.
.
.
.
.
.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, COULD YOU TAKE YOUR SEATS? WE'RE ABOUT TO RESUME.
AND COULD WE HAVE THE SPEAKERS ON POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES.

>> I COULD BARELY HEAR YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE'RE GOING TO START AGAIN ONCE YOU'RE SEATED. THE NEXT TOPIC IS POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES.
FOLLOWED BY GEOGRAPHIC NAMES.
WE'RE DOING POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES.
HEATHER, DID WE CLARIFY WHICH OF THE THREE GAC SPEAKERS IS GOING TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS ONE?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: NORWAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: NORWAY.
CAN WE -- WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO IT FROM THERE OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND --
>> (SPEAKER OFF MIKE).
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YOU'D LIKE TO BE SURROUNDED BY PROTECTIVE COLLEAGUES DOWN THERE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BERTRAND, WHAT ABOUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO IT FROM THERE OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP? ALL RIGHT. FINE, JUST SO THAT THE AUDIENCE KNOWS IF YOU CAN JUST PUT YOUR HANDS UP, THE TWO SPEAKERS, ONE FROM THE GAC, ONE FROM THE BOARD.
SO, WHY DON'T WE, AS WE'VE DONE BEFORE, ASK THE GAC TO JUST GIVE US SOME HIGH-LEVEL -- AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE VERY CAREFULLY READ THE SCORECARD. THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO PRODUCING IT. WHAT WILL BE MOST USEFUL NOW IS SOME HIGH-LEVEL PRINCIPLES, AND THEN IF WE CAN JUST QUESTION, AS WE'VE DONE WITH THE OTHER SPEAKERS.
>>NORWAY: THANK YOU, MY NAME IS ELISE. I'M FROM NORWAY, OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU SAID.
THIS POST-DELEGATION THING IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH FOR A WHILE. AND I DON'T THINK IT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AN AGREEMENT ON. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD OBVIOUSLY TRY TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST, AS WE SAID, NOW IT IS A QUESTION ABOUT SMALL WORDS. BUT, OF COURSE, IT IS DETAILS THAT WE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN VERY AWARE OF THE POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES PROBLEMS, EVER SINCE WE GOT -- THE NORWEGIAN PRINSTRY OF TRANSPORTATION GOT A REQUEST FOR DOT OSLO, AND WE STARTED TO DIVE INTO THIS LEGAL FRAMEWORK OR LACK OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK, WHAT YOU CALL IT, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE, OKAY, IF WE WANT TO GIVE SUPPORT FOR THIS, WE WILL MAKE CONDITIONS, OBVIOUSLY. AND HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY SAFEGUARD THE CONDITIONS THAT WE WILL PUT FORWARD IN A (INAUDIBLE) OBJECTION.
AND THEN WE SAW THAT WE HAD SOME PROBLEMS.
SO WHEN WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE BOARD, I THINK YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD US QUITE GOOD ON THESE QUESTIONS. I THINK YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM. AND GIVEN A RESPONSE WHERE WE HAVE TRIED TO AGREE ON THE WORDINGS THAT WOULD SAFEGUARD THE GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.
BUT WE THOUGHT WE HAD GOOD WORDINGS IN DAG 4, AS WE HAVE SAID. AND THEN WE GOT THE AG, AS WE CALL IT, THE SUPPOSED LAST VERSION OF THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, AND THE WORDING WAS CHANGED. SO WE WANT THE OLD WORD BACK, BASICALLY. AND WE SAID THAT TO YOU.
AND WE HAD CONFERENCE CALLS ON THIS. AND AS WE SEE IT, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ICANN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A LEGAL, VALID PROCESS IN THE CASE OF ICANN ACTING ON NATIONAL DECISIONS. MAYBE THIS IS A SAFEGUARD FOR NOT BEING SUED. MAYBE THIS IS A SAFEGUARD TO HAVE A CLEAR VIEW FOR THE APPLICANT OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE AND SO ON. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO WE THINK THAT WE UNDERSTAND YOUR NEED FOR THIS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GOOD PROCEEDINGS AROUND THIS. BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO COMMIT -- OR TO HAVE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT ENABLES YOU TO COMMIT TO THE GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW A LEGALLY BINDING DECISION FROM, LET'S SAY, THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT ON DOT OSLO, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT ON THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT YOU HAVE WITH WHOEVER RUNS DOT OSLO.
AND AS WE SEE IT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A REGISTRY AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THAT YOU MAY IMPLEMENT OR MAY FOLLOW A NATIONAL DECISION (INAUDIBLE) DECISION, NOT THAT YOU WILL. AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME -- MAYBE YOUR LAW IS DIFFERENT FROM THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORWEGIAN LAW, BUT AT LEAST WE WILL SAY "WILL COMPLY," SO THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR FOR THE REGISTRY THAT IF THEY BREAK THE CONDITIONS WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW A NATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING DECISION ON THIS, AND MAYBE TAKE THEM OUT IF THAT IS -- IN THE WORST CASE.
SO -- AND ALSO, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHANGE THE WORDING THAT YOU PUT IN THAT IT IS A COURT DECISION. WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING DECISION. THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT -- WELL, SOME STATES USE -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? -- WE CALL IT ADMINISTRATIVE, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGALLY BINDING DECISIONS. THEY WILL NOT GO TO COURT WITH THEM, BUT THE REGULATOR CAN MAKE A DECISION TO GIVE SOME- -- TO GIVE SOMEONE THE RIGHTS TO RUN -- LET'S SAY WE DO IT, WE SAY YOU CAN RUN DOT OSLO. BUT IF YOU BREAK THESE AND THESE CONDITIONS, WE WILL TAKE IT BACK. AND YOU CAN, OF COURSE, GO TO COURT WITH THAT DECISION AND SUE THE GOVERNMENTS, BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO DO THAT WITHIN THREE WEEKS OR A MONTH OR SOMETHING FROM THE DECISION WE WILL PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THIS POSITION FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS LEGALLY BINDING.
IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGALLY BINDING DECISION. THAT IS NO PROBLEM FOR ICANN TO FOLLOW UP ON. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT IS LEGALLY BINDING, YOU JUST GO AND ASK US AND WE WILL CONFIRM THAT IT IS LEGALLY BINDING IN NORWAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I THINK THIS IS, IN FACT, ONE OF THE SIMPLER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO FACE.
BUT, BERTRAND, PERHAPS YOU CAN INTRODUCE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: YEAH, I THINK, ACTUALLY, THE CONFERENCE CALL WAS VERY USEFUL IN CLARIFYING THOSE ELEMENTS.
THERE ARE TWO POINTS, AS WAS JUST EXPRESSED. THE FIRST ONE IS BASICALLY RELATING TO THE STRENGTH OF THE COMMITMENT OF ICANN REGARDING THE RESPECT OF THE NATIONAL DECISION, WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS.
I THINK, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE NEED TO VALIDATE IT FINALLY WITHIN THE BOARD. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT CAUSING A MAJOR PROBLEM.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS -- REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT OF CLEARER UNDERSTANDING. AND THIS IS MORE ON THE SECOND ONE THAT I WILL FOCUS.
THE CONTEXT HERE IS VERY INTERESTING, BECAUSE THE LETTER OF SUPPORT AND NONOBJECTION IS ACTUALLY GROWING AND DEVELOPING INTO A MAJOR TOOL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BASICALLY DECIDE WHERE IT WANTS TO PUT THE CURSOR IN TERMS OF THE DEGREE OF CONTROL OR THE DEGREE OF SUPERVISION THAT IT WILL RETAIN AFTERWARDS WHEN IT HAS GIVEN SUPPORT ON NONOBJECTION.
AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE IN GEOGRAPHIC NAMES THAT GOES INTO MORE DETAIL IN THAT RESPECT. BUT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY, THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS INITIALLY JUST A THREE-LINER, NO OBJECTION OR SUPPORT, IS ACTUALLY EVOLVING INTO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAILORED IN DIFFERENT LEVELS. SO IT'S ALREADY AN INSTRUMENT.
IN THAT CONTEXT, THE CHANGE FROM SOMETHING THAT IS A COURT DECISION TO A LEGALLY BINDING DECISION HAS TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
THE QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS, THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DISPUTE SITUATION AND SOMETHING THAT WOULD SOMEHOW AMOUNT TO A REDELEGATION, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE, YOU WANT TO REDELEGATE.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IN ONE CASE, IT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE COUNTRY TO DECIDE HOW MUCH CONSTRAINT IT HAS PUT IN FOR THE FUTURE TO KEEP THIS CAPACITY. IN THE OTHER CASE, IT IS THE GOVERNMENT HAVING A DISPUTE ON A SPECIFIC TOPIC WITH THE OPERATOR.
THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS, IF THE STANDARD IS EXTENDED TO ANY LEGALLY BINDING DECISION, ISN'T THIS A RISK OF PUTTING THE OPERATOR IN A SORT OF UNEQUAL POSITION AND NOT HAVING ENOUGH DUE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF? IF THERE IS A COURT PROCESS, THEN THERE IS A CAPACITY TO RESPOND, AND THE TWO PARTIES BASICALLY HAVE TO DEBATE AND ARGUE, AND THE DECISION IS EASY TO IMPLEMENT AFTERWARDS.
IF IT IS A DECISION BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN A CASE WHERE THERE'S A DISPUTE, ISN'T THERE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES WHERE THE DUE PROCESS IS NOT THAT CLEAR?
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION AND MAYBE GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ELISE.
>>NORWAY: WELL, OF COURSE IT COULD BE A DIFFERENCE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT AN APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. YOU CAN GO TO YOUR GOVERNMENT, YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT, OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE -- THE GEOGRAPHICAL NAME, AND YOU DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T TRUST THE PROCESS AND SO ON, AND YOU BASE YOUR CASE OR YOUR WHOLE EXISTENCE ON AN APPROVAL AND NONOBJECTION FROM SOMEONE THAT YOU DON'T TRUST OR THAT YOU DON'T TRUST THE SYSTEM. I DON'T THINK ICANN IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD GO IN AND DECIDE THAT. I THINK THAT IS A DISPUTE YOU WILL HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT, OF COURSE, AND THE COUNTRY, BOTH IN FRONT OF THEIR -- OF THE (INAUDIBLE) TO THIS NEW STRING, AND ALSO AS -- OF COURSE IT WOULD BE A RISK AFTERWARDS, BUT I DON'T THINK SHOULD YOU PUT INTO -- DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD NARROW THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSIBILITY TO GUARD THEIR OWN POSITIONS AND GUARD THEIR OWN TERMS IN YOUR AGREEMENT OR YOUR BASIS. THAT IS A NATIONAL DECISION.
AND IF YOU DON'T TRUST THE POSITION THAT COMES OUT OR THE DECISION THAT IS MADE, OKAY, LET'S SEE. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DOCUMENT, DO THIS AND THAT, AND YOU SAY, THIS GOVERNMENT, WE DON'T BELIEVE THEM, OR THEY'RE NOT DEMOCRATIC OR SOMETHING, LET'S TRY AND TEST A CASE LIKE THAT.
BUT I THINK YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT, EACH GOVERNMENT, YOU GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO SAY YES OR NO. YOU GIVE THEM, IN FACT, A VETO FOR A GEOGRAPHICAL NAME, AND THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO GIVE THEM THE TOOLS OR THE DECISION ON HOW THEY WILL ACT ON BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF TERMS.
THAT IS WHAT I THINK. IT'S AN EASY WAY OR MORE CLEAN WAY, AS I SEE IT, THAN TO SIT AND JUST RELY ON COURT. AND, BY THE WAY, IF YOU DON'T RELY ON THE COUNTRY'S ADMINISTRATIVE -- YES, CAPABILITIES, THEN MAYBE YOU WOULD NOT RELY ON THE COURT DECISIONS. THAT IS JUST -- THAT MIGHT BE SOME OF THE SAME THING IN SOME COUNTRIES.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: FOLLOW UP, BERTRAND.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: YES. JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE POINTS, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHER GAC MEMBERS.
JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, FUNDAMENTALLY -- AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I WAS REFERRING TO THE LETTER AS A TOOL -- THE PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE THERE ARE OPTIONAL, BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND -- AND CORRECT ME IF I AM MISTAKEN -- I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE TEXT OF THIS LETTER IS LIMITED IN ANY WAY.
THE FACT THAT IT IS OPTIONAL CAN EVEN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO ENHANCE THE REQUIREMENTS. AND WE'VE SAID IN MANY CASES THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO CONDITION THE LETTER OF NONOBJECTION OR SUPPORT TO A FULL RFP PROCESS, TO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY DETAILED AND HAS VERY STRONG CONSTRAINTS IN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK NATIONALLY, IT'S ALMOST NOT EVEN IN THE LETTER. IT IS THAT THE -- IN THAT DOCUMENT, THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICANT WILL OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO APPLY THE NATIONAL LAW THAT IS THERE. SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND THE WHOLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS THERE.
SO I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE LETTER ITSELF IS NOT SET IN STONE AND THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY VARIABILITIES.
THE SECOND FOLLOW-UP, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION, IS, HOW DO WE HANDLE THE SITUATION WHERE, FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE A STRING THAT HAS BEEN VETTED BY SEVERAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY COVERS DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, AND HOW DO WE HANDLE THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT IF THERE IS A DECISION IN ONE COUNTRY VERSUS OTHERS? WHICH IS NOT COVERED HERE, BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CAME TO MIND AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: NORWAY, TO RESPOND.
>>NORWAY: TO THE FIRST ONE, AT LEAST. I DIDN'T GET THE LAST ONE QUITE.
BUT THE FIRST ONE IS, OF COURSE WE CAN HAVE ALL THE CONDITIONS WE WANT IN THE NATIONAL AGREEMENT WITH THE REGISTRY. WE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THAT FOR A LONG TIME. IT CAN BE AS (INAUDIBLE) AS THAT, OR IT CAN BE A PAPER JUST SAYING YES OR NO. IT CAN BE A APPROVAL OR A LARGE AGREEMENT. THIS IS THE THING, WE DON'T HAVE ANY TOOLS TO SAFEGUARD THE CONDITIONS, BECAUSE WE CANNOT -- WHEN IT COMES TO THE TERM, WE CANNOT TAKE IT OUT. SO BECAUSE OF THIS -- BECAUSE YOU HAVE THREE PARTS IN THIS AND BECAUSE ICANN SITS ON THE KEY TO PUT IT IN, WE HAVE TO RELY ON ICANN HAVING THE TOOLS TO GIVE US OR TO LISTEN TO THE GOVERNMENTS. AND IF YOU MAKE AN OBLIGATION TO US AS GOVERNMENTS TO SAY, "WE WILL LISTEN TO YOU AND WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR DECISIONS, LEGALLY BINDING DECISIONS IN YOUR COUNTRY," WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE TOOL TOWARDS THE REGISTRY TO DO THAT.
AND AS WE SEE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. IF YOU SAY YOU "MAY COMPLY." YOU HAVE TO SAY "YOU WILL COMPLY."
BUT AS WE SAY, IT'S A TOOL TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT YOU WANT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN POINT. THE MAIN POINT IS NOT WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL. IT'S WHAT'S POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE ICANN LEVEL, ACTUALLY. SO WE SAID TO ICANN, DON'T PROMISE SOMETHING TO US THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ENFORCE IN FRONT OF THE REGISTRY.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. I THINK WE'VE -- I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN ALMOST ANYTHING WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH. I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. I THINK WE'VE --
NOT TODAY. WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
OKAY. WELL, IS IT A QUICK ONE WE CAN DEAL WITH NOW, ERIKA? QUICK QUESTION? 'CAUSE WE -- THIS IS THE KIND OF THING I THINK WE MAY NOT NEED TO SPEND TIME ON TOMORROW THE WAY WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
>>Erika Mann: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S PRETTY QUICK.
I MEAN, THE SECOND POINT FROM BERTRAND WAS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN CASE OF A DISPUTE? YOU HAVE MANY GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES BROUGHT FORWARD BY DIFFERENT -- YOU KNOW, FROM DIFFERENT STATES.
NOW --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BERTRAND'S QUESTION WAS WHERE THE SAME APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED IN MULTIPLE COUNTRIES AND IS FIRED, IF YOU LIKE, IN ONE. AGAIN, I THINK -- I DON'T THINK TODAY IS THE TIME TO RESOLVE THAT KIND OF INTERESTING HYPOTHETICAL, QUITE FRANKLY.
THE NUMBER OF --
>>Erika Mann: I HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ONE, BUT IT'S NO NEED TO DISCUSS IT RIGHT NOW.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, AGAIN, TEAM RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. VERY CLEAR PRESENTATION.
LET'S MOVE TO THE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES TOPIC. ANOTHER LONG-RUNNING AND INTERESTING ONE.
HEATHER, WHO'S GOING TO HANDLE THIS ONE FROM THE GAC?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: GERMANY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, GERMANY.
AND, BERTRAND, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HANDLING IT FROM THE BOARD. THANK YOU.
SO AS WE'VE DONE ALL DAY, CAN WE HAVE JUST A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE GAC ADVICE IN THIS AREA WITH SOME HELPFUL EXPLANATIONS, AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.
SO OVER TO GERMANY. THANK YOU.
>>GERMANY: YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
YES, THIS ISSUE ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IS AN ISSUE THAT WE -- THAT FOLLOWS US FROM THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT WE HAVE QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING, WE HAVE VARIOUS CATEGORIES WHICH ICANN CONSIDERS TO BE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. THIS IS COUNTRY AND TERRITORY NAMES, CAPITAL CITIES. AND THEN WE HAVE THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE COUNTRIES. THESE ARE NORMALLY FEDERAL STATES OR PROVINCES. THEN WE HAVE CITY NAMES IN GENERAL AND U.N. REGIONS.
STILL, AFTER VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS WHERE WE SEE THAT NOT ALL GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ARE CONSIDERED NOW TO BE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, WE SEE QUITE A LOT OF ABBREVIATIONS OF NAMES OF CITIES, OF FEDERAL STATES THAT ARE, IF I FOLLOW THE DEFINITION OF ICANN, WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAME. AND CITY NAMES WOULD FALL UNDER -- MAY BE CONSIDERED AS GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ONLY IF THE APPLICANT WAS CONFIRMING THAT HE IS APPLYING FOR A CITY NAME, AND THEREFORE IT IS SOME KIND OF (INAUDIBLE).
TO OVERCOME THIS PROBLEM, ICANN HAS OFFERED A SECONDARY AVENUE THAT IS CALLED COMMUNITY OBJECTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED THESE POSSIBILITIES. BUT WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PROCEDURE, WHICH IS A VERY FORMAL ONE, WOULD BE -- WOULD NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENTS IN THIS REGARD. AND THERE I HAVE TO COME BACK TO A DISCUSSION WE HAD THIS MORNING ON EARLY WARNING. AND THIS EARLY WARNING SYSTEM COULD BE A PERFECT SYSTEM OF ALERTING APPLICANTS OF STRINGS WE AS GOVERNMENTS WOULD CONSIDER TO BE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. I THINK DURING THIS FIRST STEP, THIS COULD BE VERY HELPFUL. THESE STRINGS AND THESE APPLICATIONS WOULD, AS ANY GEOGRAPHIC NAME NEEDS SOME NONOBJECTION FROM THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT, AND FOLLOWS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.
I THINK THIS WAS -- WOULD BE A QUITE SWIFT SOLUTION FOR A PROBLEM WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR QUITE A LOT OF TIME, AND NOT COMING TO A SOLUTION WHERE WE ARE, AS GOVERNMENTS, AT LEAST, ARE NOT QUITE FEELING COMFORTABLE. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR PROTOCOL THAT IN RESPECT OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, THERE IS STILL NO CONSENSUS ON COUNTRY NAMES IN FUTURE ROUNDS. I THINK THIS IS A DISCUSSION WE NOT NECESSARILY NEED TODAY, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING JUST FOR BEARING IN MIND THAT THERE IS SOME OPEN QUESTION.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS, WE HAVE ADDED SOME REMARKS THAT COULD BE RESOLVED, I THINK, WITHIN SOME WORDING. WE DISCUSSED IT IN THE CONFERENCE CALL. AND I THINK THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING FOR THAT.
FIRST OF ALL IS, WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT IT IS UNDER NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY TO DECIDE WHICH LEVEL OF THE GOVERNMENT FILES THE NONOBJECTION LETTER OR THE LETTER OF SUPPORT. THERE ARE SOME -- IN SOME PARTS OF THE TEXT, THERE ARE LINKS OR IS TEXT THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED THAT ICANN EXPECTS SOME LEGAL -- SOME ADMINISTRATIONS OR GOVERNMENTS THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER ADEQUATE FOR SENDING THIS NONOBJECTION LETTER. AND I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
WE IN GERMANY HAVE A FEDERAL SYSTEM. FOR US, IT WOULD BE NOT A QUESTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; IT WOULD BE DELEGATED TO THE COMMUNITIES. I KNOW OTHER COUNTRIES, THEY MAY HAVE A MORE CENTRAL PERSPECTIVE. AND THEY MAY WANT ALL OF THEIR GEOGRAPHIC NAMES BEING NONOBJECTED OR SUPPORTED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SOLVED EASILY, BUT I THINK THIS IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE FOR GOVERNMENTS AND IT SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED AND SHOULD BE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE GUIDEBOOK.
ANOTHER ISSUE I WANT TO RAISE IS THE QUESTION WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME NAME.
WE -- FOR THE SAME GEOGRAPHIC NAME.
WE HAVE -- IF YOU HAVE ASKED ME TWO YEARS AGO OR ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT'S HYPOTHETICAL. BUT NOW WE SEE THE DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK THE ATTRACTION OF THIS KIND OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS IS INCREASING, AND WE SEE MORE APPLICANTS, AND WE ALSO MAY SEE SOME COMPETITION.
AND THE QUESTION IS, HOW IS ICANN REACTING ON THAT.
WE FULLY UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES FOR DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES OR DIFFERENT COMPANIES. THAT WOULD BE A BIT DIFFICULT FOR ICANN TO DECIDE IS IT THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR OR THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE WHO IS THE CORRECT ADMINISTRATION TO FILE A NONOBJECTION LETTER. AND IF THEY ARE CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES, IT'S NOT ON ICANN TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE.
BUT IN SOME CASES, THERE MAY BE, ALSO FOR PRAGMATIC REASONS, GOVERNMENTS COME TO -- MAY COME TO POSITIONS THAT THEY ACTIVELY DO NOT WANT TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE APPLICANTS TO CHOOSE FROM. AND THEY WOULD SUPPORT EVERY APPLICANT WHO FULFILLS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. THIS WOULD HAVE THE ADVANTAGE IF IT COMES TO ALSO LEGAL QUESTION, BECAUSE MAYBE THERE IS A NEED FOR CALL FOR TENDER, AND ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WHICH IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE APPLICANT FOR A CITY NAME OR A NAME OF A PROVINCE THAT HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED, AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL SOLUTION FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THE GOVERNMENTS CAME TO ME AND ASKED WHY NOT LEAVING THIS DECISION ON ICANN? AND I WOULD ASK WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR ICANN TO COME IN THIS CASE WHERE THE SAME ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS MORE APPLICANTS, WHETHER ICANN COULD NOT MAKE THE DECISION OR WOULD IT BE NECESSARY TO LEAVE THE APPLICATION PENDING IN THE CURRENT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.
THAT'S, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE ISSUES ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. I THINK THERE IS A WAY TO COME TO A SOLUTION WITH THIS EARLY WARNING PROGRAM I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED. AND IN RESPECT OF THE TWO OTHER ISSUES I MENTIONED, I THINK THAT IT IS REALLY A QUESTION OF I HOPE WHERE WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION. AND SOMETIMES IT'S A QUESTION OF (INAUDIBLE)
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO BERTRAND FOR SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GAC ADVICE IN RELATION TO GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. BERTRAND?
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THANK YOU, PETER. FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT IS PRESENTED IS ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS. THE FIRST ONE IS ACTUALLY WHAT TRIGGERS THE QUALIFICATION OF GEOGRAPHIC NAME, BASICALLY. THE CURRENT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK HAS AN EXPLICIT LIST, AND HERE THERE ARE SOME UNCERTAINTIES, FOR INSTANCE, FOR THE NAME THAT SOME COUNTRIES ARE KNOWN AS, WHICH IS A COUNTRY NAME IS COVERED EXPLICITLY BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN A SPECIFIC FORMULATION, ABBREVIATION OR SO.
AND THE SECOND THING IS BELOW THE CAPITAL CITY OR THE EXPLICIT CITY, IS THERE ANY MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW A GOVERNMENT TO SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY A GEOGRAPHIC NAME?
THE DIFFICULTY WE HAVE HERE IS THAT IT IS CHANGING THE CURRENT MECHANISM WHICH IS USING OBJECTIONS WHICH IS A FORMAL MECHANISM TO REFUSE THAT AN APPLICATION BE CONDUCTED TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE APPLICABILITY OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT AND NON-OBJECTION. THAT'S THE WAY WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL.
IN THAT RESPECT, FOLLOWING WHAT HUBERT WAS SAYING, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SORT OF EARLY WARNING -- AND IF I TAKE THE EXPRESSION TO DEFINE NAMES THAT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, HOW WOULD THAT FUNCTION? WOULD IT BE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF THAT WOULD SUBMIT AN EXPLICIT LETTER SAYING "IN THIS LIST OF STRINGS THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN EARLY WARNING, FOR INSTANCE, THIS IS A GEOGRAPHIC NAME" AND WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH IN THE VIEW OF THE GAC TO AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT OF LETTER OF SUPPORT AND NON-OBJECTION? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
WOULD IT BE SIMPLY TO SAY THIS IS A GEOGRAPHIC NAME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON, WE WANT A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR NON-OBJECTION TO BE REQUIRED?
ON THE SECOND ISSUE, THE TWO ELEMENTS IN THE PARAGRAPH, THE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE INTERESTINGLY COMPLIMENTARY. ON THE ONE HAND --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BERTRAND, PERHAPS WHY DON'T WE GET AN ANSWER ON THE FIRST QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY QUITE COMPLEX. AND I, AMONGST OTHERS, MAY HAVE TROUBLE HOLDING IT IN MY HEAD WHILE WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT QUESTION.
SO, HUBERT, THIS IS -- LET ME JUST RESPOND AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL THE DIFFICULTY I HAVE IN THIS AREA. AND THAT IS THE USE, AND I HAVE CAUTIONED AGAINST THIS BEFORE, THE ASSERTION THAT GOVERNMENTS WANT TO USE THIS INSTRUMENT TO PROTECT THEIR LEGAL INTEREST. THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT WE CAN'T FIND A LEGAL INTEREST. IF WE HAD A LEGAL INTEREST, IT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR US. BUT NOTHING IN THE LAW PREVENTS ME AT THE MOMENT FROM SETTING UP A SHOP IN MY COUNTRY AND CALLING IT GERMANY SKI CLUB OR FRANCE -- IF THERE WERE LAWS PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF NAMES, WE WOULD SIMPLY BE RELYING ON THEM.
IT IS, IN FACT, THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEAR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE FORCED US INTO THIS LONG AND COMPLICATED EXERCISE OF TRYING TO FIND OTHER PEOPLE'S DEFINED LISTS THAT CREATE THE KIND OF CERTAINTY THAT WE CAN THEN CONSIDER EXTENDING RIGHTS TO GOVERNMENTS IN RELATION TO THOSE LISTS.
AND SO BERTRAND'S QUESTION TRIGGERS THE SAME KIND OF THING. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON A LIST. IF IT IS ON A LIST, THEN THERE IS NO ISSUE. IN THE OBJECTION PROCESS, IS IT SIMPLY GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR A GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT "I THINK THIS IS A NAME THAT I HAVE -- THAT I WANT GEOGRAPHIC PROTECTION RIGHTS IN RELATION TO"? THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY FOR US AND ITS PART OF THE PREDICTABILITY EXERCISE. IF AN APPLICANT HAS GONE THROUGH THIS WHOLE EXERCISE TO REGISTER A NAME AND THE NAME DOESN'T APPEAR ON ONE OF THE ISO-3166 LISTS AND IS MET BY AN ASSERTION BY A GOVERNMENT THAT, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT ON A LIST, THIS IS A NAME I THINK I HAVE SOME RIGHTS TO, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE GOT. HELP US OUT. HOW DO WE SOLVE THAT? IT IS TRYING TO BE PREDICTABLE AND CERTAIN.
>>GERMANY: FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, IT IS TO USE A LOT OF COMMON SENSE IN THIS PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MIGHT BE AN IMPLICATION OF GERMAN'S SKI CLUB AND IT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION WHETHER THIS IS A GEOGRAPHIC NAME OR NOT.
BUT IS IT REALLY NECESSARY THAT WE -- SO IF THIS ISSUE AT THIS STAGE AND REGARDING THE QUESTION OF A LEGAL CORRECTOR OF A GEOGRAPHIC NAME, I JUST CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR JURISDICTION. IN OUR JURISDICTION, GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ARE PROTECTED. WE HAVE PROTECTED SIMILAR TRADEMARKS AND WE HAVE LEGISLATION FOR SECOND LEVEL DOMAINS UNDER THE E WHERE CERTAIN NAMES MUST NOT BE USED BECAUSE THEY ARE -- BECAUSE USERS MIGHT ANTICIPATE THAT THEY ARE OPERATED BY A GOVERNMENT YACHT ENTITIES OR CITIES. THEREFORE, WE HAVE LEGISLATION ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING INTERNATIONALLY. BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD HAVE THIS -- IT WOULD FULFILL THIS PRECONDITION YOU ARE MENTIONING.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: CAN I JUST RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY THE DIFFICULTY OF THE HEART OF THIS. WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING YOU DON'T AT THE MOMENT HAVE EXTRA TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THAT GERMAN LAW. I DON'T WANT TO PICK ON GERMANY. GERMAN LAW AT THE MOMENT WON'T STOP ONE IN MOROCCO, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM SETTING UP AND USING ALL THOSE NAMES WHICH WOULD BE PROHIBITED IN GERMANY.
WHAT THIS IS SPEAKING TO DO IS TO EXPAND INTO THE INTERNET WHAT IS, IN FACT, NATIONAL LAW. SO THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY WE FACE IS WHAT IS THE -- WHAT SHOULD BE THE PERMITTED EXTENSION, EXTRA TERRITORIALLY OF THIS PRINCIPAL IN YOUR COUNTRY SO YOU CAN PREVENT SOMEONE IN OTHER COUNTRIES IN RELATION TO THE INTERNET USING THESE NAMES? SO THIS IS THE HIGH-LEVEL CONCEPTUAL STRUGGLE THAT HAS BEEN BEHIND THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THAT'S WHY WE GO TO THESE NATIONAL LISTS BECAUSE THERE'S INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON THOSE AND WE'VE GOT THE CERTAINTY. WE DON'T HAVE TO SOLVE THE EXTRA TERRITORIALITY PROBLEM.
DO WE HAVE TO SOLVE THIS NOW? I'M NOT SURE IN RELATION TO BERTRAND'S QUESTION WE DO. SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MOVE ON IF THAT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. BERTRAND, IS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION?
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO A QUICK FOLLOW-UP ON THIS ONE. THE EXPRESS OF EXTRA TERRITORIALITY IS AN IMPORTANT BUT THERE IS ALSO THE MENTION OF HOW COMBINED THE WORDS ARE.
THE DIFFICULTY WE HAVE IS AS LONG AS WE KEEP WITH VERY STRICTLY ESTABLISHED LISTS, WE'RE FINE. WE AGREE ON THAT. THEY'RE APPLICABLE.
THE QUESTION IS WHEN WE EXPEND VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY, HORIZONTALLY IS COUNTRY COMMONLY KNOWN AS...
THAT IS PROBABLY EASIER AS FAR AS I KNOW, I THINK, TO HANDLE THAN GOING DEEPER INTO EVERY SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC NAME OR THE COMBINATION OF A GEOGRAPHIC NAME WITH OTHER WORDS. SO WITHOUT FINISHING THE MATTER HERE, I WANT TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT THERE IS A GLOBAL AGREEMENT, I THINK, IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES FOR THE COUNTRY THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN AND WHATEVER IS DESCRIBED AS A QUALIFIER FOR THE COUNTRY, WE CAN PROBABLY FIND WAYS TO DO THIS.
WHEN WE GET TO ANY GEOGRAPHIC NAME THAT A GOVERNMENT WOULD CONSIDER HAD TO BE PROTECTED IN ANY COMBINATION, WE GET INTO THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL DIMENSION YOU MENTIONED.
THE SECOND POINT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IS ON THE SECOND BLOCK OF ISSUES, I JUST WANT TO REFORMULATE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
THE FIRST THING IS, BASICALLY, NOW IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, THERE ARE SOME INDICATIONS THAT SAY THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE SUPPORT OR NON-OBJECTION WILL BE MADE IS THIS OR THAT. IN THE DOCUMENT, IT IS IMPORTANT AND IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CALL THAT IT IS JUST AN INDICATION AND MAYBE, I THINK, THE IDEA -- AND I WANTED TO ASK IF THIS IS THE WAY YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD, IF SOMETHING COULD ADD MORE PRECISELY THAT THIS IS JUST AN INDICATION, MAYBE IT IS A WAY TO GO. THAT'S THE FIRST POINT.
AND THE SECOND POINT IS THE REVERSE, IS A SITUATION WHERE THE COUNTRY WANTS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO CHOOSE, I DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO LAUNCH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL OR TO FILTER AMONG THE DIFFERENT ACTORS. AND I WANT IN THAT CASE ICANN TO DECIDE AMONG COMPETING APPLICANTS.
MY QUESTION THERE IS: IS THIS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? AND IN THAT CASE, HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT WE WILL NOT BE IN A SITUATION OF REMORSE AFTERWARDS? LIKE, IN TERMS OF STABILITY, IF THE COUNTRY HAS SAID, "NO, I DON'T CHOOSE" AND ICANN MAKES A DECISION, IF I COMBINE THIS WITH THE SUGGESTION WE HAD WITH POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL TO GUARANTEE SOME LEGAL STABILITY TO THE APPLICANT THAT WILL HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED. IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT, A CHANGE OF POLICY, HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: WOULD ANY GAC MEMBER LIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER ON THIS POINT OR EARLIER POINTS MADE? THE U.K., I SEE THE NETHERLANDS. U.K.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, HEATHER. I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST QUESTION ABOUT INDICATIONS IN THE GUIDEBOOK ABOUT WHERE THE APPROVAL OR LETTER OF NON-OBJECTION WOULD ISSUE FROM OR BE SOUGHT FROM.
WE WOULD PREFER, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THOSE INDICATIONS ACTUALLY BE TAKEN OUT BECAUSE THEY WILL MISLEAD THE APPLICANT IN -- FOR THOSE COUNTRIES, LIKE THE U.K., WHERE THE LETTER OF APPROVAL ON NON-OBJECTION IS GOING TO ISSUE FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR WHATEVER, FOR A CITY, COUNTY, REGION, MEMBER OF THE UNION, ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
SO WE WOULD LIKE THE GUIDEBOOK TO STATE CLEARLY THAT THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO DETERMINE FROM THE RELEVANT STATE WHO TO APPROACH FOR A LETTER OF APPROVAL OR A NON-OBJECTION FROM -- IN THE CASE OF A GEOGRAPHICAL NAME.
>> (SPEAKER OFF MICROPHONE).
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: HOW DOES THAT WORK? YOU GOT SOMETHING IN NEW ZEALAND WANTING TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF SENEGAL -- HOW DOES SOMEBODY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS? WASN'T IT APPROPRIATE IF A GOVERNMENT WANTS RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THESE THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUBLISH THE NAME OF THE AUTHORITY THAT IS GOING TO BE USED IN THIS PARTICULAR -- WE JUST NEED TO KEEP MAKING IT PREDICTABLE, CERTAIN, ET CETERA.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YEAH, I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE PREDICTABILITY OF THAT. I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE "APPLY FOR MANCHESTER ," THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY TO MY MINISTRY IN LONDON, THE NATIONAL MINISTRY. SO SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATING, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR EACH COUNTRY.
OUR POLICY IS THAT, AS I SAY, THE LETTER FOR DOT MANCHESTER WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE MINISTRY. WE WOULD CONSULT THE CITY'S AUTHORITIES, OF COURSE.
SO WE WOULDN'T WANT THE GUIDEBOOK TO SUGGEST TO THAT APPLICANT IN WHICH EVER COUNTRY IS APPLYING FOR MANCHESTER WOULD GO TO MANCHESTER CITY HALL OR WHATEVER. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'VE GOT. IT IS A QUESTION OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AS THE SCORECARD INDICATES AS TO HOW EACH GOVERNMENT HANDLES THIS ISSUE OF LETTERS OF APPROVAL. OBVIOUSLY FOR THOSE COUNTRIES THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE GAC, SOURCE OF ADVICE FOR APPLICANT IN SENEGAL OR WHEREVER WHO WANTS TO USE AN ENGLISH CITY NAME OR BRITISH NAME OF SOME SORT COULD COME TO THE GAC REPRESENTATIVE BUT THEN THERE ARE THE NON-MEMBERS OF THE GAC SO SOME MEANS INDICATING A POINT OF CONTACT WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. I HAVE NETHERLANDS AND NORWAY AND SWITZERLAND AND ITALY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AND GERMANY.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: AND GERMANY.
>>NETHERLANDS: THANK YOU, HEATHER. I WILL MAKE IT SHORT. ONE WAY OUT, I UNDERSTAND PETER'S CONCERN ABOUT PREDICTABILITY, EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECTS, YOU CAN KNOW WHETHER SOMEONE ON EARTH SOMEBODY IS ENTITLED TO CARRY THIS NAME, GEOGRAPHIC NAME.
I THINK ONE OF THE WAYS OUT IS I THINK AS GAC, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING KIND OF VERY LEGALISTIC SYSTEM IN WHICH EVERY GEOGRAPHIC NAME NAME ON EARTH SHOULD BE PROTECTED.
I THINK THE MAIN POINT IS ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY PERIODS, IN THE INITIAL REGISTRATION PERIODS, WHEN IT COMES OUT THROUGH -- IN SOME TRIGGER MECHANISM WHICH, OF COURSE, CAN COME OUT FROM THE GAC COUNTRY OR FROM THE GAC, COMES OUT THAT THIS GEOGRAPHIC STRING IS SENSITIVE FOR SOME COUNTRY, THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME TO DEAL WITH THE SENSITIVITIES OF THIS STRING IN A PARTICULAR OTHER COUNTRY.
BASICALLY, WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS TO GET -- BEFORE THE APPLICATION GETS INTO THE PROCESS, TO HAVE THIS REMEDIED SOMEWHERE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SOMEBODY IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE THE APPLICANT OF A CERTAIN STRING. BUT IT DOES MEAN IT HAS TO BE SENSITIVE OF THE CONCERNS THAT IT MIGHT BE USED AGAINST SOME OTHER GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE WORLD IN WHICH THERE COULD BE POSSIBILITIES.
OF COURSE, THE TRIGGER MECHANISM CANNOT COME FROM THE APPLICANT. IT SHOULD COME THROUGH A GAC MEMBER OR OTHERWISE. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, NETHERLANDS. NORWAY.
>>NORWAY: YES, PETER, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU WHEN YOU PUT UP THIS REMINDER FOR US WHAT IS ACCOUNTABLE, WHAT IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE THIS DOMAIN NAME WORLD. WE RECOGNIZE WE HAVE AGREEMENT BUT USING THE NAME OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES AND SO ON, WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD USE THIS AS GUIDELINES WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTION OF NAMES IN THE SPACE, GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES. WE THINK THAT IS A USEFUL TOOL TO LOOK OUTSIDE THIS DOMAIN NAME WORLD. OKAY. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, NORWAY.
SWITZERLAND?
>>SWITZERLAND: THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A SMALL REMARK WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF HOW TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES OR DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. DO NOT THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GO INTO THIS DETAIL AT ALL IN THE DAG. I THINK ANYBODY WHO IS WILLING TO APPLY FOR A ccTLD WILL FIND OUT IN ONE DAY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE BY EITHER CONTACTING THE CITY OR BY CONTACTING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THE OTHER QUESTION IS DO THE CITIES AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS THEMSELVES KNOW WHO IS COMPETENT. AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE FOR EVERY COUNTRY. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO FIND OUT.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO INTO THIS DETAIL BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WILL FIND THIS OUT.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: ITALY AND THEN GERMANY.
>>ITALY: YES. MAKING THE LIST OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IS IMPOSSIBLE, OF COURSE, UNLESS THE LIST OF COUNTRY NAMES REPORTED IN THE U.N. LIST. SO THE POINT IS EVERY COUNTRY HAS THE PROTECTION OF HIS NAMES. IN ITALY WE HAVE 20 REGIONS, 100 PROVINCES AND LARGE NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES. SO, OF COURSE, IF WE TRY TO GET ALL THE NAMES FOR ALL THE COUNTRIES IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL NEVER REACH TO AN END.
SO IN THIS CASE, THE ONLY SOLUTION I SEE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT AFTER THE EARLY WARNING AND THE LIST OF NAMES THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, IT MAY WELL HAPPEN THAT A COMMUNITY IN CANADA HAS THE SAME NAME AS THE REGION IN U.K., LET'S SAY. IN THIS CASE, WHAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED HERE IS TO GIVE POSSIBLE FOR THE GAC TO ACT AND TO SUGGEST, TO GIVE PRIORITY TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IS REPRESENTED AS A COUNTRY NAME.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING EASILY TO BE ACHIEVED BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT MIGHT WELL PROPOSE THIS NAME FOR VERY DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN A TYPICAL GEOGRAPHIC COMMUNITY. SO THIS IS THE KIND OF LEGAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE MAYBE NOT EASY TO BE SOLVED. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, ITALY.
I HAVE GERMANY AND THEN BERTRAND.
>>GERMANY: YES, THANK YOU, BERTRAND, REGARDING YOUR QUESTION ON REMORSE. I WONDER REALLY, OKAY, IF A GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE MADE A DECISION FOR A CERTAIN APPLICANT THAT WOULD NOT EXCLUDE AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, THERE MIGHT BE SOME REMORSE BECAUSE IT SELECTED THE OTHER ONE.
BUT I THINK IF YOU HAVE CLEAR PROCEDURES IN THIS REGARD, I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE. IFS A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE AND YOU HAVE -- IN THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF KNOWS IT SURELY CAN GIVE ITS NON-OBJECTION LETTER TO ONE APPLICANT OR IT CAN GIVE IT TO SEVERAL APPLICANTS AND, YES, THEREFORE, IT IS DELIBERATE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO FULFILL AND CLEARLY COMPLY WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS.
REGARDING THE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, I ALSO WELCOME YOUR REMARKS, PETER. I KNOW THAT CLEARLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION ON NAMES AND GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION HERE. AND I THINK WE TRIED TO COME ALONG AND I AGREE AS COLLEAGUES MENTIONED WE DON'T HAVE A LIST AND WE CANNOT -- WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PRODUCE AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST WHICH INCLUDES ALL GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. AND, THEREFORE, I WOULD COME MORE FROM A COMMON SENSE POINT TO LET'S SEE WHAT ARE THE REAL APPLICATIONS. IT IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE FRANK BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICATIONS LISTS THAT ARE PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET, YOU MAY FIND QUITE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES AND QUITE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES USING ABBREVIATIONS.
AND IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FROM OUR GOVERNMENT'S PERSPECTIVE THAT THESE APPLICATIONS ARE REALLY CONSIDERED AS GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. AND, THEREFORE, WE SHOULD LOOK TO HAVE -- AND TO LAY THIS AS A FUNDAMENT FOR SUCH A POSITION AND I WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE SYSTEM WE SUGGESTED WOULD ALLOW SUCH A COMMON-SENSE BASED AND EASY-TO-HANDLE POSSIBILITY TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE THE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY.
BERTRAND?
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: YEAH. I THINK ON THIS TOPIC, IT IS PROBABLY USEFUL TO WRAP UP AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TOMORROW. I WOULD LIKE JUST TO HIGHLIGHT FIRST THAT THERE IS A CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS DISCUSSION AND THE DISCUSSION ON THE EARLY WARNING PROCESS AND THE OTHER TOPIC THAT WE POSTPONED TO TOMORROW MORNING ON THE COMMUNITY AND SENSITIVE STRINGS BECAUSE WE -- THERE IS A CONNECTION HERE. IF SOMETHING IS NOT IN THE LIST, APPARENTLY THE TWO OTHER PROCESSES MAY BE WORTH YOUR DISCUSSION. SO WE'LL KEEP IT IN MIND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE EARLY WARNING AND THE COMMUNITIES STRING.
THE SECOND THING THAT I SENSED EMERGING THAT WE COULD EXPLORE FURTHER IS THIS NOTION THAT IF IT IS THE NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO IDENTIFY WHO IS IN CHARGE OF GIVING THE NON-OBJECTION SUPPORT LETTER, THEN IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR ALL TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IN EACH COUNTRY OF WHO IS IN CHARGE AND MAYBE SOME COMMUNICATION EFFORT DURING THE CAMPAIGN WOULD BE USEFUL IN CONNECTION WITH THE GAC.
AND THE THIRD ELEMENT IS REGARDING THIS QUESTION ABOUT REMORSE AND STABILITY. THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, THE MORE I SEE A PROBLEM THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE QUESTION OF REDELEGATION IN CCTLDs. AND, BASICALLY, IT IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT IS A GEOGRAPHIC NAME, WILL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO CHANGE THE OPERATOR OR COME BACK ON WHAT THEY HAVE AGREED UPON.
AND THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE LAST QUESTION EARLIER IS IF YOU, AS A GOVERNMENT -- AND I WANT TO FINISH WITH THIS. IF YOU AS A GOVERNMENT HAVE DETAILED VERY THOROUGHLY IN THE LETTER OF NON-OBJECTION OF SUPPORT, THE PROCESS YOU FOLLOW, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THERE WILL BE CHANGES OR THINGS LIKE THAT, IT IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN A SITUATION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE SAID, "I DON'T CHOOSE, YOU GO" AND THEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS OR YEARS LATER BECAUSE THERE IS A VERY VALID POLICY CHANGE OR GOVERNMENT CHANGE, THE GOVERNMENT SAYS "WELL, ACTUALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO LAUNCH THE EQUIVALENT OF A REDELEGATION PROCESS." SO THE LEGALITIES FOR BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE GOVERNMENT IS IMPORTANT TO EXPLORE.
THE FINAL POINT TO TOUCH ON IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL GEOGRAPHIC NAMES THAT ARE CLEARLY CROSS-BORDER. I WAS GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT MANCHESTER, FOR INSTANCE, IS IN MANY, MANY COUNTRIES SUCH AS SURINAME AND NOT TO MENTION NAPLES WHERE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. THIS IS A PROBLEM WHERE THE LAST QUESTION WHERE ICANN WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE IF THE GOVERNMENTS DO NOT TAKE A POSITION IS A VERY DELICATE SITUATION. BUT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT FURTHER. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IT IS THE END OF THE SPEAKING LIST ON THAT. SO THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR THAT LONG RUNNING, VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE. I THINK WE ARE GRADUALLY GETTING DOWN. CERTAINLY IF WE CAN USE COMMON SENSE AT ANY POINT IN THIS PROCESS, I KNOW THE BOARD WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO DO THAT.
LET'S MOVE THEN, IF WE CAN, TO THE LAST OF THE TOPICS. WE ARE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND TIME. SO IF WE CAN JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE THROUGH. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO FEEL THEY ARE CUT OFF ON ANY OF THESE TOPICS.
THE NEXT TOPIC IS THEN LEGAL RESOURCE FOR APPLICANTS AND IS WORDING IN THE PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT. IT IS A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD POINT. I UNDERSTAND THAT GERMANY IS FRONTING THIS ONE AS WELL. THANK YOU, GERMANY. FROM THE BOARD SIDE, MIKE SILBER HAS ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY. MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO WORK FROM THERE OR COME UP AND GET IN THE HOT SEAT? UP TO YOU. GERMANY, WHY DON'T YOU FOLLOW THE NOW ACCEPTED PATENT. OVER TO YOU.
>>GERMANY: I'M WAITING FOR MIKE. SORRY.
IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICATION FOR TLDs, THE APPLICANT HAS TO ACCEPT ASSISTANCE FROM ANY LEGAL RECOURSE TO ICANN'S FINAL DECISIONS. THIS IS A VERY STRONG REQUIREMENT. AND THE GAC UNDERSTANDS THAT ANY LEGAL DECISION IN THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER PROCESS SHOULD BE LEGALLY -- IT SHOULD ALLOW LEGAL RECOURSE.
WE JUST WANT TO RECALL EVEN OUR PARLIAMENTS MAKE DECISIONS THAT CAN BE CHALLENGED. AND THIS IS, I THINK, VERY NATURAL IN ALL DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES.
AND WE WERE REALLY ASKING WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR ICANN TO HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THIS RESPECT. DURING THE CONFERENCE CALL, I THINK THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF CLARIFICATION. ONE CLARIFICATION THAT COULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IF YOU READ THE CLAUSE ITSELF IS THAT, YES, WE HAVE QUITE A LOT OF ICANN INTERNAL RECOURSE PROCEDURES. AND THESE RECOURSE PROCEDURES SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED AND MENTIONED. WE DISCUSS QUITE A LOT OF THESE OBJECTION PROCEDURES DURING THIS MORNING AND ALSO TOMORROW.
YES, WE HAVE QUITE A LOT OF INSTRUMENTS IN THIS RESPECT AND WE SHOULD MENTION THEM. AND THERE IS STILL A LEGAL POSSIBILITY FOR ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO USE THE ICANN INSTRUMENTS, EVEN IF THERE IS A BOARD DECISION NOT TO INTRODUCE, FOR EXAMPLE, A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
I FURTHER WANT TO RECALL THAT ICANN IS IN A VERY, YES, UNIQUE SITUATION. IT IS THE SOLE ORGANIZATION THAT IS ABLE TO PROVIDE AN APPLICANT WITH A TLD OTHER ORGANIZATION.
THERE IS NO OTHER ORGANIZATION.
AND IF YOU HAVE SUCH VERY STRONG CLAUSE IN YOUR TERMS OF CONDITION, THIS MIGHT RAISE SOME QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF COMPETITION LAWS. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ICANN HAS CONSIDERED COMPETITION QUESTIONS IN THIS RESPECT, HAS ASKED FOR LEGAL ADVICE OR EXPERTISE IN THIS RESPECT. AND AS I SAID, THE DECISIONS IN THIS CLAUSE WILL NOT HARM IN THIS SITUATION.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, GERMANY.
MIKE, AND REMEMBER WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE'RE MAKING SURE WE ARE GETTING CLEAR WHAT THE ADVICE IS. IN SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK I HAVE ALLOWED US TO STRAY A LITTLE BIT INTO SOLUTIONS. GIVEN WE ARE GETTING SHORT ON TILE, CAN WE BE REASONABLY STRICT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE POINTS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE MEETING OF THE GAC ADVICE IN THIS AREA IS?
>>MIKE SILBER: PETER, WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE ON THIS ONE I THINK IN UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUES ARE AND, IN FACT, BEING PRETTY CLOSE TO SOLUTION AS WELL.
I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. IF THE BOARD AND GAC WOULD LIKE, I COULD SUM UP IN NO MORE TIME THAN HUBERT TOOK, OUR RESPONSES TO THOSE ISSUES, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL EXTREMELY VALID AND HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IF YOU CAN DO IT REALLY QUICKLY THAT, MIGHT BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU.
>>MIKE SILBER: THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE LAST ISSUE FIRST, IF I COULD, THE ISSUE OF COMPETITION, THAT'S ONE WHERE WE HAVE TAKEN ADVICE, AND WE HAVE TAKEN ADVICE BOTH WITHIN A U.S. LAW AND AN EU COMPETITION LAW CONTEXT. AND THE ADVICE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE; THAT ICANN IS NOT A PLAYER IN THE MARKET, SO THEREFORE, PLACING RATHER BENEFICIAL TERMS WOULDN'T CREATE A COMPETITION ISSUE.
IF THERE ARE ANY GAC MEMBERS WHO FEEL THAT IT WOULD, WITHIN THEIR NATIONAL LAW, CREATE A PARTICULAR CONCERN AND WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT THAT, BY ALL MEANS WE'RE AMENABLE TO HAVING A LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. BUT GIVEN THAT OUTSIDE OF THE U.S., CERTAINLY MY OWN JURISDICTION FOLLOWS THE EU COMPETITION LAW REASONABLY CLOSELY, AND I THINK MANY OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE FOLLOWED A SIMILAR PATH, WE COULDN'T FIND A CONCERN OVER THERE.
WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE, WHICH IS THE INTERNAL PROCESS, I THINK WE AGREED COMPLETELY THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE LINKAGES AND WE DON'T HAVE THE WORDING NECESSARY JUST TO CONFIRM THAT APPLICANTS ARE NOT EXCLUDED. AND I SEE I AM BEING LOOKED AT BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS USED ONE OF THOSE INTERNAL PROCESSES RATHER SUCCESSFULLY.
THOSE PROCESSES DO EXIST, AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO AGREE WORDING THAT WOULD SIMPLY JUST POINT THAT OUT AND BRING THAT TO THE FORE.
WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST POINT THAT YOU MADE IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT AND THE IMPACT, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO DETAIL BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL LEAD TO ANY SORT OF CHANGE TO THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IN ITS CURRENT FORM, BUT SIMPLY TO NOTE THAT UNWARRANTED LITIGATION COULD LEAD TO REALLY UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES. ICANN COULD BE IN A SITUATION WHERE EITHER IT WISHES TO PROCEED WITH A POPULAR OR WELL SUPPORTED APPLICATION AND IS THEN, THROUGH SOME SORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, FORCED TO HALT WHILE PARTIES DIS- -- GET EMBROILED IN A DISPUTE, OR THE OTHER ONE IS THAT ICANN COULD, SIMPLY FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE, BE -- AGAIN, HAVE ITS ARM TWISTED AT THE COST OF FIGHTING EXTENDED AND EXTENSIVE LITIGATION TO TRY AND MANAGE LITIGATION, COULD BE BROUGHT TO THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE. AND THE INTENTION IS TO AVOID THAT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS EXISTED CERTAINLY DAN AND I WENT THROUGH IT. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT WHAT BRUCE DESCRIBED AS THE FIRST ROUND, BUT CERTAINLY THE PREVIOUS ROUND OF NEW gTLD APPLICATIONS HAD A VERY SIMILAR SET OF CLAUSES AROUND LITIGATION AND THE LIMITATION OF THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO AN APPLICANT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, MIKE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IT SOUNDS LIKE FIRST OF ALL THERE IS A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE. SOME OF THE WORK YOU DESCRIBED IN FACT HAS BEEN DONE AND THERE IS NO ISSUE ABOUT MAKING CLEARER THE AVAILABLE -- THE OTHER REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE.
DOES THAT GIVE RISE TO ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENT? ANY OTHER GAC QUESTIONS?
EXCELLENT! PERHAPS THE LATE HOUR IS HELPING US A LITTLE GET THROUGH.
LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT TOPIC.
THANK YOU, MIKE. THANK YOU, GERMANY, AGAIN, FOR THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO ANALYZING THESE ISSUES.
WE ARE NOW AT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS TOPIC. PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THOSE FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, IS THE FULL TITLE.
ALICE, ARE YOU TAKING THAT ONE FOR THE GAC? EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP OR ARE YOU HAPPY DO IT FROM THERE? FINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND ALMOST ALONGSIDE YOU, AND INTERESTINGLY FROM A SIMILAR GEOGRAPHIC REGION, FROM THE BOARD WE HAVE ASKED KATIM -- KATIM VOLUNTEERED STRAIGHT AWAY TO TAKE THIS ONE.
KATIM, DO YOU WANT COME UP OR DO YOU WANT DO IT FROM THERE? COME UP. THANK YOU.
SO AGAIN, I THINK IF WE CAN KEEP THIS REASONABLY BRIEF. I THINK THIS IS A WELL UNDERSTOOD POINT. WE BRIEFED CAREFULLY THE POINT HERE. IT'S SOMETHING, AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, THE BOARD HAS STIMULATED SOME WORK SETTING UP THE WORKING GROUP AND HAS SUPPORTED THE CONCEPT IN A NUMBER OF WAYS FROM THE BEGINNING.
THE DIFFICULTY, AS I THINK WE EXPRESSED IN TRONDHEIM, IS THE JOB IN FRONT OF THE WORKING GROUP TO DEFINE WHAT A NEEDY APPLICANT IS AND WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS.
SO, PLEASE, TAKE US FOR THIS, ALICE.
>>ALICE MUNYUA: THE GAC APPLAUDS ICANN VERY MUCH FOR EXPLORING A WAY FOR A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH OF PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR APPLICANTS REQUIRING ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP.
AND THIS COME FROM THE PREMISE THAT WE CAN SEE FROM THE FIRST ROUND, AS YOU CALLED IT, FIRST BATCH OF NEW gTLD PROCESS. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE GLOBAL DIVERSITY ACHIEVED IN THE LOCATION, OWNERSHIP OF NEW TLDs, AS WELL AS IN REDELEGATION AND REASSIGNMENT PROCESSES.
SO, I MEAN, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FIRST ROUND OR BATCH SEEMED TO HAVE ACHIEVED VERY LITTLE SUCCESS IN INTRODUCING NEW REGISTRARS OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITED GEOGRAPHIC OR DEVELOPED REGIONS.
SO GAC'S MAIN CONCERN IS OBVIOUSLY TO ENSURE THAT LEAST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND SMALLER COMMUNITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THIS NEW PROCESS THROUGH COST IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO FINANCING AS WELL AS ACCESS TO RESOURCES.
AS WELL AS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC GLOBAL POLICY PROCESS, AND NOTING ICANN'S RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS SHOULD THEREFORE SUPPORT FURTHER GEOGRAPHIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY OF THE INTERNET, MEETING ALL THE GLOBAL INTEREST IN PROMOTING A FULLY INCLUSIVE AND DIVERSE COMMUNITY. AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS.
SO THE MAIN ISSUE IS COST, OF COURSE. GAC ACKNOWLEDGES SOME APPLICANTS CANNOT AFFORD THE PROCESS, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL COST CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS, COMPLYING WITH THE GUIDEBOOK REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, LEGAL COSTS. AND ALSO EVALUATION FEES, FOR EXAMPLE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHICH APPLICATION OR APPLICANTS WOULD REQUIRE MORE OR LESS RESOURCES, AND EVEN HOW TO DEFINE THOSE WHO ARE NEEDY.
AND THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT GAC IS ALSO CONSIDERING.
AGAIN, ALSO NOTING GNSO FINAL REPORT DATED 2007, AROUND APPLICATION FEES AND ENSURING THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO COVER THE TOTAL COST TO ADMINISTER THE NEW PROCESS AS WELL AS THE APPROACH IN TERMS OF APPLICATION FEES FOR DIFFERENT APPLICANTS.
OTHER ISSUES, AND I THINK THERE IS NO DIFFERENCES HERE BETWEEN THE GAC AND BOARD, IS THE KEY DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN VARIOUS U.N. LANGUAGES. THE TIMELINESS, A REASONABLE PERIOD IN ADVANCE OF THE ROUNDS OR BATCHES, INTRODUCTION OF. AS WELL AS AN INCLUSIVENESS IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS. AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE POINT ON INCLUSIVENESS, IN TERMS OF JUST CARRYING EVERYBODY WITH US . I MEAN, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO TELL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, "YOU WAIT FOR THE SECOND, THIRD, OR FOURTH ROUND, AND WE ARE NOT VERY SURE WHEN THOSE ROUNDS OR HOW -- WHAT FORM THOSE ROUNDS ARE GOING TO TAKE."
AND THE GAC WELCOMES AND SUPPORTS THE JAS WORKING GROUP, MILESTONE REPORT, AND WISHES THE WORKING GROUP TO ENCOURAGE THEIR EFFORTS. AND WE ALSO WELCOME FUTURE EXCHANGES ON THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, WE WORKED ON IT WITH VARIOUS COLLEAGUES THAT WANT TO CHIME IN.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, ALICE.
KATIM, ARE THERE QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE WAY THIS ADVICE HAS BEEN PUT?
>>KATIM TOURAY: THANKS, PETER. AND THANKS, ALICE, AND THE MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP, THE GAC. WE VERY MUCH YOUR TAKING THE TIME AND EFFORT TO REALLY THINK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND COME BACK TO US WITH YOUR CONCERNS IN THE FORM OF THE SCORECARD THAT YOU PRESENTED US.
WE DID HAVE SOME DELIBERATIONS ON THE MATTER. THAT'S MYSELF, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT WAS APPOINTED TO WORK ON THE DEVELOPING AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAC SCORECARD ON THIS ISSUE, AND ALSO DEVELOPING A RESPONSE ON IT.
AND AS ALICE SAID, BY AND LARGE, WE REALLY DO HAVE AGREEMENT ON QUITE A NUMBER OF ISSUES. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, A FEW STICKING POINTS, BEGINNING WITH THE COST CONSIDERATIONS ISSUE.
CLEARLY, THIS IS AN AREA OF DIFFERENCE WHICH WE NEED TO WORK ON MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN FORWARDED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PRICE THAT HAS -- THE COST THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED UPON IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE COST OF -- THE AVERAGE COST FOR PROCESSING AND -- A NEW gTLD APPLICATION. AND SO IT WASN'T BASED ON BASICALLY AN ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENCES IN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER -- DIFFERENCES IN BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICANT, WHETHER IT WAS A GOVERNMENT OR AN ORGANIZATION OR SOMEBODY FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY.
SO CLEARLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO THRASH OUT, MOVING FORWARD. AS ALICE SAID, THERE WAS ANOTHER -- WITH REGARDS TO LANGUAGE DIVERSITY POINT IN THE SCORECARD. THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED AN AREA OF DIFFERENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ICANN IS, INDEED, IMPLEMENTING THIS, MAKING DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN ALL SIX U.N. LANGUAGES AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO MOVING FORWARD.
WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD ITEM, THAT IS TECHNICAL AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT, WE, BASICALLY IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, ARE SAYING THIS IS ALSO AN AREA WHERE SOME EFFORT IS BEING MADE HERE IN THE SENSE THAT ICANN ACTUALLY HAS STARTED LOOKING AT OPTIONS OF PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO NEW gTLD APPLICANTS BEGINNING WITH PROVIDING A LIST OR PUBLISHING A LIST OF THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING HELP OR SUPPORT, AND A LIST ALSO OF THOSE WHO ARE OFFERING SUPPORT TO THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR SUPPORT.
SO SORT OF LIKE A MATCH MAKING KIND OF FACILITY.
AND ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ICANN IS THINKING ABOUT IS SETTING A GOAL, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT FINALIZED, I MUST SAY, IS THE SETTING UP THE ORIGINAL HELP DESK. THE IDEA IS YOU SET UP THIS HELP DESK AT A REGIONAL LEVEL SO THEY ARE MORE SPOBSIVE TO THE REGION, AND THEY WILL BE COGNIZANT THAT THE ISSUES THEY WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH WILL CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE REGION THEY ARE LOCATED IN. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT FINALIZED BUT THIS IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE PIPELINE.
AND OF COURSE ALL THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WE CAN TAKE ON BOARD AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH FURTHER CONSULTATIONS ON THIS MATTER.
REGARDING THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE GAC ISSUES LIST, THAT'S OUTREACH, THIS IS ALSO AN AREA THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED AN AREA OF DIFFERENCE BECAUSE WE HAVE AGREED THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY THAT WE WILL LAUNCH BEFORE THE LAUNCHING OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM WILL TAKE FULL COGNIZANCE OF THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND WE'LL MAKE AN EXTRA EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED.
WITH REGARDS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JAS RECOMMENDATIONS, AS ALICE SAID, THE GAC RECOMMENDS -- OR JUST THAT WE (INAUDIBLE) THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE MERGED WITH THE GAC ISSUES, THINGS LIKE COST CONSIDERATIONS, TECHNICAL AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT.
AND OF COURSE THIS IN NO MEANS MEANS -- BY NO MEANS MEANS THAT WE ARE PREEMPTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE JAS WORKING GROUP. I BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON IT, AND WE WILL EAGERLY AWAIT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THEIR WORK, AND THEN TAKE ON BOARD THE -- OR CONSIDER AND DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY COME WITH.
OF COURSE, IN FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MANDATED ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE GAC ITSELF.
THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF APPLICATIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND HERE WE ARE SAYING ESSENTIALLY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING AS THE FIRST ITEM IN THE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS, ISSUES, THE SCORECARD, WHICH IS BASICALLY COST CONSIDERATIONS AND SUPPORT. AND THIS IS ALSO GOING TO BE CONSIDERED ALONGSIDE CONSIDERATIONS OF OTHER COST ISSUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
THERE IS ONE ISSUE, ALICE -- THIS IS ITEM "A," JUST LABELED ITEM "A" WHICH EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE NEW gTLD AND THE IDN PROGRAMS ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. THE CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED THAT PREVIOUS ROUNDS, AS ALICE HAD SAID, HAD BY AND LARGE LEFT BEHIND A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND SO WE WOULD DISCUSS, INCLUDING MODALITIES YOU WOULD SUGGEST, HOW WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS POINT HERE.
THANKS, PETER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, KATIM.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER KENYA WANTS TO RESPOND ON THAT POINT BUT I DO HAVE REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR FROM BOTH SENEGAL AND SRI LANKA.
DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>>KENYA: YES, THANK YOU.
THE COMMENTS FROM -- IN ITEM "A" WERE RECEIVED FROM COMMUNITIES, SOME COMMUNITIES WHICH EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS. AND KENYA IDENTIFIES WITH THOSE COMMENTS, GIVEN THAT WE APPRECIATE THAT SOME DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OF DIFFERENT CULTURAL DIVERSITIES, THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR LOCAL LANGUAGES WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THE ASCII CHARACTERS. THAT IS A NON-ASCII.
AND IN THIS CASE, THERE MAY BE SOME CASES WHERE WE MAY NEED TO CONSIDER PARALLEL DELEGATIONS IN TERMS OF THE STRINGS FOR THE gTLD WITHIN THE ASCII AND THE NON-ASCII AS WELL.
THIS IS BASICALLY IN LINE WITH THE gTLD IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES, WHICH IS MEANT TO CARRY ALONG ALL THE SOCIETIES AND THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, NOT TO APPEAR KIND OF TO ISOLATE SOME COMMUNITIES.
ON THIS, IT IS LIKELY THE SELECTION -- OR, RATHER, IF WE HAVE KIND OF PARALLEL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THE gTLDs AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE WE CARRY ALONG EVERYBODY, THIS HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT IN TERMS OF COST. AND THAT'S WHY ALICE HAS MENTIONED THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO HOW WE CAN ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THESE SPECIAL NEEDS WITHIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SO THAT INTERNET CONTINUES BEING A TOOL WHICH IS WIDELY USED AND WHICH IS INCLUSIVE WITHIN ALL THE REGIONS OF THE WORLD.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT KENYA.
SO SENEGAL IS NEXT.
>>SENEGAL: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE PARTICIPATION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE GAC.
WE KNOW THAT AS IT IS REQUIRED, ICANN IS ENHANCING THE GAC ROLE IN ICANN PDP AND ALSO ON THE REVIEW.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARTICIPATION, WE STILL HAVE STILL NOT GOOD PARTICIPATION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY OF THIS INTERSESSION TO REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW COULD WE, GAC AND ICANN, DO TO IMPROVE PARTICIPATION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND TO RAISE AN ACCEPTABLE PERCENTAGE OF HOW COULD WE REALLY HAVE MORE PARTICIPATION FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ON THE GAC.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SENEGAL.
I HAVE SRI LANKA, THEN BRUCE, PORING, FRANCE, U.K.
>>SRI LANKA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. FIRSTLY, I THANK ICANN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, GIVING GAC MEMBERS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS DIALOGUE. AND THANK YOU, KATIM, FOR THAT EXCELLENT EXPOSITION OR VERY POSITIVE RESPONSE THAT THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE RAISED IN THE SCORECARD.
I JUST HAD A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT-BACKED gTLD APPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC POLICIES REQUIRING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES OR PROVINCIAL TO USE THE ccTLD AS THE ONLY MEANS OF PRESENTING THEMSELVES ON THE INTERNET.
IN A SCENARIO WHERE A GOVERNMENT-BACKED gTLD APPLICATION FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY, I TAKE IT FROM THE POINT YOU MENTIONED THAT THE FEE, THE COST CONSIDERATION, WOULD BE THE SAME GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE PROCESSING FEE THAT YOU ARE TALKING OF.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT MODEL OF COST RECOVERY OR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION KIND OF A MODEL WHICH REALLY OPENED UP A WAY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR IDN PROCESS TO TAKE OFF VERY SUCCESSFULLY WITHIN ICANN?
SO THAT IS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, SRI LANKA. I HAVE BRUCE NEXT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, HEATHER. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS PARTLY DIRECTED AT SOME OF THE EARLIER SPEAKERS, BUT ANYONE COULD REALLY RESPOND.
WHEN I READ SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE WORKING GROUP AND I READ SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE GAC SCORECARD, IT'S WHAT I'D SAY IS A LITTLE UNDIRECTED IN THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF HYPOTHETICALS. AND SO WE HAVE A LONG LIST OF WHAT COULD BE A NEEDY ORGANIZATION, AND PRETTY MUCH EVERY ORGANIZATION MIGHT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.
I'M WONDERING IF THE MEMBERS OF THE GAC FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE ACTUALLY AWARE OF, IN THEIR COUNTRY, PEOPLE THAT WISH TO APPLY, AND IS THERE A WAY OF US BEING MORE TARGETED IN WHAT SORT OF ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE TO ACTUAL PARTIES THAT ARE READY TO APPLY?
BECAUSE I JUST GET A SENSE OF IF WE ACTUALLY HAD SOME CONCRETE EXAMPLES -- THERE ARE NUMEROUS ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED THAT I HAVE SEEN IN LET'S CALL TT WESTERN DEVELOPED WORLD, AND THEY ARE NEARLY ALL ENTIRELY IN ASCII, AND THEY ARE EITHER SORT OF GENERIC WORDS, MOSTLY GENERIC WORDS, IN FACT, AND THEN CITY NAMES IS THE OTHER CATEGORY. BUT I HAVE SEEN VIRTUALLY NOTHING COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD IN TERMS OF EVEN IDEAS AND POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS.
SO JUST WONDERING IF MEMBERS OF THE GAC FROM THOSE PARTS OF THE WORLD ARE AWARE OF EXAMPLES OF --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, CAN I SAY THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION AND IT'S SLIGHTLY THE KIND OF QUESTION I AM HAPPY TO HAVE WITH BILL DEE ABOUT THE BOARD PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AoC.
THE SENEGAL POINT IS AN EXCELLENT ONE, A LONGSTANDING ONE IN HOW WE ENGAGE BETTER WITH THE DEVELOPING WORLD. THE TASK TODAY IS MORE DIRECTED. IT'S THAT WE HAVE EXPLICIT ADVICE FROM THE GAC ON THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE US OFF THE GENERAL TOPIC OF GREATER INVOLVEMENT WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A TOPIC AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE FOUR-NONT COMMUNICATION PROGRAM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IS JUST EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN TO TEST TO SEE WHETHER THIS --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IS GOING TO WORK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I AM NOT TRYING TO OPEN IT UP WIDELY. I AM JUST SAYING ARE THERE SOME EXAMPLES THAT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE AWARE OF THAT PEOPLE WANT TO APPLY, AND CAN WE USE THAT AS OUR CASE -- WHAT WE USE TO DETERMINE WHAT'S THE BEST APPROACH. BECAUSE IT'S ALL PRETTY GENERAL AT THE MOMENT.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, BRUCE. I THINK THAT QUESTION IS ACTUALLY VERY USEFUL TO THE GAC.
IF YOUR CONCERN IS THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY WHICH ORGANIZATIONS OR WHAT CRITERIA YOU COULD USE, YOU KNOW, TO RUN SUCH A PROGRAM, I THINK THAT'S QUITE A USEFUL QUESTION. AND I INVITE GAC MEMBERS TO REFLECT ON THAT IN THE COMING DAY OR SO.
ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE PORTUGAL NEXT.
>>PORTUGAL: THANK YOU.
WELL, FOR ME TO SPEAK, I THINK I NEED THE REPLY FROM THE BOARD TO THE QUESTION RAISED BY SRI LANKA. SORRY.
>>KATIM TOURAY: THANKS, AND IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, BUT REMEMBER OUR RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION -- THE ITEM NUMBER, THE SIXTH ITEM ON YOUR SCORECARD BASICALLY WAS THAT IT ESSENTIALLY REFERS TO THE ISSUE OF COST CONSIDERATIONS.
SO I SUPPOSE THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION REALLY WOULD BE COMING OUT FROM WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS WE GET FROM THE GAC AND THE JAS WORKING GROUP. THAT IS, WHAT DO WE DO TO SUPPORT NEEDY APPLICANTS? AND HERE WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS A NEEDY APPLICANT . YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO INCLUDE IN THERE GOVERNMENTS, YOU KNOW, NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, MUNICIPALITIES, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT IN THERE. AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVING SUPPORT, WHATEVER LEVEL OF SUPPORT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT AS A COMMUNITY.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, KATIM.
I THINK YOU CAN TAKE IT THAT THE EXAMPLE OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS IS BEING PROMPTED BY SOME DEGREE OF INTEREST. AND SO THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH AN ORGANIZATION OR A REQUEST.
OKAY. BRAZIL, YOU ARE NEXT, PLEASE.
>>BRAZIL: THANK YOU, HEATHER.
FIRST OF ALL, THANKS, KATIM, FOR THE COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT ALSO KENYA'S AND SENEGAL'S SPEECH ABOUT IMPORTANCE OF THIS SUBJECT, AS WELL AS SRI LANKA. AND, WELL, MY -- I HAVE TWO, THREE, FOUR -- FOUR GENERAL COMMENTS, BUT VERY BRIEF.
FIRST, THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRANSPARENT IN THE PROCESS, THE TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE PROCESS -- THE WHOLE PROCESS WOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE SIX U.N. LANGUAGES. MAYBE SHOULD ADD LANGUAGES IN WHICH WE HAVE RELEVANT MARKET OF INTERNET, A BIG NUMBER OF USERS. AND THAT MAY BE INTERESTED IN FOLLOW THE MECHANISMS OF CREATING NEW gTLDs.
SO JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, THIS SPECIFIC PROCESS SHOULD BE TRANSLATED TO MORE THAN THE SIX U.N. LANGUAGES.
MY SECOND COMMENT WOULD BE THAT REGARDING THE QUESTION OF APPLICANTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. OF COURSE WE HAVE THE QUESTION OF COST, AND WE HAVE BEEN IN VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS DURING THIS LUNCH BECAUSE THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT IF YOU ALLOW LOW-COST FOR APPLICANTS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, HOW CAN YOU AVOID THAT PEOPLE FROM DEVELOPED COUNTRIES GO TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO APPLY, SINCE -- FROM THERE.
SO WE DO AGREE THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT ISSUE. WE HAVE TO WORK ON THAT, IN TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATIVES FOR THAT. BUT ALSO, REGARDING THE APPLICANTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF TECHNICAL BARRIERS. IN THIS SENSE, I'M NOT TELLING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT RECEIVING SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES BUT THE FACT THAT THE TECHNICAL BARRIERS REQUIRED SO FAR I BELIEVE COULD ONLY BE MET BY VERY BIG REGISTRIES. AND I THINK THIS IS -- IT SEEMS LIKE A BARRIER TO THE MARKET, AND IT AT LEAST HAS THIS EFFECT. SO WE SHOULD TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION. MAYBE CONSIDER REDUCING TECHNICAL BARRIERS.
IN GENERAL SENSE, WE WANT TO AVOID THAT THE SPEECH FOR INCLUSION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR AN OFFICIAL INCREASE OF THE MARKET SERVICES RELATED TO INTERNET. INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BEING AN EXCUSE, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, OR COMMUNITIES FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH, THEY SHOULD BE PLAYERS.
SO IN THIS SENSE, THERE IS A LOT OF BRAINSTORM TO DO. I HAVE NO IDEAS, NO POSITION SO FAR, BUT JUST MY PERSONAL VIEW, WHEN ONE POSSIBILITY BE, FOR EXAMPLE, SHOULD BE WHY NOT SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF REGISTRIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, FOR EXAMPLE. WE SHOULD -- IN THIS SENSE, WE WOULD BE ENLARGING THE WHOLE MARKET OF INTERNET SERVICES. IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH THE IDEA OF COMPETITION AND INCREASING OF PLAYERS.
MY THIRD COMMENT IS ABOUT THE OBJECTION PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS SPECIFIC POINT, THE MATTER OF REDUCTION OF COST -- COST REDUCTION OR SPECIFICALLY THE EXEMPTION OF COST FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES' STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE APPLIED.
SO IF A SMALL COMMUNITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THEY FELT THAT THEY NEED TO OBJECT TO ANY PROCESS, OR AT LEAST TO START A DIALOGUE ON THIS, THERE SHOULD BE A TOTAL EXEMPTION OF THE COST.
I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM OF THE COSTS RELATED TO APPLICANTS. WE ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT OBJECTION. SO AT THIS MOMENT, I THINK STAKEHOLDERS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SHOULD HAVE THE EXEMPTION OF COSTS TO, IF NECESSARY, EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ABOUT OBJECTION.
AND FINALLY, I WOULD JUST AGREE WITH THE OTHERS, WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN GOING DEEP IN THE REPORT OF THE JOINT WORKING GROUP, IN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS, AND COME TO CONCRETE PROPOSALS TO HELP ICANN TO IMPLEMENT THIS GUIDELINE.
THANK YOU VERY
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE'RE NOW OUT OF TIME ON THIS TOPIC. WE'RE STRAYING WELL BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE GAC ADVICE AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT MAY BE VERY WELL USEFUL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OUTREACH AND OTHER THINGS. IF WE CAN JUST PLEASE HELP US BY MAKING SURE THAT WE ACHIEVE TODAY'S GOAL, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE ADVICE IS AND QUESTIONING AROUND THAT.
SO HEATHER, YOU'RE RUNNING THE LIST.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE FRANCE, U.K., THEN SÉBASTIEN, AND THEN RAY.
>>FRANCE: THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK WORD TO SAY THAT FRANCE IS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO CALCULATE THE COST, BECAUSE THE THING IS, WE JUST THINK IT'S UNFAIR AND WRONG TO HAVE THIS SITUATION.
IT'S A QUESTION LINKED TO THE INTERNET WE WANT FOR TOMORROW. AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS DEVELOPING COUNTRY ISSUE SERIOUSLY. SO I'M NOT AN IDEALISTIC GUY. I KNOW THERE ARE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, TECHNICAL PROBLEMS. AND I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. BUT I'M JUST A GUY THINKING THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES ALWAYS, IF WE WANT TO.
AN ALTERNATIVE COULD BE AN EQUITY-BASIS CALCULATION, LIKE THE INCOME TAX. THE LESS YOU HAVE, THE LESS YOU PAY. THE MORE YOU HAVE, THE MORE YOU PAY. WHAT ABOUT CRITERIAS? I DON'T KNOW YET. BUT I TRUST THE EXPERTISE OF ICANN TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR THIS.
THE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THIS IS, I READ THE BUDGET FOR LAST YEAR, 500 NEW gTLD IS PROJECTED, WHICH REPRESENT $100 MILLION. SO WHAT ICANN IS GOING TO DO WITH THE MONEY? MAYBE -- I DON'T HAVE, OF COURSE, THE ANSWER. BUT MAYBE A PART OF THIS ANSWER, IF YOU USE A PART OF THIS MONEY TO -- FOR TRUST, FOUNDATION OR SOMETHING TO HELP DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO HAVE BETTER ACCESS TO THE -- TO THIS PROCEDURE.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRANCE.
NEXT, I HAVE THE UNITED KINGDOM.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS. I HAD A PROPOSAL FOR FINESSING THIS PACKAGE OF SUPPORT THROUGH AN OUTREACH EFFORT. SO I'LL SUBMIT THAT IN WRITING RATHER THAN TAKE UP TIME. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
SÉBASTIEN.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I WAS SORRY TO SAY THAT I WILL HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE OF THE BOARD, BUT I AM ALSO TO SAY THAT I WILL BE DISAGREEING WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM FRANCE. AND IT'S A GOOD DEAL HERE.
THERE IS A WORKING GROUPING HERE. WE ARE WORKING. I URGE YOU TO PARTICIPATE TO THIS WORKING GROUP, BUT NOT COMING HERE TO GIVE US HOW WE -- THIS WORKING GROUP WILL FINISH ITS WORK. GO AND HELP THE WORKING GROUP TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION. AND ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE POINTS THEY ARE TAKING ONE BY ONE INTO A CONFERENCE CALL EACH WEEK. JOIN THEM.
MY SECOND POINT, I AM QUITE RELUCTANT TO ASK THE NEEDY APPLICANTS TO GIVE US SOME EXAMPLE, AS WE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO HAVE AN NOI, BECAUSE IT WILL CREATE AN UNBALANCED SITUATION WHERE WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE -- WE ARE NOT WILLING TO MAKE PUBLIC THEIR PROJECT, THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO MAKE IT PUBLIC, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT. AND WE MIGHT FIND OTHER WAY THAN TO ASK FOR PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT, IF THEY DON'T WISH TO DO IT, TO FIND A WAY TO KNOW HOW TO HELP THEM. IT'S A GOAL, ONCE AGAIN, OF THE JAS WORKING GROUP CURRENTLY.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SÉBASTIEN.
I IMAGINE THAT THE GAC IS INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE WORKING GROUP TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. SO I HOPE THAT CAN AT LEAST BE AN OUTCOME FROM TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE RAY.
>>RAY PLZAK: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
FIRST OF ALL, SÉBASTIEN SAID SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. THIS WORKING GROUP DOES EXIST. TO DATE, IT HAS ONLY BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE AN INTERIM REPORT. AND SO IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE IDEAS, AS HE SAID, THAT HAVE SURFACED HERE BE BROUGHT INTO THAT GROUP.
THE OTHER THING FOR COMMENT AND CONSIDERATION IS THAT ON MAIN ISSUE NUMBER 1, THE CROSS-CONSIDERATIONS POINT IN THE SCORECARD CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THAT THE SPECIFIED -- OR SPECIFIC COSTS AND FEES THAT ARE THERE, AND THEN IT ALSO TOUCHES ON THE ANCILLARY COSTS THAT MAY BE INCURRED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THIS GENERIC "OTHER REQUIREMENTS" STATEMENT.
SO AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THIS, I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AT SOME POINT THAT AS A REQUIREMENT IS PLACED UPON AN APPLICANT AS A RESULT OF WORK IN THESE TWO DAYS, THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THOSE ANCILLARY AND IMPLIED COSTS THAT MAY BE INCURRED. AND SO THE BIGGEST IMPACT THAT THESE OBVIOUSLY WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE DEVELOPING COMMUNITIES OR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND, FOR THAT MATTER, IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, RAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR, SO I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY CONCLUDE THIS TOPIC.
I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THIS HAS BEEN USEFUL, I THINK, TO HAVE THIS EXCHANGE, BECAUSE IT SIGNALS THE DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, BUT THE ENTIRE GAC. AND IF ICANN IS SERIOUS ABOUT INTERNATIONALIZATION, THAT MEANS INCLUDING gTLDs IN IDNs AND INCREASING PARTICIPATION IN THE ORGANIZATION. AND THAT'S HOW WE VIEW THESE ISSUES, AS A PACKAGE. SO I HOPE THAT HAS COME ACROSS CLEARLY.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANKS, HEATHER. I JUST WANT TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. IT'S EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD AND I THINK THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. AND JUST REMIND YOU THAT THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF THE EARLY PRINCIPLES FROM THE GNSO, IS THAT WE ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THOSE PRINCIPLES TO HAVE (INAUDIBLE) DIFFERENTIALS FOR -- IN THE FEE STRUCTURE.
WHAT THE PROBLEM FOR THE BOARD ,AGAIN, IS PREDICTABILITY AND CERTAINTY OF PROCESS, AND SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE GAMED. AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM BRAZIL MENTIONED THE FACT THAT IF WE SIMPLY DECLARE A REGION IS GOING TO BE SUBSIDIZED, EFFECTIVELY, ALL APPLICATIONS, OF COURSE, THEN WILL EMERGE FROM THAT REGION. SIMILARLY, IF WE DEFINE A CHARACTERISTIC OF A KIND OF APPLICANT, WE'LL SUDDENLY FIND ALL APPLICANTS WILL START MEETING OUR CRITERIA.
SO THE ISSUE IS, HOW DO WE DEFINE -- THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WAITING FOR FROM THE WORKING GROUP, IS WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEED? WHO IS NEEDY? AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE GENUINELY NEEDY, NOT BEING -- AS SOON AS WE'VE GOT THOSE RESULTS, THEN WE CAN START WORKING THROUGH THIS WORK THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR. THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THE BOARD'S INTENTION TO TRY AND IMPLEMENT WHAT -- AS I SAY, WHAT'S AN ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE GNSO, AND WITH SOME KIND OF IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE.
SO, AGAIN, I SUPPORT SÉBASTIEN'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN -- IF YOU CAN HELP THE WORKING GROUP, THAT'S THE PLACE I THINK AT THE MOMENT FOR THE FOCUS.
SÉBASTIEN, QUICK.
>>SÉBASTIEN BACHOLLET: JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT.
YOU SAY YOU ARE AUTHORIZED OR YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO HAVE DIFFERENT PRICE? BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN "YOU ARE AUTHORIZED," AND I THINK --
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PRINCIPLE N, CAPITAL "N" FROM NANCY FROM THE GNSO RECOMMENDATIONS, FROM MEMORY, SAYS IF THE BOARD WANTS TO, IT CAN SET UP DISPARATE FEE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING FOR NEEDY APPLICANTS. WE JUST NEED TO WORK OUT HOW TO DO THIS. THERE'S NO DIFFICULTY WITH THE CONCEPT.
SO -- SO AGREEING WITH HEATHER ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS TO EVERYBODY. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE CONTRIBUTIONS SO FAR.
CAN WE MOVE, THEN, TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THANK YOU, KATIM. THANK YOU, ALICE, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TEAMS BEHIND ALL OF THAT WORK. AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY.
I'D LIKE TO CATCH UP, PERHAPS KATIM AND SÉBASTIEN, AFTER THIS. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP AT A MORE FORMAL BOARD LEVEL THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP. SO PERHAPS YOU AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
LET'S MOVE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
HEATHER, WHO'S THE ACTION TEAM HERE?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES WILL LEAD THE DISCUSSION.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: EXCELLENT.
AND FROM THE BOARD, GONZALO NAVARRO FROM CHILE IS HELPING US WITH THAT.
SUZANNE.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU. AS PER -- TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT FOR THESE PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY ARE DRAWN FROM -- THEY'RE AN EXTENSION, IF YOU WILL, FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS UNDUE DILIGENCE AND THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AMENDMENTS THAT THE GAC ENDORSED LAST SUMMER IN THIS VERY ROOM, JUNE 2010.
AND WE TRIED TO EXTEND THE -- SOME OF THE CONCEPTS IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK. SO WE WOULD -- ARE PROPOSING -- I'M GOING TO BE FAIRLY BRIEF, BECAUSE I KNOW WE STILL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUES TO DISCUSS -- PROPOSING TO INCLUDE A BROADER RANGE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AS PART OF THE -- AS A CRITERIA FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
WE'RE PROPOSING THAT HIGHER WEIGHT BE ASSIGNED TO APPLICANTS OFFERING THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SECURITY, TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR MALICIOUS ACTIVITY, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE STRINGS PRESENTING PERHAPS A HIGHER RISK OF SERVING AS VENUES FOR CRIMINAL, FRAUDULENT, OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT.
IN MODULE 2, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD DOMESTIC SCREENING SERVICES LOCAL TO THE APPLICANT TO ASSIST ICANN IN CONDUCTING ITS DUE DILIGENCE. QUITE CANDIDLY, IT WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR TO US IN THE DAG EXACTLY WHAT SCREENING SERVICES WOULD BE USED.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING THAT YOU ADD CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS TO THE INITIAL EVALUATION. THAT YOU ALSO AMEND THE STATEMENT CURRENTLY IN THE FINAL DAG -- PROPOSED FINAL DAG THAT THE RESULTS OF DUE DILIGENCE EFFORTS WILL NOT BE POSTED PUBLICLY AND CONVERT THAT TO A POSITIVE COMMITMENT TO MAKE SUCH RESULTS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT'S ALWAYS WISE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC INFORMED ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED WITH THE gTLD APPLICANT, AS THEY MAY BE AWARE OF OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES BASED ON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF AN OBJECTION.
WE ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL -- IT'S NOT IN OUR GUIDEBOOK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UPDATE IT, SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT -- HELPFUL TO REQUIRE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL OF THE OFFICERS OF COMPANIES. AND WHAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO DO THEN IS PAUSE, PERHAPS, FOR A MINUTE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
BUT I'D LIKE TO SORT OF REPORT A LITTLE BIT BACK, IF I COULD, FROM A TWO-DAY JOINT U.S.-E.U. MEETING THAT WAS HOSTED BY THE E.U. COMMISSION LAST THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24 AND 25, HERE IN BRUSSELS. AND IT WAS A MEETING BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE REGISTRAR AND REGISTRY COMMUNITIES.
IT WAS AN EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND PRODUCTIVE TWO-DAY MEETING. I THINK WE HAVE COME AWAY WITH A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ONE ANOTHER'S CONCERNS AND AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS A SHARED INTENT TO COOPERATE MORE FULLY IN COMBATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY USING THE DNS.
WHAT I THINK IS INTERESTING TO REPORT TO YOU, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY HAS VERY GRACIOUSLY SHARED A DRAFT COPY OF A REPORT THAT WILL BE APPROVED BY THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY ITSELF. SO IT'S JUST A DRAFT, BUT THEY WERE VERY GRACIOUS IN SHARING IT. WITH THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING. AND ONE THING THAT WAS INTERESTING FOR US TO KNOW -- THERE WERE A FEW OF US GAC REPRESENTATIVES IN THE ROOM -- THAT THE REGISTRAR COMMUNITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL TO MEET ALL OF THE NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO THAT WAS USEFUL TO KNOW.
WE DID DISCUSS AS A GROUP THE POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD AGREEMENT ON SOME JOINT ACTIVITIES, ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE AN AGREED TEMPLATE THAT COULD BE USED IN A STANDARDIZED WAY FOR ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUESTS TO REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, WHICH WOULD HELP, THEN, INDICATE WHICH AGENCY, SO IT GOES A LITTLE BIT TO OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION WHICH AGENCY THE REQUEST IS COMING FROM, WHAT ARE THEY ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND ALSO, WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING FORWARD A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY ON AN AGREED CODE OF CONDUCT, WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS VERY, VERY POSITIVE.
I AM PERSONALLY VERY HAPPY TO REPORT A COMPLETE CONSENSUS. I ASKED THE REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES IN THE ROOM IF I COULD SAY THIS, AND THEY SAID YES, THAT BOTH CONSTITUENCIES SUPPORT THE GAC'S VIEW THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE RIGOROUS DUE DILIGENCE CONDUCTED BY ICANN AND MORE ROBUST CONTRACT COMPLIANCE. THAT, OF COURSE, IS MUSIC TO THE GAC'S EARS. AND WE THOUGHT YOU WOULD FIND THAT USEFUL TO KNOW TODAY.
WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR IS A -- IF WE COULD, THE GAC COMMUNIQUÉ FROM BRUSSELS DID NOTIFY THE BOARD THAT WE HAD ENDORSED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. AND IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE, IN ADDITION TO THE STAFF DRAFT, WHICH WE DO APPRECIATE HAVING, A BOARD RESPONSE, SO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO RECOMMEND AS A NEXT STEP.
WE HAVE YET TO HAVE A FORMAL RESPONSE AS TO WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN. 'CAUSE I CAN TELL YOU, THE PURPOSE OF -- IN LARGE PART, OF THE MOST RECENT MEETING, JOINT U.S.-E.U. MEETING, WAS, IN FACT, TO PREPARE FOR A U.S.-E.U. SUMMIT THIS SUMMER, WHICH WILL BE ATTENDED BY PRESIDENTS.
AND COOPERATION AND FORWARD MOVEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR ARENA, LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS ABOUT ONLINE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY USING THE DNS, AS WELL AS OTHERS, BUT INCLUDING THE DNS, IS A VERY, VERY HIGH PRIORITY. AND AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE PREPARING FOR I GUESS ONE OF YOUR BOARD MEETINGS YOURSELVES OR BRIEFING YOUR CEOs, WHEN WE DO SUMMITS, PRESIDENTS LIKE TO SEE DELIVERABLES. SO WE ARE VERY, VERY EAGER TO SEE SOME FORWARD MOVEMENT AND WOULD LIKE TO STRESS, JUST FRANKLY CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH, HOW IMPORTANT IT WOULD BE TO SEE SELF-REGULATORY INITIATIVES IN THIS ARENA THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE VISIBLE AND A LITTLE MORE DEMONSTRABLE.
AND JUST IN CLOSING, ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SUBJECT, IT'S A PROCESS POINT, IT LITERALLY TOOK US -- AND I'M LOOKING AT BILL HERE, AND ELISE WAS ALSO IN THE MEETING -- I THINK IT TOOK US THE FULL TWO DAYS TO KIND OF GRASP ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE SHOULD LOOK TO DOWN THE ROAD. SO APOLOGIES, PETER, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUIDEBOOK, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF HOW WE TACKLE SOME SUBSEQUENT EXCHANGES AND SUBSEQUENT POLICY ISSUES.
ALTHOUGH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS HAD BEEN SHARED WITH REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES BEGINNING IN 2009, AND THEY HAD BEEN SORT OF CIRCULATED AT DIFFERENT ICANN MEETINGS, THEY WERE FINALLY ENDORSED BY THE GAC IN 2010, THEY WERE THE SUBJECT OF A MEETING THE UNITED STATES LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE HOSTED LAST SEPTEMBER IN WASHINGTON, AND YET AND AGAIN HERE WE HAVE THE E.U. MEETING, AND YET UNTIL THAT TIME, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS HAD NEVER BEEN COMMENTED ON FORMALLY.
SO IN SORT OF BUREAUCRATIC WORLD, WHEN WE DRAFT SOMETHING -- AND THIS IS HOW THE GAC WORKS AS WELL -- WHEN ONE OF UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DRAFTS SOMETHING AS A LEAD, EVERYBODY ELSE CHIMES IN WITH TRACK CHANGES. RIGHT? YOU INDICATE WHAT EDITS YOU NEED TO SEE IN THE DOCUMENT. YOU PUT YOUR COMMENTS IN.
WE HAD NEVER GOTTEN THAT. SO WE HAD NO REAL CLUE EXCEPT A GENERAL SENSE THAT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REGISTRARS FELT WERE NOT WORKABLE AND WOULDN'T MEET THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE. BUT THESE WERE VERBAL COMMENTS. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT WE NEED TO OPERATE MORE LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
BUT ALSO WA STRIKING, THOUGH, WAS THE GAC RECOMMENDATION GOES FROM US, TO YOU, THE ICANN BOARD. REGISTRARS CERTAINLY WELL AWARE OF IT, HAD BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND RATHER THAN AT THAT TIME THE TWO GROUPS COMING TOGETHER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO, THE REGISTRARS, QUITE UNDERSTANDABLY, WERE -- REDIRECTED THEIR EFFORTS TO THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS WORKING GROUP IN THE GNSO. SO, AGAIN, IT WAS A REAL SIGN THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE PATHS -- THE WAY WE ARE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED, NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET. SO IF WE CONTINUE ALONG THESE LINES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO ENCOUNTER THE SAME CHALLENGES.
SO IT'S JUST A PITCH. AND I THINK ALL OF US IN THE ROOM RECOGNIZE IT OURSELVES AS WE WERE TALKING. IT'S A POINT FOR FUTURE WORK, IF YOU WILL, IN TERMS OF -- AND I THINK THESE ARE PROCESS POINTS THAT CAN EASILY BE ADDRESSED. BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH FLAGGING FOR THE GROUP.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO GONZALO, WHO MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SUZANNE, AND THE TEAM, ABOUT THIS ASPECT OF GAC ADVICE.
GONZALO.
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU, PETER. AND THANK YOU, SUZANNE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS REALLY POSITIVE AND IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO -- FOR US TO CLARIFY SOME IDEAS REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT.
WE WERE READING THE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY, AND WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS JUST TO KNOW WHERE EXACTLY ARE WE GOING OR WHAT'S THE POSITION OF THE GAC REGARDING THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED ON THE PROPOSALS? FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE NUMBER 1, UNDER NUMBER 1, YOU TALK ABOUT INCLUDING OR INCLUDE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AS CRITERIA FOR DISQUALIFICATION, SUCH AS INTERNET-RELATED CRIMES, FELONIES, MISDEMEANOR, OR DRUGS.
WELL, TWO QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE REGARDING THAT PROPOSAL IS -- THE FIRST ONE IS, WHAT KIND OF CRIMINAL CONDUCTS -- BECAUSE DRUG CURRICULUM CONVICTIONS IS TOO GENERIC. SO IT WILL BE REALLY HELPFUL, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CONVICTIONS ARE YOU THINKING, AND ESPECIALLY IT WILL BE REALLY USEFUL TO KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A TREATY OR INTERNATIONAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN MIND WHILE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONVICTIONS. THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO QUESTION BY QUESTION OR JUST TO -- I DON'T KNOW, TO WALK THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY TO TAKE A CRACK AT IT. APOLOGIES IF IT DOESN'T SEEM VERY CLEAR. AND WE WILL CERTAINLY WORK ON IT TO GIVE YOU A BETTER SENSE. REGRETTABLY, AS WE ALL KNOW, IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES EACH HAVE DIFFERENT LEGAL TRADITIONS AND DEFINE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES DIFFERENTLY. SO WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A CRIME IN ONE JURISDICTION MAY, IN FACT, NOT BE CONSIDERED A CRIME IN ANOTHER.
SO WE WILL WORK A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO TRY TO DEFINE THAT.
THE POINT, HOWEVER, WAS TO STRONGLY URGE THAT THE SCOPE OF THE DUE DILIGENCE BE BROADENED TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN CAPTURE A RANGE OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, WHICH IS RELATED TO SUGGESTING THAT YOU ALSO USE DOMESTIC SCREENING SERVICES, WHERE THE LOCAL APPLICANT IS BASED, IN THE LOCALITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS BASED IN. BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALSO HELP LET YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER SCREENING SERVICES YOU ARE WORKING WITH, THE RANGE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
SO WE WILL CERTAINLY TRY TO REFINE THAT. DOES THAT HELP YOU A LITTLE BIT?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: YES, SURE.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO RUSH THE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME -- ACTUALLY, SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SCREENING SERVICES, THE LEVEL OF THE SCREENING SERVICES THAT YOU ARE THINKING OF. BUT USUALLY -- AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS OR COUNTRIES OR LEGAL TRADITIONS HAVE DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS RELATED TO WHAT IS A CRIME, HOW TO PUNISH THE CRIME. SO USUALLY YOU HAVE THE LEGAL INTERNATIONAL STANDARD OF THE TREATIES TO HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT ARE THE (INAUDIBLE) OR WHAT KIND OF CONDUCTS ARE YOU HAVING IN MIND WHILE DEALING WITH THESE KIND OF CRIMES.
LET'S GO TO THE SECOND POINT THAT WE HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S REALLY HELPFUL, SUZANNE.
WHEN YOU ARE -- ON POINT 2, APPLICANTS OFFERING THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SECURITY TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF MALICIOUS ACTIVITY, HAS THE GAC CONSIDERED WHAT KIND OF PARAMETERS WILL YOU -- WILL BE SET TO DETERMINE WHAT STRINGS PRESENT HIGHER RISK IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER STRINGS?
SUZANNE.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: LET ME GET TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ON THE ISSUE OF SCREENING. I GUESS -- LET ME FIRST TURN THE QUESTION AROUND TO YOU. AND MAYBE I HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, SO MY APOLOGIES.
THE GUIDEBOOK SAYS THAT SCREENING WILL BE CONDUCTED. YOU WILL USE SCREENING SERVICES. SO ARE YOU ASKING US TO PROVIDE BETTER GUIDANCE AS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK YOUR SCREENING SERVICES? BECAUSE I ASSUME THAT A PROPER, EFFICIENT, PROFESSIONAL SCREENING SERVICE WOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY ARE TO BE LOOKING FOR.
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: OKAY. LET'S GO TO THAT QUESTION.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SCREENING SERVICES, WHAT IS INCLUDED ON YOUR PROPOSALS? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SCREENING SERVICES AND TO ADD LOCAL SCREENING SERVICES TO APPLICANTS.
WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THE LEVEL OF THE SCREENING SERVICES, THE LOCAL -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN ABOUT LOCAL SCREENING SERVICES? USING THE JURISDICTION OF EACH COUNTRY? OR WHAT EACH COUNTRY UNDERSTANDS FOR SCREENING SERVICES?
THAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE QUESTION.
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND PERHAPS WE PUT THIS IN BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US WHAT SCREENING SERVICES YOU WOULD BE USING.
SO, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, WE WEREN'T ENTIRELY SURE THAT THERE ARE ENTITIES OFFERING SCREENING SERVICES THAT TRULY COULD CAPTURE THE FULL RANGE OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION, YOU KNOW, LIST COUNTRY BY COUNTRY.
SO IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWING WHAT ENTITY AND AT WHAT LEVEL YOU WERE GOING TO USE, THIS WAS AN ADDED SUGGESTION, BECAUSE IT'S UNLIKELY THAT ANY -- EVERY SCREENING SERVICE WILL BE ABLE TO TRACK DOWN CERTAIN DATA ABOUT CERTAIN APPLICANTS. SO THIS IS THE SUGGESTION THAT YOU AUGMENT OR COMPLEMENT SUCH SCREENING WITH LOCAL SCREENING SERVICES FROM THE DOMESTIC AREA THAT THE APPLICANT COMES FROM, PRESUMABLY, IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONVICTIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE, THEY COULD BE FOUND THERE. BUT THIS MAY BE JUST A SUBJECT OF MISUNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT SCREENING SERVICES YOU INTEND TO USE. SO I'M SURE WE COULD CLARIFY THIS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU.
SO THERE IS ONE QUESTION REMAINING. WELL, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF STRINGS PRESENTS, IN YOUR EYES -- I MEAN, THE EYES OF THE GAC, HIGHER RISK. BECAUSE YOU ARE MENTIONING HEALTH CARE, FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S NOT A COMPLETE LIST THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING THERE. SO IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE SCOPE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THIS IS THE CATEGORIZATION QUESTION, AGAIN. YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING THAT THERE ARE -- THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF REGISTRIES.
HOW DO WE -- AGAIN, PREDICTABLY DESCRIBE WHAT IS A HIGHER RISK OF -- FOR CRIMINAL, FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL CONDUCT?
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ACTUALLY, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COLLEAGUES HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE AT THIS POINT. PERHAPS WE CAN GO TO THEM AND ASK THEM TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF CASES. THERE HAS BEEN AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ONLINE USING THE DNS SELLING PHARMACEUTICALS. AN -- THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
SO WE CAN -- IF IT WOULD HELP YOU, WE WILL TRY TO IDENTIFY PARTICULAR SECTORS. WE WERE TRYING TO HINT AT THAT TO SAY THOSE SECTORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MORE PRONE TO ABUSE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSED REGISTRY OPERATOR WITH A STRING THAT WOULD FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, WE ARE SIMPLY SUGGESTING THAT YOU GIVE THAT APPLICANT HIGHER MARKS IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE DELIBERATELY INCORPORATED HIGHER LEVELS OF SECURITY IN FACT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CERTAINLY FOR THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SHOULD THERE EVER BE SUCH A THING AS A DOT BANK OR DOT FIN OR WHATEVER ANYBODY COMES UP WITH, SHOULD IT EVER BE AGREED, BUT, ANYWAY, A STRING SUCH AS THAT WOULD DEFINITELY REQUIRE MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF SECURITY. SO IT'S SIMPLY EXPANDING A SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND JUST SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING IT AS A KEY IMPORTANCE FOR THE GAC.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ISN'T THE ANSWER HERE TO SIMPLY DO THE REMEDY, WHICH IS TO GIVE GREATER WEIGHT -- GIVE GREATER POINTS TO ANYONE WHO SHOWS THEY'VE GOT STRONG SECURITY? EVERYONE WHO'S GOT STRONG SECURITY SHOULD GET AN EXTRA POINT OR TWO. TRYING TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT IF YOU'RE IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY SEEMS TO CREATE AN UNNECESSARY DIFFICULTY.
SO THE REMEDY IS TO GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO PEOPLE WHO DO MORE TOWARDS SECURITY. ISN'T THAT THE ANSWER?
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: CLEARLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE EVERY APPLICANT OFFER A VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL OF SECURITY, THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.
BUT IT IS TRUE, PETER, I THINK YOU CAN MAKE DISTINCTION, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE STRING.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WELL, I THINK THAT'S THE --
>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: SO THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO GO HOME AND PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE -- PERHAPS A LONGER LIST OF EXAMPLES, I THINK WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO TAKE A CRACK AT THAT.
THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: STEVE?
>>STEVE CROCKER: TWITCHING HERE A LITTLE BIT. SUZANNE, WITH ALL RESPECT, YOU'VE SAID THAT PEOPLE SELLING PHARMACEUTICALS ABUSING, USING DNS, THEY ARE SELLING PHARMACEUTICALS USING THE INTERNET. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM TO SAY. THE DNS IS AN INCIDENTAL AND ESSENTIALLY IRRELEVANT PART OF THAT EQUATION.
THE ATTEMPT TO INFLATE AND FOCUS ON DNS AS THE PRIMARY CONTROL POINT, I THINK, IS A PIECE OF MISDIRECTION FRANKLY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SUZANNE?
>>UNITED STATES: WELL, ACTUALLY, STEVE, I THINK WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES THAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND. BUT LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION. I KNOW THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, SEVERAL, ARE IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRAVELING TO THE SAN FRANCISCO MEETING AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO HAVE A PROPER BROAD, EXPANDED BRIEFING SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR FIRSTHAND FROM A VARIETY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES FROM A VARIETY OF COUNTRIES OUTLINING THE TYPES OF CASES THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH THAT INVOLVE THE DNS. HAPPY TO TRY TO WORK ON THAT.
>>STEVE CROCKER: I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: WHERE DO WE GET TO? SPEAKING ORDER? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, GONZALO, ABOUT THE GAC ADVICE?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: YEAH, WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I'M SORRY, ERIKA. YES?
>>ERIKA MANN: YOU ARE UNDER TIME PRESSURE, I DO UNDERSTAND THIS, YES. JUST A SHORT POINT TO PICK UP THE PROPOSAL FROM SUZANNE, I WOULD ACTUALLY -- I WOULD SUPPORT US TO HAVE THE MEETING WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO BECAUSE I ATTENDED THE MEETING -- THE TWO-DAYS MEETING WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN BRUSSELS AND THERE WAS QUITE A LIVELY DEBATE AND DISCUSSION HOW TO TAKE THIS FORWARD, THIS INITIATIVE. IT IS CLEARLY A VALID ONE, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES WOULD LIKE TO FIND AN UNDERSTANDING AND THE PAPER IS AN INDICATION. BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE WORK WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO IT IS GOOD ACTUALLY TO FORESEE THE MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO AND THEN WE SHOULD TAKE IT FROM THERE. AND WE CAN OBVIOUSLY BUILD IT INTO THE EVALUATION AND THE REVIEW PROCESS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DEBATED AFTER THE FIRST BATCH. SO IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY GOOD TIMING TO DO THIS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. I HAVE BRAZIL. SO DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT NOW BEFORE WE MOVE -- YEAH, PLEASE, BRAZIL.
>>BRAZIL: VERY QUICK COMMENT ON SUGGESTION. SORRY. VERY QUICK COMMENT ON SUGGESTION THAT IS NEXT MEETING BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ICANN, SHOULD ALSO BE -- YOU SHOULD ALSO INVITE PEOPLE FROM PRIVACY PROTECTION AGENCIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSALS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF HAVING A BALANCED DIALOGUE AND REACH A VERY GOOD RESULT. THANK YOU.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: KATIM?
>>KATIM TOURAY: PETER, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION BRIEFLY THAT THE ISSUE OF CYBER SECURITY AND TO SOME EXTENT PRIVACY IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT IN A LOT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. THIS IS -- I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS IS IT IS A MATTER THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE THEIR HANDS AROUND, AND THEY SOMETIMES PERCEIVE THIS AS A THREAT. AND, ALSO, LET'S BEAR IN MIND OVER THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS, A FEW MONTHS AGO, BEGINNING LAST MONTH, I THINK, QUITE A NUMBER OF GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN OVERTHROWN OR THREATENED WITH BEING OVERTHROWN WHICH VIRTUE OF THE USE OF THE INTERNET. SO THIS HAS BECOME QUITE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE UP SUZANNE ON THE SUGGESTION THAT WE SIT DOWN AND HAVE A SUGGESTION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OKAY. GONZALO?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU, PETER. SUZANNE, JUST LAST QUESTION -- OR MAYBE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. ON NUMBER 2, MODEL 2, YOU SAID THAT WE NEED TO ADD CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE INITIAL EVALUATION IN THE DAG. BUT ACTUALLY THAT HAS A SCREEN BEFORE IT HAPPENS BEFORE THE INITIAL EVALUATION.
SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE IS ARE YOU PROPOSING TO MOVE ACTUALLY THE EVALUATION -- SORRY, THE SCREENING OR THE CHECK TO THE INITIAL EVALUATION PROCESS, OR ARE YOU THINKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR MAYBE BROADER? THANK YOU.
>>UNITED STATES: NO, I THINK WE WERE PROPOSING -- AND I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T FOLLOW YOU, GONZALO. MY APOLOGIES YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT PERHAPS WE HAVE MISREAD THE GUIDEBOOK, MISREAD WHEN THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE CONDUCTED?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: YEAH BECAUSE BEFORE THE INITIAL EVALUATION, ACTUALLY STAFF -- ICANN CONDUCTS A SCREENING OR BACKGROUND CHECKS. SO WE ARE NOT SURE IF THE GAC IS SUGGESTING TO MOVE THAT PARTICULAR CHECK TO ANOTHER MOMENT OF THE PROCESS DURING THE PROCESS OR INCREASE THAT CHECK BECAUSE THAT CHECK INCLUDES SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES LIKE TERRORISM OR MONEY LAUNDERING. SO WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL -- THIS SPECIFIC PROPOSAL.
>>UNITED STATES: THANK YOU, FAIR ENOUGH, GONZALO. I WILL GO BACK AND CHECK AGAIN. PERHAPS WE JUST MISUNDERSTOOD AND WE WILL CLARIFY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, SUZANNE. ANYMORE?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THAT'S ALL FOR THE MOMENT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VERY HELPFUL SESSION. ANY MORE FROM ANY GAC OR BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT THE CURRENT BULLET POINTS? OKAY.
THAT MEANS WE CAN CLOSE THAT SESSION. AND I'VE HAD A SESSION THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO NOW GO BACK INTO EARLY WARNING. WE ACTUALLY HAVE DONE EARLY WARNING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS AND WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN TOMORROW. OBVIOUSLY I'M IN THE HANDS OF THE GAC AND THE BOARD AS TO HOW BEST TO USE THE TIME.
BUT IS THERE ANY SENSE THAT WE NOW NEED TO GO BACK INTO EARLY WARNING? IF THERE IS, WE WILL DO SO. IF NOT, WE CAN CLOSE TODAY AND GO AND CONVENE AND WORK OUT EXACTLY HOW WE ARE GOING TO MANAGE THE AGENDA TOMORROW.
I THINK -- I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE THE TIME WITH BOARD COLLEAGUES TO -- AND GAC TO WORK OUT HOW BEST TO USE THE DAY TOMORROW AND MAKE SURE WE GET THE WORK DONE.
>>ROD BECKSTROM: IF I COULD MAKE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE CONCERNED. AS CEO OF ICANN, I COULDN'T HAVE IMAGINE A MORE PRODUCTIVE FIRST DAY OF MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS. EXCELLENT CLARIFICATIONS BY THE GAC AFTER VERY GOOD PREPARATION WORK WITH THE 28-PAGE DOCUMENT AND I THINK SOME VERY GOOD CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD SIDE AS WELL. I'M JUST ENCOURAGED BY THE SPIRIT OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO OUR COMING TOGETHER TOMORROW. I KNOW I TOOK A FAIRLY QUIET ROLE TODAY COMPARED AT OTHER TIMES THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY A BOARD-GAC CONSULTATION AND IS APPROPRIATELY LED BY THE CHAIRS.
BUT AS CEO, I'M VERY ENCOURAGED AND JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR A REALLY EXCELLENT SESSION.
BACK TO THE TWO CHAIRS.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, ROD. I HAVE ONE HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENT WHILE WE START CLOSING DOWN. AND THAT IS THAT THE CHAIR OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE HAS ASKED ME TO TELL YOU THAT THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE SPONSORING DRINKS AT THE MERIDIAN BAR STARTING AT 10:00 TONIGHT. IN TRUE ICANN FASHION, OUR LAST MEETING IS OFTEN SCHEDULED FOR LATE AT NIGHT, NOT ALWAYS IN A BAR, I HAVE TO ASSURE YOU. VERY OFTEN THEY ARE IN MY -- THEY ARE IN ROOMS.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS BECAUSE THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE HAS HAS AN AGGRESSIVE AND CONSTANT OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY LOOKING AT THE LEADERSHIP IN THE BOARDS, THE COUNCILS, THE ACs AND THE SOSs. THAT'S THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE'S JOB. THEY WANT TO ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO BE RECOMMENDING NAMES THROUGH TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE PROCESS. SO IF YOU COULD -- IF YOU ARE ABOUT -- I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED TO ADAM PEAKE WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WHO IS MAKING THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE BOARD PROBABLY WON'T BE THERE. WE WILL BE WORKING. IT IS NOT THE BOARD HE WANTS TO REACH. IT IS THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY FOR NAMES.
HEATHER, ANYTHING ELSE AS WE CLOSE DOWN? ALL RIGHT. I WILL ADD MY THANKS AND COMMENTS AND ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH EVERYTHING THE CEO SAID. I THINK IT HAS BEEN AN EXCELLENT SESSION. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY AGAIN FOR THE WORK THAT'S DONE. WE ACHIEVED THE GOAL WE SET OURSELVES. WE HAVE GONE RIGHT THROUGH THE SCORECARD. WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE TOPIC LEADERS, AND WE'VE HAD QUESTIONS WHICH I THINK HAVE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND LOOKING AROUND THE REST OF THE BOARD, WE'VE SUBSTANTIALLY ADVANCED OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE GAC.
SO THANKS VERY MUCH. LET'S CLOSE AND WE WILL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING, SAME TIME. MEETING ADJOURNED.