[ga] FYI Fwd: ICANN meeting notes Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG) on Introduction to new gTLDs

["Joe Baptista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Subject: ICANN meeting notes Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG) on
Introduction to new gTLDs
To: public@xxxxxxxxxxx


I am monitoring the ICANN meeting as best one can.  There is an interesting
discussion at the meeting of the Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG)
today.  A lot is being said that is applicable to our community.  This
discussion clearly shows that the application of FCFS rules developed by
your truly are the solution to the various problems this ICANN auction will
cause.  I have made some case notes to this meeting which are as follows:

Case 1: Many corporations today use their own TLDs for web, host and email
support.  This is the case in the INS - Philips, REMAX, TMF Group, XEROX
etc. etc. are all fine examples of corporations in the INS using TLDs for
internal infrastructure.  One of the TLDAs directors in fact does just this
with his TLD.  If the ICANN auction does not have a means of excluding these
TLDs the duplication of them will cause major problems and technical errors
for the companies who's TLDs are duplicated.

Case 2: We must remember that ICANN has established internal practices which
are now part of public policy in the ICANN fiasco.  One of those policies is
the protection of brand name and trade mark holders.  The intellectual
property constituency at ICANN and the relevant judicial process at the WIPO
is now a well established standard.  It may not look good if ICANN for any
reasons chooses to ignore those standards at the TLD level.  In short order
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Case 3: Operational status.  An SLD is not required to be operational for it
to exist.  The operational and non operational status of an SLD does not in
any way affect the operation of the TLD zone.  Only other TLDs associated
with that TLDs infrastructure are affected.  Internal TLDs are not as a norm
available to the public DNS.  There may be instances in which is would be
prudent to carry a non operational TLD in a zone.  Many would find this
radical thinking - but it is the norm in the SLD world by default it would
easily fit into the TLD world.  I simply put this out there to generate a
little thinking on operational status.  Also from a legal point of view a
TLD need not be operational for a party to have a legal claim on it.


ICANN meeting of the Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG) on Introduction
to new gTLDs: Start: 2 Nov 2008 - 10:00 End: 2 Nov 2008 - 11:30 ASIWG is a
self-organizing group that consists of interested parties in the
implementation of Arabic script in Internationalized Domain Names. *These
are the scribe notes of the meeting:
*

START START START START DO YOU SEE THIS?

IS IT ON 4444 NOW? DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME TEXT IN THERE JUST TO MAB THAT
IT'S GOING THROUGH TO THE PAGE FOR -- TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST
TEST TEST TESTING TESTING TESTING IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT
CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT SINDHI SINNEDDLY SINDLY SINDHI
SINDHI JAMBI

>>KAREN LENTZ: .

>>KARLA VALENTE: KHALED FATTAL KHALED FATTAL KARLA LENTZ KAREN LENTZ KARLA
VALENTI VAL LEN TEE VAL LENITY

>>KARLA VALENTE: .

>>KAREN LENTZ: KARLA VALENTE KAREN LENTZ.

>>KAREN LENTZ: CAREGIVER CAREGIVER.

>>KARLA VALENTE:

>>KARLA VALENTE: HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS KARLA VALENTE. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM. AND THIS IS KAREN LENTZ. KAREN LENTZ IS
MANAGER OF CONTACT AND RESEARCH AT ICANN.

AND TODAY'S SESSION IS AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW gTLDs. AND I SEE A LOT OF FARM
FACES. FAMILIAR FACES. I HOPE WE DON'T DISAPPOINT YOU, BECAUSE IT'S MEANT TO
GIVE AN INTRODUCTION ON NEW ANYTHING ELSE.

WE ARE NEW GTLDS.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MIRROR OF THIS IN ARABIC. ANOTHER ON NEW gTLDs IS
GOING TO TAKE PLACE TOMORROW, MONDAY, IN THE MAIN ROOM. AND THIS IS GOING TO
GO MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.

>>KAREN LENTZ: OKAY. SO JUST TO GO OVER THE AGENDA BRIEFLY, WE WILL BE
TAKING YOU THROUGH THE BASIS FOR THE NEW gTLD WORK THAT ICANN IS DOING,
INCLUDING SOME OF THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, HISTORY, PREVIOUS APPLICATION
PROCESSES, THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT THE GNSO COMPLETED, THE
IMPLEMENTATION WORK THAT STAFF HAS BEEN DOING, AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK THAT'S POSTED NOW, AND THE MATERIALS SURROUNDING THAT,
AND THEN THE TENTATIVE TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS
MEETING.

SO, TO GO BACK ABOUT TEN -- A LITTLE OVER TEN YEARS AGO, ICANN -- AS ICANN
WAS BEING FOUNDED, ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE SEVERAL MORE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. THE
QUOTATION THAT'S IN THE FIRST BOX THERE IS FROM THE 1998 WHITE PAPER HAVING
TO DO WITH THE FOUNDING OF ICANN, SAYING THAT THE NEW CORPORATION -- WHICH
IS WHAT BECAME ICANN -- ULTIMATELY SHOULD OVERSEE POLICY FOR DETERMINING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NEW TLDs ARE ADDED TO THE ROOT SYSTEM.

PART OF THE -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF ICANN IS THAT IT
SHOULD EXIST TO FOSTER CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN PROVIDING DOMAIN
REGISTRATION SERVICES. ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THAT'S OCCURRED WAS THE OPENING
UP OF THE REGISTRAR MARKETPLACE. SO THERE ARE NOW OVER 900 ICANN-ACCREDITED
REGISTRARS THAT ARE REGISTERING DOMAIN NAMES AT THE SECOND LEVEL. AND
THERE'S ALSO ALWAYS BEEN THE EXPECTATION THAT THE TOP LEVEL WOULD BE OPENED
UP TO MANY MORE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND PROVIDERS OF SERVICES AT THE TOP
LEVEL.

SO THE MOU, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, THAT ICANN HAS HAD WITH THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS ALWAYS MADE MENTION OF NEW TLDs IN THE CONTEXT OF
THAT OBJECTIVE. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT THAT ICANN
HAS NOW WITH THE DAVE PISCITELLO OF COMMERCE THAT'S STILL WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THAT'S STILL A KEY THERE.

A COUPLE OF THE KEY BENEFITS THAT ARE SEEN TO BE REALIZED FROM THE
INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDs. THE FIRST ONE IS TO ENCOURAGE AND FOSTER
CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, CONSUMER CHOICE, AND COMPETITION IN THE DOMAIN NAME
SPACE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THE OPENING UP OF THE TOP LEVEL IS POTENTIAL
FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR NONPROFIT INITIATIVES, EDUCATION THINGS THAT
POSSIBLY NOBODY HAS THOUGHT OF YET. THAT'S ONE.

AND THEN ANOTHER KEY THING THAT IT WILL ENABLE IS THE INCLUSION OF
INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL. AND YOU'LL HEAR THAT
ABBREVIATED AS IDN.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM BULLET THERE, THERE'S AN IDN REGISTRATION THAT
-- IN CHINESE CHARACTERS THAT I BELIEVE MEANS SOMETHING LIKE SATELLITE
"PHONE." BUT THE TOP LEVEL DOT NET IS STILL LIMITED TO ASCII CHARACTERS. SO
IT'S LIMITED TO THE LATIN ALPHABET, A THROUGH Z, THE DIGITS 0 THROUGH 9, AND
THE HYPHEN CHARACTER.

SO WHAT IS BECOMING POSSIBLE IS THAT THE TOP LEVEL CAN REFLECT THE DIVERSITY
OF SCRIPTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AROUND THE WORLD.

SO GOING BACK TO -- THROUGH SOME HISTORY, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OCCASIONS IN
THE PAST WHEN NEW gTLDs HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. THE FIRST ONE -- PROCESS BEGAN
IN THE YEAR 2000. AND THAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND. THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. AND SO A COUPLE OF GOALS IN
THAT PROCESS WERE TO EXPERIMENT AND TO TRY OUT AS MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF
TLDs AND APPLICATIONS AS POSSIBLE TO CREATE A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

SO THE GOAL IN THAT PROCESS WAS NOT TO CREATE A LARGE QUANTITY OF NEW gTLDs,
BUT TO SELECT A GROUP THAT WOULD GIVE A RANGE OF MODELS THAT WOULD GIVE AN
EFFECTIVE TEST.

SO OUT OF THAT PROCESS, THERE WERE SOMETHING LIKE 46 APPLICATIONS THAT WERE
RECEIVED BY ICANN. THERE WERE SEVEN SELECTED. AND ALL OF THOSE THAT WERE
SELECTED IN THAT PROCESS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED. THEY EXIST NOW AND
HAVE MANY REGISTRATIONS.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE ON THE RIGHT.

ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS ROUND IS THE IDEA OF SPONSORED AND
UNSPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. SO YOU SEE THE THREE SPONSORED ONES ON THE
TOP, AERO, COOP, AND MUSEUM, AND THE UNSPONSORED ON THE BOTTOM, BIZ, INFO,
NAME, AND PRO.

THE IDEA OF THE SPONSORED TLD WAS THAT IT'S EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON SERVING A
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR SECTOR OR GROUP OF PEOPLE. SO THERE WAS SOME POLICY
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES GIVEN TO THE OPERATOR, TO THE SPONSOR, OF THAT
TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO CREATE POLICIES FOR ITS PARTICULAR TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXACT COMMUNITY THAT IT WAS SERVING.

THEN IN 2003, THERE WAS KIND OF AN EXTENSION OF THAT PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND
THAT WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND IN THAT
PROCESS, IT WAS LIMITED TO JUST PROPOSALS FOR SPONSORED -- NEW SPONSORED
TLDs. THERE WERE TEN APPLICATIONS RECEIVED. SIX OF THOSE HAVE LAUNCHED TO
DATE. THOSE ARE ON THE RIGHT.

THAT EVALUATION PROCESS WAS, AS IT SAYS ON THE BOTTOM, EXTENSIVE, AND IN
SOME CASES, TOOK A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME. THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT CAME OUT
IN THAT PROCESS THAT ICANN WAS SORT OF FACING FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NEEDED
TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RESOLVE, THOSE BEING, IN SOME CASES, A TECHNICAL
ISSUE OR A TECHNICAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS SOMETHINGED THAT NOT BEEN
TRADITIONALLY SEEN OR DONE BEFORE. AND ALSO SOME GEOGRAPHICAL CONCERNS WITH
SOME OF THE STRINGS THAT WERE APPLIED FOR HERE.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO I THINK THAT TECHNICAL DOT TEL LAUNCHES AT THE END OF
THE YEAR.

>>KAREN LENTZ: THAT'S RIGHT. LESSONS FROM THE LAST FEW ROUNDS. THOSE ON THE
SLIDE I WOULD SAY ARE LESSONS LEARNED BY THE ICANN COMMUNITY. SO INCLUDING
APPLICANTS, INCLUDING ICANN, INCLUDING ALL OF US.

SO ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH THE NEED FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES FOR
RIGHTS OVER PARTICULAR NAMES. WHEN YOU OPEN UP A NEW SPACE, THERE NEEDS TO
BE A PROCESS TO SORT OUT CLAIMS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES WHO BELIEVE THAT
THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO A PARTICULAR NAME.

ANOTHER IS LAUNCH CONSIDERATIONS. SO, AGAIN, WHEN -- THIS APPLIES MOSTLY
WHEN YOU'RE STARTING UP SOMETHING NEW, THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE'S,
AT THE VERY BEGINNING, A VERY HIGH VOLUME OF DEMAND FOR NAMES THAT ARE SEEN
TO BE DESIRABLE OR JUST FOR NAMES THAT ARE DESIRABLE TO ONE OR TWO
PARTICULAR PARTIES.

SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A -- YOU KNOW, SOME THOUGHT GIVEN IN STARTING A NEW TLD
TO HOW DO YOU START UP. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS MODELS IN THE TLDs THAT WE
WENT THROUGH. THERE WERE VARIOUS MODELS USED AND APPROACHES TOWARD DOING
THAT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH EXPECTED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR PLAN FOR
STARTING UP.

ANOTHER IS THE UNDERSTANDING INTERESTS OF -- UNDERSTANDING THE INTERESTS OF
GOVERNMENTS IN REGIONAL NAMES. AND, LASTLY, HAVING PREDEFINED AND
PRE-ESTABLISHED PROCESSES.

SO AS I MENTIONED IN THE 2004 SPONSORED TLD ROUND, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OF
ISSUES THAT CAME UP THAT TOOK A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TO DEAL WITH. ONE OF THE
GOALS THAT WE'VE HAD IN DEVELOPING THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK AND THAT WE
EXPECT TO SEE GOING FORWARD IS THAT IT TRIES TO BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE
IN THINKING THROUGH WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS THAT COULD OCCUR; WHAT
ARE THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF SCENARIOS THAT WILL OCCUR; AND WHAT ARE THE
STEPS THAT ICANN WILL FOLLOW IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THOSE OCCUR. WHAT ARE
THE REQUIREMENTS? WHAT ACTIONS WILL APPLICANTS BE EXPECTED TO TAKE?

SO THAT'S ONE OF OUR GOALS THAT THAT INFORMATION BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE
BEFORE THE PROCESS STARTS SO THAT TIME IS NOT TAKEN, YOU KNOW, ONCE
APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED TO WORK OUT WHAT THE RIGHT PROCESS SHOULD BE IN
THAT SCENARIO.

SO, MOVING UP TO WHERE WE ARE NOW, THIS CHART IS A REFLECTION OF ALL THE
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT EXIST IN THE ROOT ZONE TODAY. THE LARGEST PIECE OF
THE PIE THERE IS THE COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, OF WHICH THERE ARE
APPROXIMATELY 250, I THINK A FEW MORE. THOSE CORRESPOND TO ALL OF THE
COUNTRY AND TERRITORIES THAT ARE ON THE ISO 3166-1 LIST, HAVE A
CORRESPONDING TWO-LETTER COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSIGNED TO THEM. SO
THE -- THAT'S THE LARGEST CATEGORY.

THE YELLOW PIECE OF THE PIE ARE 11 IDN TEST TLD STRINGS THAT ARE IN THE ROOT
NOW. AND THOSE ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF, YOU KNOW, WORKING OUT ANY TECHNICAL
ISSUES WITH HAVING AND RESOLVING IDNs IN THE ROOT, WITH HAVING A GOOD USER
EXPERIENCE AS USERS AND COMPANIES ADOPT IDN-RELATED PRODUCTS, ENSURING THAT
THEY HAVE A LIVE TLD TO TEST THINGS OUT AND CREATE THE BEST USER EXPERIENCE
THEY CAN.

THE LAST PORTION THERE IS THE GREEN. AND THAT IS THE gTLDs. THERE ARE 21
NOW. AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM IS THAT THE --
THAT NUMBER COULD POSSIBLY GET MUCH BIGGER, AND THAT SLICE OF THE PIE COULD
INCREASE.

OKAY. SO GOING BACK TO THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THE GNSO, WHICH IS THE
GENERIC NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THEY ARE A -- THE GROUP WITHIN ICANN
THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING POLICY APPLICABLE TO gTLD. THEY -- THE
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS A PROCESS THAT IS DEFINED AND SPELLED OUT IN
THE ICANN BYLAWS. THERE ARE CERTAIN STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED. AND AS THE DATES
INDICATE THERE, IT WAS A LITTLE UNDER TWO YEARS FOR THEM TO ARRIVE AT THEIR
FINAL RESULT OF 19 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY ARRIVED AT WERE APPROVED BY THE ICANN BOARD IN
JUNE. SO WHERE WE ARE NOW IS IMPLEMENTING THOSE.

A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND
DISCUSSIONS, THAT THE PROCESS ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN --
OR AMONG ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WITHIN ICANN. THERE'S SEVERAL WORKING
GROUPS, DISCUSSIONS. IT WAS REALLY A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OF TIME AND
RESOURCES INVOLVING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND TAKING AS MUCH TIME AS IT TOOK TO
REACH CONSENSUS, WHICH ENDED UP, AS I SAID, IN 19 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

THOSE ARE ON THE NEW gTLD WEB PAGE. YOU CAN FIND -- AND OTHER PLACES. BUT
YOU CAN FIND THEM QUICKLY ON THE NEW gTLD PAGE, THE ACTUAL TEXT.

I'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT KIND OF HIGH-LEVEL VIEW OF WHAT'S CONTAINED IN
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THERE ARE SORT OF FOUR THEMES TO THEM. AND THESE CORRESPOND TO -- PRETTY
CLOSELY TO THE WAY THAT THE GNSO THOUGHT OF CATEGORIES AS THEY WERE WORKING
ON THIS.

THE TOP ONE IS KIND OF THE OVERARCHING QUESTION OF WHETHER NEW gTLDs SHOULD
BE INTRODUCED. AND THE ANSWER THAT THEY ARRIVED AT WAS THE AFFIRMATIVE,
THAT, YES, THERE SHOULD BE NEW gTLDs, THERE SHOULD BE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND
SO THAT SET THE FOUNDATION FOR THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.

ALLOCATION METHODS HAS TO DO WITH WHAT KIND OF PROCESS SHOULD ICANN USE TO
GIVE OUT NEW gTLDs. IS IT FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED? IS IT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT
SORT OF ACTUAL STEPS NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY ICANN BEFORE gTLDs ARE
INTRODUCED?

SELECTION CRITERIA HAS TO DO WITH WHAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF APPLICANTS IN
ORDER TO HAVE A NEW gTLD DELEGATED, WHAT ARE THE TESTS THAT NEED TO BE MET
AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, DILIGENCE SHOULD ICANN UNDERTAKE IN LOOKING AT
APPLICANTS, WHAT ARE THEIR TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE A
TLD IN A STABLE AND A SECURE WAY, WHAT ARE THE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LONG-TERM
CONTINUITY PLANS THAT THEY HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE STABLE FOR
REGISTRANTS FOR SOME TIME.

AND, LASTLY, THERE ARE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS. SO EVERY gTLD OPERATOR NOW
HAS A CONTRACT WITH ICANN THAT REQUIRES BOTH ICANN AND THE OPERATOR TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS. SO THE LAST PIECE OF WHAT THE GNSO
DISCUSSED WAS WHAT SHOULD THOSE REQUIREMENTS BE BE, TECHNICAL, PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE SOME FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, POLICY COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT WAS THE LAST PIECE OF DISCUSSION THERE.

AND THEN, FINALLY, AS WE'RE WORKING TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER THINGS FROM THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT I
THINK ARE WORTH HIGHLIGHTING. THE FIRST IS THAT IT'S THE APPLICANTS WHO
PROPOSE A gTLD THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SO THAT'S AS OPPOSED TO ICANN
SELECTING CERTAIN STRINGS THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS TLDs AND THEN SEEKING
APPLICANTS FOR THOSE. THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, THEIR
STRING AND THEIR IDEA OF HOW IT SHOULD BE USED AND SO FORTH AND PRESENT THAT
AS A WHOLE TO ICANN.

THERE'S NO PREDEFINED LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF gTLDs. SO IT'S NOT ENVISIONED
THAT ICANN WOULD, OUT OF, SAY, SELECT THE TOP TEN. IF THERE ARE -- IF WE
WERE TO RECEIVE 100 APPLICATIONS AND ALL 100 MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND
WE WERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO -- THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY
DIDN'T MEET, THAT ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS COULD BE APPROVED AND GO ON TO
LAUNCH AS NEW GTLDS.

THE THIRD ONE IS THAT IDN gTLDs WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS. AND WHEN
IT SAYS THERE "CONDITIONAL ON READINESS," WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THERE'S
BEEN WORK GOING ON IN THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY FOR THE LAST -- FOR QUITE A
WHILE, BUT IN THE LAST YEAR, FOCUSING A LOT ON THE PROTOCOLS THAT ARE USED
TO RESOLVE IDNs IN THE DNS. SO THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT CHARACTERS ARE VALID
AND CAN BE USED AND WHAT RULE NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THOSE. SO THAT'S WORK
THAT'S ONGOING.

ROUNDS INITIALLY IS SOMETHING ALSO THAT THE GNSO RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF HOW
WE START UP THIS PROCESS. THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION PROCESSES THAT I
MENTIONED HAD A DEFINED START AND END DATE FOR AN APPLICATION PERIOD. AND
THAT'S ALSO WHAT'S INTENDED FOR GOING FORWARD, THAT THERE WOULD BE A ROUND
THAT OPENS AND CLOSES AT A SPECIFIED TIME. AND, POTENTIALLY, ONCE A FEW OF
THOSE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, THAT THERE COULD BE A SORT OF
STEADY-STATE PROCESS, WHERE APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED AND PROCESSED ON A
ROLLING BASIS.

AND, FINALLY, THE GNSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE FEES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PAYABLE
BY APPLICANTS IN THIS PROCESS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE SET TO RECOVER THE COSTS
OF RUNNING THE PROGRAM, SO THE PROGRAM WOULD BE SELF-FUNDING AND NOT TAKE
AWAY FUNDING FROM ANY OTHER PARTS OF ICANN.

I THINK THAT'S MY PORTION. KARLA'S GOING TO GO ON THROUGH THE....

>>KARLA VALENTE: FIRST OF ALL, MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING SEATS FOR
EVERYBODY. THERE ARE A FEW SEATS STILL AVAILABLE UP FRONT, IF YOU'D LIKE.

SO THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.

IN THE PAST, THAT WAS CALLED DRAFT RFP. WE ARE CALLING IT NOW DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, BECAUSE WE FELT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO WHAT THE
DOCUMENT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A ROAD
MAP OR A STEP-BY-STEP REVIEW OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS
FROM THE MOMENT YOU LAUNCH AN APPLICATION TO THE MOMENT A TLD IS ACTUALLY
DELEGATED.

IT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 23rd, AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS 45 DAYS NOW. AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US THAT YOU PARTICIPATE
IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOUR
FEEDBACK, TO GET YOUR VIEWS AND MAKE CHANGES, AS NECESSARY, AS WE GO TOWARDS
THE DRAFTING OF THE FINAL GUIDEBOOK.

IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, WE ALSO POSTED A NUMBER OF
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA THAT EXPLAINS BASICALLY OR PROVIDES BACKGROUND
INFORMATION OF SOME OF THE ISSUES, OF SOME OF THE PORTIONS OF THE DRAFT RFP.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE DRAFT RFP OR THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK BUT YOU STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY
ARE, HOW THIS DECISION WAS MADE, WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND, MAYBE THE
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA HAS THIS INFORMATION FOR YOU. SO PLEASE READ THE
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA AS WELL.

AND IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS OR ADDITIONAL CONCERNS, PLEASE USE THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO TELL US, "WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION
ON TOPICS A, B, C."

THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT YOU WILL NOTICE AS YOU READ, ALREADY READ, THE
DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, YOU NOTICE THERE ARE SOME AREAS STILL UNDER
DEVELOPMENT.

FOR INSTANCE, WE WILL PROVIDE REFUNDS, BUT THE EXACT AMOUNTS AND WHAT PHASES
THE REFUNDS WILL BE PROVIDED IS NOT THERE.

WE ALSO NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW LONG EACH PHASE IS GOING TO TAKE IN THE
EVALUATION PROCESS. AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO RETAIN EVALUATORS
AND REFINE THE PROCESS BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER IDEA, HAVE MORE
PRECISION OF THE TIMING AROUND EACH PHASE.

SO AGAIN, THE FINAL APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WILL INCORPORATE ALL OF THE CHANGES
THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THROUGH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE AT
ICANN MEETINGS.

SO I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS HERE WITH SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS AND WITH INDIVIDUALS, BUT I STRONGLY STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
USE THE PEMENTS TO PUBLIC COMMENTS TO LODGE YOUR OBSERVATIONS, YOUR
CONCERNS, OR EVEN PRAISES IF YOU ARE THERE.

THIS IS THE WAY THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS STRUCTURED. SO IT'S
STRUCTURED BY MODULES.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU HAVE MODULE 1, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW gTLD
APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH IS A VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW, BUT IT DOES TOUCH ON
THE EVALUATION FEE, WHICH IS $185,000.

IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE IS AN APPLICATION FEE FOR TASK, AND TASK STANDS
FOR TLD APPLICATION SYSTEM AND ALL IT IS IS A WEB-BASED APPLICATION SYSTEM
WHERE ALL THE APPLICANTS WILL BE ABLE TO LODGE THEIR APPLICATIONS. THEY WILL
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND THEY WILL UPLOAD DOCUMENTS. EVALUATORS WOULD BE
ABLE ALSO TO PUT THE EVALUATION REPORTS IN TAS. SO TAS MEANT TO BE REALLY
THE REPOSITORY OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION LIFE CYCLE.

THEN IN MODULE 2 YOU HAVE THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES. AND AS I SAID, THERE IS
STILL TIMING AND REFINEMENT THAT IS IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON THE EVALUATION
PROCEDURES.

I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO LOOK AT -- IN MOST OF THE -- MOST OF THE CRITERIA
OF MOST OF THE EVALUATION STEPS I USED FOR ALL OF THE APPLICANTS. HOWEVER,
THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE ONLY -- THAT ONLY APPLY FOR SOME SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, LOOK CAREFULLY AT EACH EVALUATION PHASE AND DON'T MAKE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.

ALSO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMMUNITY-BASED APPLICANTS, APPLICANTS THAT PLAN ON APPLYING FOR A STRING
THAT IS GEOGRAPHIC OR -- GEOGRAPHIC STRING. THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.

ALSO, IF YOU PLAN TO APPLY FOR AN IDN STRING, YOU KNOW, READ CAREFULLY THE
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IDNs.

THEY BE YOU HAVE MODULE 3 WHICH IS THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. I'LL
TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT LATER.

MODULE NUMBER 4, STRING CONTENTION PROCEDURES. BASICALLY, THIS APPLIES WHEN
WE HAVE TWO OR MORE APPLICANTS THAT HAVE THE SAME IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR
STRINGS. SO THERE'S SOME MECHANISMS THAT ICANN HAS OUTLINED IN ORDER TO
FIRST IDENTIFY THE STRINGS THAT ARE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR, AND THEN TO
RESOLVE THE STRING CONTENTION.

TRANSITION TO DELEGATION. THIS IS ONE OF THE MODULES THAT HAS THE BASE
AGREEMENT AND IN ADDITION TO THE BASE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE ALL OF THE
SPECIFICATION DOCUMENTS THAT ARE LISTED HERE. SO PLEASE CAREFULLY READ
THROUGH ALL OF THEM.

AND THE LAST MODULE IS THE APPLICATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SO BASICALLY
THIS IS THE INTERPRETS AND CONDITIONS. ONCE YOU LOG IN TO TAS, YOU ARE GOING
TO BE ASKED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO USE THE SYSTEM AND ALSO TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO THIS IS HOW THE WHOLE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS STRUCTURED.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS I EXPLAINED -- AS I SAID, THERE IS AN EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDA AND SOME OTHER RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. SO I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE NEW gTLD WEB PAGE AND LOOK AT THE FAQ AND LOOK AT
THE OTHER RESOURCES AND OTHER MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE THERE.

AND THERE IS AN E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT IS A DEDICATED E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR NEW
gTLDs, SO IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,
PLEASE USE THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TALK TO US.

SOME OF THE OTHER RESOURCES AVAILABLE. SO I HAVE HERE THE EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDA. SO WE HAVE THE COST CONSIDERATIONS. THIS PAPER, WE WILL EXPLAIN
TO YOU HOW DID WE GET TO THE 185 FEE, BASICALLY. WHAT IS OUR COSTING MODEL.

IT ALSO TALKS BRIEFLY ABOUT THE REGISTRY FEE. THE REGISTRY FEE IS ONCE AN
APPLICATION BECOMES SUCCESSFUL, YOU KNOW, THE RENG THAT SIBS REGISTRY THAT
SIGNS AN AGREEMENT WITH ICANN HAS TO PAY A CERTAIN FEE. AND THIS IS
EXPLAINED THERE AS WELL.

THERE'S AN UPDATE ON THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, DNS. SO EARLIER THIS YEAR WE
POSTED THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT DESCRIBED THE TLD STRING KI
CRITERIA. SO WHAT IS THE MINIMUM NURMT OF CHARACTERS, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF CHARACTERS, WHETHER YOU CAN OR CANNOT USE A HYPHEN, WHETHER YOU
CAN OR CANNOT USE OTHER SPECIFIC CHARACTERS. SO THE CRITERIA ON THE STRING
CRITERIA WERE OUTLINED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

THE DOCUMENT WE ARE POSTING NOW IS AN UPDATE. IT INCLUDES AN UPDATE, SOME OF
THE ASCII CRITERIA THAT WE HAD BEFORE AND ALSO EXPANDS TO IDNs.

GEOGRAPHIC NAMES PROCESS. SO APPLICANTS APPLYING FOR GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, WE
HAVE A PROPOSED PROGRESSES THAT WILL REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE,
BASICALLY, OR HAVE NO OBJECTION ON THE APPLICATION.

SO THIS IS AGAIN A PROPOSED PROCESS, EVERYTHING YOU ARE SEEING IN THIS
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS A PROPOSAL FROM US.

SO PLEASE LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY AND GIVE US FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
NOTHING IS FINAL ON THIS DOCUMENT.

SUMMARY CHANGES TO BASE AGREEMENT. THIS IS BASICALLY AN OUTLINE OF SOME OF
THE ASPECTS THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY WAS USED TO IN HAVING IN SOME OF OUR
PREVIOUS BASE AGREEMENTS, AND WHAT CHANGES IN THE NEW ONES -- THE NEW ONE
THAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOW.

RESOLVING STRING CONTENTION.

SO THIS PAPER EXPLAINS HOW WE GO ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE CONTENTION SETS. AND
THOSE ARE THE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR STRINGS. AND THEN WHEN DO WE APPLY A
PROCESS THAT IS CALLED COMPARATIVE EVIL WORKSTATION, EVALUATION AND WHETHER
WHEN DO WE APPLY A DIFFERENT PROCESS. IF YOU READ THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK, YOU WILL NOTICE WE TALK ABOUT AN OFFICIAL MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING
STRING CONTENTION. ON THE PAPER, WE PROPOSE THIS MECHANISM AS BEING AUCTION.
SO AGAIN, NOTHING IS SET IN STONE. AUCTION IS ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT
WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK.

THE LAST ONE WHICH WAS POSTED AFTER THE DRAFT RFP OR THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK WAS POSTED IS A PAPER THAT EXPANDS ON ROR ON MORALITY AND PUBLIC
ORDER WHICH IS ONE OF THE GROUNDS YOU CAN USE FOR THE OBJECTION PROCESS, IF
APPLICABLE.

SO THIS IS THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA.

THE OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE ARE PROTECTING RIGHTS OF OTHERS. AND THIS
COULD ALSO BE PART OF THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA.

PROTECTING RIGHTS OF OTHERS BASICALLY OUTLINES THE RIGHTS PROTECTION
MECHANISMS THAT WE ARE THINKING OR CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS, AND ALSO IN THE BASE AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE GNSO POLICY. WE HAVE A MAPPING GUIDEBOOK TO POLICY.
AND THIS IS MOSTLY, YOU KNOW, TO THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN PREPARING THE
POLICY OR EVOLVE INVOLVED EVOLVED IN THE POLICY EVOLVED ININVOLVED IN THE
POLICY PROCESS.

THEN WE HAVE THE PROCESS FLOW AND THIS IS AN OVERALL PROCESS FLOW. WE HAVE
OTHER PROCESS FLOWS SPECIFIC TO OTHER PHASES.

THIS PROCESS FLOW IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. WE POSTED LAST FRIDAY
AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS FLOW. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEW gTLD PAGE, ON THE RIGHT
SIDE, THERE IS A BOX WITH RESOURCES. AND YOU CLICK THERE A LINK FOR THE
INTERACTIVE PROCESS FLOW, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE ON THE DIFFERENT
PHASES.

ANTICIPATED TIME LINE. I AM GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT TIME LINE
AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

THERE ARE TWO LETTERS POSTED HERE THAT DR. TWOMEY WROTE TO GOVERNMENTS AND
ALSO CC OPERATORS, AND THIS IS PART OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. BAF
BASICALLY NOTIFY CC OPERATORS AND GLOBAL OPERATORS ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON .

THRGS ALSO A LINK TO A PRE-PRODUCTION ALGORITHM.

SO THIS ALGORITHM IS PRE-PRODUCTION, AND WE PUT IT THERE JUST FOR YOU TO
HAVE A PHEW FEEL ON WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO
FUNCTION, BUT THIS IS NOT READY AT ALL. IT'S REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, IN THE
NAME OF TRANSPARENCY FOR YOU TO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPING. AND I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE ALGORITHM LATER.

SO THIS IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL VIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS. THE FIRST ONE
IS THE APPLICATION PERIOD. THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS GOING TO BE PREDEFINED,
SO GOING TO HAVE AN OPENING DAY AND A CLOSING DAY. AND DURING THIS TIME, ALL
OF THE APPLICANTS WILL LODGE THEIR APPLICATIONS.

SO THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS THROUGH THIS PROCESS ARE GOING TO BE IN
ENGLISH, AT LEAST FOR NOW.

SO YOU EXPECT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH, YOU EXPECT ALSO TO UPLOAD
SOME OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ALSO PAY THE EVALUATION FEE.

AT THE END OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD, WE ARE GOING TO CHECK ALL OF THE
APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLETENESS. SO BASICALLY WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL OF
THE APPLICATIONS AND SEE HAS EVERYTHING BEEN ANSWERED, HAVE ALL THE
DOCUMENTS BEEN PROVIDED, CAN WE OPEN AND READ THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED, HAS PAYMENT BEEN RECEIVED, AND SO FORTH.

SO IT'S A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THIS, WE ARE GOING TO POST ON OUR WEB SITE A LIST OF
ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AND ALL OF THE TLDs APPLIED FOR, AND WE ARE STILL
DEFINING HOW MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ONCE WE POST
THAT INFORMATION.

THERE ARE PARTS OF THE APPLICATION THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRIVATE, YOU KNOW.
SO I THINK SOME OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM APPLICANTS.

IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THE GUIDEBOOK, WE WILL SPECIFY MORE CLEARLY WHAT
SECTIONS AND WHAT QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE PRIVATE AND NOT POSTED FOR
PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

INITIAL EVALUATION, MODULE 1. THIS IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STRINGS AND WE
LOOK AT THE APPLICANT AND EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THE CRITERIA
THAT WE SET FORTH.

AND THEN FOR THE STRAIGHTFORWARD TYPE OF APPLICATIONS, MEANING APPLICATIONS
THAT DO NOT REQUIRE EXTENDED EAVE EVALUATION, APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN OBJECTED TO, APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS EITHER
SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO ANY OTHER, THOSE WILL GO DIRECTLY TO TRANSITION TO
DELEGATION.

TRANSITION TO DELEGATION BASICALLY IS WHEN WE DO ANOTHER QUICK CHECK TO MAKE
SURE THAT TECHNICALLY THIS APP APPLICANT CAN COMPLY WITH SOME OF THE
DELEGATION STEPS THAT IANA HAS TO GO THROUGH.

WE ALSO CHECK -- OR WE START PROCESSING THE CONTRACT, THE BASE AGREEMENT WE
CALL IT, WITH THE APPLICANT AND SO FORTH.

SO AS I SAID, THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM, WHICH IS EXTENDED EVALUATION,
OBJECTIONS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION, STRING CONTENTION, THESE PHASES OR THE
STEPS APPLY TO SOME APPLICATIONS. NOT ALL.

HERE I TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE APPLICATION PERIOD. SO WE EXPECT THE
APPLICATION PERIOD TO LAST 45 DAYS.

AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE WEB-BASED, AND THE SYSTEM THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE
IS CALLED TAS, TEST APPLICATION SYSTEM. ALL IS GOING TO BE IN ENGLISH NOW,
EVEN THOUGH WE ARE MAKING THINGS AVAILABLE IN OTHER LANGUAGES. SO USING THE
STANDARD SIX UNITED NATIONS LAWNGS TO PROVIDE LANGUAGES TO PROVIDE THE
MATERIAL TO YOU BUT THE APPLICATION ITSELF IS GOING TO BE IN ENGLISH.

THE APPLICATION AM APPLICANTS ARE EXPECTED TO ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS
AND SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND PAYMENT.

APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS AND THEN POSTED ON THE WEB
SITE.

AND HERE IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE EVALUATION PROCESS.

DURING THE EVALUATION PROCESS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
EVALUATION. TWO LEVELS OF EVALUATION.

WE EVALUATE THE TLD STRING. SO WE LOOK AT THE TLD STRING, EITHER ASCII OR
IDN, AND VERIFY IF IT HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE STRING RULES THAT WERE
SET FORTH.

AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAS THE TECHNICAL,
THE OPERATIONAL, THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO RUN THE TLD AS IT'S BEING
PROPOSED TO.

SOP OF -- AN IMPORTANT ASPECT, WHEN WE CHECK THE TERI DARRENOUGUE STRING, IS
TO TLD STRING, IS TO MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT CAUSE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY. SO
WE WENT THROUGH TESTING AND RESEARCH, AND IT'S GOOD IF YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE DNS STABILITY PAPERS TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE THINGS
THAT WE WENT THROUGH, LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING COULD BE
IDENTIFIED UP FRONT AS CAUSING TECHNICAL STABILITY.

AND WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED UP FRONT HAS BEEN -- IT'S PRESENT IN THESE
DOCUMENTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOKED AT IS FIVE EXTENSIONS. FIVE EXTENSIONS, EVEN
THOUGH SOME MIGHT THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO REGISTER DOT PDF OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TECHNICALLY WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY ISSUE THAT WE COULD
IDENTIFY.

WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE TLD NOT BEING A RESERVED NAME OR AN EXISTING TLD.

EXISTING TLD IS ccTLDs AND gTLDs. AND THE RESERVED NAMES. THERE IS A LIST OF
TOP LEVEL RESERVED NAMES LIST THAT YOU FIND IN THE APPLICANT, THE GUIDEBOOK.

SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF RESERVED NAMES LIST. ONE IS THE TOP LEVEL RESERVED
NAME LIST, AND BASICALLY YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR A TLD STRING THAT IS LISTED ON
THIS RESERVED NAME LIST.

THERE IS ANOTHER RESERVED NAME LIST WHICH IS PART OF THE BASE AGREEMENT, AND
THIS IS FOR FUTURE REGISTRIES, WHAT KIND OF RESERVED NAMES LIST THEY WOULD
HAVE TO ADOPT, ONCE THEY SUCCESSFULLY GO AHEAD AND LAUNCH THEIR TLD.

MUST NOT CAUSE STRING CONFUSION. AND THIS IS QUITE A CHALLENGING PROCESS FOR
US, IS TO IDENTIFY WHAT CAUSES STRING CONFUSION.

AND WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT.

ICANN HAS SELECTED TO USE AN ALGORITHM AS A TOOL TO HELP IDENTIFY THE
IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR STRINGS AND CREATE THE SETS.

RIGHT NOW, THE ALGORITHM THAT WE HAVE IS IN ASCII, CYRILLIC AND GREEK.

BUT SOON WE WILL HAVE FIVE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES THAT WILL BE ADDED.

WE BELIEVE THAT WITH THE LANGUAGES CHOICE, EVEN THOUGH THIS ALGORITHM IS NOT
GOING TO COVER 100 PERCENT OF ALL OF THE SCRIPTS AND LANGUAGES, AT LEAST IN
TIME FOR THIS FIRST LAUNCH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CHOICE OF LANGUAGES THAT WE
HAVE RIGHT NOW COVERS A MACT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE
MIGHT RECEIVE, AND THE TOOL IS STILL VALUABLE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
THIS THESE CONTENTION SETS.

BUT IN ADDITION TO THE ALGORITHM, THERE IS GOING TO BE A PANEL OF EXAMINERS,
AND WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW THIS PANEL OF EXAMINERS HAS TO BE BASICALLY SET
UP, WHAT KIND OF EXPERTISE LEVELS.

THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD USE ONLY IP OR ONLY
LINGUISTS OR MAYBE A COMBINATION OF DIFFERENT AREAS OF EXPERTISE, THAT WOULD
HELP US TO LOOK AT THE STRINGS AND SAY YES, INDEED, THOSE ARE SIMILAR AND
THERE IS VERY LIKELY THAT THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE CONSUMER CONFUSION.

AND THEN EXTENDED EVALUATION, WHICH MAY APPLY IN SOME CASES. AND I ENCOURAGE
YOU TO READ THROUGH WHAT WE CALL REGISTRY SERVICES.

SO RIGHT NOW, ICANN DOES HAVE A STEP THAT LOOKS INTO SOME OF THE SERVICES
THAT REGISTRIES REGISTRIES PROPOSE OR NEW SERVICES THAT REGISTRIES PROPOSE
TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANY KIND OF DNS INSTABILITY. AND WE
ARE KIND OF MIRRORING THE SAME PROCESS OR THE SAME THOUGHT IN DEVELOPING
THIS REC. SERVICES REGISTRY SERVICES STEP.

OBJECTIONS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

SO THERE'S A PREDEFINED FILING PERIOD FOR OBJECTIONS. SO IT IS VERY POSH
IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF WHAT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WILL TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITHIN OUR RESOURCES TO
NOTIFY AND TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TLDs AND THE APPLICANTS AND
POST THAT.

SO THE FILING PERIOD, YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A
PREDETERMINED FILING PERIOD. AN OPENING AND A CLOSE DAY.

HOW LONG THIS FILING PERIOD IS GOING TO TAKE, WE DON'T KNOW YET.

WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ABOUT WHY DON'T YOU HAVE AN
OBJECTION FILING PERIOD THAT STARTS ONLY AFTER INITIAL EVALUATION, BECAUSE
AT LEAST THEN PEOPLE WILL KNOW THIS APPLICATION IS NOT GOING THROUGH, SO
WHY, YOU KNOW, FILE AN OBJECTION AT ALL.

SO WE WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS. AND AS I SAID, THE EXACT
PERIOD OF TIME OF THE FILING OF THE OBJECTION IS STILL SOMETHING THAT WE ARE
DEFINING.

THEN WE HAVE THE FOUR GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROCESSED
BY OUTSIDE PARTIES OR DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT HAVE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE EXPERTISE TO DO THAT.

AND RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THREE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH AND
MIGHT BE THE FINAL ONES TO DO THIS OBJECTION.

IT'S ICC, ICDR, AND WIPO.

THERE ARE FOUR GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION. ONE IS STRING CONFUSION, AND THE GOAL
HERE IS TO AVOID USER CONFUSION.

THE SECOND ONE IS LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION. LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION IS INTENDED
TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND OTHER PREEXISTING RIGHTS.

ONE OF THE MOST COMMON QUESTIONS THAT I GET IS, "KARLA, IS MY TRADEMARK
GOING TO BE PROTECTED? DO I HAVE ANY RIGHT FOR A TLD BECAUSE I HAVE OWNED
THE TRADEMARK OR I HAVE A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK?"

AND RIGHT NOW, IN THE PROCESS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT RESERVES TRADEMARKS.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROVIDES TRADEMARK OWNERS WITH ANY KIND OF SPECIAL
TREATMENT THROUGHOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS OR SELECTION PROCESS. SO WHAT
TRADEMARK OWNERS SHOULD DO IS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR, AND IF
THEY BELIEVE THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING INFRINGED UPON, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT
THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM AND USE IT.

MORE ATALITY AND PUBLIC ORDER. THERE WAS RECENTLY A PAPER PUBLISHED ABOUT
THIS. THIS IS ALSO ONE OF THE AREAS THAT HAS QUITE DIFFERENT VIEWS WITHIN
THE COMMUNITY. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THROUGH THE PAPER AND EXPRESS YOUR
OPINIONS AS WELL.

BUT THE REASON THAT OBJECTION EXISTS WAS BECAUSE INTEREST OF GOVERNMENTS
WERE MEANT TO BE PROTECTED.

THEN WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY OBJECTION. THE COMMUNITY OBJECTION IS MEANT TO
PROTECT COMMUNITY INTERESTS. AND I ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS OUR APPROACH ABOUT COMMUNITY. WE
WENT THROUGH QUITE A PROCESS TO TRY TO BASICALLY DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, THE
POLICY IN A WAY THAT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS MADE SENSE AND WERE
A GOOD PROCESS. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAD WAS, WHAT IS A COMMUNITY?
DEFINING A COMMUNITY IS NOT SOMETHING -- IT'S LIKE DEFINING CULTURE. AND IT
WAS NOT EASY TO DO AT ALL.

SO WHAT WE DID IS, WE CREATED JUST A SET OF STANDARDS OF HOW WE WOULD
IDENTIFY COMMUNITY AND HOW WE WOULD APPLY THOSE STANDARDS IN CASE WE NEED TO
GO THROUGH COMPARATIVE EVALUATION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DISPUTE -- THE STRING
CONTENTION MECHANISMS.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS COMMUNITY-BASED STANDARDS AND HOW
WE'RE TREATING THE WHOLE COMMUNITY-BASED APPLICANT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
AND GIVE US THE FEEDBACK ON THAT.

STRING CONTENTION. SO AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, TWO OR MORE QUALIFIED
APPLICANTS THAT HAVE A STRING THAT IS EITHER IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR, AND THEY
HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED ALL OF THE INITIAL EVALUATION PROCESS, HOW ARE WE
GOING TO DETERMINE WHO GETS THE TLD, BASICALLY?

SO WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF MECHANISMS,
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION AND ANOTHER MECHANISM. AND THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE
RIGHT NOW IS FOR AUCTIONS.

WHEN YOU HAVE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION, IT ONLY APPLIES IN A VERY SPECIFIC
CASE. AND THE CASE IS IF, WITHIN THE SET OF STRING CONTENTION IDENTIFIED, IF
ONE OR MORE APPLICANTS IS COMMUNITY-BASED AND HAS ELECTED TO DO COMPARATIVE
EVALUATION, THEN THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION METHOD APPLIES. OTHERWISE, IT IS
THE -- A DIFFERENT METHOD TO RESOLVE THAT.

TRANSITION TO DELEGATION. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE STANDARD BASE AGREEMENT. THERE
WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ON THE BASE AGREEMENT IN THE PAST DAYS
SINCE WE POSTED THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK. AND WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO, YOU
KNOW, HAVING MORE COMMENTS. AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPOSAL. SO IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT YOU GIVE US THE INPUT.

THEN WE HAVE HERE PREDELEGATION CHECKS. WE'RE GOING TO CHECK THE APPLICANT
IF THE APPLICATION IS STILL ABLE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH ICANN, SO
IT'S STILL IN GOOD STANDING, STILL AN ESTABLISHED COMPANY, AND TECHNICALLY
HAS A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS, CAN HE MEET THE NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS IN
ORDER FOR US TO DO THE PREDELEGATION CHECK.

AND THEN THERE'S THE IANA STEPS. AND THE TLD IS ADDED TO THE ROOT.

SO THIS IS BASICALLY THE OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, GUIDEBOOK,
VERY BRIEF. BUT TOMORROW, THERE'S GOING TO BE A SESSION THAT IS CALLED
"UNDERSTANDING APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK CBLGET AND KURT PRITZ IS GOING TO PRESENT
THAT SESSION. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND THAT IF YOU CAN.

SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? NEXT, WE ARE GOING TO PUBLISH THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK AND THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA IN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES. THE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES THAT YOU WILL SEE ARE ARABIC, CHINESE, FRENCH, SPANISH,
AND RUSSIAN. AND WHAT WE INTEND TO DO AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW -- HOPEFULLY,
IN TWO WEEKS OR SO, IS TO POST EVERYTHING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT ONCE, AND
FOR THESE LANGUAGES THAT WE ARE POSTING, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW,
DELAYED, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE 45 PERIOD PUBLIC COMMENT STARTING FROM THE
MOMENT WE POST THE DOCUMENTS. AND, AGAIN, OUR APOLOGIES FOR NOT POSTING ALL
AT ONCE. BUT IT WAS A LOT OF MATERIALS TO BE TRANSLATED.

WE NEED TO FINALIZE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND REVIEW, ANALYZE WHAT IS
OUT THERE, GET BACK TO THE COMMUNITY WITH THAT.

THERE'S ALSO AT THIS MEETING SOME DISCUSSIONS GOING ON, FOR INSTANCE,
BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND SOME OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC
NAMES AND ALSO THERE ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE ARE
FOLLOWING UP ON IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE NEED TO FINALIZE ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION WORK. AND, AGAIN, REFUND
POLICY, THE PHASES, HOW IT TAKES, SOMETHING IN THE BASE AGREEMENT. SO ALL OF
THE THINGS THAT YOU FIND IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK THAT ARE STILL, YOU
KNOW, IDENTIFIED AS UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR NOT QUITE CLEAR ARE GOING TO BE
DEVELOPED FROM NOW, YOU KNOW, TO THE NEXT PUBLICATION.

WE ARE ALSO GOING TO INITIATE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES FOR EVALUATORS. SO WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, YOU WILL SEE THERE ARE DIFFERENT AREAS
THAT AN APPLICATION IS EVALUATED FOR, THE STRING, THERE'S GEOGRAPHIC NAME,
EVALUATION FOR SOME OF THE APPLICANTS. ADDITIONAL IDN CHECKS. SO APPLICANTS
ARE GOING TO BE EVALUATED FOR THEIR FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL AND TECHNICAL
CAPABILITY.

SO THE DIFFERENT AREAS REQUIRE DIFFERENT EXPERTS, BASICALLY. AND WHAT WE'RE
GOING TO DO IS, WE'RE GOING TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND
INITIATE AN OPEN PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY. SO YOU SHOULD SEE SOMETHING ON OUR
WEB SITE IN THE UPCOMING MONTHS.

THEN WE NEED TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO GO ABOUT NOW. EITHER
WE, FROM NOW, MOVE TO A FINAL APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, OR WE HAVE ANOTHER DRAFT
FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN FINAL, OR WE HAVE ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SENT FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN FINAL.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO COMPLETE THIS
WORK, STILL GET THE COMMUNITY INPUT ON THE ADDITIONAL WORK, AND THEN GO TO
THE FINAL.

AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES.

HERE IS THE ANTICIPATED TIMELINE. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, POLICY WAS APPROVED.
THE DRAFT RFP OR APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK HAS BEEN ISSUED. AND WE EXPECT TO HAVE
THE FINAL RFP OR APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK POSTED SOMETIME IN Q1, END OF Q1 OR Q2.
AND, AGAIN, THE TIMING ON THAT WILL DEPEND ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS PUBLIC
COMMENT, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE MEETINGS, AND, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE GOING TO
CHOOSE TO MAKE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND
GET THE FEEDBACK.

SO WE EXPECT THAT THE APPLICATION LAUNCH PERIOD TO BE, MOST LIKELY, Q3. SO
MAYBE END OF Q2 AND Q3.

SO THIS IS SOME CAVEATS. SO, AGAIN, IT REMAINS -- EVERYTHING REMAINS SUBJECT
TO CONSULTATION. WHAT YOU READ IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS A PROPOSAL THAT
ICANN HAS. IT IS OUR WAY TO INTERPRET THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF
US. AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH YOU TO FURTHER
REFINE THAT.

YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT NEW gTLDs ON THE -- ICANN'S WEB SITE. SO
I RECOMMEND YOU SPECIFICALLY LOOK IN TWO WEB PAGES. ONE WEB PAGE IS THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE.

SO WE HAVE -- ICANN HAS A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE. AND IF YOU GO THERE,
YOU WILL ALSO FIND A WAY TO THE NEW GTLD PUBLIC COMMENTS. BUT THERE'S A
DEDICATED PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE. AND WHEN YOU GO TO THIS PAGE, YOU CAN EITHER
COMMENT -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THAT.

YEAH, SO THAT'S THE DEDICATED ONE. NO, THAT'S THE NEW gTLD PAGE. JUST GIVE
ME ONE SECOND.

IT'S WORKING.

SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE. SO THE PERIOD STARTED ON THE 24th AND
IS GOING TO END ON DECEMBER 8th. AND AS I MENTIONED TO YOU, ONCE WE PUBLISH
THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES, THIS PERIOD IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES.

IF YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM, YOU SEE RELATED LINKS AND RESOURCE," BUT, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, ON THE BOTTOM, YOU SEE THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK. SO HERE, YOU
CAN COMMENT ON THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IN FULL, LIKE, THE OVERALL APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK. OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO COMMENT PER MODULE. AND HERE ARE SOME KEY
CONTENTS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST ON AT ONE TIME OR THE
OTHER. SO WE PRESELECTED SOME KEY CONTENTS TO HIGHLIGHT, SO AT LEAST KNOW
MORE OR LESS WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS MODULE. SO YOU CAN COMMENT PER
MODULE OR ON THE OVERALL DRAFT.

AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE NEW GTLD WEB SITE, SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE
FAQ. IF YOU NEED TO SEND AN E-MAIL TO US, GO TO THE NEW gTLD@xxxxxxxxx, NEW
gTLD, SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL. YOU CAN ALSO DOWNLOAD THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK
FROM HERE. YOU HAVE UPDATES, AND YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES. AND YOU ALSO
HAVE HISTORICAL INFORMATION, NOT ONLY ON THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO ON
THE PREVIOUS ROUND, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT KAREN WAS EXPLAINING HERE, IF
YOU WANT TO READ THE HISTORY AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PREVIOUS ROUNDS, THIS
IS WHERE YOU SHOULD GO.

HERE ALSO YOU CAN FIND OR DOWNLOAD THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM.

SO THOSE ARE THE TWO RESOURCES I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO AND VERIFY.

SO, AGAIN, THERE IS A SESSION TOMORROW ON UNDERSTANDING THE DRAFT RFP IN THE
MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM. AND I THINK IT'S AROUND 11:00, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THERE IS THE NEXT ICANN MEETING IN MEXICO. PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS. SEND US E-MAIL ABOUT NEW gTLDs. WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR BETTER
WAYS OR NEW WAYS TO DO THINGS, NOT ONLY ON THE DRAFT RFP, BUT ALSO ON THE
WEB SITE. IF YOU WANT DIFFERENT WAYS FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION,
YOU KNOW, PLEASE LET US KNOW. YOUR FEEDBACK IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I THINK IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A
MICROPHONE? IF WE DON'T, WE CAN --

>> HELLO, HELLO. I'M JOSH FROM AUSTRALIA. I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT'S THE
BENEFIT FOR END USERS FOR THESE NEW DOMAIN NAMES?

I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT FOR END USERS FOR THESE NEW DOMAIN
NAMES? SO THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY USE E-MAIL ADDRESSES, WEB SITES, WHATEVER.
SO NOT PEOPLE WHO REGISTER DOMAIN NAMES, BUT PEOPLE WHO USE THEM DAY TO DAY.
WHAT'S THE BENEFIT?

>>KARLA VALENTE: THE BENEFIT FOR USERS OF HAVING THE TLDs. FOR USING TLDs.
USERS LIKE MY MOTHER.

>> JOSH: YES, EXACTLY. NOT PEOPLE WE MEET IN THE STREET. PEOPLE WHO --

>>KARLA VALENTE: OKAY. SO THAT IS A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION.

WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO APPLY. WE KNOW ABOUT SOME INTENTIONS. SO OUR
FRIEND FROM DOT BERLIN IS HERE, AND THERE ARE SOME OTHERS THAT ARE HERE.

SO WE KNOW ABOUT INTENTIONS. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHO IS GOING TO APPLY.
AND WE DENT KNOW FOR DON'T KNOW FOR SURE HOW THEY ARE GOING TO UGS THE TLD
UNTIL USE THE TLD UNTIL WE SEE.

WE HEAR, ACTUALLY, VERY INTERESTING THINGS. WE HERE GEOGRAPHIC TLDs. YOU
KNOW, WAYS THAT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS SAY, WELL, THERE ARE GOING TO BE NEW
WAYS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH A SPECIFIC REGION
OR WITH A SPECIFIC CITY AND FIND INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND BE RELIABLE AND
CREATE WITHIN THE CITY OR THIS REB REGION A COMMUNITY OR A TITLE COMMUNITY
WITHIN THE INTERNET.

WE HEAR TLDZ TLDs THAT ARE GENERIC. WE HEAR ALL KINDS OF COMMUNITY ONES.
LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, I HEARD DOT BANKS ABOUT COMMUNITY AND I HEARD
COMMUNITIES LIKE DOT IN A HAVE A NAVAJO AND SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES LIKE THAT
THAT WOULD HAVE A PLACE ON THE INTERNET TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND
COMMUNICATE AND DO BUSINESS, MAYBE, OR EXCHANGE INFORMATION.

I THINK IDNs IS GOING TO BE BIG.

IDNs IS THE ONE THAT WILL ALLOW NON-ASCII REGIONS OF THE WORLD TO
COMMUNICATE IN THEIR OWN LAWNG. AND CULTURALLY, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
THING. IT'S A VERY POSH IMPORTANT STEP FOR ICANN ACTUALLY TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT AND TO HAVE THIS AVAILABLE.

WE ALSO HEAR THAT MAYBE BRANDS OR, YOU KNOW, TRADEMARK OWNERS WILL APPLY AND
CONSIDER TO REBRAND, YOU KNOW, FIND NEW WAYS TO REBRAND ONLINE. BUT THE FACT
IS WE DON'T KNOW. IT WILL REALLY DEPEND ON WHO APPLIES AND HOW THEY END UP
USING IT.

>>DANIEL KARRENBERG: IT.

>> OKAY. DIRK FROM THE DOT BERLIN INITIATIVE.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ABOUT THE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT AN APPLICANT HAS TO
PROVIDE TO KANT. AND ICANN. AND I WASN'T SURE WHETHER IT WAS A DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WHETHER WE HAVE TO TRANSLATE ALL DOCUMENTS OR ARTICLES
OF ASSOCIATION OR INCORPORATION IF YOU HAVE A COMPANY OR SOMETHING LIKE
THIS, EVERYTHING IN ENGLISH OR SOME PARTS IN LOCAL LANGUAGE AND SOME PARTS
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

>>KARLA VALENTE: YES, SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT
BECAUSE THAT ALSO IS GOING TO BASICALLY DRIVE WHAT EVALUATORS WE SELECT AND
THEIR ABILITIES TO -- THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS AND
EVALUATE.

WE WANT TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, THE GOAL IS NOT TO
IMPOSE MORE ON THE APPLICANT AND HAVE THEM TRANSLATING MASSIVE DOCUMENTS. SO
WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT LAWNGS WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO
ACCEPT. MAYBE NOT THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, -- ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION IS VERY
INTERESTING BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE COUNTRY. IT COULD BE REALLY, YOU KNOW,
A LOT OF PAGES. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS THAT WE CAN HELP THE APPLICANT TO
STREAMLINE. AND WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL ANSWER ON THAT ONE.

>>DIRK KRISCHENOWSKI: OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> HI. (SAYING (SAYING NAME) FROM (SAYING NAME).

I THINK FROM THE CURRENT REGISTRY POLICIES THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSEED TO RUN
REGISTRANT SOURCES. SO ARE THE CURRENT REGISTRIES ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR THE
NEW TLDs AS A REGISTRAR OR DO THEY NEED TO START UP ANOTHER COMPANY OR
REGISTER ANOTHER COMPANY?

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.

SO YOUR QUESTION IS CAN REGISTRARS APPLY FOR TLDs AND BECOME REGISTRIES?

>> YES.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO YOU ARE TALKING BASICALLY ABOUT THIS MODEL WHERE
REGISTRARS BECOME REGISTRIES.

THERE WAS A PAPER THAT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THIS IS ON THE
REGISTRY/REGISTRAR MODEL. SO RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT
CAN OR CANNOT BE DONE.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THIS PAPER.

WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW IS ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY IN THIS DIALOGUE TO
SEE, OKAY, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO MOVING FORWARD. THIS IS HOW WE OPERATE
NOW, THESE ARE THE PROS AND CONS, HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO MOVING FORWARD?

SO I THINK THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN RIGHT NOW FOR THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY THE PERIOD, BUT THERE IS CRA STUDY ON RENG/REGISTRAR
REGISTRY/REGISTRAR SEPARATION. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> (SAYING NAME) FROM (SAYING NAME) FRANCE.

DON'T YOU THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THOSE NEW GENERIC TLDs WILL KILL
THE DOMAIN NAME INDUSTRY? I GIVE AN EXAMPLE. THE BIG BRANDS OWNERS ARE --
MIGHT BE FED UP TO TRY TO CATCH UP WITH THE MARKET. IT'S ALREADY A BIG
CHALLENGE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT TRADEMARKS ON THE INTERNET OF THE.

IF YOU GET SO INTERNET. IF YOU GET SO MANY NEW HUNDREDS OF TLDs, DON'T YOU
THINK THEY MIGHT SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO STOP TO PLAY THIS GAME AND GO FOR
DOT NESTLE RATHER THAN GO FOR PROTECTING ALL OUR BRANDS IN ALL THE TOP
LEVELS AND COUNTRY CODES AND SO FORTH?

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. AND WE HAVE HEARD FROM
DIFFERENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS OR DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
CHALLENGES THAT NEW gTLDs COULD CAUSE TO BRAND OWNERS OR TRADEMARK OWNERS.
AND WE ARE BASICALLY LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES.

WE HAVE BRAND OWNERS, TRADEMARK OWNERS THAT ARE SAYING, WE, THIS IS GOING TO
BE CHALLENGING PAUSE NOW I AM BECAUSE NOW I AM GOING TO TO MULTIPLY MY
BUDGET, I DON'T KNOW BY HOW MUCH IN ORDER TO PROTECT MY BRAND IN NEW gTLDs.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE BRAND OWNERS AND TRADEMARK OWNERS WHO COME AND SAY, YOU
KNOW WHAT? WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE WAY WE BRAND
ONLINE. YOU KNOW THE. AND, AND LOOK AT THE TOP LEVEL AS BEING THE SOURCE.

SO WE HEAR THE CONCERNS. WE HEAR ALSO UB SOME OF THE BASIC EXCITEMENT THAT
SOME ARE PRESENTING.

WE'RE TRYING TO -- THE RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISM PAPER PROVIDES YOU WITH
SOME INFORMATION ON HOW WE ARE TRYING TO AT LEAST HELP TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THESE CONCERNS FROM THE IP COMMUNITY. BUT THIS IS AN ONGOING DIALOGUE. AND I
THINK THAT IF YOU USE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND ACTUALLY EXPLAIN ALL OF
THE ISSUES, THERE WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD WITHIN
ICANN.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS (SAYING NAME) FROM PRO SOFT EGYPT. I JUST HAVE A
QUESTION. WILL THE APPLICATION PROCESS ACCOMMODATE THE NATURE OF THE
COMPANIES FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS? FOR EXAMPLE, THE NATURE OF A COMPANY IN
TERMS OF PAPERWORK AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, IN TERMS OF FINANCIALS AND PAPERS
IS DIFFERENT FROM A COMPANY SITUATED OR ESTABLISHED IN THE U.S. AND VICE
VERSA.

SO WILL THE APPLICATION PROCESS SCOVMED THE DIFFERENT NATURES OF THE
COMPANIES WHO ARE APPLYING COMING FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE REGION
ACCOMMODATE OR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO THE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO CONSOLIDATE THAT BECAUSE WE
EXPECT APPLICATIONS TO COME FROM EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND DIFFERENT
TYPES OF COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, MEANING, YOU KNOW, CORPORATIONS OR
MAYBE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NOT FOR PROFIT, SMALL, NEWLY ESTABLISHED VERSUS
ESTABLISHED.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE THE CRITERIA AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE SPH TO TO
ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THAT.

AND ALSO WE WILL BE CAREFULLY SELECTING THE EVALUATORS TO MAKE SURE THE
EVALUATORS WOULD KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS AND THE
DOCUMENTS THAT WILL COME OUR WAY.

>> (INAUDIBLE).

HI. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE. THAT'S US.

I'M HILL DAVID HILDE THUNEM FROM THE NORWEGIAN RENG, AND MY RENG REGISTRY
AND MY SYMPATHIES TO EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WANTS TO GET TO THE FINISH
LINE AND GET THE NEW TLDs OUT THERE BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHORTNESS
OF THE COMMENT PERIOD.

RUNNING POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES WITHIN NORWAY, WHICH IS A SMALL
COUNTRY, AND RUNNING SORT OF SMALL POLICY DEVELOPMENT THINGS, WE USUALLY
HAVE A COMMENT PERIOD OF TWO OR THREE MONTHS WHEN WE WANT THE COMMUNITY TO
ACTUALLY REACT.

45 DAYS IS PRETTY SHORT WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE.

WHAT I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT IS NOT THE PEOPLE INSIDE THIS ROOM. IT'S ALL
THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE THAT IS CURRENTLY DISCOVERING, STILL, THE
INTERNET; THAT IS STRUGGLING WITH THE DIGITAL DIVIDE,; AND THAT WILL COME
LATER ON, IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND DISCOVER THAT ONCE AGAIN, THE -- WELL,
THE WESTERN PART OF THE WORLD WILL HAVE BEEN THERE FIRST AND BEEN ABLE TO
SELECT WHAT THEY WANTED WHILE THE REST WASN'T THERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT IT.

>>KARLA VALENTE: THANK YOU.

SO I HEAR TWO THINGS. ONE IS IN RELATION TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT
IS CURRENTLY 45 DAYS.

IF THE COMMUNITY WANTS AN EXTENSION TO THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WE'LL BE
GLAD TO DO THAT OF THAT.

THE REASON YOU HAVE 45 DAYS IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS A GENERAL STANDARD, 30
IS THE MINIMUM. AND WE LOOKED AT HAVING 60 DAYS, BUT THEN WE GO OVER THE
HOLIDAYS, AND WE CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS GOING TO BE REALLY AS
PRODUCTIVE, BECAUSE YOU GO OVER THE END-OF-YEAR HOLIDAYS.

BUT MOST OF THE CONCERNS ARE AROUND TIME LINES.

SO IF WE HAVE EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME OR IF WE EXPAND THE PUBLIC COMMENT
TIMES HOURKS IS THIS GOING TO BE MANAGED AGAINST ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL WORK
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE TIME LINE AND SO FORTH.

BUT THAT SAID, I HEAR YOUR CONCERN, AND IF THE COMMUNITY FEELS THAT WE NEED
MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE PICK SPEAK UP AND WE WILL DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT.

AND AGAIN, IN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES, ONCE THE FIVE LANGUAGES ARE POSTED, THIS
PUBLIC COMMENT IS ALSO 45 DAYS.

SO IF WE EXTEND THE ONE THAT IS FOR THE ENGLISH MATERIALS, WE HAVE TO GIVE
THE SAME TIMING FOR THE OTHER ONES AS WELL.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, ONCE YOU START EXPANDING, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THE
COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE IS AN IMPACT ON THE TIME LINE, WE ARE HAPPY
TO ACCOMMODATE.

THE SECOND POINT, IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, HAS TO DO WITH WASHES;
AWARENESS; RIGHT? HOW MUCH, REALLY -- HOW MUCH EFFORT IS ICANN DOING IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS BEING HEARD IN THE DIFFERENT CORNERS OF THE
WORLD.

SO THERE'S A COMMUNICATIONS PLAN THAT WE HAVE, AND IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
PLAN, WE HAVE THE REGION LIAISONS, WE HAVE THE REGIONAL MEETINGS. WE
COMMUNICATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WE COMMUNICATE WITH REGIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE KIND OF CASCADE EFFECT. FROM A
MEDIA STANDPOINT, WE TRY TO DO A MEDIA OUTREACH THROUGH A COMPANY THAT WE
WORK WITH, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

ARE WE DOING ENOUGH? WE'RE DOING AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT WE
HAVE. THAT IS MY ANSWER, MY HONEST ANSWER TO YOU. AND WE ARE GOING TO BE
DOING -- WE WILL TRY TO EXPAND, LIKE, DOING WEBINARS, SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS COSTLY TO, YOU KNOW, HELP IN THIS OUTREACH PROGRAM AS
WELL. MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE CC OPERATORS. I
DON'T KNOW.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS BEYOND WHAT I MENTIONED, BEYOND WHAT WE ARE
DOING, I AM GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY TO HEAR.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: (INAUDIBLE).

>>KARLA VALENTE: NO SOUND?

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: OKAY. NOW IT SEEMS TO WORK.

I AM VITTORIO BERTOLA. I'M A WANNA BE APPLICANT. AND I THINK I HAVE TWO
QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS, PROVIDED THAT I AM APPLYING FOR A STRING THAT DOESN'T
INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, HAS THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF PUBLIC SUPPORT,
IF IT'S A gTLD, HAS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT, AND ALL THESE CONDITIONS,
DOESN'T CLASH WITH REQUESTS BY SOMEONE ELSE, AND SO ON, THE ONLY CRITERIA
IS, BASICALLY, MONEY, IF I CAN RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THE FEES OR
NOT. THERE'S NO EVALUATION ON WHETHER THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IS USEFUL IN
ANY WAY OR NOT? SO EVEN IF I, FOR EXAMPLE, WANTED DOT MY NAME JUST FOR
VANITY, AS LONG AS I GET THE MONEY -- I'VE GOT THE MONEY AND I DON'T
INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, I WOULD GET IT? AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS
RIGHT?

AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, SO THE FEES, ARE
DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF APPLICATION OR NOT. SO WHEN THE APPLICANT, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS A CHARITY OR NAT FOR PROFIT, WHETHER IT'S FROM A DEVELOPING
COUNTRY OR A DEVELOPED COUNTRY, I MEAN, IT'S ALL THE SAME? BECAUSE THERE WAS
SOME DISCUSSION IN THE PAST ABOUT DIFFERENTIATING IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE
CONCLUSION.

THANK YOU.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO I HEAR TWO QUESTIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG.

THE FIRST QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE ACTUAL USE OF THE TLD; RIGHT? WHAT IF ONE
WANTS TO APPLY FOR A TLD JUST, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE THE NAME RESERVED AND NOT
ACTUALLY LAUNCH IT, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIRD-PARTY REGISTRATIONS OR
SECOND-LEVEL REGISTRATIONS.

IS THAT RIGHT? DID I CAPTURE THAT RIGHT?

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: YEAH. (INAUDIBLE) THAT I WANT (INAUDIBLE).

>>KARLA VALENTE: YEAH. SO IN THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, I DON'T BELIEVE WE
HAVE DEFINED OPERATIONAL END USE IN THAT SENSE. THIS IS DISCUSSIONS AND
FEEDBACK THAT WE ARE HAVING, BECAUSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS CAME TO US AND
SAID, "YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT IF I USE MY DOT TLD ONLY AS -- YOU KNOW,
INTERNALLY TO GIVE E-MAILS TO EMPLOYEES, OR, YOU KNOW, TO BASICALLY
INTEGRATE MY SUBSIDIARIES AROUND THE WORLD OR AFFILIATES AROUND THE WORLD
AND THINGS LIKE THAT?" WE ALSO HEARD FROM TRADEMARK PRACTITIONERS AND BRAND
OWNERS, WELL, IT IS LIKELY THAT I WILL HAVE TO REGISTER MY TLD FOR DEFENSIVE
PURPOSES, BECAUSE THESE ARE SOME OF THE PRACTICES THAT YOU HAVE ON THE
SECOND LEVEL RIGHT NOW.

SO WE HAVE BEEN HAVING THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK. AND WE ARE LOOKING INTO WHAT
IS USE AND WHAT IS OPERATIONAL. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, BASICALLY, IT'S VERY HARD
FOR YOU TO SAY TO A REGISTRY, "YOU MUST BE OPERATIONAL WITHIN A CERTAIN
PERIOD OF TIME." THERE'S A LOT OF CONDITIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT
THIS REGISTRY, YOU KNOW, MAY DEPEND ON IN ORDER TO LAUNCH. SO WE'RE TRYING
TO BE VERY CAREFUL SO TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE
BUSINESS CAN IN FACT DO, AND NOT TO SAY TO THEM, "UNDERSTAND YOU ARE
DELEGATED, YOU HAVE TO LAUNCH WITHIN 48 HOURS." SO WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

BUT THIS IS ONE AREA THAT WE APPRECIATE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHAT
ARE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE USE OF THE TLD, ON HAVING THE TLD OPERATIONAL?
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS OPERATIONAL? AND SO FORTH.

THE SECOND QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE FEE.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE $185,000 THAT IS PAID BY ALL OF THE
APPLICANTS. WE ARE NOT MAKING A DISTINCTION BASED ON THE TYPE OF TLD OR TYPE
OF ORGANIZATION OR TYPE OF APPLICANT. IT'S ONE FEE FOR ALL OF THE
APPLICANTS.

EARLIER, DURING THE GNSO DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WERE HAVING, SOME RAISED THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IF ONE APPLICANT APPLIES TO MORE THAN ONE TLD,
YOU KNOW, SHOULD THIS APPLICANT HAVE A REDUCTION IN THE SECOND OR THIRD, THE
FOURTH APPLICATION, BECAUSE THE ENTITY -- THE EVALUATION COSTS ARE GOING TO
BE, YOU KNOW, NOT THE SAME, OBVIOUSLY. AND THE ANSWER WAS, NO. WE'RE
TREATING EACH APPLICATION INDIVIDUALLY. AND THE FEE IS THE SAME FOR EVERY
APPLICANT.

>> HELLO (INAUDIBLE).

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT YOU ARE DOING TO MAKE COMPREHENSIVE DELEGATION. BUT
IF THERE IS -- AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE -- IN CASE OF CONTENTION, THE
MECHANISM FOR AUCTIONING OR FOR BEAUTY CONTEST. BUT THIS GUARANTEES THAT
THERE IS NO SECONDARY TREATING OF UTILITIES. IF -- IF THERE IS A SECOND
POSSIBILITY FOR SECOND REITERATING OF GTLDS.

>>KARLA VALENTE: I'M SORRY. I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THE SECONDARY --

>> RESALE OF -- RESALE OF TLDs.

>>KARLA VALENTE: OH, RESELLING TLDs.

>> RESELLING.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO, FOR INSTANCE, ONE REGISTRY IS GRANTED DOT ABC AND THEY
RESELL THAT TLD TO ANOTHER ENTITY LATER? IS THAT THE QUESTION? OKAY.

YEAH, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION. WE DO
NOT HAVE A FINAL ANSWER ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE WE LOOKED AT NOT ONLY
RESELLING, BUT WHAT HAPPENS ALSO IN THE CASE OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN OUR -- YOU KNOW, IN THIS WORLD EVERY
SINGLE DAY, WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS REGISTRANT, THE TLD. BECAUSE OUR CONCERN IS
ABOUT THE LONGEVITY OF THE REGISTRY AND THE IMPACT ON THE REGISTRANTS AND SO
FORTH. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT.

JANICE, I THINK THE NEXT TIME THE MIKE JUST WORKS AT ONCE, WE SHOULD GRANT
THE TLD TO THE APPLICANT. BECAUSE IT'S A SIGN.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>> MY NAME IS (SAYING NAME). I'M FROM NIGERIA. THE DOT NG CCTLD.

I HAVE TWO CONCERNS I WANT TO RAISE. THE FIRST IS WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES.
MY CITY HAS A VERY KEY AREA OF CONTENTION, SPECIFICALLY FOR NIGERIA, MOST
REGIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE IN NAME, LAY LEGOS, LEGOS IS BOTH A CITY AND
STATE IN NIGERIA. WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMMUNITY (INAUDIBLE) OR OBJECTION TO
THE GEOGRAPHIC NAME LEGOS. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CHAOTIC, IF THESE THINGS
ARE NOT PROPERLY DEFINED AND THEY ARE SPECIFIC TO COUNTRIES. THERE IS A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THERE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS A FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. AND EACH WILL LAY LAY CLAIM TO --

>> THE MIKE. -- CITIZENS AS WELL. SO HOW WOULD ALL THIS BE RESOLVED TO TAKE
CARE OF EACH OF THE REGIONS AND EACH OF THE AUTHORITIES?

THE SECOND ASPECT IS MY FEAR THAT ICANN MIGHT BE HEADING TOWARDS A REGISTRAR
STATUS. IF WE HAVE ICANN REGISTERING VANITY NAMES --

>>KARLA VALENTE: I'M SORRY FOR THAT.

SO JUST TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION -- AND IT'S A VERY GOOD ONE -- WHAT
HAPPENS WITH THE GEOGRAPHIC NAME A GEOGRAPHIC NAME THAT COMES FROM AN
APPLICANT FOR A REGION OR A PLACE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH SOME
KIND OF POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC TRANSITION OR CHALLENGES AND YOU CANNOT
CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT. DID I CAPTURE THAT RIGHT?

>> NO. IT HAS MULTIPLE LEVELS.

>>KARLA VALENTE: LAYERS, YEAH.

YEAH, THIS IS ONE OF THE -- THIS IS ONE OF THE IDENTIFIED ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE IN THE PROCESS TO STREAMLINE OR IRON DOWN. AND WE ARE GOING -- DURING
THIS CAIRO MEETING, THERE IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE
GNSO ON THESE GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, THE HIGH-LEVEL PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE SO FAR.

BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WE
STILL NEED TO LOOK AT.

I'M BEING TOLD THAT I NEED TO CUT OFF TIME. AND SO I CAN MAYBE TAKE ONE
MORE.

OKAY. CAN --

>> (INAUDIBLE).

>>KARLA VALENTE: OKAY. WOULD YOU MIND TO SPEAK UP.

>> SURE. MY NAME IS ANNALISA ROGET. AND I'M INTERESTED IN THE
COMMUNITY-BASED TLDs. FIRST, I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK I READ IN
THE RFP ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. SO THAT MIGHT BE THE DOT NAME IDEA, THAT
INDIVIDUALS WOULD NOT.

>>KARLA VALENTE: CANNOT APPLY. YES, CANNOT APPLY.

>> BUT MY QUESTION IS --

>> HOLD ONE SECOND, BECAUSE THE FOLKS IN THE BACK WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR.
SO IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> YES, MY NAME IS ANNALISA ROGET. MY QUESTION IS REGARDING COMMUNITY
APPLICATIONS.

THERE WAS A PART THAT I READ IN THE RFP ABOUT AN EXISTING ORGANIZATION OR AN
EXISTING ENTITY THAT HAD TO BE ESTABLISHED.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE CASE WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR A LONG
TIME, BUT MAYBE THE APPLICANT IS NEWLY FORMED TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY.
WOULD THAT -- DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT PART?

>>KARLA VALENTE: I THINK -- SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IS YOU HAVE AN
ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS NEWLY INCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION OR A NOT FOR PROFIT.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE. IT'S EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

>> ANNALIESE ROGET: IS THERE AN --

>>KAREN LENTZ: THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. SO THE
APPLICANT, AS A LEGAL ENTITY, HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THERE'S NO
-- THERE'S NO REAL REQUIREMENT ON THAT. YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO BE
ESTABLISHED SOMEHOW AND SHOW THAT THEY -- YOU KNOW, SHOW PROOF OF THAT.

BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE COMMUNITY -- I MEAN, THE
COMMUNITY MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 100 YEARS, OR IT MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, COME
ABOUT MORE RECENTLY. BUT IN TERMS OF JUST LOOKING AT -- DURING THE
EVALUATION PROCESS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT AND WHETHER IT'S, YOU
KNOW, BEEN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED.

THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, EXISTENCE OF THE COMMUNITY AND HOW IT'S
BEEN FORMED AND WHAT ITS SORT OF BORDERS ARE, HOW LONG IT'S BEEN AROUND, ARE
INQUIRIES THAT COME UP WHEN -- IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A COMMUNITY-BASED
APPLICANT AND THERE ARE -- THERE IS A CONTENTION SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE,
YOU KNOW, EITHER SEVERAL -- THE COMMUNITY-BASED IS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS
TRYING TO GET A PARTICULAR STRING, OR IN THE CASE OF, SAY, AN OBJECTION TO
AN APPLICATION, THAT THAT'S PART OF THE INQUIRY THAT IS GOING BACK TO LOOK
AT THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS CLAIMED AND LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG THAT
HAS BEEN AROUND IS ONE FACTOR THAT COULD BE PART OF THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY -- THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE A ONE-TO-ONE MAPPING
BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE TIME OF STABT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APPLICANT AND
THE COMMUNITY.

>> KARLA AND KAREN, WE HAD A TECHNICAL MALFUNCTION JUST THAT IS GENTLEMAN
WAS ABOUT TO ASK HIS.

>> YES MY NAME IS (SAYING NAME), FROM DOT (SAYING NAME) WHICH IS A QUITE NEW
INITIATIVE. WE PLAN TO APPLY FOR A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN FOR THE CITY OF HAMBURG.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR THE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU SET. THE
FIRST APPLICATIONS WILL BE POSSIBLE IN Q3 IN 2009. HOW IS THE FURTHER
TIMELINE? WILL THAT BE ONCE A YEAR? WILL THAT DEPEND ON THE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS ?UV OR WHAT ARE THE ICANN PLANS CONCERNING THIS?

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO WE NEED TO PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING ROUND WHEN WE PUBLISH
THE FINAL RFP, WHEN WE PUBLISH THE FIRST ROUND, SO PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD
CAN, YOU KNOW, KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS APPLICATION PERIOD. THEN
MY NEXT OPPORTUNITY IS GOING TO BE ON SUCH AND SUCH TIME.

WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO HOW WE'RE GOING TO TIME BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE
SECOND ROUND. THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO, THERE'S NO
PERFECT ONE. ALL OF THEM HAVE PROS AND CONS. SO YOU CAN LOOK AT, OKAY, WE
FINALIZED THE FIRST ROUND, AND ALL OF THEM EITHER GET, YOU KNOW, REJECTED OR
DELEGATED, AND THIS IS ONLY WHEN THIS HAPPENS, YOU OPEN THE SECOND ROUND. OR
YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE, WELL, YOU BLOCK THE TLDs THAT WERE APPLIED FOR
THIS ROUND AND YOU LAUNCH THE SECOND ROUND AND THEN RESOLVE THE FIRST ROUND.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE COULD GO ABOUT ESTABLISHING
VERY GOOD TIMING BETWEEN ONE ROUND AND THE NEXT ONE. AND IF THE COMMUNITY
HAS SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO GO ABOUT THAT, KNOWING THAT EVALUATION -- YOU
KNOW, DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS CAN TAKE DIFFERENT EVALUATION CYCLES, ?, SO TO
SPEAK. SO IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS, THAT WOULD BE VERY WELCOME. BUT WE SHOULD
PUBLISH THAT WHEN WE PUBLISH THE FINAL APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.

THAT'S IT. SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR COMING. AND WE ARE GOING TO BE
AROUND HERE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

START START START START DO YOU SEE THIS?

IS IT ON 4444 NOW? DO YOU WANT TO PUT SOME TEXT IN THERE JUST TO MAB THAT
IT'S GOING THROUGH TO THE PAGE FOR -- TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST
TEST TEST TESTING TESTING TESTING IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT
CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT CORRECT SINDHI SINNEDDLY SINDLY SINDHI
SINDHI JAMBI

>>KAREN LENTZ: .

>>KARLA VALENTE: KHALED FATTAL KHALED FATTAL KARLA LENTZ KAREN LENTZ KARLA
VALENTI VAL LEN TEE VAL LENITY

>>KARLA VALENTE: .

>>KAREN LENTZ: KARLA VALENTE KAREN LENTZ.

>>KAREN LENTZ: CAREGIVER CAREGIVER.

>>KARLA VALENTE:

>>KARLA VALENTE: HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS KARLA VALENTE. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM. AND THIS IS KAREN LENTZ. KAREN LENTZ IS
MANAGER OF CONTACT AND RESEARCH AT ICANN.

AND TODAY'S SESSION IS AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW gTLDs. AND I SEE A LOT OF FARM
FACES. FAMILIAR FACES. I HOPE WE DON'T DISAPPOINT YOU, BECAUSE IT'S MEANT TO
GIVE AN INTRODUCTION ON NEW ANYTHING ELSE.

WE ARE NEW GTLDS.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MIRROR OF THIS IN ARABIC. ANOTHER ON NEW gTLDs IS
GOING TO TAKE PLACE TOMORROW, MONDAY, IN THE MAIN ROOM. AND THIS IS GOING TO
GO MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.

>>KAREN LENTZ: OKAY. SO JUST TO GO OVER THE AGENDA BRIEFLY, WE WILL BE
TAKING YOU THROUGH THE BASIS FOR THE NEW gTLD WORK THAT ICANN IS DOING,
INCLUDING SOME OF THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, HISTORY, PREVIOUS APPLICATION
PROCESSES, THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT THE GNSO COMPLETED, THE
IMPLEMENTATION WORK THAT STAFF HAS BEEN DOING, AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK THAT'S POSTED NOW, AND THE MATERIALS SURROUNDING THAT,
AND THEN THE TENTATIVE TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS FOR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS
MEETING.

SO, TO GO BACK ABOUT TEN -- A LITTLE OVER TEN YEARS AGO, ICANN -- AS ICANN
WAS BEING FOUNDED, ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE SEVERAL MORE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. THE
QUOTATION THAT'S IN THE FIRST BOX THERE IS FROM THE 1998 WHITE PAPER HAVING
TO DO WITH THE FOUNDING OF ICANN, SAYING THAT THE NEW CORPORATION -- WHICH
IS WHAT BECAME ICANN -- ULTIMATELY SHOULD OVERSEE POLICY FOR DETERMINING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NEW TLDs ARE ADDED TO THE ROOT SYSTEM.

PART OF THE -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF ICANN IS THAT IT
SHOULD EXIST TO FOSTER CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN PROVIDING DOMAIN
REGISTRATION SERVICES. ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THAT'S OCCURRED WAS THE OPENING
UP OF THE REGISTRAR MARKETPLACE. SO THERE ARE NOW OVER 900 ICANN-ACCREDITED
REGISTRARS THAT ARE REGISTERING DOMAIN NAMES AT THE SECOND LEVEL. AND
THERE'S ALSO ALWAYS BEEN THE EXPECTATION THAT THE TOP LEVEL WOULD BE OPENED
UP TO MANY MORE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND PROVIDERS OF SERVICES AT THE TOP
LEVEL.

SO THE MOU, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, THAT ICANN HAS HAD WITH THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS ALWAYS MADE MENTION OF NEW TLDs IN THE CONTEXT OF
THAT OBJECTIVE. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT THAT ICANN
HAS NOW WITH THE DAVE PISCITELLO OF COMMERCE THAT'S STILL WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE THAT'S STILL A KEY THERE.

A COUPLE OF THE KEY BENEFITS THAT ARE SEEN TO BE REALIZED FROM THE
INTRODUCTION OF NEW gTLDs. THE FIRST ONE IS TO ENCOURAGE AND FOSTER
CREATIVITY, INNOVATION, CONSUMER CHOICE, AND COMPETITION IN THE DOMAIN NAME
SPACE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THE OPENING UP OF THE TOP LEVEL IS POTENTIAL
FOR BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR NONPROFIT INITIATIVES, EDUCATION THINGS THAT
POSSIBLY NOBODY HAS THOUGHT OF YET. THAT'S ONE.

AND THEN ANOTHER KEY THING THAT IT WILL ENABLE IS THE INCLUSION OF
INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES AT THE TOP LEVEL. AND YOU'LL HEAR THAT
ABBREVIATED AS IDN.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM BULLET THERE, THERE'S AN IDN REGISTRATION THAT
-- IN CHINESE CHARACTERS THAT I BELIEVE MEANS SOMETHING LIKE SATELLITE
"PHONE." BUT THE TOP LEVEL DOT NET IS STILL LIMITED TO ASCII CHARACTERS. SO
IT'S LIMITED TO THE LATIN ALPHABET, A THROUGH Z, THE DIGITS 0 THROUGH 9, AND
THE HYPHEN CHARACTER.

SO WHAT IS BECOMING POSSIBLE IS THAT THE TOP LEVEL CAN REFLECT THE DIVERSITY
OF SCRIPTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AROUND THE WORLD.

SO GOING BACK TO -- THROUGH SOME HISTORY, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OCCASIONS IN
THE PAST WHEN NEW gTLDs HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED. THE FIRST ONE -- PROCESS BEGAN
IN THE YEAR 2000. AND THAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND. THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. AND SO A COUPLE OF GOALS IN
THAT PROCESS WERE TO EXPERIMENT AND TO TRY OUT AS MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF
TLDs AND APPLICATIONS AS POSSIBLE TO CREATE A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

SO THE GOAL IN THAT PROCESS WAS NOT TO CREATE A LARGE QUANTITY OF NEW gTLDs,
BUT TO SELECT A GROUP THAT WOULD GIVE A RANGE OF MODELS THAT WOULD GIVE AN
EFFECTIVE TEST.

SO OUT OF THAT PROCESS, THERE WERE SOMETHING LIKE 46 APPLICATIONS THAT WERE
RECEIVED BY ICANN. THERE WERE SEVEN SELECTED. AND ALL OF THOSE THAT WERE
SELECTED IN THAT PROCESS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED. THEY EXIST NOW AND
HAVE MANY REGISTRATIONS.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE ON THE RIGHT.

ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS ROUND IS THE IDEA OF SPONSORED AND
UNSPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. SO YOU SEE THE THREE SPONSORED ONES ON THE
TOP, AERO, COOP, AND MUSEUM, AND THE UNSPONSORED ON THE BOTTOM, BIZ, INFO,
NAME, AND PRO.

THE IDEA OF THE SPONSORED TLD WAS THAT IT'S EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON SERVING A
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR SECTOR OR GROUP OF PEOPLE. SO THERE WAS SOME POLICY
DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES GIVEN TO THE OPERATOR, TO THE SPONSOR, OF THAT
TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN TO CREATE POLICIES FOR ITS PARTICULAR TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXACT COMMUNITY THAT IT WAS SERVING.

THEN IN 2003, THERE WAS KIND OF AN EXTENSION OF THAT PROOF OF CONCEPT ROUND
THAT WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS. AND IN THAT
PROCESS, IT WAS LIMITED TO JUST PROPOSALS FOR SPONSORED -- NEW SPONSORED
TLDs. THERE WERE TEN APPLICATIONS RECEIVED. SIX OF THOSE HAVE LAUNCHED TO
DATE. THOSE ARE ON THE RIGHT.

THAT EVALUATION PROCESS WAS, AS IT SAYS ON THE BOTTOM, EXTENSIVE, AND IN
SOME CASES, TOOK A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME. THERE WERE SOME ISSUES THAT CAME OUT
IN THAT PROCESS THAT ICANN WAS SORT OF FACING FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NEEDED
TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RESOLVE, THOSE BEING, IN SOME CASES, A TECHNICAL
ISSUE OR A TECHNICAL PROPOSAL THAT WAS SOMETHINGED THAT NOT BEEN
TRADITIONALLY SEEN OR DONE BEFORE. AND ALSO SOME GEOGRAPHICAL CONCERNS WITH
SOME OF THE STRINGS THAT WERE APPLIED FOR HERE.

>>KARLA VALENTE: SO I THINK THAT TECHNICAL DOT TEL LAUNCHES AT THE END OF
THE YEAR.

>>KAREN LENTZ: THAT'S RIGHT. LESSONS FROM THE LAST FEW ROUNDS. THOSE ON THE
SLIDE I WOULD SAY ARE LESSONS LEARNED BY THE ICANN COMMUNITY. SO INCLUDING
APPLICANTS, INCLUDING ICANN, INCLUDING ALL OF US.

SO ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH THE NEED FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES FOR
RIGHTS OVER PARTICULAR NAMES. WHEN YOU OPEN UP A NEW SPACE, THERE NEEDS TO
BE A PROCESS TO SORT OUT CLAIMS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES WHO BELIEVE THAT
THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO A PARTICULAR NAME.

ANOTHER IS LAUNCH CONSIDERATIONS. SO, AGAIN, WHEN -- THIS APPLIES MOSTLY
WHEN YOU'RE STARTING UP SOMETHING NEW, THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THAT THERE'S,
AT THE VERY BEGINNING, A VERY HIGH VOLUME OF DEMAND FOR NAMES THAT ARE SEEN
TO BE DESIRABLE OR JUST FOR NAMES THAT ARE DESIRABLE TO ONE OR TWO
PARTICULAR PARTIES.

SO THERE NEEDS TO BE A -- YOU KNOW, SOME THOUGHT GIVEN IN STARTING A NEW TLD
TO HOW DO YOU START UP. THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS MODELS IN THE TLDs THAT WE
WENT THROUGH. THERE WERE VARIOUS MODELS USED AND APPROACHES TOWARD DOING
THAT.

SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH EXPECTED THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR PLAN FOR
STARTING UP.

ANOTHER IS THE UNDERSTANDING INTERESTS OF -- UNDERSTANDING THE INTERESTS OF
GOVERNMENTS IN REGIONAL NAMES. AND, LASTLY, HAVING PREDEFINED AND
PRE-ESTABLISHED PROCESSES.

SO AS I MENTIONED IN THE 2004 SPONSORED TLD ROUND, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OF
ISSUES THAT CAME UP THAT TOOK A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME TO DEAL WITH. ONE OF THE
GOALS THAT WE'VE HAD IN DEVELOPING THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK AND THAT WE
EXPECT TO SEE GOING FORWARD IS THAT IT TRIES TO BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE
IN THINKING THROUGH WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS THAT COULD OCCUR; WHAT
ARE THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF SCENARIOS THAT WILL OCCUR; AND WHAT ARE THE
STEPS THAT ICANN WILL FOLLOW IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THOSE OCCUR. WHAT ARE
THE REQUIREMENTS? WHAT ACTIONS WILL APPLICANTS BE EXPECTED TO TAKE?

SO THAT'S ONE OF OUR GOALS THAT THAT INFORMATION BE AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE
BEFORE THE PROCESS STARTS SO THAT TIME IS NOT TAKEN, YOU KNOW, ONCE
APPLICATIONS ARE RECEIVED TO WORK OUT WHAT THE RIGHT PROCESS SHOULD BE IN
THAT SCENARIO.

SO, MOVING UP TO WHERE WE ARE NOW, THIS CHART IS A REFLECTION OF ALL THE
TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT EXIST IN THE ROOT ZONE TODAY. THE LARGEST PIECE OF
THE PIE THERE IS THE COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, OF WHICH THERE ARE
APPROXIMATELY 250, I THINK A FEW MORE. THOSE CORRESPOND TO ALL OF THE
COUNTRY AND TERRITORIES THAT ARE ON THE ISO 3166-1 LIST, HAVE A
CORRESPONDING TWO-LETTER COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN ASSIGNED TO THEM. SO
THE -- THAT'S THE LARGEST CATEGORY.

THE YELLOW PIECE OF THE PIE ARE 11 IDN TEST TLD STRINGS THAT ARE IN THE ROOT
NOW. AND THOSE ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF, YOU KNOW, WORKING OUT ANY TECHNICAL
ISSUES WITH HAVING AND RESOLVING IDNs IN THE ROOT, WITH HAVING A GOOD USER
EXPERIENCE AS USERS AND COMPANIES ADOPT IDN-RELATED PRODUCTS, ENSURING THAT
THEY HAVE A LIVE TLD TO TEST THINGS OUT AND CREATE THE BEST USER EXPERIENCE
THEY CAN.

THE LAST PORTION THERE IS THE GREEN. AND THAT IS THE gTLDs. THERE ARE 21
NOW. AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM IS THAT THE --
THAT NUMBER COULD POSSIBLY GET MUCH BIGGER, AND THAT SLICE OF THE PIE COULD
INCREASE.

OKAY. SO GOING BACK TO THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THE GNSO, WHICH IS THE
GENERIC NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION, THEY ARE A -- THE GROUP WITHIN ICANN
THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING POLICY APPLICABLE TO gTLD. THEY -- THE
POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS A PROCESS THAT IS DEFINED AND SPELLED OUT IN
THE ICANN BYLAWS. THERE ARE CERTAIN STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED. AND AS THE DATES
INDICATE THERE, IT WAS A LITTLE UNDER TWO YEARS FOR THEM TO ARRIVE AT THEIR
FINAL RESULT OF 19 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY ARRIVED AT WERE APPROVED BY THE ICANN BOARD IN
JUNE. SO WHERE WE ARE NOW IS IMPLEMENTING THOSE.

A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND
DISCUSSIONS, THAT THE PROCESS ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN --
OR AMONG ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS WITHIN ICANN. THERE'S SEVERAL WORKING
GROUPS, DISCUSSIONS. IT WAS REALLY A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OF TIME AND
RESOURCES INVOLVING A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND TAKING AS MUCH TIME AS IT TOOK TO
REACH CONSENSUS, WHICH ENDED UP, AS I SAID, IN 19 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

THOSE ARE ON THE NEW gTLD WEB PAGE. YOU CAN FIND -- AND OTHER PLACES. BUT
YOU CAN FIND THEM QUICKLY ON THE NEW gTLD PAGE, THE ACTUAL TEXT.

I'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT KIND OF HIGH-LEVEL VIEW OF WHAT'S CONTAINED IN
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THERE ARE SORT OF FOUR THEMES TO THEM. AND THESE CORRESPOND TO -- PRETTY
CLOSELY TO THE WAY THAT THE GNSO THOUGHT OF CATEGORIES AS THEY WERE WORKING
ON THIS.

THE TOP ONE IS KIND OF THE OVERARCHING QUESTION OF WHETHER NEW gTLDs SHOULD
BE INTRODUCED. AND THE ANSWER THAT THEY ARRIVED AT WAS THE AFFIRMATIVE,
THAT, YES, THERE SHOULD BE NEW gTLDs, THERE SHOULD BE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND
SO THAT SET THE FOUNDATION FOR THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.

ALLOCATION METHODS HAS TO DO WITH WHAT KIND OF PROCESS SHOULD ICANN USE TO
GIVE OUT NEW gTLDs. IS IT FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED? IS IT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT
SORT OF ACTUAL STEPS NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY ICANN BEFORE gTLDs ARE
INTRODUCED?

SELECTION CRITERIA HAS TO DO WITH WHAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF APPLICANTS IN
ORDER TO HAVE A NEW gTLD DELEGATED, WHAT ARE THE TESTS THAT NEED TO BE MET
AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, DILIGENCE SHOULD ICANN UNDERTAKE IN LOOKING AT
APPLICANTS, WHAT ARE THEIR TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE A
TLD IN A STABLE AND A SECURE WAY, WHAT ARE THE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LONG-TERM
CONTINUITY PLANS THAT THEY HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS GOING TO BE STABLE FOR
REGISTRANTS FOR SOME TIME.

AND, LASTLY, THERE ARE CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS. SO EVERY gTLD OPERATOR NOW
HAS A CONTRACT WITH ICANN THAT REQUIRES BOTH ICANN AND THE OPERATOR TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS. SO THE LAST PIECE OF WHAT THE GNSO
DISCUSSED WAS WHAT SHOULD THOSE REQUIREMENTS BE BE, TECHNICAL, PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE SOME FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, POLICY COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT WAS THE LAST PIECE OF DISCUSSION THERE.

AND THEN, FINALLY, AS WE'RE WORKING TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER THINGS FROM THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT I
THINK ARE WORTH HIGHLIGHTING. THE FIRST IS THAT IT'S THE APPLICANTS WHO
PROPOSE A gTLD THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SO THAT'S AS OPPOSED TO ICANN
SELECTING CERTAIN STRINGS THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS TLDs AND THEN SEEKING
APPLICANTS FOR THOSE. THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, THEIR
STRING AND THEIR IDEA OF HOW IT SHOULD BE USED AND SO FORTH AND PRESENT THAT
AS A WHOLE TO ICANN.

THERE'S NO PREDEFINED LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF gTLDs. SO IT'S NOT ENVISIONED
THAT ICANN WOULD, OUT OF, SAY, SELECT THE TOP TEN. IF THERE ARE -- IF WE
WERE TO RECEIVE 100 APPLICATIONS AND ALL 100 MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND
WE WERE -- YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO -- THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY
DIDN'T MEET, THAT ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS COULD BE APPROVED AND GO ON TO
LAUNCH AS NEW GTLDS.

THE THIRD ONE IS THAT IDN gTLDs WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS. AND WHEN
IT SAYS THERE "CONDITIONAL ON READINESS," WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THERE'S
BEEN WORK GOING ON IN THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY FOR THE LAST -- FOR QUITE A
WHILE, BUT IN THE LAST YEAR, FOCUSING A LOT ON THE PROTOCOLS THAT ARE USED
TO RESOLVE IDNs IN THE DNS. SO THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT CHARACTERS ARE VALID
AND CAN BE USED AND WHAT RULE NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THOSE. SO THAT'S WORK
THAT'S ONGOING.

ROUNDS INITIALLY IS SOMETHING ALSO THAT THE GNSO RECOMMENDED IN TERMS OF HOW
WE START UP THIS PROCESS. THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION PROCESSES THAT I
MENTIONED HAD A DEFINED START AND END DATE FOR AN APPLICATION PERIOD. AND
THAT'S ALSO WHAT'S INTENDED FOR GOING FORWARD, THAT THERE WOULD BE A ROUND
THAT OPENS AND CLOSES AT A SPECIFIED TIME. AND, POTENTIALLY, ONCE A FEW OF
THOSE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED, THAT THERE COULD BE A SORT OF
STEADY-STATE PROCESS, WHERE APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED AND PROCESSED ON A
ROLLING BASIS.

AND, FINALLY, THE GNSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE FEES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PAYABLE
BY APPLICANTS IN THIS PROCESS, THAT THEY SHOULD BE SET TO RECOVER THE COSTS
OF RUNNING THE PROGRAM, SO THE PROGRAM WOULD BE SELF-FUNDING AND NOT TAKE
AWAY FUNDING FROM ANY OTHER PARTS OF ICANN.

I THINK THAT'S MY PORTION. KARLA'S GOING TO GO ON THROUGH THE....

>>KARLA VALENTE: FIRST OF ALL, MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING SEATS FOR
EVERYBODY. THERE ARE A FEW SEATS STILL AVAILABLE UP FRONT, IF YOU'D LIKE.

SO THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK.

IN THE PAST, THAT WAS CALLED DRAFT RFP. WE ARE CALLING IT NOW DRAFT
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, BECAUSE WE FELT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO WHAT THE
DOCUMENT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A ROAD
MAP OR A STEP-BY-STEP REVIEW OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS
FROM THE MOMENT YOU LAUNCH AN APPLICATION TO THE MOMENT A TLD IS ACTUALLY
DELEGATED.

IT WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 23rd, AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS 45 DAYS NOW. AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US THAT YOU PARTICIPATE
IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOUR
FEEDBACK, TO GET YOUR VIEWS AND MAKE CHANGES, AS NECESSARY, AS WE GO TOWARDS
THE DRAFTING OF THE FINAL GUIDEBOOK.

IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, WE ALSO POSTED A NUMBER OF
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA THAT EXPLAINS BASICALLY OR PROVIDES BACKGROUND
INFORMATION OF SOME OF THE ISSUES, OF SOME OF THE PORTIONS OF THE DRAFT RFP.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE DRAFT RFP OR THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK BUT YOU STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY
ARE, HOW THIS DECISION WAS MADE, WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND, MAYBE THE
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA HAS THIS INFORMATION FOR YOU. SO PLEASE READ THE
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA AS WELL.

AND IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS OR ADDITIONAL CONCERNS, PLEASE USE THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO TELL US, "WHY DON'T YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION
ON TOPICS A, B, C."

THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT YOU WILL NOTICE AS YOU READ, ALREADY READ, THE
DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK, YOU NOTICE THERE ARE SOME AREAS STILL UNDER
DEVELOPMENT.

FOR INSTANCE, WE WILL PROVIDE REFUNDS, BUT THE EXACT AMOUNTS AND WHAT PHASES
THE REFUNDS WILL BE PROVIDED IS NOT THERE.

WE ALSO NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW LONG EACH PHASE IS GOING TO TAKE IN THE
EVALUATION PROCESS. AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO RETAIN EVALUATORS
AND REFINE THE PROCESS BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER IDEA, HAVE MORE
PRECISION OF THE TIMING AROUND EACH PHASE.

SO AGAIN, THE FINAL APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WILL INCORPORATE ALL OF THE CHANGES
THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THROUGH THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE AT
ICANN MEETINGS.

SO I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS HERE WITH SUPPORTING
ORGANIZATIONS AND WITH INDIVIDUALS, BUT I STRONGLY STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
USE THE PEMENTS TO PUBLIC COMMENTS TO LODGE YOUR OBSERVATIONS, YOUR
CONCERNS, OR EVEN PRAISES IF YOU ARE THERE.

THIS IS THE WAY THE DRAFT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS STRUCTURED. SO IT'S
STRUCTURED BY MODULES.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU HAVE MODULE 1, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW gTLD
APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH IS A VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW, BUT IT DOES TOUCH ON
THE EVALUATION FEE, WHICH IS $185,000.

IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE IS AN APPLICATION FEE FOR TASK, AND TASK STANDS
FOR TLD APPLICATION SYSTEM AND ALL IT IS IS A WEB-BASED APPLICATION SYSTEM
WHERE ALL THE APPLICANTS WILL BE ABLE TO LODGE THEIR APPLICATIONS. THEY WILL
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND THEY WILL UPLOAD DOCUMENTS. EVALUATORS WOULD BE
ABLE ALSO TO PUT THE EVALUATION REPORTS IN TAS. SO TAS MEANT TO BE REALLY
THE REPOSITORY OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION LIFE CYCLE.

THEN IN MODULE 2 YOU HAVE THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES. AND AS I SAID, THERE IS
STILL TIMING AND REFINEMENT THAT IS IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON THE EVALUATION
PROCEDURES.

I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO LOOK AT -- IN MOST OF THE -- MOST OF THE CRITERIA
OF MOST OF THE EVALUATION STEPS I USED FOR ALL OF THE APPLICANTS. HOWEVER,
THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE ONLY -- THAT ONLY APPLY FOR SOME SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, LOOK CAREFULLY AT EACH EVALUATION PHASE AND DON'T MAKE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.

ALSO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMMUNITY-BASED APPLICANTS, APPLICANTS THAT PLAN ON APPLYING FOR A STRING
THAT IS GEOGRAPHIC OR -- GEOGRAPHIC STRING. THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.

ALSO, IF YOU PLAN TO APPLY FOR AN IDN STRING, YOU KNOW, READ CAREFULLY THE
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IDNs.

THEY BE YOU HAVE MODULE 3 WHICH IS THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. I'LL
TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT LATER.

MODULE NUMBER 4, STRING CONTENTION PROCEDURES. BASICALLY, THIS APPLIES WHEN
WE HAVE TWO OR MORE APPLICANTS THAT HAVE THE SAME IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR
STRINGS. SO THERE'S SOME MECHANISMS THAT ICANN HAS OUTLINED IN ORDER TO
FIRST IDENTIFY THE STRINGS THAT ARE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR, AND THEN TO
RESOLVE THE STRING CONTENTION.

TRANSITION TO DELEGATION. THIS IS ONE OF THE MODULES THAT HAS THE BASE
AGREEMENT AND IN ADDITION TO THE BASE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE ALL OF THE
SPECIFICATION DOCUMENTS THAT ARE LISTED HERE. SO PLEASE CAREFULLY READ
THROUGH ALL OF THEM.

AND THE LAST MODULE IS THE APPLICATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SO BASICALLY
THIS IS THE INTERPRETS AND CONDITIONS. ONCE YOU LOG IN TO TAS, YOU ARE GOING
TO BE ASKED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO USE THE SYSTEM AND ALSO TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO THIS IS HOW THE WHOLE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS STRUCTURED.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS I EXPLAINED -- AS I SAID, THERE IS AN EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDA AND SOME OTHER RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. SO I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TO THE NEW gTLD WEB PAGE AND LOOK AT THE FAQ AND LOOK AT
THE OTHER RESOURCES AND OTHER MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE THERE.

AND THERE IS AN E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT IS A DEDICATED E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR NEW
gTLDs, SO IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,
PLEASE USE THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS AND TALK TO US.

SOME OF THE OTHER RESOURCES AVAILABLE. SO I HAVE HERE THE EXPLANATORY
MEMORANDA. SO WE HAVE THE COST CONSIDERATIONS. THIS PAPER, WE WILL EXPLAIN
TO YOU HOW DID WE GET TO THE 185 FEE, BASICALLY. WHAT IS OUR COSTING MODEL.

IT ALSO TALKS BRIEFLY ABOUT THE REGISTRY FEE. THE REGISTRY FEE IS ONCE AN
APPLICATION BECOMES SUCCESSFUL, YOU KNOW, THE RENG THAT SIBS REGISTRY THAT
SIGNS AN AGREEMENT WITH ICANN HAS TO PAY A CERTAIN FEE. AND THIS IS
EXPLAINED THERE AS WELL.

THERE'S AN UPDATE ON THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM, DNS. SO EARLIER THIS YEAR WE
POSTED THE PAPER FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT DESCRIBED THE TLD STRING KI
CRITERIA. SO WHAT IS THE MINIMUM NURMT OF CHARACTERS, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF CHARACTERS, WHETHER YOU CAN OR CANNOT USE A HYPHEN, WHETHER YOU
CAN OR CANNOT USE OTHER SPECIFIC CHARACTERS. SO THE CRITERIA ON THE STRING
CRITERIA WERE OUTLINED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

THE DOCUMENT WE ARE POSTING NOW IS AN UPDATE. IT INCLUDES AN UPDATE, SOME OF
THE ASCII CRITERIA THAT WE HAD BEFORE AND ALSO EXPANDS TO IDNs.

GEOGRAPHIC NAMES PROCESS. SO APPLICANTS APPLYING FOR GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, WE
HAVE A PROPOSED PROGRESSES THAT WILL REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE,
BASICALLY, OR HAVE NO OBJECTION ON THE APPLICATION.

SO THIS IS AGAIN A PROPOSED PROCESS, EVERYTHING YOU ARE SEEING IN THIS
APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK IS A PROPOSAL FROM US.

SO PLEASE LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY AND GIVE US FEEDBACK ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
NOTHING IS FINAL ON THIS DOCUMENT.

SUMMARY CHANGES TO BASE AGREEMENT. THIS IS BASICALLY AN OUTLINE OF SOME OF
THE ASPECTS THAT THE ICANN COMMUNITY WAS USED TO IN HAVING IN SOME OF OUR
PREVIOUS BASE AGREEMENTS, AND WHAT CHANGES IN THE NEW ONES -- THE NEW ONE
THAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOW.

RESOLVING STRING CONTENTION.

SO THIS PAPER EXPLAINS HOW WE GO ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE CONTENTION SETS. AND
THOSE ARE THE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR STRINGS. AND THEN WHEN DO WE APPLY A
PROCESS THAT IS CALLED COMPARATIVE EVIL WORKSTATION, EVALUATION AND WHETHER
WHEN DO WE APPLY A DIFFERENT PROCESS. IF YOU READ THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK, YOU WILL NOTICE WE TALK ABOUT AN OFFICIAL MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING
STRING CONTENTION. ON THE PAPER, WE PROPOSE THIS MECHANISM AS BEING AUCTION.
SO AGAIN, NOTHING IS SET IN STONE. AUCTION IS ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES THAT
WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK.

THE LAST ONE WHICH WAS POSTED AFTER THE DRAFT RFP OR THE DRAFT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK WAS POSTED IS A PAPER THAT EXPANDS ON ROR ON MORALITY AND PUBLIC
ORDER WHICH IS ONE OF THE GROUNDS YOU CAN USE FOR THE OBJECTION PROCESS, IF
APPLICABLE.

SO THIS IS THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA.

THE OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE ARE PROTECTING RIGHTS OF OTHERS. AND THIS
COULD ALSO BE PART OF THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA.

PROTECTING RIGHTS OF OTHERS BASICALLY OUTLINES THE RIGHTS PROTECTION
MECHANISMS THAT WE ARE THINKING OR CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS, AND ALSO IN THE BASE AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE GNSO POLICY. WE HAVE A MAPPING GUIDEBOOK TO POLICY.
AND THIS IS MOSTLY, YOU KNOW, TO THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN PREPARING THE
POLICY OR EVOLVE INVOLVED EVOLVED IN THE POLICY EVOLVED ININVOLVED IN THE
POLICY PROCESS.

THEN WE HAVE THE PROCESS FLOW AND THIS IS AN OVERALL PROCESS FLOW. WE HAVE
OTHER PROCESS FLOWS SPECIFIC TO OTHER PHASES.

THIS PROCESS FLOW IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR WEB SITE. WE POSTED LAST FRIDAY
AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS FLOW. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEW gTLD PAGE, ON THE RIGHT
SIDE, THERE IS A BOX WITH RESOURCES. AND YOU CLICK THERE A LINK FOR THE
INTERACTIVE PROCESS FLOW, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE ON THE DIFFERENT
PHASES.

ANTICIPATED TIME LINE. I AM GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT TIME LINE
AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

THERE ARE TWO LETTERS POSTED HERE THAT DR. TWOMEY WROTE TO GOVERNMENTS AND
ALSO CC OPERATORS, AND THIS IS PART OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. BAF
BASICALLY NOTIFY CC OPERATORS AND GLOBAL OPERATORS ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON .

THRGS ALSO A LINK TO A PRE-PRODUCTION ALGORITHM.

SO THIS ALGORITHM IS PRE-PRODUCTION, AND WE PUT IT THERE JUST FOR YOU TO
HAVE A PHEW FEEL ON WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO
FUNCTION, BUT THIS IS NOT READY AT ALL. IT'S REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, IN THE
NAME OF TRANSPARENCY FOR YOU TO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPING. AND I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE ALGORITHM LATER.

SO THIS IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL VIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS. THE FIRST ONE
IS THE APPLICATION PERIOD. THE APPLICATION PERIOD IS GOING TO BE PREDEFINED,
SO GOING TO HAVE AN OPENING DAY AND A CLOSING DAY. AND DURING THIS TIME, ALL
OF THE APPLICANTS WILL LODGE THEIR APPLICATIONS.

SO THE QUESTIONS AND THE ANSWERS THROUGH THIS PROCESS ARE GOING TO BE IN
ENGLISH, AT LEAST FOR NOW.

SO YOU EXPECT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH, YOU EXPECT ALSO TO UPLOAD
SOME OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ALSO PAY THE EVALUATION FEE.

AT THE END OF THE APPLICATION PERIOD, WE ARE GOING TO CHECK ALL OF THE
APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLETENESS. SO BASICALLY WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL OF
THE APPLICATIONS AND SEE HAS EVERYTHING BEEN ANSWERED, HAVE ALL THE
DOCUMENTS BEEN PROVIDED, CAN WE OPEN AND READ THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED, HAS PAYMENT BEEN RECEIVED, AND SO FORTH.

SO IT'S A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK.

AND THEN AT THE END OF THIS, WE ARE GOING TO POST ON OUR WEB SITE A LIST OF
ALL OF THE APPLICANTS AND ALL OF THE TLDs APPLIED FOR, AND WE ARE STILL
DEFINING HOW MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ONCE WE POST
THAT INFORMATION.

THERE ARE PARTS OF THE APPLICATION THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRIVATE, YOU KNOW.
SO I THINK SOME OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM APPLICANTS.

IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THE GUIDEBOOK, WE WILL SPECIFY MORE CLEARLY WHAT
SECTIONS AND WHAT QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE PRIVATE AND NOT POSTED FOR
PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

INITIAL EVALUATION, MODULE 1. THIS IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STRINGS AND WE
LOOK AT THE APPLICANT AND EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THE CRITERIA
THAT WE SET FORTH.

AND THEN FOR THE STRAIGHTFORWARD TYPE OF APPLICATIONS, MEANING APPLICATIONS
THAT DO NOT REQUIRE EXTENDED EAVE EVALUATION, APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN OBJECTED TO, APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS EITHER
SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO ANY OTHER, THOSE WILL GO DIRECTLY TO TRANSITION TO
DELEGATION.

TRANSITION TO DELEGATION BASICALLY IS WHEN WE DO ANOTHER QUICK CHECK TO MAKE
SURE THAT TECHNICALLY THIS APP APPLICANT CAN COMPLY WITH SOME OF THE
DELEGATION STEPS THAT IANA HAS TO GO THROUGH.

WE ALSO CHECK -- OR WE START PROCESSING THE CONTRACT, THE BASE AGREEMENT WE
CALL IT, WITH THE APPLICANT AND SO FORTH.

SO AS I SAID, THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM, WHICH IS EXTENDED EVALUATION,
OBJECTIONS AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION, STRING CONTENTION, THESE PHASES OR THE
STEPS APPLY TO SOME APPLICATIONS. NOT ALL.

HERE I TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE APPLICATION PERIOD. SO WE EXPECT THE
APPLICATION PERIOD TO LAST 45 DAYS.

AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE WEB-BASED, AND THE SYSTEM THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE
IS CALLED TAS, TEST APPLICATION SYSTEM. ALL IS GOING TO BE IN ENGLISH NOW,
EVEN THOUGH WE ARE MAKING THINGS AVAILABLE IN OTHER LANGUAGES. SO USING THE
STANDARD SIX UNITED NATIONS LAWNGS TO PROVIDE LANGUAGES TO PROVIDE THE
MATERIAL TO YOU BUT THE APPLICATION ITSELF IS GOING TO BE IN ENGLISH.

THE APPLICATION AM APPLICANTS ARE EXPECTED TO ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS
AND SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND PAYMENT.

APPLICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS AND THEN POSTED ON THE WEB
SITE.

AND HERE IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE EVALUATION PROCESS.

DURING THE EVALUATION PROCESS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
EVALUATION. TWO LEVELS OF EVALUATION.

WE EVALUATE THE TLD STRING. SO WE LOOK AT THE TLD STRING, EITHER ASCII OR
IDN, AND VERIFY IF IT HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE STRING RULES THAT WERE
SET FORTH.

AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAS THE TECHNICAL,
THE OPERATIONAL, THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO RUN THE TLD AS IT'S BEING
PROPOSED TO.

SOP OF -- AN IMPORTANT ASPECT, WHEN WE CHECK THE TERI DARRENOUGUE STRING, IS
TO TLD STRING, IS TO MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT CAUSE TECHNICAL INSTABILITY. SO
WE WENT THROUGH TESTING AND RESEARCH, AND IT'S GOOD IF YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE DNS STABILITY PAPERS TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE THINGS
THAT WE WENT THROUGH, LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING COULD BE
IDENTIFIED UP FRONT AS CAUSING TECHNICAL STABILITY.

AND WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED UP FRONT HAS BEEN -- IT'S PRESENT IN THESE
DOCUMENTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOKED AT IS FIVE EXTENSIONS. FIVE EXTENSIONS, EVEN
THOUGH SOME MIGHT THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO REGISTER DOT PDF OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TECHNICALLY WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY ISSUE THAT WE COULD
IDENTIFY.

WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE TLD NOT BEING A RESERVED NAME OR AN EXISTING TLD.

EXISTING TLD IS ccTLDs AND gTLDs. AND THE RESERVED NAMES. THERE IS A LIST OF
TOP LEVEL RESERVED NAMES LIST THAT YOU FIND IN THE APPLICANT, THE GUIDEBOOK.

SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF RESERVED NAMES LIST. ONE IS THE TOP LEVEL RESERVED
NAME LIST, AND BASICALLY YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR A TLD STRING THAT IS LISTED ON
THIS RESERVED NAME LIST.

THERE IS ANOTHER RESERVED NAME LIST WHICH IS PART OF THE BASE AGREEMENT, AND
THIS IS FOR FUTURE REGISTRIES, WH
...

[Message clipped]



-- 
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084