GAC - ICANN Board Public Session Thursday, 17 March 2011 AFTERNOON SESSION ICANN Meeting San Francisco, California >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, could you take your seats, please. We're ready to begin. Thank you. I thought what we would do in the second session is just some tidying up and confirmation work that we've captured the oral comments from the GAC on the Tuesday session. So what I propose to do is just go through the transcript that we have of that and just note the obvious points, I suppose. There will be a bit of difficulty of working this way, but we appreciate the efforts everybody makes under the circumstances. And we really look forward to the written paper from the GAC on these issues, so we can make sure we understood clearly. And noting, as we look through the transcript, what a lot of discussion there was about that and how helpful clarifications that came out on a number of issues. And perhaps just begin by recording the GAC priorities were certainly noted. Law enforcement was number one. Objections to sensitive strings was number 2. Early warning was number 3. And community strings was number 4. So we had worked with those priorities in mind. Something that we haven't sort of particularly mentioned, I suppose -- and it's only a small point -- but it was the suggestion that, in considering GAC advice or early warning, if there's any system like that, that you prefer to meet face-to-face. That just suggests to us that you're going to have to look at your procedures as this goes forward. We're going to be unable, probably, to stage the new gTLD program around GAC meetings. And we think it probably has -- and we'll try to be cooperative, obviously. But, if the GAC is going to be changing its role in the way this process introduces itself, we'll be inviting the GAC to have a look at how it arranges its work. The suggestion was made that, if there was an early warning system, that couldn't prejudice the GAC from giving later advice. And I think we're happy with that concept. The idea is a separate -- if there is going to be kind of an early warning system and there's no provision under the bylaws that the GAC doing that as a GAC action, but you referred to your GAC procedures. And we see no difficulty with the GAC amending its procedures to create a concept of early warning there, if that's required. But I think we understand the principle that it's a different kind of advice, if you like, from advice with a capital A under the bylaws. This would be something under the GAC with different status. And, of course, yes, if there's an early warning system, it's not going to prejudice the current position under the bylaws where the GAC can give formal advice. But we'll have a look at that. We're going to talk a little bit more later on this afternoon about early warning. And I think that point will probably emerge clearly from that. Just bear with me while I move through the issues. Now the point was made again with the registry/registrar separation that there seems to be no issue around the position taken. But there is another question about board process in reaching that. And I think the draft rationale has been amended in a way which may help discuss that. There seems to be some continuing difficulty -- and I might ask Gonzalo or Ram Mohan just to clarify this a bit later on -- in relation to the scope of the national law and this compliance with law enforcement by the registries and registrars. The statement was made that any government agency or agency endorsed by a government that's in the process of conducting a lawful investigation needs to be complied. But then, of course, we just raise their -- we -- we need to be clear about whose law. And we're not -- there can't be any attempt to say that, because someone is pursuing a lawful objection in one country, that they have the same rights in other countries. So we need to work out a way of moving that through some process. We've got no problem with the issue with of timely response by registries and registrars to their own national law enforcement. So, if the inquiries are coming from law enforcement and there's no issue about that, then processes for clarifying the requests for information are coming from legitimate agencies. We think we can talk about that. So the issue there is really what's the scope of the law that these processes have in mind? Because we have to be very clear that we're not trying to enlarge the scope of current legal practice. In relation to vetting in general -- and there's quite a lot of discussion about this, and there's more work being done on this -- more intense vetting in some areas, again, we have this difficulty that we don't know what the areas are. But we have clarified, I think, that we're intending to publish the names of the people behind the companies that are the applicants and that that should then lead to further transparency and accountability. We won't publish the results of the due diligence inquiry into those people. But, once they're identified, that will then be available. And some of these parts we may have covered. I'm just making sure that we've done as best as we can to respond to the oral discussion we had on Tuesday. And I think there was a very good sentence put into the -- or not -- into the record from the United States talking about law enforcement about acts of terrorism, arms trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, smuggling, et cetera. We're looking at where the intent is there and where the criminal conduct should go. I'd ask Gonzalo to respond further on that in a moment, or Ram Mohan. And I think from about then on most of the comments have been covered this morning in our responses or -- yeah. I think -- much of it dealt with stuff we've covered this morning or on the day on Tuesday. So I'll stop for a moment before I go on to the next area, if there's any questions on anything. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: European Commission? >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. And thank you for that quick summary. Just, so we avoid any misunderstanding, on some of those issues, you mentioned that -- I think I probably have a different interpretation from you. You mentioned, for example, your understanding there's no issue on registry/registrar separation. Just an issue about process. I'm sorry if I was unclear before, actually. We have a proposal from the GAC and a request for reasoned explanation of why you prefer the proposal that the board have and for an explanation of the changed position last year. So I'm afraid I can't go as far as saying that, as far as my colleagues are concerned, they have no issue on your proposals for registry/registrar separation. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, European Commission. Any other comments? Germany? Before I give the microphone to Germany, I might just point out that, at the beginning of that session, we were trying to give a general sense of our priorities. And they weren't given to you in a ranking order. Those -- that was a collection of issues where we were trying to give emphasis. Germany. Please. >>GERMANY: Yes, thank you for this presentation. I have a question regarding what is the status or your interpretation regarding use of geographic names. Because, frankly, for our government, this is one of the issues that is of high importance, let's say, that way. And I would be interested in hearing about the development of thinking about that. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Yes. I think the critical area in relation to that might come when we finished our discussion with you, which we're going to have later today, on our best current thinking about an early warning system, which I think you've often linked to geographic names and think that this would be helpful in that area. And then, if there's anything more on that, we can talk to the topic leader who is Bertrand on that. So I think -- can we do the early warning discussion and then see what else is left? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, Peter. Very briefly, the point that I think is clear today is that the discussion on the early warning is connected with a certain number of other topics including the geographic names. The problem that we are all facing and that the board is very aware of, is that in the current applicant guidebook, we have relatively clear procedures for things that are easy to determine. For instance, if, in the case of geographic names, a name is in a list that we have identified -- and maybe the list can expand -- but, if it's in a list, procedure is relatively clear. If it is a string that -- on which there is a real objection to the very existence of the string, there will be objection procedures and so on. The tricky part is the cases where the name is not on the list. And that can go for sensitive strings, geographic or others. The name is not on the list that is clearly identified. It has other meanings. But it can have also a geographic name, for instance. So the key question is how can the early warning produce a way for this to be clarified without falling into one direction or the other? So the general idea of the early warning is to see how we can handle correctly this zone in the middle where something is neither clearly objected in principle or neither clearly following a process that is determined by belonging to a list, but cases where there may be objections. And I think I heard this morning from several members of the GAC the notion that the objective that we have in common is to reduce the necessity of objections. I think at that stage, this is where the different elements and the common understanding is. What are the concrete modalities is something that we need to define better. But the main common purpose, I think, that is emerging from the discussions is that, for those things that do not fall in one of the extreme categories, how do we make sure that we avoid to have to go to objections which are costly, take time, either because it will clearly encourage an applicant to retract or to find a solution? I think that's a summary of where we stand at the moment. And it would be great if the GAC members could, at least on that stage, give feedback on whether there is a common understanding or not. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Bertrand. Australia, did you want to comment on this? No. Germany. >>GERMANY: Yes. Thank you, Bertrand, for this explanation. I think that's exactly the way we're thinking of. This early warning system is quite important for solving this question on geographic names. And I look forward to come to in-depth exchange with board members, and I'm prepared for my side from our government to participate in any discussions with respect to. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Germany. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, perhaps as I indicated, we should do things around the right way and talk about early warning first. So let's do that. It might be helpful, I think -- again, just making the point this is current thinking in response to discussions with the GAC. We want to know how you think an early warning system should work. We want to know how your processes would work. Here's some thinking from us about this. Bruce, it might be helpful, I think, if you could put -- just help with the timeline aspects of this on the screen. Because we think there is room in the process, without changing the process too much, without lengthening the process, without creating additional burdens for applicants and by adopting the thinking of the 45-day public comment period, we might be able to create a similar but parallel process for the GAC to use as an early warning system. And I think what we've rigged up here is the ability for Bruce to stand behind me and draw on the white board and for you to see it on the screen. And at the moment -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: What I'll first map out is the current process and where what we think we heard from the GAC this week fits into that process. So the first part of our process today is we post the application publicly. And we can certainly notify GAC members when we publish the applications. At that -- as soon as we post the application, that starts what we call an initial evaluation. And it also starts a public comment period. And that public comment period will last for 45 days. And I guess, at the end of that point, it's the end of the public comment. Then about 4 1/2 months past. When we post the application -- so this is about 4.5 months later -- we have an initial evaluation report. And then, after the initial evaluation report, either an applicant could go into extended evaluation, or may go into extended evaluation, or may go into dispute resolution. Now, what would trigger a dispute resolution is if someone raises an objection. An objection can occur any time from when the applications are posted to two weeks following the initial evaluation period. So an objection can be posted any time during that 4.5 months. So now if we map on top of this framework what we'd say both the options are for governments and also what we think the options are for the GAC. So the first thing that can happen here is that, during this public comment period, an individual government may wish to submit a public comment. So we can have an individual government here, if they wished. So they would post some advice in this public comment forum. The public comments are used by the evaluators during their initial evaluation. The evaluation is done against the criteria that's in the application. So any public comments that relate to the criteria in the application will be taken into account by those evaluators. And we have talked about before sort of the information that will be available in the application. And we're -- you know, we've been taking into account the GAC feedback on what would be useful information. But that information is available to the public. The public can then respond to that information, make a public comment. And that will be used by the evaluators. An individual government can do that. Secondly, the GAC as a whole can issue early warning. So, for the sake of this discussion, we'll call this GAC early warning. And the intent of that GAC early warning would be, if the board receives this early warning from the GAC, the board will send that advice in the early warning to the affected applicants. And we would then be encouraging those affected applicants to work with whoever's been raising those issues to try to resolve those issues. Then somewhere later, we presume it may well be after this initial 45- day period, the GAC may actually issue formal advice. So we'll just call that in this discussion "GAC advice." And that's GAC advice to the board. And, in response to that GAC advice to the board, the board would then respond to that GAC advice in a timely fashion, as we have today. If an individual government chooses not to raise its issue through the GAC and doesn't wish to have the GAC as a whole issue advice on its behalf or on behalf of the whole GAC, an individual government can also raise a formal objection. So we see that we have four options that a government can use. First option is a government individually can lodge their advice through the public comment period. And that advice will be used by the evaluators and may be used by the applicant to try and seek the support from that government going forward. Secondly, a government can go to the GAC. And the GAC as a whole could issue GAC early warning. That would be during the 45-day initial period for comment. That then gives the applicant enough chance to respond to that advice -- to that early warning and try and resolve whatever issues that the GAC is signifying in that advice. We think the applicant, effectively, would have nearly four months to deal with that information before the end of that initial evaluation period. And, during that period, they will have -- if they pull out -- if the applicant pulls out at any stage up to the point that the initial evaluation report is published, that applicant would receive a 70% refund. So that means that, if, as a result of a GAC early warning, the applicant feels that they should withdraw their application, they can withdraw their application and get a 70% refund. And they actually have, effectively 4 1/2 months to make that decision. Obviously. The earlier they receive that GAC early warning, the better. Secondly, the GAC may well wait to see how the applicant responds to that early warning before the GAC decides to issue that what we call the GAC formal advice, which goes to the board. So that's the third option for the GAC to input information into this GAC formal advice. And the fourth option is where an individual government decides to use one of the formal objection processes such as the community objection process. But they would be doing that as an individual government. So four methods. You can object to the public comment. You can object at the GAC early warning. You can provide GAC advice, which we would expect to be some months later into the process. Or you can lodge an individual objection. So that's how we see the framework. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Why don't we start there and see if there's some questions about our current thinking in relation to that? >>HEATHER DRYDEN: European Commission? >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Australia and Italy. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Yes, thanks, Bruce. That was quite useful. It was quite an innovative way to do it. But thank you. I made lots of notes. I just have two or three points. The first one is a question actually. What happens if the government writes to the board directly to complain? Particularly in the case where they're not a GAC member. What would the board's response be in this scheme? And also, the point I wanted to make, I think -- and I'll stand corrected, but I think I heard this already from one of my colleagues. The purpose in proposing early warning was to facilitate the early withdrawal of an applicant. I think we know that we can send comments in the public comment period. I mean, that's our concession really. So I'm not sure that's really -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: We're not trying to make concession. We're trying to lay out the processes. And you suggested this idea of GAC early warning. We're explaining that GAC early warning would be from the GAC, not an individual government. And that GAC early warning we would then notify the applicant, and we would expect that the applicant would then try to resolve the issue. And the objective of the applicant then is to avoid getting what we would call the GAC advice. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: That was our objective as well, actually. And I look to my colleagues. But it was to allow someone to withdraw quickly if they realized inadvertently they applied for TLD. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Or fix the problem. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Or fix the problem. Absolutely. One of the problems some of us have is that a 70% refund may not be enough. That still leaves ICANN with $60,000, which is more than the whole application fee in the last round in 2004. So I'd like some justification of why, if they pulled out in the early part of this procedure, actually, how you could justify keeping that amount of money for costs. And my final point is we still have a set of bylaws which apply to the GAC giving advice, which do not require the GAC to give consensus advice, although we have. And I'm very proud of the fact that the GAC has worked towards that objective, actually, for 12 years. And it also sets no time limit on the GAC giving advice. So how would you see this fitting with the bylaws? Are you proposing to rewrite the bylaws? It would be nice to see a draft. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, we're not. We're trying to set expectations, Bill. And we're trying to say two things. It would be useful if the early warning was given within that first 45-day period, because that gives the applicant the maximum chance to address that advice prior to the initial evaluation report, which would be about 4.5 months after the -- posting the application. So the definition of early in our view is within this first 45-day period. We believe that gives the applicant the best chance to address the issue. In terms of the timing of GAC advice, what we're saying is that you're absolutely right. We're not changing the bylaws. But we're saying that, if the GAC advice, which you might have an early warning and then your GAC advice might be as the applicant has not resolved whatever the issue is, the GAC advice could be to the board saying we don't believe this application should proceed. If that GAC advice is received prior to our posting of the initial evaluation report, then they would get a 70% refund. So we feel that is the best outcome for the applicant if the GAC can get that advice in that time frame. But we're not -- it's not for us to tell you when you can give us advice. But we're saying, if you gave us advice in that time frame, that would be of most benefit to the applicant and presumably the affected registrations at that point. Is that clear? >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. That's reassuring. I would still like an answer to the first question, though. What happens if an individual sovereign government writes to the board. How will you reply? >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Let's move back to the speaking order. I have Australia and then Italy and then Greece. >>AUSTRALIA: I'd also like to echo the EU comments that I think this has been a useful way to look at this issue, so thank you for that. I guess I just have a question, initially. And I'll explain where it's coming from because I think I'm not entirely sure, but I guess one thing we were thinking about was that there are -- there was a sensitive strings objection procedure, and there was early warning. I think the feeling we had was early warning was going to be earlier than that, which I think goes to possibly -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Just slow down. Earlier than what? In this time frame, when does early warning occur? >>AUSTRALIA: This is what I am going to ask. I wonder what happens before the post-application step, if anything? I guess I share Bruce's -- Bill's concern that if the idea is, and I think we agree on the idea that the early warning system is something to give someone a very early warning and to be able to withdraw their application or change it somehow if they have inadvertently stumbled into something that's particularly sensitive, that seems a bit like forfeiting 30% of your application fee seems quite steep. So I am just wondering if there is another place or another way to deal with this early warning system. Because obviously we want it to be an early warning and fair to the applicant, like if they have inadvertently stepped in, 30% of the application fee seems quite a penalty. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So the way the costs come out is as soon as the applications are posted, evaluation starts. And the further you go down into the process, the further funds have been spent on getting external evaluators, et cetera. So if you can give us -- one of the things we were asking from you is what would your procedures be, when would we receive that advice. We could then look at that in terms of what we might do in terms of refunds. But obviously if you provide advice four months in, we have spent most of that money. If you provide your advice, you know, day two after its been posted, then we might have a different view. So without you telling us when that advice is going, we can't -- Because the evaluation is occurring in parallel here. We are spending resources evaluating that. So we'd need some certainty, and we'd have to get our finance -- or the accounting team at ICANN to look at that. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Australia, did you want to respond? >>AUSTRALIA: Look, to be honest, I'm not sure we can. I think this is something we probably need to take away as the GAC and figure out how these various processes which are, to some extent, overlapping would work. >>BRUCE TONKIN: To answer Bill's question about governments, for an individual government there are two options. You can issue a comment -- if you sent the comment to us, we would most likely note it in our public comment forum and say an individual government has complained, and then the applicant can obviously take action if the applicant wishes. The comment of an individual government would be treated like any other public input and the evaluators would take that into account. And then the other option for an individual government is to lodge an objection. They can lodge an objection at any time from when the application is posted up to two weeks after the initial evaluation report. So four and a half months, an individual government with lodge a formal objection, which initiates a dispute resolution procedure, or an individual government can lodge information, which would be we would effectively take that information, post it to our forum, so that it's in the one place and our evaluators would take that into account as if an individual or even an individual raised an issue. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Bruce. I have Italy, Greece, UK, U.S., and European Commission. >>ITALY: Thank you. This scheme of functioning early warning, it is very interesting and innovative in our discussions. Early warning means this time frame where the comments from the community on one side and the GAC on the other side will arrive concerning the strings that have been proposed. So I split the role of the early warning of the community from early warning of the GAC, because in the interaction of the GAC with the board, the early warning should be interpreted as the phase in which the GAC tells, let's say, not as a formal GAC advice but as a warning, look, this number of strings might create problems. And, also, might be reconducted in families of problems, let's say. I don't use intentionally the word "categories" because there could be some problems that have a common ground in strings that not necessarily are in the same category, let's say. And so in this spirit I think that the board and the GAC should interact in order to try to diminish as much as possible the possible contentions. And here, I see an importance of the role of interaction in this period. And looking at the community early warning, then, of course, there might be also single governments that present some warning. But of course, this, coming from the governments, will be an important, also, addition to the whole GAC representation of the warning. So this is a very important period in which we try to assess the problem. And let me make an example of a country code, that if it will come like this, certainly there would be an early warning. Let's take the taste of Tuvalu Islands and the fact that actually the registry stands for TV and is run for commercial purposes. It is clear that here you have a possible idea of contention between a brand name, let's say, and a geographic location. So in looking at a number of cases like this, and reacting and interacting the GAC with the board, we might try to work together, and this is important, the process of early warning, in order to try to limit, as much as possible, the problems that go into subsequent phases. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Italy. Greece. >>GREECE: Thank you. I consider this to be a good proposal, a good basically for an agreement pending some further improvements. That's my personal view. It has good elements that could help the procedure. I see two problems. One is the fact that this first period of public comment coincides with an initial evaluation. This is a problem because it will start incurring costs, and at the end of the 45 days, on the one hand we will have the end of an initial evaluation which may have gone into one direction, and the end of a public consultation period that may have gone to another direction. I would prefer having the public comment first and the initial evaluation immediately after. It would mean 45 days more, but I don't think this is an extensive period of time. The second problem concerns what Bruce said about individual governments expressing their problem in the public comment period towards the evaluators, and the evaluators judging them on the basis of the evaluation criteria they will be having. In the case of, for example, geographic names, this will mean that the evaluators will not accept individual governments' concerns because the geographic names in their own evaluation criteria will be only the ones which are in the public list, the international lists that are mentioned in the DAG. Individual geographic names which may be of concern to governments will not be falling into those criteria. So the objections, the warning in this early phase of an individual government on a geographic name would not make sense. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Bruce, you'd like to respond on that point? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, we had given that consideration, and so we see -- really, I have identified four things here, but in a way, they are in pairs. Maybe I can articulate that a little better. We sort of see that the GAC early warning is paired with the GAC advice. And so in a way, the GAC early warning is saying we may have a problem with something, and then invite the applicant to resolve that problem. If the applicant resolves that problem, we would then hope that that does not result in the GAC giving formal advice to say that that string should not be created. In an individual government, we see that there's this initial period up here where the individual government can raise an issue, and then there's this period down here where an individual government can lodge a formal objection through the community names process. So to give your example, let's say it was a particular -- a significant geographic location within Greece, maybe a major city that is not a capital city. Then that city may wish to lodge or the government on behalf of that city may lodge comments saying "This name, which might be a brand name, is also the name of our city. We believe you should communicate with that city to address any concerns that city may have with respect to your use of a name that matches their name." The applicant then has an opportunity to work with that city to resolve that. If that process is unsuccessful, we would expect the government, on behalf of that city, to actually lodge an objection as part of the community names objection process. Provided that objection is lodged before the initial evaluation report, the applicant still has an opportunity to withdraw. If they do not withdraw, then it goes into the bottom here, which is dispute resolution, and that dispute resolution would be done in the normal way. So those things are paired. An individual government can raise an objection here, and let's call it an opportunity to provide the option for the applicant to do something. If that fails, then the individual government can lodge a formal objection later on within this four and a half month window. Does that help clarify that for you? >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for that, Bruce. I have UK, U.S., European Commission, Germany and Bertrand. UK, you are next. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thank you, Chair. The GAC early warning, as Bruce has very helpful explained in this way, is broadly in line with the concept we had as a means for governments to help the community, to help the applicant, to help ICANN. In that last case, in helping ICANN, if it avoids a situation where ICANN has to commit a lot of resources to deal with a very problematic application, if the GAC can signal earlier on, hang on, this is going to be a huge pain in the neck, basically, for everybody and going to cost a lot of money. So as I say, it's the opportunity, really, for governments to issue a signal. And that's exactly -- As I understand it, that accords, as I say with our broad concept for an early warning opportunity. I just have a question for clarification. I've heard Bruce talk about some interaction with the applicant to resolve an issue. I am uncomfortable with the idea that that falls to the GAC. We would then be coming very much involved in an operational function, which I see as falling to ICANN. GAC representatives aren't working full time on ICANN business. We have other jobs, you know, back in capitals, in our administration. So there is that simple sort of resource implication that we would want to avoid, certainly the UK would want to avoid. So if I misunderstood Bruce on that point that there is an expectation that the GAC having signaled would then interact with the applicant, I am very uncomfortable with that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I don't think we envisaged the GAC as a whole interacting with an applicant. I think what we envisaged that the source of the problems come from somewhere. So let's say it was a city within the United Kingdom and that city had raised an issue with you, I would expect the applicant would then say we think we can resolve that issue. You as the UK government representative may say we need to speak to the mayor of this city, and if the mayor of the city notifies you that they are okay, then you would withdraw your objection. So we're envisaging either the GAC or even you as a GAC rep being involved, but we are assuming that somehow this process has come from somewhere. Would you direct them to where the issue is and ask the applicant to resolve that issue. And whichever party has raised the concern to you, to get back to you with their result. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Thanks for that additional clarification. I guess in that kind of situation of a geographical issue, that might well be a practical and expedient course. So let's take that away and think about that a bit more. Another point that strikes me is in this early warning role of the GAC and determining the timeline, I think you need to build in the opportunity for all GAC representatives to have ability to consult within their administrations, and perhaps with, as you have just described, perhaps with other authorities within -- within the national administration. And then there would have to be a face-to- face meeting for all the GAC to review the situation with a problematic one. So the timeline would have to factor those two elements in. First the period, and then the meeting face to face. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I just have a question. I don't expect an answer, but this is -- not an immediate answer. But I would be interested to know if the GAC feels it has to have a face-to-face issue to issue early warning. It might be something the GAC could come back to us on that. We certainly expect the GAC advice might have a face-to-face meeting, but we had initially thought that you would have a teleconference or something that might be expedient to do early warning. >>UNITED KINGDOM: If I could quickly come back on that. I guess we could look at the modalities of that, given that the early warning should be a fairly rapid, lightweight efficient process. Maybe teleconferencing could do it. But let's discuss that within the GAC, I think. So -- Yeah, I'm sorry, I think that's all the points I wanted to raise and comments I wanted to make. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, UK. United States. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Heather, and thank you, Bruce. This is a really useful approach. White boarding always helps sort of lay out these interesting concepts. So in trying to digest this and in trying to figure out the timeline, I think the timeline is going to be an issue for to us wrap our hands around because in our minds, also, early warning is linked to the sensitive strings concern. So in particularly contentious areas, this is where I believe the GAC felt fairly strongly, especially if we are going to use the option of the GAC, then there would need to be the opportunity first you have to consult in capital. So we each have individual positions. And then you bring them into the GAC. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Are you talking about early warning or GAC advice? Just be clear on those two things. Sensitive strings could be either. You don't have to give notice of sensitive string in early warning. You could do that in GAC advice. So there are really two options you could have. Let's call it sensitive string X. You could actually give us early warning about that sensitive string X right up front in the process, which helps the applicant deal with it, or you could deal with sensitive string X in formal GAC advice. There is nothing precluding you dealing with a sensitive string in GAC advice. You don't have to use early warning. Early warning is an option for you to use. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: U.S. to respond? >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Happy to, because there is more. Or you can package them together; yes? So that the early warning is simply, in the way you are seeing it, there is no need for us to meet face to face. Simply everybody at home looks at the list and makes a decision, I either have a problem with this or I don't. We collaborate online, and we compile a list of all of those out of the -- let's just pick a number. Let's say there are 500. And we identify 150 for early warning. Hubert is having a heart attack over there. >>BRUCE TONKIN: And hopefully would give some reasons. Not just a list. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: But again, if we package them together -- so the idea is, oops, you have got some problem areas here. Let's hope they aren't 150. That would be our goal, that's for sure. It would be nice to only have one, frankly. And that's our whole motivation here is to make sure we avoid contentious and protracted discussions over sensitive strings. So we would do this -- this is how you see it as a kind of quick checklist. So we send you, ICANN, the board, this little quick heads up. You then send it to the evaluators. >>BRUCE TONKIN: And the applicant. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And the applicant. Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: The critical part of this early warning actually is the applicant. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Gotcha. What I am not very clear about, and I am hoping my colleagues will agree, because I think earlier somebody did mention -- I think it was George from Greece, so thank you, George, but it does go into the criteria that the evaluators are assessing the application against. >>BRUCE TONKIN: It does, too. So there are two parts. One part is criterias that the evaluator is looking at, and so certainly anything you provide in that early warning, any reasons why you have a problem, could be a problem with the applicant. You could say, just an early warning, we think this is an international crime gang; right? And that's obviously something an evaluator might care about. But the other part of the early warning is to try to avoid getting into formal objection. And that might, as George from Greece said, may not be related to the evaluation criteria but is a criteria that that government uses in deciding whether it will raise a formal objection, and then we're using the criteria of that objection process. So there is different criteria for each objection process. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: That is actually where I was going with this as a matter of concern. So if we raise an early warning and it gets to the evaluators, but let's say it's on a sensitive string. Since you are not comfortable with these categories of sensitive strings, that means this will not be factored into the initial evaluation because it cannot be because those criteria do not exist. Okay. So we have lost 45 days. So then we have to wait for objections. But we just heard Peter say earlier that if it's a sensitive string that relates to language or a religion or da-da-da, gee whiz, we are going to have to pay to file that objection. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, we did not say that. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, that was our understanding, that community-based objections -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: If you wish to do it as an individual government. So remember these things are paired. So let's take the sensitive string issue. Some completely horrendous string of some sort, you have two options. You can actually give formal GAC advice to say this is a completely horrendous string. We don't think you should include it. And the board will then respond to that GAC advice in accordance with the bylaws. A second scenario could be that there's a string that's only horrendous to a single government. None of the other governments think it's horrendous, and, in fact, some of the other governments might think it's nice. That individual government that does think it's horrendous can use the community objection process. Or it could use the -- any of the other dispute processes we have. So I want to be very clear, the GAC advice is different. Because remember where we were in Brussels. We said the GAC can give us advice on a sensitive string, and the board will meet and consider that advice as part of the bylaws. We're not changing anything we have done since Brussels. What we are introducing here is an early warning -- or suggesting an early warning. And also, we are making it clear that there are two ways. You as a government can go to the GAC as a whole and the GAC can give early advice. You as a government can go to the GAC as a whole and the GAC can give us formal advice, and that goes straight to the board to consider. Alternatively, as an individual government, this is just a single government can use one of our objection processes. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: To respond, U.S. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Just a quick question. Thank you for that, Bruce. Just to confirm, then, if a GAC member realizes that the -- it is a sensitive string so it is not going to be taken into account during the evaluation, then they have to use the GAC or be prepared to pay for a community-based -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Or objection. They may use -- United States of America I wanted to clarify that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: They may use the GAC and the GAC can give formal advice, or they may use one of our objection processes. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And I just wanted to confirm that the total timeline, then, that you have in mind is four to five months. >>BRUCE TONKIN: The total timeline is four and a half months for where they can withdraw and get a significant refund. After that, the timeline down the bottom of the graph, there was extended evaluation and dispute resolution. And so either of those things can go on for some time. So that's a different -- you know, the four and a half months is when the initial evaluation report is completed. You have two weeks after that report to lodge an objection. The objection, though, then can go on for quite a bit longer because that objection has to be heard, et cetera. And potentially the GAC could give advice later on. Maybe you don't like -- maybe an individual government loses the -- in some formal objection process. That government could petition the GAC and say, hey, GAC, would you support our objection? In which case that would be GAC advice. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: U.S. to respond. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Just, I'm sorry, one more question. I am really trying to see how this plays out. If we were to get to extended evaluation -- I guess what we are trying to understand that we have confidence that the concerns that governments have over sensitive strings, since we know they are not factors, criteria for evaluation -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: -- so that's, like, off the table. So that means we have to make our case, or any individual government who is perhaps not yet a member of the GAC, this is a great way of expanding GAC membership. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, we do hope this will encourage membership of the GAC, yes. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This is where you get to raise objections, and you have this window of opportunity. Now, what I guess we would need to have a better sense of is our advice, of course, goes to you. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You respond to us. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. United States of America so you would have to decide whether you are going to say no and why. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. United States of America or whether you would tell the same evaluators we had need you to extend your evaluation with these new criteria. It's the link -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's not what we are planning to do. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Here's what I am concerned about. It's the link between the concern over the sensitive strings and the absence of any criteria currently in the evaluation process related to those sensitivities. Am I making sense? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, we would not, as the result of GAC advice, tell the evaluators to come up with some new criteria. So the criteria stays the same. As a result of GAC advice, we, the board, will take that advice into account as per the bylaws. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: All right. We have next the European Commission, then Germany, Bertrand, Netherlands, and Brazil. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: That was very helpful, actually, because it confirms what I was going to say one thing we do have clarity on this is horrendously complicated. I actually think it's unworkable for governments. I'll be blunt with you. We have over 100 members. We effectively have 40 that are active, actually, and those are the ones here today and some others. But I think it's unreasonable to expect a large number of other governments, particularly from small developing countries to understand this, if I can't understand this and I have been come for years. And you hear some of the questions coming from some of the more experienced delegates. So I will be frank with you, I think this is almost unworkable, frankly. And I still have a concern, and it may be a misunderstanding, actually, but it seems to me that from your previous answer, Bruce, there's still the possibility that a sovereign government, perhaps let's imagine a non-GAC member, will receive a complaint from a stakeholder. They will write to ICANN to raise objections, and they will get replies saying either that they passed the initial period and they will have to pay an objection fee as an individual government, or even worse, that they have timed out. That they have missed a procedure they were either unaware of or didn't understand. And, you know, we are an advisory body. I'm sure that the board want us to give you advice. I will advise you that that is really politically unacceptable. You are cruising for a bruising on that one. That will be a real problem, actually, when that happens. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So your concern is the time frame. Is that what you are -- >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: It's partly the time frame, but it's the complexity. My last point was the 45 days. If you come from a democratic country and you work for public administration, you get a list of 100 or 400 or 4,000, none of us know, names, normally we would consult. We would consult with colleagues in other departments, regional governments. We might even have a public consultation. Now, if we only had one proposed string to consider, 45 days I think would be quite reasonable. If you have got hundreds coming out at the same time, I genuinely am worried, actually, that that 45 days is unrealistic. And my question is, have you given thought to extending that period? Because we -- otherwise, -- let me just finish, Bruce. Otherwise, you are asking us as individual GAC members to give you a personal reaction to that list. That worries me because we acted in good faith, and we are bright people, I hope, largely. On some of these issues we would have to consult with city councils, with regional governments. We would have to exercise caution, the taxpayers our stakeholders would expect us to exercise caution. And we certainly want an early warning period. And we welcome, actually, that this is here. I just have some doubts about whether 45 days is very realistic if there's a very positive response to the call when it comes out. And we're talking about hundreds of top-level domains that may need us to consult with many, many different stakeholders in our own countries. Thank you. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So, Bill, I think that was a question we asked you on Tuesday, I believe. We were trying to ask when did you think you could get back to us. We heard -- I think it was Suzanne from the U.S. actually mentioned the word 45 days in one of her responses to our question, which was about the GAC advice, not even that GAC early warning. And so we're kind of partly responding to what we heard from you. If you look at our scorecard, we actually put in what we thought we heard from you saying you would get some response in an early period. But that's for you to come back to us. You tell us what do you -- I think did I ask the question, what are you defining as early warning. And I said two years, and you said no, no, no, we could be much faster than two years. So you tell us. We thought 45 was reasonable if it's an early warning. It's not formal advice which might come later. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Bruce. I think it's important to bear in mind that the GAC is giving initial reactions to what you are presenting, and we will need, as a committee, to go away and look more closely at these details and reflect to a degree. However, clarifying that these are the questions that exist is extremely useful. So I think we should continue on this topic. Germany, you are next, please. >>GERMANY: Yes, thank you, chair. And thank you for this presentation. From my point of view, it seems to be a step in the direction of our GAC positions. And I appreciate it. But we surely will have to discuss this in depth. And we'll have to consider all the facilities in this respect. We saw, from the comments of colleagues, that there might be several procedural questions that need to be solved and discussed in depth. For my understanding, a question is really we have -- as I see, two rather light instruments for raising governmental concerns. And that would be the early warning that would be raised by the GAC. And the other one would be the individual government comment. And the result of these comments, either by GAC or by individual government, would be that there is some kind of negotiation between the applicant and the, yes, probably government or city, if we come to a geographic name. I wonder whether there is some kind of possibilities for sensitive strings. I think it is more the awareness raising there. But ICANN itself would not interfere in this process. It would leave it to the government and to the applicant to come to a common solution. And then we have, let's say, the two strong instruments. And the two strong instruments are really GAC advice. And the second strong instrument is the objection procedure as foreseen in the GAC bylaws. We will have to see on this. One thing I just want to recall, we also made some statements in respect of the objection procedures. Not only on the fee, but also on the procedures. And some of these procedures do not fit for government, as I explained earlier this week. Probably these have to be refined. I don't want to spill the wine, but this is probably an issue we have to have in mind and bear in mind for the present consideration. But, in general, I think it's a good step forward. And I appreciate further discussions on this issue. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much, Germany. Bertrand? >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: Thank you, madam chair. To quote a famous speaker that we heard, I think we're stumbling in the right direction. There is a sense that the early warning tool is, basically, a collection of signals and flags, something that is relatively informal and that can be conveyed -- even if it is conveyed by the GAC, it can be just conveying the individual concerns of governments. Like a government as a concern on a geographic name doesn't necessarily need to be endorsed fully by the GAC. The GAC forewarns the fact that this government has a concern on that name. The second thing is that I think there is a strong awareness that this is not about only pushing an applicant out and encouraging withdrawal. It can also be to encourage interaction to try to resolve this. However, if we say we try to resolve something, we're confronted with a problem, which is there's a strong risk about reopening the possibility to modify the application and changing it. So the question is: If an applicant has very good interaction with an actor to try to solve the problem and they find a solution, how will the applicant and this actor memorialize this agreement so that they're bound afterwards and we don't get into post-delegation problems? I leave that on the side for further discussion. But now I would like to highlight how this is working more or less for the three families of issues that the GAC has identified, basically. Sensitive strings, there clearly is a big distinction whether the sensitivity is with the string mostly or with the applicant or with the way it is managed. Let's say that the string is dot Nazi. That's the string. Let's say that the string has a particular political region or even religious group or whether it's the right applicant, quote, unquote, or whether the modalities for running the TLD are appropriate or not. Probably, if the sensitivity is about the very existence of this string, irrespective of the applicant, it is probably necessary to have a GAC advice more formally as early as possible to avoid having an evaluation of the string after the evaluation. Because it's then running in parallel. So it is difficult to, basically, impose on the GAC to give an advice within the period of time. Because, obviously, the GAC always has the capacity to give advice. However, it is clear that the earlier it comes, the better it is to hear the problem, to make sure that, if the string is really objectionable, it is sold earlier. And so maybe there is a need to also have a sort of obligation or a commitment -- commitment is better -- by the different actors sort of mutual commitment that the GAC will try in the best efforts to provide GAC advice as early as possible when an early warning has shown there is a problem on the string. And, as soon as the GAC advice is produced, the board would commit likewise to react rapidly in order to make sure that there is no uncertainty remaining. This is necessary to avoid the problem that Suzanne was raising that it is not to reintroduce this in the evaluation process. Because, indeed, as Bruce said, this is not about adding criteria. If, however, the problem is about who manages or so, we get into other types of things. Geo names is a second family. Here we're faced with a situation where we have a mechanism inside the DAG that allows for explicit support on an objection, a letter in certain types of strings. What this early warning process is providing is a way to use an implicit non-objection. Let me explain. If a string is not in the lists that are explicitly mentioned requiring explicit support or non-objection, but nonetheless is the subject of an early warning that says there is a collectivity that is worried about the use of this string, the purpose is to prevent the objection afterwards. If there's an agreement that happens, either a withdrawal or an agreement, any of the collectivity, the public authority does not use the objection procedure. It is an implicit non-objection. So it is using a gradation when, for the list of names that are very important -- country names are out. Capital city names, regions, and so on we need an explicit support or non-objection. For the ones that are in this gray zone, if there has been an early warning, either the actor withdraws or, if it continues and has found an agreement, then the public authority that was intending to make an objection does not make an objection, which means that there's an implicit non-objection. And we are back to the question before: How is the agreement memorialized? But that's another issue. Finally, third family, what the GAC was mentioning in terms of extending community types of string is actually something that is related to industry sectors. It can be banks. It can be music. It can be other things. Interestingly enough, today there is a community objection that is supposed to be used in case there is a harm against community. If you look at the capacity of somebody, an applicant, to apply for a string as a community string, you will notice that you can apply if you are a community of practice, if you are a business sector, if you are a community of actors in a given sector. So you could actually apply for a dot bank as a community if you are a sufficiently structured group. However, at the moment -- and maybe this is something we should explore -- in the community objection, this understanding of what a community is is not clearly defined as being the same as in the community string. Therefore, the key question will be: For the early warning to be able to work correctly, also in this type of strings, maybe we should explore a little bit further whether the community objection contains a clear equivalence to the community interpretation in the community TLD. I'm sorry for going on a bit long. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Bertrand. I have Netherlands, Brazil, and then Denmark. >>NETHERLANDS: Thank you, Heather, I would like to concur with my European colleagues, Germany and Greece, that this is, in this sense, workable. I think Bill D. From European Commission mentioned something about being workable. This is more a question of transparency. I think, if we have so much mechanisms for authorities in so many stages, they should be put on paper and should be transparent. But I think it's an operational problem. It's not a problem of principle. And I think also I'm concurring with Germany. The first two lightweight objections you could say in the GAC early warning are really to sort things out, I think, Bertrand, it is to sort things out in a very preliminary stage. So that's very needed. And we will probably get less objections, even no objection at all or no GAC advice at all in the second stage. But, still, one thing which concerns me or should be worked out is the fact that in the event we still have -- in worst case scenario, as a GAC, we advise the board to reject the string in the GAC advice. What would be the reaction time? Because we're asking something from the board, which is not asking something in the process step. It's not in the process. It's specifically us to the board. So my question is how will the board react timely? Will it be sufficient also to -- in the case that also the ICANN boards agrees with the advice and rejects. Will it be timely to be integrated in the process? Thank you. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Just a quick answer on that. I think we've got the bylaw guidance already that we've got to act in a manner that's timely and efficient. And, clearly, that should preclude a long, drawn-out process by the board. And it's clearly not efficient if we allow the applicant to carry on for a long period of time and then stop them. So I think we would think that the current bylaws contain pretty clear directions about that. I don't think it's -- I don't think -- I don't think we were contemplating putting an -- changing the bylaws to require us to respond with any particular time. But I think the way we've responded to, like, xxx and those shows, when there is an issue, the board is keen to get it resolved. I think we'll continue to be so. Otherwise, we've got to face legal action from at least the applicant. So there's quite a lot of pressure on us, I think, to comply with the existing bylaws as to being timely and efficient. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Peter. I have Brazil, Denmark, Malta, and Australia. Brazil, please. >>BRAZIL: Thank you. First of all, thank you for having that concrete response. I appreciate that. I believe that the interaction that we're having this afternoon is much better than the interaction we tried to have this morning. So I think we are in a more constructive dialogue. I'd like to congratulate all the colleagues for that. I will -- I will speak a few words. And my initial reaction, for sure, GAC members will have to discuss this issue again. But I'd like to share with you my initial concerns. First of all, I believe -- I had the pleasure to be present in Brussels two weeks ago. And, since my understanding is that the early warning system would replace the current suggested objection process -- and the way we got the response from the board now, it seems that the early warning system is a bit mixing with the other current systems of objection processes. So, in this way, we would have to visit again the question of fees, procedures, criterias. I'm not sure if this is the way or not. But at least we have to be a bit more clear about that and go deep in the question of early warning. I'd appreciation -- I'd like to thank the -- also Bertrand had a more clear understanding about the early warning that's not -- should not be related only to the GAC, but for the governments themselves, I think. The early warning could also serve for governments individually. It's nice. I share the concerns with my friends -- the concerns of the GAC colleagues about the time, 45 days, about the complexity that would be to deal with a list of 500, 200, or 100 names and to provide internal consultation and seek the -- to protect the public interest in that way. My second comment is regarding some ideas we talked about in the last two days. I like too much the idea of good cops and bad cops, good applicants and bad applicants. We're trying to use this criteria. I think it's very useful to this discussion. I believe that sometimes when -- we shouldn't misunderstood predictability with prioritization of private interests. I mean, sometimes we are focused on creating a system that is predictable. But, if we go -- if we only see this picture, we will only reward those players who has more money and time to deal with these -- to deal with these issues, only these issues. And these players will win. I believe that we are not focusing on rewarding the good applicants. The one who has not only money and time, but the one who is also looking for avoiding any problem relating to public interest. The applicant who is in good faith and who talked to any authorities and communities that he thinks it's related to the suggested strings. So maybe I think we could rely on a process where there are more invitations for dialogue, compromise, cooperation. I remember the words stated by Vint Cerf in our opening meeting when we should rely on cooperation and -- cooperation among the parties. I think this is in the core of the multistakeholder process. So, instead of looking for straight rules of step-by-step, maybe should clear -- we should focus on creating clear spaces for dialogue and cooperation in case of sensitivity of the strings. I believe the case of sensitivity will not -- sensitivity strings will not be the majority, I'm sure. And I think we shouldn't punish the good applicants with such an endless discussion. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much, Brazil. I believe we'll need to move to close this session very shortly. So, if we can just take some final brief comments, I have Denmark, Malta, Australia, and possibly Greece. You insist? Okay. All right. Denmark, please. >>DENMARK: Okay. I'll be very brief. Thank you for this presentation or this system or model. I think it's very constructive. If we could get this on paper and sort of process description, that would be really, really helpful for us in the GAC to go back home and consult. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Denmark. I think that would be very useful for the GAC, indeed. I have Malta next. >>MALTA: Yeah, thank you very much. I think I heard some of the sentiments that have been voiced already. I really think this has been a very constructive exchange that we've had on this particular subject. I think that the board has given us a very good framework that we can go back and discuss at GAC. We're not going to do the final, you know, agreement or the finding on this here. It may also be that really some of us have to go back home. And, you know, the views on the process is that we have in order to enable us to react to really quicker in terms of any objections that, you know, that we may have. And, unfortunately, I suppose at the present time, there was really too much speculation about dodgy applications that we're going to have. There's far too much focus on that. And I hope that our concerns will be dispelled once, you know, we see what really comes up. So I really think that, really, on the whole, this has been a very positive development that we've had on this topic this afternoon. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Malta. I have Australia, Greece. And France will be the final speaker. Australia? >>AUSTRALIA: To be honest, given the comments which have just come before, I could almost pass. But I guess one of the things that the GAC to take away from this, which I think has been really useful mapping it out this way, is how, as I see on the board now, we've been given an existing structure. And we've tried to get the existing items off the GAC scorecard into that. And I agree with my -- with Bill, basically. I think it looks very simple. But I think there's a lot of complexity in the detail here. Because I think, putting the processes into what effectively looks like an undifferentiated 4 1/2 month phase -- and it doesn't seem to me that there's very much difference between the early warning period, sensitive strings objection, and so on. To me, they're all fitting into the same process. And I think we need to pull it out, as Netherlands said, and actually look at what we're talking about as discrete steps so that early warning system is actually something early with a low cost to the applicant rather than just the same as -- effectively, the same, from the applicant's point of view, as getting some negative GAC advice four months in. There's no cost difference to them. So I think we need to start thinking about how these processes fit in. Maybe there needs to be different steps or different phases or something. But this is something that we'll take away as the GAC, I'd expect. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Australia. Greece, you're next. >>GREECE: I would only repeat my first remark in the forum of a plea towards the board to reconsider the possibility of not having the early warning period and the early evaluation period at the same time. It would be in everybody's interest, not least before it would not be incurring any costs which would be unnecessary if there were withdrawals of applications at this very early time. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, Greece. And the final speaker will be France. >>FRANCE: Thank you. Just to say that maybe we're getting closer to champagne party. [Applause] Well, well, well. Just to be optimistic. And just one concern on objections, fees procedures. I think we still have a close look on that. And we hope to find a solution to. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you, France. And I believe I have a second final speaker. Germany. >>GERMANY: Sorry for being -- or taking the floor again. My question to the board is more procedural question. What will be as the next steps? For me, it is the question we have the next formal GAC meeting and ICANN meeting will be in Singapore. Will there be an exchange before? And what will be the following procedural steps for coming to a new guidebook probably, I suppose, before Singapore will be developed. And my question -- in respect to this, a more procedural question. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you for the question, Germany. I have one third final speaker, Nigeria. >>NIGERIA: Thank you. And I'm all set. It is becoming clearer in my understanding of how the process is and better communications and better communication, please. And one thing I want to say, if we could have -- just like my colleague from Greece said, the early warning will come before any commitment made, any money passed on, it will be a lot of relief to everyone that is involved. That's one. The other one is that about 40 of us are here from 40 countries but there are numerous of us that are there that are not part of this communication to take back to the capitals. So we must be explicit enough and we must communicate to others that are not here on time, so that it is clearly well understood. I think those are the things I want to say. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you very much, Nigeria. So on that note, let's move to close. I would like to thank you for your initial thinking or presentation of the potential early warning process. We will take this away and give it serious thought. As I think Australia requested, it would be very useful to us -- or perhaps it was Denmark -- it would very useful to us to have this drafted out with a bit more detail, so that we have a reference to use to consult at home and with each other in order to respond. But thank you again. We do appreciate this effort. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thanks, Heather. I agree. I think as we close, we need to say thank you very much to everybody involved in this process, particularly GAC members, just reflecting how far we've come since the initial indication in Cartagena that there were 12 areas of concern, and since then we've had this enormous effort in exchanging written materials, four full days of consultation between the board and the GAC -- two in Brussels and two here -- and other considerable exchanges, all of which have served to refine issues, I think, tremendously well. Coming down to just a couple of comments on the last slide, I'm delighted to hear the Australian delegate say that it is simple, because it is. What's been added -- and we need to be very clear about this -- this hasn't been made complex, and all that's been done is one extra process has been added, the one you requested, an early warning process. All the rest of what's on the screen is already there, and they are the existing processes, and any sense that more process has been added needs to be looked at very carefully. So we need to work our way through that. Germany asked what the next step was. Well, that's -- we're now at the end of this currently scheduled four days of discussions. The board now needs to consider very carefully all the advice it's received from the GAC, and the advice to come from the GAC, and of course all the public comment that we've heard in the last few days while we've been here in San Francisco. So we will be thinking about exactly what is the next step and we'll be communicating that as soon as we can. So I think we can close the session. Thank you all very, very much. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: Thank you. [ Applause ] >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Now, we're going to have a public forum now, and I don't think we've got time -- I don't think we should take time to reset the room, so if the -- if people are happy, what I suggest we do is ask -- release GAC members from service at the microphone and just ask the board members if you could perhaps come and gather at this stage, and we're going to have the board sitting here rather than on stage. Or would it be better on stage? I'm not sure. I think here would be quicker and easier. We can just have a few minutes' break and we can start. So if we can just have board members gathering at this end, I suggest members of the community stay there, and we'll see if we can't put the microphones for the public comment at that end and then we can hear from you. So we'll be reconvening in about 10 minutes for a two-hour public forum. Just for clarity's sake, the agenda for the public forum does not include any new gTLD items. We consider that the two scheduled gTLD consultations over six hours have provided enough of that. So let's reconvene shortly. Thank you. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: And for the GAC, if we could meet in the Colonial Room in 10 minutes, please.