GAC - ICANN Board Meeting
New gTLDS
Thursday, 17 March 2011
MORNING SESSION
ICANN Meeting
San Francisco, California


>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thank you.  Thank you ladies and gentlemen,
if you could take your seats.  We're ready to begin.

Thank you.  Nancy, while we're getting ready, I wonder if we could put
the second of those slide sets up that relate to the process in
relation to new gTLDs.  Thank you.

So let me begin by apologizing for the slight delay as the board
prepared further positions.  As I say, this is an ongoing consultation
process and it's been very helpful to work through the various issues,
and we're now hopefully able to take it forward.

As we did earlier for those that were present in relation to the
discussion with the GAC on xxx, I thought it might be helpful just to
put in context the position in relation to the new gTLDs discussions,
and we begin, as always, with the very important fundamental position
that we rely on having constructed a Governmental Advisory Committee
within our -- take that public policy into account in making and
adopting our policy.

So the advice of the GAC on public policy matters shall be duly taken
into account.

In the event that the board determines to take an action that's not
consistent with GAC advice, we're required to inform the committee and
state the reasons why not.  And so the board resolutions in relation
to this took place at the board meeting on the 25th of January, and
after that, a very complex -- a very comprehensive series of papers
were exchanged with the GAC on the reasons why we were not following
it and what the position that we were proposing was.

And so those are the preparatory papers for the consultation in
Brussels.

If we do that, then the bylaw section 2.1(j) requires us to try, in
good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually
acceptable solution.

So that's what we've been doing since we notified the GAC that we were
likely to depart from their advice in January.

We've had these discussions, including in Brussels and Silicon Valley
here, and also the notes that we've been exchanging on the GAC
scorecard.  We've received from the GAC a scorecard and we've gone
back about with our response, and at the moment we're sort of halfway
through a process of receiving the response from the GAC on that.

We've had some indications from the GAC orally on our earlier meeting
on Tuesday as to the GAC's best current thinking, and hopefully we can
hear more about that today, so that's the process that we're in.

And today, we're continuing that exercise in good faith and as timely
and as efficient as we can to find a mutually acceptable solution.

And then in relation to anything that we cannot find a solution -- and
we're hopeful that, if anything, this will be a very small group.
We've already, as a result of the Brussels consultation, moved at
least a third of the topics from -- into the 1A category where we
agree with the GAC advice.  We still have about a third in 1B and a
third in 2.  And so hopefully we can move those 2s into some kind of a
1 category.  In which case this bylaw won't be activated.

In relation to any matter that we cannot agree, so that no solution
can be found, then the board is required to state in a final decision
the reasons why the GAC advice was not followed, and then individual
GAC members need to take into account their own responsibilities in
their own territories.

So I thought that was helpful.  That's -- hopefully that has been
helpful.  That's the process that we're in, and then I think it might
be helpful, Nancy, if we could put up the GAC scorecard in the format
that we produced in Brussels where we took the scorecard and gave a
ranking and gave some notes.

>> We're working on bringing up the information.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks very much.

While that's coming up, I think again the board feels very much that
it's in listening and consultative mode and wants to know from the GAC
-- I wonder if we could begin by asking the GAC if it's been able,
since we were meeting on Tuesday, to extend its thinking or further
clarify its thinking on any of these issues, and we're looking forward
to getting the written report that was referred to so that we can
understand fully the GAC's position on those things.

Heather, is it -- the first topic is the public interest objections
process that we've scored as a 1B, and I know we heard from the topic
leader on Tuesday about that.

Is there any -- has there been any further thinking from the GAC on
the -- on that topic?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Peter.

On that topic and the topics in the scorecard in general, we have been
anticipating the reporting back from the board today, so we're quite
interested to hear what more you have to comment on today, and we
anticipate factoring that into our near-final written response to the
board's response to the scorecard.

So that's really the state of play from a GAC perspective.

I would note that the -- on the morning that we met, Tuesday, earlier
this week, that we did not cover root zone scaling because that was,
in general, a 1A item, I believe.

However, if there is time, opportunity, and interest, we would like to
do a run-through of that issue today, if that's possible.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  That's -- Heather, that's absolutely right.
I think the other topic that falls into that category was trademark
protection, and I know that at that stage the GAC had recently sent
through -- the GAC topic leader had recently sent through some
material but didn't speak to it.  I think it might be quite useful if
we could ask the GAC to take us through the paper, the material that
came through, and explain the thinking behind that.

So that's another topic that I think we need to spend a bit of -- or
could usefully spend some time on.  I'm happy to begin with either of
those, in fact.  If you'd like to start with root scaling, we'd be
happy to hear any questions or discussion about that.  Up to you.

What's easier for you?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  We could cover root scaling now, and then if you
would like to move into the scorecard, walking us through what
additional thinking the board has to offer, then we'd be happy to do
that.

On trademark, we will need to clarify, I think, the status of the
exchange of information.  I think we've provided you with some
information and are waiting for some, and then I think we need to
clarify a bit how to move forward on that.

And I will look to our topic lead to assist in clarifying how best to
contend with that today.

Perhaps that's something we could deal with a bit later on in the
program.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  So which one do you want to begin with?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Well, we would begin with root zone scaling.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Okay.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  So we would do our best current thinking that we
didn't do on Tuesday, and then if you could take us through the
scorecard with what responses you're able to provide today, we would
welcome that.

Okay.  All right.  So Netherlands, are you prepared to take us
through.

>> (Speaker is off microphone).

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  We're not able to hear you on the microphone.

>>NETHERLANDS:  Hello.  Test.  Okay.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Perfect.

>>NETHERLANDS:  Just thank you, Heather, and Peter.

This topic had to be -- to clarify, was a 1A, a complete 1A response
from the board.  Meaning that the board accepted all the advice, not
only in principle but also the full advice, and of course we are very
glad we concur completely on this issue.  It's a good thing.  And
although this was a complete concurrence, we still have some thoughts
about how to implement this -- these advices.  I think there were
seven or eight.  Several points.  Basically coming down to two issues.
One issue is the early warning and monitoring system and the second
one was the operational and resource items which you need for the
whole process.

On the first thing -- and I think we discussed this in Brussels after,
let's say, dealing with the scorecard issue.

What we are really looking for is a kind of document in which the
steps are described, in case of there -- would there be any strain on
the system, and I think Suzanne made this very clear.  Various steps
are already there, and they are under the hood.  Our thinking is that
we should have some kind of authoritative document which is supported
by the relevant actors, root zone operators, IANA, external actors,
and issued by probably ICANN, would be the most natural partner, to
describe the steps and describe the things which should be, in the
process, taken into account when there is some strain.

One important element is -- and we're very glad that the ICANN board
is committed to this -- is that there would be no -- that the second
round would not start after having sound ideas and sound affirmation
of the effects of the first round on the stability and security of the
DNS.

Another issue which came up in our internal discussions is it would be
good to have a reference to this document in the applicant guidebook,
so that through this channel and also other channels, all applicants
and potential applicants are aware of this early warning system and
the potential effect on applicants and applications.

I just want to keep it like this on the first part.

The second part, let me check.

Yes.  We are glad that the ICANN board is committed that the operation
of the IANA function and ICANN's coordination of the root zone system
will not be negatively affected by the new gTLD program and we
basically look forward to an answer how the board will implement our
advice.

Thank you very much.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Netherlands.

Did the board want to respond?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes.  I think that's, again, helpful
clarification, and I'm pleased to say I think, again, there's nothing
there that causes us to think that we might have to change that from a
1A to anything else.

I think the focus for us is, you know, public policy advice from the
GAC, and what we're down to now really is really some relatively
detailed discussion about implementation steps, to a large extent,
will be staff matters rather than board matters.

So the board isn't able to indicate what the appearance of a
particular report is going to look like, but we understand the need
for having some kind of clarity around that.  And I think the same --
so looking at your first point, pretty much all implementation steps
or a kind of document and who should be supporting it and the steps --
you know, what should be in that report, I think that's all -- will be
excellent detail that will emerge from the process.

Similarly, the evaluation, we're committed to that evaluation in a
number of ways, and we're obliged to have the evaluation, of course,
under the AoC, and as we talked in Brussels, we've also started a
process of seeking input from the SOs and the ACs on various matters
that can also be included in that evaluation.

I suppose also worth repeating, what we said in the guidebook early
on, that this kind of information is -- in terms of measuring the
root, you know, there are root monitoring systems currently in place,
and we understand how helpful it will be if those can be put into a --
or that information can be made more accessible, so that people who
have got concerns can see how it's being looked at and can see what
the process is.

So I don't think it's helpful for me now to try and attempt to discuss
further what the implementation steps will produce by way of the kind
of report, but we very much understand that -- what the public policy
point here is about the concern.

And again, I think the commitment that we've given, that the operation
of other functions is not going to be affected.

So there will be the usual monitoring of activities, and of course
that's something that staff are in charge of, in terms of making sure
that core functions aren't affected by the program or any other
aspect.

So I think that's been helpful, as I say, largely starting to focus on
having agreed on the principle, having -- we're starting to get down
the implementation track which eventually we will -- we will hand over
to staff.

So I'm happy to talk -- deal with any further comments from the GAC on
that.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Are there any additional comments?

Seeing none, thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I suppose the question is:  Is there anything
else that we can say to increase the GAC's confidence, I suppose, that
we understand the point and are working on that?  I think we've given
pretty clear indication of the commitments that are required there.
If there's anything more that would help, let us know.

We're obviously in consultation with the root server operators.  We
run a root ourselves.  Staff understand what the issue there is.  So
we want you to go away feeling, on this topic, that we're pretty
clearly in agreement.

So if there's anything else that we can say or do, or if there's a
question you want us to put through to the root server operators or --
you know, let us know now.  This is something that, as I say, we've
got reasonably good agreement on.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.  I think the key points, if I may, are
that there be an authoritative document and that it referenced in some
way in the DAG.

Whether it serves as an annex to the document or something like that.
Would that be fair, Netherlands?

>>NETHERLANDS:  Yes.  Mainly, it's a question of transparency.  Making
clear what is there already, which is a lot of good work.

One point which specifically had our concern is that while we have a
lot of parties who have informal and formal relationships, according
to the root zone operation or the root system operation, still we
would like to have a kind of plan, with the steps in which actors are
doing what on which order to -- when there is really strain in the
system, and I think that's really one of the things -- what most
concerns us.  Thanks.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Netherlands.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I suppose sort of a high-level question:
What's the interest to the applicant in putting it in the guidebook?
What's the benefit of putting this in the -- I don't quite understand.
What's the reference needed to an applicant in the guidebook that
there is this, we, the operators of the root, are watching the root.
I think how does that help the applicant?

>>NETHERLANDS:  The relevance for the applicant is, basically,
predictability.  And, while we hope or we estimate that the chances
are very small that there will be a delay somehow in rolling out
entries in the root zone, still, I think, there is a chance -- and
applicants should be at least aware that for the second round or third
or fourth round, that there is a possibility that their applications
might be delayed or postponed or --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you.  That makes good sense, I think
particularly for the later rounds, that this is another risk factor
that needs to be taken into account in preparing or pursuing an
application.  Thank you.

Okay.  I think, from our perspective, I think we've got ourselves
reasonably clear on that.  Again, if there's anything more on that,
we'd be happy to hear it.

Okay.  If that's root scaling...  I wonder if we could ask the GAC
topic later in relation to the trademark issues to take us through
some of the work that was done on that.  I think -- I'm not sure that
that's a matter of public record.  So it would be helpful, I think,
just to expose some of the thinking on that.  I know some members of
the board team have received that material and have looked at it.  But
now would be, I think, a good time to get some of those issues out.

And I know, particularly Mark, while you're preparing, there's been
very useful consultations in the last couple of days.  And I think
particularly on -- well, there's some further feedback from the
community that's going to be very helpful here.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  I believe there are still process questions to
clarify on this particular issue.  And that's why I suggested that we
deal with it -- this a bit later on.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Oh, okay.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: So let's do that.  And I think it's beneficial we
can compare notes on a break or something like that.  And, as a
result, I would suggest that you take us through the scorecard now
with the responses you're able to provide today.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  So we're really here to listen as much as we
can.  We're still working through responses, and we haven't changed
our thinking on -- or completed our thinking on these things.

So perhaps we could start with the limited public interest objections
in module 3.  I think our position on that was fairly clear.  It's a
1B.  We indicated that we accepted the GAC members may not -- the GAC
wouldn't be using that.  But the rest of the guidebook -- whether it
would stay in the guidebook for the rest of the community.  And I'm
interested to hear from the GAC whether there's any change in its
thinking on that.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Australia, did you have a comment?

>>AUSTRALIA:  More of an observation, I guess.  And I guess it's a
question about process about how we can most effectively use this time
today.  From my recollection of the meeting we had on Tuesday, we sort
of walked through the GAC positions as current thinking on a lot of
the items on the scorecard.  And our understanding was the board was
going to retreat to consider some sort of response.  We were to meet
up later that afternoon. And the advice we had was that the board was
still considering, and we would meet today.  So I'm not sure if it's
just me, but I'm are sort of wondering if there is a board response.
And, if not, we should consider how we can most usefully use this time
available to us.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I think the -- I guess the point on this one
is that our thinking hasn't changed.  So we can probably move on from
that procedure and perhaps come to community-based strings.  Is there
any change in the -- I think we've presented our view on that, that
we've got this difficulty with the concept of categorizing things in
advance.  Is there any further thinking from the GAC on the community-
based strings topic?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  We provided our further thinking on Tuesday.  So
we're really looking for guidance as to what kind of information or
even questions that you can offer today on the substance following us
presenting, the GAC presenting our best current thinking on Tuesday.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, I think our thinking is still the same
on this, that it's very difficult to categorize the communities, very
difficult in advance to create them.  But, as time passes, communities
of common interest, et cetera, will emerge, rather than trying to set
up a community in advance on any one of these grounds.  We've had
those discussions about the difficult of creating such a
categorization.  Our view is that much of the time would then
inevitably get caught up in boundary disputes.  Each of those
categories would have different sets of rules and different
qualifications, different entry criteria, different fees.  And we'd
end up with most of the time being spent sort of creating, monitoring,
and then arguing with applicants about whether they fit it into --
remembering that the idea of the system was to try to get simple
applications through as quickly as possible, the non-contentious ones.
And that the contentious ones were supposed to be dealt with by the
objections process.  So, at this stage, that remains the position.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: United States?

>>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Heather.  And thank you, Peter.  If I
could put a question or two simply as the coordinator for the GAC --
so this question is not an agreed question by my colleagues, but I
hope they will indulge me just as the coordinator for us.

Sounds like no change in the ranking as a 2.  So that is, obviously,
something for us to consider fairly seriously.

But, as a question to you, provided we are able to move forward with
what I think Mike Silber very helpfully sort of advanced on Tuesday,
the early warning idea, which is a further step than what we have seen
in writing.  And, if, somehow, could these categories be helpful in
the early warning process so that it would be helpful for you all and
for the applicants, presumably, to understand that the GAC and/or
individual governments would consider a particular application to fall
into a particular category?  And -- because there might be concern as
to whether that applicant was the right entity to actually manage that
type of string, that that would be flagged in an early warning system
so that the entire community would know right up front that there
would be an objection if it were to continue.  Would that be a helpful
step?  From our perspective, we think it would.  So we are quite
reluctant, I think -- my colleagues can correct me, if I'm wrong.
I think we're very reluctant to move too far away from this concept.
Because this is the concept that actually is our effort to have the
guidebook reflect what the GAC put in its principles in 2007 when we
urged you to set up a system that would avoid terms that raise
sensitivities whether they're cultural, linguistic, geographic,
religious, da, da, da, da, da -- we can go down the list.

Speaking of lists, by the way, just as an aside, there actually are a
few U.N.-based lists, we believe, for things like languages, ethnic
minorities, indigenous people, tribes.      I mean, there are some
U.N. statistical sources for those things.  There are also quite a few
academic sources, we're told, for some of these categories.  Lists of
religions.  There are people out there in the world who actually
monitor such things.  So we actually don't think it's as challenging
as it might appear.

So I guess the question for us is, being reluctant, being loathe to
retreat very far from this concept, which we think is actually
helpful, how could it be used?  Whether in the early warning or
whatever?  So we would appreciate some feedback on that, if at all
possible.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Suzanne.  I think there's some very
interesting concepts in there.  I think the fact that there might be
some other lists that we could use -- you know our fondness for
finding other authoritative sources and trying to use those where we
can.  And the ISO-3166 list for country codes is sort of, perhaps, the
best-known example that we've used in that way.  And the idea that the
GAC could give an early warning on those kinds of issues might be very
interesting.  Obviously, it plays into, for example, the geographic
names that the GAC could be alerting us.  And we had an example, I
think, from Nigeria where the word "Delta" might have been being
pursued by someone genuinely for one goods or service.  And, of
course, it raises a name of a province in that country.  So a warning
to the applicant that there may be this objection coming down the
track, I suppose.  I guess that's the question for us.  How do you see
that early warning system working?  And how do you see it or do you
see it interfacing with the existing provision in relation to GAC
advice?  So you've got the facility for giving GAC advice at some
stage about an application.  But early warning, presumably, cuts in
earlier.  So how do you see that -- those two possibilities
interacting or working --

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Would you like to respond, United States?  I have a
request from Germany for the floor.  Germany, please.

>>GERMANY:  Yes, thank you.  That's exactly the question, I think, we
would like to raise.  Because I think the term "early warning" is a
very shiny one.  And everybody may use it in a discussion with a
different meaning.  For me, early warning also means that there are
some substantial consequences of these early warnings in the
application process.  And that would mean, for example, if we refer to
geographic names, that there is a, yes, a strong understanding that
these are geographic names that need governmental support as foreseen
in the applicant guidebook for geographic names.  This would be one of
the consequences I would like to foresee.  But we can surely discuss
other ways.  And this kind of exchange might be very helpful.  But we
should clear the terminology we are using.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: That's why we're here, I think.  We want to
know what you mean by early warning?  How would it work for you?  What
kind of subject matter would you like to be able to give early warning
about?  How do you distinguish early warning from the ordinary public
comment process?  And how is all that distinct from GAC advice?  I
think these are different mechanisms that are available to us.  And we
need to work out how you would like to use them from a GAC
perspective.  What would be interesting, for example, would be the
timing questions.  When -- how early is early?  When do we get past
early warning?  And do you want also a late warning?  You know.  How
do you think these things might work?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: United States?

>>UNITED STATES: I'm not entirely sure I can answer that question
properly.  Because, I guess, what we were trying to understand -- we
thought we heard something fairly positive from Mike Silber on
Tuesday.  Should be in the transcripts, which we are going to try to
work into our written response.  If that is, indeed, the case, if the
board is, in fact, willing to go along with what Mike proposed, well,
then we do need to have the discussion as to how that proposal will
fit in to the next version of the guidebook.  So I'm almost hesitant
to say this.  But I do think that our question is back to you.  If
that question could be clarified to us that, yes, you have accepted
the concept that there would be an early warning period prior to --
and I believe -- and, Mike, please correct me, if I'm wrong -- I
believe that was prior to the 45-day initial evaluation.  If I have
misunderstood that, do please correct me.  I think what we tried to
convey on Tuesday is that the 45-day time period would be very
challenging for governments, to me.  I think we also noted on Tuesday
that for us we're quite interested in using the opportunity for any
sort of controversial objectionable sensitive string application that
we have an opportunity to meet with each other that could go forward
as a GAC objection.  In order to do that, we would need to have that
coincide with a face-to-face GAC meeting.  These are not issues we
believe we can handle sort of on an interim basis just online.  So,
again, I think we still have a lot of outstanding questions for you.

And the first one would be:  Have you now shifted your position on
early warning?  Because, initially, your response said, well, we've
worked that into our response to you on your objection procedure.
You've got 45 days.  Full stop.  We had understood on Tuesday that you
were perhaps a little more willing to reconsider that.  So, if you
could clarify where that stands, then I think it gives us more to work
with.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, I think --

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Italy, please.

>>ITALY:  Okay.  I understand that the difficulty that chair of the
board is mentioning to us.  Secondly, a string, the first level, may
be resisted only once.  And, if there is a string that is objected by
the -- some part of the community, of course, in the early warning,
this will be a difficult issue to solve.  Because in the case that was
mentioned that the Delta is a geographic name in a country, in Nigeria
in particular, then we enter into the problem of legal protections of
the names.  And that -- if you look at the WIPO, for example,
normally, the trademarks have more legal protection than other kind of
names.

And so I see that the result of the early warning should be, in
certain cases, to have to enter into these legalistic problems. And
maybe this will be also an occasion and opening of more dialogue
between the GAC and the board.  So we recognize that there is a
difficulty of this nature.  By the way, the concept of protecting
sensible strings connected to the communities is something that has to
be taken in consideration.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you very much, Italy.  I think, if we can
communicate a general sense today, it would really be to echo what we
were saying on Tuesday morning.  And, in terms of our next steps and
our written response, we would explore something along the lines of
what Mike Silber had portrayed in that meeting.  And I think that's
framing our thinking as a GAC at the moment on this particular issue.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, I think that would be very helpful.  I
think some of the things, the way we've raised it, how is it different
from advice?  When does it cut in?  Is it limited to any particular
topics?  I think we thought you were preparing a proposal along these
sort of lines.  So, if you can, that would be -- that would be
interesting.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  United States?

>>UNITED STATES:  Well, thank you.  And thank you for that offer,
Peter.  But, if I could suggest, for us to do that effectively, we
would need to have some feedback.  Otherwise, we are not entirely sure
what we are proposing.  So, again, I think, as Heather has said, our
impression was we have walked through the scorecard on Tuesday.  And
we had understood that your break was to try to give us even a
preliminary response.  And that's what we were anticipating today.
But, if the message is that you don't have that as yet, I guess what
we will do is refine our written response, polish it up.  We're quite
close.  I think we're 99.9%.  And then we await your response to our
response.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I suppose, to make an obvious point for the
record, we're talking about something Mike Silber said.  And I'm not
quite sure what Mike said.  And I don't think you are either.  You
talked about getting the transcript.  We don't actually have a
GAC/board position on that.  So the first thing we need to get is some
kind of clarity about what we're actually talking about.  Thanks.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Germany.

>>GERMANY: Yes.  Thank you.  Regarding this early warning system, I
think perhaps it is not -- it has not been so clear in the discussion
we had.  But we consider this early warning system exactly a
possibility to come to this definition of geo names, which we
mentioned in our position in geo names.  And, therefore, I think under
this position, it is clear what we -- what we suggest to be done with
the results of this early warning.  I think this relationship should
be really clear.  And I think we indicated what we consider to be a
result of the early warning system in this context.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Germany.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Any more help to us on that?  Okay.  Perhaps
move to another topic then that we've had some considerable discussion
about.  And that's 2.2.5 about individual governments.  This is when
they're not acting as the GAC.  They're acting as individual
governments going through a community-based string objection.  We
shifted, if you recall, in Brussels from the position that that was a
2 and government should just pay fees like any other person to
accepting the position, I think, advanced by the European Commission
that, in many cases, governments in this capacity will be acting for
the protection of particular communities and so are acting, if you
like, in a proper governmental public policy role for someone else
rather than acting for governmental interests.

And so we've suggested that we will investigate a mechanism just to
let you -- just to share some of our thinking on that.  What we are,
frankly, worried about is the enormous cost of these things and the
number of them.  And so there's not an intention to resile from the
principle.  But, if you recall, the last time we had an objection in
relation to a TLD application.  And the cost was approximately $5
million.  And, if you add in executive time, probably 8 million.  So
the suggestion that every government is going to be allowed to file
lots of objections really does expose the corporation to potentially
enormous risks.  So just sharing that with you.  There's nothing
secret or difficult about that.  Any kind of process that allows
governments -- and there's approximately 209, I think, governments.
And there could be, you know, up to a thousand applications in the
next few years.  And, if every government objected to all of them --
and I'm not suggesting that's likely, but that's kind of the worst
possible case -- you see that we're talking about exposure to an
enormous risk.  So we would be grateful if you helped us frame -- we
talked about limits to this.  That's not intended to limit the
principle that governments acting properly for communities should have
this right.  How do we limit that so that we can open this up and not
just get swept away by hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars
worth of objection fees?  Be grateful for any help with this.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you. Germany and Denmark and U.K.

>>GERMANY:  Yes.  Just speaking on this issue on geo names, because
this was also a question for community objection.  And, in some of the
responses we received in prior times to our comments was this
community objection, as mentioned, a secondary avenue to define geo
names, this could be a solution where we would be a solution if we had
this early warning system.  See, all these issues are interrelated.
If we had a good early warning system, the need for community
objections would decrease.  And, by the way, mentioning the number of
costs, you said $5 million.  Who shall pay it?  Is it really expected
that the city has to pay this $5 million, if the name of the city is
used by somebody and if the city trust has an interest to being
integrated in a process and have a possibility that the name of the
city is not misused?  That is the other part of the matter which you
are referring to.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Germany.  Denmark.

>>DENMARK: I think my German colleague has said what I wanted to say.
We would very much like to have this early warning system in the
beginning because we don't want to rely on objection procedures only.
This -- so I completely concur.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Let me assume that you're right and that
there was some early warning process yet to be defined -- and we look
forward to your contributions to defining it.  And let's assume that
takes out, by whatever that process is, a large number of objections
in some way.  Either the applicant provides appropriate assurances or
they abandon the application, we're still exposed to a potentially
very large number in the -- so let's agree that gets rid of some, a
majority.  How do we limit the corporation's liability in addition to
the ones that are remaining?  That's what we need help with.

If there's a blank check, effectively, to governments to involve in
objections, what do we do?  We simply -- we, as a board, are very
sympathetic to the principle.  But we have to create rules that
everyone can operate by.  And a blank check to open -- go into an
objection process is difficult for us.  How do you suggest we limit
that?  I mean, should we give each government -- you must be able to
have some ideas on this?  Do we give each government one free
objection and then they pay for the rest?  Or 25 objections -- is it a
numbers-based thing?  Or do we put a dollar limit on it?  You can
have, you know, $100,000 worth of free objection and after that you
pay?  You have to help us create a mechanism that's got some kind of
fiscal certitude around it.  This is part of our job as the board.
We've got to protect the corporation, so that there is an ICANN to
make these decisions.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Peter.  I have United Kingdom, then
United States and France.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, chair.  I guess I kind of misunderstood
the process here.  Because, as I understood it, the board has
responded with a commitment to investigate a mechanism with regard to
objections from governments.  So I don't really understand why we're
now trying -- well, really, talking around this because we haven't got
the substance or the key elements from the ICANN side as to what the
mechanism would be.  And the kind of constraints that -- or
limitations that you might propose to us, noting what you've said and
said previously about the impact for the processes and the costs of
those processes and so on.

So I envisaged the process of our iterations here is that this would
easily move to 1A, subject to you letting us have sight of a mechanism
which we would then comment on in order to finesse it and reach a
conclusion which then could be incorporated in the guidebook.

So I'm surprised that we're trying to bottom this out now but blind
really to the results of your investigations into constructing a
mechanism.  Thanks.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, U.K.  United States, France and Germany.

>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you.  Just actually a very quick observation.
I noticed you all like to use the word "predictability," and we
certainly understand why and we would concur.  From the governments'
perspective we, too, are seeking some predictability in this process.

Right now, it appears to be as many as -- I think you were throwing
numbers out, Peter, of thousands?  Thousands and thousands of strings,
right?

So from our perspective, it is very hard for us to anticipate how we
can respond, what our response might be to an as-yet unknown number.
We have no way of anticipating how many of this unknown number might,
in fact, be considered sensitive, controversial, objectionable, et
cetera, for any reason.

So it is very hard for us to try to even begin to answer this question
from you.  And I guess as Mark has said, what we had expected, I
believe, is some more detail on your side that we could take into
account.

So, again, this seems to be coming quite circular.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, U.S.

I have France, Germany and Switzerland.

>>FRANCE:  Thank you, Heather.  Just first a quick comment.  If I
understand well, the only thing that we have found until now to limit
the huge amount of recourse is money because if you have the money to
object, then you can.  If you don't, you cannot.  It sounds logical
and sounds a little bit shocking in a sense from the developing
countries.

So maybe what we can find a better solution.  We understand we must
solve this problem.

So any corporation tries to -- when they are doing a project to
calculate the amount of money, they will have to put apart for these
kinds of things.  So maybe we can recalculate the application fees and
say, We need 10 or 15% to put apart in some, like, treasure in case we
face these kinds of things.  And it's maybe the best thing to do in
the end for all of us.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, France.

Germany?

>>GERMANY:  Thank you.  Regarding -- once again, regarding the
question of objections and costs for objections, I think the
regulations in the application process should be in such a way that
they reduce the need for our objections.  And I think the regulations
as they stand now in many cases, they give no other possibilities than
to object.  In particular, in the question of the protection of geo
names, we don't have any other possibility as governments to protect
in certain cases our geo names.

Therefore, this is a question of the generic regulations that we have
in the applicant guidebook.

Secondly, let me recall that the objection procedure we have now is
having one destination and that destination is decide whether or not
to introduce a certain string.  And from our point of view, it would
be much more helpful to come to a kind of mediation because probably
in many cases, governments do not want to block certain strings.  They
want to know the regulation under which conditions a certain string is
used.

And this is something, I think, that is missing in this total process.
And if we come to really only decision-making processes, it is very,
very difficult and probably also quite expensive for which side that
has to pay.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Can I just respond to a couple of points that
have been made before we lose the thread?

I think perhaps go back to the U.K.'s point about process, yes, the
scorecard response was that ICANN will investigate.

But quite clearly, Mark, your help with that investigation is now
being sought.  One of the steps of our investigation is to do what
we're doing here which is to ask you for your input into that
investigation.

There is not much point us going away and coming back with something
that's completely unrealistic.  So this is part of the investigation,
is to ask you.  And I think we have to remember what the words in the
bylaws said that we're doing, which is we have to come together in a
timely and efficient manner and find a mutually acceptable compromise,
a mutually effective solution.

And that doesn't necessarily always mean that the board produces a
paper and the GAC gives advice on it, okay?

It means, in this case, as part of our investigation asking you,
having told you what our problem is, that we can't in terms of our
fiduciary obligations to the corporation create an open-ended blank
check on anything.  This is not just directed at governments and this
objection.  We can't give any group or any person a blank check on any
part of this process.

So here we are trying in a timely and efficient manner, trying to find
the mutually acceptable solution.  And we are asking you for help in
creating limits to this.

Coming back to France's point about the cost, there is a number of
aspects about the cost.  First of all, this is all done on a cost-
recovery basis.  So all the fees have been put into various buckets or
places and allocated against certain expenditure.  And nowhere in that
expenditure of the fees is there any money for free actions by
anybody.  So we have to go back and calculate an amount that we need
to budget for.  And at the moment, we have no idea what that amount
might be.

So it would involve us getting some kind of advice, limiting it in
some way, and then recasting the budget to cover that particular sum.

The point about the number of strings is that we are talking about
thousands in the coming years.  So this is a process that we have to
solve.  Now, I don't think that's a suggestion that we don't how many
are coming.  We've done a number of -- we've done work and published
what our predicted limits are.

And we can haul that up, Suzanne, if you have got any questions about
that.  I think we have pretty well covered what the expectations of
the first round are.  Whatever it is, we are going to need to limit
the amount of objections.

And just a find reminder that the process is built around loser pays.
So if governments are making objections and winning, there's no
suggestion that you would pay.  It is only when people make objections
and lose that they have to pay.  So that's something else to bear in
mind.

But what we are looking for is suggestions.  Most of you are familiar
with these kind of objection processes.  The sort of things that come
to my mind as a lawyer immediately are what about page limits?  Let's
put limits on the objection process.  Let's say it has to be held
within one day.  Let's not allow objections to turn into multimillion
dollar arguments with hundreds of pages of briefs of evidence.

You know, you're all familiar with the kind of -- you have these
processes I'm sure in your countries where you could help us and say,
Well, why don't we look at this objection process.  Perhaps, you've
got town planning hearings or other regulatory affairs where this kind
of thinking is being done.  That's what we are trying to find, a
mutually acceptable solution to what to us is a big problem.

We accept the principle governments acting on behalf of communities
trying to protect community-based strings should be able to have a
free objection.  Help us create a limit to that so we can move
forward, please.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  I have Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden.

Switzerland?

>> SWITZERLAND:  Thank you.  Listening to this discussion and the
amount of money that we are discussing, which these procedures would
be raising, no matter who would pay them, I think we have a shared
interest here, maybe apart from some lawyers which have a business
case in this.

But I think we all want to limit costs for ICANN, for governments and
also for the applicants and we have to develop procedures which are
following that objective.

And if I listen to this then my view is that the early warning system
-- or maybe we should call it differently.  Maybe it is a little bit
more like Germany said it is.  Maybe it is more than an early warning
system, should be developed or we should try to develop an early
warning system in a way that there will be no objections by
governments afterwards, which -- that the governments would be kind of
the reason for raising costs for ICANN themselves and the applicant.
So we should try to develop a procedure that might be an early
objection or early approval or early -- I don't know -- system that
would allow the governments to give their views on a string before the
costs start.

And this is also maybe we have to have a discussion about refunding.
If this happens at a very early stage, maybe the applicant would not
even get only 70% of what he pays back but maybe a significantly
higher amount because the application did not yet raise costs apart
from governments sitting together and discussing whether or not there
is a problem with these issues.  So I think that might be a direction
forward.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.

I have Netherlands, then European Commission.

>>NETHERLANDS:  Thank you, Heather.

I think I understand the operational and the financial difficulties,
but then, again, we should be very careful to not mix principle
agreement.  And I think in Brussels, there was a kind of principle --
agreement on the principle that objections in the public interest
should have -- should be free of charge within conditions.

That means that if the principle stands there, I think it's not fair
that operational constraints should hinder this principle.

So I'm very much aware -- and I think I share the concerns that on the
operational, financial side we should try to -- with many ways, we
have to think about this, to raise some barrier on the objection side,
that not every objection will be there.

And the second point is I think that Erika, she's not here
unfortunately -- Erika Mann said, "I think we are not carving this in
stone for the thousands and thousands coming for the next ten years."
And I think, Peter, you yourself said we have to stumble sometimes.

Within this first round or two rounds, we can try this out.  And I
think the contingency will be limited if we talk about 100 to 200
applications.

And then also within some predictability, we can change some of these
rules for the second, third, fourth round.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Could I just respond to that?  That's again
very helpful.

Just picking up on the point that perhaps not every kind of objection
would fall into the category, I guess the obvious next question is:
Well, what are the ones that you are prepared to concede, which should
not be free?

I guess the German position is that geographic names are pretty
important and should be.  How would we go through that kind of a
classification process?

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  European Commission, Sweden, Portugal, then U.K.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:  Thank you.  It seems to me that this issue of
cost for ICANN, it's become an issue because you've designed an
expensive objection procedure.  The solution to me -- seems to me
quite obvious, actually, that you need to redesign the objection
procedure rather than seeking to use -- or to have an objection
procedure that has the impact of acting as a barrier to people who
have legitimate objections.

I mean, we -- this is a public interest organization.  We have to find
a way that people who have legitimate objections to something are not
faced actually with barriers that prevent them from making objections.

I mean, you asked an interesting question, Peter.  You asked if there
is any examples at the national level of how we deal with objection
procedures.  Well, I speak, I think, for most of us in saying we don't
charge our stakeholders when they tell us they have objections to
something we're proposing to do.  And I think that's the essence of a
public interest organization.

I appreciate you have to recover your costs.  That's not a problem
here.  But the objection procedure that you're proposing is
effectively becoming a barrier to people who have legitimate costs.
And I think that you need to look again at the objection procedures.

And the cost argument, I have to say, I find very unpersuasive.  And,
also, I think you've done the budgeting on this.  You set the figure.
There seems to be, looking at the amount of TLDs you think you might
get and the $185,000 that they will have to pay, there seems to be a
hell of a lot of money coming into ICANN actually which would double
or triple the current budget.  So I'm a bit surprised actually that
this would be used as an example for not conceding the example that
governments should be able to raise objections with the ICANN board if
they have major public policy issues with an application.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, European Commission.

Sweden?

>>SWEDEN:  Thank you very much, Heather and Peter.  Actually, I would
like to start by expressing my gratitude for having the possibility to
have this discussion to go through the outstanding issues in a
constructive way to help out finding solutions.

And I would also like to repeat actually what I said in Cartagena,
that I like you.  We like you.  We like ICANN, and we like the ICANN
model.  And we are also here actually to protect the ICANN model, to
contribute to decisions that doesn't jeopardize the model.  That is at
least why I keep coming to these meetings.

But as I see it, the discussions right now shows in several different
matters, there seems to be a lack of processes, routines and tools.
And I don't think it feels confident actually to start something up
like this process, this new gTLD process before having these processes
and tools in place.

And sometimes we dig a little bit down into details, and I think it
might be necessary and useful but the main feeling I have actually
that you want to start something up before having these routines and
tools in place.  That is also why I think we repeatedly happen to end
up in these detailed discussions.

And, of course, I'm a bureaucrat so I can't find those tools.  So that
is something you have to do together with your experts and other
participants better than I to do that.

What I see, there are a lack of tools and routines.  And one example
is this early warning system actually that I think would be very
useful to get an early indication if something is going to be wrong
and cause problems in the long run.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Sweden.

Portugal?

>>PORTUGAL:  Thank you.  Well, I'm a bit puzzled with the discussion
that we are having here because I think -- well, at least I'm not
understanding very well because we put forward already our
differences, and we were waiting for some responses from ICANN's --
from the board's part, and we are not receiving anything.  Only thing
I can feel is really that the board is trying to put a hot potato on
GAC's side again.

But still I would like to say a couple of things on this issue.  If we
have a robust early warning system, this might decrease the objections
from individual governments that choose to file objections to any
proposed community-based string.

But, still, we have to consider this possibility.  And ICANN said that
they would investigate a mechanism for the first coming round and each
GAC members could be exempted from paying fees for objections in some
circumstances.

So at least I was waiting for these proposals from the board side.  So
I don't think that we are advancing so much in this discussion, so I
would like to better understand if I'm wrong or if we are still
waiting for some suggestions from the board side on some mechanisms to
overcome this issue.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Portugal.

United Kingdom.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you, Chair.  I want to underline what the
European Commission has said on this issue of objections and the
ability of governments to make objections and avoiding barriers.

It's critical, really, to the full global inclusivity, the full global
inclusivity of the process.  So we really need to, as you say, work
with you on this.

The ICANN board response talked about exemptions in some
circumstances, and constraints by budget and other considerations.

I think as a next step, to help us move this from simple acceptance of
the principle to a full understanding of what will happen when a
government lodges an objection is if you set out to us the specifics
of those circumstances and those considerations that you refer to in
the response.

And we note what you've said here today about the cost issues and so
on, and that's -- the European Commission has said we're very
cognizant of that element of addressing this issue.

So to close this one off in this discussion here, what I would suggest
is that you do come back to us with a detailed articulation of those
circumstances and considerations that you refer to in very general
terms in the response.

We are clear that there is a principle here and you seem to have
accepted it.  We are saying to you we want to avoid barriers and we
want to maximize inclusivity, so that is the kind of parameters for
closing this one off and moving it to 1A, as I see it.

But we need this assistance from you.  It's our request back to you in
the spirit of joint working on this in terms of providing us with the
specifics.

Thanks.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, U.K.  And I believe the last speaker
will be Japan.

Please.

>>JAPAN:  Thank you very much.

My name is Junichi Nakazawa, Japanese GAC representative.

I just would like to concur with the intervention by the Portuguese
colleagues.  My understanding is also that in Brussels the board
accepted in principle a free-of-charge objection to the sensitive
strings, so I would like to respectfully request the board to provide
us with some kind of answers to help us consider the objection
procedures.

Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Japan.  Would you like to make any final
comments or can we move --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  No.  I think we've answered the question that
Portugal raised.  We've said that we will investigate, and so we're
asking for input into that investigation.  That's where we are.

I think we've probably got the point on this that -- and I appreciate
the European Commission's point about looking at simplifying the
objection process.  I think that was a suggestion that we made that
was picked up, so that's probably all that we can ask the GAC to do
today on that.

But I wonder if we could move to a different topic and then perhaps
have a break, or would now be a good time for a break?  I'm in your
hands.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Oh, I see members looking for a break, so if we
could break now, 15 minutes.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I think we had a disagreement or a
misunderstanding about what that meant last time, and so we actually
ended up having lost about --

Why don't we -- why don't we agree that we're going to reconvene the
session at 11:30, and if people are here, they will be able to carry
on.

That's 15 minutes.

We seemed to have drifted last time, so the break -- let's have a 15-
minute break, which means we're going to be reconvening this session
at 11:30.  Thanks.

[ Break ]

>> Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.  We're going
to begin our session very shortly.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Could everyone please be seated.  We will begin our
session.

Could everyone please be seated.  We would like to begin.

Before we continue with the board's walking us through the scorecard,
there are a few points that the GAC would like to raise related to
procedure.

I think we may have an issue with process, and there may be some
misunderstanding, so the GAC would like to clarify at least our
thinking on this so that hopefully we can move ahead.

We have, indeed, had useful exchanges with the board and also with the
community on Tuesday this week, and on Monday the GAC discussed its
best current thinking with the board and did so in good faith.

The board asked for that meeting to conclude early, or not as
anticipated later that day, and it was our understanding that the
board would make use of that time to return to the GAC to talk through
its views on what we have presented so far.

The GAC has almost finalized its formal response to the board on each
of the 80 scorecard responses, and we had understood that the time
today would be for the board to provide feedback to the GAC that we
could use to finalize these responses.

If the board is unable to do this -- and we understand that it may
need more time and so on -- then I suggest we finalize this part of
our ongoing discussions and the GAC could use the remainder of this
day to further progress those written responses that we are working
on.

We do expect to be able to provide a formal written response to the
board's GAC scorecard feedback shortly after the close of these
meetings in San Francisco.

So we are here, we have well above 40 sovereign entities seated around
this table, and we do want to engage and continue to engage in good-
faith consultations with you.  However, we do have questions and we
would like to clarify the process and clarify the board's
understanding, so that we can make the best use of this time today,
whether it is jointly as a board and GAC or whether it is separately
as a GAC and board continuing their respective efforts to advance
progress in resolving all these issues that remain.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Thanks, Heather.

Yes.  I think, first of all, it would have been much easier if we had
had the -- obviously, the GAC written response when we started.  But
not having got it, it was very helpful to hear the GAC's best current
thinking on Tuesday.

And, yes, we have come back with some responses to that, and we've
looked at the transcript and we can look at the transcript again, and
we have more now of the best current thinking that we've got in
response to the oral comments that we got on Monday.

So I think that is where we're at in the process.

And we should carry on doing that as our best-faith response to the
oral comments that we got on Tuesday.

So let's -- I think let's carry on doing that, and we can give you the
thinking in response, and if you need more time to complete your
paper, as we have done, I'm sure, you know, you will benefit from that
time.

So my understanding is that we should continue going through,
responding to the bullet points that you gave us on Tuesday.  We'll
seek further feedback from that, and see if we can't do what the
bylaws say and try and reach some mutually acceptable solutions on
these topics.

So we're ready to move forward on the areas that we've noted the GAC's
thinking so far, and happy to discuss those, and happy to get more
feedback on any of those.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Peter.

It might be useful if the board topic leads are able to engage with
the GAC on the substantive matters.  If, indeed, you do have a
response prepared today on those scorecard issues, it may help the
interaction, if we may proceed on that basis.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, no.  I think as you did with the xxx,
we've gone through a process to work at how to make this most
efficient.  I'm in Jabber contact with all of the topic leads and
they're helping me through this process.  We think that it makes it
easier if there's a single voice.

So but rest assured if there are any questions for the topic leaders,
they can be put and answered.  It will just be answered through the
chair.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Would any GAC members like to ask a question or
comment?

I see the U.K. and Australia.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Yes.  Thanks very much, chair.

Just with regard to rights protection, as I recounted a couple of days
ago, following the scorecard discussions in Brussels when there was
some very useful progress made and there were questions raised with
the GAC very usefully at that meeting, and that was followed up by
written questions, a set of 15 questions, and we worked very fast to
turn around those questions.

We submitted 14 responses, clarifying responses, across a range of the
rights protection mechanism issues that are detailed in the scorecard.

There is one question which is still the subject of some internal
discussion within the GAC, but the 14 were submitted to the board
side, so we hope that they will have informed the board and staff with
regard to the previous scorecard responses from the GAC, and we hope,
of course, that they will have enabled the board's side to see what
adjustments could be made in the rankings, 1Bs and 2s.

So I just wanted to explain for the benefit of this meeting that
through that effort, we've -- which has involved full GAC
consultations and also consultations with national IP policy experts,
we've endeavored to try and sort of move the particularly detailed
rights protection agenda forward, and I came this morning in the hope
that we may hear now from the board as to whether those clarifying
answers that we have submitted have helped to refine the responses
and, as I say, move us towards convergence on as many as possible.

So I guess that's the particular state of play with regard to rights
protection, as I see it, and I'd be interested to hear from Peter and
his colleagues whether that is sort of the mutual understanding.

And sort of while on this, I guess some of the specifics of the rights
protection issues are really suitable for -- if there are -- if there
is agreement in principle about implementation issues or textual
issues for the guidebook, we could move to some dedicated sort of
joint group to polish those off, if you like, once the principles have
been well-established.

So I'm still mindful of that as an opportunity that we could construct
for closing off as much as possible, as early as possible, with ready
access to IP policy expertise as necessary.

So that's my view on where we are and the process with regard to
handling the specific IP area, with all its complexities, and as well
as key principles that we've set out in the scorecard and in our
clarifying responses.

We didn't post those publicly.  That was a mistake.  I hope -- I don't
know if Bruce can confirm whether, from the staff's side, it's been
possible to post the GAC 14 answers now.  We weren't able,
unfortunately, to do it from the GAC side, but I hope those answers
are publicly available.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Can we just respond on the process point
first, Mark?

I understand I think we were told that we were not to post them, but
let's just clarify.

Rita, you're the topic leader on that one.  Where's Rita gone?

If not Rita, Bruce can respond.

Thanks.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Okay.  This one works.

Yeah, Mark.  I had asked you, I guess, if they could be publicly
posted.  You had said there were some difficulties with doing that on
the GAC side.  And then I mentioned it to ICANN staff and they said I
should first check with the chair of the GAC before posting a GAC
document.  And I believe at least verbally -- perhaps Heather can
confirm whether we do have permission, if you like, to publish that
document formally.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Bruce.

I think we need to confirm with the GAC membership whether those
responses to those questions can be published at this time, so let us
take that as a next step on our side to ensure that there is no
further delay in posting those.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Mark, having gotten the procedural point out
of the way, it seems they haven't been posted which makes a slight
difficulty, but we've certainly received them and looked at them and I
think when we go back -- when we get to the trademark position, if we
can incorporate any of those, we will.

I think the other question that we will be asking you is -- about this
is that when we get to the trademark, things -- we've obviously had a
lot of public comment on the trademark comments in the public
consultation process, and we'll be looking to see whether the GAC has
taken account of any of that and changed its position as a result of
the public consultation from the trademark community.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  I have Australia and Switzerland.

>>AUSTRALIA:  I've spoken with Switzerland and I'm happy just to pass
straight to them.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Switzerland, please.

>>SWITZERLAND:  Thank you.

In response to the procedural question that you -- or proposal that
you made in the beginning, having witnessed a discussion this morning
about the early warning and the objection procedure, I think there are
at least -- maybe there are other points where we have some
fundamental misunderstandings or unclarities between the GAC and the
board, or at least some members, on fundamental things which makes me
think that we would need some more innovative thinking, some more kind
of thinking outside the box, instead of just keep repeating to each
other that we are waiting for each other's written responses, which I
think is not really the most efficient way to deal with the issues
where we have fundamental problems -- it might be something else for
the issues that are almost closed, but -- so I wonder whether it would
not be useful for these -- at least for these issues where we have
fundamental unclarities or misunderstandings that we would open up the
floor to everybody who has a good idea that can put it forward,
whether or not it's agreed by his constituency, and maybe even decide
to break up into small informal groups to do some thinking outside the
box in order to make the best use of the time that we have here when
we all meet physically.

So the question is:  Do you think that would be an approach that might
be helpful?

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Just -- can we just perhaps get off this?
We're ready to talk about trademarks.  The issue about whether or not
the paper has been published is a relatively technical matter.  Let's
talk about -- let's move on and talk about some of the substance.

As you requested, you want to know what our current thinking is on a
number of topics.  Let's not get into an endless loop about whether a
paper has been published.

I'd like to move, if I can, to a different topic, which is 4.2, which
is the requirement that new gTLD applicants provide information on the
expected benefits of the proposed gTLD.

This was a topic that I think Portugal was involved with, and Ray was
the leader on our one, and the change -- the issue here is, we think
we are ready to look at requiring applicants to publish some further
information with their -- as part of the application process.

I think the point from our side is fairly clear that this has to be a
minimal additional burden on applicants, to the extent possible, while
still meeting the requirement of collecting useful data.

We just want to make it clear that we do not regard this as imposing
any additional evaluation requirements on the applicant.  This is not
going to be part of the evaluation of -- and you all understand the
multiple evaluations that go on.

This data is not going into that.  It's to be used for later economic
studies.

So we heard, in the public consultation, some very concrete
suggestions from the business community about what kind of additional
information might be useful, so again, we'd be interested to hear from
GAC members, if we are going to start including additional questions,
what are the kind of -- what is the kind of information that people
would find useful.

So there's our current thinking that we -- this may be a helpful move.
What is it that would be useful, without imposing too great a burden
on the applicant.

Heather.  Sorry.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  I see Germany asking for the floor.

>>GERMANY:  Yes.  Thank you.

But I would like to come back to the proposal of Switzerland because I
think, yes, there are quite a lot of issues that are near to be
solved, like this mentioned on economic studies and market impact, but
on the other hand, there are several issues that are outstanding.

I understand there is some movement in the discussion and we are -- is
GAC prepared to come to some solutions, and I wonder whether this
proposal from Switzerland is not quite helpful, to establish smaller
groups and discuss the issues in depth and try to find -- at least
understand each other what we are talking about.

Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Germany.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Is everybody waiting for an answer from me?
I'm not quite sure.

That's a suggestion that we stop doing what we're doing now, is it?
Or is it that we do it at some later date?  And if we break into small
groups, what groups would they be and by when would they report and
how would that impact the paper that the GAC is presently producing
and how would it affect our current response seems to me to be
difficult to overlay or insert in our current process, is my off-the-
cuff reaction.

I certainly don't think we should interrupt what we're doing now,
which is giving our current thinking and asking for feedback and then
have you produce your paper.

If there's any suggestion that we stop there, I think that would be
difficult.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  United States?

>>UNITED STATES:  Thank you, but I think if I can add a comment to
what my colleagues from Switzerland and Germany have already proposed,
in a slight twist on what you are suggesting that we are actually
engaged in.

If we could convert it, we like to use a word in the U.S. -- and I
think many of my colleagues use it at home -- a "brainstorming
session," perhaps, where we should explore different ideas and
options.

So for example, to take the last point, I believe you mentioned that
you had some very constructive input from the business constituency,
and I'm guessing that was perhaps on Wednesday, if somebody could
correct me, because I don't know that that happened on Monday.

But regrettably, the GAC was not able to participate in that public
forum because we were in a plenary session ourselves.

So apologies to the business constituency for not being intimately
familiar with the proposal you made on this point.  But again, if that
proposal could be surfaced and then we could perhaps respond to it, if
you are, in fact, inviting us to amplify the original request from the
GAC, which from the perspective of if you're an applicant and you
expect to have a new top-level domain that goes into the root, it
didn't strike us as being a burden to the applicant.  I think that's
the phrase you used.  That, to us, is not a burden to the applicant to
make a case as to why their new top-level domain string proposal is in
the public interest, will meet -- will produce some benefits for the
broader community.

That's all we're seeking.

But if there are proposals out there that you are willing to
entertain, then perhaps that's the kind of brainstorming we should be
engaging in on concrete proposals that you are, in fact, willing to
entertain, if that's what you're signaling.

It's just hard for us to understand what it is you are prepared to
move with, where you are prepared to go on some of these.

So I think that's what we're looking for is the signals of movement
forward.

Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Well, you know, that's what I'm trying to do
here now is give you those indications of where we've changed some
thinking.  I think we should carry on with that.  I think that's a
most useful exercise.

I think the first one is into the rights protection area, and that's
the -- that's 6.1.2 about sunrise and IP claims.

Now, this is slightly difficult because you didn't give us this on --
this is responding, in fact, to the Brussels consultation more, and
the suggestion really is here that while the IRT and the STI suggested
either/or, what seems to have emerged is that what people are really
talking about is that everyone ought -- must be claims -- must offer
the claims service and sometimes they should offer sunrise as well.

So rather than the choice being either/or or both, we're prepared, I
think, to treat this as being sort of claims plus.

So there's -- the claims service needs to be run, the notification
service, and occasionally, on other conditions, operating the other
one.

The other one that's been helpful here, I think, is this concept that
we've been exploring about the trademarks filing their use provisions,
and we've had a lot of feedback from that, and I think our position
has been further explained there.

I'm not sure there's much other change until we've finished the
analysis of the paper, so moving --

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Australia, you have a question or comment on that?

>>AUSTRALIA:  Yeah.  I think just a clarification on 6.1.2.

I just want to clarify what I just heard.

Was what you just said, Peter, that the IP claims service would
effectively continue in perpetuity and the sunrise service would be an
optional addition to that?

I just wanted to clarify if that was what I heard.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  Yes, I think that's the way we're thinking at
this stage, that these things, there's a recognition that some of
these need to continue beyond the launch phase.

>>AUSTRALIA:  Yes.  Thank you for that clarification.  Very useful.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  Thanks. that's, obviously, a very positive
indication.  But you mentioned, Peter, undertaking further analysis.
Can you indicate when you will have completed that analysis, which I
presume includes consideration of the GAC's clarifying written
responses as well as the public comments we've heard.  And, indeed,
picking up on your earlier question, we did -- we have noted, those of
us who are particularly following the intricacies of the I.P. rights
protectionism mechanism issues, we did pick up on some useful,  very
useful pointers from that public forum.  But, I say, could you
indicate when your further analysis will be complete?  That will be
helpful.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   That's a very easy answer, mate.  We're just
waiting for the written paper that you talked about on Tuesday.  We're
assuming that's going to be your view on these topics, which will
incorporate the answers to the questions that you've given and so
forth.  So, really, we're just waiting for that.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:  But, if I can just come quickly back.  As I said
earlier, we need an understanding of how our written answers have
informed your previous scorecard rankings.  Can you -- I thought the
analysis you were mentioning just now was from your side taking into
account the written answers and the public comments that were made in
the open public session.  Have I misunderstood?  Sorry.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Well, yes.  I might ask the topic lead to
help on this.  But the position is we're still in the process of
absorbing your written answers to some questions and some public
comment.  But we want you, really, to put the whole thing and your
report -- Rita, are you able to help with the way we're treating your
comments and the answers to the questions?

>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON:  Sure.  Mark, I think those comments were
really helpful, as we said on Monday.  And we -- I think our general
position when we responded to your scorecard, as was evidenced by our
written remarks, was that we went as far as we could to accommodate
the many requests and still keep in mind a balance with the consensus
position that was expressed by the IRT and the STI throughout this new
gTLD process.  We wrote those responses to your scorecard before we
had the benefit of your written answers.  So, given that they're not
public, I think the board has been a little bit looking for guidance
from staff. Because we want to have the community understand what your
comments are so they can be fully involved in the dialogue here.  But,
that being said, your answers have been used to inform the debate that
the board has had this week.  We've also used the transcripts from
both of the public sessions that were very helpful with the community
constituency comments.  We got very specific comments from the IPCs,
registrars, registries, and others.  And all of those have been taken
into account.  I think the board will retire today to perhaps talk a
bit.  But we are definitely in a position, I think, to resolve these
issues in a way that can add to this balance and try to make as many
people as happy as possible.  And your written responses, your open
dialogue here, the comments that many of the GAC members have made
have been very, very helpful in those determinations and
deliberations.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I'm ready to move forward.  So we can move on
from that, I think, to the consumer protection part of this.  And the
position from the GAC scorecard was to maintain an abuse point of
contact and to require local registries to cooperate with law
enforcement.  And we gave this a 1B.  And we've done some further work
on this.  And this is, again, just our current thinking.  We think
that if governments -- and we're not sure of the role of the GAC in
this.  But, if something -- if the governments can identify a point of
national contact relating to law enforcement, then registries and
registrars ought to be required to respond on a timely basis to
requests from their national point of contact.  And I recall not being
assisted much on this by the intervention from Greece.  We were trying
to avoid the situation where, take my example, a registry operator in
New Zealand would have to respond to a request from a foreign country
relating to foreign law.  We're trying not to make this too heavy
handed.  We understand that, in fact, in terms of registrar
operations, law enforcement is much less than spam and other issues.
But this needs to be dealt with very carefully.  So there's movement.
And we're working through how we actually make this work.  The idea
being that it's to augment, not replace, existing law enforcement
mechanisms, trying to provide greater assistance.  We think that it
might be possible -- again, just current thinking.  We haven't costed
this -- that it might be possible for ICANN to maintain a Web site
with a directory of the national point of law enforcement contact as
designated by the countries or by the GAC.  We accept, I think -- and
I'm not sure whether this is new -- that registries operating in an
abusive manner would be brought before the PDDRP on an expedited
basis.  And we think we can look at the rules of that and make sure
that can happen.  And registry agreements can be terminated in the
event of abuse.  And, again, this is a 1B.  We're looking at
mechanisms here.  And we've got general agreement with the principle.
We need to work through ways of identifying these enforcement agencies
and making clear what the terms and conditions are.

The worry here, of course, is that we're trying to avoid the situation
where foreign law enforcement agencies are contacting registries in
foreign countries and getting confusion about which law is being
applied.  Quite clearly, only the national law is applicable to the
registry.  But there's lots of levels below the application of law,
such as the provision of information, et cetera, but then that gives
rise to the different privacy laws and data protection rules.  So we
need to get those sorts of principles reasonably clearly established,
that it's the registry operator is bound by their national law and
must cooperate with their national law agency.  Foreign or external
law enforcement officials need to work through the national agencies
to get to the particular registries.  So I'm not sure there's any
disagreement with the principles.  It's just a question of the
application of that and then establishing the names and putting up the
data.  So I think we've moved forward some thinking on that.  I don't
know whether that's a time to stop and ask if the GAC can again help
us with improving our current thinking on that.

>> Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  I see United States and United Kingdom.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Thank you, Peter, for the update on
that.  One useful way forward for us to understand your current
thinking is, of course, ultimately, is to get that in writing.  So, if
your suggestion is you think that our current thinking somehow still
goes too far, it would be useful for us to know that.  And, if I could
just make a suggestion, I know we have registry operators in the room.
And I believe we have some law enforcement people in the room.  There
was an abuse of the DNS session earlier this week where there was a
public forum.  So, actually, one suggestion would be to have a quick
consultation involving some of those entities.  Because a lot of what
we are proposing actually occurs today.  So we're actually not
proposing anything new.  We simply, because the guidebook was not very
definitive on this point, we thought it was incredibly useful to make
sure that all new registry operators understand that this is an
affirmative obligation.

And I think, if we could, whether today or at some point in time have
an exchange, a really broad exchange with the registry operators and
law enforcement together, I think it would become more clear to the
board just how much of this activity is already occurring.  So these
are not new suggestions, per se.  It's just to elevate them in the
guidebook because it wasn't very clear.

Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:   Thank you, U.S.    U.K.

>>UNITED KINGDOM:   Thank you very much.  I thought what Peter was
describing in terms of possible implementation was very encouraging.
And I think that's -- some very useful thinking is clearly going on
there.  As I say, I think it's really encouraging.  The Web site
proposal -- obviously, there's a very immediate channel for populating
that Web site with the key data through the GAC representatives for
those countries that are represented in the GAC.  And I could easily
see that being implemented very readily and then reviewed on a regular
basis.  With the help of our GAC secretariat, data on the Web site
could be reviewed or perhaps at every time the GAC meets to ensure
that it's up to date and as comprehensive as possible.

For those countries that are not represented on the GAC, of course,
many of us in the GAC are engaged in bilateral and multilateral fora.
We're engaged with those countries, and we could certainly easily
determine points of communication that would bring that data in for
those countries that are not represented in the GAC.  So that's my
immediate thinking.  And, as I say, I think it's a very positive
suggestion to make that the GAC will want to consider.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:   Thank you, U.K.  Any further comments?  U.S?

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Thank you.  And sorry for taking the mic
again.  Just a point of clarification, it is the case today that
registry operators get -- receive overtures from foreign law
enforcement.  It is the case.  And what our experience tells us is
that, if the operator were not entirely confident that it was a
legitimate request, for example, if it was, you know, the first time
ever, that they can easily contact their own national law enforcement
representatives to help confirm that the request is, in fact,
legitimate.  So I think that was the key point the GAC was trying to
get across.  As I think I mentioned Tuesday -- and this goes back to
-- I think Bill and I will try to get the transcripts from it.  There
was a February 24/25 law enforcement session in Brussels hosted by the
EU Commission with a lot of registrars, registries, many of whom are
in the room.  There is always a challenge for law enforcement to be
able to identify every single agency at every level in each country.
So, for example, the FBI does not and cannot maintain a list for every
single law enforcement entity in the entire United States.  Nor does
INTERPOL.  I believe we have an INTERPOL representative here.    Two
of them.  INTERPOL does not either, per se.  We do have a list of
their membership, et cetera,    et cetera.  So I'm not entirely sure.
I would appreciate a little more clarity as to what the board's
thinking is on the value of trying to maintain a list on your site
when I think it's been our experience that trying to even develop such
lists is very challenging and very problematic.  What I do recall as
being agreed in that session in February in Brussels between law
enforcement and the registrars was that they would collaborate on
developing a template that everybody could use for handling such
requests, right?  And that in the template, it would be easier to
identify the origin of the request.  And then so you could then quite
easily go to your local law enforcement agency to verify that they
have, in fact, had dealings with that particular LEA from another
country.  So that is, I think, more of the direction that we're going
in.  I'm not entirely sure it is possible for anyone to maintain a
list of all national law enforcement agencies.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:        I don't think the goal was to -- well,
I understand the difficulty of preparing the list you were describing.
But I don't think we were suggesting that.  What we thought you wanted
was that every government would name the person in their country who
would be the point of contact for foreign agencies to come through.

So that's what the national point of contact is there for.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:   U.S., please respond.

>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:   Thank you.  Actually, no.  I think our
request was that the requirement you have for each registry operator
to maintain an abuse point of contact is that that point of contact
also understand up front the expectation that they would need to
interact with law enforcement.  That is the position.  And that, when
they receive an overture from a non-national, non-domestic law
enforcement entity, they have, of course, the opportunity to verify
the credentials by going to their own domestic law enforcement entry.

So, again -- and I'm looking -- there is one member of the board who
comes from a registry operator.  Well, I'm not trying to set you up.
But I, actually, think we could clear the air fairly quickly with a
bit of a seminar at some point because a lot of this exists today.  So
there is a great deal of experience I think we can learn from.  But
the point behind the GAC request is that it was not clear in the
guidebook.  We are seeking to make that clear.  Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Well, I think there's a considerable
difference then between what we're thinking and what you're wanting.
I don't think we've responded yet to the template concept.  We've been
responding to you via the national point of contact.  Perhaps I'll ask
Ram Mohan, who was topic leader on that, just to clarify our current
thinking around the national point of contact.  Ram?

>>RAM MOHAN:  Thank you.  And thank you for the interventions and for
the input.

Our perspective is that we're not that far away.  We're not, you know,
very far away in, really, what we want to do together.  There is clear
acknowledgment that registries and perhaps even registrars ought to be
able to respond timely when there are requests that come through from
law enforcement.  I think we have clear agreement on that.  And what
Peter was reading out or was speaking about, I think, are ideas and
concepts about how to make that happen, how to put it into
implementation.  And it feels to me that we can actually sit together
and drive this from the agreement in principle to actually the
specific points.  For instance, this national point of contact and the
thought process.  When we discussed it inside, and inside of the team
that I was leading, we actually felt that there was a clear way
forward that allowed for addressing the concerns that governments had
raised here so far.  And, if there is some clarity, more clarity that
is required, we will definitely work towards getting that level of
clarity.  But, in general, what I'd like to say is, number one, we
understand the concerns that you have raised.  In general, we actually
concur with the direction that you would like -- you know, you're
advising us to go.  And there are a few steps still left.  And we're
certainly open for these extra consultations and extra discussions
that you're talking about.  We're definitely open to that.  But, as a
general approach, we're very close, you know, for this to -- you know,
to be just a done deal.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you very much, Ram.  I see the European
Commission.

>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION:   Thank you, yes.  I just want to concur with
the views expressed by my U.S. colleague, actually.

I think there is an area of misunderstanding here that we can easily
clear up.  The propose, as I understand it from our law enforcement
colleagues, was not that they would provide the registries with a list
of contact points in their organizations.  They're asking that we need
to be able to give them a list of points of contact in the registries,
who they can contact.  That was the proposal, as I understood it.  I'm
willing to take your comments back.  But that was my understanding.
If there was 100, 200, 300, new gTLDs, we need to be able to tell them
that each one of those registries will have a point of contact that
they can contact if they have a problem.  There's, obviously, the
other issue about how they verified them.  And I think the U.S.
pointed out there that there may be existing ways in which that's
dealt with at the moment.  Best practice that we can copy.  But I
think there is a misunderstanding between the board and the GAC on
that point.  Thank you.

>>RAM MOHAN:   May I quickly respond?

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Please do, yes.  The suggestion seems to be
there should be a registry point of contact.  And we've been talking
about a national point of contact.  So we probably need to clarify
that.

>>RAM MOHAN:  Right.  I think there is an understanding that, in the
current applicant guidebook, there is a registry point of contact for
abuse.  And that is a requirement.  And, as far as -- just to
paraphrase what I think I've heard, what you're asking is that that
registry point of contact must be required in some way to respond
timely to requests.  The concern that we've had is that a registry
point of -- so if you look at the abuse contact, if they get a request
from someone from some other jurisdiction that they're not in, that's
where, I think, we have some concerns.  And that's where perhaps we
need to have some more discussion.  But, other than that, there is
already in the guidebook a clear requirement that an abuse point of
contact must exist and that this abuse point of contact must respond
timely to requests that come through that are validatable.  And all
we're trying to do is to say that validation, perhaps, could come
through the national points of contact that are defined.  So that's
really where we're thinking it might go.  I hope that helps.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Ram.  I see nodding happening.  Erika,
you're next.  No?  Okay.  No need to speak.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:  I think sort of the general point, obviously,
is that registry operators will respond to law enforcement.  And they
can check with their local law enforcement to verify requests.  That's
the other side of the coin.

I think we're probably about ready to break for lunch, but it might be
helpful to finish up on one that we've been quite -- where we're up to
with the JAS working group and the idea of support for needy
applicants.  And, again, I think this is something that we've been
pretty clear on agreeing.  It's a question of the mechanism to get
that agreement.  And so the point here -- I think we could say this:
ICANN is committed to providing both in-kind and financial assistance
to those who need it.  ICANN will work with the community to develop a
sustainable and effective program to provide this assistance.  Since
it's a community effort, the board welcomes any and all proposals
regarding ways and means to provide that assistance.  And the board is
looking forward to the report from the JAS working group so the
community can commence this work.  The next thing is there's been some
suggestions that some operators would have lower technical standards.
And we're making the point, again, that our thinking is that minimal
technical requirements for operating a registry are expected to be
consistent across applications.  So, just to close on that, we're
awaiting the final report of the JAS working group.  And, as we've
said before, I think we'd like to receive that as soon as possible.
So I think that's a little further advance on our thinking there.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you for that, Peter.  I see Kenya.

>>KENYA:  Thank you for that and welcome the board's response.  I
think I would like to find out when is the deadline?  When are we
likely to be receiving this JAS report?  I think it's important in
terms of then how the process continues.  Thank you.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Ray, do you have a comment?

>>RAY PLZAK:  Yes.  The group that's been working on this, we're
looking at actually seeing that coming from the JAS sometime in mid
May.  We -- you know, they've got to work out their own deadlines.
But we're going to put a request that it happen around that time.  So
that would give it to us in plenty of time to move on with other
things.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you.  Any further comments?  Brazil?

>>BRAZIL:  Thank you.  I think there are two points to be considered
when we're talking about developing countries and inclusiveness in the
new gTLD programs.  The first one is regarded to -- is related to
translation to languages in which there are a lot of Internet users, a
significant number of Internet users that may be interested in the new
gTLD program.  So translating key documents to -- and key
announcements to this language is something that should be taken into
account.

Second point I would say that, considering the idea of cost reduction,
apart from the discussion of public interest we're having here, when
we talk about possible objection from private sector in developing
countries, we would like to suggest that these objections should have
done in reduction cost basis or in order to guarantee the
accessibility of the private sector from developing countries into the
current procedures of objections.  So I think this is a suggestion
that has to be taken into consideration by the board before the JAS
report.  So just giving this as an input for the consideration of the
board.  >>HEATHER DRYDEN:  Thank you, Brazil.  Any other comments?
With that, I think we can conclude this morning's exchanges and break
for lunch.  Shall we reconvene at 2:00.  2:00 in this room, please.
Thank you.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH:   Thanks, Heather.