New sTLD RFP Update

At its open Public Forum in Rome, Italy today, ICANN issued an update on the New sTLD application process. ICANN's Vice-President of Business Operations, Kurt Pritz, delivered a short presentation (PDF) to the audience in Rome, and to the live global webcast audience.

A preliminary copy of the transcript of the portion of the Public Forum relating to sTLDs has been copied below here for the benefit of any potential applicants.

[...]

>>IVAN MOURA CAMPOS: ANY OTHER COMMENT?
ON THE COMMITTEE REPORTS?
IF NOT, THEN I LOOK AT MY AGENDA HERE.
WE ARE INTENDING TO HAVE A -- AT 4:00 P.M., THERE IS A SCHEDULED BREAK WITH COFFEE AND THINGS.
SO BEFORE VINT AND PAUL COME BACK, WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO PAUL DELIVER THE CEO'S REPORT, THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT.
SO WE'LL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, THEN, TO ASK IF KURT PRITZ COULD DELIVER AN UPDATE ON THE NEW STLD RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. KURT.

>>KURT PRITZ: DOES THIS WORK?
YEAH, THERE WE GO.
JUST GIVE ME A SECOND TO GET WIRED UP HERE.

CAN YOU HELP ME OUT HERE?
IS THIS ME?
IT'S YOU.
OKAY.

AS YOU KNOW, AS THE RESULT OF MUCH DISCUSSION PRIOR TO AND IN CARTHAGE, THE BOARD RESOLVED TO HOLD A ROUND OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR NEW STLDS.

THIS AFTERNOON, I AM GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE AS TO THE STATUS OF THAT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PROCESS AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE, WE'VE BEEN VERY SCRUPULOUS ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH WE HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH EACH OF THOSE INTERESTED IN APPLYING FOR AN STLD.
THEREFORE, MY -- BECAUSE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE TO GO TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS AT ONCE, MY PRESENTATION WILL DESCRIBE STATUS AND NOT SO MUCH THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE APPLICATION PROCESS OR THOSE ISSUES FACED BY AN APPLICANT OF AN STLD.

SIMILARLY, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AT THE END, I MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME STRATEGIC DISCUSSIONS HOW ICANN SEES THIS STLD ROUND FITTING INTO THE BIGGER PICTURE.

BUT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCESS, I WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELATING TO THIS PROCESS OR SOMEBODY'S SPECIFIC APPLICATION.
NOW, IN CARTHAGE, THE BOARD RESOLVED TO HOLD THIS STLD ROUND. THAT WE'RE REALLY AFTER FOR TWO THINGS.
FIRST IS THIS RESOLUTION THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OTHER FACTS AND DECIDED TO HOLD IT NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 15TH, TO OPEN UP THE ROUND FOR APPLICATION.
VERY TYPICALLY, WE OPEN THAT ROUND ON EXACTLY DECEMBER 15TH AND NOT A DAY BEFORE.
THE BOARD IS AFTER ONE MORE THING, THOUGH.
AND THAT IS A SIDE BENEFIT OF THIS PROCESS WILL BE TO GATHER INFORMATION AND FEED INTO THE INQUIRIES WE HAVE IN THE STUDY WE'RE DOING FOR NEW GTLDS.

SO THIS PROCESS WILL CREATE SOME NEW STLDS, BUT WILL ALSO UNEARTH MUCH GOOD INFORMATION THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY TO THE GTLD PROCESS THAT'S BEING STUDIED RIGHT NOW.
SO THE PROCESS IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
ON DECEMBER 15TH, THE ICANN STAFF POSTED THE APPLICATION MATERIALS ON THE WEB.
THEY ARE OPEN FOR REVIEW BY EVERYONE.
BUT IT'S NOT AN APPLICATION IN ITSELF.
APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY REQUESTING A USER NAME AND PASSWORD DIRECTLY FROM ICANN.
THERE WAS NO REAL REQUIREMENT, NO REAL THRESHOLD FOR RECEIVING A PASSWORD.
AND WE ANSWERED, ESSENTIALLY, EVERY REQUEST WITH A PASSWORD AND USER NAME.
SO ALL THOSE REQUESTING A PASSWORD RECEIVED ONE, AND ALL THOSE REQUESTING A PASSWORD WERE ENABLED TO JOIN THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE APPLICANT THAT DIDN'T GET A PASSWORD.

THE APPLICATION WAS REALLY VAGUE, AND WE ANSWERED BACK IN A COUPLE E-MAILS, ASKING FOR SOME VERIFICATION, AND DIDN'T GET IT.
THOSE REQUESTS FOR PASSWORDS WERE GENERALLY TURNED AROUND IN A DAY OR SO, AND PEOPLE RECEIVED THE ONLINE APPLICATION -- THE ONLINE APPLICATION IS A WEB-BASED APPLICATION WITH QUESTIONS AND THEN BLANKS IN THE FORM.
IT'S -- WHAT'S THAT CALLED, DAN, THE FORMAT?

ALL RIGHT.
ANYWAY, EACH APPLICANT WAS ASKED TO ANSWER A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICATION FOCUSES ON THE COMMUNITY THAT THE APPLICANT IS A PART OF, THE BUSINESS PLAN, THE FINANCIAL PLAN OF THAT PROCESS.
AFTER THE ONLINE APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED, THERE WILL BE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.
ICANN IS IN THE PROCESS OF APPOINTING EVALUATORS NOW.
THOSE EVALUATORS WILL FILL OUT APPLICATIONS TO SEE IF THEY MEET CERTAIN THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS.
TO CLOSE THAT INDEPENDENT EVALUATION, CERTAIN STLDS WILL BE SELECTED TO GO ON TO THE NEXT ROUND.
THAT ROUND IS A TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATION.
SO EACH APPLICANT THAT MAKES IT TO THIS ROUND WILL HAVE SEPARATE NEGOTIATIONS IN ORDER TO FIRST DETERMINE IF AN STLD WILL BE AWARDED; AND, SECONDLY, THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OF THAT STLD, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS MODEL AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS.

AND AT THE END OF THAT, WE'LL EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, AND THOSE AGREEMENTS WILL BE ENDORSED BY THE BOARD.
THE PROCESS HAS THESE CHARACTERISTICS: IT'S A WEB-BASED PROCESS.
SO WHEN WE RECEIVE APPLICATIONS, ALL APPLICATIONS, ON ITS FACE, WILL LOOK THE SAME AND HAVE THE SAME FORMAT.
AND THAT'S AN ATTEMPT AT FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY.

AFTER THAT WILL BE A BLIND, INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
SO THE ICANN STAFF WILL NOT BE -- ONCE THE REVIEWERS ARE APPOINTED, THE ICANN STAFF WILL NOT BE PRIVY TO THAT WORK THAT GOES ON THERE ONCE WE GIVE THEM GUIDELINES.
THERE'S TWO MAJOR STEPS TO THE PROCESS.

THE FIRST IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS AS YOU SEE IT NOW.
THAT'S -- I'LL JUST READ THAT.
THAT'S TO -- THIS FIRST ROUND OF THE PROCESS IS TO DEMONSTRATE INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, FINANCIAL VIABILITY, AND A ROBUST BUSINESS MODEL.

AFTER THAT, AS I STATED BEFORE, WE'LL ENTER INTO THIS COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL NEGOTIATION PHASE.
AS WE SAID WHEN WE LAUNCHED THE PROCESS, THE NUMBER OF STLDS IS NOT LIMITED.
AND WE ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS.
SO WE HAVE ASKED FOR FINANCIAL DATA AND BUSINESS PLANS THAT I'M SURE APPLICANTS WISH TO BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL.
WE ARE ONLY GOING TO EXPOSE PART B OF THE BUSINESS FORM, WHICH IS THE MORE GENERAL INFORMATION HAVING TO DO WITH THE STLD.

HERE'S THE TIME LINE TO DATE.
ON DECEMBER 15TH, WE LAUNCHED AND THE QUESTION PERIOD OPENED.
IT'S SORT OF LIKE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
ALL QUESTIONS ARE PUBLIC, AND ALL QUESTIONS THAT COME TO US ARE PUBLICLY POSTED, SO ALL THE BIDDERS CAN SEE THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS.
ON -- IT WAS SCHEDULED THAT THE QUESTION PERIOD WOULD CLOSE ON FEBRUARY 27TH.
BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF THIS MEETING AND THE ACTIVITY THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, WE DECIDED TO EXTEND THAT QUESTION PERIOD TO THE 5TH OF MARCH.
SO IT'LL CLOSE WITH THE CLOSE OF THIS MEETING.

ON MARCH 10TH IS THE APPLICATION FEE CUTOFF DATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION, THAT CALLS FOR FEES TO BE DELIVERED 5 DAYS BEFORE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL APPLICATIONS CLOSE.
AND THAT IS MIDNIGHT UTC ON MARCH 15TH.

THUS FAR, WE'VE RECEIVED REQUESTS FOR 14 PASSWORDS.
WE'VE RECEIVED 38 QUESTIONS.
WE'VE ANSWERED 35 OF THEM, AND WE RECEIVED 3 MORE IN THE LAST DAY OR SO.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED THREE SETS OF APPLICATION FEES.
FINALLY, GOING FORWARD, THIS IS OUR TENTATIVE TIMETABLE.
THIS TIMETABLE IS TENTATIVE BECAUSE IT WILL VARY SOMEWHAT WITH THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED.
WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT A SET NUMBER OF REVIEWERS, AND THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH THE APPLICATIONS IN A SET SPEED.
SO THE TIMES HERE MAY CHANGE SOMEWHAT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED.
BUT, ESSENTIALLY, STAFF WILL REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS IN THE TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND VERIFY THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATIONS.
AND THEN WE'LL OPEN UP A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ONE MONTH.
AND THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS JUST ON PART B OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH DEFINES WHAT THE STLD IS AND CERTAIN PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT THAT APPLICATION.

THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATION, THE FINANCE MODEL AND THE BUSINESS MODEL, WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL.
MAY THROUGH JULY, THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION WILL OCCUR.
THAT TIME MAY SHRINK OR GROW A LITTLE BIT, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED.

AND THEN WITH THE 1ST OF AUGUST, WE'LL IDENTIFY THOSE STLDS THAT COMPLETED THE FIRST ROUND AND MET THE CRITERIA, AND WE'LL GO ON TO THE ROUND OF TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
THOSE NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE CONDUCTED INDIVIDUALLY WITH EACH OF THE APPLICANTS SO THAT THERE'S NO SET TIMETABLE FOR THEM.
THEY'LL EACH PROCEED ON THEIR OWN PACE, AND THEY'RE BASED ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ICANN STAFF.

IT WAS ALWAYS ANTICIPATED THAT WE WOULD CONCLUDE THIS PROCESS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR FOR A COUPLE REASONS.
ONE IS, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE OUTER BOUND OF WHAT IS TIMELY.
AND SECONDLY, WE DO WANT TO FEED THIS INFORMATION INTO THE GTLD PROCESS.
SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
THAT'S THE UPDATE ON THE GTLD -- STLDS.
AND NOW MIRIAM SAPIRO IS GOING TO DISCUSS THE GTLD PROCESS.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WHILE KURT IS SETTING UP THE SLIDES, I'LL START WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION.

MY NAME IS MIRIAM SAPIRO, AND I AM FROM SUMMIT STRATEGIES INTERNATIONAL, AND I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION OF THE NEW GTLDS, PARTICULARLY THE POLICY AND LEGAL ISSUES.
ALSO ON THE EVALUATION TEAM ARE MICHEL BRICHE AND SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET AS OVERALL COORDINATOR.
NEXT, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY, GO ONE BACK.
OKAY.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE NEW GTLDS WERE INTRODUCED IN NOVEMBER 2000 AS PART OF A PROOF OF CONCEPT.
THIS WAS AFTER A DNSO DECISION TO INTRODUCE THEM IN A MEASURED AND RESPONSIBLE WAY, TRYING DIFFERENT TYPES OF TLDS AND ALSO DIFFERENT TYPES OF STARTUP MECHANISMS.
THIS WAS, AFTER ALL, THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1980S THAT NEW GTLDS WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE GNS.
AND THE ORDER OF LAUNCH WAS INFO, BIZ, NAME, MUSEUM, COOP, AERO, AND, HOPEFULLY, SOON, PRO.
NEXT, PLEASE.

THE -- SHORTLY BEFORE LAUNCH, THERE WAS A TASK FORCE SET UP WITH AN ABSOLUTELY UNPRONOUNCEABLE ACRONYM THAT YOU SEE UP THERE, TO DEVELOP -- WELL, FIRSTLY, TO ESTABLISH RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS TO CONDUCT AN EVALUATION OF THE GTLDS THAT WERE ABOUT TO BE LAUNCHED.
AND THE TASK FORCE DEVELOPED A SET OF 25 QUESTIONS AND WENT ON TO DESIGNATE ABOUT A DOZEN OF THOSE AS MOST CRITICAL AND THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED FIRST.
THE EVALUATION TEAM HAS DIVIDED THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS INTO TWO GROUPS.
FIRST, THE LEGAL AND THE POLICY ISSUES.
AND THAT EVALUATION IS BEING DONE BY SUMMIT.
AND SECOND, THE OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES. AND THAT PART OF THE EVALUATION IS BEING DONE BY SOLUCOM AND FINAKI.
THE GOALS OF THE EVALUATION ARE TO, FIRST OF ALL, ASSESS HOW WELL THE PROOF OF CONCEPT WORKED IN PRACTICE, AND, SECOND OF ALL, TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE USED IN CONSIDERING NEW GTLDS.
THE TIMETABLE INVOLVES, OF COURSE, THE SUBSTANTIVE LAUNCH OF THE EVALUATION AT THE CARTHAGE MEETING.
AND BY THIS POINT, THE POLICY AND LEGAL SECTION IS NEARLY DONE, BUT AWAITING THE RECEIPT OF TECHNICAL DATA.
AND THAT ISSUE AND THE OTHER OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ARE BEING WORKED RIGHT NOW.
SO WITH RECEIPT OF THIS DATA, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FINISH THE WHOLE EVALUATION IN A FEW MONTHS.
NEXT, PLEASE.

SO WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE DEEMED CRITICAL?
WELL, THERE ARE SEVEN IN THE POLICY AND LEGAL AREA, WHICH INVOLVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STARTUP MECHANISMS, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS, THE MARKET IMPACT OF THE NEW GTLDS, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT WAS SELECTED, AND ANY REGULATORY OR LEGAL PROBLEMS NOT INVOLVING STARTUP.
THE FOUR QUESTIONS ON THE OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL SIDE REVOLVE AROUND THE IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES, WHOIS ACCESS, WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS AND SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE, AND, LASTLY, THE PROCESS QUESTIONS.
WHAT I'LL DO NOW IS HIGHLIGHT BRIEFLY SOME OF THE METHODOLOGICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THE FIVE POLICY AND LEGAL AREAS.

FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE STARTUP PERIODS, THE METHODOLOGY INVOLVES INTERVIEWS WITH, AS MANY OF YOU ALREADY KNOW, REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, ICANN STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS, GOVERNMENTS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, TRADEMARK HOLDERS, AND END USERS.
ALSO INVOLVES RANDOM SAMPLING IN AN EFFORT TO ASSESS THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN REGISTRATIONS AND TRADEMARKS, REGISTERED TRADEMARKS.
ALSO INVOLVES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TRADEMARK DISPUTES AND RELATED QUESTIONS.
THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES INCLUDE WHAT METHODS WERE USED FOR THE STARTUP PERIOD IN TERMS OF BOTH SUNRISE AND LANDRUSH; HOW UNDERSTANDABLE WERE THE PROCEDURES; WHAT WORKED WELL AND WHAT DIDN'T; WHAT WERE OTHER OPTIONS; AND HOW WELL WERE DISPUTES HANDLED.
NEXT SLIDE.

THE SECOND AREA INVOLVES THE REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS.
AND I SHOULD SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT THE FOCUS IS ON DOT BIZ AND DOT NAME, BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF SPONSORED GTLDS WAS ADDRESSED BY SUMMIT ALREADY IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF LAST YEAR.
THIS SECTION INVOLVES INTERVIEWS WITH REGISTRIES AND ICANN CONSTITUENCIES, AND TWO DATA SAMPLES, A LARGER ONE THAT LOOKS, IN A PRIMA FACIA -- AND A SMALLER THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF MORE DETAILED REVIEW.
THE ISSUES HERE, PRELIMINARILY, INCLUDE WHETHER SELF-CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT; HAS ENFORCEMENT BY THIRD PARTIES WORKED WELL; AND WHAT OTHER OPTIONS MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE FEASIBLE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE SCOPE AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE MARKET, THE METHODOLOGY INVOLVES RESEARCH ON GENERAL MARKET TRENDS, INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, AND QUESTIONS FOR REGISTRANTS ON WHETHER THEY ARE NEW TO THE DNS AND WHAT THE PURPOSE OR PURPOSES OF THEIR REGISTRATIONS WERE.
THE ISSUES INCLUDE HOW STAKEHOLDERS VIEW THE IMPACT OF THE NEW GTLDS, INCLUDING IN TERMS OF CONSUMER CHOICE, PRICE, INNOVATION, SUBSTITUTABILITY AND DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS.
NEXT, PLEASE.

THE FOURTH AREA INVOLVES THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AGREEMENTS, IT INVOLVES EXAMINING THE TEXT OF THE SEVEN AGREEMENTS AND OVER 140 APPENDICES, ALSO INVOLVES INTERVIEWS WITH THE REGISTRY AND ICANN LEGAL STAFFS, AND A REVIEW OF THE NEGOTIATING DYNAMICS.
THIS IS AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF HOW REASONABLE WERE THE AGREEMENTS, ARE THERE MATERIAL DIFFERENCES AMONG THEM, WHAT ARE SOME OF, IF ANY, OF NONESSENTIAL ELEMENTS.
AND I MUST SAY THE REGISTRIES LOVE THIS QUESTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN HINDSIGHT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO OMIT FROM THE AGREEMENT.
AND THE REVERSE OF THAT IS, IN HINDSIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE IN THERE.
THE FIFTH AREA INVOLVES LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES, ALSO FURTHER INTERVIEWS AND A REVIEW OF ANY RELEVANT COURT FILINGS INVOLVING THE SEVEN NEW GTLDS.
THE ISSUES CONCERN WHAT KINDS OF LEGAL PROBLEMS MIGHT THERE HAVE BEEN THAT WERE NOT COVERED IN THE STARTUP ANALYSIS, WERE THERE ANY REGULATORY ISSUES, PERHAPS INVOLVING COUNTRY NAMES, FOR EXAMPLE, PRIVACY ISSUES, OR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SPONSORED GTLDS AND THE REGISTRARS.
NEXT, PLEASE.

THIS IS AN EFFORT THAT REALLY DEPENDS FOR ITS SUCCESS ON THE COOPERATION OF EVERYONE INVOLVED.
AND I WANT TO EXTEND A VERY WARM THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN QUITE HELPFUL AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BE.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR HAVE INFORMATION YOU WISH TO PROVIDE, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO CONTACT ANY OF US.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MIRIAM.
AND THANK YOU, IVAN, FOR ACTING AS MASTER OF CEREMONIES UNTIL I COULD RETURN.
MIRIAM, ACTUALLY, I HAD A QUESTION.
I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T NOTICE YOU HAD RUN AWAY BEFORE I TURNED AROUND.
THIS IS REALLY A VERY BROAD QUESTION FOR EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, EVERYONE LISTENING TO THIS REPORT.
AND I HOPE WE WILL PROPAGATE THE WORD OUT BROADLY.

I HAVE BEEN HEARING SORT OF SECONDHAND REPORTS THAT THE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT ARE IN ACCESS OF THREE CHARACTERS, THOSE WHICH ARE FOUR-CHARACTERS LONG OR LONGER, ARE APPARENTLY EXPERIENCING SOME DIFFICULTIES IN THE USE -- IN THEIR USE.
BUT THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS EXTREMELY FRAGMENTARY.
IF THERE ARE TESTS OR, YOU KNOW, RESULTS OR SPECIFICS THAT ARE KNOWN, THESE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF ICANN.
I WOULD EVEN URGE THAT THERE BE CONCERTED TESTING GOING ON BY VARIOUS PARTIES AROUND THE INTERNET, GLOBALLY, TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENTLY-EXISTING SOFTWARE.
I CAN IMAGINE MANY DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE A PROBLEM CAN ARISE AND THAT MEANS THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE REPAIR NEEDS TO BE SOUGHT, BUT WE NEED SPECIFICS IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THOSE PROBLEMS. SO WE'LL TRY TO DO MORE THAN JUST THIS ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT.
BUT MIRIAM, DID THAT COME UP AT ALL IN THE COURSE OF YOUR EVALUATIONS?

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: IS THIS ON?
YES, THAT ISSUE HAS COME UP. IT ACTUALLY CAME UP LAST YEAR WHEN SUMMIT CONDUCTED THE ANALYSIS OF REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT IN THE SGTLDS, BECAUSE WHILE IT WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT EARLY LAST YEAR WAS ALREADY CLEARLY A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM. I UNDERSTAND IT HAS DISSIPATED SOMEWHAT, BUT IT IS STILL AN ISSUE AND IT ALREADY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.

YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD SUGGESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE WAYS TO TEST THIS TECHNICALLY, AND I WILL CERTAINLY TALK TO THE TECHNICAL TEAM AND SEE WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.

>>VINT CERF: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. I MEAN, IT'S EASY TO TEST. YOU JUST TRY A BUNCH OF APPLICATIONS AND MAKE REFERENCE TO TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT HAVE SOME FUNCTION TO THEM.
IF YOU REMEMBER TO ANNOUNCE YOURSELF, YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION? FIRE AWAY.

>>JAAP AKKERHUIS: YES, THIS IS JAAP AKKERHUIS FROM THE COMMITTEE WITH THE TERRIBLE ACRONYM. AND THIS HAS COME UP AT (INAUDIBLE), I THINK BY DOT INFO AND DOT NAME PEOPLE.

IT SEEMS TO BE CAUSED BY A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS. PART OF IT IS BROWSERS WITH THINGS THAT KNOW HOW LONG DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD BE SO THEY JUST CUT IT OFF AND TRANSFER IT AUTOMATICALLY TO SEARCH KEY WORDS. AND IT COULD BE A PROXY AND WEB CASTING SERVICE, THEY ASSUME DOMAIN NAMES SHOULD NOT BE LONG NAMES, AND THEY GET (INAUDIBLE).

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THOMAS.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: THE TOPIC CAME UP ON THE GNSO COUNCIL SOME TIME AGO AND I GOOGLED A SNIPPETS FOR CODE NAME APPLICATIONS. I THINK THE FIRST TIME THAT CODE SNIPPETS AND (INAUDIBLE) BASICALLY AMOUNTED TO A LIST OF SHAME WITH RESPECT TO NEW GTLDS. IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE A TLD CAN ONLY HAVE TWO OR THREE CHARACTERS AS HEURISTICS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO THE KIND OF STUFF YOU'RE DEALING WITH HERE AND REALLY A WIDESPREAD USE OF BAD HEURISTICS.

>>VINT CERF: SO MY SUGGESTION HERE IS I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO USE PUBLIC SHAMING AS A METHOD FOR ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS TO GET EVERYTHING TO WORK PROPERLY. BUT I DO THINK A CONCERTED EFFORT TO UNCOVER THE PROBLEM AND TRY TO AIM PEOPLE WHO CAN SOLVE IT TO DEAL WITH IT WOULD BE A USEFUL STEP FOR ICANN.
SO WE WILL TAKE THAT UNDER OUR WING.

ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MIRIAM FROM EITHER THE BOARD OR THE FLOOR? AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: HI. WELL, THE QUESTION ISN'T RELATED TO MIRIAM ONLY, BUT ALSO TO WHAT KURT MADE BEFORE.
REGARDING THE PROBLEM YOU SAY, WELL, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I REGISTERED A DOT INFO NAME FOR ME, FOR MY WIFE, (INAUDIBLE) A REGISTRAR CREDIT HERE, AND (INAUDIBLE) I CAN'T PAY THROUGH THE GATEWAY BECAUSE THE BANK CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOMETHING BEYOND DOT (INAUDIBLE) IN THE WORLD. JUST SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING WITH DOMAINS, BUT THEY ARE CHECKING THE E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND THEY ARE SOMEWHERE THIS LIMIT THAT THOMAS WAS DESCRIBING HERE.

SO A SORT OF PRIMARY, A SORT OF NEW TLDS, ONE ZERO ONE FOR NEWBIES WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE WHEN YOU ENCOUNTER THAT AS A USER, LOOK, LOOK HERE, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD CHECK AND WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. BECAUSE IT IS NOT VERY EASY EACH TIME TO EXPLAIN THE SUBSCRIPTION METHOD OR NEWSPAPER WHERE IT IS PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.

THEN GOING TO BIZ, I HAVE A SMALL QUESTION FOR MIRIAM AND A COMMENT FOR KURT. THE SMALL QUESTION FOR MIRIAM, YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE SORT OF THINGS THAT, WELL, WE ARE CHECKING HOW EFFICIENT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE REGARDING THE SELF-CERTIFICATION, JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THE QUESTION IS I HOPE YOU WILL ALSO CHECK THE REAL CONFLICTIVITY THAT EVEN LOW COMPLIANCE OR PARTIAL COMPLIANCE WILL BRING BECAUSE MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THESE SORT OF CHECKS, EVEN IF THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF NONCOMPLIANCE, THERE IS AN EFFICIENT DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE MOST FRINGE PART OF, YOU KNOW, HARMFUL BEHAVIORS.

I MEAN, I KNOW PEOPLE THAT HAVE A DOT NAME OR DOT AERO DOMAIN NAME THAT IS NOT WELL FIT IN THE ELIGIBILITY RULES.
THE REALITY IS BECAUSE THESE RULES, THE REAL CONFLICTIVITY IS VERY, VERY LOW, BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO PERHAPS DOES NOT ABIDE. BUT WE KEEP LOTS OF DANGEROUS USERS OF THESE DOMAINS AT BAY IN THE HOPE THAT YOU WILL INTRODUCE THAT. I MEAN, THE REAL CONFLICTIVITY THAT PRODUCES IT AND THE REAL CONFLICTIVITY IN THE SPONSORED OR EVEN THE NAME IS CLOSE TO ZERO OR CLOSE TO ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO ZERO SOMETHING.
THE QUESTION FOR KURT IS A GENERAL CLARIFICATION, IF YOU WILL, ABOUT THE PROCESS. WHEN YOU SAY WE ARE LOOKING OR HIRING EVALUATORS TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW THE INITIAL DISCRIMINATION, MY QUESTION IS WHAT SORT OF EVALUATORS WILL YOU LOOK FOR? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COME THERE AND SAY, WELL, TECHNICAL PLAN, DON'T WORRY, MY GRANDMOTHER WILL HELP ME HANDLE THE TLD, WELL, YOU CAN CHECK THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IT MIGHT BE THAT I HAVE A PERFECT PLAN BUT THIS IS NOT A SPONSORED TLD AT ALL, OR I WONDER HOW THE USUAL CONSULTANCY, WHICH LAST TIME WAS USING EVALUATORS, CAN CHECK SOMETHING LIKE VALUE ADDED TO THE DNS SPACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND MY GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WHILE YOU MAY USE ALL SORT OF EXTERNAL EVALUATORS, PLEASE DON'T KEEP IT BLIND TO THE ICANN STAFF AND THE ICANN BOARD, BECAUSE WE IN THE COMMUNITY, WE TRUST THIS STRUCTURE TO HAVE SOME ACQUIRED VALUES REGARDING HOW THE DNS WORK.

AND LAST TIME WE SEE -- WE SAW VERY STUPID EVALUATIONS FROM THIS INDEPENDENT TEAMS, SOMETHING LIKE HOW OFTEN WILL YOU REFRESH THE WHOIS INFORMATION? AND THE ONE GETTING THE BEST QUOTE WAS ONE WHO SAID INSTANTANEOUS, AND INSTANTANEOUS DOES NOT EXIST. IT'S THAT SIMPLE; RIGHT? BUT IT'S BETTER THAN SOME SECONDS, APPARENTLY.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AMADEU. PLEASE.

>>ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS: THANK YOU, VINT. A COMMENT FOR MIRIAM. I'M ERIC BRUNNER-WILLIAMS. AS YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED ON THE DOT BIZ PROPOSAL, THE DOT US PROPOSAL AND I ASSISTED WITH THE DOT COOP AND DOT MUSEUM ACTIVITIES. ONE THING I URGE YOU TO LOOK FOR IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXQUISITE TORTURE, THE FORMALISM THAT PROPOSAL RESPONDENTS GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO RESPOND AS IF THEY WERE VERY WELL CAPITALIZED ORGANIZATIONS WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE NOT VERY WELL CAPITALIZED ORGANIZATIONS.

RESPONDING TO THE PROPOSALS THEMSELVES, MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE FIRST ROUND OF STLDS AND GTLDS WAS THAT THE CAPITALIZATION WAS, IF YOU WILL, THE SERVICE LEVEL TO WHICH THE AGREEMENTS WERE MADE WERE DISPROPORTIONATE FOR SOME OF THE STLD PROPOSEMENTS. AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS IMPOSED UNNECESSARY COST, WHICH HAS DAMAGED THE FIRST ROUND OF STLD ROLLOUTS, AND POSSIBLY EVEN ONE OR TWO OF THE GTLD ROLLOUTS, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY SUFFER FROM SELF-INFLICTED INJURY. SO PLEASE TRY TO GO BEYOND THE FORMAL COMPARISON OF THE SEVEN SETS OF DOCUMENTS TO INFER THE CAPITALIZATION REQUIREMENTS THAT MEETING THE SLA BOGIES AND APPENDICES AND ALSO RESPOND TO GO THE COMPLETE TEXTUAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE RFP IMPOSED ON THAT GENERATION OF APPLICANTS AND PRESUMABLY WILL BE INFLICTED ON THE NEXT GENERATION OF APPLICANTS AS WELL.

>>MIRIAM SAPIRO: I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AND WE WILL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS WE DO THE PROCESS PART. THAT'S REALLY SOLUCOM'S PART, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE NEGOTIATIONS, I SHOULD SAY.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: THANK YOU, STEVE METALITZ A MEMBER OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY. MY QUESTION IS DIRECTED TOWARDS KURT'S PRESENTATION. I NOTICE IN YOUR FIRST, YOUR SLIDE ABOUT THE STEPS, PUBLIC COMMENT WAS NOT MENTIONED ALTHOUGH I DID SEE IN THE TIMETABLE THAT THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

BUT GIVEN THE NEW PROCESS THAT'S BEING USED IN CONTRAST TO THE PROCESS IN 2000, TO WHOM ARE THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE DIRECTED? ARE THEY DIRECTED TO THE STAFF IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET? ARE THEY DIRECTED TOWARD THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS WHO WILL REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS THAT MEET THOSE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS? OR ARE THEY ULTIMATELY DIRECTED TO THE BOARD THAT WILL HAVE TO ENDORSE, I THINK WAS THE WORD YOU USED, THE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED BY THE STAFF?

>>KURT PRITZ: THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FOLDER AND BECOME PART OF THE APPLICATION AND BE APPENDED TO IT SO WHEN THE EVALUATORS READ THE APPLICATION, THEY WILL FIRST READ THE APPLICATION AND THEN THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE PART OF IT.
SO IT WILL BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE APPLICATION.

>>MARK MCFADDEN: MARK MCFADDEN FROM THE ISP CONSTITUENCY, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN TESTING SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH THE NON-THREE CHARACTER TLDS. AND WHILE I'M NOT GOING TO REPORT ON WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING ARE, THE RESULTS ARE SURPRISING, AND AMADEU IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
THEY'RE SURPRISING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.

AND WHAT OUR INTENT WAS WAS TO ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A BEST CURRENT PRACTICE DOCUMENT, BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS PRIMARILY AT THE APPLICATION LAYER.
THE DISCOVERY IS THAT WHILE YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, THE PROBLEM IS IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS, NOT JUST AT THE APPLICATION LAYER BUT ALSO AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAYER AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A PART THAT'S AT THE POLITICAL LAYER.

AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY REALLY NEEDS IS A TAXONOMY OF THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT HAPPENS, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE COME TO US AND ASKED FOR THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, OUR INTENT WAS -- OUR FIRST SORT OF NAIVE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE A BEST CURRENT PRACTICE DOCUMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OPERATORS OF BIND AND APPLICATION LAYER TOOLS.

THE DISCOVERY IS THE PROBLEM RUNS MUCH, MUCH DEEPER AND IS MUCH, MUCH COMPLEX THAN THAT. AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE REALLY A VARIETY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO BE EDUCATED.
AND SO IT'S THAT TAXONOMY DOCUMENT THAT I WOULD APPEAL FOR. THE TESTING HAS TO GO ON. OUR CONSTITUENCY HAS COMMITTED TO DOING THAT TESTING IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST AND WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO IT BUT WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM AND HOW WIDESPREAD IT IS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT OCCURS TO ME THAT EVEN KNOWING ABOUT PROBLEMS THAT ARE REPORTED IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE WILL KNOW ABOUT EVERY PROBLEM. SO FINDING A WAY TO CAPTURE EXPERIENCE, EVEN FROM USERS WHO DISCOVER PROBLEMS, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A WORTHWHILE EXERCISE.

SO ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE THE EXTENT TO WHICH STAFF IS PREPARED TO COPE WITH THIS PROBLEM, WE DO NEED TO LOOK FOR SOME MECHANISM FOR CAPTURING THE ISSUES THAT ARE ARISING SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BECOME AWARE OF THEM. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT VALUABLE INPUT.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THANK YOU FOR RAISING THIS POINT. I BELIEVE A NUMBER OF THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCIES HAVE BEEN TRYING, IF YOU WILL, TO GET THE LIGHT OF DAY, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE BRINGING THIS TO ATTENTION AT THIS TIME.

I WOULD HOPE THAT POSSIBLY, BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT ICANN AND WE TALK ABOUT GLOBAL RESOLUTION AND TECHNICAL COORDINATION, I THINK THIS REALLY GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT WE DO AND HOPEFULLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAYBE ALLOCATE THIS NOT ONLY TO ICANN STAFF BUT MAYBE TO THE SECURITY AND STABILITY, BECAUSE IF WE ARE PROVIDING A CONTRACT FOR A REGISTRY OPERATOR THAT DOES NOT HAVE GLOBAL RESOLUTION OR RUNS INTO DIFFICULTIES, I THINK WE SHOULD FACILITATE HELPING THEM AND NOT, IF YOU WILL, REMOVE OBSTACLES WHERE POSSIBLE.
SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU FOR RAISING THIS, AND ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO EXPEDITE IT I THINK WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.

>>VINT CERF: JUST TO RESPOND TO MIKE, ONE OBSERVATION IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER ENTITIES IN OUR UNIVERSE WHO DEAL WITH OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS. I'M THINKING NANOG FOR INSTANCE IN NORTH AMERICA AND THERE ARE SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. SO DRAWING ATTENTION TO GROUPS THAT HAVE OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE INTERNET MAY ALSO BE A TOOL HERE. I DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD THAT CAN COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE ON FINDING THESE PROBLEMS IS ICANN, BUT WE SURELY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DRAW ATTENTION IN THOSE PLACES WHERE SOLUTIONS MIGHT BE FOUND.
I HAVE RON ANDRUFF NEXT.

>>RON ANDRUFF: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON. RON ANDRUFF FROM TRALLIANCE CORPORATION.
I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD AND THE STAFF FOR PROVIDING THE ICANN COMMUNITY WITH THE FINAL STEPS IN THIS LONG SOUGHT AFTER RFP. WE'LL TAKE SOME TIME TO CONSIDER WHAT WE FOUND OUT TODAY, OVER THE NEXT DAYS, AND WE'D LIKE TO BRING BACK SOME COMMENTS HOPEFULLY AT THE END OF THE COMMENT PERIOD TOMORROW, HOWEVER OUR KNEE JERK REACTION IS CONSIDERING THE STAFF WITH ALL OF THE WORKLOAD THAT THE COMMUNITY IS WELL AWARE OF WAS ABLE TO PREPARE AN RFP IN JUST A FEW WEEKS, WE WONDER WHY IT TAKES OVER 120 DAYS FOR EVALUATORS TO VETTE CRITERIA-BASED APPLICATIONS. EFFECTIVELY, THAT COMES DOWN TO REVIEWING ONE PAGE PER DAY FOR OUR DOT TRAVEL APPLICATION.
AND CONSIDERING WE'RE PAYING $45,000 FOR THIS AND ON TOP OF THE $50,000 THAT WAS PAID FOR THE DOT TRAVEL APPLICATION IN 2000, WE FIND THAT TO BE SOMEWHAT STRANGE AND WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THAT.

THE CONTINUING PROCESS, OR THIS CONTINUING PROCESS IS APPLYING SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP TO STARTUP COMPANIES LIKE OURS AND OTHERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS. AND FRUSTRATING THE SPONSORS OF THE APPLICATION.
THIS OVERLY LONG REVIEW SENDS A BAD SIGNAL THAT ICANN LOOKS TO EXPAND THE NAME SPACE AS WE GO FORWARD. THEREFORE, I ASK THE BOARD GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO THIS TIME LINE AND PERHAPS ASK THE STAFF IF THEY MIGHT FIND WAY TO TIGHTEN IT SO WE CAN ALL MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PROCESS AS WE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS GOING TO BE A SHORT INTERIM STEP FOR A MUCH LONGER PROCESS. IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR US TO EXPLAIN TO OUR CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD IN THEIR INDUSTRY INITIATIVES THAT THIS TLD WILL TAKE ANOTHER SIX MONTHS BEFORE WE SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN AWARD. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER THIS AND, AS I SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TOMORROW WITH SOME COMMENTS, IF POSSIBLE, AND TRUST THAT WE MIGHT FIND A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD MORE RAPIDLY.

>>VINT CERF: WE APPRECIATE THAT ADVICE, RON. THANK YOU.

[...]