GNSO Council new gTLD committee meeting in Lisbon on 29 March 2007 15:15 local time Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of the GNSO Council new gTLD committee meeting in Lisbon on 29 March 2007. Although the transcription 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 meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. Audio recording: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/gtld-20070329.mp3 The GAC principles are available at: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf Attendees at the gTLD meeting 29 March Bruce Tonkin - GNSO Council chair/new gTLD committee chair - OBSERVERS ICANN Staff Absent: >>BRUCE TONKIN: -- I want to take here is just really -- plug this presentation -- is to just go through the GAC document. And mainly what I think we're looking for is, as we go through it, we can just go, yep, we're consistent with that, or, no, we're not, and therefore, you know, identify anything that we need to do further work on. In some cases, it might just be a case of reflecting the GAC's wording in key parts of our document so we appear to be paying attention. Because often what people like to see is their own words somewhere along the line. So, firstly, that the GAC is attempting here to provide a clear indication of the government priorities for the introduction, delegation, and operation of new gTLDs. They then state that "The principles respond to agreed provisions resulting from the World Summit on the Information Society and will provide a coherent framework for further interactions on these issues." So let's go to the -- what they've said. So the purpose is to identify a set of general public policy principles. They're intended to inform the board and to respond to the provisions of the World Summit on the Information Society process, in particular, the need for further development of and strengthened cooperation among stakeholders for public policies for generic -- gTLDs and those related to the management of Internet resources enunciated in the Geneva and Tunisia phases of WSIS. Interestingly, they say, "These principles shall not prejudice the application of the principle of national sovereignty." So, you know, it's interesting to start picking up some of the languages here. So the GAC has previously adopted the general principle that the Internet naming system is a public resource in the sense that it is -- its functions must be administered in the public or common interest. The WSIS declaration also states that policy authority for Internet-related -- that -- "must be administered in the public interest," which is fine. And, you know, we can certainly reflect some of that wording here about "in the public interest." And that's fairly common, I think, with the wording that was in the original -- or in the RFC 1591. Then it's got, "The WSIS declaration of 2003 also states that policy authority is the sovereign right of states." So that's interesting. So, therefore, we don't really need to be here anymore. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. So what's the balance? >> JON BING: No, no. I was just commenting upon the balance between the sovereignty and the sovereign states' liability -- or responsibility for the common public interests. That is the balance. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Oh, this bit here. So that's trying to say that it's beyond just an individual state. >>JON BING: They're saying they're sovereign, and so they do exactly what they want. But they want to cooperate and have these public policies together. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Right. Okay. >>KEN STUBBS: So they're not making us irrelevant. >>CHUCK GOMES: No, no, no. I think you're reading more into that than what you're saying. It says, "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues." That's not everything we do. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. Can I add something to that? >>CHUCK GOMES: No, I don't think everything we do is public policy issues. >>AVRI DORIA: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Go ahead. Sorry, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: And, in fact, if you go to the WSIS document, in various places, they talk -- Huh? Sorry. If you go back to the WSIS documents that they're quoting, the documents are quite specific about the private sector and civil society and the governments each in their respective roles and responsibilities. So they're just really pointing to their aspect of those responsibilities, et cetera, and not, I believe, trying to claim the whole game. It just -- yes, it can sound that way if you haven't read the whole document that these things are being quoted from. I don't believe they're trying to say that. And I'm not generally sympathetic. I mean to governments. [ Laughter ] >> In general. >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. We can take that more generally than that, I'm sure, with Avri. [ Laughter ] >>LIZ WILLIAMS: No principle (inaudible). >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Bruce, if we just stick on -- is that mike on? If we just stick on what we've heard on 1 and 2 there, and I take out of that the basic statement in terms of the public interest and common interests. So I think my first question to the group on that is, would we want to reflect any of that in our own principles 1 to 6 that we've currently got in draft? Is that something that we would want to capture? >>BRUCE TONKIN: But do we want to actually put in there about national sovereignty? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No, no. Public interest I'm talking about. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I think it's useful to reflect -- So where's the public interest statement? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: It was the bottom of 1.2, wasn't it? Plus somewhere else. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right in the middle of 1.2. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, this bit here. Yeah, so it's kind of -- I suppose it's identifying stuff that we want to maybe -- that's probably the easiest way of doing it -- stuff that we want to kind of incorporate into our report somewhere. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: To me, the key bit is the description of public resource in the sense functions must be administered in the public or common interest. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: It's that sort of thing that's probably useful to reflect. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. So what have we got in the first bit? "Are intended to inform...." I think that's fine. Yeah, that's similar, if you go back to what the -- the text right up here in terms of the GAC resolving. Don't worry about that. Yeah, okay. Let's just keep going through here. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just a question for the group as you're going through it. Is it the group's intention that our document reflects, as much as possible, one set of principles and -- from wherever they come from, staff implementation principles, our principles, and the GAC? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes, absolutely. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Right-o. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think what you can do -- >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Because I want to know where we're going with this. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Where we're going with it, Liz, is, we will have a set of principles right at the front of the document. They will just be one set of principles. But just as the GAC has done it here, they've used references and footnotes. So we can just basically have the principles that we want in the front of the document. But then you might have a footnote saying, you know, "Core value number 1.2 from the bylaws," or "Core value from the staff paper," or something, or "Core value from" whatever it is. So it's okay to use references so people know where -- the source of the principle. But we don't want to have some notion that some principles are better than others. >>CHUCK GOMES: And some footnotes will actually reference their reference and ours. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The interesting thing is that much of their text actually reflects our recommendations. So we're in good shape. And I think what we need to do is just say, "The GAC supports the committee's intention," or language to that effect. >>BRUCE TONKIN: This is interesting. They've defined a gTLD, which is actually quite good, because that's how I would have defined it, too. So "A gTLD is a top-level domain which is not an ISO 3166 two-letter country code," which is good. Okay. That's a no-brainer. Actually, what was that? After -- Okay. This is specifying -- it's kind of funny. New gTLDs are defined as any gTLDs put in after our GAC resolution. >>CHUCK GOMES: Which probably isn't totally accurate, but it's okay, I think, for -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's all right. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Lucky us. >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right. I don't think we'll incorporate that verbatim. "In setting out the following principles, the GAC recalls stated core values." So they've done the same as we have. So they've gone -- which is good, again, that they're actually reading them. So that's all fine. They're just basically repeating the ICANN core values there. 2, "Public policy aspects related" -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah, which is not -- an observation. I think you're right, we don't need that last statement here. But I think -- I suspect that the XXX discussion is the reason that's in there. >>BRUCE TONKIN: What's in there? Sorry. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Oh. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Which bit? Sorry. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: The GAC statement that, for their purposes, any new gTLDs are those after the adoption of these principles. That specifically -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Oh, I see. So they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of what's come before or something. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: So, in other words, "Board take your decision on XXX tomorrow in light of this as well." So that's for them, not for us. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Right. Okay. The subtleties of government-speak. See, I need translators. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's why we have Phil. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Public policy aspects related to new gTLDs. "The following public policy principles need to be respected: New gTLDs should respect the provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seek to affirm fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person." I don't imagine we'd have a problem with that one. >>CARY KARP: Does it say we have to wash our hands before we can apply for a label? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Not yet. But it may do. We'll have to keep going. >>AVRI DORIA: (inaudible). I'm just wondering how the UDHR has anything to do with washing hands. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So now they're saying, "New gTLDs should respect the sensitivities regarding terms" -- Okay. Well, that's kind of where we've got -- if we forget the sensitivities a bit, but it's interesting, these words here are useful to know. 'Cause we've used that a few times in our document when we're talking about different things. So when we're talking about objection processes, Liz, you just use those words, "national, culture, geographic, and religious significance." >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just on that one, could I just get everyone, if you've got the new TLDs report, page 11, our recommendation currently reads, "Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order." >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let's just wait until we get to the rest of the document, I think, before we come back to that. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: In that case, I want a placeholder to see whether we can -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: But that's all about morality and public order there. That's more about when we're using established institutions to see whether there's an objection from that group. It's about sensitivities, saying, you know, "If you're applying for dot Islam, we can object to it." But the morality one's a bit different, I think. See if that comes up. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. And "Should avoid country" -- okay. Okay. So this is saying -- this is very much the geographic thing, "Avoid country, territory, or place names and country, territory, or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities." >>CHUCK GOMES: Is this for dot Berlin? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes, this is the dot Berlin clause. >>AVRI DORIA: And this one goes much further. >> EDMON CHUNG: This one is actually in the original GAC principles. I'm very familiar with this particular one. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: The language for the condition is the same, "alleging" (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: So just let's -- If we take that through -- >>EDMON CHUNG: The language is pretty much the same. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let's just take this through just so we would understand where it would go. So if we did dot Asia, what are they actually saying? Are they saying that every government in Asia says yes to that? >>AVRI DORIA: Pretty much. >>BRUCE TONKIN: 'Cause the way we've got it built at the moment, it's an objection process. So this is not -- this is actually written the other way. We're saying, basically, unless there is a protest from the relevant governments or public authorities. That's the difference in our process. >> MIKE RODENBAUGH: I think it could be read, essentially, the same way. Governments have a chance to object. Otherwise, they're presumed to agree. It doesn't say "unless in specific advance written agreement with." >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: But the materialization of this was ICANN asking letters of no objections. Even the -- the governments that were in agreement, they couldn't use the language "in agreement" regarding ICANN. So they asked, for instance, the Spanish and (inaudible) government for dot cat to be changed for no objections. And the (inaudible) said, "Do you have any objection?" "No, we don't have objections." The difference between the draft (inaudible) is that in the draft, it was said, "in express agreement." So they didn't want to do that. (inaudible). In agreement, this has not changed from the ones they approved in Cairo. So ICANN has room to interpret whether silence is agreement or not. >>CHUCK GOMES: And -- >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Which is deleted in the express agreement. >>CHUCK GOMES: And our process, I think, covers this fairly well. There's -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: (inaudible) some objection. >>CHUCK GOMES: It is. But also, an applicant could actually communicate in their application what agreement. Yeah, we've seen -- most of us have probably seen the document that dot Berlin has prepared that actually does that, that I assume they would put in their application. And so there's a couple different ways that this could be addressed. >>AVRI DORIA: I do think, though, that there's an issue here in that we talk about a challenge process and then that being dealt with externally. This, though, basically has -- If even after that challenge process there's still not an agreement, what do you do? Because this seems to say that, according to this principle, if one accepts it, they need to be in agreement. So any single voice saying they're not in agreement that is a relevant voice can -- so any relevant voice, so, for dot Asia or dot Berlin, a Berlin somewhere in the world, even if it wasn't the major Berlin, could -- okay, you get to have some interpretation space in what's relevant. But other than that, if something is defined as relevant, one voice should be enough to stop something. >> So let me just -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Although they said that they didn't -- they really didn't want a veto power. But I have a different thought in this regard. It may very well be in the RFP that there should be ref- -- some section with regard to geographic identifiers, with some guidance to the applicants to this clause, not because we're treating it that way, but if -- to make it easier for an applicant so they don't go through this process and not realize that they need to deal with this. The better they do a job in dealing with this, the better their chances will be. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let me just take a queue for a second. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Ken. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Slow down for a second. Jon, then Ken Stubbs. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Kristina, Philip. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Who's Kristina? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Down there. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Anyone else? Okay, go ahead. So, Chuck, just to sort of capture what you were suggesting there, you're suggesting that you could just -- you reference that as part of the -- a part of what exactly? Just this is notes to applicants or something? >>CHUCK GOMES: Part of -- actually, it seems like the RFP. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: So that an applicant knows if they're applying for one of these types of names that they, you know -- whether we in the process actually use the same criteria they use, bottom line is, at some point, the GAC's going to comment on this thing. And so you're giving a heads-up to the applicant that, you know, if you're smart, you're going to do your best to get concurrence, support, whatever, from whatever government or governments may be involved with the name you're choosing. >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's kind of interesting. If I go back to this -- and this is sort of an interesting language thing -- it says "should avoid," rather than "must not register," which is interesting. That's probably -- I think that language is probably important. Well, it's just the "avoid." I just like the way they've worded that. That's not a "must." >> Bruce, that was going to be my point. And throughout the document, they do use "must" in some places. So I think they were cognizant of the "should" and 'must." But that was my question. So you can take me off of the queue. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: May I say something? Because I have to leave for another meeting here. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yep. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Regarding the experience we concretely had on this. There are two places where you can do with that. The one is that, you can provide that in front as part of, you know, your application. But also, some governments will not provide this sort of written assurance for an applicant in a process, a private entity. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. So we're not asking for it up-front. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: In that case, they would prefer that ICANN ask them directly, and they will not deal with the private party. And this, therefore, is part of the evaluation of the -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: ICANN is a private party, too, by the way. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Pardon? >>BRUCE TONKIN: ICANN is a private party. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: Sure. But a private -- What somehow is an entrepreneurial activity, if you know what I mean, so they say, "well, we don't mind, but we don't want to come as supporting you." >>BRUCE TONKIN: So they don't want to endorse somebody. There's a difference. So by giving -- because there could be two applicants. And they're not going to write in and endorse someone as part of the process. >>AMADEU ABRIL i ABRIL: I think the best way would be for when the first report is being done, the staff will see that there's something lacking there, which complies with this "in case" that ICANN wants to incorporate. And at that point, it will ask for the letter. It will wait for the letter to come or not before, you know, everything goes. So it's a stop. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think what we probably do, then, is we leave new gTLD report probably using the kind of language we have, you know, that we have this objection process. And then we would just reference to using Chuck's approach. We just go, "See 2.2 of GAC principles," or something like that. Because I don't think we necessarily want to reflect this language as written, but I think we want to sort of acknowledge that, "Yes, this is where we see your language being relevant." >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Only in the implementation guidelines? >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, no, no. In our recommendation. We have a recommendation about -- Let me cover it offline. But the concept is, we -- we have something that talks about the nature of objections. But then we just cross-reference that this is the GAC guideline it relates to. >>CHUCK GOMES: Are you saying, then, Bruce, that -- What about the idea of a recommendation from us that something in the RFP be included? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, yeah. That can go in the implementation guidelines, yeah. Okay, Jon. Jon Bing. >>JON BING: Thank you. Yes, I was saying, about the same -- same paragraph, that the presence of "should" there is -- at least in my usual legal reading, is different from "must." It is sort of a -- still a polite or asking you to do something. And it also, I think, implies that there should be procedures in place for avoiding. And I think also that the "relevant governments," there is -- there is the government in which that term is relevant. So there is a restriction in relevance. That's rather strong, I think. And I also do not think that this clause says in which way you should avoid it, if it should be an extant or ex post challenge or something to be examined before you do it. You can do it afterwards or before, as long as you have appropriate procedures. And I'm sure that they would then comment upon the procedures proposed, whether they would be appropriate or not. So I think this is rather weak language, actually. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. We have -- Thanks, Jon. Again, you look like you understand political speech. Ken Stubbs. >>KEN STUBBS: (Inaudible.) Flash that thing back up on the screen, would you, Bruce. I'm a little confused about avoiding regional languages. What does that imply? Does that imply -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think it says -- >>KEN STUBBS: -- you don't need to use this in regional language anywhere means agreement from the relevant governments? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think -- No. I think what -- The way I word that is, it's a description of a regional language. >>KEN STUBBS: So if I wanted to have a TLD, dot Urdu, then -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. 'Cause it's a description of that language, yeah. That's how I'd interpret it. >>KEN STUBBS: Well, if I was to have a TLD -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: If you had -- >>KEN STUBBS: -- (inaudible) IDN and if Urdu was the language -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Was the language, that's different, yeah. So I think the dot Urdu would be an issue. I always like to keep this stuff in Latin characters, because my knowledge is very weak. I think it's the difference between saying dot French, which is a description of the language, versus dot banque, b-a-n-q-u-e, which just happens to be using the French language. I think there's a big difference. >>KEN STUBBS: Olof is trying to get -- >>CARY KARP: Put me in the queue. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Philip. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Firstly, I'd like to agree with what we heard from Jon on the phrasing of 2.2. I think our existing recommendation 14.C, which we're moving to around about 8, -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yep. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: -- I think covers that, because we are describing a process to do the avoidance. So I think we're covered. I have a -- I just have a suggestion in terms of text edit, though, which you mentioned. I'm not sure if we all agreed with that -- that the text that's currently in 2.1.B, "the sensitivities regarding," et cetera, I think -- I can't see any reason why we shouldn't pick up that same terminology and put it into our existing recommendation 14.C. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So, sorry, just say that again, please. 2.1 of what? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The GAC principles. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: The GAC principles, which is, "sensitivities regarding terms of national, cultural, geographic, and religious significance," seems to be capturing the same concept as what we tried for in a part of 14.C. And I just thought it would make our life easy if we used that same terminology. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Philip, that was the question I was just asking about how much we wish to reflect what the GAC's language is in our own report. I think that's a very sensible way of dealing with 14.C. >>BRUCE TONKIN: As much as we can. Are you talking about 2.1.B there? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yep. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I agree. Why I'm highlighting this stuff in yellow is, by and large, just sort of the bits that -- where we can, we sort of pick up that language in our report somewhere. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Exactly. >>BRUCE TONKIN: In the case -- Sometimes it's a question of where we do that. And I think we can do that later. But I think what Liz was suggesting here on this is, we can pick up some of the language about country, territory, and place names. But that whole recommendation becomes part of an FAQ for applicants. So what we're thinking of doing is, effectively, creating an FAQ of applicants' advice, saying, "If you want to get through this process quickly," you know, "you should do the following." Avoid this problem would be one of them. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Which is distinct from saying, "You must" -- "You're not allowed to have it." We're just saying, "We recommend you avoid this if you want to get a TLD anytime soon." Hang on. Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I am just kind of (inaudible) on Chuck's earlier point (inaudible). But maybe a way to (inaudible) RFP (inaudible) out this particular language (inaudible) -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Can you just use the mike? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Oh, sorry. One thing that we can do -- and this is just picking up on an idea that Chuck suggested -- that as opposed to just limiting kind of notice language that we would put in the RFP to this particular section, I think it probably would be useful to make it broader, to cover, for example, even, I guess, kind of the reverse of the language in 14.C. For example, in the sense that just as we could say in the RFP, "Please state if the TLD for which you are applying is a," you know, "is, to the best of your knowledge, a country, territory," da, da, da. "And, if so, please refer to," blah, blah, blah. And, similarly, we could have something to the effect of, you know, "If the TLD covered by this application reflects an economic, cultural, or language community institution," and then kind of go from there, so that it's broad enough to kind of cover everything without specifically focusing on something that might be a little bit more contentious than otherwise. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's good. We're just going to have to be very careful -- and I'm sure staff will take care of this -- how it's worded. Because we're recognizing that it's a "should," that it's relevant governments, the language that Jon was talking about. And it could be very easily implied or the applicant could think it's -- it's an absolute requirement. We want to call it to their attention. We just need to -- All I'm saying is, word it cautiously so it doesn't come across as an absolute requirement. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely. Something like, "You may wish to refer to." And the other good thing about that is that it puts the burden on the applicant to tell us, is this one of these categories? Because, obviously, we'll know the easy places and the easy countries and the easy territories, but not the more obscure ones. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The other thing to remember here is, we're well protected in our definitions, because we've used "should," "must," and "may" in terms of the RFC. And I think if we use that as a definitional term, then we're going to be in good shape for actually describing what we mean. >>BRUCE TONKIN: The thing is, because there's different uses of the terminology there, so when you're giving guidelines for applicants in an RFP process versus defining the objection process, and you're just saying that, you know, as part of our objection process, you can object on the basis that you're an established institution in, responsible for, blah, blah, blah. And that -- and we -- as Kristina's saying, we can word that reasonably generally that picks this up without necessarily having to get all the nuances of this. People descriptions is interesting. I'm assuming that means different, fat and skinny and so on. [ Laughter ] >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: I think perhaps -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Because it might be hard to get the agreement of such groups. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: I know we're -- I know we're making a joke, but I think perhaps what the GAC are trying to do is to look at the way in which, for example, one would describe Kurds, and the Turkish government may object. I don't think we're being superficial about people descriptions of fat, thin, or otherwise. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I know what it means, Liz. I was just making a joke. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Sorry. Duh. [ Laughter ] >>CARY KARP: Do either of you know the difference between a territory name and a territory description? What other attribute of territory are we talking about? Large? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: You see? >>CARY KARP: It's not a joke. I think this is so peculiarly worded that I have a rough time figuring out what they were thinking. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I think it's Taiwan, Palestine. It's all those sort of -- >>CARY KARP: Those are names. Those are actually names of territories. >> KRISTINE ROSETTE: I would speculate that that might be going to what we refer to as geographical indications of origin, you know, Champagne, Burgundy, things that are potentially names. >>BRUCE TONKIN: The thing is, it also says "in agreement with the relevant governments and public authorities." So that's assuming -- So it does match what we've got in that there's an established institution that represents a group. It's not just a person saying, "Hey, you know, that's a description of me. I don't like it. I don't like dot travel because I happen to be a travel agent." >>CARY KARP: But -- >>KEN STUBBS: (inaudible) might very well be dot German, because that's a description. >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's absolutely in that area. Because that would be a description of a regional language. >>CARY KARP: But territory descriptions are -- >>KEN STUBBS: Or a description of a people, of a culture, you know. I mean, they're going to drag it in one way or another. >>BRUCE TONKIN: But there would be a public authority or relevant government for that group, yeah. >>JON BING: But territory is not related to descriptions, I think. Though there's "ors" between. >>BRUCE TONKIN: By the way, Cary, I'm not suggesting using exactly this language. I think it's just we would reference 2.2 and just say that -- our language, which is not the same as this. I think we just have to be careful of trying to -- because it's a bit more contentious when you start getting into the more general terms of this. Yeah. Okay. We have Edmon. >>EDMON CHUNG: Actually, we just covered what I want to mention. It's to make it (inaudible) and also to make sure that this is something that, you know, they understand and it's not, you know -- like, it's not impossible, but it's just something that they need to be aware of. The other thing is that I think Avri mentioned about governments somehow having sort of a veto. I don't think that's -- that's probably not the intent. And that has not been the case, either. For the -- for example, for the dot Asia proposal, there have been governments that raised certain concerns, although it never amounted to an objection. But the concerns were raised. So that, in itself, doesn't mean it should be completely -- I mean, that shouldn't be taken as a veto. So even some governments -- I guess, in essence, in terms of implementing this particular description or clause, the ICANN board has taken it to be not necessarily that there is no concern at all from any government. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: Yeah, thanks. I don't know if this has been covered already, but since all the rest of 2.2 has been highlighted, I would like to draw attention to the subject of the sentence, which is "ICANN." There's a big difference between 2.1, where they say, "new gTLDs should respect," and all of a sudden, in 2.2, "ICANN should avoid," which means that the onus is on ICANN. And there are ways of discharging that and reflecting that in RFPs and so on. But I think it was mentioned earlier that, well, this calls for some kind of a verification from ICANN's side that this has been done. So I think it's not only in the RFP, but it needs to be verified in one way or another by ICANN that there are no objections from the relevant governments. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. That's another -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Bruce, a couple responses to Olof, I think. >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess, having been through this, the intent of that particular language is that -- 'cause -- I guess I shouldn't interpret what the GAC says. But as much as I understand -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, the rest of us are, so -- >>EDMON CHUNG: From what I understand, the intent was that the issue of the ccTLD, the ISO list, that ICANN wouldn't refer to some other list and then start creating TLDs out of which -- and IDNs was one of the considerations as well. And that is why it started with "ICANN should." >>CHUCK GOMES: I also think that the -- the name "ICANN" has many different definitions in terms of the context that it's used. So we have to be careful how much we read into that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I'd like to go -- I think that's kind of almost a process thing. I mean, the way to answer that is that ICANN has process to deal with that, which is what Jon was pointing out. Cary. >>CARY KARP: Actually, what I want to -- initially intended to say has been covered. But in response to what Edmon just said, since there are -- there's an action under way to create new lists equivalent to the ISO-3166, and we -- our name space is constrained from doing anything that might be confused with something that does or might appear under 3166 two-character list, and if there are going to be equivalent lists, that they intend to have equivalent authority, at some point, we're going to need to make a preemptive statement of the fact that that might be great for the organization of the CC space, but if they think it's going to impose new unbounded constraints on the G space, we've got a real problem. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. All right. Any other comments on this clause? Kristina, then Avri. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: I apologize in advance if this was something that was covered Sunday afternoon during the working group meeting that I was running simultaneously. But the language about the governments kind of brings to mind a point that I don't know that we've talked about yet. And it might be premature to do it, but I think we need to start thinking about it. And that is, in the context of this language, you could have multiple governments objecting. And in the context of our dispute resolution process, regardless of what the basis for the objection is, are we going to be doing them serially? Or is it the first successful challenge? If someone successfully challenges the name, that's the end of it? Or are we going -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: We haven't sort of thought that through. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think, basically, the concept is that there's a period of time when you can object. But as you say, anywhere in the process, there could be multiple objections. And then the question is how they're handled. And, obviously, you can bundle some of those. I mention, Kristina, it's probably not that dissimilar to how courts deal with it, because, obviously, a court can have a number of people complaining about the same party and could sort of say, oh, we encourage you to get together and do your complaint together. I think that's probably the way you'd handle it. So, you know, depending on the situation. But I agree, we've got to sort of think about what happens when you do have multiple objections and what's the most efficient way of dealing with them. It's just that sometimes the objections might be quite different. Yeah. The one here that I find interesting -- and that's why I was sort of using dot Asia as an example -- is, if you have, let's say, the government of Japan, that's just one country in Asia. And so the question is, is that sufficient to get against something like dot Asia, or are we really saying -- that's a bit similar to the triple X debate I heard out there. So, basically, there are some members of that industry that don't like it. Is that sufficient, you know? And that's kind of -- ultimately, we're going to have to provide some measure of that as part of that objection process, that you actually have to provide evidence that if it is as broad as something like Asia, that's potentially multiple governments in Asia that are complaining, which would be much different to if it's dot Japan, when it's very clear. You know, if the Japanese government complained about it, that's it, you know. Jon. >>JON BING: You're, of course, right that you have this problem of one country being part of a bigger territory and all that sort of thing. It all relies on that little world "relevant," doesn't it? And in an ordinary process, we would say that this would work itself out through the case law. You know, you'll have a case, and you'll decide that. And you'll have another case, and you'll decide that. And after a while, you'll understand what "relevant" meant. But that may not be sufficient in this area. I myself thought about China, China protest against -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Taiwan or something. >>JON BING: No, I thought about something, selling (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Because what actually is Taiwan? The full country name -- you know, Edmon -- probably includes the word "China." Isn't one of them the People's Republic or something? And the other is -- >>EDMON CHUNG: First of all, it's not a country, supposedly. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Right. >>EDMON CHUNG: And -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's Taiwan, is it not? >>EDMON CHUNG: And the -- I guess the way to approach it as the -- it's -- the IOC designation would be Chinese Taipei. And the other way to describe it, I guess, would be Taiwan China. In this particular context, we -- our designation, we always refer to dot TW, which is safe this way. [ Laughter ] >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: I had a question relating to this about relevant governments and our objection processes. We flagged the other day when we were talking about objections that an objector would file a fee and would submit their documentation. And I just wanted to have a reserved question that said -- and I flipped quickly to 2.7, which says, "Appropriate procedures for blocking at no cost and upon demand of governments, public authorities, or IGOs." Just want to flag that there may well be an expectation that relevant governments or public authorities may wish to be able to lodge objections in this case without fee and on demand, because it would be consistent with language in 2.7, and whether in our implementation plan we ought to just think a little bit about the way in which the objection process might be devised to include whomever objects, objects under the same rules. So just no answer to that, but just to hold it in the back of your head until we get through to that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. All right. I think we've probably covered this one enough. It's actually a lot of subtle language. >>AVRI DORIA: Actually, I want -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Sorry. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: All that's been said, we took a legalistic interpretation to the word "should," and sort of saying "should" is not "must." So it's either the engineering or the legalistic. I would actually want to put into sort of the consideration pile that it was a diplomatic origin word, and that the word came out of not legalisms, but out of the process, that not everyone could agree. There were various countries that, would not agree to this particular rule, and therefore you can't write "must," because that means all countries would want to see this kind of consideration. And so that having "should" there, actually, coming out of that diplomatic process means that for some countries, in some cases, this will be able to be seen as "must." And we won't actually know those unless we're really good at looking at the country. So look at a particular country, look at the use of the word and such, and it becomes "must." But because of diplomatic process, if any country disagreed with that being the case in all cases, then you wouldn't be able to use the word "must." It's a full consensus document. And so that word -- it's not a legal document. It's a diplomatic ambiguity document. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we absolutely know that there are some countries that don't go along with this, like our own. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Like what? >> Like the U.S. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Okay. The process for introducing new gTLDs must place proper allowance for prior trademark rights. This bit here is the bit that they've snuck in. >> MIKE RODENBAUGH: Hold on a second. Before we really get into a big discussion on that, names and acronyms of IGOs are just trademarks of IGOs, period. >>BRUCE TONKIN: They're not all trademarks. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: They don't have to be registered trademarks, but they are, in fact, trademarks. Kristina, will you back me up on that one? Come on, the Red Cross or the U.N. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: That's different. This has to do with the whole WIPO II thing. >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's the WIPO II clause. I agree with Philip. >>CARY KARP: It's the WIPO II in drag. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I don't think we want to incorporate that text directly, that particular part. Would you agree? Or not? I mean, we can do it either way. We can stick it in our agreement and say that we're -- we're going to protect those rights, but -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I was actually going to suggest that we probably did, because the -- if you do that, we might find we get WIPO II off our backs, which would actually be a policy issue solved at a stroke. The reference, basically, -- They're saying the same thing in 2.3 as we currently are, of course, in whatever it is, recommendation -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, but we're not actually saying -- we're just saying lots of others. We're using something a bit more general. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah, a bit more general. I would have thought using the back end of that clause would not get us into any particular deep water with anybody who might want to apply for something that wouldn't otherwise be objected to and would check all sorts of boxes elsewhere, so -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, so you're saying, politically -- I don't think it costs us a lot. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Exactly. >>CHUCK GOMES: Put it in like it is, with the word "must"? I don't think it does -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: It just says "must" -- the wording there is "proper allowance." >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I would take the back end of the clause, so, in other words, after the "in particular," and incorporate that into our recommendation 3. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just wait. Bruce, I think (inaudible). >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Our recommendation 3 starts, "Strings must not infringe existing legal rights of others," dot, dot, dot. And we can have an "in particular" clause or "this includes, but not omitted" clause, and include that last bit of theirs. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So, basically, what you'd be saying is you'd probably include the whole thing, which is, "in particular, trademarks" -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: -- "rights, as well as" -- you would pretty much include that. >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm not as comfortable with that as you guys are. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Tell me the downside. I just want to understand. >>CHUCK GOMES: First of all, what's "proper allowance"? That's such a vague term. And -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, I'm not including the "proper allowance." >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: We're not. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I'm just saying, "Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights" -- so they have to be existing legal rights -- "as recognizable or enforceable under international law." So that's sort of the first part of the sentence. And this would just be -- you know, we'd just put something, "which" -- as Philip said, "which may include," or something like that. There's preference why it has to be existing -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I guess we'll just have to see the language to -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Coming back to my thing, Chuck, to the extent that we can have a few of their words in -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I'm supportive of that. I just think that we have to be careful that we don't bite off more than we intend. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I completely agree, yeah. Let me take a queue again. It's going to be a long afternoon, I can see. I might stick you in first, Kristina, because I'm interested to -- the other thing that I have seen floating around -- I haven't checked to see if it's in the GAC communique anywhere, but the WIPO II thing is coming up again. So just let me finish the queue. Anyone else need to be on the queue? Okay. I've given you a prior trademark right there, Kristina, to go first on the WIPO II topic. But just sort of give me a sense of where that's going. So for those that are not familiar with the background, WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, has asked ICANN to consider as part of the sort of UDRP processes protecting IGOs and pharmaceuticals is a little bit of a list of categories there. And they're saying, "It's easy. Just whack it into UDRP." The GNSO looked at that a couple years ago and said no. And then they got upset. And then we said we'd think about it, I think, is the -- was the essence of it. And then I think Kristina's been doing a little bit of work to sort of think how we might be able to accommodate that. So I'll let you go. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And this is something that, to a large extent, I inherited from one of my predecessors. But the long and the short of it is that the IPC has looked at this. We have put together a paper which, but for the fact that I was elected to the council two days before the Sao Paulo meeting, and it's been a pretty busy couple months, we haven't had a chance to introduce it. Ultimately -- and I think, you know, if I could just go ahead and get on the agenda for the next council meeting about this paper itself, ultimately, where we come out is that we are recommending against revising the UDRP to specifically include IGOs for the two key reasons being that, in most countries where registration is a prerequisite for trademark protection, and, in turn, commercial activity is a prerequisite for trademark registration, many of these IGO names are not technically trademarks, which would kind of take them out of the scope of the UDRP in the first instance. The second problem is that, in many cases, they either have a separate sovereignty basis or they have no one and no ability to consent to the jurisdiction that is required in the UDRP. For example, when you file a UDRP, you have to consent that -- in the event that either party files an appeal, a judicial appeal, what jurisdiction you're going to allow that to happen in. And IGOs, frankly -- and not incorrectly, I think -- have refused to do that. So I guess the concern that I would have is that if in other spheres of I.P. we consider to be -- IGOs to be analogous but separate, if we go ahead and lump them in here, we're essentially eliminating that distinction. And I think it's an important distinction that has to be made. So I think, you know, maybe we need to ultimately just tinker with the wording. But I'm concerned that if we just equate them or draft this in such a way so that they are considered to be equated, that, frankly, we're causing more troubles for ourselves. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Our current wording just says, "Must not infringe the legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under international law." So we don't actually mention trademarks in our recommendation at the moment. So we could include this maybe -- maybe we stick this in an implementation guideline or something and keep it out of the core recommendation. But we could just say that these are examples of rights that may exist or something, we just use the word "may." I think my kind of view on this is, in the general GNSO concept, is that I think you'd have to be -- rather than us creating a UDRP around it, they would have to be able to do it without a UDRP. Because the purpose of the UDRP is just to make something more streamlined and efficient. It's not to create some sort of law, in my view. So with trademarks, you're saying you can obviously use courts in trademarks. But, you know, that's a complex process. So we've come up with UDRP, which is cheaper for all parties. So I think with respect to the WIPO II stuff, that's been kind of my principle. Whereas, the argument I've heard in return is, "It's too hard to actually make this a law, but we think it's a good idea, so why don't you put it in your dispute process." And I think that's -- once you start going down that line, there will be no end to it. You know, everyone's going to say, "Oh, I've got this other good idea. Why don't you work that in there." You know, "I think should you protect babies," so you stick that in there. You know, it's hard to sort of stop that. But what's your sort of response, Kristina, on WIPO II? So you were saying don't include it under UDRP, but you're saying still provide some dispute process for it? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, the idea that's been suggested is that you would create a similar process, but it would have to have key distinctions, namely, the consent to jurisdiction, judicial review, which brings into kind of -- again, implicates another issue we've been talking about as to what extent these resolution processes -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: So it must have judicial review would be the -- >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: That's where the -- just -- I'm having a really hard time trying to think of a way that we can -- if we start here, if we end up somewhere that just makes sense and is consistent with everything else. But I definitely do want to think about it more, because there might be another way to get around it. >>BRUCE TONKIN: This particular wording, yeah, I think we're just -- maybe we just be careful, I think, as Chuck's saying, too. I think we probably want to be cautious about putting this in a core recommendation. But we could put it in guidelines or something like that, with appropriate language to -- which, again, with a reference back to 2.3, so the GAC can say, "Oh, okay, they've got that in there somewhere," but it's not necessarily a core recommendation. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Bruce, I think I'm probably happy with that solution. Just in terms of practicality, though, I think it's dead easy. The list of IGOs is trivially small and is a fixed list. So that's easy to know. So, again, -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: What do you mean by "a fixed list"? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: What WIPO and governments mean by IGOs exists as a fixed list. You know, we can -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: I don't think it is. Because is -- Let me see -- the ANSYS, is that an intergovernment organization? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: My under- -- Well, we can debate that later. My understanding is, though, that there was a fixed list that was (inaudible). Perhaps Jon has some better insight. But, I mean, that -- all my feeling is -- Anyway, I think the -- one thing as having it as our recommendation, I don't think it changes our process. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Which is going to be a objection-based process. Now, what Kristina is saying is that the track that happens a bit later, now that an action is processed, may be different if it's an IGO objecting because of the nature -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Versus if it's a trademark. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Versus a trademark. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Which is fair. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: But that's fine. And that sense of limitation detail is something that staff will have to look at. It's not our job. >>BRUCE TONKIN: And I think they're looking at -- >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: (inaudible) that's all I think. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think they're looking at the second level and the first level. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Exactly. >>BRUCE TONKIN: And they're probably more concerned about the second level right now. Yep. Okay. Who's next? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Philip, just before we move on, the triviality of an international government organization, they may be trivially small in numbers but massively enormous in their capacity to object and make a big mess. So our dear friends at the Red Cross or our dear friends at ITU or our dear friends at wherever, might be a small group of them, but their capacity to make a loud noise and lots of problem is probably like a piece of string. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Sorry. I was just intrigued just to see what happens when you just do some typical searches for the terms "intergovernment organizations" and what sort of diversity you get here. I see Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I think it's actually a bit broader than what you're thinking of. I think you're thinking of U.N. government organizations, which is probably a list. But.... Jon. Yeah, Jon, go ahead. >>JON BING: Yeah, thank you. Yes, there are lists both of nongovernmental organizations and governmental organizations. But those are associated with the organization that accepts them. So there will be, for instance, a list of international organizations that are accepted to WIPO, but some international organizations have no interest in going to WIPO, so they haven't asked for it. So it really is open-ended. And I notice that it says "intergovernmental organizations," and that is different from international organizations. So it may be only two countries, a bilateral organization. >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right. >>JON BING: And, of course, that underscores that this is an open-ended list. And also it contains acronyms that are proper words, at least in some languages. And we have jokes about acronyms for Swedish, Norwegian organizations that are -- mean something else in other parts of the world. So that needs to be qualified. But, still, we shouldn't lose, as you say, that Red Cross, UNICEF, words like that should be -- of course, not be candidates for top-level domain names unless they agree. So there is a spectrum here. One part of the spectrum is without any problems at all. But it sort of easily goes off in the indigo. So if some qualified terms, as Kristina suggested, tinkering with it a bit, that should be possible. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Ken. >>KEN STUBBS: I'm very concerned about a couple of things. First of all, if I was on the GAC and if I was writing this thing, I would write this thing with as many windows of opportunity as possible, using worlds like "relevant" and so forth. I think that it's extremely important for us not to incorporate into the new gTLD any wording that, in effect, embeds these windows of opportunity. You know, "affected," "relevant," words like that are legal minefields for the average person. Maybe not for lawyers. But I don't want to get into a situation that someone can argue that they are an affected community. And what is the definition of "relevant"? Relevant to what? Affected by what? So I think we need to be very, very careful as we incorporate some of this in here that we don't get caught in these traps. Because I'm -- these guys are awfully good at crafting. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Spent days on it. We're not bad at it, either. Ray Fassett. >>RAY FASSETT: Actually, I -- yeah, Ken makes a great point there. I can tell you from the sTLD RFP criteria, when we looked at it right when it came out, we looked at it and said, "It's impossible to pass this." I mean, it could literally be impossible to pass this because of the words they use, "relevant to," just iterating Ken's point. When I look at this, I take the latter -- I agree with Mike Rodenbaugh, too, that this is very redundant. Intergovernmental organizations really are already covered by trademarks under common law. >> No. >> No, they are not. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let's not get into that debate. >>RAY FASSETT: Well, I was just driving to a recommendation, where we say, "international law," comma, "for example, third-party rights to trademarks." That's how I would maybe do our recommendation, is where we have that one recommendation, "is applicable to international law," comma, "for example, third-party rights to trademarks." And then maybe reference this 2.3. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you. Mike, you couldn't resist. Olof. >>OLOF NORDLING: I think most of what has been said about IGOs was what I wanted to address a little. But two remaining points, perhaps. It's first and foremost that the definition -- well, as it is written here, it has a pretty wide field. It could, indeed, be bilateral organizations. Although, in WIPO II, the scope is much more narrow. It's actually the U.N. family of intergovernmental organizations that are intended. That's one. So we may want to make some kind of reference in order to narrow the scope of this. Because, otherwise, it becomes very wide. Secondly, even that list isn't as fixed as one may believe, because, on and off, they establish subsidiary organizations or working groups which are part and parcel of the IGO and get their own little name and abbreviation. So it's not -- there is flexibility in that list as well, which we should just keep in mind. That's all. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. I respect there's this issue about WIPO II. But that's generally dealing with second-level domains and having to go after somebody who's causing a problem. Someone's registered nato.uk, and NATO doesn't like it. So rather than taking military action, they want to go to a court. They don't want to go to a court, because then they are admitting to jurisdiction. That's just all completely irrelevant here at the top level, where someone is applying for a domain name. We already have a process for community input, that sort of thing. If people object to it, it's going to be a problem. Well, why -- What's wrong with this language, in essence? Or if it is a problem, then why don't we just move it into an implementation guideline and leave it alone, refer back to this GAC principle. I guess I'm just really not understanding the controversy. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I think it's -- it's probably because you've missed about three years of debate on this topic of WIPO II. But I think your general advice is right, though. I think what we would be doing here is that we can reference this particular recommendation and we can sort of put it in guidelines for things to think about, but we keep our recommendation sort of worded as it is, which is, "infringing the legal rights of others recognized or enforceable under law," whatever that is. We don't have to specify which laws and which names are protected. As you say, IGO -- you know, why don't we sort of say, including the names and acronyms of, you know, large companies, you know. Not really that much difference. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: So, Bruce, for clarity, then, what you're suggesting is we move it into -- we move similar wording into an implementation guideline that is related to recommendation 3? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'm happy with that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: What I will do is try and get back to you on language once Kristina can help, because I think that phrasing here, as Olof was pointing out, acronyms of intergovernmental organizations, and then using the acronym "IGOs" is not quite right and is different to what WIPO II's request was about. And I think we should limit it to the WIPO II request. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. I'll let you suggest text, because I'm not across all those subtleties and -- Okay. Next topic. Okay. This is sort of the bit that's added. The first sentence we've got. Second sentence is related to reserved names, I guess, but to avoid confusion with country code, no two-letter gTLD should be introduced. There's folks floating around out there that want the domain name dot four U, for example. Does that two-letter restriction -- you probably know this, Chuck, in terms of the restriction. It's essentially two characters, is it? Or is it two letters at the moment? >>CHUCK GOMES: (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: At that second level. Two characters. So four would not be allowed. So, basically, that wouldn't be allowed under the current sort of thinking; is that right? Oh, you had Latin America, of course. >>TONY HARRIS: No, that's Laos, LA. We thought of that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: What do you want to be called? >> I'm sorry? >>BRUCE TONKIN: What do you want to be called? >>TONY HARRIS: LAC. >>BRUCE TONKIN: LAC. >>TONY HARRIS: Latin America, Caribbean. No, I was going to remark, actually -- most people know this, of course -- that they probably refer to the ISO 3066 list, which is country denominations, they're all two-letter codes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, but here it's going more than that. It's saying no two-letter codes should be introduced, to avoid confusion. That's much broader. That's basically saying -- >>TONY HARRIS: No. That's true. But it comes -- it stems from that originally, from that concept. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Ken. >>KEN STUBBS: Yeah. Can I dump 2.7 into this discussion? >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. Let's wait until we get there. >>KEN STUBBS: All right. That's why I asked. >>BRUCE TONKIN: All right. >>CHUCK GOMES: It looks like this one is consistent with where we're going. >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's consistent with where you are with the reserved names? >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, it is, absolutely. On two character at the top, we stayed consistent with current practice. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yep. Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So just in terms of, like, how you'd answer this question to the dot four U's, if they were really that keen, I guess what you're saying is I'd need to make a separate proposal to ICANN really saying how they -- it's so essential that you have that. But the default is no. That's probably what the response would be. Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Substantial issue in my mind whether they are intending to preclude all IDNs that have two characters as well, which should affect our two words or could be one longer word. So maybe we can use 3.2 and go back and ask for more guidance on this from the GAC. >>AVRI DORIA: Especially since yesterday they were saying that they didn't necessarily want to be restricted to the two, and it didn't necessarily make sense. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Exactly. That was -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's a different way of phrasing it; right? Because what they're saying there is that the country code people don't want to be restricted to two characters. This is different. This is saying to avoid confusion with what's there. >>WERNER STAUB: And they said yesterday specifically it did not apply to IDN ccTLDs. So, basically -- IDNs, basically, at all, they said they haven't looked at that yet. >>BRUCE TONKIN: You mean these principles? >>WERNER STAUB: I mean these principles are not yet adapted to IDN. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I think -- they do say something like that. >>CARY KARP: Be careful in allowing their headaches to be projected onto ours. We are not prepared to live with a two-character only (inaudible) correlate, because of notions of abbreviation as they underlie the whole notion of code aren't applicable outside of the comfortable anglophone or closely related realm, but they have no such compunctions about forcing us to live with that. We, indeed, have to get away from two characters. However, they realize that the two characters only applies to ASCII characters. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. That's right. But I think this is probably one of those things that I wouldn't want to argue about at this stage of the game. It's -- >>CARY KARP: At what stage of the game do we start arguing? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Yeah. I mean, you're talking about taking every two-letter gTLD ASCII string out of -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Out of the first round, yeah. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Again, then maybe this is something that we can design some further consultation with them about. Because I think that's, you know -- I don't want to use the word "ridiculous" in referring to the GAC. But you're talking, what -- maybe this is where we need a statistician -- I don't know how many potential two-letter numbers -- >> 26. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: -- character relations -- whatever it is, you know, it's in the thousands; right? And we have 265 now, including dot CH, and dot CN, which I can't imagine anything more confusing than those two. So what are they really trying to tell us to do here? >>CARY KARP: Easily a five-digit number of IDN characters. So it's some five-digit number times itself. Maybe a six-digit number. It gets absolutely absurd. And they recognize that this is absurd in the CC realm for a variety of reasons, but there's obviously no similar concern about the way this impinges upon the G realm other than what we clearly indicate. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, but I think the thing is to recognize that we've got to make progress and get the community comfortable to allow us to make that progress. So to the extent that you might limit -- Now, I think we should get some clarity and go back to them on this point as to what do they mean. Do they mean, you know, the two ASCII characters, as you'd see in the root? You know, dot XY? Or are they actually talking about dot XN dash dash whatever, that gets -- when it gets displayed ends up being two Chinese characters. Because that's not clear from that particular statement. And that's something worth clarifying. And I think you're right, Mike, I think we can actually go back and state statistically, that blocks so many hundred names, but if we widen it, you have now blocked so many thousand names, as Cary said. Yeah, go ahead. >> CYNTHIA HAGEN: (Inaudible.) I am Cynthia Hagen, observer, from Microsoft. I'm just wondering, do you think they are being specific here where they say "letter" as opposed to characters? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, that's what I'm wondering, yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think they probably are. And if you go to our reserved name working group report, we differentiate it as well. We said two letter. Now, we said more work was needed on a mix of numbers and letters in two-character. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Right. >>CHUCK GOMES: So I'm sorry -- I think it's probably pretty good chances that they were being specific here, the two-letter. >>CARY KARP: Sorry. Be careful. A character -- a squiggle used to represent some phonetic element of language is not necessarily a letter. A Chinese idiogram, that is a word. And you're talking about two things, what would otherwise be white space, blip, blip, has a squiggle in it, blip, blip. And those things are not necessarily letters. And what two of them can mean isn't always -- there's a Unicode codepoint which is an entire Arabic sentence, written-out Arabic sentence. That's one character. There's another Unicode codepoint which is another Arabic sentence. So you can stick two -- >>CHUCK GOMES: But, Cary, don't you think they're talking about ASCII here? >>CARY KARP: No, they're not talking about ASCII. There was enormous anguish in the GNS- -- sorry, the GAC-ccNSO joint working group meeting about this. >>CHUCK GOMES: I was there. I'm talking about this language right here. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. So, hang on. I'm not going to try and debate this, because we don't know what the intent was. But I think what Cary is saying is, in certain contexts, they are talking about two IDN characters. And then our question is, is that what they mean here or not? >>WERNER STAUB: Could we just draw your attention to (inaudible) wrote it. It is not addressing IDN. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: It says it doesn't relate to it. Exactly. At the very end. >> While -- >> Sorry, it refers explicitly to country code, and country codes are in ASCII letters. >>CARY KARP: They ever in the process -- >>JON BING: Yeah, the interpretation of this sentence is rather easy. >>CARY KARP: They are in the process of constructing lists, internationalized lists, of what they are going to be calling country codes. To them, the "CC," that little (inaudible) there, is the way out of being dragged into a discussion of whether the new IDN domains are, in fact, Gs or CCs. And they are discussing the creation of an extended list of country codes. And whether that list can contain two-character abbreviations or more is what they're fighting about. So I would caution to you believe that we know what this means. Yeah, okay. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Guys, whilst Bruce is not here, I have a list of things to do. And this is one of them, which requires correspondence directly to the GAC chair. Could I ask one of you to frame the question to clarify what we mean here? And we really need to do this on an evidence-based thing, which says, this potential recommendation as it stands means the number of TLDs would be affected would be X or Y. Is this actually what you mean? Are you confirming -- yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: They're saying it there. They're saying -- >>LIZ WILLIAMS: You're saying, Avri, that's perfectly clear? >>AVRI DORIA: I'm saying that it is -- I believe it is. And as long as within our documents we keep saying what we are saying, and perhaps, to be careful of what has been said there, we are explicit and we say "two-letter ASCII," I think -- yeah. I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't clarify. But I'm saying they're explicit. While I've got my microphone on, can I say the other thing I was going to say? Okay. A couple times, at least once, you've said, "This is good enough for the first round." And that one concerns me, because once we put these new gTLDs rules or processes in, the assumption that -- certainly things may change, but the assumptions that things would necessarily change between a first round and a second round, I think, is dangerous. And also, it will be -- have sort of a frightening effect, too, if we can't assume that there's a natural second round, even if some corrections need to happen between first and second, you increase the pressure on, "Oh, I've got to get it in the first round, because who knows what will be happening later." So I don't know how seriously you meant, "Oh, it's good enough for the first round." >>BRUCE TONKIN: Let me be quite clear, because we did have this discussion with the reserved names group on -- when was that, Saturday or Sunday? -- sometime in the last hundred hours. Two things. Your question's been raised a number of times about whether we have multiple rounds. And the answer to that is, yes. And we should -- and our guidance to staff is, they should announce when those rounds will be so that people see a schedule. Because that's one of the ways of managing the issue of everybody feeling that they have to be in the first round, 'cause they think the next round will be in the next 200 years. So we do need to -- So that's already decided, or that's at least guidance that we would give. The second issue about this particular area about what you allow, the reason why I'm saying for the first round for something like this is that you've got to bear in mind in the context of what's happening with CCs and various other things, what you can say is that we are reserving these in the reserved names context, we are being conservative and reserving these for the first round while this issue is being studied further. This is -- Because this is essentially a reserved names issue. And we're quite -- we need to be quite clear in that language when we write out the reserved names working group. Because once you've released it, you can't get it back. So what we're doing is being conservative while some other work goes on. But I think, using some words of Susan Crawford, you probably want to sunset some of these things and say that, you know, this restriction drops out of place by, you know, the end of 2009 or something, if, you know, work hasn't otherwise been done. >>CHUCK GOMES: Right, yeah. And I don't remember which meeting it was in that I made this suggestion, but I think it's incumbent upon us as a council not to just forget about these things that need more work. We should, once we get -- soon after we get this process fully baked, we should then consider the things that need work and map out a plan for that to happen. Because if we wait until the second round, we're right back where we are today. >>AVRI DORIA: And I think this falls into -- we had talked about the process for adding and removing names from reserved name. And I think that's a different issue than saying in this round. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Well, maybe the terminology is wrong. But what I'm looking at when I'm using that terminology, Avri, is, I want to actually get started and release new TLDs and not end up with a whole bunch of processes that could go on forever. So what I'm saying is, while some things are being worked out, we'll reserve that particular name, let's call it. And that's part of the reserved names process. But, as Chuck points out, we can then specify that that issue needs to be reviewed and whether it comes on or off the reserved names list. So we're just going to start conservative, because we're making -- we're relaxing things. And we don't have to relax everything at once, I think. >>AVRI DORIA: I wasn't disagreeing with the conservative start, just with the notion -- maybe it was just the terminology of "for the first round." I think that's dangerous terminology for us to get into. And perhaps that's what I was reacting to. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Thank you. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'd just make a quick point that I think we should try to take this consultation in the next 30 days of our reserved name working group, assuming we are all going to agree on that later, but try and get this one done quick, because these are 2,000 of the most valuable potential TLDs, therefore, the -- they're the most usable, therefore, the most valuable, sought-after TLDs. And we shouldn't just accept the notion that they should all be off the market because there might be a couple dozen new countries added to the ISO list in, you know, the foreseeable future, in my mind. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. I think -- that's right, the shorter the name, the more valuable it is. I think that's the general rule of thumb in the industry at the moment. Okay. So that says that should respect the principles of fairness, transparency, and nondiscrimination. So that's probably coming out of ICANN's principles, anyway. But we can find that somewhere. Be evaluated against transparent -- Oh, this is good. I like this bit here. So everything that you're going to be judged on is fully available prior to initiation I think is an important concept. >> (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's interesting. That's a good one, too. That's actually a well-worded recommendation, I think. >> (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. It's good. I think it's well-worded. So I'll take it back, they are good at wording stuff. >>KEN STUBBS: There is an implication here, and that is that the second round will be seen as (inaudible) treatment in terms of policies and standards (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, not necessarily. >>KEN STUBBS: So what you're saying, for all intents and purposes, if we don't get in the first round, there's no guarantee that we're going to have the same guidelines for the expansion of new gTLDs in the second round. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. I think what that would mean, Ken, at any point in time, you can update your rules, based on the experience. I don't see why you're saying that the second round, the third -- we're talking about for the next ten years have to be the same as the first year. But, anyway, that's a separate point, I think. "It is important that the selection process for new gTLDs ensures the security and stability" -- Well, that's all good, too. I think we have to be careful, though. It says, "selection process ensures" and "promotes." So this is kind of what Bertrand was talking about by trying to put in a positive requirement as opposed to all the things that you're not allowed to do. >> Would someone tell me what service (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: That just means that instead of having all the names provided by VeriSign, that there's actually some other companies supporting the names. >>CHUCK GOMES: I would be a little more general than that. [ Laughter ] >>CHUCK GOMES: I would say instead of having Afilias and VeriSign and CORE and Neustar providing -- [ Laughter ] >>BRUCE TONKIN: But that's what's meant. Yes, thank you, Chuck, for clarifying. >>CHUCK GOMES: But your approach was very -- very -- right on, I think. [ Laughter ] >> Bruce, I think geographic diversity, not all just in the U.S. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, it's got geographical in there, too. A question. Is it important the selection process ensures, so we are covered by the first one, because our process ensures security and stability. Because that's one of the -- you know, we check the technical criteria of somebody. And then we're saying that the selection process ensures or and promotes. So "and promotes," I don't see that as the selection process, but more as a -- it's an outreach, isn't it? That you're doing outreach to people beforehand to encourage them to submit or something. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. We just have to be careful how we incorporate the words of that. I think I'd rather spread them in a few different places. I think our objective can be to promote competition, consumer choice. I think I'd be careful about loading that into the selection criteria somehow. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, I think our words, probably in different places, cover this pretty well. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. So that just means is where we can reference it, in the different parts where we do include these words, we just refer, "See GAC guideline 2.6." >>LIZ WILLIAMS: It's actually particularly relevant where we've got principle 3, which our words are that "the new TLD process promotes competition, consumer choice, and geographical and service provider diversity." They've used pretty much our words in their drafting. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So we put in -- >>LIZ WILLIAMS: So we put it -- we reference back in that spot. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, that makes sense. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think one encouraging thing about this, that the more we go through it, the more I see our words, which means they probably really did look at that draft document that we sent them. >> Yes! >>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's so good. (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: So here we come to 2.7. You like 2.7, because you're going to pledge something here, Ken. "Applicant registries should pledge to adopt before the new gTLD is introduced appropriate procedures for blocking at no cost and upon demand at the second level of any TLD." So this is, again, the WIPO II thing popped up again. >>KEN STUBBS: I have only -- it's not only that. It's a little different than that. Because you run into the problems of descriptors, which disturbs me that there's possibility that French fries could be forced to be reserved because it uses a geographical term at the second level. You know, and you know what I'm talking, because the can ton of Geneva has been pushing hard to -- correct me if I'm wrong -- they've been pushing very hard to make sure that at the second level, geographical descriptions couldn't be used without the permission of. >>WERNER STAUB: No, that's the law. (inaudible) specific to domain names. Typically, the law does not require -- does not allow you to reserve a place name as a trademark. But you can -- everybody can use it within the trademark. Not quite the same thing. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So this one here, you know, the "at no cost" seems like a bit of an ambit claim. So I'm not sure that I'd agree with that one. >>CHUCK GOMES: First of all, this one certainly isn't consistent with the draft recommendation from the reserved name working group that we have for the second level right now. >>BRUCE TONKIN: It is or is not? >>CHUCK GOMES: It is not. Clearly not. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: And, in fact, I think we recommended -- I can check it real quickly here, but I think we recommended at the second level that similar principles we did at the top in terms of the general language with regard to WIPO II if they signed the treaty and local government law if they didn't. A much more general approach than they're suggesting. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The challenge when I read this one was, for us, not only was it inconsistent with what the reserved names group had done, but it was also about contractual conditions for registrations at the second level. It had nothing to do with applicant criteria for a string. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, this is contractual criteria. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah, contractual conditions for section 4. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, and this is what somebody referred to earlier as an effort to get something into gTLD contracts that they can't get in international law. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah. Do we want -- just on that point, Chuck, do you want some specialist advice on this? Because I think we need to talk to the WIPO people about that. We already have very good relationship -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Sure. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: -- with them. So I think I'll flick that back to them to say, is this in the reasonable parameters, because this is where the WIPO dispute resolution processes would come in. >>CHUCK GOMES: In fact, the sooner we can get that, the better, since we have such a short window. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: I can send Eun-Joo a note now and speak to her as soon I get back to Brussels. She's gone. >>CHUCK GOMES: Excellent. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: This is the stuff they would provide us advice on about the utility of the existing UDRP which would be used in any of these disputes. But the "at no cost and upon demand" means -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's interesting, is blocking. So, basically, what they're saying is -- yeah, upon demand, you will reserve the name, essentially. >>KEN STUBBS: And, you know, what basis do they have for, you know, demanding? You know, what happens if the basis is just capricious? >>BRUCE TONKIN: So what's the current approach? I'm sort of forgetting this, I guess, because I'm a little bit unclear. You were not -- currently, in some agreements, it effectively reserves these names, doesn't it, in some agreements at the second level. >>CHUCK GOMES: Only about (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: And then the rec- -- what was the recommendation of the reserved names group? >> (inaudible). >>KEN STUBBS: Yeah, the Afilias contract was the first one with -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>KEN STUBBS: -- (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: And they didn't have it for dot -- >>KEN STUBBS: (inaudible) and they used specific geographical descriptions (inaudible) countries, including the natural language of the country. So you have -- I'm sorry, you would have Germany, Deutschland, and (inaudible), or -- I can't pronounce it properly. But, in effect, that's what they were looking (inaudible). But it was very specific to countries as opposed to cultures or any further down than that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So what -- what's the -- and it wasn't in dot biz, it was? They got in before that, which was interesting. Because I remember it got added at dot info. >>CHUCK GOMES: Here's the abbreviated language that we put in the little summary table. If you want the full language, I can go to it. "All geographic and geopolitical names in the ISO 3166-1 list, for example, Portugal, India, Brazil, et cetera, and names of territories, distinct geographic locations or economies, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time," is the -- that's the current requirement in Asia, cat, jobs, mobi, tel, and travel. So there are only six. None of the others, not even info any longer, have that requirement. Okay? Now, if we go to the recommendations -- bear with me while I scroll down here -- okay, here we go. For the second level -- and it's worded somewhat like the top level as well, as you may recall -- "Registries incorporated under the laws of those countries that have expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO standing committee on the law of trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications as adopted by the WIPO general assembly member states must take appropriate action to promptly implement protections that are in line with these WIPO guidelines and are in accordance with the relevant national laws of the applicable member state." Now, this gives them a little bit, okay. It doesn't give them all that they're asking for there. So this might not be -- and this is going to be need some work, like we talked about on Saturday. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. I'd just be cautious about, because one of them I think you're basically going to be stuck with U.S. law. And then the other thing I'm just a little bit weary of shopping there, because you just make sure that you apply from the Cayman Islands or something. And that causes issues. So I think it's better to use the sort of terminology we have about internationally recognized laws or similar terminology. >>CHUCK GOMES: If you do that, then you throw it out, because all these are guidelines. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: So you're giving them nothing if you do that. You know what I'm saying? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. So we can weigh that. I mean, that's certainly an option. But, really, these are -- this is not law. These are guide- -- the WIPO II are guidelines that certain -- in fact, quite a few -- member states signed up to. But they're not -- it's not international treaty. So think about that, and we'll just have to decide how to -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: There's a difference between member states signing up versus actually -- 'cause my understanding is that it needs to be reflected back into their national laws. So you'd need to see it in their national law for it to be binding. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah, we'll have to check that further, then. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So it would be interesting for some of those states to see if it exists in their national laws subsequent. Like, for example, the Free Trade Agreement actually becomes law by that country, gets passed. Like, Australia just signed a free trade agreement with the U.S., but it actually was approved by the Australian parliament, which is different from someone at the GAC level saying, "Yeah, I agree to that, yeah." Werner, did you -- I think you spoke already. Jon. Cary. >>CARY KARP: Yeah. At least in the Swedish bureaucratic frame of reference, you never go anywhere near telling somebody that they need to follow the law, because you're indicating by that very statement that that law might actually otherwise not be applicable. So I mean the fact that -- there is a legal requirement to follow law. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. It's a default there. >>CARY KARP: So if we're saying, you have to follow the following law, we're suggesting by that statement that we don't believe it is otherwise applicable. >>BRUCE TONKIN: You mean the way Chuck's worded it? >>CARY KARP: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, that's right. Because that -- that's what I call almost as a motherhood statement, you need to obey the law that you're in. Of course you do. Yeah. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, and, of course, the rationale for that was is that the first part of it doesn't apply to all countries, and so the idea was just to be inclusive. And if that doesn't apply to you, then you have this other part. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. I think we -- yeah, this kind of relates to the WIPO II discussion. I think it might be useful to have that discussion at a council level and start having a bit of a discussion about that and then seeing how that might get incorporated down the track. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just so you know, I was (inaudible) Mike Palage asking (inaudible). >>EDMON CHUNG: Bruce, I just want to make a comment on this particular point. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Sure. >>EDMON CHUNG: You mentioned earlier about the blocking. I'm quite concerned about the word "blocking," in fact, here, it has no clarity whether they're actually asking for a takedown of a name later in the course of the TLD. Because in this current wording, they could interpret and say, we need a procedure where we could block a name, let's say, anytime by saying, actually, blocking access to the name DNS-wise. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Oh, I don't think they're talking about -- I don't think it's that (inaudible). >>EDMON CHUNG: I guess they aren't. But this just doesn't -- in the future, this would give them a way to do that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. A block, basically -- >>EDMON CHUNG: If you interpret it that way. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Reserved names is essentially the block. That's our mechanism for stopping someone from registering it. >>CHUCK GOMES: But his point is well taken. Because what if they don't get you the list before it's already registered. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No, I think they're also meaning that, you know, there's a dispute -- there's a take-down, as well, I think. >>EDMON CHUNG: And that makes it very concerning for me. Well, I guess for this point of concern. And the other issue is names with national geographic significance at second level. It doesn't say "names of nations or countries." Names that have some significance. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Some significance. Exactly, it's very broad. >>EDMON CHUNG: Like Australia ABC, or Australia sports would be in this category. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, it would be. We'd probably consider cricket to be of national significance. But the question is whether it's protected by law. >>EDMON CHUNG: No, I'm just saying -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I agree. It's too broad. Yeah, Jon. >>JON BING: Yes, that's where I -- my earlier comment, actually, that's where I think "significant" helps you. Because "significance" tells you the geographical element has to be used in some sort of relevant meaning. So hamburgers and Danish pastry and a few other things will go -- are not significant use of geographical terms. >>EDMON CHUNG: Right. Significant would be -- but this is just saying geographic significance. So it doesn't even describe geographic -- >>JON BING: Yeah, but don't have geographic significance, Danish pastries doesn't have a geographic significance. They may be all over the place, you know, pastries. So I think that is what I meant, that, actually, it's a restriction on geographical, as I read it. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Ken. >>KEN STUBBS: If anyone takes a look at the reserved names list for dot AU, you get an idea of what direction (inaudible) with this. It's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of names that go from things like accession process -- you know, it's way out on the edge. I'm sure it's an antifraud -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Show you an example that would be -- because auDA in Australia has actually just updated its list. But these lists, I think, by and large come from national law. Because they actually do have a reserved names list. Probably going to be really hard to see. But the -- these are words and phrases restricted under commonwealth legislation. So it's legislation in Australia's law. The words "commonwealth, federal, Anzack [phonetic], Genova Cross, Red Crescent, Red Cross, Red Lion and Sun, United Nations, university, Olympics, Olympic Games," so these are all words that are actually protected under Australian law. But that is a basis for law. That's actually law rather than just a -- you know, some other list. But it just gives you an idea of the sorts of names that might come up. And that's just one country. >>KEN STUBBS: You get words like concerto, (inaudible). >> They're not producing lists. >>KEN STUBBS: Huh? >> They're not producing lists. >>KEN STUBBS: They throw hundreds and hundreds of names that they -- this was not reserved for use by the registry, but, rather, these names were specifically exempted by the authority from being registered by anyone. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: No, I mean, that particular list reflects not only the Commission's list of all their various programs, "concerto" being an example of that, but also, of course, the ability of every member state of the E.U. to make their list, which was tacked onto it, which is why it's so extraordinarily long. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Bruce, it would be helpful to get some sense of the council's view on both of these, A and B, for the reserved names working group. Because my own personal feeling is that GAC's probably not going to be happy with what we come up here. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Probably not. >>CHUCK GOMES: But if the council feelings differently, it would be nice to know that going into the work we're going to do, the additional work we're going to do. So -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think we've just got to stick with principles. And the principle that I'm trying to stick with, if it's protected by sort of generally recognized international law, -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: -- I think we just use that as a principle. Because if you don't, it'll just keep growing. You just add another few sections in here. And I understand what they're trying to do. But the thing is, it's so broad, it can be just about any word. Norbert. >>NORBERT KLEIN: I just would like to share some of the realities. When I go back to Cambodia -- and I'm not talking about gTLD, but ccTLD -- recently -- well, "recently," it's quite a while ago -- they refused to register "UNDP" because the present administrator of ccTLD is a completely commercially oriented section of the government. And so I'm just sharing with you, when I try to think about the distance between our efforts here to refine regulations, which can be relevant or useful, to the way until it can be implemented in quite a number of situations. >>BRUCE TONKIN: As a matter of interest, does Cambodia attend? Are they a member of the GAC? >>NORBERT KLEIN: No, they are not. Cambodia has not been also a signatory for a ccTLD and is not a member of the GAC. I had been involved in some informal discussions about that. But there are two -- two high-level government agencies which would somewhat compete for who is relevant for it, and so nothing is happening. And, well, it's just part of the digital divide feeling which I have very often. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Jon. >>JON BING: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to point out, which is obvious to you, of course, but these clauses really have two parts. One is the part saying that there should be introduced appropriate procedures. And then you have the criteria for when these procedures should prohibit or close out some names. And they really are part of a double proposition, aren't they? Because if you have -- the procedures are very good, then you don't have to put so much emphasis on the details of the criteria. While if the procedures are very bad, then you have to be very detailed about the criteria, which perhaps reflects on the E.U. long list. >>BRUCE TONKIN: So this procedures thing I think is what I think we need to just say that we're doing some more work on that as part of -- >>JON BING: Yes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: -- our handling of the WIPO stuff that Kristina was talking about. >>JON BING: Yes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Because that's really what B's about, isn't it? >>JON BING: Yes. Because if we get WIPO, they have a greater (inaudible). That helps. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Go ahead, Kristina. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: And if we're talking about B, I mean, the only thing that really has a basis in accepted international law would be IGOs. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, I think there's two things that we're -- I mean, we have a process at the top level by saying you need to be an established organization to have a name of geographic significance. I guess the difficulty is, if you take that down one layer to the second level, it's going to -- it's pretty hard to administer, I guess that's the issue. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: To me, it's a little broader. If the UDRP doesn't apply, if the existing UDRP doesn't apply to any of these categories -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's correct. Well, it doesn't, does it? >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: So do we want to kind of through the back door create a new UDRP? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I don't know. What I'm saying is, that's for further discussion. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely, absolutely. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I'm not trying to discuss it. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Absolutely. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay. Okay. So this is about documenting support, basically. Yeah, I think that's fine, yeah. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's really implementation. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, it is. Applicant should identify how they will limit the -- here this is an interesting one. This is sort of what the Pro working group is working on, Kristina. So that's work that's undergoing. Okay. So I wonder what they define as registry information there. Do you think they're talking about the registrant? They probably are. 'Cause this is essentially the WHOIS bit, isn't it? >> Maybe they cover that again (inaudible) below, 14. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, 'cause pure registry information, to me, is DNS information, in other words, the name server, the I.P. addresses, that sort of stuff. So the next one, you're saying, Mike. It says name resolution. That's contingencies. That's escrows. So that's okay. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm sorry. 2.10, I actually think that is kind of important if they're talking about I.P. addresses and all that kind of stuff. Do we have that in the document now? Or are you proposing to include it? >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's kind of probably under the contractual conditions section. I don't think we do have it included at the moment. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: That's probably one that'll kind of carry over from -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: In the framework -- >>CHUCK GOMES: -- previous -- even from previous rounds, because it's pretty consistent. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just looking at the biz agreement, section 3.1C, handling of registry data, are we trying to make a distinction here between registry data or registry information? >>BRUCE TONKIN: I don't think they're making that distinction. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: They're not making that distinction, okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. Look, I don't think they understand what that means, basically. So I think they -- but I think what they're talking about is that in the agreements, there's a requirement to update data and all that sort of thing. So -- and protect it. So that's probably covered under the framework agreement. And then it's just saying that, you know, I guess there's best practices for making sure that happens. So this would be part of the applicant operational criteria, Liz. Basically, they would need to document how they're going to ensure those things. And that's part of how you assess whether or not they know what they're talking about. So that just goes under operational stuff. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: And I think Chuck's right, that would be in previous rounds, they would have needed to respond to that topic. So that's just disaster recovery, basically. This is interesting. Chuck, do you want to comment on that one? >>CHUCK GOMES: (inaudible) I'm real curious (inaudible) session continue. Has there been something going on that I'm not aware of? >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: You've been asleep, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: I know that there are some people that asked for that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right. >>CHUCK GOMES: Bruce, I think the registrars got this one in. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Oh, did they? [ Laughter ] >>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, I wish. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: (inaudible). >>CHUCK GOMES: Probably so. >>AVRI DORIA: (inaudible) whether we endorse this one or not. >>CHUCK GOMES: No consensus. [ Laughter ] >>CARY KARP: What aspect of the GAC. >>BRUCE TONKIN: This is all the PDP Feb 06, assistant? Processing changes, renewal procedures, service levels. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yep. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Changes to contract conditions. >>AVRI DORIA: It goes beyond. >>CHUCK GOMES: Note again (inaudible). >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Meaning they didn't all agree. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. >>AVRI DORIA: And it's also a "continue to," so it's assuming that everything's going fine now and they should continue to do what they're doing. >>CHUCK GOMES: I don't have any problem (inaudible). >>AVRI DORIA: They say "continue." >>CHUCK GOMES: So maybe they look happy after all. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Maybe the appeals process, Chuck, is just the public forum. Because that's all we've got now. Interesting -- >>CHUCK GOMES: I suspect that's not what they mean. I think -- I suspect that this probably did get picked up from some of the GNSO work going on. (inaudible). >>CHUCK GOMES: And there was -- some parties throughout the dot com process, et cetera, were lobbying members of the GAC, too, to get support. So that's probably where this comes from. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Whose decisions are they? Oh, registry decisions. >> Yeah. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Bruce, I think it's rather strange, and I think -- I think here is a case where we actually do need some clarification as to intent. And I'm, as you, I think, particularly intrigued by the "should continue to," which suggests a potential level of misunderstanding. And I think we actually need to clarify what the nature of that understanding is. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, because there's an appeals process for ICANN decisions, which is a different thing. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. I mean, if there's an assumption built into that that they assume there's some sort of process that there isn't, and, therefore, are the recommendations they're making predicated upon that's assumption? I think we need to have clarity as to what they're thinking. So maybe we need to ask this of our GAC liaison person. >>CHUCK GOMES: I think another good question for them would be for them to tell us how many governments it takes to get a "should." >>LIZ WILLIAMS: A "should." >>OLOF NORDLING: You can ask. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Whether it's 66% or -- [ Laughter ] >>KEN STUBBS: Bigger than a bread basket. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Do you think there might be weighted voting depending on how big the government is? >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just on the -- a couple of times it's been raised about seeking clarity from the GAC. How are we intending to do that? Because these are the GAC published principles, end of story. So you're expecting Suzanne to have guidance? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: As to what they meant. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. Not -- We don't expect them to change the principles. It took them too long to get these. But we do need clarity. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: All right. So you want a note to Suzanne that says that we need to get clarity on X, Y, Z, by X particular time? >>CHUCK GOMES: And we should be fairly explicit in terms of what we need clarity about. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yep, no problem. >>AVRI DORIA: Also, is it possible -- I mean, she could either do it written or perhaps it's something that could be on the agenda of a meeting -- of our meeting. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I mean, this is the sort of thing that frustrates me, because if they'd done this earlier in the week, this could have been a dialogue, which is what we're supposed to have -- >>KEN STUBBS: You could analogize this to tossing ropes off the deck of a boat that's getting ready to leave, you know. >>AVRI DORIA: Did we specifically ask Suzanne to attend? I mean -- >>KEN STUBBS: The lines are being cast off. >>BRUCE TONKIN: That's right, why isn't Suzanne here. Exactly. >>CHUCK GOMES: Avri, I agree that having her at a meeting and talking about these is -- would be fine, and probably good. But I wouldn't wait to give her the questions then. I would give them to her well in advance because of the way they operate. >>AVRI DORIA: I definitely agree we should give her the answers -- >> The answers? >>AVRI DORIA: Give her the questions. [ Laughter ] >>AVRI DORIA: Give her the questions. But I'm afraid that if we got an answer in writing, we would be exactly where we are now. >>BRUCE TONKIN: She probably won't answer in writing, I think that's what you would get. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we may anyway. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: I'll collect the -- >>OLOF NORDLING: I think one should keep in mind that it's like in the European Union, the text stops where consensus stops. So, I mean, to try to interpret it, well, there will be a multitude of interpretations from the different governments on what it's actually meaning in the particular context. So I don't think we'll get any explicit answer on the (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Well, I think we can ask the chair, though. So the chair of this was, what, Bill Dee,is that -- >> Yes. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think we just ask Bill Dee. I think we can have a conference call and say, "This is not formal advice, but we're just wanting to understand -- some clarity on some of these things." Or talk to Bill and see how he says how to handle it. But I think we have a legitimate right to be able to ask, you know, "What does stuff mean?" >>AVRI DORIA: And when we had the face to face with him in Sao Paulo, he was very willing to speak clearly. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, more so than Suzanne, I think. He's a little less risk-averse, let's say. >>CHUCK GOMES: 2.13 is kind of interesting, because -- I mean, we're developing the -- I guess they mean material changes to what we've shown them before. Is that what they mean? Because we're not done yet,.... >>AVRI DORIA: I would think it was an ongoing principle that everything -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, this is meant to be an ongoing set of principles, yeah. >> (Inaudible) That's fine. That's basically consistent with ICANN's bylaws, really, yeah. I mean, we've said that. I know the registrars have made the same comment, that if you make material changes, remember, we tried to put that in the bylaws, that if ICANN makes material contract changes, you know, there's some sort of public comment process. >>AVRI DORIA: The only key word in that one would be "adequate." And I think "adequate" would then refer to how early they get the comment and all of that. If so we wanted to peek into that one, "adequate" would probably be the word that clued to us what they considered. And that was that whole thing they brought up in the meetings about comment at an early enough time. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: The -- on the back page, on 3.3 -- 3.2, they have left open the opportunity for us to consult with them, "as appropriate, regarding to the interpretation of the principles." So we've got -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, they have. That's right. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: -- a very nice invitation there to go back and say, "Hey, guys. You haven't quite got it right" or -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. That's good. So then we have to ask how that happens. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Yep. So I'll send a note to Bill and Suzanne and I'll come back to the group. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I actually would not -- I'd go back to Janis. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Oh, would you? Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think -- I mean, you draft something for me. But let me send it as the GNSO Council chair to the GAC chair, I think. >>CHUCK GOMES: 3 -- >>BRUCE TONKIN: It's more about the process. I'm not asking for the answers, but say that we wish to -- we're seeking interpretation or assistance in interpretation. How would he propose we do it. I think it needs to be done at Janis's level. >>CHUCK GOMES: 3.3 seems a little bit troublesome. >>BRUCE TONKIN: We seem to have jumped a few. So let me just go back a bit. So 2.13 was the changes. I think that's fine. 2.14 is saying this WHOIS principles we need to be aware of. 3.1 -- So what -- this is a little scary. This is almost operationalizing the GAC, isn't it? >>CHUCK GOMES: Number 3.3? >>BRUCE TONKIN: 3.1. They are not -- It says -- you know, they're talking about the policy principles. And then they said they are not going to substitute for the normal requirement for the board to notify the GAC of any proposals for new gTLDs which raise public policy issues. So effectively they're saying -- I suppose that's just a notice requirement, isn't it? >>CHUCK GOMES: Doesn't that paragraph already really exist? >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: It's not changing anything. They're just saying don't think at a later time provision of these principles to you negates that responsibility the board already has. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Which is notifying. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. >>BRUCE TONKIN: We have an applicant notification process, so that would meet that requirement, I think. >>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Yeah. But it's a -- something to do with the board and public policy issues. So it ain't anything that needs to change our report, I think, is the short answer. >>BRUCE TONKIN: No. I think what they're saying, from some sort of verbal discussions I had, at least with Sharil, is the GAC doesn't consider sticking something up on a Web site as notice. So -- and this is something just for ICANN to be aware of, actually. Because ICANN probably needs to formally write to the GAC chair and say, "Here are the new gTLD applications. You're formally being requested to review them," or something. It's just a procedural point. But, you're right, Liz, that's a nice 3.2 means that we can go back, and I can write to Janis and say, "We would like to consult regarding the interpretation of these principles." How would he suggest we do that. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Just going back to your 3.1 point about ICANN taking the initiative to notify the GAC that applications have been received, does that mean we're rethinking the objection -- the dispute resolution process would be objection-triggered rather than notification-triggered? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Sorry. What -- >>LIZ WILLIAMS: So, for example, if -- in our chart, we had an objection is filed. We didn't have a notification period. And if I heard you correctly, then, it says it will be sensible for ICANN to put into the process a formal notification to the GAC via correspondence that sends them the list of strings rather than just assuming that they will be posted and that's enough. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, that's correct. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: So it's an active solicitation of response from the GAC rather than an objection. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think I'd just stick that in the guidelines, because that doesn't really change our process. This is just something for ICANN, the organization. It's not really an applicant-related thing. >>CHUCK GOMES: And we had talked about the whole idea of getting them, you know, communication as soon as possible and even -- I don't know if it's in our document now; I'd have to go back and check -- requesting response in a certain amount of time frame or, you know, something, depending on what our window is. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. So this, again -- this is probably better wording than some of the earlier drafts. And I think we address that through our process. So we're basically saying that there's an objection process, and in that objection process, you can formally submit your objection, and that the organization fully consider these concerns. It's interesting they've made it the ICANN board. But I think this one is covered under our objection process, basically. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: And I think that this one -- I mean, this is really so much better than the 2.12 used to be. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, it's basically saying they're taking -- I think the key words -- >>AVRI DORIA: It's basically true for anybody. I mean, if somebody gives a considered comment to the board, the board should respond by saying, "Yeah, we thought about it, and this is how we're dealing with it." So they're being explicit about something that is really a requirement anyway. >>BRUCE TONKIN: But I think what would have happened here is the original wording would have said something like that, "If individual GAC members raise an issue, the board will," you know do it -- will reject, yeah, essentially. >>AVRI DORIA: The previous wording would be "would block until resolved to their satisfaction." >>BRUCE TONKIN: So I like this sort of -- this wording here is nice political speak. "Should fully consider," with a committee, of course. Okay. The evaluation procedures and criteria, blah, blah, blah, should be developed with the implementation -- okay, that's general principle. That's fine. And then IDNs will be dealt with separately. That's fine. >>CHUCK GOMES: We need to talk about IDNs. Because if you look at the timeline and the interest of IDNs being introduced at the same time as ASCII names, if you listened to the GAC communique today, or read it, they're looking at the soonest possible date of getting some guidelines from the GAC with regard to IDNs as the last meeting of the year. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: That's (inaudible) time. >>BRUCE TONKIN: But mostly what their considerations are about -- this is the whole thing where I don't see the difference between an IDN versus a gTLD. If you look at all those issues, which are about geographic names, all that sort of stuff, whether it's IDNs or not makes no difference. >>CHUCK GOMES: Well, you know, I -- you and I believe that. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah. But I think they haven't come to that understanding yet. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. I don't -- I would predict that we're going to see a bunch of recommendations that are going to be above and beyond what we're doing with regard to IDNs. Now, a lot of may be "shoulds." But the point I'm really getting at is that will this be a factor in whether IDNs are released at the same time as -- as ASCII TLDs? Or do we just kind of ignore the GAC and say, "Sorry, you missed the boat"? Or should this be another communication, like you so tactfully told Bill in the session we had with him on Saturday over lunch, that when he asked you, "Are we going to miss the boat?" And you said, "Yes." >>LIZ WILLIAMS: Unequivocal. >>BRUCE TONKIN: I think most of the focus of the GAC on IDNs, I think, is very much around ccTLD side of it. Because you look at the wording here. It says -- it has taken note of the draft issue paper on the selection of IDN ccTLDs. And if I keep reading the text, it's IDN ccTLDs. It says -- a lot of -- in fact, everywhere -- just about everywhere where IDN is mentioned, it's "IDN ccTLD." So I think that's -- that's something, I think, is going to develop over the course of this year, is how IDNs will be handled for ccTLDs. And I guess we obviously need to be across what they're doing and at least liaise with them. And we need to think about the best way of doing that. But that was currently the way I'm treating, whereas most of the other recommendations, I think, are relatively general. But my perception is there's this concept of the ccTLDs reserving some words, and there's a policy around what names they get to reserve that the new gTLD process is not allowed to get into. And I think as Mike Rodenbaugh has pointed out, you need to be very careful how far that goes, because you can use the ccTLDs to block out the gTLD industry, essentially. You say, "This looks like a ccTLD. We'll protect everything in this huge, broad area," which stops non-ccTLD operators being able to run them. Okay. Let's have a look at WHOIS, then, see what's come up there. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: With respect to new TLDs (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Sorry. Go ahead. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Well, I just had a question again -- I apologize if this was covered Sunday afternoon. But I'm curious as to where we are on auctions as an allocation method. I just wasn't sure if there had been any development about that, since we had talked very briefly on Saturday. >>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes. So the current position on that -- Let's take it offline, I think. >>KRISTINA ROSETTE: Okay. >>BRUCE TONKIN: But we did discuss that on Sunday. Paragraphs but I'll talk to you about it, Kristina. I don't want to kind of get distracted onto that right now. How about -- how about we break for five minutes? 'Cause I think it is -- I know it's late. But I think it is worth spending a little bit of time, at least for those on the GNSO Council, to just scan through the GAC WHOIS principles and see what's there. It does, effectively, relate, obviously, to contractual conditions for new gTLDs in due course. >>AVRI DORIA: Are there any councillors that weren't hanging out for the new gTLD stuff that we might want to try and yank back? Or did everyone that was around come to the new gTLD discussion? >>BRUCE TONKIN: Don't know, Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. I'm just curious. >>BRUCE TONKIN: You're welcome to go outside and bang a drum or something. So let me go -- >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>LIZ WILLIAMS: (inaudible). >>BRUCE TONKIN: Five minutes, yeah, just to get organized. (End of session.) |
GNSO Transcript
Last Updated:
Date