GAC LEAD IS ON THIS. IT IS MARK AGAIN. I KNOW JAYANTHA WAS THERE AT SOME STAGE. BUT FROM THE BOARD, RAM MOHAN IS GOING TO FRONT THAT FOR US. THANK YOU, RAM.
MARK, BACK TO YOU, ROUND 2.
>>MARK CARVELL: BACK IN THE HOT SEAT, YOU MIGHT SAY, YES.
BUT I THINK HERE -- WELL, IT IS ANOTHER SHARED OBJECTIVE, I THINK, IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THE NEW ROUND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MALICIOUS CONDUCT AND COMPROMISING THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, CREATING CONFUSION, CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ONLINE FRAUD. I MEAN, THE RISK OF PROLIFERATION OF THESE PROBLEMS IS WELL-RECOGNIZED BY EVERYBODY IN THIS PROCESS. I'M SURE. CONSUMER PROTECTION IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY AREA FOR GOVERNMENTS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF FOCUS ON THIS IN VIEW OF THE RISE OF E-COMMERCE AND ONLINE TRADING, ONLINE PAYMENT SYSTEMS, ONLINE BANKING AND SO ON.
SO THIS WHOLE AREA OF POTENTIAL ESCALATION OF ABUSE CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF POLICY LEADS AND NUMBER OF GAC COUNTRY ADMINISTRATIONS TO THEIR FAIR TRADING PEOPLE, TO TRADING STANDARDS PEOPLE AND TO CONSUMER PROTECTION POLICY PEOPLE WITHIN GOVERNMENTS.
SO THIS ELEMENT OF THE SCORECARD REFLECTS THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHIN ADMINISTRATIONS AND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WITH AGENCIES, SOME OF WHICH MAY BE IN GOVERNMENTS SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON THE COUNTRY OR OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT BUT KIND OF EMPOWERED, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. CONSULTATIONS WITH ALL THOSE ENTITIES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSALS AND THERE WERE CONSULTATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY AND SO ON.
SO IT IS A PRODUCT OF THAT, THESE PROPOSALS AND THE SCORECARD.
AND WE WANTED, FIRST OF ALL, TO SHIFT AWAY FROM ONLY THINKING IN TERMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, AS I JUST DESCRIBED THERE ARE KEY INSTRUMENTS IN COUNTRIES FOR ADDRESSING MALL TRADING AND FRAUD AND RIPPING OFF CONSUMERS. AND WE NEED THOSE BROUGHT INTO THE CONSCIOUSNESS, IF YOU'D LIKE, OF THE REGISTRIES.
SO OUR FIRST PROPOSAL THERE IS WE AMEND THE ABUSIVE POINT OF CONTACT MAINTENANCE PARAGRAPH TO ENSURE THAT REGISTRY OPERATORS ARE AWARE THAT THEY NEED TO ENGAGE AND PROVIDE DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMER AGENCIES FAIR TRADING PEOPLE, TRADING STANDARDS AND SO ON. SO THAT'S THE FIRST ELEMENT OF THE GAC PROPOSALS?
COMPLIANCE IS OBVIOUSLY A KEY ELEMENT AS gTLDs ROLL OUT, COMPLIANCE HAS GOT TO BE TOP NOTCH IN TERMS OF THE REGISTRIES AND THAT MUST BE BROUGHT INTO THE SORT OF CONFIDENCE-DEVELOPMENT AREA, IF YOU'D LIKE, IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS AND SO ON.
AND VETTING, I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED ON THIS MAYBE EARLIER, MAYBE IN THE OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING, THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE THOSE SECTORS IN BUSINESS WHERE REGISTRIES ARE GOING TO BE SPECIFICALLY ACTIVE IN TERMS OF TARGETING CUSTOMERS, CONSUMERS AND SECTORS THAT ARE REGULATED TO ENSURE THAT THE ROGUES ARE KEPT OUT, THE STANDARDS ARE HIGH AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE OF CONSUMERS IS KEPTS TO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. SO IN THAT PROPOSAL, THE APPLICATION FOR THE STRINGS, THE PROCESS SHOULD INQUIRE PARTICULARLY INTENSIVE VETTING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT THAT RISK OF REGISTRIES THAT ARE VERY ACTIVE IN THE ONLINE CONSUMER AREA ARE LEGITIMATE AND PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT SEEK TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE THEIR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES.
SO I GUESS THOSE ARE THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, BASICALLY, FLAGGING UP THAT THERE IS A RISK. IT IS ONE OF THE RISKS I TOUCHED ON IN MY OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING, AND WE LOOK TO ICANN AND THIS PROCESS REALLY TO DO ITS UTMOST TO MITIGATE THAT RISK. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, MARK. RAM, OVER TO YOU.
>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU, MARK. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE BOLDED COMMENTS HERE AS WELL AS WHAT'S IN THE SCORECARD.
IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE HAD A FEW CLARIFICATIONS, A FEW QUESTIONS THAT PERHAPS THE GAC COULD RESPOND TO AND HELP CLARIFY FOR US. THE FIRST ONE ON POINTS OF CONTACT FOR ABUSE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE GAC CONSIDERS THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND AGENCIES ENDORSED BY GOVERNMENTS? BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, IT IS JUST WRITTEN AS IS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND AGENCIES ENDORSED BY AGENCIES ARE. THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
>>MARK CARVELL: WE ARE NOT GOING INTO GREAT DETAIL HERE BUT IT SHOULD BE PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE KIND OF ENTITIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING INTO THE PROCESS HERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ACTIVE IN PROTECTING CONSUMERS. AND THIS IS THE -- IT VARIES FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY. YOU HAVE DIFFERENT KIND OF AGENCIES. SOME OF THEM ARE PART OF GOVERNMENT. SOME OF THEM ARE DELEGATED DOWN INTO AGENCIES OR INTO TRADING STANDARDS, ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONAL AND COUNTY OR STATE LEVEL OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES. SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO PUT PRECISE PARAMETERS ON THAT.
BUT THE POINT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT OVER IS THAT THE OPERATORS HAVE REALLY GOT TO BE COGNIZANT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS REALLY IN TERMS OF DUE DILIGENCE, THAT THEY ASSIST AND PROVIDE POINTS OF CONTACT WITH THOSE KINDS OF AUTHORITIES. I THINK I CAN ONLY SPEAK OF IT REALLY AT THAT KIND OF GENERAL LEVEL. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THE UNITED STATES, PLEASE.
>>UNITED STATES: THANK YOU, HEATHER, AND THANK YOU, MARK, FOR THE OVERVIEW. AND THANK YOU, RAM, FOR THE QUESTION. HOPEFULLY THIS MIGHT MAKE IT A LITTLE SIMPLER. I THINK WE ARE TRY BE TO CAPTURE AGENCIES THAT BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CAPABILITIES. SO THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY DEPENDING ON THE COUNTRY YOU'RE DEALING WITH. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE LIMITED TO CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY BUT ALSO CIVIL. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE UNITED STATES, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS NOT A PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION. IT IS AN INDEPENDENT REGULATORY BODY WITH CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY.
IN OTHER COUNTRIES, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES, SO IF THAT HELPS. BUT IT'S -- WE DID TRY TO SPECIFY THAT IT WOULD BE AN ENTITY OR AN AGENCY THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY A GOVERNMENT. IT ISN'T INTENDED TO BE WIDE OPEN, BUT IT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE -- TO GIVE A SENSE OF THE KINDS OF AGENCIES WHO REALLY NEED TO FEEL CONFIDENT THEY WILL GET THE SUPPORT THEY NEED WHEN THEY ASK A QUESTION.
WHILE I HAVE THE MICROPHONE, COULD I CONTINUE JUST FOR A FEW MINUTES TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT MARK HAD PRESENTED TO COMPLEMENT? ON THE VETTING OF CERTAIN STRINGS, I THINK THERE WAS A SLIGHT OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART IN THE SCORECARD SO OUR APOLOGIES. SO THIS REFINEMENT CAME UP IN OUR DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY AROUND THE GAC TABLE.
WE THINK THAT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY OTHER STRINGS THAT DESCRIBE OR ARE TARGETED TO A POPULATION OR AN INDUSTRY THAT IS VULNERABLE TO OR HAS BEEN THE TARGET OF ONLINE FRAUD OR ABUSE. SO I COULD GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING LIKE DOT KIDS OR DOT PHARMA BUT THERE ARE MANY, MANY OTHER EXAMPLES SO I DID WANT TO GET THAT CONCEPT ACROSS AS WELL. IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE JUST REGULATED INDUSTRY, IT WOULD BE A SECTOR THAT HAS BEEN THE TARGET OF -- OR BEEN VULNERABLE TO ABUSE.
AND THEN I DID WANT TO SORT OF EMPHASIZE AND YOU WILL HEAR IT AGAIN IN THE NEXT SUBJECT WE GET TO, TWO FROM NOW, I GUESS -- OR FOUR FROM NOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE'LL RETURN TO THIS. BUT STRESS JUST HOW CRITICAL EFFECTIVE CONTRACT COMPLIANCE IS AND WILL BE. IT IS CRITICAL NOW, TODAY AND IT SEEMS TO BE A CHALLENGING AREA WITH STAFF REDUCTIONS AND NOT A LOT OF RESOURCES. SO YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT ARE HELD BY MANY GOVERNMENTS LOOKING AHEAD TO MANY, MANY MORE REGISTRIES, POSSIBLE MANY MORE THAN THE CURRENT 900 REGISTRARS. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN ABOUT THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL TERMS. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: CAN I JUST JUMP IN AT THE FIRST POINT, SUZANNE, WHICH IS THE SCOPE ISSUE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE URGE. AT THE MOMENT THIS IS SO COMPLETELY UNLIMITED THAT THERE ARE 206 GOVERNMENTS. THIS ISN'T EVEN LIMITED TO THE REQUIRING REGISTRIES IN THE SAME COUNTRY AS THE GOVERNMENT THAT MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS OPEN TO ALL 206 GOVERNMENTS RECOMMENDING AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF AGENCIES IN RELATION TO EVERY REG- -- SO THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THIS. AND WHEN YOU THINK THAT WHAT THIS IS IS REQUIRING ALL THE CURRENT REGISTRIES WE HAVE ARE ASKED TO SIGN CONTRACTS, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO PRETTY WELL ANYTHING THESE AGENCIES ASK THEM TO TO RESOLVE ABUSE.
WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLE. WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING WE CAN PUT INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE REGISTRY SO THE REGISTRY KNOWS WHAT IT IS SIGNING UP FOR. WHO ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO? HOW DO THEY KNOW IT'S A VALID -- THAT IT'S A PROPER AGENCY? AND ONCE THAT'S DONE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFICULTY IN THE IDEA OF COMPLYING.
SO WE NEED TO GET A LOT MORE PROSCRIPTION AROUND THIS. AT THE MOMENT, IT'S MATHEMATICALLY UNLIMITED.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I HAVE SENEGAL ASKING FOR THE FLOOR, SO GO AHEAD.
>>SENEGAL: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
MY NAME IS MAIMOUNA DIOP. I AM REPRESENTATIVE OF SENEGAL, MY COUNTRY, ON THE GAC.
I REALLY WANT TO WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE PART OF THIS MEETING. IT IS A FIRST TIME WE HAVE THIS INTERSESSION WITH THE GAC -- WITH THE ICANN.
AND SINCE I WAS INVOLVED IN ICANN MEETING, IT WAS IN 2003, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE SPENT MORE THAN TWO HOURS DISCUSSING OUR ISSUES. AND I THINK THAT IS A GOOD BEGINNING AND A GOOD WAY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER AND OUR BIG CONCERN AS GOVERNMENT.
TO COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE, THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER. IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, I THINK IT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITY. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE LACK OF A LOT OF MEANS OF TECHNICAL THINGS, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE CARE TO THIS ISSUE. AND THAT'S WHY I REALLY WANT TO FULLY SUPPORT WHAT MARK SAY ABOUT HAVING THESE KIND OF -- OF POINT OF CONTACT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THIS POINT OF CONTACT TO HELP US IDENTIFY THIS AGENCY WE CAN USE IF WE HAVE THIS KIND OF PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THE ONLY ONE ISSUE -- THE ONLY ONE SOLUTION WE HAVE IS JUST TO BLOCK SOME STRING. AND I THINK IT'S NOT -- FOR OUR COUNTRY, IT IS NOT GOOD TO BLOCK STRING BECAUSE JUST WE CANNOT HAVE -- KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST HAVE THE GOOD INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT IN OUR PERSPECTIVE, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, PROTECTION OF THE CUSTOMER IS A BIG ISSUE.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SENEGAL.
I THINK BERTRAND WAS NEXT, AND THEN WE HAVE U.K. AND BRAZIL AND U.S.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE THE EXPRESSION "MORE INTENSIVE VETTING." AND ALSO THE TYPE OF STRINGS THAT ARE BEING POTENTIALLY COVERED. BECAUSE I THINK THE CONCERN IS INTERESTING, BUT AS PETER SAID, WE ARE BASICALLY EXPANDING TREMENDOUSLY THE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE STRINGS THAT COULD BE COVERED BY THIS. BECAUSE IF I TAKE AN EXAMPLE, THERE WOULD BE A PERFECT ARGUMENT TO SAY THAT DOT MUSIC WOULD FALL EXACTLY IN THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS AN ENTRENCHMENT AND A LOT OF THINGS, LIKELIHOOD OF ABUSE. IF YOU LOOK AT INTERNATIONAL MEASURES, THERE ARE SEVERAL COUNTRIES WHERE THE MAIN TAKEDOWN ON DOMAIN NAMES IS BASICALLY ORIENTED TOWARDS POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT AND COPYRIGHT. AND THAT GOES FOR DOT VIDEO, DOT FILM, DOT MOVIE, DOT WHATEVER YOU THINK OF.
SO THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE FACING IS HOW TO AVOID THAT THIS BECOMES AN ADDITIONAL SET OF CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF AN APPLICATION. THIS IS THE QUESTION ONE. WHAT WOULD VETTING MEAN AND WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF SUCH A VETTING? IS IT, FOR INSTANCE, A SORTING OUT BETWEEN DIFFERENT APPLICANTS IN A CONTENTIOUS SET?
THE SECOND THING I THINK WOULD BE INTERESTING IS TO SEE WHAT IS THE CONNECTION WITH THE PART THAT WE HAVE POSTPONED UNTIL TOMORROW THAT WAS IN THE EARLY MORNING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY STRINGS. BECAUSE I SENSE IN THE DISCUSSION, OR AT LEAST IN THE SCORECARD, THE NOTION THAT THOSE COMMUNITY STRINGS ARE ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT COULD VERY EASILY EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING THAT IS ALMOST VERTICAL, WHERE THERE ARE, FOR INSTANCE, SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS REGARDING THE TYPE OF OPERATOR AND THE TYPE OF SUPPORT BY THE COMMUNITY OR THE STAKEHOLDERS CONCERNED.
SO IS THERE A CONNECTION IN YOUR MIND IN THIS TYPE OF CONCEPT?
AND FINALLY, THIS POINT, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THE RATIONALE, THIS POINT TO CRITERIA WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED, PARTICULARLY WHICH ARE THE CHOICE OF THE APPROPRIATE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, OPERATOR OR THE APPROPRIATE REGISTRATION POLICIES, WHICH IS GETTING INTO A VERY DEEP LEVEL OF DETAIL.
SO MY MAIN INTERROGATION IS HOW TO HANDLE THE LIMITS ON THIS AND HOW IS IT CONNECTED TO THE ISSUE THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TOMORROW ON COMMUNITY STRINGS THAT WILL REQUIRE SUPPORT OR SPECIAL OPERATORS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I CAN JUST PARAPHRASE THAT. WE HAVE OFTEN HAD REQUESTS FOR GOOD REASON THAT SEEMS TO CREATE MORE CATEGORIES. THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN UNSPECIFIED, UNDEFINED NEW CATEGORY CALLED GENERALLY -- GENERALLY REGULATED INDUSTRY. AND WE HAVE GOT NO POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK, NO EXEXPLANATION, NO COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS CATEGORY WOULD CONSIST OF.
AND SO OUR STARTING POINT IS TO GO BACK, AS WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE, IS TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE CATEGORIES A PRIORI. THE MARKET MIGHT START CREATING CATEGORIES AND WE WILL CREATE RULES FOR THEM AS APPROPRIATE BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CATEGORIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTING OR USEFUL ARE.
SO I HOPE THAT WAS AN ADD-ON, BERTRAND, TO THE WAY WERE YOU PUTTING IN. I THINK WE AGREE.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: UNITED KINGDOM.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS VERY MUCH, HEATHER.
JUST ON THAT POINT, I THINK WHEN THESE APPLICATIONS START COMING IN, I MEAN, YOU WILL BE ABLE, REALLY, TO IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THIS GENERAL AREA OF E-COMMERCE AND ONLINE BUSINESS AND CONSUMER INTERACTION.
SO WE COULD TRY AND WORK UP SOME CRITERIA ON THAT. I MEAN, WE, THE COMMUNITY, COULD TRY TO WORK UP SOME CRITERIA, PERHAPS TO SORT OF MARK THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS GOING TO BE IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AREA OR IN ONLINE CONSUMER PAYMENTS OR ONLINE RETAILING.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF OBVIOUS AREA OF VULNERABILITY AS FAR AS CONSUMERS ARE CONCERNED. SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING BEFOREHAND IN TERMS OF DEFINING A CATEGORY OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S -- WE COULD -- I COULD IMAGINE A SET OF CRITERIA WHICH DISTINGUISHES THOSE KIND OF ACTIVITIES THAT COULD BE ON A KIND OF SCORE SHEET. THIS NEEDS CAREFUL LOOK AT. WHO IS GOING TO RUN THIS? AND LET'S ENHANCE THE VETTING ON THAT.
SO THAT'S MY CONCEPT FOR THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE, I REALLY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THIS BEING A MAJOR PROBLEM, ACTUALLY. I MEAN, ASSISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ALREADY THERE, SO YOU NEED A POINT OF CONTACT FOR THAT.
IT SHOULD BE RELATIVELY EASY, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT. LIKEWISE TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE CONSUMER PROTECTION OR FAIR TRADING AGENCY IN SIMILAR FASHION.
I COULD OFFER, YOU KNOW, TO CONSULT WITH GAC COLLEAGUES ON HOW WE MIGHT EXAMINE THE DANGER OF THIS BEING IMPRACTICAL, BUT WE'LL TRY AND HELP YOU OUT IN TERMS OF ALLAYING YOUR CONCERNS THERE.
AS I SAY, IT'S NOT BEEN RAISED TO ME AS A PROBLEM THAT WOULD IMPAIR THE ABILITY TO ADD THIS INTO THE GUIDEBOOK. SAY IT'S GAC CONSENSUS. WE DO SEEK IT, BUT WE WILL TRY TO HELP NEW TERMS OF THE PRACTICALITIES OF IT.
THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: BRAZIL, PLEASE.
>>BRAZIL: THANK YOU, AL VAN i IN THE BRAZIL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. A BRIEF COMMENT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CONSUMER PROTECTION AND WE FOCUS IN ON ONE ASPECT THAT IS LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND SINCE TALKING ABOUT THIS DIFFICULT QUESTION OF DEFINING THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES REGARDING TO THIS ISSUE, MAYBE IT ALSO SHOULD BE USEFUL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USED IN GAC'S COMMUNIQUÉ FROM BRUSSELS LAST JUNE, WHEN WE ALSO ADDED THE EXPRESSION THAT ANY -- ANY MEASURES REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD ALSO RESPECT APPLICABLE LAW AND REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA, SUCH AS PRIVACY, ACCURACY AND RELEVANCE, JUST IN ORDER TO HAVE A BALANCED APPROACH IN ANY IDEA REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, BRAZIL.
UNITED STATES.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
JUST WANTED TO SORT OF CHIME IN ON THE ISSUE THAT, PETER, YOU AND RAM HAVE RAISED AND BERTRAND HAS RAISED THAT WE SEEM TO BE PRESENTED WITH YET ANOTHER CATEGORY.
I THINK JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF OUR PREPARATIONS AND MONITORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DAG IN EACH SUCCESSIVE VERSION, IT HAS BEEN THE LACK OF ANY CERTAINTY IN THE SUCCESSIVE VERSIONS THAT CERTAIN STRINGS THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE HANDLED MORE CAREFULLY THAN OTHERS, THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE THE PROSPECT FOR THAT.
SO, HENCE THE ATTEMPT TO CONTINUOUSLY TRY TO HIGHLIGHT THERE ARE GOING TO BE CERTAIN KINDS OF STRINGS THAT MIGHT NEED MORE CAREFUL ATTENTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ISN'T A MINISTRY OF FINANCE, OR IN MY CASE THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, THAT WOULD BE CONFIDENT RIGHT NOW THAT SOME CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE WOULDN'T BE THE ARM'S LENGTH OWNER OF AN APPLICANT FOR DOT BANK, GOD FORBID.
SO THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS FOR.
SO AS WE HAVE BEEN BRIEFING UP IN OUR RESPECTIVE CAPITALS TO OUR MANAGEMENT, THE QUESTIONS ARE, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND IT'S A HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRY IN OUR COUNTRY AND WE HAVE NO IDEA THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE HAS EVEN DONE WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. HAS THIS APPLICANT BEEN PROPERLY VETTED? DA-DA-DA. SO THIS DOESN'T EVEN GET TO BERTRAND'S QUESTION WHICH WE WILL RETURN TO TOMORROW MORNING OF THE LINK BETWEEN THE STRING AND WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS THE RIGHT ENTITY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, BUT IT GOES TO A GREAT DEAL OF SENSITIVITY IN CAPITAL BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN STRINGS THAT MIGHT EXPOSE CONSUMERS TO MORE POSSIBILITIES OF FRAUD.
SO THAT'S, HENCE, THE CONSTANT RETURNING TO SAY WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES.
WE WERE TRYING TO BE MORE PRACTICAL HERE IN OFFERING MORE CONCRETE SUGGESTIONS. BUT WE ARE TRYING TO EMPHASIZE, AS WE HAVE FROM THE BEGINNING, THE OUTSTANDING CONCERN THAT WE HAVE THAT THE BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT BE OUTWEIGHED BY THE COST VIA HARM.
SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.
AND I AGREE WITH MARK, WE WILL CERTAINLY PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER, AND WE WILL CERTAINLY CONSULT WITH EXISTING REGISTRIES. IT HAS NOT EVER BEEN MY RUNG THAT MAINTAINING AN ABUSE OF CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN AN UL UNDULY BURDENSOME TASK. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MOST REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS WOULD LIKE, IN FACT, TO COLLABORATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.
THANKS.
>>RAM MOHAN: SUZANNE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. IF I COULD JUST QUICKLY JUMP IN ON THAT ONE. THE DAG ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE REGISTRIES MUST MAINTAIN AN ABUSE POINT OF CONTACT. SO THAT REQUIREMENT EXISTS. AND IN FACT, THERE IS A SCORING SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES THAT THERE IS EXPEDITED ATTENTION PROVIDED TO REQUESTS THAT COME IN FOR ABUSE.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE IS CONCURRENCE THAT BOTH REGISTRIES AS WELL AS ICANN BELIEVE, AS DO GOVERNMENTS, THAT AN ABUSE POINT OF CONTACT IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF RUNNING A REGISTRY.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER ISSUES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR CLARITY FROM THE GAC. ONE IS UNDER VETTING, THE SCORECARD SAYS THAT gTLD STRINGS WHICH RELATE TO ANY GENERALLY REGULATED INDUSTRY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO MORE INTENSIVE VETTING.
HAS THE GAC IDENTIFIED WHAT THE STANDARD FOR "MORE INTENSIVE VETTING" IS? ONE OF THE QUESTIONS OR THE CONCERNS IS THAT ICANN COULD INITIATE A PROCESS AND PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND MIGHT STILL NOT MEET YOUR THOUGHTS OF WHAT "MORE INTENSIVE VETTING" IS. SO SOME GUIDANCE THERE WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THE OTHER QUESTION IS ON THE POINT OF CONTACT FOR ABUSE. WHAT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENTS DOES THE GAC SUGGEST THAT REGISTRY OPERATORS MUST ASSIST? IS IT NATIONAL OR STATE? LOCAL? SOMETHING ELSE? WHERE DOES IT STOP, OR DOES IT STOP AT ALL?
SO THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME CLARITY ON.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND DOES IT APPLY ON ASSIGNMENT (OFF MICROPHONE).
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: UNITED KINGDOM, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>>UNITED KINGDOM: JUST VERY BRIEFLY.
IT WILL VARY. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. I THINK IT'S FOR THE REGISTRY OPERATOR TO DO, YOU KNOW, THE NECESSARY RESEARCH AS TO WHAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE POINT OF CONTACT SHOULD BE. SO IT'S DOWN TO RESEARCH, REALLY, IN TERMS OF THAT.
>>RAM MOHAN: MARK, I'M SORRY. COULD I QUICKLY ASK A CLARIFICATION?
THE POINT OF CONTACT IS FROM THE REGISTRY. SO IS WHAT -- THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE REGISTRY MUST ASSIGN A POINT OF CONTACT. AND THERE IS NO CONTENTION ON THAT. WE'RE ALL AGREEING ON THAT.
SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE REGISTRIES MUST RESEARCH WHO THE RIGHT POINT OF CONTACT IS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YEAH. I'M THINKING IN TERMS OF, OKAY, APPOINTING A POINT OF CONTACT. BUT IN TERMS OF WHO IS GOING TO MAKE USE OF THAT CONTACT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A POINT OF -- AN ISSUE OF COMMUNICATION, IF YOU LIKE, WITH THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT THE NATIONAL, REGIONAL, LOCAL LEVEL. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING.
IN TERMS OF VETTING, I GUESS IT'S DOWN TO A BIT OF WORK TO TRY AND WORK OUT WHAT THAT MIGHT BE. YOU KNOW, HOW YOU ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF MORE INTENSIVE VETTING. BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT ICANN DO. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY -- I DON'T THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO GO INTO TOO MUCH IN TERMS OF SPECIFICS, BUT IT'S -- THE POINT WE'RE MAKING IS THE KEY THING, THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE, IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION WITH THIS KIND OF APPLICANT, A PARTICULARLY RIGOROUS VETTING PROCEDURE. THE BAR HAS TO BE A BIT HIGHER. QUITE A BIT HIGHER.
THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K.
UNLESS I SEE REQUESTS FROM THE -- FROM GAC MEMBERS FOR THE FLOOR -- GAC MEMBERS FOR THE FLOOR, IT MAYBE USEFUL FOR THE GAC, ACTUALLY, TO REFLECT ON THOSE QUESTIONS A BIT MORE AND COME BACK WITH CLARIFICATIONS WHEREVER WE ARE ABLE. AS A GENERAL POINT, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
OKAY. SO BERTRAND, AND I WILL KEEP MY EYE OUT FOR GAC REQUESTS.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: YEAH, JUST A VERY BRIEF COMMENT TO SAY THAT WHENEVER WE SEE IN THE SCORECARD SOMETHING THAT REQUESTS EXAMINATION OF A CRITERIA OR DEEPER VETTING AND SO ON, WE SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WILL CREATE A NEW PROCESS. THERE ARE, ACTUALLY, SEVERAL EXAMINATIONS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE SCREENING OF THE APPLICANT, EXACTLY TODAY IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, THE APPLICANT IS BEING SCREENED FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THINGS.
AND SO ONE WAY TO IMPLEMENT THAT EFFORT OF DEEPER VETTING COULD BE TO IDENTIFY IN THOSE PROCEDURES SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A TRIGGER, THAT WOULD SAY IF THE GAC, FOR INSTANCE, HIGHLIGHTS THAT THIS TYPE OF STRING IS WORTHY OF A PARTICULAR ATTENTION, THEN THERE COULD BE A PROVISION THAT SAYS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE VALIDATION OF THE APPLICANT, A SPECIFIC ATTENTION WILL BE DONE, FOR INSTANCE, TO THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO FRAUD OR THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A SPECIAL -- THAT IS PARTICULARLY SCREENED. I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT I MEAN IS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A NEW PROCESS EVERY TIME THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS. WE SHOULD JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. WHEREVER WE CAN JUST ENHANCE AN EXISTING STEP IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, IT MAY BE SOME SOLUTION SOMETIME.
>> WELL, JUST A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT TRYING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE TO ME THIS CONFLICTS WITH IS THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE THAT IT HAS TO BE -- THE APPLICATION PROCESS HAS TO BE ORDERLY AND PREDICTABLE. AND A LOT OF THIS STARTS TO HAVE AD HOCRY ABOUT IT. PEOPLE SAY I THINK THIS IS DIFFERENT; THEREFORE WE WILL DO A DIFFERENT MECHANISM FOR IT. WHATEVER WE DO THERE HAS TO BE CLEAR DESCRIPTIONS, CLEAR LISTS. APPLICANT HAVE TO KNOW BEFOREHAND WHAT THEY ARE UP FOR.
OKAY.
IS THERE MORE ON OBVIOUSLY THIS VERY CRUCIAL THING THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO, WHICH IS PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. THIS IS THE CONSUMER PROTECTION.
IS THERE -- DO YOU WANT A LAST COMMENT, MARK? AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THE TEAM HAS PUT INTO THIS.
RAM, A FINAL COMMENT?
>>RAM MOHAN: NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU ALL.
LET'S MOVE ON, THEN, TO THE LAST PART OF THIS SECTION WHICH IS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, DUE DILIGENCE, WHICH IS THE RAA CONSIDERATIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE GUIDEBOOK CONSIDERATIONS. AND THE TEAM ON THIS ONE FROM -- AGAIN, I THINK MARK, ARE YOU -- WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU OFF?
OH, I'M SORRY, SORRY, I HAVE JUMPED ONE. THEY ARE BUNCHED HERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.
POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES WITH GOVERNMENTS, WHICH, HEATHER, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT THREE GAC TOPIC LEADERS, WHICH IS EXCELLENT. WE GET MARK OFF THE HOOK AND HEAR FROM SOME FRESH -- AND FROM -- FROM THE BOARD SIDE THE POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE IS BERTRAND.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I BELIEVE NORWAY IS WILLING TO PRESENT THIS TOPIC.
YES. OKAY. FINE.
SO NORWAY WILL PRESENT.
>>NORWAY: THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: ALL RIGHT. I SEE THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED PAST LAW ENFORCEMENT DUE DILIGENCE N IN THE AGENDA, AND IT'S RELATED TO THE ISSUES WE HAVE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING AROUND CONSUMER PROTECTION.
SO THE AGENDA TODAY I BELIEVE IS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL LISTING OF -- THAT WE HAD OF TOPICS DIVIDED BY LEADS. SO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. SO --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: LET'S NOT GET HUNG UP ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. WE HAVE LUMPED THESE TOPICS TOGETHER FOR UNDERSTANDING CONVENIENCE. THESE ARE ALL THESE CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES. IF WE HAVEN'T QUITE CAPTURED IT ON THE SCREEN, WITH YOUR PERMISSION WE'LL KEEP TO THIS GROUPING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED AS THE TOPIC LEADERS WERE APPOINTED.
SO LET'S COME TO LAW ENFORCEMENT DUE DILIGENCE, AND THAT'S --
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: UNITED STATES.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: UNITED STATES, AND GONZALO NAVARRO FOR THE BOARD SIDE.
BILL.
>>BILL DEE: YES, SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO BE DIFFICULT, ACTUALLY, BUT I AM BEING JOINED BY A COLLEAGUE AND I TOLD HIM HE NEEDS TO BE HERE AT 1645.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OH, OKAY.
>>BILL DEE: BECAUSE IT'S UP THERE. SO I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF WE COULD DEFER THE ITEM. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ABSOLUTELY. NO PROBLEM AT ALL. WE CAN DO IT ANY WAY THAT'S CONVENIENT.
SO IF YOU WOULD RATHER GO TO -- STICK WITH THAT, WE WILL GO, THEN, TO....
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: POST-DELEGATIO N?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK WE MIGHT BE AT COFFEE BREAK.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE THE COFFEE BREAK AND THEN WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT BILL'S COLLEAGUE ARRIVES.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND WE CLEARLY HAVE PLENTY OF TOPICS TO GO ON.
LET'S TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK AND BY THAT POINT WE WILL BE CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEST TO GO ON.
THANK YOU.
(COFFEE BREAK).