(BREAK).
----- -- --
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. IF YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SEATS, WE'LL BEGIN IN A COUPLE MINUTES.
>>NANCY: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU'D BE KIND ENOUGH TO TAKE YOUR SEATS, WE'D LIKE TO BEGIN OUR PORTION OF THE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU TAKE YOUR SEATS, WE'LL START OUR MEETING.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: OKAY, EVERYONE. LET'S GET STARTED. OUR NEXT TOPIC WAS TO PROVIDE WHAT WE'RE CALLING AN UPDATE ON RIGHTS PROTECTION ISSUES. YOU WILL RECALL YESTERDAY THAT THE BOARD PROVIDED A SERIES OF DETAILED QUESTIONS TO THE GAC FOR A RESPONSE. AND IN THE MEANTIME THE GAC HAS BEGUN REVIEWING THOSE QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A RESPONSE AND ON THAT BASIS, I WILL TURN OVER MICROPHONE TO THE U.K. WHO IS LEADING ON THIS ISSUE TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON OUR STATUS. THANK YOU.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: THANKS VERY MUCH, HEATHER. AND GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY WHO WASN'T HERE EARLIER. ANYWAY, YES. FULLY APPRECIATE THE TABLING OF QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND SO ON. AND INDEED, THE LINES THE CAPITALS AND IP EXPERTS HAVE BEEN BUZZING OVERNIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT, I'M AFRAID, IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE ANY COORDINATED CONSENSUS, PRELIMINARY RESPONSES AT THIS TIME. AS YOU CAN, I'M SURE, EVERYBODY HERE WILL APPRECIATE, THESE ARE QUITE COMPLEX AND INTRICATE ISSUES BOTH IN TERMS OF LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND PARTNER OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND SO ON. SO THERE'S QUITE A LOT INVOLVED IN FORMULATING THE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS BUT WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO PREPARE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THOSE QUESTIONS AS SOON AS WE CAN AND PROVIDE THAT TO THE ICANN SIDE. WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUEST, ACTUALLY, IF THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE NOTED ON THE PAPER THAT FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF THE GAC SCORECARD POINTS THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS AT THAT PRESENT TIME FROM THE ICANN SIDE. BUT, IF INDEED THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS, IT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED IF WE HAVE SITE OF THOSE AND THEN DEAL WITH THOSE AT THE SAME TIME AS FORMULATING THE COORDINATED RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT NOW. SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE POSITION. WE LOOK FORWARD TO PROVIDING THOSE RESPONSES AS SOON AS WE CAN. AND THANKS VERY MUCH. THAT'S THE STATUS, REALLY.
>> RITA?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MARK, WE ABSOLUTELY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT RESPONSE AND I DON'T THINK THIS WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. MY ONE CONCERN IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE GAC NEED TO GO BACK AND CONSULT, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUES WERE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE AMBIGUITIES WERE PERHAPS CREATED IN THE DRAFTING SO ALTHOUGH I DRAFT PERFECTLY COMPREHENSIVELY EVERY TIME, SOMETIMES WRITING CAN BE CONFUSING. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD SET UP A TIME FOR A TELECONFERENCE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES IN VERY, VERY SHORT ORDER. SO I LOOK -- I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A TIMETABLE TO GET THIS RESPONSE FROM YOU AND JUST SET UP A TIME TO COMMUNICATE SO THERE'S NOT MORE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'D REALLY LIKE TO BRING THIS AROUND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, RITA. I WONDER WHETHER THOSE THAT ARE LEADING ON THE ISSUES CAN LOOK AT WHETHER THERE IS A DRAFTING ISSUE AND SEPARATE THOSE OUT FROM ONES WHERE WE NEED TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK. THE TIME FRAME IS SO TIGHT. AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE COMMUNICATE TO YOU WITH A CONSENSUS VIEW. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST CONSTRUCTIVE WAY TO GO ABOUT THAT.
SO WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO DO THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. RECOGNIZING THAT. AS FAR AS A CONFERENCE CALL, I THINK THERE IS INTEREST AND IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET OUR IPS EXPERTS ON TO THAT CALL, WHICH IS A BIT EASIER FOR SOME DELEGATES HERE TODAY. THE TIMING OF THE CALL AND THE WRITTEN RESPONSE I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT, COORDINATE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND SAN FRANCISCO. SO --
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSON: THAT'S FINE AGAIN. I THINK PETER SAID IT WELL YESTERDAY. THIS TOPIC OBVIOUSLY HAS -- THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LENGTHY PROCESS OF BACK AND FORTH HERE. SO WE ALSO HAVE TO INVOLVE VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE. IT'S NOT JUST DECISIONS WE CAN MAKE ON THE FLY, IF AT ALL. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS BUT WE HAVE LIMITATIONS AS WELL SO WE REALLY NEED TO GET THIS MOVING QUICKLY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THERE WAS TALK OVER BREAK, MARK, I'M NOT SURE YOU WERE PART OF THAT ABOUT HAVING A CALL TOMORROW. IS THAT REALISTIC?
>>MARK CARVELL: I UNDERSTAND -- YES, I'M AWARE OF THE DESIRE, SHARED DESIRE TO HAVE THE CONFERENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH COLLEAGUES AND ACTUALLY FACILITATING THAT TOMORROW. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A RUNNER, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT LET'S CONSULT FURTHER ON WHAT IS REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE. BUT AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY IS WHAT WE'D CONSIDER AS IF WE GO AHEAD WITH THE TELECONFERENCE PROPOSAL WHICH I, UK THINK IS A GOOD IDEA BUT THERE ARE FURTHER GAC CONSULTATION THAT'S NEED TO BE TAKEN.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT U.K. GERMANY, DID YOU WANT TO ADD.
>>GERMANY: YES, THANK YOU. I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE FORMALLY GIVE THIS POSITION AND ANSWER FROM SIDE OF THE GAC IN A WRITTEN FORM. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE TRY TO PROCEED AND HAVE SOME KIND OF ALSO EXCHANGE TO TRYING TO COME FORWARD. ANOTHER QUESTION I WOULD RAISE AND LIKE TO RAISE TO THE ICANN BOARD IS YOU HAVE RECEIVED NOW OUR POSITION. AND WHAT WE NOW ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS A BIT TO WHAT EXTENT CAN YOU GO ALONG WITH THIS POSITION? OR DO YOU -- CAN YOU CONSIDER THAT THIS GAC POSITION COULD BE FOLLOWED BECAUSE -- I KNOW IT IS PREMATURE TO GO -- TO DISCUSS IT. BUT WE JUST ALSO WANTED SOME KIND OF RESPONSE AND KNOWING WHERE ARE WE GOING. THANK YOU.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSON: THAT'S FINE. I THINK WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: U.K.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ON THE OTHER HAND I THINK THERE'S OBVIOUSLY MERIT IN WHAT RITA SAYS BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE HAVEN'T ASKED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT -- AS KATIM HAS REMINDED ME ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS IF YOU LOOK AT THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS MEETING ON THE WEB PAGE IT IS TRY TO WORK OUT WHAT AREAS WE CAN AGREE AND WHAT AREAS WE CAN INDICATE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT GAC IDEAS AND WE'VE GOT BYLAW SCHEDULE ON AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT AAT THE MOMENT THERE ARE 12 AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT ON THE BYLAWS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETINGIS TO TRY TO REDUCE THAT TO ZERO IF POSSIBLE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A BYLAWS CONSULTATION AND WE'LL JUST BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. SO, IF WE CAN, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, WE WITH LIKE AT THE END OF THIS MEETING TO BE ABLE TO INDICATE WHERE WE'RE GOING ON THAT SO WE KNOW WHAT IT IS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE TROUBLE WITH THAT IS THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION. AND THESE THINGS ARE LINKED. AND IF WE HAVEN'T SOLVED ONE, WE FEEL RELUCTANT TO GIVE AN INDICATION THAT WE MAY LATER ON HAVE TO RESALE FROM AFTER WE'VE HAD FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ET CETERA, ET CETERA SO SOMETIMES SAYING NOTHING IS GOING TO BE MORE HELPFUL THAN SAYING SOMETHING TOO EARLY. RITA?
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSON: THERE'S BEEN A QUESTION TO CHANGE STANDARD FROM CLEAR AND CONVINCEING TO PREPARED DANCE. THAT WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN ANY PROCESSES TO. THERE'S NO RATIONALE REALLY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US SO WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY GOVERNMENTS THINK THAT'S NECESSARY. SO WE CAN'T TELL YOU OUR REACTION UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT YOU ASKED FOR THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. SO AS SOON AS WE GET THAT, THEN QUESTION ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE, I THINK THAT WILL BE HELPFUL.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. I HAVE THE U.K.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES. THANKS VERY MUCH. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AND THAT WILL BE COVERED BY THE PAPER. BUT I GUESS MY GERMAN COLLEAGUE IS HITTING ON THE FACT -- AND PETER, I THINK TOUCHED ON IT AS WELL, THAT THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSALS FROM THE GAC WHERE THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE WONDERING CAN WE INTERPRET THAT AS POSITIVE IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, T WILL BE GOOD TO KNOW AT THIS STAGE FOR US HAVING FORMULATED THESE PROPOSALS, WHETHER THOSE ONES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ONES THAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON SO THAT WE CAN DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO THOSE WHERE YOU'VE RAISED YOUR QUESTIONS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IS THERE AN INDICATION, A SIGNAL NOW THAT YOU CAN GIVE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THAT WILL BE TOO FACILE. SIMPLY THE FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T ASKED QUESTIONS DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'VE REACHED A VIEW ON THEM. I THINK --
(SPEAKER OFF MICROPHONE).
LET'S NOT TRY TO DO THAT. LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE FINISH THE PROCESS WE'RE NOW IN AND HOPEFULLY BY TONIGHT AND TOMORROW WE'LL BE IN THE POSITION TO GIVE THE KIND OF ANSWER THAT'S WE SET THIS MEETING UP TO GIVE THEY MAY NOT BE AT THE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY WE NEED. THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY. OKAY. IS THAT ENOUGH IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THAT DEALS WITH THE RIGHTS ON RIGHTS PROTECTION? AND THAT IS THAT IT'S ONGOING? IF WE CAN MOVE ON, THEN WE COME BACK TO THE OBJECTION PROCEDURES AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENTS TO PAY FEES, PROCEDURES OF SENSITIVE STRINGS AND I WILL ASK BRUCE, IF YOU CAN COME TO THE FRONT AS YOU FRONTED THAT LAST TIME. IT MAY BE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND A LOT MORE TIME ON THIS. WE COVERED QUITE A LOT OF IT AGAIN THIS MORNING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PETER, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BUT OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: OR GAC?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: IF WE DEAL WITH OBJECTION PROCEDURES FIRST, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT GAC MEMBERS MAY THINK ARE USEFUL FOR THE BOARD AT THIS POINT ON OBJECTION PROCEDURES? I DON'T SEE ANY REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR.
WE HAD QUITE A GOOD DISCUSSION IN OUR CLOSED MEETING ON THIS TOPIC. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR, CERTAINLY AMONG THE GAC MEMBERSHIP, THAT THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR GOVERNMENTS. AND I DON'T JUST MEAN GAC MEMBERS. AND THE SCORECARD, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE DETAILED AND CONCRETE AND TRIED TO PROVIDE THE GUIDANCE THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE MOST USEFUL FOR THIS EXCHANGE, PERHAPS DOESN'T CONVEY THOSE KINDS OF ELEMENTS. SO AS I HAVE THE MICROPHONE, I WOULD LIKE TO IMPRESS UPON YOU THAT THIS IS REALLY A CRITICAL ISSUE.
NO REQUESTS FOR THE FLOOR, OKAY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BERTRAND?
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: BERTRAND.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: THE REASON WHY I TAKE THE FLOOR HERE IS TO FULFILL OR HELPFUL FILL THE NOTION THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT DIALOGUE. AS I SAID EARLIER TODAY -- OR THIS MORNING, THERE IS A CERTAIN DIFFICULTY FOR THE BOARD TO COMMENT EXTENSIVELY ON SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE SLIGHTLY NEW IN THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS IT AS A BOARD IN GENERAL.
HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING OR FEELING IS THAT THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EARLY WARNING CONCEPT, WHATEVER THAT IS, SORT OF EARLY PHASE WHERE THE STRINGS ARE BEING EVALUATED IS ACTUALLY NOT IN CONTRADICTION AT ALL WITH THE CURRENT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK. THERE ARE ALREADY HOOKS IN MANY PLACES. THERE IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THERE IS THE EARLY EVALUATION. THERE ARE MANY STRING EVALUATION STEPS IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.
AND SO IN THE LIST OF THE AGENDA TODAY, ACTUALLY THE NOTION OF EARLY WARNING WHATEVER IS NOT MENTIONED HERE. AND I WONDER WHETHER IT IS NOT A GOOD MOMENT TO JUST EXPLORE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEAN AND WHAT IT CAN BE. AND, PARTICULARLY, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE -- AND IT IS NOT TO THROW A QUESTION AT THE GAC. IT IS A QUESTION THAT I'M ASKING MYSELF -- IS IF WE HAVE THIS EARLY STAGE EVALUATION OF THE STRING.
WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF IT? IS IT SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE WITH THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, THE GAC TO CHIME IN, THE OTHER ACTORS TO CHIME IN, WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE? CAN IT LEAD TO A DECISION ON THE STRING THAT WILL BE A FINAL DECISION ON THE STRING AND THEN TO LEAD TO PROCESSING THE APPLICANT? LET ME EVEN BE CLEARER.
THERE IS A RISK THAT IN THE PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION PROBLEMS WITH THE STRING REMAIN QUITE SOME TIME WHILE WE ARE DISCUSSING THE APPLICANT AND THE APPROPRIATE APPLICANT AND WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THE APPROPRIATE REGISTRY OPERATIONS AND SO ON.
AND IF THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE STRING, IF IT TAKES LONG, IF THE OBJECTIONS ARE COMING ON THE STRING LATE, THEN IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS. IT TAKES TIME. IT TAKES MONEY. IT TAKES VALUABLE PROBLEMS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROCESS. SO MY QUESTION HERE -- AND I WANT TO THROW IT NOT ONLY AT THE GAC BUT ALSO AT FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS -- IF THIS NOTION OF EARLY PROCESS -- I'M NOT USING "EARLY WARNING" PURPOSEFULLY -- EARLY STEP FOCUSED ON THE STRING, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED AS A CLARIFICATION OF THE CURRENT THINGS THAT ARE IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK LIKE GROUPING ELEMENTS RELATED TO THE STRING VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND THAT WOULD BE CLOSED BY A DECISION ON THE STRING SAYING NO TO THE STRING. THIS IS THE WHOLE OBJECTIONS ON VERY SENSITIVE STRINGS AND SO ON OR THERE ARE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT IS RECOGNIZED IT IS A GEOGRAPHIC NAME, DATADATA, OR THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED. IS IT BRIEFLY TO DISCUSS THIS NOTION NOW AND MAYBE GET FEEDBACK FROM THE DIFFERENT ACTORS?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU, BERTRAND. SUZANNE, I THINK YOU ARE LEADING THIS YESTERDAY. THESE ARE THE KIND OF PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS THAT THIS NEW APPROACH RAISES THAT I THINK WE WOULD LIKE SOME HELP WITH.
>>UNITED STATES: I'M HAPPY TO GIVE IT A TRY AND, OF COURSE, WELCOME ALSO INPUT FROM MY COLLEAGUES OBVIOUSLY. BUT WE ARE NOW, I THINK, MIXING UP A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS TOGETHER. SO.
I UNDERSTOOD BERTRAND TO BE TALKING ABOUT EARLY WARNING PRIMARILY TO REVIEW THE STRINGS. SO WE ARE NOW MIXING THE EARLY WARNING TO GIVE AN APPLICANT A HEADS-UP THAT THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED OBJECTIONABLE, SENSITIVE, CONTROVERSIAL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO WE'RE MERGING ALL OF THOSE. FINE. AND I WILL DEFER TO OTHER COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BEEN MORE EXPLICIT ON THE EARLY WARNING, HOW WE WORK IT IN. BUT CLEARLY YOU DO HAVE AN INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT LAST 45 DAYS.
IS IT POSSIBLE -- LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE, OF COURSE, JUST AS HUBERT AND MARK DID ON THE I.P. ISSUES, IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO COME AWAY WITH SOME SENSE OF YOUR REACTION TO THIS COLLECTION OF PROPOSALS. SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER AN EARLY WARNING TO BE THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE INITIAL EVALUATION, IF YOU WILL, THAT HAS SORT OF AT THE OUTSET -- I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE OURSELVES KIND OF NAILED DOWN A PARTICULAR TIMELINE. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN IF AN APPLICANT -- AND, HUBERT, I'M GOING TO HOPE THAT YOU WILL CORRECT ME IF I MISREPRESENT THE THOUGHTS THAT YOU HAVE SO CAPABLY EXPRESSED -- THAT IF THE APPLICANT BECOMES APPRISED OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS AND THEN DETERMINES TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE PROCESS, DECIDES NOT TO GO AHEAD, WOULD THAT BE WHERE YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY SEE A REFUND OF CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THE APPLICATION FEE? BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE VALUES OF THE EARLY WARNING PROCESS. IT PERMITS THE SYSTEM TO KIND OF SELF-CORRECT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: BRUCE, THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST RESPONDING ON THE DETAIL, FIRSTLY, SUZANNE AND THEN I WILL MAKE A MORE MACRO HAD BEEN LEVEL COMMENT. THERE IS ACTUALLY ALREADY A REFUND PROCESS THAT EXISTS FOR JUST THIS PURPOSE SO IF THERE WERE PUBLIC COMMENTS OR GAC ADVICE RECEIVED AFTER THE APPLICATIONS ARE POSTED AND THE APPLICANT WITH DRAWS THEIR APPLICATION, THEY ACTUALLY GET A REFUND OF, I BELIEVE, 70% OF THEIR FEES SO THAT REFUND IS ALREADY THERE AND THAT EARLY WARNING PROCESS AT LEAST FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IS THERE THAT YOU CAN RAISE AN ISSUE AND THE APPLICANT CAN WITHDRAW AND THAT'S THE LEVEL OF REFUND.
GOING BACK TO YOUR BROADER QUESTION ABOUT FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD, WHERE WE ARE PROCESS-WISE IS THAT WE HAVE TEAM LEADERS WHICH I'M THE LEAD IN THIS AREA. EACH TEAM LEADER HAS GIVEN AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR VIEW OR PARTICULARLY THEIR TEAM VIEW ON WHERE WE COULD GO FORWARD. BUT WE HAVE YET TO DISCUSS THAT AT A BOARD LEVEL TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH A BOARD VIEW.
SO WE ARE WEARY OF GIVING INDIVIDUAL VIEWS AT THIS STAGE WITHOUT GIVING A BOARD VIEW. SO THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON -- THE SHORT OF THIS PERIOD IS THE BETTER BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE BOARD CAN GET BACK TOGETHER AND DEVELOP ITS BOARD POSITION AND THEN WE CAN REPORT THAT BOARD POSITION BACK.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I FULLY AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT BRUCE IS RAISING REGARDING INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS' VIEWS. THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS EXACTLY TO DO WHAT SUZANNE WAS ALLUDING TO. MY FEELING, AS AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER AND ANALYZING THE DIFFERENT BUILDING BLOCKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A PUZZLE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT BUILDING BLOCKS THAT ACTUALLY ARE ADDRESSING A COMMON CONCERN. AND I INSIST ON THE TERM "COMMON CONCERN" FOR EVERYBODY, NOT ONLY THE GAC AND THE BOARD BUT FOR ALL THE APPLICANTS, THE ACTORS, WHICH IS WE DO NOT WANT A PROCESS THAT DRAGS ON AND RAISES PROBLEMS LATE IN THE PROCESS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE STRING.
I THINK THIS IS A BIG LESSON FROM SOME PAST SITUATIONS. AND IF I LOOK, FOR INSTANCE, AT THE FLOWCHART TODAY, THE LIMITED PUBLIC INTEREST PROCEEDING OR WHATEVER SENSITIVE STRING OBJECTIONS THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING IS RELATIVELY LOW IN THE FLOWCHART.
AFTER AN APPLICANT PASSES ALL ELEMENT OF INITIAL EVALUATION. THE OBJECTION WILL BE FILED RELATIVELY EARLY. AND ACTUALLY THIS TYPE OF OBJECTION IS NOT RELATED PARTICULARLY TO THE APPLICANT. IN SOME CASES IT CAN BE PURELY THE STRING.
SO THE DANGER WE ARE ALL FACING IS TO HAVE A LENGTHY PROCESS WHERE WE DO THE EVALUATION FOR THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT PAYS MONEY AND I'M (INAUDIBLE) SOME ACTORS HERE HAVE BEEN PAINFULLY EXPOSED TO THIS SITUATION.
AND THE PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY LATE IN THE STRING. SO THE REASON WHY I'M TRYING TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS A THREAD IN BETWEEN THIS IS THAT WE ALL HAVE A COMMON INTEREST OF SEPARATING PROBLEMS THAT ARE RELATED PURELY TO THE STRING AND THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE CHOICE OF THE APPLICANTS. SO THE EARLY POSSIBLE APPROACH WHERE WE CAN IDENTIFY PROBLEMS WITH THE STRING, I THINK, IS WORTH THE EXPLORING. WHETHER IT FEEDS INTO THE OTHER PROPOSAL THAT THE GAC IS PUTTING FORWARD OF HAVING QUALIFIERS FOR APPLICANTS RELATED TO CERTAIN TYPES OF STRINGS IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
AND ON THAT SECOND TOPIC, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OR THE WAY THE PROPOSAL THAT THE GAC HAS MADE ON COMMUNITY STRINGS IS WORKABLE THE WAY IT IS. AND I CAN DEBATE AND EXPLAIN WHY I FEEL SO.
HOWEVER, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS THREAD THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER SO THAT WE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH AS ACTUALLY THE GAC HAS DONE IN THE PRINCIPLES IN 2.7, THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE STRING, THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE CHOICE OF THE APPLICANT AND THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL WITHOUT GETTING INTO COMMITMENTS OF ANY SORT, I'M NOT SUPPORTING OR OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSALS OF THE GAC. BUT I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. WE WILL NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS, AND THIS IS NO COMMITMENT FROM THE BOARD IN ANY WAY.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: NETHERLANDS, PLEASE.
>>NETHERLANDS: THANK YOU, HEATHER. COMING BACK TO BERTRAND'S POINT, I THINK WE ALREADY ENVISAGED WITHIN THE GAC THAT THIS EARLY WARNING COULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS AS IT IS NOW IN THE INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD. EVEN, I THINK, SUZANNE -- CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG -- WITH THE SENSITIVE STRING EVALUATION FROM THE GAC POINT OF VIEW IS SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMMODATE IN THIS INITIAL EVALUATION PERIOD. THAT MEANS THAT -- IN LINE WITH WHAT BERTRAND SAID, WE CAN GET PROBLEMS TO THE SURFACE MUCH MORE BEFORE WE GET REALLY INTO THE LEGALISTIC STEPS WAY FAR IN THE PROCESS.
THAT MEANS THAT, I THINK -- AND NOW IT'S IN THE SENSE A PERSONAL VIEW, WE MARRY A COUPLE OF CONCERNS FROM THE GAC BY CREATING A MECHANISM AS PROPOSED BY BERTRAND WHICH ALSO GOES FOR THE GEOGRAPHIC AND THE COUNTRY NAMES. IT GOES FOR SENSITIVE STRINGS AND IT GOES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED STRINGS.
SO, YES, I THINK THERE IS AN OPENING POSSIBLE IN WHICH MANY CONCERNS CAN BE MET FROM THE GAC. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, NETHERLANDS. NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE FLOOR? BRUCE?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AGAIN IN THE INTEREST OF DISCUSSION, I THINK THE DIFFICULTY FOR THE BOARD ON THIS, APART FROM THE NEWNESS OF IT, IS THE DEPARTURE -- IS THE COMPLETE CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE THAT'S INTENDED BY CREATING A GAC EVALUATION OF EVERY STRING AS OPPOSED TO USING THE OBJECTION PROCESS ON THOSE ONES THAT ACTUALLY RAISE SOMETHING. I THINK THERE IS A COMPLETE TURNAROUND, AND THAT'S THE THING WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I SUPPOSE.
WE RAISED YESTERDAY I THINK SOME PROUDAL OBJECTIONS. MANY OF US WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY IF THIS WAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IF IT WANT DONE IN A VERY FORMALISTIC KIND OF WAY ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAS THE CAPACITY TO DEPRIVE APPLICANTS OF THEIR APPLICATION. SO WE WOULD -- I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO TALK TO THE GAC ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE GAC DISCUSSIONS WERE DOCUMENTED, THE COUNTRY THAT HAD RAISED IT IN THE GAC, ALL THAT PROCESS WOULD NEED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY FOUND THEMSELVES IN THIS POSITION AND THEY COULD TAKE ADVICE ABOUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
SO THERE IS CONSEQUENTIAL STEPS AS WELL. IT IS THE CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE, I THINK, ARE SPENDING TIME THINKING ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO HELP US MORE WITH WHY THIS CHANGE. I SUPPOSE WE'VE COVERED IT. WE JUST NEED TO WORK OUT HOW IT OPERATES. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: GREECE, PLEASE.
>>GREECE: WELL, IN MY VIEW, THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE BECAUSE THIS IS THE ROLE OF THE GAC TO PROVIDE ADVICE, INCLUDING ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOT A CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE AS FAR AS THE MAIN ROLE OF THE GAC AS ESTABLISHING THE BYLAWS IS. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE GUIDEBOOK, THE GUIDEBOOK GOES BEYOND WHAT IS IN THE BYLAWS. IT SAYS THERE IS AN OBJECTION PROCEDURE. THE GAC IS NOWHERE IN THE GUIDEBOOK IN ITS NORMAL ROLE AS AN ADVISORY BODY.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GREECE.
I HAVE BERTRAND. BRUCE, YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: A REALLY QUICK COMMENT, I GUESS, JUST TO CONFIRM MY UNDERSTANDING. FROM WHAT THOMAS HAD PROPOSED IS THAT THE GAC COULD PROVIDE ADVICE ON THE BASIS OF SENSITIVE COMMUNITY OR GEOGRAPHIC AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS IN THE GAC SCORECARD; IN OTHER WORDS, THAT GAC ADVICE STEP, IT SAYS THE GAC CAN GIVE ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICATION. I BELIEVE MAYBE SUZANNE CAN CONFIRM, BUT FOR ANY REASON -- SO ALL THREE OF THOSE CATEGORIES ARE ENCOMPASSED IN YOUR CURRENT PROPOSAL. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT, SUZANNE?
>>UNITED STATES: I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONVEY. AND SO, YEAH, THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: BERTRAND AND THEN ITALY.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: FOR THE BENEFIT OF CLARIFYING A FEW THINGS, I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY SURE WE'RE CHANGING NECESSARILY A LOT OF PRINCIPLES HERE. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING MAJOR PRINCIPLES IN THE WAY THE PROPOSAL FOR COMMUNITY-BASED IS FORMULATED CURRENTLY. THERE IS A STRONG CHANGE HERE, AND THIS IS -- AND I CAN ELABORATE -- THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE THE WAY IT IS FORMULATED RIGHT NOW IS NOT WORKABLE. BUT IT PROBABLY CAN BE DISCUSSED FURTHER.
WHAT I'M ADDRESSING HERE IS A MORE CONCRETE QUESTION TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT COULD BE EXPLORED. WE HAVE TODAY A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR 45 DAYS. THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO THE GAC OR TO JUST GOVERNMENTS. IT IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND ACTUALLY THERE IS NOT MUCH TODAY THAT IS SAID IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WITH WHAT WE DO WITH THIS COMMENT PERIOD RESULTS.
THE SECOND THING IS IF WE TAKE THE NOTION THAT THE GAC CAN PROVIDE ADVICE AT ANY TIME, IF IT IS, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE STRING, IF IT IS, FOR INSTANCE, ON THE FACT THAT THE GAC DOESN'T WANT OR COMES TO A CONSENSUS, MAYBE AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT THIS STRING SHOULD NOT BE IN THE ROOT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS, IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THE WHOLE PROCESS IF THIS COMES VERY LATE. IMAGINE THE SITUATION WHERE THE GAC IS DISCUSSING IT, HAS DIFFICULTIES AGREEING ON SOMETHING REGARDING THE STRING AND THEN THE WHOLE PROCESS GOES ON. THERE IS NO OTHER OBJECTION. THE APPLICANT IS BEING SCREENED AND EVERYTHING GOES OKAY, HOW WHAT HAPPENS IF THE OBJECTION COMES VERY LATE?
MAYBE THERE IS A SORT OF AGREEMENT WHERE WE CONSIDER COLLECTIVELY THAT IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S INTEREST TO HAVE A DECISION ON THE STRING RELATIVELY EARLY, THAT IF THERE IS AN OBJECTION ON THE STRING, IT MUST BE RAISED AND SOLVED AND DISCUSSED EARLY SO THAT AFTER WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON THE APPLICANT OR NOT IF THE STRING HAS BEEN DECIDED AS NOT GETTING IN. BUT THAT'S THE TYPE OF DISCUSSION, I THINK, WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, BERTRAND. IN THE SPEAKING ORDER, I HAVE ITALY AND GERMANY AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE OFF THE LIST SO IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS THEY DESPERATELY MUST MAKE ON THIS TOPIC OR TOPICS, THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW NOW.
OKAY. SO ITALY, YOU ARE NEXT.
>>ITALY: THANK YOU. GOING ALONG THE RESERVATION OF BERTRAND, I WANTED JUST TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE TIMING OF OBJECTIONS. OF COURSE, AS SOON AS THIS HAPPENS THE BETTER AND ALSO WE LEARN THAT IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF 70% IF THIS HAPPENS IN THE EARLY PHASES, WHILE IF THE EVALUATION IS GOING ON AND THE OBJECTION IS COMING LATER, OF COURSE, THE REFUND WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE OR ONLY VERY PARTIALLY.
SO WE INSISTED ON THE POINT OF EARLY WARNING AND TRYING TO HAVE IN THIS 45-DAY PERIOD EVALUATING THE CRITICAL STRINGS. THIS WOULD BE MAINLY EVALUATION ON THE STRING.
BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SEE THE COMMUNITY-BASED PROPOSALS, THEN IN THIS POINT, IT IS NOT ONLY THE STRING THAT HAS TO BE EVALUATED BUT ALSO THE CATEGORIES OF THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED IN THIS. AND THIS MAY DELAY SIGNIFICANTLY THE TIME FOR EVALUATION.
AND SO WE HAVE TO, IN MY OPINION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF ALL THESE PROBLEMS IN WRITING BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE EVALUATED IN PRACTICE AND ALSO, I THINK, THAT IN THESE ASPECTS AS STRICT COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE BOARD PLUS STAFF AND THE GAC WILL BE VERY RELEVANT IN ORDER TO TRY TO LOCATE THIS KIND OF TIMING AND CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, ITALY.
AND OUR FINAL SPEAKER WILL BE GERMANY.
>>GERMANY: YES, THANK YOU. AND I FULLY ACCEPT BERTRAND'S POSITIONS THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO EVALUATE A STRING AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS AND TO A DECISION.
WHAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THE QUESTION OF STRINGS AND MECHANISM WITH STRINGS WILL NOT CONCERN SO MANY STRINGS. I HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE NOT TOO MUCH STRINGS SET OUT TO BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL. AND I KNOW THESE KIND OF STRINGS MAY CONSIDER SOME TIME AND MAY BE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER MORE TIME THAN THE NORMAL APPLICATION. BUT WE HAVE TO SEE IT IS REALLY EXCEPTIONAL AS THIS KIND OF ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR THESE KINDS OF STRINGS.
AND SO FAR IT MAY NOT BE SO DIFFICULT FOR THE TOTAL PROCESS. I WOULD WELCOME IF WE COULD FURTHER DEVELOP THIS AS A TOTAL PROCESS AND COMING FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATIONS FOR ALL POTENTIAL APPLICANTS BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE IS QUITE A TIME LAG AND MANY OF THE APPLICANTS ARE WAITING VERY, VERY DESPERATELY FOR A LONG TIME. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GERMANY.
SO WITH THE TIME REMAINING BEFORE LUNCH, WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THE AGENDA. YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS AFTERNOON WE WERE MEANT TO BEGIN WITH A DISCUSSION OF PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OWNER. I WOULD LIKE TO TEST THERE ISN'T AN INTEREST NOW IN DISCUSSING THAT FURTHER, WHETHER ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT WHILE BRUCE IS AT THE FRONT, IN THE HOT SOUTH SEAT.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THAT'S ACTUALLY -- I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY RITA'S TOPIC. I THINK THE WAY TO PUT THAT IS WE HAD THE DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT WAITING FOR THE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE USEFULLY DISCUSSED GIVEN THAT THOSE QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED? RITA, I SUPPOSE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO COVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS? OR IS IT SIMPLY A MATTER OF WAITING FOR THOSE ANSWERS? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN USEFULLY DO NOW WHILE WE ARE TOGETHER ON RIGHTS PROTECTION?
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: NO, I THOUGHT WE HAD THE BACK AND FORTH 20 MINUTES AGO.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: UNTIL THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER.
>>RITA RODIN JOHNSTON: I'M HERE ALL DAY TOMORROW BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO FINALIZE THESE ISSUES. SO I AM HERE TO TALK TO ANYONE AS SOON OR AS LATE AS POSSIBLE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE DIALOGUE GOING.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU. OKAY.
SO NEXT UP WE HAVE CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FOLLOWING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DUE DILIGENCE. SO CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK, AGAIN, IN RELATION TO THAT, RAM, YOU ARE RUNNING THAT. DO YOU WANT TO COME UP? FEEL FREE. AGAIN, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THAT DISCUSSION AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WE ARE ABLE TO PROGRESS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANSWERS. OR ARE THERE STILL OTHER AREAS OF THAT THAT MIGHT BE USEFULLY FURTHER EXPLORED?
>>RAM MOHAN: PETER, THANK YOU. I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY MOVE THIS FURTHER RIGHT HERE. YESTERDAY FROM THE BOARD'S VIEW, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES. THERE WERE THREE TOPICS OF WHICH WE HAD QUESTIONS AND CLARITY REQUESTED ON TWO. ON POINTS OF CONTACT FOR ABUSE, WHAT WE HAD EXPRESSED A CONCERN WAS THE POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED SCOPE OF WHAT'S LISTED AS AN ADVICE OF A REGISTRY OPERATOR MUST ASSIST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND AGENCIES ENDORSED BY GOVERNMENTS.
IT WAS VERY GOOD INTERACTION FROM THE GAC ON WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND PERHAPS THE LANGUAGE DIDN'T -- WAS A LITTLE BROADER THAN WAS POTENTIALLY INTENDED.
SO I'M HOPING THAT PERHAPS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET A LITTLE BIT -- IF IT'S POSSIBLE, TO GET THAT MORE SPECIFIC, THEN WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT TOO MUCH FURTHER DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: DO YOU HAVE GOT A SPECIFIC QUESTION?
>>RAM MOHAN: THERE IS NO SPECIFIC QUESTION. IT REALLY IS A REQUEST TO THE GAC TO ATTEMPT TO NARROW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: IF THE U.K. WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, I SEE THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED FOR THE FLOOR. SO, U.S. PLEASE.
>>UNITED STATES: THANK YOU. AND HAPPY TO TURN OVER TO YOU, MARK, MOMENTARILY.
I THINK WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONVEY WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, AGENCIES WITH RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO IN OUR CASE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE BUT THEY ARE A CIVIL AGENCY. I BELIEVE MARK HAS COLLEAGUES IN THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING I THINK IT IS CALLED THERE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT NAMES OF AGENCIES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND THEY ARE STRUCTURED DIFFERENTLY. SO THAT'S WHY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST -- AT THIS POINT, LET ME PAUSE, BECAUSE ARE YOU SEEKING A LIST? BECAUSE QUITE CANDIDLY WE CAN SPEAK TO SEVERAL OF THE REGISTRARS OR REGISTRIES WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THE ROOM TODAY WHO HAVE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF EXPERIENCE IN INTERACTING THROUGH THEIR POINT OF ABUSE CONTACT, IN INTERACTING WITH ALL MANNER AND VARIETY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. QUITE CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE.
>>RAM MOHAN: SUZANNE --
>>UNITED STATES: PERHAPS WE CAN BORROW FROM WHAT ALREADY HAPPENS TODAY AND HELP JUST FLESH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THANK YOU.
>>RAM MOHAN: SUZANNE, THANK YOU. I THINK THERE IS CLARITY ON WHAT THE GAC WANTS. JUST TO PARAPHRASE WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD WHAT THE GAC WANTS IS TO REQUIRE REGISTRIES TO ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INCLUDES EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL AGENCIES. THAT'S THE WAY I PARAPHRASE IT AND HOPEFULLY I GOT THAT RIGHT, AND WE CAN TAKE THAT FORWARD.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: AGAIN, JUST A POINT I RAISED, SUZANNE, PRESUMABLY YOU ONLY WANT THIS TO REPLY -- THIS MAY BE SO OBVIOUS -- THAT THEY ONLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ONES IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION. YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERY REGISTRY OPERATOR HAS TO COMPLY IN NEW ZEALAND, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS IN
>>UNITED STATES: SO IT'S GOING TO BE JURISDICTION BASED?
>> IT NORMALLY IS THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF COLLABORATION AROUND THE WORLD. SO, IF A REGISTRY OPERATOR WERE NOT TO BE STAM LAR WITH A REQUEST THAT WAS COMING IN FROM A FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTRIMENT THE FIRST STEP THEY NORMALLY DO IS TO CALL THEIR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITY TO VERIFY THIS IS A LEGITIMATE INCOMING REQUEST SO THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF COORDINATION THAT HAPPENS. I THINK THE OTHER THING WE WERE ALSO TRYING TO GET ACROSS AND APOLOGIZE FOR PERHAPS NOT BEING AS ARTICULATE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. WE WERE TRYING TO GET ACROSS THAT IN REQUIRING IN A CONTACT FOR ABUSE, THAT IT BE ENCOURAGED TO ALSO -- BECAUSE THAT'S FOR ANY COMPLAINT AS WE READ THE LANGUAGE IN THE GUIDEBOOK WHICH IS, OF COURSE, APPROPRIATE. YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH INDIVIDUAL REGISTRANT COMPLAINTS. WE WERE TRYING TO EMPHASIZE THIS AS A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THAT ABUSE POINT OF CONTACT. THAT TO ENCOURAGE AND IN PARTICULAR WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU RESPOND PROMPTLY TO REQUEST FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTRIES. SO THAT -- ENENTITIES, SO THAT WAS THE MOTIVATION. MOUHAMET DIOP HEATHER DRYDEN THANK YOU, U.S. I THINK THAT WAS CLEAR. UNITED KINGDOM, PLEASE. CINS CINS YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE U.S. COVERED MUCH OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT QUITE OFTEN IN SOME COUNTRIES, CERTAINLY THE CASE IN THE U.K., PEOPLE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO REGISTER COMPLAINTS ABOUT -- AS CONSUMERS ABOUT BUSINESSES NOT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THEY'RE GOING TO SOME ENTITY THAT STANDS UP FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. AND THESE ARE QUITE -- THESE ARE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO CONSUMER PROTECTION. SO TRADING STANDARDS PEOPLE, FAIR TRADING PEOPLE AND SO ON, WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR PARTS OF GOVERNMENT, DEPENDING ON AS WE MADE IN OUR POINTS YESTERDAY, IT DEPENDS ON WHICH COUNTRY YOU'RE IN. CERTAINLY THE JURISDICTIONAL POINT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE IN MIND HERE AS WELL. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS THAT WE COULD -- WE HAVE IN FACT BEEN AS TIGHT WITH THE LANGUAGE AS PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND WE CAN CERTAINLY REFINE IT IN SUCH A WAY AS THE UNDERSTANDING IS PERFECTLY CLEAR. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE MAIN POINT. PROVIDING THAT CLARITY. THANKS. HVD HVD THANK YOU, U.K. RAM, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
>>RAM MOHAN: NO. ON VETTING OF CERTAIN STRINGS, THE ONE AREA THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR SOME CLARITY AND SOME RESTRICTION FROM THE GAC WAS WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS gTLD STRINGS WHICH RELATE TO ANY GENERALLY REGULATED INDUSTRY. AND AS IT STANDS, THAT'S QUITE A BROAD CATEGORY. IT COULD BE ANY STRING BECAUSE IN SOME JURISDICTION IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT STRING IS REGULATED AND THAT -- YOU KNOW, MAKES IT RATHER BROAD. IN OUR CONVERSATION YESTERDAY IT WAS CLEAR THAT I WAS -- THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE THE INTENT. SO PERHAPS SOME MORE CLARITY THERE OR SOME BETTER LANGUAGE THERE WOULD -- OR LANGUAGE THERE WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: U.K.
>>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, VERY WILLING TO HELP WITH IMPROVING THE LANGUAGE. WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR IS TO FLAG OUT FOR CERTAIN BUSINESS SECTORS THAT ENGAGE DIRECTLY WITH CONSUMERS. SOME OF THEM ARE REGULATED. BUT OTHERS MAY BE SELF-REGULATED. THEY MAY BE WORKING CODES OF PRACTICE, INDUSTRY CODES OF PRACTICE AND SO ON. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE THERE. BUT I AGREE GENERALLY REGULATED INDUSTRY IS NOT HELPFUL. IT'S NOT PERFECT LANGUAGE FOR THAT. SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT FOR YOU. THANKS.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: PLEASE, RAM.
>>RAM MOHAN: THANK YOU. ONE FINAL PIECE OF CLARITY. FROM YESTERDAY'S CONVERSATION, WE HAD ASKED ABOUT WHAT WAS THE GAC STANDARD ON MORE INTENSE OF VETTING WHAT PHRASE THAT WAS THERE. WHAT THAT WAS AND THE RESPONSE WE GOT BACK WAS YOU DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ONE BUT YOU'RE ADVISING THE BOARD TO ACTUALLY COME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THE TAKEAWAY THAT I HAVE FROM IT IS THAT WE WILL CONSIDER THAT AND REFLECT UPON IT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT PROBABLY DOES NOT REQUIRE MUCH FURTHER INTERACTION AT THIS POINT.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, THAT'S HELPFUL. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO UNLESS THERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC, WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT BERTRAND.
>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO POINTS ACTUALLY IN THE SCORECARD THAT DEAL WITH THE POINT OF CONTACT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE INTERESTING FOR EVERYONE. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE QUESTION OF PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT RAISES THE QUESTION WITHIN SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OF WHETHER THIS IS GOING BEYOND THE NORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY ACTOR TO INTERACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE MAKING A STRONGER REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS THAN WHAT THEY WOULD NORMALLY BE SUBMITTED TO, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL LAW? AND IF SO, MAYBE THIS IS WORTH DISCUSSING BECAUSE IT'S A TRANSBORDER EXERCISE. IT MAY REQUIRE FASTER COOPERATION OR MORE EXTENSIVE COOPERATION. BUT THERE ARE MANY EXTENSIVE RULES REGARDING INTERACTION BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND WHAT ACTORS MUST DO. ARE WE GOING BEYOND IN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT JUDGE. ONLY THE COMMUNITY CAN JUDGE. AND IF SO, WHY AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THIS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OR NOT? JUST TO PUT THE QUESTION HERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: THANK YOU, BERTRAND. OKAY. SO LET'S CONCLUDE ON THAT ISSUE.
NEXT UP WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT DUE DILL. FOR THE GAC SIDE WE HAVE THE UNITED STATES LEADING ON THAT ISSUE AND THE BOARD GONZALO. SO AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST, COULD WE START WITH ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR GAC?
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU, HEATHER. ACTUALLY, WE MADE OUR QUESTIONS YESTERDAY. SO WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE ANSWERS. AND THEN KNOWING THAT, MAYBE WE CAN MOVE ON ON THIS ISSUE. WELL THE QUESTIONS -- SUZANNE, SORRY.
>>UNITED STATES: THANK YOU, GONZALO. ACTUALLY, WHAT I WOULD FIND PARTICULARLY HELPFUL. I AM NOT TRAVELING WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON MY DELEGATION. WHAT I WOULD FIND VERY, VERY HELPFUL IS TO RECEIVE THOSE QUESTIONS IN DETAIL IN WRITING PLEASE. THANK YOU.
>>GONZALO NAVARRO: SURELY WE CAN DO THAT. I CAN TENDER THE QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY.
>>HEATHER DRYDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS CIRCULATED TO THE U.S. AND THE GAC. AND UNLESS THERE ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FORTHCOMING ON THIS TOPIC, WE CAN LEAVE THAT AR OUR ACTION ITEM. CHERINE?
>>CHERINE CHALABY: I JUST WANT TO SUGGEST SOMETHING. I GET THE FEELING THAT THE ENERGY LEVEL HAS DROPPED IN THIS MEETING. AND THAT THE GAC HAS PUT FORWARD TO US THE SCORECARD. WE HAVE A DAY AND A HALF OF DISCUSSION. I THINK IT'S TIME WE RETREATED AS A BOARD. SPEND A COUPLE HOURS AND COME BACK WITH A RESPONSE. AND I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE GAC.
[APPLAUSE]
I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES TO DISCUSS, BUT I THINK THE ENERGY LEVEL HAS DROPPED AND WE WILL REIGNITE THE ENERGY IF WE CAME BACK WITH WHAT WE -- WITH OUR POSITION.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE ADD FACTORING -- AT FACTORING -- IF WE'VE -- SO WHAT WE'RE GIVING THOUGH -- WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING THOUGH IS GIVING EVERYBODY THE CHANCE THAT THIS MEETING REPRESENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL POINTS HAVE BEING COVERED. AND AS YOU SEEM TO HAVE JUST GONE VERY QUICKLY THROUGH A COUPLE OF THEM. LET'S DO THAT IN RELATION TO THESE LAST ONES, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER EXCHANGE, CAN I CONTINUE? THANKS. POST-DELEGATION DISPUTES? ALL RIGHT GEOGRAPHIC NAMES? EXPANDED COMMUNITY-BASED STRINGS? ALL RIGHT. GO TO LUNCH AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO OUR ROOM AND SEE IF WE CAN'T PUFF SOME WHITE SMOKE.
>> ONE THING, THERE WAS A SUBTLETY IN WHAT I HEARD CHERINE SAY. I HEARD THE PHRASE A COUPLE HOURS. SO THE QUESTION -- AND NOT TO BE FACETIOUS ABOUT IT IS TO WHAT EXTENT WHEN WE REPAIR FOR LUNCH HERE ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH, HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING AND GIVE A FULL RESPONSE AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF TRYING TO PACK OUR TIME IN TO A SHORTENED PERIOD HERE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU INTENDED IT, BUT THE WAY I HEARD IT -- WE'LL OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE WE'LL WANT TO JIGGER THE AGENDA A BIT AND ACTUALLY GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO THE PREPARATION PROCESS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMETHING, STEVE?
>>STEVE CROCKER: I'M RAISING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR LUNCH AND.
>> NO, THIS IS THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.
>> WHEN DO WE RECONVENE?
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY IS HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE BOARD THINK IT NEEDS BEFORE IT'S READY TO COME BACK AND MAKE EITHER AN ANNOUNCEMENT OR ASK SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS. AND IT'S IN THE BOARD'S HANTDZ. I'M ABOUT TO OPEN AN OPTION FOR HOW MUCH TIME THE BOARD THINKS IT'S GOING TO NEED.
>>STEVE CROCKER: YOU GET FIRST.
>> STARTING BID FROM CHER OF TWO HOURS.
>>CHERINE CHALABY: TWO HOURS WAS NOT 120 MINUTES. WHAT I MEAN IS WE CAN COME BY 5:00 AND LET EVERYBODY GO AND THE ENERGY DISSIPATES. AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO COME BACK RESPECTFULLY TO THE GAC AND TELL THEM OUR POSITION WHETHER IT'S 4:00 OR 3:00, LET'S GET BACK TO WORK AND COME BACK WITH AN ANSWER, THAT WOULD BE MY POSTURE. SO AT THE LATEST 4:00 BUT, IF EARLIER, EARLIER.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: SO RAM THE BID IS AT 4:00. ANY ADVANCE ON 4:00.
>>RAM MOHAN: I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS BIDDING AT ALL. WHAT I SUGGEST WE DO IS REPAIR FOR LUNCH AND THAT THE BOARD SITS DOWN AND DISCUSSES HOW LONG IT MIGHT ACTUALLY NEED. AND COME BACK AND HAVE YOU OR HAVE STAFF ACTUALLY TELL THE GAC AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE'LL RECONVENE SO IT'S MORE ORDERLY RATHER THAN DOING AN AUCTION ON THE FLY.
>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: LET'S TAKE THAT SAGE ADVICE. LET'S GO BACK AND COME BACK AND GIVE A MORE REASONED DECISION. WE'LL TRY TO COME BACK AFTER LUNCH AND LET THE GAC AND THE COMMUNITY -- SORRY? SO WE'LL COME BACK AFTER LUNCH AND REPORT OUR DELIBERATIONS, THANK YOU. OR AN HOUR.
[BREAK]
>>NANCY: THE LUNCH BREAK IS ONE HOUR IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING. LUNCH BREAK IS ONE HOUR AND IT IS UPSTAIRS IN PANORAMIC HALL. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL BACK HERE AT 1315. THANK YOU. THE LUNCH BREAK IS FOR THE BOARD AND THE GAC AND THE OBSERVERS WE HAVE CAFES DOWN UNDERNEATH THIS BUILDING AROUND THE CORNER. PLENTY OF PLACES TO GET SOUP AND SANDWICHES, THANK YOU.
[BREAK]
Event is not active