ICANN | Captioning GNSO Public Forum Part 1

ICANN Meetings in São Paulo, Brazil

Captioning GNSO Public Forum Part 1

4 December 2006

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Public Forum Part 1 held on 4 December 2006 in São Paulo, Brazil. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

ICANN MEETING
GNSO NEW TLDS PUBLIC FORUM
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
4 DECEMBER 2006

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'D LIKE TO GET STARTED. THIS IS A GNSO SESSION ON THE NEW GTLDS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. THIS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN UNDERWAY THROUGHOUT MOST OF THIS YEAR, 2006, AND THIS IS, SITTING BEFORE YOU, THE COMMITTEE OF THE GNSO THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON NEW GTLDS.

THE STATUS OF OUR WORK SO FAR IS WE HAVE A SET OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS. NOW, THESE DRAFTS HAVEN'T BEEN FORMALLY VOTED ON YET BY EITHER THE COMMITTEE OR THE COUNCIL, SO THEY ARE VERY MUCH A WORKING DRAFT, AND WE HAVE A DRAFT FINAL REPORT THAT IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO GET A BIT MORE DETAIL BEHIND SOME OF THE REASONING OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THIS SESSION IS WE'RE GOING TO BRIEFLY INTRODUCE EACH SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS ON -- OR COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS, ON EACH SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THE FIRST -- I GUESS THE STRUCTURE OF -- SO THAT THE FIRST SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS RELATES TO THE SELECTION CRITERIA, AND THE SELECTION CRITERIA IS BASICALLY USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEBODY THAT IS APPLYING FOR A NEW GTLD MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE THAT TLD.

SO WE HAVE PHILIP SHEPPARD FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND BRET FAUSETT WHO IS A LIAISON FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO WILL BE FIELDING QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC, AND AT THIS POINT I WILL HAND OVER TO PHILIP TO GIVE AN INTRODUCTION ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO THE SELECTION CRITERIA ARE THE -- THE ESSENCE, IF YOU LIKE, OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDATION AND PROCESS, AND WHAT ARE, TO SOME EXTENT, SOME OF THE SIMPLEST AND SORT OF FAST TRACK, IF YOU LIKE, PROCEDURE. WHAT WE'LL HEAR ABOUT LATER ON WITH SOME OTHER PANELISTS ARE THINGS LIKE ALLOCATION CRITERIA, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE MAY BE CONTENTION ABOUT NAMES AND OTHER THINGS.

THESE ARE THE ESSENCE OF THE PROCESS ITSELF AS THE COMMITTEE HAS CURRENTLY FORMULATED THEM.

AND WITHIN SELECTION CRITERIA, WE HAVE -- AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SEEN ANY OF THE DRAFT REPORTS WILL SEE, THERE ARE ALREADY SORT OF THREE TYPES OF CRITERIA THAT APPLY HERE. THERE ARE CRITERIA WHICH APPLY TO THE VERY NATURE OF THE STRING ITSELF, TO THE NATURE OF THE NAME. THERE ARE CRITERIA WHICH APPLY, TOO, TO THE APPLICANT. AND THEN THERE ARE PROCESS CONDITIONS WHICH ESSENTIALLY ARE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW ICANN STAFF WILL BE PROCESSING SUCH APPLICATIONS.

SO WHAT I'LL DO NOW IS JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH EACH OF THOSE THREE SETS, AND THE ESSENCE OF EACH OF THOSE, AND THEN WE CAN FIELD QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE UNDERLYING DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HAD ON EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES.

UNDER STRING CRITERIA, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FIVE MAIN CRITERIA THAT APPLY. AND THOSE OF YOU ALSO WHO MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK THE GAC IS DOING IN THE SAME WAY, WE WERE INTERESTED TO SEE AS THE COMMITTEE YESTERDAY TO GET SOME OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE GAC. THERE IS ALREADY COMMONALITY IN TERMS OF SOME OF THEIR THINKING AS WELL.

SO THE FIRST OF THE STRING CRITERIA ARE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING TLDS. SECONDLY, THAT IT SHOULD NOT INFRINGE THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. THIRD, IT DOES NOT CAUSE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY. FOURTHLY, IT SHOULD BE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY MORALITY OR DECEPTIVE TO THE PUBLIC, AND THAT'S PHRASING THAT COMES FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW. AND FINALLY, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A RESERVED WORD.

NOW, FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE, THERE IS A DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY MEAN AND WHO MAY BE MAKING INTERPRETATIONS, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION IN A MOMENT. BUT LET ME JUST TAKE YOU THROUGH THE NEXT TWO SECTIONS FIRST, AND THEN WE WILL PERHAPS COME BACK TO EACH OF THOSE AND DISCUSS THEM IN GREATER DETAIL.

SO IN TERMS OF CRITERIA APPLYING TO THE APPLICANT, THERE ARE FOUR MAIN HEADINGS THERE.

FIRSTLY, WE WANT THE APPLICANT TO, AS THEY CURRENTLY DO, OF COURSE, DEMONSTRATE SOME TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. TO ALSO HAVE A DEMONSTRATED FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN, SO AT LEAST THERE IS A PLAN THERE IN TERMS OF THE EXPECTATION OF THE MARKET, HOW THEY SEE IT. NOT NECESSARILY ONE OF WHICH THEY WILL BE RIGOROUSLY JUDGED BUT A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS SOME SOUND THINKING BEHIND IT.

THE THIRD CRITERIA IS AN OBLIGATION TO USE, AS CURRENTLY, ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS.

AND FINALLY, A VERY IMPORTANT CRITERIA, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT SHOULD COMPLY WITH CURRENT AND, OF COURSE, NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES AS THEY COME UP THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS.

JUST MOVING ON TO THE THIRD CATEGORY, WHICH ARE THOSE PROCESS CONDITIONS WHICH APPLY TO ICANN. AND THESE ARE REALLY BASED ON OUR LEARNINGS OF THE PROCESS SO FAR. DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, UNDERSTANDING FROM SOME OF THE NEWER REGISTRIES AND SOME OF THE TENSIONS THEY HAVE HAD IN THE PROCESS, AND HOW WE CAN TRY TO MAKE A NEW PROCESS A LITTLE MORE STREAMLINED.

AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, OF COURSE, IS THAT WE WANT IT TO BE WELL-KNOWN IN ADVANCE SO IT IS CLEAR PROCESS, PRE-PUBLISHED, EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR AND HAS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF THE EXPECTATIONS AS TO WHAT THEY ARE GOING INTO.

SECONDLY, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE A BASE CONTRACT, KNOWN IN ADVANCE, AGREED IN ADVANCE, SO THERE IS ALREADY A FEELING AS TO WHAT THAT CONTRACT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, AND AGAIN, SO THE APPLICANT REGISTRY WILL HAVE A FEELING IN TERMS OF WHAT THEIR LIABILITIES ARE GOING TO BE.

WE WANT TO FIX TIME LINES IN THE PROCESS SO THAT IF EVERYTHING IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, IF THE APPLICANTS HAVE FULFILLED THEIR CONDITIONS, IF THE STRING THEY ARE ASKING FOR FULFILLS THE CRITERIA YOU SAW EARLIER, THEN THERE IS ALSO A REASONABLE EXPECTATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE TIME LINES ARE GOING TO BE FROM THE MOMENT THE APPLICATION IS FIRST LOOKED AT TO THE ACTUAL AWARDING OF THE CONTRACT.

WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE PRINCIPAL OF COST RECOVERY FOR APPLICATION FEES, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE FEES THEMSELVES MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR THE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION, DEPENDING IF THERE IS CONTENTION, ET CETERA, AND DEPENDING ON SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE UNDERLINED BY SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED EITHER ABOUT THE STRING OR THE APPLICANT. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE COST RECOVERY OF THOSE FEES AND NOTHING MORE, BUT NOTHING LESS.

WE ALSO WERE IN FAVOR OF A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY STAFF.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE PROCESS, BEFORE YOU MIGHT HAVE A WINDOW FOR THE APPLICATION, YOU COULD SAY -- YOU COULD HAVE AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH THE STAFF, THE RECEIVING STAFF FOR APPLICATIONS TO SAY, LOOK, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS STRING. WE HAVE THESE CONDITIONS. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SORT OF PLAN. WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL FEELING ABOUT THAT. AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, STAFF CAN GIVE SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF HOW THAT LOOKS LIKE, SO WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY DOING THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE GOT MOST OF THE DETAILS RIGHT, FIRST OFF.

FOR SOME OF THE THINGS WE SAW EARLIER WHERE THERE MAY BE DOUBT, AGAIN, WE EXPECT STAFF TO MAKE THE INITIAL JUDGMENTS, BUT WHERE STAFF WOULD FEEL, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS QUESTION IS -- IS A LITTLE BIT TOO DIFFICULT FOR US, IT'S UNCERTAIN, WE CAN'T BE CLEAR, THEN THERE IS A CONCEPT OF EXPERT AND INDEPENDENT PANELS TO RESOLVE DOUBT. AND THEY MAY BE CONSTRUCTED EITHER SEPARATELY OR BY A POOL OF EXPERTS WHO ARE PULLED IN, KNOWN IN ADVANCE, AND WILL BE USED TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS THAT WE SAW EARLIER.

AND FINALLY, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE THERE WILL BE A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS TO CHALLENGE, PERHAPS, DECISIONS TO BE MADE, EITHER NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THAT. AND THAT THOSE -- THE NATURE ALSO OF THOSE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES SHOULD BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE.

SO PERHAPS IT WILL BE USEFUL, WE WILL RETURN TO THE FIRST SLIDE ON CRITERIA.

THE SECOND SLIDE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HELP ON THIS SLIDE, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STRING CRITERIA, AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE STRING TO PROPOSE. AND WILL IT AT LEAST PASS SOME INITIAL TEST OF APPROPRIATENESS.

AND THE FIRST CRITERIA -- I THINK TALKING THROUGH THESE WITH EXAMPLES, AND PHILIP AND I AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THE TASK FORCE USED A LOT OF EXAMPLES IN OUR DISCUSSIONS. AND WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT "NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO EXISTING TLDS," WE WERE THINKING IN TERMS OF DOT COMM WITH TWO M'S, A DOT BLZ THAT LOOKED A LOT LIKE DOT BIZ. WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT DOT EMPLOYMENT BEING CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO DOT JOBS BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO SERVE A SIMILAR MARKET SEGMENT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING TO THE USER AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME TLD.

IS THAT FAIR?

YEAH. ON INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS, THIS IS THE CLASSIC FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF CYBER SQUATTING OF SPRINT TAKING OUT -- ASKING FOR THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW TLD OF .ATT OR TRYING TO FIND YOUR COMPETITOR OR TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO. TRYING TO SELL .AOL WHEN YOU ARE NOT AMERICA ONLINE.

CONCERNING TECHNICAL INSTABILITY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT FORMATS IF YOU HAD A STRING THAT LOOKED LIKE AN EXTENSION OF A FILE THAT IS COMMONLY USED, LIKE A DOT DOC OR A DOT TXT, YOU MAY CREATE SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.

I DON'T -- THERE'S SOME QUESTION HERE ABOUT WHETHER DOT TXT OR DOT DOC OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE COMMON-USED EXTENSIONS, FILE FORMATS WOULD ACTUALLY PRESENT A PROBLEM, BUT WE WANTED TO RAISE IT AND FLAG BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSION AROUND THAT BEFORE WE WOULD WANT TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO HAVE A TLD LIKE THAT.

NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY OR DECEPTIVE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS POTENTIALLY VERY LARGE, AND YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY THINK OF LOTS OF COMMON WORDS THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS HAVING A SPONSORED TLD ABOUT DOT GOD WHEN THAT'S -- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN AND GIVING IT ONLY TO ONE SPONSOR WOULD CREATE SOME PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.

AND THEN NOT A RESERVED WORD. ICANN HAS HISTORICALLY HAD A LOT OF RESERVED WORDS LIKE ICANN AND IANA AND NIC AND A HANDFUL OF OTHER EXTENSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ON RESERVE LIST AND THAT'S WHAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT TOO.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WHY DON'T WE OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS ON JUST THIS SECTION, ON STRING CRITERIA, AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE NOW ON THAT.

>>MARILYN CADE: IT'S MARILYN CADE. I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THE DISCUSSION ON RESERVED NAMES THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BEGINNING REALLY WITH OUR LUXEMBOURG AND THEN AMSTERDAM POLICY DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF RESERVED NAMES AS A CATEGORY. THERE ARE TODAY FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RESERVED NAMES. SOME OF THEM DO HAVE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS. OTHERS ARE NAMES THAT MAY HAVE A POLITICAL IMPLICATION SUCH AS GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS, TWO LETTER COUNTRY CODES, ET CETERA.

YESTERDAY, WE DID TALK IN THE TASK FORCE MORE ABOUT LOOKING AT WHETHER WE COULD HAVE A PROCESS TO TREAT A RESERVE CATEGORY AS EVEN A PLACE TO PARK NAMES THAT WE -- THAT MAY BE TOO CONTROVERSIAL TO DEAL WITH INITIALLY, AND THEN A PROCESS COULD COME BACK TO TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THEM. AND THAT, I THINK, IS STILL JUST WORK IN PROGRESS. WHILE SOME NAMES MAY HAVE NO IMPLICATIONS AND COULD BE RELEASED, MANY OF THE NAMES THAT ARE RESERVED NAMES DO HAVE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TO THEM.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK WE HAVE THE FIRST QUESTION. MARK, GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: PHILIP, THANK YOU. I HATE BEING THE FIRST AT THE MICROPHONE.

I WONDER IF THE TASK FORCE HAS THOUGHT CAREFULLY ABOUT STRING CRITERIA ONE AND THREE HERE.

THEY SEEM TO BE POTENTIALLY VERY LARGE, ESPECIALLY SINCE CRITERIA DOESN'T SEEM TO MENTION IDNS AT ALL. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE SCHEME OF NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO EXISTING TLDS, IT SEEMS THAT IF THAT'S A CRITERIA, YOU ARE OPENING YOURSELF UP TO, IN THE WORLD OF IDNS, A VERY, VERY LARGE NUMBER OF STRINGS BEING REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THAT.

ALSO, ON THE ISSUE OF NOT CAUSING TECHNICAL INSTABILITY, THAT'S VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART RIGHT NOW. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOUR NEXT SLIDE SUGGESTS IS THAT IF STAFF WERE UNABLE TO MAKE AN INITIAL DECISION -- A PROPOSAL TO COME TO STAFF, STAFF MAKES SORT OF A QUICK ANALYSIS AND THEN DECIDES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO RELY ON TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO DECIDE THIS PROBLEM, IT SEEMS THAT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CRITERIA COULD BE DECIDED IN ADVANCE. AND THAT'S THE ADVICE THAT I WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE TO THE TASK FORCE, AND THAT THE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY LARGE, I THINK. YOU CAN ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT THEM.

IT'S NOT JUST THE DOT EXE AND DOT DOC BUT IT'S ALSO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU INTRODUCE IDNS AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF, FOR INSTANCE, ALMOST EVERY THREE-CHARACTER EXTENSION IS SOMETHING THAT IS A MINE TYPE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES THERE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SUGGEST, PHILIP, IS THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO SORT OF PICK A SET OF THESE AND HAVE SOME TECHNICAL WORK DONE IN ADVANCE.

AND SO MY TWO COMMENTS MERE, AND THEY ARE NOT REALLY QUESTIONS, I'M AFRAID, THEY ARE MORE COMMENTS, IS I WOULD ADVISE THE TASK FORCE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT TECHNICAL WORK DONE IN ADVANCE. AND SECOND OF ALL, I WOULD PUT INTO THE STRING CRITERIA SOME EFFECT OF WHAT THE IDNS HAVE ON THE CRITERIA YOU HAVE.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS JUST BEFORE --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: REGARDING THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES, HAS THE GNSO COUNCIL THOUGHT ABOUT PROPOSING HAVING A SEPARATE EVALUATION FOR REGISTRY PROVIDERS THAT ARE ALREADY DOING THIS JOB FOR GTLDS OR HAVE PAST PURVIEWS. WHAT I MEAN, ASKING AGAIN VERISIGN THAT THEY PROVE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT EPP MEANS PERHAPS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE QUESTION.

SO PERHAPS WE COULD SIMPLIFY THAT. APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR LIMITED USE, CONVERSE THE PROVIDERS THAT WANT TO BUILD A REGISTRY FROM SCRATCH AND HAVE POSSIBILITIES.

THE SECOND ONE REGARDING THE GTLD STREAMS, PREVENTING CONFUSION, BUT I HOPE YOU UNDERLINE THIS IS NOT ONLY PURELY BASED ON THE STRING BUT THE STRING AND THE USE.

I MEAN, DOT COMM WITH TWO M'S AND ONE M IS CONFUSING. DOT COM SOUNDS VERY SIMILAR TO DOT CO, DOT CAT TO DOT CA, DOT TEL TO DOT TL. BUT INDEED, THERE IS LITTLE RISK OF CONFUSION IF YOU GO BEYOND JUST THE STRING AND GO ALSO TO WHAT'S THE USE HOW THIS WILL BE MARKETED.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS VERY OFTEN YOU USE SENTENCES IN THE POSITIVE WAY, THAT IS THAT THE TLD IS DOING THIS APPROPRIATE, OR THAT IT COMPLIES WITH. AND SOMETIMES IT'S MUCH EASIER TO DO THE REVERSE.

OTHERWISE, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE. BECAUSE SHOWING THAT SOMETHING IS APPROPRIATE IS VERY DIFFICULT. POINTING OUT THAT SOMETHING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CONCRETE REASON IS MUCH EASIER.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. I WILL TAKE THAT AS A COMMENT AS WELL, I THINK.

PERHAPS JUST TO SAY CERTAINLY THAT IN TERMS OF INPUT FROM REGISTRIES, OF COURSE, THE TASK FORCE HAS BENEFITED FROM NOT ONLY REGISTRIES OF LONGSTANDING AS MEMBERS BUT ALSO SOME OF THE NEWER REGISTRIES. AND WE HAVE GOT SOME VERY USEFUL INPUT IN PARTICULAR FROM SOME OF THE NEWER ONES AND THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH THE EARLIER PROCESS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: COULD I ASK AMADEU A QUESTION ON HIS ONE COMMENT THERE.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I THINK YOU CAN, YES.

>>CHUCK GOMES: AMADEU, WITH REGARD TO THE SEPARATE PROCESS FOR EXISTING REGISTRY SERVICE PROVIDERS, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT YOU ARE -- THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT IN CASES OF ESTABLISHED BACK-END SERVICE PROVIDERS, THERE COULD BE A MORE EXPEDITED PROCESS, FOR AT LEAST THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PART? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING?

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: JUST FOR THAT PART. ONLY FOR THAT PART, YES.

>>CHUCK GOMES:THAT'S WHAT I ASSUMED, YES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

>>BRET FAUSETT: AND WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE TASK FORCE ABOUT NOT ONLY LETTING EXIST EXISTING REGISTRIES HAVE A PASS ON TECHNICAL COMPETENCE BUT ALSO HAVING A PREREVIEW SO NEW REGISTRIES COULD DEMONSTRATE THEIR COMPETENCE AND SIMILARLY GET ACCREDITED AS A REGISTRY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE, TOO, TO COME BACK TO THE POINTS RAISED BY MARK, BUT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY THAT WE MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ELABORATE ON VARIOUS PARTS OF THIS REPORT IS TO INCLUDE SOME AREAS OF GUIDANCE. ON SOME OF THESE, BRET GAVE A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. SO WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION THAT IS HUGELY LONG TRYING TO COVER EVERY CASE.

SO I THINK THE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP QUITE SHORT AND SOUND AT A POLICY LEVEL. BUT WE COULD THEN SECONDLY PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND SAY SOME GUIDANCE, HERE ARE SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES OR BE AWARE OF THESE IDN ISSUES, ET CETERA. SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE LOOKING TO THE STAFF TO HELP ADD THAT GUIDANCE TO SOME OF THESE CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY, BRUCE, AND I THINK THIS PROCESS ITSELF IS ALSO PART OF OUR -- HELPING OUR UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE GUIDANCE NOTES OR IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS MAY BE.

NEXT QUESTION IS FROM STEVEN METALITZ.

>>STEVE METALITZ: STEVE METALITZ WITH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. REALLY TWO POINTS. ONE, I THINK PICKING UP ON ONE OF THE THINGS AMADEU SAID, THE CONFUSING SIMILARITY CRITERION REALLY NEEDS TO APPLY, I WOULD THINK, NOT JUST TO STRINGS THAT LOOK LIKE OTHER STRINGS, BUT ALSO TO STRINGS THAT SOUND LIKE OTHER STRINGS, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WILL READ THEM ON A SCREEN BUT THEY'LL ALSO SAY THEM EITHER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. SO I JUST THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE CONFUSING SIMILARITY.

THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE, AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE STRING CRITERION SECTION, IS THAT I THINK -- I WONDER IF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER EITHER -- THERE IS EITHER SUPPORT IN THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY FOR THE STRING OR FOR THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THIS STRING.

I'M THINKING REALLY OF TWO EXAMPLES. ONE WOULD BE IN A SITUATION LIKE A SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN THAT MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARD A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY SECTOR OR PARTICULAR AREA OF ACTIVITY, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH OR AT LEAST LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THAT INDUSTRY SECTOR OR ARE CUSTOMERS OF THAT INDUSTRY SECTOR OR INVOLVED WITH IT IN SOME WAY WANT TO HAVE OR HAVE SOME INTEREST IN HAVING A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN. THAT WOULD BE, UNDER OUR CURRENT CRITERIA, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT A SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE IT ANYWHERE IN THE REPORT, SO I HOPE IT CAN BE ADDRESSED.

AND AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT, EVEN -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS MIGHT BE UNSPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, OPEN TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND WHILE I CONTINUE TO THINK THAT'S NOT THE BEST -- THAT SHOULDN'T BE ICANN'S TOP PRIORITY, I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE DOMAINS NOW TO KNOW THAT SOME STRINGS ARE LIKELY TO BE FINANCIALLY VIABLE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING NEW TO -- OR VERY MUCH THAT'S NEW TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. THEY'RE GOING TO, TO A GREAT EXTENT, TRANSFER WEALTH FROM TRADEMARK OWNERS TO REGISTRY OPERATORS AND REGISTRARS, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. I HOPE WE CAN HAVE SOME WAY OF AT LEAST LOOKING AT THAT QUESTION OF WHETHER A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IS LIKELY TO BE A MAGNET FOR DEFENSIVE REGISTRATION AND IF THAT OUGHT TO BE PART OF -- NOT THE ONLY FACTOR, BY ANY MEANS, BUT PART OF THE CALCULUS THAT WOULD ENTER INTO THIS. THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: STEVE, THANKS VERY MUCH. PERHAPS JUST IN RESPONSE ON YOUR FIRST POINT, IT'S PERHAPS A FUNCTION OF THE PARAPHRASING ON THESE OVERHEADS. THE PHRASING ON "CONFUSING SIMILAR" ACTUALLY IN THE REPORT AT THE MOMENT IS INDEED VISUALLY OR PHONETICALLY CONFUSING, WHICH IS THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, QUITE RIGHTLY SO.

ON THE SECOND POINT, MY SYMPATHIES ARE ENTIRELY WITH YOU, WHICH WILL PERHAPS NOT SURPRISE YOU, AND PERHAPS ONE WAY OF ACCOMMODATING THOSE MAY BE IN THE NATURE OF THE CONTENT OR THE FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS PLAN IN TERMS OF HOW THAT IS EXPLAINED. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL OBSERVATION, SOMETHING PERHAPS WE COULD TAKE BACK ON THE TASK FORCE. AND I'LL JUST LOOK AT ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAD ANY OTHER OBSERVATION ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. CHUCK?

>>CHUCK GOMES: YEAH. I THINK STEVE'S RAISING A GOOD POINT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WANT A TLD TO BE APPROVED THAT CATERS TO A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY WITHOUT REASONABLE -- NOT UNANIMOUS, BUT REASONABLE -- DEMONSTRATED SUPPORT FROM THAT COMMUNITY. IN FACT, WE DO KIND OF COVER THAT IF THERE'S CONTENTION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY COVERED THAT IN OUR MAIN CRITERIA.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU FOR THAT. NIGEL ROBERTS. I'M A REGISTRY MANAGER OF DOT GG, BUT I'M NOT HERE AS A REGISTRY MANAGER. I'M HERE AS A STUDENT, PERHAPS.

I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, AND MAYBE SOME ANSWERS CAN BE FORTHCOMING. I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE ONE, TWO, THREE -- FOURTH CRITERIA DOWN: "NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, OR DECEPTIVE OF THE PUBLIC." AND IT'S THE FIRST OF THOSE THREE THAT I'M ASKING MY QUESTION ABOUT. AND MY QUESTION IS: WHOSE PUBLIC POLICY?

"PUBLIC POLICY" IS A PHRASE OF PARTICULAR MEANING TO GOVERNMENTS. IT COULD BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OR IT COULD BE WIDER THAN THAT. I WONDER IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED THAT. AND I WONDER IF YOU'VE CONSIDERED THAT IF IT IS THE WIDER PUBLIC POLICY, WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN PUBLIC POLICY.

I CAN THINK OF ONE PARTICULAR ISLAND JURISDICTION -- I WON'T NAME IT, BUT IT'S NOT FAR FROM WHERE I LIVE -- WHICH WOULD, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, WANT TO ENCOURAGE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WHICH CERTAIN LARGE ECONOMIES IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE WEEKS AND MONTHS HAVE TRIED TO DISCOURAGE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY. SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED WHOSE PUBLIC POLICY AND WHAT TO DO WHEN THERE'S A CONFLICT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE A BACKGROUND IN LAW MAY RECOGNIZE THAT PHRASEOLOGY AS COMING, IN FACT, FROM THE 1883 PARIS CONVENTION, AND IT IS ON THAT BASIS THAT -- AND IN PARTICULAR OUR LEARNING HERE HAS BEEN BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF TRADEMARK OFFICES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THIS SAME BASE LAW AND, INDEED, SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT USE OF SIMILAR PHRASEOLOGY IN NATIONAL TRADEMARK LAW WHERE TRADEMARK OFFICES HAVE THEN HAD TO LOOK AT CERTAIN, CERTAIN TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS AND MAKE SIMILAR JUDGMENTS. AND ALL WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE HERE IS THAT PROBABLY IT WILL BE INCUMBENT UPON US, INCUMBENT ON ICANN, TO DO THE SAME. AND IT IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM, AS TRADEMARK OFFICES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE PROVED, IN THAT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE GUIDANCE NOTES IN TERMS OF WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS, AND TYPICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE U.K. TRADEMARK OFFICE OR THE EUROPEAN TRADEMARK OFFICE, THERE YOU HAVE THE IDEA O!
F THE NATURE OF OFFENSE, BUT OFFENSE OF THE LEVEL THAT IT WOULD CAUSE OUTRAGE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING SIMPLY BEING IN POOR TASTE OR DISTASTEFUL. AND DECISIONS LIKE THAT ARE MADE REGULARLY IN SUCH OFFICES, AND IT IS THE COMMITTEE'S BELIEF THAT SOMETHING SIMILAR WILL PROBABLY BE NEEDED WITHIN OUR OWN SYSTEM HERE. AND THERE, AS YOU SAW ON THE THIRD SECTION OF THIS, OUR FEELING WOULD BE NATURALLY THAT FOR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS MORE DIFFICULT THAN WE WOULD EXPECT STAFF TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON, THIS WILL BE A CASE WHERE YOU WILL HAVE AN EXPERT PANEL WHO WOULD ASSIST IN MAKING SUCH DECISION.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU, PHILIP. IF I MAY JUST HAVE A SUPPLEMENTARY ON THAT. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING ANSWER, AND NOT AT ALL ONE WHICH I WAS EXPECTING, BECAUSE I READ THAT AS MEANING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO HOW YOU'VE INTERPRETED IT.

FROM WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS, YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT PUBLIC POLICY IS RESTRICTED, SHALL WE SAY, TO TRADEMARK ISSUES. I WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES OF IT IN THE PAST.

I DON'T WISH TO GO INTO FURTHER DETAILS, TO PREJUDICE A POSSIBLE THREE-LETTER APPLICATION FOR SOME PEOPLE I'VE BEEN TALKING TO. HOWEVER, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT CERTAIN MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PARTICULARLY ON INTERNET COMMERCE OF SOME DESCRIPTION, ARE BEING DISCOURAGED AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR JURISDICTIONS OR BUSINESSES IN THAT AREA ARE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING THEM.

ICANN IS GOING TO SIT IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THESE TWO, BEING PULLED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, AND I'D BE VERY INTERESTED TO KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE WIDER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ONE OTHER COMMENT ON THIS, TOO, NIGEL, IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE ONE AREA WHERE THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T FEEL IT HAD A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERTISE, AND WE HAVE SOUGHT ADVICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC AS TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT SOME OF THE ISSUES MIGHT BE. AND WE'RE YET TO REALLY RECEIVE THAT ADVICE AND WE DO KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE THIS WEEK.

BUT THERE WILL BE A SESSION, I BELIEVE, ON THURSDAY WHERE WE'LL DISCUSS THIS JUST TO GET A GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE ON IT. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS, BY ANY MEANS -- THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION IS, BY ANY MEANS, FINAL. WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR ADVICE FROM YOU AND OTHERS.

>>NIGEL ROBERTS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT TO DO IN THAT DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT: AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR MEETINGS WAS, YOU KNOW, HATE SPEECH FALLING INTO THIS. YOU KNOW, DEROGATORY WORDS TOWARD SOCIAL GROUPS BEING SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS OUGHT NOT BE A TLD. NOW, I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT -- OF A KIND DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE POKER AND GAMBLING AND SEX. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

>>ROBIN GROSS: YES, I VERY MUCH SHARE NIGEL'S CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA. I DON'T THINK THAT ICANN SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF REGULATING PUBLIC MORALITY. I DON'T THINK ICANN SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DETERMINING, BETWEEN RELIGIONS, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE SPOKESMAN FOR A PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT.

SO THERE ISN'T UNANIMITY ON THESE CRITERIA, AND THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF US THAT DON'T AGREE WITH THIS ONE. WE THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE, OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF ICANN'S -- THE SCOPE OF ITS MISSION, TO BE TRYING TO -- TO TRY TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SPOKESPERSON FOR A PARTICULAR WORD.

AND THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW TRADEMARK LAW, I THINK, IS ALSO MISPLACED.

THE TRADEMARK EXAMPLES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS ABOUT TRYING TO GIVE SOMEONE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PREVENT SOMEONE ELSE FROM USING A TRADEMARK. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A WORD CAN BE USED AT ALL. AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, AND I THINK WE'RE CONFLATING THE TWO IDEAS WHEN WE USE TRADEMARK LAW TO TRY TO JUSTIFY WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE CRITERIA. THANK YOU.

>> PHILIP SHEPPARD: ROBIN, THANK YOU. JUST ONE LAST COMMENT ON THAT, AND PICKING UP ON WHAT BRET SAID, IT WAS INTERESTING THAT IN LOOKING AT THE DRAFT GAC PRINCIPLES -- NOW, THESE ARE, INDEED -- I STRESS THE WORD "DRAFT" -- ONE CONCEPT THAT THE GAC HAS PICKED UP THERE IS, INDEED, THIS IDEA OF INCITEMENTS TO HATRED, WHICH IS ALSO A COMMON CONCEPT IN LAW OR ELSEWHERE. BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THE GENERAL VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE, GOING BACK TO YOUR BROAD POINT THAT YOU ASKED EARLIER, NIGEL, WOULD BE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE THE NARROWER DEFINITION, RATHER THAN THE WIDER. CERTAINLY THAT IS OUR HOPE. AND IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE WORDING IN OUR FINAL REPORT, WE WILL DO SO.

THE NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>STEFANO TRUMPY: STEFANO TRUMPY. AND IT IS NOT BY CHANCE -- IT IS BY CHANCE, LET ME SAY, THAT I WENT JUST AFTER NIGEL. I AM REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY IN THE GAC, AND MY QUESTION IS THIS: WHAT WE ARE DESCRIBING HERE IS REALLY A PROCESS THAT SHOULD GO STEP BY STEP. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STRING ANALYSIS SHOULD BE ONE OF THE FIRST -- MAYBE THE FIRST -- ELEMENT FOR JUDGMENT, AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM ON THE STRING, THEN PERHAPS THE OTHER STEPS SHOULD BE POSTPONED, AT THE LEAST. AND SO TIMING IS IMPORTANT.

AND ALSO, IT IS IMPORTANT, OF COURSE, WHO WILL JUDGE AND HOW THE PROCESS OF JUDGING, IF A STRING IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT, IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD, AND ALSO WHICH KIND OF INTERACTIONS THERE WILL BE WITH THE GNSO, WITH THE BOARD, WITH THE GAC, OR WHOEVER.

SO THIS IS A PROCESS TO BE ANALYZED, BECAUSE AS WE HEARD, THE JUDGING COULD BE VARIED, DEPENDING FROM MANY ASPECTS.

AND ANOTHER POINT CONNECTED TO THIS IS THAT FOR A NEW REGISTRY, MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THE CHARTER OF THE REGISTRY. AND SO DID YOU CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING THE CHARTER AND CHANGING THE STRING IF THE STRING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS? THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: STEFANO, THANK YOU. YOU'VE RAISED SOME VERY GOOD POINTS.

I THINK ON THE EARLIER POINT, CERTAINLY THE IDEA FOR THOSE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS WOULD BE A PANEL OF EXPERTS, AND FOR MOST OF THEM, IN CASE THE DECISION IS BOTH ON MORALITY AND ON CONFUSING SIMILARITY, WE ALSO ENVISAGE THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHALLENGE PROCESS TO THOSE DECISIONS. THE DETAIL OF THAT HASN'T YET BEEN WORKED THROUGH, BUT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE A PROCESS IN WHICH THE VARIOUS STEPS ARE CLEAR, AND CERTAINLY IN THE CASE OF ONE APPLICANT/ONE STRING, THE BOARD WOULD BE DIVORCED FROM MOST OF THAT PROCESS, PERHAPS UP UNTIL THE TIME THERE MAY BE SOME SORT OF CHALLENGE PROCESS IN TERMS OF HOW THAT WOULD THEN COME DOWN. BUT THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE PRELIMINARY THINKING IN TERMS OF DESIGNING THAT PROCESS.

YOU'RE RIGHT ALSO ABOUT THE DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHAT -- WHAT GETS LOOKED AT FIRST, AND WE HAD, IN FACT, JUST YESTERDAY AN INTERESTING SORT OF FIRST LOOK AT A POTENTIAL FLOWCHART THAT DERIVES FROM THE CURRENT DRAFT OF OUR REPORT, DEMONSTRATING TO THE COMMITTEE THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TO SEE WHERE THERE ARE AREAS THERE OF PARALLEL PROCESSING AND WHERE THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THINGS WOULD BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD.

BUT CERTAINLY THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TAKE THE SIMPLER THINGS FIRST IN TERMS OF YOUR PROCESS OF ACCEPTANCE OR ELIMINATION. BUT YOUR POINT IS VERY WELL TAKEN. NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANK YOU.

WENDY SELTZER.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT SPEAKING HERE FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

FIRST TO SAY I SORT OF WELCOME THE COMMITTEE'S PROGRESS ON NEW GTLDS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.

AND I ALSO WELCOME THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR IS VISUAL AND PHONETIC AND NOT A SEMANTIC DISTINCTION.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT ICANN SHOULDN'T BE IMPOSING SEMANTICS ON TLD STRINGS.

AND THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION IS, AGAIN, ABOUT THE FOURTH POINT THERE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY OR MORALITY.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU JUST INVITING HOLDUPS BY PUTTING THAT CRITERION IN THERE, INVITING PEOPLE TO COME IN WITH ARGUMENTS THAT STRINGS THAT THEY OPPOSE FOR OTHER REASONS ARE CONTRARY TO THEIR PARTICULAR MORALITY.

AND THEN ARE YOU MAKING ICANN INTO AN ARBITER OF MORALITY TO SAY SOMEBODY WHO CLAIMS THAT FOO IS HIS DEITY IS SOMEHOW LESS ENTITLED TO RESPECT THAN SOMEBODY WHO CLAIMS A MORE WIDELY RECOGNIZED OR MORE WIDELY SHARED MORALITY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A MORASS THAT ICANN WANTS TO BE WADING INTO.

AND YET I DON'T SEE A LIMITING PRINCIPLE ONCE YOU'VE PUT UP THE -- THAT CRITERION.

DO YOU SEE A LIMITING PRINCIPLE THERE SHORT OF ALLOWING ANYONE TO HOLD UP DOMAIN NAME STRING CERTIFICATION?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK MY INSTANT RESPONSE THERE IS THAT THE COMMITTEE CERTAINLY ISN'T INVITING OR SENDING OUT A CHALLENGE BY SUCH A CRITERIA.

ALL WE ARE DOING IS RECOGNIZING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE STRINGS OF A CERTAIN NATURE WHICH COULD CAUSE ISSUES WITHIN THAT AREA OF POLICY OR MORALITY, AND RECOGNIZING THAT IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE NEED A SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH THAT.

FROM THE VIEW OF THE WISE APPLICANT, IF THEY'RE MAKING AN APPLICATION THAT IS FAR FROM ANY OF THOSE ISSUES, THEY WILL, BY THEIR VERY NATURE OF THE PROCESS, HAVE A FASTER PROCESS THROUGH THAN THOSE THAT MAY FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I CAN REALLY RESPOND TO THAT.

IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY ON THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER COMMENT ON THAT, PHILIP, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE CERTAINLY IS -- THE STRINGS WILL BE PUBLISHED AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO SUBMIT, I GUESS, ISSUES THEY HAVE AGAINST THE CRITERIA.

BUT THE ONUS IS ON THE PARTY MAKING THAT COMPLAINT.

AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE THESE CRITERIA.

SO THEY SAY IT'S TECHNICALLY INSTABLE.

THEY'D NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY IT'S TECHNICALLY UNSTABLE.

THEY CAN'T JUST SAY, "I THINK IT MIGHT BE."

THEY'D HAVE TO SAY, "IT IS, AND HERE'S THE EVIDENCE."

AND THE SAME WOULD APPLY UNDER THESE OTHER CATEGORIES, THAT IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT UNDER SOME OF THE MORALITY THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT'S WIDESPREAD.

IT'S NOT JUST IT AFFECTS MY PERSONAL MORALITY.

YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND SOME BASIS FOR DOING SO.

SO IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE CONCEPT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN HOLD THINGS UP.

>>ROBIN GROSS: I THINK THAT SORT OF UNDERSCORES THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, WHEN YOU SAY THE PROBLEM IS FOR A COMMUNITY.

WHICH COMMUNITY?

WHOSE MORALITY?

THE MORALITY OF THE PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE ICANN RESIDES?

THE MORALITY THAT IS OBSERVED IN BAGHDAD?

THE MORALITY IN ITALY?

WHOSE MORALITY?

SOMEHOW ICANN SEEMS TO BE THINKING WITH THIS POLICY THAT IT'S IN THE POSITION TO BE DECIDING WHICH OF THESE MORALITIES IS THE MORALITY.

AND I THINK BESIDES BEING COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, IT'S UNWORKABLE ON A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: CAN I MAKE A COMMENT?

THIS IS TO COUNTER, BUT NOT TO -- TO CONTRADICT YOU IN ANY WAY.

THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I DON'T THINK ICANN IS READY OR IS IN A POSITION TO DECIDE WHAT ROUTE TO TAKE OR WHAT PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD BE.

BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING IS THE PUBLIC POLICY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP A GUIDELINES IN A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH WITH THE GAC, AS WELL AS WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THAT WILL A FEEDBACK PROCESS.

SO WE'RE HOPING A CONSULTATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE BASED TO ADDRESS THIS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE WANT TO JUMP THE GUN AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE HOT ON THE PUBLIC-POLICY ISSUE.

SO JUST BE AWARE OF THAT.

THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY.

NEXT QUESTION.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHRIS DISSPAIN, CEO OF THE AUSTRALIAN CCTLD.

TWO THINGS.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION, ON POINT 4 OF THE PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, AND DECEPTION, YOU ARE TALKING SPECIFICALLY JUST ABOUT THE STRING, AREN'T YOU?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN:NOT WHAT IT'S USED FOR AFTERWARDS?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.

>>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I ACTUALLY STOOD UP TO ASK ABOUT POINT NUMBER 2, NOT TO INFRINGE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED -- I NOTE IN THE REPORT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD WARRANT THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO -- THEY'RE NOT INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I JUST SUGGEST THAT THAT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE MORE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.

IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOMEBODY TO WARRANT THAT THEY'RE NOT INFRINGING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

BECAUSE WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND HOW CAN I FIND OUT?

I COULD WARRANT TO YOU THAT I'M NOT INFRINGING SOMEONE'S TRADEMARK RIGHTS PROBABLY, BECAUSE I CAN SEARCH THAT AND FIND OUT THAT THERE ARE NO TRADEMARKS THAT I'M INFRINGING.

BUT ACTUALLY JUST PUTTING IT IN AS "LEGAL RIGHTS" IS, I WOULD SUGGEST, VERY CHALLENGING.

>>MARILYN CADE: PHILIP.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: POSSIBLY THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" SHOULD BE IN THAT RECOMMENDATION.

BUT I TAKE THE POINT, INDEED.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU.

THAT WAS THE POINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MARILYN?

OKAY.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, PHIL, MIKE PALAGE.

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE, THE COUNCIL, AND STAFF FOR THE WORK TO DATE ON THIS IMPORTANT PROCESS.

I HAVE TWO COMMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

THE FIRST IS MY CONCERN REGARDING THE USE OF "CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR."

THOSE WORDS HAVE ADOPTED SPECIFIC MEANING AS THE FIRST CRITERIA IN THE UDRP, AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF UDRP DECISIONS THAT HAVE INTERPRETED THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN ANY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OR DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT, THAT YOU DO NOT, IF YOU WILL, COME UP WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS THAT MIGHT CREATE INCONSISTENCIES.

BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR IS PREDICTABILITY IN THOSE WORDS AND THE MANY YEARS OF, IF YOU WILL, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES INVOLVING THEM.

WITH REGARD TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND CHALLENGE PROCESS WHICH IS CITED IN THE DOCUMENT, I WOULD HOPE THE COMMITTEE AND ICANN WOULD LOOK TOWARDS EXISTING BODIES THAT HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF DNS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY, WIPO, WHICH HAS A STANDING PANEL OF EXPERTS AND WHICH HAS BEEN INVOLVED NOT ONLY IN THE DRAFTING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UDRP, THE AFILIAS SUN RISE, THE MOBI SUNRISE, THE MOBI PREMIUM NAME CHALLENGES, THIS IS A BODY WHICH HAS, IF YOU WILL, AN EXTENSIVE BODY OF EXPERTISE, AND HOPEFULLY COULD BE CALLED UPON TO WORK IN ANY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK.

THANK YOU.

>>BRET FAUSETT:MIKE, YOU GET BONUS POINTS FOR READING AHEAD.

WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE BONUS POLICY IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

BUT POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

>>BECKY BURR: BECKY BURR, I'M GOING TO JOIN THE ENDLESS LINE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4.

I RECENTLY, NOBODY WILL BE SURPRISED TO KNOW, HAVE HAD OCCASION TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME CONTEMPLATING THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC POLICY."

AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THE CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC POLICY" AS DEFINED IN WIKIPEDIA IS ANYTHING A GOVERNMENT THINKS IT SHOULD HAVE A VIEW ON.

SO PLEASE BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL.

AND, SECOND, PHILIP, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I'M QUITE CONCERNED THAT THE SOURCE FOR THAT IS TRADEMARK LAW.

BECAUSE TRADEMARK LAW GREW UP AS A NATIONAL AND, THEREFORE, FAR MORE LOCAL KIND OF LAW.

SO WHILE YOU COULD MAYBE GET TO A CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY IN THE U.K. OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY SOMEPLACE ELSE, IF YOU COULD GET PAST THE "PUBLIC POLICY" THING, I THINK IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT, THAT PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFICULT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, BECKY.

VINT.

>>VINT CERF: I'M VINT CERF, CHAIRMAN OF ICANN.

AND I WILL BE BRIEF, BECAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK MORE THAN ABOUT 50 WORDS.

I THINK ABOUT THE STAFF AND EVENTUALLY THE BOARD TRYING TO APPLY THESE CRITERIA, AND I GET WORRIED, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION SO FAR SUGGESTS THAT IT'S HARD.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A -- LET ME CALL IT A STANDARD DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM IN WHICH ANY PARTIES WHO FEEL THAT ONE OF THESE CRITERIA HAS BEEN VIOLATED COULD RAISE THE ISSUE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO THE STAFF HAVING TO DECIDE THINGS OR THE BOARD HAVING TO DECIDE THINGS?

IS THERE A PROCESS WHEREBY A PROPOSED TLD COULD BE EXPOSED WIDELY TO VIEW AND INVITATIONS TO RAISE ISSUES MADE AND A STANDARD PROCESS INTRODUCED THAT ALLOWS THOSE DISPUTES TO BE RESOLVED WITHOUT ASKING THE BOARD TO PASS JUDGMENT ON, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC POLICY, MORALITY, OR ANYTHING ELSE, OR TO ARGUE WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR?

IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU HAD A GENERAL MECHANISM OF THAT SORT WHICH COULD APPLY INDEPENDENT OF THE NATURE OF THE DISAGREEMENT.

SO THAT'S THE ENGINEER'S, YOU KNOW, VIEW OF THINGS.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT AS I LOOK AT THESE AND THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT YOU SUGGESTED AND I APPLY IDN KINDS OF SITUATIONS, IT GETS A LOT MORE COMPLEX, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT SOUND THE SAME.

BECAUSE MANY THINGS SOUND THE SAME IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, AND THEY MIGHT BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE AS PRESENTED IN DIFFERENT SCRIPTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY SOUND THE SAME WHEN SPOKEN.

AND SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU ABOUT INCLUDING SOME REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES FROM THE IDN WORLD AS YOU WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH TESTING THE IDEAS AGAINST SOME CONCRETE CASES.

THANK YOU.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M SORRY, VINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MARILYN, GO AHEAD.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, IF I MIGHT, VINT.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

>>VINT CERF: ALL RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE ABLE TO -- WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

>>MARILYN CADE: YOUR FIRST QUESTION, AND THANK YOU FOR THE BREADTH OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE LAST ONE, I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT, PERHAPS NOT IN ENOUGH DETAIL, BUT IT HAS VERY MUCH THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY TO IDNS HAS CERTAINLY BEEN ON OUR MINDS.

LET ME GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST SUGGESTION.

IN THE IDEA OF HAVING A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE IN THE EVENT OF A PARTICULAR NAME, WHILE THAT MAY BE FEASIBLE, I GUESS I WOULD ASK A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NEED OF AN APPLICANT TO PERHAPS PROTECT THE INTELLECTUAL -- I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM LOOSELY HERE -- BUT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF AN IDEA THAT THEY WANT TO MARKET AS A GTLD IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO EXPOSE IT TOO EARLY?

YOU KNOW, IF -- IS THERE A POTENTIAL SITUATION WHERE AN APPLICANT WOULD FIND THEMSELVES, OH, I'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA FOR A STRING.

I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PUBLIC PROCESS, AND NOW I, INCITE 14 COMPETITORS TO BID ON THAT NAME.

OR WERE YOU THINKING THAT IT WOULD ONLY IMPLY IN CONTESTED NAMES?

>>VINT CERF: NO, I THINK IT HAS TO APPLY IN OTHER THAN -- NOT JUST IN THE CASE OF COMPETITION FOR A GIVEN NAME, BUT I WOULDN'T EXPECT THE PROCESS TO INITIATE UNTIL AFTER A CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE ON THAT TLD.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS COME AND OFFICIALLY SAID, "I AM INTERESTED IN THIS TLD."

IF THEY'RE -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO YET ABOUT THE MULTIPLE APPLICANTS WHO WANT A PARTICULAR TLD.

THAT GETS INTO AUCTION QUESTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THAT KIND.

BUT SET THAT ASIDE FOR A MOMENT.

I WOULD NOT EXPECT AN APPLICANT TO GO PUBLIC WITH THE IDEA BEFORE HAVING FORMALLY MADE THE CLAIM.

WHAT I AM SUGGESTING, THOUGH, IS THAT WE NOT ENTANGLE THE STAFF OR ICANN, IF POSSIBLE, WITH THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF RESOLVING THESE, IN THE SAME WAY THAT ICANN HAS NOT BEEN ENTANGLED WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND-LEVEL REGISTRATIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DISPUTED.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU, VINT.

JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS PERHAPS ON THE POINTS YOU MADE.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT CERTAINLY WE WERE VERY CONSCIOUS, I THINK, OF ALWAYS WANTING TO LOOK AT A PROCESS OF SIMPLICITY, AND THEREFORE NOT ADDING COMPLEXITY IN PARTICULAR TO THE RECEIVING SORT OF EXAMINATION STAFF FOR APPLICATIONS.

AND TYPICALLY, WE HAD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA OF PANELS OF EXPERTS WHERE SUCH QUESTIONS AROSE.

SO YOUR CONCEPT OF ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT VIA A DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS IS AN INTERESTING ONE THAT I THINK WE CAN TAKE BACK AND LOOK AT.

MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT WE ARE STILL LOOKING IN THIS CASE AT THE -- THE NATURE OF THE STRING.

SO IT'S -- IT'S -- SOME THINGS, TO SOME EXTENT, ARE GOING TO BE LESS OF A -- A DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF THE WORTHINESS OF THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY NATURE OF THE STRING.

AND CERTAINLY THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT IF -- IF IT WAS A PANEL WHO SAID, "THIS STRING IS UNACCEPTABLE," IT'S NOT UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE APPLICANT, IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE REST OF TIME, AND THAT WAS THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAD BEHIND THAT IDEA, BEING THAT IT RELATED TO THE STRING AND NOT -- NOT LINKED TO THE APPLICANT.

BUT I THINK THE PROCESS THAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING IN TERMS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TAKING IT OUT OF THE SYSTEM IS CERTAINLY WORTH US REVISITING.

THANK YOU.

NEXT QUESTION, PLEASE.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, AND I'M THE FRENCH REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GAC.

ACTUALLY, I'M MORE MAKING A COMMENT HERE ON A PERSONAL BASIS, FOLLOWING SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER.

THE FIRST POINT IS THAT THE DEBATE ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY AND THE CORRESPONDENCE OR DISCREPANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC POLICY IN MANY COUNTRIES IS SOMETHING THAT ICANN IS ADDRESSING.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, BASICALLY, THERE WILL BE A RELATIVELY COMPLEX AND LONG PROCESS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THOSE TLDS.

SO THE KEY QUESTION IS JUST TO MAKE THE PROCESS, AS WAS SUGGESTED BY VINT CERF OR OTHERS, AS CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING THE POTENTIAL CONCERNS RELATED TO PUBLIC POLICY.

THAT'S ONE POINT.

THE SECOND POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS IN FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT I THINK BECKY BURR WAS MENTIONING.

PUBLIC POLICY IS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THAT IS UNDERTAKEN BY NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, NORMALLY, IN THE PURSUIT OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT PUBLIC POLICY.

YOU HAVE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES.

BUT THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT COMES OUT IS NORMALLY THE RESULT OF A PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC INTEREST AT A NATIONAL LEVEL AND THEN TAKES MEASURES.

THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING HERE IS THAT THERE IS A CONCEPT THAT IS GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, FOR WHICH GOVERNMENTS ALONE, OF COURSE, SHOULD HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, BUT NOT AN EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST IS DETERMINED IN THE CASE OF ESTABLISHING A NEW GTLD, FOR INSTANCE, IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

WHICH LEADS TO THE LAST POINT I WANTED TO MAKE.

IF WE TALK ABOUT THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THOSE CRITERIAS ARE BASICALLY CRITERIA FOR NOT ACCEPTING A GTLD.

THE ASPECT I'M MORE INTERESTED HERE IS, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIAS FOR ACCEPTING A GTLD?

WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE OF PUTTING ANOTHER GTLD, AND THERE HAS BEEN MENTIONS OF IS IT JUST VIABLE BECAUSE IT BRINGS DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS?

OR IS IT JUST INCREASING COMPETITION?

IS IT FOR DIVERSIFICATION?

IS IT TO SERVE A SPECIFIC COMMUNITY?

AND SO ON.

POSITIVE CRITERIAS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN THE DEBATE HERE, HOPING THAT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL, IS THE NOTION THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY HERE.

WE COULD BE CREATING AS MANY GTLDS AS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, .LACHAPELLE, WHATEVER, I BELIEVE IMPLICITLY THAT THERE'S A SORT OF OPTIMUM, THAT THERE IS A SCARCITY THAT SERVES THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST BETTER.

IT MAKES IT SIMPLER, IT'S LESS CONTROVERSIAL, WHATEVER.

THE TERM I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN THE DEBATE AND SEE WHETHER IT IS OF ANY USE IS THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

IN THINKING ABOUT CREATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN FRAME THE DEBATE UNDER WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY WE WANT TO PUT IN?

THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU FOR RAISING A VERY INTERESTING POINT.

A LOT OF YOUR POINTS I PERSONALLY SHARE WITH YOU.

I'M NOT SURE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE DO.

ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THAT?

OKAY.

WE WILL NOTE THAT ANYWAY AND MOVE ON TO AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY, THAT'S ME AGAIN.

FIRST, BERTRAND, IF WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY TLDS AS WE COULD, IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE WE HAVE GOVERNMENTS AND I.P. LAWYERS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, BESIDES THAT....

GOING BACK TO THIS PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSION, I COMPLETELY SYMPATHIZE WITH ROBIN AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAYING WE SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING THAT.

WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

IT'S NOT ICANN BUSINESS TO DISCUSS MORALITY.

WHAT WE NEED IS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT OPPOSITION TO THE CREATION OF A TLD THAT MAY COME FROM PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

ICANN WILL NOT EVALUATE THE PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OR THE MORALITY THERE, BUT THE RELEVANT OPPOSITION THERE.

SO, AGAIN, WITH REGARD TO WHAT I WAS SAYING YESTERDAY IN THE PREPARATION, I THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE HERE AND SIMPLY TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD, WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE TLDS COME, AND HER SUGGESTION, WHY PUBLICIZATION OF TLDS AND INTENT, IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE ABC, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE STRING IS NOTHING, BUT IT IS INTENDED FOR ASSASSINS, BURGLARS, AND OTHER CRIMINALS.

PERHAPS SOMEONE WILL RAISE THEIR HAND AND SAY WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS, CREATING -- NOT DECIDING WHAT'S MORAL -- CREATING A SPECIFIC RESOURCE ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS.

FIRST, WE PUBLICIZE THAT AND WAIT FOR OPPOSITION, IS NOT A JUDGMENT THAT THE ICANN BOARD OR STAFF HAS TO DO.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT OR, YOU KNOW, ANYBODY ELSE OR ANY GROUP WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY THAT COMES HERE TO THIS MEETING TO SAY WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS.

AND THESE CONCERNS MAY COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT GROUNDS.

THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THEM.

AND THOSE WILL BE INTERPRETED BY PUBLIC POLICY BY GOVERNMENTS, NOT BY GNSO OR ICANN.

NEXT, WHAT'S RELEVANT?

WELL, IN CASE OF PUBLIC POLICY, INDEED, GOVERNMENTS ARE RELEVANT.

BUT NOT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE THAT RELEVANT.

AND THAT'S ALSO MY SUGGESTION YESTERDAY.

YOU SHOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING REGARDING THE INTENT, THE INTENDED COMMUNITY WHICH IS DIRECTED, THAT IS, WHAT'S RELEVANT FOR DOT KKK, DOT NAZI, OR DOT ISLAM REGARDING PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IS NOT THE SAME IN NUMBERS.

SO YOU CANNOT SAY ONE GOVERNMENT IS ENOUGH, OR YOU NEED TEN GOVERNMENTS, OR SOME GOVERNMENTS.

IT WILL DEPEND.

IN DOT KKK, ONE IS ENOUGH.

IN DOT NAZI, PROBABLY GERMANY WOULD BE ENOUGH.

IN THE CASE OF DOT ISLAM, THE OPPOSITION OF NORWAY WOULD BE QUITE IRRELEVANT, BUT SOME COUNTRIES WHERE ISLAM IS A STATE RELIGION, WOULD BE VERY RELEVANT.

SO WE SHOULD GO THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PUT WORDS LIKE MORALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY, AND JUST TRY TO DEFINE RELEVANCE OF THE OPPOSITION.

IT MAY COME FROM MANY OTHER PLACES.

LET'S TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, .CAT WHEN WE PROPOSED THAT.

-- CAT IS A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK BY CATERPILLAR.

WE CONTACTED THEM TO SEE WHETHER THEY WOULD CONTACT ICANN TO DO SOMETHING.

IF THEY HAD, I EXPECTED THEM TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO SAY THAT.

BUT I DIDN'T EXPECT THEM TO, YOU KNOW, (INAUDIBLE) ON THAT.

BUT, REALLY, THEY NEED TO HAVE A PLACE TO EXPLAIN THEIR PROBLEMS, RIGHT, AS IT WAS OUT OF QUESTION THAT SOME GOVERNMENTS HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE CREATION OF THAT TLD.

AND YOU -- WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

THE OPPOSITION OF THE -- ONE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ENOUGH.

THE OPPOSITION OF THE HONDURAN GOVERNMENT REGARDING .CAT WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT, PROBABLY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JUST ONE RESPONSE ON THE EARLIER POINTS YOU MADE.

I THINK ONE ADDITION WE MADE TO THE REPORT JUST THIS WEEK WAS THE IDEA OF ONE ELEMENT OF ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF PUBLIC POLICY COULD, INDEED, BE THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSE YOU GET DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT, I THINK, AS YOU WERE SAYING ALSO, IS THEN THE JUDGMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANCE OF THAT AND HAS IT BEEN ORCHESTRATED AND IN TERMS OF WHO IT'S COMING FROM.

BUT THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

NEXT QUESTION, FROM RON ANDRUFF.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: PHILIP, JUST IN TERMS OF TIMING, IF WE JUST END THE QUEUE WITH JORDYN ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC SO WE CAN DISCUSS OTHER TOPICS AS WELL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IF WE WOULD END THE PRESENT QUEUE AFTER THIS AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TWO CRITERIA WHICH MAY BE SHORTER IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS, BUT WE SHALL FIND OUT.

RON.

>>RON ANDRUFF: I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS VERY SHORT.

RON ANDRUFF, .TRAVEL REGISTRY.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS AN INTUITIVE INTERNET. AND SO I HAVE OFTEN SHARED WITH COLLEAGUES THE IDEA OF AN INTUITIVE INTERNET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW MEANS THAT YOU KNOW THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, THE SECTOR THAT IT'S IN AND YOU ONLY HAVE TO PUT A DOT IN BETWEEN IT, AND IT ESTABLISHES A VERY EASY WAY, INTUITIVE WAY, FOR PEOPLE TO FIND THINGS.

SO THE IDEA OF HOLIDAY INN, IT'S IN THE TRAVEL SPACE, SO I PUT A DOT TRAVEL BEHIND IT.

IF I'M HSPC BANK, MAYBE IT'S DOT FINANCE.

IF IT'S -- MAYBE IT'S PORNOGRAPHY, IT'S GOT DOT XXX ON THE END OF IT.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS I HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO THERE VERY RAPIDLY IF I WANT TO AND IF I DON'T, I CAN BLOCK IT.

THE IDEA OF CREATING AN INTUITIVE INTERNET, I'M HOPEFUL THE COMMITTEE AND THE GNSO IS TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE AS AN ICANN COMMUNITY, THIS IS WHAT WE SEEM TO BE GROWING TOWARDS.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS BECAUSE OF AUTHENTICATION, MEANING WE CAN HAVE A PRISTINE WHOIS DATA SET.

BUT IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT.

SPEAKING TO THE ISSUE OF "NOT CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR" TO EXISTING TLDS, I THINK THAT ONE THING I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER IS THINGS LIKE .VIAGGI, FOR AN ITALIAN WHO WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD DOG VIAGGI, BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE DOT TRAVEL IN ITALIAN, IT'S CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT CONFUSING OR IS IT A COLLISION?

I'M HOPEFUL YOU'LL TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU'RE GIVING CONSIDERATION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: NEXT QUESTION.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: HI, I'M JORDYN BUCHANAN, AND I'M SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF.

I WANT TO MAYBE MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ABOUT -- TO TAIL INTO RON'S POINTS AS WELL ON THE NOTION OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

I WONDER IN THINKING OF THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF TLDS, WHETHER THE REASON WHY WE'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THEM IS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY'RE ARTIFICIALLY SCARCE.

IF THERE WERE -- IF YOU COULD -- SETTING ASIDE THE TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR A MOMENT, BUT IF IN A HYPOTHETICAL DREAM LAND YOU COULD -- ANYONE COULD REGISTER ANY STREAM THEY WANTED AND IT WOULD RESOLVE IN THE DNS, WOULD WE REALLY CARE ABOUT WHICH TLDS THEY HAPPENED TO GO IN?

PROBABLY NOT.

JUST LIKE WE DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE IN THE SECOND LEVEL BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THERE, OTHER THAN THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT WILL FIT INTO THE STREAM.

SO I'M SOMEWHAT INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE CREATED ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THAT WE HAVE ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE CARE ABOUT REGARDING ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

AND I'M SOMEWHAT SKEPTICAL OF RON'S NOTION THAT WE MIGHT SOMEHOW CREATE A BEAUTIFUL, ORDERED UNIVERSE.

I THINK WE TRIED TO DO THAT EARLY ON AND QUICKLY, MOST OF THE TERMS THAT WE HAVE LOST THEIR MEANING ALTOGETHER.

AND I THINK THAT'S -- THAT WOULD BE LIKELY TO OCCUR IF WE CONTINUED TO TRY TO BE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE AND CONTROL WHERE PEOPLE CAN REGISTER THINGS.

MY SECOND QUESTION, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY LEAD TO -- MY SECOND POINT, WHICH WILL, ACTUALLY, HOPEFULLY LEAD TO A QUESTION IS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS LIST, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A VERY -- THIS SEEMS HARD TO ADMINISTER, TO VINT'S POINT.

I AGREE WITH HIM IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THERE WAS SOME RELATIVELY PAINLESS PROCESS FOR ICANN UNDER WHICH SOMEONE COULD MAKE DECISIONS ON THIS AND WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THE STAFF TRYING TO DECIDE, BUT, RATHER, WE COULD RESPOND TO PEOPLE'S OBJECTIONS.

BUT I ACTUALLY THINK WE MIGHT HAVE AN EVEN MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS.

BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE SOME STRINGS THAT ARE UNDOUBTEDLY CONTROVERSIAL AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTECTION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T END UP IN THE DNS AND CONFUSE PEOPLE OR CAUSE MORAL UPRISINGS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

BUT I THINK SIMILARLY, THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF RELATIVELY UNCONTROVERSIAL STRINGS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL IN ADDING.

AND I THINK HAVING THIS STEP BE PART OF THE EVALUATION FOR EVERYTHING PROBABLY BOGS DOWN THE OVERALL PROCESS.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY -- IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT ALL, SO I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR -- IS WHAT ABOUT THE NOTION OF CREATING A WHITE LIST, ESSENTIALLY, HERE ARE 5,000 STRINGS, AND YOU CAN, IF YOU PROPOSE A TLD IN ANY OF THESE STRINGS, THEY'RE OKAY, AND IT JUST GOES RIGHT THROUGH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AT ANY TIME, IF ANYONE THINKS THAT SOMETHING ON THE LIST IS VIOLATING SOME OF THESE CRITERIA, THEY CAN COMPLAIN THROUGH THE PROCESS DESCRIBED AND GET IT TAKEN OFF THE LIST.

THAT MIGHT MAKE THIS MORE STREAMLINED AND PREDICTABLE FOR A NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD:THANKS VERY MUCH.

ANY RESPONSE ON THE CONCEPT OF WHITE LIST?

I MEAN, ONE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE WHITE LIST IS IF IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE FIVE "NOTS" THAT'S ON THE WHITE LIST, BUT THAT'S PERHAPS A BIT TRITE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND FOR MANY OF THE REASONS THAT VINT WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER ABOUT NOT WANTING TO PUT STAFF AND ICANN IN THE POSITION OF, YOU KNOW, GUESSING WHAT PEOPLE WANTED, AND IT WAS AN EXTRA STEP TO IMPOSE ON THE COUNCIL OR THE STAFF OR WHOMEVER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS, YOU KNOW, REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT THE MARKET COULD FIGURE OUT BETTER THAN WE COULD.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: COULDN'T YOU ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS? I'M SURE PEOPLE WOULD BE GLAD TO AT LEAST STAR DOING SOME OF THE WORK FOR YOU. I MEAN, THE WHITE LIST DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A NECESSARY PART OF THE POLICY. IT COULD BE IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE WHITE LIST, THEN IT IS ALL RIGHT. AND, OTHERWISE, THERE IS THIS PROCESS AND AS THE WHITE LIST -- THE WHITE LIST WILL GET DEVELOPED OVER TIME AND EITHER THE MARKET WILL CREATE IT OR SOMEONE WILL COME AND BRING NAMES TO IT ESSENTIALLY.

>>CHUCK GOMES: PHILIP, CAN I RESPOND? JORDYN, I THINK IT IS SAFE TO SAY THE WHOLE COMMITTEE HAS THE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE PROCESS STREAMLINED. WE UNDERSTAND THERE WILL BE PARTICULAR STRINGS THAT WILL PROBABLY NOT GO AS QUICKLY FOR WHATEVER ISSUES WE WANT TO SAY. AND IT IS OUR INTENT IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SO FAR THAT THOSE THAT FLOW THROUGH READILY WITHOUT THOSE WOULD NOT BE HELD UP AT ALL BY ANY THAT MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL OR DIFFICULT TO DECIDE. AND THAT'S, I THINK, A CONSCIOUS INTENT OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE AND PEOPLE CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

>>ALISTAIR DIXON: I WOULD JUST SORT OF LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER POINT AND I THINK JUST IN SUPPORT OF WHAT CHUCK HAS JUST SAID. THE STRING CRITERIA, WHATEVER WE FINALLY SETTLE ON, PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS. THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO PROVIDE AN INDICATION TO AN APPLICANT AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE AN APPLICATION THROUGH THE PROCESS SMOOTHLY OR WHETHER THEY MAY ENCOUNTER SOME PROBLEMS ALONG THE WAY.

AND I THINK IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT, SIMILAR EFFECT ON WHITE LIST. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT SUGGESTION.

>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME SUPPORT BOTH WHAT CHUCK HAS SAID AND ALSO WHAT ALISTAIR HAS SAID. BUT JUST TO SAY ALSO, IN THINKING ABOUT A WHITE LIST, JORDYN -- AND I DID GIVE THOUGHT TO IT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD IS, EVEN WITH VOLUNTEERS YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE AN ASSURANCE THAT A NAME DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHT OF SOMEONE ELSE UNLESS YOU SPEND AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME RESEARCHING WHAT KIND OF LEGAL RIGHTS MIGHT EXIST AROUND A PARTICULAR WORD.

I THINK ALISTAIR AND CHUCK HAVE BOTH CAPTURED A CONCEPT THAT WE ARE HOPING WILL WORK. AND THAT IS, THAT THERE WILL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF NAMES THAT ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL. AND BY LAYING OUT THE PROCESS, HOPEFULLY THOSE WILL NOT GET BOGGED DOWN BUT WILL MOVE MORE QUICKLY AND WILL THEN BE ABLE TO DEVOTE THE NECESSARY TIME TO DEALING WITH THOSE THAT MAY BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND SET OF CRITERIA ON APPLICANT, IF YOU WOULD. BRUCE, PERHAPS YOU CAN MOVE THE SLIDE ON FOR US.

MAYBE HE WILL IN A SECOND.

I CAN JUST REMIND YOU WHAT WE HAD ON APPLICANT CRITERIA, WHICH WERE FOUR POINTS OF DEMONSTRATED TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, DEMONSTRATED FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN, USE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS AND COMPLY WITH CURRENT AND NEW CONSENSUS POLICIES. AND, INDEED, TO SOME EXTENT, THOSE FOUR CRITERIA ARE PRECISELY OBLIGATIONS THAT NEW TLD APPLICANTS IN THE VARIOUS TEST BEDS WE HAVE HAD SO FAR HAVE HAD TO COMPLY WITH SO THERE IS NOTHING ESSENTIALLY NEW THERE, I THINK I AM RIGHT IN SAYING.

ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ON THOSE FOUR THINGS WHICH HAVE NOW APPEARED MAGICALLY BEFORE YOU? JORDYN COMES RACING BACK TO THE MICROPHONE.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I HAVE A QUESTION, I GUESS, WHICH IS USING THE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, IS THERE ANY THOUGHT -- HAVE YOU GIVEN THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REGISTRIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE AN ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR IN ADDITION TO USING AN ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR? AND IS THIS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR ME TO BE ASKING THAT QUESTION?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THERE WAS THAT DISCUSSION, WASN'T THERE? CHUCK, DO YOU WANT TO FIELD THAT?

>>CHUCK GOMES: THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY ACTUALLY HAD A CONCERN NOT FOR THE SAKE OF THE LARGER GTLDS BUT ,RATHER, FOR SOME OF THE SMALL ONES WHERE THERE IS REALLY -- IT IS NOT A VERY ATTRACTIVE MARKET FOR REGISTRARS. AND SO WE HAD QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. IT WAS VERY EARLY IN THE COMMITTEE'S WORK AND I THINK IT WAS IN THE MEETING IN NEW ZEALAND.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I HEARD, ANYWAY, AS TO WHY YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT IS BECAUSE A REGISTRY COULD BECOME A REGISTRAR. I HAVE SINCE POINTED OUT, THOUGH, THAT ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS FORBID US FROM BECOMING A REGISTRAR.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE FOR THE LARGER GTLDS. IN FACT, NOT AT ALL.

IT IS IN SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE SITUATIONS OF THE SMALL STLDS WHERE IT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. IT IS A LEGITIMATE THING.

THE COMMITTEE, THOUGH, I WILL TELL YOU JUST TO BE HONEST, WE WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT TOOK EXCEPTION TO THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT. SO THERE WAS A STRONG AGREEMENT ON THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

>>MARILYN CADE: ARE YOU INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM OTHERS, JORDYN?

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I DON'T THINK THAT QUITE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. SO CHUCK TOLD ME WHAT THE STATUS QUO REQUIREMENT IS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S TRUE. THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS: DOES THIS "USE ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS" IMPLY THAT IN THE FUTURE NEW TLD OPERATORS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ALSO BE REGISTRARS?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT IS THE CURRENT POSITION, YES.

>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WILL NOTE I AGREE WITH CHUCK. I THINK THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT BOOTSTRAPPING PROBLEM FOR A LOT OF NEW REGISTRIES, AND I THINK THERE IS VERY LITTLE HARM THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE AS A RESULT OF ALLOWING THOSE REGISTRIES TO OPERATE AS REGISTRARS WHILE ALLOWING ALL OF THE REGISTRARS TO COMPETE AND HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT, YADA, YADA, YADA, YADA.

>>CHUCK GOMES: JORDYN, OUR SUGGESTION WAS ON AN EXCEPTION BASIS, IF, IN FACT, THERE IS MINIMAL SUPPORT FOR THE PARTICULAR TLD, NOT A GENERAL RULE.

>>MARILYN CADE: JORDYN, I WILL SPEAK AS A BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY OFFICER AND SAY THAT I THINK MY CONSTITUENCY WOULD HAVE A CONSIDERABLE CONCERN ABOUT THE LACK OF STRUCTURAL SAFEGUARDS. SO IF WE ARE GOING TO GO TO AN INTEGRATED MODEL WHICH IS MOVING BACKWARD FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW TO HAVING INTRODUCED COMPETITION, WE STARTED THIS PROCESS WITH NO COMPETITION, BUT WITH AN INTEGRATED MODEL, INTRODUCED COMPETITIVE COMPETITION AT THE REGISTRAR LEVEL.

IF WE ARE TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OF THIS NATURE, IT WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR FAR MORE THAN JUST NEW GTLD REGISTRIES. IF THIS DOES DESERVE FURTHER ELABORATION AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS GOT TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT IN A MUCH LARGER CONTEXT, IT SEEMS TO ME.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: OKAY. WENDY, NEXT QUESTION.

>>WENDY SELTZER: SURE. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF DATA ESCROW AS A DIFFERENT GUARANTEE OF SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND I AM WONDERING WHETHER THAT COULDN'T BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A THICK DEMONSTRATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN RATHER THAN MAKING ICANN STAFF OR EVALUATORS, EVEN INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS, GO THROUGH A LOT OF DETAIL ON WHETHER THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN IS EFFECTIVE. ISN'T THE BEST TEST OF THAT THE MARKET? AND ISN'T ESCROWING THE DATA A GUARANTEE THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD WITH WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE A STUPID FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN OR A BADLY THOUGHT-OUT PLAN, THE DATA WON'T DISAPPEAR AND THE INTERNET WILL CONTINUE TO BE RUN STABLY AND EFFECTIVELY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THE POINT IS WELL-TAKEN. I THINK IN OUR DISCUSSION COMMITTEE, IF I AM CORRECT, OUR ASSUMPTION WAS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR THE PROVISION OF A PLAN BUT NOT EXPECTING A STRINGENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANKS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WILL JUST GIVE A TECHNICAL COMMENT. THE CYCLE TIME FOR DEALING WITH ESCROW IS NOT QUITE THE SAME AS HAVING A RELIABLE SYSTEM. WE ARE TRYING TO SPECIFY TECHNICAL CRITERIA IN THE SENSE THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET THOSE CRITERIA WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE BEING ABLE TO FILE OVER QUICKLY FROM ONE SITE TO ANOTHER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

ESCROW IS VERY MUCH YOUR LAST RESORT POSITION WHICH BY THAT STAGE YOU HAVE ALREADY AFFECTED USERS IF YOU ARE HAVING TO RESORT TO THAT.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THIS ONE, PHILIP? I THINK SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN OUR RECOMMENDATION IN THE DOCUMENT IS ACTUALLY HELPFUL IN THIS REGARD IN 2.A WHERE IT SAYS FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN DEMONSTRATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE CAPABILITY TO MEET ITS BUSINESS AMBITIONS. THERE WAS QUITE A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I THINK THE COMPROMISE WE CAME TO THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ACHIEVE WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING THEY WANT TO DO. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY, CHUCK, THAT WAS THE AMBITION. IF WE CAN JUST TAKE THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS ON THIS POINT, APPLICANT CRITERIA. JUST ON A TIME-KEEPING POINT, I AM VERY CONSCIOUS THAT WE HAVE NEXT SESSION COMING UP WHICH IS ABOUT CONTENTION.

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: I JUST WANT TO SAY SOMETHING.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THAT MAY ALSO BE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING FOR DISCUSSION HERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO INTRUDE TOO MUCH INTO THE TIME ON THAT. WE ALSO NEED A QUICK LOOK AT THE THIRD SECTION OF THIS PARTICULAR THING.

BUT, SOPHIA, YOU HAD A POINT TO MAKE?

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: THANK YOU. I WILL BE QUICK. I THINK THAT WAS A VERY GOOD POINT RAISED ON THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PLAN. ESPECIALLY AS ICANN IS MOVING INTO THE NEW SPACE OF IDNS, THERE WILL BE A CONCERN OF EMERGING ECONOMIES, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE OVERALL BID PROCESS. WE WANT TO CONSIDER THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THESE LARGER REGISTRIES. I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT RAISED, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT.

I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT CHUCK SAID, BUT MAYBE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF WORKING WITH THE CONCEPT OF HAVING SORT OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS PROJECTION WHICH IS -- WHICH MEANS DIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY HAVING A PLAN. SOMETIMES THE MARKET REALLY DICTATES AFTER YOU LAUNCH A TLD. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT, YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW. THIS CONSIDERATION CAN BE PUT IN PLACE. THANK YOU.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT QUESTION?

>> SLOAN GAON: I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO JORDYN'S ORIGINAL QUESTION BUT COME AT IT IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT MANNER. I TAKE NOTE OF MARILYN AND CHUCK'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY TO USE REGISTRARS IN A NEW REGISTRY INITIATIVE. I JUST QUESTION THAT.

I UNDERSTAND MARILYN'S POINT ABOUT COMPETITION BUT WHEN YOU HAVE PRICE CONTROLS, WHICH MOST CONTRACTS DO TODAY, AT LEAST REGISTRY CONTRACTS, COMPETITION BECOMES LESS OF AN ISSUE.

SO IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITH CERTAIN REGISTRIES, IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE TO ADD A DISTRIBUTION LAYER BETWEEN THE REGISTRY AND THE CONSUMER. IT IS JUST ADDING ADDITIONAL COST THAT JUST DRIVES UP PRICES FOR CONSUMERS.

SO ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PANEL TO LOOK AT INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT TO USE REGISTRARS IN THIS PROCESS, TO LOOK AT AN EXCEPTION POLICY FOR THOSE REGISTRIES THAT -- EXCUSE ME -- IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THAT MODEL.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>MARILYN CADE: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, PLEASE. I THINK WHAT I SAID WAS -- I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR -- THAT SHOULD WE MAKE A DECISION WHICH IT WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE SHIFT NOT TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURAL SEPARATION. SO IF THE DECISION OF ICANN IS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, IT'S A COMPLICATED AND COMPLEX CHANGE WITH LOTS OF IMPLICATIONS AND NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT.

NOW, AN EXCEPTIONS POLICY MIGHT -- AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOMETHING APPROACH MIGHT BE THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT WE ARE ASKING ICANN AT THE TIME OF AWARDING THE STRING TO ALSO MAKE THIS ADDITIONAL STEP DECISION.

I THINK RATHER THAN SAYING WE COULD ADDRESS IT JUST FOR NEW GTLDS, MY OWN VIEW IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT MORE BROADLY THAN THAT.

>> SLOAN GAON: YOUR POINT IS WELL-TAKEN. YOU HAVE A POINT UP THERE ABOUT USING ICANN'S ACCREDITED REGISTRARS. THAT'S SORT OF AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE EXCEPTION. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK AT THAT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: JUST A REMINDER, I HAD ATTEMPTED TO CLOSE THE QUEUE ON APPLICANT CRITERIA JUST AFTER YOURSELF, SABINE. I WANTED TO MOVE ON QUICKLY TO THE NEXT SECTION ON ICANN PROCESS BEFORE WE MOVED ON TO THE COMPLETE NEW SECTION AND, INDEED, A NEW PANELIST ON CONTENTIONS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH AT 3:30 ON THIS TOPIC. I HAVE UNTIL 4:30. WE ALSO NEED TO COVER TWO MAJOR SECTIONS.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, LAST QUESTION ON THIS SECTION AND MOVE ON VERY RAPIDLY INDEED, PLEASE.

>>SABINE DOLDERER: I WILL BE SHORT. ACTUALLY, IT IS THE SAME ACCORDINGLY USE ONLY ICANN ACCREDITED REGISTRARS. I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH MARILYN, THAT COMPETITION ON THE REGISTRAR LEVEL IS ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY AND HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN ONE OR ANOTHER WAY.

THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT -- ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE IDN.IDN PIECE, WHICH IS ADDRESSING MOSTLY NOT THE REAL GLOBAL BUT MOSTLY A LOCAL COMMUNITY, A LOCAL COMMUNITY SHARING A LANGUAGE, SHARING A STRING, SHARING SOMETHING WHICH IS MORE OR LESS IN COMMON.

IT IS VERY OFTEN THE CASE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERING DOMAINS NEED SUPPORT IN THEIR LOCAL LANGUAGE, IN THEIR LOCAL SCRIPT AND THAT IS BASICALLY USED ONLY BY THE REGISTRARS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ICANN CREDITED REGISTRAR SCHEME, IT IS USUALLY A VERY ENGLISH SPEAKING, INTERNATIONAL-BASED REGISTRAR COMMUNITY SO YOU DON'T FIND A LOT OF REGISTRARS ACTUALLY WILLING TO TAKE APPLICATION, GET THEM A SCRIPT, (INAUDIBLE) ACTUALLY WHERE THE LOCAL LEVEL IS ADDRESSED.

I CAN SAY, IF YOU SEE IT FROM A GERMAN LEVEL, WE HAVE THE REGISTRY/REGISTRAR SYSTEM ALSO IN GERMANY. WE HAVE ABOUT 250 REGISTRARS IN GERMANY COMPETING ON THE GERMAN MARKET. GERMAN APPLICANTS TALKING GERMAN TO THE APPLICANTS BUT ONLY 20 OF THEM ARE ACCREDITED REGISTRARS IN ICANN. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ONLY 10% OF THEM. AND IF YOU COMPARE IT -- IF YOU ARE ADDRESSING A LOCAL COMMUNITY, I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU REALLY HAVE THESE LOCAL PEOPLE WORKING LOCALLY WITH THE REGISTRANTS AND, THEREFORE, I THINK IT IS REALLY NECESSARY TO KEEP SOME SORT OF HOW YOU ON THE ONE HAND SIDE MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF COMPETITION ON THE REGISTRAR LEVEL BUT ,ON THE OTHER HAND SIDE, HAVE A POSSIBILITY IN MAKING IT LESS COMPLICATED AND LESS EXPENSIVE TO BECOME A REGISTRAR, TO SERVE ONLY A LOCAL COMMUNITY.

HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? I THINK IT WAS MORE A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, I PERSONALLY THINK YOU ARE RAISING AN VERY INTERESTING POINT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SABINE, I PERSONALLY THINK YOU ARE RAISING A VERY INTERESTING POINT, AND IN GERMANY, LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF REGISTRARS CHOOSE TO BE ACCREDITED, I THINK IT OPENS UP SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS FOR THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS AND WHY THAT IS THE CASE ARE PROBABLY A WIDER ISSUE THAN WHAT WE ARE ADDRESSING HERE, AND MAYBE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO OUR REGISTRY COLLEAGUES TO FIELD THAT ON ANOTHER OCCASION AND PERHAPS FUTURE WORK. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR RAISING THE POINT.

>>SABINE DOLDERER: I THINK MANY ARE ADDRESSING ONLY THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND (INAUDIBLE).

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU CAN JUST FLASH THE NEXT SLIDE BRIEFLY UP, WHICH IS PROCESS CONDITIONS, AND IF THERE ARE ANY BURNING QUESTIONS ON THAT, WE WILL TAKE THEM NOW BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SECTION ABOUT ALLOCATION AND CONTENTION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ON WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN TERMS OF THE ESSENTIAL PROCESS CONDITIONS, JUST SOME IDEAS WE ARE FLAGGING IN TERMS OF THE WAY WE WERE HOPING STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE PROCESS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE KEY THING HERE, PHILIP, IS PROBABLY THE LAST TWO POINTS, IN PICKING UP SOME OF THE THINGS VINT HAS SAID. BUT WE HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN ASKING THE STAFF TO HELP US WITH HOW WE MIGHT IMPLEMENT THIS. AND I THINK MICHAEL PALAGE ALSO SUGGESTED PERHAPS USING EXTERNAL PANELS. BUT CERTAINLY I WAS TRYING TO THINK HOW WE MAKE THAT STREAMLINED AND EFFICIENT.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ABSOLUTELY.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: A LOT OF THE INPUT WE ALREADY RECEIVED, I THINK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, SIR.

>>ROB HALL: MY NAME IS ROBERT HALL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESS. I THINK YOU NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROCESS HERE. CLEARLY THERE IS ONES FOR EXISTING REGISTRIES THAT WILL BE APPLYING FOR NEW STRINGS. THERE IS ALSO THE PROCESS THAT YOU NEED TO PUT IN PLACE FOR HOW SOMEONE BECOMES A NEW REGISTRY AT A TECHNICAL LEVEL, AND IT GOES BACK UNFORTUNATELY TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE OF TECHNICAL ACCREDITATION.

BUT WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IS SET UP A SITUATION WHERE THE PROCESS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, DRIVES NEW APPLICANTS ONLY TO THE EXISTING REGISTRIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBLE HUMP TO GET OVER THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THE MORE ROADBLOCKS YOU PUT IN IN THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A CLEAR WAY THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM FOR A NEW APPLICANT VERSUS AN EXISTING APPLICANT.

WILL THERE BE TIME AT THE END TO COMMENT ON OVERALL STUFF? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON REGISTRAR, THEN, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BIT OF A RED HERRING. A LOT OF REGISTRIES DO OWN REGISTRARS CURRENTLY.

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: WITH THAT, WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SECTION SO I WILL HAND OVER TO TWO NEW COLLEAGUES WHO BRUCE WILL INTRODUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, PHILIP.

SO THIS IS, THEN -- SO WE HAVE COVERED SELECTION CRITERIA FOR NEW TLDS, AND AS WE CAN SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEX ISSUES THERE.

ALLOCATION METHODS IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE SITUATIONS WHERE WE MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME TLD STRING AND SOME OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

SO CHUCK GOMES FROM THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY AND MAWAKI CHANGO WILL FIELD QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY. AND THE PLAN IS FOR ME TO GO OVER THIS WHOLE SECTION BRIEFLY, AND I'LL ALLOW MAWAKI TO ADD ANY QUESTIONS HE MAY HAVE AND I WILL ALLOW QUESTIONS FOR THE TWO OR THREE SLIDES THAT WE HAVE HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, THE DRAFT REPORT RIGHT NOW CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. TO START OFF WITH, IN THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, APPLICATIONS WOULD BE ASSESSED IN ROUNDS. AND A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO IS FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.

NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION OF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE WAYS THAT THAT CAN BE APPLIED.

NUMBER ONE, WITHIN A ROUND, FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED WOULD ONLY APPLY WITH REGARD TO PROCESSING ORDER. SO ASSUMING AN APPLICANT WAS -- EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER, THEIR APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE, THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS WITH THEIR APPLICATION, ALL OF THOSE APPLICANTS WOULD BE PROCESSED IN THE ORDER RECEIVED.

THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE -- DEPENDING ON HOW MANY THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO MOVE FORWARD ON A LARGE NUMBER, BUT THERE MAY BE LIMITS TO THAT.

THE ORDER, THEN, WOULD BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE TIME/DATE, TIME AND DATE STAMPED ON THE APPLICATION DURING THE APPLICATION PERIOD.

A SECOND WAY THAT FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED WOULD APPLY IS PROBABLY THE MOST OBVIOUS. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU ARE IN AN EARLIER ROUND FOR THE SAME STRING, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ADVANTAGE THERE IN TERMS OF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.

AND THEN, FINALLY, A FUTURE POSSIBILITY, BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATIONS DO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE MAY GET TO A POINT, IT MAY BE SOON, IT MAY BE LATER, THAT WE WON'T USE ROUNDS ANYMORE, BUT THERE COULD BE A -- AN ONGOING ABILITY FOR APPLICANTS TO APPLY FOR A NEW GTLD. IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.

AS I ALREADY INDICATED, APPLICATIONS WILL BE TIME STAMPED, AND THAT'S FOR THE REASONS JUST STATED.

NEXT, THE APPLICATION SUBMISSION DATE -- DID WE SKIP A SLIDE THERE? I GUESS NOT. I GUESS THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT THAN ON MY SLIDE.

ICANN WILL PROMOTE THE OPENING OF THE APPLICATION ROUND.

SO -- AND THE IDEA IS AS FOLLOWS IN THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT NOW. THERE WILL BE AN APPLICATION SUBMISSION DATE, AT LEAST -- THAT WILL -- WELL, IN FACT, I DON'T LIKE THE WORDING ON THAT TOO MUCH. AND I'M PROBABLY THE ONE THAT WORDED IT THAT WAY.

BUT FROM THE TIME AN RFP IS PUBLICLY ISSUED, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THERE BE A PERIOD OF AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE START OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS.

THE INTENT OF THAT WAS TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO MAYBE HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDERS IN ALL OF THIS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED.

THEN AN APPLICATION PERIOD WOULD START THAT WOULD LAST AT LEAST 30 DAYS. AND AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD, THERE WOULD BE -- THE STRINGS WOULD BE PUBLISHED. AND THAT CAN HAPPEN IN A VARIETY OF WAYS AT THAT POINT. BUT NOT UNTIL THE END OF THE CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IF THERE IS CONTENTION FOR STRINGS, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT FIRST THE APPLICANTS WITH THE CONTENDED STRINGS BE ENCOURAGED TO WORK TOGETHER, TO MEDIATE, TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM, EITHER TO WORK TOGETHER, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT MEAN.

IF THEY CANNOT COME TO ANY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, THEN THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW, AND AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMENT ON, IS THAT ICANN STAFF WOULD ASSESS THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE TWO, OR MORE, CONTENDING STRINGS. AND THE PARTICULAR PROPOSALS.

IF NEEDED, ICANN COULD GO BACK TO THE APPLICANTS AND REQUEST MORE INFORMATION IN THAT REGARD. AND IF THEY CAN DISTINGUISH MORE SUPPORT FOR ONE OVER ANOTHER, THEN A DECISION COULD BE MADE.

IF THEY CANNOT, THEN THE ICANN BOARD COULD MAKE A DECISION BASED ON ICANN'S MISSION AND CORE VALUES, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

ONE LAST THING THAT'S IMPORTANT, THE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW IS RECOMMENDING THAT IF AN APPLICANT IS GRANTED A STRING, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE IT WITHIN SOME APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME, NOT YET DETERMINED.

JUST ONE LAST COMMENT ON THAT. VINT COMMENTED EARLIER ABOUT THE NEED FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE SOME OF THESE TOUGH DECISIONS.

I THINK -- AND SOMEBODY ELSE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN THIS, I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY AREA WHERE WE KIND OF LEFT THE DECISION FOR THE BOARD WITHOUT SOME OTHER PROCESS LIKE AN EXPERT PANEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO -- AND POSSIBLY THIS ONE COULD GO THAT WAY, TOO. BUT AS YOU WERE MAKING THAT COMMENT, I REALIZED THAT.

MAWAKI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD SOME COMMENTS?

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: YES. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOUR INPUT AND INSIGHT AND CONTRIBUTION ON THOSE POINTS RELATED TO ALLOCATION METHODS FOR NEW TLDS. AND AS A WAY OF TRIGGERING THE DISCUSSIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A FEW POSSIBLE ENTRY POINTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE MINIMUM TIME FRAME PROVIDED IN THE REPORT SO FAR -- NAMELY, THE FOUR MONTHS FROM THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND THE START OF THE APPLICATION DATES. IS IT ENOUGH? IS IT TOO MUCH?

IF YOU LIKE TO TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.

AND THE ONE MONTH OF CLOSING DATES AFTER THE APPLICATION STARTS, ACTUALLY.

AND A FEW OTHER POINTS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS OPEN POINTS SO FAR IN OUR WORK, FOR EXAMPLE THE ONGOING -- THE POSSIBILITY TO HAVE ONGOING APPLICATION BEING FILED TO THE BOARD INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY -- IS IT A DIRECTION WHERE WE CAN -- YOU THINK WE CAN GO?

THE SECOND POINT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS RELATED TO THE LEVEL OF SUPPORTS IN CASE OF COMPETING APPLICATION. IN CASE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN TWO STRINGS. IS IT -- I THINK WE STILL NEED TO DEFINE HOW TO MEASURE THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT. IF YOU HAVE SOME PAST EXPERIENCE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE PROFESSIONAL ENDEAVORS, YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, THAT WOULD BE WELCOME.

AND LAST POINTS, MAYBE, THE OBLIGATION OF USING THE STRING THAT IS AWARDED IN A MINIMUM TIME OF -- TIME FRAME. WE STILL -- I THINK WE STILL HAVE TO DEFINE, TO ELABORATE ON THAT. SO YOUR INSIGHTS OR YOUR INPUTS WILL BE WELCOME HERE.

THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANK YOU, MAWAKI.

TIM.

>>TIM RUIZ: THANK YOU, CHUCK.

TIM RUIZ WITH GO DADDY. I JUST HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION, NO REAL INSIGHTS YET. BUT WHEN THIS FIRST ROUND OPENS, IS IT A CLEAN SLATE? IN OTHER WORDS, THE PREVIOUS ROUNDS UNDER THE OLD PROCESSES, THERE'S A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED. IS THAT CONSIDERED A CLEAN SLATE OR ARE WE STARTING OVER?

>>CHUCK GOMES: THE COMMITTEE, TO MY RECOLLECTION, HASN'T DISCUSSED THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, AND MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT, YES, IT IS A CLEAN SLATE.

YOU RAISE SOMETHING THAT I SUPPOSE WE COULD TALK ABOUT FURTHER, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS, YES, IT'S A CLEAN SLATE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: COULD I JUST CLARIFY, TIM, WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? BECAUSE I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHAT'S YOUR CONCERN THERE ALTERNATIVE.

>>TIM RUIZ: IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION GOING ON ABOUT GRANDFATHERING IN SOME OF THE OLDER APPLICATIONS THAT WERE NEVER ADDRESSED. AND THAT THEY WOULD SOMEHOW HAVE SOME PRIORITY AS FAR AS THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED GOES. OR IF THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE DEAD, IF THEY WANTED THAT TLD, THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY AGAIN ANEW.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CRITERIA PRESUMABLY IS DIFFERENT IN THIS ROUND. SO I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AT THE POINT THAT YOU START THIS PROCESS.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED LIKE THE YEAR 2000, I THINK. SIX YEARS. BY NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE SEVEN YEARS OLD. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEW, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WERE SUGGESTING OTHERWISE.

>>TIM RUIZ: NO, I'M NOT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BE CLEAR THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: TIM, WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE AMSTERDAM MEETING, AND I THINK WE AGREED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER AND WE WEREN'T GOING TO ADDRESS IT.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THING THAT YOU PROPOSED IN 2000 AND THAT YOU ALREADY PAID TO HAVE AN EVALUATION DONE ON, THAT YOU WEREN'T GOING TO CHANGE, MAYBE YOUR CHOICE OF STRING, YOUR TECHNICAL PLAN, YOUR REGISTRATION PLAN, YOUR MARKETING PLAN, THINGS YOU ALREADY PAID $50,000 FOR AND GOT AN EVALUATION FOR, BACK ON, THAT SAID YOU HAVE DONE OKAY, THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, PERHAPS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.

THAT WAS A DISCUSSION POINT. IT'S NOT IN THIS REPORT. AND I WOULD THINK THAT BEFORE WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT BECAME MUCH THOSE 2000 APPLICATIONS -- I AM SPEAKING FOR MYSELF NOW, NOT THE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE TABLED. SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE DENIED.

MY GUESS IS THAT, IN FAIRNESS TO THOSE PEOPLE, ICANN OUGHT TO ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAPPEN, AND THEN MAKE A DECISION ON THEM.

>>TIM RUIZ: AND I THINK THAT'S, OBVIOUSLY, AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO GET RESOLVED BEFORE THE FIRST ROUND, SO THAT OTHERS WHO ARE CONSIDERING WILL KNOW WHERE THEY STAND, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN ANY OF THOSE STRINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPLIED FOR. AND IT MAY BE TABLED AND NOT NECESSARILY DEAD.

>>CHUCK GOMES: THANKS FOR SHARING THAT, BRET. I HAD TRAVEL PROBLEMS AND WAS A LITTLE LATE FOR THE AMSTERDAM MEETING.

>>ROB HALL: ROB HALL WITH MOMENTUS. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH BRET AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR CHUCK. IT'S EVEN FURTHER COMPLICATED WHEN YOU LOOK AT COMPANIES THAT WERE AWARDED A STRING, LIKE AFILIAS WAS AWARDED DOT INFO, SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR DOT WEB APPLICATION WHERE THEY DID WIN, BUT THEY DIDN'T WIN THE ACTUAL APPLICATION. SO I WANT TO CAUTION YOU TO GIVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT TO IF YOU ARE GOING TO GRANDFATHER, ON WHAT BASIS AND WHERE DO THEY GET IN LINE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: JUST ON THAT POINT, I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOING TO NECESSARILY FALL TO OUR GROUP TO DECIDE WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO THOSE OLD APPLICATIONS.

I THINK MAYBE -- MAYBE WE OUGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THEY ASK THOSE APPLICANTS WHETHER THEY ARE STILL INTERESTED AND MAYBE THE BOARD OUGHT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THAT'S A CLEAN SLATE OR NOT. BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO PARSE ALL THOSE DELICATE QUESTIONS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>>ROB HALL: CHUCK, YOU TALK ABOUT A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MODEL THAT I ASSURE YOU WILL CREATE A BIT OF A LAND RUSH AT MIDNIGHT AT THE OFFICES WHERE THE APPLICATIONS ARE PUT IN, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU ALLUDE TO AN ALLOCATION METHOD FOR SIMILAR STRINGS WHICH WOULD SEEM TO NOT BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. COULD YOU MAYBE TELL US WHAT THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MEANS, THEN, IF TWO PEOPLE APPLY IN 30 DAYS, WE GO TO THIS METHOD, THEN WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE TO BEING FIRST? AND, SECONDLY, WHY WOULD YOU NOT PUBLISH WHAT APPLICATIONS ARE ALREADY IN THE QUEUE SO SOMEBODY ON DAY 20 WOULDN'T SAY, HEY, THERE IS NO POINT IN WASTING MY MONEY AND APPLYING. VERISIGN ALREADY HAS A GREAT APPLICATION AND I CAN'T BEAT THEM.

>>CHUCK GOMES: YOU MEAN PUBLISHING THE STRINGS BEFORE THE END OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD.

>>ROB HALL: CORRECT. IF FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED MATTERS THEN PUBLISHING WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. IF THIS OTHER ALLOCATION MATTERS, I COULD SEE HOW PUBLISHING WOULD BE A PROBLEM. SO WHICH ONE TAKES PRIORITY, I GUESS IS MY FIRST QUESTION.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE -- YOU KNOW, TO PUBLISH SOMEONE'S PROPOSED STRING BEFORE THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS CLOSED VIOLATES THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

>>ROB HALL: WELL, NOT IF THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED PRINCIPLE IS THE GUIDING ONE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: BUT UNDERSTAND, ROB, THAT THE ONLY ADVANTAGE OF ORDER WITHIN A ROUND WITH REGARD TO FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IS PROCESSING ORDER.

IF APPLICATION NUMBER 8 AND APPLICATION NUMBER 15 ARE FOR THE SAME STRING, APPLICATION 8 HAS NO ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WINNING THE STRING OVER APPLICATION 15.

THE ONLY ADVANTAGE WOULD BE IF THERE IS NO CONTENTION, WE'RE GIVING ICANN SOME GUIDANCE IN TERMS OF ORDER PROCESSING, IN THE CASE THAT THEY CAN'T WORK ON ALL OF THEM AT ONCE, WHICH VERY WELL MIGHT BE THE CASE.

>>ROB HALL: SO AS SOON AS THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS WITH THE SAME STRING, THE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED PRINCIPLE, THEN, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASSIGNMENT OF THE STRING.

>>CHUCK GOMES: CORRECT, YES.

>>ROB HALL: SO THAT WOULD SEEM TO IMPLY THAT IF AN APPLICATION IS IN FIRST AND GOING THROUGH MANY OTHER ITERATIONS, AS WE HAVE SEEN THESE THINGS TAKE ON LIFE, SOMETIMES THEY TAKE MONTHS TO GET THROUGH SOLVING SOME OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN AN APPLICATION, IF YOU GET INTO A NEXT ROUND, WOULD YOU STILL HAVE PRECEDENT THEN? THESE THINGS TAKE YEARS SOMETIMES.

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, NO, THERE'S NO CARRYOVER OF -- THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW FOR PRECEDENCE IN A FOLLOWING ROUND.

>>ROB HALL: BUT YOU COULD STILL BE IN PROCESS BY THE TIME THE FOLLOWING ROUND STARTS.

>>CHUCK GOMES: OH, WELL, IN THAT SENSE YOU WOULD BE AHEAD.

THE EARLIER ROUND WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE -- AND I SAID THAT IN MY SECOND POINT -- WOULD HAVE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED RIGHTS OVER ANY SUBSEQUENT ROUND.

>>ROB HALL: THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO YOU IS I THINK YOUR TIMING IS PROBABLY OKAY ON THE FOUR MONTHS AND THE 30 DAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ROUNDS SCHEDULED AHEAD OF TIME, THOUGH.

SO LET'S NOT LEAVE IT UP TO ICANN TO SAY, WE MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER ROUND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF YOU SAY THERE IS GOING TO BE A ROUND EVERY SIX MONTHS AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS EVERY SIX MONTHS, WHAT YOU WILL FIND IS AFTER A FEW ITERATIONS OF THAT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SAY WE AREN'T GETTING ENOUGH APPLICATIONS IN A ROUND. WE JUST OPEN IT UP AND YOU APPLY WHENEVER YOU WANT. BUT IF YOU LEAVE IT TO THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE ONE BIG ROUND AND WHO KNOWS WHEN THE NEXT ONE WILL BE, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE A GOOD THING. I THINK YOU SHOULD SPECIFY THERE WILL BE A ROUND BASED ON A CALENDAR TIME FRAME.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY INTENT ON THE COMMITTEE OF SUGGESTING ONE BIG ROUND. IN FACT, WE SAID ROUNDS; RIGHT?

AT SOME POINT WE MAY DECIDE, LIKE YOU SAID, TO STOP ROUNDS AND JUST DO IT ON AN ONGOING BASIS. AND IT'S OUR INTENT THAT THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF NOTICE.

>>ROB HALL: MY POINT IS YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPECIFY RIGHT NOW HOW MANY AND HOW OFTEN THE ROUNDS WILL BE. BECAUSE ARGUABLY, WE HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO ROUNDS AND THEY ARE YEARS APART. SO IN EFFECT, THE FIRST ONE WAS THE BIG ONE, AND THEN YOU HAD A BIG SPONSORED ONE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I THINK THAT WOULD BE IDEAL; OKAY? AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE RATIONALE THAT YOU HAVE THERE.

THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PREPARATION THE FIRST TIME THROUGH. AND PROBABLY WE'RE GOING TO WANT SOME EVALUATION TO TWEAK IT AND IMPROVE IT THE SECOND TIME THROUGH.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THIS COMMITTEE, AND I THINK WE ARE UNANIMOUS ON THIS, THAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS IT TO BE EFFICIENT, VERY TIMELY, OPEN, TRANSPARENT, AND SO FORTH. TO BE ABLE DO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, THOUGH, WOULD BE MAKING SOME GUESSES THAT WOULD BE REALLY HARD, ESPECIALLY FIRST TIME AROUND. BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING ICANN STAFF TO DO A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK BEFORE THAT START DATE HAPPENS IN TERMS OF APPLICATIONS. BECAUSE IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL OF THESE PROCESSES, ALL OF THESE EXPERT PANELS OR WHATEVER IT MAY END UP BEING ARE IN PLACE AND READY TO GO SO THAT THERE ARE NO DELAYS ONCE IT STARTS BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE THAT.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK, ROB, THE WAY WE ARE THINKING ABOUT IT IS A BIT LIKE THE REGISTRAR PROCESS. IF YOU THINK ABOUT REGISTRARS BACK IN 2000, THERE WERE FIVE TEST BED REGISTRARS AND THERE WAS ANOTHER BATCH PROCESSED AND THEN NOW IT'S GONE TO PRETTY MUCH ON A ROLLING BASIS.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WE HAD WAS THAT AFTER THE FIRST ROUND, THERE WOULD BE A VERY FOCUSED EVALUATION OF THAT ROUND BEFORE STARTING THE NEXT ONE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT KIND OF TONGUE IN CHEEK, AREN'T WE SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRST ROUND AND WE HAVE DONE THAT? IT TOOK US SIX YEARS TO EVALUATE THE FIRST ROUND?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: EXACTLY.

SO I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO AS A COMMITTEE IS PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS OPPOSED TO POLICY.

SO THE GUIDANCE COULD BE THAT WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THE SECOND ROUND WOULD START, SAY, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST ROUND, AND THAT ONE MONTH OR WHATEVER BEFORE THE SECOND ROUND, THERE'S EVALUATION WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO IT'S NOT AN EVALUATION IN THE SENSE OF SHOULD WE HAVE TLDS OR NOT. IT WOULD BE GOING BACK TO THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE IN THE FIRST ROUND AND SAY WHAT COULD WE DO BETTER? BECAUSE I THINK THE STAFF HAVE GOT TO BE IN AN IMPROVEMENT PROCESS HERE.

>>ROB HALL: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THINK I AM TRYING TO SUGGEST WE PREVENT, IS WE DON'T WANT TO GET TO A POINT OF WHERE WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT ARE THERE ENOUGH OR NOT. WE WANT TO KNOW HOW WE CAN GET MORE THAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN POLICY ORIENTED.

THANK YOU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: FOUR MONTHS? WELL, YOU CAN DO THREE MONTHS, AS ANYTIME BEFORE IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S HELL, BUT IT'S HELL FOR THREE MONTHS OR FOUR MONTHS. THE HELL IS ANSWERING THE RFC ITSELF; RIGHT? THE TIME IS NOT THAT CRITICAL. SO MINIMUM THREE MONTHS. FOUR MONTHS IS NOT A DISASTER.

SECOND, ROUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE FIRST THINGS THAT SHOULD BE DONE AFTER CLOSING THE FIRST ROUND, OR ANY ROUND, IS PUBLISHING THE TLD STRINGS AND INTENDED USE IF ANY, OR JUST ITS GENERAL USE. AND TO ALLOW FOR EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING ON AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, IS ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL REGARDING ANY OF THESE TLD PROPOSALS.

THIS IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULDN'T MOVE INTO A STEADY PROCESS FOR REVIEWING TLDS.

PERHAPS, YES, ACCEPTING THE APPLICATIONS, BUT HAVING TWO TIMES OR THREE TIMES A YEAR, APRIL AND OCTOBER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, TLDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE PUBLISHED AND THERE IS A PERIOD OF COMMENT FOR ALL OF THEM.

WHAT I AM SAYING HERE IS IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE -- I MEAN, REMEMBER DOT 666 BUT EVEN DOT CAT. IT'S ONLY AFTER THE REVIEW -- AND IN ONCE CASE, AFTER THE CONTRACTUAL NEGOTIATION -- THAT THESE EXTERNAL PROBLEMS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF VERY BAD EXPERIENCE. EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A REAL ISSUE AND YOU SUCCEED LIKE IN THE DOT CAT CASE. BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND A SORT OF REVIEW REGARDING ALL OF THIS.

NOW, FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE MANY TLDS THAT ARE FOR THE SAME STREAM OR THE SAME USE. WELL, IN CASE THAT'S A REAL SPONSORED TLD, THAT IS A TLD THAT'S FOR A GIVEN COMMUNITY THAT MAYBE ISN'T DEFINED AS SUCH, YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO ENTITIES THAT ARE THE BEST REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT COMMUNITY. SO IF THEY ARE COMPLETELY EQUAL, STILL THEN YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE. IF ONE IS JUST AMADEU DID ONCE VISIT A MUSEUM AND WANTS DOT MUSEUM, AND ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE MUSEDOMA WITH INTERNATIONAL CONSULATE MUSEUM, THE REPRESENTATIVENESS FOR THAT COMMUNITY SHOULD BE THE DRIVING GOAL. AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, IT'S JUST A GENERAL PURPOSE TLD, A PURPOSE FOR ALL THOSE WHO USE GLASSES THAT YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY AS AN ORGANIZED COMMUNITY, IN THIS CASE, ONE THING WOULD BE THE BEST PROPOSAL. HEY, LET'S HAVE TELCORDIA EVALUATE WHICH IS THE BEST PROPOSAL.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF COMING INTO THE DISCUSSION FROM AN EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE AND TO BE VERY ADMIRATIVE OF THE LEVEL OF DETAILS THAT WE ARE GETTING IN NOW AND THE MECHANISMS THAT WILL BE PUT IN PLACE.

LET ME STEP BACK JUST FOR A SECOND AND ADDRESS A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT COME TO MIND WHEN I SEE THE PROCESS.

ONE THING IS, I WAS RAISING THE QUESTION OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY EARLIER ON. AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ON THE SIDE, AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ACTUALLY THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR AGES WITHIN THE ICANN, WHICH IS VERY INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND.

ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS ARRIVING IN THIS ENVIRONMENT THAT THE QUESTION IS THERE.

AND WHEN I SEE SOME OF THE COMMENTS EARLIER, WHEN YOU PUT A TAG OF $50,000, IF I UNDERSTAND, FOR A REVIEW PROCESS, I'M SORRY, YOU ARE FIXING SOME SORT OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY DE FACTO.

MY QUESTION WAS, HOW CONSCIOUS IS THE ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS DECIDING? IS IT A PURELY COMMERCIAL ONE? IS IT A PUBLIC INTEREST ONE? WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA?

I COULD SEE THE ARGUMENTS FROM ONE HAND TOWARDS MANY TLDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, TOWARDS LESS TLDS, THE INTUITIVE APPROACH. MY QUESTION WAS, AND I THINK IT'S STILL A VALID QUESTION, WHERE IS THE DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY'S APPROACH TO DEFINING THE OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. THE SECOND POINT IS I'M VERY SURPRISED BY THE PROCESS THAT BASICALLY PUTS THE WHOLE BURDEN ON THE STAFF AND THE BOARD.

I HAVE A NAIVE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED SOME SORT OF PROCEDURE WITHIN ICANN TO DEAL WITH THOSE PROCESSES, AND I MUST CONFESS THAT SINCE I GET INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION AND IN THIS ORGANIZATION, I'M A BIT SURPRISED THERE'S SOMEWHAT CONFUSION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE ICANN STAFF AND BOARD.

I THOUGHT, BEFORE COMING HERE -- MAYBE NAIVELY -- THAT ICANN IS A COMMUNITY AND THAT THE STAFF, THE BOARD, AND ALL THE PROCESSES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE ARE THERE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY ADDRESS THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES AND PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE.

ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS IS: HOW MANY NEW TLDS SHOULD WE HAVE, AND HOW DO WE PROCESS THIS?

IN THAT RESPECT, MY MAIN QUESTION IS NOW: HAS THE GROUP -- AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS WITHIN ICANN -- ASSESSED SOMEWHAT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE LIKELY TO COME IN, AND IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF A FLOOD THAT WOULD JUST OVERBURDEN THE STAFF AND THE BOARD IN SO MANY APPLICATIONS THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO PROCESS THEM THROUGH THIS MECHANISM? THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: WELL, LET ME START WITH SOME OF YOUR LATTER QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S -- WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH ICANN STAFF IN TERMS OF ASSESSING THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE EXPECTED, AND THE GUESSES RANGE FROM VERY LARGE NUMBERS TO SMALL. I THINK IT'S A VERY HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER.

WITH REGARD TO THE LOAD ON ICANN STAFF, I'LL BE THE LAST ONE TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T A BIG LOAD FOR ICANN STAFF, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S FRONT LOADED, IN THE SENSE: GETTING READY --

AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS, OKAY? SO THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF STAFF SUPPORT NEEDED TO GET THIS PROCESS GOING, TO BE PREPARED FOR IT. BUT IT'S MY CONVICTION THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS REALLY TRIED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD AND ICANN STAFF TO MAKE VERY MANY DECISIONS. IF YOU LOOK THROUGH EVEN THE DRAFT REPORT, WHICH WILL BE REWORDED A LOT AFTER THESE COMMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY SIX DIFFERENT CASES WHERE WE'VE RECOMMENDED INDEPENDENT PANELS OR EXPERT PANELS TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND THE INTENT OF THAT IS THAT IT WOULDN'T PUT ICANN STAFF OR THE BOARD IN THE SITUATION OF MAKING THOSE VERY DIFFICULT JUDGMENTS.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS -- AND ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK WE'VE BEEN UNANIMOUS ON IN THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN THAT EVERY EFFORT BE MADE TO MAKE OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE RFP THAT CAN BE MEASURABLE AND NOT SUBJECTIVE.

NOW, IT'S TOUGH TO ELIMINATE ALL SUBJECTIVITY, BUT IT'S OUR GOAL THAT THAT BE MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SO -- AND I THINK THAT, IN THE END, HELPS ICANN STAFF AND THE BOARD AND HOPEFULLY DOESN'T PUT THEM IN THE AWKWARD SITUATION WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN. SO I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY IN SYNCH WITH -- WITH SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'RE SUGGESTING IN THAT REGARD.

BUT PLEASE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO KICK THIS PROCESS OFF.

>> BRET FAUSETT: CHUCK, IF I COULD ADD, I THINK A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION MAY HAVE FOCUSED ON THINGS THAT STAFF AND THESE MEDIATION PANELS WERE GOING TO DO. THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONTESTED, MAYBE AT THE MARGINS OF ACCEPTABILITY. OUR CONTEMPLATION IS THAT A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE STRAIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, VERY EASY, NO CONTENTION.

YOU CAN TAKE THE DOT BERLIN ONE, FOR EXAMPLE. SINGLE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, AN EXISTING REGISTRY, BACK END. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE MUCH STAFF TIME AT ALL. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT LIKE THAT.

SO THE DOT WEBS AND THE DOT POKERS AND THE THINGS THAT MAKE -- REQUIRE CONTENTION ARE GOING TO TAKE STAFF RESOURCES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE TYPICAL CASE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: MARILYN, YOU WANTED TO TALK? AND MAWAKI?

>>MARILYN CADE: I DID. I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF BERTRAND'S QUESTION, WHICH I THINK -- AND I WANT TO REMIND ALL OF US THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY LARGE BODY OF MATERIAL THAT MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT, IF YOU'RE COMING INTO THE PROCESS RECENTLY.

WE HAD A PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND. WE AGREED TO DO AN EVALUATION. THERE WERE FURTHER STUDIES AND ANALYSIS THAT WERE AGREED TO. AND THEN AT -- AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE ECONOMIC ADVICE, BERTRAND, TOO, ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN KINDS OF DECISIONS. SO ALL OF THAT IS A WORK STREAM THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, HAS HAPPENED OR IS GOING ON, AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE COUNCIL DID -- AND THE BOARD DID SUPPORT -- THE COUNCIL TOOK A DECISION, THE BOARD SUPPORTED, OR MAYBE IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A MANAGED PROCESS TO INTRODUCE NEW GTLDS, AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.

NOW, THE QUESTION OF SHOULD WE HAVE TRIED TO, FIRST OF ALL, ASCERTAIN THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SPECIFIC QUANTITY, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DEBATES ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST, AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMUNITY SEEMED TO BE THAT THAT WAS NOT A RESOLVABLE DEBATE AND, INSTEAD, WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD IN A PRAGMATIC WAY. AND I'M JUST SORT OF CHARACTERIZING WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM A BEHAVIORAL ASPECT SOME OF WHAT WE'VE DONE.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A FIRM ANSWER FROM A GROUP OF HIGHLY SKILLED TECHNOLOGISTS AND WHETHER WE CAN HAVE 10,000 OR 5,000 OR WHATEVER, I DON'T THINK THERE'S -- THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AS I GATHER.

>>BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE: NO. JUST A BRIEF REMARK.

ONE, I AM ABSOLUTELY CONSCIOUS THAT I'M JUST ARRIVING LATE IN A DEBATE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

THE SURPRISE THAT I HAVE IS THAT TAKING THE DIFFERENT COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT A COMMON AGREEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ON THOSE ASPECTS. NOT ON THE NUMBERS. WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF AGREEING ON THE NUMBERS.

WHAT I DON'T SENSE IS THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ON THE PURPOSE. OTHER PURPOSES. AND I THINK THIS COULD BE POSSIBLE. THAT'S MY ONLY -- THAT'S MY ONLY POINT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO --

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: OKAY. SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO BERTRAND THAT I AM SYMPATHETIC TO HIS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL OF OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER DISCUSS WITH HIM OR SEE THE VARIABLES AND THE PARAMETERS THAT HELP US TO DEFINE -- TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST CONCEPT OF THAT OPTIMAL ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, ESPECIALLY IF IT HELPS US UNDERSTAND -- HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, FOR EXAMPLE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, THAT I'M NOT AT ALL SUPPORTIVE OF APPLICATION FEES SUCH AS $50,000, AND DURING THE DISCUSSION ON THE COUNCIL, I MADE THE POINT CLEAR THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH, WE MAY NEED TO SET UP SOME MECHANISM -- GRANT MECHANISM, FOR EXAMPLE -- FOR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO WHICH SUCH FEE IS, RIGHT AWAY -- HOW DO YOU SAY? -- ELIMINATORY. OKAY?

SO THIS -- I DON'T THINK IT APPEARS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THE RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF REFERENCE, BUT I'M HOPING THAT IT WILL BE IN THE REPORT. THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: JUST A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO FEES, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE FEES BE AN AMOUNT SUCH THAT THE COST -- ICANN COSTS WOULD BE RECUPERATED FOR -- IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.

AND THEY -- LIKE PHILIP POINTED OUT, THEY MAY VARY, BECAUSE SOME APPLICATIONS MAY TAKE A LOT MORE.

SO IT COULD RESULT IN SOME SORT OF AN ESCROW ACCOUNT OR SOMETHING THAT FUNDS WOULD BE DRAWN FROM THAT WOULD BE REFUNDED, IF NOT USED. WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AND WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT.

SECONDLY, WITH REGARD TO THE -- THE RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE BOARD, ONE POINT THAT WE HAVEN'T MADE, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED, IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE BASE CONTRACT, THAT IF AN APPLICANT IS SATISFIED WITH THE BASE CONTRACT, OTHER THAN THE MINOR DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN THERE, THAT IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THAT TRANSACTION, WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED ACTION BY THE BOARD.

NOW, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD WHETHER THEY WANT TO GIVE STAFF THAT FREEDOM, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE INTENT OF TRYING NOT TO OVERLOAD THE BOARD WITH DECISION-MAKING IN THIS PROCESS.

>>ROBIN GROSS: I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN HERE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>>ROBIN GROSS: CAN I HOP IN HERE?

>>CHUCK GOMES: ROBIN?

>>ROBIN GROSS: I ACTUALLY DON'T SHARE THE OPTIMISM THAT MOST APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO JUST SAIL RIGHT ON THROUGH WITHOUT ANY CONTROVERSY. I THINK THE WAY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETTING UP THIS PROCESS NOW IS THAT MOST APPLICATIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND VERY CONTESTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ICANN BOARD AND STAFF HAVING TO EVALUATE BUSINESS PLANS, HAVING TO EVALUATE FINANCIAL RECORDS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ALLOWING WORDS THAT -- BECAUSE MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A TRADEMARK ON THEM. WELL, MOST WORDS ACTUALLY ARE TRADEMARKED SOMEWHERE FOR SOMETHING. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

ALSO, THE ISSUE OF, AGAIN, THE MORALITY ISSUE. WE'RE SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT HERE IF WE'VE GOT ICANN NOW DECIDING WHOSE STANDARD OF MORALITY IS THE APPROPRIATE ONE, WHICH RELIGIOUS WORDS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED SACRED AND, THEREFORE, NOT USED.

THESE ARE ALL WORK THAT THE ICANN BOARD AND STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO -- IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO, AND BESIDES CREATING AN ENORMOUS WORKLOAD FOR THEM, I THINK IT ALSO SETS ICANN UP FOR ENORMOUS LIABILITY WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE GETS CHOSEN OVER AN APPLICANT WHO FEELS LIKE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN MORE WORTHY.

SO I DON'T SHARE THE -- THE OPTIMISM THAT MOST APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO JUST SAIL RIGHT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I THINK IT'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED AND MOST WILL BE CONTROVERSIAL AND CONTESTED. THANK YOU.

>>CHUCK GOMES: I THINK THIS -- OUR SUCCESS WILL BE THE -- HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON HOW OBJECTIVE WE CAN MAKE THE CRITERIA AND TO THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE SOME MORE DIFFICULT ISSUES BUT LET'S MOVE ON IN THE QUEUE. PAUL?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANKS, CHUCK. I WONDER IF I COULD MAKE A FEW OBSERVATIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP FOR ITS WORK. I THINK IT'S FANTASTIC AND THIS IS REALLY HARD, SO I THINK THE FIRST RECOGNITION IS: THIS IS REALLY HARD WORK AND NOT -- AND FOR YOU PEOPLE SPENDING ALL THIS TIME AND THOUGHT ON IT, AND I'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK IT'S -- PRAISE NEEDS TO GO FOR YOU FOR THE EFFORTS YOU'RE MAKING AND FOR THE THINKING THAT'S GOING INTO THIS, AND FOR THE FACT THAT LOTS OF DISCUSSION HAS TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE YOU GET TO AN ANSWER. SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY.

SECONDLY, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE WITH THE STAFF AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THAT'S BEEN TAKEN. AND, FOR INSTANCE, THE LAST STAFF PAPER WHICH ALSO CAME WITH THE -- WITH THE DRAFT PAPER OF YOUR WORKING GROUP, I THINK THAT'S VERY -- I THINK THAT'S VERY VALUABLE.

IF YOU ASK ME PERSONALLY, I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THE LAST STATEMENT, AND ALL I WOULD SAY IS: THERE'S A LOT OF EXPERIENCE OF THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF WHAT APPLIES, BUT WHO AT WHAT STAGE DECIDES THEY'RE UNHAPPY WITH SOMETHING, NO MATTER WHAT YOU PUT IN THE RULES. SO THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL OBSERVATION.

MY ONLY OTHER OBSERVATION, BECAUSE I WAS -- I REALLY STOOD UP WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT PANELS. ALL I WOULD SAY ABOUT EXPERIENCE OF PANELS IS EVEN IF YOU SET UP PANELS, DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, OR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER FROM A PANEL IN A SITUATION WHERE IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

SO IT'S JUST -- THERE IS JUST EXPERIENCE -- PERSONAL EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP WORKING THROUGH THIS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET THE IDEAL ANSWER, BUT ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF JUST THESE -- JUST EVEN OF BEING ABLE TO GO OUT TO PANELS FOR ADVICE IS THAT OCCASIONALLY, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN YOU FIND SOMEBODY AND SAY, "HERE'S THE THING I WANT" AND THEY GO, "AH, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ON THE OTHER."

[LAUGHTER]

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SO IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION. SO --

>> BRUCE TONKIN: PAUL, CAN YOU JUST SORT OF -- I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE KEY QUESTIONS IS AROUND THE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS AND AROUND USING EXPERT PANELS AND SO ON, SO I THINK THE CONCEPT IS THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES HAVE GOT A DIFFERENT SERIES OF PERSPECTIVES AND THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO A PANEL OF INDEPENDENT EXPERTS.

BUT JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, THIS IS NOT NEW AND THE PROCESS WE HAVE WITH UDRP IS A PROCESS WHERE THERE IS A PANEL AND PRESUMABLY THERE'S AN ANSWER GIVEN. WE HAVE COURTS OF LAW WHERE YOU HAVE A JURY, AND THE JURY IS GENERALLY SELECTED TO BE A GROUP OF A MIXTURE OF PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT -- THAT ARE FROM THE COMMUNITY, SO IT'S JUST A GENERAL COMMITTEE AND THEY MAKE A DECISION.

BUT USING GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION IS NOT UNUSUAL. I'M JUST INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK YOU DO IN ADDITION --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I DON'T DISPUTE THE GENERAL CONCEPT, BUT ALL I'M SAYING IS IN EVERY EXAMPLE YOU'VE JUST GIVEN, THE WORLD TREATS THEM AS NOT GIVING THE ANSWER PERFECT. IT HAS APPEAL MECHANISMS. EVEN THE UDRP, THE PEOPLE CAN APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL COURTS, AND THE NATIONAL COURTS THEMSELVES HAVE COURTS OF APPEALS.

SO -- AND I DON'T WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE POINT, BECAUSE IT SHOULDN'T DRIVE OUR DECISION-MAKING, BUT THAT ALONE PUTS A LEGAL LIABILITY ISSUE STRAIGHT BACK IN THE ICANN DECISION-MAKING, SO WE JUST SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT, I THINK.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU GET OUT OF IT --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WHEN I LISTEN TO A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET TO A -- I SUSPECT YOU'LL GET TO A STAGE WHERE -- THAT WE'LL GET TO THE STAGE WHERE WE -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, I GATHER, THIS PROBLEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, RIGHT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, YEAH.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: AND ALL I'M JUST FLAGGING IS, IT'S GOOD TO KEEP THIS DIALOGUE GOING SO WE CAN DEFINE THAT AND TALK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE AS YOU POINT OUT, I AM A LITTLE SYMPATHETIC TO THE LAST COMMENT THAT I THINK THERE COULD BE COMPLEXITIES THAT WE JUST WEREN'T FORESEEING.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE.

>>CHUCK GOMES: AND WITH REGARD TO THE INTERACTION WITH STAFF, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT STAFF IS NOT WAITING UNTIL WE'RE DONE TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS.

THEY HAVE BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED. IN FACT, THEIR LIST OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS SUBMITTED JUST, I DON'T KNOW, WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS GENERATED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION ON ISSUES A GOOD PART OF THE DAY YESTERDAY.

SO I, FOR ONE, AM VERY THANKFUL FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT STAFF IS DOING AND FOR THE FACT THAT THEY'RE DOING, AND THOSE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TIMING AND THIS THING HAPPENING, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT ICANN STAFF ISN'T WAITING FOR US. THEY'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN SPENDING LONG HOURS ON THAT. WERNER?

>>WERNER STAUB: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE TWO OPEN QUESTIONS, HOW MANY APPLICATIONS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AND HOW MUCH IS THE APPLICATION FEE GOING TO BE.

THE TWO OF THEM, OF COURSE, ARE INDEPENDENT, AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SURPRISE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS, BE IT MANY MORE OR MANY LESS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE.

AND IF WE HAVE A SURPRISE IN TERMS OF A HIGH NUMBER, MANY -- A LOT OF CONTENTIONS, OF COURSE WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TIME.

YET IT MADE ME WONDER WHY IS THAT THE CASE? WE MUST ASK OURSELF MAYBE BECAUSE WE DO LIKE THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE, AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU SAID, CHUCK, IN ONE EXPRESSION OF "THE RIGHT OF AN APPLICANT TO THE SECRECY OF THE STRING UNTIL THE STRINGS ARE REVEALED" IS, I BELIEVE, THIS PERCEIVED RIGHT TO THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE.

IS IT REALLY WORTHWHILE DOING THAT? IT ACTUALLY CAUSES QUITE A BIT OF CONTENTION.

IT MOVES PEOPLE INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SURPRISE, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS WAYS AROUND AND THERE IS WAYS TO DESIGN THE SYSTEM SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT FORCED TO TAKE THE FIRST ROUND.

MANY PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO TAKE A LATER ROUND.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ROB HALL HAS SAID IS, ANNOUNCE THE ROUNDS BEFOREHAND.

THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE, MAKE SURE THAT ONE HAS AN INTEREST -- NO, SORRY -- A POSSIBILITY TO JOIN THE CONTENTION FOR A STRING, EVEN THOUGH WE ACTUALLY WOULD NOT HAVE LIKED TO APPLY FOR IT IN THE FIRST ROUND.

BUT IF SOMEBODY THEN ELSE DID GO IN AND APPLY FOR THE STRING THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, THEN IT COULD JUST SAY, OKAY, I HAVE ONE MONTH TO PAY THE APPLICATION FEE AND ANOTHER TWO MONTHS TO SUBMIT A CONTENDING APPLICATION, BUT THEN I COULD STILL JUMP ONTO THE CONTENTION, WHEREAS IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO SEND IN THE APPLICATION AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE IN ANY STATE THAT HE HAD, SO EVERYBODY ESSEN

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers