ccNSO Members Meeting
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
ICANN Meeting
Seoul, Korea

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Good morning, everybody.  We'll start in a couple
of minutes, if you'd like to take your seat and make yourselves
comfortable.

So good morning and welcome to the ccNSO members meeting.  I can see
a few new faces in the room.  I'm Chris Disspain, the chair of the
ccNSO.

Our first session this morning is a very brief session, which is
just a quick overview of ICANN issues or things that matter to us. 
What normally happens is I stand up here and say, "The following
things are important."  But I thought it might be, for a change,
might be nice to see what you think is important.

So we're coming to a point in our -- we're coming to a point in this
meeting where, with a bit of luck, the IDN ccTLD fast track will be
dispatched, set sail, and we've got a whole lot of other things to
talk about, the sorts of things that we're doing at the moment
include obviously the IDN policy development process itself.  We've
got an ICANN board resolution in respect to wild cards that we're
going to need to deal with.  We've got Kevin Wilson coming to talk to
us in a little bit about money and the work that ICANN has been doing
in respect to providing us with numbers.

We have various other issues.  Who -- is there anyone who would like
to raise a particular -- something that they think is an issue that's
running at ICANN that's of relevance to us?  New gTLDs?  Gosh.  Well,
that's great.  We can pack up and go home.  Hilde.

>>HILDE THUNEM:  Not very surprisingly, the new gTLDs, I think, is
still going to be an important issue also for the ccTLDs, because we
have sent an input as the ccNSO and, well, not much has happened with
it.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  So that's right.  We have sent some advice to the
board, and it's been ignored.

At 10:00, rod and Peter Dengate Thrush and Michael Silber will be
coming and we have a number of questions to ask them and one of those
-- one of the questions that we have to ask them is about the
geographic names in gTLDs and protection for country names.

Anyone else?  We've got an awful lot of working groups running at
the moment and one of the things that will happen today -- I think
it's today -- or, no, tomorrow -- no, it's today -- reports from our
working groups, and we may have to look at setting up some more
working groups, which brings me to an issue which is not so much an
ICANN issue, it's a ccNSO issue, and that is that there's only so
much work that we can do, and there's only so many people who
actually have the time to volunteer.

So if you feel that you could contribute and you think that you
could do some work on a working group, please do volunteer and please
get involved, because otherwise all that happens is the same small
group of people end up trying to do everything, and that actually
makes life quite difficult for all of us.

So we would like to see an expansion.  Working groups aren't limited
to council members.  Not even limited to ccNSO members.  So if you're
a ccTLD manager and you want to be on a working group, that would be
really fantastic.

Gabby, can you just run through the working groups that we've got
because I can't remember what they are.  So the working groups we're
currently running are the IDN PDP, IDN ccTLD policy development
process.  That working group is hoping to report -- thank you -- is
hoping to report formally with a formal paper in Nairobi.

We have an ad hoc joint working group between the ccNSO and the
GNSO, which is looking at issues in IDNs that are of relevance to
both the ccNSO and the GNSO.

We have delegation and redelegation working group, which is looking
at some of the practicalities of delegation, redelegation and will
hopefully report on anything that they think needs to be changed.

And we have, of course, the strategic and operational planning
working group which Byron will talk about later.  So there's a fair
few substantive working groups there that are doing lots of work, and
we do need -- if we do need to have any other -- any new working
groups, we're going to need some people to put their hands up and do
some work.

I think we'll move straight into our next session, which Byron's
going to chair, so over to you, Byron.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Good morning, all.  Thank you very much.

We have Kevin Wilson, the CFO of ICANN, who is -- as you may
remember from the Sydney meeting, gave us an overview of the
expenses, newly comprised because fundamentally there's been a lot
more effort and work put into determining how the expenses are
created and allocated in ICANN.  And I think it gives a much better
picture of the costs that we incur as a particular group, and that
ICANN in general incurs, and how those monies are spent, how they're
allocated, and I think importantly, some different snapshots,
different ways to actually view how the money flows vis-a-vis the
different projects, the different key strategic elements, and also
from an operational planning perspective how that money is actually
allocated into the operational plan.

So I think Kevin has done some really good work in terms of drilling
down and giving us greater clarity on this subject, and he's going to
follow up on the presentation from Seoul with an even more detailed
analysis.  And I think the important part here is particularly from
the working group that I'm involved with, the strategic and operation
planning working group, this gives us the information upon which we
can then go forward as a community and start to talk about what is
most important to us from a strategic perspective, and then as the
cycle continues and we move towards the operating plan, what are the
key elements that we believe ICANN should be focusing on, what's in
the best interests of this community among others.

And the information that Kevin is going to provide today will really
give us a good picture to help inform us in that ongoing discussion.

Are you almost plugged in?

>>KEVIN WILSON:  I'm -- good morning, everybody.  This is Kevin
Wilson.  I'm the chief financial officer for ICANN, and I'm plugged
in but not broadcasting, so if you could just hold a second.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Sure.  So it will just be another moment or two as
we get this up on the screen but I think one of the encouraging
things is the level of detail that Kevin's been able to bring to this
discussion.  And also, the ability to provide a number of different
snapshots or views from which to view how ICANN is spending the money
in our community, as well as across the board.

The goal here, too, is that Kevin's going to walk us through it in
more detail, give us an update, effectively draw the picture of how
this fits into the overall planning process that continues on
throughout the year, and then in the back half of this time period,
there will be an opportunity for questions and answers.

So as we go through it, I would encourage you to take note, and if
anything strikes you, please jot it down so you can remember to ask
it at the end.

And with that, I will pass it over to Kevin, CFO of ICANN.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  Thanks -- thank you, Byron.  Thank you, Chris. 
Thank you, ccNSO.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Someone's ringing.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  It's Byron.

>>KEVIN WILSON: Byron, I think your phone's ringing.  

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Your bag is calling you.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  I think our computer and phone needs another cup of
coffee.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  I just want everybody to know I just rented a
phone in Korea, so I have no idea who would be calling me here.

[Laughter]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  And where were you last night?

[Laughter]

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  I apologize.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  Good morning, everybody.  Everyone.  As Byron said,
thank you for the introduction.  We had a fairly fruitful meeting, I
think, in Sydney, and some good follow-up work as well with the SOP
working group as well as in your presentation on the way ICANN is
spending its funds, and I wanted to just provide a brief update and
then open this up for questions.

In general, I'd like to give you just a quick walk through the
agenda here for the next 15 or 20 minutes, which is to walk through
the -- what happened in fiscal year '09 -- bless you, Chris -- the
quick update on where we are on the budget for fiscal year '10 which
ends June 30th, 2010, so we're in the middle of a -- one-third of the
way through fiscal year '10, highlight some of the pending control
methods and processes that we've been implementing and continue to
improve upon, and then highlight the accountability and transparency
principles that finance is following, including specific reporting to
help the community.

And then as by Ron mentioned just close with some information on the
strategic and operating plan process.

So the bottom line throughout this whole presentation, and hopefully
all of finance's involvement with the ccNSO and all the community and
stakeholder groups, is to develop trust.  I will consider finance to
be successful when you are fully confident that we're spending money
efficiently and that we're spending the money in accordance with the
priorities of the community.  That's our purpose.

And in addition, being responsive to the community requirements, and
that could mean reporting, it could be how we spend our money, where
the revenue sources are, whatever the community requirements are.  So
hopefully at the end of the presentation and end of every
presentation you can say we've checked off those two important
messages.

So real briefly, for the fiscal year '09 -- and I consider you as an
important stakeholder group, although this would be focused mostly at
the board finance committee and board Audit Committee -- as community
members, I assume that all of you should be and many of you are
interested in ICANN's financials, so I wanted us to briefly update on
where we ended the fiscal year '09, which ended June 30th, 2009.

First of all, there's more reporting.  You'll see obviously the
audited financials, which are here and we've recently completed our
audited report.  Those will be on the Web site.  There will be more
details on the Web site, more expense information.  The travel
reports are now fully functional, so each meeting you can see which
community members are supported.  And on the dashboard, we've
probably tripled the number of reports and also I know you don't just
like more information, you like it in a more organized fashion, so
we've also organized it in a way so that it's more accessible and
easier to understand.

Substantively, the position of the -- ICANN is strong.  We have over
-- at the end of the fiscal year, at $27 million in working capital
cash, so we moved $11 million to the reserve fund.

Most of you probably know we do not have any debt, and our reserve
fund now is over 44 million.

The revenue is close to the budget, which was anticipated, and the
expenses are close to the budget as well.

The -- on the fiscal year '10 budget update, we have, as you know
our budget was adopted, the fiscal year '10 after lots of community
consultation through a framework, through the draft plan and then
through the final plan that was adopted -- in Sydney, the fiscal year
budget was adopted.  That operating plan and budget has more details,
more information, and we've also received strong feedback that it's
also more accessible and easier to understand, which I know is
important, and we're always happy to improve that and continue to
improve upon that.

A quick snapshot of the revenue is that we have modest growth.  Most
of the growth coming from the dot com fixed step-up, so the sources
of funds you can see there, the registrars at 27, the registry at 32,
RIRs 823,000, the C's we've budgeted at 1.6 million.  You can see
that's a drop.  Not because we -- we weren't expecting that.  I think
we just got better at forecasting the revenue from the cc community. 
Which, by the way, came in at 1.5 million for fiscal year '10, so
thanks to the cc's for that.

And then the other is mostly sponsorship revenue and then some
interest income as well.

So some of you have seen on the dashboard we've also reported more
about our reserve fund.  That's a significant amount.  It's -- now
the chart on the left is -- shows the balances, month by month, and
right now the last tranche, you can see the increase there from the
$11 million contribution to -- from working capital to the reserve
fund, so we're now at $44 million of reserve fund.

The finance committee has put a target on the agenda for this year
to determine the amount of that -- what the reserve fund should be.

The pie charts on the right, it's a little bit hard to see on the
screen, but those will also on the dashboard and they show the
compliance with the investment policy, essentially, how conservative
is it.  The top chart shows that it is moderately conservatively
invested, in accordance with the investment policy with about 70% in
bonds and then the -- also a strong international component with
almost 30% international investments.

The actual operating expense budget of $54.4 million was organized
and developed and continues to be reported along the organizational
activities, which the community continued to communicate to us that
that was the way we should report on our budget, as the budget
develops, as well as the way it's presented.

So that that's -- you can see there how those activities from new
gTLD IDN implementation, you can see there's a line for constituency
support, et cetera.

We're revisiting the FY '10 budget in light of new developments, you
know, with the fast track launching, with -- with security becoming
an increasingly important approach, and then just new initiatives
that we've developed, too, so we are making progress on that.

In the general area of spending controls, we've made -- continue to
make progress on putting in policies and procedures and guidelines to
ensure that we're spending the funds wisely.  And so we -- we've
updated the investment policy.  There's the staff travel guidelines
were updated.  There's a board expense policy that's near completion.
We've -- we're in process with developing a procurement guidelines. 
And especially in light of the large amount of funds that could be
spent for panelists, et cetera, on the new gTLD program, we believe
that it's very important to have a very open and broadly -- a more
professional procurement guidelines that would allow for open and
transparent selection of vendors and that sort of thing.

There's also the community members.  Some of you received community
members for the ccNSO, and obviously others, so we've updated the
guidelines for FY '10 and each meeting has its own special
guidelines.  And then we also report on the community member travel
support, all the way down to the individual level, and we've received
positive feedback on that.

This year, we're also in the beginning process of developing a cost
accounting methodology paper, which will show very specifically how
we're -- how we're allocating our costs, and we've receive a third-
party audit or assurance report on that report as well.

And then we also have a foreign currency, international currency,
management policy that we're in the process of implementing.

So the bottom line there is we're continuing to progress on all
aspects of spending wisely, and our goal is, of course, to make sure
that you all are confident that we are spending our -- the funds
efficiently, and then as we'll talk about -- and Byron and the SOP
working group will make progress as well -- is making sure that those
priorities of our spending is appropriately aligned as well.

I went quite a bit in detail in Sydney.  I'll do the abbreviated
version for those who might not have been able to be there.  I'll
walk through this briefly, and then maybe open it up for questions,
if needed.

But essentially the story behind the -- what we affectionately call
the EAG report, expense area group, is that ICANN traditionally
reported our spending by traditional natural accounts.  Think of it
like personnel, travel, meetings, office space, in the way an
accountant things on -- when you do that.  And the community came
back and said, "Well, we really need to know how you're spending it
by the way we think, on projects, on new gTLDs, how much are we
spending on IDNs and how much are we spending on contractual
compliance, things that are important to us as a community?"

So we, through the last couple of years, developed this functional
view of reporting.  It's the same -- the pie is the same, 54.3
million.  It's just a different view of the -- of the finances.

This chart is easier to see on the Web site, and in the budget, but
each of those slices represents the 15 organizational activities that
is in the budget.

And those are also reported on the dashboard on a regular basis.

So then the community feedback we received is, "We want to see
another view of ICANN's finances.  We want to see how you spend money
in accordance to the way we -- we want to know how much you're
spending for us."  So the ccNSO, the GNSO, ASO -- you can see that's
our -- we followed the organizational structure chart with the ALAC,
RSSAC, SSAC, each of the different groups along the organizational
structure.  And we came up with another view based on that, and this
is what was in the original chart.  These -- probably the words are
too small, so in the spirit of making it easier on your eyes and
perhaps politically insensitive, I've put it this way, which is G's,
C's, NomCom, RSSAC -- you can see the different views of ICANN's
budget in this way.

And we received feedback from that, from -- from community members,
and asked us to have more detail on some of these items, so this next
chart shows how the ccTLD and ccNSO support area, the 9 million in
that previous slide could be broken down looking at it from the
functional 15 organizational activities.

Obviously some of these costs are direct costs that are associated
with a specific function.  Other ones are estimates and allocations.

So after we -- actually, at that meeting in Sydney, with you all,
you asked us to provide more time to provide input and community
feedback or extend the time for that public comment period, and we
did that at the meeting.  We extended it out, I think, till middle of
July or around that time.  And in general, the responses fell into
three groups.

One was appreciation that -- felt like ICANN was -- it was long
overdue but we just needed to report out, to stop the questions of
how much funds were being spent, so that I think there was
appreciation from that standpoint.

There were some questions.  There were some compliments on
methodology, but there were also questions on the methods.  Did we
allocate properly?  Some people -- one person even suggested we go to
a full time sheet system.  Other people thought that maybe there was
too much overhead allocated and we should punch down a little bit
more in detail on that.  And then several respondents just said they
just wanted more details, that this was a good start, we need more
information, more information, so that we can help us make our
decisions.

So what are the next steps?  Report on this regularly, so that more
and more community members are familiar with the financial reporting,
and the tools that that can provide to help you make management
decisions, and work with the methodology so we can come up with
better and better methods of allocation, better and better methods of
direct charging, and then also continue this work of providing more
details, which we've -- we have provided more details.

So this chart here shows what's on the dashboard, and shows each of
the bars represent the organizational activities, along the lines
with the functional reporting, so the first bar is the new gTLD, the
second bar is the IDN program, fourth bar is the security -- the
security -- security, stability and resiliency operations and like
the ninth bar there, the tall one there, is global engagement in
terms of translations and that sort of thing.

The shaded -- the darker shaded on my screen it looks -- what is
that?  Maroon or -- I'm not sure what color that is.

Anyway, that is the reflection of what we've spent year-to-date
through the first three months of the year.

The next chart is the EAG reporting.  This is -- this chart is
actually not up on the public dashboard yet.  We're still vetting it,
looking at the information.  I think the budget numbers are, and that
ties in with the pie chart that you saw earlier, but we want to make
sure that the allocations of the actual spend is in alignment inside
as well, okay?

So this chart here, we walk through -- I'll just highlight a couple
of points, which is that every view of ICANN's budget is a hundred
percent.  And that may sound obvious to many of you, but that's a
really important principle, that you can't use a -- you can't change
your methodology within a view, so that needs to be -- and that it is
just a different view.  No one view is better than another.  It's not
"the" way to view it, it's just "a" view, and I think that's an
important point.  And that there are direct costs and allocated
costs.  I think that's important to understand.

These next charts are some of the details that went into that EAG
reporting.  We went through some -- some detail in Sydney on that. 
Happy to answer questions, if there's follow-up.

And then this chart shows how staff is allocated, so we actually
have individual staff members that are allocated for each of the
functional areas, as well as each of the EAG areas.

So for example, Gabby, who supports the ccNSO a hundred percent, I
think -- isn't that right, Gabby?  Yeah.  So she would be allocated
100% to the ccNSO.  That one category.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  And we're very grateful.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  Yes.  Yeah.  Sometimes she feels like it's 120%,
but...

So then just to wrap up the prepared presentation, and happy to open
it up to questions, just to -- it's hard to believe that it's already
here time to plan for the operating plan and budget for next fiscal
year, which starts July 1st, 2010, and goes through June 30th, 2011.

So the steps are, I assume you'll be discussing the strategic plan
today?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Yeah.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  That is on the agenda?  Great.

And so that -- that's obviously the first step is to build and
develop and finalize that strategic plan in the next couple of
months, and then we will have a proposed framework for the FY '11
operating plan and budget to present and post for community comment
in the Nairobi meeting, and then the FY '11 draft operating plan and
budget, which by -- per bylaws needs to be posted for community
comment by the 17th of May, 45 days before the fiscal year end, the
prior fiscal year end, and then submit that to the board for the
final plan for the FY '11 operating plan and budget to be posted and
submitted to the board for approval at the June meeting in Brussels.

And just to emphasize that once again, this community input is so
important to this process, as it not only becomes -- makes the
operating plan and budget more responsive to your requirements, it
also makes the operating plan and budget better for ICANN overall.

So that's the point that -- the key emphasis, and I know Byron and
the working group are working hard at developing that process by
which the community input is maximized, so that the -- our operating
plan and budget, we're all proud and believe that it best reflects
the requirements of the community.

Okay?  Thank you very much for letting me present.  Kamsahamnida.

>>BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you very much, Kevin.  A little known fact
about Kevin is I think he speaks quite a bit of Korean, so if you
need a translation, you can ask him.

>>KEVIN WILSON:  Just -- I better be careful there.  I was in the
Peace Corps, U.S. Peace Corps, here 30 years ago, so I speak
conversational.  I can certainly order a beer pretty well.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  So you've got the important things down.  

Anyway, thank you very much.  I think a lot of progress has been
made on the level and quality of information that finance is
providing, and I think that that's very helpful.  I think as
everybody can see here, how the money is spent gives a certain sense
of the priorities of the organization, and I think that's where it's
incumbent upon us as a community to ensure that that reflects our
priorities.

And, as a shameless plug, I would say this informs us in the SOP
committee.  And, hopefully, it will inform you in generating
participation.  So in a sense, this is the underpinning information
that allows us to provide good feedback going forward through the
process.

So for -- at this point, I wanted to open it up to Q&A.  But maybe
I'll just kick it off with a question to Kevin.  At this point, what
do you see as the ideal next step?  From your perspective, from the
ICANN perspective, what's the best path forward at this point?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Clearly, it's community input into the strategic
plan first to make sure that that strategic plan reflects the real
priorities and reflects the mission of ICANN and then, as active as
you have the energy for, involvement in all the steps after that. 
And I started out by saying that I want to send the message that
developing trust -- to ensure that we're being responsive to the
community requests so that you're given information so that you can
provide that feedback.  It's a constant feedback loop.  So developing
the trust is very important.  And part of that is just me coming here
and speaking to you.  But, more importantly, it's asking questions
and getting answers.  And, if you sense that there's things that you
don't trust, then I want to know that so that we can fix it.  If we
don't know about it, we can't know about that.  So that feedback,
both from a developing trust and making sure that the reporting and
the controls and the spending and priorities are aligned, and then
the -- but the first step is to make sure that the strategic plan and
then, ultimately, the operating plan are reflecting your input.  Okay?

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  So at this point
I'll throw it open to the floor.  We have Kevin for another 25
minutes or so.  Yeah, we can strip him clean at this point.  So --
Peter?

 >>PETER van ROSTE:  Thanks, Kevin.  My name is Peter van Roste from
CENTR.  As always, a great amount of detail and a nice summary of
what we're looking at.  Thanks for that.  I just have one question.  

When we're looking at the reserve now, if ICANN's budget remains on
track, as we're expecting it does, then by the end of the next fiscal
year, we'll have about one year's of budget in reserve.  What is, in
your view, the ideal amount of reserve for an organization such as
ICANN?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  That -- Peter, thank you very much.  That's
helpful.  

The -- actually, that was a major topic for the board finance
committee.  So, if you notice in the strategic plan it says one year
of operating funds is the appropriate level for the reserve fund. 
Because the operating plan has grown -- I think it grew 30% and then
another 30%.  This last year it grew 5%.  And then we're looking at
that.  We have a new CEO.  Of course, there's new directions. And
we're looking at a number of things.  So the short answer is we're
looking at that.  We want to have input.  And we actually  have a
strategic meeting set up, so we don't just define it's one year of
operations and not really know what that means.  So that at you can
say, oh, it's X amount whether it's 50 million or 70 million or
whatever the number is.  So that's the intention.  Thank you.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Any other questions?  Lesley?

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  Seeing as you have some time, can I just pick at
this one-year thing?  We went through some of the process in dot UK
as well.  If the year is intended to be some sort of winding-down
process, if there was no need for ICANN any more, then the reality is
you wouldn't have the full costs of the operation for a year anyway. 
You would have rundown costs.  So I guess the -- it would be helpful
for the board and the community to develop a better understanding as
to the need for reserves and what they actually might be used for.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Yes, that's a great question.  The strategic plan
says right now one year of operations.  But the discussions and part
of the strategy discussions is why one year?  There's not some magic
number.  That's just the way accountants think.  But that's not the
way -- it should be based on a rational basis and what are you
actually reserving for?  Should we have reserves for different parts
of different risks, for example?  So those are all questions on --
that are being discussed.  And the finance committee has directed
staff to do research on that so that the discussion is as productive
as possible.  Thank you.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Any other questions?

>>STEPHEN DEERHAKE:   Stephen Deerhake, AS domain registry.  I'm not
familiar with California law, but some states in the U.S. have
constraints on nonprofits that they want just keep piling up cash
willy nilly.  

And my question is:  Are you aware of any such constraint under
California law?  And, if so, is ICANN getting up towards the
threshold where they might be jeopardizing their continued corporate
structure as being a nonprofit California U.S. Corp.?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  I do not believe we're bumping up against any --
you know, state or federal law that would jeopardize our not-for-
profit status.  However -- I assume that was laughing at the phone,
not at my response.  

[Laughter]

So, however, your "willy nilly" comment is well-taken.  And that
sort of arcs back to Lesley's comment that it's really important
that, as stewards of the funds and as being fiscally responsible, not
only do we need to make sure that we're spending the money wisely and
efficiently and in accordance with priorities, but that we're
reserving for it and getting very clear on what are we reserving for
and how much does it need to be and what's the situation on that? 
And then -- and then addressing the not-for-profit status as a
separate issue, that I don't think that it's bumping up against that.  

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thank you.  Are there some other questions?  Chris?

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Kevin, I assume one of the things you would want
to have happen is start to engage in discussions with us about
working out some sort of contribution methodology or, et cetera.  

I wonder whether you could -- if you currently have any system that
you use with any other SO or in discussing the numbers?  Clearly, the
way they pay you in the GNSO is contractual.  But is there any system
you use in discussing the numbers that we might be able to take input
from to help us in our discussions with you?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Sure, I'll start to address that, which I know has
been a sensitive subject.  

I think the first step was to become more open and transparent.  And
I think we've made a huge step on that.  I think the cork has been
released from the bottle so that we have this function reporting and
the EAG reporting.  Any member of any SO or AC can see how their
share of the pie -- I really hate to -- it's more share of the stew,
because it's not a fee-for-service model.  We don't have a department
of ccNSO.  We don't have a department of GNSO.  We have -- you know,
we have contractual compliance and security and groups that spend
money on translations and interpretation and meetings.  And those
benefit all the SOs and ACs and others that are part of the ICANN
community .

So we -- I perceive that exercise -- this is my speaking, primarily,
although I think the -- this is true at the board level as well.  I
believe that exercise is not a oh, the slice of the pie is 9 million.
Okay c's, how are you going to come up with $9 million to support
from 1.5 million?  I don't think that's the discussion.  And I'm not
sure how -- I don't think that's a productive way to do that.  I
think the next step is to -- what Byron alluded to and, hopefully,
more and more ccNSOs and all the SOs and ACs plug into the operating
plan and strategic plan, make it more relevant, establish that,
clarify what the value is to each of the stakeholders and SOs and
ACs, establish the relevance and then -- and then the funding
mechanisms can be addressed.  More -- to answer your question more
specifically, what we're doing as a finance team and, particularly
under the direction of the board finance committee and the finance
department and the senior executive level, is we're planning a
process culminating in a workshop and a strategic workshop on revenue
strategies.  So that's -- in that case that's addressing issues such
as what's the current mix of revenue streams?  And then what's -- is
that the right mix both from one SO to the other SO or to an AC or
from a registry to a registrar, from new gTLDs to existing gTLDs,
from all the revenue sources, from new revenue sources, as well as,
if we're going to expand any certain areas, say, in security or other
initiatives, do we need to curtail costs or cut back or delay or
defer other areas?  

So I think the short answer is:  We're addressing that.  We're
looking at that.  We're looking for good ideas on how to address
that.  I don't want to communicate, though, here, just because I
showed a chart that showed 1.5 million contribution from the cc's
that next year -- and then another chart showing the costs of
supporting the ccNSO and the ccTLD community as greater than that.  I
don't want to have that -- I don't think I'm -- that's not the
message that I want to send.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thank you, Kevin.  Just to clarify that a little
bit, what I heard there is that the revenue and expense discussion is
much broader than just around a c space, per se; that it's --
actually, you're looking at the entire balance of revenue and
expenses across all groups and functional areas and to see if they
make sense, fundamentally.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Absolutely, yeah.  I would call it a revenue
strategy discussion and process.  And, obviously, we'd really
appreciate your input into that process as well.  Did that answer,
Chris, your question?  Great.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thanks.  Any other questions?  We have Kevin at
our mercy right now.  So feel free to ask the tough questions.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  I'm really glad to hear -- can I ask myself a
question?

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Please do.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  I'm really glad to hear that there's actually a
meeting where we don't talk about travel.  So I'm assuming that the
travel support issues is completely smooth and everybody made it to
Seoul perfectly.  And we're really glad.  We worked really hard at
getting to the gold standard.  I know some of you heard that we tried
to reach silver by Sydney and gold by here on travel support.  I
think the GNSO late appointments made it a little tough.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  You just completely confused everybody, because
they think you're a gold member of some club because of the frequent
flyer points that you've managed to accumulate because of all the
travel.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Just so everyone's clear, there was lots of
discussion and complaints and concerns about the travel support and
who was getting support and how much support they were getting.  So
we worked really hard at developing community-based guidelines,
adopted those.  And then now we're implementing those.  So those
community members that do receive travel support, that we're getting
clearer and clearer.  We can always improve. But we shot for gold
this time; and, hopefully, we'll make it.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Chris?

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Kevin, is there any work going on to deal with
the fact that a number of -- significant number of ICANN funders and
a significant number of ICANN expense is not in U.S. dollars?  And so
the -- and, therefore, from a currency point of view, I just take it
as a ccTLD, a contribution made to ICANN in U.S. dollars can -- well,
let's give Australia as an example.  Currently, if we were due to pay
you $100,000 U.S., it would cost us roughly about 105 Australian;
whereas, nine months ago it would have cost us nearly 200.  So -- and
it works the other way, too.  Because, presumably, a lot of your
expenses are paid not in U.S. dollars.  So I'm wondering if there's
anything happening to deal with that and into the future.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Yes.  When we realized a number of years ago that
transactions were occurring, primarily outgoing transactions -- we
have lots of staff.  Obviously, three international ICANN meetings of
nearly $2 million in a foreign location -- in a non-U.S. location
elevated that.  And so we looked at a number of different scenarios
on hedging and international currency risks we saw it -- you know, it
went against us on the Euro a few years ago.  We worked real hard on
coming up with a policy.  And we actually drafted a policy.  And last
May that policy was adopted by the board.  So we do have a policy
right now of reporting foreign currency hedging.  The specific
question that's been discussed -- but I don't believe it's in the
near future -- is contracts or, you know, whether it's any kind of
agreements of any kind that -- to be denominated in foreign currency.
We've only had one non-U.S. bank, for example, that handles other
currencies.  So I don't think there's anything in the immediate
future to look at revenue streams coming in to anything other than
U.S. dollars, although I think that's been discussed and could be
discussed more.  

Outgoing, we, obviously, use those foreign currency hedging
strategies to make sure that we do the best we can at managing those.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thank you.  Are there any other questions?  I
have one that I -- I just wanted to get your sense.  You have the
strategic plan, the operating plan.  In a sense that's the forward-
looking view.  This is what we think we want to do.  The accounting
is the rearward view.  Did we actually do that?  Do you -- is it your
sense that the -- that the flow of funds is fairly representing what
the strategic plan said was the plan?  Or do you find that there's a
gap in any areas?  So does the reality match the intent?

 >>KEVIN WILSON: Byron, just to clarify, are you saying is the
operating -- or audited financials, which, by the way, I have here if
you'd like to see them.  If you're not asleep yet, we can put you to
sleep quickly.  You're saying is the operating plan reflected
properly in the actual results?

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  No.  I guess what I'm saying is the community put
forward or ICANN put forward the strat plan saying here are the dozen
or so key elements that we believe we need to focus on, the key
strategic thrusts.  And then how the money flows represents, in a
sense, those priorities.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Right.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND: And were the actual strategic thrusts accurately
represented by the flow of funds?  So, for example, you have the
number 1, 2, or 3 strategic priorities.  Did the funds sort of
represent those priorities?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Right.  Yeah, we can -- I would say that was one
area where we could show improvement on -- the connection between the
strategic plan and the operating plan.  The connection between the
operating plan and the budget and the budget to the actual
expenditures is -- you know, I'd give us a B or B plus in that area. 
I'd certainly want to have community feedback on, if they think --
not aligning.  If they think we put in the operating plan that we
would do X and that didn't happen, we want to have feedback on that. 
And there are efforts being made on benchmarking and other things to
make sure that we are actually in alignment on that.  I think the one
area that -- and the reason why I wouldn't give myself or give us
such high grades is I start when the strategic plan gets adopted,
right?  That's from an internal staff task list.  So I start with the
strategic plan.  It's quite -- or has been quite challenging.  I
think there's some discussions about changing the format and the
accessibility of the strategic plan, which I assume you'll be talking
about.  So I'm looking forward to taking that new strategic plan
structure, simplified and easier to understand, and putting it into
an operating plan framework that would make more sense.  So I think
there's some areas of improvement on that.  I'd welcome suggestions
on how to improve on it even more.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Okay, thanks.  Martin, did you have a question?


 >>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you.  Martin Boyle from dot UK.  I guess
it's probably a bit of a follow-on from Byron's question.  That is
that during September we've seen a fairly major change with the
introduction of the AOC.  And already at this meeting we've seen
some, I think, fairly strategic and important announcements of the
new priorities.  And so really my question is:  How do you see that
being taken into account in your budgeting process?  In other words,
are you actually now going to be looking -- relooking at your budget
as it currently is to reflect those two quite significant changes?

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Yeah, that's a great question, Martin.  The --
both of them are good questions, actually.  I think I heard the first
question is:  What are you going to do about this fiscal year; and
are you blindly moving forward on the adopted -- on the operating
plan and budget that we adopted in June, even though there's been
some significant changes in the -- in ICANN's structure on several
areas.  The AOC is, obviously, a major one.  But the answer is no. 
We're very strongly addressing that.  We're looking at the impacts. 
Take the issue of organizational reviews.  We've always had
organizational reviews in our budget.  That's never been a question. 
I think ccNSO is in some sort of your cycle.  I kind of forget where
you are on the cycle on the ccNSO review, for example.  

But the organizational review and the AOC, at least my read of it,
is significant and soon and in a very tight time frame.  So that
particular one right there has a budget impact.  So we're looking at
ways to address that.  So that's the issue.  The issue is, yes, we're
addressing that and looking at that.  We need to come back to the
community and the board and say we need to adjust our budgets by this
way and this way and here's the reason why and what do you think?  

And then the second question for the FY11 budget development, I'm
really looking forward to a much closer connection to the strategic
plan that would, presumably, be adopted in the next month or two,
couple months and then making sure that the operating plan, the one-
year operating plan for FY11 reflects the first year of that
strategic plan as best as possible.  That's really important.  Does
that answer your question?

>>BYRON HOLLAND:   Yes.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Thank you.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thanks.  Are there any further questions?  Lesley?

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  Kevin, you know I've asked you this one in
private, anyway.  We get into a strategic plan where we agree on
priorities and then later comes an operating plan.  But a question: 
Is there ever going to be a day where we look at the finances that
are linked to the strategy and say maybe we can't afford to do all of
those things this time?  Because there doesn't seem to be, from my
perspective, a good link between strategy -- okay, we agree with the
priorities.  Then we're looking at the costs, so maybe we go back
again and look at the plan as yet.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Thank you, Lesley, in private and in public. 
That's really a very important point.  And I think the -- the easy
part of that, which isn't easy but it's the easier part of that, is
to provide information.  So have a feedback mechanism to say, okay. 
You think you need to -- in order to do this element of the strategic
plan, you need to do these operational activities next year?  And
then those make sense.  Now you go ahead and price them.  And then
you might have -- then you immediately give feedback.  And did you
really want to have that as your strategic plan?  So we need to build
that feedback loop into the process.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  But the strategic plan is a 3-year process, so
it's no good just looking at the first year.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Right.  Yeah.  There actually has been a direction
from the board finance committee, as well as our own self-direction,
to have -- not have a myopic, one-year view of -- cliff view of
things.  So there are a couple elements of the plan.  A meeting --
obviously, we commit to meetings beyond a fiscal year as the big one
and some contracts as well.  But, yeah, we need to have at least
notionally.  The last few years we have had -- I think we could
really improve upon this -- a 3-year forecast of revenue and expenses
as part of an appendix in the operating plan to notionally indicate
that.  But the focus really has been the one year.  But I think
that's a good point.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Thank you.  Are there any further questions?  We
haven't heard from anybody in the back of the room.  Am I going to
have to come back there with the mic and pick people out?  No.  Are
there any other questions?  Okay.  Well, we're actually pretty much
right on time, even a moment or two early.  Maybe I'll just say in
closing, what you've seen here is the financial representation of
what our priorities are as a community.  And, if you're perfectly
happy with what you've seen, then that's fantastic.  But, if you
think there are other areas we need to focus on, areas that show too
much weight in terms of spending, now is the time.  We have the
opportunity to provide feedback on those priorities, on the priority
setting through the strategic plan.  So I would just -- you know, it
behooves all of us to take a look and say is this the right mix?  If
not, now is our time to speak and act as we move into the strat plan
planning process.  So thank you very much.  There's some great
questions.  Thank you very much, Kevin.  I think a lot of work has
been done in terms of shedding light on high-quality numbers and
financials, and it adds a lot to the discussion.  Thanks very much.

 >>KEVIN WILSON:  Thank you very much.

[Applause]

>> Chris Disspain:  Thank you, Byron.  Thank you, Kevin.  And, of
course, we have a session on the SOP today, this afternoon. And we
can talk more about things there.  It's pretty clear that we're going
to need to do some work on this.  And one of the things we're going
to need to decide to do is how we do that and in what sort of format
we do that?  But we'll get to that, when we have some time to think
about it, which probably might be today.

Our next session is at 10:00, which is almost now, with Rod and
Peter, neither of whom are currently -- and Michael, sorry -- neither
of whom are currently present.  So opportunity to catch up on e-
mails, because I know everybody hasn't been doing that while Kevin
has been in the room.  And we'll just wait patiently.

[Break]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Those of you sitting in the back in the cheap
seats, there are a number of front-row and second-row seats with
table access and power.  If you're planning on spending some time
here, you may wish to come forth and sit.

Michael, hello.  So, ladies and gentlemen, Peter is here and Michael
is here and, I guess, Rod's on his way.

So while we're waiting for Rod, this is our -- this is our standard
session with the chair and the CEO.  But we decided that this time,
rather than having two sessions, one with the chair and CEO usually
on the Tuesday morning and another session on Wednesday afternoon
with the board member -- with two board members, it would be easier
to combine the two especially given that one board member is both the
board member and the chair.  So we've done that and Michael's here.

We've also made a slight change to the way we do things by
collecting a few questions in advance from people who've expressed an
interest in asking a question.  That does not mean, however, that
it's not open to other questions from the floor.  But, perhaps, we
should start just by maybe, Peter, you giving us a brief sort of
hello and introduction and overview.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Chris.  As always, how nice it is
to be back.  For those of you that I haven't met, I come from this
room.  I sat behind those chairs, behind those desks that you are
sitting at for many years until you had enough of me and sent me away
to go and do other things.  So it is good to be back.  

We've just come from a breakfast which went on and on and on with
your colleagues at the Generic Support Names Organization.  In
particular, you probably have seen that we sent back some work to the
GNSO in relation to the new gTLD program.  We had a very big concern
about the intellectual property protections aspects of the new gTLD
program.  We formed the group called the IRT who went out, basically,
a bunch of intellectual property lawyers and staffed them to come up
with some rights protection mechanisms that the community would
accept, and they came back and reported those.  

As a result of the public comment process, staff prepared a number
of mechanisms.  And the board really was very concerned about those
mechanisms, whether they should be compulsory or mandatory or what
the nature of them should be.  I won't go into the detail of any of
those.

And we sent two of them back to the GNSO and said, "You told us to
create mechanisms."  Remember, in the original process, the GNSO
itself just said there ought to be rights protection mechanisms but
couldn't itself come up with any.  So now that there are some, we
thought it was appropriate to send it back to the GNSO and say, "Are
these the kinds of mechanisms that you thought we would create for
you and do they fit within your policy?"  That has been a challenge
for the GNSO on top of all the other work.

But to come back to here, I think the most exciting thing in
relation to ccTLD space has been the progress with the IDN ccTLDs,
the fast track and obviously the impetus that gives, I hope, to the
long track.  And I'm interested to find out from you how you're going
on the standard track, let's call it slightly more politely, the
standard track for IDN ccTLDs once we get the fast track through.

I'm just also going to say personally what a pleasure it is to see
Demi Getschko back at his desk.  Demi was a board member for a long
time.  When we first created the ccNSO and started appointing
directors, Demi was the highest polling director from the ccNSO and
was sent off to the board and did a fantastic job including some very
early thinking which was eventually accepted about the IDN ccTLDs and
the fast-track process.  And my worry was that having done that
extraordinary amount of work that one does on the board that we might
not see Demi anymore.  So, Demi, it is good to see you back carrying
on the role.  Other directors sometimes just burn out and fade away. 
Welcome back.

And the other thing, I guess, is thank you for sending us -- putting
my chairman's hat on, thank you for sending us another very good
ccTLD director.  Mike's the sort of person who has had all the
experiences I think you need and knows the issues and comes with a
great deal of clarity and is already making a good contribution to
the board.  So that's sort of a mix of issues.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Well, if I can perhaps -- Rod's just arriving. 
Before we do questions, perhaps, Michael, I could ask you for some
reflections of your first few months on the ICANN board.

>>MIKE SILBER:  Thanks, Chris.  Thanks, Peter, for the very kind
words.  I'll try and extort similar behavior from him on the board
because Peter is a very strict chair, doesn't allow discussion,
doesn't allow contributions, regimented, written comments only.  No,
I'm kidding.  It is actually a pleasure to be serving with the
caliber and type of people that I'm serving with.  I do miss this
community, though, to be perfectly honest.  

Just with regards to Peter's last comment, the immortal words of
Neil Young, I suppose it is better to burn out than to fade away. 
And that's one thing that I must comment about the time on the board.
It's fascinating.  It's wonderful to be at the center of so many of
the issues and to see how they impact on each other, how the IDNs
will impact on the new g's, all they all pull together, how the
spider's web comes to a center.

But that being said, there is a lot of work.  You're called on very
frequently because of the various interests, the restructuring
program and project through the SIC is obviously an ongoing one.  And
now with the affirmation having been signed, the process of reviews
becomes an even more onerous process.


And that being said, there is a lot of self-interest and lot of
people who think their interests are the most important interests in
ICANN and can't recognize the impact that one decision may have on
others.  And I think that's possibly the most difficult and sometimes
the most time consuming, is trying to match those and to weigh those
up.  I just hope that we don't see anything similar coming out of the
ccNSO review.  I doubt it, but let's hope.  

And certainly the cc community has been thankfully one of the few
communities who haven't been banging at our door and begging and
shouting and screaming.  So that's been really appreciated, that the
cc community seems to be a little more reasonable in their
understanding of the impact that one decision may have on another.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Chris.  Can I just add on previous
reports like this, I've actually done a PowerPoint and tried to give
you a copy of some agendas of board meetings and indicated the
balance of work.  I'm just going to repeat that very quickly now. 
The vast majority of the work that goes on is in relation to the
gTLDs.  There is very little done on ASO work.  Our relationship in
relation to the RIRs actually makes that the case.

The stuff that we've been dealing with in relation to ccTLDs has
mostly been in relation to the IDNs.  Just let me share with you this
perception that I think you've got -- you got as a group to work on. 
And that is a general sense, rightly or wrongly, that you are not
paying your way.  When money -- there are a number of board members
who come from the Nominating Committee who don't have a background in
the community and just look at the numbers:  92, 93% of revenue
coming from the gTLDs.  Some strong contributions from three or four
ccTLDs, but the vast majority making either no contribution or very
little.  And that's quite a difficult thing to explain.  

You need to be aware of it as a perception.  If it's a wrong
perception, then you need to do a little bit of work to fix it.  If
it's right, then you need to ask yourselves, Are you carrying your
weight and could you do more at the financial level?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  But, Peter, you were actually very capable of
explaining it when you were sitting on that side of the table.

[Laughter]

So presumably you are not having much of an issue explaining it at
the moment.

>>MIKE SILBER:  Certainly -- I must say thanks very much to Chris
for sharing the questions ahead of time so that -- those that you'd
prepared ahead of time we were given ahead of time so we could
prepare answers to.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  One does what one can as, you know, Chris
in those circumstances.  Remember also that we are not advocates for
the ccTLD space when we're in that position.  We are able -- and Mike
and I do that -- to convey information that we know from the ccTLD
community to the board.  But there's some pretty stark numbers that
take quite a lot of explaining.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  Perhaps a few words from Rod and then
we'll get into some questions.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Great.  I just want to thank all of you are for
the opportunity to be with you here today.  And at first, I just
wanted to share something that I think is just so fascinating about
what you represent that's unique in the world, which is what's helped
make the Internet work is this network of trust that's based on human
relationships and based on community relationships.  

And I think that what the ccNSO represents is largely unparalleled
in terms of other important infrastructure in economic and technology
systems in the world, which is that effectively you represent or are
chosen by your communities in every country, in a multistakeholder
bottoms-up type of fashion.  And that's just not the way things are
normally done, but it is what has made the Internet work and I think
it makes your role so important.

And I just wanted to comment on that as someone new to the system
and looking at the ICANN system and wanting to support its healthy
evolution, that I have a tremendous respect for the roles that you
play in representing your local Internet groups and stakeholders
beyond just the technical and functional roles that you play in
operating your registries.  So it's a very unique thing in the world
and it is one that I'm seeking to understand better.  I will just
call it a very functional network of trust that has served the planet
well and has served mankind well.  So I just wanted to say that.

Secondly is I'm just in learning mode here.  I mean, I'm new to the
community, a lot of different experiences that hopefully bring some
new perspectives; but I'm in learning mode.  One of the things I'm
hoping to learn, whether this morning or through other dialogues that
we have at the rest of this meeting and others in the future, is just
-- how can the staff better support what you want to do?  How can I
better support in engaging and interacting with your community,
including specifically this event?  

I mean, there's a history of the chairman and CEO going around and
visiting the constituencies on constituency day.  Peter and I have
both talked about this.  We are both very open-minded in saying, "I
wonder what the constituencies really want?"  A, do they even want
this to happen or is this a waste of time and space?  Or what would
you like to have happen in these interactions?  It's something that I
think we're very open to.  All I want to say is thank you for the
amazing work you do and I look forward for participating in this
dialogue.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thanks, Rod.  To pick up on a couple of things,
in respect to the sessions, yes, we do want to have this session. 
One of the things that we've done is we've decided that it would be
best -- the best use of this session would be to collect a series of
questions or thought-starters before hand.  We have only just put
that in place, which is why you haven't had a copy of those. 
Michael, I'm sorry.

But the intention would be in the future that we would actually, you
know, a couple days before, say, here's the broad-brush topic areas
we want to talk about and you can prepare.  And even say, "If that's
the case, we'll bring X with us as well because it would be useful to
have X in the room."

So on that basis, I guess, we should maybe get started with some
questions.  Annebeth, do you want to go first?  Are you happy to do
that?

>>ANNEBETH LANGE:  Is it on?  Hello?  I'm Annebeth Lange from the
Norwegian registry, dot no.  And I just dig into the -- you know, the
difficult part at once.  

Since 2007, the ccNSO has repeatedly given input on the names of
countries and territories should be treated as ccTLDs under the
subsidiary principle, local Internet community.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Annebeth, just stop for a second.  Just so
everybody is clear, what we are talking about here is new gTLDs and
we are talking about country names in new gTLDs.  Is that right?

>>ANNEBETH LANGE:  Yes, yes.  Shall I start once more?  Okay.  And
since 2007, the ccNSO has repeatedly given the input that the names
of countries and territories should be treated as ccTLDs and should
not be a part of the gTLD application process, at least not until the
cc PDP for the IDNs has been finished.  

The GAC has said the same in its letter to ICANN of the 18th of
August this year; namely, strings that are meaningful representation
or abbreviation of a country name or territory name should not be
allowed in the gTLD space.  That's the sentence from the GAC letter.  

It's not that often that the GAC and the ccNSO are in this much
agreement, and we find it surprising that our combined advice still
not seems to be enough.

Could you please explain why ICANN insists on keeping country and
territory names as part of the gTLD space.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you for starting with such an easy one.

[Laughter]

The biggest trouble I've ever got into with the board was in Mexico
when I tried to force a resolution of some of that issue and we
worked until 3:00 in the morning.  And I'm never going to be allowed
to do that again.  And it was on -- in fact, on this issue.  So
that's just by way of indicating that we are getting all this advice
and we are trying to distill it.

It is one of those areas where there is a head-on clash of policy. 
And because we saw early on that we were probably not going to be
accepting or differing from all of the GAC advice, we actually
started to invoke the letter-writing process which under the bylaws
we have to do when we start to disagree with the GAC.  And I think
from memory, that's the first time we've actually started to prepare
for a break with the GAC on its advice.

There's a couple of fundamental difficulties, and the first one is
the board in trying to put any of this together -- the history of
ICANN in this area has always been to make sure that there is very
wiggle room about definitions.  So in relation to all of the
geographic names, we keep asking for reproducible, checkable lists. 
So when we talk about a geographic name, that's the first thing we
want to say, "Well, what do you mean?"  

Different people have different names for different countries
different c's, different regions.  Are you talking about a region in
New York like Soho, which some people think has got boundaries?  Are
you talking about a country?  Are you talking -- And in what
language?  So the usual resort and faced with the risks of that kind
of uncertainty is to try and go back to ISO or other U.N.-based
lists.  So part of the discussion has been trying to narrow down what
actually, you know, we mean by "geographic name."

And then the other part of that question is we really don't
understand -- or we don't really think you mean "treated as a ccTLD."
We don't really think that you mean a name needs to be treated as a
ccTLD, in other words, that we need to go and find a local Internet
community, including a government for it, and put it into an ISO-3166
list and give it a two-letter country code.  That according to a
narrow definition is what we would have to do if we treated a region
as a ccTLD.  What we think you are asking for is a kind of
reservation or preservation rule that would stop some names being
allocated for gTLDs.

And there's very little support for that on the basis that we don't
think the existence -- the board doesn't think that the existence of
current ccTLDs provides a basis for expanding a greater kind of name
preservation area.  We see lots and lots of exercises of communities
trying to declare names off limit, and this has fallen into that kind
of a category.

So we try to have rigorous exercises to say, What would the names be
and what would the reasons for exclusion be?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Hilde?

>>HILDE THUNEM:  Well, to comment on -- start with who I am.  I'm
Hilde Thunem from the Norwegian registry.  I will start with the
disclaimer that I'm normally a nice person as well before I get into
this.

No, we are not asking for a reserved list that this should never,
ever be registered.  What we are saying is that it is to our mind
very strange the dot Norway, for example, should be forced under gTLD
rules, having to have a WHOIS policy that will break Norwegian law,
having to have a different kind of complaint and dispute resolution
policy than, for example, dot no, having to set its policy of domain
name without actually consulting with the Norwegian Internet community.

We think actually there's not much difference between dot no, dot no
in Chinese, dot no in German or whatever or dot Norway as the
country.  We're not here talking about the generic geographic names
that should be defined and that I do realize is very difficult to
define.  But we're talking about country names.  And you're already
able to define them in the new gTLD process because you require a
letter of support of non-objection for those specific --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let's just stick with that because dot
Norway isn't being treated as a gTLD.  Norway because it is the name
of the country has been taken out of the new gTLDs.

>>HILDE THUNEM:  No.  It's in the process if the government wants
Norway, it gives a letter of support and it will land as a gTLD.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  I think that's the key here.  There is a
discussion about -- you are right that there is a different process
in the gTLD space for country names.  But what the GAC and the ccNSO
is saying is that there shouldn't even be -- it shouldn't even be
possible to have a country name as a gTLD.  Now, that doesn't mean
we're saying it should be possible to have it as a ccTLD.  Not saying
that at all.

We're saying it shouldn't be possible to have it as a gTLD.  The
concept that you might have, dot Australia supported by the current
labor government in Australia, what would happen -- Governments
change all the time.  To give you a very, very simple example.  We
have in Australia state names -- state abbreviations at the second
level, so qld.au.  We also have them at the third level for edu.au. 
So each state has nsw.edu.au, et cetera.  

We will not allow a state to change that designation.  Queensland
wanted to change from qld.edu.au to eu -- to eq, education
Queensland, and we said no.  The reason we said no is because it is
not a political football you can bounce these names around.  My
concern would be dot Australia registers a gTLD with the consent of
the current Australian government.  That government changes in two
years' time and God only knows what could happen with that gTLD.

It is the name of a country.  It is not a gTLD.  It doesn't mean it
should be a ccTLD.  It just means it is not a gTLD.

>>MIKE SILBER:  Chris, if I can explain.  I don't think there is a
suggestion where Hilde and Annebeth are saying "just say no," to
quote your T-shirt.  It's rather a situation where if a country has
asked for a new gTLD with a country name, then the internal process
around that name you would like to be associated with similar
process.  Hilde, I see you pulling your hair out.  Am I getting it
wrong?  Because I think there are a number of iterations around this.

I would think as Chris mentioned there could be a situation where a
government accepts a new gTLD using the country name.  There could be
a separate situation where the government actually supports a new
gTLD with the country name.  But then in that situation, it should
belong to the local community and not given to some other commercial
entity and subject to gTLD rules.

Now, I don't think that has been expressed quite clearly enough
because we've been dealing with the right to the name and the process
around the allocation of the name, not the ongoing process as to who
exerts control afterwards and why we have different rules.

And on that basis, I think it will be very worthwhile getting some
more input from you, understanding that a little better and being
able to take that back to the board and to be able to engage on that
specific issue because I think there's certainly a lot of merit to
the question you're asking.  And unless we can come up with a
reasonable and clear answer to you, then it should at least be an
obstacle that we need to clear before we proceed.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Can we agree we take this out of the room and
that you pester Michael until he's clear -- not that you are not
clear because you are clear -- and we work out a methodology for
getting that information to the board as quickly as possible.  Now,
whether that's another letter or whatever doesn't matter.  But we'll
do that.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  That's a helpful response to my question,
which was, "What do you mean by treated as a ccTLD?"  What Chris has
explained and Mike identified, it is the ongoing operational rules. 
Who can change it?  Can it be sold?  I don't think we need to go on
any more.

>>ANNEBETH LANGE:  Just shortly, what we mean is if they are given
the support to be a country name, then it goes to the gTLD rules,
everything.  And it's out of the country's hands from that moment. 
And what we mean is that it is the local Internet community that
should decide those rules and if something happens, as Chris says,
with a government, it can -- given that support in one government and
then the next said, "Well, you have given away some of this," it is a
country name.  You can't give that away.  And it follows rules that's
not good for your country.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  We are going on a bit.  But I think we
thought we would cover that by requiring governmental consent.  It is
anticipated that the government would condition that consent on
creating any set of rules that the government wanted which would be
rules like you may not sell this because I think we think the
thinking is that the post-delegation challenges will be available and
if something happens to it that the community is not happy -- maybe
that's something we need to strengthen.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Some of the most complicated issues that ICANN
has to deal with, the government has consented to the delegation of a
TLD to a body and that government changes and that government changes
its mind about who that TLD has been delegated to, they are the most
complicated political issues ICANN has to deal with it.

The concept you would be dealing with that in the gTLD space with a
gTLD contract is -- with a name of a country, that's the problem. 
And sort it is not a grab for power like "we want these as ccTLDs,"
we don't actually want them at all.  What we want for them is not to
be gTLDs.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Again, be aware of the original policy
which was that there should be no special protection for these.  And
there is a strong intellectual property argument that you have no
right -- that a country has no rights to its name.  We do tell that
to the GAC.  We say, Point to any principle of international
intellectual property law that gives you a right like this.  It is
quite possible for you right now to go and set yourself up as the New
Zealand Trading Company or even just New Zealand.  You can start a
pub called the New Zealand Pub.  New Zealand or Australia, any other
country, doesn't own rights to its name.  You do have a threshold to
cross which the GNSO policy did not give you, and this is now coming
forward as an assertion of a right and the question comes back, Well,
what is the basis of this right?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  No, I'm sorry, that's not correct.  There is no
assertion of a right to the name.  There is simply -- we're talking
about this within the scope of ICANN.  We're talking about it purely
on a policy basis.

No one is saying that I have an inalienable right -- not "I,"
Australia has an inalienable right to dot Australia.  

What we are saying in the scope of what ICANN does, it is
inappropriate for it to issue, to delegate country names as gTLDs,
not because I've got a better right to them than you have but simply
because they don't belong in the gTLD space given everything else
that sits under the ICANN framework and given the difficulties and
political dangers that arise with respect to delegation and
redelegation.  That's a very, very broad-brush approach.  Jean-
Jacques wants to say something but Hilde first.

>>HILDE THUNEM:  I will keep it very quickly.  Our main point in
asking the question is, you have two -- you have one supporting
organization of the three you got in ICANN actually coming up with
this is an issue for us.  You have one of the big advisory councils
saying, This is an issue.  You are going in the direction of the
policy process that we do not want.

At least if you are going to run over those two, you should explain
very carefully what interests are you then prioritizing, especially
when we are talking about how you are going to act in the public
interest.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  And then we'll move on.

>>JEAN-JACQUES SUBRENAT:  Jean-Jacques Subrenat, member of the
board.  I have been designated as the ccNSO review working group.

Two remarks.  First is, obviously, this working group will be very
attentive to all the elements which have been brought up today with
both sides of the argument, the arguments from both sides.

But a personal remark at this stage, I understand the interest of
intellectual property rights and those arguments.  But I would say
from a standpoint of a practician of international relations, it is
true that intellectual property rights play a large part in the world
economy.  But there is a sense there is an overriding right, as it
were, which is the imprescriptible right of sovereign states.  We
have to find a way of formulating it in such that there is no
conflict between the two.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Jean-Jacques.  If it's okay with
everyone, I will move on to something perhaps slightly less
controversial.

Okay.  So I'm going to read this question -- I'm sorry.  Bart?  Oh,
Young Eum.  Sorry, Young Eum, couldn't see you there.

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  I was actually going to move on to a different
issue, if that was okay.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Do you want to ask your question?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  I'm Young Eum Lee, representing dot kr, ccNSO
council.  Last night we had a party celebrating the introduction of
IDNs, and I think it's wonderful -- it was wonderful.  It was fun and
Rod made a speech acknowledging everything that happened about IDNs
and he thanked the people that were responsible for the introduction
of IDNs going back nine years to the year 2000, and the chairs of the
SOs and so on.

Well, actually -- and I think be it was pointed out yesterday also,
the IDNs have been developed because there was a need by the people
who used the language other than English, not by ICANN.  I was at a
GIGAnet conference last night, and actually I gave a presentation. 
What I did was I made a comprehensive list of everything that
happened -- or major events related with IDNs, not just within the
ICANN community but also within the CJK community, including the JET,
the U.S. government, ITU, and IGF and WGIG and everything, WSIS, and
I tried to outline things that kind of initiated things.  And what I
found was that it -- the IDN development had been initiated by the
people who actually needed the system.  Specifically Tan Tin Wee of
the National University of Singapore in 1998 started the research
because he thought that the Chinese people needed the -- a domain
name system that uses something other than ASCII.

And the standardization was actually initiated by the community of
the CJK led by JPNIC under the rubric of "JET," joint engineering
task force.  And then of course what I also found was that ICANN was
very instrumental in getting everything together, so when VeriSign
came out with a test bed in 2000, ICANN made an announcement,
expressed concerns, and when the IETF came out with the standards,
RFC 3490, 91, 92, ICANN basically endorsed it under the guidelines
for implementation.

And -- and so on.

So whenever there was an important initiation by the community, what
ICANN did was they -- ICANN brought it into the ICANN rubric, and I
think it -- the reason that we are able to launch the IDNs now is
also because of ICANN, and I appreciate that.

But what I'm also concerned is that during that process, the
language community has been lost.  There were several issues made
during the development of the new gTLD process and so on that
mentioned the importance of the people who actually use the language,
and I think this is in philosophy related with what Annebeth was
actually saying, that it is okay -- I mean, we need interoperability,
we need cooperation, we need international something, so that -- I
mean, management so that everything is interoperable, but I think it
is very unfortunate that during the process, the people who actually
use the language, the community that is actually the focus, basically
is lost in terms of a linguistic expert group evaluation.  And so I
think when people actually started developing these standards, and
when the JET and the CJK community got heavily involved in the
process of standardization, I don't think that they meant it for, I
mean, CNNIC, JPNIC and KRNIC, meant for the gTLD community to take
over everything related with CJK, other than the country names, and
I'm not saying that I -- I'm -- I have a solution about this, but I
would actually like to know what Rod thinks about this.  Thank you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Young Eum.  Rod, you want to briefly
respond.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Sure.  First, Dr. Lee, thank you for recognizing
the people that have worked so hard to get all this started going all
the way back to 1998 in Singapore as you pointed out, and it's why,
in part, I recognize the whole IETF community last night as well in
my remarks because of their development of the RFCs and the standards
that made this possible.

I'm not sure I understand exactly the question.  What is it that you
wish to have?  Is there a specific proposal that you want us to think
about?  I'm not sure --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Can I -- we're in danger of running rapidly out
of time here, so Young Eum, can I ask you perhaps to -- what it's
about, Rod, is language communities, and ownership of -- ownership --
"ownership" is the wrong word but "Stewardship" perhaps is a better
word of language by a particular community, which I think Young Eum
is saying has been lost in the process pause you have gTLDs --
there's no -- the language community itself effectively has no
control over the issue of a TLD in its language.

We've had many discussions about this over the time and how, you
know -- the concept of it, how hard it is to deal with, et cetera,
but that's what it's about.  And what Young Eum was asking you was
what you thought about that, but I -- Young Eum, if I may, I'm not
sure that it's very fair on Rod, given where we sit right now, to be
asking him a question of that depth.

I would struggle --

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Thanks, Chris.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  -- to answer that question.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Chris, I'd like to do something with it. 
Not now, but I can remember some very inflammatory, I think, comments
early on by people who talked about owning languages and licensing
them and getting royalties and things which I think has confused and
inflamed -- if we could have a session on this at some stage, I'd
really like to come and hear what the issue is.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  All right.  We can certainly do that.

Okay.  So I'm going to take question from my short -- only short
list of questions and then I'll throw it open to the floor again if
anybody wants to ask something.

This is -- this would go to all of you, I guess.  Many ccTLD
managers run their registries for the benefit of their local Internet
communities.  We're, therefore, pleased to see the commitments by
ICANN in the affirmation of commitments -- in the affirmation of
commitments to operating for the public benefit and recognize the
challenges that this will bring.  What additional measures will ICANN
be taking and what changes to policy processes are envisaged, if any,
I suppose, to ensure that the end user and public interests are at
the heart of the organization in the future?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Can I have a very first quick high-level
one.  I'm actually surprised by this because we thought we were
putting all these things and we were sort of capturing the status quo
and capturing some extensive from the green paper/white paper.  I
mean, I don't -- I think I have always tried to operate and I think
the cc's and I think many of the groups --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  I'm not suggesting you haven't.  It's a -- it's a
--

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yeah, but I'm quite surprised that quite a
lot of people have targeted this and said it's going to mark a
change, which I guess may say something about the impression that we
create, that we actually are doing this for someone else's interest.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Well, sorry, I -- let me say I didn't write the
question, but let me say that I don't think it was intended to
suggest that you were doing that at all.  I think what it was -- this
question anyway was intended to say there's a restatement, a
reaffirmation, if you like, of the public benefit purpose of the
organization.  Do you think that by having restated that, there will
be a need for any -- any changes or do you think that as it's
currently structured, it's doing about the best that it can do?

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Sure.  I'm just going to jump in here.

Another way to look at this is, you know, since you're the policy
group for the ccTLDs, the question would be:  Is there any respect in
which you feel that your policies don't adequately address public
interest issues for the existing way that ccTLDs are managed?  And if
you identify major gaps or policy holes or behaviors and activities
that are detrimental to the public interest, we certainly hope it
would bubble up through this organization -- through your working
group.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Sure.  Michael and then Lesley.

>>MICHAEL SILBER: Well, I think the first thing is the commitment to
stability and security, I think, is absolutely paramount, and I don't
think that's changed.  And it's certainly something that we're
starting to see in terms of the introduction of the new gTLDs as well
as in terms of the IDN process based on the root scaling study, and
certainly from the board perspective, my critical issue is first do
no harm.  All of these ideas are absolutely good in principle.  Some
of them are vital.  Like the IDNs.  Some of them are -- will be very
useful, like the new gTLDs.  But the first principle is do no harm
and introduce nothing that could impact on the other -- on other
people's ability or existing ability to use the Internet.

Then the second phase is, taking into account people's concerns,
issues, considerations, and I think those are -- really have a voice,
but the review process that the affirmation introduces systemizes
that voice.

So first we measure where we are at the moment, so we can firstly
ensure that we don't go backwards, but secondly, we have to go
through a process of internal as well as external evaluation to
ensure that we keep developing and progressing, that we don't get
stuck in a rut, that we don't just simply do things because that's
the way that we've done them for the last number of years.  But that
it's actually to a purpose.

I think that's the key issue is assessing where we are at the
moment, what we've managed to achieve, how well we do things, and we
think in some respects we do things pretty well, in others maybe not
as well, and then it's an ongoing measurement of that process.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Lesley?

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Lesley Cowley, Nominet dot UK.  This is where I
confess that I wrote the question, and I share Michael's views.  I
think this presents an opportunity to take a fresh look at whether
there is a balance between end user needs and other needs through the
ICANN processes, and it gives you a fresh opportunity to maybe
introduce some changes that better balance those.  And it's actually
quite a sympathetic question because all of us struggle in our own
communities to balance some very loud registrars sometimes with very
strong opinions and end user needs, and I think the question also
reflects that there has been a lot of criticism about the different
players within the gTLD process, and many of those criticisms around
that are about, "Is there an end user need for these?  Is there end
user support for those?"  And I know you're recognizing those issues
now, but it is going to be a real challenge balancing those.  Nobody
said it wasn't in the past.  Now that it's publicly stated in the
AOC, I think it brings it back to the front of field.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  Well-stated.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Peter, you want to --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I guess I was -- my sense of it is that
we've -- ICANN's never operated for the good of the corporation.  If
it was for the good of the corporation, everything would be sold at a
very high price.  We would be auctioning new gTLDs, we would be
charging ccTLDs, to the extent we --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  You are auctioning gTLDs --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  It's quite clearly not -- this operation
doesn't run for the good of the corporation.  What this, I think,
focuses is that -- in my way -- and I think that I've always tried to
operate is that we have to exercise our stewardship of the Internet
and the public interest.  That seems to be what Lesley is saying as
well.  If we just operated in the public interest, then we would
probably give everybody in the world a free domain name and a free
Internet address and do all sort -- if that was in the public
interest.  What we're talking about, I think, is exercising
stewardship of the Internet and the public interest.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  I think that's correct.  While we're on the
subject of the affirmation of commitment, I have a question.

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the -- what appears to be
permanent role for the U.S. government in the accountability and
transparency review process, and why that particular one has been
sTLD out for them having a sort of security council seat, if you
like, on the review committee, whereas the others are not.  And I
wondered if there was any reasoning behind that.

>>ROD BECKSTROM:  I'll just respond.  The first thing is, it is a
long-standing document, the affirmation of commitments.  There's not
an expiry date on it.

On the other hand, it is, you know, cancelable by the other party
with 120 days notice, so it's not truly a permanent document.  I'd
say a long-standing baseline in the same way many of your
relationships with ICANN are long-term relationships and the
contracts may or may not exist and may or may not be permanent.

It was simply one very specific request to the Department of
Commerce, and, you know, it was our -- our sense that given that the
chairman of the GAC was going to be involved in the selection of all
the review teams, clearly there -- one could predict there should
certainly be Global International participation in each of the review
teams, and so that request was not seen as particularly onerous.  It
was noted as being different or exceptional.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  I've got a few other things but are there
any other questions from the floor?  Byron.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Unrelated to the previous question, but related to
some of the earlier comments that Peter made, and that was around the
contribution issue, the money issue.

A question for you is:  Who do you think or what's really driving it
at this point where it seems to be bubbling up fairly forcefully? 
And then the second question is:  Particularly given you've sat on
this side of the desk as well, what do you perceive to be a fair
balance?  What would ICANN perceive to be the right answer on this
question?

>>MIKE SILBER:  I think let me let Peter off the hook on this one,
so he doesn't have to be diplomatic.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  He's not off the hook.

>>MIKE SILBER:  Well, then let me jump in and be undiplomatic and
Peter can be more diplomatic.  I think as we got through finances and
as an evolving organization with significant pressures and some very
major projects pushing on us, with a considerable review schedule
which is going to involve significant amounts of time, significant
staff, we're most likely going to have to staff up to handle that
ongoing review process, given the schedule of reviews that's
required.  Plus we like to look at things internally to make sure
that we're -- and we review things internally as well, to try and
make sure that we're keeping up and we're as efficient as we should
be and we're not getting problems in the road because things are
being done the way that they've always been done, rather than in a
way that's optimal.

That's certainly created a financial pressure.  I think that's been
highlighted firstly by the accusations being thrown around by many in
the commercial sector that ICANN is just introducing new gTLDs to try
and generate some income, and also very much highlighted by the
debate around IDN costs and, in particular, around costs for IDN TLDs
related to country codes.

And I have no doubt that you've heard the same refrain that we hear
at least once every board meeting, but often in between of certain
board members -- which is no shirt, no problem shoes, no service --
we as a board should set the parameters, we should define what is or
isn't acceptable, and if you don't meet our requirements, which
include payment of the contribution, then we should reserve the right
to serve you and ask you to leave.

That's not a view that everyone shares, unfortunately.  A level of
sanity has prevailed on the board, but there are a number of voices --
I won't say "many."  They're still in the minority.  But there are a
number of voices saying, "These guys don't even pay a reasonable
contribution, they're not pulling their weight and now they're
sitting there saying we want more, we want more."

That perception is what I think Peter was talking about.  It is not
"up" your contributions but change the perception.  One way of
changing the perception is through a financial contribution.  Another
way may be through other contributions.  And certainly the
contribution from the cc community is large.  But at the moment, when
the level of contributions is skewed so significantly towards the
gTLDs, while the amount of work in the organization certainly there's
a lot more work going on, just given the number of constituencies
within the GNSO but it's not that skewed as the financial
contribution is.  There are eyebrows raised and I think Peter is
making the comment, be aware there are eyebrows raised and choose to
do something or not, and choose how you deal with it, but be aware
that people are asking these questions.  And particularly around the
cc IDNs.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let me -- I agree with what Mike said but
let me just summarize it perhaps.  This -- you said how is it -- why
is it bubbling up.  There's a long-standing low level of aggravation,
if you like, about the lack of ccTLD financial contribution that
comes up all the time in relation to budgeting and other finance
discussions, so there's this baseline discontent.  Mike's identified
the thing that brought it to bubble up where the idea and the
exercise was, where the exercise there was voluntary contributions. 
Because there was such a poor or allegedly poor record of making
voluntary contribution under the previous regime, there was no --
very little credibility for going that way on the new regime, so it
actually counted against us, if you like, in terms of this new
exercise.

As I might -- and I think we managed to get past that and overcome
these relatively strident voices for reasons I think you would be
pleased with.  That the theory of ccTLD prevailed rather than the
theory of franchise.  And I'm happy to talk to you more about that --
any of that privately later on.

What can you do about it?  Well, I go back frequently to a really
good piece of work that this group did under the leadership of
Patricio Poblete in Romania in the Bucharest meeting where this issue
came out and very strong statement was made by the ccTLDs, the
working group came back and reported in Bucharest and it was adopted
that the ccTLD community wanted to pay its share, it recognized that
it needed to pay a share of the ICANN overhead, and it wanted -- you
know, there's a really good policy statement back in there in 2002 or
'3 and we never really seem to have gotten past that into some kind
of mechanism where a regular contribution recognizing your own sort
of sense of your own cost and then share of the ICANN overhead to pay
for this room, you know, to pay for the meetings, to pay for the
staff and those sorts of things and we seem to have got bogged down
in arguments about whether it should be on a per-domain name basis or
where it should be something else.  Now, I know there's been working
groups, but I -- my advice -- my response, Byron, as to what to do
about it is to shunt that work forward a bit so at least there's
continuing energy being seen and hopefully some kind of an outcome
that people can sign up to.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Peter.  I think it would be fair to
say that the work that's been done by Kevin and his team over the
last six months or so has been extremely helpful for us to actually
look at what the costs are and how they -- and how they are
structured and so on.

And I also think it would be fair to say that we are aware, as a
group of a level of responsibility and we will work on that over the -
- you know, in the -- if I might put it as the short- to medium term,
which is not that long, in the scheme of things, and we're aware that
we need to do some work on it, so we will.  And we just don't know
quite well how yet.  We'll get to that later on today or tomorrow. 
Demi?

>>DEMI GETSCHKO:  Just a short comment without entering into a
discussion if we have to raise or to lower the amount we are paying.

I want to make the point that there is no direct relation between
who pays and who are you serving.  We are in the Internet times, you
know?  Many enterprise Internet -- in Internet services, it's a world
globe, and it receives money from specific arrangements or specific
communities in the Internet.

For example, I get a lot of work from Google and I don't pay
anything, but Google is towards the users because they want to have
the users to get revenue from other parts.

Then I suppose there is a caveat here not to join the source of
revenue with the aim of service.

These are two different things.  We can get money from one source
and can apply the money for the benefit of the Internet.  These are
two separate things.  Thank you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Demi.  We're rapidly coming to the end
of our -- end of our time.  One of the privileges of chairing this is
that I get -- I get to put a personal view, so I just wanted to
express a view about the affirmation of commitment and specifically
the role of the GAC.  Whilst I think it's excellent that the GAC's
role is enhanced, et cetera, I just want to say I think I'd be very
concerned if the GAC is choosing -- is -- you know, the chair of the
GAC is going to be the -- on all of these committees, et cetera, et
cetera, unless such time -- unless the GAC is actually, you know,
improved itself.

Whilst the GAC currently has a very, very, very good chair, there is
no guarantee that the next chair of the GAC will be suitable,
necessarily, to be playing the role that is currently played.  So I
just wanted to say that, and I don't know if there's anything that
can be done about it but --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  It's nominee, it's nominee, so -- can I
just ask you a question?  And the reality of these reviews, I don't
want people to get hung up on the review itself.  We could make a
review last, you know, an hour.  We could put everybody in a room,
give them a form to fill in against a number of questions and say,
"Tick this box" and then we would have done a review.  The exercise
is not the review.  The exercise is what are the things position that
are being reviewed and what do we need to make sure -- because
they've been -- those thing haven't been just made up out of thin
area.  Those things are the targeted areas where everyone has
identified ICANN needs improvement, so the real work for the
community is fixing or improving those things and the question I
would put to you is:  On all of those assessments, what would -- what
do you think we should be doing?  What do you think we need to do so
that when the review comes, and it will not be just a tick the box
mechanism -- let me be clear about that, it will be a proper review --
when that review comes, what do you want ICANN to look like?  How are
we going to parse these reviews, so that we can move on?  The goal is
making a better ICANN, a stronger ICANN.  So don't get hung up on
who's on the review team.  Get hung up on what are they reviewing and
how do we make that work best.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thanks, Peter.  And that's probably a good note
on which to close the session unless there are any final comments
from anyone.  Or anyone at the table?

Okay.  Well, in that case, would you all please join me in thanking
Michael and Rod and Peter.

[Applause]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  It's coffee time.  We will start again at 11:15. 
I appreciate that is a short break, it's only 15 minutes.  We have a
very tight schedule.  Our next session is Kim on IANA.  Don't miss
it.  It will be brilliant.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. 
We're going to start again in a couple minutes.  Okay, ladies and
gentlemen, please take your seats.  Leo?  You want to come and join
us?  So I thank you all for coming back.  Some other people are on
their way back as well.  But we're going to get started, so we don't
run short of time.  This is our -- again, our standing session on
IANA update from Kim and from Leo.  I'm going to disappear but only
for a couple of minutes.  Kim, over to you.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  Thanks, very much, Chris.  For the uninitiated, this
is the part of the session where I get to talk about what I think is
interesting about IANA to you.  And, hopefully, I hit the mark. And,
if not, at the end I get asked a lot of uncomfortable questions.  

So what I'll try and do is explain, obviously, IDN ccTLDs, which I
think is a very important part of our work, and also touch on a
number of other areas.  I don't think anything's going to be
particularly surprising, but we shall see.

The first piece of work we've been working hard on in the last
period since we last met is documenting IANA processes.  I think,
just after the ICANN Sydney meeting, we published our technical
requirements document.  This is our first attempt at really
rigorously documenting IANA root processes.  Historically, for
reasons I explained at previous meetings, we don't have a lot of good
documentation available to the public on exactly how all of ICANN's
processing of root zone changes occurs.  That's something we'd very
much like to change.  Publishing the technical requirements, I
believe, is the first step in that process.  And right now we're
working on comprehensively documenting all of our different processes
-- how we receive requests, what kind of evaluation IANA staff does
in those requests, how do we process delegation requests, and so forth?

It's not an easy process.  It's relatively easing writing what we
do, because I think we're very consistent in how we approach these
matters internally.  But, as most would be aware, how we write down
what we do, I think, is somewhat sensitive.  But that's not going to
stop us.  We believe it's very important that the community knows
what we do.  They might not agree with what we do.  But it's hard for
the community to understand and suggest we change our methodology, if
we don't explain accurately how we do our processing.  

Part of that work, as I mentioned, involves explaining how we do
delegation and redelegation processing.  This will be very useful, I
think, for the ccNSO's working group on this matter.  The working
group is trying to identify if the current process is sufficient.  It
will be in a much better place to do so, if it has very good
documentation on how we currently process such requests.  So I hope
that that will feed into that process and we can get that all
published in due course.

The next thing we've been working on is workflow automation.  This
is something we've been working on now, regrettably, I suppose, for
about three years now.  It's the effort to take what is a highly
manual process in processing root zone management and make it as
automated as possible.  We recognize that it can't be fully
automated, but we believe there are great gains to be had automating
much of the process.  What happened is exactly the week of Sydney,
the Monday -- so it would have been just prior to my last appearance
here -- we actually launched parallel testing of the automation
system.  What that means is that for every root zone request we
received, we processed it in a manual way we would normally, and we
also ran it through the automation system at the exact same time. 
The idea is that by doing this and doing this consistently over a
period of months, we can get confidence that the system works exactly
the way we intend.  And this was envisaged to be the final testing
phase before we made it fully live, permanent, and we could see some
manual processing.  

However, regrettably, in relatively short order, we identified a
flaw.  It does affect a relatively small minority of requests.  But
we quickly recognized that it, effectively, resulted in the IANA
database being out of sync with the root zone.  And that was simply
not sustainable to carry on with the testing until that issue was
remedied.  

Now, I'll explain, as best I can, in a simple way what that means in
a moment.  But it's, essentially, a matter where the EPP model, which
is what a lot of you use to provision domains and which we've tried
to apply to the root zone, just doesn't map as well as we would like.
So let me try and illustrate this.  And I've got hopefully a diagram
that will show okay on the display.

So let's take a hypothetical scenario where we receive a request
from a TLD.  Let's call it dot alpha.  They ask please add the name
server ns.uberdns.com.  Now, dot beta, another TLD might be operated
by the same different organization -- or maybe they're different
organizations.  It's not really important.  But dot beta also
requested that ns.uberdns.com gets added to their domain as well.  So
we've received two requests in relatively short order to add this new
name server for this TLD.  

What happens is IANA creates an EPP transaction.  We've modified EPP
a little to bundle requests together, because it's multiple requests
doing one transaction.  And in this EPP bundle is two instructions
that maps to EPP instructions.  One is create ns.uberdns.com to the
root and, secondly, add that created object to dot alpha.  So that's
how the EPP transaction is conveyed.  

Now, for the second request, we have the exact same methodology. 
We've received this request.  We need to create the host object,
ns.uberdns.com.  And we need to add host object to beta, dot beta.  

So we transmit this EPP bundle.  I won't go into the mechanics of
how that works.  But, logically, it goes to NTIA, who does an
authorization process.  Their role is to authorize all changes to the
root zones.  So they must sign-off they agree.  Similarly, we send
that EPP bundle from dot beta to NTIA as well.  So NTIA give its
approval, says this is fine; and it gets sent forward to VeriSign.  

VeriSign takes the EPP bundle and then starts processing each
instruction in order in the way we sent it.  So they first process
create host.  That's fine.  So that gets implemented.  That host
object now exists in the root zone view that VeriSign has.

The next step is add dot host to dot alpha, and that goes through
fine.  But then we have the second transaction, which has been
running in parallel, perhaps a few minutes before, perhaps a few days
before.  That gets to VeriSign after being approved by -- being
authorized by NTIA.  Now, its first instruction is it create a host
object called ns.uberdns.com.  That's going to fail because that
object already exists.  It has been in the interim between when the
initial requests came to IANA.  It was launched.  And, by the time it
reaches VeriSign, it's actually been created by another TLD.  So
that's kind of trying to illustrate the logical error that we're
facing.  It manifests itself in a few different ways, but that's
roughly the challenge that we faced.  

Now, you might be thinking this is pretty easy to resolve.  All you
need to do is, in the first one, you just create the host object. 
And the second one you don't have that command.  You just add the
name server to dot beta.  You don't need to issue that second create
host command.  That's simple in principle, but we have no control
over the ordering in which things get approved.  There's no
sequential processing of when dot alpha gets approved as opposed to
dot beta.  In fact, it could be, for example, that dot alpha TLD
manager may spends weeks writing for admin and tech contact to
approve; and, whereas, admin and tech contact for dot beta just
approve instantaneously and we've got it off to NTIA for
authorization much quicker.  

The problem then is it gets to VeriSign.  They get the add host
object, and there's no create host object command.  So it's trying to
add a name server that doesn't exist in their database.  So
hopefully, that wasn't too technical.  But that's the kind of issue
we're running into where we get instructions that we can't process in
the specific order.  And, by having the ordering mixed up, it causes
consistency problems between IANA and VeriSign.

So the root zone process requires parallel changes to be supported.  

The good news is, firstly, none of this is customer visible.  This
is all about interactions between ICANN, VeriSign, and NTIA.  

And, secondly, the problem we've remedied, we've worked out a
solution, it's been implemented, being rolled out.  So it's not a big
problem.  It's just something that we identified at Sydney.  It's
delayed our testing, unfortunately.  But we're curing.

However, doing this retooling, there's one specific -- excuse me --
workflow feature that we wanted to implement as well to improve the
design that we did.  And it's been implemented.  And, also, it was an
opportunity to implement the DNSSEC infrastructure for the next
topic, which is signing the root zone.  So I think most of you would
know our intention is to sign the DNS root zone.  What some of you
may not know is that in recent weeks a timetable has been announced. 
Tentative timetable, to be sure.  But we're doing our best to meet
this timetable.  

Now, the implementation of DNSSEC, I guess, can be divided into
three categories.  There's privately testing the signing solution,
publicly testing the signing solution, and then the full production. 
We've launched it.  It's going.  It's in implementation.

So this is where we are.  We're almost at the end of private
testing.  Public testing commences December 1st, 2009, which, by my
math, is a little over a month away.

And the aim is to have full production on July 1st, 2010.  So, you
know, it's within -- it's within reach.  It's not some far out
distant date, but it's something tangible and very close.  And this
is a big effort.  We have a number of people from ICANN working on
this full time.  VeriSign has a number of people working on this. 
It's a very collaborative effort, and a lot of work is going into this.

Now, the part where it touches on IANA the most is where we talk
about key handling, which is getting the DS keys from ccTLD operators
and inserting them in the root zone.  Now, this will be at least in
the interim, based on our current model for root zone changes.  We'll
have a text-based template like we have today, except it will have DS
records added to it.  You will fill out the DS records in this text
based template.  You'll e-mail it to IANA.  And we'll process it in a
very similar way we process root zone changes.  

This, however, makes it quite different from the way ITAR works. 
ITAR is a Web-based form, very automated.  But we accept that, in
deploying this, we're following the current root zone processes. 
Changing the whole way the root zone is published is a different
task.  So this is accommodating this new DNSSEC material in a way
that complements the way we do root zone changes today.  What we will
-- what we do intend to do is, firstly, when we launch our root zone
automation software, that it will have DNSSEC support.  And you can
then use a Web-based interface. And, secondly, until then, we hope to
provide some tools to help you fill out that text based form.  One of
the experiences we've had with ITAR is that it's not as
straightforward as it might seem.  And people often make mistakes in
filling out the DS records.  So we'll provide a tool that helps you
fill out the form, verifies the values are correct before you hit
submit before it comes to IANA.  

One thing I wanted to highlight is that difference in methodology
between ITAR and root zone management doesn't just affect the way you
submit it, whether it's an e-mail template or whether it's a web
form, but also implements sort of the way you think about when to
schedule your trust anchors being listed in the root.  The way the
ITAR works is -- hopefully, this is another understandable diagram. 
But you list -- you send an instruction to IANA, sort of a listing
instruction that says, "List the trust anchor.  Start on 1st of May,
end on 1st of June."  And then it will be visible in the trust anchor
repository for that time. 

You submit this in advance, maybe a week in advance, some period in
advance.  And, sort of judging by the timeline, the green box is
where it gets lodged with the system saying, "I want to do this." 
There's some IANA processing, which takes a couple of days.  But
then, once the IANA processing is finished, it doesn't immediately go
into the trust anchor repository.  It just sits there waiting.  It's
waiting for that start date to appear.  Once 1st of May comes along,
beginning of 1st of May, it pops straight up, just sits there.  And,
on the 1st of June, it just automatically goes away.  So, once that
initial listing request with a start and an end date is submitted,
everything from there on is automatic.  And it just appears and is
removed exactly when you requested it.  Now, here's the root zone
process.  The root zone process is predicated on add and remove
requests.  There's no scheduling of here's the period I want to be in
the root zone with an expiry date attached to it.  Instead, you
submit an add request when you want to add a trust anchor.  And then
later, when you're on the verge of removing it, you submit a later
delete request or remove request.  Now, also, another difference in
the paradigm of processing trust anchors for the root is that, you
know, there's three different parties involved.  There's IANA;
there's NTIA; and there's VeriSign.  With these three parties there's
some variability on how quickly they'll process changes.  And this
will impact exactly when a trust anchor will appear in the root and
also exactly when a trust anchor will be removed from the root.  The
consequence of this, just to quickly summarize, is that you have to
submit two requests for trust anchor to add and remove rather than
one.  And you don't have the same level of precision about exactly
when it hits the root and when it's removed.  Now, this might sound
scandalous.  I don't think it is.  It's just a reflection of the
exact same issue you have already with NS records.  We can't
precisely time when NS records enter the root.  We can't precisely
time when they're removed.  So it's just following on from that. 
But, because the system isn't all self-contained, we don't have the
same level of precision available that we do in ITAR.

So speaking of ITAR, it continues to run.  We're gaining operational
experience from top-level domain operators, how to use it.  I went in
more detail yesterday at the tech workshop about some of our
experiences.  Suffice it to say it's been really useful to gain
experience about how TLDs use the system in order to better inform us
on how we should develop root zone signing and how we should interact
with TLDs on accepting trust anchors.

One thing I was asked to emphasize by one particular TLD manager is
what is the relationship between ITAR and the DNS root?  And, you
know, there's a conceivable scenario. Once the root is signed, we
have this ITAR that has trust anchors submitted through that.  And
then we have the root zone, which has trust anchors submitted through
that.  Just to emphasize, we have no intention of taking keys that
are in ITAR and automatically putting them in the root.  We will
certainly invite users of the ITAR to put their keys in the root. 
But we will not automatically be transferring data.  And,
furthermore, we will not be doing the converse either.  We won't be
taking the trust anchors in the root and automatically putting them
in the ITAR.  The two systems will remain completely independent.  It
will be at each TLD's discretion whether to use one, the other, or
both.

So IDN ccTLDs.  Firstly, this is predicated on a board vote
happening later this week.  Everything I'm about to say assumes that
will be approved.  If it's not, then ignore what I'm about to say.

I think most of you were in the presentations yesterday about IDN
ccTLDs.  And I just wanted to emphasize that it is actually a two-
step process.  And I think each has its own set of conditions.  A lot
of the focus yesterday was on phase one, and that's completely
understandable.  

Phase one:  How we choose these new IDN ccTLD strings is a
completely new process.  It's something we're doing for the first
time and, I think, requires a lot more explanation.  But it's useful
to compare the two phases.  So we're phase one. And the question is: 
Can this string represent a country?  The evaluation there is
performed by a new ICANN team.  It involves outside experts.  Its
eligibility criteria is different from anything we've had before. 
That was spelled out yesterday.  And you launch the request through a
new process that involves a web form.  It gets submitted.  It gets
tracked.

That process will take a minimum of two weeks.  But I think Tina
said yesterday it's probably a 1- to 2-month process.  Once you've
successfully completed phase one, then you can do phase two.  

Phase 2 is the classical delegation request that gets submitted to
IANA.  That evaluation is done by a different set of people.  It's
the IANA staff.  That evaluation goes to the ICANN board for
approval.  It's following the standard delegation criteria.  It's the
same set of principles that we evaluate against that we would for any
new ccTLD today, IDN or not.  When it comes time to issue it in the
root zone, it's the same root zone process we use today.  But we
require that phase one be completed.  Just to be clear, that process
can be shorter.  But our estimate, when we're asked, is usually, in
an uncontested scenario where all the documentation is submitted in a
timely way, usually takes about three months.  

So I just wanted to set expectations, because it might not have been
clear, that it's a two-phase process.  Phase one is getting your
string selected.  Phase two is appointing an organization to run that
TLD.  There are two separate processes handled by different staff. 
And those that are applying for IDN ccTLDs should certainly factor
that into their evaluation.

So how are we preparing?  We're improving our documentation.  I
talked about that in the beginning of our presentation.  We've hired
one additional new root zone staff member.  Those that have
interacted with us in the last couple months have probably seen her
name.  And, also, we've arranged so that there's additional ICANN
staff resources available that we can tap into.  So that, if we get
an influx of ccTLD applications more than what we're estimating, we
can pull in additional resources relatively quickly.  So that's my
presentation.  Thank you very much.  And fire away.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Kim.  

Do we have any questions for Kim or any comments?  Any concerns? 
Once again, Kim, you've managed to achieve the impossible.  It seems
not.  Okay.  I have a sneaking suspicion that the next few months
will be quite busy for you guys.

 >>KIM DAVIES:  I'm not planning on taking holiday any time soon. 
So...

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Peter has a question.

>>PETER van ROSTE:  Thanks, Kim.  On the automation process formerly
known as e-IANA -- you might have mentioned it, but I probably missed
it -- when do you think you will have resolved the issue that you
just pointed out?

 >>KIM DAVIES:  I believe the issue is already fixed.  The question
is:  When will we resume testing?  And we're relying on multiple
parties in deploying this.  We have -- it's a two-part process. 
There's a software system developed by ICANN, and there's a software
system developed by VeriSign that talk to each other.  Part of the
problem is the resources. Because we have DNSSEC signing being done
by all the same staff at both organizations.  And that has a hard
time limit of being deployed within a month.  I believe we'll resume
testing in the coming months.  We don't have an exact date, but it's
a priority.  We're not putting it on the back burner.  But,
recognizing that it's a whole lot of period coming up, recognizing
that we've addressed the software issues now, we're not going to
deploy it in the middle of Christmas.  So, once staff are back, once
the root is signed, I think then we'll move forward with resuming our
parallel testing.

>>PETER van ROSTE:  So once the root is signed, so that means after
summer of 2010.

 >>KIM DAVIES:   No.  The root is signed December 1st.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Anyone else?  Okay.  Well, in that case, thanks
very much.  We'll move on to the next session.  Thanks, Kim.

[Applause]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you.  We're moving on now to -- you've got
a presentation to give us?

>>LEO VEGODA:  Yeah, very short.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  So Leo is going to give us a presentation on IANA
business excellence.

>>LEO VEGODA:  Okay.  Hello, everyone.  My name's Leo Vegoda.  I
don't normally come to these sessions, but I'm glad to be here today.
I'm talking about IANA business excellence.  This is a new program
that we have started work on.  It's a multi-year piece of work.

It comes out of the strategic plan.  One of the strategic goals from
the strategic plan is to strive for excellence in core operations. 
Therefore, we're looking to make sure that we're striving for
excellence in delivering the IANA functions.

Now, the work was begun by Barbara and Doug and it includes everyone
on the team.  And the idea is that it's a sustainable, systematic
process.  It's cyclical.  And it's something that we'll be going
through on a multi-year cycle.  

So, basically, this business excellence program is -- it has been
introduced because we recognize that there's all these new things
that we're going to need to be able to do, things like DNSSEC, things
like expansion in the number of TLDs.  And we're probably not going
to be able to slack off.  And we, basically, need to make sure that
we're up to the job as the job gets harder.

So the program that we're implementing is based on the EFQM model,
which is very similar to the JQA model used in Japan and the
Baldridge model used in North America.  We selected it mainly because
this model is very popular in a number of regions.  Obviously, it's
based in Europe but it's also popular in the Middle East and it's
popular in parts of Africa.

And this model helps us identify where there's room for us to make
improvements and then review the work that we've done to improve.

It focuses on these fundamental concepts of excellence, and I won't
go through each individually.  But some things that are very
difficult to disagree with like results orientation and customer
focus and leadership and constancy of purpose, which I like to think
of as not mucking around, and management by processes and facts,
which is probably better than going on a hunch, that kind of a thing.

The way we will be working on this is we will be doing a baseline
assessment so we have a good measure of everything we're doing and
how we're doing.  And we're expecting to complete that document in
the middle of December.

We'll then do a self-assessment about a month later when everyone's
had a chance to review that document.  That self-assessment will come
out with a number of strategic initiatives for improvements, areas
where we need to make improvements to meet the demands that are going
to be placed upon us.

And we'll identify those strategic initiatives in January, which as
Kevin explained earlier, is the start of the financial planning
process.  So it will go into the budget planning to make sure that
our project planning and budget planning are aligned.

So as I mentioned at the start, we're looking for something which is
cyclical.  So after we've gone and done these projects, which we will
be identifying for in the start of January, and planning for in the
financial planning process, we'll come to the end of these projects
and then be reviewing how we did on those projects, whether they
achieved everything that they were meant to achieve and identifying
additional opportunities, areas for improvement and then repeating
the cycle.

So parts of what we're doing is we're obviously making sure that the
key stakeholders in the IANA functions know what we're doing.  So
ccTLDs obviously are key stakeholders.  We're talking both to the
ccNSO today but also we have a session on Thursday afternoon in which
we will go into this in a little bit more detail and Doug Brent will
be introducing the session to give an explanation of the ICANN senior
management philosophy there.

We'll also be communicating on what we're doing through the blog so
there's a written record, and we're always happy to sit down and have
a conversation about what's going on.

And as the work progresses over the next few years, we want to
continue making sure that our key stakeholders, like the ccNSO, know
what we're doing.  And those are my slides.  And I'm -- I return to
you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Leo.  Anyone got any questions for
Leo?  Okay, great.

So that's the IANA session.  Leo and Kim, thank you both very much
indeed.

[Applause]

Okay.  The next session is our WHOIS session.  Ondrej is chairing
this session and Lee, Zoran, Dave Piscitello -- you would be the guy
sitting over there.  Thanks, Dave.  This is a session on WHOIS, and
I'll pass the chair to Ondrej.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Thank you very much, Chris.  Good morning,
everybody, my name is Ondrej Filip.  I will not talk too much because
we are a little bit running out of time.

We added this session.  We are a program working group at the
request of some of the members.  And we'll have, as Chris mentioned,
three presentations.  And I really don't want to waste time, so I'll
ask Lee Bygrave as the first presenter.  Lee Bygrave is from
Norwegian Research Center for Computer and Law to start his
presentation about the research he has done in domain -- in WHOIS
services of Norwegian, European and dot com domains.

>>LEE BYGRAVE:  Thank you very much.  My name is Lee Bygrave.  I'm
associate professor at the Norwegian Research Center for Computers
and Law attached to the University of Oslo.  I would like to thank
ccNSO for inviting me here.  I'd also like to thank the Norwegian
domain name authority Norid, which manages the dot no TLD for
providing the funding.  And Norid has graciously deigned to provide
funding for a long-term research program on Internet governance
issues and DNS governance issues generally at the Norwegian Research
Center for Computers and Law.

I'm here to talk to you today briefly about one result of that
program, which is this little report here titled "Legal Issues
Regarding WHOIS Databases."

I'm not the author of the report.  The report is authored by Dana
Irina Cojocarasu who was a researcher at the time.  She has now moved
on to other past pastures.  They may be greener, I'm not sure.  I
edited the report and I supervised the research and writing of the
report so I'm relatively well-placed to talk to you about its contents.

I should just say the views in the report are not necessarily held
by Norid nor by myself but they have a great deal of credibility
otherwise.

What does the report cover?  As the title suggests, the focus is on
legal issues, the legal dimensions of WHOIS policy.  And this is in
keeping with the focus of our research, which is on legal elements,
legal issues which often are overlooked, seen as a bit too
complicated or best left to the lawyers.

The focus is also on just the policy frameworks for three TLDs, two
from the ccTLD domain which is dot eu and dot no and one from the
generic top-level domain category, dot com.

Despite the legal focus, the report also looks at the technical, the
organizational, political framework for the implementation and
development of WHOIS policy.  I think one of the particularly useful
features of the report is that it charts the very long and rather
complex and rather controversial development of the WHOIS service and
associated policies right back from the good old days in the early
'80s when RFC 812 was issued by the IETF.  In those days, WHOIS
service was not a compulsory service.  Registration of WHOIS database
was not compulsory.  And it charts that development right up until
April of this year when the report was finalized.

As many of you in this room are aware, the process has been very
controversial.  At the moment, we have, in effect, a situation in
terms of further policy development which is somewhat akin to a
stalemate with the main lines of tension running between, on the one
hand, European regulators that are subject to relatively stringent
data privacy rules that then set concomitantly relatively stringent
restrictions on the public availability of WHOIS registrant data.

And on the other side, we have predominantly U.S. actors that are
aiming to maintain relatively free access to WHOIS registrant data. 
There have been to date only two consensus policy decisions reached
by the ICANN board, both back in 2003 dealing with relatively
discrete issues.  And work on a more comprehensive consensus policy
has been, let's say, stalled.  And I know that the AoC doesn't really
do very much to further policy development in that respect.

So what are the main findings of the report?  I've only time to deal
with a few here.  One is about the purpose, about the functions of
WHOIS databases.  The report finds that there is a lack of clarity in
the documentation that formulates the purposes for WHOIS databases,
the ends they are supposed to serve.

And, indeed, the overarching argument of the report is that a clear
definition of the purpose of WHOIS databases would then further
better policy making around use of WHOIS data.  And, indeed, you
can't have very good policies restricting use of data unless you have
very good definition of what the data should be used for in the first
place.  And that definition, as I said, is lacking.

Another finding concerns the rules relating to the accuracy of WHOIS
database.  It's argued that the current contractual provisions in
place don't set down clearly enough the sorts of steps that are to be
taken by registrars in the first place and, to some extent
registries, to check the accuracy of WHOIS data.

And the other problem is that they -- in addition to providing
little practical guidance, there's little incentive placed on the
responsible actor to actually go about and do good quality control. 
There are as well very few guarantees of enforcement.

The third finding that is worth taking with us at the moment is that
it's difficult for WHOIS database managers to claim that their
databases are subject to copyright protection simply because the
level of creativity involved in setting up and maintaining WHOIS
databases is not enough for copyright to adhere in the databases as
such.

That's not so much a problem in Europe because we have a database
directive from the E.U. passed back in 1996 which gives compilations
of data such as WHOIS databases a certain sui generis protection
against reproduction and extraction of at least substantial amounts
of data.  So for European actors, that sui generis protection
provides a great deal of help.  But for actors outside Europe, there
is much, much less help.

What's the relevance of the report today?  I think although it was
published back in April -- or finished back in April 2009, April of
this year, policy development since hasn't come far enough to mean
that the report is not relevant.  And while it focuses primarily on
just three TLD regimes, dot no, dot eu, dot com, it sets out a useful
checklist, a useful set of criteria by which one can assess the
equivalent regimes of other TLDs.

So how do you get the report?  That's on the final slide, which is
via www.unipub.no.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Thank you.  That was a very interesting
presentation, indeed.  Thank you for fitting it into the time slot we
got.  Are there any questions?

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Martin Boyle from Nominet, dot uk.  When the
research is being done, was there any attempt to look at the sort of
information requirements that possible users might actually require? 
I'm thinking in particular about law enforcement who when they start
looking for data are pretty damn sure that the data they are going to
find is false but where quite often you get similarity of false data
that run across a number of domains.

And so it obviously then starts becoming possible to imagine
treating data in a particular way that would allow it to be
anonymized and, therefore, not fall foul of European laws.

Was any analysis of what people were looking for actually done to
contribute to that?

>>LEE BYGRAVE:  There's no empirical survey done in terms of a
questionnaire, what do people want, what do people need, in
particular what do law enforcement agencies need.  It is very much a -
- I would say, entirely an ivory tower perspective but it's not far
from that.  But there is a specific chapter dealing with law
enforcement needs, at least punitive needs.  But it is not based on
any firm empirical evidence other than some of the rhetoric that the
law enforcement community comes out with.  That's obviously easily
publicly available.  

But it's Chapter 5, if you want to go into detail, which deals with
the balance between law enforcement needs particularly and, let's
say, the privacy needs of the registrants.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  And is there any intention of following up this
study and drilling down in a little bit more detail and, perhaps,
collecting evidence rather than what people actually say publicly?

>>LEE BYGRAVE:  If we get the funding, sure.

[Laughter]

But funding is not that easy to come by these day for legal
research.  But you've put your finger on an important point, yeah.

One of the difficulties, though -- you talked about anonymization of
the data.  And one of the difficulties, legally speaking, even in
Europe is working out when do data actually become anonymous so that
they actually escape the requirements of data privacy law in the E.U.
And the jury is still yet -- well, the judges have yet to agree on
that.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Are there any other questions?  If not, then I
would like to ask Zoran to present the situation in Croatian domain
dot hr.  Please.

>>ZORAN VLAH:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I'm Zoran Vlah.  I work for
Croatian Academic and Research Network as the coordinator for dot hr
domain.  So we don't have a WHOIS service as such.  Instead of that,
we use basic query on our database.  So I would like to show you a
little bit just to have an idea how it works in Croatian domain.  And
for that reason, I will just give you an overview about our domain
structure and how the query is performed.

We also are planning to introduce the WHOIS service so we are going
to do it based on the recommendation from the society, from the
community, especially from CENTR, and based on the other registries'
examples.

So I would like to tell you a little bit about the structure because
I think it would differ a little bit from the rest of you because we
still offer the domain name registration free of charge.  Because of
that, we have very strict rules and policies and we divided our
registrants in three main groups.  First group is for legal entities.
The second one is for natural persons that are providing some kind of
services or products like craftsmen, artists and such.  And the third
group is for governmental institutions and governmental agencies.

We also registered the third-level domains which could be
commercial, .com.hr.  They are not free of charge.  And the domains
for natural persons are under the .from.hr.

So basically, technically it looks like this.  We have an interface
that is connected to three different servers.  On the biggest one, we
have databases for the second-level domains, all three groups.  And
we have different services for .com,  .hr, and .from.hr.  This is
only a snapshot of our Web -- for our Web query, but it is all in
Croatian so you will have to believe me that it actually works.

Here you can see that we have four textbooks, which is pretty
unconvenient for our customers.  And we have one link that is a link
for the least -- for the domains that are used by governmental
institutions in our government.

So when you fill up the textbooks, the query -- the result in the
query that you will have is just a basic set of data.  You will only
have the information if -- you will only have the information about
the status of the domain and the basic information of the domain
holders.

So the biggest problem here is that the customer should know in
which category is the domain holder, if it is a natural person or if
it is a legal entity or governmental institution.  So on top of that,
we just give a limited set of information as a response and we don't
provide any other interfaces like command-line based WHOIS.

As I said, we will use the recommendations from the community and
because of that, I did some kind of research among other registries,
how it is done.  And I choose the Slovenian registry and Latvian
registry because they are more or less the same size as the Croatian
registry; and I just picked Austrian and German registry, no special
reason.

What you can see here is Austrian and German registry, they do not
provide any data regarding to dates -- the date of creation or the
date of expiring of the domain name.  Then the information about the
domain name holder differs also a little bit among these registries.

What is interesting here, the technical contacts are always
representative in the full set of data, except in the Slovenian
registry where they only have the handle from the database so if you
need any kind of -- oops, if you need any kind of information about
technical contact, probably you should contact the registry itself.

And, of course, every registry provides all the information about
the DNS server.  And most of them, they use CAPTCHA coding to prevent
ultimate data retrieval.

Just to sum up what I just said, this is the basic guidelines that
we are going to use when we are going to introduce the WHOIS in
Croatia.  These are our plans in the future.  Based on this, we will
provide full information about the domain holders.  The technical
contact person will also be represented as a response on the WHOIS.

We don't know yet if we are going to provide data about the
registrar.  It's under discussion at the moment.  Of course, we are
going to provide all the information about DNS service and we are
going to use the CAPTCHA to prevent automatic data retrieval.

So the timeline is by the end of this year, I hope that we are going
to -- I hope that we are going to introduce the new rules and
regulations.  We have some discussions with our government at the
moment, so I hope that it will finish by the end of the year.

So my guess would be that we will need some six months to introduce
all the changes, so I do hope that we will finish the job before the
next holidays next year.

So to sum up this presentation, I would put the question, why WHOIS
because we have a system that actually works.  Well, first reason is
that WHOIS is kind of an industry standard, so it is kind of a must-
have.  And we do not have to reinvent the wheel, so it should be
pretty easy to introduce WHOIS in our registry.

It would be very, I hope, beneficial for the customers because they
would only just have to search for second-level domain and there
wouldn't be a need for them to know if the domain name holder is in a
category of natural person or legal person or governmental
institution or whatever.  They will just have to know is it second-
level domain or the third-level domain.

And at the end, we will also use the CAPTCHA system just to prevent
automated data retrieval.  And we are thinking about the command line
WHOIS interface also.

So this would be all for me.  Thank you for participation.  Now I'm
open to your questions.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Thank you very much, Zoran.  Are there any
questions from the floor?  Wolfgang?

>>WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER:  How many names do you have registered
under dot hr?

>>ZORAN VLAH:  About 80,000 at the moment.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  I don't see any other requests for questions, so
thank you very much, Zoran.  Thank you for your presentation.

[Applause]

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  And the next presentation will be from Dave
Piscitello from ICANN, and he promised to have about 10 minutes
presentation, so we'll definitely finish on time.  So Dave?  The
floor is yours.

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  I think I'm the last presentation between you
and lunch, and I'm going to try to -- no?  Oh.  Well, then, I will
try to get you to lunch as quickly as possible.

Consider this presentation something like a movie trailer.  I'm
going to cover very briefly an introduction to some of the activities
that I hope many of you will be able to participate in tomorrow.

In particular, the topic is display and usage of internationalized
registration data.

The problem space that the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
began studying quite some time ago is, rather simply put, if we stop
and we look at the Internet today, more and more Internet
applications are attempting to provide a local language user
experience.  So we have e-mail where we can use our local --
characters from our local languages and scripts.  We have Web pages
that are represented in many cases in many languages to satisfy many
visitors.  And we have WHOIS, which is yet another application.

So if we assume that the world wants to have the convenience of, you
know, users being able to view information in characters from their
local languages, then one of the conclusions we draw is that WHOIS
must accommodate that same global audience.

It's very important that we separate this immediately as a distinct
issue from IDN TLDs.  We already have a need for a global user
experience, and providing locality.  And what we already have are
standards for IDN TLDs.  What we do not have are standards or
conventions or best practices for registration data.  And by this, I
mean the contact data, the names and addresses of the various parties
who have registered domains throughout the world.

To sort of emphasize, when the standards community began studying
IDN standards, they did a very, very interesting job and a very fine
job of providing a backwards compatibility, so that we did not have
to make a significant change to the DNS protocol in order to
introduce IDN TLDs.

Now, the implementation of that has taken some considerable time,
and there are, you know, more than just technology issues that had to
be resolved, but we're well on our way to having the ability to
represent domain names fully from the dot that represents the root
through to the lowest label of a domain name in local languages and
scripts.

In most of the standards, you will find that the IAB identifies that
the scope of their standards for IDN was not going to cover specific
application needs, so there are no standards today that come out of
the IETF that define how registration data are to be composed and
displayed.

If you have used WHOIS, you will know that the recognizable display
of registration data is application-dependent.  You can go to a WHOIS
server that's run by the dot DE registry and you can see who is
registration information displayed uses the enhanced Latin character
set.  You can go to a WHOIS server run by the JP registry and you can
see some information displayed in ASCII and some information
displayed in character sets from one of the Japanese languages.

So the display can be affected by the character sets that are
available not only from the registry but also from the application
that people are using, and from the platform, the operating system or
the browser, that the end user is using.

So there is a significant amount of variability in what you will see
and how you may display it.  And it's very important that we consider
all these when we understand how we actually move from the current
state to what would be the preferred state of being able to provide
locality and the ability to recognize and use characters from your
own language when you look at domain registration data.

When we explore that space, there are significant issues that we
have to pay attention to, not only in the area of user experience but
in the area of operational and data reliability and accuracy.  So
we've already talked about the user experience at one level, which
is, "Can I read what is displayed and can I submit in a language that
I understand?"

If we tried to do that in one direction, we could end up with what
we call a babble effect, where everyone is using a local language and
no one has any common way to actually take the language and transform
it or transliterate it back into every other conceivable
representation.  We also need to understand the impact on the way
that people use WHOIS today because they largely assume that WHOIS is
represented in characters from the U.S. ASCII 7 character set.  In
particular, the people who must be concerned about that are any
people who have done automation on both DNS or WHOIS queries to do
law enforcement investigations or anti-phishing investigations or to -
- whether you like it or not -- mine the WHOIS for information
relating to some demographic.  So we do need to understand what the
impact will be on any -- of any standards that we adopt on these
users, and we also need to be sensitive to the fact that we can't
create a babble effect and further encumber law enforcement in their
responsibility of trying to help us keep the Internet free of crime
and malicious activity.

The status of the work that we have already done is that SSAC had
published a document sometime early in the summer and it was
presented in Sydney and we had a very brief birds of a feather
session.  Following the birds of a feather session, the ICANN board
of directors tasked the GNSO, ALAC, the ccNSO, the GAC, and SSAC, to
form a working group to study internationalized registration data.

The staff was directed to prepare a working group charter and
implementation plan, and that's been publicly posted, and then staff
were also directed to do some preliminary study to essentially
investigate current practices among ccTLDs and for those of you who
are in the room who actually provided me with anecdotal data about
your own WHOIS studies, I truly appreciate your effort.

We're also looking at requirements for standard functionality and
we're also looking at some conventions and standards from other
communications media that have experienced this same problem.

For example, the Postal Service.  Now, we all mail letters still --
not -- you know, we use electronic mail mostly today, but we still
sometimes write.  And there are conventions that people can follow to
make certain that they have the best probability that their letter
will be delivered in the country of destination.

And so I am particularly looking at some of those standards and have
some ideas about how that might relate to the WHOIS activity.

The working group -- this is the invitation.  The working group is
meeting tomorrow, Wednesday October 28th, from 3:00 to 4:30 in
Crystal A.  I'll have a longer presentation that goes into a little
bit more depth than what I've presented here, and I really do want to
emphasize that the ccTLD experience is extremely valuable.  You have
already had to deal with this with your own constituencies more than
many others, and ccNSO participation is critical.

We -- this is not just an issue for gTLDs.  Solving this problem for
gTLDs only addresses a part of the population of people that need
some sort of uniformity and if we can all agree on best practices and
conventions, we would be doing the global community a great, great
service.

So, again, I invite you tomorrow to participate.  If you can't
participate, please think about joining the working group that will
convene using mailing lists and probably every-two-weekly
teleconferences to progress the work.  And I thank you very much for
having me.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Thank you very much, Dave.  I'm a little bit in
depth -- what time does the working group start, which is 15 to 14:30.

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  Yes, actually we're operating in negative time. 
We've taken some time we're going to try to make up for time.  It's
actually 15 to 1730, yes.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Makes sense.  Thank you very much, Dave.

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  It's 1630?  There you go.  I don't know.  Come
at 3:00, and we'll do what we can.

[Laughter]

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Thank you very much, Dave.  Are there any questions
for Dave?  Martin?

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thanks.  And -- sorry.  Martin Boyle from Nominet
dot UK.

Thanks for the -- that presentation.  My question really is that
your approach, if I've understood you right, is to look across all
TLDs and consider how one would make the WHOIS data that all the TLDs
make available available to the rest of the world, no matter what
script they use.  So dot US, if I follow that argument through, would
then be expected to provide its registration data in Chinese
characters, for example?

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  No, that's actually not correct.

What we're looking for is some common denominator, perhaps.  And
actually, the field is wide open.  I mean, if, in fact, we could
actually figure out a way to do what you say, perhaps that's the
answer.  I think a more practical answer is to try to understand
whether there is a common representation that could assure that
automation could be performed on WHOIS registration data,
irrespective of who accepted the data and, in addition, perhaps, have
complementary data to accommodate local languages.

So there are several different considerations but one might be that
we try to have a baseline which could be the existing U.S. ASCII but
I'm not presuming that that would be the case, and then as a
complement to that, perhaps registries and registrars, you know,
would also be able to store -- or accept submissions in a local
language, and make that accommodation, or accept and display
information in local languages that they choose to support at their
Web portal or through their Port 43 interface.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  So if I understand what you're saying right, the
direction of travel seems to be towards those who are operating an
IDN -- let's say Chinese -- would then be obliged in some way to
provide at least some interpretation of that data into whatever base
language or base script that you decide is being the base?

>>DAVE PISCITELLO:  I don't think it's related to IDN.  I think it's
actually related to the interface that you present to the registrant.

So -- and it may be the case, depending on the way that the
registrar -- if we use the registrar model, if the registrar chooses
to present to the user community, it's perfectly possible for that
registrant to say, "I will accept registrations in these three
languages, but I will always store the registration, in addition to
those three languages, in a base language."  And how that actually
gets accomplished is a mechanism that I think, you know, merits
considerable discussion.

We're simply floating balloons at this point, because it is not a
very simple -- I mean, from a mathematical standpoint, this is an M-
by-N computational complexity.  Trying to accept any language on one
end and figuring out a way to either translate or transliterate into
any other language on the other end is, you know, in my mind a
mathematical impossibility for us to accomplish.  We have better
things to do.

So understanding that, it would be helpful to think about, you know,
something that we could agree upon as a baseline to facilitate
automation, to facilitate at least some universal interpretation of
the WHOIS data, and if in the process we can also come up with
conventions that allow, in complement to that, a local language
access, you know, then I think that would be a reasonable goal to try
to achieve.

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  Are there any other questions?  If not, I have to
thank -- thank you very much, Dave, for the presentation and
invitation.

[Applause]

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  The WHOIS session is closed.  I'm returning the
microphone to Chris, on time.

[Laughter]

>>ONDREJ FILIP:  We saved some time that was wasted by the previous
chair and thank you very much.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you so much.  Thank you, Ondrej.  Thank you
for chairing this session.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a couple of
more -- a couple of brief sessions before lunch.  The first is
Patrick Jones is going to come and talk to us about ICANN contingency
planning, and then we will have a presentation from our lunch
sponsors, dotMobi but first of all, Patrick, over to you.  Do you
have a -- do you have slides?


Oh, sorry.  Thank you, Gabby.  While Patrick's plugging himself in,
there are sheets going around for you to fill in, registration
sheets.  Please do fill in your name and details.  It's the only way
that we can proudly boast how many people are in the room and how
many ccTLDs are represented and so on and so forth.  So there are
sheets coming around, and please fill them in and Gabby will collect
them.

Sorry about this, ladies and gentlemen.  We're just having a short
slide hiatus.

Okay.  So ladies and gentlemen, Patrick on -- Patrick, over to you.

>>PATRICK JONES:  Yeah.  Thank you.  This is I think my fourth or
fifth update to the ccNSO about ICANN's gTLD registry continuity
program, and our last update -- I think the last update I gave was
during the Cairo meeting.

The slides that I have will be posted on the page for the ccNSO. 
Apologies for not being able to Project them during the session, but
my presentation is going to be very brief.

Just to give you an update on where we are, ICANN conducted a joint
registry continuity exercise with four major gTLD registry operators
in January of this year, and then from that exercise we published an
after-action report in April, and also updated the high-level ICANN
gTLD registry continuity plan.

We conducted a workshop in Toronto in August, and, you know, as part
of that, we've been doing a series of -- moving from scenario-based
tabletop exercises to more real technical testing, and so we've been
looking at registry data escrow, the zone file information in WHOIS,
and seeing how that might be useful to reconstruct a registry, if
it's necessary, if there's a failure or a large-scale incident.

So we're in the process now.  We've been working with several of the
current gTLD registries and with two of the large escrow agents of
testing the process for release of escrow data from -- from the agent
to ICANN, and using the zone file in WHOIS and seeing how that's
practical or feasible, if there's an event that -- where it's needed
in order to reconstruct the registry.

So we're planning to provide an update to the community in first
quarter of 2010, and we're doing a -- our next exercise on registry
continuity in January of 2010 and then we'll be doing an after-action
report and making that available.

The next thing that we're doing is I'm in the process of updating
the registry continuity plan from its current, very short, high-level
format to one that's a -- more of a comprehensive framework that
incorporates recognized international standards on business
continuity and incident response.

So what we're doing is incorporating standards that include the
Australian business continuity standard, H.B. 292, which is from
2006, the British Standards Institute BSI 25999, the U.K.'s Financial
Services Agency's business continuity management practice guide, and
also the National Fire Protection Association 1600 standard, which is
a fair standard for the United States and Canada.

And then there that framework we'll be releasing that.  I'm assuming
it's going to be available for comment.  And it's framework for
ICANN, not just for gTLD registries but it might be useful for this
community as well.  And it's all part of ICANN's effort at beefing up
its contingency planning and clear processes for the affirmation of
commitments review that will be initiated in October of next year.

This review is going to call particular attention to security,
stability, and resiliency matters for physical and network areas,
ensuring that ICANN has appropriate contingency planning and clear
processes, and what the expectation is, is that ICANN's gTLD registry
continuity framework is one of the pieces that will go into that
puzzle.

If you have more questions, let me know.  I'm available, and thanks
for letting me talk to you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Patrick.  It's -- it's interesting to
watch the development of it -- the development over time and what's
been happening.

Does anybody have any questions at all for Patrick?

>>PATRICK JONES:  I just want to add that, you know, through this
program, which started from nothing three years ago, I have, you
know, throughout the development of this worked to involve the
expertise of ccTLD operators and other experts in this community. 
You know, some of you are very familiar with, you know, I
periodically come to you for questions and some guidance, and I'll be
doing the same thing when the next version of this framework is
released.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  If there are any questions then, thank you
very much indeed.

[Applause]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Which brings us, slightly early, to the dotMobi
presentation.  Are there some mobile dotMobi people in the room? 
There's a gentleman standing up at the back putting his jacket on, so
he's either leaving or...

[Laughter]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you. it's only fair given its your lunch
that you should stand between us and it.  So I think this is the
first time that dotMobi have come to present our meeting, so I think
that's right.  So whenever you're ready, Trey.  Over to you. 

While we're waiting, lunch is downstairs in the lower lobby or
basement level, or whatever you want to call it, L -- LB1, and it's
at the -- it's at the Bobby London pub.  A taste of England.

[Laughter]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  So it's into the lobby and down one flight.  And
I think I've fussed long enough, Trey, so over to you.

>>TREY HARVIN:  Thanks.  That was a good tap dance, Chris. 
Appreciate it.  

So this is the first time that dotMobi has presented to this group,
so I just wanted to briefly introduce us.  My name is Trey Harvin. 
I'm the CEO of dotMobi.  dotMobi is a sponsored TLD, has about
950,000 domains within its registry.  In addition to that, we also
have Web services that are focused primarily on the mobile Web.  So
everything we do is about the mobile Web content services or
addressing services.

So -- and I want to thank you guys for having me here today, despite
the fact that I bought lunch.  And we'll get you there soon.

So a little bit about why I'm here today, and wanted to talk to you
guys.

I think that we've been promoting a vision of the -- of what's
really not the future on the mobile Web, and the mobile Web is really
here today.  People are accessing the mobile Web all over the world. 
They're doing it, in many countries, for the first time.  The mobile
Web is the Web.

So this is -- this is a powerful kind of seachange where mobile and
Internet are coming together, and for us that's exactly where we live.

So our view is that every business, every business within your local
constituencies, whether they're large or small, has always had to
have a Web presence for the last, you know, 15 years, 10 years.

Now, consumers demand that they provide an experience on the mobile
Web.  Mobile makes that more difficult to do, and I think that's
where we've created, and with you guys we have an opportunity to work
together in our view to -- to make that happen more easily for
registrants and registrars in your local markets.

So the new mobile Internet is actually, in a lot of ways, better
than the traditional Internet.  Certainly for social media.  A lot of
social media applications work better on mobile, frankly, than they
do on the desktop Web.  Location-based experiences obviously having
been possible until really mobile came about.

So, you know, it's really growing.  These are some of the reasons
why it's growing.  But for us, what we wanted to focus you guys on is
that relevant content is what makes it really work.

The consumers demand relevant content, so just displaying content on
a phone is not good enough.

It needs to be relevant.  It needs to work on their phone every
time.  And for us, you know, the iPhone and new phones like that have
been great, because they got people over the hurdle of being able to
see content on a phone, but being able to see content on the phone
doesn't make it good for a phone.

So it's the user experience that's really key, and now finally
people are starting to focus on that.  And I think that's -- that's
where we've been focusing for a long time.

And the surveys that we've seen -- and they're popping up all over
the world -- in the last nine months show this to be the case. 
People now are using the mobile Web, but they're getting very
unsatisfactory experiences.

And a little bit of this is detailed in terms of the reasons why on
this slide.

Just as important for us is that -- it's not just that they're
getting bad experiences.  They don't know where to go to get good
experiences.  So they don't know how to get to the mobile sites that
they need to get to, even if they exist.  Which most of the time they
don't.

So that is costing businesses transaction dollars.  Interactions
with their customers.  And that's hugely problematic.  So, you know,
what do we do about these frustration -- frustrating experiences?

So from the TLD perspective, we've got the desktop, you know, done. 
They can type in their favorite TLD domain and get to good mobile --
a good desktop experience.

But for mobile, what do they type in?  What do they do?  How do you
get them to a mobile experience?  And even if you get it to them,
how, then, does that look on their phone?  Pretty bad.

And if you're having them download a 1 mega-byte site, then you've
just cost them lunch money for the next year, and I know that because
in Cairo, I downloaded a nice two mega-byte site and it cost me about
20€ to do that.  So I learned my own lesson with that.  So that's
hugely problematic.  And if we don't get this right, from a TLD
perspective, it has huge implications because people will stop using
TLDs, frankly, and they'll start using search.

So this is not just an issue for us, it's an issue for -- for every
registry and every TLD.  Because the user behaviors will change. 
They will find a way around poor experiences, if they can't get to
the content they want through your TLD, they'll find another way.  So
this is -- this is issue that we need to concentrate on.

So what can we do together?  Why am I sitting here?

I think together, we can actually accelerate this process.  We can
help these businesses, help these institutions, help these users make
sure that they get good user experiences.

And in doing so, we think we can expand the value of your TLD.  So
let me briefly talk about how we do that.

What we're proposing -- and we've talked to many of you already, but
for those of you that we haven't, we're proposing that we merge the
local context of a ccTLD with the mobile context of dotMobi.  And do
that in such a way that it's controlled by you, the local ccTLD
registry.  So what would that user experience be?  The user
experience would be they'd just have to remember one TLD, your TLD. 
Wouldn't have to remember anything else.  But if we do this together,
they can use a mobile convention that you control, which would be no
matter what your favorite TLD is, put dotMobi on and it will get to
that company's mobile site.  End of story.  So you guys would control
not only your current TLD space but you'd control a mirrored TLD
space which would be a mobile TLD space, and every one of your TLD
owners would automatically get a mobile version of their site, or
their TLD.

We think that's incredibly powerful and the freedom of choice that
that provides to an end user to be able to get to their choice of a
desktop experience from a mobile experience is hugely powerful.

So again, our partnership would be that we would provide with you an
automatic extension of your ccTLD domain, using the dotMobi
convention.  This would build on the value of the investment that
your users have already made in your domains, and then dotMobi could
also help you -- help your registrars provide a mobile content
experience that's second to none.  So that's the other thing we do. 
We have a mobile domain, but we also have Web services that create --
that focus on creating mobile context, mobile experiences.  And I'll
talk to you about that briefly.

So your TLD registrant receives -- let's say we do this and the TLD
registrant receives a mobile domain from you.  If they already have
an existing mobile Web site, great!  They just point it straight to
that existing mobile Web site.

The power is not that we've created for those guys a mobile
experience.  They've already got a mobile Web site.  The power is
that now people know easily how to find it.  Which is hugely
important.  They don't have to guess.  They don't have to hope that
somebody's redirecting them.

They know exactly how to get to that mobile experience cheaply,
fast, and guaranteed.

If they don't have one, then the registrant can automatically point
to the new mobile domain to a service powered by anybody that the
registrars want, to but we think our service is second to none.

Either way, consumers get a clear, predictable way of how to get to
the mobile experience that they know what it's going to cost and they
know that they're going to get there.  It really doesn't get too much
easier than that.

Briefly -- and we can talk more off line anytime you want about our
Web services -- but our Web services essentially make every phone a
smart phone.  It's a completely new approach to Web content that
we're suggesting here.  A guaranteed small footprint, very fast
loading, low cost, and we adapt it individually for any device.  So
if they come to you -- the Web site with a Nokia device, high-end
Nokia device or low end Motorola device or any device, we recognize
that device, we know what the screen size look like, we know what the
capabilities of the phone are, and we automatically adapt the
experience for that phone.  Which, again, is hugely powerful.

And we give them the choice of experience.  Choice of mobile or
choice of desktop.  So they can get to any experience they want,
depending on what network they want.

The key is, it keeps them coming back.

From a registrar and registrant perspective, we don't ask them to
create a new Web site.  It leverages the existing content they
already have.  It's a SaaS service, it's easy to use, it works a
hundred percent of the time.  It's just easy.  And it's localized
automatically.  So if it's a Chinese script Web page, then a Chinese
script mobile page is what they're going to get back, and on and on. 
So we think that's hugely powerful.

For your community, local community, we also wrap around -- we have
tons of services that you can employ.  You can take, use.  Testing
tools for your developer community.  Device detection services for
your large companies within your marketplace, and two of the, you
know, largest -- they are the largest independent forums for
developers around mobile.  And we run both of those.

So we're happy to brand that, you know, let you have that, let you
have an offshoot of that.  Anything that would help your community,
your local community, develop mobile content, we'd be happy to do.

So last slide between you guys and lunch, the partnership we're
suggesting -- and there are a lot of details and we're happy to
provide them, but essentially it's this:  That dotMobi and you as a
ccTLD and your registrars provide this service and help consumers
discover content using URLs, not search, make the guessability of
finding a mobile experience easy as pie.  No matter what they have,
this dotMobi convention can point to their mobile content.  And you
control it.  It's simple, it's easy, it's new opportunities for your
registrars, new monetization opportunities, and most of all, it
creates consumer confidence within your domain for getting to good
content and not poor content.

So it keeps them loyal to your ccTLD.

So this is pretty radical from a -- coming from another TLD, but
from our perspective, we're more than a registry where, we're a Web
services group and that's exactly the partnerships that we want to
create.

So with that, if you want to get back in touch with us, we'll
certainly post this, but there's an e-mail address.  You can find us
at that Web site.  And you can try it.

So are there any questions that you guys have?  I'd be happy to
answer it.  Chris, I don't know how you want to --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Yeah, that's fine.  If anybody wants to ask a
question.  Kim.

>>KIM DAVIES:  Hi.  For this to be a convention, presumably you'd
want it to be deployed with as many TLDs as possible.  Is it the
intention for this to be deployed with gTLD partners as well, so a
dot com owner can be dot com dot mobi?

>>TREY HARVIN:  Well, right now we're only focused on ccTLDs but
certainly from a convention perspective, there's nothing that would
keep it from being a gTLD or a new TLD or an IDN type of convention,
correct.  But right now, our focus is purely on ccTLDs matching local
context with mobile context because that's where we think the most
powerful combination is.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Anyone else.  You're coming down to lunch, right?

>>TREY HARVIN:  Absolutely.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  So we can talk to you down there.  Okay.  Well --

>>TREY HARVIN:  So can I just say --

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Sure.

>>TREY HARVIN:  Just grab either myself -- if I can get the dotMobi
guys in the back to stand up.  Not that they're pretty.  Just so you
know who they are.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  They're just present?

>>TREY HARVIN:  So grab any one of us -- Francesco, myself, Chris or
Pinky -- and we'd be happy to talk to you about.  Okay.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  Thank you very much.

>>TREY HARVIN:  Thanks a lot for your time.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  If we could thank Trey very much and also for the
luncheon.

[Applause]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Now, before you bolt for the door, Gabby -- do we
need these?  Gabby has invitations to get you into the pub.  So you
really do need to get one from Gabby.  Otherwise you can't get in. 
She'll be handing those out.  

You can leave your stuff in the room if you would like to.  Gabby
has decided that she's going to stay in the room, so you can leave
your stuff in the room.  Gabby will be rifling through your bags for
most of lunch.

[Laughter]

[Break]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Welcome back, everybody.  We're going to start
again in a couple minutes.  Okay.   

Ladies and gentlemen, if you could take -- those of you who want to
take your seats, could take your seats.  We're going to -- we're
going to start our next session, with a slight change from the way
that we've done things in the past.  We normally have an update to
you from our key working groups, not necessarily all of our working
groups, but our key working groups.  

What we've done is we have taken a number of those working groups
and given them their own session so that there is an update, for
example, on the SOP working group and so on.  But for the rest of
them, we thought that the easiest way of dealing with this, so that
we don't take up too much time, would be for the working groups to
produce some documentation or to produce a report which went out to
everybody.  And then we would simply ask if there were any questions.  

So I have a list of them here, and I think most of the relevant
people are in the room.  I'm not going to ask them to come and sit up
here, unless there is actually a question.

The first one on my list is the joint ccNSO/GAC working group. 
Keith Davidson chairs that group.  And he has produced a report,
which I believe has been sent out.  Gabby?  Yes.  So they're online.  

So, first of all, is there anyone who would like to ask a question
about the joint ccNSO/GAC working group or about the report itself? 
Okay.  Keith, is there any sort of very brief key information that
you'd like to deliver?  Any points that you'd like to make?  There's
a microphone.  Seems to have disappeared.  You've got it?  Okay.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON: I can use this one.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I can't hear you.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Chris, no.  The only main thrust of this report
was to enlarge the relationship of the working group and get some
progress on actually meeting with the GAC at this meeting so that we
have a plan for Nairobi and getting this joint session going. 
Probably a question to myself and the members of the group is the
potential need for one of the members to be a vice chair of that
group.  And my suggestion would be that Martin Boyle would be a very
useful vice chair.  So, if that could be noted --

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  I think Martin is making note of it right now.

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  He's not unfamiliar with the concept.  But I
think, as one person who's crossed the boundary between the GAC and
the ccNSO, he would be a very valuable asset and also is in the same
time zone as the GAC chair, which would be very handy for me.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Is there a roving mic somewhere, Gabby?  That
would help.

 >>DR. EBERHARD LISSE:  Could you make it known in your usual
charming manner that I've noted it, too?

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Eberhard has noted it, too.  

One thing I'll notice is that you all have noticed there's a sad
lack of GAC and ccNSO meeting at this meeting.  And that's for all
sorts of reason with which I won't bore you.  But we have decided
that, basically, we're going to -- I'm going to have a chat to the
program working group.  But we think that we should effectively have
a standing GAC session in the program, that that should probably be --
traditionally, it's been today, Tuesday, just straight after lunch. 
That seems to work for the GAC.  It probably works for us.  And what
we'll do is we'll ask the program working group to slot that in as a
standing item, so that the role of the liaison working group will not
be should we have a meeting; but, given that we are having one, what
is it that we're going to be discussing and talking about?

And I know that the GAC feels the same way about that, so that's
good.  

The second I have on the list is the delegation/redelegation working
group.  This working group has produced a methodology paper or a
paper that explains the proposed way of working.  And that has been,
also has been sent out.  Keith is also chairing that working group. 
Keith, did we send out the slightly amended version?

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  The slightly amended version is now online.  And
I think it's likely to be slightly amended yet again.  The working
group is meeting twice during the ICANN Seoul meeting.  It met
yesterday and will meet again on Thursday.  And it's, you know,
possible, as a result of those meetings, that there might be a slight
change to the order in which we tackle the issues.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Yes.  We've considered -- the current document
refers to a 3-step approach looking at delegation, looking at
redelegation, and then looking at retirement.  But those of us who
met yesterday think that probably we should do delegation,
retirement, and then redelegation for several reasons, the main one
being that we suspect redelegation will be the most difficult.  And,
therefore, we want to put it off as long as possible.

Basically, hopefully, that methodology paper won't meet with any
comment or any controversy.  It's a fairly simple document that says
this is how we're intending to work. And the working group will start
its work pretty much immediately.  Keith?

 >>KEITH DAVIDSON:  Yes, correct.  And we're looking to schedule a
number of teleconference meetings between each meeting so that we can
progress that work.  But I think it's also important to note that
that working group and the task that it has will involve some work at
ICANN meetings, Chris.  And just, in talking to one or two people
recently, the idea that we might have a working group's afternoon
sort of built into our schedule mightn't be a bad thing as well.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Yes, that's a good idea.  If we carry on like we
are, we'll have to leave for the next meeting before we finish this
meeting, but --

>>DR. EBERHARD LISSE:  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  The next is the program working group, which
Ondrej Filip chairs.  Again I think there's a note from them. And I'd
like to -- I'd like to personally thank the program working group for
the work that they've done.  I think that these meetings are becoming
more efficient and a more useful use of time.  I think they've done a
fantastic job.  

Ondrej, are you here?  Do you have anything briefly that you'd like
to add?

 >>ONDREJ FILIP: Nothing at all.  The advantage of the working group
is that you can see the outputs immediately, so really don't need to
read the report.  

Just one thing, at the end of the day, Chris will tell you the URL,
the address of feedback form.  So please fill it.  That will help us
to improve the meetings for the future.  But that's all.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thanks, Ondrej.  

Can I okay that?  It really is incredibly valuable to get feedback. 
It isn't complicated.  You just have to go to the URL and put some
dots in boxes.  And, really -- it really would be great, if you could
find the time to do that.  It splits into day one and day two, and
we'd really appreciate the feedback.  It's incredibly helpful to us. 
Thanks, Ondrej. 

Geographic regions working group --

>>GABRIELLA SCHITTEK:  That's tomorrow.  Oh, I'm sorry.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Geographic regions working group -- we're
obsessed with geographics.  The geographic regions working group is --
this is ICANN.  This is not one of our working groups.  This is
actually an ICANN working group that flows from the work that we did.
Dave Archbold chairs that.  And do you actually chair it?  You do
chair it.  Yeah.  And has produced a note for us all.  Dave, do you
have anything you want to add to your report?  No?  Okay.  If there
are any questions for Dave -- this is great.  Reports get produced. 
No one has any questions.  Marvelous.

And the -- Margarita is -- this is the NomCom.  Margarita is our
representative on the Nominating Committee.  Margarita, is there
anything you'd like to say about your -- about the Nominating
Committee or your experience?  You'll need a microphone, if you are.  

Someone's chirping.  It's like there's a duck in the room or
something.  Maybe they're tweeting.  Yes, maybe I don't understand
how these things work.

[Laughter]

>>DR. EBERHARD LISSE:  I can send my son around to explain it to you.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you very much.  That's very kind of you.  

Margarita?

 >>MARGARITA VALDES: Well, if some of you read my report, I have to
say, briefly, that I was really skeptical about this work in the
NomCom in the beginning.  I thought, when I show my hands in terms of
represent to the ccNSO and NomCom, try to figure out how to do a good
job inside a group or committee, that it's not perceived, from my
point of view, it's not perceived that's a good thing because it's
closed or dark or -- everything that you can imagine in terms of not
transparent or something like that.  

And the good thing was that my expectations were too low.  And the --
at the end of work was so good, because I could understand with a
very good approach the way that they work, the goals that the NomCom
pursued in terms of the delegate work and the study and the election
of the candidates to the key seats in the different bodies in ICANN,
especially in the case of the board members.  Because NomCom elects --
or the better way to say is the NomCom proposed three candidates for
the board.  And that's a hard work to find people to give to free
paid, more or less 40% of their time to do that work.  And it's hard
work.  

And my -- finally, I have to say that I'm so happy to work in the
nomination committee.  It was a good experience.  It's not this dark
place, snakes or things like that.  There is no.  And that's the
reason why I proposed my name one year more.  And -- well, my
conclusion is that, when you apply to the NomCom, you have to have
experience in the ICANN environment.  You have to have -- you can't --
you need to understand what is the structure, what's the key
questions, what's the bodies have to deal with?  

And the other thing is that it's a lot of study.  Because you have
to have a lot of interviews, teleconferences.  And, by the end of the
day, I think, if you want to do a good job, you can do it.  That's it.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you very much, Margarita.  Any questions? 
Okay.  That's excellent.

Now, we do have two other major working groups, one of which is the
strategic plan working group, which the session is going to start in
a minute.  

The second one is the IDN ccTLD working group.  That one is going to
be -- well, the IDN policy development process will be discussed in
our session tomorrow morning.  But one thing that I just wanted to
say now is that we're aware that the document from that working group
didn't get out to the members' list as quickly as we had hoped.  And
so, therefore, there are some of you, or perhaps many of you, who
haven't had an opportunity to read the document in any detail.  We
will still discuss it tomorrow morning.  But, because of that issue
with delay, what we're proposing to do is two things.  One is to
extend the time for comment on that document to -- by a couple of
weeks.  And the second is that we will organize at least one and
possibly two teleconferences during the comment period after this
meeting to enable discussion and to take place on that document not
just on the -- not just on the list but through the miracle of voice.
So we are still going to get to it tomorrow morning. But I do
understand that some of you have not had much of an opportunity to
have a look at it.  And we apologize for that.  I think that brings
us to the close of the -- the DNSSEC survey.  I'm sorry.  That will
be Gabby.  So we -- we have -- we ran our DNSSEC survey for a second
time.  And that has been closed, and results have been produced.  I
hope everybody's had a chance to look at it.  It's quite an
interesting -- there are some quite interesting results, I think, in
that survey.  

Gabby, is there anything you wanted to say, specifically, about it
or about responses and what people -- the level of response?

 >>GABRIELLA SCHITTEK:  We had 65 responses, which I think is very
good.  Thank you to all of you who replied, and thank you to everyone
who helped me to convince everyone to reply, the regional
organizations.  

And the only thing that I think -- I don't think there were any
shocking results.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  No.

 >>GABRIELLA SCHITTEK:  The only thing we need to discuss is we got
input on how we should promote DNSSEC.  One of the questions was:  Do
you think we should promote DNSSEC?  And the vast majority thought we
should.  And there was another question: If you think so, what should
we do?  And we got a lot of input to that one.  And I think we need
to discuss that with the council, maybe with you, how to deal with
that.  

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Thank you, Gabby.  

One of the -- one of the interesting things that flowed on from that
survey was that it appeared on the -- the results appeared on Milton
Mueller's blog.  He blogged that it was abundantly clear that the
ccTLD community believed that ICANN should be signing the root zone. 
And so there are people -- it's not just the people in the cc
community or in this room that are actually watching what we do. 
There are other people as well.  Any questions on the DNSSEC survey? 
Okay.  Excellent.  So thanks very much for that.  Byron, shall we
start the next session, which is the SOP working group?  I think --
what time are the guys due?

 >>BYRON HOLLAND:  Quarter to.

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Quarter to. Okay.  Cool.  Ah, Theresa is here
now.  Excellent.  Patrick is here now.  

Would you guys like to come up, given that you're going to be taking
part in this session, Theresa and Patrick?  No, that doesn't mean you
can turn around and leave, Patrick.  But you're here, so you might as
well come up here and sit up here.  That way we don't have to
interrupt our flow to get you up to the front of the room.  Never
arrive early.  Never arrive early.  Means you have to help with the
drinks.

 >>THERESA SWINEHEART:  Where do you want us to sit?

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Sit here.  So I'm going to ask Byron to take --
to take and to chair this session.  

And just to let you know, there is a slight change to the agenda. 
This session was supposed to run from 2:30 to 2:45 and be followed by
the incident response working group.  Because Patrick and Theresa
have information to deliver because of the strategic plan planning. 
The incident response working group session has been moved to the
first thing tomorrow morning.  So that will start at -- there's still
the tweeting going on, so someone will -- sorry.  So that will be at
9:00 tomorrow morning for 15 minutes.  

So this is a half an hour session, which will then be followed by a
coffee break.  Byron, over to you.

 >>BYRON HOLLAND: Thank you very much.  So this is broken into two
parts.  One is just an update on what the working group has been up
to.  And then it will tie in and will be followed on by Patrick and
Theresa's presentation, which talks about what's happening in the
strategic plan process going forward.

So one of the key elements that the working group was working on
over -- since the period between today and Sydney, was a survey that
we did that we put out to the whole community that was really looking
at some general high-level questions about what did the community
think was important strategically for ICANN to be doing?  What were
perceptions of ICANN's effectiveness in doing those things?  What did
we think was important going forward?  And, to a very great degree,
are we spending the right amount of money on those respective elements?

So, first, I just want to thank the working group who helped put
together -- we all worked together to put this survey together.  And
I think it captures the essence of the underlying requirement. 
Fundamentally, we were -- as I mentioned, there were four or five
real key things that we were looking for.  It was around perception
of both requirements and effectiveness.  So bear that in mind, as we
move through it.

I want to touch on a few of the summary highlights that we saw
through the research on the survey.  

And, generally speaking, you know, the good news is generally
speaking, that the people who responded to the survey, which was 30
cc's responded to the survey which Gabby tells me is actually quite a
good turnout.  Not as responsive as the DNSSEC one but I'll know next
time to get Gabby to chase everyone down individually.  That's the
root to success.  Anyway, 30 is still a pretty good turnout.  So what
we saw was that generally speaking, ICANN seems to be proceeding by
and large in the right direction.  So certainly good news there.

One of the things that was interesting is that while the majority
response felt that way, there was certainly a significant minority --
roughly 25% that had alternate views.  So majority believes that to
be the case but definitely there's some dissenting opinion within that.

The other thing I think that was interesting to note is that the
effectiveness of ICANN in actually fulfilling the strategic
priorities and requirements.  Again, perceived to be fairly
effective.  But there was an achievement expectation gap between what
was hoped for versus what was actually being achieved.  Thinking
ahead, I don't think there are any big surprises here.  Some of the
elements that came to the fore were greater global support for the
internationalization of ICANN.  Interestingly, that was one of those
polarizing issues, there was certainly a strong group who did not
feel that was important and -- which you could see in some of the
free form comments was that it was important .

But most important drivers of change we've seen is security,
stability, resiliency, definitely IDNs and increased demand for the
Internet itself or usage of the Internet.

We looked at some of the political elements.  We'll come to those a
little bit later.

And I think for this particular group, what were some of the most
important things that the ccNSO should actually be working on?  And
top of the list were IDNs, security, increasing awareness.

For ICANN itself is it should be working on accountability and
clarifying and focusing its strategy.  So some of the comments there
were about, you know, perhaps doing a little bit less but doing it
more effectively with greater focus and clarity .

So in terms of -- that's a high level.  In terms of more detail --
there's only a few slides here, we're not going to go through a whole
bunch of individual research slides.  Buzz these are the key ones
that gives us sense, puts a picture to the words and statistics.  So
this speaks to the degree to which the ccNSO members agree or
disagree that ICANN is actually going in the right direction.

So obviously this is a pretty important one.  Do we actually think
they're headed down the right path?  The good news is that generally
speaking, it's headed in the right direction.  The average score
there was 6.8 out of 10.  So any of us who have been students along
the way would know that that's a pass, but it's not exactly a ringing
endorsement.  Generally speaking, we don't go out in search of 68s. 
But nonetheless, it's headed in the right direction.  I think the
other good thing about this survey is it does -- there's much highly
discussion this helps to quantify people's opinions and thoughts.  So
it's a good starting appointment for the ensuing conversation. 
Again, I will just mention that while the majority here felt that,
there was certainly a vocal minority who were in some disagreement.

The next and as I'm sure you'll all recognize, these bullet points
were the key strategic items in the ICANN strategic plan from last
year.  So you see there's quite a number of them.  And what this
slide looks at is the perceived importance of the individual
priorities.  So basically, ranked in order, what do we as a
groupthink is most important down to least important.  Security and
stability, resiliency, number one.  And felt that way very strongly. 
A close number 2 is IDNs.  And -- I'll just point that out and
because it's interesting when we come to the next slide.  Financial
accountability, very important.  Stability, responsibility.  I think
we had a good presentation this morning from Kevin that, hopefully,
this is giving us that confidence.  And strengthening the
multistakeholder model.  I'm not going to read down the whole list. 
You can read it for yourself.  But I think you can see that it tails
off fairly dramatically over the last few, including globalizing
ICANN's operations.  And then the last two speaking to the gTLD
space, which probably, not surprising, are critically important or we
don't define them as critically important.  That being said,
security, stability, and resiliency are number one.  And there's a
correlation perhaps between those two elements.  So it behooves us to
pay attention.

This slide looks at the perceived effectiveness at ICANN in
achieving those strategic objectives.  And here's where we have a
little bit of the achievement expectation gap. Whoops, sorry about
that.  Billy usually has good things to say, though.  So... 

This is the perceived effectiveness of ICANN at achieving those
strategic objectives.  And you can see that, by and large, there is a
delta.  If we go back here, here's what we think the priorities are
and here's how we think they're being acted upon.

Now, I will note that, again, this is in descending order.  So there
were some actual changes in the order between this slide and this
slide.  So we'll make these documents available.  I just want to
point that out.  But, again, stability and security at the top of the
list doing fairly well.  

Excellence in core operations.  Also perceived to be fairly strong.  

Financial stability -- and I'm sure Kevin would be happy to see this
-- considered to be doing fairly well.  

Implementing IDNs number 4 down at 6.  Given that it was number 2 up
near 9 in terms of perceived importance, perceived execution on that.
And there's quite a gap.  So, again, without going down through the
whole list, you'll also note that the confidence in the gTLD market
space and the implementation process in new gTLDs not particularly
well ranked.

So, again, this is putting a mirror up to this group's opinions on
ICANN's effectiveness on these issues.

This slide speaks to the money.  And, again, building on this
morning's conversation.  These are our perceptions on effectively how
well are we doing in terms of spending?  How well is ICANN doing in
terms of spending the money, are they doing it effectively?  Too
much?  Too little?  Just about right?

And again, relatively consistent with the opinions we've seen thus
far, top of the list and again this is reversed, gTLD implementations
and delegation, $7.5 million U.S. spent on that out of the total
budget.  In this room at least, 77% of us or 77% of those who
responded, rather, believed that that's too much.  Only 3% believed
that it was too little.

Constituency support:  Almost a 50/50 break down.  And then moving
down the line, the IANA function technology operations, you know,
that's actually quite a good number.  And the most significant
majority believed that about the right amount of money was being
spent there.  IDN implementation:  A fair number, 30% think that
that's too little.  It requires more resourcing.

Security and stability about right.  I would say very strongly 80%. 
And DNS operations, you know, that's an interesting one because it
breaks down -- there's a fairly significant minority who believe that
it's too little, not enough is being done in that realm.  So that
starts to give us a sense, when you look at, you know, I don't want
to sound Luke a broken record, but when you look at those strategic
priorities as you start to drill down in a sense, the money tells the
tale on are we actually acting on what we're saying is important? 
And these slides, I think, give us probably a greater sense of what
this community thinks in terms of what are the right priorities?  How
effective are we being on them?  And are we actually spending the
money in the right places?  And you can draw a clear thread through
these three things.

We also had an area for free-form comments.  And it certainly makes
for interesting reading.  Because that's where, you know, the polar
opposite comments start to come out.  And, really, it follows up on a
few -- there's five fundamental questions, right?  Thinking ahead,
what should -- thinking ahead in terms of strategic priorities, what
should we be thinking about?  You know?  And, again, greater support
for internationalization of ICANN is there.  Yet some of the results
don't support that.

So, without going through all of these comments, I would encourage
you to take a look at them.  Because they do give us a sense of what
the room is feeling.

In the red box, what are the most important drivers of change in the
DNS?  So, again, DNS security, stability, resiliency -- this is
something that topped our list of importance across the board. 
Security, IDNs, demand and Internet usage -- those are all of the
elements that really came out in the comments.

Political factors in the blue box was also interesting.  I think
you'll probably see a theme there.  National attempts at control. 
Law enforcement. Those things really started to bubble to the surface
in terms of political factors.

In the orange box, what are the most important things for the ccNSO
to be working on over the next five years?  I think this is probably
one of the most important boxes for us.  What do we think we should
be working on going forward?  IDNs, DNSSEC, IPv6 topped the list. 
Security, increasing awareness and participation.  And some of the
comments behind that were certainly interesting.  But, you know,
maintain a narrow scope. I would say part of that is maintain a
focused scope.  Let's make sure we know what we want to do and focus
strictly on that. 

And there was definitely some comments in and around the areas of
focusing on policy in ICANN, not marketing-related issues.  So there
was some notion of that in there.

On the flip side in the purple box, or mauve, what should ICANN be
working on as an organization going forward?  Accountability, again,
tops the list; developing and clarifying its focus and strategy. 
Those were comments that came out again and again.

And I think one of the things that we see is we tried to wrestle
that focus or wrestle -- that's not a good metaphor -- come to clear
focus and wrestle it into submission rather.  The blue box really
shows one of the challenges here is -- and it rang throughout the
survey -- rang true throughout the survey, rather, is one of the core
comments is focus the core mandate on fewer things.  And then the
flip side comment is, expand the operation and do more.  So in terms
of us coming to some clarity and focus, we'll have to sort out which
of those we really mean.

So that's the survey that gives us a sense -- that holds a mirror up
to the opinions in this room.  As we go forward, fortunately Theresa
and Patrick are here to talk a bit about from ICANN's perspective
what's happening as we go forward in the strategic planning process. 
I just want to put in a little plug that the working group is still
focused on the strategic plan.  This underpins some of our thoughts
on what to do going forward.

But importantly, we're going to look at the timeline.  The new
strategic plan, unless the dates have changed, looks like it will
need to be accepted in early February, which means any comments will
have to be in by early mid January.  This is working backwards.  The
actual strategic plan itself looks like it will come out for review
in early December, which really gives the working group about a month
to formulate its thoughts and put forward materials to help the
community get engaged.

But, most importantly, if you were listening to that timeline,
really there's going to be about 30 days or so for the community to
provide feedback on the strat plan, and for some of us that's during
the Christmas period.  Certainly for those of you who run shops where
that's an issue, getting stuff done through the middle of December
can be a challenge.  It's safe to say it slows down a bit.

So it is very important.  We'll be putting out the materials, but we
are on a tight timeline.  We as the committee -- or the working group
and certainly we as a community, if we want to help shape and drive
the strategic plan of ICANN, we will need to participate and provide
our input in a relatively short window through December and early
January.  So when it comes out, I please ask you to pay attention and
encourage you to provide as much feedback as you can.

So with that, to give us the absolute up-to-the-moment status on the
strategic plan, I will pass it over to Patrick and Theresa.  Thanks.

>>THERESA SWINEHART:  Great, thanks.  It is actually really nice to
see the results of this survey.  I think it is really useful.  I'm
just going to say a few words and then hand it over to Patrick to go
through the preliminary set of slides.

Just to set the groundwork, I'm actually taking on the strategic
planning process from Doug.  That's why you're seeing me here.  We're
dividing up some of the workload.  So, hence, my presence.

What you'll see Patrick present, you'll see words in there that are
not necessarily new.  What we're trying to do is take a different
approach this year, an approach which hopefully will provide some
focus and clarity, which I heard also come out of the survey, and to
help better define what framework are we looking at, what are the key
areas.  And then within those key areas, what are constituting
ongoing work, community work and strategic priority areas.  And
you'll have noted that a lot of the work within ICANN is just ongoing
work that we deal with on a regular basis that constitutes perhaps
some higher priority areas for the organization.

What you'll also see is something that's a bit cross-cutting, and
those are being referred to as enablers such as maintaining
accountability and transparency in the work or the multistakeholder
approach.  Those are cutting across all the themes.

So, again, as we go through this, a lot of the words will not
necessarily be new but we're taking a different approach on defining
a framework from which then a document will be produced to be put out
for the public comment period.  So with that, I will turn it over to
Patrick.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Thanks, Theresa.  Before I start with the slides,
I would just like to say how encouraging it is to see this sort of
presentation that Byron has just taken us through which is the cc
community as a whole forming some views and offering them up in a
very, very constructive and useful format that can be incorporated
into the planning process.

I know that one of the things that you people often talk about is
best practice in terms of various things, and in terms of a
supporting organization or advisory committee being involved in the
planning process, that really is best practice.  So I thank you very
much for the effort you have put into that.  And thank you, Byron,
for leading that.

As Theresa said, what we want to do is take you very quickly through
some slides that will be use in the public session tomorrow at 9:00. 
I know that conflicts with work that's going on in this room.  So
this is a chance for you both to see the slides but also to provide
some input.

So what we would like to do today -- sorry, let me just come out of
here and turn my Skype off and come back out.

So what we would like to do today is talk to you about where the
material that's in the slides you're going to see has come from, to
show you a framework that we're using for thinking about the
strategic plan, to talk to you about a survey that we may be doing
tomorrow and then to talk to you about the timeline.

Given we only have 15 minutes, I will try to go through this fairly
quickly and focus probably on two or three slides rather than all of
them.  And I'm happy to take comments, Byron, however you think is
most appropriate.

So what we're seeing today incorporates material from the
affirmation of comment requirements, from the current strategic plan
because not surprisingly a lot of the work that's happening is a
continuation of work that's already underway.  The board provided
input at their recent retreat, and we've already done some work with
members of other communities and had a brief conversation with your
own planning committee earlier this week, and we've incorporated that
material as well.

I'm going to pass through that slide very quickly and just come to
this framework because this, in a sense, is the core of the way we're
hoping to think about the strategic plan this year.  You can see
there at the top an attempt at a very concise statement of what it is
that ICANN does.  ICANN manages the coordination of the domain name
system and Internet addressing for the benefit of Internet users
around the globe.  That's an attempt to summarize down into a few
words what it is that ICANN really does.

And in doing that, we have four areas of focus.  The first is
preserving DNS security and stability and that according very
strongly with the material that Byron has just put up from your
survey; promoting competition, trust and consumer choice.  I know
that in the cc environment, some of those words are more important
than others, but I think the "trust" part is very important for the
cc community.

Excelling in IANA and other core operations, again one of the things
that came up in Byron's slides there was core operations being done
well and the importance of IANA.

And then the last one is maintaining ICANN's long-term role in the
Internet ecosystem.  So that is recognizing that ICANN is not the
only body that's interested in Internet Governance and Internet
issues but acknowledging that we have a very important role to play
there going forward.

So in addition to those four areas of work, there are enablers of
that which are really the internal things that ICANN does for itself.
So we need to keep the multistakeholder community model vibrant,
alive, healthy, functioning well.  We need to work in partnership
with other organizations.  We need to build, grow, maintain an
international perspective in what we do.  And we need to continue to
work to uphold the highest standards of accountability and
transparency.

And, Byron, if you are happy I might just stop there briefly and see
if there are any quick comments from the floor on that.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Absolutely.  Are there any particular questions
because this is -- I think one thing to note is this is definitely a
different framework from the previous strategic plans.  So if it's
not looking familiar per se, it's for a reason.  This is a new
approach to the strategic planning framework.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  And what we tried to do is to provide, as Byron
said, a simple framework that captures all that ICANN does in as few
words as possible.  So we're conscious that there will be nuances
that we might have missed, but we would really like some feedback as
to whether as a framework that makes sense.  Are there any comments
for or against?

>>HILDE THUNEM:  Seeing this for the first time now, it's sort of an
off-the-top-of-my-head comment.  But I think it's useful as a thought
to do as you are doing here with dividing what are we actually going
to do from what are our values, how are we doing it.  So the yellow
box is more the way we're actually working to do it.  But it's not in
itself the work that's the blue.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  That's good.  Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Okay.  I'm move on.  We're happy to take comments afterwards or in
any way that you would like.

So -- and this is where I think you should still in most parts of
the room read those words.  What we tried to do here is to say for
each of those four areas in which we work, there is work that's done
within the community at the top there.  There's ongoing work that's
largely staff work that supports each of those four areas.  And then
an important part of our strategic planning conversation is what
should be our strategic projects?

In other words, what should be the real priorities that the
community and the staff are working together to deliver?  Now, I'm
not going to read through all of those words in all of those columns.
But you'll see up there many things that have been part of ICANN's
strategic planning for a number of years, so IDNs, new TLDs, IPv4,
IPv6 as well as things that we know are important for the long-term
future of ICANN, so excelling in IANA and core operations.  You can
see down in the bottom there that all of that work that needs to be
done for IANA is important.

You'll also notice in the ongoing work there is things like training
for ccTLDs because we know from a security and stability perspective,
that's a very important piece of work that ICANN does.  

I'll move now to the next slide which tries to put in what some of
those strategic projects might be.  One of the things we'll be able
to do, but we haven't had time to be able to do it yet, is to compare
what's on that list with the feedback that's come from your survey. 
And we'll certainly be doing that.

Other parts of the ICANN community will also have comments, we can
be sure.  We'll get some feedback tomorrow at the public session and
that will, again, inform our work.  And we'll try and bring that all
together into a plan.  

So, again, I'll just press pause for a moment, see if there are any
observations from the floor.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Can I just make a comment because a lot of people
are seeing this for the first time and there are a lot of words on
the page to digest.  One of the ways to think about it is this is, in
a sense, a framework.  The top four big buckets -- and I don't want
to put words in your mouth, but my perception was the top four big
buckets really are the essence of what ICANN is trying to achieve
over a multi-year time frame.

Then the next three groupings, be they special projects or ongoing
work, are the elements that could change on an annual basis from an
annual strategic planning cycle.  So that's just to give you a sense
of how that framework actually would play out, the pragmatic reality
of it.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Yeah, that's exactly right, Byron.  Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the floor?  Lesley?

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Patrick, I know you weren't here this morning but
we were looking at finances this morning.  And point I made then that
I would just like to repeat was that we may use the strat plan to set
out the projects and the work that's going to be done.  But there may
need to be an iteration that considers the financial impact of that. 
So when we see the huge costs that might possibly result from all of
this work, we maybe have a rethink on priorities and what we would
realistically be able to get done during that period.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  That's an excellent point, Lesley.  I think, if I
can add on to that, one of my hopes in getting this prioritization
clear is not just the financial aspects, although I agree entirely
with what you say, it is actually the human cost as well.

As a group of people, many of whom are volunteers, there's only so
much that can in reality be done.  And if we can have an honest
conversation about what the real priorities are, I think that will
help with the workload issue as well.  So I agree with you very much.

Any other comments?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  This is Young Eum.  Looking at your four boxes,
the role of promoting -- no.  Which one was it?

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Competition, trust and consumer choice, the
second box?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  Going back to the role of ICANN, the four other
boxes, I think --

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Do you want me to go back?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  Yes, yes.

Yeah, so the -- in promoting competition, trust and consumer choice,
under that you have the implementation of IDNs.  What I found was
that in some issues, like IDNs, where the local community needs --
the opinions of the local community, not just the opinions but the
culture and the day-to-day practices of the local community, might be
considered a bit more.

I find that when the issues are merged within ICANN, everything is --
seems to be kind of stripped of its context and everything becomes --
how should I put it -- kind of bland and so it ends up not being able
to accommodate the interests or the needs of the people that
originally created the issue.

So I would just like to make a comment that I find that to be a
case, especially in terms of IDNs.  And I would like it to -- I mean,
ICANN staff to be maybe a bit more sensitive to that part.  Thank you.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Thank you.  Thanks, Young Eum.  

What I might do is just move quickly to this next slide which tries
to pick up the -- those orange enablers.  You may need to change the
color to make that a little more readable for the next presentation. 
But again puts that into what are the community work, what are the
strategic projects and what's the ongoing work.

And these are the things that we need to do within our community to
help us to be able to deliver on those top four buckets.  So this is
much more stuff about the ICANN community, the enablers, if you'd like.

And, again, I'm happy to take any comments or observations.  Martin?

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you.  Can you actually go back a slide,
please?  Now, when in the third column strategy projects you put
implements the community reviews, you're referring there to the
reviews that are required under the Affirmation of Commitments, are
you?

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  That's exactly right.

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Okay.  And, therefore, it actually surprises me to
see it there rather than on -- now, if you go forward to the next
slide -- because it seems to me that that particular requirement is a
requirement of how is ICANN actually carrying out across the board of
all these tasks.  So is there any reason why you've put it into the
one rather than the other?

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  It's an argument that could go either way.  And
your point is a very valid one.

The reason that it appears there is that we need to operationalize
those community reviews so that they become part of the way that
ICANN works so that we can evaluate whether we are, in fact,
excelling in IANA core operations.

So it does tie in there.  There is an equally good argument.  I
think that it could appear in that slide there.  One of its relatives
appears in that slide, so if you look at -- let me just find it here -
- the last line of strategic projects, implements impact reporting of
key decisions, that's another affirmation of -- Affirmation of
Commitment responsibility.  And so I can see that you could put it
either way.  We'll listen to where it makes most sense for most
people and try and tailor that.  But your point is a very good one.

Are there any other comments or observations?  Ramesh?

>>RAMESH NADARAJAH:  Maybe more a question you could clarify.  The
bottom-up driven bit, is that captured?

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  The bottom-up piece?

>>RAMESH NADARAJAH:  Yeah.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  It's not there explicitly, but that's actually, I
think, part of that multistakeholder community model.  If you -- it
people think that it's important to make that more explicit, we can
certainly do so.

Got a comment from down the back?

>> HAN CHUAN LEE:  Hi, Han Chuan Lee from SGNIC.  I see a lot of
outreach awareness activities, in fact, in all three communities: 
Strategy and ongoing work.  It seems to be the main key item.  

And I just recommend that for such activity be very clear on what is
we're trying to achieve.  Outreach and awareness could be simply as,
Hey, I'm ICANN, I exist or, I exist and my purpose is such and such. 
And you can come to me for, you know, the many issues, Internet
issues or what.  

So the activities can go both ways.  It can achieve an outcome
mainly just letting people know they exist and that's it.  You play a
more important role in the Internet.  So that has to have very clear
objective and outcome.

>>PATRICK SHARRY:  Thank you for that.  That's a particularly
interesting comment.  This morning I help run a session for people
who were having their first time at an ICANN meeting, so I think
there's both a role for raising awareness but also for educating
people in how they can most appropriately and effectively participate
so we probably need to call of those bases, I think.  But thank you
for your comment.

Byron, I might just move to the last slide given that I know you are
running out of time.  Sorry.  I've outsmarted myself there.

As Byron alluded to earlier, this is how the timeline is looking at
the moment.  It will be confirmed in conversations over the next few
days and we'll be able to come back to you with a firm timeline by
the end of the week.

But as you can see, we're consulting with the community this week. 
We hope to have a draft plan prepared by early November, which would
then be sent out to board members to get their feedback.  We'd revise
it on that basis.  We'd then take that plan to the board at their
December meeting so they could check that their comments had been
incorporated.

That meeting, I think, is the 9th of December if my memory is
correct.  We'd then post the plan straight after that, so long as
there were no issues.  We'd run a comment period until the 20th of
January.  And the reason for having to close it off then is there's a
board meeting on the 4th of February and if we're to get the document
revised and to the board in time for that meeting, that's about as
late as we can run it.

And we'd hope then to have the plan approved by the board at their
February meeting.

So I take your comments earlier about the tightness of that tight
line.  Unfortunately we're a little constrained by the timing of this
meeting, the timing of board meetings and we've done our best to make
that public comment period as long as we can.  I'm sorry it can't be
longer.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Okay, thank you very much.  I don't -- I know it's
coffee time.  So I don't want to cut into that.  I appreciate Theresa
and Patrick being here on somewhat short notice.  But we certainly
felt that we needed a sneak preview of the work that they've been
doing, particularly in light of the fact there is a conflict between
our session and their primary delivery tomorrow morning.

So good news is we've seen it first.  It's hot off the press, and we
got the sneak preview.  So I just want to say thank you both for
making the time on short notice to come and present and share it with
us.  Thank you.

[Applause]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Two things.  First of all, I just wanted to say --
actually possibly three things.  I just wanted to say how amazingly
impressive that survey is and how extraordinary -- I mean, it is just
wonderful and it's it shows when we put our minds to it, we can
actually do stuff.

I'm going to recommend to the council tomorrow that we actually
formally send a copy of that to the board as well as obviously it
will be published on our Web site.  But I think it might be actually
worth saying "formally, here you are, this is what we think."  That's
up to the council to decide.

Lastly, coffee.  We're due to start again actually in five minutes,
but let's be realistic.  We'll start at 20 past 3:00.  It's the ccTLD
new session.  Patricio will be chairing that.  And if I could ask all
of you who are going to be making presentations in the ccTLD news
session, if you could be kind enough to be ready to do that.  And
we'll get into that straight away.

If you can bring your own machine, that would be easier.  Everybody
back here at 20 past.  Thank you.

[Break]

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Okay.  We should be starting in a few minutes. 
We have sent Gabby to find the missing speakers and we seem to have
lost Gabby now.

[Laughter]

Okay.  Hello.  Welcome back to the ccNSO meeting, and this is an
experiment.  This is the ccNSO version of headline news, but we'll
try to inform you about what's going on around the world in 30
minutes or so.

There's a limit of two slides per speaker and five minutes, so
without further ado, we'll begin with Gihan Dias from Sri Lanka? 
With issues about implementing a domain registration system at the lk
domain registry.

>>GIHAN DIAS:  Okay.  Thank you.  So let me quickly go through this,
since I have only five minutes.

So let me just start off by saying dot lk is a small registry, but
although we are small numerically, we've been there for a long time. 
Actually we started in 1990, so we are on the old registries as
opposed to the new ones, and so over the years, we've had all sorts
of ways of doing things.  We have several domain categories.  We have
about five of them.  And different registration periods.  So people
can register names for one year, two years, five years, 10 years. 
And one interesting feature, if you want to call it that, of our
registry is we do not offer real-time registrations and this was done
consciously.

We said that okay, we do want to make sure that there is an air-gap,
and due to that, probably, we've had no real incidents of people
hacking into our system and registering domains or anything like
that.  And also, we've found that spammers -- in fact, in these
recent things where spammers were registering domains and so on, for
Conficker and so on -- not spammers as well as (inaudible) we found
that they left us alone, simply because they need to talk to a human
or a human looks at it, so their automatic registration stuff didn't
work.  And what happened was till about 1997, we had basically, I
think, what everyone else used to do -- manually edit zone files --
which didn't sort of work at about that point, so we got a guy to
write scripts for us in PHP and strangely enough, for the last 12
years they've been running, but as you will probably guess, they're
quite a bit old by now.  

So in about 2005, we said, okay, let's forget about this home-grown
stuff.  Let's go and buy a real -- not "buy," really -- let's go and
get a real domain registry thing.  And we did think that rather than
buying something commercially, we preferred, because our philosophy
is such, that we want to offer some open source.

So we looked at a number of available systems.  In fact, APTLD had
some meetings, and then we looked at whether to introduce some domain
registry systems.  We evaluated a number of systems, especially what
we thought -- I don't know if (saying name) is around, but we decided
to look at CoCCA and in fact, I got a guy to sit and install CoCCA,
and -- well, a couple of people, and we thought we were going to
actually go for that.

But really, at the end of it, we found that all of them had certain
shortcomings.  For example, they didn't meet with the way we did
things.  And being a small registry, we were not really interested in
stuff like EPP and so on.  At least not right now.

And so although I really pushed hard, I think for about a year, to
get CoCCA up and running, then finally our staff said, you know,
let's just upgrade our existing system.  

And being, of course, located in a university, we do have access to
a lot of technical people, so we decided to upgrade our existing
system, and these are some of the things we are trying to put.  Some
of them already there, some of them on the way.  We have multiple
types of domains.  We have about five types, as I said.  We have
interfaces for corporate clients and agents, which is what we call
our registrars.  

We are planning to go for authenticate connections -- so I know some
other people do that -- where all the corporate clients would have a
dongle with two-factor authentication when they want to register or
update registration.  

And we have something which I'm not sure if everyone has.  We have
certain words which are disallowed.  Basically, we don't allow
anything which is not allowed in a company name.  We've just
basically decided to adopt that.  

Plus there are other sensitive words, which, of course, have to be
done on a case-by-case basis which we handle internally, and we have
our air-gap and manual checking.  

And also one of the things is multidomain registrations where some
people want to come in and register multiple domains.  

So all of these are going to be allowed, given -- in our new system.

Okay.  So basically that ends my two slides, so I'll stop there, but
do we have questions now or how do we do it?

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Yeah, we can take questions while we switch to
the next presenter.  No?  Thanks, Gihan.

Next is Fahd Batayneh from the dot jo registry about the expected
launch of ENUM under dot jo.

>>FAHD BATAYNEH:  Okay.  Good afternoon.  My name is Fahd.  I
represent jo.  Actually, the title that my colleague just mentioned
is a little bit misleading.  I'm going to talk about the recent
updates at jo.  

So first, I'm going to talk about our new DNS online registration
system.  DNS was launched in Jordan back in 1998.  However, the
registration process was all done by hand, paperwork.  

We launched our e-services at the beginning of 2007.  We have a
fully -- a semi-fully automated system.  The only part that is not
automated is the registration part of the server end.  

We launched a new Web site back in July -- mid-July of 2009.  We
integrated a new payment gateway.  The Web site was more user-
friendly, and we enhanced the security by adding an SSL certificate.  

We do run a small registry.  We have around 4,500 domains
registered.  We do have strict policies.  It's not open for anybody
to register.  People will have to show some papers before they can
proceed with the registration of a domain.  And our Web site is dns.jo.

ENUM.  We finished registering our ENUM service -- we finished
registering ENUM with RIPE NCC and ITU in May of 2009.  We have two
name servers for ENUM registration.  We have been doing some in-house
housing.  We're in the phase of launching a new Web site for ENUM
registration.  Of course it's going to include a payment gateway as
well.  

Of course when I talk about implementation of a payment gateway, I
hail from a country where people kind of dislike the idea of paying
over the Internet, so it's a big challenge for us at the moment for
people to accept the payment gateway.

We are currently in the final touches of implementing ENUM, in which
we are drawing all the necessary policies with the Telecommunication
Regularity Commission and the various service providers.  Of course
we're going to follow our registry/registrar module and we will be
implementing EPP at some stage.  

And that's it.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Good.  So questions?

>>GIHAN DIAS:  Yeah.  Just regarding ENUM, so ENUM is, of course,
just the registration part.  How is that through VoIP and the gateway
in between the VoIP and the PSTN?  Do you play in part in that or
that's done by someone else?

>>FAHD BATAYNEH:  That's going to be done by the service providers,
really.  We are just going to maintain the two name servers.

>>GIHAN DIAS:  And what's the structure of your ENUM?  Is it
accepted -- do you have to have a phone number, an existing phone
number, or is it --

>>FAHD BATAYNEH:  Yeah.  Well, actually what we're going to do is of
course we're going to use the country code of Jordan, and with the
Telecommunication Regularity Commission, they're going to set up an
area code for ENUM, and that's how the registration is going to happen.

>>GIHAN DIAS:  Okay.  So people will get new phone numbers.

>>FAHD BATAYNEH:  Exactly, exactly.

>>GIHAN DIAS:  Okay.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Time for another question.  Thanks, Fahd.  

Next, Andrei Kolesnikov from the dot ru registry will present
implementing Cyrillic IDNs in Russia.

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  Thank you very much.  Just I'll be really
brief.  

So now we have about 2.4 million domains.  By the end of this
presentation, it will be 2.4161 hundred.  So we really are running up
at the high rate, but we're also involved in the IDN launch and it's
just a brief update where we are.

We all -- you know, we all wait for the end of this week, of course.
It goes without saying.

And as soon as the fast track process will be started, we have all
the documents already in place, ready to upload, submit, go through
the checks, and answer the questions.  And also, we accept the
financial conditions which were presented earlier.

So what we do within the country for this project?  

On November 2nd, which is next week, we start formal accreditation
of the registrars who will be accepting registrations for the dot rf,
which is the IDN for Russian Federation.  Okay?  

And on November 25th, we plan to open the priority registration for
the trademark owners who keep the trademarks in Cyrillic.  It's a
very sensitive matter because we already are getting some letters
from big corporations worldwide, trademark protection bureaus and so
on, asking if they will be protected names for the Cyrillic.  And we
checked with some legal people who were, you know, good known guys. 
They said there is no -- there is no entity in the world who can
actually put a parallel between the Latin script and the Cyrillic
script, so we will be focusing exactly on the Cyrillic script
trademark.  So if the trademark is not in Cyrillic, it will not be
protected.

So this period will be for the four months until 25th of March of
the next year, and we plan, on April 12th next year, to open the
auction in this new domain zone to keep the zone protected from the
cybersquatters and, you know, from the bulk registrations.  

And we decided to go with the linear price, fixed price decrease
model, which runs as one day of, I don't know, like 10 million rubles
for one day and then, you know, a million rubles for one week, then
500,000 rubles for one week and so on and so forth.  Between each
week, we'll have a one-day pass, you know, just to -- to deal with
some, you know, problems, if they exist, if they appear.

So we probably will be ready to -- for the open market price by the
June 14th of the next year, if everything goes according to the
previous schedule.  

And this system of the registration based on the EPP has enhanced
security.  It has special digital signatures on the time stamps to
avoid, you know, questionable who goes first, who goes last.

It also will support the stop-list for the offensive words which,
you know, the Russian language is very rich in this term, so -- 

And regarding the mass market estimation, how many domains will be
registered in our IDN, we don't know.  All we know is like there are
millions of people around the world, 140 million in Russia and the
same in other countries, so it may go from, you know, 100,000 to 10
million very fast, but as this is a new project, no one can really
tell, and it's hard to do some preliminary estimations in this area.

That's it.  Thank you.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Thank you.  (Speaker is off microphone).

>>ANDREI KOLESNIKOV:  No.  I believe it's useless because you type
something in ASCII, then switch to Cyrillic, or you type something in
Cyrillic then you switch to ASCII, it's just not convenient for the
user, so...

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Okay.  Any other questions?  Thanks, Andrei.  

Next, Luis Diego Espinoza from the dot cr registry will talk about
the EPP implementation under dot cr.

>>LUIS DIEGO ESPINOZA:  Hi.  My name is Luis Espinoza from -- sorry.

Okay.  I want to talk to you briefly about the implementation of the
EPP in our NIC.

This is -- what we have before implementation, we have a customer
portal.  We manage the relation with the client about the
transactions like registry, delete, modify, manage the context and
payment.  We have our Web application that manages that relation, and
with its own database.  

But the registration at the DNS servers is made by hand, editing the
tables of the BIND and publishing the master server and replicate it.
We identify a risk in the in-depth manipulation with the tables
because a mistake or something like that.  Then the solution for
that, to mitigate that risk is implement an automated system that
permits us to generate automatically the tables from the portal
system to the DNS server.

We evaluate some software, and at the end we -- we are working with
FRED from Czech Republic, that is open source software that fits
really good on our system.  We set up a company, the client, on our
Web application that communicates with FRED server and FRED server
generates the DNS tables for DNS.

Basically, this process is now on final testing.  We hope this
implementation is in production next month.

And the implementation of EPP in this case is for -- is to solve a
procedure risk, a procedure threat that we have, but it's ready for
implement the registrar/registry model in the future.  That's one of
our plans for the next year.  That's it.  Thank you.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Questions about this?  Byron?  Or over here,
first.

>>STEPHEN DEERHAKE: Stephen Deerhake, AS Domain Registry.  

Did you look at CoCCA, or did you just go straight to FRED, or were
there any other ones you evaluated?

>>LUIS DIEGO ESPINOZA:  I want to talk about this in next session
more widely, but we saw CoCCA at the beginning of CoCCA, three or
four years ago, and we don't -- so we don't -- we don't find the
solution there.  We evaluate OpenReg before FRED, and then we go with
FRED.  We don't need a final solution, a complete system.  We only
need an interface with DNS -- EPP and DNS, because we already have
the portal designed and developed.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Was there another question?  Byron?

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  Hi.  Just wondering:  Are you changing any
policies along with the cutover to EPP or is it strictly a protocol
change?

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Are you changing policies?

>>LUIS DIEGO ESPINOZA:  Yes, we need to change some policies because
FRED established some requirements for the registration, especially
with the server record sets.  We permit only one DNS server for some
domains, but FRED required two name servers for domains.  Then we
need to change policies and change procedures, too.

>>BYRON HOLLAND:  And when you do the cutover, are you doing a
single-point-in-time cutover or are you going to run those two
environments in parallel for some period of time?

>>LUIS DIEGO ESPINOZA:  No.  Kind of parallel, yes.  We use some of
the production environments and replicate data to the parent system
while testing.  Yes.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Okay.  Thanks, Luis.  

And the next presentation is by Jon Lawrence, from the dot ua
registry, about the latest developments in the dot ua registry.

>>JON LAWRENCE:  Thank you, thank you.  Very brief update here on
what we've been up to in dot ua.

Things have been going very well the last few months.  We've had, in
fact, the three strongest months -- in terms of registrations -- that
we've had on record, which we're obviously pretty excited about, and
we see that as partly a reflection on the domain space in -- sort of
specifically, but also a reflection of the surprisingly strong
Australian economy at the moment.

We were very excited last month to reach 1.5 million registrations,
which we think is quite an achievement for a country which, while
being geographically rather large, is actually relatively small in
terms of population.

A couple of specific things I just wanted to mention in terms of our
marketing.  As you may be aware, registrations in dot ua are done at
the third level under various second-level domains such as dot com
dot ua, which is the primary commercial space, dot net dot ua, org,
and various others.  

And we did a cross-zone marketing initiative in conjunction with our
registrars recently which was pretty successful.  Essentially we went
through and compared the registrations in com dot ua and net dot ua
and sent lists out to our registrars of their customers who had
registered or the other, and they then put together little marketing
campaigns to promote cross-registrations so that people were, you
know, securing their brand in both spaces.  And that was reasonably
successful in driving some incremental growth.

So that's on the marketing side.

Very quickly in terms of technological issues, we've been doing --
continuing to work on DNSSEC.  We've got some ongoing testing going
on there.  And we are currently working towards launching a test bed
in the next quarter.

In terms of IP Version 6, we're accepting glue records and IPv6
transit.  We haven't yet published the AAAA records into the root,
but we're working with industry and government in Australia to
promote the adoption of IP Version 6.  We're sponsoring a fairly
significant regional IPv6 summit that's being held in Melbourne in
December this year.  That's it.  Thank you.

>>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Thank you.  Questions for Jon?  

So now we have some breaking news from dot na by Dr. Eberhard Lisse.

>>DR. EBERHARD LISSE: Okay.  Some of us may know me.  I'm Eberhard
Lisse.  I run dot na.  

And we sort of fudged the title a little bit.  I don't really want
to speak about a technical update.  I want to show you that on the
31st of August, there were about four or five ccTLDs doing it.  The
Brazilians, Sweden, CZ, Bulgaria, Thailand, and the little one is
Puerto Rico.  They're one of the early adopters.

The blue colors here are testing countries, like Russia, France,
England, Mexico.  

And I put the U.S. in orange because gov is signed and org is
predominately U.S.  But to make it a little bit clearer, these are
the -- one, two, three, four, five -- six countries code TLDs that do
it, and on the 1st of September, there was another one.  

And I felt this was quite significant.  I said yesterday, on my
technical workshop, the reason why we started is because I was ill
and I was at home for about five weeks in bed and I had nothing
better to do than to watch my wife telenovellas and eventually I
started to dig into the technical things how to do this and it's
really not that difficult.

We run Ubuntu Server.  8.04 is not the latest version, but it has
long-term support.  We can use any other.  We just run this.  We run
the CoCCA tools because they're so easy to install.  It took about a
day to figure this out and another week to write a script that can do
it in five minutes.  We have run this script in some other ccTLDs. 
It's peanuts to install.  

It also gives an automated zone generation every hour, which makes
this -- 

I'm sorry.  I am so sorry.  So rude, so uncharacteristically rude of
me.

It runs in fully automated zone generation in a zip file, keeps
several versions online, so we could easily take this apart.  We have
a provisioning script which we used before which we adapted.  

We used the BIND tools that come with the operating system.  We do
not -- we are not a secondary or a primary.  We SCP the zone file up
to the primary.  As another large recent early adopter of DNS noted,
if you forget a dot, it can lead to problems, and then when you start
panicking it becomes more problems for us.  If it happened to us, we
can easily go a version back or two versions back or ISC can even
easier, if we are not contacted, just shut -- close the firewall,
take the last version that works, and we don't lose name servers.

We run this every hour.  We have serious backup.  That's quite
normal.  We've got serious firewalling to try to protect the keys.  

Lessons learned:  First thing is you must hide the key.  Difficult
to do.  If you do it too much, it doesn't sign it any more, but it
doesn't tell you it doesn't sign anymore.  So we did that sort of on
purpose.  And, after a day or so, one guy from Sweden informed us
that he had noticed.  It's a good thing to know that, because people
will help you.  

We come to this.  You need to read the manuals.  It's all out there.
You can Google it.  The abbreviations -- ZSK KSK, SEP, whatever, it
makes it for the casual like me, it makes it very difficult.  

Mike Lawrie is the gentleman from South Africa who, basically,
connected Africa to the Internet and ran the DNS until the authority
was created.  And he once passed Lawrie's Law.  If something works on
the first attempt, something is seriously wrong!  This is pure gospel.

And you do not really need to hire a consultant.  In this case a
commercial DNS provider.  You just need a friend on the other end of
the line.  

I was restricting myself to a few slides, so I'm not showing the
slide with the thanks.  But -- and the dynamic DNS gentleman,
Hitchcock, was the guy who, occasionally, when I was really in
confusion, sent him an e-mail.  And he then punished me by sending me
a full chapter of their advanced DNS book for me to study to figure
it out for myself.  But that's -- in a developing country, that's the
way we're used to doing it.  So we hope that we're used to doing it,
because sometimes we're not getting taught how to do things.  We're
just given it and whatever.

And ISC Peter Losher was also very helpful.  We are signing the zone
already for six months. But we didn't put it into the name server. 
And, of course, dot nu, who signed about a month after us, were also
very helpful.  They provided secondary name servers.  And they
encouraged us also to do this by increasing their infrastructure,
which also incurred cost.  

In summary, being the chair of a small technical working group, I
felt, if it can be done, it should be done and we should do it.  And
we should encourage smaller ccTLDs.  It's not that difficult.  It's --
this is the purely technical.  It's not any administration.  It's not
securing the key.  It's not dealing with the registrars to get them
motivated.  It's not marketing it to the banks.  It's just to show
that it can be done.  And I feel if you can do the registry, then you
can start taking the administration around it.  Then you can start
with the registrars and, finally, some clients will do it.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Thank you.  Questions?  No?  Well, thanks. 
We're finishing on time.  Please join me in thanking all the speakers.

[Applause]

And in about one minute we should begin with the presentations of
the regional organizations.  

So please Eric, Ramesh, Peter, and Erick, if you can come here.

 >>ERIC AKUMIAH:  Good afternoon.  My name is Eric.  I'm the
administrative manager for the AFTLD.  I want to do a quick update
for the African region.  

Currently, we have 17 members.  We've just received applications for
two other members.  So that makes it 19 official members.  We have
our first associate member, which is ausRegistry.  In terms of recent
activities, AFTLD was present at an ITU IGF meeting on ccTLDs in
Mauritius.  AFTLD was the main facilitator to enlighten the African
regulators and government on the key issues with ccTLD.  

In April this year we also had our third annual event in Arusha. 
And that included an A/DCRP workshop as well as a SCRO workshop.  We
also had an annual meeting & AGM.  In June we also were present in
the AFNOG/AfriNIC meeting in Cairo.  We also were present in Accra,
Ghana, for the West Africa IGF. And we normally have monthly board
teleconferences.  

Planned activities:  We plan to have a capacity building program
IROC in French in Dakar in December.  

We also plan to have our fourth annual event in Nairobi just before
the ICANN meeting.  And we're going to have an IROC in English and AGM.

We also have in plan a capacity building IROC in French in Abidjan
in July 2010.  We're focused now on increasing membership.  And we
now have opened our membership to associate members.  So we welcome
any organizations who want to join AFTLD.  We also plan to redevelop
our website to focus on improving usability and also strengthen our
internal and external communications within the organization.

Still in planned events, we plan to be in Durban South Africa, for
the African Union ICT ministers caucus just to establish some
strategic partnerships, so we can work to improve the state of the
ccTLDs within the African region.  

We will also be at the AU ministerial IGF meeting preparatory
workshop from the 12-13 November that will precede the IGF meeting.  

And we will also be part of the regional TLD organization workshop
at the IGF.  

Come December we'll have our first newsletter -- hard copy -- that
we'll publish monthly on the website.  We're planning a 3-year
strategic plan starting from 2010.  And, essentially, we want to
empower African ccTLDs so that they can manage the ccTLDs well.  

And over the next three years we hope to be able to get a lot of
African ccTLDs -- at least 60% of them -- operating in a proper
manner.  And how do we intend to do this?  We are in consultation
with a South African company to start an AFTLD-led dispute resolution
program, which will help Africa develop capacity for dispute
resolution.  We also plan to do a business capacity bulling program
so that we will have good marketing for the ccTLDs in the region.  We
also want to do the technical capacity building program.  

And we want to use research as the basis to understand the state of
the ccTLDs today so that we can build on that.  And we -- in doing
all this, we plan to have lots of strategic partnerships, especially
with African governments, research institutions, and other
organizations.  We plan to have strategic support unit that will work
with the different countries so that we can have a better working
relation and help them to make the necessary decisions that they have
to make.

In terms of process, by December we'll be -- our strategic plan will
be ready.  We have a 3-month comment period.  And at the AGM in
Nairobi, we're going to actually approve the strategic plan.  And
then we go ahead to develop our first plan and have approval so we
can start from January 2011.  

Thank you.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Any questions?  Thank you.

 >>RAMESH NADARAJAH: Good afternoon.  I'll keep the update short. 
Briefly, we have a membership of 53 organizations at the moment, 37
ordinary members and 16 associate members.  

We recently undertook a survey on APTLD priorities and strategies. 
This was undertaken very recently, September.  It took, basically,
the whole month of September.  This was to help us figure out our
strategy for the next three years.

That -- in fact, the survey that we did led to the third bullet
point -- sorry, the fourth bullet point that you see there, which is
that we had a strategy building workshop here on Sunday.

The purpose -- well, it was a facilitated strategy building workshop
facilitated by Patrick Sharry, who you heard earlier.  The intention
is to help us build a strategy, a long-term strategy for APTLD.  We
also had DNSSEC training for our members.  Yeah.  It was an
introductory DNSSEC training for our members, which we did in
partnership with APNIC.  It was also on Sunday.  We have had some
formal communication with ICANN.  And these are, basically, responses
that we've made or reactions to formal letters or formal statements
which have been made by ICANN.  

So requesting finalization of the fast track implementation plan by
this meeting to ensure that there's no more delay.  We also
congratulated both the Department of Commerce as well as the ICANN
CEO on the Affirmation of Commitments, which we think is a great step
forward.  

We also responded to ICANN's letters where we basically restated our
views.  

We have a new secretariat that I think I mentioned it last time. 
But I wanted to mention it here again.  They've taken over from
beginning July of this year.  The new secretariat is Hong Kong.  And
I'd like to introduce you to Henry.  Henry, can you just stand up? 
Henry is our new secretariat.  If you haven't met him yet, it would
be a good idea to exchange cards.  Our next members' meeting will be
held in conjunction with APRICOT in March of 2010.  APRICOT is always
our biggest meeting where we'll have a number of training sessions as
well as our annual AGM.  And it's the biggest.  And I hope as many of
you who can make it will be there because APRICOT is usually an
interesting event.  

What we have planned for the rest of the year -- oh, the E is
missing.  

The regional TLD organizations are working together to have a
workshop at the IGF in Egypt.  And we also are working together to
issue a coordinated survey in December of this year that, hopefully,
will give a good picture of what the ccTLDs are up to in all the
three regional TLD organizations.  That's, basically, it.  Thank you.
Sorry.  Four regional TLD organizations.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Any questions for Ramesh?  No.  Thank you.

 >>PETER van ROSTE:  Good afternoon, everyone.  My name is Peter van
Roste from CENTR.  I'll keep it brief and colorful. I promise you that.

I'll talk about the top five issues, our anniversary event, IGF
2010, and a new challenge. And all that in less than 5 minutes.  

Our top five issues that we're currently working on -- if you see
anything from this list that you're interested in, talk to me.  

We spend a lot of time still on security.  And I think that will be
one of our main topics for the -- for the time to come. 
Specifically, DNSSEC, all things fraud related, resilience, support
amongst ccTLDs to build up that resilience, and the ICANN security
plan.

Our legal people have been focusing quite a lot of their time
recently on ADR.  And why it works and, in some cases, why it doesn't
work at all.  

So, if you're interested in that, you can talk to me or to Stephan
Welzel, who is chair of our legal working group.  

Our people focusing on the administrative aspects of running a ccTLD
have been exchanging views and services on customer service and how
to increase the service level, both through registrars and to the
registrants.

We have a working group focusing on marketing.  And that group has,
obviously, been focused on marketing and education.  One of the
things they're doing is think about a game or a website or tool to
promote DNS to a larger public, or in particular to make them
understand the value of a domain name.  

And last on the list of five is Internet governance.  This is the
CENTR membership.  As you see, we do have some members not from the
European region.  Most of them are associate members.

We are very happy to celebrate our 10th anniversary on the 2nd of
December.  And, together with people from the European Parliament,
embassies in Brussels, people from the high-level Internet and
European Commission, we will bring them together not to talk CENTR
and its history, but to talk about Internet governance.  These are
the key players, at least from the European perspective.  And we hope
that we can provide them with a platform on which to get together in
a mutual environment and come to some common positions.

One of the other things we're doing, and of which I hope you will
all benefit, is we're creating a movie, a movie on how DNS works. 
And it will, basically, be a nicely animated movie that explains what
happens the moment a user needs a query.  That movie will, obviously,
be available to all of you.  Even better, we're building in the
possibility to have local translations.  So that could probably come
at a small cost.  But, obviously, if you are interested in a
translated version of that movie in whatever language is yours,
please talk to me.

As my colleagues already said, we are very happy to announce, again,
a joint event at IGF.  The title of our working group is "Lost in non-
ASCII translation."  We have Giovanni Seppia to thank for that clever
title.  It's on the 16th of November, which, as a nice coincidence,
is actually the date that the IDNs get introduced.  It will take
place at 2:00 in the Luxor room.  So, if you are at IGF, please make
sure not to miss that one.

We also have a booth.  All ccTLDs from across the world can put
information there, ideally related to Internet governance, obviously.
But anything that you think might be relevant for the attendance of
the IGF, drop it at our booth or contact me as well to get some
details on how to send it or ship it to Sharm El-Sheikh.  Also two
projects for next year.  But I just want to use my last minute,
estimated, on a new challenge that we're facing.  And I think it's
important, because it's not just CENTR that is facing it, but also
the other regional organizations and also the ccNSO.  

That is -- very quick history.  We started 10 years  ago -- hence,
our 10th anniversary -- with a small group of people that grew larger
and larger, very colorful, thick and thin registries, large and
small.  We're celebrating our 10th anniversary this year.  But will
2010 look like a very small group of ccTLDs amongst a huge majority
of new gTLDs?  

The question is:  Will we go on the defensive, or will we be
actually making the best out of this possibility and integrate the
knowledge and know-how that the new guys will bring into this
industry?  Obviously, these are not just new gTLDs.  They will also
be the IDN ccTLDs that will have a top-notch technology, know-how,
and business models.  

So how do we integrate that new knowledge into our well-established
and trustworthy platforms?  I think that's a very important question
to think about.  Obviously, we're not going to solve it now.  But I
invite any one of you to share some ideas with me later today.  Yes,
we have a new copy of our magazine, which you can -- well, you'll be
able to download it from our website probably next week.  And for all
other information, go to website.  Sometimes you'll meet a lock or
padlock indicating that it's content sensitive for members only. 
But, if you're a ccTLD, contact me and we'll see on what we can
share.  Thank you.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Thank you.  Questions?  Yeah?  Gabby.

>> Regarding your -- the movie DNS, the DNS movie, will it be under
any particular type of licensing?

 >>PETER van ROSTE:  Yes, it will be -- everybody can use it.  If
you mention where the source of the movie, that's fine.  So, no,
everybody can use it.  It's -- obviously, it's the idea that a lot of
people put it on their website, on YouTube and everywhere.  Because
the only purpose is to explain how DNS works, not to sell anything or
promote CENTR.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE:  Thank you.  And Erick now.

 >>ERICK IRIARTE AHON: Thanks.  I'll try to be very quickly.  LACTLD
was created 11 years ago.  We increase our membership and one member
more.  Also in this day we're in the process to accept seven more,
six associates and one more affiliate definitely will be dot es from
Spain.  So we're now around 24 members.  We have general assembly
around May or June this year.  

The next meeting will be in Monterrey.  These are commercial aspects
workshop.  

In this year we changed our bylaws to accept affiliates.  We
accepted any kind of TLDs that are in relation with the region.  Also
we translate our website to English.  This is one part of our job to
try to incorporate especially the Caribbean area.  But we are working
now in Spanish and English like principal language.  Also in
Portuguese and French, maybe in Dutch in the future because the
Netherlands and dot (inaudible) want to speak in Dutch.  

Next workshop is commercial aspects in Monterrey hosted by ccTLD dot
mx.  I'll give more information on the next slide.  We are proposed
to coordinate the project and DNSSEC portal space to get all the
information possible for ccTLDs about DNSSEC training online
information, documents.  

Also we have workshops in ACRP, legal, policies, technical security,
only for Caribbean and commercial aspects.  

It's very important to say that ISOC and ICANN support tech and
security workshop with delta risk presence.  We started a twitter. 
This is twitter.com/LACTLD and Facebook.  

We made a newsletter.  That is in the name of the domain name.  We
increase our relation with LACNIC and ARIN and especially for
deployment of IPv6.  

We started our official relation with InterAmerican Commission of
Telecommunications.  This is a commission of American states
organization.  So that means that we are observers in that group but
also can make comments about the resolutions of this community of
governments.  

We've started to continue with the maps project to show how the
ccTLDs increase.  

We have a handbook project to have started five documents to each
ccTLD about principal issues in legal, commercial policies, and
technical issues.  And we had one month ago published official
position about the situation with dot hn.  I'll give more information
next.  This is our project map within the organization.  We 

planned for the next year eight workshops for legal aspects,
technical, security policies, and general assembly.  We give -- we
have a fellowship program for each workshop.  

So the small ccTLDs in the region plan to go to the workshops.  

We started the project fund for ccTLDs to have some ideas or want to
develop something, LACTLD gives money and share.  We continue with
the study of statistics monthly.  And this is our slide with special
notes.  The past week -- sorry -- the past month, officially, the
government of Colombia completed the process of request for proposals
and started a process of redelegation.  So the University of the
Andes changed by dot co, company, that is a mix between Icelandia and
user company.  

Also in the past month the government of Honduras using all
regulations requested to the ccTLD administrator to trespass the
operation of the ccTLD to the government.  This law said that the
government can make the rules for policies in the ccTLD, but never
was the operator of the ccTLD.  So the ccTLD requests for a LACTLD
position.  And, you know, we sent two different networks.  The
situation right now is the government go back.  We work in different
levels for that thing and continue the operation.  Also, the
technical operation is outside the country.

Dot mx opened the second level, so increase very fast their quantity
of domain names.  The past month two.  

In this month dot ar, Argentina, have over 2 million domain names,
was the first in the region.  Maybe the next will be dot br with .9
million.  We have projects together with reorganization.  The ccTLD
survey started in December.  And we have workshop together in IGF.  

This is our next workshop banner, if you are interested with special
topics about promotional strategies for domain names, strategic
alliance, commercial extension, aspects that add value to a ccTLD,
aftermarket as a grown-up platform, web communities, advertising
online and social networks for domain names.  We'll be there in two
weeks in Monterrey.  Thanks.

 >>PATRICIO POBLETE: Thanks, Erick.  Any questions?  Okay.  Well,
thanks to all the speakers.

[Applause]

Okay.  Well, thanks to all the speakers.

[Applause]

And now I hand the meeting over back to Chris.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Okay.  We have now a brief update from Marco on
the ccNSO review.  And that will then be followed by our final event
of the afternoon, which is the Implementation Recommendation Team --
it is not a working group, it is a team -- proposals for the new gTLD
space.

So when you're ready.

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  Good afternoon, everybody.  So just to start our
two-hour workshop -- it is two hours, isn't it?

[Laughter]

No.  Okay.  It's just a very, very brief update on where we are
about the process of the review of ccNSO.  Mr. Jean-Jacques Subrenat
should join us also very shortly.  He is in another meeting, and
hopefully he will join during the meeting.

Where we are in the process, we are just finalizing the selection of
the consultant.  So the consultant has been identified and the SIC
has approved -- SIC stands for Structural Improvements Committee --
of the board has approved their selection on Saturday.  So today you
will have the scoop of the names of the consultant that will work
with us in reviewing the ccNSO.

We are under the finalization of the contract.  So in the upcoming
days, we will sign the contract with them.

The request for proposal was really widely advertised on
professional Web sites worldwide which is practically a new thing for
ICANN.  So we not only send it out to go for the traditional channels
for advertising our request for proposal but also to professional
associations like the American Evaluation Association, the European
Evaluation Society and different international management
organizations.

The request for proposal was pretty well-accepted because several of
those organizations accepted to publish it without any compensation. 
We received eight proposals.  Once again, it was interesting.  The
first review that we undertook several years ago resulted in just one
proposal.  So, apparently, ICANN is becoming more and more known and
the different strategy that we undertook is receiving attention.  

It is also interesting to see that not all the proposals were coming
from the traditional Anglo-Saxon world.  Yes, there were three of
them from USA but then one from Russia, New Zealand, Senegal, France
and South Africa.

The criteria for the selection, yet another process to increase
transparency and accountability of our processes, were known in
advance by all the bidders.  A selection panel was called, made up of
four panelists.  And they scored all the proposals that we received;
different selectionists been, as I say, just endorsed by the
Structural Improvements Committee.

Now the name of the winner.  The winner is a French consultant
called Items International.  Some of you may know them because they
are the organizer since ten years already of the Global Forum on
Internet.  They just had a session in Romania, and it is an
initiative that's jointly led by the European Commission and the U.S.
administration, so in principal known.  A Web page should pop up but
it doesn't happen, so...

The reason for selecting them on this criteria for assessment is
scored first and then the criteria qualification of the bidder.  They
have a pretty substantial experience in dealing with -- voila, here's
the page.  You have a link in the set of slides that you can have a
look to their qualification and, also, to the materials that are
online on the previous edition of their global forum in other areas.

As I said, they scored first under the criteria qualification of
bidder; proposed methodology and tools, pretty sound methodology; and
the financial offer.  They scored second under the criterion
understanding of the assignment but still 22 out of 25.  So we
considered that they scored pretty well on all the criteria.

Next steps, the first good news is that they are available to start
pretty soon.  So our previous guess was to start the operations the
first or second week of December.  Instead, we'll be able to start at
mid November which is good news because it gives more breadth for the
review exercise.

The start of the review will be with a kick-off, and we'll try to
arrange a meeting, either telephone or face-to-face meeting with the
people of the ccNSO review working group.  And at least with Chris
Disspain in that period should be in Europe.  So they are likely to
arrange a first briefing with the reviewers.

During the inception phase, they may lead to document analysis,
phone interviews, once again, not only with the ccNSO members but
with all ccTLD community which was one of our precise requests for
the terms of reference and survey.

They will be present in Nairobi to have face-to-face interviews with
you and sort of a validation exercise of the first findings they get
from the inception phase.  

We foresee to have their draft final report by early May 2010 in
order for them to finalize the report for the second half of May. 
This will allow us to put it online for presentation in Brussels in
June and the public comment.  So the report will go on public
comment.  

The methodology is very much based on continuous consultation with
the community, so we insisted very much in our request -- and I see
there is also one member in the room, that is, Demi Getschko, which
is part of the review working group and we insist on the terms of
reference on the need to keep the link very straight with the
community during all the phases of the review in order to double-
check the validity of the data and the indicators they're collecting
during their activity.

That's it.  I managed to spend less than two hours, so we have one
hour and half of questions and answers, if you want.

[Laughter]

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Are there any questions?  I have a couple, but
anyone?  Okay.

I just want to remind everybody that this review will only work if
we provide input into it and it's very important.  I know it might be
perceived by some as yet another thing that has to be dealt with; but
if we want this review to be the best for us that it can be, then we
really do need to make sure that we input into it.

Now, how does that happen?  Is it just they choose people to talk to
or what?

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  Well, first of all, I think that the process of
choosing people should be steered by the community in the sense that
a reviewer, they may have already an excellent address book.  They
may have already contacts within your community.  But if you don't
keep them, their contacts of the people to be contacted, they will be
separated from the community, which is wrong for the methodology.  So
everything starts with the list of contacts.  Everything starts with
facilitating the contacts, so a sort of endorsement from members of
the community.  And advertising may be another way of proceeding the
review activities, in your respective Web site could be another way
to facilitate the work and the reaching out of reviewers.

Sorry?

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Carry on.

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  Other activities, they plan to conduct a survey
and the survey is meant to reach both ccNSO members and members of
the larger ccTLD community, which is another step yet.  So also in
this case, it would be very crucial for us to have your support in
spreading the voice in order to collect more evidence and more data.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Young Eum?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  There was mention of maybe difficulty with the
language by some people yesterday and today.  And I'm wondering, I
mean -- we completely agree with Chris when he says we need to very
actively try to put -- give input into the process.  But for some
cc's language barrier -- not just the language but because of the
cultural barrier, it might not be as easy for some cc's to give input
as others.  Do you have any mechanisms for trying to deal with that?

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  Not magic sticks but some guidelines.  For
instance, one of the reasons we selected them is they are pretty
multi-cultural, multi-geographic, based in different parts of the
world with capacity to cover different languages.  Having said that,
it is not enough.  So they are able to work in at least three, four
different languages.  But it is not enough.  So in order to reach
even more, any kind of suggestion you may have, submit it to that.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Anyone else?  Sorry, Young Eum?

>>YOUNG EUM LEE:  Well, actually I do have a suggestion.  We do have
the regional organizations.  And if you could go to those regional
organizations and try to get help from them, then maybe -- they might
be able to propose some culturally more -- I mean, some procedures
that are more culturally acceptable or adaptable to some of the cc's.

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  Done.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  We will -- I guess we'll put this -- I guess we
need to put this on the agenda tomorrow to talk about whether we
should set up some sort of liaison group that actually liaises with
the reviewers -- certainly don't want it just to be me -- and pushes
out requests for feedback and input from communities, from regional
organizations, et cetera.

Hilde?

>>HILDE THUNEM:  Thank you for a very interesting presentation.  I
just would suggest also that when this work starts that there's made
available information on our Web site on the progress, what's
happening at certain stages so that we don't come to a meeting and
find out, "Oh, yeah, and during the last month, 15 ccTLD managers
have been interviewed" and we're asking why those or why shouldn't it
be otherwise but that we know what's going on at the time where it's
actually happening and can come up with suggestions, provided we're
awake.

[Laughter]

>>MARCO LORENZONI:  What surely we can do is to publish -- you know,
in the Web site of ICANN, there is a portal on independent reviews. 
So we can publish a constant update of the state of play on that. 
And if you link up to this page, it will be done.  Great.  Thank you.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  Anything else?  Okay.  Well, thanks very much
indeed, Marco.  See you soon.

Okay.  So that brings us now to the last session of the afternoon,
which is the Implementation Recommendation Team.  And Lesley is going
to take the chair for this session.  And we should have Nick Wood.

>>NICK WOOD:  I'm rushing here.  I hope as is my colleague. 
Otherwise, you will have Nick Wood.

I'm afraid that one of my colleagues from the U.K, called David
Taylor, was coming along.  Unfortunately, there is a serious illness
in his family and he wasn't available to attend this meeting.  One of
the other members of the IRT, Zahid Jamil, is also going to join me,
I hope.  He is probably looking around for the room.

I'm going to fire this thing up.  When I do it, I would like to say
two thank you's to you.  The first thank you is for giving the IRT
the opportunity to come and talk to you about what we've been doing
and to see if it's helpful.  

Here is Zahid.

And the second thank you is to thank you because I run a small
registrar, and I reckon we have about 110,000 ccTLD names.  So I work
with lots of you in many ways.  And all I can say is that the service
that you give us is getting better and better.  We think that
generally you are getting more and more secure.  Our payments
department likes nearly all of you because we can track our payments.
So thank you very much.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Okay.  How this session came about, because as you
may have noticed we're not gTLDs, is there was some interest in the
Implementation Recommendation Team proposals that were being made
about the gTLD space and the new gTLDs specifically.  And several
people, myself included, made the link that perhaps some of these
ideas might be of interest to us.  Some of them may perhaps increase
pressure on those of us that run dispute services to change those in
some way or, indeed, those that might have sunrise periods for your
registries.

So it's an informational session but, also, I hope there will be
some discussion and some comments.  We are very interested in gTLD
proposals this week.

Okay.  So we originally meant to have David.  We have Nick who has
introduced himself.  He is the managing director of Com Laude from
London.  We also had Zahid Jamil who is a barrister at law from
Pakistan.  Both of them were members of the IRT team.

>>NICK WOOD:  Thank you very much.  We decided it would be easier if
we divided this presentation into two parts and then leave you as
much time as you want really for questions at the end.

And I was also asked by the IRT to say that other members would be
very happy to talk with any of you about what we have done and,
indeed, how some of it may at some stage in the future may or may not
be useful for you.  There is plenty of lessons to be learned from
what we've tried to do, that's for sure.

We are going to talk about the need to protect IP, intellectual
property, rights in the new gTLD process.  What we actually
recommended -- and I say "actually" because I have been coming to
ICANN since it formed.  But this is the first time I have ever had
skin in the game by being involved in something that's been published
by ICANN.  You have probably done this lots and lots of times.  

But I have been amazed at how people have come up to me and asked me
questions about what we said, what we did and we didn't say it and we
didn't do it.  It's amazing how the Chinese whispers go around and
around.

So we'll talk to you about what we actually recommended.  We will
talk a little bit about where we are now and some of the issues
involved with that.  We'll try to do that quite quickly.  And then a
final single slide, which is just really some thoughts for you, about
what we've done and that may be of assistance to you in the future.

First thing, I've got five slides that WIPO, the World Intellectual
Property Organization, gave to us.  And WIPO, as you know, are an
international intergovernmental organization.  I think 187 countries
are members of WIPO.  They were the first organization to support the
UDRP through providing panelists and they have been compiling
statistics.  The statistics are widely misinterpreted because they
are quite differently presented as the statistics on the UDRP, but
there are only panel providers.

But the statistics I have got here are ones from WIPO.  So they go
to the point about why the board of ICANN felt that it was important
to form a body called the IRT.  And that point is because
cybersquatting just doesn't seem to go away.

So the first slide here just shows how the number of WIPO cases of
UDRP cases found at WIPO have gone up year by year.  If you see 2009,
it's up to 1,500 cases.  They expect it's going to cross the 2,000
barrier and maybe match 2008 which was a record year.

Now, you can misinterpret these statistics, of course, because the
fact is the number of registrations has also been rising hugely.  So
this is a kind of -- it's not a perfect chart that you're seeing, but
it goes to show that the number of cases that have gone before WIPO
as a panel provider have been going up.

This pie chart shows the areas of activity -- I'm sorry if you can't
read it, it is very small -- by industry sector that have been
impacted by infringement that has come before WIPO panelists.

You'll see biotech and pharmaceuticals, banking and finance,
internet and I.T., retail, food, beverage, entertainment as we go
around.  Almost every sector of industry is impacted by infringement.

And you'll see on this slide, you'll see the languages used in
cases.  This is indicative of the fact that cybersquatting is a
global problem, so from English down to Turkish.  

And moving on rapidly, again, you'll see how the gTLDs are
represented, dot com, massive, massively at 78.39%, that's where most
infringement sits.

But, of course, WIPO also supports a number of you, so here's
another slide from WIPO showing the top 20 ccTLDs --

I beg your pardon about that --  that take part in WIPO cases.  I
will make these slides available to you.  And, indeed, WIPO has got a
much better set of slides if any of you would like to see those.

So all I'm trying to illustrate with these slides is that there was
a feeling amongst trademark owners that if this was the situation
concerning cybersquatting and infringement, bad-faith registration in
the existing domain name structure, then, of course, with the
proliferation of gTLDs, the problem could get worse.

This slide shows how sometimes in response to global emergencies
cybersquatting ceases to be something which people very often
dismiss.  It is just an issue for big brand owner.  

I know it is a terrible slide.  I can't do anything about this, but
you can look this up on the WIPO site.  These are registrations that
were brought to the attention of WIPO who ran cases all involving
Tamiflu.  It is interesting that the Red Cross, for example, have
just come along and they have just joined the noncommercial
constituency.  And they're here because whenever there is a global
emergency, then you get Red Cross-Tsunami registered.  You get Red
Cross-Donate registered.  

So there is this moment in life when suddenly cybersquatting ceases
to be something that WIPO deals with.  There is something about
consumer confidence in the real lives of people in your home
countries.  So there is a cost to -- a human cost to all of this
sometimes.  Cybersquatting is sometimes dangerous.  Sometimes it's
wildly exaggerated at what its impact can be, but sometimes it is
also pretty nasty.

So the board decided that they would form the IRT.  And on the 6th
of March, 2009, there was a resolution.  And I'll read it for you. 
They decided to form the "IRT comprised of an internationally diverse
group of persons with knowledge, expertise and experience in the
fields of trademark, consumer protection or competition law and the
interplay of trademarks and the domain name system to develop and
propose solutions to the overarching issue of trademark protection in
connection with the introduction of new gTLDs."So, in other words,
you are the people who have been moaning about all this, why don't
you have a go at coming up with some answers.  So a team was formed. 
It was very ably chaired by a U.S. attorney called Caroline Chicoine.
And if you look at the other 15 members there, you will see this
spread of countries:  Denmark, Canada, the U.S., Pakistan, Argentina,
Israel, France, Mexico.  We tried to get as broad a representation as
we could, but the team was actually put together two weeks' notice. 
So a lot of people couldn't actually serve on it.

On that list, I would like to highlight one of two names.  Number 14
there, Mary Wong, she participated as an academic.  She lectures in
law.  She is also a member of the NCUC, but she was on the team as an
academic.

You'll see a registry representative.  We had Jeff Neuman from
NeuStar.  We had a registrar representative, Jon Nevett.  I was a
registrar but I'm also a member of the IPC so I counted as an IPC
member.  And there are six ex officio members as well.  

I think the interesting thing about this is it's a team of people
who ICANN brought together to talk about some -- they use
"recommendations," but were we doing policy or were we doing
recommendations?  What were we doing?  How did we fit into the ICANN
jigsaw?  That remains a puzzle.  And I think it is something that you
might wish to talk about a bit later.

So our intention was to develop what we call balanced, implementable
and effective solutions.  They weren't ideal solutions.  I mean, an
ideal solution in terms of the new gTLDs for many brand owners would
be no new gTLDs.

So we were tasked to come up with workable, compromised solutions. 
And we were told really clearly by the board that we couldn't just
start with a clean piece of paper.  What we had to do was to look at
the comments that had been submitted to ICANN in connection with DAG1
and actually DAG2 as well.  So we analyzed the comments that were
there.

We couldn't just come up with something.  It had to be something
that someone had suggested that was the start of one of the proposals
that we came up with.  

And in doing this, it was fantastic.  We were so pleased to have on
board the registry and registrar representative.

And we came up with a checklist which applied to the recommendations
that we had, and I'm quite proud of this.  I think this is actually a
pretty useful checklist, if you're thinking of changing policies to
do with intellectual property in any domain registry.

What are the harms that are being addressed by the solution?  Were
they real harms?  Because comments were submitted from anyone --
you'll know what comments the ICANN comment process is like.  Anyone
can say anything, and anyone does.

So was what was being complained about, was there a real harm?

Will the solution scale?  Does the solution accommodate the
territorial variations in trademark rights?  Because trademarks
differ around the world from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Does it conform -- should be conform, not confirm -- does it
conform, to the extent of actual legal rights.  Well, one of the
things we had to be really careful about doing, and in fact, we've
been very heavily criticized about doing, is creating a kind of
pseudo-new legal right.  And we really tried hard not to do it.  So
in one aspect, in one area, I think we've come close to failing.

We were asked does this solution work in the light of IDNs?  

We asked ourselves, to what extent could the solution be gamed or
abused.  Because as we all know, there are people who as soon as one
solution comes up, they seem to spend hours finding a way of gaming
the solution.  

Was it the least burdensome solution?  Was it technologically
feasible?  How would the solution affect consumers and competition? 
And of course what are the costs and who's going to pay for them?

So that was the checklist.  So everything we came up with, we ran
past this list.  And I was most disappointed when two or three things
that we came up with got thrown off, because they failed this list.

So what I'm going to do now is to go through the five main solutions
that we came up with.

And if any of you have got any questions about these, as we go
through them, then please ask about them.

They're pretty complicated.  And the way they've been presented has
made them even more complicated.  Mostly because we finished the
report, we got asked to take part in this roadshow at Sydney, which
we did.  Most of us have got other jobs.  When all that was finished,
we all felt we've got to get back to our other jobs, and by the time
someone said, "It's very difficult and it's 70 pages and couldn't you
have put in a few more charts and some -- said what it's not," then
we'd all gone on holiday or gone back to our day jobs and there was
no more support from ICANN.  So one of the reasons there's
misinformation is because we weren't smart enough to say we need some
continuing support after we actually submitted the -- continuing
support after we submitted the report.

So the IP clearinghouse.  The problem is that 500 new domain name
registries could mean that rights owners have to submit the same data
-- sorry, not the same date -- the same data 500 times in 500
formats, paying 500 fees during the prelaunch rights mechanisms.

So you all know that when gTLDs launch, or have launched since 2000,
they've all had one form or another of sunrise, or prelaunch, rights
mechanism.  And what happened was, a trademark owner would have to
get hold of a trademark certificate, they'd have to read the rules,
and the rules have lots of registry launch -- the rules are
complicated so normally you get your lawyer to read it and he's going
to charge you.  And then you fill in the form and you send in the
trademark certificate, and you may or may not, depending on the
mechanism that a registry used, whether it was first past the post or
an auction system or whatever it was, then you may or may not get the
name but you've probably spent $300 -- two or three hundred dollars
in applying to the registry, because don't forget you pay a registrar
to do that under the gTLDs, so it would be two or three hundred
dollars you paid.

,And you may or may not get the name.  And so in the past decade,
really, then trademark owners have used this process and they've done
this with the trademark, let's say, for -- for one of our clients. 
Let's say for Cartier.  They've done it for dot eu.  They've done it
for dot mobi.  They done it for dot Asia.  They have done it for dot
tel.  They've done it for dot me.  They've done it in some of the
numeric sunrises, some of the IDN sunrises, and so it was the same
trademark certificate being accompanied by a lump of money, time
after time after time.

So jump ahead to 500 new registries or a thousand new registries,
and the clearinghouse recommendation was, therefore, to try and take
some of the cost and the burden out of trademark owners from
participating in a launch.

So all the clearinghouse is, is a centralized database.  It's not a
registry; it's just a database.  It would hold information, submitted
by a trademark owner, one time.  And that information would be
validated probably every year, to make sure it stays current, and
this clearinghouse, it just holds the data.  That's all it does.

It's a standardized, centralized service.  It reduces the cost, and
it takes away the risk.  And there's a risk involved in prelaunch
rights mechanisms for lots of registry owners.  Some of you will
remember dot biz and how they were sued for running an illegal
lottery, and how their sunrise was slowed down for seven months, and
how they paid out over $2 million, I believe.  It was actually a
pretty vexatious piece of litigation brought against them but they
were attempting a model of sunrise that hadn't been tried before. 
Everything looked watertight.  It was gamed.  They found themselves
in court and it all went wrong.

So there's risks for registries if sunrises go wrong.  There's risks
for registrars if sunrises wrong.  I don't know if eu are in the
room, but they can tell you how many registrars submitted information
under the dot eu sunrise that was inaccurate.  And it wasn't
inaccurate because the rules weren't be clear.  It wasn't inaccurate
because the trademark owners got it wrong.  It was inaccurate because
the registrars are registrars.  They're not -- they're I.T.
companies, really.  They're not experts in IP.  And so they didn't
understand what was required of them.  And they'd send in the wrong
data with the wrong forms.

So there's risks for registries and for registrars.

We felt that the clearinghouse, it's just this database.  The
database holds validated data and a trademark right.  The registry
can choose what type of sunrise or prelaunch rights mechanism it
wants to run.

The registry writes the rules, and the registry can say -- let's say
it's a registry for dot shoes.  So the dot shoes registry says, "I
want to allow anyone to come into my sunrise whose trademark is in
the class of goods or services for shoes," which is Class 30 or --
I'm not quite sure what it is.  You have might know.  No.  So which
is in class 30.

So this database can tell you all of the people who have got a
trademark in it, which is in class 30.  And all of the people in the
database have been given a little code, so they can -- the
registrars, the client says, "I want to be under dot shoes."  The
client tells the registrar that, "This is the code to use from the
database," the code is attached, it's much simpler, the registry
itself doesn't have to review the trademark certificate, it doesn't
have to do any validation, because the right code is attached to it. 
It's quicker, it's simpler.

The registry can decide if it's first come, first served.  The
registry can decide if there's competing applications under its
rules.  All that happens is there's less cost and a bit of time taken
out of it.

So that was the clearinghouse.  That's probably as clear as mud,
because it's quite complicated.  Are there any particular questions
on that?

>>PETER VAN ROSTE:  My name is Peter Van Roste from CENTR.  It is
indeed quite complicated.  So if I understand correctly, the
clearinghouse is only a tool to accommodate the registrations.  It's
not a tool to be used to block other registrations.

>>NICK WOOD:  No.  It's a tool accommodates trademark registrations
that supports domain name registrations.  It doesn't hold domain
registrations, it holds trademark registration data, so that's --

>>PETER VAN ROSTE:  Thanks.

>>NICK WOOD:  Just to make things easier.

>>ERICK IRIARTE:  Hi.  Erick Iriarte from LACTLD.  Have some kind of
priority in the access?  Because I'm thinking in a trademark from a
small country -- Peru, Bolivia -- and a biggest one from a big
company or in another case is the biggest country first?  No?

>>NICK WOOD:  Absolutely not.  And it doesn't push --

>>ERICK IRIARTE:  It would be complicated, if I remember, the small
countries have protected mark -- trademarks that are not their
owners.  So I think your solution is not a solution.

>>NICK WOOD:  The --

>>ERICK IRIARTE:  (inaudible) no priority system.

>>NICK WOOD:  There's clearly no priority in the clearinghouse
database, because the owner of a trademark in the clearinghouse has
got a code which proves that the data is valid, so that that owner
can then participate in the sunrise according to whatever rules you
want to set.

So there could be four or five -- 10 -- a hundred -- owners with an
identical mark with the identical term that can be held in the
clearinghouse database.  It doesn't matter which company they come
from.  They're not given priority.  It's up to the registrar to get
the -- the application in first, as happens now.  It's not the --

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  So it doesn't set the rules for any conflicts, it
just identifies where the conflicts will be.

>>NICK WOOD:  Yeah.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Yeah?  Okay.  In the middle.

>>YEO YEE LING: Hello, David.  Yo from dot my domain registry.  My
question is:  Who will be managing the centralized database for the --
effectively the IP clearinghouse?

>>NICK WOOD:  That's a great question.  Our recommendation was that
it should be an agency that is not currently contracted with ICANN,
and it shouldn't play in any other -- in any other -- shouldn't have
any other contract with ICANN in the future.  It should be a neutral
body that runs this.

>>JAY DALEY: Hello.  Jay Daley from dot nz.  I can imagine that some
people might say that this clearinghouse is a commercial proposition.
Have you not considered that, and whether it ought to be set up as a
commercial proposition sold to registrars?

>>NICK WOOD:  Yes.  That was certainly under recent -- under recent
sunrises like the dot tel or dot mobi, and Deloitte, for example,
have done a -- a very good job of working with registries and running
the validation systems, and I have no doubt making a good profit out
of doing so.

And so the idea for this was that the cost of the initial
recommendation, I think, was that the -- as I remember this right,
Zahid, was that the cost of going into the clearinghouse should be
borne by the trademark owner, and that the cost should be kept to a
low level.

So we felt that the clearinghouse should be run by a party in
contract with ICANN, and ICANN has a role in fixing what those fees
should be, which should be pretty much cost recovery, so no one
should make an excessive profit out of doing this.  That was our
recommendation.  There have been some changes since which Zahid is
going to talk about, but we didn't feel that anyone -- we didn't
think that registries or registrars or trademark owners should have
to pay an excessive amount of money for using the clearinghouse.

>>JOEL DISINI: Hi.  Joel Disini, dot ph.  In my country, it takes
many years to get a trademark.  Will the clearinghouse include
pending trademarks or just registered trademarks?

>>NICK WOOD:  Right.  That's a -- that's a very good question.  Our
recommendation was that -- and if you look at the title of this slide
it's called the IP clearinghouse, which was our recommendation, so we
recommended that this clearinghouse should be able to hold all kinds
of rights.  It should be able to hold registered rights and
unregistered rights, where they're required through use, and also
rights for jurisdictions which have special protection.  So for
example, in -- in I think Germany, the works of artistic and literary
merit can be registered and can be protected.  And so our
recommendation was that if a registry -- for example, there is going
to be a dot books registry and they want to protect -- they want to
allow the owners of -- publishers of books in Germany to come in
first, then the clearinghouse should be -- have the flexibility to be
able to take that kind of right and put it into the system.  Because
it should be the registry that chooses the type of rights that go in.
The clearinghouse just holds them.  If it's a right and a registry
wants it, the clearinghouse should be able to do it.  And we felt by
that recommendation, we were trying to make it as broad as possible.

Now, the question of the acquisition of rights and the process and
how long it takes is a -- is a really, really tricky one, and I think
generally the feeling was that if you're in a jurisdiction where you
can acquire rights through use, sometimes you can get those rights
through use while you're waiting for it to be registered.  That's good.

If it's not, that could be very difficult for you and we didn't --
we couldn't come up with a solution for that, so I think that's a --
problem of the global trademark system and we just couldn't solve it.

>>JOEL DISINI: So in short, if I don't have a trademark or a domain
name under a registry, I can't get in the clearinghouse?

>>NICK WOOD:  No.  If you don't have a registered right but, for
example, so in lots of jurisdictions in the U.K. for example, you can
acquire rights through use.  So let's say you've got a company in the
U.K. but you can't afford a trademark, but you've been trading for a
certain number of years, and you've got some literature that you can
show, and you can show that you -- perhaps you will download a form,
an affidavit, have it signed, you'd send it in with some documented
information, it could be checked by the validator and they would say,
"Yes, you can come into the clearinghouse."  So it depends on the
jurisdiction and what the local law says, so the local law says that
you can have protection in your country or my country, then the
clearinghouse could say that's okay.  But if the local law doesn't
say so, then we felt we couldn't --

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  Let's move on because there's a few more
recommendations.

>>NICK WOOD:  I'll jump onto the second one.  Second one, globally
protected marks list.

Controversial.  Highly, highly controversial.

But there is a real problem that some trademarks are infringed time
and time again.  On the list of the IRT members, there was Microsoft.
Microsoft own about 36,000 domain names.  There was Time Warner. 
Time Warner own over 50,000 domain names.

They each said that two or three times a day, they're notified of
new infringements on their marks.  They are seen as being big fat
targets for squatters all over the world.  And if you remember, I
also said that we were instructed by the board to look at the
comments that were submitted on the draft application guidebook,
Versions 1 and Versions 2, and many, many trademark owners asked us
to put together a black list, or a blocking list, that would lock out
-- that would lift some trademarks completely out of the picture.

So we thought long and hard about that.  And we tried.  So what we
said was that there are perhaps a really small number of supernova
trademarks that do have protection all over the world.  They qualify
by buying trademarks of national effect across a certain number of
countries, across "X" number of countries.

And those countries have got to be across all five ICANN regions,
and they've got to have a minimum number of registrations in each
region.  But we didn't know what that number should be.

So we asked ICANN to do some research.  And we said that at the top
level, if anyone's applying for a new gTLD at the top level, if you
are one of these supernova trademarks, on the globally protected
marks list, your name should be blocked.  No one can register your
name as a new gTLD registry.

And at the second level, the exact match of the name should also be
blocked.  Now, exact match, that's controversial because we have
members of the team like Lego, for example, who pointed out that,
"People, don't try and register Lego because she's already got Lego
in most of the jurisdictions where she can have Lego."  

But they'll register "Legotoys" or "Lego" -- the local word for
"toys" -- or "buyLego" or "enjoyLego" and so she wanted "Lego" plus a
character string on either side and the team really debated that long
and hard and split, but in the end, we felt it was fairer -- or not
fairer.  We felt it was more likely to be acceptable if we kept it as
an exact match.

We did feel, though, that you shouldn't block out someone if there
was someone else in the world who could show that they've got a
genuine right to the word "Lego" then they should be able to come in
at the second level.  So say under dot shoes, lego.shoes, if there's
a small company that happens to be called "Lego" because it's the
family name, then the toy company Lego shouldn't block out lego.shoes
and there should be an objection process.  Now, as I said, this was
the most requested measure that came in the comments, and also it's
been massively the most criticized measure.  And I'm sure you can all
understand why it's been so criticized.

Are there any --

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  Just to make sure, the GPML list, if a name matched
an application for a new gTLD, didn't mean that you just could not
get that new gTLD.  You had -- there was an opportunity to
reconsider.  So there's reconsideration that could be filed and said,
"Look, this is the reason why I want to do it, it matches with the
name on the -- on the top level for the GPML, but my reason to use it
is different.  There's legitimate interest or fair use."  So that
would go through.  So it doesn't block you permanently.  It was just
an initial block.

The same thing was available for the GPML at the second level, so it
gets blocked, and if you can show too a dispute resolution provider
that you have a legitimate interest, which is distinct from the
person who has got the trademark registered in the IP clearinghouse
of the GPML, therefore, you can also get that.  It's a reverse UDRP
effectively for second level.  So it was never a permanent block.  If
you can show it, you have the right, you'll get it.

>>NICK WOOD:  Okay.  The next one was the uniform rapid suspension
scheme.  And the problem there was just the fact that cybersquatting
proliferates.  And very interestingly, I think, certainly as some of
you will know that when you have dispute resolution schemes, in a
very large number of cases, there's no contest.  The registrant --
the defendant, if you like -- doesn't show up.  So the IP owner goes
through the process of finding a complaint, paying a fee, sending it
in, waiting a certain number of days, and the cybersquatter doesn't
come to the party.  They just lose the name at the end of it.

So the idea was, someone said that the URS is what the UDRP should
have been, if we knew then what we know now.  So it was meant to be
fast and fair and inexpensive for blatant cybersquatting.  So really,
really obvious cybersquatting.  And it featured a neutral panelist,
so a complainer would file a complaint, a neutral panelist would
check to see if there was a live site or they would check to see if
the registrant was involved, had a history of bad-faith registrations.

And if that was the case, the domain name would be frozen.  Not --
not transferred, but frozen.

So a Web site, if you'd like, would be redirected to page that says,
"This is a contested domain name.

I said "fast."  The idea was a decision could be made within 14 days
and the cost could be about $200.  There has to be a right of appeal,
and that's why there's no transfer of property.  The name wasn't
taken from one person and given to the owner.  We just said it's
suspended because 14 days isn't that long.  And we're aware that that
was a weakness.

But actually, if a neutral panelist looks and he sees that there's a
Web page there, which is selling counterfeit goods, then actually --
or it's a phishing site or something, there has to be a way of
tackling that pretty quickly and that was the idea.  Fast and fair,
and a name suspended.

And it was based on pioneering schemes in the ccTLD world.  We asked
for the -- the in-house lawyer of Nominet, for example, to come and
talk to the IRT, so he flew out to San Francisco and he ran through
the Nominet dispute resolution scheme, which has a process, after a
period of mediation and lots of other things, and it's one process,
not two processes.  In fact, it's probably a better process than this
is.  But we modeled it like the other things we modeled on what we
know to work.

Are there any questions about this?

Okay.  The next one, post-delegation dispute resolution mechanism.  

Problem:  Concern over ICANN contract enforcement.  We were really
concerned that there wasn't really a mechanism that would bind a new
gTLD registry to its statement of purpose, its charter.  An example
that's been given lots of times is let's say someone applies for dot
apple and it's for the apple growers -- apple grower association of
the USA.  That's great.  But they're not making very much money.  And
suddenly they decide to start selling computer peripherals dot apple.
So they got the new gTLD from ICANN for apple growers and now they're
selling computer parts, so their charter has changed.  What can you
do about it?

And WIPO raised this in a series of -- of letters to ICANN, and said
they wanted to have a mechanism for tackling systemic abuses by bad
actor registry operators who either changed the charter or who seemed
to support bad-faith registrations.

And so we came up with a mechanism for a third party to submit a
claim to ICANN, alleging that the manner of use of a registry
exhibited bad faith, and a neutral third party would then investigate
it.

And if the registry was in breach, then there was a series of
penalties from monetary sanctions, suspension, ultimately termination
of contract.

But we also felt that actually, the -- you have to be very careful
because you're accusing a registry, a business, of behaving pretty
badly, so we felt if you're making that accusation, you should put --
to use an English phrase, you should put your money where your mouth
is.  So we wanted to make it expensive.  So we wanted to make it
15,000.  We discussed 25,000 or 50,000.  In the end, we came to a
penalty of 15,000.

So if someone alleges or makes a case under this and they lose
without merit, they'd actually pay an additional 10,000, so they
would lose 25,000.  So strict penalties for trying to do it.  But the
idea was to tackle registries who are bad actors, and as this process
goes forwards in 500 registries, the ICANN process, selection
process, looks pretty good from here, but in a few years' time, there
may be big holes through it.

So this was to try and anticipate that.

Any questions about that?

>>MARTIN BOYLE:  Thank you.  If the third party that submits a claim
loses without merit, and then walks away, what sort of sanction have
you got against them?

>>NICK WOOD:  We'd only accept the complaint if they paid in
advance, so -- yeah.  It's a very good question.

Okay.  We recommended thick WHOIS.  We also asked ICANN to look
again at a proposal they made a long time ago for centralized WHOIS
that kind of got parked in the mists of ICANN time, and we suggested
that the algorithm should be used as an identification tool and it
should be expanded to take into account meaning.  These are two small
points which have mostly been adopted in the -- in DAG 3 that's come
out.  So other concerns that we had that we didn't put into it
because we felt it would completely unravel some of what ICANN was
trying to do, we felt that there should be a development of universal
standards and practices for proxy domain name services, for name
masking.  And you're going to -- you probably have all heard of the
kind of WHOIS study that's going around at the moment.  An incredibly
high number, very high percentage, of UDRP cases, and probably the
DRS cases that some of you have, where you allow it, then the
registrant does everything they can do to hide themselves away and we
wanted there to be some -- we said, "We haven't got time to deal with
this because this is a really big issue.  We wish we had time.  We'd
like to park it and maybe talk about it again."  And we also felt
that applicants, including dot brand registries should be allowed to
get, for their 185,000, a term in more than one character string, so
more than one character string could be included for the 185,000.

Because we felt that if someone -- and this is probably quite
controversial, but we also felt there could be a lot of confusion. 
If you have two registries, one in ASCII and one in another script,
meaning exactly the same thing owned by different people for
different purposes, we felt that could cause a lot of consumer
confusion.

>>LESLEY COWLEY:  So within the 10 minutes we've got left, that was
what you proposed.  Amazingly, without having a PDP.  And it sounds
like you kind of squashed a very long PDP process in a matter of a
few weeks, so we can have some admiration for that work, but there is
some discussion, I'm sure, about what you proposed.  Are you going to
go on to that.

>>ZAHID JAMIL:  That's right.  Well, we're going to talk about where
we are now and what happened after the report came out.

Just to give you a background as to sort of statements that came out
of ICANN, so the chairman of ICANN, Peter Dengate Thrush, on March 6,
2009, made the statement that the board has clearly heard and
believes strongly that the concerns of trademark holders must be
addressed before this process is open for applications.

Now, this was the statement.  Obviously we need to make sure that
the trademark or IP concerns of trademark holders are going to be
addressed.

Second, we have not and will not allow new TLD expansion that does
not appropriately protect trademark holders.  A statement made before
the Judiciary Committee by Doug Brent on September 23rd.

And when the AOC was signed, a specific clause was actually entered
in there which says ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates
expanding the top-level domain name space, the issue of rights
protection will be adequately addressed prior to implementation.

Now, in this background of what commitments have been made, with
regard to trademarks, this is the situation where it stands today. 
As of today, the new gTLD implementation plan does not adequately
address the issue of trademark protection.  Why do we think so?

Well, the first thing, the DAG 3 does not contain the IP
clearinghouse proposal that the IRT had recommended.  Instead, we --
it has been sent to the GNSO, and it's been a staff proposal which
has completely changed the proposal of the IRT with regard to the IP
clearinghouse.  It's now called a trademark clearinghouse, and a lot
of the recommendations, the actual meat of it, has been taken out, to
some extent.

What's happened to the GPML?  That's completely gone.  

The GPML has been unilaterally rejected.  ICANN staff unilaterally
rejected it and we've got the clarification the board also obviously
didn't accept it, despite not having completed the promised
quantitative research.  

Now, if you remember, Nick talked about we don't know the number of
the number of countries, number of registrations, different
continents.  

So we -- it was promised by staff that they would do the study and
come back to see how many different trademarks of how many different
countries would actually enter into the GPML.  There is a thinking at
the moment that it would be maybe 100 or 50.  But maybe that's not
the case, if the research is done.  Maybe it is a thousand or 2,000. 
Maybe it does have developing country trademark holders within the
GPML.  Possibly.  But, unfortunately, since the study has not been
done, has not been completed, we don't know that yet.  Oh, sorry.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  People don't always have English as a first
language, and we have scribes.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:  Thank you.  So we don't know what exactly -- where
we stand with regard to, if the GPML had been implemented would it
have worked for trademark holders because the research has not been
concluded. And we don't know if it ever will be concluded by ICANN.  

The trademark owners now -- this is the effect -- need to pay for
domain names for every new gTLD that comes out.  They just have to
pay.  So the issue of defensive registrations and this problem of
defensive registration in every new gTLD still remains outstanding.

What's happened with the URS?  DAG3 does not contain the URSS as was
recommended by the IRT.  The IRT had said that it is a mandatory
requirement by the registry operators.  Instead, the ICANN staff,
asking GNSO to consider the URS, mentioned it as a "best practice"
only.  So it's optional.  

If the URS is not mandatory, we believe it cannot solve the harm
intended to be addressed.  Good actors that voluntarily adopt are
placed at a competitive disadvantage against bad actors.  So they'll
begin.  Basically, it's like saying now we have a car that goes at
100 miles an hour, previously was going at 20, and guess what? 
Seatbelts are optional.  

Post-delegation:  The DAG3 contains a proposal for post -- actually,
I need to clarify this.  The DAG3 has an annex, which is difficult to
find which contains a proposal for post-delegation by staff, which is
very different than the model proposed by either IRT or even by WIPO.
The IRT required specific roles for the ICANN to investigate
contractual abuse by registry operator and to thwart potential
trademark owner abuse.  However, in the DAG3 annex, this is removed. 
ICANN is completely taken out of the entire process.  And what has
actually been introduced is what we've -- or at least I've started
referring to as a "blind eye provision," which, basically, means that
the only time that a dispute with regard to post-delegation can be
launched is if the registry operator affirmatively conducts some
activity which infringes trademark.  So, if he does not, he turns a
blind eye to the activity.  You cannot launch a post-delegation
dispute.  That's where we stand today.  That was -- the IRT
recommendation had said that, if he does not take -- it would include
omission as well as commission.  However, with regard to the present
situation staff proposal, you could just turn a blind eye.  And it's
all good.  Nobody could actually go against you.  

As far as the contract enforcement -- so, when the staff was asked
the question about how are you going to enforce the contractual
clause, the recommendations are made.  The example of dot apple, if
somebody changes the use of dot apple, what do you do about it? The
answer from staff is well, it's a bilateral contract and we'll
enforce it.  Trust us.

So where do we go from here?  The outcome is very uncertain, as far
as we're concerned.  The IRT recommendations remain very poorly
understood.  And some of the reasoning was given by Nick earlier. 
The IRT was unable to brief the board in Sydney.  There was a meeting
set up with the board, which was cancelled.  So we've never,
actually, had the opportunity to, actually, go before the board and
explain what it was that we were trying to recommend.

>>NICK WOOD:  Can I interrupt for a second, for the record?  The
board came to the IPC meeting this afternoon for half an hour, and
most of them stayed for about an hour.  So we've run through some of
it very quickly with them.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  Guys, this wasn't a knock ICANN session.  I
understand there were some issues.  But I think from the CC's
perspective, this is about understanding where you are currently,
where you're going, and what issues are of particular interest to us.

 >>ZAHID JAMIL:  Sure.  Just the last two issues then.  At this
point in time there are three basic proposals which are being
addressed.  Most of it won't be on the slides, so I'll paraphrase.  

This is the URS and the I.P. clearinghouse, which has been sent to
the GNSO for policy consensus to be on an expedited basis formed. 
And that is still going to go into a working group.  

So the GNSO is now going to have to look at the staff proposals on
the URS and the I.P. clearinghouse as proposed by staff, not IRT, and
come up with a consensus position.  With regard to the post-
delegation dispute resolution mechanism, which is a proposal of
staff, that document has not been sent to the GNSO.  Instead, that is
up for public comment.  

So, if anybody wants to comment, they have to go directly.  But it
will not go through consensus policy.  

The public comments in DAG3, which includes the post-delegation
mechanism, close on November 22nd, three weeks ago before the GNS
reports on the clearinghouse and the URS are supposed to come out. 
That's it pretty much.  Thank you.

 >>LESLEY COWLEY:  Clearly, this is a developing issue.  I think
there are a number of lessons that might well be learned from the
whole process.  

But do any other cc's have particular comments or inputs to make,
please.  No?  You're all ready for museum?  

Okay.  I'd like to thank Nick and Zahid and thank you very much for
that update, both of you.

[Applause]

 >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Lesley.  

Ladies and gentlemen, it's the end of the day.  

We're starting again at 9:00 tomorrow morning.  Please be here on
time.  

Gabby has sent out -- to the mailing lists has sent out the URL to
today's survey.  So, please, if you do have time, please make time to
click on the link and go to the survey and fill it out.  It will be
much easier to do that today, because you'll remember the bits you
liked and the bits you didn't.  Thank you all very much.  We'll see
you all in the morning.  Enjoy the museum.