Public Forum
Thursday, 29 October 2009
ICANN Meeting
Seoul, Korea

>> Good morning.  We'll begin our public forum in about a minute.

If you would be kind enough to take your seats.  Again, we'll begin
our public forum in about a minute.

Thank you.  

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Could
you take your seats, please.  We're ready to begin.

>> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Please welcome chairman,
board of ICANN, Peter Dengate Thrush.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Nancy.

Thank you very much.  And good morning, everybody.  For those of you
who are new to ICANN, this is one of the most treasured, most useful
portions of the program, in the opinion of many of the board members
and the community.

For much of the week, you will have been meeting in smaller rooms,
discussing in smaller groups your concerns and your progress.  And
this is an opportunity for the community to come together as a group
and address the board as a whole with concerns.

So this is an excellent opportunity to share what's been going on
and to take things forward in the multistakeholder, bottom-up public
policy development process that we develop and use here at ICANN.  If
you're new to this, you're very welcome.  Please feel free to come to
the microphone and contribute your own sense of things.

Let me just explain, there are rules to the engagement.  And the
first is that you need to state for the record who you are.  Public
policy development like this is done transparently.  And part of that
is that we know where the inputs to the process are coming from.  At
the same time, there are inputs online.  And, again, they have to be
identified.  We are unable to accept anonymous contributions to what
has to be a transparent process.

The other rule of the engagement is, you're one of many, and you
only get a certain amount of the available time.  And so when you
start, please don't feel offended to see that a clock will start
ticking on the screen.  And we've allocated at this stage two minutes
per contribution.  If we have more time, you can sometimes circle
around and get a second shot.  But always feel free to use the public
comment box that you can use.

Let me just check what else I have to say.

I think we've covered that.  If I could ask, then, AV to put up the
agenda.

This is the order of -- these are the topics.

And this is the rough allocation that we've made as to time.  For
each of them.

So if you have a particular interest in gTLD overarching issues,
it's on the agenda.  We'll be starting that about 9:45.  If we can
get through things faster or slower, we will.  It's -- and for this,
I'm largely in your hands and the hands of the board as to where the
attention and where the focus goes.

So let's begin with a discussion or contributions or responses from
you in relation to the Affirmation of Commitments.

Wonderful.  The Affirmation of Commitments is taken as an enormous
success -- oh, Amadeu.

[ Laughter ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much, Amadeu.

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Something like the Affirmation of
Commitments.

This serves as a small comment, right, for the record.

Congratulations.  Good job.  ICANN is moving in the right direction.
All that.  I'm not joking.  

But the most important part for me is the same as it was for the
first meeting and it's still not there.  The most important thing
since the creation of ICANN is ICANN taking the policy control of the
root.  This was never in the memorandum of understanding.  It was
never in the joint cooperation agreement -- Joint Project Agreement,
sorry.  It's not in the Affirmation of Commitments.  So still the
most important task is to be solved.  Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Amadeu.  I agree with the
importance of that task.  Comment from the board?

Anything else on the Affirmation of Commitments?

Let me just perhaps then refresh or explain for those of you who
weren't at yesterday's first session on this, we are in the process
now of reaching out to ask how we should manage this.  Jonathan, you
were at the session.  Perhaps you can contribute further.  Thank you.

>>JONATHAN ZUCK:   Good morning.

I hope after last night, I won't ever be accused of always singing
the same tune.  But --

[ Laughter ]

>>JONATHAN ZUCK:   -- I'm afraid I am here to talk about an old
song, which is metrics.  I really want to congratulate everyone
involved in the Affirmation of Commitments for having brought that
agreement about, especially in such a short period of time.

I think that it represents a really important transition.  But at
the same time, I think it makes the urgency of improving
institutional confidence even higher than it was before that
transition took place.

I found the teachings of Buddha in my hotel room.  And Buddha
teaches us there are really only two mistakes you can make on the way
to truth.  One is not to start something.  And the other is not to
finish it.  And so I think we're really at a point where we need to
really focus on that old initiative, which is improving institutional
confidence.  And at its core, institutional confidence is a function
of people understanding the objectives of the organization and then
being able to see those objectives being reached.

And I think that can only be accomplished through the
objectification of those objectives, i.e., metrics.  We talked about
this yesterday.  But we need to come up with hard objectives, we need
to come up with specific plans to meet those objectives and then make
objective evaluations of whether or not they were reached.  And it's
the sign of a mature organization of any type that it begins to
really start to do performance measurement in a quantitative and
rigorous way.

To some extent, the relationship with the United States has allowed
this organization to be much more abstract in its objectives.  The
nature of the agreements with the United States have been abstract.

But it's got to be up to us to make those things more concrete.  And
I think that that's only become more urgent, not less so, with the
transition that has begun with the Affirmation of Commitments.

So that's really my only comment.  I think we need to really focus
on that part of the institution.  I know it sounds critical, but, you
know, in the words of the -- of Louis Armstrong, all I'm really
saying is "I love you."  So thanks a lot, and let's work on this
together.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Louis -- I mean, Jonathan.

For those of you who weren't here, we had the most extraordinary
event here last night on this stage at the music event.  And Rod gets
enormous kudos for kicking off what may very well become an ICANN
institution, judging by the response last night.  And the contributor
who just spoke did a very passable imitation of Louis Armstrong.  In
fact, I want to hear that again at some stage, Jonathan.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   There were some real challenges thrown out
there by some fantastic performances.

Anyone else on the Affirmation of Commitments?  Let me just -- as
Steve's coming to the microphone, let me agree, one of my mantras as
I try to -- what gets measured gets done.  If we're not measuring it,
then what are we doing.

>>STEVE DELBIANCO:   Steve Delbianco with NetChoice.  

At last night's music marathon, there was a group that went up
there, and Brian Cute dedicated a song to the Department of Commerce
and the JPA.  And a bunch of folks went up there and did a barely
passable rendition of "You've Lost That Loving Feeling."  It reminds
me of that old saying that if you love something, let it go.

And when you think about it, the Commerce Department probably
deserves -- U.S. government deserves some credit for loving the
Internet and ICANN enough to sort of let it go.  And that's what
happens with the JPA expiration, it really did.

[ Applause ]

>>STEVE DELBIANCO:   So glad that the Commerce Department of the
U.S. government honored its commitment.  But along the way, it
endowed ICANN with a whole new set of commitments that are in this
AoC.  And one of those commitments is this notion of public interest.
That's a new strand in the DNA of the DNS.  And in 9.1 of the
commitments, it actually lay it is out to say that it's the interests
of global Internet users to really make that explicit.  And I think
that the AoC includes lots of attention to the global Internet users.
And this is a globe where 56% of the people don't use the Latin
alphabet.  And so the initiative to IDNs is paramount in our
commitments.

Now, you're going to vote tomorrow to approve the IDN fast track for
country code domains.  But I don't think that's sufficient, not
nearly sufficient, to check the box on the commitment to global
Internet users.  Because it's only half an Internet.

The country code top-level domains are only half of the Internet
people are going to expect to see.  And so when the celebrations
occur in certain nations around the world who have launched, say
Japan, Russia, China, when they launch in January or February their
IDN ccTLDs, IDN day could become, I'm disappointed now.  Because
users are going to try to type in, as Beckstrom showed us on Monday,
they're going to go to YouTube.com in Arabic, in Chinese, or
Japanese.  And it won't be there.  It won't be there.  Neither will
Google.com or eBay.com or Facebook.com or netchoice.org.  Because we
haven't provided a plan for that.

So the fast track is laudable.  I know we're going to talk about it
next.  But I'm saying that our commitment means that when you vote
tomorrow, think about ways to make sure that IDN versions of global
TLDs are the next train to leave the station on the fast track.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Steve.  I think the question of
the public interest is one that occupies understand constantly.  We
certainly don't regard that as a new obligation.  It might have been
expressed newly.  But we've always tried to operate in the interests
of the public interest.  And I think I expressed it yesterday as
being our stewardship of the Internet, managed in the public interest.

The trouble, though, I think it's -- I don't want to argue -- it's
that there's certainly more to it than just the global users.  We
always have to -- we have to balance all these competing interests,
the registries, the registrars, governments, users, domainers have
rights, too.  And the exercise is trying to get that balance right.

As far as IDNs is concerned, there is -- part of our planning does
include what we've called communication of this.  And, of course,
there's going to be some time between the calling for applications on
the 16th of November, if the board votes tomorrow to launch this. 
There's going to be many, many months before people can actually type
in Google.com in Arabic.  And between now and then, there will be
effort put into communicating that.  But, of course, that's also the
responsibility of the people creating and running these things.  And
it's up -- much of that's up to the ccTLDs.  And what happens in the
ccTLDs is largely up to the ccTLDs and their governments.

I'm sure they will not want to be launching these things and then
have failures.  So good point.  I'm sure they will be watching that.

Any other comments about the Affirmation of Commitments?  Obviously,
it's just a process that's just started.  The ink's only 28 days dry
on that document.  And we're in the process -- what we were talking
about yesterday was making it quite clear that we need community
input into the setting of the standards of those reviews so that we
know what it is that we're doing.  And the other exercise, of course,
is focusing on the areas that are being reviewed.  And Marilyn Cade
mentioned and reminded everybody a couple of times yesterday about
the ongoing public comment process in relation to the accountability
mechanisms.  So if we can get those right, then when the review
comes, we'll get reasonable marks.  So the exercise is to keep
looking at those areas under review and working on them.

Bruce.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Thank you, Peter.


Just picking up on the comments from Jonathan Zuck, and I guess what
Peter is saying is well about metrics.  There was a session yesterday
on strategic planning, which was quite early in the day.  And there
were quite a few other things on in parallel.  But one of the things
there, if you look at some of the major topics, we have topics like
we want to improve the security of the domain name system, and we
have topics like, we want to improve sort of competition and consumer
trust in the system that we have.  The difficulty is actually getting
the metrics for those things.  Often it's relatively easy to find
financial metrics.  And I think that's an area that ICANN's improved
substantially both in the transparency of financial reporting, as
well as predictability in that it's reasonably predictable what we're
expecting in our expenditure and what we're expecting in our income. 
But on topics like security, it's actually hard to define a metric. 
It's not a simple metric to say are we more secure.  The other
speaker just earlier said -- talked about internationalization.  It's
not easy to define a metric on that, either.

So I think as part of the strategic planning process, if we can get
some input on, under each of the major headings, what would you
consider the two or three key metrics to be?  And if the community
could respond on that, I think that would be a good way to commence
the planning process.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Jonathan, last comment on this.

>>JONATHAN ZUCK:   Thanks, Bruce.  I think that's a really good
suggestion.  And you've chosen maybe the hardest thing to measure,
something like security.  But if we look at things like contract
compliance, for example, the Web site now has two metrics, the number
of, you know, abuses that have been processed and the number of
registrars that have been decertified.  And neither one of those have
anything to do, necessarily, with the success of compliance efforts.

And so even measuring how many -- what percentage of the complaints
that came in fell under the jurisdiction of ICANN, how they were
resolved, whether they were resolved successfully, et cetera, are
fairly easy metrics to put in place.

I think when it comes to internationalization, it's also very
difficult.  But one of the issues behind the Affirmation of
Commitments is greater participation by other governments in ICANN. 
And a commitment to the ICANN model internationally.  I think there
are ways to measure commitments to the ICANN model, potentially,
through, you know, signing a letter in support of the ICANN model,
participation in the GAC, et cetera.  So I think there are metrics
that we can find if we really look for them.

So let's work together on that and not abdicate it.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:   My name is Marilyn Cade.  I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for making reference to a point I made yesterday in the
Affirmation of Commitments session that was added on to the agenda. 
I really appreciated the addition of that session yesterday.  But I'm
making my comments today because not everyone heard my comments, and
I would just like to ensure they're on the full record.

The community worked very hard -- very hard -- throughout the period
of the President's Strategy Committee's work.  It was, in fact,
multiyear work.  But it involved extensive outreach to the community,
supported by the board and by the staff, and participation by a wide
number of members of the active community, and, even more broadly, to
reach an agreement on the kinds of changes and enhancements that
would strengthen ICANN for its life after the JPA.

Some of the recommendations made in the President's Strategy
Committee were very strongly endorsed.  And one of them was the need
for significant improvements in accountability mechanisms.  So,
certainly, the open comment process that closes on the 27th of
November -- get your diaries out, folks -- is very important.  But I
think it's also very challenging to think that we are going to
comment on draft changes to improvements in accountability
mechanisms, and we're going to be starting a review process with a
fairly short time line in parallel.

I'm mystified by that.  And I consider myself an insider to this
process, because I've devoted so much time to it.

So, yes, we must improve our accountability mechanisms, because the
community has told us all that those accountability mechanisms are
going to help to build and strengthen the trust that participants can
have and that all stakeholders can have in the integrity and the
fairness of decisions made by the board and can provide a meaningful
appeal when the community says the board got it wrong.

Everybody who participates in ICANN demonstrates their commitment to
the private sector-led, bottom-up process.  And I'm confident that if
we work together and perhaps go back to a recommendation that the PSC
made of convening a group of experts to devise true accountability
mechanisms, and if we put some energy into that, then maybe we can do
both those things in parallel.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.

If there's no other comments on the affirmation, let's move to the
fast track IDN program.  As you'll know, that's on the board's agenda
for tomorrow.

Discussion about the fast track.  Excellent.

Kieren, something online?

>>KIEREN McCARTHY:   So I have a comment here from -- and I homer
hope I pronounce his name correctly.  Jaser Elmorsy.  

As an owner of an SMB company, neither my time constraints nor my
finances allow that I visit more than one ICANN meeting.  I feel my
concern is very important, and, unfortunately, so far ignored.  I am
a CEO of BlueBridge technologies, a software development company
headquartered in Europe.  My company does business in the Arabic
world, including an office in Cairo, with about 35 employees.  I
attended the ICANN meetings in Paris and Cairo, where I raised my
concern about the current disparities between gTLDs and ccTLDs and
when and how IDN versions of these TLDs will become available.  I
explained why it would be a major threat for international
businesses, especially an SMB like mine -- small to medium business --
if the ccTLDs are offering IDN domains on a much faster time line
than gTLDs.  IDN ccTLDs.  There's no way I want to register
BlueBridge.net in over 20 Arabic ccTLDs.  All I want is the ability
for my clients and employees to be able to use all Arabic script for
their BlueBridge.net e-mails and domain names.  At the microphone, I
asked how ICANN can ensure that at least the current gTLDs are
offered to allow their IDN domains at the same time as the ccTLDs are
going to offer them.

The response to my comment at the time was, essentially, "Don't
worry about that."  

But as I follow current developments with ICANN's planned delay of
launching new gTLDs, I see that my concerns were justified.  I have
to express my disappointments with how my issue as an SMB is being
dealt with if not even to say not being dealt with.  I,
unfortunately, have to repeat how much I am wondering why the board
is not sharing my concern about the, obviously, upcoming major delay
between Arabic ccTLDs and Arabic gTLDs and the problems caused by
that for small to medium businesses.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Anything further on the fast
track?  Yes.

>>YUMI OHASHI:  Thank you.

I'm Yumi Ohashi, from JPRS.  That is .jP Registry.  I am one of the
board members of APTLD.

I appreciate publication of the final version of the IDN ccTLD Fast
Track Implementation Plan after enormous community effort and I hope
internationalized Internet use with spread with this initiative once
the plan is finalized and implemented.

And I expect ICANN staff develops procedures whereby the evaluation
and delegation can proceed efficiently, respecting the spirit of fast
introduction of A -- sorry, fast introduction of IDN ccTLDs in the
interest of local Internet community.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Yumi.

Next in line.

>>HENRY CHAN:  Hi, everyone.  This is Henry, from HKIRC, the
registry of dot HK.  We first -- also an APTLD member.  We would
first like to thank ICANN for their hard work in bringing the fast
track for ccTLD IDN.  But we have two comments to make.

The first comment being that -- is more like a reconfirmation.  We'd
like to confirm that the annual contribution will be on voluntary
basis.

We also for (inaudible) HK.  It's very likely we will register this
IDN and value-added service instead of making profit out of it.  So
we hope that the contribution will be based on revenues, so in our
case, it's voluntary for us.

The second point being that we want ICANN to see the importance of
delegating the variants to one ccTLD manager.  Because for us in Hong
Kong, our IDN will be in Chinese, and we have a traditional Chinese
character and simplified Chinese character.  It only works for us if
we have both.  So I hope that ICANN can take these two points into
consideration.

Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.  The answer, we can
confirm that the contributions are voluntary.

Next in line.

>>ANDREW MACK:   Andrew Mack.

I'm standing here to tackle some of the things I've heard before but
also maybe to see if we can put an additional human face on it.

All of the work that's been done on the CCs is incredibly -- the
ccTLD IDNs is tremendously useful and long overdue, and I applaud
ICANN for it absolutely.

One of the things that Mr. Delbianco said earlier, though, I think
is really true, which is that we are missing out on a lot of people
without having in the most commonly used other extensions.  And I had
a personal experience the other night when we were sitting and
talking with the wonderful Kenya delegation, who I encourage you all
to meet and encourage you all to go to Kenya if you're thinking about
it, because it's a great country.

And we were talking about tea, because Kenya is famous for its tea.

And they said, "We're struggling, because we want to expand the
amount of tea that we export, and one of our big markets is in the
Arabic world.  It's an IDN market."  But realistically, they're not
going to go -- a country like Kenya is not going to go and register
in  all of these CCs.  Sudan is one of the countries which hasn't
decided to go forward with the IDNs yet.

I would encourage ICANN -- we've started our fast track.  And,
really, there is a second part of the fast track, to make it
complete.  And it has a tremendous economic development, it has a
tremendous personal aspect that I don't want us to miss out on. 
Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Just by way of explanation, the IDN
program that we're talking about is called a fast track, because a
very small number of countries, proportionately, in relation to the
total number of countries have been put into a fast track where we --
where they have been able to satisfy us that there is no doubt about
the name of the country, the representation of the name of that
country in a script used in that country.  And those are being
allowed to go forward before the full policy development for IDN
ccTLDs has been finalized.  That process has started in the proper
place in ICANN for developing that process, which is in the ccNSO. 
So that's fast in relation to the rest of the cc IDN program.  And
the current predictions are, from the survey that's been done, that
less than 30 of the approximately 240 country codes will be going
down that fast track.  Avri?

 >>AVRI DORIA:  Good morning.  My name is Avri Doria.  I'm at a
university in Sweden, among other things.  The one I want to bring up
is actually both fast track and somewhat agenda.  In the next item
you'll be talking about the overarching issues.  And yet none of the
overarching issues seem to apply to fast track.  

Now, I haven't done an in-depth analysis of that.  But, certainly,
when I look at overarching issues, especially those that are
technical in content, that have to do with is it safe to put things,
anything in the root yet, I would think that that needs to, at the
very least, apply as much to fast track as it would to any new TLD. 
Now, I think the rest of, you know, some of them, obviously, don't
apply when we're talking about integrations, you know, of the
vertical integration.  Perhaps, you know, some of the ones dealing
with the protection of rights, perhaps should be considered in
application but, certainly, the technical.  I do urge you to not sort
of have an overarching issue in one place but not the other.  Thank
you. 

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:  Good morning.  My name is Bertrand De La
Chapelle.  I'm the French GAC representative.  Quick point:  The fact
that the board has accepted to go along with the notion of a fast
track in the IDN ccTLD program has, actually, provided an answer to
an ongoing question that was there for a long time.  We still have
the PDP going.  But had then there been a fast track process at the
time, we would not have had the opportunity to agree on IDN ccTLDs
now.  Second thing is:  The IDN ccTLD fast track working group was,
actually, a cross-community effort.  It brought together people from
the ccNSO, from the GAC, from other communities.  I know that in the
GNSO there was a feeling that they were not associated enough ,and
this has to be taken into account.  But it is an example of a
situation where, bringing all the different categories of actors
around one problem actually accelerates the solution to the problem. 
I won't get into details supporting some comments I made before that
the issue of IDN gTLDs must also be addressed because there's a
question of the balance in the IDN space.

And, finally, I didn't make an intervention in the Affirmation of
Commitment session.  The session yesterday was excellent.  I hope the
transcripts will be available, because some comments were made in
there.  Just take the opportunity to highlight that Marilyn's
comments regarding the importance of the current institutional
improvements that are being discussed as a result of the reviews,
that those institutional elements have to be addressed before or in
priority before we focus exclusively on the reviews that are being
considered by the AoC.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Bertrand.  Any more on the
fast track?  Ram, Harald, and then Bruce.

 >>HARALD ALVESTRAND:   Just a comment to the guy from Hong Kong. 
Yes, we are considering variants.  Variants are dependent on not only
DNS support but application support.  And we really hope to get the
report out, like, in a matter of -- shortly after this meeting. 
Sorry for being late.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Ram, did you want to say something on
variants at all?  No.  Okay.  Bruce?

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   Just to respond quickly on the notion of fast
track, there was actually a gTLD fast track in 2004.  So I think we
need to just get the overall context that new gTLD introduction
started in 2000.  And we knew that was a difficult policy development
process in the GNSO.  The GNSO did have a fast track in 2004, and
that was the limited sponsored round. Because we had pressure from
those saying, "Yep, our TLD applications will be easy.  We should
have a simple sponsored round."  

But I think it's worth noting that the applications for that round
started in 2004, and we still have applications pending in 2009
including dot post.  So -- yeah.  

So just want to sort of point out the fast track looks fast but
sometimes may not be as fast.  And the GNSO has tried fast track in
the past.  There has been a fast track.

Also, just a comment, I guess, on the cross-community comment that
Bertrand made.  I think one of the areas that we're particularly
starting to see in the gTLD, and as Avri said, just generally, some
of the technical issues is to need to look at the system end-to-end. 
And I don't think we've engaged the root server operators in the
planning as much as we should.  That includes DNSSEC and other things.

And also downstreaming, which is, you know, what are the ISPs and
others going to be doing as we introduce these new technologies?  And
we saw a little bit of that in the 2000 round when we introduced TLDs
that had strings longer than three characters.  So we had dot info,
dot museum.  So we had some issues there.  

So we do need to get better at thinking of the upstream, the root
operators, and the downstream, sort of ISPs and others, application
developers, that need to use the new standards or new innovations
we're bringing out.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Yes. Thanks for that reminder, Bruce.  I
think a lot of people don't appreciate that the sTLD round was a fast
track process.  Very timely reminder.  

Any more on IDNs and the fast track?  If not, we can move on to the -
- let's see.  We are moving on to the gTLD overarching issues.  Just
waiting to see if I can get Doug or Kurt to put up on screen a list
of the overarching issues.  But, while we're waiting for that,
Antony, new gTLDs.

 >>ANTONY VAN COUVERING:   Yes, thank you.  And welcome our new CEO
and all of those who are here for the first time.  I was very pleased
to hear talk from others about self-forming groups to solve problems.  

And I was also very encouraged to hear from Harald an apology for
being late.  And I would like to cede the rest of my time to Jothan
Frakes behind me, who has a proposal that I hope will help us solve
the issues around at least some of the issues around new TLDs.  Thank
you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Antony.

We'll come this side to -- I think the two-minute clock started
again.  Let's come to Dirk on this side, and then we'll back to Jothan.

 >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI:   That's fine.  Jothan on that side.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.  Jothan?

>>JOTHAN FRAKES:  Thank you, Dirk.  Ladies and gentlemen of the
board, my name is Jothan Frakes.  I'm with a company called Minds and
Machines.  Throughout the week, with all the dialogue on the new TLD
process, we've come to recognize that this is not the board or the
staff that are causing any delay, but, rather, we, collectively, the
ICANN community.  And we have to work through the issues to establish
a process which will be robust and lasting.  In gathering the IRT
together, we observed that the IRT was a very effective method of
tackling a very thorny issue.  

Tremendous amount of progress has been made in coming together and
focusing attention.  In like manner, using the bottom-up process of
formation, a group of applicants and other interested parties are
coming together to come up with ideas that will accelerate the
process and move us forward to a date that's certain.

The applicants, in a like manner to the IRT, are going to come
together to collaborate on solutions on a way forward.

We have some ideas whereby an applicant can pay a fee and begin the
review of information, which can be done now while issues -- very
important issues such as IRT, URS, root scaling, and economic studies
are being undertaken.  In this way we can move forward on issues in
parallel.  And in this way applicants can go back to their
constituents, their stakeholders, communities, and investors with
positive news while ICANN staff will gain information about the
universe of applicants who will be bringing discussions about public
morality, root scaling, rights protection, and other matters out of
the theoretical and into the practical realm.  We will be presenting
our ideas to ICANN staff and board through the normal channels in the
coming weeks.  

There are a lot of us that would like to criticize ICANN.  But,
after our initial frustration, many of us have come together to
propose a positive and collaborative solution to address the few
remaining issues.  Thank you very much.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Jothan.  

(No audio.)

We're also very concerned.  We're aware that delay favors
incumbents.  We're aware that delay is costly and may, in fact,
deprive us, if it goes on for much longer, of the very innovation
that this project was intended to help stimulate.  

On the other hand, delay is caused by the fact that we have to do
this very carefully.  We have a specific affirmation in the
Affirmation of Commitments that we'll take into account the public
interest and so on.  

So this is a balancing exercise for the board.  There's no intention
to delay.  We just have to make sure we do it properly.  

We also are aware of some of the content of the proposal that you've
been talking about.  There's been some very effective corridor
conversations going on this week about how we might move forward with
an application kind of process that would give us a lot of
information about likely applicants, likely strings, and things that
can go forward.  

And, provided that can be done without commitment and all the usual
warnings, we're happy to explore that kind of forward thinking.  So
thank you for that.

>>JOTHAN FRAKES:   Thank you, Chairman.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   We don't want to hear about those  things
that I've talked about.  We understand the issues of delay and so
forth, if we can move on.  Must be back to you, Dirk.

 >>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI:   Thanks.  I'm Dirk Krischenowski, founder
and CEO of dot Berlin.  And we're working for a couple other geo top-
level domains like dot Cologne and dot Hamburg and dot Bavaria.  You
probably heard that the German government advocated here in Sydney
strongly for a timely introduction of new gTLDs.  The German
Parliament approved already in 2008, in early 2008, the resolution to
support geo TLDs and was the first government worldwide to do this. 
And the Berlin government gave us as dot Berlin a non-objection.  

My point is that I fully support the proposal Jothan Frakes makes. 
Because it supports one point, which makes me still very angry.  

Today ICANN has no clue how many applicants will apply in the
upcoming round.  I heard ICANN staff publicly saying anything between
100 and 10,000.  This is incredible.  

And ICANN does also have no clue how many domain names may come with
the new TLDs and who will introduce, for example, DNSSEC.  But this
can be solved easily and quickly.  I will work with Jothan and many
others to overcome these shortcomings.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Dirk.  Thank you, also, for
the offer of collaboration.  And just let me say how pleased I was to
see you in the registry constituency.  Not so much you, personally,
although it was a pleasure.  I'm pleased to see a place for incoming
TLD applicants.  Obvious place is in the registry constituency. 
There is a problem in that you're not under contract.  But the
registry constituency has created observer status, which you and
others have taken up.  And I think that's excellent because there has
to be a place for input into the policy process by the potential
registries as well as the existing registries.  So thank you.  Back
to the other side.  Tony.

 >>TONY HARRIS:   Yes, good morning.  My name is Tony Harris.  I'm
speaking on behalf of the Latin American Federation of the Internet
and Electronic Commerce.  We, as everybody knows, I guess, are a
prospective applicant for dot LET string.  

I wanted to express our total support for the statement written,
which was read out by Jothan Frakes, and say we want to contribute to
this process and also just comment that we are collaborating with
ICANN into outreach events, which will be on the roll out of new
gTLDs.  One will be in Sao Paulo on November 24th, the other in
Buenos Aires on November 27th.  Thank you very much.

>>FRED KRUEGER:   My name is Fred Krueger, and I'm with Minds and
Machines as well.  And I want to talk about economic studies and
electric guitars.  I think everybody can agree that the real star of
this show is Jay, the amazing guitarist who Rod Beckstrom introduced
to us on Monday.  Rod made an excellent point by bringing us to
ICANN.  What an amazing world we live in where one person sitting in
his bedroom is able to reach millions of people and communicate his
message to hundreds of other musicians like himself.  As I watched
this video, I realized this is the perfect counterexample to what was
going on in ICANN.  Why was this video successful?  Well, unlike,
ICANN YouTube does not have a 200-page applicant guidebook for
submitting guitar videos.  Before uploading his performance, Jay did
not consult with YouTube's globally protected marks list to see if
the word "Pachelbel" or IDN versions or misspellings of the word
"Pachelbel" was restricted.  And, finally and most importantly,
YouTube did not select Jay's video as the result of some economic
study.  In fact, Jay is the exception, not the rule.  Most guitar
videos on YouTube have no economic demand.  Just so happens Jay's
did.  So showing this video is not really an example of the diamonds
that ICANN has created.  I don't have a lot of time.  But I will say
that the gTLD process, in my opinion, is that lump of coal that can
be turned into a diamond.  Please go with the gTLDs.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Bravo.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Fred.  

Back to that side.

>>BOB HUTCHINSON:  I'm Bob Hutchinson.  I want to comment about the
overall arching issue of root scalability and DNSSEC in the root.  

I think this week we've seen absolutely fantastic progress in both
the technical side and the understanding of what root scaling is
going to mean.  Kudos to the people who put together the studies.  If
you're a traffic person, like I am, at the bottom end of the food
chain, reading that kind of stuff is good news for the metrics part
of the world.  We have a fantastic beginning of the root scaling
study.  But we have to understand that such a study will never yield
you an A or B kind of answer.  No person who's ever been through
these kind of things will be able to tell you from a study what the
real world is going to actually do.  And so, from a Korean viewpoint,
it may be a metaphor is a tea leaf read.  You have to extrapolate
using your best understanding.  So I think that this will require
faith going forward.  And it will require a belief in the talent of
ICANN and the technical people that are involved in putting together
the studies, the root scaling, and introducing new TLDs into the
root.  Six or more TLDs are already operating DNSSEC.  And I think
that there's plenty of indication that the technology is kind of
getting ready to be able to be there.  There's a good solid plan for
signing the root.  I want you all to have faith in each other and go
forward.  Let's move this.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  

Back to this side, Amadeu.

 >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Good morning.  My name is Amadeu Abril i
Abril.  I work for CORE, especially in providing support for new
applicants and new TLDs in the linguistical consular area or city or
financial sectors or other types of TLDs.  

First thing I also want to support was the Jothan proposal.  We've
also been working with him and other people trying to bring you a
solution so we can move forward.  

And there's another one that we have really been working since Egypt
called the step-by-step, the green traffic light man that goes in
conjunction with that.  We're hearing now from many sources from GAC
representatives or the GAC itself or lawyers or many people on the
board and the community that some types of TLDs are not under the
RALO of the main open issues.  We have registrant trademark
protection.  Things like the dot cat approval, they are completely
below the radar of the trademark companies because we have sort of
strict policies and resolution mechanisms for solving those issues. 
So they are being -- these type of TLDs are being held hostage by
this debate.  

There is some talk about providing categories, you know, for a
narrow window.  The problem with categories is that everything can be
gamed and can be -- how do you say that? Discriminatory, if you play
that very well.  We provide that, besides the category idea, that we
know they are not problematic.  So objective criteria and (inaudible)
for moving forward, if we think that we cannot solve the overarching
issues still in timely time.  So these are mainly contractual
commitments made by those that think that they can put in their
contract, in their the agreements with ICANN, the higher level of
standards of trademark protection or malicious conduct protection
that are being discussed including the greenhouse, the exclusion
list, including rapid suspension, credible contractual compliance,
post-delegation arbitration, things that many of them are really
providing, things that many of them are willing to provide, even if
they are not mandated by an ICANN consensus policy.  

With this in place, we would have no excuse for letting them
forward.  And then the (inaudible).

Indeed, promises are promises, even if they are contractual
promises.  

So there would be a system of red flags providing to each group
within ICANN constituencies stakeholder group, S.O., advisory
committee, the ability to say this application, perhaps they still
have an open problem, they should wait until we solve these type of
problems.  No formal objection, just that, a red flag.

So --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Amadeu?

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Yes?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Your time is up.

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Thanks.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Can I just respond?

We are interested in those kinds of proposals, but just as you
explained that categories lead immediately to gaming, so they also
lead to boundary disputes.  If somebody sees one category is going
forward faster, they will work hard to prove that they are in that
category and so on.

And as Bruce reminded us, often attempts to have fast track, who
would have thought that the easy sTLDs would have thrown up something
like triple X?

So shortcuts often just lead straight to black holes.

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   This is why I said that objective criteria
in addressing the current open issues is as critical as defining the
category, if not more.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Elliot.

>>ELLIOT NOSS:   Thank you, Peter.  Elliot Noss, Tucows.

The Internet is always -- always gets its greatest benefits from
unintended consequences.  And I wanted to first note today that I
think taking a parallel approach to dealing with the two substantive
difficult thorny issues, the two gating issues there, rights
protection and root scaling, in parallel with some sort of
application or expression of interest process, as I started to think
through the implications, all sorts of unintended benefits seem to
emerge to me.

There is, as we start to actually push towards something like that,
clearly going to be revealed immediately the huge interdependence
between the actual applications we are going to see in the first
round and the types of specific problems we are going to have to
address.

So I just want to reinforce all of the support, Peter, your positive
comments, around that parallellization of this problem, because I
think that it's going to make, first and foremost, a better solution
for rights protection and for root scaling.

Second, and maybe more importantly, I want to really, really stress
something very important that happened last night.

All credit to Rod, and I think all of you, Peter.  There was more
energy, more positive energy, in the room last night -- for anybody
who wasn't here, boy, you missed a unique ICANN experience.  For the
first time in my 12 or 13 years in the process, I saw a wired
community.

The room was --

[ Applause ]

>>ELLIOT NOSS:   The room was full of more positive spirit than I
have ever seen close.  The lions were singing and dancing with the
lambs, and you can figure out who the lions and who the lambs are,
I'm sure.

And afterwards, when the room was closed, people were just wandering
around looking for the next place to go.

So, please, Rod, Peter, kudos for creating that.  Now grab it,
channel it, and off you go.

[ Applause ]

>>ROD BECKSTROM:   Thank you, Elliot.

[ Applause ]

>>ROD BECKSTROM:   And thank you to all of you for making that
happen.  And you know, that was one we took out of the Wikipedia
playbook.  Jimmy Wales invited me to an open band Wikipedia party in
San Francisco a couple of years ago, and I saw the community jump up
on stage and play the music and sign.  It was just so incredibly fun,
I thought wouldn't it be great to bring some of that spirit and fun
to ICANN.  So it was great to see the talent across the room,
Margarita and all the other parties.  Really wonderful.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Ron.

>>RON ANDRUFF:   Ron Andruff, and thank you all for the positive
energy.  It has been a really interesting week and I think we covered
a lot of ground.

I, too, support the proposal by Jothan Frakes that we try to
parallel the activities with putting forward some new TLDs.

I wanted to bring three elements, though, drill down a little bit
into the DAG and look back at it.

The business constituency amongst many others has stated that
translations for community-based applications and others should go
forward.

We noted that in the DAG 1 and DAG 2 but it is continually left out.

Once an applicant has been deemed to meet the technical, financial,
and operational criteria and has been approved to have its string
added into the root, we wonder how ICANN can claim that an additional
$185,000 for each translation of that name could be cost recovery. 
An additional fee of 5- or $10,000 is exorbitant, but relative to 185
per translation or IDN, is considerably more reasonable.

I stress that we are discussing a community-based application and a
name that can be found in any dictionary as opposed to a constructed
name with no definition.

A community-based application is inherently one community which must
have one TLD operator to manage its single community space and that
operator can offer them, its community, an IDN script or any language
that community would like to have.

The second aspect I would like to talk about is comparative
evaluation.  It was 13 of 16 in DAG 2, it's now 14 of 16 in DAG 3.

So we're wondering how that moved back up.  We need to make sure
that with such a subjective aspect that there's allowance for
subjectivity on the side of the applicant as well.

Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Ron.

Mike.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE:   Thank you, Peter.  Mike Palage.

I would like to staff for something they didn't do this week which I
think will actually help move the new gTLD process forward and what
they didn't do is provide artificial deadlines.  For the last two
years we have had deadline after deadline that have been missed.

So what happens here is one of the reasons we see lions dancing with
lambs is ICANN staff has sent a clear message that the community has
to come together and find these common points to move the process
forward.  Until that happens, there will be no new gTLDs.

So, Peter, you and I were sitting there at the IRT session yesterday
commenting on how the session in Sydney looked like a WWF wrestling
match and how yesterday there was a much more collegial dialogue
among the participants.

So I think what ICANN staff did by not setting artificial timelines
was send a clear message to the community to get their act together,
come forward, and work with a solution to move this forward.

With regard to a specific recommendation, ICANN staff may want to
consider implementing to help some of the comments that were made
during Monday's session about people burning money.  One of the
problems with the current process was the four-month deadline.  The
GNSO policy said there needed to be a minimum of four months between
the time the DAG was finalled -- finalized before applications would
be accepted.

As someone who has launched three gTLDs over the last 10 years, four
months is not enough time.  That's why you see people here burning
money.  In order to get up from zero to 60, it can't be done in four
months.  That's why people are burning money.

So if you want to provide predictability to let some people go off
and play golf and let hedge fund operators invest money elsewhere,
perhaps you should open it up.  Instead of four months, make it six. 
Actually, make it a year.  That will give the predictability to allow
other people, when you do finalize it, to come forward, instead of
just the insiders that are here right now.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Mike.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Back to this side.

>>WERNER STAUB:   My name is Werner Staub.  I am saying this in my
personal capacity about the process we are currently engaged in.  We
set objectivity and predictability as one of the major objectives for
our process.  However, along the way we forget that the produce of
objectivity and predictability can have paradoxical reports.  So we
can lose it because we pursue it.  And this is what we do when we go
for a big bang, a big bang of newly introduced TLDs where everybody
is supposed to run at the same time.

It is going to be pushed all over and over because it takes more
time to define it, and as it becomes further away, more people
actually realize they have to act.  More people think that maybe
there is going to be a need to defensively enter into the root of the
DNS.

And we get the situation where people start to take things that used
to be option jam possibly good idea as a necessity and they panic
into the race into the root.

So it ends up being a bigger race the more time we wait.  And the
predictability and objectivity that we have pursued is getting lost
precisely because we wanted to have it.

All those who have start with one project start advocating for other
projects and sometimes we become economically dependent on being
consultants for new TLD applications elsewhere.  The more we go, the
more applications we have, and we end up with a race where we have,
in the end, petty objectivity which is things like saying that in a
race, in a marathon, a sports event, the children and the adults and
the cars and the motorbikes would all run at the same time.  The
children would be will be trampled, but in the end, when you get
there, just as we have in the case of community applications, they
will get priority, if they are not trampled on the way.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Do you have a solution for
that problem you have just described?

>>WERNER STAUB:   Yes.  The solution is to make the rounds smaller
and more rounds.

One of them is to say, if you have -- if you give priority anyway,
let us take that as one.  We know there are problems with some
objectivity elements.  Anyway, we have to make choices with respect
to objectivity, but community applications, for instance, are one way
of defining them.  Even the GAC basically was for that proposal.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Appreciate that.

Bret.

>>BRET FAUSETT:   Thank you, my name is Bret Fausett.  I am speaking
from the perspective of a TLD applicant.

I am mindful what the chair said about the fact that we need to
address these five overarching issues, but we need to do it properly.
What does it mean to do it properly?

I'd like to suggest that that means having a process that is formal,
structured, and time bounded.

I'm not asking ICANN to do anything that is not done every day in
the world as people build skyscrapers, buildings, bridges, roll out
software.  At the do these incredible things with good project
management.

So what can the board do here in Seoul to make sure that we have
good project management around finishing these five overarching
issues?  I would like suggest that tomorrow the board pass a
resolution asking staff to prepare a project management plan that
would address starting and finishing these five overarching issues.

It matters less how long that's going to take than that we have a
starting date, a good plan in place to address these, and to finish
them.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Bret.  Back to this side.

>>KATRIN OHLMER:   Hello, my name is Katrin Ohlmer.  I am CEO of
Dotzon.  We are converging German companies and organizations to get
their own TLD.

Our clients are prepared to apply, and we urge you to make no
further delays to keep confidence and trust in ICANN.

Thank you very much.


>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

You, sir.

>>IMRAN AHMED SHAH:   My name is Imran Ahmed Shah.  I am from
Pakistan.  I have some suggestions for ICANN to review through the
related work groups and public comments.

I believe that ICANN will remain known for (inaudible) organization
and will facilitate globalization and localization capabilities to
all users who are enjoying with the Internet layer on the map of the
world.  And new layers are going to be launched to provide more
opportunities to acquire property at the Internet world.

My proposal for ICANN is, please, new TLDs should be a general name
script.  For example, instead of dot Nokia, it should be dot camera.

New TLDs may please be maintained by ICANN itself instead of giving
it to the new candidates of registry.  Existing registries set up
will remain continue.

ICANN should maintain an I.T. infrastructure to host clustered root
servers to any new gTLDs in addition to existing root servers.

Existing registrars will be enabled by the ICANN to start the domain
registrations with new TLDs.

Multistakeholders and governments may be allowed to maintain their
own clustered root servers to protect their concerns.

I appreciate that ICANN has invested significant amount of the time
and cost in development of current model, but I understand that ICANN
has already absorbed the cost.

The current model appears to be passing these costs incurred over
past few years to the commercial market.  That will simply pass it on
to end users.

Consumers and end users will benefit from the consistent level of
services, fair pricing model, and unbiased approach across the globe,
from most reliable organization that they can depend on.

It will reduce the conflict of intellectual property rights, of
multistakeholders, and geographical distributed communities who make
demand for the same name script.

It will improve the policies implementation process and control of
DNSSEC, data integrity and stability.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   You are out of time, but if you could
bring this to a close, that would be helpful.

>>IMRAN AHMED SHAH:   It would improve the implementation of ICANN
policy to provide equal opportunity and transparency.  It will reduce
the chances for coming into the situation to resolve the conflicts
through the bidding competition.  And finally, it will increase the
number of domain registrations calculated by the yearly basis.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Some of those are very
fundamental changes, too, to the ICANN mission.  And just to make a
comment on one of them, the idea that ICANN would itself take up a
monopoly position in relation to running registries would be in
conflict with a major principle that we have to bring competition to
that space.  But thank you for some very deep thoughts.

This side.

>>MINOR CHILDERS:   My name is Minor Childers.  I am a founder of
one of the dot eco projects.

My partners include Al Gore, Sierra Club, Surf Rider Foundation.

I think after this week, it's very apparent that ICANN has made some
serious progress in the overarching concerns.

I commend ICANN on this work.

I also, on the behalf of my partners, I urge you to bring some
clarity to the time line.  And I'd like to express our support for
Jothan Frakes' solution.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

You, sir.

>>HUIMING YU:   Thank you.  My name is Huiming Yu.  I'm from CONAC,
China Organization on Name Administration Standard.  This is my first
time at ICANN, and I'm pretty impressed.  And I love ICANN.  I'd like
to let you be aware of the strong design from Chinese Internet users
for IDN gTLDs.  We have some Chinese IDN gTLDs under test for a long
time.  Our system works well in terms of stability and security.

In my opinion, the opening date for application of IDN gTLDs should
be made clear as soon as possible.  I hope ICANN can -- and, yes,
ICANN and you can go forward step by step.  For example, maybe we
could separate the application of non-ASCII IDN ccTLDs from that of
the ASCII IDN gTLDs, at least for those that are technically ready.

We hope ICANN can be aware of that and lets the mature industry,
stable IDN gTLDs move forward.  We need our fast track process for
that, too.

Thank you very much.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Back to this side, as I
recognize one of our singers from last night.  Congratulations on
your performance, sir.

>>JOE ALAGNA:   Thank you.  Good morning.  My name is Joe Alagna.  I
work for Central Registry Solutions, although these are my personal
views.  And they are views also that I think need to be stated here. 
I don't always hear them being discussed.

I'd like to speak to one aspect of the new TLDs, the one dealing
with the ability for corporations to gain their own top-level domains
through a standard application.

As we speak, the dot com brand is the largest brand in the world. 
And it's bigger than any name brand in the world, and it's been
branded, at least in the U.S., by the $3 trillion spent by
advertisers over the last 11 years promoting their URLs, and at the
end of each of those -- I'm sorry, promoting, doing their advertising
and promoting their URLs at the end of or at the bottom of each of
those advertisements, whether in broadcast, print, or online media.

And I think it's safe to say that at least a portion of that spend
has gone to brand dot com.

Certainly any prudent, large advertiser lists their business dot
com, and they have the dot com ending, as a part of those ads.  So if
only 1% of that $3 trillion benefited the dot com brand, then that
means that more than $272 billion, or $2.7 billion per year, was and
is being spent branding dot com.

So, in essence, instead of allowing any delays in this process, in
the new TLD process, I think we should all be encouraging brand
managers, who spend millions each year building their brands, to get
their own TLD, dot my company, dot your company, dot et cetera, so
they can stop branding dot com and using significant portions of
their own ad spend empowering the cybersquatters and the
typosquatters that are the nemesis of their brands. 

So I apologize to those who differ.  But, in my opinion, the cost of
protection brand by acquiring new TLDs will be insignificant as
compared to the billions of dollars they spend right now, the largest
brands, enabling those typo and cybersquatters and typosquatters.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.  As we have commented
before, we are in an interesting position of hearing often from the
same corporation, the legal department is complaining about the cost
of squatting.  The marketing department is pushing us as hard as they
can to get the new TLDs in place.  So, yes, there are those sides.

Back, Mr. Foody.

>>PAUL FOODY:   Paul Foody.

So I first spoke in Mexico, where I pointed out that the Internet
has a value of around $100 trillion.  I was laughed at at the time. 
But on researching Wikipedia, it turns out that the NASDAQ lost $5
trillion in the dot com crash alone.  After speaking in Mexico, ICANN
released four overarching concerns that it said would be addressed
before the release of any new gTLDs.

You've got all four of them, plus an additional one there, so I'll
speak about them in order.

The rights protection mechanism, the IRT, is such a flawed process,
that even its chairman, Jeff Neuman, yesterday criticized the board
for its establishment.

I --  The idea that you are going to completely change trademark law
without consulting the entire globe is, to my mind, unthinkable.

The concerns about the expansion of malicious use is a tremendous
advance.

However, to concentrate only on the sites themselves, without
concentrating on the means by which people will access those sites
through the -- their Internet service providers, is a bit like
installing the best alarm in your house and then giving
responsibility for its monitoring to the Hells Angels.

The concern about fundamental demand, the economics study that you
did, you contracted a senior American economics expert to comment on
the effects of an action before the extent of that action was even
known.  As a result, that economic study was so totally flawed that
you haven't even mentioned it at this gathering.  

The root scaling has identified that we can have between 100 and
unknown -- unlimited numbers.  And as a result, we are looking at the
situation that the dot will completely remove the dot com completely.
And, as such, it is -- it is imperative that ICANN contact every
single domain name registrant who have been funding ICANN all these
years and let them know what your proposals are so that, in the words
of Dave Giza, ICANN can be shown to be responsible to the domain name
registrants.

I'm over time.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Mr. Foody.  This gentleman,
your turn.

>>JOHANNES LENZ-HAWLICZEK:   Thank you, my name is Johannes Lenz-
Hawliczek.

The microphone is off.  Okay.  My name is Johannes Lenz-Hawliczek. 
And I am the CEO of dot hotel, which is going to apply for a TLD for
the global hotel industry.  We do this with broad support from hotel
associations and chains who have a fundamental demand for this new TLD.

We want to state for the record that we support what Jothan Frakes
suggested this morning, and we would like to be able to tell the
global hotel industry that they can have confidence in ICANN as an
institution.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.

And dot hotel sounds like another very exciting idea coming forward.
Thank you.

Now dot music.  And thank you also for your performance last night. 
Very impressive.

>>CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS:   Thank you.  My name is Constantine Roussos.
I'm from dot music and music dot us.  From cypress and the United
States of America.

I have read some reports over the last few months where some
Congress people said there's no command for new gTLDs or some
economic study had to be done.  I'd like to throw out some numbers.

We've got nearly one million signatures from the music community and
Web users.  I think that's a significant amount.  We have 12 Twitter
accounts, around a quarter of a million followers.  We've got over
35,000 friends on MySpace, and so forth.

So if anyone has a question on whether there is a demand or not for
new gTLDs, all we ask for is an e-mail, and I can e-mail the whole
list.  And we'll see what the response would be.

Also, I had a question whether I could send an e-mail to all my
constituents on the e-mail list and tell them, hey, e-mail ICANN and
tell them, hey, we want dot music.  The problem with that is it's
going to flood the whole system.  And I don't know if that's a good
idea.  So that's my question that I had, whether I should do that, if
we're talking about democratic and getting the public to speak. 
Because there's a lot of -- I saw some great musicians and I saw
Beckstrom dot music.  That would be great.

And some other from the board that -- pretty good musicians.

And I would say music unites us.  It's a universal language.  And a
lot of people are very excited to get dot music out.  And I hope we
move along and we do it.  And I'd like to thank everyone.  Thanks.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks very much.

I understand the CEO is actually putting in an application for dot
harmonica, but I'm not sure.

Back to this side.  Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:   My name is Marilyn Cade.  I'm a small business
owner, and I would like to focus on what I thought this session was
supposed to be about, which is a discussion about the four
overarching issues.  So I have two things to say.  It's a request,
really.

As I go back and look at the language that has been used to describe
the four overarching issues, I see that in a number of places, we
somehow keep changing the headline that we refer to.  And I'd ask you
to be careful about that and to understand, words matter.

So, in fact, it's not concerns about fundamental demand as an
overarching issue.  It's TLD demand and economic analysis.  And I say
that because many of the comments that were received called for a
broader economic analysis that could broadly inform the policy
decisions that ICANN makes.

I think that's a very important distinction.  It's replicated in
comments from the GAC.  It's embedded in the AoC.

So I just point that out as an example.

My comments now turn to a concern about what I call the tsunami of
operational collision.  We've talked about this before when I've been
to the microphone.  It has to do with the simultaneous introduction
of a variety of complex actions.  The root scaling study is looking
at part of that.  And we're beginning now to talk about the
recognition.  We changed so many things.  We have to think this
through carefully.

The closing paragraph --  Let me make a quick point.

In the root scaling study, we identify that it may be changes will
actually affect the use of Anycast, and that for areas of the world
that have very narrow-band connections, we may see an implication for
access.

We have to think those things through.  And I'm not sure -- I just
want an assurance from the board that we're going to continue to do
further work in those areas.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Marilyn.  I can confirm there's
certainly a lot more work going on in relation to the root scaling
study.

Back to that side.

>>PAUL FARKAS:   Hello.  My name is Paul Farkas.  I'm speaking on
behalf of music dot U.S. as well as connecting NYC dot org and
individually.

I think many of the comments made largely prior to Marilyn are well
within the scope of why we're here today.  And I think -- I applaud
the efforts of step-by-step as well as Jothan's statement and look
forward to helping bring forth solutions to timely make the new TLDs
push forward.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Your turn.

>>CASPAR VON VELTHEIM:   Thank you very much.  My name is Caspar von
Veltheim.  I'm from Bavaria in Germany, working for a company called
Bayern Connect.  We already have the support of many Bavarian
business, social, and cultural organizations for this important
initiative, accumulating to almost a million members in Bavaria right
now.

Even the honorable prince of Bavaria is fighting for this
initiative, and is an active member of our company.

Due to the rich cultural background, global awareness, as well as
the high affinity to the Internet, the variants want to see their own
space within the global Internet.

We therefore ask ICANN to give us the opportunity to finally do
that.  And I'm in full support of Jothan Frakes for this.

Thank you very much.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Another exciting possible
addition.  Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Hi.  I'm Bertrand de la Chapelle.

Just one quick comment on what Bruce was addressing earlier.  It's
absolutely true that the sTLD round was a fast track.  But there are
many, many lessons to draw from that round beyond the case of dot
triple X that was one among others.  And I hope this is not going to
be the only reference in the minds of people when people talk about
the experience of 2004.

On the other hand -- and we, by the way, have two fast tracks now. 
The other one on IDN ccTLD seems to be considered by everybody as
something good.  So let's not put the blame on the notion of fast
track, which is an expression that, by the way, I don't intend to
apply in that case.

The second thing is, you are absolutely right in the fact that
involving the community means upstream and downstream.

And because the time is limited, I just wanted to share one thing.

When people talk about categories or try to explore categories --
and I want to say that very clearly to the board and to the
community, one, it doesn't mean prioritizing in time one category
versus the other.

This is not the purpose.  This is not the tool.  It is just to see
whether there are different cases that deserve different treatment.

And if you look at each of the overarching issues, my sense during
the different meetings was that we're confronted with a problem that
if we want to impose a constraint for security reason or for
cybersquatting reason.  If we impose it on a single basis for
everybody, it harms the small guys.  And if you don't impose them,
then the bad, big guys, potential gamers, are going to get away with
murder.

And so the only reason why differentiation of situations is worth
exploring is because this is a problem that can only be solved by
differentiating.

I just conclude in saying, I'm very happy to see that there seems to
be a community initiative that is emerging.  I've not been aware of
the content so far.  But I'm sure that -- and I get the -- the note
from Jothan -- that GAC members will want to participate are
apparently highly welcome.  So it's very good news.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Bertrand.

[ Applause ]

Go ahead, please.  Just a reminder that just because you've only got
two minutes doesn't mean you have to pack four minutes into the two. 
The scribes need to hear what you're saying.  Just bear in mind the
hard-working scribes at the front, and the interpreters.  Thank you,
Jean-Jacques, and the interpreters in the booths who are translating
into and out of many languages.  So thank you for that.  So your turn.

>>ZHEN CAI:   Hello.  I come from China.  My name is Zhen Cai.

I am sorry, I will speak in Chinese.

(Speaking in Chinese).

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Sorry.  Could I -- that's fantastic to
have new Chinese.  Congratulations.  I think this is only the second
or third contribution we've had in Chinese.  But could you give me a
second to --

>>ZHEN CAI:   There are 300 million netizens in China, most of which
will only be able to use Chinese language.

In China, to access the Internet, people can access the Chinese
operating systems, Chinese Web surfers, to gain access to Chinese Web
sites.  But the only obstacle is the English domain system.  Most of
the netizens in China cannot remember the frequent Web sites such as
dot gov, dot info.  This somehow affected our popularizing of these
Web sites, though there are many long domain names, it's hard to
remember.  So I think how to, you know, go back to the very purpose
of defining this domain name system, in 2008, the number of tests, I
didn't really it was going to be so slow.  I was wondering, what is
ICANN's -- in order to best-practice Internet development and the
countries' progress in these regards, I would humbly suggest that to
include IDN gTLD to include some of those already and to use one
country's native language to apply to the top-level domain.  So I
think it's not going to be too much.  Only some 30 to 50 in number. 
So I think such a scale wouldn't affect the stability.

Yesterday afternoon, I attended the root scaling study session.  Our
experts proposed that the root scaling, if by a margin -- if
increased by a margin of 300 to 500, it's not going to be an issue.

In China, we have a saying which is called, in our own way, don't
worry about others.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

 >>DONGBUM LEE:   Hello.  My name is Dongbum Lee.  It's my second
appearance of ICANN.  First was yesterday.  

I'm the CEO of a small business here in Seoul.  While our site is in
Hangul, our address on the Internet is not.  We look forward to the
day when our customers do not need to switch to English to find us on
the Internet.  We also want potential customers to find us using
other languages and scripts such as Chinese and Japanese.  Don't
forget Dot Com when discussing international domain names.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.  We, too, look
forward to the day when your customers can find you in your own
language.  

Sir, on this side, your turn.

>>HIRO KATSU OHIGASHI:  My name is Hiro Katsu Ohigashi.   I'm GMO
Internal from Japan.  Since I traveled many miles around countries in
Asia all the time, I kept hearing from people in many countries about
interest in new gTLD program.  I'd like to inform you that there are
a lot of people in Asia who is interested in this opportunity. And
they are looking at this opportunity to introduce culture and
business and build their identities in the entire world through
Internet.  This will help people in Asia.  You will save millions of
hungry people in Asia.  You will help educate young people in Asia. 
And it will help people in Asia to build their identity on the
Internet.  And we all will appreciate to see that happen.  With this
new gTLD program, Internet will mean great things for everyone in
this world.  People will appreciate it.  And I appreciate your effort
on this.  And I'd like to express my support on Jothan Frakes's
statement.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Maruyama?

 >>NAOMASA MARUYAMA:   This is Maruyama Naomasa.  I talk about the
root server scaling study.  On Monday Thomas Narten gave two
important numbers.  That is 100 and 1,000.  I understand what he
meant is that adding 100 TLDs per year may cause no problem.  But
1,000 TLDs per year may cause some problem for the current root
server situation.  Unfortunately, he also said that these two numbers
are just his feeling.  They have no objective rationale.  

As you all are aware of, these kind of numbers have important
meaning to the current new gTLD process, because we might have more --
we might have to add one additional criteria to limit the number of
TLDs approved in the next round.  Having said this, I have -- I have
to point out that the current root server scaling study is
insufficient because it does not have any quantitative analysis in
order for us to make any decision in this direction.  I sincerely
hope that the root server advisory committee will come up with some
quantitative analysis useful for the current new gTLD process.  

This is a rather polite way, I believe, to express my thinking.  And
I already explain this idea in the -- I already explained this idea
in the ISP constituency on this Tuesday, which was fully supported by
the constituency.  

Now, next might be a little bit harsher, which my personal thinking,
not yet ratified by anyone.  

Yesterday we had a session for the root server scaling study.  And
there was two presentations.  And the first one was disappointing for
me.  I asked the speaker about impact of DNSSEC deployment in the
root.  But the answer was far less sufficient.  I apologize here that
I got angry and was upset in front of the microphone during this
discussion.  But, anyway, I understand the answer was quite
understandable.

So I really hope that the next time the root server advisory
committee will come up with more useful, truly useful information. 
Please remember that the committee is also taking part in ICANN, and
we all have to work together for the process.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you. Sir?

>>THOMAS RICKERT:   My name is Thomas Rickert.  I'm director of self-
regulation with Eco, not to be mixed up with the dot eco initiative.  

Eco is the association of the German Internet industry representing
more than 400 companies that are responsible for a turnover,
annually, of more than 75 billion Euros.  We have carried out a road
show in four cities in Germany earlier this year to inform interested
parties about the new gTLD program.  And the interest was huge. 
There were far more attendees than we expected to come.  And one of
the questions that was mostly asked was when will the project start,
when will the application window be opened?  Because of the huge
success of this road show and the huge demand, we planned two more
events later this year.  There will be one on the 19th of November on
gTLDs and one in December on dot brand.  

And my prediction is that, again, the community will ask us the
question when is it going to start?  Can we work towards predictable
deadlines?  And I urge ICANN to help us answer this question.  Thank
you very much.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Back to that side.

 >>WEI ZHENG:   Okay.  My name is Wei Zheng.  I'm from China.  I
work for CONAC.  I want to comment about WHOIS.  The thick model is
recommended to be implemented in the registry.  I am, of course,
aware of the importance of the accuracy of the accuracy of the WHOIS
response.  It might be helpful to locate the bad guys who perpetrated
the system damage through the Internet using porno, et cetera.  In
this sense, the accuracy of WHOIS is associated with registrants and
abuse.  However, some registrants are reluctant to release his or her
personal information on the website in fear of the disclosure of the
personal privacy.  

Rather than due to the carelessness, I suggest, that ICANN should
balance two points what kind of information should be exposed on the
website and work out more articulated policy.  

Moreover, the importance of the implementation of the new policy
should be complying with the law in response to the protection of the
personal privacy.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>CAMILO REGUEIRO:   Ola.  I'm going to be speaking in Spanish
using the fantastic system of interpreting that we have available
here.  I am a member of dot gov from Spain.  I also belong to this in
Europe.  

The universe is multicultural and pluralistic.  It is important the
recreation of new gTLDs continues to represent this diversity.  There
are initiatives that have been represented here in Seoul step-by-step
and offers of collaboration that provide alternatives to solve the
issues that we have in interaction of new gTLDs.  I want you to
consider these proposals that are being made, because it is important
this process is not delayed so that we don't have any frustration to
the other communities who are waiting to be represented in the
Internet.  We also want to know that you are not playing with us due
to the delays in the process.  Many thanks.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  And on that side.

 >>LARS-JOHAN LIMAN:   Good morning.  My name is Lars Liman.  I work
for Autonomica, one of the 12 organizations that operate a root
nameserver.  I work very hard to make your dreams come true.  You all
have dreams.  I work hard to try to make them come true.  

Extending the DNS system is like continuing to build out an existing
house.  There's a fundament at the bottom.  As a root server
operator, I heard requests for adding more gTLDs, adding DNSSEC,
adding IPv6, adding international domain names, and that's all fine. 
To each of them I'm quite willing to say yes, we can do that in a
controlled fashion.  But, please, one thing at a time.  Because you
have to remember that adding things to the root does not only affect
the servers that I manage and that my colleagues manage for the other
root servers.  It also affects the users.  They request information
from our servers.  We hand out information.  And, when we hand out
new types of information, their systems may not be perfectly tuned to
handle that information.  And we need to let them tune their systems.
So we need to give them some time and do things one step at a time.  

So I'm the one who will have to scale when you scale the root.  As
you can see, I'm pretty much scaled out already.  

[Laughter]

So please let the system grow and evolve.  If we do everything at
once, the stability of the system, not only on the server side, but,
specifically, on the client side is what I worry about.  If it
breaks, your dreams will not come true.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Perhaps I can ask you a question.  I was
at your presentation yesterday.  I got the impression from there -- I
just want to clarify -- that you have made no provisioning increases
to deal with any of these activities because you haven't been asked?

 >>LARS-JOHAN LIMAN:   That is true.  That boils down to a lack of --
we've been asked one by one, "Can you do IDNs?"  

Yes, we can do that.  

Can we do secure DNS?  Yes, we can do that.  Now you come and say,
"Can you do it all at once?"  That's when the engineers say that's
probably not the wisest way to do it.  We want to make one step at a
time, or at least do it very gradually so we see that the Internet
users follow what we do and that the system continues to work as a
whole system, not just the servers, but also the clients.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>IRATXE ESNAOLA ARRIBILLAGA:   Good morning.  My name is Iratxe
Esnaola Arribillaga.  And I represent the Basque language and
cultural community, which is going to apply for dot EUS, a TLD for
promoting the Basque language and culture on the Internet.  We're a
nonproblematic TLD, a not-for-profit project, a worldwide distributed
organization, and a volunteer-based movement.  So we are interested
in much more than money in this process.  Our TLD, as other cultural
language TLDs has created a social expectation.  So, as all companies
need a real and effective timeline to design their own plannings, we,
as a social not-for-profit project and nonproblematic TLD, need that
timeline not only to design our planning but not to lose our own
credibility.  Thank you for listening.

[Applause]

 >>ROD BECKSTROM:   Thank you very much for sharing that.  I know
many people are very enthusiastic about the excellent reception of
dot cat in the Catalan region and the cultural additions and rich
content additions that existed from that.  So we can certainly
understand the aspirations that you have for the Basque people. 
Thank you very much.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Milton, your turn.

 >>MILTON MUELLER:   Hello, board members.  Thank you for your
stamina.  I want to make not a very simple point but a very focused
point about the sudden appearance in DAG3 of a requirement to use
DNSSEC.  

I'm not aware of anybody asking to have that done in a community. 
And I think it raises a number of issues.  

Number one, it raises geopolitical issues that you may not be aware
of.  But, for Russian and Chinese gTLD applicants, the use of the
American cryptography standard and the possibility of a root signed
and administered by the U.S. government is unacceptable.  And so you
may be, indeed, eliminating the competition in IDN gTLDs from those
countries and possibly other countries.  

The other issue is why you need to do this.  Many small TLDs may not
need to immediately do DNSSEC.  It could increase the fragility of
it, if it's not properly done at the registry level.  As we learned
with the dot SE, it could make recovery more complicated.  

And then there's a scaling issue.  As the gentleman pointed out in
the discussion of the root scaling study yesterday, that you assume
that all these TLDs at once need to be converted to DNSSEC, it
becomes a bigger scaling jump.  If they're allowed to gradually
convert, it becomes less of a scaling.  I would urge to you maybe
pull that out of DAG3.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Milton, I'm just checking to see if Steve
Crocker or other people involved might have a response.  Did you want
to say something, Steve or Thomas, about the addition of DNSSEC to
DAG3 and also the situation that that may now raise problems in some
particular countries?

 >>STEVE CROCKER:   Let me -- this is Steve Crocker.  Just me just
speak to the last part:  I'm reluctant to speak on behalf of the
Russians.  They can speak for themselves.  

But, in the discussions that I've been involved in, it appears that
there's really no special impediment.  If the Russians, or indeed any
other country, wants to use their own algorithms to sign the contents
of their own zones, that's perfectly acceptable.  The protocol
accepts that.  

The main issue will be getting the protocols identified in the IETF
arena.  And there's a process within the IETF for addressing that.

If they're uncomfortable with the algorithms being used to protect
the root, there's not a whole lot that can be done to change that. 
However, they don't have to use that protection.  They can put their
own protection in, put in their own trust anchors for whatever zones
they like, including their own, of course, in their end systems.  So
I don't think that's an impediment.  There's a -- there's enough
flexibility.  There's some question of whether all of this is
advisable.  But judgments on these matters differ.  And I think
that's part of the architecture of the Internet is to permit these
independent kinds of judgments.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Back to --

>>JOE DOLCE:  Good morning.  I am Joe Dolce with the dot gay
alliance out of New York City.

Quickly, just to say that the idea of being able to have a global
community that up until now has only been able to be organized
locally for many, many different reasons is, I think, an idea whose
time really has come.  And to that end, I would like everybody to
strongly consider and inspect Jothan Frakes' proposal that he has put
forward today.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Mr. Foody again.

>>PAUL FOODY:   Paul Foody.  I shall continue.  Root scaling.

So the conclusion of the discussion that I had with Thomas yesterday
was that at the moment, we can safely add 100 new TLD per year.  I
think that was right.  But in the future, we will be enabled -- we
will be able to have an unlimited number of TLDs, but it's going to
cost money.  How much money we don't know because nobody has done
that study yet.

At the same time we have at the public comment here vertical
integration.  Now, the consequences of vertical integration upon
which we are expected to come to some sort of consensus by the 23rd
of November, is that individual corporations will get their dot
company.

Once you allow one company to have their dot company, you open the
floodgates to the lawyers to sue ICANN, or whoever it is, to make
sure that every company gets that opportunity.  Because it is
inherently unfair for a limited number of companies in the global
world to have the ability to have an advantageous position that is
not available to everyone.

As a consequence of that, dot com which currently costs about 10 to
$20 to get a domain name is going to be replaced by something which
will cost millions for the same exposure that dot com currently gives
us.

Now, I wasn't here to see Jothan Frakes' proposal about, I
understand, dot hotel, but if he honestly believes that he can
introduce dot hotel and it will not -- it will not involve any sort
of confusion with the word hotel that we see all over Korea, that we
see all over the world, then, I'm sorry, he is seeing something that
I don't see.

Two minutes are up.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Sir, your turn.

>>YOAV KEREN:   Yes, my name is Yoav Keren.  I am the CEO of domain
dot net from Israel.  We are an ICANN accredited registrar.  And some
of you that are here might remember that I spoke in the public forum
in L.A.  Not the one two years ago.  The one in 2000.  Exam calling,
like others from other countries, for new IDN gTLDs to be pushed by
ICANN.

It has been nine years, and the technology is there.  Even two or
three years previous to that.

We have been requesting this community to move forward, and it is
not happening.

Just like us, there are others in other communities, as you heard my
friends from CONAC in China, here in Korea, and in Israel, we have
locally implemented TLDs in our local language, which are operative
and almost with 100 percent resolution.

This is time to make this global.  And we are requesting the ICANN
to move for a fast track for IDN gTLDs.

We understand that there are issues of scaling and step by step, but
we have been hearing that for almost ten years.  And I think with the
experiments that all of us were running for a long time, we can see
that this is stable, and we can move forward.

And I would just want to say that I'm not speaking only on behalf of
myself.  There are others from our group.  You may have seen also our
request to become an IDN gTLD constituency that unfortunately
couldn't be here today.  And also support this view.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.  Of course the issue
of new gTLDs goes back much before 2000.  That was the reason for the
formation, or part of the reason for the formation of the IAHC three
years even before that.  And it's part of the mission that goes into
the green paper and the white paper.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to close for a coffee break and
to let the board have a biology break at 10:00.  So I'm going to take
another five speakers and then we will resume after coffee.

So it will be one, two, three, four, five.

So the last two on each row, you won't get a turn until after
coffee.  You will get a turn.

If you could just make a note of your priority position, when we
come back you can assume that position.

Antony, it's back to you.

>>ANTONY VAN COUVERING:   Thank you, Peter.  Antony Van Couvering,
Minds and Machines.  I understand coffee is very, very important so I
will be brief.

Bertrand De La Chapelle came up to me and said GAC members, at least
some of them, would be interested in talking about our proposal,
Jothan's proposal.  So I would ask if the ICANN staff might find us a
room and a time, and if you want to stop by the Minds and Machines
booth we will convey that information and perhaps we can meet before
everyone disappears.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   No problem with that at all.  I will leave
that to Rod to allocate, but that should be no difficulty.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:   Nick and team, please get on it.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Your turn.

>>YUANYUAN GUAN:   Good morning, ICANN board and participants.  This
is Leslie coming from China.  I wanted to give some recommendations
about proposed rights protection mechanisms.  Since these days, I
have paid much attention to special trademark issues.  

First of all, I would like to take the case of China to tell about
the conflict of domain name and trademark.

The relationship between domain names and trademarks are very close.
Many companies have registered domain names and trademarks of the
company products by using the same words, such as IBM, Yahoo!, and
others.

Tradition practice in China for related dispute of domain names and
trademarks cases, a common feature of the conflict is the defendant
company would maliciously or intentionally register the plaintiff
company's trademark as its own company's domain name of profit,
selling, leaving, or otherwise transferring the domain name to
deliberately confuse the way to induce Internet users for online
purchase of goods or services.  And increasing the click-through rate
to expand their influence.

Currently in China, such cases judged by -- are yearly judged by
anti-unfair competitive law and trademark law.  

As it is known to us, trademarks are protected regionally, and
different jurisdictions have different trademark laws.

Consequently, I have one suggestion about trademark clearinghouse.  

As it is proposed by ICANN staff, that a single centralized
worldwide trademark clearinghouse for IDN TLDs, and there will be two
committees, validation committee and administration committee.

Whereas most of IDN countries have their own languages and trademark
laws, and both have their own characteristics, which foreign people
are unfamiliar with.  However, the criteria of judgment should be
accurate and acceptable.  Therefore, the validation committee should
include regional trademark law experts and the regional language
specialists.

Certainly, I want to make a point about uniform rapid suspension, URS.

The principles of URS should be in line with the principles of
fairness and justice and should balance trademark and domain name
holders' legitimate interests.

On the one hand, standing in their position to protect the interests
of trademark rights, we should clearly state that malicious
cybersquatting behavior be regarded as an offense and meanwhile limit
the bad faith of the accredited standard.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Excuse me.  You are out of time so can you
bring this to a reasonable close?  You may be able to come back and
finish later on, but we need to move on.

>>YUANYUAN GUAN:   Okay.  I just give my main point.

URS application procedures should be taken into account of simply
unintended cybersquatting should not be considered illegal.  Only the
malicious cybersquatting is illegal.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Thank you for that.  You could also
put a written comment into the box.  So why don't you stop at that
point, and we will go to this side.  See if you can come back later,
but also have a talk with Kieren McCarthy about putting your comments
in as a written statement.  We are quite happy to receive them in
writing as well.

So your turn.

>>BRIDGE SONG:   Good morning.  I am Bridge Song from HiChina.  We
are one of the major registrars in China which oversee millions of
domain names.  In 1996, HiChina started to offer domain registration
services firstly in China, but for me it's my second time to attend
an official meeting of ICANN.  And here, we are the only one
registrar of China, so I think I should say something.

I have two points.  Sorry.  The first one, the one of interested
parties to participate in Chinese gTLD application.  We are
disappointed at that.  ICANN did not understand the need of Chinese --
needs of end users.  Chinese character is very different from
English.  A single Chinese character is most generic word we can use
in gTLD.  You know that many single character has Unicode meaning in
China.

For example, we are interested in dot shop, like single character. 
In China, the pronunciation is "dee-yen" (phonetic) in Chinese. 
There are so many subcategories of dot shop, like furniture shop, pet
shop, clothing shop, et cetera. 

If ICANN forbid a single generic IDN gTLD like "dee-yen" (phonetic),
then they would be forced to apply hundreds of these variants.  We
don't think this is advisable.

And the second one, we are also confused about ICANN's position on
traditional and simplified Chinese.  To Chinese people, we consider
that the same and often used like upper and lowercase in English. 
Under the current rule, our customer build just (inaudible) two
(inaudible) or even more variants of domain names which will be
considered the same.  They will spend lots of money.  And also, it's
very difficult for us to explain to our customer why he have to pay
so many times.

So we hope ICANN can make better rules for handling traditional and
simplified Chinese.  It's very different -- It's very important about
Chinese market.

That's all.

Thank you very much.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much for that.

And obviously the number of characters has been a concern.  We have
got working groups on that.

But I just turn to Ram Mohan who is our Security and Stability
Advisory Committee liaison and has been working in this area very
carefully.

Ram.

>>RAM MOHAN:   Bridge, thank you four the comment.  As the community
knows, there is a working group that has been formed to study both
the variants issue as well as the restriction on three-character
domain names.  And a report is due shortly.  We apologize that it
hasn't come out already.

On the single-character names, there are some findings, but the
fundamental issue is if you make the -- If you come to a conclusion
that a single-character IDN TLD causes no harm and that's okay, then
the corollary applies for single-character non-IDN ASCII TLDs as
well.  And there are several policy and economic considerations that
have to be taken in place.

So while this is more than just a technical issue, and the
implementation working group actually has some recommendations on it,
on the greater than single -- or two-character TLD label, there are
clear findings that will come out.  And I think the community ought
to be quite -- I hope that the community will be pleased with the
outcomes that the working group has come to.

>>BRIDGE SONG:   Thank you, Ram.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Ram.

Steve.

>>STEVE DELBIANCO:   Steve DelBianco.  Several speakers in this
segment have tried to suggest that the new TLD process is stifling
and stalling innovation, and I think one got a laugh by saying that
our guitar hero didn't have to read a 200 page Draft Applicant
Guidebook to post a video.

But sort of ironic, I right away ran to YouTube.com and I checked
what he should have read.  And there are over 10,000 words on the
YouTube site for their privacy policy, terms of service, copyright
notices and community guidelines.  10,000 words at a minimum.

And the point I'm going to make is that with respect to the new
TLDs, the policies up here on overarching issues, integrity,
security, availability, they all matter.  The contracts have
consequences.  Get it right, do it in writing and don't be afraid of
it being a long document.  It doesn't really matter how many pages it
is.  Just try to get it right and get it in writing.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Steve.

And last one before coffee break.  Maruyama-San.  Welcome back.

>>NAOMASA MARUYAMA:   Again, Maruyama for another topic.  This time
I want to speak about the preamble of the Draft Application
Guidebook, the preamble that had appeared in the Version 3.  And,
actually, I propose to include preamble.  And I'm very happy to see
this preamble in the Version 3.

My idea to include preamble is that to give some kind of self-
explanatory status to this Applicant Guidebook.

So it actually includes the history of this process that is the
final recommendation from the GNSO sent to the board.  And this is
the implementation work of that policy work.

But, still, I think one point is missing in this preamble.  That is
the final stage in the process of application.  That is the approval
by the board.  That is very important point.

And my suggestion is to introduce that the applications were finally
approved by the board if they met all the criteria in the Draft
Applicant Guidebook.

That is point one.

And another, second position from me is that the -- give the
explanation about the meaning of the board approval.  That is the
point, too.

And I think this is very important, because what the meaning of the
board approval is, my thinking is that that is not the beauty
contest.  Just because beauty contest, and the real meaning is that
the board will give the final approval for each application that they
all met the criteria.  Not only the criteria in the guidebook, but
also they meet the policy work.

That is my advice.

And I explain this idea in my constituency, ISP constituency, and
fully approved by the constituency.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Maruyama-San.

Just as a final word, I have asked Steve Crocker to respond to the
second part of Milton Mueller's question, which was the introduction
of DNSSEC into the guidebook at this stage.

Steve.

>>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're in a transitional time where some of the top-level domains are
signed.  More are being signed every day.  And we have a quite clear
picture that this is the appropriate technology to use.

We can't instantly get all of the existing zones signed overnight. 
That's a long-term process.  It will take a little while.

However, with respect to new TLDs, we can set the pace and say this
is the right thing to do and this is the way to go do it.

We had some discussion about whether there would be value in having
a delayed implementation, say create the TLD and then come back and
implement DNSSEC afterwards.

It's quite clear from anybody who has experience about this kind of
development that that increases the cost and is not a better path for
anybody, for the operators or for developers, and certainly not for
the users.

So the basic picture that is being communicated here is that DNSSEC
is the right technology.  DNSSEC is the right thing to use.

For those that are in a fresh-start position -- that is, new TLDs --
this is the right technology to pick up.  And for those who are
currently in operation, we haven't tried to set a specific deadline
for doing that.  The market is taking care of that, more or less.  We
have announcements from large and small TLD operators in both the G
and the CC space.  And I have to say that over the course of the past
year, that pace is picking up rather dramatically, and I don't know
if we will ever have to face an issue of what happens to a few who
don't implement it, but that's far off and not of concern.

But the issue in front of us is, in opening up the door for new
TLDs, to set a common baseline, a security standard that is
appropriate, and just move forward with it.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Steve.

Right.  Coffee break.  Let's resume at 10:25.  See you all back at
10:25, and those people who were in the queue have the right to come
back and resume the position they were in.

Thank you very much.  See you then.

(Coffee break).

>> Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be starting this meeting in
approximately one minute.  If you would be kind enough to take your
seats, the meeting will be beginning in one minute.

Thank you.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you would be kind enough to
take your seats, we'll be starting the second portion of our public
forum momentarily.

Thank you.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats so we can
begin the second portion of our public forum.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Excuse me, just before we start, the
people at the microphone, Philip, Ron, we're going to have a
presentation first.  So you've got five or ten minutes before you
come back.  So, please, take your seats.  Just take your seats, and
you can come back.

I'm sorry.  Could you sit down.  There is something else first.



>> Ladies and gentlemen, we have an exciting portion of the public
forum to give to you this morning.  I'd like to introduce engineer
Philip Okundi, chairman of the board of the communications commission
of Kenya.

[ Applause ]

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   The chairman of the board of ICANN, Peter
Thrush; president of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom; our host, the Korean
Internet and Security Agency; distinguished delegates; ladies and
gentlemen:  I am happy to be able to address you here today, because
it is a great opportunity for us as Kenyans to extend a hand of
welcome to the world's Internet community.

At the outset, and on behalf of the Kenyan delegation, who are
sitting here -- we are led by our acting ambassador, I would say
lady, Lady Tabu Irina.  Maybe the Kenyan delegation can stand so that
you see.

[ Applause ]

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   We can see that we have a masai.  And that's
a real masai.  Thank you very much.

We've really come to say how sincerely we are happy, and as
government of the Republic of Korea has welcomed us, and in
particular, the host, KISA, that they gave us a real welcome, and we
felt very happy, all of us.  And to us, the coming of the Internet,
the ICANN conference, to Kenya marks a really, I would say, a new
beginning.

Because in March next year, we in Kenya will be ready to receive you
all and provide the environment to discuss the issues concerning
Internet usage in the world.  We consider this opportunity a very
great honor, indeed, to us in Kenya.

And, indeed, as Africans, this is a very big opportunity.  We've had
ICANN conference in  Africa twice in very early ages.  But in east
Africa, this is going to be the first time.  And for us, all of us
are very happy with it.

Kenya is associated with sand and sun, in our coastal beaches, the
standing scenic game parks and reserves, wildlife, beautiful
mountains, golf courses, diverse fauna and flora, and the unmatched
avian birds, and much more that offers a variety of activities
suitable for any visitor.

We're saying that although we come for a very hard, technical work
of ICANN, you can take opportunity to look at other issues of nature
which really make the work of Internet worldwide.  Apart from the
renowned destinations in Kenya, there is a lot more to discover in
the undulating hills, the inexhaustible soapstone, the fascinating
rock structures in western Kenya, and, lately, the ancestral homeland
of the President of the United States, that is a home called Kogelo. 
You can see it in Kenya, you can see where the blood of the current
president of the most powerful country in the world comes from.

Certainly, that will be fulfilling quite a large amount of variety
of beauties that we have in Kenya.  And, of course, we are a very
hospitable -- we are a very happy in receiving visitors.  We are very
rich in our hospitality, and you will see it when you come to Kenya.

Knowing that the ICANN community, knowing that they are a hard-
working one, as we have seen this time, I was mainly in the GAC
meetings, and we were meeting most of the times, and very hard work,
indeed.

But we also know that this community, they also party hard, the
parties, they go in a very, hard way, like we did in the Korean
night, the night they gave us.

So in the midst of the busy schedules, be sure to take in the
country as you see the beautiful splendor that makes Kenya an
unrivaled tourist destination and home to some of the most famous
athletes in the world.  Other people have gold through natural
resources.  But we have gold in Kenya through human resource.  So we
have a lot of gold which you can see.  If you want us to display
them, during that time, you will see them.

We are working closely with the ICANN secretariat to ensure that the
selected venue, the Kenyata International Conference Center, Saul set
for you.  Kenyata International Conference Center is a historic
venue, having played host to many successful international conferences.

As it is commonly known as the KICC, it is the heart of Nairobi, the
capital city of Kenya, and within a walking distance of several five-
star hotels, making it a perfect venue for the conferences and
meetings and exhibitions that will take place during this
internationally important conference of the ICANN.

Having been an active participant in several ICANN meetings, we are
well aware of the requirements of the meeting, in the area of
logistical and technical points of view.  We also wish to assure you
of our attention to the needs of meeting through our organizing
committee, who are fully at your disposal before we actually have the
meeting next year.

Detailed information will be provided on Web sites facilitated by
the ICANN.

So you will see a number of arrangements which we will be posting on
the Web site.

We are also happy to let you know that the Kenyan ICT sector,
information/communications technology sector, is on a growth path. 
We're really high up on the trajectory.  It is vibrant, with
enthusiasm drawn from both the private and public sector.  And here,
as we are a big delegation, we are embracing both government,
private, and the partnerships are really, really very nice to check on.

Our multistakeholder approach has not only broadened business
opportunities, but also created a huge potential in the sector, the
information sector.  It is on the multistakeholder platform that the
communications commission of Kenya, which I chair, has just won a
very, very nice award.  It is called the African infrastructure
regulator of the year award.  We just won this award on the basis
that we included measures to adopt public/private partnership, the
PPP, in our regulations.

And we also committed our self to building capacity within the
government and also business community in order to promote and
implement approved infrastructure investment climate in our country.

So this week, as the regulators are promoting very, very strongly,
indeed.

So in Kenya, we don't see ourselves as there is government, there is
private sector, there is the ordinary man in the civil society.  No. 
We would like to talk all of us together in order to push the
business forward.

Kenya, of course, through this feeling, or this practice, is now
connected through the fiber optical cable with, at least at the
moment, more than 2.4.5 terabits, two cables have already landed on
our coast in Mombasa, and connected through the network, which is
national.  It's called national optical fiber cable, connecting the
whole country.  And, of course, we're encouraging the whole thing in
the East African region.

The broadband capacity is huge.  And now we are able to accommodate
much more traffic.

We are expecting two more cables to connect later on.  And I think
Kenya will be -- have a very high broadband capacity which can host
all kinds of Internet users from wherever they come from.  Either
they can do BPOs, they can do PPPs.  We can do quite a lot using this
high-traffic route.

The good news is that the KICC is also connected to the fiber cable
and will therefore be able to handle the traffic in the ICANN
meetings very well, indeed.  So you should not fear of having a
restricted lines outside the ICANN meetings.

Excitement is also evident already locally in Kenya and regionally,
because we just had an East African IGF meeting about a month ago. 
It was very exciting.  They were very excited to see that ICANN will
come to Nairobi.  And they are going to participate.

Therefore, we are building a big awareness.  And the participation
is therefore expected to be high when you come next year.  So there
will be quite high numbers.

Let me take this opportunity to share with you, through a video,
some of the things that we are trying to talk about.  And then you
can see what is likely to be in store for you, apart from the -- the
hard meetings in the rooms, maybe this video can be shown now.

But maybe before I do that, I would like to call one of my
colleagues, member of the board of the ICC -- of the CCK, Alice
Munyua, who is really our link to ICANN.

She briefs us about ICANN, and she can add to what I am saying.

Alice, please.

>>ALICE MUNYUA:  Thank you very much.  I'm not going to take too
much of your time.

But just to add on and to say that Kenya has actually tried very
hard to take a leadership position in both technical and governance
processes related to ICTs.  We have successfully convened a regional
Internet Governance Forum called the East African IGF, both in 2008
and this year.  We also are a founding member of the Commonwealth
Internet Governance Forum.  Further, our ccTLD, is one of the best
established and one of the best models that's lauded in the global
Internet community.

Kenya is also one of the African countries that has an Anycast true
server in place, and also an existing Internet exchange point, and we
also are currently coordinating original Internet exchange point,
which is called the East African Internet exchange point.

We are also a member or the leader in the implementation of a
regional computer emergency response team.

We are very committed to building capacity and enabling meaningful
contribution and participation of most of African countries in ICANN,
and, indeed, in the Internet Governance Forum process.  And we've
actually committed to hosting, if extended, the 2011 Internet
Governance Forum.  And we really look forward to enhanced cooperation
with ICANN in active participation in the implementation of the AoC.

Thank you very much.  And you're all welcome to Kenya.

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   Thanks a lot, Alice.

[ Applause ]

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   Thank you, Alice.  I wish to just ask your
indulgence to see the video.  It is just about four minutes.  And
then I can have just closing remarks, if you don't mind.

Video, please.

(Video) 



[ Applause ]

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   Thank you very much.

The government and the private sector alike are all committed to the
successful hosting of the 37th ICANN international meeting in Nairobi
next year.

We look forward to seeing you, and many more, in exactly two months,
I think -- I think four months, and something like ten days.

Once again, we say (Speaking in Kenyan) and like they say in Korea,
(Speaking Korean).

[ Laughter ]

>>ENG. PHILIP OKUNDI:   Thank you very much.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> And for you that are interested, the Web site, ICANN Web site, is
open with information on Kenya and hotels to book.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much to the Kenyan
delegation.  It looks like being a fantastic venue and an exciting
place to go.

Let's get back to the work that we were doing just before the break.

Could I ask those people who had a place in the queue to take it. 
And we'll go back to overarching issues in relation to new gTLDs.

Please.  When you're ready, go ahead.

>>MANUEL GONZALEZ:  My name is Manuel Gonzalez, from the association
punto dot gal.  I represent the cultural, linguistic domain from
Galicia, from Wales.  Nobody would understand that when the secondary
effects are not understood of a new treatment for the lung cancer,
for this reason, if it were to be denied the treatment that would be
appropriate for other diseases, such as a simple cold, that would
make no sense.

In a sense, this is what we are looking to be following with ICANN
regarding new domains.

There are new domains that present complex issues, very serious
problems.  And we are grateful to ICANN for looking after the safety
and stability of the system.  But it is also true that there are many
other domains which do not present any type of problem in an
objective way, or that they are a very small measure.

This is the case of the cultural, linguistic domains.

So I would request of ICANN not to deny the treatment, simple
treatment, to these domains which do not present any problems, such
as the cultural, linguistic domain dot gal.  Dot gal is going to
operate in a way that is similar to dot cat and I believe that up to
this point, it has not presented any major issue.  And for that
reason, I would ask you, on behalf of the community I represent, that
ICANN make an effort to open a period as short as possible to call
for the pursuing of these domains which do not present any problems.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.

To the other side.

>>NORMAND FORTIER:   Hello, my name is Normand Fortier.  I represent
dot Quebec.  Dot Quebec project has been started in 2007 and has the
full support of the government.  We've passed a government law with
all the political parties unanimously, dot Quebec project has been
supported.

We also have been writing a document called a "Step by Step" -- I
just want to know or ask the question if everybody has read the
document  on the board.  This document, "Step by Step," that has been
presented in Sydney.

So I have 20 copies here.  Maybe you should read it.

[ Applause ]

>>NORMAND FORTIER:   And give us your opinion on this document.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks.  Mr. Corwin.

>>PHILIP CORWIN:  Just wait for my -- good morning.  Philip Corwin
representing the Internet Commerce Association, our members are
domain investors and developers.

I want to begin by thanking the board for hearing our voice and the
voice of others in Sydney that the URS and other aspects of proposed
trademark protections were policy decisions and for sending that back
to the GNSO.  And we are now engaged constructively in that process,
hoping to reach a constructive solution that gives rights-holders a
fast and effective way to target egregious conduct while preserving
the due process rights of registrants.

I'd like to -- and that's very necessary to preserve investor
confidence, which is going to be critical to making many of these new
TLDs successful. 

I'd like to suggest two things.  The first, I think, will facilitate
a successful conclusion on the URS, which is to put in place a
process very much in line with Chairman Thrush's fondness for
measurable data on which to make decisions, to give an annual review
of the URS, let's see how many complaints are filed, the average
number of domains per complaint, the effect on UDRP filings, how many
protests are filed by complainants or registrars that things aren't
working right so that we know that whatever is agreed upon now can be
adjusted down the road based on how things actually work out.

I think knowing there's some flexibility in the joints will help a
lot in reaching a conclusion here.

But we need real data if we're going to have that adjustment process
down the road.

The second thing, we think it's a mistake not to have a contractual
relationship with the URS provider.

Accreditations about capacity, but contracts are about performance,
about having clear standards for judging performance, and for having
measures of enforcement short of the death sentence of
deaccreditation to discipline the provider if they're not adhering to
what they're supposed to do.

We found with the RAA that ICANN needed intermediate steps.  We
think the same thing should be available against URS providers.

Thank you very much.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Very thoughtful comments.

Mr. Foody again.

>>PAUL FOODY:   (Speaking non-English language).

I'm very happy to be here.

Hello, I'm delighted to be here in Korea.

The Internet, dot com, has been around for ten years.  ICANN --
well, sorry, more than ten years.  ICANN has been around for ten years.

[ Applause ]

>>PAUL FOODY:   Thank you.  You guys were entrusted with something
that already worked.

In England, we've got something called -- well, my background is
commercial property.  In England, we have certain buildings that are
so important, they are listed.  Okay?  So what that means is, if a
building is listed, you can buy it, but you have got to maintain that
building, because it is regarded as a public asset.  Okay?

Now, unfortunately, what happens is, listed buildings tend to be
sold at a value less than they would cost if they were a development
site, because, obviously, it costs a lot of money to maintain these
things.

But unscrupulous developers will buy listed buildings and, although
possibly not actively, they will allow those buildings to become so --
to fall in such a state of disrepair that they will be condemned, at
which point development permits will be eschewed, and they get to
reap the profits.  Now, you guys have been entrusted with the
Internet.  More specifically, with dot com, which is the de facto
domain.

For the last ten years, anybody wanting a presence on the Internet
has looked up dot com first.  And if they can get the dot com, they
register it.  If they've got the dot com, why bother with the
trademark?

I'm looking at something which is from WIPO.  And this is
"Understanding copyrights and related rights, intellectual property. 
The term 'intellectual property' refers broadly to the creations of
the human mind.  Intellectual property rights protect the interests
of creators by giving them property rights over their creations."

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Mr. Foody.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Ron.

>>RON ANDRUFF:   Ron Andruff.

During the course of this week, we've been talking with the IP, ISP,
ALAC, and BC communities about what appears or could be said to be
more of a laissez faire approach to rolling out new TLDs in the name
of competition.

Along with the GAC, we wish to see a more orderly rollout of new
TLDs that is in keeping with the request of the implementation of the
GNSO final report on the introduction of new gTLDs.

The current approach is contrary to that document, which called for
market differentiation, among other key elements.

The Internet is nothing like the automobile market or other consumer
goods markets, where there may be many multiples of the same thing. 
It's a unique, shared resource for global use, and must be managed
according to its special nature.

And as such, we were recommending that we might ask a couple of
questions.

The first question we might ask an applicant is, who is your
registrant or user or group or organization?  To get a sense of what
that might be.

And the second question is, how does your TLD differentiate itself
from what else is already in the DNS?

Answers to these two questions will allow ICANN to prioritize these
TLDs that value expand the name space and strengthen diversity while
avoiding duplicate registrations and user confusion.

What we're recommending is starting with this idea and adjusting and
perhaps removing, if necessary, after we've had a chance to test
this.  Without such safeguards in place for differentiation,
applicants will be forced to spend precious resources, financial and
otherwise, defending themselves against strings that overlap or
undercut their strings.

In five to ten years, with what may be hundreds of new gTLDs in the
root, this could be a nightmare for ICANN and virtually every then-
legacy TLD in the root.

Rod stated that the public interest is our first priority.  So let's
be worthy of that trust that the Internet users put to us.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Steve.

 >>STEVE METALITZ:   Thank you. I'm Steve Metalitz.  I'm here
representing the coalition for online accountability.  I'm a member
of the intellectual property constituency, not speaking on behalf of
the constituency.  

I just wanted to make two brief points.  One is to say that we
welcome the initiative that Jothan talked about.  And we're eager to
find out if there is a viable way of getting the application process
started without opening a formal application window.  And I think
that could be a useful approach. So we're eager to find out more
about that and to participate in those discussions.

My second point really is about the list that you have up there. 
Until, I think, this morning we've been talking about four
overarching issues.  Now we have five.  I'm concerned about how the
third one is formulated.  And there have been a number of formations
about this.  But it seems to me that the question that we need to be
asking is how should ICANN roll out new gTLDs in a way that will
maximize the chances for real competition and for increased consumer
choice?  I think that's really the key question.  I think an economic
study has something to say about that, although there may be other
factors as well.  And I don't think that that question has been
squarely asked and squarely answered in this process.  So I would
encourage, as we work on overarching issue number three, that we try
to keep that dimension in mind.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Steve.  Yes, to you.

>>DANLEI JIN:   Thank you, president, good morning.  Board members,
good morning, everybody.   I'm Danlei Jin from  from CONAC China
organizational name, administration center.

the past few days I learned a lot about what ICANN had done and will
do I understand ICANN undergo great pressure from new gTLD.  But we
really would like to urge ICANN to take action more than talk.  It is
reasonable for ICANN to take consideration of cyber safety and
security before launching.  But, if we sit and worry about potential
risk, how can we start a real problem?  How can we judge the root
zone in a fair way without any practice whatever?  Give the world a
chance to find it out.  Furthermore, under the new AoC, ICANN
promised to give more accountability to the community.  Therefore, no
matter how much ICANN will revise the DAG, we really wish ICANN to
listen to the need of end users, especially those IDN users that have
been fighting for more than 10 years for their own rights, and create
a fair competition environment for all participants during the
process.  As we heard from Russia suggested to adopt IDN gTLD fast
track to push forward the issue.  We do not expect ICANN to act like
the shepherd boy crying for wolf in Aesop's fables.  Wolf is coming. 
Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that alert.  Becky?

 >>BECKY BURR:   My name is Becky Burr.  I'm a lawyer in Washington,
D.C., and represent a number of registries.  I want to talk about a
specific aspect of the new draft applicant guideline, the contract,
specifically.  But I think that my point has implications that are
much broader than just this particular issue.  That contract contains
a provision that permits ICANN to modify virtually any provision of
the agreement at any time.  That is a breathtaking request.  And I,
certainly, wouldn't recommend that my clients sign a contract that
they can't depend on.  There is a fundamental bargain that registries
have made with ICANN, which is to say ICANN may change the contract,
it may change registries' obligations,  if there is anything that
raises an issue about the security and stability of the DNS and the
Internet in relation to that.  That's -- that -- that deal is in the
contract.  And ICANN has the ability to change the contract to
respond to issues that arise that are squarely within its mission. 
To increase the scope of the ability to unilaterally change the
contract is -- is a breathtaking departure from the fundamental deal.
And I think it has huge implications for the organization more broadly.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Becky.  That's something that we're
very aware of and will be discussing this afternoon, in fact, in our
workshop.  I agree. The current definition is very broad.  Y.J.?

 >>Y.J. PARK:   I understand I'll speak in Korean, since this is
held in Seoul.

Good morning.  Pioneers and leaders from the Asian Internet
community have come together to form Multilingual Internet Names
Consortium, or MINC, pushing for Internationalized Domain Names.  I
am Y.J. Park, former CEO of MINC secretariat.   

We are waiting an historic moment of board approval of IDN ccTLD
fast track process.  Seoul holds great significance in the field of
IDN in many aspects.  

MINC, which I believe made substantial contribution in realizing
IDN.  MINC, Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, was first
established here in Seoul in 2000.  Nine years later in 2009
supporters and applicants of IDN came to Seoul to witness this
historic moment.  I spoke at the 2000 Yokohama meeting public forum
in the capacity of MINC's CEO to urge ICANN to consider introduction
of IDN ccTLD.  I am all the more excited and filled with a thousand
emotions because we are only one day away from the important
milestone.  

I sincerely hope the board of directors will approve final
implementation plan for IDN ccTLD fast track process.  

In closing, I'd like to thank all the pioneers who worked together
to push for IDN, particularly, Professor Tan Tin Yee from Singapore; 
Dr. Chung Yin Nam, Dr. Kim Fung Ham from Korea, and Hiro Hotta --
Professor Hiro Hotta from Japan; and CDNC Professor Hualin Qian from
China, and other contributors from other language groups as well. 
Thank you very much.

[Applause]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I'm going to close this topic at the line
just before Mr. Foody. You've had three turns at this particular
topic.  And we'll end the discussion on overarching issues and move
to the next one.  Kieren, you have one from online we'll come back
to.  Izumi, you can start the next topic.  And then we'll finish with
Kristina.

 >>KIEREN MC CARTHY:   I have two from the online chatroom, which we
have 65 people in at the moment.  My computer just died, so I'm
trying to recall what it was I read.  I may have to come back to you
quickly.  While up here, I'd also point out that the Nairobi website
is up at nbo.icann.org.  Just worth mentioning.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.  We'll come back to
your questions when you're fully restored, as it were.  Izumi.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:   Izumi Aizu.  I'm a member of the at-large community
from Asia Pacific, and I'm representing nobody but myself.  I'd just
first like to commend what Y.J. told.  And my topic is related.  

One is that we are working on the IDN ccTLD introduction to Japan
called dot Nippon.

And we are starting the multistakeholder framework approach.  Or a
council, Japan Internet domain name council was established about a
month ago to have selection of the new dot registry.  And the same
council is asked by the government to help the cities or geographic
names to be smoothly introduced.  And, in that light, I'd like to ask
the board and ICANN community to consider to implement some kind of
either fast track or separate or different track for the geographic
names.  As we all know, there's a non-objection clause or condition
that it requires the government to say yes or they don't object.  So,
likewise, if a city or geographic names is proposed and, with the
approval of the government, either national or local or both, and if
there's no contest from any other territorial authority or
governments, then it could go to the different track because there
won't be any dispute much. And the process fee will not be
necessarily for the dispute portion.  So, like the cultural
linguistic community and TLDs, I'd like to see some kind of separate
track or category for that.  Thank you very much.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Izumi.  The trouble with that, as
I've explained, is that we've had a previous experience of fast
tracks that,  in the end, everyone assures us at the beginning, this
is a very clearly defined group and it's easy.  Let's go ahead with
it. And the reality turns out to be very different.  Then there would
be a fast track for trademark owners and a fast track for surnames
and on it goes.

 >>IZUMI AIZU:   That's why I said either fast track or separate or
different track.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Kristina.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   Good morning, Kristina Rosette, IPC
representative to the GNSO Council, speaking here in my individual
capacity.  

Two questions for the board, the first being:  Do you intend to have
a public comment process on the output of the GNSO Council work on
the questions in the October 12 letter that the board sent to them?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Not at this stage, no.  We don't plan to
have public comment on that.

 >>KRISTINA ROSETTE:   Okay.  I would suggest that you reconsider
that because of two factors.  First, there's currently November 22nd
deadline for commenting on the current staff implementation
proposals.  But the sense, within my community, at least, is that,
given scarce resources, there's not a whole lot of value in
commenting on proposals that are already being tinkered with. 
Moreover, at least during the weekend preliminary discussion section,
it seemed pretty clear that whatever work team draft team, council
input is really not going to have the opportunity to take into
account in its final work any comments that do come in during that
November 22 period.  So I think, frankly, taking a public comment
period after the council finishes, would really make the process not
only more efficient but give a wider range of input.

The second question has to do with categories.  We've been hearing
an awful lot about categories, or at least I have, at this meeting. 
And, not surprisingly, there's one category that's of particular
interest to me.  And that's dot brand.  During the past several
meetings, we've been hearing a lot from ICANN about how dot brand
could probably solve a lot of issues for trademark owners.  You get
your dot brand.  You market it.  You look for marketing.  You push
consumers there.  You wouldn't have cybersquatting, et cetera.  But
this meeting I'm hearing a lot from board members, at least two, that
they don't believe there should be a dot brand.  So I guess the
question I have for the board is which is it?  Do we do it and solve
our problems?  Or do we do it and have the applications rejected
because the board doesn't want to approve them?

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Sir, last chance on this topic.

>>GEORGE BUNDY:  Good morning.  My name is George Bundy.  I
represent dot radio and also represent dot FM.  

I think I'm in a unique position, first off, I'd like to say that I
do endorse some of the recommendations made by Jothan to move this
project forward.  We think innovation and technology changes to the
Internet constantly grow.  And the idea that the top level domains do
so are just incredible.  We have been running the ccTLD for FM for
nearly 12 years.  And some of the innovative factors that we've seen
with our client base and the broadcast realm is just way beyond our
expectations.  Sites like lastdot FM or pingdot FM are used
constantly and.  The technology used with that may not necessarily be
the top-level domain, but it's a perfect extension of the brand.  And
the idea that at the time that that extension has something to do is
incredible.  But, at the same time, your esteemed board here has put
together a number of growth extensions in the top-level domain since
your existence -- dot biz, dot info, and the like.  I'm just amazed
at some of the comments earlier today about the fact that the dot com
will somehow be diminished by the addition of these extensions, when
you very much proved the fact that dot biz and dot info have not
taken away the growth of dot com.  

Our position is our clients don't necessarily look at the
alternative.  Well, I can't get a dot com.  I want something other
than that.  They want to extend and build their brand online.  And
why should they not have the opportunity to do so in an opened forum
where there's open marketing space, not a closed space.  Innovation
and technology requires an open source.  And, as a result, so should
the top level domains.  Thank you.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for that.  I see Kieren winding
up to give us the questions online.  Just before you do that, Kieren,
I think Harald want to comment in response to Kristina's question
about dot brand.

 >>HARALD ALVESTRAND:   So just to clarify, I don't see a board
position on that issue.  Because, frankly, we don't have one.  I, as
an individual, am very worried about the idea of a one-level DNS
system.  I think that's a broken idea.  And the biggest push towards
that that I, as an individual, see is dot brand.  And I, as an
individual, have talked to members in the community about my worry. 
I think that we need to have a policy decision before we tempt people
into submitting applications and paying for them that say either dot
brand is in or it's out.  But it has to be community decision.  It's
not me.  It's not the board.  But the issue needs to be discussed and
considered by this community.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Harald.  Kieren.

 >>KIEREN MC CARTHY:   Yes, sorry about that.  I have a
malfunctioning laptop battery.  I was only up here 10 minutes, and it
died on me.  I apologize for that.  

I have two questions online.  

Francisco Note from Paraguay says, "What lessons has ICANN taken
from the 2001 round in regards to cybersquatting and consumer harm in
open TLDs?"  And I have a question from Louise Timmons, who is a
student and small business  owner.  

"Is ICANN's new policy, outlined in the latest version of the
applicant guidebook, of no price caps on existing TLD renewals not
favoring registrars instead of promoting competition?"

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Avri, I'm about to go into
registry --

 >>AVRI DORIA:   Could I make one comment?

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Please do.  Yeah.

 >>AVRI DORIA:   This is Avri Doria.  I want to make one comment on
what Harald just said.  I believe the community already discussed the
dot brand when the GNSO was discussing all new gTLDs.  And that was a
concept that, certainly, came up, was discussed, and was part of the
recommendation.  So you may be asking for a reconsideration by the
community.  But I think it has already been discussed.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay, thank you.  We're now moving in to
talk about the registry/registrar separation, which is the label
we've caused the issue of what changes might we make to the rules in
relation to the current limitations in some contracts?  Steve.

 >>STEVE DelBIANCO:   Thank you. I listened to the debate that you
chaired the other day on this topic.  And, in my mind, it was
inconclusive.  Both debaters, very smart people.  Passionate and
articulate.  So I'm inconclusive on the particulars of that debate. 
However, I learned a lot about the motivations for registrars wanting
to run registries.  And I learned about the innovative methods that
they will come up with to monetize the premium names.  So what I
really learned tells me that ICANN needs to do a reset on the public
expectations about the benefits of new TLDs.  We really need to. 
We've got to start being more transparent about the way that names
either will or won't be available to the general public when a new
TLD comes out.  We've got to limit the disappointment of the public
when a new TLD launches.  And we should also try to make it less
likely that, when under the AoC, the competition consumer trust and
choice review team -- I want to make it less likely they give us a
failing grade a year after we've launched it.  For years I have
listened to the rhetoric about new TLDs.  The expectations have been
we need new TLDs to give registrants all those really good names that
are unavailable in the current TLDs.  But the reality, not the
rhetoric, but the reality, number one, is that new gTLD applicants
will, of course, maximize profits on their premium names, whether by
selling them at differential prices or by having an affiliate park
the names with advertising.  That name is never going to make its way
to the general public, to a registrar who wants to use it for content
or commerce or fully develop it.  

Reality number two is that we will see really innovative ways to
identify and control premium names, both at launch and then
afterwards, when new words and phrases suddenly become premium.  Who
knew that H1N1 dot whatever could become premium?  Things happen over
time.  It's not all at the launch.  

I close by saying there's actually nothing illegal about any of
that.  And the new registry contacts will allow uncapped and variable
pricing for premium names.  

And you don't have to own a registrar to monetize names.  I've also
been educated about that.  So let's stop kidding ourselves and
kidding the Internet public about how new TLDs will let ordinary
people register the names they want but can't get today.  Thank you.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  At the far microphone.  Your
turn.

>>JEAN-CHRISTOPHE VIGNES:   I'm Jean-Christophe Vignes from Euro
DNS, vice chair of the registrar constituency.

I have a statement to read that was agreed upon during our Tuesday
meeting.

Sorry registrant stakeholder group.

The ICANN registrar stakeholder group has participated in the debate
regarding registry/registrar separation for new TLDs for well over a
year.  This RSG position statement captures the overall sentiment
expressed by the RSG members.  The statement reflects a supermajority
position of the RSG members present at the Seoul meeting.  After
consideration of the public interest benefits, the RSG reports the
following principles regarding registry/registrar separation for new
TLDs.

One, the RSG continues to support the GNSO recommendation that
domain names be registered only through ICANN-accredited registrars. 
This ensures that the public interest is protected by having all
registrations governed by the rights and responsibilities found in
the RAA.

Two, ICANN should maintain the current structural separation
requirements between the registry and registrar functions.  They
should be allowed separately.

Three, ICANN should maintain the current requirements that registry
operators not discriminate among the registrants.

Four, we agree with ICANN's expert economists that vertical
integration of registries and registrars will enhance customer
benefits and provide consumers with lower prices, better service, and
new innovation.

Five, the risks of malicious and abusive content that certain
parties have raised as concerns would not be prevented by restraining
the ability of a registrar to sell names of an affiliated registry
operator.

Six, there is a rich history of registrar selling TLDs of affiliated
registry operators in the gTLD and ccTLD spaces without any
allegation of wrongdoing.

Seven, any requirements intended to protect registrants from
malicious or (inaudible), including data issue, should go to the
conduct at issue and not serve as an excuse to exclude an entire
potential class of competitors.

Eight, ICANN should not prohibit affiliates of ICANN-accredited
registrars to apply to be new gTLD registry operator.

Nine, ICANN should not prohibit affiliates of ICANN-accredited
registrars to provide any type of services to registry operator.

And, finally, ten, ICANN should not strictly prohibit registrars
from selling registrations for TLD of an affiliated registry operator.

As a conclusion, if I may, we believe that ICANN should move forward
positively and firmly to permit the integration of registry operators
and registrars for new TLDs without self-restrictions, as such would
inure the benefits of consumers and the public interest.

Lastly, the opinions expressed by the RSG in this position paper
should not be interpreted to reflect the individual opinion of any
particular RSG member.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.  And just by way --

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you very much.  And just by way of
explanation of allowing extra time, if that's the official view
that's be wrought here at the meeting, I think it's important that
get put into the record.

Is there a supermajority position that's clear that's from the
registries?  And, perhaps, Alexa, you are at the front.  Is there a
registry position?

>>ALEXA RAAD:   Yes, there is.  We have actually submitted a
statement on Section 2.8.  And I want to also make clear that as part
of that statement, we have made a carve-out for small registries,
perhaps a single brand or even -- I use dot cat, but obviously dot
cat is already a registry.  If there is a small language community,
they should not be forced to use multiple registrars.

So we already, since April, in fact, have conceded that.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you for answering my question.

Now your turn to say what you wanted to say.

>>ALEXA RAAD:   Thank you very much.  Alexa Raad.  I am CEO of dot
org, the Public Interest Registry

I think it's important for the board to understand the motivations
of all the actors that are involved in this debate.  So I will speak
for PIR's motivation.  We don't have a dog in this fight.  We don't
have a registry back-end.

Our mission is to serve the public interest by looking out not just
for what is good for dot org but really what is right for the
Internet industry and the health of the system.

When the board looks at the date of registry/registrar vertical
integration, I think a couple of things that have not been asked
ought to be considered.

The economist talked about market power, but I also urge the board
when talking about motivation to look at the business models of some
of the players.

In particular, I draw your attention to a patent called Long Tail. 
If you do a search on the Internet and you look at the comments that
are submitted as part of that patent, you realize it's really domain
tasting, but in a new way.

That is exactly what we just got rid of, we hoped.

Second, I think it's also important for the board, in looking at
this problem, to realize that -- I heard a comment yesterday about
what's wrong with domain tasting?  They go from one TLD to another.

If you believe that argument, you also believe that united.com --
united.shoe will be just as valuable to somebody as united.com, and
we know that's not the case because every TLD has a particular
branding and a particular significance.

So if you cannot find the name that you want in dot Web because it's
been taken and monetized for traffic, are you really going to now go
and do map.sports or map.music or map.blog.  They are not equivalent.

So that is the public interest that I urge the board to consider,
and consider the business models of some of these companies and what
the significance of that will be to the registrant.

Competition is good, innovation is good.  However, when you look at
the innovation, like the Long Tail patent, what is the impact?

Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

Bertrand.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   Bertrand De La Chapelle.  I am the
French representative on the GAC.

I want to say about Monday's session, which was about this
discussion, was a perfect example of the current situation when we're
trying to get a single rule for many cases.  This session, just as
the one on the URS applicability, is an example and a justification
for the thinking of the differentiations of categories, different
tracks.

In this case, there was an element that's not been used yet, which
is the operational scheme for the TLDs, the way, as the registry
operators develop their second-level policies, it's an essential
element when evaluating the various models which are being (inaudible).

And the Draft Applicant Guidebook concentrated on the way we were
going to evaluate the applications requests, but not so much on how
the TLD will operate afterwards.

And so this is a bit like insurance policy.  You might have
different information policies if you have a small car, if you don't
drive a lot, or if you have a truck and you transport a lot of
dangerous goods, it's the same with the TLD.

I took an airport example the other day, and in this case what we
need to think about, probably, is the diversity of the operating
models of these TLDs.  And in particular, I don't think that it is
possible to say that all TLDs should be separated between registry
and registrar.  Neither that all TLDs should be integrated.

In some cases, it should be, of course, in others, not.

So it's important to separate those cases where it is a matter of
course for equity and other cases where it is not necessary.

I just want to say if somebody is using dot FM today, it would be
interesting to know how much use you get out of it for this TLD.

>>RICHARD TINDAL:   Richard Tindal from eNOM.

There has been a lot of discussion about the alleged harms that can
happen to registrants with respect to this vertical separation issue.
And through the analysis that we and others have done, it appears to
us in every case that there is no relationship between these alleged
misbehaviors and the issue of separation.

All of the issues that are being raised could not happen whether or
not the registry was able to own a registrar.  There is no logical
connection between the issue of pricing or tasting or all of the
other issues that are being raised and whether or not the registry
can own a registrar.  There is not a connection between those two.

And secondly, I think it's important to point out that the very
group for whom this set of rules was originally set up, which was
registrars, competitive registrars in the dot com environment, the
very group of people for whom this rule was originally set up to
protect, the beneficiary of that rule has just stood up and said that
they do not endorse this separation in new TLDs because it is not
necessary for them in new TLDs.

And I think that's a very telling observation from that group of
stakeholders.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Richard.

Philip.

>>PHILIP CORWIN:  Yes, Philip Corwin, again, Internet Commerce
Association.

We did comment on the separation issue early on, and our position
was we supported using it only for internal TLDs, not TLDs that would
be marketing names to the general public.

I think we have had an excellent debate here.  We are continuing to
monitor the issue.  We have an open mind.  We haven't decided to
change our position yet.  But a very important related issue, related
to market power of the registry is differential pricing.  And we
believe it should be prohibited.

I'm not talking about at the inception.  When the TLD opens we
understand there will be certain premium names for which a higher
price may be set or there an auction process or whatever.  We are
talking about down the road for renewals.

And let me give you a simple example.  A registry opens, their
initial price for domain is $8 to registrants, register each for five-
year terms.  At the end of the five years, one has not been very
successful in their venture, the other has built a multi-million
dollar business.  We don't think the registry should be able to come
back and say, well, registry one, your price for renewal is $10 a
year.  Registry two, you have built a very successful business, your
price for renewal is $10,000 a year.  Because we believe registries
should be adequately compensated and make a profit as providers of
technical servicers.  But that type of differential pricing allows,
in the big private sector taxing authorities, collecting rents on the
success of others.  And we do not believe that should be permitted
and hope the final guidebook will not permit that.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Just to come back -- a quick
question about the internal/external point.

The worry we have about that is anything like that that requires
constant policing by ICANN after the event.  So how -- do you really
want to set up a situation where the use of the TLD is controlled
only to be used by inside the corporation?  And so then we have to
have trademark or, sorry, domain name police who go around and check
someone hasn't left the corporation and is still using that domain
name.  Is that really what you are suggesting?

>>PHIL CORWIN:   You know, that's an issue we haven't thought about,
so I think we would like to think about and get back to you in detail
on that.

But that appears to me something in line with kind of a post-
delegation enforcement mechanism where things have changed after the
initial commitments.

But we will consider that and try to get back to you in writing on
that.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Amadeu.

>>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL:   Okay.  When we talk about this issue, in
fact we are talking about three completely different -- sorry. 
Partially different things.

One is competition as rivalry among the providers, another is
competition as maximizing the consumer benefits.  The third thing is
things related to consumer protection or other public interest goals.

Regarding the first one, yes, allowing everything to everybody
increases rivalry.  It doesn't mean competition.

Everybody has been saying if, if, if, absence of market power.  As
many people said here today, we were discussing also Monday, there is
relatively low elasticity of demand which is a critical factor for
deciding whether the products or services are in the same market or
different markets.  To a certain extent, not to a complete extent, to
a certain extent registries are part of monopolies rather than
competitors.  I repeat, to a certain extent.  It depends case-by-
case, a pair of TLDs by a pair of TLDs.  But this is for new
customers, as has just been said.  

For existing customers the situation is even much worse.  There is
certainly close to zero elasticity.  I can add a new TLD, slowly
move.  I cannot just cease and not renew the current domain name I
have and move to another one without very serious cost of running a
real operation.

So that's for the rivalry.

The assumption is false that there is no market power.

Second, consumer satisfaction.  Here the problem is that ICANN has
not taken seriously the question of forbidding warehousing through
contract -- for contractual parties.  This is in agreement but has
never been enforced.  We are creating artificial privileged sources,
registries and registrars.  We are am allowing them to use the
privileged access to the source, to get resources before other parties.

We should think carefully about that.  It has nothing to do with the
other one.

The third one I will not elaborate on that.  The only thing I would
say here is, look, separation aside is not a goal but is probably a
structural separation is sticking to the current maximum 15% cross
ownership and control, not just ownership, that indirect control as
well, is the simplest and most efficient administrative way -- a way
so we can administer that instead of putting three ICANN staff
members sitting in interregistry/registrar the whole day.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  We are starting to run out of
time.  We might make a ruling about people who have spoken
previously.  I know I see the same faces coming back.  But let's
carry on Milton because yours is the next face.

>>MILTON MUELLER:   I hope you make that ruling after I speak.

I want to pick up on a comment that Harald made about dot brand
TLDs.  I want to agree with him that this would require a policy
change.  And one of the themes I want to emphasize to you here is
that you can simplify the you new TLD process and possibly speed it
up by eliminating from consideration in this initial round any
applications that do require major policy changes.

Now, I actually disagree with Harald on the value of dot brand.  I
think you have to provide the ability of major corporations to self-
provision DNS from the top to the bottom.  And that this is similar
to the change from private network self-provisioning to the reliance
on the public network that took place in telecommunications.  The
point, however, is that, indeed, is a policy change.  The business
model and the regulatory model is completely different.

And, therefore, I would urge you to make it very clear that people
who are applying for this kind of self-provisioned dot brand would
not be eligible in this first round until we clear up the policy
issues associated with that in the -- in some kind of a policy
development process.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Milton.  

Brian.

>>BRIAN CUTE:  Thank you, Peter.  

I would like to make a comment on Richard's statement before I read
my own statement.  

With regard to his suggestion that there is no relationship between
the commingling of a registry and a registrar in terms of the abuses
that we've spoken to and the abuses that have been seen in the
marketplace, that's an interesting statement but it misses the point.
The point is there is unique registry data that in a combined
registry/registrar setting will provide the registrar access and an
ability and an efficiency and an effectiveness to engage in abusive
practices in new and innovative ways.  And it's that data commingling
issue that I believe is central to the question.

First, I would like to thank, though, ICANN staff, and particularly
the chair, for putting together a very useful session addressing the
issue of vertical integration.  This session was important not only
because it provided the opportunity for an open debate about the
different proposals and their relative impacts on registrants and new
TLDs, but it afforded an opportunity for the community to begin to
understand the facts that must be analyzed in order to choose the
policy approach that will best serve registrants, the domain name
industry and ICANN alike.

Although we have been advocating on this issue for the better part
of a year, it became apparent to me that the session on Monday served
to surface really for the first time some of these important facts.

It's my hope that the board will give careful consideration to the
issues of registry and registrar data commingling, past and
prospective abusive practices and impact on the registrant.

Additionally, I hope the board will pay careful attention to the
distinction between longstanding policy and enforcement mechanisms
that support that policy.

And finally I hope the board will heed the expectation of our new
CEO to pay careful attention to the consumer protection aspects of
these policy choices.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Brian.  I think the question
really is what stops it happening now?  Richard says it can happen
now, and it's got nothing to do with ownership.  So what stops the
commingling of data or the sale of that data by registries right now?

>> Brian cute:  There are certain registry data points that are not
available.  There are certain lookups and loggings that registries
can perform that provide access to data that is not available to
registrars today.

I have put together a breakdown of those data points and I am happy
to provide them to the board.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Thanks.

Mr. Foody, on registry/registrar separation?

>>PAUL FOODY:   Certainly.  With regard to that debate the other
day, we had two guys debating something which will inevitably set a
precedent for opening up the domain market so that people can get
their own brand.  That is not a debate.  When you have two guys who
both have the same ultimate goal, that of creating a system whereby a
new dot whatever it is replaces dot com, that is just a way of
introducing something through the back door, in my opinion.

What we are looking at is a decision that sets a precedent that will
completely wipe out dot com.  Why get a dot com which will be
completely lost in the Internet world --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Mr. Foody, we are not talking about the
introduction of new gTLDs anymore.  We are talking about the issue of
the ownership and control between registries and registrars of each
other.

>>PAUL FOODY:   But my point is that by allowing this, we are
setting a precedent by which companies can get their own dot brand. 
And once we have set that precedent, we cannot then legally resist
other companies whose legal teams are very, very powerful from
demanding the same privilege.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   And the explanation of how that connects
to the registry/registrar issue?

>>PAUL FOODY:   Because once you have got a state where the registry
and the registrar can be the same entity, then that is the point at
which it becomes just a single company, where it's operating as a --
for example, it might be Yahoo! or Google.  And at that point,
everybody is going to want one.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

Liz.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Liz.

>>LIZ WILLIAMS:   Yes, good morning.  My name is Liz Williams.  I
have a fairly simple question to ask, and Brian gave me a very neat
segue into the question.  Having been involved with the processes
about policy development and about registry and registrar contractual
conditions, it seems to me a fairly straightforward question to ask
that if the ownership restrictions that are currently in place with
restrict to registrar accreditation agreements and existing registry
agreements, if those are part of the contractual conditions that
apply to those particular entities, it is a perfect opportunity to
conduct a policy development process to take into account all of the
information that both sides are providing in addition to
understanding the consumer impacts and the end user impacts.

And it's particularly apposite when we have almost completed a very
long GNSO review process, and I'd urge you to -- if the board is
concerned about this issue and it clearly is, that a request be sent
to the GNSO to conduct a PDP process.

Because it's clearly within the scope of the GNSO's policy-making
rules, and its existence to go back and take into account all points
of view and provide to the board cogent, well-thought, well-informed,
fact-based policy recommendations that may or may not alter the
contractual conditions for both registrars and registries.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Liz.

Dot music.

>>CONSTANTINE ROUSSOS:   Hello again.  I just wanted to say that I
listened to a lot of the comments.  And I would say it's a case-by-
case scenario depending on the business plan.

We look at dot music, for example.  Let's say CEO Rod Beckstrom gets
RodBeckstrom.music.  Our premium domains, we won't have auctions and
all that kind of stuff.  Our members will benefit.  In other words,
harmonica.music, for example, will include RodBeckstrom.music.  

The other point that we wanted to make was, our view is, our
registrars should be music-related.  Let's say Guitar Center or
Ticket Master or whoever it is, we give them a little coupon, and we
want to give back money to the music community, not really the Go
Daddys of the world.  That's our approach for dot music.  I don't
know if that's going to work, whether we need to give a coupon.  But
we had a lot of interviews with musicians, and we asked them, we're
building this one-top shop for downloads, licensing, sponsorships,
ticketing, would you like to get your domain on the same location? 
It depends on the price.  You guys are going to dictate what the
price is going to be, demand and supply.  That's all economics.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, it should be a case-by-case
scenario depending on the business plan.  And, hopefully, it should
benefit the Web users and the consumers and the community that uses it.

So I would hope that that is taken into consideration.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:   My name is Marilyn Cade.

I --  First of all, Peter, make a short response to your question of
what prevents it now.  And there are certainly people in this
audience who are far more expert than I am on the issue of the OECD
policy guidelines, which have been codified into law in many
countries and are practiced in others, which has a very strong
statement about not using data for purposes other than that for which
it is collected.  It is a very important principle.  And data which
is collected for the purpose of registration should not be used --
should not be used -- for marketing purposes, et cetera, et cetera.

So, you know, I think there are some safeguards built in there
through other laws and practices which may exist.

Worth talking to others who are actually privacy experts.

My comment now is that I don't see the value.  As a registrant, I
don't see the value in making the change that's being talked about. 
And I was particularly disappointed, although the session was
incredibly informative and very well prepared for, I was disappointed
to hear a characterization that we were talking about two sides.  We
were talking about the eNOM side and the other side.

I think, in fact, this issue is a diamond.  And it has many sides to
it.  And many aspects to it.  And I don't think we've explored the
implications for registrants nor the implications for risk.  And I
would say, if it's going to continue at all, it belongs as a PDP,
sent to the GNSO policy council.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Marilyn.

Keith.

>>KEITH DRAZEK:   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Excuse me.  Keith Drazek
with NeuStar, the registry operator for dot biz and dot US.  I'm just
going to make a brief statement.  But before I do, I'd like to make a
comment about the comments of Richard Tindal.  He suggested that the
introduction of vertical separation in -- you know, for the dot com
structure was for the registrars.

And I think that's wrong.  It was actually for the registrants.  It
was for the consumers.  It was for the introduction of competition
and the lowering of price to the end user.  It was not set in place
for registrars.

And with that, I'll read my comments.

So I believe the nearly decade-long policy of registry/registrar
functional separation has been one of ICANN's great organizational
successes to date.

The breakup of the legacy monopoly structure with a requirement for
a separation between registry and registrar functions has enabled
healthy and vibrant competition among registrars to the ultimate
benefit of the consumer in the form of expanded choice and lower
registration fees.

During the last decade, this successful market structure has
prohibited registries from acting as a registrar in their own TLD,
which has guaranteed equal access to all registrars and registrants,
without fear of preferential treatment or insider trading of registry
data.

In the current version of the DAG, there's proposed language that
would reverse this longstanding fundamental policy.  Acceptance of
this language would amount to a major sea change in the structure of
the domain name marketplace.

It's not about cross-ownership -- excuse me -- it's not about cross-
ownership or whether existing registrars should be able to compete
for new TLD business, either as a frontend or backend provider.  To
be very clear, registrars should be permitted to become registry
operators.  But the long-standing, successful policy of structural
separation should remain in place.

A reversal of this policy would negatively impact consumers and undo
the very real successes overseen by ICANN over the last decade.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Keith, just a quick question before you go.

>>KEITH DRAZEK:   Yes, of course.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   If the policies against that apply in the
legacy situation, what is the difference if there's literally
hundreds and hundreds of TLDs for consumers to choose from?  What's
wrong with, effectively, the manufacturer, if you like, if you can
characterize each TLD as a product, what's wrong with that
manufacturer adopting mechanisms to increase the value of some of
their products?  It's different if you have effectively a monopoly
situation.  Once there's hundreds of TLDs to choose from, don't --
doesn't the prohibition, if you like, on the tasting kind of
argument, doesn't that kind of change?

>>KEITH DRAZEK:   Thank you for the question.

I think that in a typical marketplace, if we're talking, again, you
know, in the session that we had the other day of Apple having its
own stores and being able to sell its own products, a Mac book air is
interchangeable with any other Mac book air.  In effect, they're
identical except for the serial number.  They perform the same
function.  And the price points are the same.

But in the domain name business, each domain is unique.  Each
individual domain name is unique.  And I understand that there may be
hundreds of potential new TLDs.  But those TLDs may not be
interchangeable with one another.  I think that each TLD may have its
own specific purpose and meaning.  And, therefore, it -- I think it's
a very legitimate question.  But I think it's a question that has not
yet adequately been addressed.  And I think that if this policy, this
significant, long-standing policy, is going to be changed by ICANN,
that it needs to -- that there are significant concerns that need to
be addressed that have not yet been addressed.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Okay.  Thanks.  Thank you.

Back to this side.

>>MICHELE NEYLON:   Michele Neylon from black note.  I've been
following this registry/registrar debacle as it's been unrolled.  And
in many respects, I see it as being more of a distraction than
anything else.  It's time that the board either move to move forward
with the new gTLDs or at least gave people a firm time line.

The -- ultimately, registrars and registries operate as businesses. 
It's -- and ultimately, it is the registrants who benefit or suffer.

And if the -- it's -- too much time is spent going in and out and
backwards and forwards about these fine little details about whether
there should be separations of ownership, separations of this,
separations of that, it's more of a distraction than anything else.

The system as we have it at the moment, in theory, says that all
registrars have access to all registries.  But the reality is that
they don't.

The larger registrars will always have more power than the smaller
registrars.  But that's a market.  It's a free market.  And it's a
healthy market.  And it should be allowed to develop under free-
market forces.

Thanks.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.

Bertrand.  And then Chris.  And then we'll move to the next topic.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE:   I'm Bertrand de la Chapelle.

Just a few points.

If I understand, historically, the registry/registrar separation was
introduced for a range of TLDs that had a completely open second-
level registration policy.  Dot com and others.

I understand from everything I hear that the new TLDs will have very
different second-level registration policies.  Some will be
completely open; some will be relatively closed; some will want to
manage their premium names themselves; some of them will build their
business model around the management of this second-level domain. 
And it's good.  Some TLDs will be small; some will be big; some will
be for-profit; and some will be not-for-profit.

The question is, can we envisage that the answer to the question of
registry/registrar separation is answered in connection to the type
of second-level policy -- registration policy that the TLD will have?

For instance, that the more open the second-level registration
policy, the more there is a need to have this separation, and maybe
the bigger the TLD has grown, the more you have the separation.  If,
on the other hand, it is a very small TLD or something that is very
oriented to the community or that is not registering the second-level
domain, maybe it's less required.

And, finally, I just would like to ask Harald, I'm not sure that I
understood, and sorry for the misunderstanding -- what you exactly
meant by one -- one-level DNS and the relationship to dot grand.

Would, for instance, a dot IBM that fully uses the second-level
domain be something you would qualify as a one-level DNS?  Or is it
just HTTP dot IBM, period?  It's a very clear question for
clarification.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Harald.  Quick answer.

>>HARALD ALVESTRAND:   Quickly, the place I see us going is with
everything significant that's named as one level.  And people might
have second-level things under that.  But a root of a million names
is not something I -- it's something I have several reasons not to
dislike.

But the chief driver -- the chief indicator of such a thing will be
the one-component names, that is, HTTP colon, slash slash, my key,
slash.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you.  Chris.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:   Thank you, Peter.  This actually has nothing to
do with registry/registrar separation, but given I'm the last person
and you're moving on to another topic, I'd be grateful if you'd
indulge me because what I say has everything to do with ICANN and
what we stand for.  There are two ICANN people who are here today for
whom this is their last meeting.  And I wanted to say a few words
about them, especially as one of them is actually getting on an
airplane today.

I speak of Paul Levins and Kieren McCarthy.

Paul has committed over three years to ICANN.  And he's gone where
ICANN has needed him and worked tirelessly for ICANN and its goals
and its activities.

The achievement of the Affirmation of Commitments, whilst being
without a doubt a team effort, is to a great extent the result of
work that Paul did whilst in D.C.

The extraordinary development of almost every aspect of public
participation in ICANN, and innovative improvements in communication
over the last few years, have been as a result of both Paul and
Kieren working as a team.

Kieren particularly never stops thinking outside of the box, trying
new things, and experimenting.

There are many areas in which Kieren and Paul have contributed to
improving ICANN.  And they have both done it with unwavering
commitment, incredible energy, and a legendary sense of humor.

Please join me in acknowledging them.  We'll miss you guys.

[ Applause ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   If -- is Paul in the room?

Paul, I think just a quick response.  I think the last time you were
on this stage, you were singing with a bevy of belles dancing with
you.  I'm sure that's not the last impression you want us to have of
you.  Although, it's obviously a very powerful and a pleasant one.

Ladies and gentlemen, Paul Levins.

>>PAUL LEVINS:   Thank you, Peter.  And -- thank you.

Chris, thank you.  That was a very moving and completely surprising
turn of events.  So thank you.

I wouldn't have minded if last night was my last memory.  I thought
I was rather good.  But --

[ Laughter ]

[ Applause ]

>>PAUL LEVINS:   Still, for those of you who did witness last
night's debacle, you'd have -- maybe remembered through a drunken
haze that the team behind me was -- the performance was called "Paul
Levins and the commitments."

[ Laughter ]

>>PAUL LEVINS:   Sorry, the affirmations.  The affirmations.

And that was very deliberate.  Because the titling of that piece of
work, which, as Chris rightly pointed out, was an enormous team effort.

It was intended not just as a fly-by-night title to get the job
done, but, really, a reflection of all of the efforts that you, as a
community, have committed yourselves to over the course of 11 years.

So I wanted to not take up any more time, because I can see that --
actually, the clock's not on me, which is extraordinary.  I could
keep going.

But I just did want to say thank you very, very much to all of the
friends that I've made over the course of the over three and a half
years here.  I do hope we can remain in touch.  And I really
appreciate the engagement, the connection with the issues, and, as I
said, the very real friendships and commitment that I've been
privileged to witness.  So thank you.  Thanks so much.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Paul.

[ Applause ]

Kieren, would you like to follow "Mustang Sally" Levins with a
farewell comment?

>>KIEREN McCARTHY:   I was kind of hoping you wouldn't ask me.

No.  I mean, I still think -- I always view things in terms of what
needs to be improved.  So I still think there's a huge number of
things that need to be improved.  But they're getting there.  I just
hope that whoever fills my post keeps working at it.  The public
comment process needs to be improved.

I think that this software is pretty good for the conferences.  But
we still haven't got people that aren't physically in the room really
interacting.

I don't like this public forum approach, but I've tried and failed
to change that.  And I'm sure I'll be coming to ICANN meetings in ten
years' time and we'll have the same setup.

But I'd like to thank Chris and thank you all for that applause.

I just hope that you keep progressing.  Don't stop.  The
technologies are amazing.  Twitter is a year old and it's enabled so
much more interaction.  It's terrific.  Just keep a fresh eye and
don't be afraid to experiment would be what I hope continues my role.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Kieren.

So thank you to our departing vice president, and thank you to our
departing general manager of public policy.  And, particularly -- and
please join me in thanking Chris for that bottom-up demonstration of
affection.

[Applause]

We're now out of time.  I'm prepared to keep the microphone open for
five minutes if there's another topic that has been occupying anybody
urgently that they think the board should hear about before we go
into our workshop.

 >>BRUCE TONKIN:   Peter, can I just -- I guess it's a slightly
related topic.  This is a slightly different topic, I guess.  

But this week we've heard quite a bit about registry data and
comingling.  And, again, I guess I'll act as a little bit of the
ICANN historian here.  

There was a GNSO policy development process that looked at
contractual conditions for registry operators.  

And one of the topics was about registry data.  And at that time it
didn't really progress. Because part of the problem, when they were
discussing that in the GNSO, was nobody defined what the data was and
didn't clearly define what the harm and the use of that data was.  So
just caution, again, let's not repeat history and have debates about
topics where we're not even defining what the data is that's being
discussed.  

So just remind a little bit what the data is.  There's two types of
data.  There's data that the registry gets through the operation of
the registry database.  The typical data there is the check
information. So, when someone checks to see if a domain name is
available, there's the data which is the actual domain names that are
registered.  And, if the registry operator, WHOIS, then there is the
data of the names and addresses of the registrants.  So that's the
registry database data.

The other type of data that a registry sees is the DNS traffic
information.  The DNS traffic -- obviously, at the DNS resolver, they
can see which names people need to know to query to translate that to
an I.P. address.  But they also see names that don't exist, because
then there's a request for that name.  And, if it doesn't exist, it
sends an answer back.  So that's the data being talked about.  I
think it would be useful, if the people that are talking about that
issue, define what data element they're concerned about.  Also
indicate where else that data element may be available.  

And, if there is huge issues around that, which were -- you know,
the result of the PDP, previously, that they then define what rules
should be put in place.  We need to be clear what's the harm of the
data and what rules need to be put in place by the data and then
decide whether registry/registrar issues make those rules easier or
harder to break.  Let's start with defining the data and what the
issues are.

[Applause]

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Bruce.  

Mr. Foody, I'm sorry.  I'm going to have to close the floor.  The
last comment is going to come from Jean-Jacques on the item about the
public development policy.  Jean-Jacques.

 >>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:   Thank you, Peter.  Yes, very briefly,
this is just to keep you informed, because some of you were not able
to attend the sessions where this was mentioned.  

Document publication operational policy was set up because, as a
result of many public forums and other consultations, we did realize
on the board that there was a problem of documents coming to the
community much too late.  And we want to uniform -- make that more
uniform.  

So there's several components to this.  One is that there is a need
to set a fixed deadline.  So the result is that the board decided on
a 15-working day deadline for documents and meeting agendas.  

Another element is that we are working on guidelines on plain
language, the reduction of jargon and acronyms, and also enhancing
translation and the quality of presentations.  

And another item is the staff report to analyze policy after each
meeting will be updated so that it's a continuous process. And we
hope to make progress for the benefit of us all.  

The last item on -- under this heading was some additions were made
following the public comment period and the online session.  Just to
remind you that the public comment period was carried out.  It was
ended on the 8th of September.  And on the 5th of October we actually
held the first session in public of the public participation
committee.  So, with all the advice we got from the public, we're
working on that.  And it should be presented again to you in some time.

 >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thank you, Jean-Jacques.  That brings to
an end the public forum.  Becky, I'll see you later.  And we'll take
into account your contributions.  

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.  Please enjoy your
lunches.  Forum closed.

[Applause]