[note: due to connectivity issues, big chunks of this session are missing] WOULD LIKE TO AGREE WITH WHAT MY GAC COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THE ASSURANCES THERE WILL BE AN EVALUATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. BUT WE NEED ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL BE SUCH MONITORING AND ALERTING SYSTEM IN PLACE BEFORE THE APPLICATION STARTS, AS HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE. AND THAT THERE WILL BE AN EVALUATION AFTER THE FIRST BATCH AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN ASSESS WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT. AND, OF COURSE, THE BASIS OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS THAT THERE IS A LIMITED NUMBER THAT CAN BE EVALUATED ON, AS SWEDEN HAS SAID PREVIOUSLY, BEFORE THE LAUNCH OF THE SECOND BATCH. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, DENMARK. THOMAS? NETHERLANDS. >>THOMAS DE HAAN: THANK YOU, HEATHER. PICKING UP ON WHAT BRUCE SAID, I THINK THIS IS ALSO OUR INTENTION TO HAVE A MORE HOLISTIC APPROACH ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPENDING THE ROOT ZONE OR THE ROOT SYSTEM. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THINGS LIKE, WELL, WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON THE LATENCY OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM, THERE WILL BE MORE QUERIES BUT WILL THEY BE EXTRA? SO WE WOULD ALSO URGE NOT TO LOOK ONLY AT THE PURE ORGANIZATIONAL AND ALL THE EFFECTS IN JUST THE ROOT ZONE SYSTEM OPERATORS PART OF THE GAME BUT TRY TO LOOK AT IT MORE BROADER. THANK YOU. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THAT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT ROOT ZONE SCALING? I THINK THE KEY POINT IS THAT WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR IS, IN FACT, ALREADY AVAILABLE AND SO IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF SETTING UP SOMETHING NEW. IT IS A QUESTION OF MAKING IT AVAILABLE AND SHARING IT AND PUTTING IT INTO FORMATS THAT GAC MEMBERS CAN TAKE HOME TO MINISTERS AND MAKE THIS RELATIVELY COMPLEX PROCESS VISIBLE AND HELP YOU GIVE THE MINISTERS AND YOUR MASTERS THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE. IT IS A QUESTION OF SHARING THAT AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS UNDERSTOOD. SO THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU, TOPIC LEADERS, FROM THE BOARD AND FROM THE GAC. LET'S MOVE THEN, IF WE ARE READY TO THE NEXT TOPIC WHICH IS MARKET AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS. THANKS, THOMAS. MY SHEET SHOWS FROM PORTUGAL ANA NEVES IS THE LEADER AND FROM THE BOARD, RAY PLZAK. IF YOU WANT TO COME UP. I THINK IT IS HELPFUL TO SEE YOU WHEN YOU ARE TALKING. YOU WANT TO DO IT FROM THERE? SURE. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: PORTUGAL, WERE YOU GOING TO PRESENT ON THIS TOPIC? OKAY. PLEASE, GO AHEAD. >>PORTUGAL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GOOD MORNING. WELL, THE GAC'S VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE ARE THE FOLLOWING. THE SEVERAL ECONOMIC STUDIES ARE NOT ABLE TO CONCLUDE OR SHOW EVIDENCE ON THE EXPECTED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE NEW gTLDs TO THE MARKET AND TO THE CONSUMERS. ECONOMIC STUDIES CONTAIN IMPORTANT FINDINGS THAT THE PAST INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW gTLDs PROVIDED MANY MILD PUBLIC BENEFITS IN TERMS OF COMPETITION AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXISTING gTLDs PLUS THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDs MADE THOSE COSTS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHAT MIGHT RESULT IN DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS AND OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BRANDS. WHILE THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE LAWS OF EVERY GAC MEMBER COUNTRY MIRRORS THE GAC -- THE GAC'S PUBLIC POLICY CONCERN IN THE RIGHTS PROTECTION MENTIONED FOR MEASURING ARE PUT IN PLACE, APPLICANTS SHOULD INDICATE HOW THEY EXPECT TO FULFILL THEM. SO AFTER THIS FIRST ROUND OR THIS FIRST BATCH OF NEW gTLDs, IT SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO IDENTIFY DEFICIENTS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT TO BE INCORPORATED PRIOR TO THE NEXT ROUND, BATCH, OF APPLICATIONS AND SO FORTH BEFORE THE OTHER ROUNDS. SO THANK YOU. >>RAY PLZAK: THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN LOOKING AT THE SCORECARD THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AND WHAT YOU HAVE JUST PRESENTED TO US, I'M HEARING IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO FROM A STANDPOINT OF CLARITY, FOR EVALUATIVE PURPOSES, ONE WOULD QUESTION WHICH WE LISTEN TO. WE'RE GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE SCORECARD ARE THE POINTS THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH. AND SO -- AND IN THE SCORECARD, THERE IS AN IDENTIFICATION OF PROVIDING CRITERIA AND IDENTIFICATION OF A REQUIREMENT TO RESPOND. AND IT IS ALSO A REPORTING REQUIREMENT. BUT IN YOUR PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW, I'VE HEARD AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS AN EVALUATIVE STUDY WHICH WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE FIRST -- IN THE SCORECARD. AND SO I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE TAKING UP HERE, SO I WILL DEFER TO THE CHAIRS TO ANSWER THAT. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: HEATHER? >>HEATHER DRYDEN: SHALL I RESPOND OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- THE IDEA OF THE STUDY RELATES TO THE REQUIREMENT IN THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS IN RELATION TO MARKET AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS. SO WHAT'S IN THE SCORECARD IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING CRITERIA OR INDICATORS OR SOME SUCH MEASURE IS -- WITH THE IDEA THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE MEASURED, AND YOU WOULD NEED TO ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE CRITERIA OR INDICATORS NOW SO THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO MEASURE SO THAT YOU CAN REPORT AGAINST THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS. I THINK PORTUGAL MENTIONED THE OECD AS AN EXAMPLE ORGANIZATION OR WHETHER YOU WOULD GO TO CATS ROSTEN AND SULLIVAN OR SOME SORT OF EXPERT BODY IN ORDER PERHAPS TO HELP IDENTIFY THOSE KINDS OF CRITERIA, BUT IT IS REALLY MEANT TO BE FORWARD LOOKING THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THIS HERE. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK RAY HAS IDENTIFIED TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE, THANK YOU, PORTUGAL FOR YOUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. A POST-LAUNCH STUDY IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH. ALREADY OCCURS IN THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS AND I HAVE ASKED STAFF IF WE COULD FIND TEXT OF ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS. I THINK I CALLED UP THE TONKIN RESOLUTION FROM CARTAGENA. I THINK BRUCE WANTED TO CALL UP THE ZUCK RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY'S BEEN ASKING FOR THESE KIND OF METRICS. BRUCE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH THE TEXT IF THE STAFF CAN'T PULL IT UP. BUT ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS IN CARTAGENA SAID WE SHOULD START COLLECTING THAT KIND OF DATA SO WE CAN DO THE EVALUATION. SO I THINK WE ARE AT E DEN WITH THE NEED WITH THE GAC TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ISSUE AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW WELL WE CAN DO THAT AND HOW USEFUL THAT WILL BE, ET CETERA, WE ARE ALL GOING DOWN THE SAME TRACK TOGETHER. I THINK WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TO, WHAT I HAVE QUESTIONS -- OBVIOUSLY RAY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT -- IS WHAT'S IN THE SCORECARD WHICH IS ABOUT ADDING BURDENS TO APPLICANTS OR WHAT APPEARS TO US TO BE ADDING A CONSIDERABLE BURDEN TO APPLICANTS WHICH ARISES FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THE EXISTING PRINCIPLES AND WOULD, IN FACT, IN MY VIEW BE A THROWBACK TO THE OLD KIND OF APPLICATIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAD TO TRY AND ASSIST THE GOODNESS AND MERITS OF APPLICATIONS AND THE GNSO POLICY MOVED VERY CAREFULLY AWAY FROM TRYING TO MAKE OUR PRIORI ASSESSMENT OF WHICH APPLICATIONS WOULD WERE LIKELY TO SUCCEED OR NOT. WHAT WE REALLY ARE ASKING IS WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY POINTS 1 AND 2 OF THE SCORECARD, WHICH SAYS YOU WANT TO ADD A DIFFERENT KIND OF EVALUATION TO THE APPLICATION -- WHAT APPEARS TO US THAT YOU MAY BE SUGGESTING THAT WE GO INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF EVALUATION PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS AND REQUIRE EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH A COST-BENEFIT PROOF AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO I THINK -- IS THAT WHAT'S INTENDED? WHAT WOULD BE THE LIMITS OF THIS? SO THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. >>PORTUGAL: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THAT THE GAC IS BEING VERY POSITIVE AND OUR AIM IS REALLY TO -- NOT TO DELAY THE PROCESS. BUT STILL WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE ON WHAT WILL HAPPEN. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE -- WHAT WE ARE ASKING HERE IS THE STUDY THAT WILL BE DONE AFTER THIS FIRST BATCH WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT. IT WILL BE CRUCIAL FOR US TO SEE AND TO LEARN FROM THE PROCESS. ON THE BURDEN THAT YOU MENTION, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BURDEN WILL BE REALLY HARD OR NOT. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS EVIDENCE FOR THE TIME BEING. WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS, BUT WE HAVE TO LAUNCH THIS PROCESS. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE -- WE HAVE TO SEE HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT WILL ARISE. AND FROM THE PROBLEMS THAT MAY APPEAR FROM THIS FIRST BATCH, WE SHOULD IMPROVE AND TO SEE HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD BATCHES. >>RAY PLZAK: SO GETTING TO THE CRITERIA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SETS OF CRITERIA HERE. ONE SET OF CRITERIA IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE USED IN THE APPLICATION. AND THE OTHER SET OF CRITERIA IS THE CRITERIA THAT'S GOING TO BE USED IN THIS POST-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION. NOW, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THE NEED FOR SYMMETRY IN THAT THE CRITERIA USED IN THE APPLICATION CAN SERVE AS A BASIS FOR THE POST EVALUATION. HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE THE CRITERIA THAT ARE BEING PLACED UP ON THE APPLICANT, FORCE THE APPLICANT INTO BELIEVING HE HAS BECOME SYPHASIS, HE IS CONTINUALLY PUSHING THE ROCK UP THE HILL IN ORDER TO GET HIS APPLICATION THROUGH. IS THEN THE ASSUMPTION THAT I'M ASKING IN THIS QUESTION, THAT THE CRITERIA THAT WE WOULD USE IN THE APPLICATION COULD BE NOT SO BURDENSOME TO THE APPLICANT BUT AT THE SAME TIME COULD BE USED BY THE EVALUATIVE BOARD AS THEY DEVELOP A MORE IN-DEPTH CRITERIA TO CONDUCT THEIR STUDY. SO THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, RAY. I HAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE QUEUE. >>UNITED KINGDOM: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, NIGEL HICKSON, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, U.K. GOVERNMENT. I THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATIONALE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND IF THE RATIONALE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING IS COMPETITION, IS INNOVATION, IS GROWTH, IS CHOICE, IS DYNAMISM, THEN IT SEEMS QUITE LOGICAL THAT THE APPLICANT, IN SPENDING THEIR MONEY, BOTH PUTTING TOGETHER THE BID AND THE MONIES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COMMIT FOR THE BID ITSELF AND THE ONGOING PROCESS, WILL HAVE IN THEIR OWN WAY ASSESSED THE MARKET. THEY WILL HAVE TAKEN ECONOMIC CHOICES. THEY WILL HAVE EVALUATED THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF INTRODUCING A NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN INTO THE COMMUNITY. AND, THEREFORE, FOR US, IT SEEMS ENTIRELY LOGICAL THAT IN DOING THAT, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT DOWN IN SOME WORDS -- AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING AN ESSAY OR A SORT OF COMPLETE TREATY ON ECONOMIC THEORY HERE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ADDRESSED WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE PARTICULAR AREA. SO IF I AM PUTTING IN A GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN DOT BANK, THEN I HAVE SOME EXPECTATION, I HAVE SOME INDICATION, I HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE AS THE PROPOSER OF THAT, OF THE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS I'M GOING TO HAVE, THE TYPE OF CUSTOMERS I'M GOING TO HAVE, AND THE VALUE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE ON THAT GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. ARE THEY GOING TO DO MORE ON THE INTERNET BY HAVING A DOT BANK, DRIVING MORE TRAFFIC, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER? OR, YOU KNOW -- SO WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE THERE? SO IT SEEMS TO US ENTIRELY LOGICAL AND APPROPRIATE THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO SPELL OUT SOME OF THESE ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE ISSUES. NOW, I THINK WHAT WE'RE NOT SAYING IS THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING AN ONUS ON THE BOARD AT THIS POINT TO NECESSARILY COME UP WITH DETAILED, WEIGHTED CRITERIA IN TERMS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE ECONOMIC PARAMETERS. I THINK THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, GOOD LUCK TO YOU. BUT I THINK YOU PUT YOUR -- YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT HERE IN THAT BY PUTTING -- BY THE APPLICANT PUTTING THIS INFORMATION DOWN, IT THEN ALLOWS US AFTER THE FIRST ROUND OR WHATEVER TO BE -- THIRD ROUND, FOURTH ROUND -- IT ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS, ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS DID REALLY OCCUR. AND, THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE STUDY WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO ASSESS. SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WHICH APPLICANTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO. AND I DON'T -- CERTAINLY WE DON'T SEE IT AS A GREAT BURDEN ON THEM. THANK YOU. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP. SO WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WOULD DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? WHO WOULD LOOK AT IT? AND AT WHAT POINT WOULD IT EVER BE USEFUL? >>UNITED KINGDOM: WELL, I THINK IT WOULD -- AS I'VE JUST SAID, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL IN TERMS OF IF A STUDY WAS DONE POST -- YOU KNOW, POST A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF APPLICATIONS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ECONOMIC BENEFIT. AND THEN YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY AGAINST WHAT WAS THE PROJECTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE VARIOUS GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES THAT WERE PUT FORWARD. BUT ALSO, IT WOULD BE INFORMATION WHICH I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE TAKING PLACE AND WHETHER IT'S AN ASSESSMENT OF A SENSITIVE STRING BY THE GAC OR WHETHER IT'S AN ASSESSMENT BY ICANN OR AN ASSESSMENT BY ANY OTHER OBJECTIVE -- UNDER ANY OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, HAVING SOME SORT OF ECONOMIC INFORMATION WOULD BE QUITE IMPORTANT. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. I HAVE THE U.S. NEXT IN THE QUEUE. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. AND THANK YOU, ANA AND NIGEL. YOU'VE COVERED MOST OF THE TERRITORY THAT I HAD PLANNED TO COVER. BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD ADD JUST A LITTLE BIT THAT MIGHT ALSO HELP SHED SOME LIGHT AND PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT. I THINK WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO WITH THIS [note: due to connectivity issues, big chunks of this session are missing] FOR CHALLENGE, ANOTHER WORRY, ANOTHER CAUSE FOR DELAY. I'M HAPPY THAT YOU DON'T MEAN THAT. SO I THINK, RAY, YOU'VE BEEN WAITING. >>RAY PLZAK: YES. ACTUALLY, IT'S -- PETER, I THINK YOU'VE DONE SOME CLARITY THERE AS WELL, IS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY DATA THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION THAT COULD BE USED LATER ON. BECAUSE I'M HEARING TWO THINGS. I'M HEARING SOME PEOPLE SAYING THAT THIS IS -- WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE BENEFITS OF A PARTICULAR STRING, AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF JUST, IN GENERAL, ADDING NEW gTLDs? WHAT ARE WE REALLY EVALUATING IN THE END WHEN WE DO THESE POST EVALUATIONS? IS IT THE ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ONE STRING? OR IS IT THE EFFECTIVE EVALUATION -- ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS OF ADDING ALL OF THESE STRINGS? THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT. AND I'M HEARING PEOPLE SAYING WE'RE DOING BOTH THINGS. IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE USING HERE ARE ACTUALLY NOT CRITERIA PER SE, BUT ARE ACTUALLY DATA COLLECTION PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED BY AN EVALUATOR LATER, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING PERTAINING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HERE, BECAUSE THAT BELONGS IN ANOTHER AREA. AND SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THAT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. THE OTHER THING THAT BEARS IN HERE IS COST. WE WILL SPEND A LOT OF TIME AT SOME POINT TALKING ABOUT FEES. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FEES THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED. BUT SOMEWHERE OR OTHER, WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WE ARE ASKING FOR ARE COSTS. AND SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT AS WE GO THROUGH AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO THIS AND THAT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THESE ARE COSTS THAT THEY BEAR. AND THEY ARE MONIES THAT -- COSTS THAT WE DON'T SEE. AND SO WHEN I START THINKING OF THOSE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DISADVANTAGED FOR WHICH WE WANT TO HAVE PRICING STRUCTURES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME THERE AS WELL. SO I THINK WHEN WE GET TO THOSE OTHER MONEY DISCUSSIONS, WE NEED TO BEAR THAT IN MIND AS FAR AS WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT ADDING THINGS TO THE APPLICATIONS, WE'RE ADDING COSTS. THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE BORNE BY EVERYONE EQUALLY. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'VE ASKED OUR STAFF TO PUT UP THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION I MENTIONED. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. LOOKING AT THE RESOLUTION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN, GOING THROUGH THE FIRST OF THE WHEREASES, IT RECORDS OUR VARIOUS INTERESTS IN THIS. AND THE KEY -- THE RESOLUTION PART IS THE BOARD IS REQUESTING ADVICE FROM OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEES, INCLUDING THE GAC, ON JUST THE KIND OF THING WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT, ESTABLISHING THE DEFINITION MEASURE AND TARGETS FOR CONSUMER TRUST AND CHOICE. SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THAT. WE WANT -- WE ARE ASKING YOU TO HELP US WORK OUT HOW TO DO THIS KIND OF EVALUATION. SO I THINK THIS IS -- I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, THAT WE'VE GOT OTHER COMMITMENTS TO PROVIDE THIS, AND SO I -- I THINK THIS IS VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >>HEATHER DRYDEN: I THINK BRUCE. >>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SORT OF SEPARATE THE TWO LAYERS OF DISCUSSION HERE. THE FIRST LAYER IS HOW ARE WE BASICALLY EVALUATING THE PROGRAM AS A WHOLE WITH RESPECT TO ITS ECONOMIC BENEFITS. AND I THINK PETER IS POINTING OUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD TAKES VERY SERIOUSLY AND IS LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE IN GETTING THE RIGHT MEASURES AND DEFINITIONS OF WHAT THE TERMINOLOGY SUCH AS "CONSUMER CHOICE," "CONSUMER TRUST" MEANS. THAT'S THE MACRO. IN TERMS OF DATA IN A SPECIFIC APPLICATION, I GUESS PROBABLY THAT MAY ,THEN, INFORM OUTSIDE PARTIES THAT MAY BE DECIDING WHETHER THEY WISH TO OBJECT OR NOT. AND I KNOW THIS MORNING, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT WE WILL TOMORROW. THAT'S PART OF THE COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS SIDE. I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU WERE APPLYING FOR A COMMUNITY-BASED STRING, SAY, DOT MARY, AND YOU HAD SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN THERE, THEN THAT MIGHT ASSIST THAT MARY COMMUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY THINK THAT THAT APPLICANT IS THE APPROPRIATE PARTY TO RUN THAT STRING. SO THE -- HAVING IT IN THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION, I THINK, IS USEFUL FOR PARTIES OUTSIDE TO EVALUATE, YOU KNOW, IS THAT THE RIGHT PARTY TO RUN THE STRING. AT THE MACRO LEVEL, THOUGH, I THINK IS PETER'S -- AS PETER'S POINTED OUT, IT'S THIS BOARD RESOLUTION, HOW DO WE MEASURE IT AT THE MACRO LEVEL. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU. BERTRAND. >>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS CLARIFIED A FEW THINGS. AND, IN PARTICULAR, WHAT I TAKE OUT FROM IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES -- AND I AGREE WITH RAY THAT IT MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF SORTS FOR THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS THUS ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP A LITTLE BIT MORE THE REASON WHY SUCH A STRING WOULD BE USEFUL AND THE REASON WHY HIS OR HER PERSONAL APPLICATION IS GOING TO MAKE A GOOD USE OF THIS STRING. SO THOSE TWO ELEMENTS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, UNDERSTANDING THAT ON THE ONE HAND, THERE'S AN AGREEMENT, I THINK, THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE USED AS A CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN APPLICATIONS. SO IT'S NOT A NEW TYPE OF CRITERIA, SORT OF A BEAUTY CONTEST, THAT'S CLEAR. AND THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THAT, HOWEVER, IF YOU DETAIL IT CORRECTLY, AND IF YOU GIVE SOME ARGUMENTS, IT MAY ACTUALLY HELP THE APPLICANT ITSELF BY ALLEVIATING SOME OBJECTIONS THAT MAY HAVE COME UP, BECAUSE YOU CAN ANTICIPATE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, SOME OF THE CONCERNS, SOME OF THE FEARS OF POTENTIAL OBJECTORS, PARTICULARLY COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS OR THINGS LIKE THAT. AND IF THIS DOCUMENTATION IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT ALLEVIATES SOME OF THE FEARS, IT ACTUALLY REDUCES THE COST FOR THE APPLICANT ITSELF IF IT PREVENTS GOING THROUGH AN OBJECTION MECHANISM. SO I THINK IT'S A SORT OF DIALOGUE, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY HERE IS THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT WILL BE USEFUL FOR THE PROCESS TO TRY TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS, AND, TWO, TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND DATA THAT WILL BE USED IN THE EVALUATION PARALLEL OF THE PROCESS ITSELF. >>RAY PLZAK: RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR -- TO -- ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AS MUCH AS WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE DATA POINTS. AND SO -- AND IN THE -- DEFINING THE MANNER IN WHICH WE EXPECT THOSE DATA POINTS TO BE USED. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. ANY MORE FROM THE BOARD ON THAT? IF NOT, THANK YOU, RAY, AND THANK YOU, PORTUGAL, AND THANK YOU ALL THE OTHER GAC CONTRIBUTORS TO THAT TOPIC. WE COME, THEN, TO REGISTRY/REGISTRAR SEPARATION. AND I SEE THAT BILL DEE IS DOWN AS LEADING US ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU, BILL. >>BILL DEE: THANK YOU, PETER. YES. ESSENTIALLY, YOU'LL SEE FROM THE GAC SCORECARD, ACTUALLY, THAT THERE ARE TWO BASIC ISSUES. THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE, ACTUALLY, THE CURRENT APPROACH ENDORSED BY THE BOARD. AND THERE YOU SEE THAT THE GAC HAS MADE A PROPOSAL, ACTUALLY, THAT THE GAC ADVISES THE BOARD TO INSTRUCT ICANN STAFF TO AMEND THE PROPOSED NEW REGISTRY AGREEMENT TO RESTRICT CROSS-OWNERSHIP BETWEEN REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT CAN BE DERPD THAT THE REGISTRY DOES HAVE OR IS LIKELY TO GAIN MARKET POWER. I SHOULD EXPLAIN, THIS PROPOSAL COMES FROM THE ANTITRUST AUTHORITIES, SOME OF THE GAC MEMBERS, IT'S BEEN ENDORSED BY THE GAC, BUT IT DOES MEAN AT THIS STAGE I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE QUESTIONS MYSELF UNDER ADVISEMENT, ACTUALLY, AND REFER THEM TO MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE ANY, PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S, AS YOU WILL APPRECIATE, ACTUALLY, WE CAN BE ENTERING QUITE FORMAL TERRITORY. ALSO, I WOULDN'T LIKE TO MISLEAD YOU, ACTUALLY, BY ENTERING INTO A GOOD-FAITH DISCUSSION BASED ON MY IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF ANTITRUST LAW. SO I AM HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. AND I UNDERSTAND MY GAC COLLEAGUES ARE AS WELL, BACK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ANTITRUST COLLEAGUES. THE OTHER ISSUE WHICH I THINK IS EASIER FOR US TO TALK ABOUT NOW IS THE REQUEST FROM THE GAC. AT OUR LAST MEETING, FOR SOME BACKGROUND TO WHAT SOME OF US PERCEIVED AS AN APPARENT REVERSAL OF A BOARD DECISION LAST YEAR IN RELATION TO THE NAIROBI BOARD DECISION TO MAINTAIN STRICT SEPARATION. I THINK AT THAT POINT, THE GAC WAS NOT SURPRISED TO SEE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE IN OUR VIEW, WE SAW THAT AS ICANN DECIDING TO MAINTAIN AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE. AND ALSO, A FAIRLY FUNDAMENTAL PRACTICE, GIVEN THE HISTORY OF ICANN AND HOW IT WAS SET UP AND ITS INITIAL CHALLENGE TO DEAL WITH THE -- THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF COMPETITION IN THE gTLD SPACE AND THE FACT THAT SEPARATION WAS A VERY EXPLICIT PROVISION, ACTUALLY, TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE COMPETITION BETWEEN REGISTRARS AND TO ENSURE NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF REGISTRARS BY HAVING SEPARATION. SO WE DIDN'T COMMENT AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE I THINK WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A FAIRLY ANTICIPATED DECISION. WE THEN HAD THE DECISION LATER IN THE YEAR, ACTUALLY, FROM THE BOARD TO REVERSE THAT SITUATION. AND THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR MORE EXPLANATION. WE DO APPRECIATE THAT THE STAFF PAPERS RECEIVED, I THINK, TEN DAYS AGO, OR A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, DID PROVIDE A QUITE EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ON THE RATIONALE OF THE STAFF OR THE BOARD, ACTUALLY, FOR MAKING THAT DECISION IN NOVEMBER. THE PROBLEM IS, ACTUALLY, THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY EXPLAIN THE REVERSAL, AS SUCH. NOW, I DO APPRECIATE THAT ARGUATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IN THE NAIROBI DECISION, THE BOARD DECIDED TO MAINTAIN STRICT SEPARATION. BUT THEY DID LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN IF THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS. IT'S JUST THAT WE UNDERSTAND, I THINK IT'S CONFIRMED IN THE STAFF PAPER, THAT THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT THAT RAISES A COUPLE OF ISSUES. ONE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE BOARD APPEAR TO BE TAKING QUITE SIGNIFICANT DECISION WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON A CONSENSUS PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND ALSO, IN THE BROADER CONTEXT, SOMETHING WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN THE LAST ITEM AS WELL, IN TERMS OF THE AOC COMMITMENTS ON TRANSPARENCY, I THINK MANY OF US FEEL THAT WE ARE OBLIGED TO PUSH THIS ISSUE A LITTLE AND ASK FOR MORE EXPLANATION FROM THE BOARD [note: due to connectivity issues, big chunks of this session are missing] SO THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S AN ISSUE WE FEEL WE HAVE TO PUSH A BIT FURTHER WITH YOU. THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED IT IN PASSING, NOT TO SUGGEST THAT WE ABANDON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY AND GO ON TO AN EVALUATION OF THE AoC. THANK YOU. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WHY DON'T WE ASK JOE, PERHAPS, TO DEAL, IF YOU CAN, JOE, IN THE TIME -- WITH THIS FIRST POINT, WHICH IS THE ADVICE THAT WE AMEND THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT TO RESTRICT CROSS-OWNERSHIP BETWEEN REGISTRIES IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE IS EFFECTIVELY MARKET POWER. THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY TOPICS. >>JOE SIMS: I THINK IT MIGHT BE USEFUL JUST TO RECAP BRIEFLY HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE THAT LEADS TO THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS IN ANSWER TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FOUND OURSELVES IN AT THE TIME ICANN HAD A SINGLE REGISTRY OPERATOR AND A SINGLE REGISTRAR. IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE COMPETITION INTO THE REGISTRAR PART OF THE SPACE, THERE WAS THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PROTECTION TO ENSURE THAT THE SINGLE COMMERCIAL REGISTRY DID NOT DISCRIMINATE OR FAVOR ITS AFFILIATED OR OWNED REGISTRAR. SO THAT WAS A PARTICULAR SOLUTION TO THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM. THAT CONCEPT WAS APPLIED IRREGULAR GLARL AFTER THAT, NEVER OF COURSE TO REGISTRARS. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY CONSTRAINT ON REGISTRARS OWNING REGISTRIES. AND ONLY SOMETIMES, BUT NOT ALWAYS, TO REGISTRIES. AND OF COURSE DURING THIS HISTORY, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SERIES OF PROBLEMS. SO THE BOARD I THINK IT WAS CONTINUALLY SEEKING THE COMMUNITY TO COME TO A CONSENSUS POSITION. THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY AND CONSIDERABLE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, BUT NO CONSENSUS WAS FORTHCOMING FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, I THINK WHICH WE ALL CAN UNDERSTAND. SO IN NOVEMBER, THE BOARD DECIDED THAT IT HAD TO FINALLY COME TO A POSITION ON WHAT WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED IN THE GUIDEBOOK. THE BOARD CONCLUDED, FOR THE REASONS LAID OUT IN THE RATIONALE PAPER, THAT THERE REALLY WAS NO PRINCIPLED BASIS FOR A STRICT SEPARATION. AND, THUS, THE DEFAULT POSITION SHOULD BE NO SEPARATION, BUT THE BOARD SHOULD RETAIN THE RIGHT TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION WAS APPROPRIATE WITH RESPECT TO, ONE, EXISTING REGISTRIES WHO MIGHT WISH TO SWITCH FROM THEIR EXISTING CONTRACT TO A DIFFERENT ONE, AND THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT REQUIRE SOME FORM OF SEPARATION OR PERHAPS EVEN CONTINUED SEPARATION. AND THEN, SECOND, THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE BECAME EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF MARKET POWER AND ABUSE THEREOF, IN WHICH CASE THE BOARD COULD TAKE APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. THAT WAS THE THINKING PROCESS THAT WAS USED TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE. SO THE RULE THAT THE BOARD ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER WAS A DEFAULT OF NO SEPARATION, BUT IF THERE WERE ISSUES, IT COULD BE REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE COMPETITION AUTHORITIES AROUND THE WORLD, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY DEAL IN PARTICULAR, GIVEN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH ANY EXISTING REGISTRIES WHO SOUGHT TO CHANGE TO A NEW CONTRACT. PETER, I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE POINT. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BILL, DOES THAT -- THAT DEALS WITH PART OF YOUR QUESTION. I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION IS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION RELATING TO THE ROLE OF THE BOARD WHEN THERE'S NO CONSENSUS IN A SUPPORT ORGANIZATION. I AM QUITE HAPPY, AGAIN, TO HAVE THAT DEBATE. I THINK THAT'S, QUITE FRANKLY, THE ROLE OF THE BOARD WHEN WE CAN'T FIND CONSENSUS IN THE ORGANIZATION IS TO GO THROUGH THAT KIND OF A PROCESS. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT THERE. WE THINK, IN CASE IT WASN'T CLEAR FROM WHAT JOE SAID, WE THINK WE HAVE ACTUALLY PROVIDED FOR THE POINT THAT'S MADE IN THE GUIDEBOOK, THAT WHERE THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY MARKET POWER, BUT WHEN THERE IS ABUSE OF MARKET POWER, WE PROPOSE TO REFER THAT TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES . AND WE CAN BE CLEARER ABOUT THAT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. >>BILL DEE: PERHAPS I CAN OFFER TWO COMMENTS IN RESPONSE, ACTUALLY. THE FIRST ONE IS, I THINK WE HAVE A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE FROM THE GAC, ACTUALLY, SO AT SOME POINT I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE A RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD, ACTUALLY, ABOUT WHETHER OUR PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE OR NOT. THE OTHER POINT I'D MAKE IS, ONE QUESTION WHICH KIND OF HANGS IN THE AIR A BIT FOR ME IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT AFTER NAIROBI AND BEFORE NOVEMBER, THERE WAS A PROCESS IN THE GNSO WHICH DIDN'T GENERATE CONSENSUS. BUT THE QUESTION THAT HANGS IN THE AIR FOR ME IS I WONDER WHY THE BOARD DIDN'T CONSULT WITH THE GAC AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THE BYLAWS REQUIRE THEM TO CONSULT WITH THE GAC ON PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUES. AND IT'S A FAIRLY OBVIOUS PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE, ACTUALLY, DETERMINING ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMPETITION IN THE MARKET. AND SO THAT'S NOT A QUESTION I AM GOING TO EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER NOW, ACTUALLY. AND I THINK WE DO NEED TO AVOID DIVERTING INTO OTHER AREAS. I DO UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO FOCUS TODAY. BUT IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION THAT I WOULD MAKE THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED HAVING THIS DISCUSSION TODAY IF WE HAD HAD THAT CONSULTATION AT THE TIME. BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BACK. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THEM, ACTUALLY, AND SHARE THEM WITH COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU. >>JOE SIMS: I BELIEVE, PETER, SUBJECT TO CORRECTION BY YOU OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THAT THE INTENTION OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER WAS CONSISTENT WITH -- OR CERTAINLY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT AT LEAST I TAKE FROM THE GAC SCORECARD LANGUAGE. AMEND THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT TO RESTRICT CROSS OWNERSHIP IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT THE REGISTRY DOES HAVE OR IS LIKELY TO HAVE MARKET POWER. WE FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT THE REGISTRY AGREEMENTS WILL PROVIDE FOR THE APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL STEPS IF AND WHEN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BILL, I THINK WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS WE AGREE WITH YOU. WE CAN BE CLEARER THAT WE AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT. MIKE, YOU ARE IN THE QUEUE. >>MIKE SILBER: I THINK THE CLARIFICATION HAS HELPED, BUT MAYBE JUST TO REPEAT, TO SOME EXTENT, WHAT JOE WAS SAYING. THE RESOLUTION AS PASSED CLEARLY INDICATED THAT WHERE THERE WAS A DETERMINATION OF SMP THAT WE WOULDN'T BE REVERSING EXISTING RESTRICTIONS. AND THE GAC REQUEST NOW IS TO CREATE A PROVISO THAT SAYS IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS EXISTING SMP, WE VUNT SHOULDN'T REVERSE, WHICH IS WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS. OR IN A CASE IN THE FUTURE WHERE SOMEONE IS DETERMINED TO HAVE SMP, THEN ICANN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT ON SOMEONE WHO HASN'T BEEN RESTRICTED UP UNTIL THEN. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. >>BILL DEE: I THINK SO. I MEAN, PERHAPS IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CONFIRM TOMORROW. THANK YOU. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THERE'S SOME POSSIBLE MECHANIC CITIES DIFFICULTIES IF WE JUST TAKE THE SIMPLE STATEMENT IN THE SCORE BOOK WHICH IN OTHER WORDS WE START WITH TWO OR 300 APPLICANTS. WE HAVE NO ON SEPARATION. ONE OF THEM DEVELOPS MARKET POWER IN AN EXISTING MARKET AND THEN UNDER THIS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME PROCESS TO DIVEST THEM, A BUSTING UP. WHAT WE ARE SAYING AT THE MOMENT WE PROBABLY WOULD WANT TO REFER THAT TO COMPETITION AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION AS TO REMEDIES WHICH MAY NOT INCLUDE DIVESTING. SO I THINK THERE'S -- THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO TALK, AS YOU SAY, BILL, TO THE EXPERTS SLIGHTLY MORE. A SIMPLE DECISION THAT WE WILL, AT THAT POINT, REQUIRE SEPARATION MAY NOT BE THE MOST SOPHISTICATED WAY OF DEALING WITH THE PARTICULAR ABUSE OF MARKET POWER WHICH HAS EMERGED. WHICH IS WHY WE THINK RATHER THAN US TRYING TO INVENT MARKET RULES FOR CIRCUMSTANCES WE CAN'T SEE, THE SAFEST THING IS TO REFER IT TO COMPETITION AUTHORITIES WHO ARE HUFD TO DEALING WITH THESE THINGS AND HAVE [note: due to connectivity issues, big chunks of this session are missing] IS PROBABLY MORE COHERENT WITH THE CLASSICAL COMPETITION POLICY. AND IT'S ALSO BETTER FOR INNOVATION, BECAUSE IT PLACES LESS BURDEN ON THE DIFFERENT ACTORS. AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE DECISION THAT WAS TAKEN IN NOVEMBER. I SAY THAT BECAUSE I WAS JUST JOINING AS AN OBSERVER AT THE TIME. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, BERTRAND. ERIKA, I THINK AND THEN IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE ARE ABOUT TO CLOSE FOR LUNCH. ERIKA. >>ERIKA MANN: I THINK WHAT BERTRAND JUST SAID IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT COMPETITION POLICY, IT'S DESIGNED THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED NOW, IT USUALLY OBSERVES THE WAY THE MARKET FUNCTIONS. AND IF THERE'S MARKET ABUSE -- BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE A MONOPOLY BUT THERE IS STILL NO MARKET ABUSE. TAKE EVERSON BOEING. YOU HAVE A DUOPOLY. BUT YOU HAVE COMPETITORS COMING UP AND YOU HAVE TO JUDGE THE MARKET IN A DIFFERENT WAY. HERE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT MARKET SITUATION. SO IF YOU GO IN WITH A PRE-UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE MARKET SHOULD LOOK LIKE IN AN IDEAL PHASE THE ONLY THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IS YOU BLOCK MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WHICH YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE. SO LET'S OBSERVE IT, HAVE THE DEFINITIONS CLEAR, AND THAT'S WELL DEVELOPED IN THE COMPETITION