countries that are non-GAC members to make sure that the governments understand the key milestones that are coming in relation to this program. And we are working on -- with the press for the global press releases of the major milestones, but also to make sure that the information that is being released about new gTLDs is accurate. Here's some statistics about what has been done. We had about 42 global events. Those are listed on the draft communications plan and covering the period from July 08 to -- '08 to now. Those events do not cover some of the presentations that supporting organizations members of board members have done. And I know there's several of those. Those events only cover the ones -- ICANN meetings, of course; some of the live events that we did; and events that we had, for instance, our global partnerships team or our executives and TLD team participating in. Upcoming events: We have two events taking place in November. One is in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on November 24th; and the other is in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on November 27th. We welcome you to attend. These are going to be an all-day event. And one of the main topics covers new gTLDs, but there's going to be other things covered there as well. Right now, on the new gTLD site you're, not going to find the information about the agenda speakers and preregistrations. But we plan on posting that in the -- in a week or two. So please go back. And please join our sessions in Brazil and Argentina, if you can. Publications: So Kurt talked in the beginning about the publications that we did early October. However, if you look back from the draft applicant guidebook version 1, when it was posted, we're going to see that, in addition to the drafts of the applicant guidebook, we had over 50 reports, explanatory memos, and all kinds of informational materials. And we're trying to make sure that we cover the information that you need and you ask for. But also we make it more user friendly. So we're adding executive summaries. We're adding key points and trying to make those documents more easy to read as we move along. If you look back also, we can see that we had almost 400 days or 400 days of public comments to date. And that was on the draft applicant guidebook and also on some additional topics related to new gTLDs. This development is truly a very interactive process with the community. And we thank you for the 400 days or so that you have been, you know, giving your input. And this is very valuable for us. We did a quick media outreach study. So we covered the period from September 08 to September 09. And publications in English, Spanish, and Chinese. We know that this is not comprehensive approach, because only three languages. This was a starting point for us to understand what has been communicated about new gTLDs. Where do we need to work on from an original perspective? What kind of points have been maybe misinterpreted by the media and so forth? You have good quality information, and information reaches out to other people outside this ICANN community group in an effective way. We plan on improving that as we move along. But this was a very good starting point for us to understand where we should, you know, focus our attention on. And, again, this study has a regional approach. If you look at the draft communications plan, you're going to see some of this information there. Now, the draft communications plan has not been posted for public comments. But we would like to hear from you. If you have any suggestions on how to make our communications plans more effective in your country, in your region, in your industry, please let us know. You can write to newgTLD, in singular, newgtld@icann.org or you can write directly to me at karla.valente@icann.org. Now I will pass on to Kurt. And after Kurt we have an Q&A open mic session. Thank you. [Applause] >>KURT PRITZ: So, given that we are going to move on to a phase where we are accepting applications, how is ICANN going to process the applications when it's received? What's going to happen when 150 or 300 applications for new TLDs come through the door? We're undertaking a considerable effort to prepare for that. When I first started with ICANN, we were likened to the 5-year-old soccer or football team. Now, when the ball went in one direction, the whole ICANN team went in that direction to chase it. So I can imagine a vision of the whole ICANN team rushing to the front door of ICANN and starting to pull apart applications and starting to read them. We're trying to get away from that. Rod likened ICANN to reaching adolescence now. So I think what that means is, when the applications come in the front door, we'll just continue watching television. But the goal is really to, of course, in a very transparent way, build an effective function of ICANN, not a separate organization, but a function of ICANN to evaluate applications that meet the expectations we've set for all the applicants. And so, to do that, ICANN has really divided this effort into four separable areas. One is to create processes and procedures that will guide the team as they evaluate these. One is to create an online application system that facilitates communication between ICANN and the applicant and the applicant and the evaluator but also constructs the right barriers but is also very secure, of course, to put into place a -- the right size organization with the right make buy decision, so it can be economically run, economically expanded and contracted, and then some modest facilities for those people to sit. And then to procure services to evaluate applications, expert evaluation panels. and to do that in a very transparent fashion. >>KURT PRITZ: Cost consideration in their addendum and sort of. And to do that in a very transparent fashion so the applicants are aware of how their application is being evaluated, and also to carefully manage any potential conflicts. So in order to do that, we are first introducing a high level of professionalism into the organization. We've hired Mr. Michael Salazar, a partner of KPMG and a member there of long standing, to be director of this program office, and he has already started building his teams. I think you have four staff members so far, Michael. And this sort of organization part sort of indicates the different functions. There will be a customer service function, there will be a coordination function that will shepherd all the applications through the process horizontally, a function to manage the evaluation panels and another function to manage the dispute resolution panels. The color coding here is meant to in a very gross way connote make versus buy decision. In other words, we will have ICANN staff members managing each of these functions, but we will largely outsource the work to evaluation panels and other services so that we can do this in an economic fashion and do this in a way that grows and shrinks over time as applications go in and then are processed. So we have reported on this one aspect in the past, where are we in procuring the services of evaluation panels. As many of you saw, we published a request for expressions of interest. Those were responded to by 12, we think, competent firms. ICANN has posted some information, and will continue to post information about the process for procuring service providers, these evaluation panel services. And we've also sought to manage conflicts very carefully. So in each or almost every area we'll have a primary evaluation panel and then a backup panel. So if the primary panel has conflicts and can't -- cannot appropriately be expected to evaluate the application, giving even an appearance of conflict, then we will have a secondary panel in place. And those who have read the guidebook have also read a new insertion about how to manage how panelists and evaluation service providers are expected to manage conflicts effectively. So that's one part of our operational readiness program that I wanted to share with you today. So now what's going to happen? Well, the process hasn't launched yet, so we are still listening. The discussion is still going on. These are the sessions that have been outlined by myself and the other speakers today that are upcoming this week. What's not on this list is the public forum that occurs on Thursday that has a great deal of time allocated to the new gTLD program. So if there are questions and you can't ask them here, there will be opportunity for you to participate in that public forum. So what's the road home? Well, first we have got to address these key issues. The path forward has been described by the speakers here today. Greg, I think, has done an excellent job of taking those issues and getting firm solutions in the guidebook. So we are very close to having concrete mechanisms for mitigating malicious conduct. The other issues are still being worked. The SSAC and RSSAC -- that's my typo, I can't spell RSSAC, which is tough. The RSSAC are considering the reports that have been delivered and will advise the board on next steps there. Economic analyses we're engaged with, in discussions with economists that we expect to retain. We expect a first delivery of materials in -- as early as December, and then the follow-on report in the first quarter or first half of next year. Trademark protections. The GNSO has been given a substantial bit of work and a short period of time to do that. That work is complete, staff will iterate public comment and discussion here into another set of models for trademark protections for board consideration. And on vertical separation, again, this discussion continues. We're looking for areas of compromise, and absent that or a single solution, there will be board consideration of that. So there's no dates here, but how do we get to the finish line? Well, we resolve these remaining issues. It appears that that resolution is going to create enough of a change in the guidebook that we should publish a fourth version of the draft guidebook before the final version goes out. And then the board can consider the remaining issues and publish the final guidebook. So I'm not going to go too much further into detail than that, and I encourage you to do the arithmetic about comment periods and ICANN meeting cycles and the like for developing a schedule that you may consider. So with that, that's the end of the comments. I really want to thank the other speakers today. They did a great job. And thank you all for taking time and listening to us. It's really exciting work that we get to work on, and the most stunning part of it, I think, is the contribution of all the volunteers. You know, we're paid to do this, good money -- not much, but good. [ Laughter ] >>KURT PRITZ: But you are not. And you spend your time and come to ICANN meetings and contribute in off -- you know, in intersessional meetings to develop new solutions. And on behalf of the ICANN staff and the board, I want to thank you for that. And thanks, in advance, for participating in this meeting. So thank you. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: So Nancy, what's our timing here? >> You are in here for about another 20 minutes. >>KURT PRITZ: All right. So if there are some questions. Because it is 20 minutes, you want to try and go for a minute or two minutes and then make your point? Because I know they are important points, but I think you guys are succinct at this. So Antony. >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: Thank you, Kurt. And thank you for the 50 explanatory memos, the 400 days of public comments, the 580 articles and so on. So I have done the math. I think everyone here can do it, too. And what that math says to me is that there is no application period before the end of the summer, and probably after that. >> (Audience member speaking off mic) >>KURT PRITZ: Summer in which hemisphere? >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: Yes, exactly. Let us say, then, July, August, September, October in any hemisphere. So let's talk a little bit about the process here and community. So Anatole France once said, the sweeping majesty of the law provides that all citizens shall have an equal right to sleep under a bridge. And we are seeing a situation here where some -- the rights of others must not be infringed by new TLDs. But no talk of the rights of others being infringed by no new TLDs. And I submit to you that there are many, many people in the world who need these things. [ Applause ] >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: So we have a process. That process is followed by many in these meetings, they work very hard, and then there are other processes that we don't know about that happen other places. We understand perfectly that staff speaks to a lot of people. Those things need to be transparent. I suggest that what we need is not more memos and more meetings and all of these things. What we need is some clarity. We need some clarity around dates. [ Applause ] >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING: We need some clarity around processes. We need, in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, to take what has been decided and freeze it. Mark it in a different color. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole, and I'm sure other people are, too. Let's take what's been decided, say that that's done and we're done with it. And let's get off the theoretical, stop trying to solve all problems for all people in all worlds in the future, and let's look at the situation today. If we look at scaling, scaling means a lot -- a very different thing for 300 new TLDs than it does for 3 million new TLDs. Exactly what are we dealing with? Let's find out. Let's take the applications, let's see what's out there, and let us craft solutions that make sense for those. Thank you very much. >>KURT PRITZ: Thanks, Antony. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Amadeu. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Okay. First off, I would like the scribes to just copy everything that Antony said and paste it as also said by Amadeu, and many others -- [ Applause ] >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: -- I would say, innocent victims of the war between domainers and trademark lawyers. Most of the TLD applications we are working with or we know about are not even interested in rampant speculation, but they are more or less, contrary to that happening in their TLDs, they have no intention of harming the rights of anyone. So they are willing to offer even higher standards than those proposed by IRT or any other proposal in controlling these sort of things. So let's not vote that forever. Having said that, and on the same line, I have seen there is no -- the thing missing from this court show compared to the previous ones is we do not have the nice timeline slide. It means there is no timeline at all or you prefer to be very cautious. And the second comment regarding something that Karla said that we are over 400 days of public comments. Well, we will be into the Guinness record very soon, but this brings another question. In the evaluation of application, what is the role of the comments from the public, all those applications? Because it is something that I still don't get very clear in the application book. Thanks. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you, Amadeu. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Steve. >>STEVE METALITZ: Steve Metalitz. Kurt, I have a question rather than a comment, and it's about the economic studies which I think this is the only place to ask about it. There's not a separate program on this. There are a number of questions, but I would just like to ask about the questions that the ICANN board directed the staff to hire a reputable economic consulting firm to answer on October 18th, 2006, three years ago. They said find out whether the domain registration market is one market or whether each TLD functions as a separate market. I would like to ask whether you know the answer to that question and, if so, will you give it to us? And if you don't know, is finding out the answer to that question something that's going to happen before the new TLD round is launched. >>KURT PRITZ: So I'm not an economist. I think, in reading the reports, I think the answer is both. You know, there's aspects of the market where each individual TLD has a market and there's aspects where they combine into one marketplace. So I think what ICANN has to do, though, is take the writings that have been done and organize them in a way that demonstrates that those five or six questions that the board's asked have essentially been answered. So I think that's an important task. >>STEVE METALITZ: Well, we will look forward to seeing what ICANN's answer is to these questions that were asked three years ago. Thank you. >>KURT PRITZ: Okay. Mr. Foody, we don't have much time, so... >>PAUL FOODY: Doug has informed me that that line was up much longer than this one. >>KURT PRITZ: Michael. >>MICHAEL PALAGE: Thank you. Mike Palage, speaking in an individual capacity. As an I.P. attorney, I have seen over the last decade some of the harms and difficulties trademark owners have had to deal with the namespace. As a consultant who has worked with bringing three gTLDs to the market, I have seen some of the innovations, some of the business opportunities. It is a difficult question, as Rod mentioned today, and it was encouraging to hear him say that ICANN is going to slow down and get it right. So that was a positive statement I heard. With regard to moving forward with concrete suggestions, I encourage ICANN to continue to work with the IRT to solve the remaining issues with regard to trademark protections. The only request I have is could these communications please take place in an open and transparent manner. When you met with the IRT in a closed session, that doesn't help instill confidence. So again, work with the IRT. Just please set up a mailing list so we can see the interaction between ICANN staff and the IRT members, and if there are any teleconferences, please record them so that we could understand and have faith and confidence in the process going forward. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: Paul Stahura, with eNOM. A year ago, in Cairo, I came to the public mike in the general session and said that ICANN had been working for years on the development of new gTLDs and it was time to move forward. Potential applicants like myself have been waiting years to satisfy the consumer demand for new gTLDs. Here we are, after another year of discussions, and we are still waiting to launch. We've had three versions of the DAG, multiple meetings, the IRT, and five more RPMs, the four overarching issues, independent reports and analysis, many meetings in various fora, and hundreds of public comments. Yes, they have been productive and I applaud the staff, the IRT, and many others for their hard work. But final decisions need to be made. We need new gTLDs or the DNS risks losing its relevance and ICANN simply devolving into a perpetual debating society. We need new gTLDs to bring lower prices, better names, more diverse services, and innovative features to consumers. We need them now, or those of us who want to bring these benefits to consumers will wither on the vine, and as we all know, some of you in this room wish this to happen. But if this happens, it's the global Internet community that loses. Thank you. >>KURT PRITZ: Thanks, Paul. [ Applause ] Werner. >>WERNER STAUB: Yeah, my name is Werner Staub. I would like to remind everybody here that the ICANN board decided in October 2003, a decision by the board, that this process was going to be ready on 31st of December 2004. We are now in our fifth year of delay. Now, others have pointed out that most of the TLDs that are ready to launch are the collateral damage victims of a conflict of people who have nothing to do with them. Most of these applications would be for TLDs that will not cause any I.P. problems, that have communities strong enough to handle that. We have good examples like dot cat is a TLD that did not cause any I.P. protection problems worth mentioning. The problem we face now is that the process has been misdesigned by creating a single process for everyone just imagine a city, we are in Seoul, which is a very pleasant city, just imagine what this city would look like if building permits were only given once every ten years for a process that's ever delayed. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you, Werner? So I think we're going to have to stop the queues where they are and ask each speaker to just take a minute. So Mr. Foody, could you -- >>PAUL FOODY: Thank you, Kurt. Kurt, I saw the scalability report, and I read through it. I'd love to say I understood it. But -- am I right in thinking that the summary of it was that right now we can accommodate 100,000 new gTLDs or TLDs, and in two years, the number's going to be unlimited. >>KURT PRITZ: I don't think that's the conclusion, although I'm not the expert. So I'm not going to -- I'm not going to repeat back to you what I think the conclusions are. But -- >>PAUL FOODY: Is there any way of reorganizing, rearranging the conference, because the scalability report and the IRT conflict. And those two are both pretty important. >>KURT PRITZ: So I think what I would recommend is to go back to Greg's slides that he had. And he had a brief overview of what the root scaling study report said. And then look for the SSAC/RSSAC reaction to that. >>PAUL FOODY: On the basis there's going to be unlimited numbers of new gTLDs and on the basis of what Afilias is saying here, why you need your own TLD, what we're seeing here is that the new gTLDs will completely replace dot com. Plus you will get the protection at the secondary level. So rather than actually opening up competition, what we're looking at is for anybody to register a domain, today, it would cost 10 to $35. In the future, it's going to cost millions. That's not improving competition. Thank you. >>KURT PRITZ: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. >>IMRAN AHMED SHAH: My name is Imran Ahmed Shah. I'm from Pakistan. And first of all, I say thanks to ICANN, who accepted my application to remove the limitation of the two letters for IDN ccTLDs. And the second one, that the cost has been reduced to $26,000 U.S. And in a country who can't pay this cost, he can apply for the waiver. Now I also request you to please reduce the cost of the new gTLDs. Because 186,000 U.S. dollars is a huge cost. And once two different competitors comes with the same script, then the option is proposed which is the bidding. And if ICANN goes for the bidding, it will be only and only occupied by the richest companies. Where are the options for the low-cost opportunities? My request is to reduce -- to kindly reduce this cost of the gTLDs. And the method for dividing the total cost of the previous meetings and this current meeting and future meetings onto the applicants, it's not right. Please bear this cost of the meetings through another funding solutions and the cost of the gTLDs only will be paid for the application evaluation and the future set. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> JOHN TOLAND: John Toland from TLD Assets in New York. We represent private client investors' interests in new gTLDs. I think it's essential that there's certainty and predictability with respect to timetables -- [ Applause ] >> JOHN TOLAND: Thank you. -- to prepare a robust application, which I would have thought you would have hoped to see to address some of the issues that you discussed today. And thank you for your presentation today. I thought it was very clear and informative. My clients are concerned that the timetable hasn't slipped, but has been abandoned. So I would be seeking to hear from yourself -- this is a question -- a clear reaffirmation that the new gTLDs are going to be introduced. So could you answer that with a "yes"? >>KURT PRITZ: It's the intention that new gTLDs will be introduced. >> JOHN TOLAND: Well, as I say, it's an intention, but is it a clear "yes"? I mean, I intend to do a lot of things, but I can't say for certain. Is it a "yes" or "no"? >>KURT PRITZ: It's an ICANN strategic plan that one of the most important things it can do is open up the domain space in a way that, you know, achieves the goals. So yes. I will say yes. >> JOHN TOLAND: That is a "yes." Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> JOHN TOLAND: I'd also like to say that I think that the new gTLDs will facilitate innovation, which I think everyone's behind. And would also address issues, you know, with regards to competition. Finally, in my experience with regards to the economic studies, economists are right almost exactly 50% of the time. So good luck with that. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>BRET FAUSETT: My name is Bret Fausett. I'm here speaking from the prospective of a prospective TLD applicants. I'm glad to see Peter Dengate Thrush, the ICANN chair, in the room. And I don't know how many other board members and senior staff are here. But this is primarily directed to them, places where I think this process could use some leadership from on high. I'm looking at the five issues on Kurt's slide about the things that need to be done. I think at least three of those are subjects on which there will always be continuous debate, vigorous debate. At some point, though, I think ICANN needs to call the question. And there's going to be some happy people and some unhappy people. But I think everyone would rather have an answer than to have the debate continue on, you know, ad infinitum. My second point related to that, we'd love to get a date on which the new TLD applications will be accepted. You know, there are people who are burning money trying to build businesses on this ICANN platform, and it's very difficult when you don't know what the target is. And, you know, if it's 2011, if it's 2012, people are going to be really disappointed to hear that, but they'd rather hear that. And, you know, don't be worried about making people disappointed, because predictability and planning are much more important than making people happy. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. >>ADRIAN KINDERIS: Adrian Kinderis. Actually, Bret just said it much more eloquently than I could. But I'll add, I've stood at this microphone for the last number of meetings and implored you to pick a date. My golf game is waiting. And if I've got until 2012, I'll stop playing golf now. We're burning a lot of cash. Our clients are burning cash looking into this. And ICANN's going to get your money back. You've already built that in. No matter how long this takes, you're going to get your money back. You've made sure of that. We're not guaranteed that same luxury. So to not have a time line here is really disappointing. And as Bret said, whether it's next year or the year after, just pick a date. We can start budgeting. But I'm going to have to go back from this ICANN meeting back to my shareholders. And they're going to say, "So tell us when." And I'm going to say, "I don't know." I don't need your help to look like an imbecile. I do that well on my own. So give us a date, please. >> Hi, I'm Joe Dolce. This is my first ICANN meeting. I don't really speak ICANNese, but I'm here with the intention of trying to launch a dotGay gTLD. And it's a very interesting model because it has a give-back program to the community. It's an amazing way of putting funds back. It's a new way of philanthropy. And I just wanted to express my disappointment in the slowness of the process and to tell that you the people that I've been talking to about this are so incredibly excited about it and see the incredible potential of it, so I would just like to urge you to think that there's a lot of consumers out there who do think this could be a great thing. Thank you. [ Applause ] >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. >> Hi, I'm Bhavin Turakhia. I represent a company called Directi, well-wishers of the ICANN system, and also a registrar. No hard feelings with Bret, but, actually, none of us want to hear a date in 2011, 2012, to be honest. I can say that for certain. I'm actually more of a fan of numbers. And one of the documents that I happened to read of the hundreds of documents that were produced was the cost considerations sheet. I want to actually provide an addendum. That sort of adds on to the points Adrian mentioned. There's a number of registry backend providers working on sort of assisting applicants in this new gTLD space. And they have a team of three to five people and are burning a million dollars per annum in staff costs. So that's potentially going to add up to anywhere between 7 to $10 million per annum in registry backend providers. You know, I happen to see the cost consideration sheet, and there's GNSO costs a number of us are volunteering our time and effort in terms of commenting and assisting on the effort, attending these meetings. That's probably another 7, $8 million in opportunity costs out there. There's a lot of education taking place. ICANN is having these regional meetings. We're talking governments, we're talking to private equity players. I know I'm talking to several of them. And they're attending these meetings and spending anywhere between 7 to $10 million per annum in understanding -- >>KURT PRITZ: Bhavin, can you slow down for the scribes? >>BHAVIN TURAKHIA: Sure. Every year of delay means people change. People in the governments changing, employees and staff and private equity payers are changing, staff has to be reeducated. Anywhere between 70 to 100 potential applicants exist today, and people who I talk to speak of a couple hundred applications. You're looking at a staff of three to six dedicated people in each of these companies. That represents anywhere between 45 to $50 million per annum of staff cost. You add all of this up, add interest cost and you're looking at about $100 million outside of the 92 that your cost consideration sheet talks about, that is being spent for every year of delay in this process. Which means the ecosystem is going to have to generate an additional $100 million every year that this process is delayed. So, you know, I urge you, if you take a look at this room, you know, this is probably -- I've been to several ICANN meetings -- this is probably, you know, the most packed I have seen any session in an ICANN meeting, close to 400, 500 people here at a modest, $300 an hour. This room has spent $250,000 in this session to hear you say that the process is getting delayed. And, you know, I sincerely urge ICANN to consider this, you know, this cost consideration in their addendum and sort of make sure this cost has no further delay. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Hi, I am Elaine Pruis, representing all women who want new gTLDs. [ Laughter ] My company, Minds+Machines, is applying for and will provide services to new gTLD applicants. And Joe Dolce is one person who represents a community that seeks an opportunity to have a space on the Internet. And we are all looking forward to an Internet space that will be safer and cleaner than what is available to us now. Our end users are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to have quality domain names in strings that are meaningful to them. Unfortunately, we're losing faith in this process as we see delay after delay after delay. Yesterday, I heard of a draft applicant guidebook 4, maybe a 5, maybe a 6. And I couldn't help but think of Buzz Lightyear. And I want a tee shirt that says, "To infinity and beyond." Not really. I want a tee shirt that says, "Final applicant guidebook." What I'm asking for today is that you consider that the costs of delay outweigh the benefits of discussing the finer points of 3.2.14.5.6 of the current draft applicant guidebook. We would just like to see this thing move forward. We'd like to see the opportunity for innovation in the Internet. And you have the opportunity to give that to us. Thank you. >>KURT PRITZ: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>THOMAS NARTEN: Yeah. So my name is Thomas Narten. And I want to just respond to a comment that was made earlier about the root scaling study. And let me just start by being clear that I'm not making an official statement for the technical community, although I have connections with the technical community. That's my background. But the question was made -- or maybe it was asserted that the root scaling study suggested you could do 100,000 TLDs in ten years and go to a million and beyond. In my opinion, it does not say that at all. Okay? What I will say is that the current, the study, the root scaling study is in some sense the first real detailed study that looks at scaling the root and starts, you know, trying to lay down the detail and quantify the various pieces. And in that sense, it's a first step. The consequences or the content of that report is now being digested by the community, by the technical community. There's a lot of discussion about it, there's some agreement with it, there's some disagreement with parts of it. But it's not like the community has any kind of, you know, firm agreement on what it means or what the implications are. As was mentioned, RSSAC and SSAC are looking at that. They're going to issue some sort of statement to the board and the community, most likely. We'll have to see what that says and go from there. But I think a key message of the study, which I think the community needs to understand, is, yes, we can add more things to the root. We can scale the root. But you need to go slowly enough that we don't go too fast. And what I mean by that is, you want to be able to -- as you're making changes to it -- increasing the number gTLDs for instance, adding DNSSEC, adding IPv6 records and so forth, that's going to change the system somewhat. And you want to make sure that as you're making those changes, you allow enough time for the changes to ripple through the entire system. You see what's happening. You don't see anything that causes you alarm. Then you keep making changes, and as a result of this feedback loop, you're comfortable that you're not going to be surprised by doing too much in too short of a time. So, you know, the question everybody asks is, well, what's the number? Can I do a hundred? Can I do a thousand? Can I do 10,000? The answer is, we don't have a number. And it's likely, in my view, we're not ever going to get a single number that everyone agrees to. It's more of a degree of comfort that people have with this number we feel comfortable with, this one I'm less comfortable with. This one makes me very uncomfortable. And different people are going to have different ideas of what the right number is based on where they sit and what their role is. So I'm going to throw out some numbers here. Again, I don't want to say that these are the numbers that other people necessarily agree with. But these are sort of my own personal numbers. And I'm doing this mostly just to give people a sense of at least where I'm coming from and so that people can talk about the number and say, whoa, that's completely unrealistic, that's not acceptable, or maybe we can work with that, at least in the short term. For example, this is my opinion, we could do 100 new TLDs per year. That is something that we can do that probably wouldn't stress the system too much. Could we do 1,000 TLDs a year? I think that would cause a lot of concern, a lot of discomfort from people. Doesn't mean we can't do it. But it means it would make people nervous and there would be some push back. Can we do 500? Don't know. Again, this is sort of in this area where we're not sure. And, you know, realistically, when you think about it, 1,000 TLDs in a year, does anybody in this room actually believe we can do that in one year? >> Not at this pace. >>THOMAS NARTEN: Assuming we accelerate somewhat. But realistically, there's just the whole process of doing the contracts and the delegation and so on. >> (Not on audio). >>THOMAS NARTEN: Well, the problem with that is, when you're talking about engineering and operations, it's very hard to give a clear-cut, "This is the straw that breaks the camel's back, and that if you stay on this side of the line, everything is fine, no danger. If you cross the line, you're going to have a wreck." >> Let me ask a different question. What effect on the operations -- >>THOMAS NARTEN: Microphone, please. >> Microphone. >> What effect on the operation of the Internet does taking applications have? [ Applause ] >>THOMAS NARTEN: I would assume for starters it sets expectations that once applications have been taking and you're going down that process you don't want to say no at the very end where you're actually going to put in the root. That's the hardest point to say, "Stop. Sorry. You lose." >> Doesn't say anything about progressive rollout. >>KURT PRITZ: Are you finished? >>THOMAS NARTEN: Yep. >>KURT PRITZ: Okay. Thank you for your comments, Thomas. Mr. Foody, we've got to wrap up now, okay? >>(Off mike.) >>THOMAS NARTEN: The question was, does that relate to IDNs? From a technical level, in some sense, there is no difference between IDNs and gTLDs that are ASCII. They're still, they're TLDs. The implications in terms of what happens at the root level are largely the same. >>KURT PRITZ: So without -- without meaning to be glib, because I take the comments here very seriously, I could certainly summarize all the comments very quickly; right? I don't think I've seen unanimity of a type of comment at an ICANN meeting, especially at a meeting of this size, before that focused on one issue. I once had a boss that told me, "You can't schedule inspiration, but you can make inspirational schedules." So I'm sure that everybody on staff has heard the comments here and will, you know, work towards providing certainty in the very near future and also work with all due alacrity as hard as possible to resolve the remaining issues so that the process can be launched. Really can't go past that. But I want to convey an understanding of what everybody said here. And certainly everybody at ICANN did, too. So, again, thank you very much for attending this session. And check your schedules for the next session. Thanks. [Applause]