ICANN Brussels GAC Plenary Meeting with ccNSO Tuesday, 22 June 2010 >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I do apologize to interrupt your lively discussions. If I may ask you to take your seats, we will start shortly. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me, on behalf of the Governmental Advisory Committee, warmly welcome ccNSO to our joint meeting. Our agenda today consists of four points, if we will be able to exhaust them. We will start with a report and discussion about the work of the Delegation/Redelegation Working Group. Then we will have a point of information on IDN ccTLD fast-track implementation. Then geographic names and new gTLDs. And time permitting, we may wish to discuss DNS CERT initiative. Would that be acceptable? I see no objections. We'll follow this agenda. Chris, welcome. You can charge ahead. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Janis. Good afternoon, everybody, welcome, nice to see so many people here. The first topic is going to be, as we said, the Delegation/Redelegation Working Group. That working group is chaired by Keith Davidson, who's sitting on my right, and Bernie Turcotte, who some of will you know, sitting on Keith's right, who's providing some staff support. They're going to take us through the presentation. So Keith, I'll hand it to you. >>KEITH DAVIDSON: Thank you very much, Janis and Chris. I will just speak to the first half of this presentation, which covers the progress of the working group. And then I'll hand over to Bernie to actually talk about the methodology the working group's been using in compiling its research. And just to preempt the presentation, remember that this working group is established by the ccNSO to look at issues relating to delegations and redelegations with no power to embark on a policy development process. Its final outcome may be to recommend to the ccNSO that a policy development process is required or not required. But to do that, we've had to research the actual delegations and redelegations that have occurred. And the in doing so, we're not seeking to relitigate or investigate any decision on an individual delegation or redelegation. We're more measuring against policy whether decisions made were within scope or out of scope. So next page, please. The working group adopted a work plan initially that contemplated completion of its work by July 2011. But we have been progressing a lot more rapidly than we thought. And it is possible that we may finish our work in time for the ICANN December 2010 meeting. Next slide, please. The working group has looked at the various documentation available to it and has not found a (inaudible) where all policies and guidelines have been assembled and there's no guideline for practices for the delegation and redelegation of new ccTLDs. In an attempt to understand the current policies, guidelines, and practices, the working group initially looked at the three main documents, RFC 1591. We did look at some earlier RFCs that were partly relevant in terms of some earlier work done on the DNS and registrations of top-level domains, and -- or, more relevant to the working group, ICP-1 from ICANN's policy -- or initial policy establishment, and the GAC principles 2000 and 2005. And if you're curious as to why we looked at the principles 2000 since they were replaced in 2005, is that during our work, we wanted to measure the decisions by the board relating to the guidelines and policies and principles that were in place at that time. And as reported in our first progress report, the working -- Sorry. Next slide. The policy statements provided a baseline to evaluate the practices of IANA and the ICANN board as reflected in a considerable amount of documentation. We looked at all of the IANA reports on ccTLD delegations/redelegations, and retirements, and we looked at all the ICANN board decisions that affected delegations/redelegations, and retirements. On that basis, we looked at 16 cases that we believed were potentially relevant. And those cases are presented to you in the document called "Potential Issues and Their Classification," which is out for public consultation now. It's a substantial document, a hundred -- 110 pages. And so it was published about a week and a half ago. So we're not anticipating that GAC or, for that matter, ccNSO members will be fully familiar with this document. And we're not expecting any comments from you at this meeting. But that report is now open for public submissions, and we'd welcome any submissions individually or collectively, with a closing date of 15 September. And that brings us on to the methodology. And we initially broke our work into three areas. We were going to look initially at delegations, then retirements, then redelegations. But we found that too difficult. And with Bernie's strong help, we came up with a better working methodology to deal with all items in one piece of work. And so I'll now hand over to Bernie to talk us through the methodology we applied and an example. Thanks, Bernie. >>BERNIE TURCOTTE: Thank you, Keith. I hope everyone can hear me. Don't let the 110 pages scare you. It reads very well. So if you keep it by your bed stand at night, I'm sure it can fill those nights that you're having trouble sleeping. We've tried to keep things simple. In looking at all these cases, we actually ran through every single board decision that affected ccTLDs and every IANA report. And when we tried looking at how we were going to break this up, it became clear that we needed some sort of frame of reference to deal with this. So we've tried to keep it simple. And this is what we'll be presenting to you. In trying to classify these cases, we've used the following scheme: Basically, we've defined them in three categories. Significantly interesting would strongly support a recommendation of a policy development process by the working group to the ccNSO. Interesting could support the recommendation of a PDP. And possibly interesting would probably not support a recommendation of a PDP. So I think that's fairly straightforward. When we looked at the 16 cases, they also fell in two broad categories. The cases related to policy development -- and by that we mean implicit or explicit. And we'll deal with that a bit more in more detail later. And cases related to the application of existing policies. Next slide, please. So if you do a matrix classification between the policy and application of policy cases and the classification method of the three areas of significantly interesting, interesting, and possibly interesting, you end up with the six possibilities. And, basically, this is what we've used to classify our 16 cases of interest. And it describes -- if we take the first one as an issue related to policy that is significantly interesting, it means there are significant -- it significantly departs from the policy statements that were in effect at the time. At the other end of that spectrum, you've got "possibly interesting," where it complies with the requirements set out in the policy statements in most or all ways. So we have tried to leave some wiggle room to make sure that we can cover as many cases sanely as we can. Next slide, please. As an example, just -- we won't be spending the day going over the full 110-page report here, but we thought we'd pick one example, which is the September 25th, 2000 ISO 3166 reserved list decision, whereby the ICANN board -- and you've got the minutes up there -- basically authorized the use in certain cases of elements of the reserved list of the ISO 3166 as country codes. So, basically, we used our methodology in analyzing this in going through it. Next slide, please. When you take it through this process, which we've boiled down for you, not to bore you with all the details, but they are available in the full report, should you be interested -- what you get is that this is an explicit decision by the board that meets the four criteria from the decision tree, which is in the expanded report, and supports the Delegation/Redelegation and Retirement Working Group classifying this decision as a change in policy that is applicable to the delegation/redelegation or retirement or (inaudible) of ccTLDs. After that, once we classified it as a policy decision, we look if this was a policy decision, was it made according to the rules in effect at the time for making policy decisions? Our conclusion, once we finished examining this in detail, is that this policy decision failed to meet all of the requirements for policy development in effect at the time. This supports the working group classifying this as significantly interesting. And if you will remember from our previous definitions, classifying this as significantly interesting would justify the working group recommending to the ccNSO Council that there should be a PDP. Next slide, please. We've also added comments once we finished going through the decisions, given that we have gone through all the IANA reports and all the board decisions available, all the public ones, at any rate. And where things were of interest, we tried to note them for the readers. In this case, we have a note that although this board decision is a modification to the policies applicable to ccTLDs, it was never incorporated into ICP1 and there were never any follow-on documents or updates to ICP1. This is an interest meta issue to the work of the working group, given ICP1 continues to be referred to as the only policy document applicable to ccTLDs within ICANN. So we've tried to identify interesting side areas while we were at it to add value for those that are going through this information. Next slide, please. This completes our presentation. Just trying to keep it brief. We're providing the URLs. If you would like to see the latest progress report, which is the second full progress report of this group, or the full draft analysis report, which is the biggy we were talking about, and Keith and I's contact information is also there. We will -- What you will find within the progress report is an identification of the 16 cases and how we have classified them. And I guess that's about it. We will be glad to take some questions. >>KEITH DAVIDSON: I think just in closing the presentation, it's probably appropriate to comment that this is the meeting at which the working group needs to check -- you know, do a reality check and seek input from people as to whether the methodology is sound and fair and so on. And, unfortunately, at this meeting, we haven't had a chance to do this in the ccNSO already, so the -- this presentation is the first the ccNSO members have seen of it, as well as the GAC. So just the order of business on the agenda this week. But thank you, Janis. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Keith. Does it mean that I can invite also ccNSO members also to ask questions. So floor is open for questions from both, from GAC members and from ccNSO members. Norway. >>NORWAY: Thank you, Janis, and thank you for the presentation. I would probably find if I read through the pages the answer to my question. But the -- did you identify any inconsistencies in the current GAC ccTLD principles or some issues that you mean or feel or recommend activities from the GAC side to amend the GAC principles? Thanks. >>KEITH DAVIDSON: Our measurement of the three policies in question, RFC1591, ICP1, and the GAC principles, really gave no rise for concern to the working group in terms of a comparison between the policies. They were reasonably consistent or, you know, the interpretation and application of the policy could be reasonably consistent between those three documents. And it's too early at this stage to know whether we would suggest to the GAC that there would be any inconsistency with current practice versus the current GAC principles. >>NORWAY: Yes, thank you. And, of course, it probably is also identifying inconsistencies of the ICANN practice, rather, based on the GAC principles, of course. But I think that will be sort of when we read through and we will be able to get some more sort of real -- more comments if we get through the document. Thanks. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Absolutely. And I think it's important to note that, yes, the working group was pretty clear that they weren't inconsistent. But on the other hand, they're actually quite hard to compare, because they're written in different ways. In other words, the RFC1591 is written as the practical steps that you take, whereas the GAC principles are written in a more high-level way. But certainly the -- with that caveat, it seems that they're fairly consistent. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris, for your clarification. Any other questions, comments? European Commission. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you, yes, Bill Dee from the European Commission. Just to clarify that I understand, I think I do -- the purpose of the exercise, therefore -- I'm sorry, I summarize it a bit -- but the purpose is to see whether the policy documents need updating to reflect actual practice rather than to challenge the decisions that have been made in the past? Is -- am I right in thinking that? >>KEITH DAVIDSON: Could I suggesting that neither is right. Certainly no challenge to any earlier decisions. What we're seeking to do is to test whether the policies are being followed or whether there needs to be a policy development process to enable a better process for the delegation and redelegation decision- making by the ICANN and IANA functions. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please, European Commission. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. That was good I asked for clarification so I didn't leave with the wrong impression. Okay, a related question, and I'm sorry if it's a dumb question. There's no PDP that's been adopted for this process to date inside ICANN. The key reference documents you've highlighted. I've read the ICP1, actually, and a question I always meant to ask but now you give me the opportunity to ask is, what status does that have within ICANN? I mean, it predates the PDP-type process, actually. And it seems to hang out there in space. I mean, is there an ICP2 or 3 or 4? I'm really quite intrigued to know, is it a document that was adopted by the ICANN board as an ICANN policy? >>KEITH DAVIDSON: I think we do cover that in our reporting. But ICP1 has not been replaced or rescinded. And the -- some decisions by the ICANN board do refer to some of the contents of ICP1 in their deliberations. So it is still sort of a current policy used by the board. And I think when we had Peter Dengate Thrush presenting at a workshop in Nairobi, he suggested that it was considered a policy document by the board. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Before you come back, it is an extremely good question. I think one of the key things to remember about ICP1 is that, actually, it says that this document is not intended to change RFC1591. And I'm paraphrasing. But, effectively, it says that. So in a lot of our discussions, we were able to say that, "Well, given that it's not intended to change 1591, then it's 1591 that we should actually be looking at. ICP1 is a very challenging document for a lot of ccTLDs, not necessarily because of what it says, but because of the way it appeared. So -- but it does refer back to 1591. I think I've got that right, haven't I? So it's not trying to overturn 1591. >>KEITH DAVIDSON: And ICP1 is not a policy that was developed in an open forum. It was a served policy top-down by ICANN. It was not something that the ccTLD community had played any part in the evolution of or any major part in the evolution of. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. I think you've answered the little question. Who wrote it, actually? If the ICANN community didn't write it, I mean, who drafted it? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: We think probably Louis Touton. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So after this exchange, any other questions? Any comments? Philippines. >>PHILIPPINES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to find out the procedure now that IANA is pursuing in light of the exercise that we're doing here with this working group. I mean, is it going to continue reviewing redelegation cases from the -- What's the status go now I guess is what I'm asking, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Nothing's changed. This working group is researching right now. And it's the first time this has ever been done. And we have produced analysis. Right now, we're not saying that what we're saying is right. We're saying we'd like other people to tell us whether Bernie's classifications make sense. You might, for example, look at the document and think that something that we have classified as being not interesting is actually interesting, in which case we would like your feedback and input on that. And you might look at the methodology and say, "That doesn't make any sense. Here's a different methodology." Again, we'd like your feedback on that. But right now, that's it. And what goes on in respect to delegations/redelegations is still going on. And this is not having any effect on that, and whatever delegations, redelegations happen will continue to happen on the same basis, whatever that may be. And part of the challenge with this has been -- will be to get to a point where we can say based on the research, based on all of the feedback, we produce a final document which says we're concerned that -- as an example, produce a final document that says everything is fine, or we're concerned that there's not enough detail in the policy, and therefore there needs to be some detail put in, because at the moment, the detail's being made up by, you know, the board or the staff. So -- but those are just examples. And at this stage, right now, it's all about getting input from the -- all of the communities, if possible. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: In fact, I asked to see whether Kim Davies -- we could find Kim Davies. Kim is here. Kim, maybe you could clarify from being IANA manager how that works, what guides you in your work just that we are clear here. Thank you. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Kim, if you can just stand in the middle of the room there, and I've got this target here which I'm going to.... >>KIM DAVIES: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. So in analyzing delegations and redelegations, for us what is most important is precedent, and I think precedent is stated in RFC 1591, it's stated in ICP-1, it's stated in the corpus of previous delegations and redelegations. Jon Postel put out some memos as well in the late '90s, particularly with the role of governments, and we also look to the GAC principles. As staff, our job is not to decide delegations or redelegations but, rather, to collect the kind of information that speaks to the areas of evaluation that are specified in those documents. For example, RFC 1591 speaks of fair and equitable treatment of registrants. So we asked applicants to provide information on their policy, as to whether it provides for fair and equitable treatment of registrants. We then compile that information into a report for the board, and the board ultimately makes its decision. Over the time that I have been doing delegations and redelegations, it has been the case that the board has asked certain clarifying questions of particular applicants, and that certainly, for me, has helped guide the kinds of questions that will be asked in future delegations. Not saying that that has changed the way the evaluation is performed in terms of how it's assessed, but, rather, if the board has expressed an interest in a certain aspect of operations, we would then seek to find out information more about that in the future so if we are asked the same kind of questioning, we have the answers at hand. So hopefully that has helped explain a little. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Kim. So Chris and then Bertrand. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Kim. Just for those of you who don't know, Kim is actually on the working group, attends the calls, et cetera. Kim, I just wanted to -- I agree with what you said but I wanted to make a point that precedent is actually quite dangerous, and the best way I can illustrate that is a brief story about a very famous English judge called Lord Denning who was renowned for making decisions which were then overturned in a higher court, and then quoting himself as precedent the next time he made the decision, and kept on doing it until the Court of Appeal got fed up overturning his decisions, and so eventually he won and they became the law. The problem with precedent is what you refer to to look for the precedent is the decisions of the board, and if the decisions of the board are outside of the policy in the first place, then whilst they are precedent because they have been made, they are not necessarily policy. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Lawyer spoke. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: France, Bertrand. >>FRANCE: Just a brief comment, having a look at ICP-1, which I must confess is not a document that I knew very well. Just to mention one very interesting sentence that says top-level domains, TLDs, are divided into classes based on rules that have evolved over time. It's very interesting to see this notion of classes that actually establishes a distinction between two classes, CCs and Gs, that are connected to what the ICP-1 calls rules but that we could call regimes. And actually, this is more or less the main outcome of the work that was done in this informal group on categorization. And we could take this as the foundation upon which we could see in the future the evolution of the current gTLD space into clearer or further subdivisions according to a topology that would emerge in due time, not to use the word "categories," but a topology which would connect certain types of TLDs with certain types of rules -- i.e., regimes -- adapted to these. And the main outcome of the work that this informal group did was to show that in the current DAG there already is coherence between a certain number of rules that apply to community TLDs, a certain number of rules that apply to geographic ones, and a whole discussion on vertical integration regarding single registrants, single user category is a case in point. Final element, we are talking delegation and redelegation. Redelegation is fundamentally a post-delegation question, of course. I'm not sure that the current gTLD program is paying enough attention to the cases or the situations when or under which criteria some redelegation should be envisaged when the TLD that has been delegated has not been managed either according to the engagements or according to an evolution of the understanding of the community. So just as a mental note. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. I have the European Commission and then Hilde from Norway. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Thank you. Just say that I was pleased to hear that IANA uses references in their policies. Not only RFC 1591 but also ICP-1. And the GAC principles on delegation/redelegation of ccTLDs. But I note that reference is not given anywhere on the IANA Web site which only references 1591 and ICP-1. I just want to ask, is that an oversight? Could that be updated? Or is there a reason that that isn't referenced under policy, procedures and guides? Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Hilde. >>NORWAY: Thank you. I'm Hilde Thunem from the Norwegian registry, and I must admit I have a very bad habit when it comes to reading books because I tend to open at the last page and look at what the conclusion is, and I want to do that with this report. I mean, you went through 16 cases and with all the disclaimers that this is still -- the methodology is up for question, that we are still waiting for public input from ccTLDs and from governments and promoters, how many of the 16 cases were significantly interesting; that is, didn't follow policy or didn't follow procedure in such a way that there would be recommendation for a PDP? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: While Bernie is checking that, Hilde, can I make the point that the fact that something is significantly interesting doesn't mean that there would be a recommendation for a PDP. It means that there could be a recommendation for a PDP. >>NORWAY: Okay. Thank you. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: And I think we actually looked at more than 16 cases. Keith, do you want to -- You don't want to touch that? >>KEITH DAVIDSON: No, no. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Hilde, I'm not sure, can we talk about this when do it in the CC room this afternoon? My recollection is we actually looked at every decision, and there were more than 16. And the report -- Is that right, Bernie? Bernie, please turn your microphone on. >>BERNIE TURCOTTE: We did a formal analysis of 16 cases, and of the 16 cases, I believe we have about nine that fall in the extreme category. >>NORWAY: Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. And for convenience of those who are not sitting at the table, we have two microphones, so you don't need to stand in front of all of us on your knees and ask questions. So there are microphones. You can comfortably stand and then look at us from above. New Zealand is next on my list. So New Zealand, count to ten. Kim. >> Thank you, Frank. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Kim, there was a question asked by European Commission about the mentioning of GAC principles on IANA Web site. >>KIM DAVIES: The lack of detailed documentation on the IANA Web site is certainly a known issue for staff. We have been keen to improve the quality of the documentation, particularly in light of the fast-track process right now where we have upwards of 20 applications for delegation and we are in a position of having to explain our procedures to these people without detailed documentation on the Web site. So it's something we are pursuing and obtaining authorization to publish that documentation. It's a work in progress. And I'm sure the new documentation contains reference to the GAC principles. It's consistent with the way we have been addressing them to date. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? In relation to this debate on the progress report of the working group on delegation/redelegation? If none, we can proceed to the next agenda item which is information on IDN ccTLD fast track. Chris. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you, Janis. This is actually combined because it deals with the geographic -- sorry, not geographic -- the country and territory names as well. So just from the point of view of the IDN PDP, just to let you know that progress is being made. We have now -- There is a definition of what an IDN TLD is that is actually going through its final process in the technical community, and I can never remember the name of how that works, but that definition, in summary, is any string that contains at least one character that is not part of the 26-letter alphabet and hyphens and things. So if you have in Espagne, if there's a tilde, one of that characters makes that an IDN. But if you happen to use a character with a tilde but that doesn't appear in your name, then that is not an IDN, just because you have got that character. It's very clear from this definition that that's what an IDN TLD is. So that's what we are going to be using in our work in respect to what an IDN ccTLD is. And we are just going through the process. The policy development process, it's defined. It's done the way we do things, and it takes the time that it takes. We are working our way through it, and I expect in the next -- given we have a large gap now between this meeting and the next meeting I suspect we will have made some significant progress. Tied in with that is the situation with respect to country and territory names. As you all know, a letter -- Peter Dengate Thrush sent a letter out two weeks ago confirming that the board has agreed that country and territory names will not be available for application in the new -- in the first round of the new gTLD process. And that that was based on the advice given by the GAC and the ccNSO and that they have made that decision. Now, that decision is only currently saying that they won't be available in the first round of the new gTLDs. But it is tied, to some extent, to the policy development process because the request was at least they would not be available until such time as we had completed the policy development process. And I have got something to say about that in a second. We asked -- We had our usual Tuesday morning session with Peter and Rod and Mike Silber this morning, and we asked whether we could basically assume that, you know, until we finish the policy development process, then they wouldn't be available. And the answer we were given, which to be fair was a question without notice and so, therefore, it was an answer made on the spot, was no, you can't assume that. You should hurry up the PDP. And fine. I mean, we understand that we need to do the PDP as soon as possible. But what is clear to us in the IDN working group, and we're actually going to produce a paper on this, even though it's not strictly relevant to IDNs because we're talking also about ASCII names, what is clear to us is that this is an issue that -- there is consensus, pretty much, in the working group, and I don't know whether there's consensus amongst the members completely but we will find out when we produce this document, that country and territory names, generally speaking, should not be able for registration as a TLD. So our view is, I think, the working group's view, is not that we want them. It's not that Adam wants to be able to register dot Australia, but, rather, that actually that that should not happen. So we're working on that at the moment and we will come up with document, and it will go out for comment and we will see where it gets us. I suspect that the GAC's view -- or some people in the GAC certainly might have a different view. I don't know. I'm happy to talk about it, but we might be better to talk about it when we've actually got a detailed document in front of us and we are able to make some real comments based on the analysis in the document. But that's where we are with respect to the country and territory names and that's where we are in respect to the IDN policy development process. I'm happy, obviously, to take questions, comments. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris. Though my recollection is the board made decision based on the premise that this was explicit ccNSO request which was supported by the GAC. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: You're welcome. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: If I may, in respect of the progress in the working group on IDN PDP, my question is about the current thinking on the possible reference table of the names and different scripts, different languages. What is the current thinking? And what progress has been made on this question? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I think it's always been accepted, generally, that certainly when a name is delegated, it should be used to start building a table. So clearly, (saying name) is delegated, and Saudi is delegated and (saying name) is delegated, and so clearly they are names and that they could start to fill a reference table. In respect to the larger question which is should a reference table be prepared not just retrospectively by filling with names that are delegated but be prepared in advance, we haven't had any meaningful discussion on that in the -- yet in the policy development process. We did talk about it in some detail in respect to the fast track and it proved difficult to organize. My suggestion would be that if there is a way that that -- If it were possible to come up with a way that that could be done, then it is certainly -- it would certainly be much easier to discuss it because you would actually be talking about something real and tangible rather than talking about the philosophy of whether this should be a reference table. So if there's a way out there of doing that, then that's certainly something which is worth talking about. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris. Any other questions in relation to IDN CC PDP? Norway. >>NORWAY: Thanks. Just a question on the requirements for -- or being -- eligibility for an application. Like in the fast track, there were made a narrow definition that they should be from languages of -- official languages of your country, and then you can come into the fast track. Of course the GAC, in the past, we did have some discussion about this, and of course there are different practices in the different countries for what's -- if they call the languages official or not. So has it been any material discussion on the requirements to be eligible for applying for an IDN ccTLD in the future? >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: I understand. Not specific -- Not material discussion. It's been discussed, and we haven't reached yet any conclusions. The one kind of given, I think, the one thing that we are all -- I think the working group is all clear on is that we are clearly talking about something, a string that is a meaningful representation of the country. How you define that is another issue, but we clearly are not talking about Norway being able to apply for, you know, dot blog as a ccTLD, but when it comes to the next level down of how many, et cetera. Now, that's my response as the chair of the working group. Speaking personally, I think we have to be very careful because everything we do in IDNs does have an effect on ASCII, we need to think about questions like, well, if we allow you to choose to have an IDN ccTLD in any language, then what do we do in respect to Australia, for example, wanting dot Australia, which is clearly not an IDN so, therefore, is not relevant to this PDP. But we need to remember that in making this PDP there is a bigger picture here and we have to actually work within that bigger picture as well. I am not seeking to say that I believe one thing or another. I am just saying I think it's important that our decision-making process is informed by the larger point. But we haven't got anything specific to say about that at this stage. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris. rnulf, Norway. >>NORWAY: Thank you again, Janis. Just another question on the specific. You touched upon the country and territory names in the ASCII. We haven't discussed this, of course, in the GAC, and -- but, of course, it might be some countries that want the dot-their-name territory in addition to the existing ccTLD. So it might be -- well, I think at least it should be discussed what the requirements, well, if not and so on, then of course there will be several different opinions on this. But this might be a requirement in some countries that they do want this. Thanks. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Can I respond? I understand. It's important to note that that's not an IDN discussion, so it's not in this PDP. It is also a fundamental foundational change, and that means it would need to be dealt with extremely carefully, for obvious reasons. But it is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and it sits around the bigger discussion of what is a ccTLD. You know, can we just decide that we'd actually like 26 of them and -- each and so on. But you are absolutely right, it needs to be discussed. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: But is there any need of that? So I understand that in the bigger CC registries there might be a -- we can reach the point where names become a scarce resource because all the best names have already been taken, and there I am referring to registries which operate millions of names. So a majority of registries operate names in tens and hundred thousands, not more than that. Of course, the need may differ from country to country. So any other questions? Comments? I see none. On point of information regarding fast track, as you know, until now there has been four delegations for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Emirates and Russia. I understand the board will be looking this week in other three delegations. And, Kim, correct me if I'm right. 31 applications, 18 languages coming up? >>KIM DAVIES: Roughly. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Roughly. Yeah. About 30 applications are in the work. So it seems to me that the progress is very positive on the fast track, and we can be satisfied with the way how we develop this methodology. Greece. >>GREECE: Thank you. A question, can we see these applications in the Web site? And second one, how long is for an application to, from the beginning until the final approval? Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: I think all decisions always are posted on the Web site in form of board resolutions. So that I need to ask Kim. What I can say, that if you look to the average in the fast track, it takes about three, four months to proceed to process application, and then maybe 30 days to delegate. But, Kim. >>KIM DAVIES: Thanks. Our standard practice is to keep applications in confidence until they're approved. The fast-track process is a two-step process. Firstly, you are applying for the string to represent a country's name in a particular language or script. And once that's successful, the string is published. Similarly, after that point, an applicant applies for delegation to a particular organization. That application is also kept in confidence until it's successful. And all up, the process -- We give an estimate of three to six months. It's highly variable. It really depends on circumstances outside of our control. So rough estimate is three to six months. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Kim. Yeah, it depends on the quality -- on the quality of documents which are submitted to ICANN. And I think we have some countries who have gone through this and who can maybe share their experience. I see Sri Lanka is asking for the floor. >>SRI LANKA: Thank you, Janis. On a point of information, Sri Lanka is celebrating their 20th anniversary this year. So to coincide with the digital empowerment program of the government, we are encouraging the LK registry to apply for two strings representing our country code. So two applications were made somewhere around the beginning of this year for the Tamil and the Sinhalese equivalent of our country code, dot llangai and dot lanka. And I can say from a positive note that we passed the string evaluation phase pretty fast, roughly about five to six weeks or just under that, and now proceeding towards a formal delegation process, but we missed the timelines for the Brussels meeting, but we are hearing positive responses in connection with the delegation process as well. The document has been completed. And within the country, there has been some testing done, within the ISP community and we are satisfied with that. And in a way, we will be -- to coincide with the 20th anniversary celebrations next week, we will be doing a pilot launch been the local ISP community of the two IDN strings. And we are awaiting the redelegation and we will be having a beach party in Sri Lanka. And I know that quite a few people will be coming for that. Looking forward to seeing Keith and you of the APTLD community. And on a positive note, I wish to use this occasion to express my gratitude to the -- all of the hard work done by the IDN working group. More specifically, the efforts of Chris, Manal, and to you, Janis, for all efforts done, and of course from many other people, not forgetting the efforts done by many of the people in the APTLD community in Asia-Pacific area in developing the IDN process. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you for sharing this information. So any other comments now? Geographic regions. We have Dave Archbold. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Dave, do you need to come up here? You're welcome to. Take it from there, then. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: David will brief us on the progress of the working group on geographic regions. >>DAVE ARCHBOLD: Thank you. This is really a form of a quick commercial more than anything else. You may recall that the first report from the working group which was published last year, the end of last year, covered the various uses that geographic regions were put to. The present report that we are working on, the interim report, looks at whether those uses are being fulfilled properly. Now, for this we very much need feedback from all the community. Are your own uses of geographical regions, certainly applicable to the ccNSO, less so to the GAC, are they working properly? We put out a survey fairly recently. We opened that survey for participants in Brussels. Our present draft report, which is very much a working document is available on our Wiki for comments, and that's at tiny URL.com/WGGR, that's for working group geographic regions Wiki. Now you can see that is open to everyone. It's at 8:00 to 9:30 a.m. in room 313-315. And you are all very welcome, and, indeed, we look forward to receiving comments, questions, et cetera during that session. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, David. I have to present my apologies for being a bad member of the working group. So somehow lately I couldn't join any of the calls. Any questions in relation to the work of the working group on geographic regions? So if none, then we can go to the next agenda item, DNS CERT. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: That's me. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Please. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Okay. So DNS CERT or the possibility of DNS CERT. It's really just to let you know what's happening. Subject to -- I'll start again. You will have seen that there were a number of comments posted in response to the report that was put out after Nairobi, comments from the communities generally. And hopefully, most of you will have seen that one of those comments, which is also sent as a formal letter, was from the chair of the GNSO, Chuck Gomes, the chair of the ALAC, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and me as the chair of the ccNSO. And in that letter we set out what we believe should happen in respect to this, which, in summary, is that there should be a cross ICANN working group to identify if there is a problem, do a gap analysis, et cetera, et cetera, and work out whether the issues, if there are, indeed, problems on security and stability, whether those issues could be help involved with a DNS CERT. It would be fair to say that a significant number of other comments that were put in are echoed -- echoed in summary that suggestion. The chair of the ALAC, ccNSO and GNSO decided that we felt that we should probably just proceed to start doing this anyway. And so subject to the GNSO Council passing a resolution tomorrow in their council meeting, it is subject to that. We will form a joint drafting team to draft a proposed charter for the working group. Now, we haven't agreed yet to set up the working group. What we have agreed, I think, if the GNSO agrees tomorrow, is that we should try to get consensus on a charter. If we can get consensus on a charter, then we can obviously set up that working group. That working group would be the GNSO, ccNSO, the ALAC, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee who have agreed. We would obviously invite participation with -- from the GAC. And we would probably also be looking at involving external organizations such as OARC who have indicated, at least in principle, that they would be interested. So I want to make it clear that if this does happen, this is not a working group that would be -- that is making an assumption that there is -- there should be a DNS CERT. It's a working group that is actually looking at whether there is actually a problem. And if there is a problem, doing the GAAP analysis and asking the sorts of questions how can it be solved, is a DNS CERT helpful and so on. If you would like to get some sort of idea of the sort of things we are talking about and look at the letter from Chuck and Cheryl and me, and that sets out in some bullet points what it is that we are -- what it is that we would expect this sort of a working group to do. So that's where we are with that. Janis. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris. I believe that there would be interest in the GAC to participate in this drafting group. What I can tell you from our side, I received a letter from CEO and president of ICANN on 21st of April. This letter asks question whether governments would be interested in this initiative and thus provide some comments. To this, particularly, it also asked to give in the picture what the situation in any given country. I can quote those specific questions. What Computer Emergency Response Teams exist in the GAC member countries? Are these CERTs mature in size and stable in function or still under development? Are there any new CERTs under consideration in member countries? Are there any DNS expert or botnet experts in these CERTs that might be interested in joining a future possible network of experts on these topics? In the run-up of the meeting we had exchange of information on the intentions of the members of the GAC or member states of the GAC to respond to this letter. And if I recall, there were about five or six countries who were present on that particular conference call who informed about their intention to respond to letter. And I don't know whether that would be appropriate to ask those who have responded, who are very close to responding, to inform about the -- in brief about the content of these responses and the feelings prevailing in the countries, that we can have some idea on the, let's say, acceptance of this proposal among the members. So I see no enthusiasm. So if no enthusiasm.... >>BYRON HOLLAND: Hi, Byron Holland from dot CA, CIRA dot CA. We responded to the question and we noted several points. To some degree, there has been limited response, so take that into account. But one of the concerns that we raised was a lack of consultation and analysis in terms of how the situation came up, and some concern about the actual assumptions that were expressed in terms of how this issue was raised. There's a definite concern over the budget, particularly in light of some of the overages in the ICANN budget right now. And I would say that given the CC community's current discussions around CC contributions, that additional budget items continue to raise a concern. And also just a concern over the DNS CERT, is it outside of ICANN's mandate. That's something people talked about, would it even be within ICANN or is this more of a conceptual discussion. But in terms of the feedback we provided, we certainly raised that very issue. So those were several at a very high level of the comments that we made in response. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Czech Republic. >>CZECH REPUBLIC: Thank you, and good afternoon. Well, during that conference call, I also informed we would like to respond or plan to respond to this letter by the CEO of ICANN, but we are still waiting for the response from the Czech authority which is responsible for the Czech national CERT. But once we have their reaction, we will submit our response. And also in our response, we plan to indicate the activity of the Czech registries in the field of the DNS security. And so as far as our attitude to this idea, we agree with what has been just said and the thing that more consultation is needed that such a DNS CERT is really necessary. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Monica. UK. >>UNITED KINGDOM: Yes, thank you, chair. Regarding our response to the letter from Rod Beckstrom, that is still in the course of preparation, and I'm afraid I haven't got anything to reveal at this stage, but we will certainly apply. Just going back to -- well, generally on the issue of the DNS CERT, we said in our response on the consultation on the SSR initiatives that we didn't feel -- or we weren't convinced that a DNS CERT was justified. So in principle, the proposal to set up a working group to establish whether, in fact, it would be justified to undertake a GAAP analysis or -- as Chris was describing, sounds very much along the right lines and should be across constituency. So that sounds like a very good way forward. And -- well, when -- And our response we will certainly circulate to the ccNSO. Thanks. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Mark. Sri Lanka. >>SRI LANKA: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sri Lankan authorities are also intending to respond to this letter. Cross-constituency consultations are also ongoing in Sri Lanka in this connection, in view of the fact that Sri Lanka has also established a national CERT and its LK registry itself has established its own technical CERT that is working with the local ISPs and the relevant industry-specific communities. There have been certain concerns expressed in relation to the nature of what the functions of a DNS CERT would do. But I would not divulge more than that. I can mention that there's intense dialogue ongoing with regards to the contents of the reply. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Jayantha. Netherlands. >>NETHERLANDS: Thank you, Janis. We like to say that we feel the same as other views that have already been expressed during this discussion. We think there might be reasons to have more coordination in a way, but we have to start at the beginning and do more research on the need and see what will be the right way to go forward from there. So we can support the idea of setting up a working group. And of course the GAC will be interested in working together. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. Australia. >>AUSTRALIA: Thanks, Janis. I'd just like to first echo comments already expressed by a number of colleagues. We are intending to respond to the letter. We have been consulting with relevant national agencies in Australia. As people may be aware, there's been a new national CERT established in Australia. We should be pretty close, I think, to responding to the letter, and part of our response is that if a DNS CERT is established, then coordination with national CERTs and other technical capabilities, including in the private sector, will be a very important consideration. So that's all I would say. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Peter. Denmark. >>DENMARK: Thank you, Janis. I would also like to echo my colleagues here and say that we are also on the way of establishing a national CERT. And we would also like to participate in the working group to discuss these issues. Thank you. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: If I could just clarify, just so we are absolutely clear. Right now, what we are talking about is having a little group to draft a charter. So I know it might sound pedantic but I want to make it clear we need to reach consensus on a charter before we can have the working group. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Chris, for clarification, and Julia for information. Italy. >>ITALY: Okay. Thank you, Chair. This initiative of DNS CERT was launched in the framework of this document, the proposed initiative for improved DNS security, stability, and resiliency security, stability, and resiliency. So, actually, the initiatives that were announced were two. Not only DNS CERT. And the first one, that is DNS risk analysis contingency planning and exercises. And this appeared like an initiative where ICANN wanted also to invest stuff and to invest and to have more attention to these problems. But since the DNS CERT was a larger initiative, external, and with also a budget estimated in $4.2 million, and then this attracted more attention. But why not also only commenting on DNS CERT and encouraging ICANN? I think we all agree that investing in more resources internally with a moderated added cost, that's something that has to be done. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Stefano. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you very much, Janis. And I also would like to echo what many of my colleagues also had said. And as I told at the last meeting in Nairobi we are not all convinced of the need of a DNS CERT and we all sent an answer in actually. But I don't know whether that letter is public or accomplished on the ICANN Web site. It's supposed to be that but I haven't double-checked so I don't know. And we support the charter and would like to participate in some way or the other. A very important thing, though, is, which pretty much I hear from my other colleagues is that we don't -- by creating a working group -- kind of sort idea. It has to be very clear that we analyze, actually, the need or, as we hope, not need of a DNS CERT, actually. But there could be other activities that could be (inaudible) the whole thing forward. Not necessarily DNS CERT. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Maria. United States. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Janis, and thank you to all of my colleagues who have taken the words out of my mouth. We have not yet determined whether we would respond to or how we might respond to the ICANN CEO letter to the GAC members, so we are still reviewing whose questions, but we did submit comments on the original proposals and we made it very, very clear that there needed to be a lot more community input and there needed to be a lot more data gathering, and a more complete risk analysis and GAAP analysis undertaken. So we certainly applaud your initiative, and we would very much like to participate in that as well. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So the drafting group is growing in size already, and certainly governments are taking it over. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: If I could just make the point that the drafting groups needs to be really small. But if we go ahead with a working group, then that's a different issue. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So Nominet, Lesley. >>NOMINET: Thank you, Janis. Lesley Cowley, Nominet UK. We have been discussing this, as you can imagine, in the CC community a great deal recently, and a number of us are of the view that rather than seeking to provide evidence to justify or not justify a DNS CERT initiative, that actually we should go back to the first principles of preserving the security and stability of the DNS. And actually that discussion would be far more wider and fruitful in terms of coming up with ideas by which we can cooperate better, not duplicate, build capacity, and build knowledge that we can share with others in the community. So we would caution against keeping using the DNS CERT as a label, because that, in fact, is one of many potential outcomes from that discussion. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Lesley. Portugal. >>PORTUGAL: Well, in the case of Portugal, the same entity that manages ccTLD also operates a CERT. Our opinion is that this issue should be dealt preferably at the level of technical community before reaching any opinion that should be provided through GAC or governmental official. So we are very much in line with what you announced you are doing so far as this working group, and we will look at the results. Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you Luis. France. >>FRANCE: Thank you. Like the U.S., we had provided an initial comment on the proposal that supported the idea of a joint working group and also of a GAAP analysis. The general notion is that the proposal that is being made is rushing to provide a solution before the problem is correctly analyzed. One thing that we highlighted that might be useful in the discussion is to distinguish more clearly in the analysis what is related to resilience and preparedness as opposed to reactive measures in case of crisis. And in any case, in terms of methodology. It is said that on a very important topic, the method that has been adopted is provoking exactly the opposite reaction that would have been expected. Like instead of getting everybody together to discuss a topic, we are actually getting into a procedural mechanism within the organization, and it's really regrettable. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you, Bertrand. So I don't see any further requests for the floor. It seems to me that that brings this discussion to a close unless Chris wants to continue. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: No, I don't want to continue. But I do have one more thing that I would like to say, and that is that most of you, if not all of you, will be aware that this is Janis's last meeting as the chair of the GAC, and on behalf of the ccNSO I just want to say it's -- the progress that has been made, the relationship that the GAC has with the ccTLD community over the last three years has been truly extraordinary, and in no small part, Janis, that is down to you and the guidance and leadership you have provided. On a personal note, I have had an absolute ball working with you. It's been great fun. It's hard work but it's great fun. And I think all of us have achieved an extraordinary amount of things in the last few years that show that this multistakeholder model works. And I think Janis has been a major part of making that happen. And I would like do ask all of my CC colleagues to join me in thanking Janis. [ Applause ] >>CHAIR KARKLINS: Thank you. No, I won't respond. Cheers tonight in the bar. Really, it was a very, very interesting period, and I'm glad that you feel that relations between the GAC and the ccNSO have improved during these last three and a half years while I'm chairing. But certainly that is far from being my kind of success. That is, rather, success of all colleagues around the table who are very much interested in this cooperation. So thank you very much, indeed. And I believe that the chair elect, Heather Dryden will be carrying on this bucket with an even bigger carriage. And I believe the relationship will go uphill all the time. Thanks. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: Thank you. >>CHAIR KARKLINS: So now we're breaking for 10, 15 minutes and resuming closed session in preparation for the meeting with the board. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: If I could just remind my CC colleagues we are back in our room, in the big room, at 4:00. Please be on time if you can find your way out of here.