ICANN GAC-BOARD CONSULTATION.
28 FEBRUARY 2011.
BRUSSELS.
***LIVE SCRIBING BY BREWER & DARRENOUGUE - WWW.QUICKTEXT.COM***.
.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. COULD YOU START TO TAKE YOUR SEATS, PLEASE.
WE WILL BE BEGINNING IN TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. WELCOME BACK TO BRUSSELS. WELCOME PARTICULARLY FOR THIS CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ICANN AND THE ICANN BOARD ON IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ARISING FROM ICANN'S PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS TRUCKS, PROGRAM FOR TRUCKS OF NEW gTLDs.
MY NAME IS PETER DENGATE THRUSH, I AM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ICANN BOARD, AND I AM JOINED TODAY BY THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICANN ON MY LEFT, ROD BECKSTROM.
IT IS GOING TO BE CHAIRED BY THE HED HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEATHER DRYDEN, AND IT GIVES ME PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE JEREMY BIEL, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CONTRIBUTION.
I AM OBVIOUSLY THE FRONT END OF A HUGE TEAM WHO HAS BEEN WORKING FOR MANY YEARS ON THE NEW gTLD PROJECT. AND JUST A REMINDER, THIS IS THE THIRD ROUND, IF YOU LIKE, IN ICANN'S EXPANSION OF THE GENERIC NAMESPACE.
WE BEGAN THE FIRST ROUND IN 2000, AND WE HAD A SECOND ROUND IN 2004. AND THIS ROUND BEGAN IN 2005. AND SO EXPANSION OF THE GENERIC NAMESPACE IN AN ORDERLY AND SAFE WAY IS EMBEDDED IN THE DNA OF ICANN. IT FORMS PART OF THE TICK, FOR EXAMPLE OF OF OUR VERY FIRST MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
AND THIS PARTICULAR ROUND KICKED OFF AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK IN 2005 IN THE GNSO. THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION OR DIVISION, IF YOU ARE THINKING IN CORPORATE TERMS, INSIDE ICANN RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING GENERIC NAME POLICY.
AND I WILL JUST READ FROM SOME HIMENTS FROM THAT POLICY AS IT WAS PASSED TO THE BOARD.
NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MUST BE INTRODUCED IN AN ORDERLY, TIMELY AND PREDICTABLE WAY. THE EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR NEW gTLD REGISTRIES SHOULD RESPECT THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, TRANSPARENCY, AND NONDISCRIMINATION. ALL APPLICANTS FOR A NEW gTLD REGISTRY SHOULD THEREFORE BE EVALUATED AGAINST TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE CRITERIA, FULLY AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCESS.
NORMALLY, THEREFORE, SUBSEQUENT -- NO SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS.
SO THE BOARD ADOPTED THOSE GENERIC STATEMENTS FROM THE GNSO IN 2008, AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SINCE THAT TIME, INCLUDING, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW THE PUBLICATION OF FIVE SETS OF RULE BOOKS THAT WE CALM THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.
AND WE PRODUCED WHAT WE NOW CALL THE FINAL DRAFT OF THAT, AND RELEASED THAT BEFORE OUR MEETING IN COLOMBIA AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, AND THE FINAL COMMENTS ON THAT AND ASPECTS OF THAT HAVE NOW CLOSED AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED.
NOW, THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNOUNCED IN CARTAGENA AND PUBLISHED IN ITS COMMUNIQUÉ THAT IT RELEASED AFTER THAT THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT IT WISHED TO GIVE FURTHER ADVICE ABOUT. AND FROM THAT DISCUSSION, THE CONCEPT OF THIS MEETING EMERGED, THAT THE WAY OF ADDRESSING THE GAC CONCERNING THE NEW gTLD PROCESS WOULD BE TOCH A CONSULTATION LIKE THIS.
AND A FANTASTIC AMOUNT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THEN. WE HAVE HAD WEEKLY CALLS, FOR EXAMPLE, BY THE BOARD ACTION TEAM PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER. THERE HAS BEEN LIAISON BETWEEN THAT GROUP AND THE MEETINGS TEAM, FINDING A VENUE IN THE WORLD TO HAVE A CONSULTATION LIKE THIS IS NO EASY TASK AND ARRANGING THE ACCOMMODATIONS AND OTHER THINGS, LIAISING WITH THE GAC, LIAISEING FROM INSIDE THE BOARD, TOPIC LEADERS ON EACH OF THE 12 TOPICS MENTIONED IN THE GAC AND LIAISEING WITH THE SAME KIND OF LEADERS THAT THE GAC HAS PUT UP IN RELATION TO EACH OF THOSE TOPICS AND THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF CALLS BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES, JUST TO MENTION SOME OF THE ACTIVITY THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
SO -- AND A FEW DAYS AGO, THE END OF THAT PROCESS WE HAVE NOW GOT FROM THE GAC A TREMENDOUS THING THAT THE GAC CALLS ITS SCORECARD WHICH ASK THE GAC ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ITS KEY ADVICE ON THESE PARTICULAR PROCESSES. SO THAT'S A TREMENDOUS PIECE OF WORK. I PAY TRIBUTE TO ALL OF THE GAC MEMBERS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO WRITING THAT, ASSEMBLING THAT, EDITING THAT AND GOING INTO ALL OF THE WORK THAT DOES THAT. AND WE DO APPRECIATE HEATHER AND OTHER GAC MEMBERS, SOME OF THE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS OF WORK IN THE GAC, AND WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT'S GONE INTO PRODUCING THAT FOR US. IT'S A TREMENDOUS PIECE OF WORK AND IT WILL BE THE FOCUS OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS AS WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GAC CONCERNS ARE. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND JUST A FEW WORDS IN OPENING ABOUT GAC ADVICE IN GENERAL, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO ICANN TO HAVE A STRONG, FULLY FUNCTIONING GAC, PROVIDING ADVICE ON PUBLIC POLICY MATTERS WHICH ARE THE PROPER PRESERVE OF GOVERNMENTS IN ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
SO WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THAT WORK IN GENERAL, AND FOR THE SUPPORT THAT WE GET IN ICANN FROM GAC MEMBERS IN THE ICANN FORUM ITSELF AND ELSEWHERE FOR THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
SO WE APPRECIATE THE ADVICE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US. AND WE'RE HERE TODAY AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF LISTENING TO THAT ADVICE.
THE GOAL OBVIOUSLY IS TO MOVE TOWARDS CLOSURE, AS I HAVE INDICATED. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS NOW FOR MANY YEARS. IT'S A VERY LONGSTANDING PROJECT, AND THE COMMUNITY IS READY. AND THE BOARD AND THE GAC ARE NOW VERY CLOSE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY IN THIS PROCESS FROM THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE IS CLARITY. WE ARE HERE TO REALLY GET VERY CLEAR WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, AND THEN WHAT THE GAC ADVICE ABOUT THOSE ISSUES IS, AND HOW THEN TO TAKE IT FORWARD.
IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE INTERACTIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD LEADING UP TO THIS AND INCLUDING A VERY NICE DINNER THAT WE HAD TOGETHER BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE GAC AND THE STAFF LAST NIGHT THAT DESPITE SOME INDICATIONS IN SOME OF THE MEDIA, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ADVERSARIAL SESSION. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT MY INTENTION THAT IT BE AT ALL ADVERSARIAL.
NOR IS IT ANYTHING LIKE THE BOARD VERSUS THE GAC OR ANY OF THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ICANN. WE ARE ALL HERE FOR THE SAME GOAL. WE ALL WANT THE SAME OUTCOME. WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOOD WILL. AND THAT IS A SAFE, ORDERLY, PREDICTABLE EXPANSION OF THE GENERIC NAMESPACE.
THE BOARD'S JOB OF COURSE IS TO CONSIDER IN BALANCE THE GAC ADVICE. BALANCE IT WITH MANY COMPETING PRESSURES. WE HAVE GOT AN EXISTING COMMUNITY POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WHICH HAS EXPRESSED ITS VIEW ON A NUMBER OF THESE ISSUES.
THERE ARE SOMETIMES TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TO MAKE SURE THINGS ACTUALLY WORK IN A SAFE AND STABLE WAY.
THERE IS OCCASIONALLY LEGAL ISSUES, EXISTING CONTRACTUAL MATTERS AND OF COURSE THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK THAT WE OPERATE IN.
ANOTHER PERHAPS OBVIOUS POINT, THIS IS NOT A BOARD MEETING. SO THERE WON'T BE -- IT WON'T BE ENDING, AS SOME OF OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS DO, WITH A SERIES OF BOARD RESOLUTIONS DEFINING AND CRYSTALLIZING PROCESS. THIS IS A LISTENING AND CONSULTATION SESSION. THIS IS NOT THE CONSULTATION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE UNDER THE BYLAWS IF WE PROPOSE TO DISAGREE WITH GAC ADVICE.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT WE HAVE ARRANGED, CONSISTENT WITH OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES THAT WE LIVE BY, TO PERMIT AS MUCH OBSERVATION AND PARTICIPATION BY OTHERS AS POSSIBLE. AND SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR STREAMING AND MAKING THIS AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS.
WE DO HAVE THE FACILITY TO GO INTO FOUR OTHER BREAKOUT ROOMS, IF ON ANY OF THESE PARTICULAR TOPICS THE GAC TEAM AND THE BOARD TEAM THINK THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE WOULD BE HELPFUL, THEY CAN GO AND DO THAT. THE EXPECTATION IF THAT OCCURS, WHEN THOSE TEAMS COME BACK IS THAT THEY WILL REPORT IN TO THE RECORD SOME OF THE OUTCOMES FROM ANY SUCH PRIVATE SESSIONS.
SO THE FORMAL GOAL IS TO BE CLEAR WHERE WE STAND BY THE TIME WE MEET FOR THE ACTUAL SCHEDULED BYLAWS CONFERENCE THAT WE HAVE SET FOR SAN FRANCISCO ON MARCH THE 17th.
WE EXPECT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE GAC BETWEEN NOW AND SAN FRANCISCO WITH THE TOPIC LEADERS. IF ANY ISSUES REMAIN AFTER THE BRUSSELS CONSULTATION.
STRUCTURE OF THE ROOM . I UNDERSTAND THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT THIS ISN'T THE MOST PRODUCTIVE FORMAT FOR THAT. I HOPE WE CAN THINK ABOUT THAT AND LEARN FROM ANY LESSONS TODAY. AND IF NECESSARY, WE MAY ADJUST THINGS PERHAPS FOR TOMORROW. HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE OFF THAT NOW.
STRUCTURE OF THE DAY. WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE GAC THAT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO AS THE BOARD IS HEAR FROM THE GAC ON ALL OF THE ISSUES AND MAKE SURE THAT BY THE END OF TODAY, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EACH OF THE TOPICS AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE GAC SCORECARD SAYS AND HOW IT RELATES AND ASK QUESTIONS. SO VERY MUCH AN INFORMATION, FACT-GATHERING DAY, TO BE VERY CLEAR WHAT THE GAC SCORECARD SAYS AND MEANS. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THERE WILL BE SOME QUESTIONS, AND THEN SOME DISCUSSION.
FOR TOMORROW, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, THEN, IS REVISIT THOSE ISSUES WHICH HAVE EMERGED AS LIKELY TO REQUIRE OR BENEFIT FROM FURTHER CONSULTATION.
SO WE'LL GET INTO HOPEFULLY SOME VERY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE TOPICS AT THAT STAGE.
FINALLY, IN RELATION TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE BOARD HAS PUBLISHED THE STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS NOT A BOARD MEMBER SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A RESOLUTION ABOUT PARTICIPATION. I'M EXPECTING ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO BE CONTRIBUTING AND PARTICIPATING AS THEY ALWAYS DO. OCCASIONALLY ON SOME TOPICS, SOME BOARD MEMBERS MAY FEEL -- AND THIS IS ENTIRELY AT THEIR DISCRETION -- THAT THEY WON'T PARTICIPATE ON ONE OR MORE TOPICS.
SO, HEATHER, I HAND OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS FROM YOUR SIDE AND FROM THE GAC AND RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THE VERY WILLINGNESS AND OPENNESS OF THE GAC TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONSULTATION.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.
THE GAC IS REALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY. AS YOU MENTIONED, A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO DEVELOPING OUR SCORECARDS. HOWEVER, I'M REALLY PLEASED TO POINT OUT THAT THE SCORECARD DOES REPRESENT GAC CONSENSUS VIEWS.
WE DID HAVE A MEETING YESTERDAY TO PREPARE FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSIONS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO REFINE AND ADJUST SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WE EXPRESSED IN THE SCORECARD.
SO WE HOPE THAT THAT WILL HELP FURTHER OUR PROGRESS IN EXCHANGING WITH YOU TODAY.
AS YOU POINTED OUT, THERE ARE GAC TOPIC LEADS ON EACH OF THE TOPICS, AND TODAY WE'RE EXPECTING THE TOPIC LEADS TO PRESENT THE GAC VIEW. AND IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS THEY MAY ANSWER, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GAC MAY ALSO WISH TO ANSWER TO HELP CLARIFY AND ADDRESS ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE FOR US.
SO THIS HAS BEEN, AS I MENTIONED, A REALLY WELCOME OFFER THAT WAS MADE TO HOLD THIS MEETING. AND THE GAC HAS BEEN ADVISING, SINCE ITS PRINCIPLES IN 2007 ON NEW gTLDs. AND WE SEE THIS AS BEING THE EXTENSION OF THAT. WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING PARTICULARLY NEW, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY BE HEARD, AND HOPE THAT OUR ADVICE WOULD BE TAKEN IN AS A RESULT OF THIS CONSULTATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE GAC TO SPEAK. THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR GOVERNMENTS. THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE REGARDING NEW gTLDs. AND WE DO HAVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS GOVERNMENTS, AS PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
AND SO I WILL ALLOW THEM TO CONVEY TO YOU A SENSE OF THAT PERSPECTIVE BEFORE WE BEGIN TODAY.
SO I'M LOOKING OUT INTO THE AUDIENCE NOW. IF THERE ARE GAC MEMBERS -- Ah, I SEEEUROPEAN COMMISSION. PLEASE.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: THANK YOU, AND I WILL BE VERY BRIEF BECAUSE I CAN SEE WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA OF ITEMS TO DISCUSS TODAY.
BUT MY NAME IS WILLIAM DEE. I AM FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. I AM THE GAC REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMISSION AT THE GAC, OBVIOUSLY.
AND I HAVE JUMPED IN EARLY, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AROUND IN THE GAC FOR QUITE A WHILE AND I HELD THE PEN ON THE GAC PRINCIPLES WHICH WE ADOPTED IN 2007.
I POINT OUT THAT THE WORK INSIDE THE GAC ACTUALLY STARTED WELL BEFORE THEN. THAT WAS THE ADOPTION DATE, MARCH 2007.
I THINK SOME OF US LIKE TO THINK THAT WE ALSO HELPED KICK OFF THE NEW gTLD PROCESS BACK IN 2005 WHEN WE STARTED DRAFTING THESE PRINCIPLES AND WORKING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. I REMEMBER WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE GNSO, WITH ICANN STAFF, BEFORE WE ADOPTED OUR FINAL SET OF PRINCIPLES. I THINK WE THINK THEY ARE REASONABLE, FAIR, COMMON-SENSE PRINCIPLES.
I THINK ANYBODY WHO READS THEM WOULD NOW RECOMMEND TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE GAC APPRECIATE THIS MEETING TODAY READ THAT DOCUMENT. IT'S A FAIRLY CONCISE DOCUMENT.
I STRESS THIS POINT BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE A BIT CONCERNED TO HEAR FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AN IMPRESSION THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE THAT THE GAC IS AGAINST THE NEW gTLD PROCESS, WHILE I THINK NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT ONE OF ICANN'S CHIEF GOALS WHEN IT WAS CREATED WAS TO INTRODUCE COMPETITION INTO THE NEW gTLD MARKET.
AND BACK IN 2005-2006, SOME OF US WERE A BIT CONCERNED THAT AFTER EIGHT OR NINE YEARS, ACTUALLY, THERE WAS STILL A VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL OF CONCENTRATION IN THAT MARKET, IN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR MARKET, ACCORDING TO ICANN'S OWN REPORTS AT THE TIME.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE ENCOURAGING ICANN TO MOVE FORWARD. AND WE THOUGHT THE BEST WAY WE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCESS IS TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK OF PUBLIC-POLICY PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD ON WHAT GOVERNMENTS FELT WOULD BE DESIRABLE IN THE PROCESS, AND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME RED LINES.
AND IT WAS INTENDED TO HELP THAT PROCESS AND TO TRY TO AVOID, I GUESS, IN MANY WAYS, THE SITUATION WE'RE IN TODAY.
SO I THINK IT WAS MEANT WITH BEST EFFORTS. I THINK THAT'S STILL THE WAY FOR GOVERNMENTS TO PROCEED, IS TO TRY AND STICK TO PRINCIPLES, THE LEVEL OF PRINCIPLES.
I AM VERY PLEASED THAT WE HAVE THIS MEETING. I THINK I JUST MADE THE OBSERVATION THERE MIGHT -- FOR THE FUTURE, WE MIGHT REFLECT ON THE FACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE USEFUL IF THIS MEETING WAS TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, I THINK. IT SEEMS TO BE A LACUNA WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR GAP BETWEEN GAC ADVICE AND THE PDP AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. AND IT'S REALLY NOW ONLY HERE TODAY THAT WE ARE START TO GO CLOSE THAT GAP, I FEEL. SO I WELCOME IT VERY MUCH AND I HOPE THIS IS A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE.
BUT I SHALL LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE FOR NOW.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I AM NOW LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM AGAIN. I SEE NORWAY. PLEASE.
>>NORWAY: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ØRNULF STORM FROM NORWAY.
THANK YOU, BILL, FOR THOSE WORDS .
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU, PETER, FOR THE WORDS YOU SAID, YOU APPRECIATED THAT WE TOOK THE TIME, SPENT TIME ON THESE ISSUES AND THAT YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU APPRECIATE THE GAC ADVICE. AND YOU ALSO WANT A STRONG GAC.
WE, FROM THE NORWEGIAN PERSPECTIVE, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN FAVOR OF A VERY STRONG GAC. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE ROLE OF THE GAC, ADVISORY OR NOT, HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT WE BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS ICANN MODEL TO FUNCTION, FOR US, AT LEAST FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT WE SEE THAT THE ICANN BOARD TAKE ON BOARD THE ADVICES FROM THE GAC. BECAUSE IF DO YOU NOT, THEN WE FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT TAKING THE GOVERNMENT SIDE SERIOUSLY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, WELL, WE DO HAVE THESE NEW gTLD ISSUES NOW, BUT I THINK THERE MIGHT BE MORE AT STAKE HERE. OTHER ISSUES WILL COME.
AND I THINK WILLINGNESS TO DO THIS KIND OF MEETING AS WE HAVE HERE SHOWS US THAT YOU ALSO WANT TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE THING.
SO I REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE THE PROSPECTS OF GETTING AN AGREEMENT, AND THAT WE HAVE THE PROSPECTS OF HAVING THE MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNMENTS THAT YOU CAN SEE OUR PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, AND THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR ADVICE SERIOUSLY. SO THAT WE HAVE THE FEELING THAT WE WILL BE HEARD IN THIS CONTEXT.
SO I THINK THAT'S -- I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THIS gTLD ISSUE HERE. I THINK THERE'S MORE AT STAKE. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REPEAT THAT, THAT WE REALLY FEEL IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO SAY THIS, THAT WE MUST SEE SOME PROGRESS ON THESE ISSUES.
AND AS BILL REMINDED US, GAC WAS REALLY EARLY IN THIS PROCESS. AND I THINK IF WE HAD MORE DIALOGUE A LITTLE BIT IN THE PAST, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN HERE AT THE PRESENT TIME DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.
THANK YOU.

>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, NORWAY.
I HAVE ITALY AND THEN UK.
>>ITALY: STEFANO TRUMPY FROM ITALY.
NO DOUBT, THIS NEW gTLD PROCESS IS A REAL CHALLENGE FOR ICANN. IF NOT, THE BEST, THE MORE IMPORTANT CHALLENGE. BECAUSE IT REALLY ADD SOMETHING THAT THERE SHOULD BE IN THE BENEFIT OF THE USERS AND OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. AND WE HAVE THESE TWO ELEMENTS TO CONVERGE.
AND WE LEARNED IN THESE PAST YEARS WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESS THAT THE COMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING THAT, AS MUCH AS WE DISCUSS AND COMPLEXITY INCREASES INSTEAD OF LETTING THINK THAT THE PROCESS IS RATHER EASY.
BUT THE POINT NOW IS THAT THE PROCESS HAS TO START. AND THE MEETING THAT WE HAVE HAVING TODAY, I WOULD SAY THAT SHOULD BE A CONVERGENCE PLAN IN ORDER TO LET THE PROCESS START. AND THEN WHEN THE PROCESS WOULD START, SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ALSO THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE GAC ADVICE WOULD BE REFINED. THERE WOULD BE THE NECESSARITY OF A CONTINUOUS ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO LET THIS PROCESS TO BE -- TO REALIZE THE GOALS THAT WERE CONCEIVED AT THE BEGINNING.
SO I AM CONFIDENT THAT TODAY AND TOMORROW WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONFRONT, MAYBE, ALSO SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS. BUT WE SHOULD TRY TO ADJUST SOMETHING, BUT ASSURE THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC DATE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THE PROCESS TO ACTUALLY START.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, ITALY.
I HAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THEN I HAVE THE UNITED STATES.
THANK YOU.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HEATHER, AND OUR THANKS ALSO TO PETER AND ALL THE TEAM FOR CONVENING THIS MEETING. IT'S A VERY USEFUL AND IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO, AS YOU SAY, JOIN TOGETHER IN ADDRESSING SOME VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT INITIATIVE, TO LAUNCH A NEW OPEN ROUND OF gTLD APPLICATIONS. AND ONE THAT'S CRUCIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNET. WE WELL RECOGNIZE THAT. AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE CERTAINLY BROADLY SUPPORTED IT AS LIKELY TO PROMOTE COMPETITION, INNOVATION, AND OPPORTUNITIES FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
THIS IS A MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS, ICANN NEEDS TO ENSURE THAT IN LAUNCHING THE ROUND, IT TAKES FULL REGARD TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST GLOBALLY.
GOVERNMENT MINISTERS, PARLIAMENTARIANS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, COMPETITION AUTHORITIES, USERS, BUSINESS COMMUNITIES, CONSUMERS, ALL LOOK TO GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN THE GAC TO ENSURE THAT ALL THEIR INTERESTS ARE FULLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
AND A LOT OF THOSE INTERESTS ARE CRUCIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD, CERTAINLY, SINCE 2008. A LOT OF HARD WORK DONE BY THE ICANN STAFF.
AND THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX INITIATIVE, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMENTED ON. IT'S VERY, VERY INTRICATE, COMPLEX PROCESS THAT THE LAUNCH IS GOING TO INVOLVE.
AND WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE ADVICE, THE CONSULTATIONS WHICH ICANN STAFF HAVE DEDICATED TO HELPING US IN THE GAC EMBRACE THIS INITIATIVE AND CONTRIBUTE TO DEVELOPING ALL THE PROCESSES THAT IT REQUIRES.
IT'S BEEN WELL RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOVING THE INTERNET FORWARD, THERE ARE RISKS. AND THESE, IN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW, NEED TO BE ADDRESSED COMPREHENSIVELY AND ROBUSTLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DANGERS AND COSTS TO BUSINESS AND RISKS TO CONSUMERS ARISEING FROM CYBER SQUATTING AND MALICIOUS CONDUCT NEED TO BE MITIGATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES IN THESE CONSULTATIONS. WE REALLY SHARE THAT OBJECTIVE WITH ICANN. I'M SURE WE DO THAT. IT'S GETTING TO THAT POINT WHERE WE FEEL THE BALANCE IS RIGHT AND SO ON.
AND THIS HAS TO BE A TRULY INCLUSIVE INITIATIVE THAT ENGAGES STAKEHOLDERS AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. SO THAT'S A PARTICULAR FOCUS AS WELL FOR THE GAC, TO ENSURE WITH ITS WIDE REPRESENTATION ACROSS THE WORLD, TO ENSURE THAT THAT INCLUSIVITY IS ACHIEVED.
ANY SIGNIFICANT FAILURE IN ADDRESSING THESE RISKS IS NOT GOING TO HELP INTERNATIONALLY. THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL ENDED, FOR GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET, TO MANAGE AND COORDINATE THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
THE FUTURE OF ICANN, YOU COULD ARGUE, IS AT STAKE HERE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. AND I THINK WE ALL SHARE THE OBJECTIVE TO ENSURE THAT THAT RISK OF FAILURE AND HANDING OVER TO THOSE PARTIES IN OTHER FORA WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE FAILURE, TO ENSURE THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
SO WITH THOSE THOUGHTS IN MIND, WE CERTAINLY EMBRACE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH YOU. AND AS PETER QUITE RIGHTLY SAID, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. LET'S ACHIEVE SOME RESULTS.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, UNITED KINGDOM. UNLESS I SEE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST, UNITED STATES WILL BE THE FINAL SPEAKER IN THIS OPENING SESSION.
UNITED STATES.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. THIS IS SUZANNE SENE. I AM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES AT THE GAC.
I ALSO WANTED TO CHIME IN AND JOIN MY COLLEAGUES, AND OBVIOUSLY VERY CLEARLY CONCUR WITH THE SENTIMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED.
CERTAINLY WE VERY MUCH WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXCHANGE VIEWS ON SOMETHING AS CRITICAL AS THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDs.
BUT I HAVE TO SAY, WE, TOO SHARE THE SENTIMENT THAT THIS MEETING IS IMPORTANT FOR FAR MORE THAN THAT. WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A VERY PIVOTAL MOMENT IN THE GAC/ICANN RELATIONSHIP. THAT WE CONSIDER OURSELVES CERTAINLY A SIGNIFICANT MEMBER OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS AS WE GO DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE WE DO THINK IT'S GOING TO BE, AS MARK SAID, AS ØRNULF SAID, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US. WE ARE ACTUALLY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR PUBLIC FACE IN EVERY NATIONAL CAPITAL. IT IS THE GAC THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS ICANN.
SO IT IS OUR JOB TO REPORT BACK UP THROUGH OUR POLITICAL MANAGEMENT FOOD CHAIN AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHY IS IT HAPPENING AND WHAT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, AND ON WHAT BASIS HAVE THEY BEEN TAKEN AND HOW ARE THE PUBLIC-POLICY CONCERNS THAT THE GAC HAS BEEN ADVANCING FOR, OH, THESE MANY YEARS, HOW ARE THEY BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?
SO THAT IS WHY THIS IS SO CRITICAL , BECAUSE WE NEED SOME ACTUAL, DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THE GAC DOES PROVIDE ADVICE, IT ACTUALLY IS -- ICANN IS SEEN TO BE ACCEPTING THAT ADVICE AND TO WORKING WITH IT.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES.
PETER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE OVER FOR THE....
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, HEATHER. THANKS TO ALL THOSE GAC MEMBERS FOR THOSE COMMENTS. RESONATING WITH ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, I'M SURE.
LET'S COME INTO THE FIRST OF THE ITEMS OF WORK. I THINK UP ON THE SCREEN YOU SHOULD SEE THE THINGS. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TAKEN THEM IN THE ORDER THAT THEY APPEAR IN THE GAC SCORECARD. AND ASK -- I AM JUST CHECKING WHAT I HAVE....
I CAN'T QUITE SEE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN THERE.
IT'S IN THAT ORDER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO, GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ROOM, WITHOUT ANY INTENT TO LIMIT INPUT FROM ANY GAC OR BOARD MEMBER, IS ASK THE TOPIC LEADER FROM THE GAC TO COME UP AND JOIN US UP HERE. AND ALSO, THE TOPIC LEADER FROM THE BOARD TO COME UP AND -- IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, THAT'S FINE. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK FROM THERE. BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE MORE HELPFUL IF WE CAN SEE YOU AND CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE -- WHAT WE HAVE JUST SUBTITLED, IT SAYS THE OBJECTIONS AND REVIEW OF SENSITIVE STRINGS TOPICS.
CAN WE BEGIN WITH THAT? AND THEN ACCORDING TO MY SHEET, THE GAC LEADS ON THAT, HEART, ARE HERBERT SHOTNER AND SUZANNE AND THE LEAD FROM THE BOARD IS BRUCE SUPPORTED BY AMY.
WOULD THE GAC LEADS LIKE TO COME UP AND JOIN US FOR THAT?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I BELIEVE SUZANNE SENE FROM THE UNITED STATES WILL BE LEADING THE DISCUSSION.
AND SOME MEMBERS MAY WANT TO STAP AT THEIR DESK BECAUSE IF THEY ARE USING THEIR LAPTOP TO RECORD, IT WILL CREATE A BIT OF A DISRUPTION. I SEE NODDING.
YES, PLEASE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SUZANNE, YOU ARE GOING TO LEAD THIS ONE? YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT FROM THERE?
>>SUZANNE SENE: YES, IF I MAY.
SHALL I PUT UP MY HAND SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE I AM? I AM ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROOM. AND I CAN SEE YOU ALL VERY CLEARLY SO THANKS VERY MUCH.
I AM NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO WALK THROUGH WHAT'S IN THE SCORECARD BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS IT IN FRONT OF THEM. SO IF ANYBODY HAS ANY DISCUSSIONS IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR US TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE. AND THIS IS AS HEATHER STATED QUITE CLEARLY AT THE OUTSET, THIS IS A CONSENSUS POSITION OF THE GAC.
AS WE LOOKED AT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, REGRETTABLY WE SAW THAT WHILE THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION HAD BEEN AMENDED FOR MORALITY AND PUBLIC ORDER, OR AS WE, THE GAC, USED TO AFFECTIONATELY CALLED MoPo, IT WAS AMENDED TO SOMETHING CALLED THE LIMITED PUBLIC INTEREST, OR LIMITED PUBLIC ORDER OBJECTION. MY APOLOGIES. THE TEXT ITSELF REMAINED THE SAME.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IT PROVIDED THE SAME SORT OF CONCERNS TO GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE, FROM OUR VIEW IT WAS A -- PRESENTED A RATHER FLAWED PROCESS. AND SINCE IT SEEMED TO STAND AS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM FOR GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, WE GAVE IT QUITE A GREAT DEAL OF SCRUTINY.
SO JUST AT THE OUTSET, A COUPLE OF MARKERS TO PUT DOWN.
THERE ARE SOME REFERENCES IN THERE TO INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, WHICH OF COURSE WE HAD NO ISSUE WITH. AS GOVERNMENTS WE HAVE NEGOTIATED MOST OF THOSE TREATIES IN WHICH YOU WOULD FIND THOSE PRINCIPLES. HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN TAKEN TOGETHER, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT A COLLECTION OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW DOGS NOT REALLY CREATE AN INTERNATIONALLY AGREED STANDARD THAT CAN BE USED IN AN OBJECTIVEWE ALSO FELT QUITE CANDIDLY AS YOU LOOK AT THE PROCESS A GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO PAY A FEEL TO FILE AN OBJECTION. IT WOULD THEN HAVE TO AGREE TO WORK WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ITS DISPUTE ENTITY WHICH, IN TURN, WOULD BE GUIDED BY PANELS OF SO-CALLED EXPERT -- JURIDICAL EXPERTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD. QUITE CANDIDLY FROM A SOVEREIGNTY PERSPECTIVE, THAT WAS A VERY CHALLENGING PROCESS TO BE ABLE TANDOORS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE NOW AT THIS POINT SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE DAG NOT APPLY, IT NEEDS TO EXPLICITLY STATE THAT IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO OBJECTIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE, WE THINK IT IS INAPPROPRIATE, THE CONCEPT THAT A PANEL OF EXPERTS WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL A GOVERNMENT WHETHER THE BASIS FOR ITS OBJECTION HAD ANY MERIT IS REALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO GOVERNMENTS.
OUR OTHER CONCERN IS THAT IF THE MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS THIS WERE NOT AFFECTIVE AND WE CONSIDER THIS TO BE INFECTIVE, UNWORKABLE, THEN GOVERNMENTS WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO TAKE OTHER ACTION. THE MOST OBVIOUS ACTION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE BLOCKING. WE CONSIDER BLOCKING AT THE TOP LEVEL TO BE RATHER HARMFUL TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DNS AND WE HAVE, IN FACT, BEEN GUIDED BY SOME VERY, VERY CAPABLE TECHNICAL EXPERTS WHO HAVE DEFINITIVELY TOLD US THAT YES, INDEED, BLOCKING IS HARMFUL TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DNS. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER MAIN OBJECTIVE WE HAD. WE WANTED TO MINIMIZE ANY INCENTIVE THAT A GOVERNMENT MIGHT HAVE.
WE ALSO WANTED TO CAPTURE, FRANKLY, THE PRACTICAL AND POLITICAL REALITY THAT ANY GOVERNMENT MIGHT FEEL STRONGLY THAT A PROPOSED STRING WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO THEM WOULD TAKE WHATEVER ACTION THEY FEEL NECESSARY, THE OBVIOUS ACTION, AGAIN, WHICH I JUST STATED IS BLOCKING WHICH IS HARMFUL.
SO THE GOAL WAS TO REPLACE WHAT APPEARED TO BE -- MY APOLOGIES TO SOUND FLIPPANT. I DON'T MEAN TO BE. BUT THE SCENARIO THAT COMES ACROSS WHEN YOU DESCRIBE TO DESCRIBE THE WHOLE INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDs QUITE CANDIDLY COMES ACROSS TO SOME OF OUR POLITICAL MANAGERS AS "ANYTHING GOES." FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, YOU PAY YOUR MONEY, YOU GET IN THE QUEUE, BOOM, YOU ARE IN WITH NO CONSIDERATION OF THE HARMS AND THE COST TO CONSUMERS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE VERY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT STRINGS THAT GENERATE NEGATIVE DOMESTIC REACTIONS, WHICH THEY WILL, WILL ULTIMATELY BE TAKEN UP WITH INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS RATHER THAN WITH ICANN.
IT IS THE GAC MEMBERS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF CONTROVERSIAL OR OBJECTIONABLE STRINGS INTO THE DNS. AND IT WILL BE INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS THAT WILL BE CHALLENGED TO EXPLAIN WHY AND HOW SUCH STRINGS MEET A GLOBAL OR EVEN A NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARD.
SO WHAT WE'VE ALSO TRIED TO DO, THOUGH, IS INTRODUCE ANOTHER CONCEPT THAT WE WILL GET TO IN THE SENSITIVE STRINGS IDEA, IS TO FLESH OUT WHAT WE HAD FIRST ADVANCED IN MARCH 2007 WITH THE GAC NEW gTLD PRINCIPLES, THAT WE WOULD URGE YOU GREAT CAUTION AT THAT TIME TO AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE CERTAIN STRINGS MIGHT GENERATE SENSITIVITIES.
NOW, I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE US TO DEFINE THAT WORD BUT I THINK FROM A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE, USING IT AS DIPLO-SPEAK, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN TERMS THAT MIGHT IDENTIFY EITHER A COUNTRY, A CULTURE, AN ETHNICITY, A RELIGION, ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, A GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION, THOSE THINGS RAISE SENSITIVITIES AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO OFFER A LITTLE MORE GUIDANCE IN THAT REGARD. BUT JUST STICKING TO OBJECTIONS, OUR POSITION IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE DAG AMENDED TO CLEARLY STATE THAT THE LIMITED PUBLIC INTEREST OBJECTIONS PROCESS WOULD NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENTS. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, SUZANNE. BRUCE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR SUZANNE RATHER THAN THE CONSULTATIVE DEBATE SIDE OF THE THING, ANY ASPECTS REQUIRING CLARITY? AND AFTER BRUCE, I WILL ASK ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY WANT TO QUESTION THE RATIONAL BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF ADVICE? BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, PETER. IT IS PROBABLY EASIEST, I AM GOING THROUGH THE GAC SCORECARD AND USING THAT NUMBERING CONVENTION. I HAVE FLIGHTILY SEPARATE COMMENTS FROM SECTION 1 VERSUS WHAT I CALL SECTION 2.1. SECTION 1 HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE GAC ADVICE, THE WAY I'M READING IT ANYWAY -- AND MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY THIS FOR ME -- IS DELETING THE WHOLE SECTION.
THE CONCERN THE BOARD HAD WITH THAT WAS THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED MOST OF THE OBJECTION PROCESSES IS THAT WE HAVE A CONCEPT OF AN AREA OF AN OBJECTION AND WE ALSO HAVE A CONCEPT OF CRITERIA THAT ARE USED TO EVALUATE THAT OBJECTION AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE CONCEPT OF STANDING, WHO HAS STANDING TO OBJECT.
AND THIS WAS A PARTICULAR AREA THAT HAD A LOT OF BOARD DISCUSSION OVER A NUMBER OF MEETINGS AS TO WHO HAS STANDING TO OBJECT IN THIS GENERAL AREA. AND SO IT WAS OBVIOUS TO US THAT THE GOVERNMENTS DID HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT, AND SO -- BUT WE RECOGNIZE YOUR FEEDBACK TO US THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO USE THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS.
BUT WE STILL FELT THAT THE WAY WE HAD WORDED IT IS OTHER PARTIES HAD STANDING TO OBJECT AS WELL AND WE WOULD USE A PROCESS TO EVALUATE THAT AGAINST WHAT WE WERE SORT OF LOOKING AT GENERALLY, INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW.
NOW, RECOGNIZING THAT THAT WOULD STILL NEED TO LOOK AT HOW THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED IN NATIONAL LAW, SO IF TAKING RACE AS AN EXAMPLE, IF A PARTICULAR GROUP WHICH MIGHT EVEN JUST BE A SUBGROUP OR MIGHT BE A GROUP THAT'S SPREAD ACROSS MULTIPLE COUNTRIES FELT THAT A PARTICULAR STRING WAS RACIST OR CRITICIZING THEM IN SOME WAY, THAT THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY IN THAT AREA THAT COULD BE USED AS A STARTING POINT TO SAY THERE IS AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY THAT MANY GOVERNMENTS HAVE SIGNED UP REGARDING RACISM. AND MANY GOVERNMENTS THAT MIGHT BE IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED THE TREATY HAVE SOME FORM OF NATIONAL LAW THAT RELATES TO RACISM AND THEN A PANEL WOULD THEN CONSIDER THAT, THOSE NATIONAL LAWS IN AGGREGATE AND THEN FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR STRING WAS RACIST AND THAT WOULD FORM PART OF THE PROCESS.
REALLY, MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO US CONTINUING TO USE A PROCESS LIKE THIS WHERE PARTIES OTHER THAN GOVERNMENTS COULD RAISE AN OBJECTION AND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT WE COULD USE TO HAVE EXPERTS LOOK AT THAT FROM USING NATIONAL LAWS RELATE TO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES? IT IS A BIT LONG-WINDED, BUT THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF THE QUESTION.
>>SUZANNE SENE: THANK YOU FOR THAT, BRUCE. THANK YOU, HEATHER, APOLOGIES. YES, APOLOGIES THAT I WASN'T MORE CLEAR AT THE OUTSET. IN OUR DISCUSSION YESTERDAY AMONGST OURSELVES, WE DID AGREE THAT WE NEEDED TO BE MORE CLEAR, PERHAPS, AND RATHER THAN SUGGESTING THE COMPLETE DELETION OF THE SECTION, THAT WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT THIS SECTION BE AMENDED TO INDICATE IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENTS. IS THAT HELPFUL?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, BRUCE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO THIS?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I ASSUME WE ARE GOING ON THEN TO THE NEXT TOPIC?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I WAS GOING TO CHECK WITH OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY ALSO WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION. I KNOW YOU ARE THE TOPIC LEAD, AND I'M PRETTY SURE YOU ARE -- LET'S MOVE ON, IF THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, TO THE NEXT TOPIC.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PROBABLY SUZANNE AS WELL.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF SENSITIVE STRINGS.
>>SUZANNE SENE: THAT WOULD BE ME AGAIN. THANK YOU. WELL, SINCE THE EXISTING OBJECTIONS MECHANISM WAS CONSIDERED TO BE UNWORKABLE, WE WENT BACK TO OUR OWN SORT OF BASIC RULES OF PROCEDURE AND LOOKED AT THE GAC ITSELF AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS -- THE GAC IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLATFORM FOR GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE OBJECTIONS. THAT IS ACTUALLY PART OF OUR FUNCTION HERE, IS TO COORDINATE PUBLIC POLICY VIEWS AND CONCERNS AND TO COMMUNICATE THOSE TO THE BOARD.
SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IN THE INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GAC TO LOOK AT A SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS AND ANY GAC MEMBER -- AGAIN, THIS IS FROM A SOV CERTAINTY PERSPECTIVE. ANY GOVERNMENT THAT THINKS IT HAS AN OBJECTION CAN RAISE IT WITHIN THE GAC, AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE GAC.
SO THE GAC HAS THE DISCRETION, ACCORDING TO ITS NORMAL RULES OF OPERATION, TO EITHER AGREE TO THE OBJECTION AND AGREE ON WHATEVER KIND OF ADVICE IT BELIEVES APPROPRIATE ON A CONSENSUS BASIS TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD.
GAC ADVICE COULD ALSO CONCEIVABLY SUGGEST MEASURES THAT COULD BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE -- TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT MIGHT BE RAISED SHALL VIS-À-VIS ANY PARTICULAR STRING.
AND OBVIOUSLY THEN AS PER THE NORMAL OPERATING PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE BYLAWS, THEN IF THE BOARD WERE TO DETERMINE THAT IT WOULD NOT ACCEPT GAC ADVICE, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT THE BYLAWS PROVISIONS TO APPLY AND THE BOARD WOULD PROVIDE A RATIONAL TO THE GAC FOR ITS DECISION.
SO, AGAIN, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THIS MEETS SEVERAL FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT GOALS FOR GOVERNMENTS. IT PROVIDES GOVERNMENTS WITH AN EFFECTIVE MECHANISM. WE DO CONSIDER THE GAC TO BE AN EFFECTIVE PLATFORM, TO CONVEY GOVERNMENT VIEWS.
IT IS CERTAINLY A MORE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
AND IT AFFORDS GOVERNMENTS AN EARLY OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE ICANN BOARD ABOUT PARTICULAR PROPOSED STRINGS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT IS SUPPORTIVE OF ICANN'S COMMITMENT TO ENSURING THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE IN THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT THEY DO REFLECT COMMUNITY CONSENSUS.
SHOULD I CONTINUE ON WITH THE NOTION THAT WE'RE URGING YOU TO EXPAND THE -- NO?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK BRUCE HAS SOME QUESTIONS ON -- SO LET'S COME BACK TO BRUCE ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PETER.
AND CERTAINLY, SUZANNE, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE IN A WAY IS ALREADY IN THE BYLAWS, THAT THE GAC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADVICE. SO I GUESS WHAT'S PARTICULAR ABOUT THIS CASE IS TO HOW WE FIT THAT PROCEDURALLY INTO THE NEW gTLD EVALUATION PROCESS AND ONE OF THE THINGS, AS PETER SAID, IN TERMS OF THE INITIAL OBJECTIVES, I THINK THEY'RE SHARED BECAUSE I SEE SIMILAR WORDS IN THE GAC PRINCIPLES, BUT THAT THE PROCESS BE SORT OF PREDICTABLE AND ORDERLY AND TRANSPARENT, ET CETERA. AND IT IS MAKING SURE THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE FIRST PART OF THAT, YOU MENTION IN YOUR GAC SCORECARD THAT YOU HAVE THE EARLY OPPORTUNITY TO -- AS PART OF THE INITIAL EVALUATION, TO SEE THE LIST OF NAMES. AND WE'D MAKE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY IN SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY GENERALLY SO IT WOULDN'T JUST BE FOR THE GAC.
BUT THERE IS A SENSE OF THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU MIGHT ENVISAGE GIVING A RESPONSE. SO IF THE GAC HAD AN EARLY LOOK AND GAC MEMBER RAISED AN ISSUE AND IT WAS THEN CONSIDERED IN THE GAC, HOW WOULD YOU SEE THE TIMING OF THAT WORKING? WOULD THE GAC ACTUALLY HAVE A PRESCHEDULED MEETING SO IF ICANN SAYS IT IS GOING TO HAVE THE INITIAL EVALUATION BY A PARTICULAR DATE, WOULD YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED READY IN CASE THERE WAS SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL? WE JUST NEED A BIT OF A SENSE OF, HOW YOU SEE THE WORKING TIMING AND HOW THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR AN APPLICANT.
>>SUZANNE SENE: WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO A POINT OF SORT OF FIGURING OUT WHAT DISCRETE PROCESSES WE WOULD NEED BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FROM YOUR SIDE, FROM ICANN. SO FORGIVE US IF WE HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD, BUT IT IS OUR -- IT SEEMED TO US AT THE INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD, IS IT 45 DAYS? FOR THE INITIAL PERIOD? AT SOME POINT, I THINK WE BELIEVE THAT WE COULD WORK WITH A 45-DAY PERIOD. IT IS JUST KNOWING WHEN IT STARTS AND THEN COUNTING 45 DAYS. BUSINESS DAYS, CALENDAR DAYS, WHATEVER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S VERY USEFUL. WE WEREN'T SURE WHETHER IT WAS SORT OF OPEN-ENDED. I THINK IF IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS AND IF THE PERIOD IS 45 DAYS AND YOU'RE, I GUESS, DOING YOUR OWN INTERNAL PLANNING AROUND THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST POINT THAT SHOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
THE SECOND POINT WE HAD WAS, I GUESS, ULTIMATELY YOU ARE PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE BOARD AT THAT POINT AND THE BOARD'S THEN GOT TO CONSIDER THAT ADVICE. WHAT SORT OF DETAIL WOULD YOU ENVISAGE BEING IN THAT ADVICE? JUST TO GIVE YOU EXAMPLES THAT WE ARE WANTING CLARITY ON, WOULD YOUR ADVICE BE ABOUT THE STRING OR WOULD IT BE ABOUT THE PARTY THAT'S APPLYING FOR THAT STRING OR WOULD IT BE BOTH? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THE GOVERNMENT THINKS A PARTICULAR NAME, THE NAME ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE THERE REGARDLESS OF WHO RUNS IT, MAYBE THAT GOES ON TO SOME SORT OF RESERVE LIST OR ARE YOU REALLY FOCUSED ON THE ACTUAL APPLICATION AND SAYING THAT THIS PARTY IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PARTY TO RUN THIS PARTICULAR NAME?
>>SUZANNE SENE: IT CERTAINLY COULD BE BOTH. THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO PUT MORE FLESH ON THE BONE ON WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A SENSITIVE STRING. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THE STRING ITSELF. IT WOULD BE WHO IS APPLYING FOR IT AND ARE THEY THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY AND DO THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM A RELATIVE ENTITY.
I WOULD LIKE TO PAUSE HERE FOR A MINUTE AND ASK MY COLLEAGUES. WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE LINK BETWEEN THIS REVIEW AND ACTUALLY WHAT'S AT THE END OF THE AGENDA, EARLY WARNING. SO THE TWO ARE ACTUALLY QUITE LINKED. AND I WOULD DEFER TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE ROOM TO ADDRESS THAT AND WHAT OUR GOALS MIGHT BE THERE AND HOW WE COULD PERHAPS MARRY THE TWO CONCEPTS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I SEE GERMANY. THANK YOU.
>>GERMANY: YES, THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS HUBERT SCHÖTTNER FROM (SAYING NAME). I AM A GAC REPRESENTATIVE. YES, INDEED, ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE LINKED AND I AM THE LEAD FOR GEOGRAPHIC NAMES AND WE HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION HOW TO DEFINE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. AND THERE WE LEARNED THAT ALTHOUGH IN THIS CONTEXT THIS EARLY WARNING SYSTEM -- SYSTEM OF COMMENT COULD BE USED FOR GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE THEIR OPINIONS IN REGARD WHETHER THEY CONSIDER CERTAIN STRINGS AS GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS A STRONG LINK WHERE WE COULD USE THIS TIME WINDOW AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE APPLICATION FOR ALSO THIS PURPOSE. THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST -- IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION ON THAT, HUBERT. AT THIS STAGE, THEY'VE PAID 185,000. THEY HAVE PROBABLY SPENT MAYBE THE SAME AMOUNT IN PREPARING THEIR APPLICATION, GETTING ADVICE, ET CETERA. SO THEY PUT SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IN AT THIS STAGE.
WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING THEY DO AT THAT POINT? SO AT THIS POINT OF THE PROCESS, THEY GET ADVISED THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE. ARE YOU EXPECTING THEY CAN WITHDRAW, OR ARE YOU EXPECTING THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION? WHAT'S THE EXPECTATION AFTER YOU HAVE DELIVERED THAT ADVICE?
>>GERMANY: IF I SPEAK ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, I THINK IT IS JUST FOR A QUESTION OF IDENTIFICATION. AND WE HAVE A CERTAIN PART OF THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WITH CERTAIN REGULATIONS FOR GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. I THINK IN PRINCIPLE, THE APPLICANT WOULD USE THE SAME APPLICATION AND IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO PROCEED AS FORESEEN.
MOST OF THE APPLICANTS I HAVE TALKED TO, THEY KNOW VERY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTING A GEOGRAPHIC NAME AND, THEREFORE, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
IF IT IS REALLY ADVICE FOR THE SENSITIVE STRINGS, YES, THEN IT WOULD BE A QUESTION WHERE WE THINK IT WOULD BE -- WE SHOULD TRY TO HAVE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE EXIT AND CREATE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE EXIT. BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD AND WE SHOULD (INAUDIBLE) FOR THE APPLICANT. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD SUGGEST IN THIS REGARD.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY. I HAVE THE U.K. ASKING FOR THE FLOOR.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES. THANK YOU, HEATHER. I MEAN, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I THINK WHAT THE GOVERNMENTS ARE SORT OF PRIMARILY TRYING TO DO AT LEAST IS TO HELP POTENTIAL APPLICANTS AND AVOID THEM BLUNDERING INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE COMMITTED A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESOURCE, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION FEE, THEN FIND THEY ARE IN A LOT OF HOT WATER IN TERMS OF SENSITIVE STRINGS OR EVEN AS GERMANY HAS INDICATED OTHER ASPECTS OF THE APPLICATION, IF IT RAISES GEOGRAPHICAL ISSUES OR RELATING TO THE STRING ITSELF.
AND IN THE GAC, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING -- WE HAVEN'T REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THIS -- THAT THE EARLY WARNING COULD ACTUALLY BE BEFORE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, SO THAT YOU AVOID THAT SITUATION IF SOMEBODY ACCIDENTALLY GETTING INTO A MAJOR COMMITMENT, FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE THEY HAVE COMMITTED A HUGE RESOURCE TO IT AND THEN ENGAGING THE ALL OF ICANN, THE WHOLE SYSTEM INTO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT 100% COHERENT AND DOESN'T HAVE GOOD PROSPECTS OR AT LEAST WILL BECOME A VERY PROTRACTED FORM OF APPLICATION.
SO AS I SAY, WE HAVEN'T REACHED A VIEW THAT CREATING A PREAPPLICATION STAGE MIGHT BE ONE OPTION. BUT CERTAINLY AN EARLY OPPORTUNITY AFTER APPLICATION FOR AN EXIT STRATEGY, THAT'S GOING TO HELP THE APPLICANTS, IT IS GOING TO HELP ICANN. IT IS GOING TO HELP EVERYBODY ELSE WHO IS GOING TO BE SUCKED INTO A VERY PROTRACTED PROCESS AVOID THAT SITUATION. AND IF IT MEANS INSTITUTING SOME KIND OF FEE REFUND STRUCTURE, THAT'S SOMETHING TO -- FOR US ALL TO CONSIDER, I GUESS. THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I HAVE GOT MORE QUESTIONS. BUT IF THERE ARE ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: NORWAY, PLEASE.
>>NORWAY: THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. WHILE WE EXPECT THERE IS A FIRM SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING SENSITIVE STRINGS AND OBJECTIONS WILL ALSO WORK AS A DETERRENT FOR THE APPLICATIONS -- WELL, FOR THEM TO SORT OF THINK TWICE BEFORE THEY GO INTO A POSSIBLE STRING THAT THEY, OF COURSE, WOULD KNOW THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC OR NOT.
SO THERE ARE SEVERAL STRINGS I WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD KNOW WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS SOMEWHERE. SO I THINK A FIRM SYSTEM WOULD ALSO WORK AS A DETERRENT FOR HAVING THE APPLICANTS HAVING TO SORT OF REVIEW WHAT THEY ARE APPLYING FOR. SO THAT'S -- I THINK THAT IS ALSO AN EARLY WARNING THING WITH HAVING THEM TO KNOW THAT THIS IS THE SYSTEM, THIS IS THE SETTING. THEY MUST ALSO THINK TWICE. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: GERMANY, DID YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT POINT?
>>GERMANY: YES. THIS EARLY WARNING SYSTEM WOULD BE AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE PICKED UP THE ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT THAT WAS GEOGRAPHIC NAMES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF OBJECTIN ON SENSITIVE STRINGS. WE CONSIDER IT VERY IMPORTANT IN THE EARLY STAGE OF AN APPLICATION THAT AN APPLICANT IS AWARE OF SERIOUS OBJECTION AND AS OUR BRITISH COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, WE NEED SOME EXIT STRATEGY, EXIT POSSIBILITY. THE WORST I THINK WE COULD HAVE IS AN APPLICANT AFTER RECEIVING ALL APPLICATIONS DOES NO LONGER STAND BY ITS APPLICATION AND BY HIS PROJECT BECAUSE HE KNOWS IF I KNEW THAT THERE WERE SO MANY OBJECTIONS, IF THIS IS SUCH A CRITICAL STRING, I WOULD NEVER HAVE APPLIED.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD AVOID AND TRY TO SOFTEN THE EXIT POSSIBILITIES FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I HAVE JUST GOT A QUESTION. I GUESS ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS DO YOU SEE THIS AS A SHIFT FROM PROVIDING POLICY ADVICE, THE GAC STARTING TO WORK AS AN OPERATIONAL KIND OF WAY? THAT SORT OF HAS RESOURCING AND TIMING. AND BRUCE'S QUESTION ABOUT WHERE YOU SEE THE GAC BEING ABLE TO OPERATE SUFFICIENTLY BROADLY AND IN TIMELY FASHION, IF THERE IS A FLOOD OF APPLICATIONS COMING, IS THE GAC REALLY GOING TO BE ABLE AT AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL TO DO THE KIND OF WORK THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? I SUPPOSE RESOURCING AND ADMINISTRATION QUESTION.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS THE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ONE WHICH IS HOW DO WE -- THE STRENGTH OF THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL MEANS THAT NONE OF THESE PROCESSES CAN BE -- IT IS NOT JUST POSSIBLE, BE CAPTURED. THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON WORKING ON MECHANISMS, TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS THAT PARTS OF ICANN CAN BE CAPTURED AND TRY TO DESIGN PROTECTION MECHANISMS.
MY WORRY ABOUT THIS KIND OF MECHANISM IS IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US LOOKING OUTSIDE INTO THE GAC TO SEE MECHANISMS THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM BEING CAPTURED.
I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW IS HOW WOULD THE GAC PROCESSES PREVENT THIS BEING CAPTURED FROM INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS OR INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE GROUPS AROUND ANY PARTICULAR INTEREST? GREAT CONCERN TO US THAT THERE NOT BE ANY INDIVIDUAL COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL OR GOVERNMENT THAT STARTS EFFECTIVELY WITH A VETO RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. HOW CAN YOU HELP US WITH -- THESE ARE LOOKING INTO HOW THE GAC WOULD ACTUALLY OPERATE THIS PROCESS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I BELIEVE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS PREPARED TO RESPOND.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: YES, THANK YOU. TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS. I THINK THE FIRST ONE ACTUALLY WHERE YOU SAY THERE APPEARS TO BE A SHIFT IN THE ROLE OF THE GAC FROM POLICY MAKING TO OPERATIONAL, I THINK THAT MUST BE VERY MUCH AN ICANN PERCEPTION BECAUSE FROM WHERE I'M SITTING, THE GAC HAS A ROLE IN GIVING PUBLIC POLICY ADVICE ON ISSUES THAT WE THINK PERTAIN TO PUBLIC POLICY, AND THAT CAN BE ANYTHING.
THE ISSUE HERE FOR US IS SHOULD WE GIVE THE ADVICE HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, AT THE END OF THE PROCESS. OR IS IT FAIRER TO AN APPLICANT ACTUALLY TO TELL THEM AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE PROCESS, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THEY INVEST TOO MUCH MONEY IN THIS PROCESS?
SO FOR US IT IS AN ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS. I THINK IF A STRING THAT'S APPLIED FOR RAISES PUBLIC POLICY INTERESTS AND WE OBJECT TO IT, I DON'T THINK WE SEE THAT AS AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE AT ALL.
I THINK THAT'S JUST A QUESTION OF PERCEPTION ACTUALLY, AND MAYBE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM YOU ON THAT.
ON THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT HOW WE AVOID CAPTURE, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION ACTUALLY BECAUSE THE GAC HAS A LONG AND I THINK A VERY RESPECTABLE HISTORY OF GIVING ADVICE TO THE BOARD ON A CONSENSUS BASIS. THAT REQUIRES ALL OF US ACTUALLY TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND ALL OF US TO AGREE BEFORE WE GIVE ADVICE.
IN THE PAST, IT HAS EFFECTIVELY GIVEN ANY INDIVIDUAL GAC MEMBER THE RIGHT TO VETO A GAC CONSENSUS POSITION. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE CONCERN REALLY COMES FROM ACTUALLY THAT THE GAC WOULD BE CAPTURED.
I'M SURE YOU WOULD BE PLEASED TO HEAR WE HAVE HAD VERY VIGOROUS DISCUSSIONS IN THE GAC. MOST OF US ACTUALLY ARE VERY HAPPY TO STAND OUR GROUND POLITELY AND DIPLOMATICALLY AGAINST COLLEAGUES IF THE POSITION OF OUR ADMINISTRATION IS DIFFERENT THAN THEIRS. SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU SOME REASSURANCE THAT THIS FEAR OF CAPTURE IS PERHAPS MISPLACED AS FAR AS THE GAC IS CONCERNED.
I THINK THE FEAR OF CAPTURE ELSEWHERE, I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE FOR A VERY INTERESTING DEBATE AT SOME POINT. BUT I THINK THE GAC IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE OPEN, ACTUALLY, ICANN CONSTITUENCIES WITH THE LEAST DANGER OF CAPTURE. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, EUROPEAN COMMISSION. I SEE ITALY ASKING FOR THE FLOOR. BUT BEFORE I GIVE YOU THE FLOOR, JUST TO ADD TO WHAT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS SAYING, ON THAT FIRST POINT, WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE AN OPERATIONAL ROLE. WE GIVE ADVICE, AND THIS WOULD BE ADVICE.
IN TERMS OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GAC IN ITS WORKING METHODS, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE GAC WOULD NEED TO COMMIT TO A CLEAR PROCESS, ENSURE THAT IT HAD PUT IN PLACE THE RIGHT MEASURES AND THEN IT WAS ALWAYS PREPARED AND RESOURCED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS KIND OF A PROCESS. AND WE WOULD WANT TO DO THAT BY WORKING WITH ICANN AND ENSURING THAT IT WAS PRACTICAL AND THAT IT WAS WORKABLE. SO THERE IS A RECOGNITION OF THAT.
I HAVE ITALY AND THEN, BRUCE, YOU WANTED TO COMMENT.
>>ITALY: OKAY, DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS OPERATIONAL ROLE, OF COURSE, IS VERY IMPORTANT ONE. IN THE PAST, THE GAC HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUPPLY THE SO-CALLED GAC PRINCIPLES AND THEN AWAITING FOR THE BOARD AND ICANN TO ACT FOLLOWING THESE PRINCIPLES.
BUT AS I SAY IN MY PREVIOUS INTERVENTION, THE PROCESS WE ARE FACING NOW IS VERY, VERY COMPLEX. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF THE BOARD THAT THAT IN THIS OPERATIONAL ROLE OF THE GAC, THE DECISION-MAKING MECHANISM COULD BE DELAYED OR COULD FACE OTHER COMPLEXITY, LET'S SAY.
ON OUR SIDE, THE SIDE OF THE GAC, THEN WE SHOULD ALSO BE CAREFUL NOT TO BE ENGAGED IN VERY CONTINUOUS DISPUTES BECAUSE THIS IS A DANGER, OF COURSE. SO THE CYCLE HERE IS WHAT WE CALL IN THIS LIST AN EARLY WARNING.
AND THEN POSSIBLY WHEN THERE IS A CALL FOR NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BEGINNING AND EVENTUALLY LOCATE THIS CRITICAL STRINGS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND TRY TO BE ACTIVE IN DUE TIME AS WE WERE SAYING, 45 DAYS IS SOME ENGAGEMENT THAT THE GAC COULD SUPPORT, NOT WAITING FOR ONLY PLENARY MEETINGS AND THEN DECIDING IN THE LIST AND SO ON.
SO I THINK THAT FROM THE TWO SIDES, THERE SHOULD BE A LIMITATION OF THIS, WHAT YOU CALL THE OPERATIONAL ROLE. AND ON OUR SIDE, AN ENGAGEMENT TO RESPOND IN DUE TIME. SO THIS IS THE REAL CRITICAL ISSUE.
BUT IN THIS NEW gTLD EXERCISE SOME CONVERGENCE IN THIS DIRECTION HAS TO BE STUDIED AND APPLIED BY BOTH PARTIES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK IT'S -- IT SHOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO GET A SENSE OF RECOGNITION THAT, HEATHER, YOU WOULD LOOK AT PROCESSES AND HOW TO SUPPORT THAT. I GUESS IN KEEPING WITH THE CONCEPT OF EARLY WARNING AND PERHAPS SOME DEGREE OF TRANSPARENCY ON THE PROCESS, I THINK AS IT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE SCORECARD, AN INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT RAISE A CONCERN, AND THEN THE GAC AS A WHOLE WOULD LOOK AT THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE APPLICANT IS EARLY WARNING OF THAT PROCESS IS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT SUCH THAT THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S RAISING THE ISSUE, SOME NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME RESPONSE THAT THEN THE GAC AS A WHOLE COULD THEN CONSIDER. SO IT'S, I GUESS, TWO ASPECTS OF THAT: ONE, THERE'S AN EARLY, EARLY WARNING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE GAC MIGHT TAKE 45 DAYS TO CONSIDER SOMETHING. BUT IF THE APPLICANT KNOWS ABOUT IT AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND ALLEVIATE THE CONCERN OF THE INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENTS, BUT ALSO PERHAPS PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION THAT THE REST OF THE GAC AS A WHOLE COULD CONSIDER. SO IT'S, I THINK -- I THINK, YOU KNOW, DOING SOME THINKING THAT THE GAC COULD DO AND THEN COME BACK TO US WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL ON JUST HOW THE PROCESS MIGHT WORK AND HOW THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE BOARD, FINALLY.
THE FINAL POINT ON THAT, I GUESS, IS THAT THE ADVICE WE DO RECEIVE WOULD BE USEFUL, FINALLY, IF IT DID SAY A LITTLE BIT OF DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PROCESS, SUCH AS WHAT THE INITIAL GOVERNMENT THAT WAS RAISING THE OBJECTION WAS, WHAT THEIR ISSUE WAS, AND THEN ADVICE FROM THE GAC AS A WHOLE AS TO THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE ADVICE. RATHER THAN JUST A SORT OF SINGLE STATEMENT SAYING, YOU KNOW, REJECT THIS STRING OR REJECT THIS APPLICANT, IT ACTUALLY PROVIDES SOME DETAIL AS TO WHY THE STRING OR THE APPLICANT IS NOT SUITABLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE SORT OF THING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I DON'T SEE ANY REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR. BUT I THINK WE HAVE HEARD YOU. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND SOMETIMES THESE THINGS GO UNSTATED, BUT I SUPPOSE BETTER TO STATE IT. NOW, THERE'S NO SUGGESTION, IS THERE, THAT ALL OF THE ORDINARY ICANN TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES WOULDN'T EQUALLY APPLY TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS INSIDE THE GAC? IN OTHER WORDS, THE SOURCE OF THE OBJECTION, THE REASONS PUT FORWARD IN THE GAC WHY A PARTICULAR STRING WAS SEEN AS SENSITIVE OR RAISED A PUBLIC POLICY MATTER IN THE VIEW OF ONE GOVERNMENT, WHAT OTHER GOVERNMENTS THEN SAID -- IN OTHER WORDS, THE DISCUSSION AS WE GOT TO THE ADVICE FROM THE GAC WOULD BE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AND PART OF THE MATERIALS SUPPLIED TO THE BOARD? THAT'S MY ASSUMPTION. IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT ANY OF THAT WOULDN'T APPLY?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: IF I MAY TRY TO RESPOND TO THAT, THIS ISN'T A QUESTION THAT THE GAC HAS DEALT WITH, BUT MOST OF OUR MEETINGS ARE OPEN, THE VAST MAJORITY. IT'S ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A CLOSED MEETING. AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE DO NEED CLOSED MEETINGS. AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO RESERVE THAT RIGHT AND THAT OPPORTUNITY.
AS TO WHAT OUR APPROACH WOULD BE TO DEAL WITH THESE STRINGS, THAT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED WITHIN THE GAC. WE DO SUPPORT, OF COURSE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY AND WOULD NEED TO FIND A WAY TO REPORT ON OUR DISCUSSIONS.
SO I THINK THAT'S MY INITIAL REACTION TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER COLLEAGUES WOULD WANT TO ADD.
OKAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THAT SEEMS TO BE THE END OF QUESTIONS FROM BOARD, LOOKING AROUND FOR BOARD MEMBERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS -- BERTRAND.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: GOOD MORNING. JUST A QUICK COMMENT, OR QUICK QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMENTING, THE SO-CALLED EARLY WARNING, IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AS POTENTIALLY BE OPEN TO ALL. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT 45 DAYS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THAT IS, EXISTING IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK? I THINK IT'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, TO TRY TO BEEF UP, MAYBE, THIS ELEMENT.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS, ON THE NOTION -- AND IT GOES ALSO TO WHAT BRUCE WAS SAYING -- ON THE NOTION OF THE GAC ADVICE IN THIS PROCESS OR AT DIFFERENT MOMENTS, LET'S SAY THAT AN APPLICANT DECIDES TO RETRACT AFTER THE EARLY WARNING THING. OKAY. BUT IF THEY KEEP ON, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE EARLY WARNING? HOW DO WE HANDLE THOSE THINGS? AND, IN PARTICULAR, IF THERE IS A GAC ADVICE THAT HAS A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, I THINK, AND IT'S NOT FOR DISCUSSING IT RIGHT NOW, BUT TO FURTHER DISCUSS IT MAYBE TOMORROW, I WOULD EMPHASIZE THE QUESTION THAT BRUCE RAISED REGARDING HOW, IN PARTICULAR, THE GAC AGREES ON ADVICE, HOW MUCH OF A CONSENSUS IT IS, HOW THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS IS. BECAUSE DEPENDING ON THE PROCEDURE, IT GIVES A DIFFERENT WEIGHT OR IMPACT AND DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES FOR THE BOARD TO FOLLOW OR NOT FOLLOW THIS GIVEN ADVICE. SO THESE ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SUZANNE, I'M LOOKING AT YOU. BUT ANYBODY ELSE ON THE GAC. I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS QUITE A STRAIGHTFORWARD ONE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE 45 -- THE EXISTING PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I SEE DENMARK ASKING FOR THE FLOOR.
>>DENMARK: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JULIA (SAYING NAME). I'M FROM DENMARK.
IT'S AN ANSWER TO BERTRAND, MAYBE, AS I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE GAC, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS -- IS THROUGH THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM, SO IT GOES TO THE EVALUATORS, OR, I DON'T KNOW, A MAILBOX SOMEWHERE. AND, I MEAN, WE IN THE GAC GIVE ADVICE TO THE BOARD. SO THAT'S JUST -- THAT'S MY COMMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, DENMARK.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO TACKLE THE SECOND, LONGER, QUESTION FROM BERTRAND? PERHAPS WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT TOMORROW.
BERTRAND, DOES THAT SUGGESTION THAT THERE'S -- THAT THERE SHOULD BE A STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND GAC ADVICE AS THE RESPONSE, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TAKE FURTHER OR --
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO KEEP IT IN MIND. WE'LL DIG DEEPER, BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACETS TO THIS ELEMENTS, AND IT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION IN ITSELF. SO LET'S KEEP THIS QUESTION PENDING, AND WE WILL EXPLORE IT FURTHER.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: WOULD THE U.S. LIKE TO COMMENT.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO SHARE, SINCE WE WERE ASKED TO SHARE THE DEFINITION OF A CONSENSUS. WE'VE ALL AGREED IN OUR DIFFERENT CAPACITIES AND DIFFERENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES, THERE IS A UNITED NATIONS DEFINITION. AND PERHAPS I SHOULD READ THAT OUT. YOU ALL MIGHT FIND THAT USEFUL.
THE CONCEPT OF CONSENSUS IS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THE PRACTICE OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS OR DECISIONS BY GENERAL AGREEMENT, WITHOUT RESORT TO VOTING, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FORMAL OBJECTION THAT WOULD STAND IN THE WAY OF A DECISION BEING DECLARED ADOPTED.
SO IN THE EVENT THAT CONSENSUS OR GENERAL AGREEMENT IS ACHIEVED, THE RESULTING RESOLUTION AND DECISIONS WOULD BE ADOPTED WITHOUT A VOTE, AND THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY CONSENSUS. SO WE HOPE THAT IS HELPFUL. I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A HARD COPY, BERTRAND, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'M JUST NOT SURE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT. I THINK WE'VE ALL GOT -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED INTO THE GAC PRINCIPLES THAT'S NOW A PART OF THE GAC OPERATING PRINCIPLES, OR -- SO WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE TO THE WAY THE GAC WOULD OPERATE IN THIS INSTANCE?
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I BELIEVE WE WERE -- PERHAPS I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, PETER. I THOUGHT WE WERE ASKED A QUESTION AS TO HOW WE DEVELOP CONSENSUS-BASED DECISIONS. THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH WE DEVELOP CONSENSUS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ERIKAMEHMET AKCIN.
>>Erika Mann: SINCE WE ARE ALL DEVELOPING SOMETHING NEW, WE ARE FIGHTING ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT KIND OF CONSEQUENCES THE NEW STRING WILL HAVE WITH REGARD TO SENSITIVE TOPICS, NOW, IT'S ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO WORK, I THINK, WITH WORST-CASE SCENARIOS. I'M AWARE THAT GOVERNMENTS MUST DO THIS. BUT FOR THE WHOLE INTERNET, OF COURSE, THE CONCEPT OF WORST-CASE SCENARIOS IS SOMETIMES TROUBLESOME. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF EARLY WARNING, AND I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING CONCEPT. BUT I WONDER IF WE -- AND WE DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY YESTERDAY IN OUR WORKING GROUP, AND WE DISCUSSED THE TOPIC -- ACTUALLY, WE HAVEN'T EVALUATED, BUT WE DISCUSSED IT, AND WE LOOKED INTO IT BRIEFLY. IF IT WOULDN'T BE HELPFUL AS WELL TO INCLUDE AFTER THE FIRST BATCHES ARE RELEASED, A TRULY WORTHWHILE REVIEW PERIOD WHICH WOULD GIVE US ALL THE TIME TO REFLECT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN TO RECONSIDER MAYBE CERTAIN PROCEDURES OR REDEFINE THEM. IN THE MOMENT, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD, WE ONLY HAVE AN EVALUATION PERIOD INCLUDED. BUT THIS ONE IS NOT DEFINED. IT'S JUST A THOUGHT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS MIGHT HELP US TO ACTUALLY DEFINE THE EARLY WARNING PERIOD AS HAVING AN ADDITION IN MIND, LIKE A REVIEW PERIOD, WHICH THEN CAN REFLECT ON ALL THE TOPICS WHICH WE ARE DISCUSSING.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE, DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? OKAY.
BERTRAND.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: JUST ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION, I THINK, REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS OR THE PRACTICE OF CONSENSUS THAT SUZANNE HAS MENTIONED.
IN THE U.N. SYSTEM, AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS USED VERY FREQUENTLY TO MAKE RESOLUTIONS. A LOT OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS HAVE NO ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION FORCE. SO IT IS MADE TO ADOPT A DOCUMENT, AND IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE DOCUMENT IS ADOPTED.
IN THE CASE WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ADVICE BY THE GAC, AND IF WE WANT TO REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ADVICE FULLY, MAYBE TO BASICALLY RECEIVE FOR THE BOARD SOMETHING THAT SAYS, THE GAC, BY CONSENSUS, WANTS TO CONVEY THE ADVICE THAT THE BOARD SHOULD NOT ENTER THIS STRING IN THE ROOT, WHICH IS A VERY OPERATIONAL CONSEQUENCE FOR THE APPLICANT, FOR THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM, AND SO ON.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IS THAT IN THAT CASE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW WHETHER ALL THE GAC MEMBERS, AT LEAST, HAVE BEEN FULLY INFORMED OR HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, BECAUSE IN THE U.N. SYSTEM, IF PEOPLE ARE PRESENT IN THE ROOM DURING THAT SPECIFIC MEETING, SOMETHING IS ADOPTED BY CONSENSUS, AND OKAY.
HERE, THERE IS A VERY OPERATIONAL CONSEQUENCE. SO JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THIS ELEMENT, MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS FULL CONSULTATION, IT GOES TO THE OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GAC ITSELF, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GAC. BUT IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING HERE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY, AS BRUCE SAID, HOW EACH SIDE DEVELOPS ITS POSITION AND WHAT IS THE EXPECTED REACTION AND ATTITUDE ON THE BOARD SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE. BECAUSE IF IT IS ABOUT THE GAC SAYING A STRING SHOULD NOT GET INTO THE ROOT, IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ADVICE. AND HOW IT WAS ELABORATED AND HOW THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IS IMPORTANT AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I SEE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.
>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: YES, THANK YOU. I THINK THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING SUBJECT WHICH MANY OF US HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN BEFORE.
I THINK IT'S A SUBJECT THAT'S TOO BIG, ACTUALLY, FOR THIS MEETING, ACTUALLY, FOR NEW gTLDs. IT GOES BEYOND THAT.
I'D JUST MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE GAC TO PROVIDE CONSENSUS ADVICE IS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE BYLAWS, YOUR BYLAWS. WE DIDN'T DRAFT THEM. SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTRODUCING NOW.
THERE'S ALSO NO REQUIREMENT FOR US TO MOTIVATE THE ADVICE THAT WE GIVE TO THE BOARD, ALTHOUGH I WOULD HOPE -- AND MY GAC COLLEAGUES AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WILL SEE THAT MOST OF US ARE VERY HAPPY TO MOTIVATE THE ADVICE THAT WE GIVE, EVEN IF THAT OFTEN MEANS US REPEATING OURSELVES SEVERAL TIMES AT SUCCESSIVE MEETINGS.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
BUT I WOULD ADD FROM A PURELY LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, MAYBE THE BYLAWS NEED TO BE REVISED. BECAUSE THE BYLAWS DO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO MOTIVATE A DECISION WHEN IT REJECTS GAC ADVICE. BUT THIS IDEA OF A CONSENSUS, I MEAN, IS NOT A PROBLEM ON THE GAC SIDE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE BASIS OF CONSENSUS FOR 12 YEARS. WE'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM, ACTUALLY. WE KNOW WHEN WE'VE GOT CONSENSUS. AND THAT'S WHEN EVERYONE AGREES IN THE LANGUAGE IN OUR COMMUNIQUÉS OR LETTERS. THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT'S COME FROM THE BOARD SIDE OR THE STAFF SIDE. AND WHAT I'D SUGGEST IS THAT YOU LOOK AT YOUR OWN BYLAWS, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE THEY MAY NEED REVISING BEFORE YOU CAN ACHIEVE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU APPEAR TO WANT. AND THAT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WOULD ADD A SIGNIFICANT DELAY TO THE NEW gTLD PROCESS.
SO BEAR THAT IN MIND.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: UNITED KINGDOM.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS SO MUCH.
I JUST WANTED TO COME IN IN SUPPORT OF THE LAST TWO SUBSTANTIVE BOARD MEMBER INTERVENTIONS, FIRST OF ALL, ERIKA'S POINT ABOUT HAVING A REVIEW MECHANISM. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT PROPOSAL, BECAUSE WE ARE ENTERING INTO NEW TERRITORY. YOU, PETER, HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE EXTENDING OUR ROLE IN THE GAC IN SOME WAY. SO THAT'S -- THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE PRETTY MINDFUL OF, ACTUALLY. AND IF WE ARE SORT OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL AND THAT INVOLVES NATIONAL-LEVEL CONSULTATIONS, THAT COULD BE A LENGTHY PROCESS. THAT COULD ACTUALLY HOLD UP THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF WHAT ICANN IS DOING. SO THAT'S -- IN THAT SENSE, WE'RE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, TOUCHING ON THE OPERATIONAL ROLE IN THAT WAY.
AND SO A REVIEW OF HOW THIS IS WORKING UP TO THE FIRST BATCH, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE VERY USEFUL, BECAUSE WE ARE SORT OF FUMBLING AROUND. WE'RE NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SCENARIOS COULD ENSUE WITH PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE PROPOSALS AND HOW WE HANDLE THEM AND THE EXTENT OF GAC INVOLVEMENT, AND TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HIT ON FOREIGN POLICY POSITIONS AND SO ON, AND HOW OPEN GAC MEMBERS CAN BE IN ARTICULATING ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST. IT'S -- YOU KNOW, COULD BE VERY TRICKY TERRITORY AND HAS TO BE HANDLED VERY CAREFULLY. AND WE'RE NOT REALLY IN THE POSITION AT THE MOMENT TO ANTICIPATE EXACTLY HOW WE DO THAT.
SO REVIEW IS GOING TO BE VERY USEFUL FOR ALL, I THINK.
SECONDLY, BERTRAND'S POINT ABOUT FULL INVOLVEMENT OF THE GAC, WE HAVE -- IT'S A VERY VALID POINT. WE MUST ENSURE THAT THE GAC, IN FULFILLING ITS ROLE, IS DOING SO PROPERLY, ALL REPRESENTATIVES ARE PROPERLY ENGAGED AND EMPOWERED TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS.
THANKS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, THANKS, MARK. I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES AS BERTRAND, CONSENSUS ADVICE ABOUT MANY MATTERS IS PERFECTLY ROUTINE. A DECISION BY THE GAC THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT DEPRIVE AN APPLICANT OF THEIR APPLICATION IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO INVOLVE MUCH MORE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS AND KNOWING WHAT THE CHALLENGE IS, WHO THE CHALLENGER IS, AND WHAT PROCESS HAS BEEN THROUGH. THAT WAS WHERE I WAS COMING FROM BEFORE WITH THAT KIND OF THING. THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER FORMS OF CONSENSUS WHERE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE IN THE ROOM WHEN IT'S DETERMINED.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: I BROADLY AGREE WITH THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A VETO PROCESS HERE. IT IS ONE OF FORMULATING ADVICE FOR THE BOARD TO HELP THE BOARD TAKE ITS DECISION. AND, ACTUALLY, THAT REMINDS ME OF A POINT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF, DESPITE STRONG EARLY WARNINGS, THE APPLICANT STILL PURSUES?
I WOULD ENVISAGE AT SOME POINT FURTHER DOWN THE TRACK, AFTER WE'RE ALL A LOT MORE EDUCATED ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND THE PROS AND CONS, A FURTHER RECOURSE TO THE GAC FOR ADVICE AT THAT LATER STAGE. AND IT MAY BE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BOARD IS SEEKING INDEPENDENT ADVICE FROM HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, OR WHOEVER, IN TANDEM WITH ALL THOSE REQUESTS FOR ADVICE, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE TO THE GAC FOR A FURTHER TAKE ON IT, IF YOU LIKE, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT EVERYBODY HAS LEARNED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE APPLICATION, HAVING BEEN PURSUED A LOT FURTHER, IF YOU LIKE, AND THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED. THAT MIGHT BE A FACTOR TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
BUT AS I SAY, IT WOULD BE ADVICE IN TANDEM WITH OTHER SOURCES OF ADVICE THAT THE BOARD MAY FEEL -- WISH TO SEEK.
THANKS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ROD.
>>ROD BECKSTROM: THIS IS -- MARK, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. THAT CLARIFICATION IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL, THAT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IS GAC ADVICE ON THE STRINGS OR APPLICATIONS, AND NOT A VETO. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, CERTAINLY TO ME, AND I THINK TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THERE'S NO MORE ON EARLY WARNING AND SENSITIVE STRINGS. WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE COFFEE BREAK. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN'T GET STARTED ON THE NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS ROOT SCALING.
SO ARE WE READY TO CHANGE TEAMS? BRUCE, ONE LAST COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST ONE COMMENT. IT'S REALLY MORE OF A SCHEDULING QUESTION.
BUT UNDER THIS CATEGORY, THERE'S A SECTION IN HERE WHICH IS 2.2, WHICH IS EXPANDING CATEGORIES OF COMMUNITY-BASED STRINGS. AND THERE'S ABOUT FIVE POINTS THERE.
SO IT MAY BE THE SUGGESTION IS WE PICK THAT UP TOMORROW MORNING. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION AS WELL.
HEATHER OR PETER, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? IT'S REALLY PARTLY FOR SUZANNE AND I AS TO WHEN WE WOULD SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TOMORROW MORNING.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'M QUITE HAPPY TO PUT IT WHEREVER SUITS THE PROTAGONISTS, AS IT WERE, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HELPING US. IF IT SUITS YOU TOMORROW, BRUCE -- UNLESS -- SUZANNE IS AGREEING. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ANSWER. PERHAPS RATHER THAN SHUFFLING INTO SOMETHING AND STOPPING, LET'S STOP NOW FOR -- HEATHER, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING MORE -- LET'S STOP NOW FOR COFFEE BREAK. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE YOU BACK STRICTLY WITHIN THE 20 MINUTES. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO IN THE CORRIDORS WITH EACH OTHER. BUT WE GET BACK HERE AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION CONTINUE, THAT WOULD BE THE MOST USEFUL.
JUST AS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER, COULD I JUST CONFIRM, PLEASE, FOR THE ROOM, WHEN YOU COME BACK, THE TABLES WITH MICROPHONES ARE FOR BOARD MEMBERS AND GAC MEMBERS. IT'S -- SO OBSERVERS, IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU SIT SOMEWHERE, PLEASE, WHERE THERE ISN'T A MICROPHONE AND MAKE SURE THAT BOARD MEMBERS AND GAC MEMBERS HAVE GOT ACCESS TO THE MICROPHONES. SO WHEN YOU COME BACK IN 20 MINUTES, PLEASE, WE'LL BE READY TO START ROOT SCALING. IF THE ROOT SCALING LEADERS COULD BE READY TO JOIN US, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANKS, SUZANNE, THANKS, EVERYONE.